The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNCD095458527_19940623_FCX Inc. (Statesville)_FRBCERCLA RISK_Limited Site Risk Assessment-OCRI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Document Control No. 4400-011-ADYM Revision 3 RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT FCX-OU2 STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA Work Assignment No. 11-498M JUNE 1994 REGION IV U.S. EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-W9-0057 Roy F. Weston, Inc. 1880-H Beaver Ridge Circle Norcross, Georgia 30071 WESTON W.O. No. 04400-011-021-0037-00 I I ., I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Prepared by: Approved by: RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT AU D REVISION 3 G 2 6 7994 FCX-OU2 STATESVILLE SUPERFUND sf~~-.c- STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA U.S. EPA Contract No. 68-W9-0057 Work Assignment No. 11-498M Document Control No. 4400-011-ADYM JUNE1994 Date: _io-1-f_--z._s---1-/ _"J-1--i-/ I WESTON Technical Review R. WESTON Regio Date: ---=-;..,&"--'/4"'-''--<-,Lt---:fa__,V'------/ 7 Approved by: _______________ _ Date: _______ _ Ken Mallary U.S. EPA Remedial Project Manager Approved by: _______________ _ Date: _______ _ Robert P. Stem U.S. EPA Regional Project Officer WESTON W.O. No. 04400-011-021-0037-00 NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \AAMJU1 ·2.WP I I I. I I I I I I I I m D R I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or.disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. TABLE OF CONTENTS Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: Table of Contents Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Section Title Page 1 2 INTRODUCTION ....................................... 1-1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Purpose of Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Site Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 . 1-1 1. 2. I Facility and Locale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 1.2.2 Site Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ 1-1 1. 2. 3 Previous Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I -5 Scope of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6 Organization of Risk Assessment Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7 SITE HISTORY ........................................ 2-1 2.1 2.2 Site Ownership and Operational History . . 2-1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 Chronological Development of the Site . 2-1 On-Site Pesticide Burial, 1966 . . . . . . . . . 2-4 Additional On-Site Burial ............................ 2-4 NPL Listing .................................... 2-6 Summary of Past Investigations .. 2-6 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.5 Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc., February 1986 (Ref. 6) .......... 2-6 NCDHR, May 1986 (Ref. 7)(Ref. 10) .................... 2-9 EPA (WESTON•SPER) Emergency Response, January 1989 (Ref. 8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9 EPA (WESTON•SPER) Emergency Response, August 1989 (Ref.13) ..................................... 2-11 EPA (O.H. Materials) Emergency Response, January 1990 (Ref. 14) ..................................... 2-11 NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU1-2.WP I I I I I I I I g u I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Section Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: Table of Contents Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Title 2.2.6 NUS Screening Site Inspection, Burlington Industries, 1990 (Ref. 15) .............................. . 2.2.7 U.S. EPA, Region IV, In-House Remedial Investigation, Phase I, 1991 (Ref. 1) .............................. . 2.2.7.1 2.2.7.2 2.2.7.3 2.2. 7.4 2.2.7.5 Pesticide Contamination of On-Site Soils Pesticide Groundwater Contamination . . Chlorinated Solvent Groundwater Contamination ... . Chlorinated Solvent Contamination of Surface Water ..... . Exploratory Boring Results ................... . 2.2.8 U.S. EPA, Region IV, In-House Remedial Investigation, Phase II, Page . 2-11 . 2-14 2-14 2-14 2-18 2-18 2-18 1992 (Ref. 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-18 2.2.8.1 2.2.8.2 2.2.8.3 2.2.8.4 Groundwater . . Soil ...... . Sediment ... . . 2-21 . 2-23 . ..... 2-26 Contaminant Source Investigation .................. 2-26 2.2.9 July 1993 Soil Sampling ............................ 2-31 3 CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN ............................ 3-1 3.1 3.2 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 Chemicals of Potential Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21 3.2.1 Screening Criteria ................................ 3-21 3.2.1.1 3.2.1.2 3.2.1.3 Screening Against Background .................... 3-21 Concentration-Toxicity Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21 Essential Nutrients ........................... 3-23 NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU1-2.WP ii I I I I I I I I I I m g D D D m I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: Table of Contents Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Title 4 3.2.1.4 Health Criteria ............................ 3.2.2 Media Screening ............................ . 3-23 . 3-23 3.2.2.1 3.2.2.2 3.2.2.3 3.2.2.4 3.2.2.5 Groundwater . . 3-26 Surface Water . 3-30 Sediment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-30 Surface Soil Samples . . . . . . 3-31 Subsurface Soil Samples ........................ 3-32 3.3 Conclusions ..................................... 3-33 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 4.1 Characterization of Exposure Setting ....................... 4-1 4.2 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 · Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-I Topography and Surface Water Drainage .................. 4-2 Geology and Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4 4.1.3.1 4.1.3.2 Regional Geology and Area Soils Site-Specific Geology and Soils . . 4-4 . 4-4 4. 1.4 Groundwater .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4-6 4. I .4.1 4. 1.4.2 Regional Hydrogeology ......................... 4-6 Aquifer Use ................................ 4-6 Exposure Scenarios . . 4.2.1 Current Trespasser ............................... ............................... . 4-7 . 4-7 NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU1 ·2.WP Ill I I I I I I I D D I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. lt shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Section 4.3 4.4 4.5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: Table of Contents Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 4.2.2 Current Off-Site Resident 4.2.3 Future On-Site Worker . 4.2.4 Future Resident .. Page . 4-10 . 4-10 . . 4-10 Conceptual Site Model ............................... 4-10 Exposure Dose Models and Assumptions .................... 4-13 4.4.1 Incidental Soil Ingestion . . . . . 4-14 4.4.2 Dermal Absorption from Soil . . 4-16 4.4.3 Drinking Water Ingestion . . . . 4-19 4.4.4 Inhalation While Showering . . . 4-I 9 4.4.5 Incidental Water Ingestion While Wading ................. 4-19 4.4.6 Dermal Absorption While Wading . . . . . . . 4-22 4.4. 7 Incidental Sediment Ingestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 4-22 4.4.8 Dermal Absorption from Sediment . . . . . . . . . . 4-22 Uncertainties in Exposure Assessment . 4-22 Carcinogenic Versus Noncarcinogenic Health Effects Criteria ........ 5-1 5. I. I Carcinogenic Health Criteria . . 5.1.2 Noncarcinogenic Health Criteria .. 5-1 . 5-2 Cancer Slope Factors (CSFs) ............................ 5-2 Reference Doses for Noncarcinogenic Effects .................. 5-3 Dermal Slope Factors and Reference Doses . 5-3 Uncertainties in Toxicity Assessment ....................... 5-9 NOR/G;\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU1-2.WP IV I I I I I I I I D D I m I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: Table of Contents Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Title 6 7 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT .......................... 6-1 6.1 Introduction . 6-1 . 6-1 6.2 Site Description 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.2.1 Site History 6.2.2 Study Area . Data Evaluation 6. 3. I Chemicals of Potential Concern Exposure Assessment . Habitat Evaluation . 6-1 . 6-2 . 6-2 .................... 6-3 . 6-3 . 6-3 6.4.1 6.4.2 6.4.3 Endangered or Threatened of Special Concern Species . . . . . . . . . . 6-3 Exposure Pathways ................................ 6-4 Toxicity Assessment . . . . . . . 6-4 Risk Characterization . . . . . . . 6-7 Summary . . . 6-7 Uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7 RISK CHARACTERIZATION ............................... 7-1 7.1 7.2 Hypothetical Risk Results 7.1.1 7.1.2 7.1.3 Carcinogenic Risk . . . Noncarcinogenic Risks Lead Uptake Calculation ... . 7-2 . 7-2 . 7-6 . 7-6 Uncertainties in the Risk Characterization .................... 7-9 NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RA.MJU1 ·2.WP V I I I I I I I I D D I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Risk Assessment Report FCX•OU2 Statesville Site Section: Table of Contents Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Title 8 REMEDIAL GOAL OPTIONS . 8-1 REFERENCES ........................................ R-1 NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAM.JUl-2.WP VI I I I I I I I g D I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: Table of Contents Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) APPENDICES APPENDIX A -Groundwater Exposure Calculations APPENDIX B -Surface Water Exposure Calculations APPENDIX C -Sediment Exposure Calculations APPENDIX D -Area 1 Exposure Calculations APPENDIX E -Area 2 Exposure Calculations APPENDIX F -Area 3 Exposure Calculations APPENDIX G -Lead Model Calculation APPENDIX H -Sample Calculation for Exposure Point Concentration NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU1-2.WP vii I I I I I I 0 D I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Figure No. Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: Table of Contents Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) LIST OF FIGURES ..................................... Page 1-1 Area Location Map 1-2 Site Location Map ...................................... .1-2 .1-3 . 1-4 .2-2 1-3 Site Diagram ... 2-1 Site Map 1950-51 2-2 Site Map, 1969 . ............................... ..................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3 2-3 Presumed Buried Trench Locations ..... . .................... 2-5 2-4 Analytical Results Summary (February 1986) 2-5 Analytical Results Summary (February 1986) 2-6 Analytical Results Summary (May 1986) .. 2-7 Analytical Results Summary (August I 989) 2-8 Analytical Results Summary (January 1990) 2-9 Analytical Results Summary (1990) ...... . 2-10 DDT Distribution In Soils ......... . . 2-7 . 2-8 . 2-10 . 2-12 . 2-13 . 2-15 . 2-16 2-11 Pesticide Concentrations, Monitoring Wells ..................... 2-17 NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU1-2.WP viii I I I I I I I H I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shalt not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: Table of Contents Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Figure No. LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Title 2-12 Purgeable Organic Compound Concentratio.ns Purgeable Organic Compounds in Surface Water ............. ' ............. . Page 2-19 2-20 . 2-22 2-13 2-14 2-15 2-16 2-17 2-18 2-19 2-20 Monitoring Well Locations . . Location, Nelson Brown Well .......................... 2-24 2-25 Phase II Soil Sample Location Map Sediment Sample Locations ..... Carcinogenic P AH Concentrations Arsenic Concentrations in Sediment ......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................ Soil Boring Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-27 . 2-28 . 2-29 . 2-30 4-1 Area Surface Water FCX-Statesville 4-2 Area Geologic Map FCX-Statesville . ........................... . 4-3 . 4-5 4-3 Conceptual Site Model For FCX-Statesville Site .................... 4-12 NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU1-2.WP IX I I I I I I I D D I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: Table of Contents Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) LIST OF TABLES Table No. Title 3-1 Contaminants Detected in Groundwater . 3-2 Contaminants Detected in Surface Water 3-3 Contaminants Detected in Sediment . . . Contaminants Detected in Surface Soil, Area 1 . Contaminants Detected in Surface Soil, Area 2 . Contaminants Detected in Surface Soil, Area 3 . Contaminants Detected in Subsurface Soils ... Page . 3-2 . 3-5 . 3-7 3-10 3-13 3-16 3-18 3-4A 3-4B 3-4C 3-5A 3-5B Contaminants Detected in Subsurface Soils, July 1993 .............. 3-22 3-6 Concentration/Toxicity Analysis . 3-7 Contaminants of Concern . . . . . ............................ ............................ . 3-24 . 3-27 4-1 Exposure Scenario and Potential Exposure Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8 4-2 Model for Calculating Doses from Incidental Ingestion of Soil/Sediment .......................... . 4-3 Model for Calculating Doses from Denna! Contact with Soil · 4-4 Model for Calculating Doses from Ingestion of Groundwater NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \AAMJU1-2.WP X . 4-15 4-17 4-20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: Table of Contents Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) LIST OF TABLES (Continued) 4-5 Model for Calculating Doses through Incidental Water Ingestion While Wading ......................................... 4-21 4-6 Model for Calculating Doses through Dermal Absorption While Wading ......................... . . 4-23 4-7 Model for Calculating Doses from Dermal Contact with Sediment . . . . . . . . . 4-24 5-1 Toxicity Values . , ....................................... 5-4 6-1 6-2 7-1 7-2 8-1 8-2 8-3 Contaminants Detected in Surface Water Contaminants Detected in Sediment Total Carcinogenic Risks . . . Total Noncarcinogenic Risks . .............................. . 6-5 . 6-6 . 7-3 . 7-7 Remedial Goals for Carcinogenic Chemicals in Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2 Remedial Goals for Carcinogenic Chemicals in Groundwater ... . 8-4 Remedial Goals for Non-Carcinogenic Chemicals in Groundwater .......... 8-5 NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011\RAM.JU1•2.WP xi I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. 1.1 PURPOSE OF REPORT SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 1 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 A baseline risk assessment has been prepared to evaluate the nature and extent of the threat to public health caused by the release or potential release of hazardous substances from the FCX- Statesville Superfund Site in Statesville, North Carolina. 1.2 SITE BACKGROUND The following information was excerpted verbatim from the FCX Phase II Remedial Investigation, 1992, conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Services Division (EPA-ESD). 1.2.1 Facility and Locale The FCX-Statesville Site (FCXS) is located on Highway 90 approximately 1.5 miles west of downtown Statesville at the intersection of Phoenix Street and West Front Street (Figures 1-1 and 1-2). The area is characterized by the presence of light and heavy industry, small businesses, residential neighborhoods, and a school, in the immediate vicinity. The coordinates of the site are latitude 35° 47' 11" north, longitude 80° 54' 58" west. (Ref. 5) The site shown in Figure 1-3, comprises about 5.5 acres and is bounded by the Norfolk-Southern Railroad and Burlington Industries (formerly Beaunit Mills) to the north, the Carnation Milk Company to the west, a small business/residential area immediately south of West Front Street, and a pre-fabricated utility shed sales lot on the east side of Phoenix Street. 1.2.2 Site Description The Site, defined as the area south of the Norfolk-Southern Railroad, east of the Carnation Milk Company property, west of Phoenix Street, and north of West Front Street, is currently abandoned. Figure 1-3 shows the location and identification of site buildings and structures, as well as prominent off-site structures. NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU 1-2.WP 1-1 ---------l!!l!I mm ==a lilliiii1 liiii ----.. .. 11 'f I IREDELL COUNTY 71 FCX SITE STATESVILLE &EPA FIGURE 1 -1 AREA LOCATION MAP FCX-STATESVILLE SITE STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA I \ :\~. "" ···<, . V · . .,---, I I I I I I I n B I I I I I I I I FIGURE 1-2 SITE LOCATION MAP FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA --- - - - - - - - - - - 111111 ----- ... CARNATION MILK COMPANY l I ,, I j RESIDENTIAL AREA WAREHOUSE UPPER SECTION FCX BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES APPROXIMATE SCALE FIGURE 1-3 snc: DIAGRAM (SHO~NG ON-SITE MONITORING l',£LLS) FCX-STA TESVILLE STATESVILLE. NORTH CAROLINA ,,. I 0 ~' ·(1Nfn;T) I inc:h "" 12!:i 11. SB : -MCNIT~JNC "°-.LS &;EPA I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 1 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 The dominant on-site structure is the warehouse located on the western half of the property. It consists of two attached structures, an upper building, constructed in 1969 or 1970, and a smaller, lower building constructed in 1982. (Ref. 6) The area south of the warehouse is totally paved except for a narrow grass strip along the sidewalk. The eastern half of the Site is dominated by a large concrete pad, six to seven inches thick, 62-feet wide and 190-feet long, extending approximate! y 190-feet from the eastern end of the warehouse along the north property line. The next level below the pad is covered almost entirely with approximately six to twelve inches of crushed, compacted gravel. Several smaller areas within this area, mostly tractor trailer pads and parking area, are paved with either concrete or asphalt. The area described, except for the paved area between the warehouse and the street, is completely fenced, mostly with chain-link fencing. The fence is in good condition and access is gained, via Phoenix Street, through a 36-foot wide gate along the eastern end of the Site. The gate is locked with a heavy chain and padlock. A small, vacant two-story brick building is located at the southeastern comer of the site just beyond the eastern fence. This building served as offices while FCXS was in operation. Most of the area between the eastern fence and Phoenix Street is covered with grass except for area occupied by the building. There are two known underground tanks present at the site, a 7,500-gallon gasoline storage tank and a 10,000-gallon diesel fuel storage tank. These are located in the front parking area near the fuel pumps, near where the upper and lower sections of the warehouses join. These tanks were checked during the remedial investigation and were determined to be essentially empty. The east tank contained 0.67-feet of water; the west tank contained 0.05-feet of petroleum product floating above 0.22-feet of water. There has been no reported leakage from the tanks nor does groundwater data from nearby monitoring wells indicate that any significant leakage has occurred. (Ref. 7) A total of twelve groundwater monitoring wells, shown on Figure 1-3, are also present at the site. Four were installed in 1976 as part of a pre-purchase environmental evaluation conducted for Southern States Cooperative (Ref. 6). Four were installed in 1989 in conjunction with the removal action conducted by US-EPA (Ref. 8)(Ref. 9), and four were installed in June 1991 for the remedial investigation. 1.2.3 Previous Investigations During the summer of 1991, primarily in the months of June, July, and September, Operable Unit (OU) of the remedial investigation at the FCX-StatesviHe, North Carolina, was conducted. NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU1-2.WP 1-5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. lt shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 1 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 investigations, and in the absence of any site-specific remediation, future risks are based on the assumption that current soil and groundwater chemical concentrations will persist. 1.4 ORGANIZATION OF RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT This baseline risk assessment summarizes and interprets data collected during site investigations to identify and characterize site contaminants; describe contaminant exposure pathways and receptors; and assess actual or potential adverse impacts on human health from contaminants associated with FCXS. This risk assessment report includes four major components: • • • • • • • Site Operational History (Section 2) Identification of Contaminants of Potential Concern (Section 3) Exposure Assessment (Section 4) Toxicity Assessment (Section 5) Ecological Assessment (Section 6) Risk Characterization (Section 7) Remediation Goal Options (Section 8) Section 3, "Identification of Contaminants of Potential Concern," presents a summary of the evidence of environmental contamination at the site and selects the contaminants of concern to be evaluated in the risk assessment. For elements and compounds that may occur naturally, site- related environmental concentrations are compared to available background data to assist in the selection of contaminants of potential concern. Section 4, the "Exposure Assessment", presents the important contaminant migration pathways, exposure routes, estimated daily intakes for human receptors, and site characteristics affecting the contaminant migration. This information is then combined to develop a conceptual exposure model for the site and to select exposure pathways. Section 3 also presents a series of mathematical exposure equations which are used to calculate the estimated daily intakes of contaminants by the receptors. Section 5, "Toxicity Assessment", presents the results of the tox1c1ty assessment. Human toxicity data for both noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic effects are presented for the contaminants of concern. Dose-response criteria are identified for chronic health effects for each contaminant and for each potential exposure route (e.g., oral, dermal). Section 6, "Ecological Assessment", describes the potential impacts on aquatic and terrestrial life due to contamination at the FCXS site. The evaluation includes site-specific contamination NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU1-2.WP 1-7 I I I I I I I I I n 0 D I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 1 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 data, information on animal and plant species present, and exposure and toxicological information about potential effects of the contaminants of concern of the indigenous biota. Section 7, "Risk Characterization," integrates the information developed in the three preceding sections. Carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic human health risks are quantified and presented for the contaminants of concern. Significant human health risks are discussed in conjunction with uncertainties. Section 8, "Remediation Goal Options," presents site specific remediation goals for the chemicals in each media pathway that exceeded risks as determined in Section 7. The methods used in conducting this risk assessment are those presented in the U.S. EPA Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund --Volume I (Human Health Evaluation Manual) (U.S. EPA, 1989 band c), and the Volume I Supplemental Guidance (U.S. EPA, 1991c). Other guidance documents used in the preparation of this report include, the U.S. EPA Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual (U.S. EPA, 1988), and the U.S. EPA Exposure Factors Handbook (U.S. EPA, 1989a). NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011\RAMJU1 ·2.WP 1-8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. SECTION 2 SITE HISTORY 2.1 SITE OWNERSHIP AND OPERATIONAL HISTORY Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 2 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 The information presented in this section is excerpted from the FCX Phase II Remedial Investigation 1992, conducted by the U.S.EPA-ESD. 2.1.1 Chronological Development of the Site Based on the available file information, it appears that FCXS began operations at the site as an agricultural supply distribution center about 1940 and continued to operate the site until bankruptcy in September 1986. Prior commercial use of the site, if any, is not known. It appears that two main activities were conducted at the site. Initial operations consisted of the formulation, repackaging, warehousing and distribution of farm chemicals, primarily pesticides and fertilizer, and the milling and sales of feed grains. This activity was initially restricted to the eastern two-thirds of the site. Figure 2-1 shows the approximate locations and identifications of site buildings present during this time. The year of the photograph on which Figure 2-1 was based is estimated to be 1950-1951, estimated from the types of vehicles present on-site. Initial operations also consisted of the cleaning and treatment of seed grains, apparently with mercury- containing compounds. (Ref. 6)(Ref. ?)(Ref. 10) At some time after 1950-1951, the site underwent several structural and operational changes. The western half of the horse-shoe shaped building in the center of the site was demolished and the upper (western) portion of the current warehouse was constructed, extending near to the property line with the adjoining Carnation Milk Company property. The smaller building adjoining the feed milling and bagging buildings, at the intersection of Phoenix Street and the railroad tracks near the northeastern corner of the site, was also removed. Repackaging of liquid pesticides ceased in I 966. Dust repackaging was discontinued in 1969. This was the status of the site in 1969 based on historical aerial photography. Figure 2-2 shows the locations and identifications of the site buildings in 1969. The only known significant operational and structural changes that occurred after this time were the repackaging of rat bait in the early 1980's and construction of the lower portion of the warehouse in 1982. (Ref. ?)(Ref. 10) NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \AAMJU1 ·2.WP 2-1 ------------------- CARNATION MILK COMPANY I I ,.. RESIDENTIAL AREA Figure 2--1 I I • ~ ~ · 1 SITE MAP, 1950-51 FCX-STA TESVILLE STATESVILLE. NORTH CAROLINA ... WAREHOUSE AND DISTRIBUTION FCX BE.•UNI T MILLS MILLING AND BAGGING 0 v/ OFFICEO APPROXIMATE SCALE ( IN fEET } 1 inch "' 125 rt U.3 ' 12> I ~EPA -r__.'',;;;.i" -----:-=:~----r-' -------=-~----------·-----~-------- CARNATION MILK COMPANY I ,.. I ,.. I BEACN/i MILLS I ,.. FCX-STA TESVJLLE B RESIDENTIAL AREA FIGURE 2-2 SITE MAP, 1969 FCX-STATESVILLE STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA NEW WAREHOUSE AND DISTRIBUTION APPROXIMATE ,,, 6 c ,n rrrr l SCALE .,., 1 I Inch -12!1 tt. "' ! TANKS OFFICE{} RAIL CAR UNLOAOINC SH70 r I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 2 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 The facility was EPA licensed to manufacture or repackage pesticides including, at various times, DDT, DDD, Lindane, Chlordane, Malathion, Aldrin, Heptachlor, and a tobacco spray, probably MA-30. Notable spillage is reported to have occurred at the transfer areas (Ref. 7). 2.1.2 On-Site Pesticide Burial, 1966 Potentially the most important historical activity at the site, from an environmental standpoint, was the alleged burial of DDT, DDD, and possibly liquid chlordane in 1966. Approximately 10,000 pounds of these compounds were allegedly buried in two (2) adjacent trenches approximately JO-feet deep (Ref. 4)(Ref. 5). Figure 2-3 shows the area investigated by EPA in 1989 in an attempt to locate these trenches. The material was supposedly a mixture of powders and liquids in a variety of packaging, including paper bags, glass jars and other types of typical consumer packaging. After burial was completed, the trenches were covered with six feet of on-site soils and a reinforced 8-inch thick concrete slab was poured over the area. This was followed by construction of the upper portion of the current warehouse. According to a former FCXS employee, the possibility exists that the trenches were obliterated soon after burial during extensive construction related grading. During this time other packages were taken to the old Statesville landfill (Ref. 6)(Ref. 7)(Ref. 8)(Ref. 10). 2.1.3 Additional On-Site Burial During the site reconnaissance on February 12, 1991 conducted by EPA-BSD, a fom1er employee of the construction company responsible for much of the past site demolition and construction was interviewed. He indicated that he and other employees were instructed to place various bagged and bottled pesticides in a hole located in the current vicinity of the northeast comer of the lower portion of the warehouse. The hole was apparently located within approximately 35-feet of the railroad tracks. Possible locations could range from the inside comer of the lower section of the warehouse to a location beneath the large concrete slab east of the building. This area is shown in Figure 2-3. An additional reconnaissance was conducted in April 1991. At that time, interviews with FCXS employees indicated that an additional pit, possibly a product mixing pit, was originally located within the horseshoe-shaped building (see Figure 2-1). The approximate location beneath. the current warehouse floor is shown in Figure 2-3 and coincides with an elevator-type structure visible in the historical photographs. NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU1 ·2.WP 2-4 liii liiil liiil iiii1 ------~ \ ':I' I CARNATION -'< MILK I COMPANY -'< I ,. I ,. APPROX/MA TE OCA TION, PESTICIDE MIXING PIT 01-\10 ✓ !ft:s;- , , .,.~ O,y;-o o RESIDENTIAL AREA .. ----.. BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES APPROXIMATE SCALE FIGURE 2-3 PRESUMED BURIED. TRENCH LOCATIONS 12:S O k--/ 42.$ : · fCX-STA TESV/LLE ( IN FrrT) STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 1 inch -12~_ ft. -.. m -STOR'-' CRATE 0 -UJ.OER~OUNO STCfU.CC J.-..,.,Q( COVERS m -CASOI.JN( PU),JPS &EPA I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. 1t shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 1 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 The site was ranked and included on the National Priority List of Superfund Sites because of pesticide contamination observed in groundwater beneath the site. In addition to the pesticides detected in samples from on-site monitoring wells, significant chlorinated solvent contamination had also been observed. The sampling program for the remedial investigation consisted of extensive on-site and off-site soil sampling, for both surface and subsurface soil (199 samples), as well as groundwater sampling from on-site monitoring and off-site process and potable wells (17 samples). Surface water and sediment samples (21 samples) were also collected from locations within the potentially affected wet-weather and perennial drainage pathways associated with run-off from the site. An exploratory boring effort was also conducted at selected locations in an attempt to locate pesticide burial trenches reported to be present beneath the floor of the warehouse. A Record of Decision (ROD) was signed in September 1993 for OU!. A remedial alternative, extraction and treatment was selected for groundwater. The pump and treatment system was designed to protect human health and prevent groundwater from discharging to surface water bodies to protect ecological health. The soil remediation was finalized due to continued field work to delineate extent of contamination. After completion of OU! of the remedial investigation at the FCX-Statesville site, two major aspects of the investigation were found to warrant further investigation. Groundwater monitoring during OU! indicated that groundwater at the site boundary, south of the warehouse and lying along West Front Street, was contaminated with both pesticides and chlorinated solvents. Additionally, efforts during OU! to locate the trenches purported to exist beneath the warehouse were not successful. OU2 of the remedial investigation at the site was conducted I) to expand the groundwater investigations conducted during Phase I in an attempt to delineate the extent of pesticide contamination off-site and 2) to make an additional attempt to locate the buried trenches. A Phase ill investigation will be conducted to delineate any off-site sources for soil and groundwater contamination in June, 1994. 1.3 SCOPE OF WORK The scope of this risk assessment evaluates the Phase I and Phase II Remedial Investigations (EPA-ESD, 1992) conducted at the FCXS Superfund Site. The data collected and used in the Risk Assessment include samples of groundwater,, surface water, sediment, and surface soil. Additional soil samples ranging in depth from Oto 18 inches taken from the area in July 1993 are also included in the risk assessment. Current and future risks are based on these NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\0\ 1 \RAMJU1 •2.WP 1-6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I g This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. 2.1.4 NPL Listing Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 2 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 The FCXS site was evaluated using the EPA Hazard Ranking System and proposed for inclusion on the National Priority List (NPL) on June 24, 1988. The site scored 37.93, based solely on the groundwater pathway. The site was placed on the NPL on February 21, 1990. (Ref. 11) 2.2 SUMMARY OF PAST INVESTIGATIONS The site has no past enforcement records, however, there have been several sampling investigations, of varying scope, at the FCXS Site. These investigations were conducted by the North Carolina Department of Human Resources (NCDHR), US-EPA, and Fred C. Hart for Southern States Cooperative, one-time potential purchasers of the site. Following is a summary of the investigations. Designations for wells sampled for these investigations are not necessarily consistent from one investigation to another. Data may be compared using well locations as shown in the figures, however. 2.2.1 Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc., February 1986 (Ref. 6) During February 1986, Fred C. Hart conducted a pre-purchase environmental evaluation of the site for Southern States Cooperative, Inc. Four groundwater samples were collected from wells installed as a part of the evaluation, and five composite soil samples were collected from locations around the site. All samples were analyzed for priority pollutant volatile organic compounds. Sample locations and analytical summaries for these samples are shown in Figures 2-4 and 2-5. Analyses of composite surficial soil samples (unknown interval) detected nine (9) pesticides, of which chlordane and 4,4-DDT were found in the highest concentrations, 8,000 micrograms per kilogram (µg/kg) and 2,600 µg/kg, respectively. Pesticides and volatile compounds were detected in the groundwater samples. Gamma-BHC was the prominent pesticide found in three of the wells, including the upgradient well. Other isomers of BHC, as well as a possible metabolite of endrin ketone, were also detected. Trichlorofluoromethane and tetrachloroethylene were the volatile organic compounds detected at the highest concentrations. Well MW-3 was the most contaminated with pesticides; well MW-2 was the well most contaminated with volatile organic compounds. NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU1 ·2.WP 2-6 ------.. .. - ,4.Jpho BfiC -0. Carnmo BHC - BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES PNlkld..: CARNATION MILK COMPANY 4.4 -DOE -IJ Oi.ldrlt'+ -2. 7 , ... ·-ooo -20 •.•·-oor -211 Chlot'don. -240 P~ Alpha BHC -J4 S.lo Elie -~15 Co,,,n,o BHC -5a 0.to BHC -1] EndrU'I K•ton, -J 8 0 RESIDENTIAL AREAr.::==-:--:,--::=--~ Pulk:kltt ◄,4'-00[ _ -420 FIGURE 2-4 Ololfd,-n -1 ~ •.•·-ooo -e.JO 4,4'-00T -1.50 O,kin:!a,. -&000 ,.,·-oot -5.J •.•·-coo -J1 4.4°-00T -~ CNotOOn• -41 J ANAL YTICAI'. RESULTS SUMMARY PESTICIDE COMPOUNDS APPROXIMATE SCALE FRED C. HART STUDY, FEBRUARY 1986 FCX-STA TESVlLLE STA TESVllLE, NORTH CAROLINA ' 125 O 12.5 125 ~~ I : ! ( IN FEET ) I inch -125 ft. -.. .. .. iiil LLJ.ruQ • -SOL • -•Af[R AJ...L CONC. ug/log . 'i.,A): vg/) (lll"A r[R} NOTE; AU SOL CONO:NIH>..OON~ AR'£ COt.tPOSI rt CS APPROllMAtr LOCATIONS SHO""N P•tlcld•: Alpha BHC _ g 8110 BHC -19 •.•·-oar -2:io Q;.d,rl -~0 -u·-ooo -no •·•·-oor -2eoo I Uldtltl -~ MothO•)<hlC:W -670 4.◄--00£ -..a •.•·-ooo -55 ,.,·-oor -100 0,Jo,Oon. -7150 ~EPA &iii liiii liiil1 &iii Valatlec Trk:nlcrol'luot'0mt1thane -~ C(l1)ontetroc:N:cnde ... a, Trld,klr'OeU.>'ar1• -15 e...1.,. -1$ Totu11n41 -1:S CARNATION MILK COMPANY .... I .... liiiil RESIDENTIAL AREA - Vohrthc 1.1-0lct!IOJ"Wlh.,,• -55 1,1.1-Trk:nlcr"oethGI• _ J~ Tatrochfcr!N'th)I.,,• -95 --.. ... - BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES Vatotlu:: 1.1-0IChlotoelh_..• -15 1,1-0lcN«~tnane -12 Tron-1.2-0lc:nl01'041lhone -15 1.1.1-Trkhloto.lhOt'le -15 Trlchloroeth)fanl -25 T.trodlloroelh)Aene -41 FIGURE 2-15 ANAL YTJCAL RESULTS SUMMARY VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS FRED C. HART STUDY, FEBRUARY 1986 FCX-STA TESVILLE STATESVILLE. NORTH CAROLINA ,,, I APPROXIMATE SCALE 0 ... 12> ------s;;;; I ' ! -( IN fTET) I incr, -125 rt. --iiiil = (9 -WA.T£R AU. OlNC. u9/I {WA ITR) I I I I I I I I I I I I I n D D I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 2 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 The groundwater data may be somewhat suspect as the wells were installed with little regard for quality control and quality assurance. Reportedly, the wells were constructed with friction-fitted PVC, taped together with duct tape, and the drilling equipment was not adequately cleaned between wells. 2.2.2 NCDHR. May 1986 (Ref. 7)(Ref. 10) The NCDHR conducted a Site Inspection in May 1986. The on-site monitoring wells and a deep, water supply well west of the site on Carnation Milk Company property were sampled, as well as six soil sample locations. Figure 2-6 contains an organic compound analytical summary with sample locations for this investigation. Most of the soil sample locations at this time were in the same areas as those sampled by Fred C. Hart in February 1986. One sample was collected south of West Front Street in the yard of a residence. Lindane was once again identified in a sample from well MW-3. Fluorocarbons were identified in well MW-4, the upgradient well, and chlorinated solvents were identified in well MW-2 and in the deep well on Carnation property, east and west of the warehouse, respectively. Caprolactum, a component of nylon manufacturing, was detected in all on-site monitoring well samples. The soil sampling data revealed that, in addition to chlordane, DDT and dieldrin were also found at several locations in the vicinity of the warehouse. These compounds were also detected in the soil sample from the yard of the residence across West Front Street from the warehouse. Groundwater and soil samples were also analyzed for drinking water metals. Barium, chromium, and mercury were detected in one or more of the monitoring wells; however, none of the occurrences were over the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) for the analities. The soil data were reported incorrectly as milligrams per liter (mg/L) and, although it does not indicate any significant occurrence, no conclusions can be drawn from this information. 2.2.3 EPA {WESTON•SPER) Emergency Response. January 1989 (Ref. 8) In January 1989, WESTON•SPER, Atlanta, Georgia, conducted an emergency response sampling investigation for EPA at the FCXS site to determine the nature of pesticide contamination at locations previously sampled by Fred C. Hart and the NCDHR and to attempt to locate the two on-site burial trenches allegedly used for pesticide disposal in 1966. No pesticides were detected in any samples collected outside the warehouse building. The detection limits for these samples, however, were somewhat higher than those for the previous studies. NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAM..JU1-2.WP 2-9 - --·~1 -1J . RESIDENTIAL AREA FIGURE 2-8 ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY SITE INSPECTION, MA y 1986 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES FCX-STA TESVILLE STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA ' iiilil -- BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES APPROXIMATE SCALE 12:l O "' _k----_, I C rN rrrr > I Inch • 125 tt. iiiiil = •-SOl (9-WAftR lilil .&U CCIP4C. uq/i.9 (SOIL); 1.19/1 (WA.Tm) HOf£.: AU. SOIL CCNCCMrRAnCWis AA"E CO...POSI Tt or N'PAQ)ll,U ;t: LOCA no,,.,,s Sl◄O~ &EPA I I I I I I I I I I I I D D I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Risk Assessment Report FCX•OU2 Statesville Site Section: 2 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Further, no evidence of the alleged burial was observed in any of the approximately 30 borings completed through the floor of the upper warehouse building. Subsequent conversations with a past FCXS employee indicate that the borings may have been located too far to the east to intercept the trenches. 2.2.4 EPA (WESTON•SPER) Emergency Response. August 1989 (Ref. 13) Four (4) groundwater monitoring wells were installed at two locations at the Site in August 1989. At each location, two (2) wells were installed as a shallow (45-foot depth) and deep (125-foot depth) cluster. These wells and the four (4) Fred C. Hart wells were sampled for a variety of volatile organic compounds and pesticides. Figure 2-7 shows the locations of these samples and the analytical summary for the compounds detected in the samples. The most significant contamination identified was the mixture of various purgeable halogenated hydrocarbons (halocarbons). This contamination was observed at the greatest concentrations in well MW-5D, a deep well located near the center of the Site near West Front Street, and well MW-1, a shallow well located in the parking lot against the south face of the warehouse. All wells showed some degree of halocarbon contamination, with tetrachloroethylene being the compound identified at the highest concentrations in most samples. Pesticides, primarily BHC isomers were detected in all wells, except for wells MW-6S and MW-6D. 2.2.5 EPA (0.H. Materials) Emergency Response. January 1990 (Ref. 14) During the week of January 8, 1990, 0. H. Materials sampled all eight of the on-site monitoring wells for the Emergency Response and Removal Branch, EPA, Atlanta. The results of this sampling are summarized and shown on Figure 2-8. The results indicate the presence of pesticides in all wells, except for the cluster of wells in the site's northeast comer. Other important observations are the presence of trichlorofluoromethane in the well located near the northwest comer of the site and the presence of significant concentrations of tetrachloroethene, 1, 1-dichloroethene, and I, 1-dichloroethane in many of the wells located in the vicinity of the southeast comer of the warehouse, as well as the cluster of wells in the northeast comer of the site. 2.2.6 NUS Screening Site Inspection, Burlington Industries. 1990 (Ref. 15) During the week of August 20, 1990, NUS Corporation conducted a screening site inspection at the Burlington Industries facility located immediately north of the FCXS site. During this inspection, two groundwater samples were collected from wells MW-6S and MW-6D, located near the northeast comer of the FCXS site. The location and analytical data for each well are NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU1-2.WP 2-11 ma;; liiiiil liliil iiiil liiiil ----- --e-c-0.0.J ~ -a.QIO ~,--,u ~-a.• -.-..~-11 BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES f1a1w l -~ -,. CARNATION MILK COMPANY I ,.. ,.. I ,.. I ..,. 01, ..,.....-.: -0.11'2 ~ -O.I07 o,,,._ac -a.101 ~-a.n. ~,--a., ~-a., 1.1 -1 e I -I.I I.I -11L.• ----0--• 10 ' --1.1.1-_ .11 -= 8 .o !!:tsr ,,.-?a .,._, ' ~.,. 0 0 ~-a• ----o--.:-.. ,. ..,__ac -a...,. 11..,-r..--a., .. RESIDENTIAL AREA FIGURE 2-7 1 '·. ' . . . • . ' s -- ,.._a,c.a.1111• __ ..., __ ..., r-_,. -CL.l:r7 c:.-, __ .. , o----5.0 ll--,a.s I -G.7 1,1-0.---u.1 _,._,.a-.---1:1 .. I -l(D 1.1.1--1u -----11.J -ac-o.etn ~-a.n.J ~-o..,, ~ -0.1 1.•---,s.1 1,1 _ .... -.-oa.ro.-~ ' -,. .. 1.1.1-,--11, ~---,.• ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY WESTON SPER STUDY AUGUST, 1989 FCX-STA TESYILLE STATESVILLE'.', NORTH CAROLINA APPROX/MA TE SCALE ,,, h - 0 I -( IN FEET ) I inch -125 ft. 152.~ , "' -.. ~-0.F;l9 ,_,_,..,.,,___ -, ... , ... .. _0.....-•IJ '•--• -n~ 1.l.l•M.N----.. -11 ., _____ ,, -.. iiiil ru .. -MONITOR l',[LL ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN ug/1 {WA TEH) ~EPA CARNATION MILK COMPANY liiliii1 8 0 l;..,_o.,-.-r~1 ~a,c-LOI• . FIGURE 2-8 ANALYTICAL.RESULTS SUMMARY 0.H. MATERIALS STIJDY JANUARY, 1990 FCX-STA TESVILLE STATESVILLE,' NOR TH CAROLINA iiii --- .. ' .. ' .. - ......... BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES .. ' ew-, __ N..S '·' -.... 1.1. • 1.M 1.1 -.. , 6 1.3 -,,.s i--o-....: ~ :·'·~-,~,u•u ~--, .. - .. ' .. ' APPROXIMATE SCALE 0 123 O ~---i=-·r T ◊ ( IN fl:ET ) I inch ... 125 fl. .. ' .. ' .. uw-es -liill a.i iiiiil ~ -1.10...J()qJNC lll(_il lOCAnf)N AU COHC. 119/1 { wA. rt:R) ,.,--1.J ~-+---i!+!---- &EPA I I I I I I I I I I I I I I g m D D This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 2 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 shown on Figure 2-9. Of note in these samples is the presence of toluene and dichloroethene in the deep well, MW-6D. 2.2.7 U.S. EPA. Region IV. In-House Remedial Investigation, Phase I. 1991 (Ref. I) During the summer and early fall of 1991, Region IV, U.S. EPA conducted Phase I of its in- house remedial investigation at the FCX-Statesville site. The investigation involved extensive sampling of on-and off-site soils, groundwater, surface water, and sediment. Two-hundred and thirty-seven (237) environmental samples were collected from the various media for this characterization. Several significant findings were reported and are summarized in the following subsections. 2.2.7.1 Pesticide Contamination of On-site Soils The results of soil sampling indicate that significant soil contamination exists at the site. The contamination is predominantly DDT and its degradation products, DDD and DDE. The most highly contaminated area is beneath the floor of 'the upper section of the warehouse in the general area where an in-ground pesticide mixing pit was previously located. Concentrations of DDT as high as 830,000 µg/kg were reported for this area. Figure 2-10 shows the distribution and concentrations of DDT at the site. DDD and DDE concentrations were lower than those observed for DDT, and their respective distribution patterns were somewhat more restricted. Based on these results, it appears that significant contamination is generally restricted to the upper two feet of soil but may be four feet or greater in the area of highest contamination. Chlordane (and its constituents) and dieldrin were also detected but do not appear to be present at levels observed for the DDT compounds, nor do they appear to be widespread. Only minor, isolated occurrences of DDT compounds and chlordane were observed in samples collected from off-site areas. These do not appear to be significant in any way. 2.2. 7 .2 Pesticide Groundwater Contamination Samples from on-site monitoring wells indicated that both the surficial (saprolite) and bedrock portions of the groundwater system beneath the site are contaminated with pesticides, primarily lindane and the other BHC compounds, as well as endrin, ketone, and chlordane. Figure 2-11 shows the distribution and concentrations of pesticides detected in groundwater samples from on- site monitoring wells. NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \AAMJU1 ·2.WP 2-14 iiiiii iiiil CARNATION MILK COMPANY - I .... I .... I .... I .... -- 01,j,Q ... BURLING fON INDUSTRIES 8 ~S;,- _,.."l'o,y ' J-Sr, o o AREA FIGURE 2-9 ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY ORGANIC COMPOUNDS NUS SCREENING SITE INSPECTION 1990 BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES ' STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA APPROXIMATE 12, O -----(rNr£n) SCALE 152.3 ' I inch .,,_ 125 !I. ,,, I ---iilil iiiiil @ -WAIUI J -ESm,u. rro CO'-IC ,. -PR[SUL.IPn'v[ ,...,oENC( roo COMPOUND AU. COHC. u9J\,9 (SOIL): UQ/1 (WA T[R) ) IUJ, ~EPA -- X • lllZ >< "'' I )( )( •\ Ull ~j )( -- • ,.,. .. • r.l; .... • • ,:ff! "'' ,. -- ; ; . ·-.. \ I!!!!!!! I • ... JOI : \ w• \ WEST FfONT . ····•··················· .uu ' , ... ,... ...... . ·········· _.-· • ll.Q ~--~ .... ~ -x l.li ,.,. 1W' X • • liiiiiil ... --.. ' _X -X • mj~i -L x- • U!2. lll • (A)• lJi ~!: "'' •2ll!:!· "·. 2l1. -~ '.. . P·)• ·._r,h "''. • 2lJ (A).IO • • • m: 1:E-=· 210.til; .. · {.t.)a -x-X .-·x , ... ,., . • 1lJ iU • ,.,. (.t.}1 .. -~ ,:w1 "'. (CJI )( I • )( 'tj. x□• I ~. x·i.u • llO ,., . lll lli • ,.,. w • ,.,., • ill ,.,. -~n□ D \ l1.I , ( 1H fl(l J D£1£CT BOlH>ART >l.000 ...,.., >t0.000 11,a/):9 >100.000 119/119 .. I FIGURE 2-10 DDT DISTRIBUTION IN SOILS FCX-STATESVILLE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA -=-M...1. C04C[NTRAnON1 1H m11J\.o ---HOT oorcTID J -[ST'MAl[D CO.CDITIIAtlOHS C -00Nn11;wCO SY CC A -A',f"lltACC tOie::OerR>.nCH H -H(lSUWPn'O'( (\,l()(HC{ rOR ~ ~EPA iiiil ------SI c=;; lliiil liiiii ... BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES CARNATION MILK COMPANY ..,. I ..,. I ..,. I ..,. Alplio-BHC -5.4C us,fl Belo-BttC -4.8 "'9/1 0wlotdan9 -1.t UQ/1 D•10-8HC -2.9 1.19./l D Wdrh -0. ll !IQ /l Cndnrl Ket~ -l.t ug/t Cowno-8HC (Uulan■) -11 ug/1 Alpho-BHC -Q.M u,v/1 B.to-BHC -0.82 1.19/1 D•to-BHC -O.JJ ut/1 Ow.tt, -O.Ola ug/1 [ndni K•lane -Q.J2 uv'i C<nvno-BHC (l.Jncbie) -1.1 ~ ~o-BHC -O.JJ Ulil/1 Belo-EIHC -0.13 uQ/\ D•la-8HC -0.015 uv/1 Cndrln -0.022 uc;J/l £ndrln K•IMe -O.Ja uV, Ccmma-BHC (Undane) -0.17 U9/I Alpho-BHC -1.7 ug/1 Belo-BHC -0.11 ug/1 Dllt~BHC -0.11 uo/1 tndrit, K.t~ -0.09J ug/1 Commo-BHC (Undone) -2.2 U9/I FIGURE 2-11 PESTICIDE CONCENTRATIONS, MONITORING WELLS FCX-STAITSVILLE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA -1-, -1-, -1-, -1- -1-, ' -i- -.. -1-, -!-':"----' ' 8 -1-, -1-, -1-' -1-, -t ' -1- -1- ') ..,. I ..,. --liiil liiil !<EI I) -(PA 'IIICll.S INSTAU.£0 FOR Tl-IS STUDY .6.. -f .C. HART S'l\.OY ♦ -CAA NA TlOH V1t1..1. cl) -EPA RCMOVAl. 'tlO.J...S l+OTt: ~~~;:A~ t.N£ TDJAI,. SOl4; DATA rsruu.no Cl'I O?HClllltS,[ w,,unm. f'l.£ASC SO: ll..\JA 51..MIUiltY T~ ~EPA I I I I I I I I I I I I g 0 u I I I II This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. ft shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA 2.2. 7 .3 Chlorinated Solvent Groundwater Contamination Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 2 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 A variety of chlorinated solvents was detected in groundwater samples from on-site monitoring wells and the process well located on the Carnation property west of the site. The most significant contaminant observed was tetrachloroethylene, with concentrations in excess of 100 micrograms per liter (µg/L) being detected. Figure 2-12 shows the concentrations of the identified compounds. 2.2.7.4 Chlorinated Solvent Contamination of Surface Water Analytical results from surface water and sediment samples collected during the Phase I investigation did not appear to indicate a significant problem with any form of contamination known to be associated with the FCXS site. Significant chlorinated solvent contamination, however, was detected in a surface water sample collected at a location immediately north of Burlington Industries. Specifically, tetrachloroethylene was detected in a seep sample collected at the head of a stream at a concentration similar to that observed in samples from on-site monitoring wells. This is indicative of a significant groundwater contamination problem, located not only beneath the FCXS site, but also beneath much of the entire Burlington Industries facility. Figure 2-13 shows the location of this sample and its concentration. 2.2. 7 .5 Exploratory Boring Results An extensive effort was put forth to locate the alleged pesticide-burial trenches. This effort consisted of the borings associated with the 27 soil s.ampling locations within the warehouse, as well as nine deep, power-augered exploratory borings. Little or no significant material was found to indicate the presence of buried pesticide material, either in bags or glass containers. 2.2.8 U.S. EPA. Region IV. In-house Remedial Investigation, Phase II. 1992 (Ref. 2) Phase II of the FCXS remedial investigation was primarily an expanded groundwater investigation and trench location effort. Existing, on-site permanent monitoring wells and a network of twelve (12) temporary monitoring wells, located both on-site and off-site, were sampled to provide further groundwater characterization within the warehouse in an effort to locate trenches which were alleged to exist under the warehouse floor. NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU1 •2.WP 2-18 -----!l!l!I == iiiii1 - BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES iii! - .lr MW-4 Bror .. klchka .,,.lha,,e -1.4J wl/'I / ,_°"....c.;Mcc°""="";::_-_:_10.::;Qc--=l(/l!!__ ____ _j,.. I Bo 1,1,J-t,lchlo,OlthOM -J.9.J ugft 1,1-dlcNctoelhcw'I• _ 15,J ug/1 1.1-dkH«oelh.n• -?I ug/1 di-1..2-ckhklrOllha'II -IJJ uV, t.trodllorOllh~ -110 Ulol/1 Trk:hloroeth>'.,. -4.0J t1g/l (m-ond/c, p-)•)i'--4.2J ug/1 1.1-dkNcwoethor\4 -l!W u,g/1 l.l-dkhloroe!h)l1n• _ 21J ug/1 d1-1.2-cknloroelhal• _ 20.J ug/l lalrocNoro.lh,-ten1 -2l0 u,g/l 1,1, _lrkhloro.lhOM -7.4J ug/1 1,1-dichloroethan• -ll.J ug/1 MW-111-dlc:.hlcwoeth)i'ene -7 .lJ ug/l ♦ 2 c .-1,2-dlchloroelhm• ..:_ 20 ug/l T.lrodllcro.th .,.., -~2 u I ~~~ ~ 1,1,1-trlc:hloro.than• -J.9J ugA 1,1-dlc:hlcwoetholte -1!.J ug/1 1,1-dlc.hlcwo.then• -29 ug/1 cl,-1.:2-dlchloro.lh ... , -1.lJ ug/1 l1troctr.lo,o.lh)i'-_ 110 ug/1 Trlchloro.eth)I..,• -4.0J ug,11 FIGURE 2-12 PURGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRA T/ONS 6 MONITORING \',£LLS FCX-STATESVILLE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA ◊◊ -.. liilil = e -EPA -.cu.s NSJ.A.U..£0 fat nts SlVO'( .6. -r.c. KART SlU>'t' ♦-CAANA.nc»t ..a.L ~ -EPA RD.,OVAL 'lfllCLLS J -ESnwATED YALU[ H -PR(St.A.IPn\,£ c-..OCHC( A -AVERAC( VAlU( CNorofann -o. 7 ◄ .U ug/1 .,. I 1,1.1-lrkhlo,oethai, -i-UJ u•U1 1,1-dlchlew'Ollh-_ !,,. J ug/1 Oilorofcinn -◄.2AJ uo/1 fetrochlM04olf\)A_,• -,OA UQ TtktilMo.lh en• -D.8AJ8 u APPROXIMATE SCALE (INftIT) lncta -12~ rt. ,,, I ·~EPA - - - - ----== Giiiiiiil liiiiiiil iiiiiil - - - - - lilll1 - • Sediment sample only at these locations KEY: J Estimated Concentrations /\I -Presumptive Evidence FIGURE 2-13 PURGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS • N IN SURFACE WATER FCX-STATESVILLE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA I I I I I I I I I I g D I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, · without the express written permission of EPA 2.2.8.1 Groundwater Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 2 Revision: 3 Date: June rn94 Groundwater samples were collected to satisfy two primary objectives. The first objective was to provide data from an additional round of sampling for all of the permanent monitoring wells. These samples were collected during the week of May 11, 1992. The second objective was to provide additional on-site and off-site characterization of pesticide and chlorinated solvent contamination identified during the initial phase of the remedial investigation. Results of Phase I groundwater sampling indicated that both the overburden and bedrock portions of the underlying aquifer are contaminated with pesticides and chlorinated purgeable organic compounds. Because EPA is currently pursuing delineation of the chlorinated solvent plume with Burlington Industries, the suspected source of the contamination, the Phase II groundwater sampling program was designed primarily to evaluate the extent of pesticide contamination. Samples for purgeable organic compound analyses were also collected, however, to obtain additional information on the extent of the chlorinated solvents. Figure 2-14 shows the locations of existing permanent monitoring wells and temporary monitoring wells. Most of the temporary monitoring wells were installed to provide additional data to be used to evaluate the lateral extent of contaminants in the overburden portion of the aquifer. One of the temporary wells, however, was installed to provide data for evaluating contamination previously identified in permanent well, MW-3. Pesticide contamination observed in MW-3 was significantly higher than detected in any of the other permanent wells. Temporary well, T-11, was installed immediately upgradient to determine if the contamination was actual groundwater contamination or was, perhaps, due to the presence of contaminated well installation. As with all of the temporary wells installed on-site for this investigation, precautions were taken to prevent the accidental or inadvertent introduction of contaminated surficial material into the saturated zone during sampling. Prior to augering for well installation at each location, the first three feet of soil were removed by augering. This interval was cased-off by pushing 12-inch diameter PVC pipe into the ground. All loose material was removed from inside the pipe prior to the continuation of drilling for well installation· to minimize the impact of any surficial material on the groundwater sample. At all locations, temporary well borings were completed into the saturated zone. A minimum of 10-feet of penetration below the water table was usually accomplished. Drilling was conducted using hollow-stem auger methods utilizing a natural soil plug. After drilling to the completion depth a drill rod with a small roller cone bit was used to knock out the soil plug. The temporary wells were installed after the drill rod and bit were removed. Each well was constructed using a 2-inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC riser attached to a I-foot long pre-packed, NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU1-2.WP 2-21 I i I I I I I I I I I I I I g D D I I N "' I N I 0 0 ~ ~ 0 ,.., ' NORTH 'ARNA TIO MILK CO. SOURCE: EPA SITE X EN J.C. ~ DRAWN · I.IAP (DH1E1J47) euRUNGiON '"° t -9 T-12 • • T-4 T-5 • , T-6 @ ,/ ~ ', ~ 1, ~ \ , __ /r '..::::: ::__ '::..-:::_ .___ .___ I ............................ ~ I , -) I .... -.,,. ' I / / / ,,/ , , / / , , /,, ,, :, I I NG WELL t I • MONITOR! MONITORING WELL 0 TEMPORARTYORING WELL EPA MONI S REMOVAL WELL e EPA C HART WELL ◄ F .. FIGURE 2-1 4: FCX STATESTVH ILLiAROLINA LE MOR STATESVIL , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I g 0 D This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 2 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 screened section. The screen was constructed with No. 10 slotted Schedule 40 inner and outer sleeve throughout the I-foot length. The sand contained within the annular space was sized to be retained by the slots. A sample was also collected from a bedrock well one mile south of the site which supplies water to a local private water system. This sample was collected to determine if the site has had any noticeable impact on the deep aquifer. The location of this well is shown on Figure 2-15. 2.2.8.2 Soil The results of the Phase I investigation did not specifically dictate additional soil sampling during Phase Il. A contingency existed, however, to allow for collection and analysis of soil samples if conditions warranted, such as the discovery of obvious waste material or pesticide product during the trench exploration. Additionally, soil samples to be analyzed for total organic carbon (TOC) were requested by Water Management Branch staff to model fate and transport of pesticide contaminants in soil and groundwater. Rationales for all of the soil samples collected for Phase Il of the investigation are described below. Their locations are shown in Figure 2-16. The two soil samples, FS2-Tll-SLA and FS2-Tll-SLB, were collected during hollow-stem augering for installation of temporary well T-11, near permanent monitoring well MW-3. Pesticide-like odors were evident emanating from the auger returns at this location from depths significantly deeper than the deepest Phase I samples collected at nearby locations. Composite samples were collected directly from the auger flights from two different depths, approximated by the driller, to be from 2-feet to 25-feet and from 30-feet to 35-feet below groundwater, respectively. Soil sample FS2-05-SD was composited from several power-auger boring locations inside the warehouse. While conducting this aspect of the investigation, a white, powdery material was observed mixed with the red clay returns at several ~djacent boring locations. It was presumed that the material could either be weathered feldspathic gneiss bedrock or relict powered pesticide material buried at that location. Soil samples FS2-T5-SLA, -SLB, and SLC, were collected for TOC analyses only and were collected during the installation of off-site temporary wells T-5 and T-6. Three subsurface soil samples were collected at each location to provide a vertical profile of total organic carbon within the upper seven (7) feet of soil, where the bulk of organic carbon would be available for partitioning with organic pesticides. NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU1 -2.WP 2-23 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I N 1000 0 1000 woo 3000 •ooo SCALE, IN FEET FIGURE 2-15 LOCATION, NELSON BROWN WELL PHASE II REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA I I I I I I I 0 u I , I I I I I I I I I I "'-'RLINGTON IND. c•••:)~N ~~-.a-,_ L..----, ::::---... D □ D 0 [1 D □ u □ 0 D D D Cl D fS2-05--SO rcx· • F'S2-T5-SLA fS2-T5-SUl FS2-T5-SlC J. D ;I2-TS-SI.A 2-T6-Slll • 1~2-Te-SLC D D a DD OD □ \ FCfJiO I I I I \J I ( /"-, Ir-,-.......; f' ... J, ---:::..~ ..... l I ._, I ' I '.J ,' --I --, , ,.,. I -I I 1,' I •~ TEMPORARY WEU. 4-MONITORING ~U. APPROXIJ.IA TE SCALE t, ' i ; FIGURE 2-18 PHASE II SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION MAP FCX-STATESVILLE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA C•IIITJ ~EPA I I I I I I I I g D R I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. 2.2.8.3 Sediment Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 2 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 During a preliminary review of the Phase I data, the Office of Health Assessment expressed some concern over the source and general occurrence of the polyaromatic hydrocarbon compounds (P AHs) identified in many of the Phase I soil and sediment samples collected from locations along and near the railroad tracks. The existing data were not sufficient to demonstrate that the presence of these compounds was due to the proximity of the treated cross-ties to the railroad tracks and siding, or if their occurrence was possibly due to past site-related contamination. Two samples were collected from areas adjacent to the railroad tracks, one east of the site and south of Valley Wholesale, and one 'west of the site and north of the Carnation building, to provide additional data to evaluate the source of the PAH compounds. Figure 2-17 shows the sample locations. Arsenic and carcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbon concentrations are presented in Figures 2-18 and 2-19. 2.2.8.4 Contaminant Source Investigation Although approximately sixty (60) hand-augered and power-augered borings had been conducted at locations inside the warehouse in a cumulative effort extending back to 1989 with no physical evidence of buried material observed in any material returned to the surface, an additional attempt was made to locate the buried material. The Phase II effort consisted of the advancement of approximately twenty (20) to twenty-five (25) additional borings in areas adjacent to and within the areas previously investigated. All new borings were completed to depths of twenty-one (21) to twenty-four (24) feet below the warehouse floor surface. Factoring in the greatest thickness of fill anticipated beneath the warehouse floor in any location, these boring depths should have been more than adequate to fully penetrate, if intercepted, any trench present to depths of at least fifteen (15) feet below original grade in the areas investigated. In addition, many of the previous boring and sampling locations which had not been completed to these depths were re-visited and reamed out to the same depths. Although no material such as paper bags, glass bottles, plastics, or other materials consistent with pesticide packaging was found, a suspicious white material, described in Section 2.2.8.2, was identified and submitted for analysis. Figure 2-20 shows the soil boring locations conducted for this investigation. NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU1-2.WP 2-26 I I I I I I I I m g 0 D I I I I I I I N 1000 0 1000 ··Fl Fl Fl SCALE, IN FEET . FIGURE 2-17 SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATIONS PHASE II REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA I I I I D I I I I I I N FS2-O3-SD: Benzo(o)onthrocene -11 00J Benz0(b and/or k)fluoronthene -2400J Benzo-o-pyrene -1100J _ r .... :C Chrysene -1300J lndeno (1,2,3-CD) pyrene -1,100J 1000 0 Fl Fl Fl Benzo(o)onthrocene -440J Benz0(b and/or k)fluoronthene -1500J Benzo-o-pyrene -500J Chrysene -450J lndeno (1,2,3-CD) pyrene -500J 1000 I SCALE, IN FEET . I I I I I I I KEY: ALL CONCENTRATIONS, UG/KG FIGURE 2-18 CARCINOGENIC PAH CONCENTRATIONS, SEDIMENT PHASE II REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I N 1000 0 1000 'Fl Fl Fl SCALE, IN FEET . KEY: ALL CONCENTRATIONS, MG/KG FIGURE 2-19 FS2-04-SD: 2.5 mg/kg ARSENIC-CONCENTRATIONS IN SEDIMENT PHASE II REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION FCX-STATESVILLE SUPERFUND SITE STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA --.. ----- POU-4. OLD WAREHOUSE POU-JG POU-•· 1 POU-,. 2 - C JJ (!) n ® HH (!) r, CII) @" cc CII) 0 C!>r ,,._ CD DD CII) cc C!) BB 0 .. 0 ' 0 0 /I 0 t c£ -- I 9 8 @' Cll)c ~ • CII). C!) 7 ---- LEGEND • G, -:t0n. !UJO"U LOCATION • -POL& LOCA.TION 1 -•.lll. PIVWBER (,or lt•f.---On.Jr) - FIGURE 2-20 -SOll.lii>RiiicioCi n·c:~ 'i SPIUNC 19D:Z FCJ: CORPOR.I.TIOP.. STAT?:S'Vll.J.Z, NORilf CAR< UNA Original figure by Weston, Norcros!. GA I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. 2.2.9 July 1993 Soil Sampling Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 2 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 These soil samples were taken to characterize the deep soils at the site, especially those soils beneath the upper warehouse where the majority bf the pesticide contamination was identified during the Phase I and II remedial investigation. Soil samples were also collected and analyzed for dioxins. The samples having pesticide contamination results were collected at a depth greater than 18 inches; as a result, they were not included in this risk assessment. However, they are summarized in Table 3-5B. The sampling points 18 inches or shallower were incorporated and some contain dioxin contamination but no additional pesticide contamination. Thirty-eight samples, excluding duplicate samples, were select~d from nineteen locations in Areas 1,2, and 3. Sample locations in the three areas for the dioxin/furan samples are shown in Figure 2-21. NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \AAMJU1 ·2.WP 2-31 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 3 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 · SECTION 3 CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN 3.1 INTRODUCTION The objective of this section is to characterize the extent of site contamination in all affected media on which the risk assessment is based using sampling data completed in Phase I and II of the Remedial Investigation (RI) for the FCX-Statesville Site. The results of the data evaluation are used in both the human health and ecological risk scenarios for the potential receptors. It should be noted that potential chemicals of concern may differ between the human health and the ecological risk assessments because' of differences in expected potential exposure and toxicity to designated target receptors. Tables 3-1 to 3-5B summarize, by medium, the analytical results of the site-related chemicals. The data were summarized following the criteria outlined in the Work Plan (WESTON, 1992). Only those chemicals positively· identified in at. least one sample in a given medium were included in the summary tables for that medium. As a screening criterion for the inorganic compounds in each medium, the maximum sample concentration had .to exceed twice the background mean concentration for inclusion in the quantitative risk assessment (EPA, 1992). Where detection frequency was not applicable as a screening criterion, a concentration-toxicity screening was developed for noncarcinogenic organic and inorganic compounds. The objective of these screening procedures is to determine those chemicals which are most likely to contribute significant risks. A Phase I RI for the FCXS was conducted in June 1991 (EPA, 1991). Various media were sampled including: groundwater, surface soi], subsurface soil, surface water, and sediment. The soil samples were divided into these "areas": Area I -off-site residential area Area 2 -on-site FCXS -area south and east of the building Area 3 -on-site FCXS -area underneath the FCXS building Areas 1, 2, and 3 are shown in Figure 2-21. The surface soil samples were collected at 0-12 inches and subsurface soil samples were collected at depths greater than I 8 inches. The Phase II investigation was conducted during April 1992. Eleven temporary wells were installed and additional soil and sediment samples; were collected as described in Section 2.2. 8. NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU-3.WP 3-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Barium Groundwater Analyte Beryllium Cobalt Chromium Copper Nickel Lead Strontium Titanium Vanadium Yttrium Zinc Mercury Aluminum Manganese Calcium Magnesium Iron Sodium Potassium NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU-3.WP Table 3-1 FCX ST A TESVIl,LE SITE Contaminants Detected in Groundwater Frequency of Detection 39/41 5/41 28/41 25/41 35/41 25/41 14/41 39/41 35/41 24/41 30/41 41/41 5/41 38/41 38/41 39/41 41/41 39/41 41/41 38/41 Site-Related Samples* 3-2 Range of Detected Concentrations (µg/L) 5.6 -500 1.1 -6.8 2.8 -52 3.2 -84 3.3 -120 4.1 -83 5.4-61 4.8 -200 5.3 -1,400 5.2-99 2.6 -120 4.0 -200 0.24 -0.7 54 -54,000 3.8 -2,400 270 -30,000 550 -16,000 26 -70,000 I, 100 -70,000 640 -9,200 Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 3 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Arithmetic Mean (µg/L) 121.6 2.5 16.4 34.2 22.4 25.2 17.4 55.5 340 33.8 39. 1 49.2 0.6 8,483 474 5,660 4,189 13,400 17,200 3,500 Background Sample (µg/L) 140 3.4 4.8 26 170 5.2 16 3,800 58 1,400 1,600 3,000 11,000 2,900 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Jnc., expressly for EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA Groundwater Analyte Trichlorofluoromethane Chloromethane I, 1-Dichloroethene I, 1-Dichloroethane Chloroform 1, 1, !-Trichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Bromodichloromethane Trich!oroethene Tetrachloroethene Cis-1,2-Dichloroetbene (M-and/or p-)Xylene Heptachlor Epoxide Alpha-BHC Beta-BHC Gamma-BHC (Lindane) Delta-BHC Dieldrin NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04-400\011 \RAMJU•3.WP Table 3-1 (Continued) FCX STATESVILLE SITE Contaminants Detected in Groundwater Site-Related Samples* Frequency of Range of Detected Concentrations Detection (µg/L) 2/41 0.69 -99 2/41 0.55 -2.9 12/41 1.8 -29 10/41 0.67 -28 15/41 0.54 -JO 8/41 0.58 -13 2/41 1.4 -4.2 1/41 1.4 I 1/41 0.68 -13 20/41 0.5 -340 13/41 2.4 -42 1/41 8.2 1/41 0.028 9/41 0.18 -5.4 12/41 0.019 -4.8 11/41 0.17-16 9/41 0.015 -5.6 5/41 0.034 -1.6 3-3 Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 3 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Background Arithmetic Sample Mean (µg/L) (µg/L) 49.8 99 1.7 11. 7 15.7 2.8 1.7 6.8 2.8 4.2 NA 5.1 74.4 20.1 NA NA 1.6 1.3 3.6 1.3 0.37 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA lt shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Groundwater Analyte Endrin Gamma-Chlordene Gamma-Chlordane Alpha-Chlordane Endrin Ketone Oxychlordane 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Table 3-1 (Continued) FCX STATESVILLE SITE Contaminants Detected in Groundwater Site-Related Samples* Frequency of Range of Detected Detection Concentrations (µg/L) 4/41 0.022 -0.1 2/41 0.028 -0.44 2/41 0.049 -0.36 4/41 0.025 -0.51 11/41 0.062 -3.1 3/41 0.13-1.7 i/41 1.7 2/41 52 -86 • = Site-related samples include Phase I (1991) and Phase II (1992) data. NA = Not applicable1 cannot calculate an average with one detection. NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU-3.WP 3-4 Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 3 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Background Arithmetic Sample Mean (µg/L) (µg/L) 0.056 0.23 0.2 0.24 0.68 0.7 NA 69 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, ln whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA Surface Water Analyte Barium Cobalt Chromium Copper Nickel Lead Strontium Titanium Vanadium Zinc Aluminum Manganese Calcium Magnesium Iron Sodium Potassium NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU·3.WP Table 3-2 FCX ST A TESVILLE SITE Contaminants Detected in Surface Water Site-Related Samples• Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 3 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Background Range of Detected Arithmetic Sample Frequency (FS-405) of Detection Concentrations Mean (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) 8/8 3:1 -240 73 36 3/8 2.7 -42 17 6/8 2.6 -25 10 3.7 5/8 2.6 -28 12 2/8 T.6 -20 13.8 2/8 19"-28 24 8/8 32 -200 70 34 8/8 6.5 -590 149 92 8/8 4.2 -86 28 7.8 6/8 2.6 -160 53 4.9 8/8 190 -12,000 3,686 2,400 8/8 12 -3,300 574 140 8/8 5,400, 14,000 9,900 5,100 8/8 2,500 -6,000 3,762 2,400 8/8 740 .-27,000 3,834 3,000 8/8 3,000 -6,300 2,380 2,900 8/8 1,900 -4,400 1,301 2,000 3-5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA Table 3-2 (Continued) Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 3 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 FCX ST A TESVILLE SITE Contaminants Detected in Surface Water Surface Water Analyte Benzene Carbon Disulfide Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 1,2-Dichloropropane Trichloroethene Tetrachloroethene Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Dieldrin Gamma-Chlordane Alpha-Chlordane Frequency of Detection 1/7 2/8 1/8 1/8 1/8 3/8 1/8 1/8 1/8 1/8 Site-Related Samples* Range of Detected Concentrations (µg/L) I.I 1.3 -1.4 3.3 7.2 63 0.53 -98 I 45 0.036 0.12 0.014 • = Site-related samples include Phase I (1991) and Phase JI (1992) data. NA = Not applicable, cannot calculate an average with one detection. NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU-3.WP 3-6 Arithmetic Mean (µg/L) NA 1.35 NA NA NA 33.6 NA NA NA NA Background Sample (FS-405) (µg/L) 1.4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA Sediment Analyte Arsenic Barium Cobalt Chromium Copper Nickel Lead Selenium Strontium Titanium Vanadium Yttrium Zinc Mercury Aluminum Manganese Calcium Magnesium NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU-3.WP Table 3-3 FCX STATESVJLLE SITE Contaminants Detected in Sediment Site-Related Samples* Range of Frequency of Detected Detection Concentrations (mg/kg) 4/17 2.5 -8.2 13/17 22 -160 5/17 2.7 -64 13/17 16 -79 7/17 15 -73 13/17 2.9 -74 13/17 3.2 -95 9/17 1.2 -6.3 3/17 7.4-18 3/17 270 -620 13/17 18 -170 3/17 3 -6.2 9/17 43 -430 2/17 0.06 -0.1 13/17 2,700 -23,000 13/17 77-1,100 14/17 210 -6,400 13/17 260 -2,900 3-7 Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 3 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Background Arithmetic Sample Mean (FS-405) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) 4.3 65 130 29.1 13 43 40 36 14 11 31 9.5 2.3 2.2 11.5 436 71 69 5.1 154.1 43 0.08 12,561 15,000 360 .1,456 490 1,146 2,900 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, In whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Sediment Analyte Iron Sodium Potassium Dieldrin 4,4'-DDT(P,P'-DDT) 4,4 '-DDE(P,P'-DDE) 4,4'-DDD(P,P'-DDD) Endrin PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254) Gamma-Chlordane Alpha-Chlordane Phenanthrene Fluoranthene Pyrene Bis-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU·3.WP Table 3-3 (Continued) FCX ST A TESVILLE SITE Contaminants Detected in Sediment Site-Related Samples* Range of Frequency of Detected Detection Concentrations (mg/kg) 13/17 7,100 -95,000 1/17 380 13/17 300 -2,400 2/17 0.01 I -0.036 3/17 0.01 -0. 15 1/17 0.028 2/17 0.042-0.083 2/17 0.02 -0.37 1/17 0.76 1/17 0.037 1/17 0.026 2/17 0. 15 -0.59 5/17 0.25 -0.91 5/17 0.2 -1.2 1/17 34 3-8 Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 3 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Arithmetic Mean (mg/kg) 3 I ,285 NA 773.6 0.024 0.058 NA 0.063 0. 195 NA NA NA 0.37 0.514 0.528 NA Background Sample (FS-405) (mg/kg) 25,000 2,400 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA Sediment Analyte Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene Indeno(l ,2,3-CD)pyrene Benzo(GHI)perylene Table 3-3 (Continued) FCX ST A TESVILLE SITE Contaminants Detected in Sediment Site-Related Samples* Range of Frequency of Detected Detection Concentrations (mg/kg) 3/17 0.2 -I. 1 3/17 0.19-1.3 3/17 · 0.19 -2.4 2/17 0.5 -1.1 2/17 0.5 -1.1 1/17 0.47 • = Site-related samples include Phase I (1991) and Phase II (1992) data. NA = Not applicable, cannot calculate an average with one detection. NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU,3.WP 3-9 Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 3 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Background Arithmetic Sample Mean (FS-405) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) 0.58 0.646 1.4 0.8 0.8 NA \ I I \ I \ This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA It shall not be re. \ without the express written permission of EPA. \ I Risk, \ I FCX-OL \ Section: Revision: \ Date: June I \ Table 3-4A I FCX STATESVILLE SITE Contaminants Detected in Surface Soil Area 1 I Site-Related Samples* Surface Soils ' Backgro, I (Area 1) Frequency of Range of Detected Arithmetic Sample Analyte Detection Concentrations (SLA-127) \ (mg/kg) I Arsenic 9/28 2.1 -7.4 3.7 3 Barium 27/28 15 -440 84 35 \ I i Beryllium 1/28 1.2 NA \ I Cobalt 3/28 .13 -19 15.3 2.3 Chromium 27/28 19 -170 65 79 I Copper 18/28 12 -49 30 23 Nickel 25/28 5.0 -32 12 7 I Lead 27/28 9.0 -3,100 157 71 Selenium 6/28 1.9 -2.4 2.1 I Titanium 3/28 380 -1,100 667 Vanadium 27/28 44 -220 98 110 I Zinc 25/28 15 -300 93 290 Mercury 4/28 0.07 -0.12 0.09 I Aluminum 27/28 8,500 -32,000 19,907 22,000 Manganese 27/28 , 140 -1,100 373 130 I Calcium 27/28 220 -44,000 3,814 850 Magnesium 27/28 270 -41,000 3,606 420 I Iron 27/28 420 -66,000 39,812 49,000 Sodium 1/28 320 NA I Potassium 24/28 350 -5,600 1,203 460 NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU-:l.WP 3-10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, In whole or in part, without the express written· permission of EPA Surface Soils (Area 1) Analyte Heptachlor Heptachlor Epoxide 4,4'-DDT(P,P' -DDT) 4,4'-DDE(P,P'-DDE) 4,4'-DDD(P,P'-DDD) Endrin Gamma-Chlordane Alpha-Chlordane Acenaphthene Fluorene Phenanthrene Anthracene Fluoranthene Pyrene Benzo(a)anthracene NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04-400\011 \RAMJU-3.WP Table 3-4A (Continued) FCX ST A TESVILLE SITE Contaminants Detected in Surface Soil Area 1 Frequency or Detection 1/28 1/28 3/28 5/28 1/28 1/28 2/28 2/28 3/28 3/28 5/28 3/28 4/28 5/28 3/28 Site-Related Samples* Range or Detected Concentrations (mg/kg) 0.019 0.0535 0.026 -0.69 t 0.038 -0.48 0.18 0.16 0.02 -0.12 0.081 -0.19 0.012 -3.3 0.041 -3.3 0.012 -21 0.01-5.2 0.17 -170 0.14-170 0.26 -II 3-11 Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 3 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Arithmetic Mean (mg/kg) NA NA 0.26 0.16 NA NA 0.07 0.14 1.4 1.4 5.5 2.2 44.4 35 4.5 Background Sample (SLA-127) 0.012 0.027 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA Chrysene Surface Soils (Area 1) Analyte Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene Indeno(l ,2,3-CD)pyrene Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Benzo(GHI)perylene 2-Methylnaphthalene Table 3-4A (Continued) FCX STATESVILLE SITE Contaminants Detected in Surface Soil Area 1 Site-R~Iated Samples* Frequency of Range of Detected Detection Concentrations (mg/kg) 3/28 0.26 -11 2/28 4.1 -14 2/28 2.1 -7.5 2/28 1.3 -5.4 2/28 0.57 -2.3 2/28 1.2 -5.8 i/28 0.24 Risk Assessment Report FCX•OU2 Statesville Site Section: 3 Revision: 3 Date: June ~994 Background Arithmetic Sample Mean (SLA-127) (mg/kg) 4.5 9.1 4.8 3.4 1.4 3.5 NA + = Site-related samples include Phase I (1991), Phase I1 (1992), and July 1993 data. NA = Not applicable, cannot calculate an average with one detection. NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU•J,WP 3-12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA ft shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA Surface Soils (Area 2) Analyte Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Cobalt Chromium Copper Nickel Lead Vanadium Zinc Mercury Aluminum Manganese Calcium Magnesium Iron Sodium Potassium NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 ~RAMJU-3.WP Table 3-4B FCX ST A TESVILLE SITE Contaminants Detected in Surface Soil Area 2 Site-R~lated Samples* Range of Detected Frequency of Concentrations Detection (mg/kg) 7/18 2_2 -II 18/18 19 -410 J/18 2.1 J/18 1.0 8/18 14 -24 18/18 13 -170 I 1/18 30 -160 17/18 9 -35 18/18 4.8 -140 18/18 52 -150 18/18 30 -3,900 3/18 0.32 -0.56 18/18 4,600 -29,000 18/18 110 -500 18/18 860 - I 70,000 18/18 · 290-9,200 18/18 12,000 -67,000 1/18 180 18/18 390 -12,000 3-13 Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 3 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Background Arithmetic Sample Mean (SLA-127) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) 5.8 3 167 35 NA NA 18 2.3 60 79 52 23 19.2 7 51.5 71 78.7 110 340 290 0.41 16,477 22,000 231 130 14,300 850 4,403 420 35,888 49,000 NA 4,331 460 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, lnc., expressly for EPA. Jt shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA 1 Surface Soils (Area 2) Analyte Heptachlor Epoxide Dieldrin 4,4'-DDT(P,P'-DD1) 4,4'-DDE(P,P'-DDE) 4,4'-DDD(P,P'-DDD) Endrin Gamma-Chlordane Alpha-Chlordane Acenaphtbylene Phenanthrene Anthracene Di-N-Butylphthalate Fluoranthene pyrene Benzo(a)anthracene NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \AAMJU-3.WP Table 3-4B (Continued) FCX STATESVILLE SITE Contaminants Detected in Surface Soil Area 2 Frequency of Detection i/18 2/18 7/18 3/18 3/18 i/18 2/18 2/18 5/18 4/18 4/18 1/18 8/18 7/18 7/18 Site-Related Samples* Range of Detected Concentrations (mg/kg) 0.022 0.023 -0.12 0.019 -3.8 0.028 -0.58 0.026 -4.5 0.18 0.17 -0.26 0.22 -0.3 0.19-2.2 0. 15 -0.53 0.25 -1.7 0.92 0.16 -3.4 0.14 -3.4 0.23 -3.3 3-14 Risk Assessment Report FCX·OU2 Statesville Site Section: 3 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Arithmetic Mean (mg/kg) NA 0.072 0.669 0.382 1.7 NA 0.215 0.26 0.896 0.37 0.83 NA I. 15 1.0 0.924 Background Sample (SLA-127) (mg/kg) 0.012 0.027 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written.permission of EPA. Chrysene Surface Soils (Area 2) Analyte Di-N-Octy I phthalate Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene Indeno( 1,2 ,3-CD)pyrene Dibenzo(a,h)antbracene Benzo(GHI)perylene TEQ Table 3-4B (Continued) FCX STATESVILLE SITE Contaminants Detected in Surface Soil Frequency of Detection 7/18 1/18 8/18 6/18 7/18 1/18 6/18 1/18 8/8 Area 2 Site-Related Samples* Range of Detected · Concentrations (mg/kg) 0.14-4.0 1.2 0.4 -11 0.5 -5.6 0.33 -3.8 1.4 0.44 -3.5 0.54 0. 0000002 - 0.000045 Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 3 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Background Arithmetic Sample (SLA-127) Mean (mg/kg) (mg/kg) 1.3 NA 2.8 1.8 1.3 NA 1.4 NA 0.0000095 * = Site-related samples include Phase I (1991), Phase II (1992), and July 1993 data. NA = Not applicable, cannot calculate an average with one detection. NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU-3.WP 3-15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA Surface Soils (Area 3) Analyte Barium Cobalt Chromium Copper Nickel Lead Vanadium Zinc Mercury Aluminum Manganese Calcium Magnesium Iron Potassium NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011\RAMJU·3.WP Table 3-4C FCX ST A TESVILLE SITE Contaminants Detected in Surface Soil Area 3 Site-Related Samples* Range of Detected Frequency of Detection <concentrations (mg/kg) 20/20 13 -51 6/20 12 -43 20/20 42 -200 I i/20 20 -400 7/20 9.8 -34 20/20 16 -22 20/20 88 -250 14/20 29 -72 1/20 0.11 20/20 13,000 -33,000 20/20 160 -770 20/20 190 -8,800 20/20 95-1,100 20/20 43,000 -86,000 18/20 240 -570 3-16 Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 3 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Background Arithmetic Sample (SLA-127) Mean (mg/kg) (mg/kg) 24 35 22 2.3 77 79 68 23 16.1 7 19 71 120 I JO 38 290 NA 21,300 22,000 277 130 1,I02 850 391 420 58,750 49,000 394 460 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA Surface Soils (Area 3) Analyte 4,4'-DDT(P,P'-DDT) 4,4 '-DDE(P,P'-DDE) 4,4'-DDD(P,P'-DDD) Gamma-Chlordane Alpha-Chlordane Pentachlorophenol Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene TEQ Table 3-4C (Continued) FCX STATESVILLE SITE Contaminants Detected in Surface Soil Frequency of Detection 10/20 2/20 8/20 2/20 1/20 6/20 1/20 1/20 1/20 1/20 5/5 Site-Related Samples* Raitge of Detected C,oncentrations (mg/kg) 0.051 -170 0.12-0.41 0.35 -160 0.022 -0.054 0.02 0.49 -270 0.94 0.92 1.6 0.74 0. 00000006 - 0.00071 * = Site-related samples include Phase I (1991) and Phase II (1992) data. NA = Not applicable, cannot calculate an average with one detection. NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\ 011 \RAM.JU•3. WP 3-17 Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site • Section: 3 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Arithmetic Mean (mg/kg) 48.8 0.265 27.5 0.038 NA 64.2 NA NA NA NA 0.000145 Background Sample (SLA-127) (mg/kg) 0.027 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. h shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Subsurface Soils Analyte Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cobalt Chromiutn Copper Nickel Lead Selenium Strontium Titanium Vanadium Yttrium Zinc Mercury Aluminum Manganese Calcium Magnesium NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU•3.WP Table 3-SA FCX STATESVILLE SITE Contaminants Detected in Subsurface Soils Site-Related Samples* Range of Detected Frequency of Detection Concentrations (mg/kg) 2/50 2.7-3.0 49/50 6.3 -76 4/50 1.5 -2.2 21/50 12 -56 32/50 17 -1,200 26/50 14 -54 40/50 4 -100 49/50 7.6 -98 1/50 1.7 2/50 3.1 -3.8 5/50 270 -990 50/50 33 -230 5/50 4.1 -14 32/50 19 -940 8/50 0.08 -0.53 50/50 6,900 -36,000 50/50 66 -1,300 22/50 160 -2,400 50/50 88 -2,200 3-18 Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 3 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Background Arithmetic Sample (SLA-127) Mean (mg/kg) (mg/kg) 2.9 3 31 35 1.8 24 2.3 203 79 32 23 16.8 7 26.8 71 NA 3.5 468 99 110 8 64 290 0.25 18,525 22,000 125 130 1,202 850 536 420 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Table 3-SA (Col)tinued) FCX STATESVILLE SITE Contaminants Detected in Subsurface Soils Site-Related Samples* Subsurface Soils Analyte Range of Detected Frequency of Detection Concentrations (mg/kg) Sodium 1150 300 Iron 50/50 1,700 -85,000 Potassium 34/50 210 -2,700 Trichloroethene 1150 0.003 TetracWoroethene 1/50 0.012 Acetone 3/50 0.31 -0.55 Aldrin 1/50 0.038 Heptachlor 1150 0.032 Alpha-BHC 1150 0.001 Beta-BHC 1150 0.003 Gamrna-BHC (Lindane) 2/50 0.001 -0.045 4,4 '-DDT(P,P'-DD1) 7/50 0.004 -0. 13 4,4'-DDE(P,P'-DDE) 3/50 0.002 -0.041 4,4' -DDD(P,P'-DDD) 2/50 0.007 -0.051 Endrin 2/50 0.002 -0.11 Gamma-Chlordane 1/50 0.007 Alpha-Chlordane 1/50 0.006 NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \AAMJU·3.wP 3-19 Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 3 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Background Arithmetic Sample (SLA-127) Mean (mg/kg) (mg/kg) NA 39,000 49,000 842 460 NA 0.004 NA 0.45 NA NA NA NA 0.023 0.048 0.021 0.029 0.056 NA NA 0.027 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ti I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Subsurface Soils Analyte Fluoranthene Pyrene Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene lndeno(l ,2,3-CD)pyrene Benzo(GHI)perylene Table 3-SA (Continued) FCX ST A TESVILLE SITE Contaminants Detected in Subsurface Soils Frequency of Detection 3/50 2/50 . 1/50 1/50 2/50 4/50 2/50 2/50 1/50 Site-Related Samples* Range of Detected Con1centrations (mg/kg) 0.25-0.29 0.2 -0.24 5.7 0. 16 0.17 -0.38 0.27 -0.78 0. 11 -0.39 0.17-0.42 0.46 Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 3 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Arithmetic 0.267 0.22 NA NA 0.275 0.515 0.25 0.295 NA Background Sample (SLA-127) (mg/kg) • ·= Site-related samples include Phase I (1991) and Phase II (1992) data. See Table 3-5B for July 1993 data. NA = Not applicable, cannot calculate an average with one detection. NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU-3.WP 3-20 I I I •• I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA lt shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA · Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 3 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 The additional soil samples were collected during July 1993 and were analyzed for dioxin in the surface soil at (0-18 inches) intervals, and pesticides, semi-volatiles, and dioxins in subsurface samples (deeper than 18 inches). The additional subsurface soil data are shown in Table 3-5B. The surface soil data are inCOIJJOrated into the existing area data sets. 3.2 CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN A number of volatile, semi-volatile, pesticides, and inorganic chemicals were detected in various media at FCXS. The list of site-related potential chemicals of concern was developed based on background data and/or an evaluation of the toxicity and concentration of compounds as described by EPA (1989, 1992). . 3.2.1 Screening Criteria The discussion that follows describes the screening criteria that were used subsequently to develop the contaminants of concern for various media at FCXS. 3.2.1.1 Screening Against Background In order to discern site-related contamination from ambient concentrations, the maximum on-site concentration had to be at least two times greater than the arithmetic average of the respective background samples (EPA, 1992). The "two-times rule" was applied to all inorganic chemicals for which there were data, including carcinogens such as arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, and nickel. 3.2.1.2 Concentration-Toxicity Screening A concentration-toxicity screening was used for all site-related potential chemicals of concern, including both inorganic and organic (volatile and semi-volatile) chemicals as discussed by EPA (1989). In order to calculate a conservative estimite of risk, carcinogenic compounds were not screened using this method. Noncarcinogenic organic compounds or any inorganic chemicals that were not screened out using the "two-times rule" described above were included in the concentration-toxicity screening. The screening procedure described below was conducted for potential chemicals of concern in individual media (i.e., groundwater, surface water, sediment, and soil). The concentration-toxicity screening was developed by first calculating an individual chemical score for those chemicals for which toxicity values were available. In order to be consistent, oral reference doses.(RfDs) were preferentially used in the concentration-toxicity screening. The individual risk factor was calculated for each chemical by multiplying the single high detect by NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAM.JU,3.WP 3-21 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly tor EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA Table 3-SB Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 3 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 FCX ST A TESVIl.,LE SITE Contaminants Detected in Subsurface Soils July 1993 Site-Related Samples Subsurface Soils Analyte Frequency _of Range of Detected Arithmetic Detection Dieldrio 2/31 Heptachlor Epoxide 1/31 AJpha-BHC 1/31 Beta-BHC 1/31 Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 3/31 4,4'-DDT(P,P'-DDT) 10/31 4,4'-DDE(P,P'-DDE) 3/31 4,4' -DDD(P,P' -DDD) 2/31 Gamma-Chlordane 2/31 Alpha-Chlordane 1/31 TEQ 18/31 Concentrations (mg/kg) 0.032 -0.082 0.005 0.079 0.027 0.006 -0.058 0.004 -0.39 0.005 -0.013 0.014 -0.03 0.004 -0.006 0.004 0.00000007 - 0.000027 NA = Not applicable, cannot calculate an average with one detection. NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU·3.WP 3-22. Mean (mg/kg) 0.057 NA NA NA 0.026 0.095 0.008 0.022 0.005 NA 0.0000028 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesvllle Site Section: 3 Revision: 3 Date: June rn94 the inverse of the respective RID (i.e., I/RID) (EPA, 1989). This screening method is illustrated in Table 3-6. In· the next step, risk ratios were calculated by dividing the individual risk score by the sum of the risk scores for all compounds being screened in a particular medium. The risk ratio is the fraction an individual chemical represents of the total risk for the medium under consideration. Any chemical that contributed less than 1 % of the total risk was deleted from the list of potential chemicals of concern. 3.2.1.3 Essential Nutrients Several chemicals that are considered to be essential nutrients (e.g., calcium, magnesium, iron, potassium, and sodium) were detected in various media at the FCXS site. Essential nutrients were dropped from the list of potential chemicals of concern if they were less than twice the site background concentrations or toxic only at very liigh doses. 3.2.1.4 Health Criteria Those chemicals for which there were no health criteria were dropped from the list of potential chemicals of concern due to the fact that they cannot be quantitatively assessed in the risk assessment. Lead, however, was retained since it is ·known as a possible human carcinogen. Its health impacts are analyzed using the Lead Uptake/Biokinetic Model Version 0.5 (UBK Model). 3.2.2 Media Screening Groundwater, surface water, sediment, surface soil, and subsurface soil were sampled at the FCXS site for organics, pesticides/PCBs, and inorganic chemicals. The analytical results of the sampling are summarized in Table 3-1 for groundwater, Table 3-2 for surface water, Table 3-3 for sediment, Table 3-4 for surface soil, and Table 3-5 for subsurface soil. Tables 3-1 through 3-5 provide the frequency of detection, the range of detected concentrations, and the arithmetic mean of the detections for site-related samples. The selection process for contaminants of concern in individual media is discussed below. The tables were reproduced from the Phase I and II Remedial Investigation Analytical Data (EPA, 1992), and the July 1993 investigation (EPA, 1993). NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU.J,WP 3-23 - AN'ALYTE OROANTl'.5 Acctooc Aldrio BtllUOC alcha-BHC beta BHC UNITS B is/2 -ctbvlbc-A'-hlbalatc Bromodidiloromclbl.llc Carbon Dii1>lfidc Cubo11 Tctrad:llocidc ll~ha -Ollord11:1c delta BHC I umma-BHC I nmma-Cblordane Chlordcoc Cblorofor111 CblorolnCtbaoc 4,4'-DDD ◄.,• -DOE 4,4' DDT l, 1 Dicblorocthaoc l I Dicbloroctbcoc cis 1,2 Dicbloroctbenc tnns 1,2-Dicb[Cl'Oclbcnc 1.2-DidioroclbcllC ltobll 1.2 Dicbloro"rO"IDC Dict!M11-- Dioxim/Pw11UJ Di-N Buc-.lnbtbalatc Di-N-Ochi•btbablc E11dri11 E11dri11 Kcto11c EtbyJbCDUD: Hcp11di!cr Hcptacblor e .. oxidc Oxvd,.l0rd111c PCB 1254 r Arcdor use• ( Penticblcro~r-"\ Tctradilcroclbc11c 1,2,4 Tricbl0robc11ZC11e 1.1. J-Tric:blcrocthaoc Tricblcrcctbcoc Tridicrcnucrcm ctbt.11c Xvlcnc ttctall -.. GROUND- WATER CARC CARC CARC CARC CARC CARC NTV CARC CARC NTV CARC NTV 280 CARC <200 CARC 333.33 NTV CARC NTV CARC CARC 330 4.10 - This docurnmtwas prepaod by RoyF. Wnton, lnc~ •lfll'•nty la EPA It 1hannot b•reln.sed r;r dbclosad, nwtioi. a llpa-1, without th• ,;,pr,11 wm,n p«mlulon cl EPA. PERC8'JT TOTAL O.S033 7.5493 OJ992 0.30S6 0.2S96 0J932 0.0074 SUR.PACE SOIL AREA1 ·:-:,:=:=!_m.e.~ :;... CARC CARC CARC CARC CARC CARC Bl.33 OD! CARC CARC CARC PERCENT TOTAL 0JIS'll ODOOOI SURFACE SOIL AREA2 CARC CARC CARC CARC CARC CARC CARC TABLE3-6 PCX-STATESVILLE SITE COOCEN1RATIOO/TOXICIIT 11."I ALYSJS 92 60 PERCENT TOTAL 0.0O8 "'''" SUR.PACE SOIL AREAJ CARC CARC CARC CARC CARC CARC PERCENT TOTAL 600DO 0.9029 CARC CARC CARC CARC SURFACE WATER CARC CARC CARC 14 '500 NTV CARC CARC CARC '" PERCENT TOTAL o.osoo 16.0618 0J889 SEDIMENT CARC CARC CARC . CARC CARC CARC 12 CARC 1233.33 CARC CARC PERCENT TOTAL """' 2.9222 SUB SU RP ACE SOIL ssooo CARC CARC" CARC CARC" CARC" CARC" CARC" CARC" CARC" CARC' CARC' 366&1 CARC CARC' CARC' CARC CARC - PERCENT TOTAL 0.000, 0.6626 --.. Ttts docurrant was p-tpwed by RoyF. W11ton. Inc~ •,p-nsly la EPA. It shannotb1reluud a discloud, hW!iol9 a hp:rt, without th1 1,p-111 w-ltl1npttmls1lon ol EPA. ANALYTE UNrn; PAH, Accoanblbcne Accoaohlbvlcoc Bcnzot1l1abnccoc < "Bc11Z01b aod/or Hfluoruithc~ Bcov;,{GHl'--~c0c l Dib~---'1.hlantbracctic) PluorcDC IDdcooll.2,3 ·c-"-vrcnc 2-Mctbvloa,,bthalcoc Phco1Dlhrc11c P,,.-cnc INCROANICS AJ.u.a:u111m Birium Bcrvtliu~ ChromiU111{Tot1I)" Cobalt Conner Mao .. ouc Nictcl Sclmiu111 ( Stro11tilllll '\ Titariu111 Vuiadiu111 Yttrium TOTALS NlV = No Toxicly Values GROUND- WATER NTV 7142.86 U60JJO 16800.00 NTV 3243.24 LEAD MODEL '80000JJO 2333.33 4 lS0.00 333.33 NTV 14142.86 NTV 66651 SS634.17 PERC8'1T TOTAL 12.8390 2A44S 30.1973 5.8296 HIGH 4.194 I 7..4594 osm 2SA212 1.1983 100 SURFACE SOIL AREA I " 17.33 CARC CARC 19).33 CARC CARC CARC 42SO CARC NTV 700 CAAC 618S.7 I CARC 34000.00 'NTV 13202 LEAD MODEL 78S7.14 <OOJJO 1600.00 480.00 NTV 31423.S7 9◄873.93 PERCENT TOTAL O.OS80 0.0183 0.2038 4.4796 0.0370 0.7378 6.62B 35.8370 1.3959 8.2817 0..4216 l.6864 0.S0S9 33.1267 100 • = Detected in slbsU"bce soil simple collected in July, 1993 simpling only. TABLE3-6 PCX-STATESVIlJ..E.SITE CCX'lCENlRATION/TOXICITY ANALYSIS SURFACE SOIL AREAZ 73.33 ,,, CARC CARC 116.67 CARC CARC CARC " CARC NTV 1757 CAAC !i8S7.U CARC 1000 34000.00 NTV 43202 3571.43 1866.67 1750.00 U000.00 66450.0 PfRCENT TOTAL 0.110.C '""'' 0.1756 0.1279 8.8143 1.5049 S 1.1660 6.S076 S.3746 ,..,,1 2.633S 19.S63S 100 SURFACE _§OIL AREAl CARC CARC CARC CARC ,0000 NTV 10810.81 ,SO() 36657 1700 35714.29 94091.76 PERCENT TOTAL 42.S 117 11.4896 5.8454 0.3897 1.8067 37.9569 100 • = Detected in subsU"bce soil mm pie collected in July, 1993 &1.mplrlg event and previous &1.mplrlg events. • = Mlximun concentration was divided by the Hexa\8/ent Chromi.Jm RfD. CARC = Carcinogenic chemical and ,...;11 be reb.ined as a Chemical of Concern SURFACE WATER NTV 3428.S7 SOOOJJO NTV 1S6.16 LEAD MODEL 660000.00 IOOOJJO 333.33 NTV mss.11 Hl.33 28016.71 PERCENT TOTAL U.2376 17.846S 2.7011 HIOH 3.S693 1.1898 43.8H4 1.9036 100 SEDIM8'1T CARC CARC "" CARC CARC 22.75 CARC CAAC NTV 19TI.97 LEAD MODEL 7857.14 333.33 3700.00 ll60.00 30 NTV 2423S.71 NTV 1433.33 •nos.11 HIGH = Chemical skewed the S':feenrlg because of high pet"Centage of risk The..efore it was reb.ined asa COC and removed Tom the screening to view risk of other chemicals. PERCENT TOTAL 0.0371 0.0Sl9 4.6747 18.6166 0.7898 8.7667 2.985◄ 0IJ71I S7.S42I 3.3961 !00 SUBSURFACE SOIL CARC CARC 033 CARC CARC w CARC !0SS.7143 CARC 240000.00 NTV 1459..46 928S.710 1766.6667 SOOOJJOOO 340.0000 6.3333 NTV 32357.1429 NTV 3133.3333 SS337.II - PERC8'1T TOTAL o,nn 0.0131 1.9620 HIGH 2.6374 16.7803 3.1926 Sl.0355 0.6144 0.0114 S9.3763 '"" 100 I ,. I I· I I I I I I I ,., ' I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA lt shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA 3.2.2.1 Groundwater Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 3 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Table 3-1 presents the 46 volatile, semi-volatile, pesticide, and inorganic chemicals that were detected in 28 permanent and temporary monitoring wells at the FCXS site. Monitoring Well 04 was considered the background well. According to the Phase I Remedial Investigation Report for the FCX-Statesville Superfund Site (1992), groundwater beneath the western portion of the site is flowing generally in an east-southeasterly direction. Under the eastern portion of the site, however, the contour pattern changes significantly, indicating a shift in flow direction to near southerly. Since MW-4 is located northwest of the FCX building, it is considered upgradient of the _site. Thus, according to groundwater flow direction, it should not be site-related and, as a result, was designated the background well. • No chemicals were removed as potential chemicals of concern based on a comparison to backfround. Five naturally occurring essential nutrients were eliminated because they were detected at low concentrations and have low toxicity. These essential nutrients included: • Calcium • Iron • Magnesium • Potassium • Sodium Based on the concentration-toxicity screening analysis (Table 3-6), seven additional chemicals were removed as potential contaminants of concern: • • • 1, 1-Dichloroethane • Endrin • Strontium • • 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane Trichlorofluoromethane Xylene Based on the screening procedures described above for groundwater, 34 potential contaminants of concern were selected. Of the 34, 25 were quantitatively evaluated in the risk assessment (Table 3-7). The eight chemicals that were not quantitatively evaluated in the risk assessment because health criteria were not available included: • Aluminum • Delta-BHC • Chloromethane • Cobalt • Gamm'a-Chlordene • Titanium • Endrin Ketone • Yttrium • Oxychlordane NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04-100\011 \RAM.JU-3.WP 3-26 I I I I ,. 1· ., ,, a. ·I ,, I -. I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Manganese Nickel Selenium Strontium Vanadium Zinc Benzene Bromodichloromethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chloroform I, 1-Dichloroethene cis-1,2-Dichloroethene trans-1,2-Dichloroethene NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU-3.WP Table 3-7 FCX ST A TESVILLE SITE Contaminants of Concern Groundwater Surface Water X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 3-27 Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 3 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Sediment X X X X X X X X Surface Soil* X'·' x1,2 x1.2 X' X'·'-' Xi,2.3 X' X' Xl,2.3 x1.2.J x1,J X' X' Subsurface Soil X X X X X X X X X I I ,, -,1 ,, ,, I I' This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA Table 3-7 (Continued) FCX STATESVILLE SITE Contaminants of Concern Groundwater Surface Water 1,2-Dichloropropane X Tetrachloroethene X X Trichloroethene X X Aldrin alpha-BHC X beta-BHC X gamma-BHC (Lindane) X alpha-Chlordane X X gamma-Chlordane X X 4,4'-DDT(P,P'-DD1) 4,4'-DDE(P,P'-DDE) 4,4'-DDD(P,P'-DDD) Dieldrin X X Endrin Heptachlor Heptachlor Epoxide X PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254) NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU·3.WP 3-28 Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 3 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Sediment Surface Soil* x1,2 X X' X x1,2,3 X x1,2,J X x1,2.J X xl,2,3 X x1,2.J X X' X X' x1,2 X Subsurface Soil X X X X X X X X X X X X X X I I I I t I I I I' I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene Bis(2-etbylhexyl)phtbalate Cbrysene Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Fluoranthene lndeno(l ,2,3-CD)pyrene Pentachlorophenol Pyrene Table 3-7 (Continued) FCX ST A TESVJLLE SITE Contaminants of Concern Groundwater Surface Water X Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 3 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Sediment X X X X X X Surface Soil* xl,2,3 x1,z.3 x1,2 X' x1,2 X' *Contaminants of concern for Area I will be designated by ~ 1, Area 2 with a 2, and Area 3 with a 3• NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\O<l-100\011 \RAMJU·3.WP 3-29 Subsurface Soil X X X X X X X ·I I · .•. .1, ' t I, ,, I ,,,' I I ,. ,, ,, I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA 3.2.2.2 Surface Water Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 3 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 The IO organic and 17 inorganic chemicals detected in surface water are presented in Table 3-2. Five naturally occurring essential nutrients were eliminated because they have low toxicity and were detected at low concentrations: 1 • • Calcium Iron • Magnesium • • Potassium Sodium Noncarcinogenic organic and all inorganic chemicals that exceeded background levels were further screened using the concentration-toxicity method (EPA, 1989). Carbon disulfide and trans-1,2-dichloroethene were dropped from the list of contaminants of potential concern as a result. Based on the screening procedures described above, 20 potential contaminants of concern for surface water are present. Of the 20, only 17 ,can be quantitatively evaluated in the risk assessment because health criteria are not available for aluminum, cobalt, and titanium (Table 3-7). 3.2.2.3 Sediment The 20 organic and 21 inorganic potential chemicals of concern detected in sediment · are presented in Table 3-3. Of the 21 inorganic chemicals detected, the following compounds did not exceed background screening levels: • Aluminum • • Barium Chromium • Potassium Seven contaminants were screened based on the concentration-toxicity screening analysis (Table 3-6). The following chemicals were screened accordingly: • • • • Mercury Strontium Benzo(GHI)perylene 1,2-Dichloroethene (total) NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU•3.WP 3-30 • • • Fluoranthene Phenanthrene Pyrene 1, I Ii I' I I, I I I i ,, . -~. '11 I I' -I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 3 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Four naturally occurring essential minerals were eliminated because of their low toxicity: • Calcium • Iron • Magnesium • Sodium Of the remaining 26 contaminants, cobalt, yttrium, and titanium were eliminated because they lack health criteria. Therefore, 23 contaminants will be quantitatively evaluated in the risk assessment (Table 3-7). 3.2.2.4 Surface Soil Samples Surface soil samples were collected in three on-site and off-site areas. The background surface soil data were collected to use as a comparison for subsequent investigations at the site. The analytical results for the background surface soil samples (SLA-127) are presented in Tables 3-4A-C. Five naturally occurring essential nutrients were eliminated because of their low toxicity: • Calcium • Iron • Magnesium • Sodium • Potassium ' Inorganic chemicals that were eliminated using the comparison to background concentration levels included: AREA! • Aluminum • Zinc NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \AAMJU-:tWP AREA2 • Aluminum • Vanadium • Lead 3-31 AREA3 • Barium •, Lead Aluminum Zinc ,, I I I I 1, I I I I ' I I ' l1 I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA Risk Assessment Report FCX•OU2 Statesville Site Section: 3 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 The following chemicals were eliminated due to the concentration-toxicity screening analysis {Table 3-6): . AREAl AREA2 AREA3 • Mercury • Acenaphthylene • Mercury • Selenium • Anthracene • Acenaphthene • Benzo(GID)perylene • Anthracene • Di-N-Butylphthalate • Benzo(GID)perylene • Di-N-Octylphthalate • Endrin • Endrin • Ethylbenzene • Fluoranthrene • Fluorene • Phenanthrene • Phenanthrene • Pyrene The following chemicals were eliminated because health criteria are not available: AREAl AREA2 AREA3 • Cobalt • Cobalt • Cobalt • Titanium • 2-Methylnaphthalene • 2-Methylnaphthalene 3.2.2.5 Subsurface Soil Samples As shown in Table 3-5, subsurface soil samples were analyzed for volatile organics, semi- volatile organics, pesticides/PCBs, and inorganics. Three of the 22 inorganic chemicals detected in subsurface soils, aluminum, arsenic, and lead, were eliminated from the list of potential chemicals of concern through a comparison to background levels. Naturally-occurring essential nutrients, including calcium, magnesium, potassium, iron, and sodium exceeded background levels but were eliminated using the essential nutrients method because they are only toxic at high concentration levels. Titanium, yttrium, and cobalt can not be quantitatively evaluated because they lack health criteria. NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04-100\011\RAMJU-3.WP 3-32 I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 3 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Noncarcinogenic organic chemicals (volatile and semi-volatile) and the noncarcinogenic inorganic chemicals that exceeded background levels were then screened using the concentration-toxicity screening method (EPA, 1989). Seven chemicals were removed based on this method: • Selenium • Strontium • Acetone • Benzo(GHI)perylene • Endrin • Fluoranthene • Pyrene Therefore, 31 potential contaminants of concern for subsurface soil are listed in Table 3-7. However, remediation cleanup goals for subsurface soil will be established based on modeling to protect groundwater and on other accepted goals, as available. Therefore, subsurface soil data will not be quantitatively evaluated in the risk assessment. 3.3 CONCLUSIONS Contaminated media at the FCXS site were screened using a comparison to background (according to EPA, 1991) for inorganic chemicals and a concentration-toxicity screening for noncarcinogenic organic and all inorganic chemicals that exceeded background. Naturally- occurring essential nutrients were also screened from the list of potential contaminants of concern, unless their concentrations exceeded the two times rule for inorganics. Chemicals that lack toxicity values were not included as chemicals of concern (however, lead was assessed in the UBK Lead Model). The chemicals of concern for the FCXS site are presented in Table 3-7. NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU-3.WP 3-33 - I I I· I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I· obtained values ranging from 10·5 to 10·• ft/min. The hydraulic conductivities from this study are comparable and the values obtained during t_his study of Phases 2, 4, and 5 were expected to be slightly higher as many of these wells are adjacent to local hydraulic gradient highs. Transmissivity values generated from the data ranged from 0.198 to 30.1 ft2/day. This high value is greater than ten times any other value in Table 3-5 and is not consistent with the other values, based upon average hydraulic conductivity values obtained by CGC (1992), WESTON (1993) and the other values obtained during this study. Without this value, the average transmissivity is 1.41 ft2/day. Transmissivity val_ues were found to be highest in Phase 5 wells and lowest in Phase 4. Values were not calculated for wells screened in rock, as the thickness of the aquifer at those locations could not be obtained. Groundwater velocities obtained from Phase 2 wells ranged from 4.57 x 10·3 to 5.23 x 10·3 per day. Velocities in Phase 4 ranged from 1.54 x 10-3 to 6.12 x 104 per day and in Phase 5 the values for velocities ranged from 0.234 to 3.75 x 10·2 per day. Groundwater velocities calculated for the Phase 6 Expansion by CGC (1992) indicated an average velocity of 1.44 x 10·3 per day. WESTON (1993) calculated a range of values from 5.4 x 10·2 to 6.4 x 104 per day. A majority of the groundwater velocities calculated during this study are comparable to those determined by CGC and WESTON. Based upon groundwater activities obtained for overburden materials at Phases 2, 4, and 5, the time required for groundwater to flow from an individual phase to a potential receptor can be calculated. This time value was calculated for the potential receptor (i.e., domestic well) nearest each individual Phase of the landfill. A minimum and maximum value was obtained for the time required based upon minimum and maximum groundwater velocities as shown in Table 3-5. Table 3-6 displays the results obtained for the time values. NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\ 05752\RPJEC002.WP 3-14 I I I I I I I I ' I I I D 0 I I I I I The time required for groundwater to travel from each Phase to the nearest potential receptor varies according to the Phase. For Phase 2, the minimum and maximum times required to travel . I to the nearest potential receptor were 131 and 150, years a difference of only 19 years. The average of these two values was 140.5 years. In Phase 4, only one travel time could be calculated. The time required for groundwater t9 flow from Phase 4 to the nearest potential receptor is 4,625 years. For Phase 5, the nearest potential receptor used in the calculation was well No. 14 (see Table 2-1). WESTON notes that groundwater flow from the southeastern edge of the Phase 5 fill area based upon the potentiometric map of April 30, 1994 (Figure 8, Appendix A) may potentially flow to the southeast towards well no. 14. This is a very conservative use of a potential receptor, however the potential does exist. Therefore, based on the data in Table 3-6, the minimum and maximum travel times were found to be 14 and 10 years, respectively. The average of these two is 57.5 years. It shoulg be noted that these calculations are based on direct travel of groundwater flow and do not consider important effects, such as tortuosity, retardation, and other hydrogeologic factors. NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\ 05752\RPJEC002. WP 3-16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I m I u D This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, lnc., expressly for EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA SECTION 4 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Risk Assessment Report FCX•OU2 Statesville Site Section: 4 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 The exposure assessment uses the site description and contaminant characterization presented in the previous sections to identify potentially exposed human populations (actual and potential exposure pathways) and to calculate estimated daily intakes of the contaminants of concern. Behavioral and physiological factors influencing exposure frequency and levels are presented in a series of exposure scenarios as a basis for quantifying contaminant intake levels by receptor populations for each identified exposure pathway. The results of the exposure analysis are applied in the assessment of health risks in subsequent sections. The exposure assessment process involves four main steps: • characterization of the exposure setting • identification of the exposure scenarios • quantification of the exposure • identification of uncertainties in the exposure assessment This section incorporates site-specific information such as climate, geology, hydrogeology, population demographics, land use, water use, agricultural practices, etc., to predict the pollutant levels to which receptors could be exposed. Once these exposure levels are determined, they will be compared with the appropriate health effects criteria (Section 5) to characterize health risks (Section 7). 4.1 CHARACTERIZATION OF EXPOSURE SETTING Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.4 were taken verbatim from the FCXS Phase II Remedial Investigation. 4.1.1 Climate The climate in Iredell County, North Carolina is classified as fairly mild and is influenced by the mountain ranges to the northeast and the Atlantic Ocean to the southeast. Prevailing winds are from the southwest, although northeast winds do frequently occur in the autumn. Relative humidity averages about 70% throughout the year. Monthly total precipitation generally ranges from about 3-inches during October and November to about 5-inches during July and August. The following are summaries of the area's temperatures, precipitation, and stom1 events (7): NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAWU4&5.WP 4-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I n D I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Seasonal Temperatures ( °F): Mean Maximum Mean Minimum Avg. January 46-50 24-28 42-44 Precipitation (inches): Mean Annual Precip. Mean Annual Evap. Net Annual Precip. Mean Annual Snowfall 1-year/24-hour Rainfall Storm Events: 44-48 40-42 4-6 6-8 2.5-3 ,My 88-90 · 68-72 78 Mean Days/Year with Thunderstorms 40-60 Prevailing Winds and Wind Speeds SW at 9 mph 4.1.2 Topography and Surface Water Drainage Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 4 Revision: 3 Date; June 1994 The FCXS site is located in Iredell County, in the Upper Piedmont Plateau of North Carolina. The topography of the area can be generally characterized as gently rolling and ·sloping with slopes on-site ranging up to 1.5%. Slopes in the immediate area range from 2% to 6%, however. Elevations within a 4-mile radius of the site range from 740 to 970 feet above mean sea level (15)(18). Surface waters identified within a 5-mile radius of th_e Site include both Third and Fourth Creek, as well as their tributaries. The closest of the creeks in Third Creek, which is approximately . . 1.5 miles southeast of the Site (two miles stream distance). As can be seen in Figure 4-1, all surface water within this area discharges into the South Yadkin River approximately 15 miles to the east. This river is a major drainage feature for the Piedmont region east and south of the Site (9). NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU4&5.WP 4-2 64 APPROXJMA TE Q\,£R\,,,,t..NQ p A TH OF UNNAMED TRfBUTARY FROM rcX-STA TES'v1Ll.£ SHE TO Tl-irRO CRE~t< &EPA APPROXIMATE SCALE 14520 72150 I ' (INn:IT) I Inch -14520 fl. ) Fl GURE 4-1 ARE.A ;SURFACE WATER FCX-STA TESVILLC: STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROUNA fROM: SAUSBI.JRY. NORn1 .,:AHC;...tiA •1:.100,000 -SCAl( PLANIM[ ~•C.: ._.AP UNIT(D ST.A.r[S C(OLOCICAL SUR'.["''", :91'1' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. tt shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. 4.1.3 Geology and Soils 4.1.3.1 Regional Geology and Area Soils Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 4 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 The FCXS site is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Province, within the lithologies and structural feature referred to as the Blue Ridge-Inner Piedmont Belt (19). Rock types within this region are primarily gneiss and schists, as well as graduations of the two types. These rocks are typically fractured to varying degrees and may display a prominent gneissic schistose structure. In addition to this metamorphic suite of rocks, granitic intrusions are also common in this region. Available geologic maps indicate that the FCXS site is located very near the contract between a granitic intrusion and a rock unit characterized as a hornblende gneiss. Figure 4-2 is typical of these maps. Soils in the general area of the Site belong to the: Lloyd Association. These soils, located on broad ridges with short side slopes, are characterized as deep, well drained soils with a subsoil of dark-red clay. The underlying lithology is typically a mix of acidic and basic rocks. (18) 4.1.3.2 Site-Specific Geology and Soils While conducting soil sampling and while installing monitoring wells for the remedial investigation, there was ample opportunity to ~xamine surficial and subsurface soils and geological materials. Observation of these materials indicate that the site is located within the large, irregular band of hornblende gneiss shown near the center of the geologic map in Figure 4-2. The literature indicated that hornblende gneiss typically weathers to a deep red or brown soil at the surface in this region. Based on' the deep red to brown soils observed at the site, it is presumed that the site is underlain by the hornblende gneiss. (18)(19) The site is located near the eastern edge of the hornblende gneiss, near its contact with the granitic intrusive body just to the east. Numerous pegmatitic stringers, characterized by white to light tan weathered coarse crystalline material, including quartz and large weathered feldspar crystals, were encountered in several of the boreholes drilled during monitoring well installations on site, as well as in several of the power-augered holes placed through the warehouse floor. Pegamatites or pegmatitic stringers are typically found in country rock material, near contacts between igneous intrusive bodies and the surrounding country rock. Soils and weathered overburden of varying thickness, collectively referred to as residuum, overly the gneiss. The soil is classified as a fine sandy loam which has been eroded. In the immediate area, the residuum ranges in thickness from only a few feet to over 100 feet, averaging 35-feet thick. Boring logs for wells installed at the FCXS site during the remedial investigation and NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011\RAMJU4&5.WP I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L l( j ~ I //~-, / j' I Aft~,: LeGrand. Gcoloax o□ a Grouna Wolrr •n ,.,. Stat:,y,,1 ... mrn Ncrth Coro\inc, 195-4. 0 ~ EJ ~ ITililII] ~ SCALE 2.5 I.IILES 5 1 Mica schist and granite. schist predominant. Hornblende gneiss. Composite gneiss with considerable hornblende gneiss. Composite gneiss, chiefly quortz-biotite gneiss. Gobbro-diorite and allied basic rocks. FIGURE 4-2 AREA GEOLOGIC MAP FCX-STA TESVILLE STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA I, &EPA I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Risk Assessment Report FCX•OU2 Statesville Site Section: 4 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 previous investigations indicate that residuum at the Site is up to 60 to 70 feet thick. (19) (20) During drilling associated with pennanent monitoring well construction for the Phase I investigation, depths to rock ranging from 45 feet to 60 feet were encountered. The shallower depths of overburden were encountered near the top of the ridge, the area located between the FCXS site and Burlington Industries. 4.1.4 Groundwater 4.1.4.1 Regional Hydrogeology A general, hydrogeological scenario has been developed for the Piedmont region of North Carolina and other geologically similar areas. Typically, a layer of residuum, comprised of surficial soil and saprolite, overlies a fractured, unweathered bedrock. The type of bedrock, the nature of the weathering interval, and the degree of fracturing varies from one area to another. In the most general.tenns, the saprolite serves as a groundwater reservoir, created primarily by the accumulation of infiltrated precipitation. This reservoir supplies groundwater to the fractures, as well as faults and other secondary penneability features in the bedrock. Groundwater systems in these areas, therefore, are generally one, interconnected system, with the majority of groundwater within this system usually occurring at depths less than 150 feet. The groundwater surface within the residuum is nonnally a subdued replica of the surface topography, (i.e., groundwater flow generally occurs from higher elevations to lower elevations). Flow is typically perpendicular to potentiometric contour lines and towards the direction of streams and rivers, where groundwater discharge occurs. (19)(20) Yields for wells in the areas are highly variable and depend on a number of factors. In general, saprolite wells have lower yields than wells installed in the fractured bedrock. Within the bedrock, yields are a function of the number and size of fractures, faults and other penneability features encountered by the well bore, as well as pumping level. The average yield for drilled wells 6-inches in diameter in the area is less than 19-gallons per minute, although the deep well located on the Carnation Milk Company property reportedly yields in excess of 500-gallons per minute. Many home water supply wells yield less than I-gallon per minute. (19) 4.1.4.2 Aquifer Use Although there are several public water supplies w_ithin Iredell County, including the Statesville public water supply, the West Iredell Water Company, and the Iredell County Waste Corporation, there are apparently no consumers within a 4-mile radius of the site which rely on a groundwater-based public water supply. There are numerous homes, however, representing as many as 4,500 people within the 4-mile radius of the site, which have individual private water NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU4&S.WP 4-6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It-shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 4 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 wells which have been hooked-up to one of the available private or public water supplies. (14)(19) 4.2 EXPOSURE SCENARIOS The FCX-Statesville site was an agricultural supply distribution center operation from 1940 until 1986. Notable spillage was reported to have occurred at unknown transfer areas. Moreover, an alleged on-site burial in 1966 of DDT, DDD, 'and possibly liquid chlordane is especially significant. Also, interviews with past employees confinned improper disposal of pesticides and chemical containers. Despite extensive sampling in Phase I and II of t,he Remedial Investigation conducted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), buried pesticides were not located. However, various media were determined to be contaminated: groundwater, surface water, sediment, surface soil, and subsurface soils. Although the FCX site is currently abandoned, there are residential areas in the vicinity. As a result, the FCX site could be developed for future residential use. Based on current and possible future land use, five exposure scenarios are proposed: • Off-site Resident • On-site Trespasser • Future On-site Resident without Building • Future On-site Worker with Building • Future On-site Worker without Building These scenarios represent the individuals with maximum potential exposure to site-related chemicals of concern. The five scenarios and their respective potential exposure pathways are listed in Table 4-1. The relationship between the fate and transport of site-related chemicals of concern and the receptors · is described in the conceptual site model section. The following narrative discusses the rationale for pathways and routes of exposure for each scenario. 4.2.1 Current Trespasser Current trespassers are evaluated because they may be exposed to chemicals of concern if they gain access to the site. While on site, it is assumed that the trespasser would be exposed to surface soil contaminants. The most likely candidate for a trespasser is assumed to be the off- NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU4&5.WP 4-7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA tt shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Table 4-1 Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 4 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994~ EXPOSURE SCENARIOS AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE ROUTES Current Off-Site Adult and Child Resident (building intact -therefore not living on the site) -~ ' • • • • • • Incidental ingestion of surface water Dermal .contact with surface water Incidental ingestion of sediment Dermal contact with sediment Incidental ingestion of surface soil (Area_!) (Areas I 'and 2 for 7 to 12 year old) Dermal contact with surface soil (Area I) (Areas I and 2 for 7 to 12 year old) On-Site Child Trespasser Future • • • • • • Incidental ingestion of surface soil (Area 2) Dermal contact with surface soil (Area 2) Incidental ingestion of surface water Dermal contact with surface water Incidental ingestion of sediment Dermal contact with sediment On-Site Adult and Children Resident (building removed) • Ingestion of groundwater • Inhalation cif groundwater volatiles while, sh~wering • Incidental ingestion of surface soil (Areas 2 and 3) • Dermal contact with surface soil (Areas 2 and 3) • Incidental ingestion of surface water • Dermal contact with surface water • Incidental ingestion of sediment • Dermal contact with sediment NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU4&5.WP 4-8 I I I I I I I I I I a u u I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA Table 4-1 (Continued) Risk Assessment Report . FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 4 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 EXPOSURE SCENARIOS AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE ROUTES On-Site Worker with Building • • Incidental iogestion of surface soil (Area 2) Dermal contact with surface soil (Area 2) On-Site Worker without Building • • Incidental iogestion of surface soil (Areas 2 and 3) Dermal contact with surface soil (Areas 2 and 3) NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU4&5.WP 4-9 I I I I ·I I I I I I I I I I g 0 u This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 4 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 site (7-12 yr) resident. The routes of exposure considered for the current trespasser are the incidental ingestion and dermal contact with surface soil, surface water, and sediment. Exposure to chemicals of concern in groundwater is not evaluated in the current trespasser scenario because there is no current use of groundwater at the site. Potable city water is currently being supplied and used at the site. 4.2.2 Current Off-Site Resident Current off-site residents are evaluated because they may be exposed to chemicals of concern that have migrated off-site. Current off-site residents are evaluated for ingestion and dermal contact of surface soil. Only the child resident (7-12) will be evaluated for incidental ingestion and dermal contact of surface water and sediment, and for exposure to on-site soils (Area 2). 4.2.3 Future On-Site Worker The future worker is evaluated because of potentjal exposure to on-site soils. This scenario assumes the current facility will be demolished in the future. Therefore, the workers' exposure scenario includes ingestion and dermal contact with surface soils surrounding the building and with surface soils beneath the facility (Areas 2 and 3). 4.2.4 Future Resident Three individuals, an adult, a child resident (1-6), and a child resident (7-12), are evaluated in the future use exposure scenario. This exposure, assumes the current facility will undergo residential development. For sites where future rdsidential development or development on a nearby tract is plausible, exposure to air, soil/sediment, surface water, and groundwater will be evaluated if the potential exists for exposure to these media. The routes of exposure evaluated for surface water and sediment will include dermal contact and incidental ingestion. Only the child (age 7-12) resident will be assumed to receivd exposure from sediment and surface water during play activities. The groundwater pathways evaluated for the future resident include ingestion of drinking water and inhalation of volatile contaminants while showering. The surface soil exposure pathway will include Area 2 and Area 3 for incidental ingestion and dermal contact. 4.3 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL The conceptual site model for the FCX site incorporates information on the potential chemical sources, affected media, release mechanisms, routes of migration, and known or potential human NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU4&5.WP 4-10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 D This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. ' Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 4 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 receptors. The purpose of the conceptual site model is to provide a framework in which to identify potential exposure pathways occurring at the site and to aid in identifying data gaps. Information presented in previous reports on the site characterization, contamination characterization, local land and water uses, and potential receptors is used to identify potential exposure pathways at the site. An exposure pathway consists of four elements (EPA, 1989a). When all of these elements are present the pathway is considered complete. The assessment of pathways by which human receptors may be exposed to contaminants includes an examination of existing migration pathways (e.g., soil, air, water) and exposure routes (e.g., inhalation, ingestion, dennal absorption), as well as those that may be reasonably expected in the future. After the sources of contaminants are identified, the next step in the development of the conceptual model is to determine mechanisms of release into envirol)mental media. The primary release mechanisms are leaching and leaks from former buried wastes. Secondary release mechanisms include infiltration and human activity (i.e., excavation in the future residential scenario). Contaminated groundwater and soil are believed to be the major sources of potential exposure for human receptors, followed by surface water .and sediment. The following paragraphs describe the pathways by which human receptors can be exposed to contaminated media. The conceptual site model is presented in Figure 4-3. • • Groundwater -Groundwater can tie contaminated through the infiltration of chemicals of concern from the surface and subsurface soils. Exposure to contaminated groundwater is not evaluated in the current off-site resident scenario because city water is currently supplied to the area. However, groundwater use is evaluated for the future on-site re$ident and will incorporate all groundwater sample data collected on-site and off-site. Groundwater-related pathways evaluated for the future on-site adult and child residents will include ingestion and inhalation of VOCs while showering. Soil -Surface soil represents a major secondary source of contamination. A current off-site resident and on-site trespasser may be exposed to surface soils. The inhalation route for surface soil exposure is not applicable due to the large amount of paved and vegetatively covered area at the site. A potential future use may involve demolition of the FCX facility, which may result in the release of contaminants contained in the surface soil under the building. Therefore, a future NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU4&5.WP 4-11 iiii liii1 PRIMARY SOURCE liiiiil PRIMARY RELEASE MECHANISM - SECONDARY SOURCE SECONDARY RELEASE MECHANISM liiil PATHWAY .. TERTIARY RELEASE MECHANISM iiiil PATHWAY Sediment iiiii filil EXPOSURE ROUTE liiii FIGURE 4·3 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL FOR FCX·STATESVILLE SITE liliiil iiiil RECEPTOR RECEPTOR I) l ..... 111_.__.__._.....JIL.....9_,I i I) 11~111__._____,___,___.L.....1 @_,! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc,, expressly for EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 4 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 worker will be evaluated for surface soil exposure with and without the building. The future on-site resident would be potentially exposed to surface soil if the building were removed as well. • Surface Water and Stream Sediment -Extensive exposures to the drainage area and Third Creek are unrealistic. ; Therefore, only the off-site child (7-12) resident, the trespasser (7-12), and the future child resident (7-12) playing in the creek will be evaluated. Yet, assuming the contaminant concentrations remain constant (conservative approach), only the current scenario needs to be quantified since exposure assumptions would be identical in the future scenario. Surface water and sediment may provide sources of exposure for the child at play, but do not represent major secondary sources. 4.4 EXPOSURE DOSE MODELS AND ASSUMPTIONS This subsection presents the mathematical models that are used to calculate the intakes (i.e., doses) of substances of concern by each receptor through the applicable exposure routes (see above, Conceptual Site Model). The exposure models are presented in tabular form. Each table defines the variables for the exposure route and includes the assumptions (i.e., exposure parameters) used in the model for each scenario. Additional information regarding the assumptions is presented in the text. EPA Region IV Supplemental Guidance for Risk Assessment (EPA, 1992) is used where appropriate. The exposure point concentrations were calculated according to EPA Guidance (EPA, 1991a). An upper 95 % confidence limit (UCL) was calculated and compared to the maximum detected concentration of each chemical of concern per media. If a chemical was reported as a non-detect in a sample, it was assumed to be present at one-half of the sample quantitation limit which was included in the UCL determination. The method of calculating the UCL is shown in Appendix H. The exposure point concentrations are presented in the Appendices A through F. Doses, expressed as chronic daily intakes in milligrams of contaminant per kilogram of body weight on a daily basis (mg/kg-day), are calculated for each exposure route applicable to the current off-site residents, trespassers, and future on-site residents and workers. For all the scenarios, doses are averaged over the number of days of exposure (years of exposure x 365 days/year) to evaluate chronic noncarcinogenic health effects, and over a lifetime (70 years x 365 days/year) to evaluate potential carcinogenic effects. NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \PAMJU4&5.WP 4-13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 4 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 The current trespasser scenario assumes a child (7-12) plays on-site 45 days/yr to be consistent with EPA guidance for the age group. The future on-site worker is assumed to work at FCX for 25 years. The future resident scenario assumes that the FCX site is converted to residential use and that an individual lives on the site for 30 years. This value represents the 90th percentile for time spent at one residence. In addition, it is assumed that the residents take two weeks vacation per year spending 350 days per year at home (EPA, 1991a). The future on-site worker is assumed to work at one workplace. Three age groups are evaluated for the residential scenario, and one age group, (a teenager) is evaluated for the trespasser scenario. For the residential scenario, the three age groups include a child 1-6, a child 7-12, and an adult. A body ,weight of 15 kg was used for the child 1-6 (EPA, 1991a). A body weight of27 kg was used for the child age 7-12 and was calculated from the mean (50th percentile) body weight of male and female children reported for this age group (EPA, 1985). A body weight of 70 kg was used for both the adult future worker and the adult current and future resident (EPA, 1991a). 4.4.l Incidental Soil Ingestion Incidental soil ingestion can result from placing soil-covered hands or objects in the mouth. Soil ingestion is a potential route of exposure for the current trespasser, the off-site residents, the future on-site residents, and on-site workers. Incid6ntal ingestion of sediment for current off-site and future on-site child residents will have the sai'ne assumptions for potential exposure. The exposure dose models and assumptions for the soil/sediment ingestion pathways are presented in Table 4-2. However, sediment exposure point concentrations will be used when evaluating the sediment pathway. It has been estimated that children ages 1-6 incidentally ingest 200 mg of soil on a daily basis and that individuals over the age of six ingest 100 mg of soil per day (EPA, 1991a). Therefore, an incidental soil ingestion rate of 200 mg of soil per day was used for the child age 1-6, and an ingestion rate of 100 mg/day was used for the children ages 7-12 and the adult resident. The soil ingestion rates for the age groups take into account the ingestion of outdoor soil and indoor dust and represent reasonable upper-bound residential exposure conditions. An incidental soil ingestion rate of 50 mg/day was used for the future worker following current EPA guidance (EPA, 1991a). NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011\RAMJU4&5.WP 4-14 I I I I I I g I 0 D u u I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Where: cs = IR = CF = EF = ED = BW = AT = Assumptions: cs = IR = EF = ED = = BW = AT = = Table 4-2 Model for Calculating Doses from Incidental Ingestion of Soil/Sediment Soil Ingestion Dose CS x IR x CF x EF x ED (mg/kg-day) . BWxAT Chemical concentration in soil (mg/kg) Soil ingestion rate (mg/day) Conversion factor (IO~ kg/mg) Exposure frequency (days/year) Exposure duration (years) Body weight (kg) Averaging time (days) Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 4 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Upper 95% confidence limit of the mean c~mcentration in soil. 200 mg/day for the child (1-6) resident (EPA, 1991a). 100 mg/day for the child (7-12) (EPA, 1991a). 100 mg/day for the adult resident (EPA, 1991a). 50 mg/day for the future worker (EPA, 1991a). 45 days/year for trespasser (EPA, 1991a) 350 days/year for the child (7-12) off-site resident (EPA, 1991a) 350 days/year for the children and adult residents (EPA, 1991a). 250 days/year for the future worker (EPA,' 1991a). 6 years for the child (1-6) resident (EPA, 1_99la). 6 years for the current child (7-12) (EPA, 1991a). 18 years for the adult resident (EPA, 1991a). 25 years for the future on-site worker (EPA, 1991a). . 15 kg for the child resident (EPA, 1991a). 27 kg for the current child (7-12) trespasse~s (EPA, 1991a). 70 kg for the adult resident (EPA, 1991a). , 70 kg for the future worker (EPA, 1991a). Exposure duration (years) x 365 days/year for evaluating noncancer risk. 70 years x 365 days/year for evaluating cancer risk. NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU4&5.WP 4-15 D D I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA Risk Assessment Report FCX•OU2 Statesville Site Section: 4 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 4.4.2 Dermal Absorption from Soil The dermal absorption of substances, resulting from contact with surface soil, is a potential route of exposure for all four receptors. The equation and assumptions used to calculate dermal absorption doses are presented in Table 4-3. The exposed skin surface areas for both scenarios a\-e based on the following body part-and-age specific skin surface areas for males: • Current Trespasser or 7-12 child: -Arms, hands, one-half legs, feet (100% of exposure events) • Future Worker: -Hands, forearms (100% of exposure events) • Adult Resident (On-Site and Off-Site): -Arms, hands, lower legs, ~eet (50 % of exposure events) -One-half arms, hands (50 % of exposure events) • Child Resident 1-6 (On-Site and Off-Site): -Arms, hands, one-half legs, feet (50 % of exposure events) -One-half arms, hands (50 ')\, of exposure events) The skin surface areas for the future worker are based on data for adults and include only hands and forearms because all other areas are expected to be covered while working at the FCX site. The skin surface areas presented in Table 4-3 for the children and adult future residents are time-weighted because more exposure to surface soil is expected during the wanner months than during the cooler months. Dermal exposure for the child 7-12 is 100% arms, hands, lower legs, and feet due to activity level. Absorption of soil-bound substances through the skin involves three complex processes. First, the substance must desorb from the soil to an extent that the compound is available for absorption. Second, the substance must penetrate' the first layer of skin and penneate through the remaining layers. Third, the substance must be taken up by the microcirculation within the skin. Only when all of these processes occur can' a substance be absorbed. Information regarding the percentage of chemicals that can be absorbed from soil through the skin was obtained from EPA Region IV. According to Regional guidance, a dermal absorption NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\0\ 1 \RAMJU4&5.WP 4-16 I R D D 0 u I 0 D I 0 I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA Table 4-3 Model for Calculating Doses from Dermal Contact with Soil Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 4 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Soil Dermal Absorption Dose CS x CF x SA x AF x ABS x EF x ED (mg/kg-day) . BWxAT Where: cs = Chemical concentration in soil (mg/kg) CF = Conversion factor (JO~ kg/mg) SA = Skin surface area available for contact (cm2/day) AF = Soil to skin adherence factor (mg/cm') ABS = Dermal absorption factor (unitless) EF = Exposure frequency (days/year) ED = Exposure duration (years) BW = Body weight (kg) AT = Averaging time (days) Assumptions: cs = Upper 95% confidence limit of the mean concentration in soil. . SA = 2,125 cm2/day for the child (1-6) resident. It represents the 50th percentile surface area of the arms, hands, lower legs, and feet (50% of the exposure events) and forearms and hands (50% of the exposure events) of a 1-6 year old (EPA, 1985). = 4,453 cm2/day for the child (7-12) trespasser/resident. It represents the 50th percentile surface area of the arms, hands, lower legs, and feet (100% of the exposure events) (EPA, 1985). = 4,145 cm2/day for the adult resident. It represents the 50th percentile surface area of the arms, hands, lower legs, and feet (50% of the exposure events) and forearms and hands (50% of the exposure events) of an adult male (EPA, 1985). = 1,980 cm2/day for the future worker. It represents the 50th percentile surface area of the forearms and hands of an adult male (EPA, 1985). AF = I mg/cm2, soil adherence factor (EPA, 1992b). ABS = 0.01 -Organic compounds (EPA, 1992) 0.001 -Inorganic compounds (EPA, 1992)( EF = 45 days/year for trespasser (approximately once a week). 320 days/year for child (7-12) resident. 350 days/year for the child (1-6) and adult residents (EPA, 1991a). 250 days/year for the future worker (EPA, 1991a). NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU4&5.WP 4-17 D D D D D B I I g I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA Where: cs CF SA AF ABS EF ED BW AT ED BW AT Table 4-3 (Continued) Model for Calculating Doses from Dermal Contact with Soil Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 4 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Soil Dermal Absorption Dose CS x CF x SA x AF x ABS x EF x ED (mg/kg-day) . BWxAT = Chemical concentration in soil (mg/kg) = Conversion factor (10"" kg/mg) = Skin surface area available for contact (cm2/day) = Soil to skin adherence factor (mg/cm') = Dermal absorption factor (unitless) = Exposure frequency (days/year) = Exposure duration (years) = Body weight (kg) = Averaging time (days) = 6 years for the child (1-6) resident (EPA, 1991a). 6 years for the current child (7-12) trespasser/resident (EPA, 1991a). 25 years for the on-site worker (EPA, 1991a). = 18 years for the adult resident (EPA, 1991a). = 15 kg for the child (l-6) resident (EPA, 1991a). 27 kg for the current child (7-12) trespasser/resident (EPA, 1991a) 70 kg for the adult resident (EPA, 1991a). 70 kg for the future worker (EPA, 1991a). = Exposure duration (years) x 365 days/year for evaluating noncancer risk. = 70 years x 365 days/year for evaluating cancer risk. NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU4&5.WP 4-18 B D D I I I I I, I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall_ not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 4 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 factor of 1 % should be used to evaluate organic chemicals, and an absorption factor of 0.1 % should be used to evaluate inorganic chemicals (EPA, 1992). 4.4.3 Drinking Water Ingestion Drinking water ingestion is considered to be a potential exposure route only for the adult and children future residents because groundwater is not currently used for the Fex site. The drinking water ingestion rates used for children and adult residents assume that all of his/her daily water intake occurs at home. The equations and assumptions that were used to calculate drinking water ingestion doses are presented in Table 4-4. The drinking water ingestion rate for the adult resident is 2 L/day (EPA, 1991a). In the absence of data for children, it is assumed that the child resident will ingest one-half (IL/day) of the adult amount. 4.4.4 Inhalation While Showering Volatile organic compounds (VOes) may be released to indoor air through a variety of home activities, including showering, cooking, dish washing, and laundering. Some researchers believe that inhalation doses of voes through typical home water uses may be as great or greater than doses from the ingestion of water. Based on experimental results for the transfer of trichloroethene from water to air in the shower stall, McKone and Knezovich (1991) report that inhalation exposures in showers could be equivalent to an ingestion contact of 1-4 liters. Inhalation while showering is evaluated to account for dose of voes received from non- ingestion uses. of water for the future adult and child residents. The dose from inhalation of voes while showering is based on the maximum 'ingestion equivalent (2 liters) described by McKone and Knezovich (1991). The groundwater ingestion model assumptions were multiplied by the voe concentrations in groundwater to derive the voe exposure rate. For the purpose of evaluating inhalation exposures, a voe is defined as any organic compound with a Henry's Law constant of lE-05 atm-m3/mole or greater and with a molecular weight of less than 200 g/mole (EPA, 1991b). 4.4.5 Incidental Water Ingestion While Wading It is possible that while wading in a stream a child might intentionally or unintentionally swallow a small quantity of water. Ingestion of water while wading is only evaluated for the child age 7-12 because it is assumed that a child age 1-6 would be too young for this type of activity. The model and assumptions that were used to calculate doses through ingestion of surface water are presented in Table 4-5. NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAM.JU4&5.WP 4-19 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Table 4-4 Model for Calculating Doses from Ingestion of Groundwater Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 4 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Groundwater Ingestion Dose CWx!RxEFxED (mg/kg-day) = BWxAT Where: cw = Chemical concentration in groundwater (mg/L) IR = Ingestion rate (Uday) EF = Exposure frequency (days/year) ED = Exposure duration (years) BW = Body weight (kg) AT = Averaging time (days) Assumptions: cw = Upper 95% confidence limit of the mean concentration in groundwater. IR = 1 liter/day, for the child (1-6) resident. = 2 liters/day, for the child (7-12) resident (EPA, 1991a). = 2 liters/day, for the adult resident (EPA, '1991a). EF = 350 days/year for the children and adult ;esidents (EPA, 1991a). ED = 6 years for the child (1-6) resident (EPA, 1991a). = 6 years for the child (7-12) resident. ' = 18 years for the adult resident (EPA, 19~1a). ' BW = 15 kg for the child (1-6) resident (EPA, 1991a). = 27 kg for the child (7-12) resident (EPA, 1991a) = 70 kg for the adult resident (EPA, 1991a). AT = Exposure duration (years) x 365 days/year for evaluating noncancer risk. = 70 years x 365 days/year for evaluating cancer risk. NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU4&5.WP 4-20' I 0 I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Table 4-5 Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 4 Revision: 3 Date: June ~994 Model for Calculating Doses through Incidental Water Ingestion while Wading Incidental Water Ingestion Dose CWx!RxETxEFxED (mg/kg-day) = BWxAT Where: CW = Chemical concentration in surface water (mg/I) IR = Incidental ingestion rate of surface water (I/hour) ET = Exposure time (hours/day) EF = Exposure frequency (days/year) ED = Exposure duration (years) BW = Body weight (kg) AT = Averaging time (days) ' Assumptions: cw = Upper 95% confidence limit of the mean concentration in surface water. IR = 0.05 I/hour for the child (7-12) resident (EPA, 1989a). ET = 2.6 hours/day for the child (7-12) resident (EPA, 1989a). EF = 45 days/year for the child (7-12) resident (EPA, 1992). ED = 6 years for the child (7-12) resident (EPA, 1991a). BW = 27 kg for the child (7-12) resident (EPA, 1991a). AT = Exposure duration (years) x 365/year for evaluating noncancer risk. = 70 years x 365 days/year for evaluating cancer risk. NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011\AAMJU4&5.WP 4-21 u I ·I I g· I Ii ,, 1· I I ,. a: I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, lnc., expressly for EPA. ft shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 4 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 The amount of water that is ingested is likely to vary considerably, depending on the behavioral patterns of the child. Some children may not ingest any water, while others might drink directly from the stream. In the absence of information or guidance concerning the ingestion of water for a shallow stream, it is assumed that the quantity of water ingested by a child is equal to 0.05 L/hour, the ingestion rate that has been recommended by EPA for the incidental ingestion of water while swimming (EPA, 1989a). This ingestion rate is highly conservative because the stream located on the FCX site is much shallower than a typical swimming pool. 4.4.6 Dermal Absorption While Wading Dermal absorption of chemicals while wading is evaluated only for the 7-12 year old child trespasser, current off-site resident, and future resident. 'Dermal absorption of chemicals in water may occur when substances are absorbed across the skin. Table 4-6 presented the model and assumptions used to calculate doses through dermal absorption while wading. The exposed skin surface area of 4,453cm2 for the child age 7-12 was calculated as described above for the dermal absorption of contaminants from soil. 4.4. 7 Incidental Sediment Ingestion Refer to Section 4.4.1. 4.4.8 Dermal Absorption from Sediment Dermal absorption from sediments is only evaluated for the 7-12 year old child for the reasons stated for the incidental ingestion of water while wading pathway. The child age 7-12 is expected to have dermal exposure to sediments as he/she walks through or plays in the stream located on the FCX site. The exposure dose model and assumptions for estimating the dermal I dose exposure rate from sediment are presented in Table 4-7. The exposed skin areas used to evaluate dermal contact with sediment are the same as those described above for dermal contact with soil. The: dermal absorption factors described above for the soil pathway will also be used to estimate the doses from contact with sediment. 4.5 UNCERTAINTIES IN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT The estimated average daily exposure levels to chemical contaminants at the FCX Site were generated with a number of uncertainties. These uncertainties are generally inherent in risk assessments associated with remedial investigations, particularly because of the type of and NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU4&5.WP 4-22 D u. 0 0 R D I B a I D I g 0 This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Table 4-6 Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 4 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Model for Calculating Doses through Dermal Absorption while Wading I Dermal Absorption Dose while Wading CW x SA x K, x ET x EF x ED x CF (mg/kg-day) = BWxAT Where: CW = Chemical concentration in surface water (rilg/1) SA = Skin surface area available for contact ( cm~) K, = Chemical-specific dermal permeability coefficient (cm/hour) ET = Exposure time (hours/day) EF = Exposure frequency (days/year) ED = Exposure duration (years) CF = Volumetric conversion factor for water (1 liter/1000 cm3) BW = Body weight (kg) AT = Averaging time (period over which exposure is averaged --days) Assumptions: I CW = Upper 95% confidence limit of the mean c~ncentration in surface water. ' SA = 4,453 cm2 for the child (7-12 years) resideht. It represents the 50th percentile surface area of the arms, hands, lower legs, and feet (100% of the exposure events) (EPA, 1985). K, = Chemical specific value. ET = 2.6 hours/day for the child (7-12) resident (EPA, 1989a). EF = 45 days/year for the child (7-12) resident (EPA, 1992). ED = 6 years for the child (7-12) resident (EPA,! 1991a). ' BW = 27 kg for the child (7-12) resident (EPA, 1991a). I AT = Exposure duration (years) x 365 days/year 'for evaluating noncancer risk. = 70 years x 365 days/year for evaluating C"'!Cer risk. NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU4&5.WP 4-23 0 I D I 0 0 D. B I I I I. g This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of.EPA. Where: CSD CF SA AF ABS EF ED BW AT Table 4-7 Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 4 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Model for Calculating Doses from Dermal Contact with Sediment Sediment Dermal CSD X CF X SA X AF X ABS X EF X ED Absorption Dose = BWxAT (mg/kg-day) = Chemical concentration in sediment (mg/kg) = Conversion factor ( IO_. kg/mg) = Skin surface area available for contact (cm:/day) = Sediment to skin adherence factor (mg/cm') = Dermal absorption factor (unitless) = Exposure frequency (days/year) = Exposure duration (years) = Body weight (kg) = Averaging time (days) Assumptions: CSD = Upper 95 % confidence limit of the mean concentration in sediment. SA = 4,453 cm2 for the child (7-12 years) resident. It represents the 50th percentile surface area of the arms, hands, lower legs, and feet (100% of the exposure events) (EPA, 1985). AF = 1 mg/cm2, adherence factor was assumed (EPA, 1992a). ABS = 0.01 -Organic compounds (EPA, 1992). = 0.001 -Inorganic compounds (EPA, 1992),. EF = 45 days/year for the child (7-12) resident (EPA, 1992a). ' ED = 6 years for the child (7-12) resident (EPA, 1991a). BW = 27 kg for the future child (7-12) resident (EPA, 1991a). AT = Exposure duration (years) x 365 days/year for evaluating noncancer risk. = 70 years x 365 days/year for evaluating cancer risk. NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU4&5.WP 4-24 0 D D n 0 D D B D D D u D D n n D D H This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, lnc,, expressly for EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 4 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 amount of data that can be collected in the short durations of sampling episodes. The most important of these uncertainties are summarized below: • • • • Although exposure levels were based on measured concentrations in the media of concern, these values are uncertain due to limited sampling and analytical variation. To account for this uncertainty, the upper 95th percentile confidence limit of the mean concentration value was used in dose calculations. This assumption may result in a conservative estimate of the actual dose. When deriving concentrations of chemicals, chemicals that were not detected in a given sample were assumed to be at one-half the quantitation limit (QL). This assumption may lead to an overestimation of dose especially when the QL is significantly high. The assumption that soil concentrations will remain constant over time overestimates the lifetime exposure because chemicals dissolve in rainwater and migrate from the soil, degrade as a result of biological action, and otherwise are subject to a variety of fate processes. Dermal uptake of chemicals from soil is especially difficult to estimate since this factor is dependent of the characteristics of both the specific chemical and the soil. The values of absorbance ~mployed to estimate dermal uptake are conservative, possibly leading to an overestimation of dose. NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU4&5.WP 4-25 I I I u I I I D D D D D D D D 0 D This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, lnc,, expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. SECTION 5 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 5 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 This section identifies the health-related guidelines used in Section 6 to evaluate the potential health risks posed by exposures estimated in Section 4. I 5.1 CARCINOGENIC VERSUS NONCARCINOGENIC HEALTH EFFECTS CRITERlA In evaluating potential health risks, both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic health effects must be considered. Excessive exposure to any pollutants can potentially produce noncarcinogenic health effects, while the potential for carcinogenic effects is limited to exposure to certain substances. The potential for producing carcinogenic effects is limited to substances that have been shown to be carcinogenic in animals and/or· humans. Therefore, it was necessary to identify and select noncancer toxicity values for each of the selected compounds evaluated and to identify and select cancer toxicity values on! y for those compounds that demonstrate carcinogenicity. Both sets of toxicity values (cancer slope factors and reference doses) are derived through an evaluation of the relationship between the dose of a contaminant administered or received and the incidence of adverse health effects in the exposed population. The EPA has performed this evaluation on numerous chemicals and has published the corresponding toxicity values, which have undergone extensive peer review. In accordance with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (EPA, 1989a), these EPA documents were used as the source of toxicity values for this risk assessment. In order of priority, the following sources were consulted: • • • The Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) The Health Effects Assessment Sum~ary Tables (HEAST) Th_e Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office (ECAO) 5.1.1 Carcinogenic Health Criteria Criteria used in the evaluation of carcinogenic risks in Section 6 are cancer slope factors (CSFs) developed by the U.S. EPA. In developing CSFs, the U.S. EPA assumes the risk of cancer is linearly related to dose. All cancer data. obtained from epidemiological studies or laboratory animal studies are relatively high doses; these high. doses are extrapolated down to extremely small doses, with a cancer risk remaining until the dose is zero. The linear approach assumes that even a small number of molecules (possibly even a single molecule) of a carcinogen may cause changes in a single cell that could result in the cell dividing in an uncontrolled manner, NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU4&5.WP 5-1 0 0 0 0 D D 0 D D D D u I u u I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section; 5 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 eventually leading to cancer. It should be emphasized that the approach used to develop slope factors leads to a plausible upper limit to the risk, and does not necessarily provide a realistic prediction. The true risk is unknown, and may be as low as zero. The range of risks, defined as the upper limit as detem1ined by the model and the lower limit of zero, needs to be understood by the appropriate decision makers (U.S. EPA, 1989a). There is some dispute as to whether the extrapolation from high to low doses is a realistic approach. It has been argued that at low doses cells may have the ability to detoxify carcinogens or repair cell-induced damage. Although it is important to recognize the possibility that some carcinogens may have a threshold for toxicity, ttjis issue is not evaluated in this analysis. Because carcinogens are usually the driving force in the assessment of risk, it is important that this and other risk assessments use the currently accbpted health-related benchmarks, so that the predicted risks can be reasonably compared to othet risk assessments. 5.1.2 Noncarcinogenic Health Criteria The criteria used to evaluate the potential for non~arcinogenic health effects are generically referred to in this document as reference doses (RfDs). The term RID was developed by U.S. EPA to refer to a daily intake of a chemical to which an individual can be chronically exposed without any expectation of noncarcinogenic adverse health effects occurring (e.g., organ damage, biochemical alterations, birth defects). The term is used in this assessment to apply to any established or derived criterion fitting this description. Unlike the approach used in evaluating carcinogenic risks, for noncarcinogenic health effects it is assumed that a threshold dose exists below which there is no potential for toxicity. A no- observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) is that dose <1.t which no toxic effects are observed in any of the test subjects. A variety of regulatory agencies have used the threshold approach for noncarcinogenic substances in the development of health effects criteria, including worker-related threshold limit values (TLVs), air quality standards, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) food additive regulations, and drinking water standards. 5.2 CANCER SLOPE FACTORS (CSFs) Each chemical that has evidence of carcinogenicity in animals and/or humans and is classified as a carcinogen by U.S. EPA is considered in this evaluation to be carcinogenic (IRIS, 1993). The U.S. EPA has developed a weight-of-evi4ence classification system for potential carcinogens. Using this system, chemicals are classified as either Group A, Bl, B2, C, D, or E. Group A chemicals are classified as human carcinogens with sufficient evidence from NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU4&5.WP 5-2 D I 0 0 0 D D 0 0 D 0 0 u 0 D D I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 5 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 epidemiologic studies to support a casual association between human exposure and cancer. Group Bl and B2 chemicals are classified as probable· human carcinogens. Group Bl applies to chemicals with limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans from epidemiologic studies, and Group B2 applies to chemicals with inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals. Group C applies to chemicals with limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals. Group D chemicals are not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (inadequate or no evidence). Group E applies to chemicals that show no evidence of carcinogenicity in humans where there are at least two adequate animal tests· in different species or there are both epidemiologic arid animal studies showing no evidence for carcinogenic potential. The carcinogenic chemicals of concern and their corresponding U.S. EPA carcinogenicity categories and CSFs are presented in Table 5-1. 5.3 REFERENCE DOSES FOR NONCARCINOGENIC EFFECTS RIDs, like CSFs, are developed for specific exposure routes. RIDs have been derived by U.S. EPA for a number of chemicals for the ingestion and/or inhalation routes, but none have been developed for the dermal route (see Section 5.4). In developing an RID, an experimental exposure level is selected from the toxicological database for a chemical of interest that represents the highest level tested at which "no adverse effect" was demonstrated. This NOAEL is the key piece of information used as the basis for the scientific evaluation of the risk posed to humans by a systemic toxicant. When more than one toxic effect is produced by a chemical, the critical level used for the development of an RID is the lowest reported NOAEL. In general terms, the RID is a benchmark dose derived from the NOAEL by consistent application of order-of-magnitude uncertainty factors and additional modifying factors to account for professional assessment of the scientific uncertainties of the study and database from which the NOAEL was developed. When available, route-specific RIDs were used for each pollutant. Table 5-1 presents the RIDs for each of the indicator pollutants. Route-specific RIDs were generally available for the ingestion route of exposure. Dermal route-specific RIDs were calculated based on Region IV EPA guidance as described in Section 5 .4. 5.4 DERMAL SLOPE FACTORS AND REFERENCE DOSES The dermal exposure at this site requires dermal RIDs and CSFs. Since the U.S. EPA has not developed dermal RIDs or CSFs, these critical toxicity values were derived based on available NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011\RAMJU4&5.WP 5-3 == == == == == == == l!IIS l!!l!I l!li!!I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 5 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Table 5-1 FCX Statesville Site Toxicity Values Oral Slope Dermal Rer. Oral RID Dermal Ref. Inhalation Slope Ref. Ref. Factor Slope (mg/kg/day) RID (mg/kg/day)"' Factor Arsenic I.75E+OO 8.75E+OO IRIS, 1993 3E-04 6E-5 IRIS, 1993 1.SIE+Ol HEAST, 1992 NTV Barium NTV 7E-02 l.4E-2 IRIS, 1993 NTV NTV Beryllium 4.3E+OO 2.15E+0I IR.IS~ 1993 5E-03 IE-3 IRIS, 1993 8.4E+001 IRIS, 1993 NTV Cadmium NTV IE-03 (food) 2E-4 IRIS, 1993 6.3E+OO' IRIS, 1993 NTV (water) SE--04 (water) IE-4 Chromium NTV IE+OO (Che III) 2E-1 IRIS, 1993 NTV (Che Ill) IRIS, 1993 NTV (Che Ill) SE-03 (Che VI) IE-3 4.2E+0I (Che IV) NTV (Che IV) Copper NTV 3.7£-022 7.4E-3 EPA, 1992 NTV NTV Lead NTV NTV NTV NTV Mercury NTV 3E-04 6E-5 IRIS, 1993 NTV 8.57£--052 IRIS, 1993 Manganese NTV l.4E-I (food) 2.SE-2 IRIS, 1993 NTV NTV SE-3 (water) (food) IE-3 (water) Nickel NTV 2E-02 4E-3 IRIS, 1993 8.4E-01 IRIS, 1993 NTV Selenium NTV SE-3 2.SE-2 IRIS, 1993 NTV NTV Strontium NTV 6E-1 I.2E-I EPA, 1992 NTV NTV NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \PAMJU4&5.WP 5-4 iiii liiil liiiii1 riiiiiil -liiiil liiiiiil == == == This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 5 Oral Slope Dermal Ref. Factor Slope (mg/kg/day)"' Factor Vanadium NTV Yttrium NTV Zinc NTV . ·~~ ~ ~ •···• ~ Benzene 2.9E-2 3.6E-2 EPA, 1993 Bromodichloromethane 6.2E-2 7.75E-2 IRIS, 1994 Carbon tetrachloride l.3E-l I.6E-l IRIS, 1994 Chloroform 6.IE-03 7.6E-3 IRIS, 1994 I, 1-Dichloroethene 6E-01 7.SE-1 IRIS, 1994 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene NTV trans-1,2-Dichloroethene NTV 1,2-Dichloropropane NTV Ethylbenzene NTV Tetrachloroethene 5.2E-2 6.SE-2 EPA, 1993 NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \AAM.JU4&5.WP - TABLE 5-1 (Continued) FCX ST A TESVlLLE SITE TOXICITY VALVES Oral RID Dermal (mg/kg/day) RID 7E-03 l.4E-3 NTV 3E-01 6E-2 -·•• NTV 2E-02 I.6E-2 7E-4 5.6E-4 IE-02 SE-3 9E-03 7.2E-3 IE-02 SE-3 2E-02 1.6E-2 NTV IE-I SE-2 IE-02 SE-3 5-5 Ref. EPA, 1992 IRIS, 1993 IRIS, 1994 IRIS, 1994 IRIS, 1993 IRIS, 1993 IRIS, 1993 IRIS, 1993 IRIS, 1993 IRIS, 1993 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Inhalation Slope Ref. Inhalation Factor RID (mg/kg/day)'' (mg/kg/day) NTV NTV NTV NTV -NTV NTV ...... ~ 2.92E-2 IRIS, 1993 NTV NTV NTV l.5E-5 IRIS, 1994 2E-3 8.0SE-2 IRIS, 1993 NTV I.SE-I IRIS, 1993 l.43E-012 NTV NTV NTV NTV NTV 4E-3 NTV 2.9E-l 2E-3 EPA, 1993 NTV Ref. - . IRIS, 1994 EPA, 1992 IRIS, 1994 IRIS, 1993 == == == == == == == 11111!1 11111!!1 This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. l, l, I-Trichloroethane Trichloroethene3 1=•:-C,: ·=-··:e:=-=::::, ·-,~:-·. • ..,a, -.... alpha-BHC beta-BHC delta-BHC gamma-BHC (Lindane) alpha-Chlordane/2 gamma-Chlordane/2 gamma-Chlordene/2 4,4'-DDD(P,P'-DDD) 4,4'-DDE(P,P'-DDE) 4,4'-DDT(P,P'-DDT) Dieldrin Oral Slope Dermal Ref. Factor Slope (mg/kg/day)'' Factor NTV I.IE-2 l.4E-2 ECAO, 1992 TABLE 5-1 (Continued) FCX STATESVILLE SITE TOXICITY VALVES Oral Rill Dermal (mg/kg/day). Rill 9E-02 7.2E-2 Ref. EPA, 1992 6E-3 4.6E-3 ECAO, 1992 Inhalation Slope Factor (mg/kg/day)'' NTV 6E-3 r• it . \·•· ··•·• .. •· . •· •. ?••···•·•· ·•·_ .. <••··•··· >-•·•-·••· ? .· ·•··•·•·>< )/} ··--:-·-_•,:,• -· :-·-:-:-,,:_:-:::_::_:/:C.::,:•,:.-::·::_c·:::-·:. :·=·.----.:::.:,-= .-:• ·-__ , __ ._ =·=-·,==,._,:.:: ::' _-.=:=:·:-::: =·-'=':-·:".::·\r:=_-=·==·==::=-:_:::·)({\:\t :=-=--=:.//: ::·::::::, :,_ ,: -·:: 6.3E+OO 1.26E+ I IRIS, 1994 NTV 6.3E+OO l.SE+OO 3.6E+OO IRIS, 1994 NTV l.SE+OO NTV NTV NTV 1.3E+OO* 2.6E+OO* IRIS, 1994 3E-04 l.5E-4 IRIS, 1994 NTV l.3E+OO 2.6E+OO IRIS, 1993 6E-05 3E-5 IRIS, 1993 l.3E+OO l.3E+OO 2.6E+OO IRIS, 1993 6E-05 3E-5 IRIS, 1993 l.3E+OO NTV NTV NTV 2.4E-Ol 4.SE-1 IRIS, 1993 3E-3 l.5E-3 ECAO, 1992 NTV 3.4E-01 6.SE-1 IRJS, 1993 NTV NTV 3.4E-l 6.SE-1 IRIS, 1993 5E-04 2.5E-4 ECAO, 1992 3.4E-l l.6E+0l 3.2E+ I IRIS, 1994 5E-05 2.5E-5 IRIS, 1994 l.6IE+0l1 NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU4&5.WP 5-6 Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 5 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Ref. Inhalation Rill (mg/kg/day) 3E-l ECAO, 1992 NTV I/ <c .• : ''='·=·: ---:::\--:C->/_ --.- ,_::::·:_-:=-.-.·=--·-:: : : ." ·.::=·---:·:,: IRIS, 1994 NTV IRIS, 1994 NTV NTV NTV IRIS, 1994 NTV IRIS, 1994 NTV NTV NTV NTV IRIS, 1994 NTV IRIS, 1993 NTV Ref. IRIS, 1993 ···•· ·•·· .•·.· ,:,:.:c:·=::•_-::·::·.-: :·:/=:._:·,::(._ == == == II!:! This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Oral Slope Dermal Ref. Factor Slope (mg/kg/day)"' Factor Endrin NTV Endrin Ketone NTV ·Heptachlor -4:5£+00 . -. 9E+o-IRIS, 1994 Heptachlor Epoxide 9.lE+OO I.SE+ I IRIS, 1994 Oxychlordane NTV PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254) 7.7£+00 l.54E+ I IRIS, 1993 ., -··-· ;. ( < < o&u~•v• . '' Benzo(a)anthracene 7.3E+OO l .46E+ I Benzo(a)pyrene 7.3E+OO l .46E+ 1 IRIS, 1993 Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene 7.3E+OO -l.46E+ I BaP Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate l.4E--02 2.8E-2 IRIS, 1993 Chrysene 7.3E+OO !.46E+ I BaP Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 7.3E+OO l.46E+ I BaP Fluoranthene NTV NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAM.JU4&5.WP TABLE 5-1 (Continued) FCX STATESVILLE SITE TOXICITY VALUES Oral RID Dermal (mg/kg/day) RID 3E--04 l.SE-4 NTV Ref. IRIS, 1994 SE--04 2.SE-4 . -IRIS, 1994-- l.3E--05 6.SE-6 IRIS, 1994 NTV . NTV Inhalation Slope Factor (mg/kg/day)"1 NTV NTV 4.6E"+'001-- 9.1E+001 NTV NTV Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 5 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Ref. Inhalation RID (mg/kg/day) NTV NTV IRIS; 1994 NTV IRIS, 1994 NTV NTV NTV Ref. -- •xx t>---•••·•·••-•->-•-•-r <--•----••·</ >> I .... -•·<C?-• )~ <iii NTV NTV NTV NTV NTV NTV NTV NTV NTV 2E-2 !E-2 IRIS, 1993 NTV NTV NTV NTV NTV NTV NTV NTV 4E-02 2E-2 IRIS, 1993 NTV NTV 5-7 I!!!!!!! !!!!I !!!!I l!!!!!I l!!!!!I l!!!!!I == This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Oral Slope Dermal Factor Slope (mg/kg/day)"' Factor Indeno(l ,2,3-CD)pyrene 7.3E+OO l.46E+ I Pentachlorophenol l.2E--01 2.4E-1 Pyrene NTV . 2,3,7,8 TCDD (Dioxin) l.5E+5 3E+5 Ref. BaP IRIS, 1993 - HEAST, 1993 TABLE 5-1 (Continued) FCX STATESVILLE SITE TOXICITY VALVES Oral RID Dermal (mg/kg/day) RID NTV 3E--02 l.5E-2 3E--02 --l.5E-2 NTV Ref. IRIS, 1993 IRIS, 1993 1 Converted from a unit risk assuming the ingestion of 2 liters of drinking water per day and a body weight of 70kg (EPA, 1992) 1 Calculated from the current drinking water standard, assuming the consumption of 2 liters of water per day and a body weight of 70kg. 3 Guidance from Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center. NTV = No Toxicity Value Dermal RIDs/SFs are derived Absorption Factors (ABS): 0 .2 -Inorganics 0.8 -Volatile Organics 0.5 -Semi-volatile Organics/Pesticides/PCBs Dermal RID = Oral RID x ABS Dermal Slope Factor = Oral SF/ ABS BaP -The Slope Factor for benzo(a)pyrene was used for this chemical. Pyrene -Used the oral RID of pyrene for other noncarcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbons without oral RIDs. • = Indicates that the compound is currently under review by EPA. NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\01 1 \RAMJU4&5.WP 5-8 Inhalation Slope Factor (mg/kg/day)"' NTV NTV NTV l.5E+5 Risk Assessment Report FCX•OU2 Statesville Site Section: 5 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Ref. Inhalation RID (mg/kg/day) NTV NTV NTV HEAST, 1993 Ref. D D D D D D u I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 5 Revision: 3 Date; June 1994 oral Rills and CSFs. This derivation involves converting the oral Rills and CSFs to absorbed dose (using oral absorption factors) rather than the _administered dose since dermal intakes are calculated as absorbed doses. Based on U.S. EPA' health effects assessment documents, oral absorption factors are 0.8 for volatile organics, 0.5 for semi-VOCs, pesticides, and dioxins, and 0.2 for inorganic compounds. Approximate values (or dermal Rills and CSFs were derived by simple extrapolation from oral RfDs and CSFs. For Rills, this was done by multiplying the oral RID by the oral absorption factor. For CSFs, this :was done by dividing the oral CSF by the oral absorption factor. This approach has a high level of associated uncertainty, as does any route to route extrapolation. The results of these extrapolations are presented in Table 5-1. 5.5 UNCERTAINTIES IN TOXICITY ASSESSMENT Some of the uncertainties associated with the toxicity assessment include: • • • • • • The slope factor for the evaluation of ~iox.ins is based on 2,3,7,8-TCDD, and the rest of the dioxins are assigned an equivalency factor to adjust them to 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Since specific data concerning synergi~tic or antagonistic effects are not available, EPA and other Federal agencies require additional individual chemical risk values. EPA may change its determination of. the toxicity of a chemical as more data is obtained. The slope factors derived by EPA usirig a linearized multi-stage model reflect an upper-bound limit of the potency of the chemical. As a result, the calculated cancer risk represents a plausible upper limit to the risk. The actual risk is unknown, but it is likely to be lower than the predicted risk (EPA, 1989a; EPA, 1989b) and may be as low as zero. There is uncertainty due to the use of default gastrointestinal absorption factors to derive dermal slope factors and reference doses from oral toxicity. This leads to uncertainty in the risk estimates from the dermal exposure route. Dermal exposure to PAHs can potentially result in skin tumors as a result of direct (topical) contact with the skin, as well as systemic tumors due to dermal absorption into the bloodstream. Many PAHs have been shown to cause skin tumors in laboratory animals following topical (local) application, and though NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU4&5.WP 5-9 D I u 0 I D I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. • Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 5 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 quantitative data are not available for humans, prolonged occupational exposure to PAH mixtures has been associated with skin cancer (ATSDR, 1989). However, in the absence of an EPA-iecommended approach for.deriving dermal slope factors for localized tumorigenic effects, the evaluation of risk posed by dermal contact with PAHs is limited i.n this assessment to that posed by systemic absorption. Therefore, this risk assessment was limited to evaluating the potential for development of systemic tumors. There is inherent uncertainty associated with assessing carcinogenic risks from dermal exposure to PAHs. As an interim procedure, until more definitive Agency guidance is established, Region IV has adopted a toxicity equivalency factor (TEP) methodology for carcinogenic PAHs based on each compound's relative potency to the potency of benzo(a)pyrene (BaP). As a result, the following TEFs were used to convert each cPAH concentration to an equivalent concentration of BaP: benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, and indeno(l ;2,3-cd)pyrene -0.1; benzo(a)pyrene and dibenzo(a,h)anthracene -1.0; and chrysene -0.01. NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU4&5.WP 5-10 D u D 0 D D 0 D 0 B D 0 I B D u u D I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. 6.1 INTRODUCTION Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 6 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 SECTION 6 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT This ecological risk assessment provides an assessment of potential impacts to ecological receptors due to potential exposures to the chemicals of concern released from the FCX - Statesville (FCX) Site. The objectives of this ecological risk assessment are to identify and estimate the potential ecological impacts associated with the FCX Site. The technical guidance for performance of the ecological risk assessment comes primarily from the following sources: Ecological Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1986), Ecological Assessment of Hazardous Waste Sites: A Field and Laboratories Reference (U.S. EPA, 1989a). Risk Assessment Guidance for Supeifund -Volume II, Environmental Evaluation Manual (U.S. EPA, 1989b), and Summary Repon on Issues in Ecological Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1991). Other information sources were used to assist in this report preparation and are included in the references section. 6.2 SITE DESCRIPTION The FCX Site is located on Highway 90 approximately 1.5 miles west of downtown Statesville, Iredell County, North Carolina. The area is characterized by the presence of light and heavy industry, small businesses, and residential neighborhoods. The Site comprises 5.5 acres and is bounded by the Norfolk-Southern Railroad and Burlington Industries (formerly Beaunit Mills) to the north, the Carnation Milk Company to the west, a small business/residential area immediately south of West Front Street, and a pre-fabricated utility shed sales lot on the east side of Phoenix Street. The Site is predominantly covered with buildings or low penneability surfaces (pavement and compacted gravel). Grass is located on a narrow strip along the sidewalk and between the eastern fence and Phoenix Street. 6.2.1 Site History FCX operated as an agricultural supply and distribution center from 1940 to 1986. The FCX facility was licensed to operate as a formulating, packaging, warehousing, and distribution center for farm chemicals, (primarily pesticides and fertilizers), as well as a milling and distribution center of feed grains. Repackaging of liquid pesticides ceased in 1966. Dust repackaging was NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU6·8.WP 6-1 D 0 D D 0 D 0 D D 0 D u u I D I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, lnc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section; 6 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 discontinued in 1969. In 1966, approximately 10;000 pounds of DDT, DDD, and possibly liquid chlordane were allegedly buried in two trenches approximately IO-feet deep. In 1989, EPA unsuccessfully attempted to locate these trencht':s (the trenches were allegedly covered with six feet of on-site soils, and an 8-inch reinforced concrete floor was poured over the area for the warehouse). Currently the Site is unoccupied. 6.2.2 Study Area This assessment focuses on the impacts of chemicals found in the surface water, sediments, and surface soil to ecological receptors. Operable Unit; 3 will address any ecological groundwater concerns. Sample locations for surface water and sediment were collected from a drainage ditch ' which runs north of the Site along the railroad tracks, from the unnamed tributary, and from Third Creek (Figure 2-13). The ditch does not drai~ directly into any perennial or intennittent stream. The unnamed tributary to the Third Creek: is the closest downgradient surface water. It is located 3,300 feet south of FCX. It feeds the Third Creek, which is classified as a class C water, with the best usage listed as fish and wildlife propagation, secondary recreation, agriculture, and other uses. There is not a good migration pathway for on-site runoff to reach the unnamed tributary unless a major rain event flooded the ditch and.the runoff flowed overland (i.e., across the street), although this is an unlikely sJenario. A more viable pathway for surface water and sediment contamination may result from gfoundwater discharging to surface water via natural springs in the vicinity. Surface soil sample~ were collected in three areas as described in Section 2. The sample interval of 0 to 12 inches is applicable to on-site and off-site ecological concerns. 6.3 DATA EVALUATION The objective of this section is to characterize the extent of site contamination in all affected media on which the risk assessment is based using sampling data completed in Phase I and II of the Remedial Investigation (RI) for the FCX-Statesville Site. A Phase I RI for the FCXS was conducted in June 1991 (EPA, 1991). Various media were sampled including: groundwater, surface soil, subsurface soil, surface water, and sediment. The soil samples were divided into these "areas": 1 Area 1 -off-site residential area Area 2 -on-site FCXS -area south and east of the facility Area 3 -on-site FCXS -area underneath the FCXS facility NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJUS-8.WP 6-2 D 0 D D 0 0 0 B I 0 D I I 0 0 u I I 0 This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Risk Ass~ssment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 6 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Areas 1, 2, and 3 are shown in Figure 2-10. The results of the data evaluation are used in both the human health and ecological risk scenarios for ,the potential receptors. It should be noted that potential chemicals of concern may differ between the human health and the ecological risk assessments because of differences in expected potential exposure and toxicity to designated target receptors. Tables 3-1 to 3-5B summarize, by medium, the analytical results of the site- related chemicals. 6.3.1 Chemicals of Potential Concern Groundwater, surface water, sediment, surface soil, and subsurface soil were sampled at the FCXS site for organics, pesticides/PCBs, and inorganic chemicals. The analytical results of the sampling are summarized in Table 3-1 for groundwater, Table 3-2 for surface water, Table 3-3 ' for sediment, Table 3-4 for surface soil, and Table 3-5 for subsurface soil. The selection process for contaminants of concern in individual media is discussed in Section 3. The data summary tables were reproduced from the Phase I and II Remedial Investigation Analytical Data (EPA, 1992), and the July 1993 investigation (EPA, 1993). 6.4 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 6.4.1 Habitat Evaluation The initial steps in the exposure assessment are to identify the habitats that may be affected by chemicals of potential concern and to determine :appropriate receptor organisms for those habitats. Currently, minimal terrestrial habitats exist on-site, and it is unlikely that the future use would include a natural habitat rather than habitats associated with residential areas. The FCXS site consists primarily of buildings, asphalt pavement, and packed gravel. Grasses occupy the remaining area (Area 2, between the sidewalk and street, and east of the fence). There are no on-site bodies of water. 6.4.2 Endangered or Threatened of Special Concern Species The U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service has, at present, no officially proposed endangered or threatened species for the Site area (Iredell County). Three species are "candidate" species. These are: Bog turtle Tall larkspur Clemmys muhlenbergi Delphinium exaltatum NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\0~400\011 \RAMJU6-8.WP 6-3 D I I m I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, lnc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 6 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 The species listed for Iredell County are not expected to occur at the FCX Site due to inappropriate habitats. Therefore, the species were pot considered to be at risk. No site-specific information on endangered or threatened species was available from the State of North Carolina. 6.4.3 Exposure Pathways As part of the Remedial Investigation, groundwater, _surface soils, subsurface soil, surface water, and sediment samples were taken at and near the Site. Due to the minimal habitat available, a qualitative assessment of exposure and possible adverse effects for the Site was evaluated on! y for surface water and sediment. Aquatic life may be exposed to contaminants of concern by direct contact with contaminated surfa~e water and sediment and by ingestion of contaminated sediments in food. However, surface water runoff into downgradient surface water bodies is unlikely (as mentioned in Section 2.2.2). In addition, exposure and toxicity data (dose-response data) are seldom available to assess exposure via all of these pathways. 6.5 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT To qualitatively determine whether surface water contaminants might pose a risk to aquatic life, North Carolina Surface Water Quality Standards _and U.S. EPA Region IV Waste Division (WD), freshwater surface water screening values (January, 1993) were compared to Site concentrations (Table 6-1). EPA screening values,are based upon the Ambient Water Quality Criteria. Site sediment concentrations compared to U.S. EPA Region IV WD sediment screening values (January, 1993) are shown in Table 6-2. EPA sediment screening values are based upon a NOAA report on biological effects of sediment-sorbed contamination (NOAA, 1990) describes an environmental Effects Range-Low (ER-L) value as a concentration that is the lower 10th NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU6-8.WP 6-4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Table 6-6 ' FCX ST A TESVILLE SITE Contaminants Detected in Surface Water Risk Assessment Report FCX·OU2 Statesville Site Section: 6 Revision: 3 Date; June 1994 Site-Related Samples* Surface Water Analyte Dieldrin Alpha-Chlordane Frequency of Detection 1/8 1/8 Range of Detected Concentrations (µg/L) 0.036 0.014 Arithmetic Mean (µg/L) NA NA North Carolina State Surface Water Quality Standards** (µg/L) 0.002 0.004 = Site-related samples include Phase I (1991) and Phase II (1992) data. = Surface water quality standards to protect aquatic life. = Fresh Water Quality Screening Values (EPA, 1993). NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU6-8.WP 6-5 Chronic Screening Values*** (µg/L) 0.0019 0.0043 D I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA Table 6-7 FCX ST A TESVILLE SITE Contaminants Detected in Sediment Site-Related Samples* Frequency Range of Arithmetic Detected Sediment Analyte of Concentrations Mean Detection (mg/kg) 1 (mg/kg) Nickel 13/17 2.9 -74 14 Lead 13/17 3.2 -95 31 Zinc 9/17 43 -430 154.1 Dieldrin 2/17 0.01 I -0.036 0.024 4,4' -DDT(P,P'-DDT) 3/17 0.01 -0. 15 0.058 4,4'-DDE(P,P'-DDE) 1/17 0.028 NA 4,4'-DDD(P,P'-DDD) 2/17 0.042 -0.083 0.63 Endrin 2/17 0.02 -0.37 0. 195 PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254) 1/17 0.76 NA ' Phenanthrene 2/17 0.150 -0.59 0.37 Fluoranthene 5/17 0.25 -0.79 0.514 Pyrene 5/17 0.2 -1.2 0.528 Benzo(a)anthracene 3/17 0.2 -I. I 0.58 Chrysene 3/17 0.19-1.3 0.646 Benzo(a)pyrene 2/17 0.5 -I. I 0.8 • = Site-related samples include Phase I (1991) and Pliase II (1992) data . •• = Region IV Waste Management Division Sediment Screening Values . National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU6-8.WP 6-6 Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 6 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Screening Values** Background Sample ER-L ER-M (FS-405) 11 30 50 9.5 35 110 43 120 270 2E-5 0.008 0.001 0.007 0.002 0.015 0.002 0.02 2.0E-5 0.045 0.05 0.4 0.225 1.38 0.6 3.6 0.35 2.2 0.23 1.6 0.4 2.8 0.4 2.5 Values compiled by the I I I I I a a D I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 ·statesville Site Section: 6 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 percentile of a range of sediment concentrations in which biological effects had been observed at many sites across the United States. The Effects Range-Median (ER-M) value is the 50th percentile of the range of effects data. 6.6 RISK CHARACTERIZATION The concentrations of detected pesticides exceed the sediment screening values, indicating a possible adverse effect on aquatic biota. However, most of the detected pesticides were found · at the northeast corner of the pad and/or the head of the south tributary. Pesticides were not detected in sediments farther downstream in the south tributary or in Third Creek; it seems that pesticide contaminants have not migrated that far (which seems logical, in view of the limited potential for migration via the surface water runoff pathway). In this case, the biota of downstream surface water bodies would not be at risk via exposure to sediments contaminants. 6.7 SUMMARY Due to the minimal habitats present on-site (e.g. surface soil pathway), a qualitative ecological assessment was performed using surface water and sediment data. After comparing mean surface water concentrations to N. C. State Standards and Region IV chronic screening values, only two chemicals, dieldrin and alpha chlordane, exceeded the values by one order of magnitude at sample location 020-SW (Table 6-1). Consequently, these pesticides may have an adverse effect on aquatic biota. In the sediments, contaminants exceeded the Region IV screening values for pesticides, only slightly in the metals, and not at all for the semi-volatiles (Table 6-2). Pesticides were at least an order of magnitude higher than the screening values, indicating a potential for adverse effects on the aquatic biota. The maximum detections for the inorganics were only slightly elevated over the ER-M, indicating a low potential for adverse effects. All semi-volatile compounds detected in sediments were between the ER-L and the ER-M, showing limited potential for adverse effects to the aquatic biota. 6.8 UNCERTAINTIES • The Region IV guidance is only a screening tool and not a standard. • No site-specific information on endangered or threatened species was available from the State of North Carolina. NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU6-8.WP 6-7 I ,, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express wri_tten permission of EPA SECTION 7 RISK CHARACTERIZATION Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 7 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 The objective of this risk characterization is to apply the toxicity infonnation to the Site-specific reasonable maximum exposure data. The result is a hypothetical upper bound regulatory risk. This hypothetical risk value includes the overestimations inherent in the exposure assessment, the hazard assessment, and the toxicity assessment. Human health risks for carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic contaminants are discussed separately because of the different toxicologic endpoints. and the different methods employed in characterizing the risks. Hypothetical human ! health risks associated with exposure to carcinogenic contaminants are calculated by multiplying contaminant exposure levels (i.e., chronic daily intakes) by the corresponding cancer slope factors. That is, for exposure to a particular contaminant through a particular exposure route, Hypothetical Risk = Chronic Daily Intake x Slope Factor. The total combined hypothetical cancer risk is then .estimated by summing the risk estimates derived for each chemical and each exposure route. This approach is specified in U.S. EPA guidelines on chemical mixtures, i.e., risks from separate chemicals are required to be added (EPA, 1989c). This approach assumes independence of action by the contaminants (i.e., that there are no synergistic or antagonistic interactions) and that all of the chemicals have the same toxicological endpoint (cancer). Child and adult risks are summed to provide a hypothetical estimate of total lifetime risk. According to EPA policy, an acceptable total individual risk resulting from exposures at a Superfund Site may range between IO"' to 10·•. For noncarcinogenic contaminants, a hazard index (HI) approach is followed. In this approach, a hazard quotient (HQ) is the ratio of the chronic; daily intake (CDI) of a parti,cular chemical through a particular exposure route to the reference dose (RID) for that chemical. An HI is the sum of the HQs for a particular exposure route, or the sum across multiple exposure routes for an individual receptor. In other words, this approach assumes that multiple exposures could result in an adverse effect and that the magnitude of the effect is proportional to the sum of the ratios of the estimated exposures to the acceptable exposures. The assumption of additivity is applicable to contaminants that induce the same type of effect. When the calculated HI exceeds a value of 1.0 for any individual contaminant, or the HI exceeds 1.0 for multiple contaminants or multiple exposure routes, there may be conceri for a potential, health risk. If the HI is NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJUS-8.WP 7-1 I I I I I I I I I I I g u u I 0 D I D This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 7 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 greater than unity, contaminants may be re-evaluated by critical effect, and separate Hls may be calculated by type of effect. 7.1 HYPOTHETICAL RISK RESULTS Hypothetical carcinogenic risk was evaluated for: • Current off-site residents • Current on-site trespassers • Future on-site residents • Future worker with the facility present • Future worker with the facility demolished The exposure assumptions were presented in Section 4.0. The risk calculations are presented in Appendices A-F: The groundwater calculatio~s are in Appendix A; the surface water calculations are in Appendix B; the sediment calculations are in Appendix C; the Area 1 calculations are in Appendix D; the Area 2 calculations are in Appendix E; and the Area 3 calculations are in Appendix F. Table 7-1 provides a summary of the carcinogenic risks found in the Appendices. 7.1.1 Carcinogenic Risk The carcinogenic risks for current off-site residents :were determined from exposure to off-site I surface soil, Area 1 (Appendix D). The total cariogenic risk for an off-site child resident (sum of ingestion and dermal contact) is 3E-5. This risk represents an excess incremental probability of developing cancer of 3 chances in 100,000. The total carcinogenic risk to the off-site child resident age 7-12 (most likely candidate to trespass) is the sum of the risks to off-site surface soil, surface water, sediment, and on-site surface soil which equals lE-5 or 1 chance in 100,000. The total carcinogenic risk for an off-site adult is lE-5 which represents 1 chance in 100,000. However, the risk to the off-site resident (6E-5) is reaching the upper limit for acceptable risk levels. The hypothetical future residents were assumed to be, exposed to the surface soil, surface water, sediment, and groundwater. For the future residential scenario to be possible, the FCX facility would have to be demolished, thereby exposing surface soil in Areas 2 and 3 to the residents. NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU6-8.WP 7-2 I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA I ,, TABLE7-1 TOTAL CARCINOGENIC RISKS I POPULATION EXPOSURE PATHWAY PATHWAY RISK I Current Offsite Child Resident Ingestion of Surface Soil (Area 1) 3E-05 Age 1-6 Dermal Contact with Surface Soil 4E-06 Child (1 -6) Total Risk = 3E-05 -I Current Offsite Child Resident Ingestion of Surface Soil (Area 1) 7E-06 I Age 7-12 Dermal Contact with Surface Soil 4E-06 Child (7-12) Total Risk= 1E-05 I Current Onsite Trespasser Ingestion of Surface Soil (Area 2) 2E-06 Age 7-12 Dermal Contact with Surface Soil 1E-06 Ingestion of Sediment BE-07 ·1 Dermal Contact with Sediment SE-07 Ingestion of Surface Water 3E-07 Dermal Contact with Surface Water 2E-06 I Child (7 -12) Trespasser Total Risk= 6E-06 I Current Offsite Adult Resident Ingestion of Surface Soil (Area 1) BE-06 Dermal Contact with Surface Soil 6E-06 Adult Total Risk = 1E-05 I Child (1-6) Resident Risk= 3E-05 u Child (7-12) Resident Risk= 1E-05 Adult Resident Ri.sk= 1E-05 Total Residential Risk= 6E-05 0 Child (7-12) Trespasser Risk= 6E-06 0 B Future Onsite Worker Ingestion of Surface Soil (Area 2) 7E-06 (with building) Dermal Contact with Surface Soil 4E-06 a Total Pathway Risk = 1E-05 m Future Onsite Worker Ingestion of Surface Spil (Area 3) 2E-05 (without building) Dermal Contact with Surface Soil 2E-05 Total Pathway Risk ~ 4E-05 I D u I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in p~ut, without the express written permission of EPA. POPULATION Future Onsite Child Resident Age 1-6 Future Onsite Child Resident Age 7-12 Future Onsite Adult Resident TABLE7-1 TOTAL CARCINOGENIC RISKS EXPOSURE PAlHWAY Ingestion of Surface Soil (Area 2) Dermal Contact wtth Surface Soil ' Ingestion of Surface Soil (Area 3} Dermal Contact with Surface Soil Ingestion of Groundwater Inhalation of Groundwater Child (1 -6} Total Risk = Ingestion of Surface Soil (Area 2) Dermal Contact with sGrface Soil Ingestion of Surface Soil (Area 3) Dermal Contact with Surface Soil Ingestion of Groundwater Inhalation of Groundwater Ingestion of Sediment· Dermal Contact with Sediment Ingestion of Surface Water Dermal Contact with Surface Water Child (7-12} Total Risk = Ingestion of Surface Soil {Area 2) Dermal Contact with Surface Soil Ingestion of Surface Soil {Area 3) Dermal Contact with SL!rface Soil Ingestion of Groundwater Inhalation of Groundwater Adult Total Risk = Child (1-6} Resident Risk= Child (7-12) Resident Risk= Adult Resident Risk= Total Residential Risk= PATHWAY RISK 4E-05 7E-06 1E-04 3E-05 1E-04 1E-05 3E-04 1E-05 7E-06 4E-05 3E-05 1E-04 1E-05 BE-07 SE-07 3E-07 2E-06 2E-04 1E-05 BE-06 4E-05 4E-05 2E-04 2E-05 3E-04 3E-04 2E-04 3E-04 9E-04 I I B D I ,, I I I, I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, lnc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA 1 Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 7 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 The total carcinogenic risks for the hypothetical future resident summed over the child 1-6, the child 7-12, and the adult, are 9E-4. The risks represent an excess incremental probability of developing cancer of 9 chances in 10,000 for the future resident. The risks include the incremental ingestion and dermal contact of surface soil from Areas 2 and 3, ingestion and inhalation of groundwater, and incidental ingestion 'and dermal contact with surface water and sediment. Approximately 90 % of the Area 3 soil risk is from exposure to dioxins/furans (sampled under the present facility which would be demolished in a future residential scenario), while 80% of the risk in Area 2 comes from expos,ure to carcinogenic PAHs. However, the railroad tracks present at the northern boundary of Area 2 are most likely the source of the PAHs. Carcinogenic PAHs are common contaminarits in wood preservers used for railroad ties (Murphy, 1979). The total carcinogenic risks for ingestion, and inhalation of volatile compounds present in groundwater for hypothetical future child (1-6), child 1(7-12), and adult residents are 4E-4. Forty percent of the risks are contributed to risk assocjated with volatile organic contaminants, primarily 1, 1-dichloroethene and tetrachloroethane. Approximately 35 % of the risk is attributed to beryllium which was detected in five groundwater samples. The remaining 25 % of the risk is associated with the pesticides. Risk to hypothetical future on-site residents with the volatile organics and beryllium risks removed is approximately 3E-5. Future on-site workers have two possible exposure scenarios; (1) if the facility remains and (2) if the facility is demolished. With the buildings present, the future worker would be exposed to Area 2 soil presenting a risk of developing cancer of 1 chance in 100,000, lE-5. If the building is removed, there is the possible exposure to Areas 2 and 3. The risk associated with incidental ingestion and dermal contact to those soils is 4E-5, or 4 chances in 100,000. Air monitoring was conducted in the FCX facility in three locations during two consecutive 24 hour periods. The results were evaluated against the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) established limits. These federal limits are referred to as pennissible exposure limits (PELs) determined with a time weighted average (40 hr/week, 8 hr/day scenario), which are referenced criteria for EPA remedial activity. None of the sample data exceeded the PELs. However, further evaluation will be given in the event the on-site building remains in the future. NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU6-8.WP 7-5 I I I B' I I I' I _, I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA 7 .1.2 Noncarcinogenic Risks Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 7 - Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Noncarcinogenic risks were evaluated for the same population as in Section 7. I. I: • Current off-site residents • Current on-site trespassers • Future on-site residents • Future worker with the facility present • Future worker with the facility demolish'ed The HI for the current off-site population (adults, child age 1-6 and child age 7-12, and the future workers) exceeded the acceptable HI limit of 1.0 (Table 7-2). The current off-site adult resi~ent had the lowest HI at 0.06 while the highest was estimated for the current off-site child resident/trespasser at 1.0. In all, the total for the current off-site resident equaled 1.6 which rounds to 2.0, exceeding unity. A large portion of this risk was due to ingestion of manganese from surface water in the current off-site child resident/trespasser pathway. The future residential HI also exceeded 1.0. The future adult had a in of 14 especially due to manganese ingestion in groundwater. The future child residert 1-6 had a HI of 35 also because of manganese ingestion in groundwater. Four chemic,als, barium, vanadium, manganese, and tetrachloroethene, provide almost 70 % of the risk contributed by groundwater. The future child age 7-12 had a HI of 38 primarily caused by metals · (particularly manganese) and tetrachloroethene in groundwater. 7.1.3 Lead Uptake Calculation As mentioned in Section 3.0, risks associated with exposure to lead were not calculated since it currently does not have any approved toxicity values. However, the Lead Model Version 0.5, a computer software application, was used to determine the uptake of lead and predict blood-lead levels in children ages 1-6 exposed to lead in air, die,t, drinking water, indoor dust, soil, and paint. The Model is designed to accept site specific variables where applicable and provides default values where data is not available. An acceptable Federal lead level in groundwater is 15 µg/L. Groundwater lead levels averaged 17.4 µg/L at FCX., Therefore, it was necessary to run the lead model. Model calculations are provided in Appendix G. The model results show that the geometric mean blood-lead level is 4.13 µg!L, and, therefore, lead is not a contaminant of NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU6-8.WP 7-6 I a I I' I' 11 -- ' B! a n, D I I' I I' I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA TABLE7-2 TOTAL NONCARCIN,OGENICRISKS POPULATION EXPOSURE PATl-lWAY PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX Current Offsite Adult Resident Future Onsite Adult Resident Current Offsite Child Resident Age 1-6 Future Onsite Child Resident Future Onsite Worker (with building) Future Onsite Worker (without building) Ingestion of Surface Soil (Area 1) Dermal Contact with Surface Soil Total Pathway lnde~ = Ingestion of Surface Soil {Area 2) Dermal Contact with Surface Soil Ingestion of Surface Soil (Area 3) Dermal Contact with Surface Soil Ingestion of Groundwater Inhalation of Groundwater Total Pathway Index = Ingestion of Surface Soil (Area 1) Dermal Contact with Surface Soil Total Pathway Index = Ingestion of Surface Soil (Area 2) Dermal Contact with Surface Soil Ingestion of Surface Soil (Area 3) Dermal Contact with S!Jrface Soil Ingestion of Groundwater Inhalation of Groundwater Total Pathway Index= Ingestion of Surface Soil (Area 2) Dermal Contact with Surface Soil Total Pathway Index= Ingestion of Surface Soil (Area 3) Dermal Contact with Surface Soil Total Pathway Index := 0.05 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.02 14 0.06 14 0.5 0.03 0.5 0.6 0.05 0.5 0.05 34 QJ_ 35 0.02 0.007 0.03 0.02 0.007 0.03 I I I 1· This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. TABLE7'.._2 TOTAL NONCARCINOGENICRISKS POPULATION EXPOSURE PATHWAY PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX Age 7-12 Current Offsite Child Resident/Trespasser Age 7-12 Future Onsite Child Resident Ingestion of Surface Soil (Area 1) Dermal Contact with Surface Soil Ingestion of Surface Soil (Area 2) Dermal Contact with Surface Soil Ingestion of Sediment Dermal Contact with Sediment Ingestion of Surface Water Dermal Contact with Surface Water ' Total Pathway Index= Ingestion of Surface Soil (Area 2) Dermal Contact with Surface Soil Ingestion of Surface Soil (Area 3) Dermal Contact with Surface Soil Ingestion of Groundwater Inhalation of Groundwater Ingestion of Sediment Dermal Contact with Sediment Ingestion of Surface Water Dermal Contact with Surface Water Total Pathway Index= 0.1 0.03 0.2 0.007 0.02 0.005 0.4 0.2 1 0.2 0.06 0.2 0.06 37 0.2 0.02 0.005 0.4 0.2 38 g I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 7 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 concern at the FCXS site. Only 0.55 percent of th'e population would have blood lead levels exceeding 10 µg!L. 7.2 UNCERTAINTIES IN THE RISK CHARACTERIZATION There are uncertainties associated with summing cancer risks or hazard indices for different chemicals, including the following: • • The dose additivity assumption ignores possible synergism or antagonism among chemicals and differences in mechanisms of action and metabolism. It is not known what effects chemicals have on the total risk numbers. Risk calculations for dermal exposure to all compounds assume a relationship between the oral toxicity values and the extrapolated dermal value. NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU6-8.WP 7-9 I I I I I I D D I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for E_PA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. SECTION 8 REMEDIAL GOAL OPTIONS Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 8 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 ·,he methods used in conducting this risk assessment are those presented in the U.S. EPA Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund -Volume I (Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A and Part B) (EPA, 1989a, 1992b), and the Volume I Supplemental Guidance (U.S. EPA, 1991c). Based on the risk characterization presented in Section 7 of the risk assessment, the contaminants presenting an elevated risk to human health will be identified. Remedial goals will be developed for risks at lE-4, lE-5, and lE-6. EPA Region IV has established soil remediation levels for total pesticides of 1 ppm based on the State of North Carolina background levels for pesticides which is I ppm. EPA Region IV asserts that reducing total pesticide levels to I ppm will not only achieve a 95 percent reduction of pesticides in soils but will also achieve goals for groundwater protection in conjunction with the OU! ROD. The substances considered in the preceding risk analysis can be evaluated through further calculation to derive remedial goals for soil based on the exposure model scenarios previously employed in Section 4. The action levels for consideration of noncarcinogenic effects may be derived by dividing the exposure concentrations in soil by the HI. For example, if the starting concentration of a given substance was 10 ppm and ·the HI was 5, then the health risk-based action level would be 10/5 or 2 ppm. Similarly, for carcinogenic effects, if the exposure concentration was 5 ppm of a given substance and the calculated cancer risk was 5 in 1,000,000, the resulting 1 in 1,000,000 health risk-based action level would be 1 ppm, and the 1 in 10,000 health risk-based action level would be 100 ppm. If the risk was only 5 in 10,000,000 for a starting concentration of 5 ppm, the resulting action levels would be 10 ppm and 1,000 ppm. Note that this approach for derivation of action levels ignores additivity of toxic effects, both noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic. Table 8-1 contains the health risk-based action levels for substances which are present in the three soil sample areas. All soil exposures were added for each population to represent the residents' risk levels used in determining remedial goal options. In area 1, arsenic, beryllium, benzo(a)pyrene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and dioxins (TEQ) exceeded lE-6 risk. In area 2, six NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\01 l \RAMJU6·8.WP 8-1 -- - - - - - --1!111!1 !!!!!I ~ liiiiil liiiiil liiiil This document \\as prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., e)1'.)ressly for EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, in 'Mlole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Chemicals Arsenic Benzo(b,k)fluoranthene Benzo(a\nvrene Bervllium Dibenzo( a,h) anthracene Pentachlorophenol Dioxin(TEQ) - - = Chemical did not exceed 1 E-6 risk. TableB-1 Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options Resident Soil (mg/kg) -Ingestion and Dermal Contact Scenarios Carcinogenic Risk Area 1 Area2 1E-06 1E-5 1E-4 1E-06 . 1E-5 1E-4 0.3 3.0 30 029 2.9 29 ------0.055 0.55 5.5 0.054 0.54 5.4 0.054 0.54 · 5.4 _0.12 --12 12 0.12 · ··i-2-·12 0.054 0.54 5.4 0.054 0.54 5.4 ------ ------ 0.0000026 0.000026 0.00026 0.0000026 0.000026 0.00026 Area3 1E-06 1E-5 1E-4 -- ---- ------ 0.052 0.52 5.2 ------- ------ 3.2 32 320 0.0000025 0.000025 0.00025 liiiil iiiiil I I I I I u D I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: ·8 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 chemicals exceeded the lE-6 risk: arsenic; beryllium; benzo(b,k)fluoranthene; benzo(a)pyrene; dibenzo(a,h)anthracene; and dioxins (TEQ). In area 3, benzo(a)pyrene, pentachlorophenol, and dioxins (TEQ) exceeded lE-6 risk. Concentrations are shown for 1/10,000, 1/100,000, and 1/1,000,000 target risk levels for those carcinogenic substances to aid in decision making concerning the level of cleanup appropriate within the target cancer risk based range. Table 8-2 contains health-based action levels for substances which exceeded the carcinogenic risk of lE-6 for the groundwater medium. Once again, remedial goal options were based on the summation of risks across groundwater exposures and populations for the resident. Beryllium, 1, 1-dichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, heptachlor epoxide, alpha-BHC, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, beta-BHC, gamma-BHC, dieldrin, gamma chlordane/2, and alpha chlordane/2 were the chemicals exceeding a lE-6 risk for residents' exposure to groundwater. Remedial goals are shown for 1/10,000, 1/100,000, and 1/1,000,000 target risk levels, as well as North Carolina Drinking Water Standards and Federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). Table 8-3 contains health-based action levels for substances which exceeded the noncarcinogenic HI of 1.0 in the groundwater pathway. Once again, the most conservative pathway was chosen for remedial goal modeling (in this case the 7-12 year old receptor). The chemicals with risks of 0.1 or greater in this pathway with a HI greater than 1.0 are as follows: barium, vanadium, manganese, tetrachloroethene, heptachlor epoxid~, dieldrin, gamma-chlordane/2, alpha-chlordane/2, and carbon tetrachloride. NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU6-8.WP 8-3 iiiiil -iiiil iiiiil iiiiil iiiil lilll iiiil iiiiil iiiil iiiil iiiil iiiiil iii) iiiiil iiiii liiiiiJ liiiJ - This document 'v\0s prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., e>q:,ressly for EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written pe.rmission of EPA. TableB-2 Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options Resident Groundwater (mg/I) -Ingestion and Inhalation Scenarios Chemicals Beryllium 1, 1 -Dichloroelhene Tetrachloroethe_ne_ Heptachlor Epoxide Alpha-BHC Beta-BHC Gamma-BHC (Lindane) Dieldrin Gamma-Chlordane/2 Chloroform Alpha-Chlordane/2 Carbon Tetrachloride NCDWS = North Carolina Drinking Water Standard - - = Value not available 1E-6 0.000013 0.00007 0.001 0.0000059 0.0000086 0.00003 0.000042 0.0000033 0.000042 0.00064 0.000021 0.00042 Carcinogenic Risk 1E-5 1E-4 0.00013 0.0013 0.0007 0.007 -O.D1 . 0.1 0.000059 0.00059 0.000086 0.00086 0.0003 0.003 0.00042 0.0042 0.000033 0.00033 0.00042 0.0042 0.0064 0.064 0.00021 0.0021 0.0042 0.042 Maxinum NCDWS Contaminant mgn Level mnn 0.004 0.007 0.007 -0.0007 0.005 0.000004 0.0002 ---- ---- 0:0002 0.0002 ---- 0.000027 0.002 0.00019 0.1 0.000027 0.002 0.0003 0.005 ----11!!!1!!!1 !!!!!I l!!!!!I l!!l!I - This document oo.s prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., e>pressly for EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, in 'M"lole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Table 8-3 Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options Child7-12 Resident Groundwater (mg/I) -Ingestion and Inhalation Scenarios Chemicals Barium Vanadium Manganese Tetrachloroethene Heptachlor Epoxide Dieldrin Gamma-Chlordane/2 Alpha-Chlordane/2 Carbon Tetrachloride NCDWS = North Carolina Drinking Water Standard - - = Value not available 0.1 0.099 0.0098 0.0071 0.014 0.000019 0.000068 0.000085 0.000085 0.00032 Hazard Index 1.0 10 0.99 9.9 0.098 0.98 0.071 · 0.71 0.14 1.4 0.00019 0.0019 0.00068 0.0068 0.00085 0.0085 0.00085 0.0085 0.0032 0.032 Maxinum NCOWS Contaminant mg~ Level mnn 2.0 2.0 ---- 0.05 -- 0.0007 0.005 0.000004 0.0002 ---- 0.000027 0.002 0.000027 0.002 0.0003 0.005 iiiil. - I I I I g I I I D I D B u I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, lnc., expressly for EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. REFERENCES Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 8 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Region IV, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Phase I Remedial Investigation Report for the FCX-Statesville Superfund Site. Statesville, South Carolina, September 1992. Region IV, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Project Operations Plan for the Remedial Investigation for the FCX-Statesville Superfund Site. Statesville, South Carolina, September 1992. Region IV, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Drilling and Well Construction Specifications, Phase II Grbundwater Investigation, FCX-Statesville. Statesville, North Carolina, December 1991. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Guidance on Remedial Investigation, under CERCLA, EPA/540/G-85/002, June 1985. United States Department of Interior, Stat~sville West (North Carolina), Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map, 1969. Fred C. Hart, Environmental Evaluation Report: FCX Distribution Center, Prepared for Southern States Cooperative, Inc., February 27, 1986. North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Division of Health Services, Site Assessment Report, FCX-Statesville, March, 1987. WESTON•SPER, Memorandum from Bethany Hunton, TAT Region IV to Don Rigger. OSC, EPA Region IV, Subject: FCX-Statesville, February 19, 1990. Don Rigger, OSC, EPA Region IV, Personal Communication. North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Division of Health Services, Preliminary Assessment Report, FCX-Statesville, March 1986. NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RA~U6-8.WP R-1 I I g 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. 11. 12. ·-13; 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 8 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Debbie-Vaughn-Wright, Site Assessment Section, EPA Region IV, Personal Communication. U.S. Census Bureau Population Survey, 1980. OHM Analytical Data Report, FCX-Stat~sville, Project Number 6803S. P. E. LaMoreaux and Associates, Analytical Data Report for FCX-Statesville, January 1990. Transmitted to Mark Rigatti, O.H. Materials. NUS, Draft Screening Site Inspection Report, Burlington Industries, Statesville, North Carolina, in progress January 1991. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Environmental Services Division, Environmental Compliance Branch Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual, February 1, 1991. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Environmental Services Division, Analytical Support Branch Operations and Quality Control Manual, October 1990. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey, Iredell County, North Carolina, June 1964. Harry E. LeGrand, Geology and Groundwater in the Statesville Area. NC. NC Department of Conservation and Development, Bulletin No. 68. 1954. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Open File Report 80-44, Basic Elements of Groundwater Geology. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Open File Report 80-44, Basic Elements of Groundwater Geology. Driscoll, F. G .• Groundwater and Wells. Johnson Division, UOP Inc .• St. Paul, Minnesota, 1089 p., 1986. NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU6-8.WP R-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I g This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 8 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Kruseman, G. P. and N. A. de Ridder, Analysis and Evaluation of Pumping Test Data, Institute of Land Reclamation and Improvements Bulletin 11, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 200p., 1989. Freeze, R. A. and J. A. Cherry, Groundwater, Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, -• NJ, 604 p., 1979. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Distributions or Ranges of Standard Factors Washington, DC OHEA-E-61. 1985. Development of Statistical Used in Exposure Assessments. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Age11cy). 1989a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1 -Human Health Evaluation Manual {Part A). Interim Final. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. OSWER Directive 9285-0la. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991a. "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1 -Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance, "Standard Default Exposure Factors,". Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV). 1991b. "Supplemental Region IV Risk Assessment Guidance." March 1991. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV). 1992a. "New Interim Region IV Guidance." February 1992. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1992b. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1 -Human Health Evaluation Manual {Part B). Development of Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation Goal~. January 1992b. Murphy, N., Kaufman, D., Fries, G., Journal of Environmental Science and Health. 1979. ASTDR 1989b (Caldwell RA Rev. 3). Ecological Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1986). NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJUB-8.WP R-3 I I I g I I u 0 D I I I u I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. lt shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. 34. 35. 36. Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: 8 Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Ecological Assessment of Hazardous Waste Sites: A Field and Laboratories Reference (U.S. EPA, 1989a). Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund -Volume II, Environmental Evaluation Manual (U.S. EPA, 1989b). Summary Report on Issues in Ecological Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1991). NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011\RAMJU6-8.WP R-4 ---- ---.. iiiil liiii iiii iiilil This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: Appendices Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 APPENDIX A GROUNDWATER EXPOSURE CALCULATIONS NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU6-8.WP iiiiii -----------------~-FCX GROUNDWATER 14-JUN-94 GWTRDAT.WK1 MG/L Barium Beryllium Chromium Copper Nickel Vanadium Lead Zinc. Mercury Manganese 1 ,1 -Dichloroethene Chloroform 1 ,1, 1 -Trichloroethane Bromodichloromethane Trichloroethene Tetrachloroethene Carbon Tetrachloride Cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene Heptachlor Epoxide Alpha-BHC Beta-BHC Gamma-BHC (Lindane) Dieldrin Gamma-Chlordane /2 Alpha-Chlordane /2 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate EXPOSURE MAXIMUM POINT UCL DETECTION CONG 0.326 0.500 0.326 0.002 0.007 0.002 0.058 0.084 0.058 0.033 0.120 0.033 0.028 0.083 0.028 0.052 0.099 0.052 0.01 03 0.061 0.0103 0.071 0.200 0.071 0.0002 0.0007 0.0002 3.200 2.400 2.4 0.007 0.029 0.007 0.007 0.01 0 0.007 0.006 0.01 3 0.006 0.006 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.103 0.00644 0.011 0.013 0.340 0.0042 0.042 5.00E-05 2.80E-05 3.70E-04 5.00E-03 1 .50E-04 5.00E-03 3.70E-04 1.60E-02 8.1 0E-05 2.00E-03 1 .1 0E-04 3.60E-04 1 .40E-04 5.1 0E-04 8.00E-03 8.60E-02 0.005 0.103 0.0042 0.011 2.80E-05 3.70E-04 1 .50E-04 3.70E-04 8.1 0E-05 1.1 0E-04 1.40E-04 8.00E-03 Oral Dermal Inhalation RfD RfD RfD 7.00E-02 1.40E-02 NO RID 5.00E-03 1 .00E-03 NO RID 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 NO RID 3.70E-02 7.40E-03 NO RID 2.00E-02 4.00E-03 NO RID 7.00E-03 1 .40E-03 NO RID NO RID NO RID NO RID 3.00E-01 6.00E-02 NO RID 3.00E-04 6.00E-05 NO RID 5.00E-03 1.00E-03 NO RID Oral SF NO SF Dermal SF NO SF 4.30E+00 2.15E+01 NO SF NO SF NO SF NO SF NO SF NO SF NO SF NO SF NO SF NO SF NO SF NO SF NO SF NO SF NO SF NO SF 9.00E-03 7.20E-:03 1.43E-01 6.00E-01 7.50E-01 1.00E-02 8.00E-03 NO RID 6.1 0E-03 7.60E-03 9.00E-02 7.20E-02 3.00E-01 NO SF NO SF 2.00E-02 1.60E-02 NO RID 6.20E-02 7.75E-02 6.00E-03 4.60!=::-0J NO RID 1.00E-02 8.00E-03 NO RID 0.0007 0.00056 0.002 1.00E-02 8.00E-03 NO RID 1.30E-05 6.50E-06 NO RID NO RID NO RID NO RID NO RID NO RID NO RID 3.00E-04 1.50E-04 NO RID 5.00E-05 2.50E-05 NO RID 6.00E-05 3.00E-05 NO RID 6.00E-05 3.00E-05 NO RID 2.00E-02 1.00E-02 NO RID 1.1_0E-02 1.4.0E-02 5.20E-02 6.50E-02 0.13 0.1 6 NO SF NO SF 9.1 0E+00 1.80E+01 6.30E+00 1.26E+01 1.80E+00 3.60E+00 1.30E+00 2.60E+00 1 .60E+01 3.20E+01 1.30E+00 2.60E+00 1.30E+00 2.60E+00 1.40E-02 2.80E-02 --111!!!!!!!1 1'!!!111 l!!!!!!!I I!!!! 11111 11:1:! 1:1:1 c== 1111111a i=iil &Iii 811 liilil liiiii& iiiil iiiil - FCX GROUNDWATER 14-JUN-94 GWTRDAT.WK1 MG/L Barium Beryllium Chromium Copper Nickel Vanadium Lead Zinc Mercury Manganese 1 ,1 -Dichloroethene Chloroform 1 , 1 , 1 -Trichloroethane Bromodichloromethane Trichloroethene Tetrach loroethe ne Carbon Tetrachloride Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Heptachlor Epoxide Alpha-BHC Beta-BHC Gamma-BHC (Lindane) Dieldrin Gamma-Chlordane /2 Alpha-Chlordane /2 Bis{2-ethylhexyl)phthala1e Inhalation SF NO SF NO SF NO SF NO SF NO SF NO SF NO SF NO SF NO SF NO SF 1.B0E-01 8.05E-02 NO SF NO SF 6.00E-03 2:ooE-=03 0.000015 NO SF NO SF NO SF NO SF NO SF NO SF 1.3oE+oo 1.30E+00 NO SF Exposure Model Factors Ingestion 1 -6 adult 7-12 Dermal 1 -6 adult Inhalation 1 -6 adult 7-12 Chronic 0.064 0.027 0.071 0.11 0.062 0.064 0.027 0.071 Lifetime 0.0055 0.007 0.006 0.0098 0.021 0.0055 0.007 0.006 - - ---- - ----111!!!!1 --== == -liiiiill lilii FCX GROUNDWATER 14-JUN-94 INGESTION INGESTION GWTRDAT.WK1 Chronic Chronic Chronic Lifetime Lifetime Lifetime MG/L Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Intake Intake Intake Intake Intake Intake 1-6 adult 7-12 1-6 adult 7-12 Barium 2.1 E-02 8.8E-03 2.3E-02 1.8E-03 2.3E-03 · 2.0E-03 Beryllium 1.3E-04 5.4E-05 1.4E-04 1.1E-05 1.4E-05 1.2E-05 Chromium 3.7E-03 1.6E-03 4.1 E-03 3.2E-04 4.1 E-04 3.SE-04 Copper 2.1 E-03 8.9E-04 2.3E-03 1 .8E-04 2.3E-04 2.0E-04 Nickel 1.8E-03 7.6E-04 2.0E-03 1.SE-04 2.0E-04 1.7E-04 Vanadium 3.3E-03 1.4E-03 3.7E-03 2.9E-04 3.6E-04 3.1 E-04 Lead 6.6E-04 2.8E-04 7.3E-04 5.7E-05 7.2E-05 6.2E-05 Zinc. 4.SE-03 1.9E-03 5.0E-03 3.9E-:-04 5.0E-04 4.3E-04 Mercury 1.3E-05 5.4E-06 1.4E-05 1.1 E-06 1.4E-06 1 .2E-06 Manganese 1.SE-01 6.SE-02 1.7E-01 1.3E-02 1.7E-02 1.4E-02 1 ,1 -Dichloroethene 4.SE-04 1 .9E-04 5.0E-04 3.9E-05 4.9E-05 4.2E-05 Chloroform 4.SE-04 1.9E-04 5.0E-04 3.9E-05 4.9E-05 4.2E-05 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 3.8E-04 1.6E-04 4.3E-04 3.3E-05 4.2E-05 3.6E-05 Bromodichloromethane 6.4E-05 2.7E-05 7.1 E-05 5.SE-06 7.0E-06 6.0E-06 Trichloroethene 3.2E-04 1.4E-04 3.6E-04 2.8E-05 3.SE-05 3.0E-05 -Tetrachloroethene 6:6E'-'03 · 2.8E-o3· 7.3E-03 5:iE-04 7.2E-04 6.2E-04 Carbon Tetrachloride 2.7E-04 1 .1 E-04 3.0E-04 2.3E-05 2.9E-05 2.SE-05 Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 7.0E-04 3.0E-04 7.8E-04 6.1 E-05 7.7E-05 6.6E-05 Heptachlor Epoxide 1 .8E-06 7.6E-07 2.0E-06 1.SE-07 2.0E-07 1 .7E-07 Alpha-BHC 2.4E-05 1 .OE-05 2.6E-05 2.0E-06 2.6E-06 2.2E-06 Beta-BHC 9.6E-06 4.1 E-06 1.1E-05 8.3E-07 1 .1 E-06 9.0E-07 Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 2.4E-05 1 .OE-05 2.6E-05 2.0E-06 2.6E-06 2.2E-06 Dieldrin 5.2E-06 2.2E-06 5.8E-06 4.SE-07 5.7E-07 4.9E-07 Gamma-Chlordane /2 7.0E-06 3.0E-06 7.SE-06 6.1 E-07 7.7E-07 6.6E-07 Alpha-Chlordane /2 9.0E-06 3.8E-06 9.9E-06 7.7E-07 9.8E-07 8.4E-07 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthala1e 5.1 E-04 2.2E-04 5.7E-04 4.4E-05 5.6E-05 4.8E-05 == == =--== == --am l!!!!!I I!!!! 11!1!!!1 l!l!!I 1!111!1 l!!l!!I I!!!! l!!m l!l!!I !II! FCX GROUNDWATER 14-JUN-94 INGESTION INHALATION GWTRDAT.WK1 MG/L Chronic . Chronic Chronic Chronic Chronic Chronic HQ HQ HQ HQ HQ HQ 1-6 adult 7-12 1-6 adult 7-12 Barium 3.0E-01 1.3E-01 3.3E-01 NA NA NA Beryllium 2.6E-02 1.1 E-02 2.BE-02 NA NA NA Chromium 3.7E-03 1.6E-03 4.1 E-03 NA NA NA Copper 5.7E-02 2.4E-02 6.3E-02 NA NA NA Nickel 9.0E-02 3.BE-02 9.9E-02 NA NA NA Vanadium 4.BE-01 2.0E-01 5.3E-01 NA NA NA Lead NA NA NA NA NA NA Zinc 1 .5E-02 6.4E-03 1.7E-02 NA NA NA Mercury 4.3E-02 1.BE-02 4.7E-02 NA NA NA Manganese 3.1 E+01 1.3E+01 3.4E+01 NA NA NA 1,1 -Dichloroethene 5.0E-02 2.1 E-02 5.5E-02 3.1 E-03 1.3E-03 3.5E-03 Chloroform 4.5E-02 1.9E-02 5.0E-02 NA NA NA 1 , 1 , 1 -Trichloroethane 4.3E-03 1.BE-03 4.7E-03 1.3E-03 5.4E-04 1 .4E-03 Bromodichloromethane 3.2E-03 1 .4E-03 3.6E-03 NA NA NA Trichloroethene 5.3E-02 2.3E-02 5.9E-02 NA NA NA . Tetracliloroethene 6.6E.:_01 2.BE-01 7.3E-01 NA NA NA Carbon Tetrachloride 3.BE-01 1.6E-01 4.3E-01 1.3E-01 5.7E-02 1.5E-01 Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 7.0E-02 3.0E-02 7.BE-02 NA NA NA Heptachlor Epoxide · 1.4E-01 5.BE-02 1.5E-01 NA NA NA Alpha-BHC NA NA NA NA NA NA Beta-BHC NA NA NA NA NA NA Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 7.9E-02 3.3E-02 8.BE-02 NA NA NA Dieldrin 1.0E-01 4.4E-02 1.2E-01 NA NA NA Gamma-Chlordane /2 1.2E-01 5.0E-02 1.3E-01 NA NA NA Alpha-Chlordane /2 1.5E-01 6.3E-02 1.?E-01 NA NA NA Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthala1e 2.6E-02 1.1E-02 2.BE-02 NA NA NA 3.4E+01 1.4E+01 3.7E+01 1.4E-01 5.9E-02 1.5E-01 11!!1 1!111!!1 lmil 111111 . m=1 == == 1:1 =m r:a;;i lllia lilill Ii& 1iii1 iiii1 -lliiiiii liiiiiJ - FCX GROUNDWATER 14-JUN-94 GWTRDAT.WK1 MG/L Barium Beryllium Chromium Copper Nickel Vanadium Lead Zinc Mercury Manganese 1 ,1 -Dichloroethene Chloroform 1 , 1 , 1 -Trichloroethane Bromodichloromethane Trichloroethene -----Tetrachloroethe ne Carbon Tetrachloride Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Heptachlor Epoxide Alpha-BHC Beta-BHC Gamma-BHC (Lindane) Dieldrin Gamma-Chlordane /2 Alpha-Chlordane /2 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate INGESTION Lifetime Lifetime Risk Risk 1-6 adult NA NA 4.7E-05 6.0E-05 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2.3E-05 2.9E-05. 2.3E-07 3.0E-07 NA NA 3.4E-07 4.3E-07 3.0E-07 3.9E.-07 2.9E-05 3.7E-05 3.0E-06 3.BE-06 NA NA 1 .4E-06 1 .BE-06 1 .3E-05 1.6E-05 1.5E-06 1.9E-06 2.6E-06 3.4E-06 7.1 E-06 9.1 E-06 7.9E-07 1.0E-06 1 .OE-06 1.3E-06 6.2E-07 7.BE-07 1.3E-04 1 .7E-04 INHALATION Lifetime Lifetime Lifetime Lifetime Risk Risk Risk Risk 7-12 1-6 adult 7-12 NA NA NA NA 5.2E-05 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 2.5E-05 6.9E-06 8.BE-06 7.6E-06 2.6E-07 3.1 E-06 3.9E-06 3.4E-06 NA NA NA NA 3.7E-07 NA NA NA 3.3E.,-07 1 .7E-,-07 2.1 E-07 l.BE-07 3.2E-05 1.1 E-06 1 .4E-06 1.2E-06 3.3E-06 3.5E-10 4.4E-1 o 3.BE-10 NA NA NA NA 1.5E-06 NA NA NA 1.4E-05 NA NA NA 1.6E-06 NA NA NA 2.9E-06 NA NA NA 7.BE-06 NA NA NA 8.6E-07 7.9E-07 1.0E-06 8.6E-07 1.1E-06 1.0E-06 1.3E-06 1.1 E-06 6.7E-07 NA NA NA 1.4E-04 1.3E-05 1 .7E-05 1.4E-05 1111111 liliiil This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. APPENDIX B SURFACE WATER EXPOSURE CALCULATIONS NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \AAMJU6-8.WP Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: Appendices Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 -------------------FCX SURFACE WATER 9-JUN-94 SWTRDAT.WK1 MG/L Barium Chromium Copper Nickel Strontium Lead Vanadium Zinc Manganese Benzene 1 ,2-Dichloropropane Trichloroethene Tetrachloroethene --Cis..:..1 ,2-Dichloroethene Dieldrin Gamma-Chlordane /2 Alpha-Chlordane /2 NA UCL 1.56E-01 5.1 0E-02 5.79E-01 7.20E-02 1.29E-01 11 -5.32E-01 3.95E+00 3.92E+01 2.70E-02 1 .75E+06 1.76E+13 1 :85E+05 6.40E-05 MAXIMUM DETECTION 2.40E-01 2.S0E-02 2.B0E-02 2.00E-02 2.00E-01 0.028 8.60E-02 1.60E-01 3.30E+00 1.00E-03 7.00E-'-03 6.30E-02 9.B0E-02 4.S0E-02 3.60E-05 1.20E-05 1.40E-05 EXPOSURE POINT CONG. 1 .56E-01 2.S0E-02 2.B0E-02 2.00E-02 1.29E-01 2.B0E-02 8.60E-02 1.60E-01 3.30E+00 1.00E-03 7.00E-03 6.30E-02 9.B0E-02 4.S0E-02 3.60E-05 1.20E-05 1.40E-05 Permeability Constant(cm/hr} 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 1.0E-03 2.1 E-02 1 .0E-02 1.6E-02 4.BE-02 1 .0E--,02_ 1.6E-02 5.2E-02 5.2E-02 Oral Dermal Oral RfD RfD SF 7.0E-02 1.4E-02 NO SF 1.0E+oo 2.0E-01 NO SF 3.7E-02 7.4E-03 NO SF 2.0E-02 4.0E-03 NO SF 6.0E-01 1.2E-01 NO SF NO RfD NO RfD NO SF 7.0E-03 1.4E-03 NO SF 3.0E-01 6.0E-02 NO SF 5.0E-03 1.0E-03 NO SF NO RfD NO RfD 2.9E-02 NO RfD NO RfD NO SF 6.0E-03 4.6E-03 1.1 E-02 1.0E-02 8.0E-03 5.2E-02 1 .0E-02 8.0E-03 NO SF 5.0E-05 2.SE-05 1.6E+01 6.0E-05 3.0E-05 1.3E+00 6.0E-05 3.0E-05 1.3E+oo iiiil ---liilll --.. .. 11111 -.. .. ---iiiil iiiil liiiil FCX SURFACE WATER 9-JUN-94 INGESTION DERMAL CONTACT INGESTION SWTRDAT.WK1 Exposure Chronic Chronic Lifetime MG/L Model Daily Daily Daily Dermal Factors Intake Intake Intake SF Ingestion Chronic Lifetime 7-12 7-12 7-12 Barium NO SF 7-12 5.9E-04 5.1 E-05 9.2E-05 B.3E-06 B.0E-06 Chromium NO SF 1.5E-05 1.3E-06 1.3E-06 Copper NO SF Dermal 1.7E-05 1.5E-06 1.4E-06 Nickel NO SF 7-12 5.3E-02 4.5E-03 1 .2E-05 1.1 E-06 1.0E-06 Strontium NO SF 7.6E-05 6.BE-06 6.6E-06 Lead NO SF 1.7E-05 1.5E-06 1.4E-06 Vanadium NO SF 5.1 E-05 4.6E-06 4.4E-06 Zinc NO SF 9.4E-05 B.5E-06 B.2E-06 Manganese NO SF 1.9E-03 1.7E-04 1.7E-04 Benzene 3.6E-02 5.9E-07 1 .1 E-06 5.1 E-08 1 ,2-Dichloropropane NO SF 4.1 E-06 3.7E-06 3.6E-07 Trichloroethene 1.4E-02 3.7E-05 5.3E-05 3.2E-06 Tetrachloroethe ne 6.5E-02 5.BE-05 2.5E-04 5.0E-06 -Cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene NO.SF-2.7E-05 2.4E-05 2.3E-06 . Dieldrin 3.2E+01 2.1 E-.08 3.1 E-08 1 .BE-09 Gamma-Chlordane /2 2.6E+00 7.1 E-09 3.3E-08 6.1E-10 Alpha-Chlordane /2 2.6E+00 8.3E-09 3.9E-08 7.1E-10 --------.. -----.. ---iiii1 FCX SURFACE WATER 9-JUN-94 DERMAL CONTACT INGESTION DERMAL INGESTION DERMAL SWTRDAT.WK1 Lifetime CONTACT CONTACT MG/L Daily Chronic Chronic Lifetime Lifetime Intake HQ HQ Risk Risk 7-12 7-12 7-12 7-12 7-12 Barium 7.0E-07 1.3E-03 5.9E-04 NA NA Chromium 1.1 E-07 1.SE-05 6.6E-06 NA NA Copper 1 .3E-,-07 4.SE-04 2.0E-04 NA NA Nickel 9.0E-08 5.9E-04 2.6E-04 NA NA Strontium 5.SE-07 1.3E-04 5.7E-05 NA NA Lead 1.3E-07 NA NA NA NA Vanadium 3.9E-07 7.2E-03 3.3E-03 NA NA Zinc 7.2E-07 3.1 E-04 1.4E-04 NA NA Manganese 1.SE-05 3.9E-01 1 .7E-01 NA NA Benzene 9.SE-08 NA NA 1 .SE-09 3.4E-09 1 ,2-Dichloropropane 3.2E-07 NA NA NA NA · · Trichloroethene 4.SE-06 6.2E-03 1 .2E-02 3.SE-08 6.4E-08 Tetrachloroethene 2.1 E-05 · --· 5:SE-03 3.1 E-02 2.6E-07 1 .4E-06 Cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene 2.0E-06 2.7E-03 3.0E-03 NA NA Dieldrin 2.6E-09 4.2E-04 1.2E-03 2.9E-08 8.3E-08 Gamma-Chlordane /2 2.SE-09 1 .2E-04 1.1 E-03 8.0E-1 O 7.3E-09 Alpha--Chlordane /2 3.3E-09 1.4E-04 1.3E-03 9.3E-1 O 8.SE-09 4E-01 2E-01 3E-07 2E-06 ----.. - --.. This document was prepared ~y Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: Appendices Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 APPENDIX C SEDIMENT EXPOSURE CALCULATIONS NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU6-8.WP - 11111 == =--.. 111!1 1!!!19 1!!!19 -... ---.. -l!I -~ ~ --· ' ' FCX SEDIMENT 9-JUN-94 SEDMDAT.WK1 ADJUSTED MG/KG EXPOSURE EXPOSURE MAXIMUM POINT TEF POINT Absorption Oral Dermal UCL DETECTION CONG VALUES CONG Factor RfD RfD Arsenic 5.100 8.200 5.1 5.1 0.001 3.00E-04 6.00E-05 Copper 44.200 73.000 44.2 44.2 0.001 3.70E-02 7.40E-03 Nickel 24.300 74.000 24.3 24.3 0.001 2.00E-02 4.00E-03 Selenium 4.400 6.300 4.4 4.4 0.001 5.00E-03 1.00E-03 Vanadium 112.000 170.000 11 2 112 0.001 7.00E-03 1.40E-03 Zinc 422.700 430.000 422.7 422.7 0.001 3.00E-01 6.00E-02 Lead 100 95 95 95 0.001 NO RID NO RID Manganese 688.800 1100.000 688.8 688.8 0.001 1.40E-01 2.80E-02 Trichloroethene 0.034 0.044 0.034 0.034 0.01 6.00E-03 4.60E-03 Dieldrin 0.030 0.036 0.03 0.03 0.01 5.00E-05 2.50E-05 4,4'-DDT (P,P'-DDT) 0.044 0.150 0.044 0.044 0.01 5.00E-04 2.50E-04 4,4'-DDE (P,P'-DDE) 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.01 NO RID NO RID 4,4'-DDD (P,P'-ODD) 0.048 0.083 0.048 0.048 0.01 3.00E-03 1.50E-03 Endrin 0.088 0.370 0.088 0.088 0.01 3.00E-04 1.50E-04 PCB-1254 (Aroclor 1254) · · 0:385 0:760 0.385 0:385 0.01 -· N0 RID· NO RID Gamma-Chlordane /2 1.000 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.01 6.00E-05 3.00E-05 Alpha-Chlordane /2 0.977 0.026 0.026 0.026 0.01 6.00E-05 3.00E-05 Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 7.500 34.000 7.5 7.5 0.01 2.00E-02 1.00E-02 Benzo (a)anthracene 0.943 1.100 0.943 0.1 0.094 0.01 NO RID NO RID Chrysene 0.984 1.300 0.984 0.01 0.01 0.01 NO RID NO RID Benzo(b and/or. k)fluoranthene 1.300 2.400 1 .3 0.1 0.13 0.01 NO RID NO RID Benzo(a)pyrene 0.894 1.100 0.894 1 0.894 0.01 NO RID NO RID lndeno (1,2,3-CD) pyrene 0.894 1.100 0.894 0.1 0.089 0.01 NO RID NO RID --11!!!!!!1 !!!!!!! I!!!!! !l!!!I 11111 == == == Ga liiiilia liiiiii -liiiii liiiil liiii iiiJ -FCX SEDIMENT 9-JUN-94 SEDMDAT.WK1 Ingestion Dermal Ingestion MGiKG Exposure Chronic Chronic Lifetime Oral Dermal COi Daily Daily Daily SF SF Ingestion chronic lifetime Intake Intake Intake Arsenic 1.75E+00 8.75E+00 7-12 4.7E-07 3.9E-08 2.4E-06 1.0E-07 2.0E-07 Copper NO SF NO SF 2.1E-05 8.8E-07 1.7E-06 Nickel NO SF NO SF Dermal 1.1 E-05 4.9E-07 9.5E-07 Selenium NO SF NO SF 7-12 0.00002 1.7E-06 2.1 E-06 8.8E-08 1.7E-07 Vanadium NO SF NO SF 5.3E-05 2.2E-06 4.4E-06 Zinc NO SF NOSF 2.0E-04 8.5E-06 1.6E-05 Lead NO SF NO SF 4.5E-05 1.9E-06 3.7E-06 Manganese NO SF NO SF 3.2E-04 1.4E-05 2.7E-05 Trichloroethene 1.10E-02 1.40E-02 1.6E-08 6.8E-09 1.3E-09 Dieldrin 1.60E+01 3.20E+01 1 .4E-08 6.0E-09 1.2E-09 4,4'-DDT (P,P'-DDT) 3.40E-01 6.80E-01 2.1 E-08 8.8E-09 1.7E-09 4,4'-DDE (P,P'-DDE) 3.40E-01 6.80E-01 1.3E-08 5.6E-09 1.1 E-09 4,4'-DDD (P,P'-000) 2.40E-01 4.80E-01 2.3E-08 9.6E-09 1.9E-09 Endrin NO SF NO SF 4.1E-08 1.8E-08 3.4E-09 _P.CB-,-1254 (Aroclor 1254) 7.70E+00 1,54E+01 1.SE-07 7.7E-08 1.5E-08 Gamma-Chlordane /2 1.30E+00 2.60E+00 1.7E-08 7.4E-09 1.4E-09 Alpha-Chlordane /2 1.30E+oo 2.60E+00 1.2E-08 5.2E-09 1.0E-09 Bis(2-ethylhexyl}phthalate 1.40E-02 2.80E-02 3.5E-06 1.5E-06 2.9E-07 Benzo (a)anthracene 7.30E+00 1.46E+01 4.4E-08 1.9E-08 3.7E-09 Chrysene 7.30E+00 1.46E+01 4.7E-09 2.0E-09 3.9E-10 Benzo(b and/or k}fluoranthe ne 7.30E+00 1.46E+01 6.1E-08 2.6E-08 5.1 E-09 Benzo(a)pyrene 7.30E+00 1.46E+01 4.2E-07 1.8E-07 3.5E-08 lndeno {1,2,3-CD) pyrene 7.30E+00 1.46E+01 4.2E-08 1.8E-08 3.5E-09 ----~--------------FCX SEDIMENT 9-JUN-94 SEDMDAT.WK1 MG/KG Arsenic Copper Nickel Selenium Vanadium Zinc Lead Manganese Trichloroethene Dieldrin 4,4'-DDT (P,P'-DDT) 4,4'-DDE (P,P'-DDE) 4,4'-DDD (P,P'-ODD) Endrin PC B-1254 (Aroclor 1254) Gamma-Chlordane /2 Alpha-Chlordane /2 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Benzo (a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene lndeno (1,2,3-CD) pyrene Dermal Lifetime Daily Intake 8.?E-09 7.5E-08 4.1E-08 7.5E-09 1.9E-07 7.2E-07 1.6E-07 1.2E-06 5.BE-10 5.1E-10 7.5E-10 4.BE-10 B.2E-1 o 1.5E-09 6.5E-·og 6.3E-10 4.4E-10 1.3E-07 1.6E-09 1.?E-10 2.2E-09 1.5E-08 1.5E-09 Ingestion Chronic HQ 8.0E-03 5.6E-04 5.?E-04 4.1E-04 7.5E-03 6.6E-04 NA 2.3E-03 2.?E-06 2.BE-04 4.1E-05 NA 7.5E-06 1.4E-04 NA 2.9E-04 2.0E-04 1.BE-04 NA NA NA NA NA 2.1E-02 Dermal Ingestion Dermal Chronic Lifetime Lifetime HQ RISK RISK 1.?E-03 3.5E-07 7.6E-08 1.2E-04 NA NA 1.2E-04 NA NA 8.BE-05 NA NA 1.6E-03 NA NA 1.4E-04 NA NA NA NA NA 4.9E-04 NA NA 1.5E-06 1.5E-11 B.1E-12 2.4E-04 1.9E-08 1.6E-08 3.5E-05 5.BE-10 5.1E-10 NA 3.?E-10 3.2E-10 6.4E-06 4.5E-10 3.9E-10 1.2E-04 NA NA -NA 1.2E-07 1.0E-07 2.5E-04 1.9E-09 1.6E-09 1.?E-04 1.3E-09 1.1 E-09 1.5E-04 4.1E-09 3.6E-09 NA 2.?E-08 2.3E-08 NA 2.BE-09 2.5E-09 NA 3.?E-08 3.2E-08 NA 2.5E-07 2.2E-07 NA 2.5E-08 2.2E-08 5.2E-03 8.4E-07 5.0E-07 -- --I!!!!!!!! l!!!!!9 l!ll!D == la lilliii1 liiiiil iiiil This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or_ disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. APPENDIX D AREA 1 EXPOSURE CALCULATIONS NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU6-8.WP Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: Appendices Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 -- - l!!!!l!I l!!l!!!!I l!!!l!!I !!I!!! 1!11!!! --= == == == ,_, -liiiil iiiilil liiiili1 liiiii1 FCX SOIL 9-JUN-94 SLA1 DAT.WK1 ADJUSTED MG/KG EXPOSURE EXPOSURE MAXIMUM POINT cPAH POINT Absorption Oral Dermal UCL DETECTION CONC TEF CONC Factor RfD RfD Arsenic 2.700 7.400 2.7 2.7 0.001 3.00E-04 6.00E-05 Barium 116.200 440.000 116.2 116.2 0.001 7.00E-02 1.40E-02 Beryllium 0.700 1.200 0.7 0.7 0.001 5.00E-03 1.00E-03 Chromium 76.000 170.000 76 76 0.001 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 Copper 29.000 49.000 29 29 0.001 3.70E-02 7.40E-03 Lead 4000 3100 3100 3100 0.001 NORfD NORfD Nickel 14.000 32.000 14 14 0.001 2.00E-02 4.00E-03 Vanadium 115.000 220.000 115 115 0.001 7.00E-03 1.40E-03 Manganese 472.000 1100.000 472 472 0.001 1.40E-01 2.80E-02 Ethyl benzene 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.01 1.0E-01 8.0E-02 Tetrachloroethene 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.01 1.00E-02 8.00E-03 Heptachlor 0.006 0.019 0.006 0.006 0.01 5.00E-04 2.50E-04 Heptachlor Epoxide 0.007 0.054 0.007 0.007 0.01 1.30E-05 6.50E-06 4,4'-DDT (P,P'-DDT) 0.033 0.690 0.033 0.033 0.01 5.00E-04 2.50E-04 4,4'-DDE (P,P'-DDE) 0.051 0.480 0.051 0.051 0.01 7.00E-04 3.50E-04 4,4'-DDD (P,P'-DDD) 0.023 0.180 0.023 0.023 0.01 3.00E-03 1.50E-03 -· Gamma..::Chlordane /2 0.053 0:120 0.053 0:053 0.01 .... 6:00E=o5 3:00E-'-05 Alpha-Chlordane /2 0.071 0.190 0.071 0.071 0.01 6.00E-05 3.00E-05 Fluoranthene 8.360 170.000 8.36 8.36 0.01 4.00E-02 2.00E-02 Pyrene 2.480 170.000 2.48 2.48 0.01 3.00E-02 1.50E-02 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.900 11.000 0.9 0.1 0.09 0.01 NORfD NO RfO Chrysene 0.900 11.000 0.9 0.01 0.009 0.01 NO RfD NORfD Benzo(b and/or k)fl uoranthene 1.100 14.000 1.1 0.1 0.11 0.01 NORfO NORfO Benzo(a)pyrene 0.830 7.500 0.83 1 0.83 0.01 NO RfD NO RfD lndeno (1,2,3-CD)pyrene 0.730 5.400 0.73 0.1 0.073 0.01 NORfD NORfO Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.580 2.300 0.58 1 0.58 0.01 NORfD NO RfD TEO (Dioxins) 0.00004 0.000026 0.000026 1 0.000026 0.01 NORfD NORfD -- -·-- -----iliill liiiiil iiiil liiii iiii iiii iiiii1 lliiil liiiilii1 FCX SOIL 9-JUN-94 INGESTION SLA1 DAT.WK1 Chronic Chronic Chronic MG/KG Daily Daily Daily Oral Dermal Exposure Intake Intake Intake SF SF COi 1-6 adult 7-12 Arsenic 1.1sE+oo 8.75E+oo Ingestion chronic lifetime 3.SE-05 3.8E-06 8.6E-06 Barium NOSF NOSF 1-6 0.000013 1.1E-06 1.SE-03 1.6E-04 3.7E-04 Beryllium 4.30E+oo 2.15E+01 7-12 3.2E-06 2.8E-07 9.1E-06 9.8E-07 2.2E-06 Chromium NOSF NOSF adult 1.4E-06 3.SE-07 9.9E-04 1.1E-04 2.4E-04 Copper NOSF NOSF 3.SE-04 4.1E-05 9.3E-05 Lead NO SF NOSF 4.0E-02 4.3E-03 9.9E-03 Nickel NOSF NOSF Dermal 1.SE-04 2.0E-05 4.SE-05 Vanadium NOSF NOSF 1-6 0.00014 0.000012 1.SE-03 1.6E-04 3.7E-04 Manganese NOSF NOSF 7-12 0.00014 0.000012 6.1E-03 6.6E-04 1.SE-03 Ethyl benzene NOSF NOSF adult 0.000057 0.000015 1.3E-08 1.4E-09 3.2E-09 Tetrachloroethene 5.20E-02 6.SOE-02 1.3E-08 1.4E-09 3.2E-09 Heptachlor 4.50E+OO 9.00E+OO 7.8E-08 8.4E-09 1.9E-08 Heptachlor Epoxide 9.10E+OO 1.80E+01 9.1E-08 9.SE-09 2.2E-08 4,4'-DDT (P,P'-DDT) 3.40E-01 6.SOE-01 4.3E-07 4.6E-08 1.1E-07 4,4'-DDE (P,P'-DDE) 3.40E-01 6.SOE-01 6.6E-07 7.1 E-08 1.6E-07 -4~4'-"DDD (P,P' -'ODD) 2.40E-01 4.BOE-01 3.0E-07 3.2E-08 7.4E'-08 Gamma-Chlordane /2 1.30E+OO 2.60E+OO 6.9E-07 7.4E-08 1.7E-07 Alpha-Chlordane /2 1.30E+oo 2.60E+OO 9.2E-07 9.9E-08 2.3E-07 Fluoranthene NOSF NOSF 1.1E-04 1.2E-05 2.7E-05 Pyrene NOSF NOSF 3.2E-05 3.SE-06 7.9E-06 Benzo(a)anthracene 7.30E+OO 1.46E+01 1.2E-06 1.3E-07 2.9E-07 Chrysene 7.30E+OO 1.46E+01 1.2E-07 1.3E-08 2.9E-08 Benzo(b and/or k)fl uoranthene 7.30E+OO 1.46E+01 1.4E-06 1.SE-07 3.SE-07 Benzo(a)pyrene 7.30E+OO 1.46E+01 1.1E-05 1.2E-06 2.7E-06 lndeno (1,2,3-CD)pyrene 7.30E+OO 1.46E+01 9.SE-07 1.0E-07 2.3E-07 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 7.30E+OO 1.46E+01 7.SE-06 8.1 E-07 1.9E-06 TEQ (Dioxins) 1.50E+05 3.00E+05 3.4E-10 3.6E-11 8.3E-11 _____ , _____ (-~--~---~ FCX SOIL 9-JUN-94 SLA1DAT.WK1 MG/KG Arsenic Barium Beryllium Chromium Copper Lead Nickel Vanadium Manganese Ethyl benzene T etrachl oroethene Heptachlor Heptachlor Epoxide 4,4'-DDT (P,P'-DDT) 4,4'-DDE (P,P'-DDE) 4,4'-DDD (P,P'-DDD) Gamma-Chlordane /2 - Alpha-Chlordane /2 Fluoranthene Pyrene Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b and/or k}fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene lndeno (1,2,3-CD)pyrene Dibenzo(a,h}anthracene TEQ (Dioxins) DERMAL CONTACT Chronic Daily Intake 1-6- 3.BE-07 1.6E-05 9.BE-08 1.1 E-05 4.1E-06 4.3E-04 2.0E-06 1.6E-05 6.6E-05 1.4E-09 1.4E-09 8.4E-09 9.BE-09 4.6E-08 7.1E-08 3.2E-08 7.4E=-oa 9.9E-08 1.2E-05 3.5E-06 1.3E-07 1.3E-08 1.5E-07 1.2E-06 1.0E-07 8.1E-07 3.6E-11 Chronic Daily Intake adult 1.5E-07 6.6E-06 4.0E-08 4.3E-06 1.7E-06 1.BE-04 8.0E-07 6.6E-06 2.7E-05 5.7E-10 5.7E-10 3.4E-09 4.0E-09 1.9E-08 2.9E-08 1.3E-08 3:0E-08 4.0E-08 4.BE-06 1.4E-06 5.1E-08 5.1E-09 6.~E-08 4.7E-07 4.2E-08 3.3E-07 1.5E-11 Chronic Daily Intake 7-12 3.BE-07 1.6E-05 9.BE-08 1.1E:...05 4.1E-06. 4.3E-:-04 2.0E-06 1.6E-05 6.6E-05 1.4E-09 1.4E-09 8.4E-09 9.BE-09 4.6E-08 7.1E-08 3.2E-08 7.4E:..:.os 9.9E-08 1.2E-05 3.5E-06 1.3E-07 1.3E-08 1.5E-07 1.2E-06 1.0E-07 8.1 E-07 3.6E-11 INGESTION Lifetime Daily Intake 1-6 3.0E-06 1.3E-04 7.7E-07 8.4E-05 3.2E-05 3.4E-03 1.5E-05 1.3E-04 5.2E-04 1.1E-09 1.1E-09 6.6E-09 7.7E-09 3.6E-08 5.6E-08 2.5E-08 5.BE-08 7.BE-08 9.2E-06 2.7E-06 9.9E-08 9.9E-09 1.2E-07 9.1E-07 8.0E-08 6.4E-07 2.9E-11 Lifetime Daily Intake adult 9.5E-07 4.1E-05 2.5E-07 2.7E-05 1.0E-05 1.1E-03 4.9E-06 4.0E-05 1.7E-04 3.5E-10 3.5E-10 2.1E-09 2.5E-09 1.2E-08 1.BE-08 i;!.1E-0~ 1.9E-08 2.5E-08 2.9E-06 8.7E-07 3.2E-08 3.2E-09 3.9E-08 2.9E-07 2.6E-08 2.0E-07 9.1E-12 Lifetime Daiiy Intake 7-12 7.6E-07 3.3E-05 2.0E-07 2.1E-05 8.1E-06 8.7E-04 3.9E-06 3.2E-05 1.3E-04 2.BE-10 2.BE-10 1.7E-09 2.0E-09 9.2E-09 1.4E-08 6.4E-09 1.5E-08 2.0E-08 2.3E-06 6.9E-07 2.5E-08 2.5E-09 3.1 E-08 2.3E-07 2.0E-08 1.6E-07 7.3E-12 DERMAL CONTACT Lifetime Daily Intake 1-6 3.2E-08 1.4E-06 8.4E-09 9.1E-07 3.5E-07 3.7E-05 1.7E-07 1.4E-06 5.7E-06 1.2E-10 1.2E-10 7.2E-10 8.4E-10 4.0E-09 6.1E-09 2.BE-09 6.4E-09 8.5E-09 1.0E-06 3.0E-07 1.1E-08 1.1E-09 1.3E-08 1.0E-07 8.BE-09 7.0E-08 3.1E-12 Lifetime Daily Intake adult 4.1E-08 1.7E-06 1.1E-08 l.1 E-06 4.4E-07 4.7E-05 2.1 E-07 1.7E-06 7.1 E-06 1.5E-10 1.5E-10 9.0E-10 1.1E-09 5.0E-09 7.7E-09 3.5E-09 8.0E-09 1.1 E-08 1.3E-06 3.7E-07 1.4E-08 1.4E-09 1.7E-08 1.2E-07 1.1E-08 8.7E-08 3.9E-12 Lifetime Daily Intake 7-12 3.2E-08 1.4E-06 8.4E-09 9.1 E-07 3.5E-07 3.7E-05 1.7E-07 1.4E-06 5.7E-06 1.2E-10 1.2E-10 7.2E-10 8.4E-10 4.0E-09 6.1 E-09 2.BE-09 6.4E-09 8.5E-09 1.0E-06 3.0E-07 1.1 E-08 1.1E-09 1.3E-08 1.0E-07 8.BE-09 7.0E-08 3.1E-12 --- - - - - ----I!!!!! 1!11!!!1 I!!!!! == i== == --liil FCX SOIL 9-JUN-94 INGESTION DERMAL CONTACT SLA1 DAT.WK1 MG/KG Chronic Chronic Chronic Chronic Chronic Chronic HQ HQ HQ HQ HQ HQ 1-6 adult 7-12 1-6 adult 7-12 Arsenic 1.2E-01 1.3E-02 2.9E-02 6.3E-03 2.6E-03 6.3E-03 Barium 2.2E-02 2.3E-03 5.3E-03 1.2E-03 4.7E-04 1.2E-03 Beryllium 1.BE-03 2.0E-04 4.5E-04 9.BE-05 4.0E-05 9.BE-05 Chromium 9.9E-04 1.1E-04 2.4E-04 5.3E-05 2.2E-05 5.3E-05 Copper 1.0E-02 1.1E-03 2.SE-03 5.5E-04 2.2E-04 5.SE-04 Lead NO RFD NO RFD NO RFD NO RFD NO RFD NO RFD Nickel 9.1E-03 9.BE-04 2.2E-03 4.9E-04 2.0E-04 4.9E-04 Vanadium 2.1 E-01 2.3E-02 5.3E-02 1.2E-02 4.7E-03 1.2E-02 Manganese 4.4E-02 4.7E-03 1.1E-02 2.4E-03 9.6E-04 2.4E-03 Ethyl benzene 1.3E-07 1.4E-08 3.2E-08 1.BE-08 7.1E-09 1.BE-08 Tetrachloroethene 1.3E-06 1.4E-07 3.2E-07 1.BE-07 7.1E-08 1.BE-07 Heptachlor 1.6E-04 1.7E-05 3.BE-05 3.4E-05 1.4E-05 3.4E-05 Heptachlor Epoxide 7.0E-03 7.SE-04 1.7E-03 1.SE-03 6.1E-04 1.5E-03 4,4'-DDT (P,P'-DDT) 8.6E-04 9.2E-05 2.1 E-04 1.BE-04 7.SE-05 1.BE-04 4,4'-DDE (P,P'-DDE) 9.SE-04 1.0E-04 2.3E-04 2.0E-04 8.3E-05 2.0E-04 4,4' -ODD {P,P' -ODD) 1.0E-04 1.1E-05 2.SE-05 2.1 E_-05 _ 8.i'E-06 2.tE~os Gamma-Chlordane/2 1.1 E -"02 1.21:;-03 2.BE-03 2.SE-03 1.0E-03 2.SE-03 Alpha-Chlordane /2 1.SE-02 1.7E-03 3.BE-03 3.3E-03 1.3E-03 3.3E-03 Fluoranthene 2.7E-03 2.9E-04 6.7E-04 5.9E-04 2.4E-04 5.9E-04 Pyrene 1.1E-03 1.2E-04 2.6E-04 2.3E-04 9.4E-05 2.3E-04 Benzo(a)anthracene NO RfD NO RfD NO RFD NO RfD NO RfD NO RFD Chrysene NO RfD NO RfD NO RFD NO RfD NO RfD NO RFD Benzo(b and/or k)fl uoranthene NO RfD NO RfD NO RFD NO RfD NO RfD NO RFD Benzo(a)pyrene NO RfD NO RfD NO RFD NO RfD NO RfD NO RFD lndeno {1,2,3-CD)pyrene NO RfD NO RfD NO RFD NO RfD NO RfD NO RFD Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene NORfD NORfD NO RFD NORfD NORfD NO RFD TEO (Dioxins) NORfD NORfD NO RFD NORfD NORfD NO RFD 5E-01 SE-02 1 E-01 3E-02 1E-02 3E-02 --------------11!!1!!1 l!!!I l!!!!!I -=:I. == == i;;;a Giiiiiil _, aiiil FCX SOIL 9-JUN-94 INGESTION DERMAL CONTACT SLA1DAT.WK1 MG/KG Lifetime Liietime Lifetime Lifetime Lifetime Lifetime Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk \_Arsenic 1-6 adult 7-12 1-6 adult 7-12 5.2E-06 1.7E-06 1.3E-06 2.8E-07 3.5E-07 2.8E-07 Barium NOSF NOSF NOSF NOSF NOSF NOSF '----Beryllium 3.3E-06 1.1E-06 8.4E-07 1.8E-07 2.3E-07 1.8E-07 Chromium NOSF NOSF NOSF NOSF .NOSF NOSF Copper NOSF NOSF NOSF NOSF NOSF NOSF Lead NOSF NOSF NOSF NOSF NOSF NOSF Nickel NOSF NOSF NOSF NOSF NOSF NOSF Vanadium NOSF NOSF NOSF NOSF NOSF NOSF Manganese NOSF NOSF NOSF NOSF NOSF NOSF Ethyl benzene NOSF NOSF NOSF NOSF NOSF NOSF Tetrachl oroethene 5.7E-11 1.8E-11 1.SE-11 7.8E-12 9.?E-12 7.8E-12 Heptachlor 3.0E-08 9.5E-09 7.6E-09 6.5E-09 8.1 E-09 6.5E-09 Heptachlor Epoxide 7.0E-08 2.2E-08 1.8E-08 1.5E-08 1.9E-08 1.5E-08 4,4'-DDT (P,P'-DDT) 1.2E-08 3.9E-09 3.1E-09 2.?E-09 3.4E-09 2.?E-09 4,4'-DDE (P,P'-DDE) 1.9E-08 6.1E-09 4.9E-09 4.2E-09 5.2E-09 4.2E-09 4,4'-DDD (P,P'-DDD) 6.1 E-09 1.9E-09 1.5E-09 l.3E~09 1.?E-09 1.3E-09 Gafnma:.._Chlordane /2 7.6E-08 2.4E-08 1.9E-08 1.?E-08 2.1 E-08 1.?E-08 Alpha-Chlordane /2 1.0E-07 3.2E-08 2.6E-08 2.2E-08 2.8E-08 2.2E-08 Fluoranthene NOSF NOSF NOSF NOSF NOSF NOSF Pyrene NOSF NOSF NO SF NOSF NOSF NOSF Benzo(a)anthracene · 7.2E-07 2.3E-07 1.8E-07 1.6E-07 2.0E-07 1.6E-07 Chrysene 7.2E-08 2.3E-08 1.8E-08 1.6E-08 2.0E-08 1.6E-08 Benzo(b and/or k)fl uoranthene 8.8E-07 2.8E-07 2.2E-07 1.9E-07 2.4E-07 1.9E-0T "'Benzo(a)pyrene 6.?E-06 2.1 E-06 1.?E-06 1.SE-06 1.8E-06 1.5E-06 lndeno (1,2,3-CD)pyrene 5.9E-07 1.9E-07 1.SE-07 1.3E-07 1.6E-07 1.3E-07 '----Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 4.?E-06 1.5E-06 1.2E-06 1.0E-06 1.3E-06 1.0E-06 -......__TEO (Dioxins) 4.3E-06 1.4E-06 1.1E-06 9.4E-07 1.2E-06 9.4E-07 3E-05 8E-06 ?E-06 4E-06 6E-06 4E-06 !!!!! !!!!I == == == == == ;;a This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. APPENDIX E AREA 2 EXPOSURE CALCULATIONS NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU6-8,WP Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: Appendices Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 _, -------·--~ ---------------- - --111!!!!1 l!!!l!!!!I !!!!!9 Ill!! == == Giilil - ---- -FCX SOIL 9-JUN-94 ADJUSTED SLA2DAT.WK1 EXPOSURE EXPOSURE MG/KG MAXIMUM POINT TEF POll'.'T Absorption Oral Dermal UCL DETECTION CONG VALUES CONG Factor RfD RfD Arsenic 6.600 11.000 6.6 6.6 0.001 3.00E-04 6.00E-05 Barium 348.000 410.000 348 348 0.001 7.00E-02 1.40E-02 Beryllium 0.650 2.100 0.65 0.65 0.001 5.00E-03 1.00E-03 Chromium 82.000 170.000 82 82 0.001 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 Copper 55.000 160.000 55 55 0.001 3.70E-02 7.40E-03 Cadmium 1.2 1 1 1 0.001 1.00E-03 2.00E-04 Nickel 30.000 35.000 30 30 0.001 2.00E-02 4.00E-03 Zinc 489.000 3900.000 489 489 0.001 3.00E-01 6.00E-02 Mercury 0.200 0.560 0.2 0.2 0.001 3.00E-04 6.00E-05 Manganese 277.000 500.000 277 277 0.001 1.40E-01 2.80E-02 • Trichloroethene 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.01 6.0E-03 4.6E-03 Tetrachloroethene 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.01 1.00E-02 8.00E-03 Heptachlor Epoxide 0.012 0.022 0.012 0.012 0.01 1.30E-05 6.50E-06 Dieldrin 0.036 0.120 0.036 0.036 0.01 5.00E-05 2.50E-05 4,4'-DDT (P,P'-DDT) 0.974 3.800 0.974 0.974 0.01 5.00E-04 2.50E-04 4,4'-DDE (P,P'-DDE) 0.130 0.580 0.13 0.13 0.01 7.00E-04 3.50E-04 4,4'-DDD (P,P'-DDD) 0.483 4.500 0.483 0.483 0.01 3.00E:-03 1.50E-03 _Gamma_-Chlordane-/2 -0.-135 0.260-0.135 0.135 0.01 6.00E-05 3.00E-05 Alph_a-Chlordane /2 0.144 0.300 0.144 0.144 0.01 6.00E-05 3.00E-05 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.748 3.300 0.748 0.1 0.075 0.01 NO RID NO RID Chrysene 1.070 4.000 1.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 NO RID NO RID Benzo (b and/or k) Fl uoranthene 2.400 11.000 2.4 0.1 0.24 0.01 NO RID NO RID Benzo(a)pyrene 1.200 5.600 1.2 1 1.2 0.01 NO RID NO RID lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.980 3.800 0.98 0.1 0.098 0.01 NO RID NO RID Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.500 1.400 0.5 1 0.5 0.01 NO RID NO RID TEQ (Dioxins) 4.0E-06 0.000045 0.000045 0.000045 0.01 NO RID NO RID ~--~--------~--~-~-FCX SOIL Exposure 9-JUN-94 SLA2DAT.WK1 MG/KG Oral Dermal CDI SF SF Ingestion Arsenic 1.75E+oo 8.75E+oo 1 -6 Barium NOSF NOSF tres7-12 Beryllium 4.30E+00 2.15E+01 adult Chromium NO SF NO SF worker Copper NO SF NO SF res 7-12 Cadmium NO SF NO SF Nickel NO SF NO SF Dermal Zinc NO SF NO SF 1 -6 Mercury NO SF NO SF tres 7-12 Manganese NO SF NO SF adult Trichloroethene 1.1 E-02 1.4E-02 worker Tetrachloroethene 5.20E-02 6.S0E-02 res 7-12 Heptachlor Epoxide 9.10E+00 1.80E+01 Dieldrin 1.60E+01 3.20E+01 4,4'-DDT (P,P'-DDT) 3.40E-01 6.B0E-01 4,4'-DDE {P,P'-DDE) 3.40E-01 6.B0E-01 4,4'.,-DDD_(e,P~-DDD) 2.40E~o1 4.80E=01 Gamma-Chlordane /2 1.30E+00 2.60E+00 Alpha-Chlordane /2 1.30E+00 2.60E+00 Benzo(a)anthracene 7.30E+00 1.46E+01 Chrysene 7.30E+00 1.46E+01 Benzo (band/or k) Fluoranthene 7.30E+oo 1.46E+01 Benzo{a)pyrene 7.30E+O0 1.46E+01 lndeno{1,2,3-cd)pyrene 7.30E+O0 1.46E+01 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 7.30E+00 1.46E+01 TEO {Dioxins) 1.50E+05 3.00E+0S Chronic Lifetime 1.3E-05 1.1 E-06 4.7E-07 3.9E-08 1.4E-06 3.SE-07 4.9E-07 1.7E-07 3.6E-06 3.0E-07 1.4E-04 1.2E-05 2.0E-05 1.BE-06 5.7E-05 1.SE-05 1.9E-05 6.9E-06 1.6E-04 1.3E-05 ----------· . ---•-------... -----------------iiiil iiil liiil liiil liii1 liiiiil iiiiilil liiiil liillil -r.=I == == =a == -l!l!l!I I!!!!!! l!!!!I FCX INGESTION SOIL · Trespasser Resident 9-JUN-94 Chronic Chronic Chronic Chronic Chronic SLA2DAT.WK1 Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily MG/KG Intake Intake Intake Intake Intake 1-6 7-12 adult worker 7-12 Arsenic B.6E-05 3.1 E-06 9.2E-06 3.2E-06 2.4E-05 Barium 4.SE-03 1.6E-04 4.9E-04 1.7E-04 1.3E-03 Beryllium 8.SE-06 3.1E-07 9.1E-07 3.2E-07 2.3E-06 Chromium 1.1E-03 3.9E-05 1.1E-04 4.0E-05 3.0E-04 Copper 7.2E-04 2.6E-05 7.7E-05 2.7E-05 2.0E-04 Cadmium 1.3E-05 4.7E-07 1.4E-06 4.9E-07 3.6E-06 Nickel 3.9E-04 1.4E-05 4.2E-05 1.SE-05 1.1E-04 Zinc 6.4E-03 2.3E-04 6.BE-04 2.4E-04 1.BE-03 Mercury 2.6E-06 9.4E-0B 2.BE-07 9.BE-08 7.2E-07 Manganese 3.6E-03 1.3E-04 3.9E-04 1.4E-04 1.0E-03 Trichloroethene 2.6E-0B 9.4E-10 2.BE-09 9.BE-10 7.2E-09 Tetrachloroethene 2.6E-08 9.4E-10 2.BE-09 9.BE-10 7.2E-09 Heptachlor Epoxide 1.6E-07 5.6E-09 -1.?E-0B 5.9E-09 4.3E-0B Dieldrin 4.7E-07 1.7E-0B 5.0E-08 1.BE-08 1.3E-07 4,4'-DDT (P,P'-DDT) 1.3E-05 4.6E-07 1.4E-06 4.BE-07 3.5E-06 4,4'-DDE (P,P'-DDE) 1.7E-06 6.1E-OB 1.BE-07 6.4E-08 4.7E-07 4,4'. -:ODD .(P,P' -DDD) 6.3E-:06 2.3E-07 6.BE-07 2.4E-07 1.?E-:-06 Gamma-Chlordane /2 1.BE-06 6.3E-08 1.9E-07 6.6E-0B 4.9E-07 Alpha-Chlordane /2 1.9E-06 6.BE-08 2.0E-07 7.1 E-08 5.2E-07 Benzo(a)anthracene 9.BE-07 3.5E-0B 1.1E-07 3.7E-0B 2.7E-07 Chrysene · 1.3E-07 4.7E-09 1.4E-08 4.9E-09 3.6E-0B Benzo (band/or k) Fluoranthene 3.1E-06 1.1E-07 3.4E-07 1.2E-07 8.6E-07 Benzo(a)pyrene 1.6E-05 5.6E-07 1.7E-06 5.9E-07 4.3E-06 lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene 1.3E-06 4.6E-08 1.4E-07 4.BE-08 3.5E-07 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 6.5E-06 2.4E-07 7.0E-07 2.5E-07 1.BE-06 TEQ (Dioxins) 5.9E-10 2.1 E-11 6.3E-11 2.2E-11 1.6E-10 ---·----- - ----iiiil liiiill --iiilil Gia ;;;;a == == --FCX DERMAL CONTACT SOIL Trespasser Resident 9-JUN-94 Chronic Chronic Chronic Chronic Chronic SLA2DATWK1 Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily MG/KG Intake Intake Intake Intake Intake 1-6 7-12 adult worker 7-12 Arsenic 9.2E-07 1.3E-07 3.8E-07 1.3E-07 1.1E-06 Barium 4.9E-05 7.0E-06 2.0E-05 6.SE-06 5.SE-05 Beryllium 9.1E-08 1.3E-08 3.?E-08 1.2E-08 1.0E-07 Chromium 1.1E-05 1.SE-06 4.?E-06 1.SE-06 1.3E-05 Copper 7.?E-06 1.1E-06 3.1E-06 1.0E-06 8.8E-06 Cadmium 1.4E-07 2.0E-08 5.?E-08 1.9E-08 1.SE-07 Nickel 4.2E-06 6.0E-07 1.?E-06 5.?E-07 4.8E-06 Zinc 6.8E-05 9.8E-06 2.8E-05 9.3E-06 7.8E-05 Mercury 2.8E-08 4.0E-09 1.1E-08 3.8E-09 3.2E-08 Manganese 3.9E-05 5.SE-06 1.SE-05 5.3E-06 4.4E-05 Trichloroethene 2.8E-09 4.0E-10 1.1E-09 3.8E-10 3.2E-09 Tetra chi oroethene 2.8E-09 4.0E-10 1.1E-09 3.8E-10. 3.2E-09 Heptachlor Epoxide 1.?E-08 2.4E-09 6.8E-09 2.3E-09 1.9E-08 Dieldrin 5.0E-08 7.2E-09 2.1E-08 6.8E-09 5.8E-08 4,4'-DDT (P,P'-DDT) 1.4E-06 1.9E-07 5.6E-07 1.9E-07 1.SE-06 4,4'-DDE (P,P'-DDE) 1.8E-07 2.6E-08 7.4E-08 2.SE-08 2.1E-07 -· 4;4'-'DDD (P,P'-DDD) 6.8E~O? · 9.?E-08 2:8E-07 9.2E-08 7.?E-07 Gamma-Chlordane /2 1.9E-07 2.?E-08 7.?E-08 2.SE-08 2.2E-07 Alpha-Chlordane /2 2.0E-07 2.9E-08 8.2E-08 2.?E-08 2.3E-07 Benzo(a)anthracene 1.1 E-07 1.SE-08 4.3E-08 1.4E-08 1.2E-07 Chrysene 1.4E-08 2.0E-09 5.?E-09 1.9E-09 1.6E-08 Benzo (band/or k) Fl uoranthene 3.4E-07 4.8E-08 1.4E-07 4.6E-08 3.8E-07 Benzo(a)pyrene 1.?E-06 2.4E-07 6.8E-07 2.3E-07 1.9E-06 lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1.4E-07 2.0E-08 5.SE-08 1.9E-08 1.6E-07 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 7.0E-07 1.0E-07 2.9E-07 9.SE-08 8.0E-07 TEO (Dioxins) 6.3E-11 9.0E-12 2.SE-11 8.SE-12 7.2E-11 --------~ --· -'· ----. ------iiili1 -iiiil liiiil lili1 liiil -;;a == == == !1111!1 !!!! !!!!! !!!!I FCX INGESTION SOIL Trespasser Resident 9-JUN-94 Lifetime Lifetime Lifetime Lifetime Lifetime SLA2DAT.WK1 Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily MG/KG Intake Intake Intake Intake Intake 1-6 7-12 adult worker 7-12 Arsenic 7.3E-06 2.6E-07 2.3E-06 1.1E-06 2.0E-06 Barium 3.8E-04 1.4E-05 1.2E-04 5.9E-05 1 _QE-04 Beryllium 7.2E-07 2.SE-08 2.3E-07 1.1E-07 2.0E-07 Chromium 9.0E-05 3.2E-06 2.9E-05 1.4E-05 2.SE-05 Copper 6.1E-05 2.1E-06 1.9E-05 9.4E-06 1.7E-05 Cadmium 1.1E-06 3.9E-08 3.SE-07 1_7E-07 3.0E-07 Nickel 3.3E-05 1.2E-06 1.1E-05 5_1E-06 9.0E-06 Zinc 5.4E-04 1.9E-05 1.7E-04 8.3E-05 1.SE-04 Mercury 2.2E-07 7.8E-09 7.0E-08 3.4E-08 6.0E-08 Manganese 3.0E-04 1.1E-05. 9.7E-05 4.7E-05 8.3E-05 Trichloroethene 2.2E-09 7.8E-11 7.0E-10 3.4E-10 6.0E-10 Tetrachloroethene 2.2E-09 7.8E-11 7.0E-10 3.4E-10 6.0E-10 Heptachlor Epoxide 1.3E-08 4.7E-10 4.2E-09 2.0E-09 3.6E-09 Dieldrin 4.0E-08 1.4E-09 1.3E-08 6.1E-09 1.1E-08 4,4'-DDT (P,P'-DDT) 1.1E-06 3.8E-08 3.4E-07 1.7E-07 2_9E-07 4,4'-DDE (P,P'-DDE) 1.4E-07 5.1E-09 4.6E-08 2.2E-08 3.9E-08 4,4'-DDD (P,P'-DDD) 5;3E-07 1.9E-08 1.7E-07 8.2E-08 -1 .4E-07 Gamma-Chlordane /2 1.SE-07 5.3E-09 4.7E-08 2.3E-08 4.1E-08 Alpha-Chlordane /2 1.6E-07 5.6E-09 5.0E-08 2.4E-08 4.3E-08 Benzo(a)anthracene 8.3E-08 2.9E-09 2.6E-08 1.3E-08 2.3E-08 Chrysene 1.1E-08 3.9E-10 3.SE-09 1.7E-09 3.0E-09 Benzo (b and/or k) Fl uoranthene 2.6E-07 9.4E-09 8.4E-08 4.1E-08 7.2E-08 Benzo(a)pyrene 1.3E-06 4.7E-6a 4.2E-07 2.0E-07 3.6E-07 lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene 1.1 E-07 3.8E-09 3.4E-08 1.7E-08 2.9E-08 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 5.SE-07 2.0E-08 1.8E-07 8.SE-08 1.SE-07 TEQ (Dioxins) 5.0E-11 1.8E-12 1.6E-11 7.7E-12 1.4E-11 - --. ----liiil liiiiii liiiil iiiiii1 -iiiil __, m., == == -l!!!!!!I 11!!!9 1!!!11 --FCX DERMAL CONTACT SOIL Trespasser Resident 9-JUN-94 Lifetime Lifetime Lifetime Lifetime Lifetime SLA2DAT.WK1 Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily MG/KG Intake Intake Intake Intake Intake 1-6 7-12 adult worker 7-12 Arsenic 7.9E-08 1.2E-08 9.9E-08 4.GE-08 8.GE-08 Barium 4.2E-06 6.3E-07 5.2E-06 2.4E-06 4.SE-06 Beryllium 7.8E-09 1.2E-09 9.8E-09 4.SE-09 8.SE-09 Chromium-9.8E-07 1.SE-07 1.2E-06 5.7E-07 1.1 E-06 Copper 6.GE-07 9.9E-08 8.3E-07 3.8E-07 7.2E-07 Cadmium 1.2E-08 1.8E-09 1.SE-08 6.9E-09 1.3E-08 Nickel 3.GE-07 5.4E-08 4.SE-07 2.1E-07 3.9E-07 Zinc 5.9E-06 8.8E-07 7.3E-06 3.4E-06 6.4E-06 Mercury 2.4E-09 3.GE-10 3.0E-09 1.4E-09 2.GE-09 Manganese 3.3E-06 5.0E-07 4.2E-06 1.9E-06 3.GE-06 Trichloroethene 2.4E-10 3.GE-11 3.0E-10 1.4E-10 2.GE-10 Tetrachloroethene 2.4E-10 3.6E-11 3.0E-10 1.4E-10 2.GE-10 Heptachlor Epoxide 1.4E-09 2.2E-10 1.8E-09 8.3E-10 1.GE-09 Dieldrin 4.3E-09 6.SE-10 5.4E-09 2.SE-09 4.7E-09 4,4'-DDT (P,P'-DDT) 1.2E-07 1.8E-08 1.SE-07 6.7E-08 1.3E-07 4,4'-DDE (P,P'-DDE) 1.GE-08 2.3E-09 2.0E-08 9.0E-09 1.7E-08 4;4'-DDD {P;P'-DDD) ·5,8E-08 8,7E-09 7.2E-08 3.3E-08 6.3E-08 Gamma-Chlordane /2 · 1.GE-08 2.4E-09 2.0E-08 9.3E-09 1.8E-08 Alpha-Chlordane /2 1.7E-08 2.GE-09 2.2E-08 9.9E-09 1.9E-08 Benzo{a)anthracene 9.0E-09 1.4E-09 1.1E-08 5.2E-09 9.8E-09 Chrysene 1.2E-09 1.8E-10 1.SE-09 6.9E-10 1.3E-09 Benzo (band/or k) Fluoranthene 2.9E-08 4.3E-09 3.GE-08 1.7E-08 3.1E-08 Benzo(a)pyrene 1.4E-07 2.2E-08 1.8E-07 8.3E-08 1.GE-07 lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1.2E-08 1.8E-09 1.SE-08 6.8E-09 1.3E-08 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 6.0E-08 9.0E-09 7.SE-08 3.SE-08 6.SE-08 TEO (Dioxins) 5.4E-12 8.1 E-13 6.8E-12 3.1 E-12 5.9E-12 ------liiii liiiil aiil ---;;:=, == == --=== I!!!!!! !!!I l!!l!!9 l!!!l!!!I ---FCX SOIL INGESTION 9-JUN-94 Trespasser Resident SLA2DAT.WK1 Chronic Chronic Chronic Chronic Chronic MG/KG HQ HQ HQ HQ HQ 1-6 7-12 adult worker 7-12 Arsenic 2.9E-01 1.0E-02 3.1E-02 1.1 E-02 7.9E-02 Barium 6.SE-02 2.3E-03 7.0E-03 2.4E-03 1.SE-02 Beryllium 1.7E-03 6.1E-05 1.SE-04 6.4E-05 4.7E-04 Chromium 1.1 E-03 3.9E-05 1.1 E-04 4.0E-05 3.0E-04 Copper 1.9E-02 7.0E-04 2.1E-03 7.3E-04 5.4E-03 Cadmium 1.3E-02 4.7E-04 1.4E-03 4.9E-04 3.6E-03 Nickel 2.0E-02 7.1E-04 2.1E-03 7.4E-04 5.4E-03 Zinc 2.1E-02 7.7E-04 2.3E-03 8.0E-04 5.9E-03 Mercury 8.7E-03 3.1E-04 9.3E-04 3.3E-04 2.4E-03 Manganese 2.6E-02 9.3E-04 2.SE-03 9.7E-04 7.1E-03 Trichloroethene 4.3E-06 1.6E-07 4.7E-07 1.6E-07 1.2E-06 Tetrachloroethene 2.6E-06 9.4E-08 2.SE-07 9.SE-08 7.2E-07 Heptachlor Epoxide 1.2E-02 4.3E-04 1.3E-03 4.SE-04 3.3E-03 Dieldrin 9.4E-03 3.4E-04 1.0E-03 3.SE-04 2.6E-03 4,4'-DDT (P,P'-DDT) 2.SE-02 9.2E-04 2.7E-03 9.SE-04 7.0E-03 4,4'-DDE (P,P'-DDE) 2.4E-03 8.7E-05 2.6E-04 9.1E-05 6.7E-04 -4,4'=DDD (P,P'-DDD) 2.tE--,03 7.6Ec-05 2.3E:-:04 _ 7.9E-05 5.SE-04 Gamma-Chlordane /2 2.9E-02 1.1E-03 3.2E-03 1.1E-03 8.1E-03 Alpha-Chlordane /2 3.1E-02 1.1E-03 3.4E-03 1.2E-,03 8.6E-03 Benzo(a)anthracene NA NA NA NA NA Chrysene NA NA NA NA NA Benzo (b and/or k) Fl uorantheneNA NA NA NA NA Benzo(a)pyrene NA NA NA NA NA lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene NA NA NA NA NA Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene NA NA NA NA NA TEO (Dioxins) NA NA NA NA NA 5.7E-01 2.1E-02 6.2E-02 2.2E-02 1.6E-01 . ---------~-~~~~~~---FCX SOIL 9-JUN-94 SLA2DAT.WK1 MG/KG Arsenic Barium Beryllium Chromium Copper Cadmium Nickel Zinc Mercury Manganese Trichloroethene Chronic HQ 1-6 1.SE-02 3.SE-03 9.1E-05 5.7E-05 1.0E-03 7.0E-04 1.1E-03 1.1E-03 4.7E-04 1.4E-03 6.1E-07 DERMAL CONTACT Trespasser Chronic HQ 7-12 2.2E-03 5.0E-04 1.dE-05 8.2E-06 1.SE-04 1.0E-04 1.SE-04 1.6E-04 6.7E-05 2.0E-04 8.7E-08 Chronic HQ adult 6.3E-03 1.4E-03 3.7E-05 2.3E-05 4.2E-04 2.9E-04 4.3E-04 4.6E-04 1.9E-04 5.6E-04 2.SE-07 Chronic HQ worker 2.1E-03 4.7E-04 1.2E-05 7.SE-06 1.4E-04 9.SE-05 1.4E-04 1.SE-04 6.3E-05 1.9E-04 8.3E-08 Resident Chronic HQ 7-12 1.SE-02 4.0E-03 1.0E-04 6.6E-05 1.2E-03 8.0E-04 1.2E-03 1.3E-03 5.3E-04 1.6E-03 7.0E-07 Tetrachloroethene 3.SE-07 5.0E-08 1.4E-07 4.SE-08 4.0E-07 Heptachlor Epoxide 2.6E-03 3.7E-04 1.1 E-03 3.SE-04 3.0E-03 Dieldrin 2.0E-03 2.9E-04 8.2E-04 2.7E-04 2.3E-03 4,4'-DDT (P,P'-DDT) 5.SE-03 7.8E-04 2.2E-03 7.4E-04 6.2E-03 4,4'-DDE (P,P'-DDE) 5.2E-04 7.4E-05 2.1 E-04 7.1 E-05 5.9E-04 4,41-DDD-(P,P'-DDD) 4.SE-04 6.4E-05 1.SE-04 6.1 E~os 5.2E~04 Gamma-Chlordane /2 6.3E-03 9.0E-04 2.6E-03 8.6E-04 7.2E-03 Alpha-Chlordane /2 6.7E-03 9.6E-04 2.7E-03 9.1 E-04 7.7E-03 Benzo(a)anthracene NA NA NA NA NA Chrysene NA NA NA NA NA Benzo (band/or k) FluorantheneNA NA NA NA NA Benzo(a)pyrene NA NA NA NA NA lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene NA NA NA NA NA Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene NA NA NA NA NA TEQ (Dioxins) NA NA NA NA NA 4.9E-02 7.0E-03 2.0E-02 6.6E-03 5.6E-02 iiiil iiiiil ai a11 liliii liiil aa r,;;;aa =m == == 1111111 l!!l!!I !!!I!! B!!!I l!!!!I • • --- FCX SOIL INGESTION 9-JUN-94 Trespasser Resident SLA2DAT.WK1 Lifetime Lifetime Lifetime Lifetime Lifetime MG/KG Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk 1-6 7-12 adult worker 7-12 "-Arseric 1.3E-05 4.SE-07 4.0E-06 2.0E-06 3.SE-06 Barium NA NA NA NA NA "-Beryllium 3.1E-06 1.1E-07 9.BE-07 4.BE,-07 B.4E-07 Chromium NA NA NA NA NA Copper NA NA NA NA NA Cadmium NA NA NA NA NA Nickel NA NA NA NA NA Zinc NA NA NA NA NA Mercury NA NA NA NA NA Manganese NA NA NA NA NA Trichloroethene 2.4E-11 8.6E-13 7.7E-12 3.7E-12 6.6E-12 Tetra chi oroethene 1.1E-10 4.1E-12 3.6E-11 1.BE-11 3.1E-11 Heptachlor Epoxide 1.2E-07 4.3E-09 3.BE-08 1.9E-08 3.3E-08 Dieldrin 6.3E-07 2.2E-08 2.0E-07 9.BE-08 1.7E-07 4.4'-DDT (P,P'-DDT) 3.6E-07 1.3E-08 1.2E-07 5.6E-08 9.9E-08 4,4'-DDE (P,P'-DDE) 4.9E-08 1.7E-09 1.SE-08 7.SE-09 1.3E-08 4,4'-DDD (P;P'-DDD) 1 ,3E-07 4,SE-09 4,1 E-08 2.0E-08 3.SE-08 Gamma-Chlordane /2 1.9E-07 6.BE-09 6.1E-08 3.0E-08 5.3E-08 Alpha-Chlordane /2 2.1 E-07 7.3E-09 6.6E-08 3.2E-08 5.6E-08 Benzo(a)anthracene 6.0E-07 2.1E-08 1.9E-07 9.3E-08 1.6E-07 "--., Chrysene 8.0E-08 2.BE-09 2.6E-08 1.2E-08 2.2E-08 ~enzo (b and/or k) Fl uoranthene 1.9E-06 6.BE-08 6.1E-07 3.0E-07 5.3E-07 enzo(a)pyrene 9.6E-06 3.4E-07 3.1E-06 1.SE-06 2.6E-06 ._____,__Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 7.9E-07 2.BE-08 2.SE-07 1.2E-07 2.1 E-07 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 4.0E-06 1.4E-07 1.3E-06 6.2E-07 1.1E-06 TEO (Dioxins) 7.4E-06 2.6E-07 2.4E-06 1.1 E-06 2.0E-06 4.2E-05 1.SE-06 1.3E-05 6.SE-06 1.1E-05 -· ~ - iiiil liiil iiiiiil liili1 liiii lliiiiili -/ilia == == r=! ml!! !!I!! !!!!I B!!I ------- FCX SOIL DERMAL 9-JUN-94 Trespasser Resident SLA2DAT.WK1 Lifetime Lifetime Lifetime Lifetime Lifetime MG/KG Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk 1-6 7-12 adult worker 7-12 Arsenic 6.9E-07 1.0E-07 8.7E-07 4.0E-07 7.SE-.07 Barium NA NA NA NA NA Beryllium 1.7E-07 2.SE-08 2.1E-07 9.6E-08 1.BE-07 Chromium NA NA NA NA NA Copper NA NA NA NA NA Cadmium NA NA NA NA NA Nickel NA NA NA NA NA Zinc NA NA NA NA NA Mercury NA NA NA NA NA Manganese NA NA NA NA · NA T_richloroethene 3.4E-12 5.0E-13 4.2E-12 1.9E-12 3.6E-12 Tetrachl oroethene 1.6E-11 2.3E-12 2.0E-11 9.0E-12 1.7E-11 Heptachlor Epoxide 2.6E-08 3.9E-09 3.2E-08 1.SE-08 2.BE-08 Dieldrin 1.4E-07 2.1E-08 1.7E-07 7.9E-08 1.SE-07 4,4'-DDT (P,P'-DDT) 7.9E-08 1.2E-08 9.9E-08 4.6E-08 8.6E-08 4,4'-DDE (P,P'-DDE) 1.1E-08 1.6E-09 1.3E-08 6.1E-09 1.1E-08 · 4,4'-DDD (P,P'-DDD) 2.BE-08 4.2E-09 3.SE-08 -1.6E-08 3.0E-08 Gamma-Chlordane /2 4.2E-08 6.3E-09 5.3E-08 2.4E-08 4.6E-08 Alpha-Chlordane /2 4.SE-08 6.7E-09 5.6E-08 2.6E-08 4.9E-08 Benzo(a)anthracene 1.3E-07 2.0E-08 1.6E-07 7.6E-08 1.4E-07 Chrysene 1.BE-08 2.6E-09 2.2E-08 1.0E-08 1.9E-08 Benzo (band/or k) Fluoranthene 4.2E-07 6.3E-08 5.3E-07 2.4E-07 4.6E-07 Benzo(a)pyrene 2.1 E-06 3.2E-07 2.6E-06 1.2E-06 2.3E-06 lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1.7E-07 2.6E-08 2.1 E-07 9.9E-0B 1.9E-07 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 8.BE-07 1.3E-07 1.1E-06 5.0E-07 9.SE-07 TEO (Dioxins) 1.6E-06 2.4E-07 2.0E-06 9.3E-07 1.BE-06 6.6E-06 9.9E-07 8.2E-06 3.BE-06 7.1E-06 11!!!!9 l!IS I!!!! I!!!· l!!!!I 1!!!!!19 I!!!!!!!! - - This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA lt shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. APPENDIX F AREA 3 EXPOSURE CALCULATIONS NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU6•8,WP Risk Assessment Report FCX•OU2 Statesville Site Section: Appendices Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 --~ - iiiiil iliiJ ---liiiil ,liiiiil llllill == ._, == 111!1 1!11! -I!!!!! l!!!!!!!I --------. - FCX SOIL 10-JUN-94 SLA3DAT.WK1 MG/KG Chromium Copper Nickel Vanadium Manganese 4,4'-DDT (P,P'-DDT) 4,4'-DDE (P,P'-DDE) 4,4'-DDD (P,P'-ODD) Gamma-Chlordane /2 Alpha-Chlordane /2 Chloroform Benzo (a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene Benzo (a)pyre ne - Pentachlorophenol TEQ(Dioxins) UCL 89.000 55.000 12.000 174.000 328.000 0.027 3.400 0.034 18.500 18.000 3 0.515 0.513 0.568 0.500 33.600 MAXIMUM EXPOSURE DETECTION POINT CONG 200.000 89 400.000 55 34.000 12 250.000 174 770.000 328 1 70.000 0.027 0.410 0.41 160 0.034 0.540 0.54 0.020 0.02 2 2 0.940 0.515 0.920 0.513 1 .600 -0.568 0.740 0.5 270.000 33.6 0.00071 0.00071 TEF VALUES 0.1 0.01 0.1 ADJUSTED EXPOSURE POINT CONG 89 55 12 174 328 0.027 0.41 0.034 0.54 0.02 2 0.052 0.005 0.057 0.5 33.6 0.00071 · Absorption Factor 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Oral Dermal RfD RID 1.00E+00 2.00E-01 3.70E-02 7.40E-03 2.00E-02 4.00E-03 7.00E-03 1.40E-03 1.40E-01 2.80E-02 5.00E-04 2.50E-04 7.00E-04 3.50E-04 3.00E-03 1.50E-03 6.00E-05 3.00E-05 6.00E-05 3.00E-05 1.00E-02 8.00E-03 NO RID NO RID NO RID NO RID NO RID NO RID NO RID NO RID 3.00E-:-02 1.50E-02 NO RID NO RID FCX SOIL 10-JUN-94 SLA3DAT.WK1 Exposure MG/KG Model Oral Dermal Factor SF SF · Ingestion Chronic Lifetime Chromium NOSF NO SF 1-6 1.3E-05 1.1E-06 Copper NO SF NO SF adult 1.4E-06 3.5E-07 Nickel NO SF NO SF worker 4.9E-07 1.7E-07 Vanadium NO SF NO SF 7-12 3.6E-06 3.0E-07 Manganese NO SF NO SF Dermal 4,4'-DDT (P,P'-DDT) 3.40E-01 6.B0E-01 1-6 1.4E-04 1.2E-05 4,4'-DDE (P,P'-DDE) 3.40E-01 6.80E-01 adult 5.7E-05 1.9E-05 4,4'-DDD (P,P'-DDD) 2.40E-01 4.80E-01 worker 1.9E-05 6.9E-06 Gamma-Chlordane /2 1.30E+00 2.60E+00 7-12 1.6E-04 1.3E-05 Alpha-Chlordane /2 1.30E+00 2.60E+oo Chloroform 6.10E-03 7.60E-03 Benzo (a)anthracene 7.30E+O0 1.46E+01 Chrysene 7.30E+00 1.46E+01 Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene 7.30E+00 1.46E+01 Benzo(a}pyrene 7.30E+00 1.46E+01 Pentachlorophenol 1.20E-01 2.40E-01 TEQ(Dioxins) 1.50E+05 3.00E+05 -----~ liiii 1iiiii1 iiiii1 1i11i1 lillili lllliiill !;iiiiR ,;;;, =i 1:11 11111119 ·II!! !!!!!!! I!!!!!! l!!!l!I -. -. . ·----· FCX SOIL 10-JUN-94 SLA3DAT.WK1 MG/KG Chromium Copper Nickel Vanadium Manganese 4,4'-DDT (P,P'-DDT) 4,4'-DDE (P,P'-DDE) 4,4'-DDD (P,P'-ODD) Gamma-Chlordane /2 Alpha-Chlordane /2 Chloroform Benzo (a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene Pentachlorophenol TEQ(Dioxins) Chronic Daily Intake 1-6 1.2E-03 7.2E-04 1.6E-04 2.3E-03 4.3E-03 3.5E-07 5.3E-06 4.4E-07 7.0E-06 2.6E-07 2.6E-05 INGESTION Chronic Daily Intake adult 1.2E-04 7.7E-05 1.7E-05 2.4E-04 4.6E-04 3.8E-08 5.7E-07 4.8E-08 7.6E-07 2.8E-08 2.8E-06 Chronic Daily Intake worker 4.4E-05 2.7E-05 5.9E-06 8.5E-05 1.6E-04 1.3E-08 2.0E-07 1.7E-08 2.6E-07 9.8E-09 9.8E-07 Chronic Daily Intake 7-12 3.2E-04 2.0E-04 4.3E-05 6.3E-04 1.2E-03 9.7E-08 1.5E-06 1.2E-07 1.9E-06 7.2E-08 7.2E-06 6.8E-07 7.3E-08 2.5E-08 1.9E-07 6.5E-08 7.0E-09 2.5E-09 1.8E-08 7.4E-07 8.0E-08 2.8E-08 2.1E-07 6:5E-06 7.0E-07 2.5E-07 1.8E-06 4.4E-04 4.7E-05 1.6E-05 1.2E-04 9.2E-09 9.9E-10 3.5E-10 2.6E-09 DERMAL CONTACT Chronic Daily Intake 1-6 1.2E-05 7.7E-06 1.7E-06 2.4E-05 4.6E-05 3.8E-08 5.7E-07 4.8E-08 7.6E-07 2.8E-08 2.8E-06 Chronic Daily Intake adult 5.1E-06 3.1E-06 6.8E-07 9.9E-06 1.9E-05 1.5E-08 2.3E-07 1.9E-08 3.1E-07 1.1 E-08 1.1E-06 Chronic Daily Intake worker 1.7E-06 1.0E-06 2.3E-07 3.3E-06 6.2E-06 5.1E-09 7.8E-08 6.5E-09 1.0E-07 3.8E-09 3.8E-07 Chronic Daily Intake 7-12 1.4E-05 8.8E-06 1.9E-06 2.8E-05 5.2E-05 4.3E-08 6.6E-07 5.4E-08 8.6E-07 3.2E-08 3.2E-06 7.3E-08 3.0E-08 9.9E-09 8.3E-08 7.0E-09 2.9E-09 9.5E-10 8.0E-09 8.0E-08 3.2E-08 1.1E-08 9.1E-08 7.0E-07 -2.9E-07 9.5E-08-8.0E-07 4.7E-05 1.9E-05 6.4E-06 5.4E-05 9.9E-10 4.0E-10 1.3E-10 1.1E-09 I!!!!!!! !!!!!I -l!!!l!I l!!!!I! ,. --.-.~ .. ----·--,_ -----,----FCX SOIL 10-JUN-94 INGESTION DERMAL CONTACT SLA3DAT.WK1 Lifetime Lifetime Lifetime Lifetime Lifetime Lifetime Lifetime Lifetime MG/KG Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Intake Intake Intake Intake Intake Intake Intake Intake 1-6 adult worker 7-12 1-6 adult worker 7-12 Chromium 9.BE-05 3.1E-05 1.5E-05 2.7E-05 1.1E-06 1.7E-06 6.1 E-07 1.2E-06 Copper 6.1E-05 1.9E-05 9.4E-06 1.7E-05 6.6E-07 1.0E-06 3.BE-07 7.2E-07 Nickel 1.3E-05 4.2E-06 2.0E-06 3.6E-06 1.4E-07 2.3E-07 8.3E-08 1.6E-07 Vanadium 1.9E-04 6.1E-05 3.0E-05 5.2E-05 2.1 E-06 3.3E-06 1.2E-06 2.3E-06 Manganese 3.6E-04 1.1E-04 5.6E-05 9.BE-05 3.9E-06 6.2E-06 2.3E-06 4.3E-06 4,4'-DDT (P,P'-DDT) 3.0E-08 9.5E-09 4.6E-09 8.1E-09 3.2E-09 5.1E-09 1.9E-09 3.5E-09 4,4'-DDE (P,P'-DDE) 4.5E-07 1.4E-07 7.0E-08 1.2E-07 4.9E-08 7.BE-08 2.BE-08 5.3E-08 4,4'-DDD (P,P'-DDD) 3.7E-08 1.2E-08 5.BE-09 1.0E-08 4.1E-09 6.5E-09 2.3E-09 4.4E-09 Gamma-Chlordane /2 5.9E-07 1.9E-07 9.2E-08 1.6E-07 6.5E-08 1.0E-07 3.7E-08 7.0E-08 Alpha-Chlordane /2 2.2E-08 7.0E-09 3.4E-09 6.0E-09 2.4E-09 3.BE-09 1.4E-09 2.6E-09 Chloroform 2.2E-06 7.0E-07 3.4E-07 6.0E-07 2.4E-07 3.BE-07 1.4E-07 2.6E-07 Benzo (a)anthracene 5.7E-08 1.BE-08 8.BE-09 1.6E-08 6.2E-09 9.9E-09 3.6E-09 6.BE-09 Chrysene 5.5E-09 1.BE-09 8.5E-10 1.5E-09 6.0E-10 9.5E-10 3.5E-10 6.5E-10 Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene 6.3E-0B 2.0E-08 9.7E-09 1 .7E-08 6.BE-09 1.1E-08 3.9E-09 7.4E-09 Benzo(a)pyrene 5.5E-07 1.BE~.07. 8.5E-08 l.5E~07 6.0E-08 9.5E-08 3.5E-08 6.5E-08 Pentachlorophenol 3.7E-05 1.2E-05 5.7E-06 1.0E-05 4.0E-06 6.4E-06 2.3E-06 4.4E-06 TEQ(Dioxins) 7.BE-10 2.5E-10 1.2E-10 2.1E-10 8.5E-11 1.3E-10 4.9E-11 9.2E-11 --------1-l!lla------------------- - ---. FCX SOIL 10-JUN-94 SLA3DAT.WK1 MG/KG Chromium Copper Nickel Vanadium Manganese 4.4'-DDT (P,P'-DDT) 4,4'-DDE (P,P'-DDE) 4,4'-DDD (P,P'-000) Gamma-Chlordane /2 Alpha-Chlordane /2 Chloroform Benzo (a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene Pentachlorophenol · TEQ(Dioxins) INGESTION Chronic Chronic HQ HQ Chronic HQ 1-6 adult worker 1.2E-03 1.2E-04 4.4E-05 1.9E-02 2.1 E-03 7.3E-04 7.BE-03 8.4E-04 2.9E-04 3.2E-01 3.5E-02 1.2E-02 3.0E-02 3.3E-03 1.1E-03 7.0E-04 7.6E-05 2.6E-05 7.6E-03 8.2E-04 2.9E-04 1.5E-04 1.6E-05 5.6E-06 1.2E-01 1.3E-02 4.4E-03 4.3E-03 4.7E-04 1.6E-04 2.6E-03 2.BE-04 9.BE-05 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 .5E-02· 1.6E--03 5.5E~ 04 NA NA NA 5.3E-01 5.7E-02 2.0E-02 Chronic HQ 7-12 3.2E-04 5.4E-03 2.2E-03 8.9E-02 8.4E-03 1.9E-04 2.1 E-03 4.1E-05 3.2E-02 1.2E-03 7.2E-04 NA NA NA NA 4.0E-03 NA 1.5E-01 DERMAL CONTACT Chronic HQ Chronic HQ Chronic HQ 1 -6 adult worker 6.2E-05 2.5E-05 8.5E-06 1.0E-03 4.2E-04 1.4E-04 4.2E-04 1.7E-04 5.7E-05 1.7E-02 7.1E-03 2.4E-03 1.6E-03 6.7E-04 2.2E-04 1.5E-04 6.2E-05 2.1E-05 1.6E-03 6.7E-04 2.2E-04 3.2E-05 1.3E-05 4.3E-06 2.5E-02 1.0E-02 3.4E-03 9.3E-04 3.BE-04 1.3E-04 3.5E-04 1.4E-04 4.BE-05 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.1E-03 1.3E-03 4.3E-04 NA NA NA 5.2E-02 2.1E-02 7.1E-03 Chronic HQ 7-12 7.1E-05 1.2E-03 4.BE-04 2.0E-02 1.9E-03 1.7E-04 1.9E-03 3.6E-05 2.9E-02 1.1E-03 4.0E-04 NA. NA NA t\lA 3.6E-03 NA 5.9E-02 l!!l!!I l!!!!!I l!!!!I !!!!19 FCX SOIL 10-JUN-94 SLA3DAT.WK1 MG/KG Chromium Copper Nickel Vanadium Manganese 4,4'-DDT (P,P'-DDT) 4,4'-DDE (P,P'-DDE) 4,4'-DDD (P,P'-DDD) Gamma-Chlordane /2 Alpha-Chlordane /2 Chloroform Benzo (a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene Pentachlorophenol TEQ(Dioxins) Lifetime Risk 1-6 NA NA NA NA NA 1.0E-08 1.5E-07 9.0E-09 7.?E-07 2.9E-08 1.3E-08 INGESTION Lifetime Risk adult NA NA NA NA NA 3.2E-09 4.9E-08 2.9E-09 2.5E-07 9.1E-09 4.3E-09 Lifetime Risk worker NA NA NA NA NA 1.6E-09 2.4E-08 1.4E-09 1.2E-07 4.4E-09 2.1 E-09 Lifetime Risk 7-12 NA NA NA NA NA 2.8E-09 4.2E-08 2.4E-09 2.1E-07 7.8E-09 3.?E-09 4.2E-07 1.3E-07 6.5E-08 1.1E-07 4.0E-08 1.3E-08 6.2E-09 1.1E-08 4.6E-07 1.5E-07 7.1E-08 1.2E-07 4.0E-06 1.3E,-06 6.2E.-07 1.1E-06. 4.4E-06 1.4E-06 6.9E-07 1.2E-06 1.2E-04 3.7E-05 1.BE-05 3.2E-05 1.3E-04 4.1 E-05 2.0E-05 3.5E-05 -·-- DERMAL Lifetime Lifetime Risk Risk 1-6 adult NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2.2E-09 3.5E-09 3.3E-08 5.3E-08 2.0E-09 3.1E-09 1.7E-07 2.7E-07 6.2E-09 9.9E-09 1.BE-09 2.9E-09 Lifetime Risk worker NA NA NA Lifetime Risk 7-12 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.3E-09 2.4E-09 1.9E-08 3.6E-.08 1 . 1 E-09 2.1 E-09 9.7E-08 1.8E-07 3.6E-09 6.8E-09 1.0E-09 2.0E-09 9.1 E-08 1.4E-07 5.2E-08 9.9E-08 8.8E-09 1.4E-08 5.0E-09 9.5E-09 1 .OE-07 1 .6E-07 5. ?E-08 1.1 E,-07 8.8E~o7 1.4E~o6. 5.0E~o? 9.5E:07 9.?E-07 1.5E-06 5.6E-07 1.0E-06 2.6E-05 4.0E-05 1.5E-05 2.8E-05 2.8E-05 4.4E-05 1.6E-05 3.0E-05 I ., I I I I I I I I I I I I I .1 I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, lnc., expressly for EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, ln whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAM..IU6·8.WP APPENDIX G Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: Appendices Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 LEAD MODEL CALCULATION I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F, Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA.-It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. APPENDIX,G Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: Appendices Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 LEAD MODEL CALCULATION --. ABSORPTION METI-IODOLOGY: Non-Linear·Active-Passive AIR CONCENTRATION: 0.200 µg Pb/m3 DEFAULT Indoor AIR Pb Cone: 30.0 percent of outdoor. Other AIR Parameters: Age Time Outdoors (hr) Vent. Rate (m3/day) 0-1 1.0 1-2 2.0 2-3 3.0 3-4 4.0 4-5 4.0 5-6 4.0 6-7 4.0 DIET: DEFAULT DRINKING WATER Cone: 17.40 µg Pb/L Water Consumption: DEFAULT SOIL & DUST: Soil: constant cone. Dust: constant cone. NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU6-8.WP 2.0 3.0' 5.0 5.0 5.0 7.0 7.0 G-1 Lung Abs. (%) 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 I I ' ,, I ' I I I I ii I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: Appendices Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Age Soil (µg Pb/g) House Dust (µg Pb/g) 0-1 200.0 200.0 1-2 200.0 200.0 2-3 200.0 200.0 3-4 200.0 200.0 4-5 200.0 200.0 5-6 200.0 200.0 6-7 200.0 200.0. Additional Dust Sources: None DEFAULT PAINT Intake: 0.00 µg Pb/day DEFAULT MATERNAL CONTRIBUTION: Infant Model Maternal Blood Cone: 7.50 µg Pb/dL CALCULATED BLOOD Pb and Pb UPTAKES: Blood Level Total Uptake YEAR (µg/dL) (µg/day) 0.5-1: 3.69 I0.72 1-2: 3.78 13.38 2-3: 3.93 14.04 3-4: 4.04 14.03 4-5: 4.20 14.IO 5-6: 4.27 14.61 6-7: 4.32 15.06 NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU6-8.WP G-2 Soil+ Dust Uptake (µg/day) 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 I I I I I I I I ,, I I I ' I I I I ' I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA Diet Uptake Water Uptake YEAR (µg/day) (µg/day) 0.5-1: 2.94 1.74 1-2: 2.96 4.35 2-3: 3.40 5.52 3-4: 3.29 4.61 4-5: 3.18 4.78 5-6: 3.38 5.05 6-7: 3.74 5.13 NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU6-8.WP G-3 Risk Assessment Report FCX·OU2 Statesville Site Section: Appendices Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Paint Uptake Air Uptake (µg/day) (µg/day) 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.07 0.00. 0.12 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.19 0.00 0. 19 ·I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA :, .. ~ • 0 • " :n .. ~ ~ • .0 • .0 0 • .. F1GURE G-1 Risk Assessment Report FCX•OU2 Statesville Site Section: Appendices Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 PROBABILITY DENSITY VERSUS BLOOD LEAD LEVEL CONCENTRATION ~ .0 .. ... 0 0 ~ .0 V ... 0 0 • .. 0 0 • i.. 0 2 4 6 B J.0 CutoFF J.0.0 ug/dL Y. Ahoue 0.55 % Below 99.45 G, Hean 4 .J.3 J.4 BLOOD LEAD CONCENTRATION Cug/dL) 0 to 84 Months J.6 NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAJ,AJU6·8.WP G-4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA APPENDIX H Risk Assessment Report FCX·OU2 Statesville Site Section: Appendices Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 SAMPLE CALCULATION FOR EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION NOA/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \AAMJUS-8.WP D D D D ·u I D 0 ft D ff D I D D D I 0 D This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. APPENDIX H Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: Appendices Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 SAMPLE CALCULATION FOR EXPOSVRE POINT CONCENTRATION ._Reasonable Maximum Exposure Arithmetic means and upper 95 % confidence limits of the means will be calculated for use in the risk calculations according to EPA Region IV guidance. The standard equation for Calculation of the 95 % upper confidence limit (U95) is: where: X = . arithmetic mean of the log-transformed data e = constant (natural log) H = statistic (from table of H values) n = sample size s = standard deviation of sample This equation assumes that the medium-specific data are log normally distributed. NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAMJU6·8.WP H-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This document was prepared by Roy F. Weston, lnc., expressly for EPA. It shall not be released or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of EPA. Data for Surface Water Chemical: Barium X =4.01 s =.707 H =2.904 n =8 Sample Data µgll 36 31 36 100 240 42 36 65 UCL = 156 µg/1 or 0.156 mg/I NOR/G:\HOME\ WP\04400\011 \RAt-AJU6-8.WP H-2 Risk Assessment Report FCX-OU2 Statesville Site Section: Appendices Revision: 3 Date: June 1994 Transformed Data 3.58 3.43 3.58 4.60 5.48 3.73 3.58 4.17