NCD982096653_20040624_Ram Leather Care Site_FRBCERCLA RMVL_Final Baseline Risk Assessment for Human Health-OCR

I
·I
••
I·
I
I
.I
I
;I
I
1·
.I
I
I
I
·1
·I
I
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ram Leather Site
Mecklenburg County·
North Carolina
Contract No. 68-WS-0022
Work Assignment No. 936-RICO-0419
June 2004
: Final Baseline Risk Assessment for Human Health
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CDM.
I
Response Action Contract
For Remedial, Enforcement Oversight, and Non-time
Critical Removal Activities at Sites of Release or
Threatened Release of Hazardous Substances
In EPA Region 8
U.S. EPA Contract No. 68-WS-0022
I/EiJ/' ® !_E_w; ~/.rm1. 1/]J JU[ O~'_}l!dJi
Final SUPERFUIVti SfCI
Baseline Risk Assessment for ., /OjV
Human Health
Ram Leather Site
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Work Assignment No.: 936-RICO-0419
Document Control No.: 3282-936-RT-RISK-20591
June 2004
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region4
Atlanta, Georgia
Prepared by:
COM Federal Programs Corporation
2030 Powers Ferry Road
Atlanta, Georgia 30339
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Response Action Contract
For Remedial, Enforcement Oversight, and Non-time
Critical Removal Activities at Sites of Release or
Threatened Release of Hazardous Substances
In EPA Region 8
U.S. EPA Contract No. 68-WS-0022
Final
Baseline Risk Assessment for
Human Health
Ram Leather Site
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Work Assignment No.: 936-RICO-0419
Date:
Date:
Timothy Turner, P.E.
Techni~ Reviewer ~
Approved by: t v<, / 1 f / . lv!,,l-V Date:
Gary P. Clemo s, Ph.D.
Region 4 Program Manager
CDM.
ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Contents
Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
Section 4
Section 5
Section 6
Section 7
Section 8 .,
Section 9
1.1
1.2
2.1
2.2
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
4.1
4.2
4.3
6.1
6.2
6.3
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
Introduction
Project Background ................................................. 1-1
Report Organization ................................................ 1-3
Site History
Operational History ................................................ 2-1 .
Previous Investigations and Removal Actions .......................... 2-2
Data Evaluation
Data Quality Assessment ............................................ 3-1
EPA 1999 Soils Investigation ................................. 3-1
EPA 1999 Groundwater Investigation ................................. 3-3
CDM 2000 Groundwater Investigation ............................. 3-3
Known Nature and Extent of Contamination ........................... 3-6
Identification of Chemicals of Potential Concern ........................ 3-6
Exposure Assessment
Environmental Setting ............................................... 4-1
Identification of Exposure Pathways ................................... 4-3
Quantification of Exposure ........................................... 4-5
Toxicity Assessment
Risk Characterization
Current Use Risk Summary .......................................... 6-1
Future Use Risk Summary ........................................... 6-3
Exposure to Radionuclides ........................................... 6-4
Uncertainty Analysis
Uncertainties Related to Exposure Assessment .......................... 7-1
Uncertainties Related to Toxicity Information ........................... 7-1
Uncertainties Related to Groundwater Data ............................ 7-1
Uncertainties Related to Incomplete Site Characterization ................ 7-2
Remedial Goal Options
References
Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
RAGS Part D Standard Format Tables
Example Calculations
Toxicological Profiles of Chemicals of Potential Concern
Remedial Goal Options Calculations
CDM. . i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
I
Contents
Figures
1-1 Site Vicinity Map ................................................... 1-2
2-1 Private Wells in Site Vicinity .............................................. 2-4
2-2 Bold Research Labs Sample Locations ...................................... 2-5
2-3 EPA Technical Assistance Team Sample Locations .......... : ................ 2-9
3-1 1999 Remedial Investigation On-site Sample Locations ....................... 3-2
3-2 1999 Remedial Investigation On-site and Offsite Sample Locations ............. 3-4
3-3 Soil Boring/Bedrock Monitor Well Locations ..... , ......................... 3-5
4-1 Conceptual Site Model ................................................... 4-4
Tables
2-1 1991 Bold Research Labs Soil Sample Results ................................ 2-6
2-2 1991 Bold Research Labs Groundwater Sample Results ....................... 2-7
2-3 1994 Technical Assistance Team Soil Sample Results ......................... 2-10
2-4 1994 Technical Assistance Team Groundwater Sample Results ................ 2-11
8-1 Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options and ARARs for Groundwater -
Residential Land Use Assumptions ........................................ 8-2
CDM. ii
I Contents
I Acronyms and Abbreviations
I ADD Average daily dose
ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
I ams! above mean sea level
bdl below detection limit
bis below land surface
I BNA base/ neutral/ acid extractable compounds
BOD Biological oxygen demand
BRA-HH Baseline Risk Assessment-Human Health
I BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylene
CDM Federal CDM Federal Programs Corporation
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
I CLP Contract Laboratory Program
coc Chemical of Concern
COD Chemical oxygen demand
I core Chemical Of Potential Concern
CRDL Contract Required Detection Limit
CSF Cancer slope factor
I 1,2-DCA 1,2-dichloroethane
1,1-DCE 1,1-dichloroethene
I 1,2-DCE 1,2-dichloroethene
cis-1,2-DCE cis-1,2-dichloroethene
DNAPL dense non-aqueous phase liquid
I EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FIT Field Investigation Team
GC Gas Chromatograph
I GC/MS · Gas chromatograph/ mass spectrometer
HEAST Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
HI Hazar.d Index
I HQ Hazard Quotient
HSA hollow stem augers
i.d. inside diameter
u, 'IDL Instrument Detection Limit
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
kg kilogram
I L liter
LADD Lifetime average daily dose
LOAEL Lowest Observed Adverse Effects Level 0 MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
mg milligram
I ml milliliter
[Lg mJCrogram
MQL Minimum Quantitation Limit
I NCEA National Center for Environmental Assessment
CDM. iii •
I Contents
I Acronyms and Abbreviations (cont.)
NCP National Contingency Plan I NCDEM North Carolina Department of Environmental Management
NOAEL No Observed Adverse Effect Level
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
I NPL National Priority List
PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
I PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PIO photoionization detector
ppb part per billion
I PCE perchloroethylene (tetrachloroethene)
ppm part per million
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
I QC quality control
QA quality assurance
RAGS Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
I RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RfC Reference concentration
RfD Reference dose
I RGO Remedial Goal Option
RI remedial investigation
RME Reasonable Maximum Exposure
I RPO relative percent difference
SAP sampling and analysis plan
I SCM Site Conceptual Model
SESO Science and Ecosystem Support Division
SERA Screening ecological risk assessment
I SMCL Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
sow Statement of Work
SQL sample quantitation limit
I svoc semi-volatile organic compound
TAL target analyte list
TAT Technical Assistance Team
I TCL target compound list
TCA 1,1, I-trichloroethane
TCE trichloroethene
I TSS Total suspended solids
UCL Upper confidence limit
I USGS U.S. Geologic Survey
voe volatile organic compound
I
I CDM. iv
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM.
Section 1
Introduction
This report is the Baseline Risk Assessment for Human Health (BRA-HH) for the Ram
Leather Care Site in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. A screening ecological risk
assessment (SERA) was prepared as a separate document. The BRA-HH is an analysis
of the potential risks to human health caused by hazardous substances released from
a site in the absence of any additional actions to control or mitigate the releases.
Preparation of a BRA-HH is specified in the National Contingency Plan (NCP) which
states that the lead agency for a Superfund site shall conduct a site-specific BRA-HH
as part of the remedial investigation process (EPA 1990). Preparation of a SERA is
specified in EPA guidance for conducting ecological risk assessments under
Superfund (EPA 1997a).
1.1 Background
The site is a former dry cleaner that operated from 1977 to 1993. The 10-acre parcel is
surrounded by residential property (see Figure 1-1). To the south of the site is a 14-
acre parcel owned by Mr. Cliff Worley, former owner/ operator of the site. Mr.
Worley's property does not contain a house but it does have a small pond used for
fishing. To the east is the 8-acre Glosson property at 15208 Albemarle Rd. To the
north is the property formerly owned by the Parnell family at 15115 Albemarle Rd. To.
the west is the 18-acre Scoggins property at 14998 Coble Rd. A small gravel road east
of the Site provides access to the Ivey and Beaver residences, at 15148 and 15155
Albemarle Rd., respectively. The interior of the one-story cement block former dry
cleaning facility is now a flea market on Saturdays and Sundays, and an open air flea
market on weekdays.
Prior to 1999, investigations conducted by the site owner and the state showed that
soils and groundwater at the site and in some nearby private wells were
contaminated with chlorinated solvents typically associated with dry cleaning
operations. To develop a better understanding of the site, additional site-specific data
on the nature and extent of contamination, the pathways for contaminant migration,
and potential receptors were collected. This information was gathered by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and presented in EPA's Science and
Ecosystem Support Division (SESD) Remedial Investigation (RI) Report (EPA 2000a).
In the summer of 2000, CDM undertook additional groundwater studies. The main
objectives of CDM's investigation were to determine the nature of the fracture zones
in the area and the extent of contamination in the fractured bedrock aquifer. This
work is described in CDM's Final Groundwater Investigation Report (COM 2001). This
baseline risk assessment report evaluates the risk to human health based on data
collected by SESD in 1999 and COM in 2000.
1.2 Report Organization
This report provides a quantitative and qualitative understanding of the actual and
potential risks to human health posed by the Site. Together with the SERA, this report
will be used to:
1-1
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
u
D
0
0
0
Source: DES ReS(Jurce Groups, Inc., survey, August 15, 2002.
Mecklenburg Co. Land Records D"., aerial photograph, June 2001.
Adapted from: Mecklenburg Co Land Records Div., topographic attnbutes,
October 2002.
CDM
Figure 1-1
Stte Vicinity Map
Ram Leather Stte
Charlotte, North Carolina
I
I
I
I
I
g
0
D
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM.
•
•
Determine whether further remedial action is necessary, and
Section 1
Introduction
Establish remediation goals if further remedial action is necessary.
This report follows the suggested outline for a baseline risk assessment report, Exhibit
9-1, p. 9-4 in U.S. EPA's Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human
Health Evaluation Manual, Interim Final (RAGS) (EPA 1989). Tables are presented in
standard format according to U.S. EPA's Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund,
Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual, (Part D, Standardized Planning, Reporting,
and Review of Superfund Risk Assessments) (EPA 1997b). Below is a brief description of
each section. ·
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Section 2 is the site history .
Section 3 is the data evaluation. Analytical data obtained from the two
principal investigations are tabulated, showing the occurrence and
distribution of chemicals. From this list of organic and inorganic
substances present at the site, the most significant in terms of toxicity,
concentration, and frequency of occurrence are selected as chemicals of
potential concern (COPCs).
Section 4 is the exposure assessment. Potential exposure points and
migration pathways are identified. Exposure point concentrations and
exposure doses are calculated. Uncertainties associated with the
exposure assessment are discussed.
Section 5 is the toxicity assessment. EPA toxicity values for each of the
COPCs are presented.
Section 6 is the risk characterization. The results of the data evaluation,
exposure assessment, and toxicity assessment are combined to calculate
an estimate of the risks to human health posed by chemicals at the site.
Section 7 is the uncertainty analysis .
Section 8 presents the Remedial Goal Options (RGOs).
Section 9 is the list of references used in the human health evaluation .
1-3
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
0
D
0
D
u
I
I
I
I
CDIVI
Section 2
Site History
2.1 Operational History
Ram Leather Care was in business from 1977 to 1993. This section provides a timeline
of events, starting before the business was founded and continuing to the present
day. Section 2.2 summarizes the investigations that were conducted prior to the EPA
remedial investigation in 1999 and the CDM groundwater investigation in 2000.
1965 E. Cliff Worley, future owner operator of Ram Leather, acquires property
by. On-site well, depth unknown, in use.
1967 Building built; houses a construction business owned by Mr. Worley.
7 /4/77
4/29/91
5/91
6/ 5/91
7 /3/91
7-10/91
10/11/91
Ram Leather Care opens. Specializes in dry cleaning and restoring
leather goods. Company uses chlorinated hydrocarbon chemicals
(mainly perchloroethylene (PCE) and petroleum hydrocarbons (mineral
spirits) in the cleaning process.
Site is discovered when the state was investigating a complaint of an
open landfill on the neighboring property. Investigator finds the
operator burning PCE filters for which he was cited. Site features
included a 250-gal above-ground storage tank (AST) of waste mineral
spirits located on a concrete pad on west side of building and 49 drums
of liquid waste on outside storage pad. Bungs were open, rain entered
and contents overflowed.
State and owner sample drums, surface soil, and onsite well. County
samples nearby wells. ·
Owner indicates that wastes were put into a metal dumpster on site
prior to disposal in a landfill from 1977 to 1984. After 1984, 55-gal drums
were used to store the spent solvents. The drums were pumped out
regularly by Safety Kleen from 1986 to June 1991, after which time the
drums were no longer used. Starting in 1984, waste mineral spirits were
stored in an AST on a concrete pad located on the west side of the
building. The tank was periodically pumped out by Safety Kleen.
Unused mineral spirits were also stored on the pad.
State requires owner to provide alternate source of water to two affected
residents.
Bold Research Labs conducts investigation for site owner.
New drinking water well installed on-site. Depth 510 feet, cased to 50
feet.
2-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
I
0
0
I
0
u
D
I
CDM.
5/12/92
7 /17 /92
1/30/92
8/26/92
3/18/93
6/22/93
9/8/93
2/16/94
3/16/94
94-95
9/29/95
2/97
1999
2000
2002
Section 2
Site History
Owner lists wastes that were shipped offsite: PCE, filters containing
PCE, filters containing mineral spirits, waste mineral spirits.
Owner provides state a proposal for a soil vapor extraction system to
remediate contaminated soils.
County samples area wells. Suggested that Ram Leather owner provide
point of entry filters for two contaminated wells.
County samples area wells. Discovered another contaminated well
(Glosson 270 feet deep). PCE found at 6.5 ppb.
Ram Leather files for bankruptcy.
County samples area wells. Mishler well (15205 Albemarle Rd) between
Parnell and Tucker residences contaminated; retesting by EPA on
3/15/94 and the county on 9/26/95 showed it was clean.
Site referred to state Superfund section.
State requests that EPA evaluate site for possible removal action.
EPA collects soil and private well samples to determine if a removal
action was warranted.
Mrs. Parnell installs a new well (250 feet deep, cased.to 41 feet).
State samples Mrs. Parnell's new well. Results showed 204 ppb PCE.
State asks EPA to reevaluate emergency removal action.
EPA resamples Parnell well and concludes that it qualifies for high
priority removal action. EPA installs point of entry carbon filters on
Parnell, Beaver, and Glosson wells.
EPA conducts RI. Surface and subsurface soil, groundwater, and private
well samples collected.
COM conducts bedrock groundwater investigation.
COM conducts downhole geophysics investigation.
2.2 Previous Investigations and Removal Actions
This section summarizes waste, soil, and groundwater investigations conducted prior
to the EPA RI in 1999 and the COM investigation in 2000.
2.2.1 Initial Studies: 1991 .
A series of investigations took place in May 1991. Shortly after the site was
discovered, the state and the owner sampled drums and surface soil in the drum.
2-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
0
0
0
0
u
m
I
CDM.
Section 2
Site History
storage area. Composite analyses of drum contents indicated the pres_ence of PCE,
toluene, ethyl benzene, xylenes, and phthalates. Soil samples indicated the presence
phthalates, vinyl chloride, 1,1-dichloroethene (1,1-DCE), 1,2-dichloroethene
(1,2-DCE), trichloroethene (TCE), PCE, and acetone. Subsequently, the state sampled
the boiler blowdown area and found 77 mg/ kg PCE in the soil. The onsite well
(depth unknown) was sampled and found to be contaminated (4,690 µg/L PCE). The
county sampled all off-site wells within one-half mile. Two wells, Parnell (19 µg/ L
PCE) and Beaver (3.9 µg/L PCE), were found to be contaminated. Private wells in the
vicinity of the site are shown in Figure 2-1.
2.2.2 Site Owner Investigation: 1991
In July 1991, Bold Research Labs undertook an investigation on behalf of the site
owner. The investigation was designed to identify a possible source of the chlorinated
hydrocarbon contamination and to define the extent of soil and groundwater
contamination.
Seventeen soil borings were drilled in the locations shown in Figure 2-2. The
investigation showed that PCE contamination extended to a depth of 24 feet (the
deepest sampling point) in Boring 1 (B-1) near the tank pad; to 10 feet (the deepest
sampling point) in B-10 along the northerly surface water runoff pathway; and to 20
feet in B-2 near the dumpster. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (TCA) was found in B-2 at 25 feet
and in B-3 at 7 feet (the deepest sampling point) near the septic tank drain box. The
results are shown in Table 2-1.
Monitor wells were completed in three of the borings (see Figure 2-2). Groundwater
samples were collected from boreholes B-1 and B-2 and the three monitor wells. The
samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and mineral spirits
only. PCE was found at 50,060 µg/ 1 in B-1 ( depth 24 feet) near the drum storage area
and boiler blowout. TCA (6,697 µg/L) and TCE (830 r1g/L) were found in the same
borehole. PCE was found at 1,201 ,tg/1 in B-2 (depth 25 feet) near the dumpster. Trace
quantities of TCA, 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCA), and TCE were found as well. The
results are shown in Table 2-2.
The monitor wells showed only trace contamination. Monitor well MW-RL-1 (total
depth 32 feet, static water level 13.68 feet) had 1 ftg/1 PCE. Monitor well MW-RL-2
(total depth 32 feet, static water level 11.98 feet) had no volatile constituents.
Monitor well MW-RL-3 (total depth 20 feet, static water level 12.3 feet) had 3 ,1g/l
PCE and no other volatiles. The "new" on-site potable well had 9 µg/L TCE. PCE was
not detected. This well was installed on October 11, 1991. It is 510 feet deep,
PVC-cased to 50 feet, and 6 inches in diameter. The reported yield was 6 gallons per
minute (Stanley 1998). The results are shown in Table 2-2.
Also during this investigation, water samples were collected from boiler blowout,
septic tank, and the pond south of the site. In the boiler blowout, the following
contaminants were detected: PCE (66 µg/L), chloroform (9 µg/L), and 1,2-DCA (1
µg/L). The septic tank had 540 µg/L chloroform, 171 ftg/L isopropyl ether, 29 µg/L
2-3
I
I
I
I
I
B
0
0
0
E
I
I
I
I
Sources: DES Resource Groups, Inc., survey, Aug..,st 15, 2002 F 2 1
Mecklenburg Co. Land Records Div., aerial photograph, June 2001. IQ Ure -
Adapted from: Mecklenburg Co. land Records Div., topographic attnbutes, Private Wells in Site Vicinity
October 2002 Ram Leather Site
CDI\II Charlotte, North Carolina
I
I
I
I
•
I
I
g
g
0
0
0
D
D
I
Legend
TRASH
PILE
B-16e
DRUM
STORAGE
AREA
e Soil Boring Sample Locations
~ Monitoring Well Locations
0 Private/Drinking Water Well Locations
Property Boundary
!-tH--H--ttt Railroad
O 50 100
~-==:J Scale in Feet
North Carolina State Plane, NAO 83
Sources: (1) DES Resource Groups, Inc., survey, August 15, 2002.
(2) NCDEHNR 1996,
CDM
~
SEPTIC
TANK
FLOOR DRAIN
FROM BUILDING
TO UNDERNEATH
CONCRETE PAD
t9
MW-20
t9 MW-0022
Figure 2-2
Bold Research Labs Sample Locations
Ram Leather Site
Charlotte, North Carolina
I
I
I
I
I
n
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM
Table 2-1
1991 Bold Research Labs Soil Sample Results
Ram Leather Site
Depth
Soil Boring {ft bis)
8-1 5
10
15
20
24
8-2 5
10
15
20
25
8-3 4
7
8-4 2
8-5 4 and 10
8-6 4 and 10
8-7 4 and 10
8-8 10 and 20
8-9 7
8-10 10
8-11 10
20
8-12 10 and 20
8-13 6
8-14 6
8-15 4 and 10
8-16 4 and 10
8-17 4
10
Definitions:
PCE -Tetrachloroethene
TCA -1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane
ND -Not detected
PCE TCA
(µg/kg) (µg/kg)
26,584
2,868
28
ND
19
15
52
ND
334
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
15,503
ND
21
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
380
2,417
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
30
31
16
31
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Section 2
Site History
Mineral
Spirits
(mg/kg)
89
7
4
<0.5
1
89
7
4
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.5
0.5
<0.5
<0.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
5.5
2-6
I
I
I
I
I
• g
D
·m
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
ii CDM.
I
. Table 2-2
1991 Bold Research Labs Groundwater Sample Results
Ram Leather Site
B-1 B-2 MW-1 MW-2 MW-3
Parameter (µg/L) (24 ft) (25 ft) (32 ft) (32 ft) (20 ft)
1, 1-Dichloroethane 28 ND ND ND ND
1,2-Dichloroethane ND 11 ND ND ND
t-1,2-Dichloroethene 13 ND ND ND ND
Methylene chloride 78 ND ND ND ND
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 50,060 1,201 1 ND 3
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane (TCA) 6,697 26 ND ND ND
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane 112 ND ND ND ND
Trichloroethene (TCE) 830 10 ND ND ND
~
Toluene 13 ND ND ND ND
Methyl-tert-butyl ether 45 ND ND ND ND
Mineral spirits (mg/I) NA NA <0.25 <0.25 <0.25
Note: Groundwater samples obtained from B-1 and B-2 were collected from boreholes.
Definitions:
NA -Not analyzed
ND -Not detected
Section 2
Site History
New Well
(510 ft)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
9
ND
ND
ND
2-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
D
D
m
I
I
I
I
CDM.
Section 2
Site History
toluene, 21 µg/L cis-1,3-dichloropropene, and 12 µg/L 1,2-DCA. No PCE was
detected in the septic tank. No contaminants were detected in the pond.
2.2.3 EPA Emergency Response and Removal Branch
Investigation: 1994
In March 1994, EPA's Technical Assistance Team (TAT) performed a site
investigation to further assess the extent of surface soil and groundwater
contamination onsite and in several private wells in the site vicinity. The TAT
collected four surface soil samples from the locations shown in Figure 2-3. The
samples were analyzed for priority pollutant metals, as well as VOCs, and
semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs).
Surface soil samples showed trace quantities of PCE and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate in
SS-01 (near the former drum storage area). Higher quantities of PCE and
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate were found in SS-04 (in the surface water runoff pathway
just before the culvert). The levels of contamination were not sufficient to trigger a
soil removal action. No inorganics were found at levels of concern. The results are
shown in Table 2-3.
The TAT also collected groundwater samples for VOC analysis from the three
existing monitor wells, the "old" on-site well, and eight offsite private wells. The
locations are shown in Figures 2-1 and 2-3.
The "old" on-site well (no longer used) had PCE (2,500 µg/ L), TCE (98 µg/ L), and
cis-1,2-DCE (590 µg/L). Three of the eight private wells sampled (Parnell, Beaver, and
Glosson) had detectable quantities of VOCs, but the levels did not exceed EPA' s
removal action level of 70 ppb. The following wells had no detectable VOCs: Ivey,
Tucker, Watson Body Shcip, Harrah, and Scoggins. The results are shown in Table
2-4.
2.2.4 North Carolina Superfund Section Investigation: 1995
In September 1995, the North Carolina Superfund Section sampled the new Parnell
well (250 feet deep, cased to 41 feet) and installed sometime between the EPA
investigation in 1994 and September 1995), the Tucker well, the "old" on-site Ram
Leather Care well, and the Howell facility well (the closest community well, about¾
mile north of the site, serving 430 people). Each well was sampled for VOCs, SVOCs,
and metals. No metals above levels of concern or SVOCs were detected in any of the
wells. The only private or community well that was found to be contaminated was
the Parnell well where PCE (204 µg/L), TCE (8 µg/L), and cis-1,2-DCE (6 µg/L)
were discovered. Based on these findings, Mrs. Parnell was advised to discontinue
use of her well for drinking, and the North Carolina Superfund Section requested that
the EPA reevaluate the site for a removal action. The "old" Ram Leather well (depth
unknown) had PCE (1,091 µg/L), cis-1,2-DCE (724 µg/L), and TCE (254 µg/L).
2-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
0
I
I
I
e SS-04
OLD'--
WELL " ~ • SS-02
~ MW-0022
G/
~
/
_/
Legend
TRASH
PILE
DRUM
STORAGE
AREA
Surface Soil Sample Locations
Monitoring Well locations
Private/Drinking Water Well Locations
Property Boundary
t+tHtttt Railroad
0 50
~~
Scale in Feet
100
===I
North Carolina State Plane, NAO 83
Sources: (1) DES Resource Groups, Inc., survey, August 15, 2002.
(2) NCDEHNR 1996
CDM
FLOOR DRAIN
FROM BUILDING
TO UNDERNEATH
CONCRETE PAD
,-
1PILE OF'1
/ DEBRIS;
\ AND /
\ SOIL/ ---
~
MW-2D
------
Figure 2-3
EPA Technical Assistance Team Sample Locations
Ram Leather Site
Charlotte. North Carolina
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
D
D
D
0
D
CDM.
Table 2-3
1994 Technical Assistance Team Soil Sample Results
Ram Leather Site
Organics
(µg/kg) 55-01 55-02
Acetone <DL <DL
2-Butanone <DL <DL
Methylene chloride 6.0 E 9.7 E
T etrachloroethene (PCE) 32 4.2 E
Trichloroethane (TCE) 0.9 E <DL
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 340 270
3,4-Methylphenol <DL <DL
lnorganics (mg/kg) 55-01 55-02
Beryllium 0.9 0.89
Cadmium 0.55 E <DL
Chromium 46 45
Copper 40 40
Lead 22 24
Nickel 5.5 5
Selenium 10 E <DL
Silver 3.2 3.9
Zinc 49 53
Notes:
<DL -Less than instrument detection limit.
E -Estimated value; the concentration is below the practical quantitation limit.
B -The compound was present in the laboratory blank.
55-03
<DL
<DL
8.5 E
1.1 E
<DL
55 E
<DL
55-03
0.36 E
0.47 E
27
4.9
<DL
1.1 E
<DL
0.9 E
13
Section 2
Site History
55-04
400 B
66 E
22 E
21
<DL
2300
370
55-04
0.58 E
<DL
89
40
22 E
6.7
<DL
2.1 E
72
2-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
•
m
• g
R
I ,
D
D
D
D
CDM.
I
Table 2-4
1994 Technical Assistance Team Groundwater Sample Results
Ram Leather Site
Parameter Glosson MW-1 MW-2
(µg/L) Parnell Beaver (270 ft) (32 ft) (32 ft)
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 24 4.8 ND ND
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 16 7.5 24 ND ND
Trichloroethene (TCE) ND 0.57 2.8 ND ND
MW-3
(20 ft)
ND
ND
ND
Section 2
Site History
Old Well
(On-site)
590
2,500
98
Note: Parnell, Beaver, and Glosson are private potable wells. Depths of the original Parnell well, the
Beaver well, and the "old" on-site well are unknown. Private wells at the Ivey, Tucker, Watson Body
Shop, Harrah, and Scoggins properties had no detectable VOCs.
Definition:
ND -Not detected
2-11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
g
g
0
CDM.
Section 2
Sile History
North Carolina also investigated surface water in the north and south drainage
pathways for Hazard Ranking System purposes. Four surface water and sediment
sample pairs, two from the northern drainage route, one from the southern drainage
route, and one background from a pond west of the site, were collected. Each sample
was analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, and metals. No VOCs or SVOCs were detected in
any surface water sample, except for acetone which was attributed to laboratory
contamination. Several metals were detected in the surface water and sediment
samples; however, the concentrations were within typical ranges found in the area
and were not attributed to a release from the site.
2.2.5 EPA Emergency Response and Removal Branch Follow-up
Investigation: 1997
EPA' s Emergency Response and Removal Branch conducted a follow-up
investigation to verify the findings of the state's 1995 investigation. Private wells in
the vicinity of the site were sampled. The results indicated that the levels of
contamination exceeded the removal action level. Thus, in February 1997, point of
entry carbon filtration units were installed on the Parnell, Glosson, and Beaver wells.
Each of these wells has consistently shown chlorinated hydrocarbon contamination in
pre-filter samples.
2-12
g
D
D
D
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM.
Section 3
Data Evaluation
This section details the steps that were taken to identify the chemicals that will be
quantitatively evaluated in the risk assessment. This involves an assessment of data
quality, identification of the sample points that will be part of the assessment, and
screening the data set to identify COPCs.
3.1 Data Quality Assessment
Data used in this assessment were obtained by EPA in an RI conducted in 1999 and in
a follow-up groundwater investigation conducted by CDM in 2000. These
investigations were designed to gather information to:
1. define the nature and extent of soil and groundwater contamination, and
2. aid in the development of remedial alternatives that may be necessary to address
any threat identified by the investigation.
To achieve these goals, a quality assurance (QA) plan was implemented, beginning in
the planning stage and continuing through sample collection, analyses, reporting and
final review. EPA's RI report discusses the QA protocols that were followed to insure
that samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with standard operating
procedures. Through these efforts, it may be concluded that the data that were
obtained are of sufficient quality to use in a baseline risk assessment.
3.2 EPA 1999 Soils Investigation
The soil investigation focused on the Septic System/Septic Tank Drain Field, the
Drainage Ditch/Culvert North of the Site, the Former Dumpster Area, and the
Forme'r Drum Storage Area. Surface and subsurface samples were collected from each
location and analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, and metals. A sample location
map is provided as Figure 3-1.
PCE was detected a five surface soil locations in the former Drum Storage Area.
Concentrations ranged from 2 to 110 µg/ kg. No other VOCs were detected in surface
soil. PCE contamination was detected in the subsurface soil in the former Drum
Storage Area to a depth of 45 feet.
Semi-volatile organic compounds were detected at 11 surface soil locations. Pyrene,
fluoranthene, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate were detected at concentrations ranging
from 610 to 2,400 µg/ kg in the Drum Storage Area. Unidentified compounds ranging
from 2,000 to 72,000 r,g/kg were detected in each location.
Pesticides were detected in each location. Toxaphene was found in the Drum Storage
Area at concentrations ranging from 360 to 1,300 µg/kg. Endrin ketone and DDD
were detected in the Septic System/Septic Tank Drain Field, and endrin aldehyde
was detected in the Drainage Ditch/Culvert North of the Site.
3-1
I
g
D
D
0
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
Legend
TRASH
PILE
RL25J "'? DS8
RL21
J,,.
OLD
'\WELL
J,,.RL26 '-s~
, DW-0011 RL28 '
,, DS02 1,,.. fb
' -fl: RL23 1,SOJ
C'B664 •09100-'E>BS09 J,,.
RL24 RL27 ...
o"' 1isos
...
RL22
O Surface Soil Sample Locations
.._ Subsurtace Soil Sample Localions
S Monitoring Well Locations
0 Private/Drinking Water Well Locations
Properly Boundary
mttt-H-r Railroad
0 50 100
~----I Scale in Feet
North Carolina State Plane, NAO 83
Source: DES Resource Groups, Inc., survey, August 15, 2002.
CDM
-ETS'sf'
s SEPTIC
TANK
"0.0SS , I
~
MW-2D
~ MW-0022
,,,, ,,,,
Figure 3-1
1999 RI On-Site Sample Locations
Ram Leather Site
Charlotte, North Carolina
D
m
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM.
Section 3
Data Evaluation
3.3 EPA 1999 Groundwater Investigation
3.3.1 Shallow Monitoring Wells
VOCs were not detected in the three onsite shallow monitoring wells (well depths 20
to 32 feet). As noted above, PCE contamination was detected in the subsurface soil in
the former Drum Storage Area. The groundwater in this area is probably highly
contaminated. Sample locations are shown in Figure 3-1.
3.3.2 On-site Deep Well
The on-site deep well was sampled for VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, and metals. The
well is approximately 510 feet deep. This well had provided drinking water for Ram
Leather employees; however, it is no longer in use. Sample location is shown in
Figure 3-1.
The main contaminants were PCE detected at 4,000 ftg/L, cis-1,2-dichloroethene at
1,200 µg/L, and TCE at 210 µg/L. No SVOCs, pesticides or PCBs were detected.
Fourteen metals were detected. Re-analysis, due to a mercury contamination problem
discovered at the laboratory, showed that mercury was not present
3.3.3 Potable Wells
Ten private wells in the site vicinity were sampled for VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, and
metals. Sample locations of some of the private wells are shown in Figure 3-2.
Included in this group are the three wells that have shown evidence of contamination
in the past and that have been fitted with point-of-entry carbon filters. For these
wells, both pre-and post-filter samples were collected.
Contamination appears to be limited to the four residences located adjacent to the
site. Chlorinated solvents were detected in water from the Beaver, Glosson, Segrest
International (former Parnell), and Ivey residences. Neither SVOCs nor pesticides
were detected in any of the wells.
Samples were collected for metals analyses on three separate occasions in an attempt
to resolve equivocal results. The latest analyses showed no metals in excess of
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs).
3.4 CDM 2000 Groundwater Investigation
CDM was tasked to conduct a bedrock groundwater investigation to supplement the
data that had been gathered by EPA in 1999. The main objectives of CDM's
investigation were to determine the extent of contamination in the fractured bedrock
aquifer and the nature of the fracture zones in the area.
The extent of contamination in the fractured bedrock aquifer was estimated by the
evaluation of chemical data gathered while drilling and later after the monitor wells
had been installed. A map showing the monitor well locations is presented in Figure
3-3.
3-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, ....... 0
I HUTcHrNSON
I "
I
I .I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CDIVI
I
\ I
~ \
'll I
d % \ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
I
TUCKER0 \
\
. \ '-. \
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
RL25
.&.oOSS
·•1.26
Rl21 •
0802 R _.
RL23i
DS100 O ·• Rl24.&. RL2
INSET
OND1 1J 0SS1
oDS01
oSS2
08050
RL22.A. ~m .. J,~\~;/
·~:::_,'\ 0 0S6
ss, s~,Woo f w~
-~ ~}j
SSJ
0
. 50 ~ . '"" 200
0
SCALE IN FEET
NORT~ CAROLNA STATE PLANE, NAO 83
LEGEND
0
•
•
t+tt-H--:ffl-
SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS
SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS
MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS
PRIVATEIDRJNKING WATER WEL l LOCATIONS
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
RAILROAD
100 I 200 400 800
~----1..J
~· SCALE IN FEET. \
l NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE, NAO 83
' Source: DES Resource Grou t ps, Inc., survey, August 15 2002
Adapted froJ.n: Mecklenbur C ,
topograp;ic attributes, ~cto~~~~;nd Records Div.,
Ii ,.
1999 ~I On-Site and Ott-s·t S Figure 3-2 I I e ample Locations
1 Ram Leather Site
. Charlotte, North Carolina
--
I .,.
!
I
\
-
I HUTCHINSON
I
I
L--//
/
I
I
I
I
-
I • m
n
m
0 "
' I
I
\
\
i /
LEGEND
.,
•
CROSS-SECTION A-A'
CROSS-SECTION B-8'
BORING/MONITORING WELL
LOCATION
PRIVATE/DRINKING WATER WELL
COUNTY LINE
PARCEL BOUNDARY
tttttttt-RAILROAD
-
Soun;e: DES Resouree Groups. Inc. survey, August 15, 2002.
--

-
-----

-
-
B-31 A' ·. ,,..-,,.\
MW3D \ . '-. .-, \
\ TUCKER / · .. ,
\ 1,.,..-'\ ' \
\ \ \
\ \ '-.\
~.C,.
I \ ~~
\ \ ,~~
"-'(.1/,t,Co~~ \ \ v,
\ \ \
---
\
\ / \ ,,..,.~
\ / \ //STATE~\
\ \ \ WELL \>
I I I \
\ ' \
I\ /')I
\ I \../'
\ \ SEGREST
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
SEPTIC _TANK
'<,._,c ""' ~
\,,~
~ SEP,Tl_c;a°
\ ~DRAfN{',1 "<'(_~Qff
I s-21 A
\ MW2D
I /
WossoN
/
/
I ,;_ ,
BEAVER V ) I / • / 1.<_ (? /
/ '..J
/
A
/
/
/
I
.L_
/
/
--
~.
MW-4D ~
GLOSSON\
!
j
I IV
I I
\
I
I
I
I
Ac1apred trom: Mecidenbutg County Land ReC()f'ds Div .. topographic attributes. October 2002
Figure 3-3
Soil Boring/Bedrock Monitor Well Locations
Ram Leather Site
Charlotte, North Carolina
0 100 200 400
CDM Scale in feet
North CaroWna Stale Plane, NAO 83
-

-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM.
Section 3
Data Evaluation
,,
Analyses of groundwater samples collected while drilling were performed by the
mobile GC/ MS laboratory. The first boring, B-4, produced a groundwater sample
from 182 feet bls which contained PCE, toluene, and xylene at concentrations less
than 1 µg/L. The second boring, B-1, produced a groundwater sample from 182 feet
bis which contained 25 µg/ L toluene. The third boring, B-2, drilled closest to the site,
produced a groundwater sample impacted with PCE, TCE, and vinyl chloride. The
final boring, B-3, produced groundwater samples with no detectable contaminants.
These results were used to determine screen placement in the permanent_
groundwater monitoring wells to be sampled three months later.
Groundwater samples collected from the permanent monitoring wells were analyzed
by CLP fixed-base laboratories. The results confirm some of the findings made in the
mobile laboratory months earlier. Site-related contaminants PCE, DCE, and DCA
were detected in the B-2/MW-2 groundwater samples analyzed by both laboratories.
Monitoring well MW-4, located 1,000 feet east-northeast of the Ram Leather facility,
produced a groundwater sample with trace levels of DCE and DCA. Site related
constituents were absent in samples collected from monitoring wells MW-1 and
MW-3. Therefore the extent of contamination has been estimated to the north and
west-northwest of the site. The extent remains to be defined on the southern side and
the east-northeast directions from the facility.
3.5 Known Nature and Extent of Contamination
Investigations to date have shown that soils at the site and groundwater at the site
and in neighboring private wells are contaminated with chlorinated solvents typically
associated with dry cleaning operations. While these studies have generally focused
on chlorinated hydrocarbons, the limited full scan data that have been gathered
indicate that metals, SVOCs, and pesticides are not a problem at the site.
3.6 Identification of Chemicals of Potential Concern
CO PCs are chemicals whose data are of sufficient quality for use in the quantitative
risk assessment, are potentially site-related, and represent the most significant
contaminants in terms of potential toxicity to humans. As noted above, the laboratory
analyses were of sufficient quality for use in a Baseline Risk Assessment. The
remaining steps in the COPC identification process are described below.
First, the EPA and CDM data were summarized to show all inorganic and organic
chemicals that were positively identified in at least one sample. Included in this
group were unqualified results and results that were qualified with a "J" which means
the chemical was present but the concentration was estimated. These values were
listed as actual detected concentrations which may have the effect of under-or over-
estimating the actual concentration. Tentatively identified compounds (qualified with
an "N") were not included.
Next, the laboratory data were segregated by medium and tabulated to show the
occurrence and distribution of chemicals in surface soil and groundwater. Each table
shows the range of detections above the sample quantitation limit (SQL), the number
of detections above the SQL, and the number of samples that were collected. Finally,
3-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM.
Section 3
Data Evaluation
these positively identified chemicals were screened to exclude chemicals that,
although present, are not important in terms of potential human health effects. The
screening criteria fall into two categories:
1. lnorganics that are essential nutrients or are normal components of human diets
were excluded. Calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium were excluded
because they are essential nutrients, with no known toxic effects at any relevant
dosage level; and
2. Inorganic and organic chemicals whose maximum concentration was lower than
a risk-based concentration corresponding to an excess cancer risk level of 1 x 10,.
or a Hazard Quotient (HQ) level of 0.1, as listed in the EPA Region 9 Preliminary
Remediation Goal (PRG) table using residential land use assumptions, were
excluded (EPA 2000b).
Standard Tables 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 show the screening level (if applicable) for each
chemical, and whether the chemical is a COPC for surface soil, private well
groundwater, and monitor well groundwater, respectively. For each chemical, an
explanation code is provided to indicate the reason for a chemical's inclusion or
exclusion from the COPC list. Standard Tables 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 may be found in
Appendix A.
3-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM.
Section 4
Exposure Assessment
An exposure assessment identifies pathways whereby receptors may be exposed to
site contaminants and' estimates the frequency, duration, and magnitude of such
exposures. Exposure assessment involves (1) characterization of the environmental
setting; (2) identification of exposure pathways; and (3) quantification of exposure.
These topics, major portions of which were excerpted from the document entitled
Combined Preliminnn; Assessment/Site Inspection Rnm Lentlter Site (NCDEHNR 1996),
are presented below.
4.1 Environmental Setting
4.1.1 Topography and Surface Drainage
The total relief on the site is about 13 feet, ranging from a basin in the northwest
corner at 717.2 feet above mean sea level (ams!) to the highest point of 730.4 feet ams!
in the south. There are two overland flow paths for site drainage. The northern
pathway flows through culverts under the railroad tracks and Route 24/27. This
intermittent stream continues for 1,500 feet until it joins a perennial stream. This
perennial stream continues north for 1,000 feet and flows into a pond that is 800 feet
long. The outfall from this pond is an unnamed tributary to Caldwell Creek.
Runoff from the southern portion of the site flows south and enters a pond 1,000 feet
to the south. The pond is 200 feet long. Several springs emerge along the overland
flow pathway and in other areas between the site and the pond. The outfall from this
pond flows 1,200 feet where it enters a larger pond. Outfall from this pond enters
Wiley Branch which leads to Clear Creek.
4.1.2 Climate
The area has a mean annual 45 inches of precipitation per year and a mean annual
lake evaporation of 41 inches per year, resulting in a net precipitation of 4 inches (U.S.
Dept of S::ommerce 1979). The two-year 24-hour rainfall is 3.5 inches (U.S. Dept of
Commerce 1963). The site is outside the 500 year flood plain (Federal Emergency
Management Agency 1993).
4.1.3 Site Geology
The soils at the site are classified as part of the Georgeville unit, characterized by a
silty clay loam. The surface layer is a yellowish red silty clay loam, approximately 5 in
thick. Below this is about 4 feet of strongly acidic subsoil, the upper part of which is a
red silty clay. The lower part is a red silty clay loam. Under the subsoil is silt loam to
approximately 9 feet below land surface (bis). Depth to bedrock is about 42 feet bis
(Tingle 1991).
The site is-located in the western edge of the Carolina Slate Belt of North Carolina.
Classified as phyllites, these rocks are very fine in texture. The metavolcanic rock is
characterized by interbedded felsic to mafic tufts and flowrock. The residuum from
4-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
ft
D
u
I
I
I CDM:
I
Section 4
Exposure Assessment
the fine grained slate forms the Georgeville series subsoil mentioned above (U.S. Dept
of Agriculture 1980; USGS 1980a).
Rock units in the area have undergone periods of deformation that have produced
folding and fractured planes in the rock, as well as brittle zones where the rock is
crushed, sheared, or faulted in some manner. As these rock types become weathered,
soil profiles develop that are characteristic of the original rock (also referred to as
saprolite). The rocks have been fractured during metamorphic phases and, in some
cases, the fractures have been "resealed" by quartz. As rock weathers, these quartz
fillings are retained in the soil indicating that fractures existed in the rock. In
addition, remnant fractures can be seen in the soil profile without quartz infilling as
indicated by the presence of iron staining along the fracture plane. The iron staining
is a result of groundwater leaching iron from the surrounding material. As
groundwater travels along a fracture plane, the iron is redeposited along the plane.
Fracture planes can be detected during drilling as zones of weak-to-incompetent rock
that are not resistant to the cutting action of the drill bit. These fracture zones are
typically water saturated.
Stratigraphy at the site consists of a saprolite layer, a partially weathered rock zone,
and the underlying fractured crystalline bedrock. The saprolite is clay-rich, residual
material derived from in-place weathering of bedrock. Typically, the saprolite is silty
clay near the surface. With increasing depth, the amount of silt, and fine-grained sand
and gravel tend to increase. Remnant fracture planes with quartz infilling appear in
this layer. The thickness of the saprolite in the vicinity of the site ranges from 24 to 42
feet. The range is based on soil borings drilled in 1991 that showed auger refusal at 24
feet and the well log for the onsite deep well that showed the depth to bedrock as
approximately 42 feet bis. This is consistent with the August 1999. drilling in which
bedrock was encountered at approximately 45 feet bis.
Underlying the saprolite is a partially weathered rock layer derived from the
weathering of bedrock. Partially weathered rock is composed of saprolite and
fragments of weathered bedrock. Grain sizes range from silts and clays to large
boulders of unweathered bedrock. The weathering occurs in bedrock zones less
resistant to physical and chemical degradation (i.e., fault zones, stress relief fractures,
and mineralogic zones).
4.1.4 Site Hydrogeology
Regionally, the water-bearing units that underlie the site represent an aquifer system
consisting of metamorphosed and fractured phyllite rocks of varying proportions and
thicknesses. The aquifer system underlying the site generally consists of the
saprolite/ partially weathered rock aquifer and the underlying fractured bedrock
aquifer. In the site area, the water is typically found in the saprolite aquifer and will
generally mimic the overlying land surface. The depth to water is approximately 12
. feet.
Shallow groundwater movement is assumed to somewhat follow the topography.
Based on a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map, ground surface at the
site slopes to the southeast and the northwest, creating a groundwater divide (USGS
4-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
0 CDM.
Section 4
Exposure Assessment
1980b). However, groundwater flow is likely controlled by the presence of relict
fractures present in the saprolite, fractures in. the partially weathered as well as
competent bedrock, and the steep dip of the bedrock units to the northwest. Given
the complexity of the bedrock at the site, the direction of groundwater flow depends
primarily on fractures, faults, bedding planes, etc. According to LeGrand and
Mundorff (1952), most of the natural flow in the bedrock system is probably confined
to the upper 30 feet of bedrock where fractures are concentrated, and the overlying
transition zone which apparently has the highest hydraulic conductivity of any part
of the hydrogeologic system.
4.2 Identification of Exposure Pathways
Exposure pathways are determined in a conceptual site model that incorporates
information on the potential chemical sources, release mechanisms, affected media,
potential exposure pathways, and known receptors to identify complete exposure
pathways. A pathway is considered complete if (1) there is a source or chemical
release from a source; (2) there is an exposure point where contact can occur; and (3)
there is a route of exposure (oral, dermal, or inhalation) through which the chemical
may be taken into the body.
The conceptual site model for this assessment is presented in Figure 4-1. As seen in
Figure 4-1 and discussed in the RI report (EPA 2000a), contamination at this site
occurred as a result of spills or leaks of dry cleaning solvents. Once released,
contaminants impacted the surface soil and the saprolite/ partially weathered rock
aquifer underneath. EPA's investigation in 1999 showed that soil on-site is
contaminatel
Fractured bedrock underlies the saprolite. Analysis of rock cores showed a diagonal
fracture pattern, suggesting pathways for dense non-aqueous phase liquid
(DNAPL) and/or dissolved dry cleaning fluids to migrate downward. The depth
direction of migration is dependent primarily on the actual geometry of the fracture
system which is not known. Private wells in the area are set in the fractured bedrock.
Contamination has been well documented in three private wells. Additionally, both
former drinking water wells on-site are heavily contaminated.
Based on this understanding of the distribution of contaminants, and the potential for
human contact, the following media/ receptors were examined:
1. Soil. Potential receptors are current and future workers and site visitors/
trespassers, and future residents.
2. Groundwater. Potential receptors are current area residents who use private
wells and future site residents.
Potentially complete exposure pathways examined in this risk assessment are:
• incidental ingestion of soil
• inhalation of particulates released from soil
• dermal contact with soil
• ingestion of groundwater
• inhalation of volatiles released from groundwater during showering
4-3
!!!I ms c::;
Figure 4-1
Conceptual Site Model
Ram Leather Site
Primary
Sources
Process Area
CDM.
f---,
Primary
Release
Leaks and Spills ._~
'---,
Giiiii iiiil
Secondary
Sources
Soil
Groundwater
~~
-
T
iiill -
Secondary
Release
Intrusive Actions
Fugitive Dust,
Vapors
Volatilization
--
i--,
i--,
r-'
Media
Affected
Soil
Air
Air
Groundwater
-- - -
i---------,
f---,
-
f---,
Exposure
Routes
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation
Inhalation
Ingestion
-
-
....
Human
Receptors
Visitor ,
Worker
Resident
Visitor
Worker
Resident
Resident
- - -
4-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
{I
I
g
0
fl
I
CDM.
Section 4
Exposure Assessment
Table 1 in Appendix A graphically illustrates the exposure pathway selection process.
4.3 Quantification of Exposure
4.3.1 Exposure Point Concentrations
Reasonable maximum exposure (RME) point concentrations for surface soil were
calculated according to EPA Region 4 guidance using the lesser of the 95 upper
confidence limit (UCL) on the arithmetic average for a lognormal distribution or the
maximum detected value (EPA 1992 and 1995). Where a COPC was not detected at a
given location, one-half the SQL_ was used as a proxy concentration; however, if both
the proxy concentration and the UCL exceeded the maximum detected value, the
. maximum detected value was used as the RME concentration. The RME
concentrations for COPCs in surface soil are presented in Table RME3.1 in Appendix
A. An example RME calculation is provided in Table B-1 of Appendix B. Example
dose calculations for all exposure routes may be found in Appendix B as well. Three
private wells had contaminants that exceeded screening levels. The RME ·
concentrations for these wells, as reported from the laboratory, are presented in
Tables RME3.2, RME3.3, and RME3.4 in Appendix A. Note: No discernable
groundwater contaminant plume exists. Therefore, the exposure point concentrations
for groundwater obtained from on-and off-site monitor wells were calculated in the
same way as for soil. The results are shown in Table RME3.5 in Appendix A.
4.3.2 Human Intakes
Human intakes were calculated for each chemical and receptor using the RME
concentrations. Estimates of human intake, expressed in terms of mass of chemical
per unit body weight per time (mg/kg-day), were calculated differently depending
on whether the COPC is a non-carcinogen or a carcinogen. For no"n-carcinogens,
intake was averaged over the duration of exposure and is referred to as the average
daily dose (ADD). For carcinogens, intake was averaged over the average lifespan of
a person (70 years) and is referred to as the lifetime average daily dose (LADD).
ADDs and LADDs were calculated using standard assumptions and professional
judgment.
As a measure of conservatism and to avoid redundancy when evaluating residential
receptors, an effort was made to identify the most sensitive receptor to calculate non-
cancer hazards and excess cancer risk levels. In the case of non-carcinogens, a child
resident is the mos·t sensitive residential receptor, owing to its lower body mass
relative to the amount of chemical intake. For carcinogens, a child through adult
resident is the most sensitive receptor because the excess cancer risk for the child
(exposure duration of six years) is assumed to be additive to that of an adult
(exposure duration of 24 years). For these reasons, no calculations of excess cancer
risk are included for child residents and no calculations of non-cancer hazards are
included for child through adult residents. Excess cancer risk and non-cancer hazards
were calculated for site workers and site visitors since exposure parameters (body
weight, contact rate, etc.) do not change over the exposure period as they do for
residential receptors. The assumptions that were used in calculating intakes are
presented in Standard Tables 4.lRME through 4.6RME presented in Appendix A.
4-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
0
I
I
I
I
CDM.
Section 5
Toxicity Assessment
Toxicity assessment is a two-step process whereby the potential hazards associated
with route-specific exposure to a given chemical are (1) identified by reviewing
relevant human and animal studies; and (2) quantified through analysis of dose-
response relationships. EPA has conducted numerous toxicity assessments that have
undergone extensive review within the scientific community.
EPA toxicity assessments and the resultant toxicity values will be used in the baseline
evaluation to determine both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks associated with
each chemical of concern and route of exposure. EPA toxicity values that are used in
this assessment include:
• reference dose values (RfDs) for non-carcinogenic effects
• cancer slope factors (CSFs) for carcinogenic effects
RfDs have been developed by EPA for indicating the potential for adverse health
effects from exposure to chemicals exhibiting non-carcinogenic (systemic) effects.
RfDs are ideally based on studies where either animal or human populations were
exposed to a given compound by a given route of exposure for the major portion of
the life span (referred to as a chronic study). The RfD is derived 1::iy determining dose-
specific effect levels from all the available quantitative studies, and applying
uncertainty factors to the most appropriate effect level to determine an RfD for
humans. The RfD represents a threshold for toxicity. RfDs are derived such that
human lifetime exposure to a given chemical via a given route at a dose at or below
' the RfD should not result in adverse health effects, even for the most sensitive
members of the population.
RfDs for inhalation exposure (RfDi) are derived from reference concentrations (RfCs).
RfCs are concentrations in air, expressed in mg/m3, that are thought to represent a
level without appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a portion of the lifetime. A
human body weight of 70 kg and an inhalation rate of 20 m3 / day are used to convert
between a concentration in air (RfC) expressed in mg/ m3 and an inhaled intake
expressed in units of mg/kg-day.
CSFs are route-specific values derived only for compounds that have been shown to
cause an increased incidence of tumors in either human or animal studies. The CSF is
an upper bound estimate of the probability of a response per unit intake of a chemical
over a lifetime and is determined by low-dose extrapolation from human or animal
studies. When an animal study is used, the final CSF has been adjusted to account for
extrapolation of animal data to humans. If the studies used to derive the CSF were
conducted for less than the life span of the test organism, the final CSF has been
adjusted to reflect risk associated with lifetime exposure.
The RfDs and CSFs used in this assessment were primarily obtained from EPA's
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database (EPA 2001). Values that appear in
5-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
0
D
I
I
I
CDM.
Section 5
Toxicity Assessment
IRIS have been extensively reviewed by EPA work groups and thus represent Agency
consensus. If no values for a given compound and route of exposure were listed in
IRIS, then EPA's Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) (EPA 1997d)
were consulted. Where no value was listed in either IRIS or HEAST, EPA's National
Center for Environmental Assessment was consulted. Standard Tables 5.1 and 5.2
summarize the toxicity values for non-carcinogenic COPCs and Standard Tables 6.1
and 6.2 summarize the toxicity values for carcinogenic COPCs. Standard Tables 5.1,
5.2, 6.1, and 6.2 may be found in Appendix A. Brief toxicological profiles of the
COPCs may be found in Appendix C
To characterize risk associated with dermal exposure, the toxicity values presented in
Tables 5.1 and 6.1 and were adjusted from administered to absorbed toxicity factors
according to the method described in Appendix A to RAGS (EPA 1989). The
absorption efficiencies used in the conversion were obtained from Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) toxicological profiles, where available. In
accordance with recent EPA Region 4 guidance, absorption efficiencies of 50% or
greater were interpreted as 100% (EPA 1999). For semi-volatile organics and metals
for which absorption efficiency data was not available, the following oral absorption
percentages were employed: 50 percent for semi-volatile organics, and 20 percent for
inorganics (EPA 1995).
5-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. I
I
I
I
I
I
I CDM.
m
Section 6
Risk Characterization
The.final step of the baseline risk assessment is the risk characterization. Human
intakes for each exposure pathway (Section 4) are integrated with EPA reference
toxicity values (Section 5) to characterize risk. Carcinogenic, non-carcinogenic, and
lead effects are estimated separately.
To characterize the overall potential for non-carcinogenic effects associated with
exposure to multiple chemicals, EPA uses a Hazard Index (HI) approach. This
approach assumes that simultaneous subthreshold chronic exposures to multiple
chemicals that affect the same target organ are additive and could result in an adverse
health effect. The HI is calculated as follows:
Hazard Index= ADDJRfD1 + ADD,/RfD, + ... ADDJRfD,
where:
ADD,= Average Daily Dose (ADD) for the ith toxicant
RfD, = Reference Dose for the ith toxicant
The term ADDJRfD, is referred to as the Hazard Quotient (HQ).
Calculation of an HI in excess of unity indicates the potential for adverse health
effects. Indices greater than one will be generated anytime intake for any of the
COPCs excee'ds its RfD. However, given a sufficient number of chemicals under
consideration, it is also possible to generate an HI greater than Of\e even if none of the
individual chemical intakes exceeds its respective RfD.
For carcinogens, risks are estimated as the incremental probability of an individual
developing cancer over a lifetime as a result of exposure to the potential carcinogen .
This is also referred to as incremental or excess individual lifetime cancer risk. For a
given chemical and route of exposure, excess lifetime cancer risk is calculated as
follows:
Risk= Lifetime Average Daily Dose (LADD) x Carcinogenic Slope Factor (CSF)
These risks me probabilities that are generally expressed in scientific notation (i.e.,
1 x 10-6 or lE-6). An incremental lifetime cancer risk of 1 x 10·• indicates that, as a
plausible upper-bound, an individual has a one-in-one-nullion chance of developing
cancer as a result of site-related exposure to a carcinogen over a 70-year lifetime
under the specific exposure conditions at the site. For exposures to multiple
carcinogens, EPA assumes that the risk associated with multiple exposures is
equivalent to the sum of their individual risks.
6.1 Current Use Risk Summary
The site is currently used as a flea market, and access is unrestricted. Therefore, both
site workers and site visitors are currently potentially exposed receptors. Exposure
routes potentially complete are:
6-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:I
:I
I COM.
I
Section 6
Risk Characterization
• inadvertent ingestion of soil
• dermal contact with soil
• inhalation of dust
6.1.1 Site Workers
Standard Tables 7.1RME and 9.1RME summarize the cancer and non-cancer risks for
a site workers. These tables may be found in Appendix A. The total incremental
lifetime cancer risk estimate is 2 x 10-'. EPA's acceptable target range for carcinogenic
risk at Superfund sites is one-in-ten-thousand (1 x 104 ) to one-in-one-million (1 x 10-<l
This estimate is below EP A's target range for Superfund sites. Non-cancer effects are
not expected based on an HI less than 1.
6.1.2 Site Visitors
Standard Tables 7.2RME and 9.2RME summarize the cancer and non-cancer risks for
a site workers. These tables may be found in Appendix A The total incremental
lifetime cancer risk estimate is 3 x 10.s. EP A's acceptable target range for carcinogenic
risk at Superfund sites is one-in-ten-thousand (1 x 104 ) to one-in-one-million (1 x 10·').
This estimate is below EPA's target range for Superfund sites. Non-cancer effects are
not expected based on an HI less than 1.
6.1.3 Child Residents, Private Well 0011
Standard Tables 7.3RME and 9.3RME summarize the non-cancer risks for child
residerts consuming water from Private Well 0011 (the former Parnell well). These
tables are in Appendix A Three contaminants were identified as CO PCs; however,
non-cancer effects are not expected based on an HI of 0.5.
6.1.4 Child to Adult Residents, Private Well 0011
Standard Tables 7.4RME and 9.4RME summarize the cancer risks for child to adult
residents consuming water from Private Well 0011 (the former Parnell well). This
table is in Appendix A. The total incremental lifetime cancer risk estimate is 6 x 10·'.
This estimate is within EPA's target range for Superfund sites.
6.1.5 Child Residents, Private Well 0113
Standard Tables 7.5RME and 9.5RME summarize the non-cancer risks for child
residents consuming water from Private Well 0113 (the Glosson well). These tables
are in Appendix A The HI is 3, indicating non-cancer effects are possible; however, ·
EPA policy is to examine critical effects when no single chemical has an HQ greater
than 1. When this is done, as shown in Table 9.5RME, none exceeds unity. This
indicates that non-cancer effects are not expected.
6.1.6 Child to Adult Residents, Private Well 0113
Standard Tables 7.6RME and 9.6RME summarize the cancer risks for child to adult
residents consuming water from Private Well 0113 (the Glosson well). This table is in
Appendix A The total incremental lifetime cancer risk estimate is 9 x 10-s. This
estimate is within EP A's target range for Superfund sites.
6-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM.
Section 6
Risk Characterization
6.1.7 Child Residents, Private Well 089
Standard Tables 7.7RME and 9.7RME summarize the non-cancer risks for child
residents consuming water from Private Well 089 (the Tucker well). These tables are
in Appendix A. Only one contaminant was identified as a COPC. Non-cancer effects
are not expected based on an HI much less than 1.
6.1.8 Child to Adult Residents, Private Well 089
Standard Tables 7.8RME and 9.8RME summarize the cancer risks for child to adult
residents consuming water from Private Well 089 (the Tucker well). This table is in
Appendix A. The total incremental lifetime cancer risk estimate is 9 x 10·1
. This
estimate is below EP A's target range for Superfund sites.
6.2 Future Use Risk Summary
In the future, the site may remain commercial/ industrial or be redeveloped for
residential use. Potential receptors would be site workers, site visitors, and residents.
Potentially complete exposure routes for site visitors, workers, and residents exposed
to contaminated soil are:
• inadvertent ingestion of soil
• dermal contact with soil
• inhalation of dust
Exposure to groundwater is also possible in a future use scenario. Potentially
complete exposure routes for workers, and residents are:
• ingestion of groundwater
• inhalation of volatiles released from groundwater
6.2.1 Site Workers
The risk for.a site worker is assumed to be the same for both current and future use
scenarios. See Section 6.1.1.
6.2.2 Site Visitors
The risk for a site visitor is assumed to be the same for both current and future use
scenarios. See Section 6.1.2.
6.2.3 Child Residents·
Standard Tables 7.9RME and 9.9RME (Appendix A) summarize the non-cancer
hazards for child residents. Non-cancer hazards are possible based on an HI of 33.
Exposure to PCE, a liver toxin, in groundwater accounts for the majority of potential
non-cancer hazards. Exposure to soil is insignificant in terms of potential non-cancer
hazards.
6.2.4 Child to Adult Residents
Standard Tables 7.lORME and 9.lORME (found in Appendix A) summarize the excess
cancer risk for child to adult residents. The total incremental lifetime cancer risk
6-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM.
Section 6
Risk Characterization
estimate is 3 x 10·'. This is above EPA's target range for Superfund sites. Exposure to
PCE in groundwater accounts for the majority of potential cancer risk.
6.3 Exposure to Radionuclides
There are no radionuclides associated with this site; Standard Table 8.1 is included to
maintain numerical order and avoid confusion.
6-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I
I
I
CDM.
Section 7
Uncertainty Analysis
The uncertainty analysis provides decision makers with a summary of those factors
that significantly influence risk results and discusses the underlying assumptions that
most significantly influence risk. This section discusses the assumptions that may
contribute to over-or underestimates of risk.
7.1 . Uncertainties Related to Exposure Assessment
The exposure scenarios contribute a considerable degree of uncertainty to the risk
assessment. Actual exposure frequencies are unknown; estimates were based on
available guidance. Actual exposure is not expected to exceed the values presented
but may be much lower. The use of conservative assumptions in the exposure
assessment is believed to result in a potential overestimate of risk. Actual site risk
may be lower than the estimates P.resented here but is not likely to be greater.
Not all potential receptors were examined. For example, subsurface soil
contamination exists in the area immediately west of the facility. Excavations in this
area by a construction worker could result in exposure to contaminated soil.
Although this scenario was not examined, contamination in the subsurface was not
ignored. The feasibility study report (CDM 2004) evaluates the contamination in this
area as a protection of groundwater issue. The resultant proposed cleanup levels are
considerably lower (more protective) than would be generated had a construction
worker scenario been considered. ·
7.2 Uncertainties Related to Toxicity Information
RfDs and CSFs for the COPCs were derived from EPA sources. RfDs are determined
with varying degrees of uncertainty depending on such factors as the basis for the
RfD (no-observed-adverse-effect-level, NOAEL vs. lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level, LOAEL), species (animal or human), and professional judgment. The calculated
RfD is therefore likely overly protective, and its use may result in an overestimation
of non-cancer risk. Similarly, the CSFs developed by EPA are generally conservative
and represent the upper-bound limit of the carcinogenic potency of each chemical.
7.3 Uncertainties Related to Groundwater Data
The groundwater data that were used in this assessment contribute a significant
degree of uncertainty to the overall assessment. Among the factors that should be
considered are the use of a single sampling event to estimate risk in the future. The
presumption that contaminant concentrations will remain the same over time may
overestimate the potential risk because dispersion and other natural processes are not
accounted for.
7-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDIIII
7.4 Uncertainties Related to Incomplete Site
Characterization
The site is in a fractured bedrock environment, which means that groundwater flow
patterns are difficult to predict. Consequently, defining the extent of groundwater
contamination in the conventional sense a major challenge. Investigations that have
been conducted since the early 1990s have shown that the wells onsite are highly
contaminated, while four private wells near the site are alsoimpacted, but to a lesser
degree. To date, no other private wells have been shown to be significantly impacted.
However, since the area is not.served by a public water system, regular monitoring of
potentially impacted private wells is a prudent course for the foreseeable future.
7-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM.
Section 8
Remedial Goal Options
Remediation goal options (RGOs) provide remedial design staff with long-term
targets to use during analysis and selection of remedial alternatives. Ideally, such
goals, if achieved, should both comply with applicable, relevant, or appropriate
requirements (ARARs) and result in residual risks that fully satisfy the NCP (EPA
1990) requirements for the protection of human health and the environment. RGOs
are guidelines and do not establish that cleanup to meet these goals is warranted.
RGOs were calculated for COCs only. COCs are the most significant contaminants in
an exposure scenario that exceed an excess cancer risk level of 1 x 104 or an HI of 1.
More specifically, COCs have individual excess cancer risk levels equal to or greater
than 1 x 10·' or an HQ equal to or greater than 0.1 in a given exposure scenario.
COPCs that exceed a state or federal ARARs are also COCs.
Tables 10.9RME and 10.lORME present a comparison of chemical-specific risks due to
exposure to soil and groundwater. These chemical-specific risks formed the basis for
the selection of COCs. Tables 10.9RME and 10.l0RME are subsets of Tables 9.9 RME
and 9.10 RME with the chemicals that do not contribute significantly to the overall
risk eliminated. Note that no COCs were identified for surface soil, as none of the
COPCs satisfied the criteria described above. Note also that there are no COCs
identified for the site worker, site visitor, or residents consuming water from private
wells. The reason for this is that the overall cancer and non-cancer risks are within or
below EPA' s acceptable target range.
RGOs are calculated by combining the intake levels of each COC from all appropriate
exposure routes for a particular medium and rearranging the risk equations to solve
for the concentration term (RGO). RGOs, calculated separately for cancer and non-
cancer effects, correspond to incremental cancer risk levels of 1 x 104 , 1 x 10·', and
1 x 10·' and HQs of 3, 1, and 0.1.
Table 8-1 presents the RGOs and ARARs for groundwater based on residential land
use. For carcinogens, RGOs are based on child through adult resident exposure
assumptions; for non-carcinogens, RGOs are based on child resident exposure
assumptions. This combination (RGOs for cancer effects based on lifetime exposure
assumptions and RGOs for non-cancer effects based on child resident exposure
assumptions) yields the lowest (most protective) set of RGOs. Note: For the reasons
cited, no calculations of RGOs for non-cancer effects for adult or lifetime residents
were performed. An example calculation may be found in Appendix Band
spreadsheets showing the RGO calculations are presented in Appendix D.
8-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 8-1
Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options and ARARs for Groundwater
Residential Land Use Assumptions
Ram Leather Site
Chemicals Detections 1 Cancer Risk Level 2 Hazard Quotient Level 3
of (ug/1) (ug/11 (ug/1)
Concern Min Max 1E-6 1E-5 1E-4 HQ=0.1 HQ=1 HQ=3
1,2-Dichloroelhane 0.5 1 0.4 4 37 NA NA NA
Chloroform 2 3 0.8 8 77 16 156 469
Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 5 1,200 NA NA NA 16 156 469
Telrachloroelhene 2 4,000 1 12 124 16 156 469
Trichloroelhene 210 210 4 40 395 NA NA NA
Noles:
ARAR/TBC 4
(ug/1)
5 MCL
80 MCL'
70 MCL
5 MCL
5 MCL
1. Minimum/maximum average detected concentration in monitor wells MW-1 through MW3 (shallow on-site wells). MW-
1 D through 4D (deep off-site wells), and DW-0011 (510 ft deep on-site well).
2. Remediation goals based on ingestion of groundwater using child through adult resident exposure assumptions
3. Remediation goals based on ingestion of groundwater using child resident land use exposure assumptions.
The c~mbination of child through adult resident exposure assumptions for carcinogens and child resident exposure
assumptions for non-carcinogens results in the lowest (most protective) risk-based concentrations.
4. ARAR/TBC: Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/To-Be-Considered
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level
* Total trihalomethanes
Acronyms:
NA: Nol applicable
HO: Hazard quotient (noncanc~r risk)
CDM. 8-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM.
Section 9
References
COM. 2001. Final Groundwater Investigation Report, Ram Leather Site. August 31.
COM. 2004. Final Focused FeasibilihJ Study Report, Ram Leather Site. June.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1993. Flood Insurance Rate Map,
Mecklenburg County, NC Panel 130 of 210, February 3.
LeGrand, H. E. and M.J. Mundorff. 1952. Geolog,; and Groundwater in the Charlotte Area.
Bulletin 63. North Carolina Geological Survey.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(NCDEHNR). 1996. Combined Preliminan; Assessment/Site Inspection, Ram Leather Care,
Vol. I and II. March.
Stanley, Jeanette. 1998. (North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources). Hand written notes given to Michael Profit, COM re: well depths
on and near Ram Leather site. November 12.
Tingle, William R. 1991. Technical and Field Data Report for Ram Leather Care, Bold
Research Labs, October 30.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1980. Soil Suroey of Mecklenburg Co11nh; North
Carolina, pp 11-12 and sheet 9.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United Slates,
Technical Paper No. 40, US Government printing Office, Washington, DC, 1963.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Cli111a tic Atlas of the United States, National
Climatic Center, Asheville, NC, 1979.
U.S. EPA 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superf11nd, Volume I: Human Health
Evaluation Manual (Part A), Interim Final, December.
U.S. EPA 1990. "National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
Final Rule." 55 Federal Register, No. 46, March 8, 1990, pp. 8666-8865.
U.S. EPA 1991a. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: "Standard
Default Exposure Factors," OSWER Directive 9298.6-03, March 25.
U.S. EPA 1991b. Human Health Evaluation Man11al, Part B: Development of Risk-Based
Preliminan; Remediation Goals," OSWER Directive 9285.7-0lB, December 13.
U.S. EPA.1991c. Guidance on Estimating Exposure to VOCs D11ring Showering, Office of
Research and Development. July 10.
9-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CDM.
I
Section 9
References
U.S. EPA 1992a. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calculating the Concentration Tenn,
May.
U.S. EPA 1992b. Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications, January.
U.S. EPA 1995. "Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Region 4 Bulletins. Human Health
Risk Assessment." November.
U.S. EPA 1997a. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for
Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. Interim Final. June 5.
U.S. EPA 1997b. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health
Evaluation Manual, (Part D, Standardized Planning, Reporting, and Review of Superfund
Risk Assessments). December.
U.S. EPA 1997c. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume 1, General Factors. Prepared by
the Office of Research and Development. August.
U.S. EPA 1997d. Health Effects Assessment Summan; Tables FY-1997 Update. Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA/540/R-97-036, PB97-921199, July.
U.S. EPA 1999. Personal Communication between Glenn Adams, Risk Assessment
Specialist, EPA Region 4 Office of Technical Services, and Michael Profit, CDM
Programs Corporation, re: Absorption Efficiencies for COPCs for the Brunswick
Wood Preserving Site. May 19, 1999.
U.S. EPA 2000a. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Ram Leather Site, Mecklenburg
Counh;, North Carolina. March 14.
U.S. EPA 2000b. EPA Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goal Table, 2000 Update.
U.S. EPA 2001. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Online. Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment, Environmental Criteria & Assessment Office, Cincinnati,
Ohio.
U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). 1980a. Geologic Map of North Carolina, and
Explanatory Text., Bulletin Number 71, North Carolina Department of Conservation
and Development, 1958, and Heath, Ralph C, Basic Elements of Groundwater
Hydrology with Reference to Conditions in North Carolina. Open File Report 80-44,
pp. 26-29.
U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). 1980b. Topographic Map. 7.5-Minute Quadrangle.
Midland, North Carolina.
9-2
I
I Appendix A
I RAGS Part D Standard Format Tables
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CDM.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
2.1
Appendix A
Standard Tables
Selection of Exposure Pathways .................................. A-1
Occurrence and Distribution of Chemicals of Potential Concern
Soil ........................................................... A-2
2.2 Occurrence and Distribution of Chemicals of Potential Concern
Groundwater, Private Wells ..................................... A-3
2.3 Occurrence and Distribution of Chemicals of Potential Concern
Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-4
3.lRME Exposure Point Concentrations Summary
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Soil ........................................................... A-5
3.2RME Exposure Point Concentrations Summary
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Groundwater, Private Well 0011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-6
3.3RME Exposure Point Concentrations Summary
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Groundwater, Private Well 0013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-7
3.4RME Exposure Point Concentrations Summary
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Groundwater, Private Well 089 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-8
3.5RME Exposure Point Concentrations Summary
-Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-9
4.lRME Values Used for Daily Intake Calculations
Visitor/Trespasser Scenario
Ingestion and Dermal Contact with Soil; Inhalation of Dust ......... A-10
4.2RME Values Used for Daily Intake Calculations
Worker Scenario
Ingestion and Dermal Contact with Soil; Inhalation of Dust ......... A-11
4.3RME Values Used for Daily Intake Calculations
Child Resident Scenario
Ingestion of Groundwater; Inhalation of Volatile Organics .......... A-12
'4.4RME Values Used for Daily Intake Calculations
Child to Adult Resident Scenario
Ingestion of Groundwater; Inhalation of Volatile Organics .......... A-13
4.5RME Values Used for Daily Intake Calculations
Child Resident Scenario
Ingestion and Dermal Contact with Soil; Inhalation of Dust ......... A-14
4.6RME Values Used for Daily Intake Calculations
Child to Adult Resident Scenario
Ingestion and Dermal Contact with Soil; Inhalation of Dust ......... A-15
5.1 Non-Cancer Toxicity Data -Oral/Dermal ......................... A-16
5.2 · Non-Cancer Toxicity Data -Inhalation ............................ A-17
COM. A-i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.1
6.2
7.lRME
7.2RME
7.3RME
7.4RME
7.SRME
7.6RME
7.7RME
7.8RME
7.9RME
7.l0RME
CDM.
Appendix A
Standard Tables (cont.)
Cancer Toxicity Data -Oral/Dermal ............................. A-18
Cancer Toxicity Data -Inhalation ................................ A-19
Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Visitor /Trespasser
Current/Future Use Scenario ................................... A-20
Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Visitor/Trespasser
Current/Future Use Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-21
Calculation of Chemical Non-Cancer Hazards
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Child Resident, Private Well 0011
Current Use Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-22
Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Child to Adult Resident, Private Well 0011
Current Use Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-23
Calculation of Chemical Non-Cancer Hazards
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Child Res'ident, Private Well 0013
Current Use Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-24
Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Child to Adult Resident, Private Well 0013
Current Use Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-25
Calculation of Chemical Non-Cancer Hazards
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Child Resident, Private Well 089
Current Use Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-26
Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Child to Adult Resident, Private Well 089
Current Use Scenario .................................. : . . . . . . . . A-27
Calculation of Chemical Non-Cancer Hazards
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Child Resident
Future Use Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-28
Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Child to Adult Resident
Current Use Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-29
A-ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix A
Standard Tables (cont.)
8.lRME Calculation of Radiation Cancer Risks -
Reasonable Maximum Exposure (N/ A) ........................... A-30
9.lRME Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Worker
Current/Future Use Scenario ................................... A-31
9.2RME Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Visitor/Trespasser
Future Use Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-32
9.3RME Summary of Receptor Hazards for COPCs
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Child Resident, Private Well 0011
Current Use Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-33
9.4RME Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Child to Adult Resident, Private Well 0011
Current Use Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-34
9.5RME Summary of Receptor Hazards for COPCs
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Child Resident, Private Well 0113
Current Use Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-35
9.6RME Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Child to Adult Resident, Private Well 0113
Current Use Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-36
9.7RME Summary of Receptor Hazards for COPCs
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Child Resident, Private Well 089
Current Use Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-37
9.8RME Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Child to Adult Resident, Private Well 089
Current Use Scenario ................................. : . . . . . . . . . A-38
9.9RME Summary of Receptor Hazards for COPCs
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Child Resident
Future Use Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-39
9.l0RME Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Child to Adult Resident
Future Use Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-40
CDM A-iii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix A
Standard Tables (cont.)
10.lRME Risk Assessment Summary
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Worker
10.2RME
10.3RME
10.4RME
10.5RME
10.6RME
10.7RME
10.8RME
10.9RME
Current/ Future Use Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-41
Risk Assessment Summary
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Visitor/Trespasser
Current / Future Use Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-42
Risk Assessment Summary
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Child Resident, Private Well 0011
Current/ Future Use Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-43
Risk Assessment Sumrri.ary
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Child to Adult Resident, Private Well 011
Current/ Future Use Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-44
Risk Assessment Summary
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Child Resident, Private Well 0113
Current /.Future Use Scenario .................................. A-45
Risk Assessment Summary
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Child to Adult Resident, Private Well 0113
Current/ Future Use Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-46
Risk Assessment Summary
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Child Resident, Private Well 089
Current/ Future Use Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-47
Risk Assessment Summary
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Child to Adult Resident, Private Well 089
Current/ Future Use Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-48
Risk Assessment Summary
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Child Resident
Future Use Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-49
10.lORME Risk Assessment Summary
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Child to Adult Resident
Future Use Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-50
CDM. A-iv
- ---- - -- - - - -- ------
Table 1
Selection of Exposure Pathways
Ram Leather Site
Scenario Medium Exposure Exposure Point Receptor Receptor Exposure On-Site! Type of Rationale for Selection or Exclusion of Exposure Pathway
Timeframe Medium Pooulation A·,.e Route Off-Site Analvsls
Ingestion On-site Quant. Site visitors may incidentally ingest soil.
Soil Site Trespasser/ Adolescents visitor
Dermal On-site Quant. Site visitors may come into contact with soil.
Air Site Trespasser/ Adolescents Inhalation On-site Quant. Site visitors may inhale dust released from soil.
visitor .
Soil
Ingestion On-site Quant. Site workers may incidentally ingest soil.
Soil Site Worker Adu!!
Dermal On-site Quant. Site workers may come into contact with soil.
CurrenV Future
Air Site Worker Adult Inhalation On-site Quant. Site workers may inhale dust released from soil.
Ground-
water Private Welt Resident Child Ingestion On-site Quant. Groundwater is used as a drinking water source.
Air Private Well Resident Child Inhalation On-site Quant. Eposure to VOCs while showering may be a complete exposure
Ground-route.
water Ground-
water Private Well Resident Adult Ingestion On-site Quant. Groundwater is used as a drinking water source.
Air Private Well Resident Adult Inhalation On-site Quant. Epostire to VOCs while showering may be a complete exposure
route.
Ingestion On-site Quant. Site residents may incidentally ingest soil.
Soil Site Resident Child
Denna! On-site Quant. Site residents may come into contact with soil.
AJ, Site Resident Child Inhalation On-site Quant. Site residents may inhale dust released from soil.
Soil
Ingestion On-site Quant. Site residents may incidentally ingest soil.
Soil Site Resident Adult
Denna! On-site Quant. Site residents may come into contact with soil.
Future
Air Site Resident Adult Inhalation On-site Quant. Site residents may Inhale dust released from soil.
Ground-On-site Well water Resident Child Ingestion On-site Quant. Groundwater may be used as a drinking water source in the future.
"'' On-site Well Resident Child Inhalation On-site Quant. Eposure to VOCs while showering may be a complete exposure
Ground-route.
water Ground-
waler On-site Well Resident Adu!t Ingestion On-site Quant. Groundwater may be used as a drinking water source in the future.
Air On-site Well Resident Adult Inhalation On-site Quant. Eposure to VOCs while showering may be a complete exposure
route. --
CDM. A-1
-liiiii----------------------------------------------
Table 2.1 .
Occurrence and Distribution of Chemicals of Potential Concern
RlthSlt am •• ., •
Minimum Maximum Location of Exposure CAS Chemical ConcentratiorJ Concentration/ Units Maximum Point Number Qualifier 1 Quallfler1 Concenln1Uon
Site 127-18-4 Tetrachloroe\hena 2 1,0 ug/kg DS0054A
Site 72-54-8 4,4'-DDD {p,p'-000) 4.7 '40 C ug/kg DS0037A
Site 72-55-9 4,4'-DDE (p,p'-OOE) 1.8 J " uglkg 0S0037A
Site 60-57-1 Oieldrin 28 J 2.8 J uglkg DS0054A
Site 7421-93-4 Endno aldehyde 1.4 J 1.4 J ug/kg N00011A
Sile 5103-74-2 Gamma-Chlordane 12 4.3 12 uglkg DS006SA
·rt[;iir 76-44-8 I"""'"'""' 3.3 " uglkg DS006SA :rmmir: :j~i tlc#M~¥AJI
Site 205-99-2 Ben.:o(b)fh.Jorant:iene 63 J 63 J uglkg ND0011A
Site 117-81-7 Bis( 2-ethylhe~yt)phlhalate 610 2.400 uglkg OS0022A
Site 206-44-0 Fluoranlhene 43 J 43 J uglkg OS0011A
s,1" 129-00--0 Pyrene 45 J '45 J ug/1<.g DS0011A
Sile 7429-90-S Aluminum 7.800 21.000 mglkg SSOOSSA
Site 7440-38-2 ArsenIe 1.7 5.8 J mg/kg DS0022A
Site 7440-39--3 Barium 34 92 mg/kg 0S0037A
Site 7440--41-7 Beryllium 0.28 1.0 J mg/kg DS0011A
Site 7440-70-2 Calcium 420 4,400 J mg/kg 0S0022A
Site 18540-29-9 Chromium " 130 mg/kg 0S0011A
Site 7440-48--4 Cobalt 3.8 69 mg/kg DS0076A
Site 7440-50-8 Copper 23 82 mglkg SS0055A
Site 7439-89--6 Iron .28,000 73,000 mglkg SSOOS5A
Site 7439-92-1 Lead 11 160 mg/kg DS0022A
Site 7439-9S-4 Magnesium ,.. ,.100 mg/kg Dl/0012
\t~~/ ~~;M:f;tc::::;:=::-:·· .;;;.r um~~UU)
Site 7440-02--0 Nickel 4.3 15 mg/kg DS0022A
Site 7440--09-7 Potassium 160 790 J mg/kg SS0021A
S1h:1 7782-49-2 Selenium 0.78 0.78 J mglkg SS0021A
Sile 7440-22-4 Silver 1.6 3.6 mg/kg SS0055A
Site 7440-23-5 Sodium 160 370 mg/kg DS0076A
Site 7440-62-2 vanadium 94 270 mglkg SSOOSSA
Site 7440-66--6 ~~ " 1<0 J mg/kg DS0022A
Footnotes
1. Minimumlma~imum detecied eoneentration. • J" is estimated. ·c• is eonftrmed. •-• is a result Iha! dId not require
qualif1eation.
2. f'.l:Jmber of pos1bve d11teetions divided by Ille numb Bf of samplllS taken and analy:::ed for lhe con$to\uent Sample
number may ~ary based on the number of usable results
3. Risk--bil$ed eoneentraUons for so~ obtained from: EPA Region IX. Preliminary Remediation Goal Table 2000 Update.
Units are ug/kg for organics, mg/kg for ,norganies
4. Toxicity value surrogates:
Noo,
5. Ra~onale Codes
Seleehon Reason:
Deletion Raason:
CDM.
ASL -Above saeening 1evet
BSL • Bet ow saeening I11vel
Detection Concentr11tlon Range of used for Background
Froquency2 Detection Limits V11lue Screening
5 I " " " 1 ,0 NA
5 I " 3.7 4.2 '40 NA
4 I " 3.7 4.2 " NA
1 I " 3.7 41 2.8 NA
1 I " 3.7 4.2 1.4 NA
3 I " 1.9 2.2 12 NA
' I " .}' ,, 3.3 NA
1 I " 63 420 63 NA
3 I " 370 420 2,400 NA
1 I " 370 420 43 NA
1 I " 370 420 45 NA
" I " NA NA 21.000 18,000
13 I " 2.1 2.1 5.8 3.3
" I " NA NA 92 56
" I " NA NA 1.0 1
" I " NA NA 4.400 720
" I " NA NA 130 76
" I " NA NA 69 20
" I " NA NA 82 40
" I " NA NA 73.000 48,000
13 I " NA NA 160 16
14 I " NA NA ii I
1.100
" I " NA NA 15 7.5
" I " NA NA 790 640
1 I " 0.67 0.8S 0.78 0.70
" I " NA NA 3.6 2.4
" I " NA NA 370 170
" I " NA NA 270 150
" I " NA NA 140 28
Screening
Toxicity Value
(NIC)1_.
5,686 " 2-,◄37"!" "' 1:f20 " _..;-" C833" oc
1,624 "' "ro~ea :-:.:-:-:-;.::-:-·-:[}i:¢.:: t?\~2
621 "' 34.741 "' 229.361 oc
230,868 oc ...... oc
~ea
>37 oc
.l>' oc
NA
.:,/ "" ~'1/e"" 291,....-~
/
2.34~ ne
,400
NA tlti@f@ foi{
156,.......... "" NA
39 oc
39 oc
NA
55 "" 2.346 oc
Scenario Tlmeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium· Soil
Rationale for Potenti11.I Potentf11.I COPC Contamirnmt ARAR!TBC ARAR/TBC Ft11.g Selectlon or Value Source (YIN) Deletion 1
NA NA N BSL
NA NA N BSL
NA NA N BSL
NA NA N BSL
NA NA N BSL
NA NA N BSL
NA NA N oo,
NA NA N BSL
NA NA N BSL
NA NA N BSL
NA NA N BSL
NA NA N 8k<,
NA NA N .,,
NA NA N BSL
NA NA N BSL
NA NA N BSL
NA NA N .,,
'b-NA NA N SSL
NA NA N BSL
NA NA N 8kg
NA NA N BSL
"' NA N
NA NA N BSL
NA NA N BSL
NA NA N SSL
NA NA N BSL
NA NA N SSL
NA NA N .,,
NA NA N 8SL
Def1ni\ions: NA = Not Applicable
COPC => Chemical of Potenbet Coneem (highlighted)
ARARJTBC: Applieab!e or Relevant and Appropriate R•quiremenVTo B• Considered
C = Careinogenie
N : Non-Carcinogenic
A-2
--- - -- - - - - -- -- - -- --
Table 2.2 . ' Occurrence and Distribution of Chemicals of Potential COncern
Ram Leather Site
Scenario Tlmeframe: Current
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Groundwater, Private Wells
Exposure
Point
CAS
Number
Minimum Maximum Location of
Maximum
Concentration
Detection
Frequency2
Range of
Detection
Limits
Concentration Background Screening
Toxicity V3\ue
(NIC) 3'4
Potential
ARAR/TB
C Value
Potential COPC ~:~~;;~~!~;
ARAR!TB Flag
C Source (Y/N) Chemical Concentration/ Concentration/ Units
Qualifier 1 Qualifier 1 Value used for
Screening
Tap 75-34-3 1,1-Dichloroelhane 0.96 J 0.98 ug/1 PW0022 10 NA s4E+01::::.--nc
Tap 95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.71 J 0.71 ug/1 PW0022 10 NA i-!7E+01 nc ~~~fap:~~ ~~6&;eJ':~ ChiorcifOrill~,t.}/Rr,;:< ~ SJin. •.'·' ~;,.'p·-· ~:,;,_, ca f,.'J,Jf,T""ap,·,: ':"".,:i1•5·i:,"'.·5'g•·_••2·~. •cr,.:,·1',·=2.D~l •·-"l~~::.l'.M, ;t:'-._ '. ,,·-~.0 • ~ ~f'~ MO. '-i,.i:J~--~.:(\.~, " ----:~"' ""' ..,., ~ --":ji--1u9/I.,._ ~~i'., -~P... %~e;.1E+00St't~nc :,::1.:, ..... -~,tt:) n,,,.,1/i"i~:,.-, .. ~-'i¢'"'h-"~r~; f :(·, ~-""i"-'· • ' -,,,~,,.., '"4!;/:;,;_;~ i:~\•~~f~I ~1f.¼~;~J !~~?~e""! ~i 1 · ffe'UQA~ .,_,' -~}I~£.'!,~
~T=p,& ;''79.:.01-62 :Y-richloroethene :• *~ ~t't~I""""""'-a!!..:;;'-!= f;1.6E-+OQ .. , ·ca
Tap 7440-39-3 Barium 15 110 ug/1 PW00911 10 1·0 NA NA 110 NA 2.6E-+02 nc
)'A' ---
2,000
Tap 7440-70-2 Calcium 5,000 46,000 ug/1 PW0089 10 10 NA NA 46,000 NA NA NA -
NA
MCL
MCL
NA
N
N
N
N
Selection or
Deletion 5
BSL
BSL
Tap 7440-50-8 Copper----9.0 20 ug/1 PW0044 5 / 10 5 / 10 20 NA 1.4E+02 nc 1,300 TT N BSL
('f:rtTap~ ~7_439-ag.:tf; ~iF/.A:Fr'"~~ ~i;100,;,¾.~ Q::P4,400?,£'~&~,l fiig11_;;: ;_+ .. ..:.·PW011~ £2~,~ ;20M',;;.200~ ~:.4'4:400?~1i~ i_f•°!$NAFf1} :fil!'iE~ ~:i:;300$1 ~:.tsMCLi~ ~VJ] ~A§L':-.2/4
Tap 7439-92-1 Lead 7.5 7.5 ug/1 PW0113 1 ' 10 0.4 / 1 7.5 NA NA nc .,5 TT N BSL
Tap 7439-95-4 Magnesium 2,200 28,000 ug/1 PW0089 10 / 10 NA / NA 28,000 NA NA N BSL ~~ IBJs~~t Marig0nesu;~ ~~!'E~ it:tt;e90~~ ";fUg/1;'.. jf:P.W01-1~i ~:-s]F.~!= ·~:.S:flifitfsr5; ~~j)it':r': ;j'a81F~
Tap 7470-09-7. Potis-;;~ --=*;;0.0 3,0(}-; . ""'"';;Q;t° PWoo89 " """'g '•t 10 2,000 I 2,QOQ 3,000 ,.. NA
Tap 7440-23-5 Sodium 5,900 29,000 ug/1 PW0089 10 10 NA I NA 29,000 NA NA
Tap 7440-24-6 Strontium 41 320 ugll PW0089 10 10 NA NA 320 NA 2.2E-+03
Tap 7440-66-6 Zinc 5.7 780 ug/1 PW0113 6 10 5 10 780 NA 1.1E+03 nc
Footnotes:
1. Minimumlma)(imum average detected concentration in 10 private wells. Definitions: NA = Not Applicable
COPC = Chemical of Potential Concern (highlighted)
NA
NA NA
NA ✓ NA
S.000_. SMCL
2. Number of positive detections divided by the number of samples taken and analyzed for the constituent. Sample
number may vary based on the number of usable results ·
3. Risk-based concentrations for soil obtained from: EPA Region 1X, Preliminary Remediation Goal Table 2000 Update. Units are ug/1.
ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate RequiremenVTo Be Considered
ca = Carcinogenic
4. To)(icity value surrogates:
None
5. Rationale Codes
Selection Reason:
Deletion Reason:
CDM.
ASL -Above screening level
BSL • Below screening level
Nut -Essential nutrient
nc = Non-Carcinogenic
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level
SMCL = Secondary Maximum Contaminant level
• Total lrihalomethanes
TT= Treatment Technique action level
N BSL
N BSL
N
A-3
- ---- - - - - - - - ------
Table 2.3
Occurrence and Distribution of Chemicals of Potential Concern
Ram Leather Site
Scenario Tlmeframe: Future
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Groundwater
Minimum Maximum ConcentratiCln Screening Potential COPC Rationale for
Exposure CAS Location of Detection Range of Background Potential Contaminant
Chemical Concentration/ Concentratiorl/ Units Maximum Frequency 2 Detection used for Value Toxicity Value ARAR/TBC ARAR/TBC Flag Selection or Point Number Qualifier 1 Qualifier 1 Concentration limits Screening (N/C)s.• Value Source (Y/N) Deletion 5
"§~Tap~ ;j.107.~0&;2~ 1,2:oictl!Or'oetharl"e);'£;,i: !'<'.i~':fi:1 ffir~ f,-J:· ~%'$;l'.\1f'W:~i:i;_t;:·~ k;'9!U ~J;MW-20;'~3D}J ff37.~-/2,_~,·a;·_;: '7',1~'/rf100f $"':e;i'#;L.~;jftJ ~~J;NA·~ :'#L2E..01~t(~_'. &,:d~~ i;'£~MCI.:~ ~y~ ~ASt.:'t.,.f.~},:
Tap 67-64-1 Acetone 6 J 7 J ug/l MW-3D 2 / 6 25 f 2,500 7 NA 6.1E+01 nc NA NA N BSL
Tap 75-15-0 Carbon Disulfide J 5 ug/1 MW-20 3 8 f 250 5 NA 1.0E+02 nc NA N BSL
~i!~~ r!i~!11 ~~fft~~,::l~~~ -~~~ f ~:~~5li?]i ~c~i:~,~~ r;l 0
1
1f_~ r.;·~---~-~ .. ~-i.~_:.1r~_"'_-000
2~~.~_i_0.·_~-;~.~:~ jlL;:tTaPZ;{;'. f127.~18-4'.: Tetrachloroethene,,.-:.<; • i,Ugllj ·fiC>DW0011li,.c .:;..2~.,,,Hz:":afi., ~., r.., _.., .. i'__ , ~ er'"'..»~,:< ':i;.,..,,;,,"·~,,.,•~_-~,H~A.,.:•. "'-'!,r#,;:;!4:c-"''i -,~~>-;-'"'-.•-2,,-.;~.·..-.:.;p•· • .,.l:-t'..."""'"', 0..., f• ~f;;~ ,h: •
¥:zTap..;l:,ti ,~79-01:5:,, Trfchloroethenefif_r,.Jl "'I""'--"~ ~9!'.;i 1t,,'.i't;DW0011.;.,,,£'. :.:.10£-'ff'i..~t ;•;: ~!il '.iiic"-210.· ;;.,·:
Tap 57-74-9 alpha-Chlordane ug/1 MW-30 1 5 0.01 f 0.1 0.081
Tap 115-29-7 Endosulfan I (alpha) 0.013 ug/1 MW-10 2 5 0.01 0.1 0.02 .2.2E+01 nc NA NA
Tap 7421-93-4 Endrin aldehyde 0.22 ug/l MW-3D 5 0.02 0.2 0.22 1.1E+oo nc NA--NA
Tap 57-74-9 gamma-Chlordane 0.012 ug/1 MW-20 2 5 0.01 0.1 0.11 1.9E-01 ca ,..2,,,---MCL
;,,·.~:_,·,·.I<'.I __ P;;',,1,· . __ 1•_;_ ""··•"°',,.;·.s, .. Aluminum ,-,,.1500~~ ;-.~ .1 ;tUg"/1~ ~MW-3D~-?% -"" ;;J;;\9,200,&~, :;f3 6E+.03-:;;s·nc' W~(.(so~t'-i'it i?:;,;.·SMCl:""'1
~. ·"' ~vn, •=,., ~½--,f ,:,-d.;.{ S· ;,' ''[ .;,,:.,,,_c.,,f l~l if::'""',H,'~-c)'?,"1:' ·; t"-1' ~$;'./,\"'C"~'d~ ~ £i1=;ffew,ffc}[uft', ~ ,,,,~ ,...,,,._..,,, ·s,,_~-w
'.i~~!~fi'i kit~~;~~J :~.·_; __ 4!.0
2,-f.:_: __ 1! __ ~·.·.=_::·,:.J_ •. -.·,'.E_),-~.,,'-_\_·.•.Ji. :i' t~9t {~N~-~-£~:~ :1~ ~~~,~2~~{' }~_.~~~¼~fr:~ i:r,1':.~t;>t; ~i~}~ ts~-~ :,7~4CJ:,~ =="~",·= :,: 1!t_g_{§ ~tJW-3o·y~ ;~ t.,j;l~,cl; ?t:lei~3.£flE2'.l rt2,6E+02-,1w;nc, ~-~~ ~-MCL;z§i\
Tap 7440-70-2 Calcium 16,000 45.000 ug/1 MW-4D 5 f 5 NA / NA 45,000 NA NA -NA NA N BSL
~eP~ !854~9; Chroffiiuni%"$-d't~/Ri:3 ~1:<:r2~ri1:-1;1fc ~~ ~"ill ~MW-30~-Ts~:Ji~ Th~~ 1~4ffi:~ ~NA~r47,,.~ :;;1:1E~ ~?ffi"~ ~~ ~'¾,Y~'i ~
Tap 7440-48-4 Cobalt 3.6 3.6 ugn MW-20 1 f 5 1.7 I 3.6 3.6 NA 2.2E+o2 nc NA NA N BSL
Tap 7440-50-8 Copper·-==-~ 15 35 ug/l MW-3D 5 5 NA f NA 35 NA 1.4E+02 nc 1,300 TT N BSL
~T~PiP'° :7.439;89:~ lrory1tf~,Jt:f%--,,kW~~~ f:~740~4,t-#.•'f~ J'.?~-~80~ ~! ~~~.□;;-:Jffet:i ~4-~'.[~1:; fuT5_~n.L-1eo!~ ;ef¾f'S,800~;},; *N~~ fwc1:1E+03,6~1_~'?.t t~a300~\I?~ ~SMC.~~i f.f»f,{f'J; t§~'A~~1'fffl¥ ~T~~ rr43i92'~1 ~~~?~~4'tlf~?;;ffi~ ;~'.'.fS~~~,·+Jl ~38}tr;41~-' ~g~-!>,~'.fM~D~ ~4~g)j:<1£5~ ~~144'5£ ~.~~~,~~ ~~~Nk~}~ ~:SE~tJ'1,#¾#% t;.-(15}J~ ~frri:t: ~Y~{ ~-AS'[?:"Z
Tap 7439-95-4 Magnesium 4,700 12,000 ugn MW-3D 5 f 5 NA f NA 12,000 NA NA NA . NA N BSL ~ ~743~oo'Is ~-ganeSe~z~~ ~25~w~~ ~~390';,Q/I;.~ jt9.!l,; ~MW-306/~ ~5~\il~~ ~NA}/.~NA~ l~-1f390:~· &m.~'.~f,7, ~f,8.BE+01[ffl~ ~~ ;qjsMc~ ~:rB\ gif~Sl~~
Tap 7440-02,0 Nickel 58 59 ug/1 MW-10 2 I 5 2 / 22 59 NA 7.3E+01 nc NA NA N BSL
Tap 7440-09-7 Potassium 1,000 4,600 J ugn MW-3D 5 / 5 NA NA 4,600 NA NA NA NA N BSL
Tap ug/1 SMCL N BSL 7440-22-4 Silver 1.3 J 1.3 J DW0011 5 2 2 1,3 NA 1.BE+o1 "' 100
Tap
Tap
Tap
Tap
Footnotes:
7440-23-5
7439-97-6
7440-62-2
7440-66-6
Sodium
Total Mercury
Vanadium
Zinc
11,000 74.000
0.21 0.21
4 4
40 230
MW-3D 5 5 NA
MW-2D,-30 2 3 0.20
OW0011 5 2
MW-20 4 5 12
1. Minimum/maximum average detected concentration in monitor wells MW-1 through MW3 (shallow on-site . Definitions:
wells), MW-10 through 4D (deep off-site wells). and DW-0011 (510 ft deep on-site well).
2. Number of positive detections divided by the number of samples taken and analyzed for the constituent.
Sample number may vary based on the number of usable results
3. Risk-based concentrations for soil obtained from: EPA Region IX, Preliminary Remediation Goal Table 2000 Update. Units are ug/L
4. Toxicity value surrogates:
endrin used for endrin aldehyde
chlordane used for alpha• and gamma<hlordane
5. Rationale Codes
Selection Reason:
Deletion Reason:
ASL • Above screening level
BSL • Below screening level
Nut• Essential nutrient
NA 74,000 NA NA
0.20 0.21 NA 1.1E+o0
33 4 NA 2.6E+01
12 230 NA 1.1E+o3
NA = Not Applicable
COPC = Chemical of Potential Concern (highlighted)
NA
"' 2
"' NA
"' 5,000,.....
NA
MCL
NA
SMCL
ARARfTBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate RequiremenVTo Be Considered
MCL = Federal Maximum Contaminant Level
C = carcinogenic
N = Non,Carcinogenic
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level
SMCL = Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
TT= Treatment Technique action level
• Total lrihalomethanes
N
N
N
N
A-4
liiiiiii iiiil liilill --------------
Table 3.1RME
Exposure Point Concentrations Summary
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Ram Leather Site
Chemical of Exposure Potential Units Arithmetic
Point Mean Concern
,
Site Toxaphene/ mg/kg 0.21
/ Manganese mg/kg 267
Footnotes:
1. "-" is a result that did not require qualification.
95% UCL of
Log-
Transformed
Data
0.28
403
2. 95% UCL on the mean of Log-transformed Data (95% UCL-T)
CDNI.
Maximum
Concentration/
Qualifier 1 Value
,
1.y -0.28
560 . 403
Scenario Timeframe: Current/ Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Soil
Exposure Point Concentration
Units Statistic 2 Rationale
mg/kg 95% UCL-T Reg 4 Guidance
mg/kg 95% UCL-T Reg 4 Guidance
--
A-5
-------------------
Table 3.2RME
Exposure Point Concentrations Summary
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Ram Leather Site
Exposure Chemical of Potential Units Point Concern
Tap I Cis-1.2-Dichloroethene ugA
Showerhead T etrachloroethene ug/I
Trichloroethene ug/I
Footnotes:
95% UCL of
Arithmetic Log-
Mean Transformed
Data
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Groundwater at Private Well 0011 1
Maximum
Exposure Point Concentration
Concentration/
Qualifier 2 Value Units Statistic Rationale
4.4 -4.4 ug/I Maximum Reg 4 Guidance
70 -70 ugA Maximum Reg 4 Guidance
3.3 -3.3 ug/I Maximum Reg 4 Guidance
1. Private well 0011 (the former Parnell well) is one of three private wells that had COPCs.
2. "-" is a result that did not require qualification.
CDM. A-6
- - - - - - - - - - - - -·---- --
Table 3.3RME \
Exposure Point Concentrations Summary
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Ram Leather Site
Exposure Chemical of Potential Units Arithmetic
Point Concern, Mean
Tap/ Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/I NA
Showerhead T etrachloroethene ug1I · NA
Trichloroethene ug/I NA
Iron ug/I NA
Manganese ug/I NA
Footnotes:
95% UCL of
Log-
Transformed
Data
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1. Private well 0113 (the Glosson well) is one of three private wells that had COPCs.
CDM.
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Groundwater at Private Well 0113 1
Maximum
Exposure Point Concentration
Concentration/
Qualifier 2 Value Units Statistic Rationale
42 -42 ugn Maximum Reg 4 Guidance
100 -100 ug/I Maximum Reg 4 Guidance
26 -26 ug/I Maximum Reg 4 Guidance
4,400 -4,400 ug/I Maximum Reg 4 Guidance
470 -470 ug/I Maximum Reg 4 Guidance
A-7
- -- - -·-- - - - ------- --
Table 3.4RME
Exposure Point Concentrations Summary
Reasonable Maximum ~xposure
Ram Leather Site
Chemical of Exposure Potential Units Arithmetic
Point Concern Mean
Tap/ Chloroform ug/1 NA
Showerhead
Footnotes:
95% UCL of
Log-
Transformed
Data
NA
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Groundwater at Private Well 089 1
Maximum
Exposure Point Concentration
Concentration/
Qualifier 2 Value Units Statistic Rationale
0.66 J 0.66 ugfl Maximum Reg 4 Guidance
1. Private well 089 (the Tucker well) is one of three private wells that had COPCs.
2. "J" is estimated value.
CDM. A-8
1!111 -- -----
Table 3.SRME
Exposure Point Concentrations Summary
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Ram Leather Site
Chemical of Potential Arithmetic
Exposure Point Units Concern Mean 1
Tap I 1,2-Dichloroethane ug/I 7
Showerhead -Chloroform ug/I 7
/ Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ,, ug/I 151
1 Tetrachloroethene ug/I 501
_,.. :rrfchloroethene ugfl 27
Footnotes:
--
95% UCL of
Log-
Transformed
Data
84
125
2,480,889
35,010,355
2,412
--
Maximum
Concentration/
Qualifier 2
1 -
3 -
1,200 -
4,000 -
210 -
------
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Point Concentration
Value Units Statistic 3 Rationale
1 ug/I Maximum Reg 4 Guidance
3 ugfl Maximum Reg 4 Guidance
1,200 ugfl Maximum Reg 4 Guidance
4,000 ugfl Maximum Reg 4 Guidance
210 ugfl Maximum Reg 4 Guidance
1. The mean concentration can exceed the maximum concentration when one-half the sample quantitation limit is used for non-detects.
2. "-" is a result that did not require qualification.
3. 95% UCL on the mean of Log-transformed Data (95% UCL-T)
COM. A-9
-
liiiiiiii liiii
CDM.
------ -- --------
Table 4.1 RME Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Soil Values Used for Daily Intake Calculations
Ram Leather Site Exposure Medium· Soil
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Dermal
Inhalation
U.S. EPA.
U.S. EPA.
U.S. EPA.
U.S. EPA.
U.S. EPA.
Receptor Receptor Exposure Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units Rationnle/ Intake Equation/Model Name
Population Age Point Code Reference
Trespasser/ Adolescent Site cs chemiCal concentration in soil See Table 3 mg/kg See Table 3 Chronic daily intake = CS x IR0 x Cf x Fl X
Visitor IR0 ingestion rate 100 mg/day EPA 1991a EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT
CF conversion factor 0.000001 kg/mg ..
Fl fraction ingested from source 1 unitless Judgment
EF exposure frequency 50 daysfyear EPA 1991a
ED exposure duration 10 years EPA 1991a
BW body weight 45 kg EPA 1995
AT-C averaging time (cancer) 25550 days EPA 1989a
AT-N averaging time (non-cancer) 3650 days EPA 1989a
Trespasser/ Adolescent Site cs chemical concentration in soil See Table 3 mg/kg See Table 3 Chronic daily intake = CS x CF x SA x AF x
Visitor SA surface area 5800 cm' EPA 1997 ABS x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT
AF adherence factor 1 mg/cm2 EPA 1995
ABS absorption factor Chem. Spec. unitless EPA 1995
EF exposure frequency 50 days/year EPA1991a
ED exposure duration 10 years EPA 1991a
CF conversion factor 0.000001 kg/mg ..
BW body weight 45 kg EPA 1995
AT•C averaging time (cancer) 25550 days EPA 1989a
AT•N .iveraging time (non-cancer) 3650 days EPA 1989a
Trespasser I Adolescent Site cs chemical concentration in soil See Table 3 mg/kg See Table 3 Chronic daily intake = CS x IR; x ED x EF x
Visitor IR, inhalation rate 17 m3/day EPA 1997 (1/PEF) x 1/BW x 1/AT
PEF particulate emissions factor 1.32E+09 m3/kg EPA 1991b
EF exposure frequency 50 days/year EPA 1991a
ED exposure duration 10 years EPA 1991a
BW body weight 45 kg EPA 1995
AT-C averaging lime (cancer) 25550 days EPA 1989a
AT-N averaging lime (non-cancer) 3650 days EPA 1989a
1989a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Human Health Evaluation Manual {Part A) December. Appendix A.
1991a. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: "Standard Default Exposure Factors," OSWER Directive 9298.6-03, March 25.
1991b. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part 8: Development of Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation Goals," OSWER Directive 9285.7-018, December 13.
1995. "Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Region 4 Bulletins. Human Health Risk Assessment.'' November.
1997. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume 1, General Factors. Prepared by the Office of Research and Development. August.
A-10
-
liiiiiil
COM.
iiiil ----- ---.. -
Table 4.2RME \
Values Used for Daily Intake Calculations
Ram Leather Site
Exposure Receptor Receptor Exposure Parameter Parameter Definition Route Pooulation Ane Point Code
Ingestion Worker Adult Site cs chemical concentration in soil
IR, ingestion rate (oral)
CF conversion factor
Fl fraction ingested from source
EF exposure frequency
ED exposure duration
BW body weight
AT-C averaging time (cancer)
AT-N averaging time (non-cancer)
Value Units
See Table 3 mg/kg
50 mg/day
0.000001 kg/mg
1 unitless
250 days/year
25 years
70 kg
25550 days
9125 days
Rationale/
Reference
S-ee Table 3
EPA 1991a
..
Judgment
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991a
EPA 1995
EPA 1989a
EPA 1989a
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium· Soil
Intake Equation/Model Name
Chronic daily intake = CS x 113 x CF X Fl
x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT
Dermal Worker Adult Site cs chemical concentration in soil See Table 3 mg/kg See Table 3 Chronic daily intake = CS x CF x SA x AF
Inhalation
U.S. EPA.
U.S. EPA.
U.S. EPA.
U.S. EPA.
U.S. EPA.
SA surface area 5800 c~2 EPA 1997c x ABS x EF x ED x 1/BW X 1/AT
AF adherence factor 1 mg/cm2 EPA 1995
ABS absorption factor Chem. Spec. unitless EPA 1995
EF exposure frequency 250 days/year EPA 1991a
ED exposure duration 25 years EPA 1991a
CF conversion factor 0.000001 kg/mg ..
SW body weight 70 kg EPA 1995
AT-C averaging time {cancer) 25550 days EPA 1989a
AT-N averaging time (non-cancer) 9125 days EPA 1989a
Worker Adult Site cs chemical concentration in soil See Table 3 mg/kg See Table 3 Chronic daily intake= CS x IF,h ED x EF
1Ri inhalation rate 20 m3/day EPA 1997c x ( 1/PEF) x 1/BW x 1/AT
PEF particulate emissions factor 1.32E+o9 ml/kg EPA 1991b
EF exposure frequency 250 days/year EPA 1991a
ED exposure duration 25 years EPA 1991a
BW body weight 70 kg EPA 1995
AT-C averaging time ·(cancer) 25550 days EPA 1989a
AT-N averaging time {non-cancer) 9125 days EPA 1989a
1989a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A) December. Appendix A.
1991a. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: "Standard Default Exposure Factor.;," OSWER Directive 9298.6-03, March ~5.
1991 b. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part 8: Development of Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation Goals," OSWER Directive 9285.7-018, December 13.
1995. "Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Region 4 Bulletins. Human Health Risk Assessment." November.
1997c. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume 1, General Factors. Prepared by the Office of Research and Development. August.
A-11
iiiil - - --- -----
Table 4.3RME
Values Used for Daily Intake Calculations
Ram Leather Site
Exposur Receptor Receptor Exposure Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units
e Route Population Age Point Code
Ingestion Resident . Child Tap cw chemical concentration in water See Table 3 ug/1
IR,.., ingestion rate groundwater, child 1 liters/day
EF exposure frequency 350 days/year
ED exposure duration 6 years
CF conversion factor 0.001 mg/ug
BW body weight 15 kg
AT averaging time (non-cancer) 2190 days
Inhalation/ Resident Child Vapors at cw chemical concentration in water See Table 3 ug~
Dermal Showerhead1 IR,.., ingestion rate groundwater, adult 1 liters/day
EF exposure frequency 350 days/year
ED exposure duration 6 years
CF conversion factor 0.001 mg/ug
BW body weight 15 kg
AT-N averaging lime (non-cancer) 2190 days
U.S. EPA. 1989a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A) December. Appendix A.
CDM.
---
Scenario Timeframe: Current/ Future
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium· Groundwater
Rationale/ Intake Equation/Model Name Reference
See Table 3 Chronic daily intake = CW x IR11..,;x: EF x
EPA 1991a ED x CF x 1/BW X 1/AT
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991a
EPA 1989a
See Table 3 Chronic daily intake = CW x l~w:X EF x
EPA 1991c ED x CF x 1/BW X 1/AT
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991 a
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991a
EPA 1989a
A-12
liiil --- -----
Table 4.4RME
Values Used for Daily Intake Calculations
Ram Leather Site
Exposure Receptor Receptor Exposuro Parameter Parameter Definition Route Population Age Point Code
Ingestion Resident Child to cw chemical concentration in water
Adult Tap
IF9w ingestion factor, groundwater
BW, body weight. child
BW, body weight, adult
IRgwc ingestion rate groundwater, child
lR9w1 ingestion rate groundwater, adult
ED, exposure duration, child
ED1ot exposure duration, total
EF exposure frequency
CF conversion factor
AT-C averaging time (cancer)
Inhalation/ Resident Child to Vapors at CW chemical concentration in water
Dermal Adult Showerhead 1 1F9w ingestion factor, groundwater
BW, body weight, child
SW, body weight, adult
IRgwc ingestion rate groundwater, child
IRgwo ingestion rate groundwater, adult
ED, exposure duration, child
ED1ot exposure duration, total
EF exposure frequency
CF conversion factor
AT•C averaging time (cancer)
---
Value Units
See Table 3 ug/1
1.09 liters-yr/kg-day
15 kg
70 kg
1 liter/day
2 liters/day
6 years
30 years
350 days/year
0.001 mg/ug
25550 days
See Table 3 ug/1
1.09 liters-yr/kg-day
15 kg
70 kg
1 liter/day
2 liters/day
6 years
30 years
350 days/year
0.001 mg/u9
25550 days
..
Ratlonole/
Reference
See Table 3
EPA 1991a, b
EPA 1995
EPA 1995
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991a
EPA 199111
EPA 1991a
..
EPA 1991a
See Table 3
EPA 1991a, b
EPA 1995
EPA 1995
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991a
..
EPA 1991a
-.. ----
Scenario Timeframe: Current/ Future
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium· Groundwater
Intake Equation/Model Name
IF gw : (EDc X IRgwc / BWc) + {EDi,,1 • EDc) X (IRg,../BW.)
Chronic daily intake (mg/kg-day) = ON x 1F,... x EF x CF x 1/AT
IF gw : (EDc X IR!l"" / BWc) + (ED1c1 • EDcl X (IRa-lBW,)
Chronic daity intake (mg/kg-day) = CW x IF gw x EF x CF x 1/AT
U.S. EPA. 1991 a. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: HStandard Default Exposure Factors," OSWER Directive 9285.6..03, March 25.
U.S. EPA. 1991b. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part B: Development of Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation Goals," OSWER Directive 9285.7-01B, December 13.
U.S. EPA. 1991 c. "Guidance on Estimating Exposure to VOCs During Showering,• Office of Research and Development. July 10.
1 Chronic daily intake due to inhalation of volatiles calculated as equivalent to groundwater ingestion using inhalation toxicity values.
CDM. A-13
liiiil liiil --------
Table 4.5RME
Values Used for Daily Intake Calculations
Ram Leather Site
Exposure Receptor Receptor Exposure Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units
Route Ponulation Aae Point Code
Ingestion Resident Child Site cs chemical concentration in soil See Table 3 mg/kg
IR, ingestion rate (oral) 200 mg/day
CF conversion factor 0.000001 kg/mg
Fl fraction ingested from source 1 unitless
EF exposure frequency 350 days/year
ED exposure duration 6 years
BW body weight 15 kg
AT averaging time (non-cancer) 2190 days
Dermal Resident Child Site cs chemical concentration in soil See Table 3 mg/kg
SA surface area 2650 cm2
AF adherence factor 1 mg/cm2
ABS absorption factor Chem. Spec. unitless
EF exposure frequency 350 days/year
ED exposure duration 6 years
CF conversion factor 0.000001 kg/mg
BW body weight 15 kg
AT averaging time (non-cancer) 2190 days
Inhalation Resident Child Site cs chemical concentration in soil See Table 3 mg/kg
IR; inhalation rate 10 m3/day
PEF particulate emissions factor 1.32E+09 m3/kg
EF exposure frequency 350 days/year
ED exposure duration 6 years
BW body weight 15 kg
AT averaging time (non-cancer) 2190 days
U.S. EPA. 1989a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A) December. Appendix A.
-
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 3
EPA 1991a
-
Judgment
EPA 1991a
EPA1991a
EPA 1995
EPA 1989a
See Table 3
EPA 1997c
EPA 1995
EPA 1995
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991a
--
EPA 1995
EPA 1989a
See Table 3
EPA 1997c
EPA 1991b
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991a
EPA 1995
EPA 1989a
---
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium· Soil
Intake Equation/Model.Name
Chronic daily intake =CS~ IR~ CF x Fl x
EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT
Chronic daily intake= CS x CF x SA x AF~
ABS x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT
Chronic daily intake = CS x IR; x ED x EF
(1/PEF) x 1/BW x 1/AT
U.S. EPA. 1991a. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: "Standard Default Exposure Factors," OSWER Directive 9298.6-03, March 25.
U.S. EPA. 1991 b. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part B: Development of Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation Goals," OSWER Directive 9285.7-018, December 13.
U.S. EPA. 1995. "Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Region 4 Bulletins. Human Health Risk Assessment." November.
U.S. EPA. 1997c. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume 1, General Factors. Prepared by the Office of Research and Development. August.
CDM. A-14
CDM.
iiiil iiil -- -- -
Table 4.6RME
Values Used for Daily Intake Cnlculations
Ram Leather Site
Exposur Receptor Recepto Exposure Paramete Parameter Definition
e Route Population r Age Point r Code
Child to cs chemical concentration in soil
Ingestion Resident SJ1e Adult IF, ingestion factor (soil)
BW, body weigh1, child
BW, body weigh\, adult
IR, ingestmn rate, child
IR, ingestion rate, adult
ED, exposure duration, child
ED1oi exposure duration, tolal
CF conversion factor
Fl fraction ingestad from source
EF exposure frequency
AT-C averaging lime (cancer)
Child lo cs chemical concentration 1n soil
Dermal Resident Site Adult DF dermal factor
BW, body weigh!, child
BW, body weight, adult
SA, surface area, child
SA, surface area, adult
ED, exposure duration, child
ED,01 exposure duration, total
AF adherence factor
EF exposure frequency
ABS absorption factor
CF conversion factor
AT-C averaging time (cancer)
Child lo cs chemical concentration in soil
Inhalation Resident Sile Adult IF, inha1a1ion factor (air)
SW, body weight, child
BW, body weigh[, adult
IR, inhalation rate, child
IR, inhalation ra\e, adu!I
ED, exposure duration, child
ED101 exposure duration, total
PEF particulate emissions factor
EF exposure frequency
AT-C averaging time {cancer)
-
Value
See Table 3
114
15
70
200
50
6
30
0.000001
1
350
25550
See Table 3
3049
15
70
2650
5800
6
30
1
350
Chem. Spec.
0.000001
25550
Sae Table 3
10.9
15
70
10
20
6
30
1.32E+09
350
25550
-
Units
mgii<;g
mg-yr/kg-day
kg
kg
mg/day
mg/day
years
years
kg/mg
uniltess
days/year
days
mgli<g
cm2-yr/kg-day
kg
kg
cm2/day
cm2/day
years
years
mg/cm2
days/year
unilless
kg/mg
days
mgli<g
mJ -yr/kg-day
kg
kg
m3/day
m3/day
years
years
mJIKg
days/year
days
-.. ---
Ratlonale/
Reference
See Table 3
EPA 1991b
EPA 1995
EPA 1995
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991a
-
Judgment
EPA 1991a
EPA 1989a
See Table 3
EPA 1991b
EPA 1995
EPA 1995
EPA 1997c
EPA 1997c
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991a
EPA 1995
EPA 1991a
EPA 1995
-
EPA 1989a
See Table 3
EPA 1991b
EPA 1995
EPA 1995
EPA 1997c
EPA 1997c
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991b
EPA 1991a
EPA 1989a
IF,
Scenario Tlmeframe: Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium· Soll
Intake Equation/Model Name
= (EDc x lRc/BW cl+ (ED101 -EDc)x (IRafBW al
Chronic daily in1ake = CS x IF x CF x Fl x EF x 1/AT
OF = (EDc x SA::/ BW 0) + (EDlC! • ED0) x (SA.,IBW al
Chronic daily intake= CS x OF x CF x AF x ABS x EF x 1/AT
IF., = (EDc x IRc_ / BW cl+ (EDwi. -EDc) x (IRJBW al
Chronic daily intake= CS x IF x EF x (1/PEF) x 1/AT
U.S. EPA. 1989a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superiund: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A) December. Appendix A
U.S. EPA. 1991a Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: ~standard Default Exposure Factors,M OSWER Directive 9285.6-03, March 25.
U.S. EPA. 1991b. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part B: Development of Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation Goals,M OSWER Directive 9285.7-018, December 13.
U.S. EPA 1995, wsupp!emental Guidance lo RAGS: Region 4 Bulletins. Human Health Risk Assessment.-November.
-
A-15
11111111 iiiil -- -- -
Table 5.1
Non-Cancer Toxicity Data --Oral/Dermal
Ram Leather Site
Chemical of Potential
Concern
1,2-Dichloroethane
Chloroform
Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Toxaphene
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Icon
Lead
Manganese (soil) 4
Manganese (water) 4
Molybdenum
Vanadium
Zinc
Notes:
( I \
Chronic/ Oral RfD ~bsorpti~n
Subchronic >-----~-----< ·{ffl~~;::~}/~for
Chronic
Chronic
Chronic
Chronic
Chronic
Chronic
Chronic
Chronic
Chronic
Chronic
Chronic
Chronic
Chronic
Chronic
Chronic
Chronic
Chronic
Chronic
Value Units \
NA mg/kg/day
JE..-02-mg/kg/day
-1e-02-mg/kg/day
JE-02. mg/kg/day
(@ mg/kg/day
NA mg/kg/day
1E+OO mg/kg/day
4E-04 mg/kg/day
3E-04 mg/kg/day
7E-02 mg/kg/day
3E-03 mg/kg/day
3E-01 mg/kg/day
NA mg/kg/day
7E•02 mg/kg/day
2.4E·02 mg/kg/day
5E•03 mg/kg/day
7.0E·03 mg/kg/day
3E·01 mg/kg/day
50%
50%
20%
20%
100%
5%
2%
20%
20%
5%
5%
20%
3%
20%
- -----
Dermal RfD 2'3
Value
NA
1E·02
1E-02
NA
NA
NA
2E-01
SE-05
3E--04
4E-03
6E-05
6E·02
NA
4E.03
1E-03
1E-03
2E·04
6E-02
Units
mg/kg/day NA
mg/kg/day Liver
Primary Target Organ{s)
mg/kg/day Deer. hemaocrit, hemoglobin
mg/kg/day Liver
mg/kg/day NA
mg/kg/day NA
mg/kg/day CNS (Neurotoxicity)
mg/kg/day Longevity, blood glucose, cholesterol
mg/kg/day Skin (Hyperpigmentation, keratosis)
mg/kg/day No adverse effect
mg/kg/day No adverse effect
mg/kg/day No adverse effect
mg/kg/day CNS (Neurotoxidty)
mg/kg/day CNS (Neurotoxicity)
mg/kg/day CNS (Neurotoxicity)
mg/kg/day Increased uric acid levels
mg/kg/day Decreased hair cystine
mg/kg/day Decreased ESOD
Combined
Uncertainty/
Modifying
Factors
NA
1000
3000
1000
NA
NA
100
1000
3
3
900
1
NA
3
3
30
unk
3
---
RfD: Target Organ(s)
Source(s) Date(s)
IRIS 1/1/1991
IRIS 12/2/1985
HEAST 1997
IRIS 311/1988
IRIS 8/1/1992
IRIS 1/1/1991
NCEA
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
NCEA
NA
Region IV
Region IV
IRIS
HEAST
IRIS
8/13/1999
2/1/1991
4/10/1998
1/21/99
9/3/1998
1999
NA
1995
1995
8/1/1993
1997
10/1/1992
1. ATSDR toxicological profiles consulted. When absorption efficiency exceeded 50% in the toxicological profile, EPA Region 4 policy is to default to 100'% (EPA 1999d). Where no data were available, the
following defaults were used: 20% inorganics, 50% semtvolatiles, 80% volatiles.
2. EPA 1989a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A) December. Appendix A.
3. Equation used for derivation: RfO x oral to dermal adjustment factor
4. The RfDo for manganese in IRIS is 1.4E·1 mg/kg/day based on the NOAEL of 10 mg/day. For soil exposure, Region IV policy is to subtract the average daily dietary exposure (5 mg/day) from the NOAEL to
determine a ~soir RfDo. When this is done, a "soil" RfDo of7E·2 mg/kg/day results. For waler, a neonate is considered a sensitive receptor for the neurological effects of manganese. Thus, caution (in the
form of a modifying factor) is warranted until more data are available. Using a modifying factor of 3 results in a "water" RfDo of 2.4E·2 mg/kg/day.
Acronyms:
ATSDR • Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
IRIS • Integrated Risk Information System
HEAST. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
NCEA • National Center for Environmental Assessment
COM.
RfD • Reference dose
unk • Unknown
NA • Not applicable
ESOO • Erythrocyte superoxide dismutase
A·16
---liiiil --·-- - - -- ---.. .. -
Table 5.2
Non-Cancer Toxicity Data --Inhalation
Ram Leather Site
Inhalation RfC Adjusted RfD 1 Combined RfC: Target Organ(s)
Chemical of Chronic/ Primary Target Uncertainty/
Potential Concern Subchronic Organ Modifying
Values Units Values Units Factors Source(s) Date(s)
Barium Chronic 5E-04 mglm3 1E-04 mg/kg/day Fetus 1000 HEAST 1997
Chromium Chronic 1E-04 mglm3 3E-05 mg/kg/day Lung 300 IRIS 9/3/1998
Manganese (soil) Chronic 5E-05 mglm3 1.4E-05 mg/kg/day CNS 1000 IRIS 5/511998
Notes:
1. Equation used for derivation: RIC divided by 70 kg (assumed human body weight) multiplied by 20 m 3/day (assumed human intake rate).
Acronyms:
IRIS -Integrated Risk Information System
HEAST -Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
NCEA -National Center for Environmental Assessment
Rf□ -Reference dose
CDNI.
RfC -Reference concentration
CNS -Central neivous system
unk -Unknown
A-17
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 6.1
Cancer Toxicity Data •• Oral/Dermal
Ram Leather Site
Oral Cancer Slope Absorption Adjusted Cancer Slope Weight of Oral CSF: Absorption
Chemical of Factor Efficiency Factor (for Dermal) 1•2 Evidence/ Cancer Efficiency
Potential Concern (for Guideline
Value Units Dermal) Value Units Description 4'5 Source(s) Date(s)
1,2-Dichloroethane '9~1E'02• .(~g/kg/day)-1 100% 9E-02 (mg/kg/day)-1 82 IRIS 01/01/91
Chloroform 6.1E-03 (mg/kg/day)-1 100% 6E-03 (mg/kg/day)-1 82 IRIS 8/26/1987
Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene "NA-(mg/kg/day)-1 100% NA (mg/kg/day)-1 D IRIS 2/1/1995
Tetrachloroethene 5.2E-02 (mg/kg/day)-1 100% 5E-02 (mg/kg/day)-1 w NCEA unk
Trichloroethene 1.1E-02 (mg/kg/day)-1 100% 1E-02 (mg/kg/day)-1 w NCEA unk
Toxaphene 1.1E+00 (mg/kg/day)-1 50% 2E+00 (mg/kg/day)-1 82 IRIS 1/1/1991
Aluminum NA (mg/kg/day)-1 20% NA (mg/kg/day)-1 D NA NA
Antimony NA (mg/kg/day)-1 20% NA (mg/kg/day)-1 NE IRIS 2/1/1991
Arsenic 1.5E+00 (mg/kg/day)-1 100% 1.5E+00 (mg/kg/day)-1 A IRIS 4/10/1998
Barium NA (mg/kg/day)-1 5% NA (mg/kg/day)-1 D IRIS 1/21/99
Chromium NA (mg/kg/day)-1 2% NA (mg/kg/day)-1 D IRIS 9/3/1998
Jron NA (mg/kg/day)-1 20% NA (mg/kg/day)-1 D NA NA
Lead NA (mg/kg/day)-1 20% NA (mg/kg/day)-1 82 IRIS 5/5/1998
Manganese (soil) NA (mg/kg/day)-1 5% NA (mg/kg/day)-1 D IRIS 5/5/1998
Manganese (water) NA (mg/kg/day)-1 5% NA (mg/kg/day)-1 D IRIS 5/5/1998
Molybdenum NA (mg/kg/day)-1 20% NA (mg/kg/day)-1 NE IRIS 08/01/93
Vanadium NA (mg/kg/day)-1 3% NA (mg/kg/day)-1 NA NA NA
Zinc NA (mg/kg/day)-1 20% NA (mg/kg/day)-1 D IRIS 10/1/1992
Notes:
1. ATSDR toxicological profiles consulted. When absorption efficiency exceeded 50% in _the toxicological profile, EPA Region 4 policy is to default to
100% (EPA 1999d). Where no data were available, the following defaults were used: 20% inorganics, 50% semivolatiles, 80% volatiles.
2. EPA 1989a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A) December. Appendix A.
3. Equation used for derivation: CSF divided by oral to dermal adjustment factor
4. Weight of Evidence:
Known/Likely Acronyms:
Cannot be Determined
Not Likely
ATSDR -Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
IRIS -Integrated Risk Information System
5. EPA Group:
A -Human carcinogen
B1 -Probable human carcinogen -indicates that limited human
data are available
B2 -Probable human carcinogen -indicates sufficient evidence
in animals and inadequate or no evidence in humans
C -Possible human carcinogen
D -Not classifiable as a human carcinogen
E -Evidence of noncarcinogenicity
COM.
HEAST -Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
NCEA -National Center for Environmental Assessment
CSF -Cancer Slope Factor
unk -Unknown
NA -Not applicable
A-18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
Table 6.2
Cancer Toxicity Data --Inhalation
Ram Leather Site
Unit Risk Inhalation Cancer Slope Weight of
Factor Chemical of Evidence/ Cancer
Potential Concern Adjustment Guideline Source(s)
Value Units Value Units Descriptlon2·3
1,2-Dichloroethane .c,6Ee05 .. 'ug/m3 3,500 9.1E-02 (mg/kg/day)"1 82 IRIS
Chloroform •2'.JE!OS-ug/m3 3,500 8.1E-02 (mg/kg/day)"1 82 IRIS
Tetrachloroethene 5.8E-07 ug/m3 3,500 2.0E-03 (mg/kg/dayf1 w NCEA
Trichloroethene 1.7E-06 ug/m3 3,500 6.0E-03 (mg/kg/day)"1 w NCEA
Toxaphene 3.2E-04 ug/m3 3,500 1.1E+00 (mg/kg/day)"1 82 IRIS
Arsenic 4.3E-03 ug/m3 3,500 1.5E+01 (mg/kg/day)"1 A IRIS
Chromium 1.2E-02 ug/m3 3,500 4.2E+01 (mg/kg/day)"1 A IRIS
Notes: Acronyms:
1. Adjustment: 70 kg (assumed human body weight) divided ATSDR. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
by 20 m3/day (assumed human intake rate) multiplied by IRIS_ Integrated Risk Information System
1,000 ug/mg. HEAST -Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
2. Weight of Evidence: NCEA -National Center for Environmental Assessment
Known/Likely unk -Unknown
Cannot be Determined
Not Likely
3. EPA Group:
A -Human carcinogen
B 1 -Probable human carcinogen -indicates that limited human data are available
82 -Probable human carcinogen -indicates sufficient evidence in
animals and inadequate or no evidence in humans
C -Possible human carcinogen
D -Not classifiable as a human carcinogen
E -Evidence of noncarcinogenicity
W -Withdrawn; Agency position pending
CDM.
Date(s)
1/1/1991
8/26/1987
unk
unk
1/1/1991
4/10/1998
9/3/1998
A-19
--!!!!! == E1S
Table 7.1RME
Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Ram Leather Site
Exposure
Exposur Exposure Exposure Chemical of Point
Medium e Potential Point Route Concentration
Medium Concern
Value Units
Soil Soil Site Ingestion Toxaphene 0.28 mg/kg
Manganese 403 mg/kg
Exposure Route Total
Soil Soil Site Dermal Toxaphene .0.28 mg/kg
Manganese 403 mg/kg
Exposure Route Total
Soil Soil Site Inhalation Toxaphene 0.28 mg/kg
Manganese 403 mg/kg
Exposure Route Total
Medium Total
CDM ..
-liiiii --
Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/Exposure CSF/Unit Risk Cancer Concentration Risk
Value Units Value Units
5E-08 mg/kg/day 1.1E+00 (mg/kg/d)"1 5E-08
7E-05 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
SE-08
6E-08 mg/kg/day 2.2E+00 (mg/kg/d)"1 1 E-07
BE-06 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
1E-07
1 E-11 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
2E-08 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
NA
2E-07
Tot21l Receptor Risk Across All Medi 2E-07
- -- -- -
Scenario Timeframe: Current I Future
Receptor Population: Worker
Receptor Age: Adult
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Intake/Exposure RfD/RfC Hazard Concentration Quotient
Value Units Value Units
1 E-07 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
2E-04 mg/kg/day 7E-02 mg/kg/day 0.003
0.003
2E-07 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
2E-05 mg/kg/day. 3.5E-03 mg/kg/day 0.007
0.007
4E-11 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
6E-08 mg/kg/day 1.4E-05 mg/kg/day 0.004
0.004
0.01
Total Receptor Hazard Across All Medi 0.01
A-20
-l!!!!!S ==
Table 7.2RME
Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Ram Leather Site
Exposure
Exposur Exposure Exposure Chemical Point
Medium e of Potential Point Route Concentration
Medium Concern
Value Units
Soil Soil Site Ingestion Toxaphene 0.28 mg/kg
Manganese 403 mg/kg
Exposure Route Total
Soil Soil Site Dermal Toxaphene 0.28 mg/kg
Manganese 403 mg/kg
Exposure Route Total
Soil Soil Site Inhalation Toxaphene 0.28 mg/kg
Manganese 403 mg/kg
Exposure Route Total
Medium Total
CDM.
l!!!!I liiiii - -
Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/Exposure CSF/Unit Risk Cancer Concentration Risk
Value Units Value Units
1E-08 mg/kg/day 1.1E+00 (mg/kg/dr' 1 E-08
2E-05 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/dr' NA
1E--08
7E-09 mg/kg/day 2.2E+00 (mg/kg/dr' 2E-08
1 E-06 mg/kgfday NA (mg/kg/dr' NA
2E--08
2E-12 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/dr' NA
2E-09 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/dr' NA
NA
3E--08
Total Receptor Risk Across All Medi 3E--08
-----
Scenario Timeframe: Current I Future
Receptor Population: Adolescent
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Non-Cancer Hazard CalCulations
Intake/Exposure RfD/RfC Hazard Concentration · Quotient
V211lue Units Value Units
9E-08 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
1E-04 mg/kg/day 7E-02 mg/kg/day 0.002
0,002
SE-08 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
7E-06 mg/kg/day 3.SE-03 mg/kg/day 0.002
0.002
1 E-11 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
2E-08 mg/kg/day 1.4E-05 mg/kg/day 0.001
0.001
0.005
Total Receptor Hazard Across All Medi 0.005
A-21
-l!!e ~ == &iiiiiil iiil liiiit -- - - --.. -
Table 7.3RME
Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Ram Leather Site
Exposure Exposure Exposure Chemical of
Exposure Point
Medium Concentration
Medium Point Route Potential Concern
Value Units
Ground-Ground-Tap Ingestion Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene A ug/I
Water Water Tetrachloroethene 70 ug~
Trichloroelhene 3 ug/I
Exposure Route Total
Ground-Ground-Showerhead Inhalation Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 4 ug/I
Water Water Tetrachloroethene 70 ug/I
Trichloroethene 3 ug/I
Exposure Route Total
Medium Total
CDM.
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Receptor Population: Resident, Private Well 0011
Receptor Age: Child
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Intake/Exposure RfD/RfC Hazard Concentration Quotient
Value Units Value Units
3E-04 mg/kg/day 1 OE-02 mg/kg/day 0.03
4E-03 mg/kg/day 1 OE-02 mg/kg/day DA
2E-04 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
0.5
3E-04 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
4E-03 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
2E-04 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
NA
0.5
Total Receptor Hazard Across All Media 0.5
A-22
Ciiiia i!ii lliii 1!!1111 == ---- - - - - ----
Table 7.4RME
Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Ram Leather Site
Exposure Exposure Exposure Chemical of
Exposure Point
Medium Concentration
Medium Point Route Potential Concern
Value Units
Ground-Ground-Tap Ingestion Cis-1,2-Dichloroelhene 4 ug/I
Waler Water T etrach1oroethene 70 ug/1
Trichloroethene 3 ug/1
Exposure Route Total
Ground-Ground-Showerhead Inhalation Cis-1,2-Dichloroelhene 4 ug/1
Water Water Tetrachloroethene 70 ug/I
Trichloroethene 3 ug/1
Exposure Route Total
Medium Total
CDM.
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Receptor Population: Resident, Private Well OQ11
Receptor Age: Child/ Adult
Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/Exposure CSF/Unit Risk Cancer Concentration Risk
Value Units Value Units
7E-05 mg/kg/day NA ( mg/kg/d rT NA
1E-03 mg/kg/day 5.2E-02 (mg/kg/ctr' 5E-05
5E-05 mg/kg/day 1.1E-02 (mg/kg/ctr' 5E-07
5E-05
7E-05 mg/kg/day NA ( mg/kg/d):, NA
1E-03 mg/kg/day 2.0E-03 (mg/kg/d).1 2E-06
5E-05 mg/kg/day 6.0E-03 (mg/kg/ctr' 3E-07
2E-06
6E-05
Total Receptor Risk Across All Media 6E-05
A-23
- - -- - -
llii!I !!!!!
Table 7.5RME
Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Ram Leather Site
== liiiii Iii!!!!! -iiii - - -
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Receptor Population: Resident, Private Well 0113
Receptor Age: Child
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Exposure Exposure Exposure Chemical of Potential Exposure Point Intake/Exposure Medium Concentration RID/RfC Hazard Medium Point Route Concern Concentration
"value
Quotient
Value Units Units Value Units
Ground-Ground-Tap Ingestion Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 42 ug/I 3E-03 mg/kg/day 1.0E-02 mg/kg/day 0.3
Water Water Tetrachloroelhene 100 ug/I 6E-03 mg/kg/day 1.0E-02 mg/kg/day 0.6
Trichloroethene 26 ug/I 2E-03 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
Iron 4,400 ug/I 3E-01 mg/kg/day 3.0E-01 mg/kg/day 0.9
Manganese 470 ug/I 3E-02 mg/kg/day 2.4E-02 mg/kg/day 1
Exposure Route Total 3
Ground-Ground-Showerhead Inhalation Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 42 ug/I 3E-03 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
Water Water Tetrachloroethene 100 ug/I 6E-03 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
Trichloroethene 26 ugn 2E-03 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
Iron 4.400 ugn 3E-01 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
Manganese 470 ugn 3E-02 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
Exposure Route Total NA
Medium Total 3
Total Receptor Hazard Across All Media 3
CDM. A-24
-
---l!!!!!I liiiii
Table 7.6RME
Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Ram Leather Site
Exposure Point
Medium Exposure Exposure Exposure Chemical of Potential Concentration
Medium Point Route Concern
Value Units
Ground-Ground-Tap Ingestion Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 42 ug~
Waler Water Telrachloroethene 100 ug/I
Trichloroelhene 26 ug/I
Iron 4,400 ug/I
Manganese 470 ug~
Exposure Route Total
Ground-Ground-Showerheac Inhalation Cis-1,2-Dichloroelhene 42 ug/I
Water Water Tetrachloroethene 100 ug/I
Trichloroethene 26 ug/I
Iron 4,400.0 ug/I
Manganese 470 ug/I
Exposure Route Total
Medium Total
CDM.
iiii - -- ---
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Receptor Population: Resident, Private Well 0113
Receptor Age: Child/ Adult
Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/Exposure CSF/Unit Risk Concentration Cancer Risk
Value Units Value Units
6E-04 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
1E-03 mg/kg/day 5.2E-02 (mg/kgid)"' 8E-05
4E-04 mg/kg/day 1.1E-02 (mg/kg/d)"' 4E-06
7E-02 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
7E-03 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
BE-05
6E-04 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
1E-03 mg/kg/day 2.0E-03 (mg/kg/d)"1 3E-06
4E-04 mg/kg/day 6.0E-03 (mg/kg/d)"1 2E-06
7E-02 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
7E-03 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
SE-06
9E-05
Total Receptor Risk Across All Media 9E-05
A-25
GIii &ii ll!!ii !ii! --iiii -
Table 7.7RME
Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Ram Leather Site
Exposure Exposure Exposure Chemical of Potential Medium Medium Point Route Concern
Ground-Ground-Tap Ingestion Chloroform
Water Water
Exposure Route Total
Ground-Ground-Showerhead Inhalation Chloroform
Water Water
Exposure Route Total
Medium Total
CDM.
- -- - - ---
Exposure Point
Concentration
Value Units
0.66 ugfl
.
0.66 ugfl
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Receptor Population: Resident, Private Well 089
· Receptor Age: Child
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Intake/Exposure RfD/RfC Hazard Concentration Quotient
Value Units Value Units
4E-05 mg/kg/day 1.0E-02 mg/kg/day 0.004
0.004
4E-05 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
NA
0.004
Total Receptor Hazard Across All Media 0.004
A-26
-
- - --- - - - -
Table 7.8RME
Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Ram Leather Site
Exposure Point
Exposure Exposure Exposure Chemical of
Medium Potential Concentration
Medium Point Route Concern
Value Units
Ground-Ground-Tap Ingestion Chloroform 0.66 ug~
Water Waler
Exposure Route Total
Ground-Ground-Showerhead Inhalation Chloroform 0.66 ug/I
Water Waler
Exposure Route Total
Medium Total
CDM.
-li!!!!!I
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Receptor Population: Resident, Private Well 089
Receptor Age: Child/ Adult
Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/Exposure CSF/Unit Risk Cancer Concentration Risk
Value Units Value Units
1E-05 mg/kg/day 6.1 E-03 (mg/kg/d,-1 6E-08
6E-08
1 E-05 mg/kg/day 8.1 E-02 ( mg/kg/d )-1 8E-07
BE-07
9E-07
Total Receptor Risk Across All Media 9E-07
A-27
- - - - -- - --
Table 7.9RME
Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Ram Leather Site
Exposure Point
Exposure Exposure Exposure Chemical of Potential Medium Concentration
Medium Point Route Concern
Value Units
Soil Soil Site Ingestion Toxaphene 0.28 mg/kg
Manganese 403 mg/kg
Exposure Route Total
Soil Soil Site Dermal Toxaphene 0.28 mg/kg
Manganese 403 mg/kg
Exposure Route Total
Soil Soil Site Inhalation Toxaphene 0.28 mg/kg
Manganese 403 mg/kg
Exposure Route Total
Medium Total
Ground-Ground-Tap Ingestion 1,2-Dichloroethane 1 ug/1
Water Water Chloroform 3 ug/1
Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 1,200 ug/1
Tetrachloroethene 4,000 ug/1
Trichloroethene 210 ug/1
Exposure Route Total
Ground-Ground-Tap Inhalation 1,2-Dichloroethane 1 ug/1
Water Water Chloroform 3 ug/1
Cis-1,2-Dichloroelhene 1,200 ug/1
T etrachloroethene 4,000 ug/1
Trichloroethene 210 ug/1
Exposure Route Total
Medium Total
CDM.
I!!!!!! !!!II
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident·
Receptor Age: Child
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Intake/Exposure RfD/RfC Hazard Concentration Quotient
Value Units Value Units
4E-06 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
5E-03 mg/kg/day 7E-02 mg/kg/day 0.07
0.07
5E-07 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
7E-05 mg/kg/day 3.5E-03 mg/kg/day 0.02
0.02
1E-10 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
2E-07 mg/kg/day 1.4E-05 mg/kg/day 0.01
0.01 .
0.1
6E-05 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
2E-04 mg/kg/day 1 0E-02 mg/kg/day 0.02
8E-02 mg/kg/day 1.0E-02 mg/kg/day 8
3E-01 mg/kg/day 1.0E-02 mg/kg/day 26
1E-02 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
33
6E-05 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
2E-04 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
8E-02 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
3E-01 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
1E-02 mg/kg/day NA mg/kg/day NA
NA
33
Total Receptor Hazard Across All Media 33
A-28
- - - - - -- - ---I!!!!!!! Im l!!!!9
CDM.
Table 7.10RME
Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Ram Leather Site
Exposure Point
Medium Exposure Exposure Exposure Chemical of Concentration
Medium Point Route Potential Concern
Value Units
Soil Soil Site lngesti6n Toxaphene 0.28 mg/kg
Manganese 403 mg/kg
Exposure Route Total
Soil Soil Site Dermal Toxaphene 0.28 mg/kg
Manganese 403 mg/kg
Exposure Route Total
Soil Soil Site Inhalation Toxaphene 0.28 mg/kg
Manganese 403 mg/kg
Exposure Route Total
Medium Total
Ground- Ground-Tap Ingestion 1.2-Dichloroelhane 1 ugfl
Waler Water Chloroform 3 ug/I
Cis-1.2-Dichloroethene 1.200 ug/I
Tetrachloroethene 4.000 ug/I
Trichloroethene 210 ug/I
Exposure Route Total
Ground-Ground-Tap Inhalation 1.2-Dichloroethane 1 ug/I
Water Water Chloroform 3 ug/I
Cis-1.2-Dichloroethene 1.200 ugfl
T etrachloroelheneJ 4.000 ug/I
Trichloroethene 210 ug/1
Exposure Route Total
Medium Total '
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child/ Adult
. Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/Exposure CSF/Unit Risk Concentration Cancer
Risk
Value Units Value Units
4E-07 mg/kg/day 1.1 (mg/kg/d)"1 5E-07
6E-04 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
SE-07
1E-07 mg/kg/day 2.2 ( mg/kg/d):, 3E-07
2E-05 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
3E-07
3E-11 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
5E-08 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d).1 NA
NA
7E-07
1E-05 mg/kg/day 9.1 E-02 (mg/kgtd)"' 1E-06
4E-05 mg/kg/day 6.1 E-03 (mg/kg/d)"1 3E-07
2E-02 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
6E-02 mg/kg/day 5.2E-02 (mg/kg/d)"1 3E-03
3E-03 mg/kg/day 1.1E-02 (mg/kg/d)"1 . 3E-05
3E-03
1E-05 mg/kg/day 9.1 E-02 (mg/kg/d)"1 1E-06
4E-05 mg/kg/day 8.1E-02 (mg/kg/d).1 4E-06
2E-02 mg/kg/day NA (mg/kg/d)"1 NA
6E-02 mg/kg/day 2.0E-03 (mg/kg/d)"1 1E-04
3E-03 mg/kg/day 6.0E-03 (mg/kg/d)"1 2E-05
1E-04
3E-03
Total Receptor Risk Across All Media 3E-03
A-29
e=
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
Table 8.1RME
Calculation of Radiation Cancer Risks
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Ram Leather Site
There are no radiation hazards associated with this site; therefore. completion of this table is not applicable.
CDM. A-30
- - - - -- --- -
Table 9.1RME
Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards.for COPCs
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Ram Leather Site
Chemical Carcinogenic Risk
Medium Exposure Exposure of
Medium Point Potential
Concern Ingestion Dermal Inhalation
Soil Soil Site Toxaphene SE-08 1 E-07 NA
Manganese NA NA NA
Total SE-08 1 E-07 NA
-
Exposure
Routes
Total
2E-07
NA
2E-07
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Route~ 2E•07
Conclusions:
1. The excess cancer risk level is below EPA's acceptable range (1 x 10-4 and 1 x 10"\
2. The hazard index is less than 1, indicating non-cancer effects are not expected.
CDM.
-
Chemical
of
Potential
Concern
Toxaphene
Manganese
-
Primary
Target
Organ
Target
Liver
Total
---l!!!!!I I!!!!!
Scenario Timeframe: Current / Future
Receptor Population: Worker
Receptor Age: Adult
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Exposure
Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Routes
Total
NA NA NA NA
0.003 0.007 0.004 0.01
0.003 0.007 0.004 0.01
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and AII.\L __ o.;..0_1 _ _,
Exposure Routes
A-31
- - - - -- - - - -
Table 9.2RME
Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Ram Leather Site
Chemical Carcinogenic Risk
Medium Exposure Exposure of
Medium Point Potential
Concern Ingestion Dermal Inhalation
Soil Soil Site Toxaphene 1 E-08 2E-08 NA
Manganese NA NA NA
Total 1E-08 2E-08 NA
-
Exposure
Routes
Total
3E-08
NA
3E-08
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Route4 3E·08
Conclusions:
1. The excess cancer risk level is below EPA's acceptable range (1 x 10..i and 1 x 10-6).
2. The hazard index is less than 1, indicating non-cancer effects are not expected.
CDNI.
-
Chemical
of
Potential
Concern
Toxaphene
Manganese
-
Primary
Target
Organ
Target
Liver
Total
--l!l!!!!!!I I!!!! em
Scenario Timeframe: Current/ Future
Receptor Population: Visitor/Trespasser
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Exposure
Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Routes
Total
NA NA NA NA
0.002 0.002 0.001 0.005
0.002 0.002 0.001 0.005
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and AIILI _...;occ.0:.0:..:5:__,
Exposure Routes
A-32
----------------l!!!!!!I !!!!I ~
Table 9.3RME
Summary of Receptor Hazards for COPCs
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Rain Leather Site
Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical of Potential
Medium Point Concern
Ground-Ground-Tap/ Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
water water Shower head Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Receptor Population: Resident, Private Well 0011
Receptor Age: Child
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Exposure Primary Target Organ Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Routes Total
Deer. hemaocrit, hemoglobin 0.03 NA NA 0.03
Liver 0.4 NA NA 0.4
NA NA NA NA NA
Total 0.5 NA NA 0.5
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Conclusion:
0.5
1. The hazard index is less than 1, indicating non-cancer effects are not expected.
CDM. A-33
----------- - -----l!!!!!!!!!I I!!!!!!
CDM.
Table 9.4RME,.
Summary of Receptor Risks for COPCs
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Receptor Population: Resident, Private Well 0011
Recepto.r Age: Child to Adult
Ram Leather Site
Carcinogenic Risk
Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical of
Medium Point Potential Concern Exposure
Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Routes
Total
Ground-Ground-Tap/ Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene NA NA NA NA
water water Showerhead Tetrachloroethene 5E-05 NA 2E-06 6E-05
Trichloroethene 5E-07 NA 3E-07 8E-07
Total 5E-05 NA 2E-06 6E-05
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes 6E-05
Conclusion:
1. The excess cancer risk level is within EPA's acceptable range (1 x 104 and 1 x 10'').
A-34
----- - --
Table 9.5RME
Summary of Receptor Hazards for COPCs
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Ram Leather Site
Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical of Potential
Medium Point Concern
Ground-Ground-Tap I Cis-1,2-Dichloroelhene
water water Showerhead Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Iron
Manganese
Conclusion:
1. The hazard index is greater than 1, indicating non-cancer effects
are possible. However, when critical effect is examined, none
exceeds 1; this indicates that non-cancer effects are not likely.
CDM.
Deer.
Liver
NA
-- - -.. ---l!!!!!!!!!I !!!!!!!
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Receptor Population: Resident, Private Well 0113
Receptor.Age: Child·
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Exposure
Primary Target Organ Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Routes.Total
hemaocrit, hemoglobin 0.3 NA NA 0.3
0.6 NA NA 0.6
NA NA NA NA
No adverse effect 0.9 NA NA 0.9
CNS (Neurotoxicity) 1 NA NA 1
Total 3 NA NA 3
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes '------'-3 _ _JI
Total CNS Hazard Index 88
Total Liver Hazard Index 0.6
Total decreased hematocrit, hemoglobin Hazard Index 0.3
A-35
------------------
COM.
Table 9.6RME \
Summary of Receptor Risks for COPCs
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Receptor Population: Resident, Private Well 0113
Receptor Ag~: Child to Adult .
Ram Leather Site
Carcinogenic Risk
Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical of Potential Concern Medium Point Ingestion Dermal Inhalation
Ground-Ground-Tap I Cis-1.2-Dichloroelhene NA NA 3E-06
water water Showerhead Telrachloroelhene BE-05 NA 2E-06
Trichloroethene 4E-06 NA NA
Iron NA NA NA
Manganese NA NA SE-06
Total BE-05 NA 1E-05
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Conclusions:
1. The excess cancer risk level is wilhin EPA"s acceptable range (1 x 10"4 and 1 x 10.,').
Exposure
Routes
Total
3E-06
BE-05
4E-06
NA
SE-06
9E-05
9E-05
A-36
- - - - -----------
CDM.
Table 9.7RME
Summary of Receptor Hazards for COPCs
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Ram Leather Site
Exposure Exposure Chemical of
Medium Potential Medium Point Concern
Ground-Ground-Tap/ Chloroform
water water Showerhead
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Receptor Population: Resident, Private Well 089
Receptor Age: Child
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary Target Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Exposure
.Organ Routes Total
Liver 0.004 NA NA 0.004
Total 0.004 NA NA 0.004
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes 0.004
Conclusion:
1. The hazard index is less than 1, indicating non-cancer effects are not expected
A-37
-------------------
CDM.
Table 9.BRME,
Summary of Receptor Risks for COPCs
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Receptor Population: Resident, Private Well 089
Receptor Age: Child to Adult
Ram Leather Site
Carcinogenic Risk
Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical of
Medium Point Potential Concern Exposure
Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Routes
Total
Ground-Ground-Tap I Chloroform 6E-08 NA SE-07 9E-07
water water Showerhead
Total 6E-08 NA BE-07 . 9E-07
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes 9E-07
Conclusions:
1. The excess cancer risk level is below EPA's acceptable range (1 x 10"' and 1 x 10"6 ).
A-38
- -- ---- - - - -- ------
Table 9.9RME
Summary of Receptor Hazards for COPCs
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Ram Leather Site
Exposure Exposure Chemical of Potential Medium Medium Point Concern
Soil Soil Site Toxaphene
Manganese
Ground-Ground-Tap I 1,2-Dichloroethane
water water Showerhead Chloroform
Cis-1,2-Dichloroelhene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Conclusion:
1. The hazard index is greater than 1, indicating non-cancer
effects are possible.
CDM.
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
. Receptor Age: Child
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Exposure
Primary Target Organ Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Routes Total
NA NA NA NA NA
CNS (Neurotoxicity) 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.1
Total 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.1
NA NA NA NA NA
Liver 0.02 NA NA 0.02
Deer. hemaocrit, hemoglobin 8 NA NA 8
Liver 26 NA NA 26
NA NA NA NA NA
Total 33 NA NA 33
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes 33
Total liver Hazard Index 1 · 26
Total decreased hematocrit, hemoglobin Hazard Index ~====:a====
A-39
-
-- - - ---- - - - -----
CDM.
Table 9.10RME.
Summary of Receptor Risks for COPCs
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Ram Leather Site -
Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical of Potential
Medium Point Concern
Soil Soil Site Toxaphene
Manganese
Total
Ground-Ground-Tap/ 1,2-Dichloroelhane
water water Showerhead Chloroform
Cis-1,2-Dichloroelhene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroelhene
Total
Ingestion
5E-07
NA
SE-07
1 E-06
3E-07
NA
3E-03
3E-05
3E-03
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child to Adult
Carcinogenic Risk
Exposure
Dermal Inhalation Routes
Total
3E-07 NA 7E-07
NA NA NA
3E-07 NA 7E-07
NA 1E-06 3E-06
NA 4E-06 4E-06
NA NA NA
NA 1 E-04 3E-03
NA 2E-05 5E-05
NA 1E-04 3E-03
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Conclusions:
3E-03
1. The excess cancer risk level is above EPA's acceptable range (1 x 104 and 1 x 10-6).
-
A-40
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 10.1RME
Risk Assessment Summary
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Ram Leather Site
Conclusions:
Scenario Timeframe: Current/ Future
Receptor Population: Worker
Receptor Age: Adult
1. The excess cancer risk level is below EPA's acceptable range (1 x 104 and 1 x 10'').
2. The hazard index is less than 1, indicating non-cancer effects are not expected.
3. Based on these conclusions, there are no Chemicals of Concern and preparation of Table 10 is not applicable.
i:
CDM. A-41
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 10.2RME
Risk Assessment Summary
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Ram Leather Site
Conclusions:
Scenario Timeframe: Current I Future
Receptor Population: Trespasser/ Visitor
Receptor Age: Adolescent
1. The excess cancer risk level is below EPA's acceptable range (1 x 104 and 1 x 10'').
2. The hazard index is less than 1, indicating non-cancer effects are not expected.
3. Based on these conclusions, there are no Chemicals of Concern and preparation of Table 10 is not applicable.
COM. A-42
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i I
I
Table 10.JRME
Risk Assessment Summary
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Ram Leather Site
Conclusions:
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Receptor Population: Resident, Private Well 0011
Receptor Age: Child
1. The hazard index is less than 1 indicating that non-cancer hazards are not expected.
2. Based on this conclusion, there are no Chemicals of Concern and preparation of Table 10 is not applicable.
CDM. A-43
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 10.4RME
Risk Assessment Summary
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Ram Leather Site
Conclusions:
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Receptor Population: Resident, Private Well-0011
Receptor Age: Child to Adult
1. The exce;s cancer risk level is below EPA's acceptable range (1 x 104 and 1 x 10"6).
2. Based on this conclusion, there are no Chemicals of Concern and preparation ofTable 10 is not applicable.
CDM. A-44
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 10.5RME
Risk Assessment Summary
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Ram Leather Site
Conclusions:
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Receptor Population: Resident, Private Well 0113
Receptor Age: Child
1. The hazard index is less than 1, indicating non-cancer effects are not expected.
2. Based on this conclusion, there are no Chemicals of Concern and preparation of Table 10 is not applicable.
CDM. A-45
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 10.6RME
Risk Assessment Summary
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Ram Leather Site
Conclusions:
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Receptor Population: Resident, Private Well 0113
Receptor Age: Child to Adult
1. The excess cancerrisklevel is below EPA's acceptable range (1 x 104 and 1 x 10.s).
2. Based _on this conclusion, there are no Chemicals of Concern and preparation of Table 10 is not applicable.
CDM. A-46
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 10.7RME
Risk Assessment Summary
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Ram Leather Site
Conclusions:
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Receptor Population: Resident, Private Well 089
Receptor Age: Child
1. The hazard index is less than 1, indicating non-cancer effects are not expected
2. Based on this conclusion, there are no Chemicals of Concern and preparation of Table 10 is nol applicable.
CDM. A-47
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 1 O.BRME
Risk Assessment Summary
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Ram Leather Site
Conclusions:
Scenario Timeframe: Current
Receptor Population: Resident, Private Well 089
Receptor Age: Child/ Adult
1. The excess cancer risk level is below EPA's acceptable range (1 x 10"' and 1 x 10'6
).
2. Based on this conclusion. there are no Chemicals of Concern and preparation of Table 10 is not applicable.
CDM. A-48
---------- - - - - - -- ---
Table 10.9RME
Risk Assessment Summary
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Ram Leather Site ..
Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical of Concern Medium Point
Soil Soil Site None
Ground-Ground~ Tap/ Cis-1,2-Dichloroelhene
water water Showerhead Tetrachloroethene
Conclusion:
1. The hazard index is greater than 1, indicating non-cancer
effects are possible.
CDM.
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Exposure Primary Target Organ Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Routes Total
Deer. hemaocrit, hemoglobin 8 NA NA 8
Liver 26 NA NA 26
Total 33 NA NA 33
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes 33
Total liver Hazard Index ~--2_6 __ --l
·Total decreased hematocrit, hemoglobin Hazard Index L __ _:B __ ..J
A-49
- --
CDM.
- - - - - ----
Table 10.10RME
Risk Assessment Summary
Reasonable Maximum Exposure --. , , -.
Ram Leather Site
Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical of Concern Medium Point
Ingestion
Soil Soil Site None
Ground-Ground-Tap/ 1.2-Dichloroethane 1E-06
water water Showerhead Chloroform 3E-07
Tetrachloroethene 3E-03
Trichloroethene 3E-05
Total 3E-03
I!!!!!! !!!!!I
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child to Adult
Carcinogenic Risk
Exposure
Dermal Inhalation Routes
Total
NA 1E-06 3E-06
NA 4E-06 4E-06
NA 1 E-04 3E-03
NA 2E-05 5E-05
NA 1E-04 3E-03
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Conclusion:
3E-03
1. The excess cancer risk level is above EPA's acceptable range (1 x 104 and 1 x 10"6).
A-50
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM.
Appendix B
· Example Calculations
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CDNI.
I
Table B-1
Equation and Example Calculation for
Reasonable Maximum Exposure Concentration
Ram Leather Site
Equation Definition:
where:
UCL = upper confidence limit
e = constant (base of the natural log, equal to 2.718)
X = mean of the transformed data
s = standard deviation of the transformed data
H = H-statistic (e.g., from table published in Gilbert)
n = number of samples
Example calculation for manganese in soil
Appendix B
Example Calculations
Source: EPA, Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calculating the Concentration Term, OSWER Publication
9285.7-08, May 1992.
8-1
- -- -- - -- - -
Table B-2
Calculation of Lifetime Resident Exposure Assumptions
Ram Leather Site
Parameter Definition Value
EDc exposure duration, child (yrs) 6
EDtot exposure duration, total (yrs) 30
8Wc body weight, child (kg) 15
8Wa body weight, adult (kg) 70
IRSc ingestion rate soil, child (mg/day) .200
IRSa ingestion rate soil, adult (mg/day) 100
IRGWc ingestion rate groundwater, child (I/day) 1
IRGWa ingestion rate groundwater, adult (I/day) 2
SAc 2 surface area per day, child (cm2/day) 2,650
SAa 3 surface area per day, adult (cm2/day) 5,800
IRAc inhalation rate, child (m3/day) 10
IRAa inhalation rate, adult (m3/day) 20
IF soil/adj ingestion factor soil, age-adjusted (mg-yr/kg-day)
IF gw/adj ingestion factor groundwater, age-adjusted (I-yr/kg-day)
IF air/adj inhalation factor air, age-adjusted (m3-yr/kg-day)
OF dermal factor for soil, age-adjusted (cm2-yr/kg-day)
- - - -----Appendix B
Example Calculations
Intake Factors
IF soil/adi 1 I IF 11w/adi I IF air/adi I DF
114 I 1.09 I 10.9 I 3,049
Equations:
IF soil/adj = (EDc x IRSc / BWc) + (EDtot • EDc) x (IRSa/8Wa)
IF gw/adj = (EDc x IRGWc / 8Wc) + (EDtot -EDc) x (IRGWa/8Wa)
IF air/adj = (EDc x IRAc / BWc) + (EDtot -EDc) x (IRAa/8Wa)
OF = (EDc x SAc / 8Wc) + (EDtot -EDc) x (SAa/8Wa)
1 IF soil/adj taken from Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part 8, Development of Risk-based Remediation Goals, December 1991; all others by analogy.
2 Surface area is 25% of the 95th percentile total surface area of a 6<7 male child (25% of 10,600 cm2
)
3 Surface area is 25% of the 95th percentile total surface area of an adult male (25% of 23,000 cm2)
CDM. 8-2
/I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CDM.
,I
Appendix B
Example Calculations
Table B-3
Equation and Example Calculation for Ingestion Exposure to Soil:
Less Than Lifetime Exposure Scenarios
Ram Leather Site
Equation Definition:
ADD = C x IR x CF x Fl x EF x ED I SW x AT
Parameter Definition
ADD average daily dose
LADD lifetime average daily dose
C chemical concentration in soil (mg/kg)
IR ingestion rate (mg soil per day)
CF conversion factor (kg/mg)
Fl fraction ingested from contaminated source (unitless)
EF exposure frequency (days/year)
ED exposure duration (years)
BW body weight (kg)
AT averaging time (70 yr for cancer risk; exposure
duration for noncancer risk)
Example Calculation:
Site visitor exposed to manganese in si.Jrface soil
Non cancer Risk:
Value
Calculated
Calculated
Chem. spec.
100
1 E-06
1
50
10
45
70 or 10
ADD = 403 mg/kg x 100 mg/day x 1 E-6 kg/mg x 1 x 50 d/yr x 10 yrs / 45 kg x 10 yrs x 365 d/yr
ADD = 1 E-4 mg/kg/day
Cancer Risk:
LADD = ADD x ED / 70 yr
LADD = 1 E-4 mg/kg/d x 10 yr/ 70 yr
LADD= 2E-5 mg/kg/d
Source:
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A), December
1989
8-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AppendixB
Example Calculations
Table B-4
Equation and Example Calculation for Dermal Exposure to Soil:
Less Than Lifetime Exposure Scenarios
Ram Leather Site
Equation Definition:
ADD = C x CF x SA x AF x ABS x EF x ED / BW x AT
ADD
LADD
C
CF
SA
AF
ABS
EF
ED
BW
AT
Parameter
Example Calculation:
Definition
average daily dose
lifetime average daily dose
chemical concentration in soil (mg/kg)
conversion factor (kg/mg)
surface area per event (cm2/d)
adherence factor (mg/cm2)
absorption factor (1.0% for organics, 0.1% for inorganics)
exposure frequency (d/yr)
exposure duration (yr)
body weight (kg)
averaging time (70 yr for cancer risk; exposure
duration for noncancer risk)
Site visitor exposed to manganese in surface soil
Noncancer Risk:
Value
Calculated
Calculated
Chem. spec.
1E-06
5,800
1
50
10
45
70 or 10
ADD= 403 mg/kg x 1 E-6 kg/mg x 5,800 cm2/d x 1.0 mg/cm2 x 0.01 x 50 d/yr x 10 yr/ 45 kg x 10 yrs x 365 d/yr
ADD= 7E-6 mg/kg/d
Cancer Risk:
LADD = ADD x ED / 70 yr
LADD = 7E-6 mg/kg/d x 10 yr/ 70 yr
LADD = 1 E-6 mg/kg/d
Toxicity Value Adjustments:
✓ Toxicity values were adjusted from an administered to an absorbed dose according to the method described in
EPA 1989.
Examples: RfD(oral) for aluminum x 0.02 = RfD(absorbed)
1E+0 mg/kg/day x 0.02 = 2E-1 mg/kg/day
Sources:
CSF(oral) for benzo(a)anthracene / 1.0 = CSF(absorbed)
7.3E-1 (mg/kg/day)"1 / 1.0 = 7.3E-1 (mg/kg/day)"1
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A), December 1989
Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications, January 1992.
CDNI. B-4
I
g
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CDM.
I
Appendix B
Example Calculations
Table B-5
Equation and Example Calculation for Inhalation Exposure to Dust:
Less Than Lifetime Exposure Scenarios
Ram Leather Site
Equation Definition:
ADD= C x ED x EF x IR x (1/PEF) / BW x AT
Parameter Definition
ADD average daily dose
LADD lifetime average daily dose
C chemical concentration in soil (mg/kg)
ED exposure duration (yr)
EF exposure frequency (d/yr)
IR inhalation rate (m3/d)
PEF 1 particulate emissions factor (m3/kg)
BW body weight (kg)
AT averaging time (70 yr for cancer risk; exposure
duration for noncancer risk)
Example Calculation:
Site visitor exposed to manganese in dust released from surface soil
Noncancer Risk:
Value
Calculated
Calculated
Chem. spec.
10
50
17
1.32E+09
45
70 or 10
ADD= 403 mg/kg x 10 yr x 50 d/yr x 17 m3/d x 1/1.32 E+9 m3/kg / 45 kg x 10 yrs x 365 days/yr
ADD = 2E-8 mg/kg/d
Cancer Risk:
LADD= ADD x ED/ 70 yr
LADD = 2E-8 mg/kg/d x 10 yr / 70 yr
LADD = 2E-9 mg/kgld
Sources:
Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part B, Development of Risk-based Preliminary Remediation
Goals, December 1991.
1 PEF obtained from Soil Screening Guidance, 1996
B-5
I
I
n
D
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CDM.
I
Appendix B
Example Calculations
Table B-6
Equation and Example Calculation for Ingestion Exposure to Soil:
Child to Adult Resident Exposure Scenario
Ram Leather Site
Equation Definition:
LADD= RME x IF x CF x Fl x EF / AT
Parameter Definition
LADD lfietime average daily dose
RME Reasonable Maxium Exposure concentration in soil (mg/kg)
IF ingestion factor soil, age-adjusted (mg-yr/kg-day)
CF conversion factor (kg/mg)
Fl fraction ingested from contaminated source (unitless)
EF exposure frequency (days/year)
AT averaging time (days)
Equation Definition:
Child to adult resident exposed to manganese in surface soil
Cancer Risk:
Value
Calculated
Chem. spec.
114
1E-06
1
350
25,550
LADD = 403 (mg/kg) x 114 (mg-yr/kg-day) x 1 E-6 (kg/mg) x 1 x 350 (days/yr)/ 25,550 days
LADD = 6E-4 (mg/kg/day)
Source:
Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part B, Development of Risk-based Preliminary Remediation
Goals, December 1991
B-6
I
I
0
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•· CDNI.
I
Appendix B
Example Calculations
Table B-7
Equation and Example Calculation for Dermal Exposure to Soil:
Child to Adult Resident Exposure Scenario
Ram Leather Site
Equation Definition:
LADD= RME x CF x DF x AF x ABS x EF / AT
Parameter Definition
LADD lifetime average daily dose
Value
Calculated
RME Reasonable Maxium Exposure concentration in soil (mg/kg) Chem. spec.
CF conversion factor (kg/mg) 1E-06
DF dermal factor soil, age-adjusted (cm 2-yr/kg-day) 3,049
AF soil to skin adherence factor (mg/cm 2) 1
ABS absorption factor (1.0% for organics, 0.1 % for inorganics) Chem spec.
EF exposure frequency (days/year) 350
AT averaging time (days) 25,550
Example Calculation:
Child to adult resident exposed to manganese in surface soil
Cancer Risk:
LADD = (mg/kg) x 1 E-6 (kg/mg) x 3,049 (cm 2-yr/kg-day) x 1 (mg/cm 2) x 0.01 x 350 (days/yr)
/ 25,550 days
LADD = 2E-5 (mg/kg/day)
Source:
Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part B, Development of Risk-based Preliminary
Remediation Goals, December 1991
B-7
I
m
D
D
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CDM.
I
Appendix B
Example Calculations
. Table 8-8
Equation and Example Calculation for Inhalation Exposure to Dust:
Child to Adult Resident Exposure Scenario
Ram Leather Site
Equation Definition:
LADD= RME x IF x PEF x EF / AT
Parameter Definition
LADD lfielime average daily dose
RME Reasonable Maxium Exposure concentration in soil (mg/kg)
IF inhalation factor air, age-adjusted (m 3-yr/kg-day)
PEF particulate emissions factor (m 3/kg)
EF exposure frequency (days/year)
AT averaging lime (days)
Example Calculation:
Child to adult residerlt exposed to manganese in dust released from surface soil
Cancer Risk:
Value
Calculated
Chem. spec.
10.9
1.32E+09
350
25,550
LADD =403 (mg/kg)x 10.9(m3-yr/kg-day)x 3 . 1/1.32E+9 (m /kg) x 350 (days/yr)/ 25,550 days
LADD= 2E-2 (mg/kg/day)
Source:
Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part B, Development of Risk-based Preliminary Remediation
Goals, December 1991 · · ·
B-8
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CDIVI.
I
Appendix B
Example Calculations
Table B-9
Equation and Example Calculation for Ingestion Exposure to Groundwater
and Inhalation Exposure to Volatiles While Showering:
Child Resident Exposure Scenario
Ram Leather Site
Equation Definition:
ADD= C x IR x CF x EF x ED/ BW x AT
Parameter Definition Value
LADD lifetime average daily dose Calculated
C chemical concentration in water (ug/L) Chem. spec.
IR ingestion rate (Ud) 1
CF conversion factor (mg/ug) 0.001
EF exposure frequency (d/yr) 350
ED exposure duration (yr) 6
BW body weight (kg) 70
AT averaging time (days) 2.190
Example Calculation:
Child resident exposed to PCE in groundwater
Noncancer Risk:
ADD= 4,000 ug/L x 1 Uday x 0.001 mg/ug x 350 d/yr x 6 yrs/ 15 kg x 2190 days
ADD = 3E-1 mg/kg/day
Sources:
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A), December
1989
Guidance on Estimating Exposure to VOCs During Showering, Office of Research and
Development, July 10, 199{
B-9
I
i,
ff
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·I' CDM.
I
Appendix B
Example Calculations
Table B-10
Equation and Example Calculation for Ingestion Exposure to Groundwater
and Inhalation Exposure to Volatiles While Showering:
Child to Adult Resident Exposure Scenario
Ram Leather Site
Equation Definition:
LADD= C x IF x CF x EF x ED/ AT
Parameter Definition
LADD lfietieme average daily dose
C chemical concentration in water (ug/L)
IF ingestion factor (L-yr/kg-d)
CF conversion factor (mg/ug)
EF exposure frequency (dlyr)
ED exposure duration (yr)
AT averaging time (days)
Example Calculation:
Child to adult resident exposed to PCE in groundwater
Cancer Risk:
LADD= 4.000 ug/L x 1.09 L-yr/kg-d x 0.001 mg/ug x 350 d/yr x 30 yr/ 25.550 days
LADD = 6E-2 mg/kg/d
Sources:
Value
Calculated
Chem. spec.
1
0.001
350
30
25550
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A), December
1989
Guidance on Estimating Exposure to VOCs During Showering, Office of Research and
Development, July 10, 1991.
8-10
•
I
0
u
D
I
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
CDM.
Appendix C
Toxicological Profiles of
Chemicals of Potential Concern
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM.
Appendix C
Toxicological Profiles
Aluminum -Aluminum is not thought to be harmful to humans in the forms
normally encountered (e.g., via cooking utensils, antacids, and antiperspirants).
However, exposure to aluminum is not beneficial and excess exposure may be
harmful to certain people. Sensitive subpopulations may include pregnant women
and Alzheimer's patients. The potential health risks associated with exposure to
aluminum include respiratory problems from breathing the dust, and possibly
neurological, teratogenic, and skeletal problems from drinking water containing high
levels of aluminum. Inhalation and dermal exposure of healthy subjects are not
associated with adverse health risks.
Aluminum is not known to cause cancer in humans. Some workers in the aluminum
industry have had a higher than expected incidence of cancer, but this is probably
due to the other potent carcinogens to which they are exposed, such as polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons and tobacco smoke. The few animal studies that were
available were designed to study non-cancer endpoints, but they also do not indicate
that aluminum is carcinogenic (ATSDR 1991a).
Studies of interactions of aluminum with other materials that may be found at
hazardous waste sites show that aluminum has a protective effect against the toxic
effects of some other chemicals. For example, aluminum hydroxide, commonly found
in antacids, can decrease the intestinal absorption of fluoride in.humans. Aluminum
has been used in the prevention and treatment of silicosis, but its utility in this regard
is questionable. Aluminum lactate has been shown to decrease the adverse effects of
quartz in the sheep lung (ATSDR 1991a).
Antimony -The toxicological effects of antimony in humans following inhalation
or oral exposure are pneumoconiosis, altered EKG readings, increased blood
pressure, abdominal distress, ulcers, dermatosis, and ocular irritation. No effec.ts were
found in humans after dermal exposure to antimony.
Similar toxicological effects have been reported in animals following inhalation, oral,
or dermal exposure to antimony. These effects include fibrosis in the lung, altered
EKG readings, myocardial damage, vomiting and diarrhea in dogs, parenchymatous
degeneration in the liver and kidney, muscle weakness, difficulty in moving,
developmental effects, and lung cancer.
No information on the carcinogenic potential of antimony in humans was located
(ATSDR 1991b).
Arsenic -Arsenic is a potent toxicant that may exist in several valence states and in
a number of inorganic and organic forms. Most cases of arsenic-induced_ toxicity in
humans are due to exposure to inorganic arsenic, and there is an extensive database
on the human health effects of the common arsenic oxides and oxyacids. Although
there may be some differences in the potency of different chemical forms (e.g.,
arsenites tend to be somewhat more toxic than arsenates), these differences are
usually minor.
C-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
,I
D
D
u
•
I
I
I COM.
I
Appendix C
Toxicological Profiles
Exposure to arsenic via inhalation is a great public health concern due to the
increase_d risk of lung cancer, although respiratory irritation, nausea, and skin effects
may also occur. Several studies have shown an increased risk of lung cancer in
workers occupationally exposed. Based on the risk of lung cancer, EPA has assigned
inorganic arsenic to Group A (known human carcinogen) via the inhalation route.
By the oral route, the effects most likely to be of human health concern are GI
irritation, peripheral neuropathy, vascular lesions, anemia, and a group of skin•
diseases, including skin cancer. Based on epidemiological studies which have shown
an increased risk of skin cancer in populations exposed to elevated levels of arsenic in
drinking water, EPA has placed inorganic arsenic in Group A (known human
carcinogen) by the oral route of exposure.
Relatively little information is available on effects due to direct dermal contact with
inorganic arsenicals, but several studies indicate the chief effect is local irritation and
dermatitis, with little risk of other adverse effects (A TSDR 1992a).
Barium -Humans exposed to acute levels of barium have shown respiratory,
gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, renal, and neurological effects. Respiratory effects of
benign pneumonoconiosis have been observed in workers exposed occupationally by
inhalation to barium. Respiratory weakness and paralysis were seen in humans
following ingestion of barium. Acute ingestion of barium has also lead to
cardiovascular effects of increased blood pressure, changes in heart rhythm,
myocardial damage, and changes in heart physiology and metabolism and
gastrointestinal effects of hemorrhaging, pain, vomiting; and diarrhea. Renal effects
of degeneration and failure and neurological effects of numbness and tingling of the
mouth and neck, partial and complete paralysis, and brain congestion and edema
were reported in the human case studies.
Barium has not been evaluated by EPA for human carcinogenic potential
(ATSDR 1991c).
Chloroform -Data are available regarding health effects in humans and animals
after inhalation, oral, and dermal exposure to chloroform; however, data regarding
dermal exposure are quite limited. Chloroform was used as an anesthetic, pain
reliever, and antispasmodic for more than a century before its toxic effects were fully
recognized.
The target organs of chloroform toxicity in humans and animals are the central
nervous system, liver, and kidneys. There is a great deal of similarity between
chloroform-induced effects following inhalation and oral exposure. No studies were
located regarding developmental and reproductive effects in humans after exposure
to chloroform. Nevertheless, animal studies indicate that chloroform can cross the
placenta and cause fetotoxic and teratogenic effects. Chloroform exposure has also
caused increased resorption in animals. Epidemiology studies suggest a possible risk
of colon and bladder cancer in humans that is associated with chloroform in drinking
water. In animals, chloroform was carcinogenic after oral exposure. Based on
C-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
:1
:o
D
m
I
I
I
I
I
CDM.
Appendix C
Toxicological Profiles
available evidence, EPA has classified chloroform in Group B2, probable human
carcinogen (ATSDR 1992b).
Chromium -Most of the toxic effects associated with chromium compounds are
attributed to the more highly soluble, irritating hexavalent form of chromium.
Trivalent chromium is considered one of the least toxic of the trace metals. Inhalation
exposures to hexavalent chromium compounds have been associated with nasal
damage, such as perforated septa, nosebleeds, and inflamed mucosa. Skin contact
with high levels of chromium compounds has been reported to produce an eczema-
like condition.
Hexavalent chromium is suspected of being responsible for mutagenic and cell
transforming effects of chromates in various test systems. These adverse effects
appear to be prevented in the presence of liver enzymes or gastric juice, but are
unaffected by lung enzymes.
Hexavalent chromium is classified as a Group A human carcinogen by inhalation,
based on sufficient evidence of human carcinogenicity. Results of epidemiologic
studies are consistent across investigators and locations. Studies of chromate
production facilities in the U.S., Great Britain, Japan, and Germany have established
an association between chromium exposure and lung cancer. Three studies of the
chrome pigment industry in Norway, England, and the Netherlands found an
association between occupational chromium exposure and lung cancer (A TSDR
1992c).
1,2-Dichloroethane -Based upon the limited amount of data in humans, the
primary health effects observed following exposure to 1, 2-dichloroethane are similar
in both humans and animals. Adverse effects on the central nervous system,
gastrointestinal tract and respiratory tract are often the first responses observed after
acute exposure to a high concentration. In instances where 1,2-dichloroethane
exposure has resulted in death, the cause has usually been attributed to kidney failure
in animals. Death resulting from cardiac arrhythmia and hepatotoxicity has been
documented in humans. Gross and histopathological examination of autopsied tissue
taken from humans and animals that have died following high-level acute exposure
to 1,2-dichloroethane generally revealed congestion, degeneration, narcosis, and/ or
hemorrhagic lesions of most internal organs (e.g., liver, kidneys, lungs and
respiratory tract, heat, and gastrointestinal tract). The primary target organs for 1,2,-
dichloroethane-induced toxicity are the lungs, the liver, and the kidneys.
1,2-Dichlo_roethane is considered a probable human carcinogen based on the
induction of several tumor types in rats and mice dosed by gavage. Tumors have
been induced by 1,2,-dichloroethane in rats and mice following oral, dermal, and
intra peritoneal exposure. Based on these studies, EPA has classified 1,2-
dichloroethane as a probable human carcinogen, Class B2 (ATSDR 1989a).
1,2-Dichloroethene -Clinical symptoms that have been reported in humans
exposed to 1,2-dichloroethene (DCE) in air include nausea, drowsiness, fatigue,
intracranial pressure and ocular irritation. One fatality has been reported. No
information is available on the toxicity of ingested DCE in humans. No information
C-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!I
I
• .g
D
I
I
I
I
I I
I CDM.
I
Appendix C
Toxicological Profiles
is available on the relative toxicities of the cis-and trans-isomers of DCE in humans.
Symptoms described in animals exposed to DCE include pathological lesions in the
heart, liver, and lung. However, evidence for serious adverse effects in these organs
consists of only one study, seriously constraining any conclusions that can be drawn
about the relevance of these effects to humans. Ataxia and respiratory depression
occur in the terminal stages prior to death in animals. Since these symptoms have not
been observed in humans, their relevance to public health is not known.
To date, cancer effects of cis-and trans-1,2-dichloroethene have not been studied in
humans or animals (ATSDR 1990a).
Iron -Iron is a metal belonging to the first transition series of the periodic table. The
inorganic chemistry of iron is dominated by compounds in the +2 and +3 valence
states. The primary examples of iron in the O valence state.are metal and alloys and
the carbonyl compounds.
Chronic toxicity to iron usually results from prolonged accumulation of iron in the
tissues (siderosis). Excessive amounts of iron stored in the tissues results in a
· condition called hemochromatosis, a pathological general tissue fibrosis. Most cases
of hemochromatosis probably result from source of iron intrinsic to the tissues after·
hemolytic anemias or repeated blood transfusions. Idiopathic or primary
hemochromatosis is a genetic disorder of iron metabolism that is characterized by
deposition of unusually large amounts of iron in the tissues. Absorption of iron from
the gut is greatly in excess of body requirements, therefore, increasing tissue
deposition O\'.er several years. The liver and pancreas may typically contain stores of
iron that are 50-100 times the normal levels. The thyroid, pituitary, heart, spleen, and
adrenals are other sites of unusually high iron deposition. Males are 10 times more
frequently affected than females; the disease is typically manifested in the fifth or
sixth decade of life.
Chronic inhalation exposure of man to iron or its compounds is likely to result from
occupational exposures. Epidemiological studies of mortality among steel workers
have not indicated an association with exposure to iron oxide. In lung function
studies on workers in these occupations, no relationship was found between t_he
incidence of chronic bronchitis and emphysema and exposure to iron oxide dusts
although the respirable fraction never exceeded a mean level of 2 mg/m3•
Esophageal carcinoma has been associated with either iron deficiency or iron
overload, although a causal relati_on has not been established. One report on
inhalation exposure to iron mining dusts described an association with excess deaths
from lung cancers. More recently, it has been found that the presence of radon gas
was a more likely cause of the reported excess of lung cancers. !ARC briefly
summarized the early reports of lung tumors associated with exposure to iron-ore
dusts or fumes from hot metals (i.e., from welding operations). In these cases, reports
of excess lung tumors from exposure to iron have not been corroborated. Exposure to
alcohol, tobacco, silica, soot, and fumes of other metals confound the validity of
association of lung cancers with iron and its compounds. No other reports of cancers
in humans or animals associated with oral exposure to iron (and compounds) have
C-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
0
D
m
• COM.
I
Appendix C
Toxicological Profiles
been located in the available literature; hence, no slope factors for oral or inhalation
exposure can be calculated.
Lead -At high exposure levels, lead produces encephalopathy, gastrointestinal
effects, anemia, nephropathy, and electrocardiographic abnormalities. These effects
are primarily seen in children or from occupational exposure. Lower level exposure
to lead in all humans can affect the synthesis of heme, which in turn affects metabolic
processes and decreases vitamin D circulating in the body which reduces calcium
stability in the body.
Effects of great concern from low-level lead exposure are neurobehavioral effects and
growth retardation in infants exposed prenatally and children exposed postnatally.
Increased blood pressure from low-level lead exposure in middle-aged men has also
been observed. Based on blood lead concentrations, no clear threshold of effect has
been shown from low-level lead exposures resulting in blood lead levels < 10 µg/ dL.
Lead has also been shown in a number of DNA structure and function assays to affect
the molecular processes associated with the regulation of gene expression, and under
certain conditions, may induce chromosomal aberrations in vivo and in tissue
cultures. No reproductive effects from human oral exposure to lead have been
. reported; however, occupational inhalation exposures have been linked to altered
testicular function, increases in spontaneous abortion, premature delivery, and early
membrane rupture.
EPA concluded that the animal data are sufficient to demonstrate that lead and
inorganic lead compounds are carcinogenic to animals. Current knowledge of the
pharmacokinetics of lead indicates that an estimate of cancer potency derived by
standard methods would not be appropriate. EPA assigned lead and inorganic lead
compounds a classification of B2, probable human carcinogen (ATSDR 1992d).
Manganese -Most studies in humans and animals indicate that manganese
exposure does not cause significant injury to the heart, stomach, blood, muscle, bone,
liver, kidney, skin, or eyes. However, if manganese is in the Mn (+7) valence state (as
in potassium permanganate), then ingestion or dermal contact may lead to severe
corrosion at the point of contact.
Inhalation exposure to manganese dusts often leads to an inflammatory response in
the lungs in both humans and animals. This generally leads to increased incidence of
cough and bronchitis, and can lead to mild to moderate injury to lung tissue, along
with minor decreases in lung function. In addition, susceptibility to infectious lung
disease may be increased, leading to increased prevalence of pneumonia.
Information on the carcinogenic· potential of manganese is limited, and the results are
difficult to interpret with certainty. Inhalation exposure of humans to manganese
dusts has not been identified as a risk factor for lung cancer, although intraperitoneal
injection of mice with manganese sulfate led to an increased incidence of lung
tumors. Preliminary data indicate that chronic oral exposure of rats to manganese
sulfate may lead to increased incidence of pancreatic tumors (adenomas plus
C-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
:m
I
I
I
I 'I
I
I CDM.
I
Appendix C
Toxicological Profiles
carcinomas). These data are not adequate to reach a firm conclusion regarding the
carcinogenicity of manganese, but suggest that the potential for carcinogenic effects
in humans is small (ATSDR 1991d).
Molybdenum -Molybdenum is an essential dietary nutrient which is a
constituent of several mammalian enzymes including xanthine oxidase, sulfite
oxidase and aldehyde oxidase. The Food and Nutrition Board of the Subcommittee
on the Tenth Edition of the RD As has established Estimated Safe and Adequate Daily
Intake (ESAADI) values of 15-40 µg/ day for infants, 25-150 µg/ day for children, and
75-250 ,,g/ day for adolescents and adults.
High levels of ingested molybdenum may be associated with mineral imbalance.
Excretion of sufficient quantities of molybdenum may put individuals at risk for the
hypochromic microcytic anemia associated with a dietary copper deficiency. Animal
studies demonstrate that the effects of molybdenum on growth and melanin
synthesis are more pronounced under situations where dietary copper intake is low.
For this reason, the RfD was derived with the ESAADI in mind.
The Rill for molybdenum is based on the results of a study that examined blood
chemistry parameters normally associated with gout An exhaustive analysis of
blood chemistry and individual dietary habits was not done. Therefore, the results
are clearly generalized for a large population. Studies in humans and animals
suggest that molybdenum has an adverse effect on copper homeostasis, making the
changes in serum ceruloplasmin a matter of possible concern. The proposed RfD
satisfies molybdenum nutrient requirements for all healthy members of the
population, based on a comparison with the ESAADI. Dietary studies indicate that
people in the U.S. are receiving between 76 and 240 ,,g/day (1.1-3.4 µg/kg-day, based
on a 70 kg adult) in their diets.
There is no information that indicates that molybdenum is carcinogenic in humans
(EPA 1995).
Tetrachloroethene -The major routes of exposure to tetrachloroethylene
(perchloroethylene,PCE) are the inhalation and oral routes. The brain, liver, and
kidney have been identified as target organs for adverse effects of PCE exposure. In
addition, there is a suggestion that reproductive effects may also be induced in
women. Humans exposed acutely to high concentrations of PCE had headache,
dizziness, and drowsiness; nonspecific hepatotoxicity; reversible kidney damage; and
upper respiratory tract irritation.
Some epidemiological studies of dry cleaning workers suggest a possible association
between PCE exposure and increased cancer risk. However, the results of these
studies are inconclusive because of the likelihood of concomitant exposure to other
petroleum solvents, the effects of other confounding factors such as smoking, and the
study methodology.
The carcinogenicity of PCE has been documented in animals exposed by inhalation or
. oral routes. Despite some indication of human risk of leukemia from solvent
C-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
m
I
I
I
I
I COM.
I
Appendix C
Toxicological Proflfes
exposure, the relevance to human health of elevated incidences of cancer in
laboratory animals is unclear. As of November 1992, EPA had not taken a final
position on the weight-of-evidence classification for PCE (EPA 1992). It is proposed
for consideration as a Group B2 (probable human carcinogen) based on evidence of
cancer in animals and equivocal evidence in humans (ATSDR 1992e).
Toxaphene -The clinical signs common to both humans and animals following
acute intoxication with toxaphene (e.g., salivation, hyperexcitability, behavioral
changes, muscle spasms, convulsions, and death) point to the nervous system as the
major target of toxicity. This system also appears to be affected, though to a lesser
extent, following longer-term exposure in humans and animals. Other toxic
manifestations of toxaphene exposure observed in humans and animals include
adverse respiratory effects following inhalation exposure. Target organs of
toxaphene toxicity identified in experimental animals but not humans include the
liver, kidney, and to a lesser extent, the heart and immune system.
No conclusive evidence is available to link cancer with toxaphene exposure in
humans. However, two conclusive positive cancer bioassays were found for
toxaphene in feed. A statistically increased incidence of thyroid tumors was observed
in rats, and the incidence of hepatocellular tumors was significantly increased in
mice. Based on these findings, EPA has classified toxaphene as a B2, probable human
carcinogen (ATSDR 1990b).
Trichloroethene -The central nervous system (CNS) is the principal target for
trichloroethene (TCE) toxicity in humans. Human experimental studies revealed
mild effects on motor coordination, visual perception, and cognition. Nonspecific
neurological effects from TCE exposure in the workplace are dizziness and
drowsiness. Acute and chronic inhalation exposure, as well as chronic oral exposure
have lead to dysfunction of cranial nerves V and VIL The available evidence suggests
that humans may be at risk for neurological effects from exposure to TCE in the air
and water, however, there is no information for the levels at which these effects
might occur.
Workers who have been exposed to TCE in the workplace show no higher incidences
of cancer than controls. This has been shown in numerous historical prospective
studies. The few studies that did show some association were complicated by
exposures to known human carcinogens.
Animal studies have shown increases in cancers of various types following inhalation
or oral exposure to TCE. Due to various flaws in the study designs, the significance
of these studies for humans cannot be determined. The EPA withdrew the IRIS
carcinogenicity file for TCE in July 1989 and as of November 1992 has not adopted a
current position on the weight-of-evidence classification (ATSDR 1992f; EPA 1992).
Vanadium -The only significant, clearly documented, effect of vanadium
exposure in humans is mild to moderate respiratory distress and mucosa! irritation
from exposure to vanadium dusts. Vanadium workers may have coughs, chest pain,
C-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
u
D
u
m
CDM.
Appendix C
Toxicological Profiles
sore throats, or eye irritation, which can last for several days after exposure. These
effects are common to many kinds of dust exposures. The effects are no more severe
than those experienced during a routine upper respiratory tract infection and can
sometimes be delayed for several hours after exposure. Chronic effects are not
reported with regularity. Chest x-rays and urine and blood analyses in these people
are normal. These workers often develop a green color on their tongues from direct
accumulation of vanadium.
Studies in animals support the findings that vanadium primarily affects the
respiratory system. The respiratory system responds to the particulate matter by
increasing the number of leukocytes which are used to clear away the foreign matter.
A few animal studies have shown renal effects from parenteral injection of vanadium.
These include increased lipid peroxidation and decreased tubular reabsorption. It is
difficult to determine the potential for renal toxicity in humans exposed by normal
exposure routes. Renal effects have not been observed upon urinalysis in
occupationally exposed workers.
Workers who have been exposed to vanadium dust did not show any large increases
in cancer deaths, although detailed studies were not performed. Studies designed to
test effects other than cancer in animals have not noted any increases in tumors
resulting from inhalation or oral exposure to vanadium. To date, studies are
inadequate to perform an acceptable assessment of the carcinogenic potential of
vanadium. Vanadium has not been assigned a weight of evidence class for human
carcinogenicity (ATSDR 1991e).
Zinc -According to most texts, zinc is not very toxic to humans unless injected or
inhaled. Reports of zinc toxicity are usually derived from single acute exposures.
When ingested, acute exposure to zinc causes vomiting which may be bloody, fever,
headache, diarrhea, in several cases with blood, and stomach cramps. The dose of
zinc which can cause these symptoms is usually estimated at 225-450 milligrams
(mg). Temporary neurologic impairment has been observed following ingestion of 12
grams (g) of zinc. Ingestion of high concentrations of zinc may also alter the immune
response. Zinc supplements given late in pregnancy may be related to premature
delivery and low fetal copper levels. Excessive zinc ingestion impairs lymphocyte
and neutrophil function. Lymphocytes are the body's immunologically competent
cells, and neutrophils have the properties of cell movement along a concentration
gradient, adherence to immune complexes, and phagocytosis (the uptake by a cell of
particulate material from the environment by forming a cavity in its membrane). An
excess of zinc will cause liver damage. Jaundice, a syndrome in which bile secreted
by the liver causes a yellowish staining of the eyes and skin, occurred following
human injection exposures to zinc chloride. Zinc injections will cause hyaline
membranes to form in the human lung, a symptom of respiratory distress syndrome.
Following inhalation exposures, various zinc compounds have been shown to exert
toxic effects on the pulmonary system. Zinc chloride has been shown to cause
pulmonary edema, pneumonitis (inflammation of the lungs), and death due to severe
lung injury with bleeding and inflamed alveolus and bronchopneumonia following
severe inhalation
C-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
D
D
u
I
'I
CDM.
exposures.
Appendix C
Toxicological Profiles
Little evidence of the potential carcinogenicity of zinc and zinc compounds exists.
Some animal bioassays have suggested that zinc may be a necessary factor for tumor
growth, with high levels thought to promote tumor growth. Injection of zinc chloride
into chickens and rats has produced testicular sarcomas. There is no evidence that
zinc compounds are carcinogenic after administration by any other route to humans
or experimental animals (ATSDR 1989b).
C-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
D
m
I
I
I
I
I CDM.
I
Appendix C
Toxicological Profiles
References
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (A TSDR). 1989a. Toxicological
Profile for 1,2-Dichloroethane. U.S. Public Health Service. Draft for Public Comment.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1989b. Toxicological
Profile for Zinc. U.S. Public Health Service. Draft for Public Comment.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1990a. Toxicological
Profile for cis-1,2-Dichloroethene, trans-1,2-Dic/1loroet/1ene, 1,2-Dic/1loroet/1ene. U.S. Public
Health Service. Draft for Public Comment.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1990b. Toxicological
Profile for Toxaphene. U.S. Public Health Service. Draft for Public Comment.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1991a. Toxicological
Profile for Aluminum. U.S. Public Health Service. Draft for Public Comment.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1991b. Toxicological
Profile for Antimony. U.S. Public Health Service. Draft for Public Comment.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1991c. Toxicological
Profile for Barium. U.S. Public Health Service. Draft for Public Comment.
Agency for Tc;,xic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1991d. Toxicological
Profile for Manganese: U.S. Public Health Service. Draft for Public Comment.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1991e. Toxicological
Profile for Vanadium. U.S. Public Health Service. Draft for Public Comment.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1992a. Toxicological
Profile for Arsenic. U.S. Public Health Service. Draft for Public Comment.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1992b. Toxicological
Profile for Chro111i11111. U.S. Public Health Service. Draft for Public Comment.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (A TSDR). 1992c. Toxicological
Profile for Chloroform. U.S. Public Health Service. Draft for Public Comment.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1992d. Toxicological
Profile for Lead. U.S. Public Health Service. Draft for Public Comment.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1992e. Toxicological
Profile for Tetrachloroethylene. U.S. Public Health Service. Draft for Public Comment.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1992f. Toxicological
Profile for Tric/1loroethylene. U.S. Public Health Service. Draft for Public Comment.
C-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM.
Appendix C
Toxicological Profiles
U.S. EPA. 1984. Healt/1 Effects Assessment for Iron (and Compounds). Environmental
Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, Ohio. September.
U.S. EPA. 1992. CarcinogenicihJ ofTetrachloroethylene and Trichloroethylene.
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Superfund Health Risk Technical
Support Center, Cincinnati, Ohio. November 23.
U.S. EPA. 1995. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Online. Office of Health
and Environmental Assessment, Environmental Criteria & Assessment Office,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
C-11
I
I AppendixD
I Remedial Goal Options Calculations
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
•
I
I
I CDM ..
I
- - -- -- -
!!!!I iiiiiii -
Table D-1 \
Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options for Groundwater Based on Non-Cancer Hazards
Child Resident Land Use Assumptions
Ram Leather Site
Equation Definition: Chemical of
C = [THI x BW x AT x 36S(d/yr) x CF]/ [EF x ED x [(IRw x (1/RfDo +1/RfDi)]] Potential
Concern
Parameter Definition Value 1,2-Dichloroethane
C chemical concentration in water (ug/I) Chloroform
RfDo oral reference dose (mg/kg-day) Chem. spec. Cls-1,2-Dichloroethene
BW body weight (kg) 15 T etrachloroethene
AT averaging time (yr) 6 Trichloroethene
EF exposure frequency (d/yr) 350
ED exposure duration (yr) 6
THI target hazard index 1
IRw daily water ingestion rate (I/day) 1
CF conversion factor (ug/mg) 1000
-
RfDo
NA
1 E-02
1 E-02
1 E-02
NA
Remediation goals based on ingestion of groundwater and inhalation of volatiles released from groundwater while showering.
CDM.
-·-
RfDi
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
.
-- -
Appendix D
RGO Calculations
Hazard Quotient Level
lua/U
HQ=0.1 HQ=1 HQ=3
NA NA NA
16 156 469
16 156 469
16 156 469
NA NA NA
D-1
-
- -II!!! I!!!!! !!!!I -== == a:; liiiiii .. --- - - - - - -
Table D-2
Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options for Groundwater Based on Carcinogenic Risk
Adult/ Child Resident Land Use Assumptions
Ram Leather Site
Equation Definition: Chemical of
C = [TR x AT x 365(d/yr) x CF]/ [EF x [(IFw x (SFo + SFi)]] Potential
Concern
Parameter Definition Value 1,2-Dichloroethane
C chemical concentration in water {ug/1) Chloroform
TR target risk 1 E-06 Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
AT averaging time (yr) 70 Tetrachloroethene
CF conversion factor (ug/mg) 1000 Trichloroelhene
EF exposure frequency (d/yr) 350
SFo oral cancer slope factor ((mg/kg-dayr' ) Chem. spec.
IFw ingestion factor (I-yr/kg-day) 1.09
SFi inhalation cancer slope factor ((mg/kg-dayr' ) Chem. spec.
SFo
9.1 E-02
6.1 E-03
NA
5.2E-02
1.1E-02
Remediation goals based on ingestion of groundwater and inhalation of volatiles released from groundwater while showering.
CDM.
SFi
1E-6
9.1 E-02 04
8.1 E-02 0.8
NA NA
2.0E-03 1
6.0E-03 4
Appendix D
RGO Calculations
Cancer Risk Level
(ug/L)
1E-5 1E-4
4 37
8 77
NA NA
12 124
40 395
D-2