NCD982096653_20090701_Ram Leather Care Site_FRBCERCLA RISK_Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update Revision 0-OCR

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
[B) ~cc~.~~~~
~1 JUL O ti 2009 1~:1
SUPERFUND SECTION
Baseline. Human Health Risk Assessment Update
Revision 0
Ram Leather Care Site
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
July 2009
I
I
·I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
·1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
Revision 0
Ram Leather Care Site
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
U.S. EPA Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A419
Black & Veatch Project No. 048697.01.07
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960
Prepared by:
Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp.
1120 Sanctuary Parkway, Suite 200
Alpharetta, Georgia 30009
July 2009
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I •.
I
I
I
I
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: Contents
Work Assignment No. 697-R!CO-A4 l 9
Project Number: 48697.01.07
Contents
Page No.
Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................... AA-I
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1-1
1.1 Overview of Risk Assessment ....................................................................... 1-1
1.1.1 General Problem ................................................................................ 1-1
1.1.2 Operational and Regulatory History ................... : .............................. 1-3
1.1.3 Interim Actions .................................................................................. I-7
1.1.4 Objectives of Risk Assessment .......................................................... 1-9
1.2 Organization of the Baseline Risk Assessment Report .................................. 1-9
1.2.1 Human Health Risk Assessment.. ...................................................... 1-9
2.0 Human Health Risk Assessment ............................................................................ 2-1
2.1 Data Collection and Evaluation ..................................................................... 2-1
2.1.1 Data Collection .................................................................................. 2-2
2.1.2 Data Evaluation .................................................................................. 2-2
2.2 Identification of Chemicals of Potential Concern .......................................... 2-4
2.3 Uncertainties Associated With Data Evaluation ............................................ 2-5
2.3.1 Data Quantity and Quality ................................................................. 2-5
2.3.2 Reporting Limits ................................................................................ 2-5
3.0 Exposure Assessment ............................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Overview of Exposure Assessment ............................................................... 3-1
3 .2 Characterization of the Exposure Setting ...................................................... 3-1
3.2.1 Physical Setting .................................................................................. 3-1
3.3 Identification of Exposure Pathways ............................................................. 3-4
3.3.1 Exposure Pathway Analysis ............................................................... 3-5
3.3.2 Exposure Scenarios ............................................................................ 3-6
3.3.3 Quantification of Exposure ................................................................ 3-7
3.3.4 Exposure Point Concentrations .......................................................... 3-8
3.3.5 Exposure Dose Algorithms and Assumptions ................................... 3-9
3.3.6 Exposure Assumptions ..................................................................... 3-10
3.3.7 Uncertainties in Exposure Pathways and Parameters ...................... 3-12
4.0 Toxicity Assessment .............................................................................................. 4-1
4.1 Overview of Toxicity Assessment.. ............................................................... 4-1
4.2 Carcinogenic and Noncarcinogenic Toxicity Values .................................... 4-1
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A419
Project Number: 48697.01.07
Contents (continued)
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: Contents
4.2.1 Estimates ofNoncarcinogcnic Toxicity ............................................. 4-2
4.2.2 Estimates of Carcinogenic Potency ................................................... 4-4
4.2.3 Chemical-Specific Toxicity Assessments .......................................... 4-6
4.2.4 Uncertainties Associated with Toxicity Assessment ......................... 4-6
5.0 Risk Characterization ............................................................................................. 5-1
5.1 Overview of Risk Characterization ........................................................................ 5-1
5.2 Evaluation ofNoncarcinogenic Risks ............................................................ 5-1
5.3 Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks .................................................................. 5-3
5.4 Uncertainties Associated with Risk Characterization .................................... 5-4
5.5 Central Tendency Evaluation ......................................................................... 5-5
6.0 Remedial Goal Options .......................................................................................... 6-1
7.0 Human Health Risk Assessment Conclusions ...................................................... 7-1
8.0 References .............................................................................................................. 8-1
TC-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: Contents
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A4 I 9
Project Number: 48697.01.07
Tables
Table 2-1
Table 5-1
Table 5-2
Table 6-1
Table 6-2
Figures
Figure 1-1
Figure 2-1
Figure 2-2
Figure 3-1
Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Contents (continued)
Summary of CO PCs
Summary of Human Health Risks and Hazards -Reasonable Maximum
Exposure
Summary of Human Health Risks and Hazards -Central Tendency
Exposure
Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options and ARARs for Ground Water -
Lifetime Resident
Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options and ARARs for Ground Water -
Construction Worker
Site Location Map
Ram Leather Care Well Location Map
2008 Soil Boring Investigation -PCE Concentrations
Human Health Conceptual Site Model
Well Abandonment Records
RAGS Part D Tables
Central Tendency Evaluation
SESD Field Sampling Investigation Report, May 30, 2006
Toxicity Profiles
RGO Calculations
TC-3
I
.1
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Baseline Risk Assessment
EPA Contract No._68-W-99-043
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: AA
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A419
Project Number: 48697.01.07
ABSGt
ARAR
ATSDR
bis
HHRA
CalEPA
CDI
coc
COPC
CSF
CSM
CT
CTE
OF
Eco-SSL
ED
EF
EPA
EPC
HEAST
HHRA
HI
HQ
IR
IRIS
kg
LOAEL
MCL
MCLG
µg/kg
mg
mg/kg
Acronyms and Abbreviations
gastrointestinal absorption value
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
below land surface
Baseline Risk Assessment
California Environmental Protection Agency
chronic daily intake
square centimeters
chemical of concern
chemical of potential concern
cancer slope factor
conceptual site model
Central Tendency
central tendency exposure
degrees Fahrenheit
Ecological Soil Screening Level
exposure duration
exposure frequency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
exposure point concentrations
Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment
hazard index
hazard quotient
intake/contact ratio
Integrated Risk Information System
kilogram
I ow est -observed-ad verse-effect -1 eve!
Maximum Contaminant Level
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
microgram per kilogram
milli1,'Tam
milligrams per kilogram
AA-I
Baseline Risk Assessment
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A4l9
Project Number: 48697.01.07
mg/kg/day
mg/L
NCEA
NCP
NOAEL
NPL
OSWER
PCE
ppb
ppm
PPRTV
RAGS
RtC
RtD
RGO
RI
RME
SF
SSL
svoc
TAL
TCE
TCL
UCL
URF
USGS
vc
voe
Acronyms and Abbreviations (continued)
milligrams per kilo1;ram per day
milligrams per liter
National Center for Exposure Assessment
National Contingency Plan
no-observed-adverse-effect-level
National Priorities List
Otlice of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
tetrachloroethene
parts per billion
parts per million
Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Value
Risk Assessment Guidance
reference concentration
reference dose
remedial goal option
Remedial Investigation
reasonable maximum exposure
slope factor
soil screening level
semi-volatile organic compounds
target analyte list
trichloroethylene
target compound list
upper confidence limit
unit risk factor
U.S. Geological Survey
vinyl chloride
volatile organic compound
AA-2
Ram Leather Care Site
Reviiion: 0
July 2009
Secti~n: AA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I\
I
I
I·
I ..
I
I
I
I '
·1
I
I
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A4 I 9
Project Number: 48697.01.07
1.0 Introduction
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: I
This report is an update to the Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) for the
Rall: Leather Care Site in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina prepared in 2004 by
COM (COM, 2004). The HHRA 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 HHRA is specified in the
National Contingency Plan (NCP) which states that the lead agency for a Superfund site
shall conduct a site-specific HHRA as part of the remedial investigation process (EPA
1990).
1.1 Overview of Risk Assessment
1. 1. 1 General Problem
The Ram Leather Care site is located at 15100 Albemarle Road (Rt. 24/27) in Charlotte,
eastern Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, about 1,500 feet west of the Cabarrus
County line. A site vicinity map is provided as Figure 1-1. The site is a former dry
cleaner that operated from 1977 to 1993. It is not being used for industrial or private
purposes today.
Chlorinated hydrocarbon chemicals, primarily tetrachloroethene (PCE) and petroleum
hydrocarbons (mineral spirits), were used in the cleaning process. Because of improper
waste-disposal practices, chlorinated solvents have contaminated the on-site drinking
water well, and nearby off-site private wells. Chlorinated solvents have been detected in
drinking water wells at concentrations exceeding drinking water standards. The main
contaminants of concern (COCs) are PCE, trichloroethylene (TCE), cis-1,2-
dichloroethylene (cis-1,2-DCE), and vinyl chloride (VC). Until 2008, when a water line
was extended to allow affected residents to gain access, ground water was the only source
of drinking water within at least 2 miles of the facility.
The site gained regulator's attention in early 1991 when a Mecklenburg County
Department of Environmental Protection (MCDEP) inspector discovered illegal open
burning at the Ram Leather Care site. In May 1991, the state and the owner sampled
drums and surface soil in the drum storage area. Composite analyses of drum contents
indicated the presence of PCE and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The on-site
1-1
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A4 l 9
Project Number: 48697.01.07
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: I
well was sampled and found to have high concentrations of PCE. Two nearby private
wells were found to be contaminated with PCE.
In July 1991, the site owner undertook an investigation to identify a possible source of
the contamination and to define the extent of soil and !,'fOund water contamination.
Ground water samples collected from boreholes and monitoring wells drilled on the site
showed the presence PCE and other VOCs.
In March 1994, EPA's Technical Assistance Team (TAT) performed a site investigation
to further assess the extent of surface soil and ground water contamination on-site and in
several private wells in the site vicinity. Surface soil samples showed trace quantities of
PCE. The on-site well (no longer used) had high concentrations of PCE and other VOCs.
Three of the eight private wells sampled had detectable quantities of VOCs, but the levels
did not exceed EPA's removal action level of70 parts per billion (ppb).
In September 1995, the North Carolina Superfund Section sampled two nearby private
wells and a nearby community well. The most significant finding was the presence of
PCE at 204 micrograms per liter (µg/L) in a well across the road from the site. Based on
these findings, the owner was advised to discontinue use of her well for drinking, and the
North Carolina Superfund Section requested that EPA reevaluate the site for a removal
action.
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-ot:entry carbon filtration units were
installed at three wells.
EPA's Science and Ecosystems Support Division (SESD) conducted what was referred to
as Phase I of the remedial investigation (RI) in June 1999. The authors concluded that
potable water contamination [primarily PCE and TCE] appeared to be limited to the four
residences near the site and in the on-site deep (510 foot) well. VOCs were not detected
in the three on-site shallow monitoring wells; hol;Vever, the deep aquifer had not been
sufficiently investigated to determine the extent of PCE contamination.
1-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,,,
I
I
I
I
g
'
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I :
!
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A4 I 9
Project Number: 48697.01.07
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: I
In the summer of 2000, CDM, at the direction of EPA, undertook follow-up !,>round water
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. The investigation estimated the extent of contamination to the north and west-
northwest of the site and noted that the extent remains to be defined on the southern side
and the cast-northeast directions from the facility.
In August 2002, CDM, again at the direction of EPA, investigated fractures in the
bedrock in four wells on and near the Ram Leather facility. Follow-up investigations by
SESD in 2006 and Black & Veatch in 2007 and 2008 arc also part of the investigative
history.
1.1.2 Operational and Regulatory History
The Ram Leather Care facility operated from 1977 to 1993. The building was constructed
in 1967 and housed a construction business owned by Mr. Worley until 1977. On May 6,
1987, Ram Leather Care submitted its first Notification of Hazardous Waste Activity.
Ram Leather Care reported that it was a generator of less than 1,000 kilo1,,rams
(kg)/month of DOOi Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) wastes [as
defined in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 261.2 I]. On June 8, 1987, EPA
assigned the number NCD 982096653 to Ram Leather Care as a small quantity generator
(Stanley, 1995).
On April 6, 1991, during a complaint investigation of a demolition landfill on adjacent
property, the MCDEP discovered illegal open burning at the Ram Leather Care site. The
facility operator was burning filters containing PCE. The facility was instructed to stop
and complied. MCDEP issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) for this burning (Stanley,
1995).
On April 29, 1991, a North Carolina Hazardous Waste Inspector visited the site. The
inspector noted that the last documented disposal of DOOi (waste petroleum naphtha) was
on February 12, 1988. Mr. Worley stated that the Dry Cleaners Trade Association had
sent information that certain petroleum-based dry cleaning solvents were no longer
deemed hazardous waste and that he had assumed that his waste was no longer
hazardous. The inspector discovered a 250-gallon above-ground storage tank of D00 I
waste mineral spirits and 49 drums of liquid waste in an outside waste storage area.
1-3
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A419
Project Number: 48697.01.07
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: I
Bungs were observed, allowing rainwater to enter the drums and waste to overflow. Logs
and drum markings were not maintained. The drums were standing in liquid. A
composite sample of drum contents and a surface soil sample were taken on May 2, 1991
(Stanley, 1995). ----The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM), Water Quality
Section was notified April 30, 1991, of a boiler blow-off in the storage area. A permit had
not been issued for the site, making this an illegal discharge. The area had been recently
graded to allow surface water runoff to flow toward Albemarle Road. A drinking water
well was noted within 50 feet of the storage area and was sampled on May 6, 1991, by
MCDEP. Due to contamination found in the well, Ram Leather Care was advised to
discontinue use of the well for drinking. On May 13, 199 I, all off-site drinking water
wells within ½ mile were sampled. Two private residential wells were found to be
contaminated (Stanley, 1995).
On June 5, 1991, a North Carolina Hazardous Waste Inspector visited the Ram Leather
Care site to provide instructions to Mr. Worley. While there, Ram Leather Care requested
a change in classification under RCRA because the 49 drums of D00 1 hazardous wastes
were in excess of 6,000 kg, exceeding small quantity generator status. Mr. Worley stated
that PCE filters were stored in a dumpster prior to disposal in a landfill. Stored hazardous
wastes were shipped off-site on June 14, 1991. Ram Leather Care was reclassified as a
large quantity generator on June 17, 1991 (Stanley, I 995).
On June 24, 1991, and Imminent Action NOV Docket #91-264 was issued to Ram
Leather Care for Storage and Disposal of Hazardous Waste. The compliance schedule
required submittal of a comprehensive sampling and analysis report by July 26, 1991, soil
removal with post-excavation samples by September I, 1991, and removal of all
hazardous wastes by September I, 1991 (Stanley, 1995).
On July 3, 1991, a NOV was issued by NCDEM Ground water Section for violation of
i,>round water quality standards. The NOV required remediation of contaminated soil and
ground water and provision of an alternate water supply to affected well owners (Parnell
and Beaver). On July 26, I 991, NCDEM Ground water Section held in abeyance the
order to remediate the site and deferred lead agency status to the North Carolina
1-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-R!CO-A4 I 9
Project Number: 48697.01.07
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: l
Hazardous Waste Section. The NOV still required provision of an alternate water supply
to affected well owners (Stanley, 1995).
On August 2, I 99 I, Ram Leather Care responded to NCDEM by letter and said that the
two private residences had been provided with bottled water. On November 5, 1991, Ram
Leather Care submitted a Technical and Field Data Report to the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) (Tingle, 1991 ).
On January 24, 1992, a Compliance Order with Administrative Penalty, Docket #92-068,
was issued by the North Carolina Division of Solid Waste Management. This NOV stated
that between 1977 and 1984, wastes generated from the use of chlorinated hydrocarbons
were disposed of in a metal dumpster. After 1984, 55-gallon drums were used to store the
solvents, which were then transported off-site for recycling. Between 1984 and 1988,
wastes were also stored in an above-ground waste tank supported by a concrete pad on
the west side of the building. The NOV cited Ram Leather Care for storage of hazardous
waste on site for longer than 90 days, improper or lack of marking on hazardous waste
containers, failure to file an annual report, discharge of DOOi and F002 hazardous wastes
onto the ground and into the ground water, and failure to submit a permit application. The
NOV imposed a penalty (Stanley, 1995).
On February 26, 1992, Ram Leather Care tiled a petition for an Administrative hearing to
contest the order. On April 29, 1992, NOV Docket #92-232 was issued to Ram Leather
Care by the North Carolina Hazardous Waste Section for failure to submit an annual
report. On May 12, 1992, Ram Leather Care responded with the annual report and
contested the NOV. A small quantity generator is not required to file an annual report,
whereas a large quantity generator is required. Ram Leather Care stated that generator
status was based on amount generated, not stored. The annual report stated that the
following quantities of wastes were generated and shipped off-site in 1991 (Stanley,
1995).
Perchloroethylene/ignitable, D039 2,900 kg
Filters containing waste perchloroethylene/ignitable, D039 1,268 kg
Filters containing waste mineral spirits/ignitable, D00 I 700 kg
Waste mineral spirits/ignitable, DOOi 3,315 kg
1-5
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A419
Project Number: 48697.01.07
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: 1
On July 17, I 992, Ram Leather Care provided a Soil Vapor Extraction Proposal to the
NCDENR Attorney General's Office. A memo dated July 29, 1992, from the North
Carolina Hazardous Waste Inspector to the North Carolina Assistant Attorney General,
states that Ram Leather Care was not in compliance with NOV Docket#9 l-264. This
memo also stated that Ram Leather Care had made little attempt to meet the requirements
of the order, which required removal of on-site contaminated soil (Stanley, 1995).
On January 30, I 992, Mecklenburg County again sampled area wells. NCDEM
communicated to Mr. Worley on March 16, 1992, that he was still required to provide
alternate water supply to residents with contaminated wells. It was suggested that Mr.
Worley consider a point of entry filter system. On July 15, 1992, Ram Leather Care
sampled three water supply wells, including the new on-site well. An August I 0, 1992,
letter states that Ram Leather Care continues to supply alternate· water supplies to both
residences. On August 26, 1992, Mecklenburg County again sampled area wells and
determined that an additional residential well was also contaminated. On March 18, 1993,
Ram Leather Care filed for Chapter 7 Voluntary Bankruptcy. On April 19, I 993,
NCDEM requested that the Commerce Finance Center pursue funding to provide a
permanent alternate water supply (Stanley, 1995).
Additional well samples taken by Mecklenburg County on June 22, I 993, showed that
the well at 15205 Albemarle Road was contaminated. Subsequent tests have shown the
well clean. On September 8, 1993, North Carolina Division of Solid Waste Management,
Waste Management Branch referred the site to the North Carolina Superfund Section for
possible immediate action to provide a reliable alternative water supply to the residents.
A September 28, 1993, inspection report stated that the Ram Leather Care facility was in
Chapter 7 bankruptcy and had been unable to comply with Compliance Order with
Administrative Penalty Docket # 92-068 in full. Alternative water was still being
provided to area residents who would accept it, but site cleanup had not progressed
(Stanley, 1995). ,
On February I 6, I 994, the North Carolina Superfund Section requested that EPA
evaluate Ram Leather Care for a possible removal action and on March 16, 1994, the
EPA sampled on-site soil and neighboring wells. The EPA determined that wells
surrounding the site were below removal action levels and assigned the site a low priority
for removal action (Stanley, 1995).
1-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·1
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A419
Project Number: 48697.01.07
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: l
Between the EPA removal evaluation and September 26, 1995, a new deep well was
installed at the residence located across the street from the facility. The resident had
discontinued using bottled water and had resumed drinking the ground water. The new
well was sampled during the North Carolina Superfund Section Site Inspection on
September 26, 1995. The well showed 204 ppb of PCE, which was much higher than any
previous sampling results from that residence. The MCDEP also sampled the well and
found a high level of PCE. The North Carolina Superfund Section again requested an
EPA removal action. The EPA sampled the well and determined that it qualified for a
high priority removal action (Stanley, 1995).
ln May 1996, EPA's Emergency Response and Removal Branch (ERRB) installed
drinking water treatment systems at three residences with wells contaminated above
applicable drinking water standards, and the one residence with detectable levels of
contaminants. ERRB maintained the change out of the filters for the first year. Pre-and
post-filtration sampling confim1ed that the water treatment systems were effective at
removing chlorinated solvents to levels below drinking water standards.
Beginning in 1997, NCDENR.assumed responsibility for filter change outs for the next
three years. However, because of limited funds, NCDENR was unable to fund the filter
change outs beyond April 2000. NCDENR advised residents that the residents would be
financially responsible for future filter replacements beginning in spring 2001. According
to officials, residents may not have changed their filters as advised.
The Ram Leather Care site was proposed for inclusion to the National· Priorities List
(NPL) on April 30, 2003, and added on September 29, 2003. The NPL was established by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and is a list of the hazardous waste sites
across the nation where cleanup is warranted.
1.1.3 Interim Actions
On September 29, 2004, an Interim Record of Decision (!ROD) addressed a remedial
response action for the contaminated soils and ground water.· The interim soil remedy
includes Excavation, Off-site Transportation, and Disposal at a Subtitle C or D landfill.
The ground water component of the !ROD consists of Pump and Treat with
Physical/Chemical Treatment and Ground Water Monit_oring. ·
1-7
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A419
Project Number: 48697.01.07
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: I
1.1.3.1 Soil Remedy. Although surface soil contaminant levels did not pose a human
health risk, contaminant levels in surface and subsurface soils may still impact 6>round
water. The potential for soil contamination to impact 6,round water in conjunction with
the maximum contaminant level (MCL) exceedances present in ground water suggested
the need to develop a soil remediation goal based on 6,round water protection. Using the
North Carolina Hazardous Waste Section Soil Screening Levels, for the Protection of
Ground water (NC HWS SSL) of 3 µgikg for PCE, allows the interim action to target the
potentially most problematic soils regarding contamination of ground water without
impeding the ability to collect additional site data needed to develop a final ground water
remedial action (NCDENR, 2000).
.I
WRS Infrastructure & Environment, Inc. (WRS) completed the excavation and offsite
disposal of surface and subsurface soils in April 2008. However, a survey of the
excavation limits was not performed.
While soil exceedances occurred at depths up to 40 feet below ground surface (bgs), the
depth of soil addressed in the interim action extended only to 18 feet bgs, the
approximate depth to the ground water table at the time of the removal. Based on the
approximate area of excavation, an estimated 2,400 cubic yards of soil in the drum
storage area was removed during the interim remedy.
1.1.3.2 Ground Water Remedy. The selected interim remedy consists of pumping
ground water from an existing on-site well (DW0 I I) to an on-site wastewater treatment
system and subsequent discharge to surface water. WRS installed the system in 2008 and
the system began operation August 6, 2008. Polu Kai Services conducts the Operation
and Maintenance of the system and produced the first quarterly report in October 2008.
Treatment system influent samples (as well as mid-and post-treatment samples) are
collected monthly.
In 2008, the EPA installed a public water supply line to residences with wells
contaminated above drinking water standards. By August 2008, four property owners
were brought on-line. In December 2008, the impacted wells were abandoned. The well
abandonment records are provided in Appendix A.
1-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I '
I
I
I
g
I
0
I
I
I
I
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A419
Project Number: 48697.01.07
1.1.4 Objectives of Risk Assessment
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: l
This HHRA evaluates the potential risks to human health and the environment due to
releases of chemicals at the site. The main objective of this HHRA is to provide the
infonnation necessary to assist in the decision-making process. The specific objectives
of the HHRA are to:
, Identify and provide analysis of baseline risks (defined as risks that might exist if
no remediation or institutional controls were applied at the site) and help
detennine what action is needed at the site.
, Provide a basis for dctennining the levels of chemicals that can remain onsite and
still not adversely impact public health and the environment.
• Provide a basis for comparing potential health and environmental impacts of
various remedial altemati ves.
The HHRA results will be used to document the magnitude of potential risk at the site
and associated cause(s) of that risk. The results will also be used to establish any
remedial goal options (RGOs) that may be necessary. Finally, the results of the HHRA
will help determine what, if any, remedial response actions may be necessary and assist
in establishing the remediation goals that will be presented in the feasibility study.
1.2 Organization of the Baseline Risk Assessment Report
The procedures used in the performance of the HHRA and its scope are consistent with
and based on EPA guidance procedures and policies for the perfonnance of risk
assessments at hazardous waste sites.
1.2.1 Human Health Risk Assessment
• Data Collection and Evaluation
• Exposure Assessment
, Toxicity Assessment
• Risk Characterization
• Remedial Goal Options
1.2.1.1 Data Collection and Evaluation. This step in the risk assessment process
involves gathering and analyzing the site data relevant to the human health evaluation
1-9
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A4 I 9
Project Number: 48697.01.07
and identifying the chemicals present
assessment process (EPA, 1989).
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: 1
at the site that will be included m the risk
The analytical data for the samples collected in 2006 through 2008 were used to develop
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) Part D analytical summary tables
which include statistical information about the chemicals detected in each medium.
Using approved screening criteria, a list of the COPCs were developed for subsurface soil
and ground water (EPA, 200 I). Uncertainties associated with data evaluation and
selection of COPCs were 'also discussed in this subsection. Data evaluation and
selection of CO PCs are performed in Sections 2.1.2 and 2.2 of this report.
1.2.1.2 Exposure Assessment. An exposure assessment was conducted to estimate
the ma1,'Ilitude of actual (current) and potential (future) human exposures to site media,
\ the frequency and duration of these exposures, and the pathways that result in human
exposures. In the exposure assessment, conservative estimates of exposure were
developed for both current and future land-use assumptions. Current exposure estimates
were used to determine if a threat is present based on existing exposure conditions at the
site. Future exposure estimates were to provide decision-makers with an understanding
of potential exposure pathways and their associated threats. Conducting the exposure
assessment involved analyzing contaminant releases; identifying exposed populations;
identifying all the potential pathways of exposure; estimating exposure point
concentrations (EPCs) for specific pathways; estimating contaminant intakes for specific
pathways; and outlining the uncertainties associated with this process. The results of the
exposure assessment are pathway-specific intakes of chemicals at the site under current
and future exposure scenarios (EPA, I 989). The exposure assessment is presented in
Section 3 .0 of this report.
1. 2. 1.3 Toxicity Assessment. The toxicity assessment determined the types of
adverse health effects associated with chemical exposures, the relationship between
magnitude of exposure and adverse effects, and the related uncertainties involved. Risk
assessments rely heavily on existing toxicity information developed for specific
chemicals. The primary source for this information was the Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS) database; however, additional secondary sources were also used. The
toxicity component in a risk assessment falls into two categories, those related to
noncarcinogenic hazards and those related to carcinogenic risks. To evaluate
1-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
a
I
.
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A4 I 9
Project Number: 48697.01.07
Ram leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: I
noncarcinogenic hazards, the intake of a chemical was compared to the corresponding
reference dose (RfD) of that compound. The RtD used in the risk assessment is a best
estimate of the level at which there will be no observed adverse effects to the exposed
population. To evaluate carcinogenic risks, the intake of a chemical was factored with
the slope factor for that contaminant. The slope factor used in the risk assessment
represents the 95 percent upper confidence limit (UCL) for the best estimate of the
carcinogenic potency of a compound, or its ability to cause cancer in an exposed
population. For humans, both the RtDs and slope factors are usually derived from animal
dose-response relationships and sometimes human epidemiology studies (EPA, I 989).
The toxicity assessment is presented in Section 4.0 of this report.
1.2.1.4 Risk Characterization. The risk characterization section of the risk
assessment summarizes and combines the exposure and toxicity assessments to
characterize baseline risks, both quantitatively and qualitatively. During risk
characterization, chemical-specific toxicity information is compared with the estimated
exposure levels to determine whether chemicals at the site pose current or future risks
that are of a magnitude to cause concern. This subsection includes an uncertainty
analysis that shows that the calculated risks are relative in nature and do not present an
absolute quantification. The risk characterization is presented in Section 5.0 of this
r~port .
1.2.1.5 Remedial Goal Options. RGOs for human receptors were presented based
on the site-specific results of the risk characterization. The RGO subsection of the
HHRA contains an appropriate narrative and media cleanup levels for each contaminant
of concern in each land-use scenario evaluated. Chemicals of concern (COCs) are
COPCs that significantly contribute to a pathway in a use scenario for a receptor that
exceeds a I 0-4 total carcinogenic risk or exceeds a hazard index of I (EPA, 2000).
Individual chemicals contributing to these pathways did not have RGOs developed if
their contribution was less than I o·6 risk for carcinogens or a hazard quotient less than 0.1
for noncarcinogens. The tables show the I o-4, I o·5, and I o·6 risk levels and the 0.1, I, and
3 hazard quotient levels for each applicable chemical in each medium (EPA, 2000).
In cases where Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) have
been developed for specific COCs, a comparison between these ARARs and estimated
exposure levels was made. RGOs are presented in Section 6.0 of this report.
1-11
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A4 J 9
Project Number: 48697.01 .07
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: I
1.2.1.6 Tables. All RAGS Part D Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME) tables for
the HHRA are included in Appendix B. Central Tendency (CT) tables are included in
Appendix C.
1-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
I
D
' I
m
i
I
I
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A419
. Project Number: 48697.01.07
2.0 Human Health Risk Assessment
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: 2
The primary guidance used in the HHRA is provided below. EPA Region 4 guidance
was given preference over Federal EPA guidance, where appropriate. Other specific
documents were referenced in the report where relevant and arc included in Section 12.0
of this report.
• EPA, 1989. RAGS. Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Parr A),
Interim Final, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC,
EPA/540/1-89/002, 1989.
• EPA, 1991a. RAGS, Volume I: Human Health Evaluarion Manual Supplemental
Guidance, Standard Default Exposure Factors, Interim Final, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), OSWER Directive: 9285.6-03, 1991.
• EPA, 1992. Guidance for Data Usability in Risk Assessmenr (Part A), Final,
PB92963356, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC,
April 1992.
• EPA, 1997a. Exposure Factors Handbook, Office of Research and Development,
EP A/600/P-95/002, August I 997.
• EPA, 2000. Supplemental to RAGS: Region 4 Bulletins Human Health Risk
Assessment Bulletins. EPA Region 4, originally published November I 995,
Website version last updated May 2000:
http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/oftecser/healtbul.htm
• EPA, 2004. RAGS. Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part E.
Supplemental Guidance.for Dermal Risk Assessment, Final, July 2004.
• EPA, 2009a. IRIS, Online, National Center for Environmental Assessment,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 2008.
• EPA, 2009b. Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Supert\.md
Sites,http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-oncentration table/index.htm,
May 19.
2.1 Data Collection and Evaluation
This step in the risk assessment process involves gathering and analyzing the site data
relevant to the human health evaluation and identifying the chemicals present at the site
that will be included in the risk assessment process (EPA, I 989). The objectives of this
2-1
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A419
Project Number: 48697.IJ 1.07
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: 2
subsection are to review and summarize the analytical data for each medium sampled at
site and to select the COPCs to be evaluated in the HHRA.
2.1.1 Data Collection
Investigations to date have shown that soils at the site and ground water 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,
·\) \ I; semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), and pesticides are not a problem at the site. ~t ..>e;V,v,o
1
' Data used in this assessment were obtained from three separate investigations. The first
was conducted by E~ESD io April ?QQ6 SESD collected water from 11 potable
_wells for VOC analysis. D~a obtained from this ev-;;t were reported m a memorandum
_____ from Tim Simpson to Beverly Stepter dated May 30, 2006, is included as Appendix D. ----------;--"---~-:--_:___ _ _:___-,----,.,.. .:--:--:------"·~--,,...,---The second source of data was an investigafion conducted by Black & VeaTutrin
September 2007. This investigation included the sampling of well DW0 I I, monitoring
wells MW-I, MW-2, MW-2D, MW-ID, MW-3D, MW-4D, and 14 residential wells. The
data were reported to EPA in a Data Evaluation R p.uct.dated November 2007 (Black &
I ________ V,;..e::,a::_:t:::;ch:_::,'--"2:::_00:,.7~. The third source of data was an investigation conducted by Black &
[)e.c 2Do'D Veatch in December 2008. This investigation included the collection of 503 subsurface
., ,;...,lo S ) soil screening samples and 49 confirmation samples from 22 soil boring locations and a
<;br [,ve.e.,, second round of discreet interval 6>round water sampling of deep well (DW0l l) at ten
. Q s J. f J.,,-,Jdifferent intervals (ranging from 110 to 468 feet bgs). The findings were reported in a '-\ \ l C ~~.f,.t,,P'
ioliv-.l!'[i
,,,,.,_, Draft Data Evaluation Report dated May 2009 (Black & Veatch, 2009).
2.1.2 Data Evaluation
In accordance with EPA guidance (EPA, 1989), the list of constituents selected for the
quantitative HHRA for the site includes those that were:
• Positively identified in at least one sample in a given medium, including (a)
constituents with no qualifiers attached and (b) constituents with qualifiers
attached.
• Detected at levels significantly elevated above levels of the same chemicals
detected in associated blank samples.
• Screening level results confirmed by laboratory analysis.
2-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
I
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A4 I 9
Project Number: 48697.01.07
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: 2
The analytical data may ha~e qualifiers from the analytical laboratory quality control or
· from the data validation process that reflect the level of confidence in the data. Some of
the more common qualifiers and their meanings are (EPA, 1989):
• U -Chemical was analyzed for but not detected; the associated value ts the
reporting limit.
, J -Value is estimated.
• R -Quality control indicates the data are unusable ( chemical may or may not be
present).
, N -The analysis indicates the presence of an analyte for which there 1s
presumptive evidence to make a "tentative identification."
Data results flagged with the "J" qualifier were used in the HHRA. However, "N"
qualified data were evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine its suitability for use
in the HHRA. None of the "R" qualified data was reused in the HHRA. The handling of
"U" qualified data (non-detects) in the HHRA will be discussed in Section 3.3.4. The
uses of data with other less common qualifiers were also evaluated on a case-by-case
basis.
To prevent the inclusion of non-site related constituents in the HHRA, the data set was
reviewed to identify constituents detected in the field and/or laboratory blanks. The EPA
considers acetone, 2-butanone, methylene chloride, toluene, and phthalate esters to be
common laboratory contaminants. In accordance with RAGS (EPA, 1989) sample results
for common laboratory contaminants were considered positive only if the concentration
in the sample exceeded ten times the maximum concentration detected in any blank. In
addition, sample results for uncommon laboratory contaminants ( all contaminants not
considered common) were considered positive only if the concentration in the sample
exceeded five times the maximum concentration detected in any blank.
The analytical data were evaluated for usability following procedures described in the
EPA Guidance for Data Usability in Risk Assessments (EPA, 1992). Evaluation under
this guidance involves gathering the analytical data generated during site investigations
and sorting the data by medium; evaluating analytical methods; evaluating the quality of
2-3
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A419
Project Number: 48697.01.07
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: 2
data with respect to sample quantitation limits, qualifiers, and blanks; and producing a set
of data that qualifies for use in the HHRA.
2.2 Identification of Chemicals of Potential Concern
COPCs are a subset of all chemicals positively identified at the site. The risks associated
with the COPCs are expected to be more significant than the risks associated with other
less toxic, less prevalent, or less concentrated chemicals at the site that are not evaluated
quantitatively. The process of determining the CO PCs included a detailed evaluation of
the analytical data, a careful analysis of the sources of contamination and areas that the
sources impact, and a review of site characteristics.
RAGS Part D Tables 2.1 and 2.2 list all chemicals that have been detected in at least one
sampling location from !,'TOund water and subsurface soil, respectively. Sampling
locations for ground water and subsurface soil are presented on Figures 2-1 and 2-2,
respectively. In accordance with RAGS Part D, Tables 2.1 and 2.2 also contain statistical
information about the chemicals detected in each medium, the detection limits of
chemicals analyzed, risk-based screening values for COPC selection, and the chemicals
selected or deleted as COPCs. In accordance with EPA Region 4 guidance (EPA, 2000),
the following screening criteria were used to select or eliminate each chemical:
• Ground water data concentrations of detected chemicals were compared to the
EPA tap water screening values contained in EPA's Regional Screening Levels
for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites (EPA, 2009). If the maximum
detected concentration was less than a carcinogenic risk level of I x 10·6 or HQ of
0.1, the chemical was eliminated from the COPC list (EPA, 2000).
• Subsurface soil data were compared to industrial screening values contained in
the same document cited above (EPA, 2009). If the maximum detected
concentration was less than a carcinogenic risk level of I x 1 o·6 or HQ of 0.1, the
chemical was eliminated from the COPC list (EPA, 2000).
The constituents retained as COPCs for ground water and subsurface soil are listed in
Table 2-1.
2-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A419
Project Number: 48697.01.07
2.3 Uncertainties Associated With Data Evaluation
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: 2
The purpose of data evaluation is to determine which constituents, if any, arc present at
the site at concentrations requiring further investigation. The screening process used to
select COPCs to evaluate in the HHRA was intended to include all chemicals with
concentrations high enough to be of concern for the protection of public health.
Uncertainty with respect to data evaluation can arise from many sources, such as the
quality and quantity of the data used to characterize the site, the process used to select
data to use in the risk assessment, and the statistical treatment of data.
2.3.1 Data Quantity and Quality
Only a small portion of the samples used in the risk assessment were analyzed for target
compound list/target analyte list (TCL/T AL) parameters. It is possible that organic
compounds may have been present at higher concentrations in soil samples that were not
analyzed for TCL parameters. This may lead to an underestimation of risk.
2.3.2 Reporting Limits
The reporting limits for non-detect VOCs were below the screening values. However,
eliminating non detect compounds and poor or low quality data from the HHRA can
result in underestimating risks associated with the site.
2-5
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A4 I 9
Project Number: 48697.01.07
3.0 Exposure Assessment
3.1 Overview of Exposure Assessment
Ram leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: 3
The objective of the exposure assessment is to estimate the types and magnitudes of
exposures to COPCs that are present at or migrating from the site. The results of the
exposure assessment are combined with chemical-specific toxicity infonnation to
characterize potential risk (EPA, 1989). The assessment of exposures presented in this
section is based upon and consistent with current EPA l,'l!idance.
I
The purpose of the exposure assessment is to estimate the magnitude of potential human
exposure to the COPCs at the Ram Leather Care site. The results of the exposure
assessment are subsequently combined with chemical-specific toxicity information to
quantitatively estimate the potential human health risks associated with chemical
exposure.
The exposure assessment process involves four main steps:
• Characterization of the exposure setting.
• Identification of the exposure pathways.
• Quantification of the exposure.
• Identification of uncertainties in the exposure assessment
3.2 Characterization of the Exposure Setting
The following section details physical setting and land use that may influence exposure
for residents living near the Site.
3.2.1 Physical Setting
Potentially important aspects of the physical setting of the Site include climate, geology,
hydrology, and hydrogeology. Each of these aspects is separately discussed below.
3.2.1.1 Climate. Mecklenburg County, North Carolina has a humid, subtropical
climate. Mecklenburg County receives approximately 45 inches of rain per year, with a
temperature range from O de1,>rees Fahrenheit (°F) to I 00°F. January is typically the
coldest month of the year, and July is the warmest. The months with the highest amount
of rainfall are usually during the summer months, and the driest months are in the fall.
3-1
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A4 l 9
Project Number: 48697.01.07
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: 3
There is little ground water recharge in the summer months due to high evaporation and
transpiration rates (Cardinell, 1989).
3.2.1.2 Geology. Mecklenburg County lies within the Charlotte Belt in the Piedmont
Province of North Carolina. The folded and fractured rocks of the Charlotte Belt are
generally oriented northeast/southwest, and are composed of igneous and metamorphic
rocks. These rocks are of Precambrian to Paleozoic age and have undergone several
regional metamorphic events (Cardine!!, I 989).
The geologic horizon consists of three distinct zones: the surficial regolith, the underlying
transition zone, and the fracture crystalline bedrock. The regolith is composed of
alluvium, soil, and underlying saprolite. Alluvial deposits in the area ijre generally
confined to stream valleys, and are composed of unconsolidated deposits of these
streams. Soils in Mecklenburg County are largely formed from the saprolite itselt; and
are considered to be of the Ultisol order. These soils are highly acidic, weathered, and
leached (Cardinell, 1989). The saprolite underlying the soil is unconsolidated, and
formed from in-situ differential chemical and mechanical weathering of the underlying
parent rock, and ranges from five to 50 feet in thickness. Saprolite fonned from
weathering of metamorphic rocks, such as those found at the Ram Leather Care Site, is
commonly high in clay content. Vestiges of the parent rock, such as foliation, and
cobbles can be apparent in the saprolite.
A transition zone underlies the regolith and grades downward into fractured bedrock and
consists of partially-weathered, fractured bedrock, and some saprolite. Generally, the
minerals of the rock of the transition zone have not been chemically weathered to a high
degree, such as in the saprolite. This rock has been mainly exposed to mechanical
weathering (Cardinell, 1989). Particle sizes in the transition zone can range from clays
and silts to rocks and unweathered boulders of bedrock (Daniel, 1989). Massive rocks
can have a less distinct transition zone, but at the Site, the transition zone is
approximately 40 feet thick (Black & Veatch, 2008).
Beneath the regolith and the transition zone is the fractured bedrock. The basement rock
of the area is composed of igneous and metamorphic rocks which have undergone several
episodes of regional metamorphism. Fracturing in the rock occurs mainly due to stress
relief associated with erosion of overburden. The depth to bedrock in Mecklenburg
3-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A419
Project Number: 48697.01.07
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: 3
County varies greatly, but is generally between 5 and 92 feet bgs. Pinnacles of bedrock
that are relatively more resistant to chemical weathering can extend up into the saprolite,
and can give a false sense of the depth of the bedrock (Cardinell, 1989).
In December 2008, an investigation conducted by Black & Veatch at the Ram Leather
Care Site included the advancement of 22 boreholes for soil sampling. In most of the
borings, from the ground surface to roughly 20 to 30 feet bgs, silts, clays, and sandy clays
were encountered (a few borings encountered these clays from the !,'found surface to the
top of the bedrock). Beneath these silts, clays, and sandy clays were silty sands and
sands. These silty sands and sands increased in olive green color with depth. These
borings were installed to the top of bedrock, which consisted of !,'feenstone. The bedrock
was encountered at roughly 30 to 65 feet bgs.
3.2.1.3. Hydrology. 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.
3.2.1.3 Hydrogeo/ogy. The Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, area of North Carolina
receives approximately 45 inches of rainfall per year, but only about 7.6 inches of rainfall
enters the ground water system each year. A water budget was constructed for southern
Mecklenburg County by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for the period 1973 to 1976.
Approximately 16.2 inches of the yearly rainfall goes directly to surface runoff and
streams. Evapotranspiration represents another 21.2 inches of the yearly rainfall.
Ground water recharge from rainfall to the surficial ground water system accounted for
7.6 inches of the annual rainfall (Cardinell, 1989). Principles of !,'found water flow
3-3
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A4l9
Project Number: 48697.01.07
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: 3
suggest the location of the site on a semi-regional topographic divide may create
conditions for significant downward hydraulic 6,,-adient (Freeze and Cherry, 1979)
The hydraulic conductivity of the regolith is relatively low due to the high amount of
clay, and rarely exceeds I 00 feet per day. Relic structures of metamorphic mineral plains
create anisotropic conditions. The regolith is a reservoir that supplies water to the
transition zone and eventually the fractured bedrock (Daniel, 1989). Alluvium in the area
can have a range of hydraulic conductivity from I to I 00 feet per day, but is limited to
localized stream deposits (Cardinell, 1989).
The transition zone is a region of high permeability and high hydraulic conductivity
where unconsolidated and weathered material grades down irito the fractured bedrock
(Daniel, 1989). Porosity in the transition zone is less than the porosity of the regolith.
The hydraulic conductivity of the transition zone may be significantly greater than the
hydraulic conductivity of the regolith (Daniel, 1989). This is due in part to the fact that
there is less clay content in the transition zone leading to less clogging of fractures. Less
clay is present due to a lesser degree of weathering in the transition zone as compared to
the regolith. The transition zone acts as a h_igh permeability zone between the fractured
bedrock below and the regolith above, and consequently has the capability to transport
contaminated water (Daniel, 1989).
The fractured bedrock in the area and beneath the site is composed of fractured igneous
and metamorphic rocks (Cardinell, 1989). These fractures formed by stress relief
associated with removal of overburden due to erosion. Some fracturing can also be
attributed to local and regional deformation during several tectonic events. The fractured
bedrock is considered anisotropic and has a hydraulic conductivity that ranges from I to
20 feet per day. Depth to bedrock in the area ranges from roughly 5 to 92 feet bgs
(Cardinell, I 989). At the Ram Leather Care site, the depth to fractured bedrock is
approximately 30 to 65 feet bgs.
3.3 Identification of Exposure Pathways
Receptor populations were selected based on current and potential future land use,
activities of the receptor populations, and a complete exposure pathway to contaminated
media. This HHRA quantitatively evaluates potential risks from exposure to COPCs in
ground water and subsurface soil.
3-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessn)ent Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A419
Project Number: 48697.01.07
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: 3
Residential property surrounds the 10-acre site. Privately owned parcels bound the site in
each direction. A small fishing pond is located on the parcel to the south. A gravel road
running southeast from the driveway of the site provides access to two residences to the
south. The site features are illustrated in Figure 1-1.
Most of the area within a 4-milc radius of the site relics on private or community ground
water wells for drinking water. Public water from a source outside the site vicinity serves
a small area 2 to 4 miles east of the site. Approximately 7,900 people obtain their
drinking water from wells within 4 miles of the site.
According to 2000 U.S. Census data, 928 people live within 1 mile of the Ram Leather
Care site. Ethnic groups within the I-mile radius include 851 whites, 42 blacks, 17 . ,
Hispanics, 15 Asians, and eight Arrierican Indians/ Alaska Natives. Included in these
numbers are I 03 children aged 6 and younger, 61 adults aged 65 and older, and 216
females aged 15 to 44. A total of 319 housing units exist within the I-mile area.
3.3.1 Exposure Pathway Analysis
Figure 3-1, the conceptual site model (CSM), incorporates information on the potential
chemical sources, affected media, release mechanisms, routes of migration, and known or
potential human receptors. The purpose of the CSM is to provide a framework with
which to identify potential exposure pathways occurring at the site.
An exposure pathway consists of four elements: (I) a source and mechanism of chemical
release; (2) a retention or transport medium (or media in cases involving media transfer
of chemicals); (3) a point of potential human contact with the contaminated medium; and
(4) an exposure route (e.g., ingestion) at the contact point (EPA, 1989). When all of
these clements are present, the pathway is considered complete. The assessment of
pathways by which human receptors may be exposed to COPCs includes an examination
of existing migration pathways (i.e. soil) and exposure routes (i.e, ingestion, dermal
absorption), as well as those that may be reasonably expected in the future.
After the sources of COPCs were identified, the next step in the development of the
conceptual model was to determine mechanisms of release to environmental media. The
primary release mechanisms were spills or leaks of dry cleaning solvents. Once released,
3-5
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A419
Project Number: 48697.01.07
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: 3
contaminants impacted the surface soil and the saprolite/partially weathered rock aquifer
underneath.
_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
mii,'fation 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. (Note that these impacted wells have been
abandoned). 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:
• Ground water. Potential receptors are current area residents who use private wells
and future site residents.
• Subsurface Soil. Potential receptors are future construction workers.
Potentially complete exposure pathways examined in this risk assessment are:
• ingestion of ground water
• inhalation of volatiles released from ground water during showering
• incidental ingestion of subsurface soil
• inhalation of particulates released from subsurface soil
• dermal contact with subsurface soil
3.3.2 Exposure Scenarios
This narrative discusses the rationale for selection of exposure pathways for both the
current and future exposure scenarios. RAGS Part D Table I outlines the scenarios,
exposure pathways, and routes of exposure that were quantitatively evaluated in the
HHRA.
3.3.2.1 Current/Future Resident. Current/future ofi~site residents may be exposed
to COPCs in ground water via ingestion, and inhalation and dermal contact with VOCs
released from ground water while showering.
3-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8
I
I
I I
I
I
•
I
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A419
Project Number: 48697.01.07
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: 3
3.3.2.2 Future Resident. Future on-site residents may be exposed to COPCs in
ground water via ingestion, and inhalation and dennal contact with VOCs released from
ground water while showering.
3.3.2.3 Future Construction Worker. Future construction workers may be exposed
to COPCs in soil while working at the site. Potential exposure routes for the construction
worker included incidental ingestion ot; dennal contact with, and inhalation of particulate
emissions from subsurface soil. Future construction workers may also be exposed to
COPCs in ground water via ingestion.
3.3.3 Quantification of Exposure
The following basic equation will be used to calculate human intake of a COPC
(EPA, I 989):
Dl=CxHIF Eq. 2.1
Where:
DI = Daily Intake [milligram (mg) of chemical per kg of body weight per day].
C = Concentration of the chemical in mg/kg
or milligram per liter (mg/L) parts per million (ppm)].
HIF = Human Intake Factor (kg of medium per kg body weight per day).
Each intake variable in the above equation has a range of values. The intake variable
values for a given pathway were selected so that the combination of intake variables
results in an estimate of the RM E that can be expected to occur (EPA, 1989). This
section describes the method by which the exposure concentrations and the H!Fs were
derived.
An example of how a HIF is derived is listed below:
HIF for a child resident ingesting soil= IR x EF x ED x CF x FI
BWxAT Eq. 2.2
Where:
3-7
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A419
Project Number: 48697.01.07
IR Ingestion Rate of Soil
EF = Exposure Frequency
ED = Exposure Duration
CF Conversion Factor
Fl Fraction Ingested
BW Body Weight
AT-N = Averaging Time (Non-Cancer)
(mg/day)
days/year
years
kg/mg
unitless
kg
days
200
350
6
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: 3
] X l0-6
15
2,190
In this case, the HIF is l.3E-05 milli1c,>rams per kilogram per day (mg/kg-day).
3.3.4 Exposure Point Concentrations
In the risk assessment process, potential risk is estimated as a function of exposure with
potential risk of adverse effects increasing as exposure increases. Information on the
levels of exposure experienced by different members of the population is key to
understanding the range of potential risks that may occur. In order to describe the range
of potential risk, both high and central tendency descriptors are used to convey the
variability in potential risk levels experienced by different individuals in the population.
For the purposes of this risk assessment, an estimate of the high end risk descriptor is the
RM E and the estimate of the central tendency descriptor is the central tendency exposure
(CTE). The CTE is discussed further in a subsection of the Risk Characterization
(Section 5.5).
EPA Region 4 suggests that ground water Exposure Point Concentrations (EPCs) should
be the arithmetic average of the wells in the highly concentrated area of the plume (EPA,
2000). However, for this site, the contamination is concentrated in one location (DW0 11)
and other monitoring wells are minimally contaminated. Thus, there is no plume per se.
The approach that was followed was to evaluate the data set as a whole (monitoring wells
and private wells) to screen for COPCs and to evaluate the data from individual wells as
exposure points. RAGS Part D Tables 3.1 through 3.6, included in Appendix B, contain
the EPCs for ground water.
For subsurface soil, the data set includes samples collected from multiple horizons in soil
borings 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 through 9, 13, 14, and 16 through 25. The maximum detected
concentration within the multiple horizons was used to represent the soil boring. In this
3-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-R!CO-A4 l 9
Project Number: 48697.01.07
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: 3
case, only boring 23 had an identified COPC. This concentration appears in RAGS Part D
Table 3.7, included in Appendix B.
3.3.5 Exposure Dose Algorithms and Assumptions
This subsection presents the mathematical models that were used to calculate the intakes
(i.e., doses) of CO PCs by each receptor through the applicable exposure routes.
Ideally, site-specific exposure infonnation is obtained during a visit to the site. The site-
specific infonnation is subsequently used in the risk assessment to provide the most
realistic estimate of risks and hazards resulting from potential exposure to contaminated
environmental media at the site.
The EPA has developed exposure algorithms for use in calculating RME chemical
intakes through the exposure pathways and routes that are relevant for this site. These
algorithms combine the chemical EPCs with potential pathways and route-specific
parameters to produce RMEs that can be expected to occur at the site. Ultimately, these
algorithms result in potential daily chemical intakes or doses which are expressed in
tenns of milligrams of chemical that could be taken into the body per kilogram of body
weight per day (mg/kg-day).
The exposure models and assumptions are presented in RAGS Part D Tables 4.1 through
4.4, included in Appendix B. Each table defines the exposure route variables and
includes assumptions (i.e., exposure parameters) used in the model for each scenario.
Additional infonnation regarding the assumptions is presented in the text. In the absence
of site-specific exposure data, EPA's standard default assumptions (EPA, 199 I; EPA,
1997b) were used to estimate RMEs for each receptor. EPA Region 4's Supplemental
Guidance to RAGS (EPA, 2000) and RAGS Part E Supplemental Guidance for Denna!
Assessment (EPA, 2004) were also used, where appropriate.
Chronic daily intakes were calculated for each exposure route applicable to the current
offsite resident, future onsite construction worker, and future onsite residents. Chronic
daily intakes were estimated separately for potential carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic
health effects in accordance with EPA methodology (EPA, 1989).
3-9
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A419
Project Number: 48697.01.07
3.3.6 Exposure Assumptions
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: 3
The current and future onsite residential scenarios assumed that individuals live in the
same residence for 30 years (EPA, 2000). In addition, it was assumed that residents take
about two weeks of vacation per year, spending 3 50 days per year at home (EPA, 2000).
Two age groups were evaluated: a child (age I to 6) and an adult; consequently, exposure
durations of 6 and 24 years, respectively were used. A body weight of 15 kg was used
for a child while a body weight of 70 kg was used for an adult resident (EPA, 1991 ). The
following subsection presents the assumptions that were used to calculate chronic daily
intakes (i.e., doses) of chemicals of eores for each receptor through the applicable
exposure routes.
It was assumed that future onsite constrnction activities will need to occur at the site and
would last for one year. Therefore, the future constrnction worker scenario assumed that
an individual works at the site 250 days (five days a week for 50 weeks) for a period of
one year. A body weight of 70 kg was used for constrnction workers (EPA, 1991 ).
3.3.6.1 Ingestion of Ground water. Ground water ingestion is considered to be a
potential exposure route for current offsite residents, future onsite constrnction workers,
and future onsite residents. The drinking water ingestion intake used for workers
assumed that one-half of the daily water intake, or one liter per day, occurs at the
workplace. The drinking water ingestion rates that were used for the residents ( children
and adults) assume that all daily water intake occurs at home. The drinking water
ingestion rate for the adult resident is two liters per day (EPA, 1991). It was assumed
that the drinking water intake for children is one liter per day.
3.3.6.2 Inhalation/Dermal Contact while Showering. voes may be released to
indoor air through a variety of home activities, including showering, cooking, dish
washing, and laundering clothes. Inhalation and dermal contact while showering were
evaluated to account for doses of voes received from non-ingestion uses of water for
future onsite adult and child residents. Some researchers believe that inhalation/dermal
contact doses of voes through typical home use may be as great or 6'feater than doses
from the ingestion of water. Based on experimental results for the transfer of
trichloroethene from water to air in the shower stall, McKone and Knezovich (I 99 I b)
report that inhalation/dermal exposures in showers could be equivalent to drinking water
contact of one to four liters. In accordance with EPA Region 4 guidance (EPA, 2000),
3-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
;I
I
I
I
I
D
D
I
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A419
Project Number: 48697.01.07
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: 3
this risk assessment assumed that the dose from inhalation of and dennal contact with
VOCs while showering was equivalent to an ingestion rate of two liters per day as
described by McKone and Knezovich. Therefore, when calculating hazards and cancer
risks for the inhalation/dermal pathways, the EPCs of each VOC and the intake are
identical to the EPCs and intake for ingestion of ground water.
3.3.6.3 Incidental Ingestion of Subsurface Soil. Incidental surface soil ingestion
can result from placing soil-covered hands or objects in the mouth. Surface soil ingestion
is a potential route of exposure for future onsite construction worker.
It was assumed that a future onsite construction worker is exposed to COPCs in surface
soil and subsurface soil five days a week for a period of one year (a total of 250 days).
Due to intensive contact with soil during the initial phases of construction projects (e.g.,
installation of underground utilities, foundation installation), it was assumed that a future
construction worker ingests 330 milligrams per day (mg/day) [(EPA Region 4's default
soil ingestion rate for this receptor (EPA, 2001)] for 3 months or 62.5 days and 9 months
or 187.5 days at 100 mg/day. The Weighted Average Ingestion Rate is [(330 x 62.5) +
(100 x 187.5)] / 250 days= 157.5 mg/day.
3.3.6.4 Dermal Absorption from Subsurface. Dermal contact with subsurface
soil could result in absorption of chemicals through the skin. Denna! absorption of
chemicals from soil is a potential exposure route for future onsite construction workers.
The exposed skin areas that were used to evaluate dennal contact with surface soil are
outlined below:
• Future Onsite Construction Worker was assumed to be 25 percent of the 50th
percentile total body surface area of an adult male (5,000 cm\ This is the
recommended value in EPA's Exposure Factors Handbook for adults and outdoor
soil (EPA, 1997b).
In the absence of chemical-specific absorption factors, as recommended in the EPA
Region 4 Guidance (2000), absorption factors of 1.0 percent and 0.1 percent were used
for organics and inorganics, respectively. EPA Region 4 !,'Uidance also recom~ends a
range of 0.2 -1.0 milligrams per square centimeter (mg/cm2) for the soil to skin
3-1 I
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A419
Project Number: 48697.01.07
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: 3
adherence factor (Er A, 2000). An adherence factor of 0.1 mg/cm2 was used for the
construction worker.
3.3.6.5 Inhalation of Particulate Emissions from Soil. Inhalation of particulate
emissions from soil could occur during excavation and construction activities at the site.
Inhalation of particulate emissions from subsurface soil is a potential exposure route for
the future construction worker. It was assumed that a construction worker inhales site-
related cores at a rate of 20111 3 per day, 250 days per year, for a period of one year.
3.3.7 Uncertainties in Exposure Pathways and Parameters
The exposure assumptions directly influence the calculated doses (daily intakes), and
ultimately the risk calculations. Site-specific exposure parameters were not available for
this HHRA; therefore, conservative default exposure assumptions were used in
calculating exposure doses such as the selection of exposure routes and exposure factors
(i.e., contact rate). In most cases, this uncertainty will overestimate the most probable
realistic exposures and, therefore, overestimate risk. This is appropriate when perfonning
risk assessments of this type so that the risk managers can be reasonably assured that the
public risks are not underestimated, and so that risk assessments for different locations
and scenarios can be compared.
In order to estimate a receptor's potential exposure at a site, it is necessary to detennine
the geob'Taphical location where the receptor is assumed to be exposed. Once the area of
interest has been defined, the appropriate data can be selected and the Ere can be
calculated. Factors that contribute to the uncertainty in ErCs include data availability
and data heterogeneity.
• core concentrations m soil for future use were assumed to be the same as
current concentrations, with no adjustment due to migration or degradation. This
will result in an overestimation of dose.
Ideally, areas of exposure should be defined based on actual exposures or known
behaviors of receptors at the site. Often, however, as in the case of this risk assessment,
this information is unavailable. Lacking absolute knowledge about the activities that
occur at the site or about behaviors of receptors at or near the site, it was necessary to
make some assumptions. Such assumptions will add to the uncertainty in the HHRA.
3-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
I
I
I
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A419
Project Number: 48697.01.07
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: 3
The RME concept was used to develop exposure doses in the current and future scenarios
and is defined as the "maximum exposure that is reasonably expected to occur at the site"
(EPA, 1989). Several variables that were used to determine the exposure dose for the
RME are generally based on upper-bound (typically 901h percentile or greater) estimates.
These are:
• Exposure duration (ED) (upper-bound value).
• Intake/contact rate (IR).
• Exposure frequency (EF).
Therefore, the calculated exposure dose for any given chemical, which results from
integration of these variables, typically represents an upper-bound probable exposure
dose estimate. The use of. these upper-bound exposure parameters, coupled with
conservative estimates of toxicity, will yield risk results that represent an upper-bound
estimate of the occurrence of carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic health effects.
Generally, in order to present a range of possible exposure estimates, a central tendency
risk descriptor is calculated in addition to the RME risk. In accordance with EPA Region
4 policy, central tendency risk descriptors are included in the uncertainty subsection of
the risk characterization. The RME approach characterizes risk at the upper end of the
risk distribution, while the central tendency approach characterizes either the arithmetic
mean risk or the median risk. The inclusion of both RME and central tendency risk
describers provides perspective for the risk manager. However, the National
Contingency Plan (NCP) Section 300.430(d) states, "The reasonable maximum exposure
estimates for future uses of the site will provide the basis for the development of
protective exposure levels."
3-13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA.Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RlCO-A4 I 9
Project Number: 48697.01.07
4.0 Toxicity Assessment
4.1 Overview of Toxicity Assessment
Ram Lealher Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: 4
The purpose of the toxicity assessment is to identify the types of adverse health effects
that a COPC may potentially cause to define the relationship between the dose of a
compound and the likelihood and magnitude of an adverse effect (response). Adverse
effects arc characterized by the EPA as carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic. Dose-
response relationships are defined by the EPA for oral and inhalation exposures. .Oral
dose-response values were used to derive appropriate dermal toxicity values.
The dose-response assessment evaluates the available toxicity information and
quantitatively describes the relationship between the level of exposure (either from
animal or human epidemiological studies) and the occurrence of an adverse health effect.
This relationship is described by a cancer slope factor (CSF) or unit risk factor (URF) for
carcinogens and a RtD or reference concentration (RfC) for systemic toxicants,
collectively called toxicity values.
Toxicity values were obtained from the following hierarchy of sources in accordance
with the EPA Office ofSupcrfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (EPA, 2003):
•
•
•
Tier l -IRIS.
Tier 2 -Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTVs) .
Tier 3 -Other (Peer Reviewed) Values, including: ATSDR, Minimal Risk Levels
(MRLs); California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) values; and
Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST).
4.2 Carcinogenic and Noncarcinogenic Toxicity Values
In evaluating potential health risks, both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic health effects
must be considered. The potential for producing carcinogenic effects is limited to
substances that have been shown to be carcinogenic in animals and/or humans.
Excessive exposure to all substances, carcinogens and noncarcinogens, can produce
adverse noncarcinogenic effects. Therefore, it is necessary to identify reference doses for
every chemical selected regardless of its classification, and to identify cancer slope
factors for those that are classified as carcinogenic.
4-1
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A4 I 9
Project Number: 48697.01.07
4.2.1 Estimates of Noncarcinogenic Toxicity
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: 4
Toxicity criteria used to evaluate potential noncarcinogenic health effects are termed
Rills. It is assumed in developing R±Ds that a threshold dose exists below which there is
no potential for human toxicity. The term RtD was developed by the EPA to refer to the
daily intake of a chemical to which an individual can be exposed without any expectation
of noncarcinogenic effects (e.g., organ damage, biochemical alterations, birth defects)
occurring during a given exposure period. The RID is derived from a no-observed-
adv_erse-effect level (NOAEL) or lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL)
obtained from human or animal studies. Standard order-of-magnitude uncertainty
factors, and in certain cases, an additional modifying factor are applied to account for
professional assessment of scientific uncertainties in the available data (EPA, 1989).
A NOAEL is that dose of chemical at which no toxic effects are observed in any of the
test subjects or animals. The· study chosen to establish the NOAEL is based on the
criterion that the measured toxic endpoint represents the most sensitive ("critical") target
organ or tissue to that chemical (i.e., that target organ or tissue that shows evidence of
damage at the lowest dose). Since many chemicals can produce toxic effects on several
organ systems, with each toxic effect possibly having a separate threshold dose, the
distinction of the critical toxic effect ·provides added confidence that the NOAEL is
protective of health. In contrast to a NOAEL, a LOA EL is the lowest dose at which the
most sensitive toxic effect is observed in any of the test subjects or animals. If a LOA EL
is used in place of a NOAEL to derive an RtD, an additional level of uncertainty is
involved and, therefore, an additional order-ot~magnitude uncertainty factor is applied.
A variety of regulatory agencies have used the threshold approach for noncarcinogenic
substances in the development of health effects criteria, such as worker-related threshold
limit values (TL Vs), air quality standards, and food additive and drinking water
regulations. EPA has developed chronic Rills for the oral and inhalation routes, but not
for the dermal route. Human data are used preferentially if they are deemed adequate
through scientific evaluation. However, in many cases, adequate human toxicity data are
not available and animal studies have to be used.
4.2.1.1 Oral Reference Doses. Chronic Rills were available for most COPCs. A
Tier 3 RID was available for cis-1,2-Dichloroethene. The oral Rills for the COPCs arc
included in Appendix B, RAGS Part D Table 5.1.
4-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A4 I 9
Project Number: 48697.01.07
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: 4
4.2.1.2 Inhalation Reference Doses. Inhalation RtDs are used to evaluate the risk
from exposure to chemicals through inhalation exposure pathways such as the inhalation
of particulate emissions from surface soil or VOCs while showering. Inhalation toxicity
values are given as reference concentrations for' systemic toxicants. The conversion to an
inhalation reference dose is accomplished as follows:
Inhalation RfD (mg/kg-day)= RJC mg/m3 x (70 kgl1 x 20 nz3!day
Tier 3 RfCs were available for chloroform, PCE, and trans-1,2-dichloroethene. The
chronic inhalation RtDs are listed in Appendix B, RAGS Part D Table 5.2.
4.2.1.3 Dermal Reference Doses. No RtDs have been developed by EPA for the
dermal route. Therefore, dermal R!Ds were derived for the COPCs in accordance with
EPA guidelines (EPA, 1989). A chronic dermal RtD was derived for each chemical by
multiplying the value used as the chronic oral RtD' by an appropriate gastrointestinal
absorption value (ABSG1). This adjusts the dermal dose for the amount absorbed since
dermal exposure doses are expressed as "absorbed" doses (note that oral and inhalation
doses are usually expressed as "administered" doses). Oral R!Ds are normally developed
from long-term studies where a substance is administered orally to laboratory animals.
Depending on the form in which the chemical is administered, the relative absorption of
the chemical through the gastrointestinal tract (and therefore the relative absorption
factor) may vary considerably. Organic compounds tend to be more readily absorbed
through the GI tract than inorganic compounds. In accordance with RAGS Part E (2004),
when a compound specific value wasn't available, an ABSrn of I 00 percent was used.
Chronic oral RtDs, oral to dermal adjustment factors, primary target organs, and the
uncertainty/modifying factors associated with them are presented in RAGS Part D Table
5.1, included in Appendix B.
4.2.1.4 Other Issues Pertaining to Reference Doses. Chronic RtDs, which are
developed to evaluate potential toxicity at greater than seven years of exposure, are
presented in RAGS Part D Tables 5.1 and 5.2 and are used in estimating both childhood
and adult noncarcinogenic risk.
4-3
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A4 l 9
Project Number: 48697.01.07
4.2.2 Estimates of Carcinogenic Potency
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: 4
CSFs are developed by the EPA under the assumption that the risk of cancer from a given
chemical is linearly related to dose. The EPA may develop CSFs from laboratory animal
or epidemiological studies in which relatively high doses of the chemical were
administered. lt is conservatively assumed that these high doses can be extrapolated
downward to extremely small doses, with some incremental risk of cancer always
remaining until the dose is zero. This non-threshold theory assumes that even a small
number of molecules, possibly even one uncontrolled cell division, could eventually lead
to cancer. The slope factor for a chemical is usually derived by EPA using a linearized
multistage model and reflects the upper-bound limit of the cancer potency of the
chemical. As a result, the estimated carcinogenic risk is likely to represent a plausible
upper limit to the risk. The actual risk is unknown, but is likely to be considerably lower
than the predicted risk (EPA, 1989), and may even be as low as zero.
There is some dispute as to whether the extrapolation from high to low doses is a realistic
approach. It has been argued that at low doses cells may have the ability to detoxify
carcinogens or repair chemical-induced cellular damage. Although it is important to
recognize the possibility that some carcinogens may have a threshold for toxicity, it was
assumed in the estimates of risk that no threshold exists.
In defining the potential carcinogenicity of chemicals to humans, the EPA first evaluates
the sutliciency of evidence of carcinogenicity from available data. The evidence is
characterized separately for human and animals studies are sufficient, limited, adequate,
no data, or evidence of no effect. The characterizations of these two sets of data are
evaluated in combination and the chemical is assi 6'!1ed a weight-of-evidence
classification. The EPA has five groups of classification, which are as follows:
• A -Human carcinogen .
• B 1 -Probable human carcinogen; limited human data are available .
• B2 -Probable human carcinogen; sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in
animals and inadequate or no evidence in humans.
• C Possible human carcinogen .
• D Not classifiable to human carcinogenicity.
• E Evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans .
4-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A4 I 9
Project Number: 48697.01.07
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: 4
The carcinogenic potency of a substance depends on its route of entry into the body (i.e.,
oral, inhalation, or dermal). Therefore, slope factors are developed and classified
according to the administration route. ln some cases, a carcinogen may produce tumors
only at or near a specific route of entry (i.e., nasal passages) and may not be carcinogenic
through other exposure routes. Note also that EPA has not developed dennal slope factors
for any carcinogens (EPA, 2000).
4.2.2.1 Oral Slope Factors. Oral slope factors are used to evaluate the risk from
exposure to potential carcinogens through oral exposure pathways such as incidental
ingestion of soil and ingestion of ground water. Oral slope factors were available for the
carcinogens listed in RAGS Part D Table 6.1.
4.2.2.2 Inhalation Slope Factors. Inhalation slope factors are used to evaluate the
risk from exposure to potential carcinogens through inhalation exposure pathways such
as the inhalation of particulate emissions from surface soil. Inhalation toxicity values are
given as unit risks for carcinogens. The conversion to an inhalation slope factor is
accomplished as follows:
lnhal. SF= Unit Risk (µg!m 3y-l x 70 kg x (20 m3/dayl 1 x 1,000 µglmg
The inhalation slope factors are listed in Appendix B, RAGS Part D Table 6.2.
4.2.2.3 Dermal Slope Factors. As with reference doses, dermal slope factors are not
available from the EPA, but it was assumed that chemicals which are carcinogenic orally
will also produce cancer by dennal exposure. In the absence of dermal slope factors, the
oral slope factor is divided by an appropriate GI absorption factor (EPA, 1989). This
adjusts the dermal dose for the amount absorbed since dermal exposure doses are
expressed as "absorbed" doses (note that oral and inhalation doses are usually expressed
as "administered" doses). Oral slope factors are normally developed from long-tenn
studies where a substance is administered orally to laboratory animals. Depending on the
form in which the chemical is administered, the relative absorption of. the chemical
through the gastrointestinal tract (and therefore the relative absorption factor) may vary
considerably. The approach used to select the absorption factor was the same as that
previously described for RfDs. In accordance with RAGS Part E (2004), when a
compound specific value wasn't available, an ABSG 1 of 100 percent was used.
4-5
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A419
Project Number: 48697.01.07
4.2.3 Chemical-Specific Toxicity Assessments
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: 4
Toxicological information on the primary COPCs detected at the site is summarized and
included in Appendix E. This infomrntion was taken from the A TSDR Health
Assessment (ATSDR, 2008).
4.2.4 Uncertainties Associated with Toxicity Assessment
For a risk to exist, both significant exposure to the COPCs and toxicity at these predicted
exposure levels must exist. The toxicological uncertainties primarily relate to the
methodology by which carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic criteria (i.e., cancer slope
factors and reference doses) are developed. In general, the methodology currently used .
to develop CSFs and RIDs is very conservative and likely results in overestimation of
human toxicity. These and other factors are discussed in the subsections below.
4.2.4.1 Reference Doses. In the development of RtDs for each chemical by
exposure route, it is assumed that a threshold dose exists below which there is no
potential for adverse health effects to the most sensitive individuals in the population.
The RID is typically derived from dose-response studies in animals in which a NOAEL
or a LOAEL is determined by applying several uncertainty factors of 10 each. An
additional modifying factor of up to IO can be applied which accounts for a qualitative
professional assessment of additional uncertainties in the available toxicity data. EPA
recommended in a recent report that the total uncertainty factor not exceed 3,000 for an
RfC and I 0,000 for an RID (EPA, 2002). The RIDs are established to err on the side of
protecting human health.
Oral chronic RtDs were used in calculating hazard quotients for the I to 6 year old child.
The use of chronic RIDs in this age group is conservative and will result in
overestimation of risk. Chronic RtDs are developed assuming a lifetime daily exposure.
As noted above, EPA's Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at
Superfund Sites (EPA, 2009) was the source used for a few of the CO PCs. The Regional
Screening Levels are considered Tier 3 toxicity values, as cited in EPA memo Human
Health Toxicity Values in Superfund Risk Assessment, OSWER Directive 9285.7-53,
dated December 5, 2003. There is a higher level of uncertainty associated with these
sources, as opposed to sources considered Tier I and Tier 2 values.
4-6
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A419
Project Number: 48697.01.07
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: 4
4.2.4.2 Cancer Slope Factors. The EPA 's linear extrapolation approach assumes
there is an increased risk of cancer at all levels of exposure. This uncertainty implies that
exposure to even a single molecule of a chemical may be associated with a finite risk,
however small. The assumption is that even if relatively large doses of a chemical were
required to cause cancer in laboratory animals (i.e., much higher than a person would
ever likely be exposed to over a lifetime), these exposure doses can be linearly
extrapolated downward many orders of magnitude to estimate slope factors. A
significant uncertainty for the carcinogens is whether the CSFs accurately reflect the
carcinogenic potency of these chemicals at low exposure concentrations. The calculated
CSF is used to estimate an upper-bound lifetime probability of an individual developing
cancer as a result of exposure to a particular carcinogen level. Therefore, the cancer
slope factors developed by EPA are generally conservative and represent the upper-
bound limit of the chemical's carcinogenic potency. The actual risk posed by each
chemical is unknown but is likely to be lower than the calculated risk, and may even be
as low as zero. There is more uncertainty concerning the carcinogenic potential of Group
B and C carcinogens in humans, than with those compounds classified as Group A
carcinogens.
The Ca!EPA was the source used for the slope factor for 1,4-dichlorobenzene,
chloroform, PCE, and trichloroethene. The Cal EPA is considered a Tier 3 toxicity value.
Therefore, there is a higher level of uncertainty associated with this source, as opposed to
sources considered Tier 1 and Tier 2 values.
4.2.4.4 Site-Specific Toxicological Uncertainties. Site-specific uncertainties
include:
• Not assessing risks for chemicals without critical toxicity values.
• Using route-to-route extrapolation to calculate dermal risks.
• Using provisional toxicity values to calculate risks. Provisional toxicity values
are interim values that are established by the National Center for Environmental
Assessment (NCEA) but have not been through the EPA verification process and,
as such, are not listed in IRIS.
• Using Tier 3 toxicity values.
4-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A4l9
Project Number: 48697.01.07
5.0 Risk Characterization
5.1 Overview of Risk Characterization
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: 5
The objective of the risk characterization is to integrate the exposure and toxtctty
assessments into quantitative and qualitative expressions of risk. A detailed risk
characterization is presented in this subsection.
The risk characterization is an evaluation of the nature and degree of potential
carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic health risks posed to current and future receptors at the
Ram Leather Care site. The pathways of exposure are described in Section 3.0. Human
health risks for noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic effects are discussed independently
because of the different toxicological endpoints, relevant exposure durations, and
methods employed in characterizing risk. The potential for carcinogenic effects is
limited to only those chemicals classified as carcinogens, while both carcinogenic and
noncarcinogenic chemicals are evaluated for potential noncarcinogenic effects.
Noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic risks were evaluated for each exposure pathway and
scenario by inte1,>rating the exposure doses calculated in Section 3.0 (Exposure
Assessment) with the toxicity criteria determined in Section 4.0 (Toxicity Assessment)
for the chemicals of potential concern. The evaluation of noncarcinogenic risks is
summarized in Table 5-1.
The risk characterization tables (RAGS Part D Tables 7.1 through 7.7) present the EPCs,
intake factors, toxicity values, and the quantification of risks and hazards. Each table
contains an intake factor which was generated from the formulas and assumptions
presented in Tables RAGS Part D Table 4.1 through 4.4. The reference doses and slope
factors came from RAGS Part D Tables 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, and 6.2. The hazards or risks from
each chemical are summed to yield the final pathway risk or HI. Summaries of receptor
risks and hazards are presented in RAGS Part D Tables 9.1 through 9.7. Finally, RAGS
Tables I 0.1 through I 0. 7 present cancer risk and noncancer hazard infonnation for those
CO PCs and media/exposure points that may trigger the need for remedial action.
5.2 Evaluation of Noncarcinogenic Risks
The risk of adverse noncarcinogenic effects from chemical exposure is expressed in terms
of the HQ. The HQ is the ratio of the estimated dose [ daily intake (DI)] that a human
5-1
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A4 I 9
Project Number: 48697.01.07
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: 5
receives to the RtD, the estimated dose below which it is unlikely for even sensitive
populations to experience adverse health effects. The HQ is calculated as follows (EPA,
1989):
HQ = DI/RID
Where:
HQ = Hazard Quotient (unitless)
DI Daily Intake (mg/kg/day)
RtD = Reference Dose (mg/kg/day)
All the HQ values for chemicals within each exposure pathway are summed to yield the
hazard index (HI). Each pathway HI within a land use scenario (e.g., future worker) is
summed to yield the total HI for the receptor. If the value of the total HI is less than 1.0,
it is interpreted to mean that the risk of noncarcinogenic injury is low. If the total HI is
!,'feater than 1.0, it is indicative of some degree of noncarcinogenic risk, or effect, and
COCs are selected (EPA, 2000). COCs arc those COPCs that contribute a HQ of 0.1 or
greater to any pathway evaluated for the use scenario. Using the HQ equation, the
chronic DI values, and the RID values, a hazard index for each of the exposure scenarios
considered in this risk assessment was estimated by calculating a HQ for each COPC
a.ssociated with a complete pathway and exposure point. The results of these calculations
are presented in RAGS Part D Tables 7.1 through 7.7 and 9.1 through 9. 7. RAGS Part D
Tables IO.I through 10.7 present noncancer hazard information for those COCs and
media/exposure points that may require remedial action. Table 5-1 summarizes the HI for
each population.
As indicated by the Summary of Human Health Risks and Hazards, Table 5-1, the total
HI was well below the threshold of concern for the current/future child resident. Non-
cancer hazards are not expected. However, the future child resident and future onsite
construction worker were above the acceptable limit of 1.0. Exposure to PCE in ground
water accounts for the majority of the non-cancer hazard.
5-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A419
Project Number: 48697.01.07
5.3 Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: 5
The incremental risk of developing cancer from exposure to a chemical at the site is
defined as the additional probability that an individual exposed will develop cancer
during his or her lifetime (assumed to be 70 years). This value is calculated from the
average daily intake over a lifetime [ chronic daily intake (CD!)] and the slope factor (SF)
for the chemical as follows (EPA, 1989):
Risk = CDI x SF
When the product of CD I x SF is greater than 0.0 I, this expression may be estimated as:
Risk I (-CDI x SF) -exp
Using the first equation, where appropriate, and employing the CDI values calculated for
lifetime exposure along with the SF values (RAGS Part D Tables 6.1 and 6.2), cancer
risks were calculated for lifetime exposures which may occur at the site. A summary of
the results is presented in the risk characterization tables (RAGS Part D Tables 7. I
through 7.7 and 9.I through 9.7). It is important to note that the carcinogenic risk
estimates presented in RAGS Part D Tables 7.1 through 7.7 and 9.1 through 9.7 represent
the summation of the individual risks associated with each of the COPCs for which
cancer information is adequately available.
According to EPA policy, the target total individual risk resulting from exposures at a
Superfund site may range anywhere between I x 10·6 and I x 10·4 (EPA; 2000). Thus,
remedial alternatives should be capable of redudng total potential carcinogenic risks to
levels within this range for individual receptors. OSWER Directive 9355.0-30, issued on
April 22, 1991, provides further insight into the acceptable risk range when it states:
"Where the cumulative carcinogenic site risk to an individual based on reasonable
maximum exposure for both current and future land use is less than 10·4, and the non-
carcinogenic hazard quotient is less than I, action generally is not warranted unless there
are adverse environmental impacts. However, if MCLs or non-zero maximum
contaminant limit goals (MCLGs) are exceeded, action generally is warranted. A risk
manager may also decide that a baseline risk level less than I 0·4 is unacceptable due to
site-specific reasons and that a remedial action is warranted. The upper boundary of the
risk range is not a discrete line at I x 10·4, although EPA generally uses I x 10·4 in
5-3
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RJCO-A419
Project Number: 48697.01.07
Ram Leather Care Site
ReviSion: 0
July 2009
Section: 5
making risk management decisions. A specific risk estimate around 10·4 may be
considered acceptable ifjustified based on site-specific conditions."
A risk estimate of 1 x 10·4 was used as the _remediation "trigger" in this risk assessment.
If the cumulative site cancer risk exceeded 1 x 10·4, then COCs were identified. RAGS
Part D Tables 10.1 through I 0. 7 present cancer risk information for those COCs and
media/exposure points that may require remedial action. A summary of carcinogenic
risks for each population is presented in Table 5-1. In accordance with EPA guidance,
the cancer risk results for the child and adult were combined to obtain an excess cancer
risk for a lifetime resident (30 years) (EPA, 1989).
As indicated by the Summary of Human Health Risks and Hazards, Table 5-1, the total
cancer risk was below the threshold of concern for the current/future lifetime resident.
However, the cancer risk was above the acceptable range of 1 x I 0·4 to 1 x I o·6 for the
future onsite lifetime resident and future onsite construction worker. Again, exposure to
PCE in ground water accounts for the majority of the excess cancer hazard.
5.4 Uncertainties Associated with Risk Characterization
Each complete exposure pathway concerns more than one contaminant. Uncertainties
associated with summing risks or hazard quotients for multiple substances are of concern
in the risk characterization step. The assumption ignores the possibility of synergistic or
antagonistic activities in the metabolism of the contaminants. This could result in over-
or under-estimation of risk.
The potential risks developed for the Ram Leather Care site were directly related to
COPCs detected in the environmental media at this site. No attempt was made to
-differentiate between the risks contributions from other sites and those being contributed
from the site.
The analytical data used to calculate the risks and hazards has to be of acceptable quality
for inclusion in the HHRA. Poor and low quality data is not considered in the HHRA.
By eliminating insufficient data from the HHRA, the risks and hazards at the site may be
underestimated.
5-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A419
Project Number: 48697.01.07
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: 5
PCE, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, trans-1,2-dichloroethene, trichloroethene, and vinyl chloride
were identified as COCs at the site. The RID for cis-1,2-dichloroethene and slope factors
for trichloroethene and PCE arc considered Tier 3 toxicity criteria. The EPA Regional
I
Screening Level table and/or the CalEPA values were used because other toxicity criteria
are lacking. RGOs will be calculated for these compounds; however, remediation
decisions for these compounds should be made with the knowledge that the toxicity
criteria, and therefore the RGOs, are subject to change.
All of the uncertainties discussed in this report ultimately affect the risk estimate. Most
of the uncertainties identified will result in the potential for overestimation of risk (i.e.,
the combination of several upper-bound assumptions for some exposure scenarios).
5.5 Central Tendency Evaluation
In accordance with EPA guidance, quantitative risk values were also developed for
"central tendency" exposure assumptions. Central tendency evaluations present average
or median (50th percentile) assumptions while RME evaluations present upper-end (90th -
95th percentile) assumptions. Since risk managers are likely to be most concerned with
contaminants and media that pose unacceptable risks, a central tendency evaluation was
only conducted for each scenario, exposure unit, and medium. Conducting both RME
and central tendency analyses provides perspective for the risk manager. The central
tendency evaluation is summarized in Table 5-2. Calculations are presented in Appendix
C.
5-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043.
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A419
Project Number: 48697.01.07
6.0 Remedial Goal Options
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: 6
This section contains the site-specific RGOs for the chemicals and media of concern. ln
accordance with Region 4 guidance (EPA, 2000), RGOs are· included in the HHRA to
provide the Remedial Project Manager with a range of risk-based media cleanup levels
options and ARARs as a basis for developing the selected remediation goals in the
Feasibility Study and Proposed Plan.
RGOs were developed for COCs in each land use scenano evaluated in the HHRA.
COCs are chemicals that significantly contribute to a use scenario for a receptor that
exceeds a lx!0-4 total carcinogenic risk or exceeds a HI of I. Individual chemicals
contributing to these scenarios had RGOs developed if their contribution was greater than
or equal to Ix I 0·0 for carcinogens or yielded a hazard quotient greater than or equal to 0.1
for noncarcinogens. Using the above criteria, the appropriate chemicals, exposure units,
exposure routes, and receptors for which RGOs were calculated were selected from
RAGS Part D Tables 9.1 through 9.7.
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 I x 10-4, I x I o·5, and
Ix 10·0 and HQs of 3, I, and 0.1.
Table 6-1 presents the RGOs and ARARs for ;,o-roundwater 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. Table 6-2 presents that
same data for the construction worker land use scenario. Spreadsheets showing the RGO
calculations are presented in Appendix F.
6-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No.697-RICO-A419
Project Number: 48697.01.07
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: 7
7_0 Human Health Risk Assessment Conclusions
The Ram Leather Care site is a former dry cleaner that operated from 1977 to 1993.
Chlorinated hydrnearbon chemicals, primarily PCE and petroleum hydrocarbons (mineral
spirits), were used in the cleaning process. Chlorinated solvents have been detected in
drinking water wells at concentrations exceeding drinking water standards. Until 2008
when a water line was extended to affected residents, ground water was the only source
of drinking water within at least 2 miles of the facility.
This report is an update to the H H RA prepared in 2004. The data were obtained in three
separate investigations: (I) An April 2006 investigation conducted by EPA's SESD
during which water from I I potable wells was collected; (2) A September 2007
investigation conducted by Black & Veatch that included the sampling of well DW0I I,
monitoring wells MW-I, MW-2, MW-2D, MW-ID, MW-3D, MW-4D, and 14
residential wells; and (3) A December 2008 investigation conducted by Black & Veatch
during which 49 samples were collected from 22 soil borings, and a round of discreet
interval sampling of DW0I I. In each case, samples were analyzed for VOCs only.
The data were consolidated and screened according to EPA Region 4 policy. The COPCs
are shown below:
Chemicals of Potential Concern
Ground Water Subsurface Soil
1,4-Dichlorobenzene Tetrachloroethene
Chloroform
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Based on our understanding of the distribution of contaminants, and the potential for
human contact, the following media/receptors were examined:
• Ground water. Potential receptors are current area residents who use private wells
and future site residents.
• Subsurface Soil. Potential receptors are future construction workers.
7-1
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A419
Project Number: 48697.01.07
Ram leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: 7
Potentially complete exposure pathways examined in this risk assessment are:
• ingestion of ground water
• inhalation of volatiles released from ground water during showering
• incidental ingestion of subsurface soil
• inhalation of particulates released from subsurface soil
• dermal contact with subsurface soil
Current/Future Use Scenario
Only one in-use private drinking water well had a postttve detection of VOCs:
chloroform at 3 µg/L in PW030. The calculated excess cancer risk was within EPA's
generally accepted risk range and non-cancer hazards are not expected.
Future Use Scenario
Five wells on and near the site, DW0l l, PW003, PW0I0, PW0I6, and PW029, had
contaminant concentrations that exceeded screening levels. Except for DW0l l which
serves as an extraction well for the in-place pump and treat system, each of these wells
was abandoned in December 2008. The potential for wells to be reconstructed in their
place was evaluated as a future use scenario, as was the conversion of the in-place pump
and treat system well, DW0I I.
The excess cancer risk associated with Ii fetime consumption of water from these wells
was above EPA's target threshold of I x 104 for each of these wells except for PW016
that was within the target risk range. Exposure to PCE accounts for the majority of the
excess cancer risk. Additionally, consumption of water from DW0 11 has the potential to
produce non-cancer hazards. Again, exposure to PCE accounts for the majority of the
hazard. Non-cancer effects are not expected at the remaining four well locations. The
COCs are shown below:
Chemicals of Concern in Ground Water:
Lifetime Resident Scenario
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
trans-1,2-0ichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
7-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Baseline Human Health Risk AssessmentUpdate
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RlCO-A4 l 9
Project Number: 48697.01.07
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: 7
The possibility that a constrnction worker would be exposed to subsurface soil
contamination was also evaluated. This scenario also included consumption of water
from DWO 11. The evaluation concluded that this receptor would be at an unacceptable
risk; however, the risk was due to consumption of water from DWO 11. The contribution
due to exposure to subsurface soil contamination was negligible.
Chemicals of Concern in Ground Water:
Construction Worker Scenario
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
The hazards and risks presented are not absolute estimates of risk that would result from
exposure to the environmental media at the site. Consideration should be given to the
uncertainties outlined in the HHRA when making decisions about potential remedial
actions at the site.
7-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A4 I 9
Project Number: 48697.01.07
8.0 References
Ram Leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: 8
A TSDR, 2008. Health Consultation: Ram Leather Care Facility Charlotte, Mecklenburg
County, N011h Carolina EPA Facility ID: NCD982096653, September 12.
Black & Veatch, 2007. Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp. Data Evaluation Report,
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Ground water Sampling, Ram Leather Care
Site, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. November 29, 2007.
Black & Veatch, 2009. Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp. Draft Data Evaluation
Report, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Ground Water and Soil Boring
Investigation, Ram Leather Care Site, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
May.
CDM, 2004. Final Baseline Risk Assessment for Human Health, Ram Leather Site,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. July I.
Cal EPA. Toxicity values, available on Cal EPA's internet website at:
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/risk/chemicalDB/index.asp;, February 2008.
EPA, I 997a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Exposure Factors Handbook,
Ofiice of Research and Development, EPA/600/P-95/002, August.
EPA 19976. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part D, Standardized Planning,
Reporting, and Review of Superfund Risk Assessments, December.
EPA, 1997c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Effects Assessment
Summary Tables (HEAST), Office of Research and Development. July.
EPA, 1989. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Guidance for
Supe1fund (RAGS), Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A), Interim Final,
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC, EPA/540/1-89/002,
1989.
8-1
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Update
EPA Contract No. 68-W-99-043
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A4 J 9
Project Number: 48697.01.07
Ram leather Care Site
Revision: 0
July 2009
Section: 8
EPA, 1991. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfimd Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplemental Guidance.
Standard Default Exposure Factors, Interim Final, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, OSWER Directive: 9285.6-03.
EPA, 1992. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidance.for Data Usability in Risk
Assessment (Part A), Final, PB92-963356. Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, Washington, DC. April 1992.
EPA, 2000. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Supplemental to RAGS: Region 4
Bulletins Human Health Risk Assessment Bulletins. EPA Region 4, originally published
November 1995, Website version last updated May 2000:
http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/otkcser/healtbu1.htm.
EPA, 2003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ofiice of Superfi.md Remediation
and Technology Innovation., Human Health Toxicity Values in Superfund Risk
Assessments. OSWER Directive 9285.7-53, 2003.
EPA, 2004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment G1iidance for
Superfimd Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part E, Supplemental Guidance
for Dermal Risk Assessment, Interim, September 2004.
EPA, 2009a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS), Online, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, Ohio.
EPA, 2009b. Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites,
at http://www.cpa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-concentration table/index.htm, May 19.
8-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 2-1
Chemicals of Potential Concern
· Ram Leather Care, Charlotte, NC
Ground Water Subsurface Soil
1,4-Dichlorobenzene Tetrachloroethene
Chloroform
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
trans-1,2-Dich loroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
I
I
I
I
I
I
·I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Excess
Location Receptor Cancer
Risk
PW030 Lifetime Resident 5E-06
DW011 Lifetime Resident 4E-02
PW003 Lifetime Resident 3E-04
PW010 Lifetime Resident 9E-04
PW016 Lifetime Resident 5E-05
PW029 Lifetime Resident BE-04
Site Construction Worker 3E-04
Table5-1
Summary of Human Health Risks and Hazards
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Ram Leather Care, Charlotte, NC
Note Receptor
Current/Future Land Use
Excess cancer risk within EPA's Child Resident generally acceptable risk range
Future Land Use
Excess cancer risk above EPA's
generally acceptable risk range.
Tetrachloroethene in ground water Child Resident
accounts for the majority of the
excess risk.
Excess cancer risk above EPA's Child Resident generally acceptable risk range
Excess cancer risk above EPA's Child Resident generally acceptable risk range
Excess cancer risk within EPA's Child Resident generally acceptable risk range
Excess cancer risk above EPA's Child Resident generally acceptable risk range
Excess cancer risk above EPA's
generally acceptable risk range. Construction Tetrachloroethene in ground water Worker accounts for the majority of the
excess risk.
Non-cancer
Hazard Note
Index
0.03 Non-cancer hazards not expected
Non-cancer hazards possible.
Tetrachloroethene and cis-1,2-
42 dichloroethene in ground water
account for the majority of the
hazard.
0.4 Non-cancer hazards not expected
1 Non-cancer hazards not expected
0.1 Non-cancer hazards not expected
0.8 Non-cancer hazards not expected
Non-cancer hazards possible.
Tetrachloroethene and cis-1,2-
6 dichloroethene in ground water
account for the majority of the
hazard.
Cancer risks: An excess lifetime cancer risk of 1 E-06 indicates that an individual experiencing the reasonable maximum exposure has a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of
developing cancer as a result of site-related exposure. This is referred to as an ·excess lifetime cancer risk" because ii would be in addition to the risks of cancer
individuals face from other causes. EPA's generally acceptable risk range for site-related exposures is 1 E-06 to 1 E-04 (one-in-one million to one-in-ten thousand).
Noncancer hazards: EPA Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (EPA 1989) states that, generally, a hazard index (HI) greater than 1 indicates the potential for
adverse noncancer effects.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Excess
Location Receptor Cancer
Risk
PW030 Lifetime Resident ?E-07
DW011 Lifetime Resident SE-03
PW003 Lifetime Resident SE-05
PW010 Lifetime Resident 1E-04
PW016 Lifetime Resident ?E-06
PW029 Lifetime Resident 1E-04
Table 5-2
Summary of Human Health Risks and Hazards
Central Tendency Exposure
Ram Leather Care, Charlotte, NC
Note Receptor
Current/Future Land Use
Excess cancer risk below EPA's Child Resident generally acceptable risk range
Future Land Use
Excess cancer risk above EPA's
generally acceptable risk range.
Tetrachloroethene in ground water Child Resident
accounts for the majority of the
excess risk.
Excess cancer risk within EPA's Child Resident generally acceptable risk range
Excess cancer risk within EPA's Child Resident generally acceptable risk range
Excess cancer risk within EPA's Child Resident generally acceptable risk range
Excess cancer risk within EPA's Child Resident generally acceptable risk range
Non-cancer
Hazard Note
Index
0.02 Non-cancer hazards not expected
Non-cancer hazards possible.
Tetrachl~roethene and cis-1,2-
28 dlchloroethen e in ground water
account for the majority of the
hazard.
0.3 Non-cancer hazards not expected
0.8 Non-cancer hazards not expected
0.1 Non-cancer hazards not expected
0.5 Non-cancer hazards not expected
Cancer risks: An excess lifetime cancer risk of 1E-06 indicates that an individual experiencing the reasonable maximum exposure has a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of
developing cancer as a result of site-related exposure. This is referred to as an "excess lifelfme cancer risk" because it would be in addition to the risks of cancer
individuals face from other causes. EPA's generally acceptable risk range for site-related exposures is 1 E-06 to 1 E-04 (one-in-one million to one-in-ten thousand).
Noncancer hazards: EPA Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (EPA 1989) states that, generally, a hazard index (HI) greater than 1 Indicates the potential for
adverse noncancer effects.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 6-1
Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options for Ground Water
Lifetime Residential Land Use Assumptions
Cancer Risk Level Hazard Quotient Level
Chemicals of Concern /ua/Ll (ug/L)
1x10·' 1x10·5 1x10"" HQ=0.1 HQ=1 HQ=3
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene NA NA NA 16 156 469
T etrachloroethene 0.1 1 12 14 138 415
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene NA NA NA 14 144 433
Trichloroethene 3 33 335 NA NA NA
Vinyl Chloride 0.04 0.4 4 4 42 127
Notes:
ug/L: micrograms per liter
NC 2L = North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 02L.0202 Ground Water Standards
Cancer risk based on lifetime exposure assumptions; hazard quotient levels based on child resident exposure assumptions.
NC 2L
(ug/L)
70
0.7
100
2.8
0.015
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 6-2
Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options for Ground Water
Construction Worker Exposure Assumptions
Cancer Risk Level Hazard Quotient Level
Chemicals of Concern fua/Ll (ua/Ll
1x10"6 1x10·5 1x104 HQ=0.1 HQ=1 HQ=3
cis-1,2-0ichloroethene NA NA NA 102 1,022 3,066
Tetrachloroethene 13.2 132 1,325 102 1,022 3,066
Vinvl Chloride 5 48 477 31 307 920
Notes:
ug/L: micrograms per liter
NC 2L = North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 02L.0202 Ground Water Standards
NC 2L
(ug/L)
70
0.7
0.015
---------------------------------------------------~
-=--. County-Boundary
--Creek-Stream
Parcel
--Pond
-+---Railroad
--Roads
--Septic
Sile-Features
--Structures Offslte
--Structures Onsite
m~ ANO t----+---+---300 --+---16~0
Feet
NADB3 State Plane NC, Feet
Site Vicinity Map
Ram Leather Site
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
~ ~
--- ----- ----- -- - --
~r--------------------------------------------,
i ~
N c-:,
Cl ii::
~ 3 Cl)
Q) a::
w ~
'a ~ < g
s "' 0 u5 a -,:: 24-26 FT 53 2
Q) .c 1;j
.3 E "' a::
,.._I
/J)
<O co ~ ~ ;;.:
•
WOOOEDAREA
DECEMBER 2008 SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS
(RESULTS PRESENTED IN ug/kg) -
SEPTIC
TANK
CONCRETE
PAD (Removed)
SB01
FLOOR DRAIN
FROM BUILDING
TO UNDERNEATH
CONCRETE PAD
SOIL EXCAVATION AREA AS DEFINED IN THE IROD
2008 Soil Boring Investigation -PCE Concentrations
Ram Leather Care Site
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
SCALE
40 20 0 MM M -M
1· = 40'
40
Figure
2-2
-
- - - -
Primary
Sources
Process Area 1--------<
--
Primary
Release
Leaks and Spills
.
-- - ---
1-,-,
L.,
Figure 3-1
Human Health Conceptual Site Model
Ram Leather Care, Charlotte, NC
Secondary
Sources
Subsurface Soil
Groundwater
a,-,
I-,
I-,-<
Secondary
Release
Intrusive Actions
Fugitive Dust,
Vapors
Volatilization
I----,
I----,
[
Media
Affected
Soil
Air
Air
Groundwater
-
I---<
I---<
I---<
I---,
-
Exposure
Routes
Ingestion
-
I--
Dermal Contact
Inhalation ~
Inhalation
h
Ingestion
- -
Human
Receptors
Excavation
Worker
Excavation
Worker
Resident
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Appendix A
Well Abandonment Records
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ..
I
:I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,1,
I
I ,,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i'
D.L. MULLIS WELL DRILLING & GRADING
PO BOX 691446
CHARLOTTE.NC 28227
704-545-5694
FAX [phone]
a
To: DENNIS TYNDELL
FAX [phone]
FROM 704-545-9449
RE: WELL ABANDONMENT
RECORDS
FROM DREAMA
PAGES 9
DATE 01-02-09
Ur-gont For Roview Ploa.co Comment Please Reply
Pleaae Rccyclo
• co,nmenu: D.L. MULLIS WELL DRILLING DOES NOT ASSUME LIABILITY
FOR DAMAGE TO DRIVEWAYS, SIDEWALKS, LANDSCAPING,OR
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES.
I
'7 il\~~,\,0' WELL 11.llANllONMENT RECORD -/-'\. . \
Nonh Corolina DcP"nmcnI of Environment aml Natural Resources-Divii.ion ofW01cr Qu,1li1;lf __ ') i I
WELLCONTRACTORCERTIFICATION# J--IGL~x.::s2y1c i-},✓ei· 1 v-c,_., -:.:~:}
Ci1y or ·rown Stn1c,
I 71>4 l .ol/or)lp91
i\rc:::::i cotlc -Phone ouml;lcr
2. WC.LL ,NfORJi.tATION:
SIT£ WELL ID#{if .;ipplii:.ilik:,,_, ____________ _
STATE. WELL. rrm.MIT (j (ifupplic.1blc.,_\ _________ _
COllNT\' WEI.I. rF.RMIT II (i[np~licahlo)JC(':;/':A-Oe:..cl _:•\.(>,_ __
OWQor OTHER f'EK.MIT ll_(if.:ip1~lii:.tblc:-), _________ _
WELL USE {Uri::lc :ippli0btc u:.c}: Monitoring
Municipul/Publlc · lndur,1riiit/Commcn:bl
Ucctwary lnjccliori &;~~:mim
01hcr(litl·lU;C) _______ .c_ ________ _
J. \\'ELI, LO,£A_TION,
COUNTY lj_j::rJ( QUADRANGLE NII ME _____ _
NE.ARl.:.STTOWN: : ..
l 15 ,9, 0'&_,_Ji··...,_\ \i~_~ffi_o._e_\r.___u;:;-, --; ~-l-1---
TOPOGRAPHIC I LAND SITTING:
Slo{lc_ Valley . H:H . R.idW:: O1l1cr, _______ _
.... tCirc!c opprorui::111: sr;;-uing}
LATITUDE 3 5 ° 1.3. C'tE:/l
LONGITUDE $51::{ ,3 (p .Dg. $' JOOm.il forrn:n
Latitudc/longi~c ~ourcc:. .@ Tor,ographi·c ·mu~
(Lm:a1io11 of ,~II m1w lie :d101l7J on a ·USGS lnpq majJ nml
11trur:.h,:tlm rl1i.~funi1 if1Wt asing GPS.).
.fa. 'Fi\CILJTV-The 11:i.me or1hn tX!l;'inl':!:wh::rc 1lll: ,.,ell l~lr,c::uc-d. 01mr,1t:1r: ,fa :iru¼b.
{lf".l rl:$lrlen1i:il ,vcJ\, skip 4-l,; cmnpku:.4h. wdl rrwn.."Tinformz.tion only ••
l<ACILrfv 11) tt(if:ipp1icible} -------------
NAME OF FACILITY _______________ _
!,TREET ADllRESS ______________ _
L_ __ )· ·--------
i\rc::a code -rhone ·number
(,.
1.
\VEI.T. OITAIU;:
1.,.i.(1k,-JD[;.\Y) 91-'1
a Tn1:il Dr.p1h.c_ ____ fL DlamctL..,-.-'-"-'---
b. Wnt.c:T Level (8elnw Mt.-ast1rini; Point): ____ II,
Mca.ruriug puiat is ____ n. .:.:!o(Jvc. l:w,l ~mfocc.
CASING: Length
:"I. Ca.<;ing Depth (ifknow11): w..1kr.1r:;,.Y1 fl. /\ .
. -0+---'"·
b. Cnsing Hcmt'lvnl: ____ ll. i1,.
DISINFECTION: -:.d_,_-r..l_,H_,_· ----
SEALING MATERIAi.:
Ccmcm. ____ Ltl. Cement /,~r lb.
\V.1.1er-i;.a1. W;i!cr· g::il,
Hentoni1c ____ lh.
Type: Sh.irry_....:. rc11:t!l,_
W:11.tr ______ g:1t
01hr.T .,
~""'";,1::/?od-lo.ncl Cauer1l
Amaun> . / g,{)/ h,>
10. ·wELL DlAGRA~l: D~w i,, rlc:1.:1ili.:J :;kelclt or1ht: well 011 ihc hLck of11tis
ronn !lho'Wiar, ID\31 d:pih, dcplh :ind di:irnt:(L"l"Ol'f.CT'CCTI~ (if :my) 1r:malnir.i;
. ' .
fo Ille tvcll. crave\ i111nv:si. intcn:'.ils· uf~"inu ~"1fo1a1ic1~.·.1C1J iJcpclhs ~nil
1ypcs nf fill m.11crinb 11_.~
SIG'NATUREOFPRfVATE WU.L-OWNER/1.0ANf'IO'.',ING l"IIE,\Vi-:Ll. o.,·n:
(TI1c f'Tlv.m; well <.1w111:r ,nu.:., \w; ;i.:i 1ndivitlu:,\ "l-o !"!::::.,,,,..:!!~ ;:lo..i..,.j,_,1,~ !,i,.'hCT n:::.!1.•c,1i:.! ,...~:!
in .!t"W'Td;mcc '"ilh ISf\ NCAC 2C .01 ll.)
PltlNTi:':O /liAML Of rER!'.ON I\.QANl)()NIN"G -nu; \VFJ.l.
Submit ::i wnv lo tt1c owner on:t the ori!:!lnnl 10 Ille Dlvlslon or Wutcr Ouolitv nlthin JO dm:.s. form GW-JU
I
I
I
I
'I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
j
C
-::,.,/ .,-
j
..s::.
0 ~ 0
~ ....,...
~
--I:,;_ ...
N
C:
2:;
r-~
-+-
~
0 -.-,
~
I
·I
,:I
I ,,
,1
I
I
I ..
I
I
·1·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
WELL ABANDONMENT RECORD
North Cnrnlino Dcp11nrrn:n1 0\[w.•ironmcnt nnd Nmurnl Rc:;onn::c.s-Division of Wmcr Qunliry
WELL CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION 11 1.JGL.1::'.C,, ~~'87C.,
2. WELL INf:ORMATION:
srrr:: WELL ID 11 (if:ippliCJ.blc~--------------
STATE WELL l'EJU,1 ITU {if:ippHCJ.ble~-----------
COUNT\' \VF.I.I. PERMIT u (ir,nnlit:1blc)JttD.:...~>.eD'-"l 5=· '----
DWQ ur OTll[m Pf;~Ml'f II {ifa11J1li~lc)c_ __ -,,.=--=~-
\VELL US£: (Citdc applic:tb!e U!.cl: Mcnitnrini;
~1unlcipul/rublit. ludli!i'I rinVCummcn:UI.I
R~·~o,·cl1' lnjci::lion lrrii:::itico,
01her(list ll$C) ________________ _
J. \VF.Lt. LOCh TION:
couNTv111e cJ; . 1AoRAIHL".· NAMr~~
NEARE.>TTO\VN:. JQ 1) \ 1-x {)"'Q . • ·
tSin:c1.mc-:id Na1a.:, Nounba. Coiranuniry. Subdlvu!an. L'11 Na~ r:i~I. 7.ip (;ode}
TOPOGRAPlllC I LAND Sl!TTING:
Slope Valley Fla! Ridge· OI.11cr _________ _
tCin:k-::ippmprintc sclliny)
~ hD 1-::l_ ()Ot=::-ti:tziylcrrltk•~
LATITUDE v_ U_· .. ~_f)_s.)_ minllfc:!i, ~-ccond.-i., QI 1/l 3
t ONGITUOJl 'jf__{)" 3~ doci=I fmm,t
Latitude/longitude source: ~ T opogmphic m11p
{Loca1ion of well mm:1 hc:shmm on n tJSGS 1rapu mrrp anti
.;UCJr;luxl la tit£.\ fur,11 y;,o, wills GPS)
4!1. fACIUTV. Thi: 11:'lmOOflfo:bu::in=..,ha~ the u•cli i, it>,.-;.ilcd, Cainpktc 4:1 ur.d4b.
(Ir :i t~dc,'t.i::t1 wc.11. &Lip 4.'1; i:tlrnrkie4t:i.. ~.n ~ infornr.11/on .:111.ly.)
FACILITY ID #(if :tpplic;t1!~) ---------'-----
NAME. Qi" FACILlTY ________________ _
STREETAODHr.:.SS --------------~-
Ci1y or Town Z_ipCodt:
4h. CONTACT PF.RSONIWF..LL OWNER:
NAME rY\o t . .l:'.. + g;J;o;i/ c /-1 x"/,~-
mrCT AOD·:lL61 /:xjJ_1ctJ!e ?2d . Pllo e lbtE-d c,, c2ta3,._,_7 __
City or Town St;m: Zip COUt
5. WP.t.t. DETAILS:
;l., Tolnl Ocpth:L!.Qk:u:1~~r'fL Diam::1cr:._;l ... r ... , ___ in.
h. Wo\l:r u_.,_,ct (Bc:low ML-ru;uring.Point): ____ ft.
Mr=\Sln-ingprrinf is ____ IL :ibovc !.,ruJ :;urfoc::.
6.
.I. Cruin.i; Oi.i,lh {irkm>w11): t.i.nkr·;pt,:~n 'n. _he___ iH
b. Cn.~ing Rl1novc.t.l: ____ 11. ir.
J. DISINl'F.CllON, _,l-_:i_-T:._:i-1_:_• '---
8.. SEA1.1NG MATERlhL:
10.
S:,ml Crmcni
C1..-meu1 ____ lb. Cc-r11cn1, ____ 1,.
W:ncr r;il. Wa1ci n~L
HcntnnHr.
Ben1oni1c ____ lh.
Typc:.'Stw,y _ Pelle\!:,;_
\Va11:.r ______ r,..,t
Olhr-r
Type "',tcrol .c&.i/.9 ed::,=,,· ~-
/\m<>Unt :'m>. 71-)); ??tdi 117,',_
EXPIAJN MlfTHO~ t_:Jll fi.MVLAt.:KMf:.NrUF MATERIAL; ,p_,uP-e:d 1.u,'fi-L/;_~JJ/'1 l 1.¼.L"',c'"'I..,,<-".--
\VF .. I.J, l)IA.G~M: Omw ~ itr-u1ilc,l.~1.'.cfch.oi1hr: •_.:r;U oil 1hc fod: ,if ,r,;,;.
fom1 ~hOwinr,, 101.al dcpl.h. dcp1h :ind tli.11tictcr of:.crccnr. (ir:fr1y) ~m:.i:iinil
in lh·c welt: g,r.rvcl hltLTI-;Jl, ,inicrv:ils cfctsin.c pc.rf~r.:ilinn~ :ir.d llcotl1!> .lm'.I
lfJJC:i of fill io,11.~1 inls Ul:laL
Slr.NATUREOF'f'A.IV.-\TE WELLOWNERhflAfliDONING Tll~ \YELL n,,TF,
(TI1c pri~lc ,..c.11 owner rnun be an in,!Ml'lu:il \\ho r,,.~'1'.·~11ly ;i!'i~rw.la,1~ l,i,.~icr rti.ir'e-,1,ir.1 ":::H
ttl oeand:l~ wi·w JSA NCAC 2C .OJ I).}
PU.Jf,ff£1) NAME OFl'ErL'iON AltANOONll'>t: ·111F. WEl,I.
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
Arc:, cmk • {'hone number I '-----'-'---------------''------------·
St:IJmil :i caov 10 the owner and tile orlnlnul tn lhc Olvhlon or \\Inter Oualltv wlrllin JO dn\'S,
'I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I' ,,
I
I
I
I, ·.
i',
I' '
·I:
-
I
1·
I'
r) ~ A ~
....)
~) 11 i=°"
,I
WELL ARANOONMENT RECORD
North C.irolino Dcpamocnt llf Em•irnnmznt ;mtl 'N:1tur.i.l Resources-Division of Wn.1cr Qu.i\ity
Wf:LL CONTRACTOR CERrlFICATION II ~\ (' ~ ? ~-,s;.~-.
1'--~-L~_,. -.)0 u IC~-
2. \Vl:LL INfOllMATION:
SITE WE.LL It)# {il":.1pp1i~lc.1... _____________ _
STATE \\'ELL 111!:U.Ml"f II !_il':ipp1ic.'lhlc,_ __________ _
COIINT\' WELL l'EnMlT // tifnpplic,hlc)lC(:x")'::t[j'.:l.1..: ---
OWQ tu· OTHER f'ER1\11T fJ (ir:ii"fl\ii:.,.blc)>----------
\VELI-USE (Cin:li:: appl.ic;;iblc use:): Moni1t1rio.r.
M11nicip:1UPubllc lndurtrinUCommcl"cl:.i.1
Hcto\'l:!ry lnjcc.1ion lrrip;:uion
01'1cr~li1:11,i:i::) ____ ~----------
TOPOOR11r1J1c / LAND SbTffNG,
Slope V:t\lcy flnt RidgC Olhcr ________ _
(Cin:h:. nppm"priri1e !..CHinn}.
'2 ~ ~-\ :2 v7· • l Mt'lyb~ in tk;;sa::;,
LATITlJDI~ ~ ....L_. V,() \· mi111rtc~.~crt1n,J,;,nrirot1
LONGrnJllE '8 0° ~a ®""' """''
Latituddlongitude source: ~ Topographic map
(lni:riuiitl t,fh-ef/ mu..11 bc.d10n'11 an a USGS 101m moµ and
amidwd t<7 thUfarm if 1101 ,uin1; GPS.J
I
4a. F ACil.ff"r'. TI11tn:une <1f1hebu1l1tes:s; wlll'cn: II~ well it lN"::lL-<l. Ctlrnp!:lc .:;in.-,,tltob.
(lfo Tci;i:'-cmi.::I wdl,ikrp 4.s;:Wll1Jlleie4b., u.odi 0-,.,1'11:T inforrr.:niou tml.Y,)
l'ACJLITV 1D tl(irapplicz,.bk) ____________ _
N,\ME OF 1:,\ClLTTY ________________ _
STHEf:.T ADDRESS _______________ _
Ci1y nr To11111 Stale Zip Co<lc
4b. CONTACT llERSON/\V, :
NAME Q)f2( Q
STRE~7~7t ,~ C:b_ . {I_ . ~ ---1,.I c ,;2£,;i,-1..7,_ _
Cily or Town St:111: Zip Code:
( _____ ). --------
An::::1 CJ?dC • l1h.nnc number
5. \VEI.L OETAILS:
:1 Tot:il Dcr,1hi,,JJJlf",Dt.,::~,f\ fL Diamc1~.,.-.. ....,,/.Lp ____ in.
h. Wati:r Level (Bctow Mc:isuring r'oin1): ____ fl.
Me:i..<;Uring point is ____ fL aho\'C l:im.1 smfocc.· I
(,. CASING: lli:un,.1~1
b. Q..,;ing Rcmm:ctl: ----"·
1. OISINFECTION,_,_IJ..,_ -_1:-_,t/.J.· __ _
(Amounl of6S%•'15% r::ilcium hypocl1lori1c u:,cd)
R. !'-'.EALING MhTERIAI..:
Nr-.11 Cement S:iml Ccnirnl
CcmCTit ____ lh. Ccmi..,t1. ____ lh
\IJ:ilt!I" r,:al. \Vn1er· g:il.
HCll~anih.: ____ ib.
Tyr,c: .Sh1rry_ Pd!cL'>_
Wnia i;:JL
9,
10~ \\;£LL DlACRAM: Oiuw a dc1.:1iltd ~~etch of 1hc \11(;1\ on lhc bra::C·.:;f1!1i:i•
fo:-m !.howiriQ, lot.1JdCp111; depth .ind din1i\Ctcr riff:ctt~~ (it ~.11y) n.:frnil\il'l~',
in.ihc ,~ll. r,rnvcl irur1'-nl, inlt:i\,-:its·orc:;u;;ng ~rfor.:1ion1.. :inil 1h.:(lll1~ :;r,t,
lyf)C.S of IHI 1rut1t:rials os:rxL
11. DATE WELLABAN\)ON•'" 1f).-3D· l-:,1"
I 001!1:.1!.EOY CE.t\TlfY TIIATTlUS Wet.L wAS AUANOOHl;.IJ IN 1,.Ccon·o,-t1CC
WJ'lll l)t-. NCI\C2C. WELL CON . Cl10l\l STI\NOhRD$./\ND1!1i.T /\ COrY. or-
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
nus nECORO HAS B(:'.EN rrt 'To1tm w12u. O\\'Nrn. . . I
_# . I
/.:~ ~ /2-/3(),(y,' .
SICNA.TIJftf. OF'CP..RTH•lt-.,1) WEf.l.CO~•l"TTUCTOII 7 11,tTC
SIGNATURE OF rRIVA'_r,; IVELLO_WNERAUANIIOSINC 'Ill['.'""· . D.1TC I
(Tlu; pri,mrc well owner !'!Hit\ be: nn t"''"'Hlu:,! w\.n ~lillh: .::h.::rntl.,,1~ h,:;.1h.r rt::,_.;::~••.;1 ,.,.t!
fll:icnmbncewith JSA NC'AC2C .0111.)
:1
Suhmll a coo\' 111 tt,c own1.1r.ond the odolnot 101hr Oh•l,lon of Weier Oualitv wlltiin 30 rla\'S, fom1 GW-.'G
'I
I
I
I
I
I
·1
I
I ,
' ,,
,,
·I
I ,,
I
I
I
WELL i\ IIANDONMENT RECORD
Nortl, c~rolina Department ofEnvironmcnl and t.Jn1urdl Resources-Divir,ion of"WW!I Quality
Wl!LLCONTRAcro1tcERTIFICi\TION# ~JL,Lt~':(:, .._?:,E3·/C,
2. Wf:Ll. 1NF'OltMATION:
SITE \\!ELL ID# (if:'lpplicblc.,_ _____________ _
STA TE WELL PER.MIT IJ (ff;1llJ1li1!.tbli:.,_ __________ _
COUNT\' WELL l'F.ltMITI/ {if applicable) I DC:c,t[·O\ :':, __
fi\VQ nr OTHRR: PEllMlT I( (ifti[lplir.nhlc.) ____ -~~----
WELI. usr: (Circle apr,lie.ibtc use); Mcnitorinl! (R~dc~
M1ll'lidp:i.UPublk hidw.trinl!Olrumcrd.at ,~iilturuf"" ..
ftct::t>W::t')" t11jc_ctinri. ll'rift!lli,110
Oth:t (list use)_~---------------------
3. \Vl~U. LOCATION:
COUNTV(Y',t'c)(_ QUAO~NGLe NAME
N,J\REsnowK 15tl5 lb:eo -o~-
TOflOGR.APHIC / l.ANO SETfrNG:
Sl~c Vn!l::y 1i1l Rit1i Glhcr
tCin:k: :.1pprnr1rfou::: scuin~) -----------
M:1y.lieirl~,
u1inm"cs. .cerori:ls, cf io o
&;,cim.,\ fmm:11 L/\TITUDU 0 s" J.3i)_9-,;1
LONGITUDE ?~ o O ot . 1 tJ
L:lrirudc/longitude source: GPS' Topographic mup
(Lpca1ionnfwrll muu 1,c.,,limm an n U.SGS/o/W map anti
nmidiidt(I 1l1lsfnr'n1 lfmii winJJ GPS.J
4!l. ~/t.CILii-Y-Th~ ri;irnc1Jfthc~.dnes:; wlw:n: 11-r. u-:-li is lm::::1cJ1.CW1tplcli<l.1 at,1.Mb,
(lf:i fC'lilf~nl.,I 1>·c!L :.Lil' 4a; u,mpktr 4h, wd\ tTWt'.c:T lnfmm:.niun only.)
FI\ClLl'rV m ntif::ipphc:i.blc) -------------
NAME OF rACIUTY~---------------
STREIT AOOrtE.'iS _________________ _
CilyorTown Sl:i.tc Zip Code
5, WELL DETAII.S!
:i. T01:il Dcp1h:Ll(\~rp,:_'Q fl Diam::-!cr._,1.;: ____ in.
b. Wmcr Level {Oclow Me.:i:.:111ing roin1): ____ f<
6. CA.StNG: Lcnglh Di;:uncttr
a. C:ci;in1~ Depth (ifkoo,;,-nl; L-1:!..,lt_}::3.,'.:!.\ ll. ,L_o ___ in.
b. C.l!,.ing llt:1TI<l~•o.1: ____ fl.
7, DJSINFF.Cl'ION:_.b-"'}T_,__-'1-+'--'----
{Amount of6)':t.-75% ~lcium hypocltlo~te: o.• .. til)
K. S£ALINC MAl"ERlJ\l..:
S-:inil Ccmcn1
Cemcm ____ lh. Ccmcn1_ __tu.
W:ucr GJI. W:;ld L;:1l.
8cn1nnilr!•
Oen1ani1c _____ lh.
Tyr,::: Slorry __ relict.,._
~Voter:__ ______ &,1;
9.
10. \VE.Lt., Ol~GRAM: {Jruwn 'dc.1::iili.:tl s~ctcl• oftht: \\·t:11 n1'1'1hc huc:k 01·0:i.~
fcirro stlowinr. 1u1:11 dCp111. Ji::11lh ,md Ui1ur-.61i;-rOf:;CTr.cm (i_f t..,y) rc.im~inint
in the wx::l( i,-avcl 11'11C'l'Vl1. ·101CTV?l~ of c:~in~ {Y.:rf1ir.:i1iri:1:c;; iiri:\ 1!.::p1h1: :.:u:
lypt~ of@l 111:.1.JcrinJs used:
11. DATUWELLADANl>ONV.U / oi -, S)[)·[)'r(
StGNATURf.Clf l'Rl\'A.TE; WELi. OWNERAD~l'ilJi..lNIM; ·t llf. ,,,:~;u; 0/1 Tl:
{Th: pri,r.it~ Q/1!11 t>l',1lCf rr;'ttS;\ lJG' QI\ 'indh·ithcl T,1111 ~'!'i!!!S.lb!:;:\i:oi11!nn~ !;i~'l•C'! re;id(;'.'.:IJI \;~)I
in =nL~ with 1511. t!CA,C ~ .OJ 13.)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'---"-'-"'-· -'°-'-'-· _l'_llo_n_c_n_n_n_in_;cr·------------------' L------------------------------1-,·
_S_ullmlt .::a con'1 to thl.! owner nnd the urll!lnol to the Oh-lsion of Wnter Ouulilv wltliin lO dn\•s. Flnm GW-.!{1
_J c,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Appendix B
I RAGS Part D Tables
I
i
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .,
I,
I
I ,,.
I
'I
I
I
I
1-
I
I
Tables
Appendix B List of Tables
Ram Leather Care, Charlotte, NC
1 Selection of Exposure Pathways
2IOccurrence, Distribution and Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern
I 2.1 IRME !Ground Water
I 2.2IRME i Subsurface Soil
3 Medium-Specific Exposure Point Concentration Summary
3.1IRME !Ground Water: PW030
3.2IRME !Ground Water:'DW011
3.3IRME !Ground Water: PW003
'3.4 RME Ground Water: PW010
I 3.5 RME Ground Water: PW016
I 3.6 RME Ground Water: PW029
I 3.7 RME Subsurface Soil
4I Values and Equations Used for Intake Calculations
I 4.1 RME Lifetime Resident
I 4.2 RME Child Resident
I 4.3 RME Construction Worker
I 4.4 RME Construction Worker
5 Non-Cancer Toxicity Data
5.1 Non-Cancer Toxicity Data --Oral/Dermal
5.2 I Chronic Non-Cancer Toxicity Data -Inhalation
6 Cancer Toxicity Data
6.1 Cancer Toxicity Data --Oral/Dermal
6.2 Cancer Toxicitv Data --Inhalation
7 Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards
7.1 RME Current/Future: PW030
7.2 RME Future: DW011
7.3 RME Future: PW003
7.4 RME Future: PW010
7.5 RME Future: PW016
7.6 RME Future: PW029
7.7 RME Future: Site
8 Calculation of Radiation Cancer Risks
9 Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs
9.1 RME Current/Future: PW030
9.2 RME Future: DW011
9.3 RME Future: PW003
9.4 RME Future: PW010
9.5 RME Future: PW016
9.6 RME Future: PW029
9.7 RME Future: Site
10ISumma1 of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COCs
10.1 RME Current/Future: PW030
10.2 RME Future: DW011
10.3 RME Future: PW003
10.4 RME Future: PW010
10.5 RME Future: PW016
10.6 RME Future: PW029
10.7 RME Future: Site
Page1 of 1
11111
Scenario Medium Exposure Exposure Point Timeframe Medium
Ground-water Private Well
Air Private Well
CurrenV Future Ground-
water Ground-water Private Well
Air Private Well
Ground-water On-site Well
Air On-site Well
Ground-Ground-water On-site Well water
Air On-site Well
Future
Ground-water On-site Well
Subsurface On-site Soil
Subsurface Subsurface On-site Soil Soil
Air On-site
f\ 0
---
Table B-1
SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Ram Leather Care, Charlotte, NC
Receptor Receptor Exposure On-Site/
Population Age Route Off-Sile
Resident Child Ingestion On-site
Resident Child Inhalation On-site
Resident Lifetime Ingestion On-site
Resident Lifetime Inhalation On-site
Resident Child Ingestion On-site
Resident Child Inhalation On-site
Resident Lifetime Ingestion On-site
Resident Lifetime Inhalation On-site
Construction Adult Ingestion On-site Worker
Construction Adult Ingestion On-site Worker
Construction Adult Dennal On-site Worker
Construction Adult Inhalation On-site Worker
-------
Type of Rationale for Selection or Exclusion of Exposure Pathway Analysis
Quant. Groundwater is used as a drinking water source.
Quant. Eposure to VOCs while showering may be a complete
exposure route.
Quant. Groundwater is used as a drinking water source.
Quant. Eposure to voes while showering may be a complete
exposure route.
Quant. Groundwater may be used as a drinking water source in the
future.
Quant. Eposure to voes while showering may be a complete
exposure route.
Groundwater may be used as a drinking water source in the Quant. future.
Quant. Eposure to voes while showering may be a complete
exposure route.
Quant. Groundwater may be used as a drinking water source in the
future.
Quant. Exposure to contaminants in subsurface soil possible in future
construction scenario.
Exposure to contaminants in subsurface soil possible in future Quant. construction scenario.
Quant. Exposure to contaminants in subsurface soil possible in future
construction scenario.
_, --- ----11111, ---
Table B-2.1
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
Ram Leather Care, Charlotte, NC
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Ground Water
xposure Medium: Ground Water
Expo,~•
Point
Tap/ -Tap/
Soowe,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
GAS Chemical Minimum Maximum Units location Detection Range of
Number Concentration Concentrotion of Maximum Frequency Detection
(Qualifier) (Qualifier) Concentration Limits
(1) (1)
75-34-3 1, 1-Dichloroethane 0.37 J 0.37 J -PW003 1 I 31 0.5 -200
75-35-4 1, 1-Oichloroethene 2.7 J 2.7 J -DW11 1 / 31 0.5 -200
106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.61 J 0.61 J -PW003 1 / 31 0.5 -200
67-66-3 ~oroform -1-3J -PW030 2 I 31 0.5 -200
156-59--2 cis-1,2-Oichloroethene 0.52 J 1,620 E -DW1.1 6 I 31 1 · 1
1634-04-4 Methyl lert-buty1 ether 1.2 -2· -PW029 2 I 31 0.5 -200
127-18-4 2._etrachloroethene 0.98 J 4,320 E ug/L OW11 7 I 31 0.5 - 1
15&<ID-5 trans-1,L-oethene 15.2 -15--OW11 1 / 31 0.5 -200
79-01-6 T ricl"m--oethene 1.6 -356· -DW11 5 / 31 0.5 - 1
75-01-4 Vinyl Cljoride 18.2- 18.2-,g/L OW11 1 / 31 0.5 -200
Data set includes the following private well (PW). samples: 001, 002, 003, 004, 006, 007, 008, 009, 010, 011, 016, 017, 020, 021, "'l.. .
022, 024, 025, 029, 030, 034, 035, 036, 037, 038 collected in 2006 and 2007. Tho data set also includes the following moritoring well J ") I
samples: OW011, MW01, MW01D, MW02, MW02D, MW03D, and MW04D collected in 2007.
Maximum detected concentration used for screening.
Screened against EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) May 19, 2009, for tap wator adjusted to cancer benchmark"' 1E-06 and
non-cancer hazard quotient of 0.1.
Rationale Codes: ASL : Above Screening Level
Ram LeatherRAGS_D_RME Rev 0.xls; 712/2009 Page 1 of 1
Concentration Background Screening Potential
Used f°' Value Toidcity Value ARAR/TBC
Screening (n/c) Value
(2) (3)
0.37 NA .~· 70
2.7 NA ;iv;;:, ...-7
0.61 NA ' 1.4
3 NA g,.W-----c 70
1,620 NA ~ 70
2 NA ~ 200
4,320 NA O.~ 0.7
15 NA 100 .
356 NA 4-r"c 2.8
18 NA 0.....--;;-0.015
Definitions:
NA = Nol Available
c "' Screening Toxicity Value is based on cancef effects
n = Screening Toxicity Value is based on non-cancer effects
COPC = Chemical of Potential Concern
Potential COPC
ARAR/TBC Flag
Source (YIN)
NC2l NO
NC2l NO
NC2l YES
NC 2l YES
NC2L YES
NC2L NO
NC2L YES
NC2L YES
NC2L YES
NC 2L YES
ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/To Be Considered
ug/L = micrograms per liter
J = estimated value
Rationale for
~lectionor
Deletion
(4)
BSL
BSL
ASL
ASL
ASL
BSL
ASL
ASL
ASL
ASL
NC 2L = North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 02L.0202 Ground Water Standards
E = Value exceeded calibration range
I
2.
~
~
i;,
'7
fl' ,
/o
( I
7/212009
-- --· ------
Table B-2.2
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
Ram Leather Care, Chat1otte, NC
>Cenario Timeframe: Future
vtadium: Subsurface SoU
:,,;poSU'e Medium: Subsurface Soil -· CAS Chemical Minimum Maximum Units Location Detection
Point Number Concentration Concentration of Maximum Frequency
(Qualifier) (Qualifier) Concentration
(1) (1)
Site 76-13-1 1, 1,2-T richlorotrifluoroethane 2.5-2.5-ug/kg 5B17 1 / 19
75-35-4 1, 1-Dichloroethene 0.64 J 1.6 -ug/kg S817 21 19
78-93-3 2-Butanone 32.7 -32.7 • ug/kg S824 1 / 19
591-78-6 2-Hexaoone 23.2 J 23.2 J ug/kg S824 1 / 19
67-64-1 Acetone 3.8 J 588 J ug/kg S8"1 10 / 19
67-66-3 Chlorofonn ~-0.55 J 1.8-ug/kg $B16 7 I 19
156-59-2 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 1.2 J 842 -"91kg S817 16 / 19
79-20-9 Methyl Acetate 339J 339 J ug/kg SB22 1 / 19
1634-04-4 MTBE 0.37 J 1.4 J ug/kg S805 4 I 19
75-09-2 Methylene chlo(ide 3.4 -3.4-ug/kg S817 1 / 19
127-16-4 • !~1_:ichloroethene 9.8 -6,460 -uglkg S823 14 / 19
108-88-3 Toluene 0.63 J 1.8 J uglkg S801 8 I 19
156-60-5 trans-1,2-Dichloroelhene 0.81 J 3-uglkg S825 3 / 19
79-01-6 T richloroelhene 1.2-103 J ug/kg S819 14 I 19
75-01-4 Vuiyl chloride 0.96 J 10.6 -uglkg SB19 1 I 19
1330-20-7 Xylene (total) 0.76 J 0.76 J uglkg S824 1 / 19
Data sat includes samples collected from multiple horizons in soil borings 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 ttrough 9, 13, 14, and 16 !trough 25.
The maximum detected concentration 'Nilhin the mu!ilple horizons used to represent the sail boring.
Maximum detected concentration used for sa-eening.
Range of
Detection
Limits
1 -234
1 -234
2.4 • 1,170
5.2 • 1,170
5.7 -1,170
1 -234
1.1 -234
2.6 -585
1 -234
2.6 -585
1.1 - 2
1 -234
1 -234
1.1 -234
1.1 -234
2.1 -468
(1)
(2)
(3) Screened against EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) May 19, 2009, for irxiustrial soil adjusted to cancer benchmark= lE--06
and non-cancer hazard quotient of 0.1.
Concentration Background Screening Potential
Used for Value Toxicity Value ARAR/TBC
Screening (fVc) Value
(2) (3)
2.5 NA 1.8E+06Jn NA
1.6 NA 1.1E+_D6'f n NA
32.7 NA 1.9E+.D8'; n NA
23.2 NA NA NA
588 NA 6.1E+oa1 n NA
1.B NA 1,~c NA
842 NA 1E+07b ·n NA
339 NA 1E+~~n-· NA
1.4 NA 1,~c NA
3.4 NA ~c NA
6,460 NA ~c NA
1.8 NA 4.6E+07& n NA
3 NA 5E+Oll°'l n NA
103 NA ~c-NA
10,6 NA ~-" NA
0.76 NA 2.6E+o6 ~ n NA
Definitions:
NA = Nol Available
c = Screening Toxicity Value is based on cancer effects
n = Screening Toxicity Value is based on non-cancer effects
COPC = Chemical of Potential Concern
Potential COPC
ARAR/TBC Flag
Source {YIN)
NA NO
NA NO
NA NO
NA NO
NA NO
NA NO
NA NO
NA NO
NA NO
NA NO
NA YES
NA NO
NA NO
NA NO
NA NO
NA NO
(4) Rationale Cooes: BSL = Below Screening Level
ASL = Above Screening Level
NTX = No toxicity data
ARAR!TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/To Be Considered
ug/kg = micrograms per kilogram
J = estimated value
j /De oe-_/ J. j
-
Rationale for
Selection or
Deletion
(4)
BSL
BSL
BSL
NTX
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
ASL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
Ram leatherRAGS_D_RME Rev O.xls; 7/2/2009 Page 1 of 1 7/2/2009
-11111111!1' --
Sc_enario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Ground Water
Exposure Medium: Ground Water
Exposure Chemical of
Point Potential Concern
Tap/ Showerhead 1,4-Oichlorobenzene
PW030 Chloroform
is-1,2-Dichloroethene
T etrachloroethene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
T richloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max)
UCL -Upper Confidence Limit
ug/l -Microgram per liter
Ram LeatherRAGS_D_RME Rev a.xis; 7/2/2009
-
Table B-3.1
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMA.RY
Ram Leather Care, Charlotte, NC
Units Arithmetic 95% UCL of Maximum
Mean Distribution Concentration
(Qualifier) Value
ug/L NA NA ND ND
ug/l NA NA 3 3
ug/L NA NA ND ND
ug/L NA NA ND ND
ug/L NA NA ND ND
ug/L NA NA ND ND
ug/L NA NA ND ND
Page 1 of 1
Units
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
---
Exposure Point Concentrations
Statistic Rationale
NA NA
Max Region 4 Guidance
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
7/2/2009
---..
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Ground Vvater
Exposure Medium: Ground Water
Exposure Chemical of
Point Potential Concern
Tap I Showerhead 1,4-Dichlorobenzene
DW011 Chloroform
cis-1,2-Oichloroethene
etrachloroethene
rans-1,2-Dichloroethene
ITrichloroethene
!Vinyl Chloride
Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max)
UCL -Upper Confidence Limit
ug/L -Microgram per liter
Ram LeatherRAGS_O_RME Rev 0.xls; 7/2/2009
.. .. - --
Table 8-3.2
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Ram Leather Care. Charlotte. NC
Units Arithmetic 95% UCL of Maximum
Mean Distribution Concentration
(Qualifier) Value
ug/L NA NA ND ND
ug/L NA NA ND ND
ug/L NA NA 1620 1620
ug/L NA NA 4320 4320
ug/L NA NA 15.2 15.2
ug/L NA NA 356 356
ug/L NA NA 18.2 18.2
Page 1 of 1
Units
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
----
Exposure Point Concentrations
Statistic Rationale
NA NA
NA . NA
Max Region 4 Guidance
Max Region 4 Guidance
Max Region 4 Guidance
Max Region 4 Guidance
Max Region 4 Guidance
7/2/2009
-----
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Ground Water
Exposure Medium; Ground Waler
Exposure Chemical of
Point Potential Concern
Tap I Showerhead 1,4-Oichlorobenzene
PW003 Chlorofonn
is-1,2-Dichloroelhene
T etrachloroethene
rans-1,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroelhene
Vinyl Chloride
Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max)
UCL -Upper Confidence Limit
ug/l -Microgram per liter
Ram LeatherRAGS_D_RME Rev 0.xls; 7/2/2009
-... - ---
Table B-3.3
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Ram Leather Care, Charlotte, NC
Units Arithmetic 95% UCL of Maximum
Mean Distribution Concentration
(Qualifier) Value
ug/L NA NA 0.61 0.61
ug/L NA NA ND ND
ug/L NA NA 17.9 17.9
ug/L NA NA 41.3 41.3
u9/L NA NA ND ND
-ug/L NA NA 1.6 1.6
u9/L NA NA ND ND
Page 1 of 1
Units
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
-- --
Exposure Point Concentrations
Statistic Rationale
Max Region 4 Guidance
NA NA
Max Region 4 Guidance
Max Region 4 Guidance
NA NA
Max Region 4 Guldance
NA NA
7/212009
-- ---
!scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Ground Water
Exposure Medium: Ground Water
Exposure Chemical of
Point Potential Concern
Tap I Showerhead 1.4-Dichlorobenzene
PW016 Chloroform
lcis-1,2-Dichloroelhene
tTetrachloroethene
rans-1,2-Dichloroelhene
lrrichloroethene
lvinyl Chloride
Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max)
UCL -Upper Confidence Limit
ug/L -Microgram per liter
~m LeatherRAGS_D_RME Rev O.xls; 7/212009
-----
Table B-3.5
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Ram Leather Care, Char1otte, NC
Units Arithmetic 95% UCLof Maximum
Mean Distribution Concentration
(Qualifier) Value
ug/L NA NA ND ND
ug/L NA NA ND ND
ug/L NA NA 6.2 6.2
ug/L NA NA 5.6 5.6
ug/L NA NA ND ND
ug/L NA NA 2.2 2.2
ug/L NA NA ND ND
Page 1 of 1
-- - --
Exposure Point Concentrations
Units Statistic Rationale
ug/L NA NA
ug/L NA NA
ug/L Max Region 4 Guidance
ug/L Max Region 4 Guidance
ug/L NA NA
ug/L Max Region 4 Guidance
ug/L NA NA
7/2/2009
---.. -
!scenario Timeframe: Future
lviedium: Ground Water
Exposure Medium: Ground Water
Exposure Chemical of
Point Potential Concern
Tap/ Showerhead 1,4-Oichlorobenzene
PW029 Chloroform
l"is-1,2-Dichloroethene
rretrachloroethene
rans-1.2-Dichloroethene
rrnchloroethene
[Vinyl Chloride
Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max)
UCL -Upper Confidence Limit
ug/L -Microgram per Hier
Ram LeatherRAGS_O_RME Rev 0.xls; 7/2/2009
-----
Table 8-3.6
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Ram Leather Care, Charlotte, NC
Units Arithmetic 95% UCL of Maximum
Mean Distribution Concentration
(Qualifier) Value
ug/l NA NA ND ND
ug/l NA NA ND ND
ug/l NA NA 6.6 6.6
ug/l NA NA 101 101
ug/l NA NA ND ND
ug/l NA NA 6.4 6.4
ug/l NA NA ND ND
Page 1 of 1
---
Exposure Point Concentrations
Units Statistic Rationale
ug/L NA NA
ug/l NA NA
ug/L Max Region 4 Guidance
ug/l Max Region 4 Guidance
ug/l NA NA
ug/L Max Region 4 Guidance
ug/l NA NA
7/2/2009
-----
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Subsurface Soil
Exposure Medium: Subsurface Soil
Exposure Chemical of
Point Potential Concern
~ite j{! etrachloroethene
Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max)
UCL -Upper Confidence Limit
ug/kg -Microgram per kilogram
mg/kg -Milligram per kilogram
Ram LealherRAGS_O_RME Rev 0.xls; 7/212009
--- ----
I
Table 8-3.7
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Ram leather Care, Charlotte. NC
Units Arithmetic 95% UCL of Maximum
Mean Distribution Concentration
(Qualifier) Value
ug/kg I NA I NA I 6460 I 6.46
Page 1 of 1
I Units
I mg/kg
-·-- -
Exposure Point Conc~ntralions
I Statistic I Rationale
I Max II Region 4 Guidance I
7/2/2009
iiiil -------------
cenario rimeframe:
Medium:
~vposure Medium:
Exposure Receptor
Current/Future
Groundwater
Groundwater
Parameter
TableB-4.1.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Ram Leather Care, Charlotte, NC
Receptor Exposure Point Parameter Definition RME Value Rouite Population Age Code Units RME Rationale/Reference
cw chemical concentration in water See Table 3 ""' See Table 3 Ingestion Resident Child to Adult Tap
IF~ ingestion factor, groundwater 1.09 Iii em-yr/kg-day EPA 1991a, b
BW, body weight. child 15 kg EPA 1995
BW, body weight. adult 70 kg EPA 1995
I"-ingestion rate ground-Nater, child 1 liter/day EPA 1991a
IR.,. ingestion rate groundwater, adult 2 ~teraJday EPA 1991a
ED, eKpOSure duration, child 6 year.; EPA 1991a
ED• exposure duration, total 30 year.; EPA 1991a
EF exposure frequency 350 dayslyear EPA 1991a
CF conversion factor 0.001 mg/,g -
AT-C averaoino lime /cancer\ 25550 day, EPA 1gg1a
Inhalation/ Vapors at cw chemical concentration ln water See Table 3 ""' See Table 3
Dermal Resident Child to Adult Showertiead'
IF~ ingestion factor, groundwater 1.09 lilera•yrlkg-<lay EPA 1991a, b
BW, body weight, child 15 kg EPA 1995
sw. body weight, adult 70 kg EPA 1995
I"-ingestion rate groundwater, child 1 ~tar/day EPA 1991a
IR.,. ingestion rate groundwater, adult 2 liters/day EPA 1g91a
ED, ellJ)OSure duration, chad 6 yeara EPA 1991a
ED• e11.posure duration, total 30 yeara EPA 1991a
EF ellpo5ure frequency 350 day.,/year EPA 1991a
CF conversion factor 0.001 mgJ,g -
AT-C averaninn lime (cancer) 25550 day, EPA 1991a
U.S. EPA. 1991a. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental G.ridance; "Standard Default Ellposure Factors," OSWER Oiractive 9285.6-03, March 25.
U.S. EPA. 1991 b. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part 8: Development of Risk--Based Preliminary Remediation Goals," OSWER Directive 9265. 7.01B, December 13.
U.S. EPA. 1991c. "Guidance on Estimating Exposure to VOCs During Showering," Office of Research and OevelopmenL July 10.
1 Chronic daily intake due to inhalation of volatiles calculated as equivalent to groundwater ingestion using inhalation toiocity values.
Ram LeatherRAGS_O_RME Rev O.xls Page 1 of 4
Intake Equation/Model Name
IFr, = (ED0 x lRv,.c/BW0) + (ED"" -E00)x (IRv-'SW.)
Chronic daily intake (mg/kg-day)= cw X IF,. X EF I\ CF X 1/AT
IF,... = (ED0 1t IRv-/ BW0) +(ED""· EDcl 1t (IRpJBW..)
Chronic daily intake (mg/kg-clay) = CW 11. JF ~ 11. EF K CF 11. 1/AT
--
712/2009
---
!scenario Timeframe:
i,.tedium:
i:c,posure Medium:
-
Future
Groundwater
Groundwater
--
Parameter
-- - --
Table B-4.3.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Ram leather Care, Chai1otte, NC
-
~"ro Receptor Receptor Exposure Point " Population Ago C-Od, Parameter Definition Value Units Rationale/ Reference
Ingestion Constructioo """" cw chemical concentration in water See Table 3 "" See Table 3 Chronic daily intake
Wok~ Tap
IR,.. ingestion rate groundwater, child 1 liters/day EPA 1991a
EF exposure frequency 250 days/year EPA 1991a
ED exposure duration 1 yoar.; EPA 1991a
CF cor:iverslon factor 0.001 mg/"g EPA 1991a
BW body weight 70 kg EPA 1991a
AT averaaina time /non-cancer\ 365 day, EPA 1989a
U.S. EPA. 1989a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superlund: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A) December. Appendix A.
U.S. EPA. 1991a. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: "Standard Default Exposure Factors." OSWER Directive 9285.6--03, March 25.
Ram LealherRAGS_D_RME Rev O.xls Page3of4
-----
Intake Equation/Model Name
= CW x lRvw<, x EF X ED x CF X 1/BW x 1/AT
7{2/2009
- ----- - - - ---- - ------
Table B-5.1
NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA-ORAUDERMAL
_f'_ Ram Leather Care, Charlotte, NC
Chemical of Potential Chronic/ c/raJ RID Oral Absorption Absorbed RfD for Dermal 1 Combined RfD: Target Organ(s) Efficiency for Primary Target Organ(s) Uncertainty/ Concern Subchronic
Vatuef Dermal Value Units Moclifying Factors Source 2·3 Date Units
1,4-Dichlorobenzene Chronic t:JA/ mg/kg-day NA NA mg/kg-day NA NA NA NA
Chloroform Chronic 1.0E-02" mg/kg-day 100% 1.0E-02 mg/kg-day Liver 100 IRIS 10/19/2001
1r is-1,2-Dich/oroethene Chronic 1.~ mg/kg-day 100% 1.0E-02 mg/kg-day UnknO'vYTl Unknovm RSL 5/19/2009 tr etrachloroethene Chronic 1.0li-02 ..mg/kg-day 100% 1.0E-02 mg/kg-day Liver 1000 IRIS 3/1/1988
rans-1,2-Dichloroethene Chronic ~ mg/kg-day 100% 2.0E-02 mg/kg-day ncreased serum phosphatas 1000 IRIS 1/1/1989
ITrichloroethene Chronic lib<" NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
!vinyl Chloride Chronic 3_ui,'-()3 mg/kg-day 100% 3.0E-03 mg/kg-day Liver 30 IRIS 817/2000
1. The dermal RfD was assume:::! to equal the oral RfD, unless an adjustme-it factor was found in Exhibit 4.1 of EPA's Risk Assessment Supplemental Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health
Evaluation Manual (Part E: Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment), July 2004.
2. RSL -EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) May 19, 2009
3. IRIS -EPA Integrated Risk Information System
RID -Reference dose
NA -Not applicable
Ram LeatherRAGS_D_RME Rev O.xls; 7/2/2009 Page 1 o! 1 7/2/2009
-
-----
Chemical of Potential Chronic/
--·--·-
Inhalation Rte
Table B-5.2
NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA-INHALATION
Ram Leather Care Charlotte NC
Extrapolated RID
--
Concern Subchronic Value
Adjusbnent 1 Primary Target Organ(s)
Units Value Units
11,4-Dichlorobenzene Chronic 8.0E<01 _.. mg/m" 2.9E-01 2E-01 mg/kg-day
8hloroform Chronic 9.~ mg/m3 2.9E-01 3E-02 mg/kg-day
ds-1,2-Dichloroethene Chronic NV NA NA NA NA
T etrachloroethene Chronic 2,le<(Jl _mg/m3 2.9E-01 8E-02 mg/kg-day
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Chronic 6.0E-OY mg/m3 2.9E-01 2E-02 mg/kg-day
'T richloroethene Chronic ~ NA NA NA NA
lvinyl Chloride Chronic 1.0E&r mg/m3 2.9E-01 3E-02 mg/kg-day
1. Adjustment: 20 m3/day (assumed human intake rate) divided by 70 kg (assumed human body weight}
2. RSL -EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) May 19, 2009
3. IRIS -EPA Integrated Risk Information System
Rte -Reference concentration
RfD -Reference dose
NA -Not applicable
Ram LeatherRAGS_D_RME Rev 0.xls; 7/2/2009 Page 1 of 1
Liver
unk
NA
unk
unk
NA
Liver
-----
Combined RfC
Uncertainty/
Source 2• 3 Modifying Date
100 IRIS 11/1/1996
Unknown RSL 5/19/2009
NA NA NA
Unknown RSL 5/19/2009
Unknown RSL 5/19/2009
NA NA NA
30 IRIS 8/7/2000
7/2/2009
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table B-6.1
CANCER TOXICITY DATA--ORAL/DERMAL
Ram Leather Care Charlotte NC ' '
Oral Cancer Slope Factor Adjusted Cancer Slope Cancer Guideline Oral Cancer Slope Factor Absorption Factor (for Dermal) 1' 2' 3 Description Chemical of Potential
Concern Efficiency
(for Dermal) US EPA IARC Source 6· 7 Valu/ Units Value Units Group 4 Group 5 Date
1,4-Dichlorobenzene s.d-03 . (mg/kg/day)-1 100% 5.4E-03 (mglkglday)-1 NC 28 CalEPA 61312009
Chloroform HS02 (mg/kg/day)-1 100% 3.1E-02 (mglkglday)-1 82 28 CalEPA 6/3/2009
cls-1,2-Dichloroethene NJ\"" NA NA NA NA D NA IRIS 2/1/1995
IT etrachloroethene ~ .(mg/kg/day)-1 100% 5.4E-01 (mg/kg/day)-1 NC 2A CalEPA 6/3/2009
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ...NK"' (mg/kg/day)-1 NA NA NA NC NA NA NA
l"rrichloroethene 1.."le:tJ2 v(mg/kglday)-1 100% 1.3E-02 (mg/kg/day)-1 NC 2A CalEPA 6/3/2009
Vinyl Chloride ~ (mg/kg/day)-1 100% 1.5E+00 (mg/kg/day)-1 A 1 IRIS 8/7/2000
< 1,~,7 ·1= fcJ i'ltcQi :fe-t~r; ➔ ,t
1. The dermal CSF was assumed to equal the oral CSF, unless an adjustment factor was found in Exhibit 4.1 of EPA's Risk
Assessment Supplemental Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E: Supplemental
Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment), July 2004.
2. EPA 1989. 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. EPA Group:
A -Human carcinogen
B 1 -Probable human carcinogen -indicates sufficient evidence in animals and limited evidence in humans
82 -Probable human carcinogen -indicates sufficient evidence in animals and inadequate or no evidence in humans
C -Possible human carcinogen
D -Not classifiable ast to human carcinogenicity
E -Evidence of non carcinogenicity for humans
5. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Group:
1 -Human carcinogen
2A -The agent is probably carcinogenic to humans
2B -The agent is possibly carcinogenic to humans
3 -The agent is not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity
4 -The agent is probably not carcinogenic to humans
6. Cal/EPA -California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) -Toxicity Criteria Database
http://www.oehha.org/risk/ChemicalDB/start.asp
7. IRIS -EPA Integrated Risk Information System
NA -Not applicable
NC -Not classified
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chemical of Potential
Concern
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Chloroform
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
T etrachloroethene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Table B-6.2
CANCER TOXICITY DATA--INHALATION
Ram Leather Care Charlotte NC ' '
Unit Risk Inhalation Cancer Slope Cancer Guideline
Factor Description
Adjustment 1
Units Value US EPA IARC Value Units Group 2 Group 3
1 ,,r'.'05 (ug/m3)"1 3,500 4E-02 (mg/kg/day)-1 NC 28
2.35-<05 (ug/m3)"1 3,500 8E-02 (mg/kg/day)-1 82 28
!>II<' NA NA NA NA D NA . ----'(ugim3)"1 3,500 2E-02 (mg/kg/day)-1 NC 2A
..,( NA NA NA NA NC NA ~-'(ug/m3)"1 3,500 ?E-03 (mg/kg/day)-1 NC 2A
£7">'-(ug/m3)"1 3,500 3E-02 (mg/kg/day)-1 A 1
.......... .. _-fs, -' ; , -. C ~ -~-. '
,,,,----
lnhalatiorfGancer Slope
Factor
Source 4' 5 Date
CalEPA 6/3/2009
IRIS 10/19/2001
IRIS 2/1/1995
CalEPA 6/3/2009
NA NA
CalEPA 6/3/2009
IRIS 8/7/2000
1. Ad'ustment: 70 k g ( '1-aJ r-• ' assumed huma bod wei ht divided b y g ) y 20 m3/d ay ( assumed human in k ta e rate) multiplied by
2. EPA Group:
A -Human carcinogen
B 1 -Probable human carcinogen -indicates sufficient evidence in animals and limited evidence in humans
82 -Probable human carcinogen -indicates sufficient evidence in animals and inadequate or no evidence in human
C -Possible human carcinogen
D -Not classifiable ast to human carcinogenicity
E -Evidence of non carcinogenicity for humans
3. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Group:
1 -Human carcinogen
2A -The agent is probably carcinogenic to humans
28 -The agent is possibly carcinogenic to humans
3 -The agent is not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity
4 -The agent is probably not carcinogenic to humans
4. CaVEPA -California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) • Toxicity Criteria Database
http://www.oehha.org/risk/ChemicalDB/start.asp
5. IRIS -EPA Integrated Risk Information System
NA -Not applicable
NC -Not classified
-----
Scenario Tmeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Resident
eceptor Age: Lifetime (cancer), Child (noncancer)
Modium E,q,o,~• E,q,o,"" E,q,o,""
Medium Point Route
Ground Water Ground Water Tap lngestioo
PW030
~e Route Total I
Ground Water Ground Water Showerhead Inhalation
PW030
JExe. Route Total I
Exposure Point Total
~~ure Medium Total
round Water Total
Ram leatherRAGS_O_RME Rev O.xls
-- -- - --------
Table B-7.1.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZAR.05
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Ram Leather Care, Charlotte, NC
Ch_,, EPC cancer Risk Calculations
of Potential Intake/ Exposure Concentration CSF/Unit Risk
Concern Value Units Value Units Value Units
1,4-0ichlorobenzene ND "g/L NA "g/L 5.4E-03 (mg/kg-day}-1
Chloroform 3E-t00 "g/L 4E-05 "g/L 3.1E-02 (mg/kg-day}-1
cis-1,2-0ichJoroelhene ND "g/L NA "'" NA NA
T etrachJoroelhene ND "g/L NA "g/L 5.4E-01 (mg/kg-day)-1
trans-1,2-0ichloroethene ND "g/L NA "g/L NA NA
Trichloroethane ND "g/L NA ""' 1.3E-02 (mglkg-day}-1
Vinvl Chloride ND """ NA """ 1.SE+OO lmnlla,-davl-1
1,4-Dichlorobanzena ND ""' NA "g/L 3.9E-02 (mg/kg-day}-1
Chloroform 3E,OO "g/L 4E-05 ""' 8.1E-02 (mglkg-day}-1
cis-1,2-riichloroethene ND "g/L NA "g/L NA NA
Tetrachloroethene ND "g/L NA ""' 2.1E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1
trans-1,2-0ichloroethene ND "g/L NA ""' NA NA
T richloroelhene ND "g/L NA "g/L 7.0E-03 (mg/kg-day}-1
Vinvl Chloride ND """ NA ""' 3.1E-02 lmq/kq-dav)-1
I
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Medi:
Page 1 of 1
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Cancer Intake/ Exposure Concentration RfD/RfC Hazard
Risk Value Units Value Units Quotient
NA NA "g/L NA NA NA
1E-06 1.9E-04 ug/L 1E-02 (mg/kg-day) 0.02
NA NA ug/L · 1E-02 (mg/kg-.day) NA
NA NA "g/L 1E-02 (mg/kg-day) NA
NA NA ""' 2E-02 (mg/kg-day) NA
NA NA ""' NA NA NA
NA NA """ 3E-03 {mn/1,n-davl NA
0.02
NA NA "g/L 2.3E-01 (mglkg-<iay) NA
4E-06 1.9E-04 "g/L 2.SE-02 (mg/kg-<iay) 0.01
NA NA "g/L NA NA NA
NA NA ""' 7.7E-02 (mg/kg-day) NA
NA NA ""' 1.7E-02 (mg/kg-day) NA
NA NA ""' NA NA NA
NA NA uqll 2.9E-02 {mnlkn-day) NA
4E-06 ~
SE-06 ~ I SE-06 I ~
SE-06 I Total of Receptor Hazards Across AD Medial~
71212009
-- ---
!Scenario Tuneframe: Future
!Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Lifetime (cancer). Child (noncancer)
Medium Exposure Exposure &posure
Medium Point Route
Ground Water Ground Water Tap Ingestion
DW011
lexp. Route Total I
Ground Water Ground Water Showerhead lnhalatioo
OW011
lexp. Route Total I
jExposure Point Total I
!Exposure Medn.Jm Total
Ground Water Total
Ram LeathefRAGS_D_RME Rev 0.xls
-------
Table 8-7.2.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS ANO NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Ram Leather Cara, Charlotte, NC
Chemical EPC Cancer Risk Co!culalions
of Potential Intake/ Exposure Concentration CSF/Unit Risk
Coocem Value Units Value Units Value Units
1,4-DichlOfUbenzene ND ,gll NA ,gJL 5.4E-03 (mg/kg-day}-_1
Chloroform ND ,gJL NA ,gJL 3.1E-02 (mg/kg-day}-1
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 1.GE+-03 "'" 2E-02 ,g/l NA NA
Tetrachloroelhene 4.3E-t-03 ,gJL 6E--02 ,,,, 5.4E-01 {mg/kg,-day}-1
trans-1,2-0ichloroelhene 1.SE-+-01 ,gJL 2E-04 ,gJL NA NA
T richloroethene 3.6E+02 ,,,, SE-03 ,g/L 1.3E-02 (mglkg-day}-1
Vinvl Chlonde 1.8E-+-01 """ 3E-04 """ 1.SE-+00 1
1,4-0ichlorobenzene ND ,gll NA ,gll 3.9E-02 (mg/l<g-day}-1
Chloroform ND ,gll NA ,gJL 8.1E-02 (mglkg-day}-1
cis• 1,2•Dichloroethene 1.6E+03 ,,,, 2E-02 ,,,, NA NA
Tetrachloroethene 4.3E-+-03 ,gll 6E-02 ,gll 2.1E-02 (mg/kg-day}-1
trans• 1,2-0ichloroethene 1.SE-+-01 ,gJL 2E-04 ,gll NA NA
Tnchloroethene 3.6E-+-02 ,gll SE-03 ,gll 7.0E-03 (mg/kg-day}--1
Vinvt Chloride 1.8E+01 ,., 3E-04 ""' 3.1E-02 (mn/1,n-davl-1
Cancer
Risk
NA
NA
NA
3E-02
NA
7E-05
4E-04
4E-02
NA
NA
NA
1E-03
NA
4E-05
BE-06
1E-03
I
Total of R~eot~ Risks Acrn,s AU Medffi
Page 1 of 1
-----
Nao-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Intake/ E ure Coocentration RfOIRfC Ha=d
Value Units Value Units Quotient
NA ,gll NA NA NA
NA ,gll 1E-02 (mg/llg-day) NA
1.0E-01 ug/L 1E-02 (mg/kg-day) 10
2.BE--01 ,gll 1E-02 (mg/kg-day) 28
9.7E-04 "'" 2E-02 {mg/kg-day) 0.05
2.3E-02 ,,,, NA NA NA
1.2E-03 """ 3E-03 (mg/kg-day) 0.4
[:JO
NA ,,,, 2.3E-01 (mg/kg-day) NA
NA ,,,, 2.8E-02 (mg/kg-day) NA
1.0E-01 ,,,, NA NA NA
2.8E-01 ,,,, 7.7E-02 (mg/kg-day) 4
9.7E-04 ,,,, 1.7E-02 (mg/kg-day) 0.1
2.3E-02 ,gll NA NA NA
1.2E-03 ""' 2.9E-02 !mnlkn-day) 0.04
4
42
42
Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Media 42
7/2/2009
- ----
!scenario Timeframe: Future
!Receptor l:'opulation: Resident
!Receptor Age: Lifetime (cancer). Child (noocancer)
Medium E,poo,ra Exposure E,poo,ra
Medium Point Route
Ground Water Ground Water Tap Ingestion
PW003
le,<£ Route Total I
Ground Water Ground Water ShOW8fhead Inhalation
PW003
~e• Route Total I
l§;~ure Point Total I
~~ure Medium Total
Ground Water Total
Ram LeatherRAGS_D_RME Rev O.xls
---- - -- -
Table B-7.3.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Ram Leather Care, Char1otte, NC
Chemical EPC Cancer Risk Calculations
of Potential Intake/ i=~,_..,ure Concentration CSF/Unit Risk
Concern Value Units Value Units Value Units
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 6.1E-01 ""' 9E-06 ""' 5.4E-03 (mg/kg-day)-1
Chloroform ND ,g11. NA ,gll 3.1E-02 {mg/kg-day)-1
cis-1,2-0ichloroethene 1.BE-+-01 ,g/l 3E-04 ,gll NA NA
T etrachloroethene 4.1E+01 ""' 6E-04 ,g11. S.4E-01 (mg/kg-day)-1
trans-1,2-0ichloroethene ND ,gll NA ,g11. NA NA
T lichkiroethene 1.6E+OO ,gll 2E-05 ,g11. 1.3E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1
Vcnvt Chloride ND """ NA ""' 1.SE+OO {mnllm-day)-1
1,4-0ichlorobenzene 6.tE-01 ,g11. 9.10822E-06 ,gll 3.9E-02 (mglkg-day)-1
Chlorofoon ND ,gll NA ,g11. 8.1E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 1.8E-+-01 ""' 3E-04 ""' NA NA
Tetrachloroethene 4.1E+01 ,g/l 6E-04 ,g11. 2.1E-02 (rng/kg-day)-1
trans-1,2-0ichloroethene ND ,g11. NA ,g11. NA NA
T richloroethene 1.6E+OO ,g/l 2E-05 ,g11. 7.0E-03 (mg/kg-day)-1
I
------
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculat10lls
Ganeer Intake/ Exoosure Concentration RID/RIC H=d
Risk Value Units Value Units Quotient
5E-08 3.9E-05 ""' NA NA NA
NA NA ,g11. 1E-02 (mg/kg-day) NA
NA 1.1E--03 ,gll 1E-02 (mg/kg-day) 0.1
3E-04 2.6E--03 ""' 1E-02 (mg/kg-day) 0.3
NA NA ,g11. 2E-02 (mg/kg-day) NA
3E-07 1.0E-04 ,g11. NA NA NA
NA NA """ 3E-03 (mn/kn-riay) ± 3E-04 I
4E-07 3.9E-05 ,gll 2.3E-01 (mg/kg-day) 0.0002
NA NA ,g/l 2.BE-02 (mg/kg-day) NA
NA 1. tE-03 ug/L NA NA NA
tE-05 2.6E-03 ,g11. 7.7E-02 (mg/kg-day) 0.03
NA NA ,g11. 1.7E-02 (mg/kg-day) NA
2E-07 1.0E-04 ""' NA NA NA
Vinyl Chloride ND ""'' NA ,q/L ·~ NA ug/L 2.9E-02 (mg/kg-day) NA
~ DD I DD II Total of Receptor Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Media DD
Page 1 of 1 7/212009
- - --
!Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
'-·"'"' ·"·· Lifetime (cancer). Child (noncancer)
Modium E<po,,ra Exposure E<po,,ra
M,dium Point Route
Ground Water Ground Water Tap Ingestion
PW010
IE,p. Route Total I
Ground Water Ground Water Showerhead Inhalation
PW010
I~ Route Total I
!Exposure Point Total I n::y,..,,.,ura Medium Total
nd Water Total
Ram LeatherRAGS_D_RME Rev a.xis
-- - - --------
Table B-7.4.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Ram Leather Care, Charlotte, NC
Ch,,_ EPC Cancer Risk Galculations
of Pot8fltial Intake/ Exposure Concentration CSF/Unil Risk Cancer
Concern Value Units Value Units Value Units Risk
1,4-0ichlorobenzene NO ,g/1. NA ,g/1. 5.4E-03 (mg/llg.day)-1 NA
Chloroform NO ,g/1. NA ,g/1. 3.1E-02 (mglkg-day}-1 NA
cis-1.2-Dichloroelhene 7.4E-t-01 ,g/1. 1E-03 ,g/L NA NA NA
T etrachJoroethene 1.0E+-02 ,g/1. 2E-03 ,g/1. 5.4E-01 (mg/kg-day)-1 BE-04
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene NO ,g/1. NA ,g/1. NA NA NA
T richloroethene 3.SE-t-01 ,g/1. SE-04 ,g/1. 1.3E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 7E-06
Vinvl Chloride NO ,g/L NA ,wL 1.SE+-00 lm""'"-da"' 1 NA
BE-04
1,4-Dichlorobenzene NO ,g/1. NA ,g/1. 3.9E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 NA
Chloroform NO ,g/L NA ,g/1. 8.1E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 NA
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 7.4E+-01 ,g/1. 1E-03 ,g/1. NA NA NA
Tetrachloroethene 1.0E+-02 og/1. 2E-03 ,g/1. 2.1E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 3E-05
trans-1,2-0ichloroethene ND ""' NA ,g/L NA NA NA
T richloroelhene 3.SE+-01 ,g/1. SE-04 ,g/L 7.0E-03 (mg/kg-day)-1 4E-06
V111yl Chloride NO """ NA """ 3.1E-02 (mnllrn-dav\-1 NA ~
II 9E-04 II
Total of Recector Risks Across All Media I 9E-04 n
Page 1 of 1
Noo-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Intake/ Exnosure Concentration RfD/RfC """"' Value Units Value Units Quotient
NA ,g/1. NA NA NA
NA ,g/L 1E-02 (mglkg-day) NA
4.8E-03 ,g/L 1E-02 {mg/Ilg-day) 0.5
6.SE-03 ,g/L lE--02 (mg/kg-day) 0.6
NA ,g/L 2E--02 (mg/kg-day) NA
2.3E-03 ,g/L NA NA NA
NA ,g/L 3E-03 (mg/kg-day) NA
c::::::cJ
NA ,g/1. 2.3E-01 (mg/kg-day) NA
NA ,g/L 2.SE-02 (mg/kg-day) NA
4.SE-03 ,g/1. NA NA NA
6.SE-03 ,g/1. 7.7E-02 (mg/kg-day) o.,
NA ugll 1.7E-02 (mg/kg-day) NA
2.3E-03 ,g/L NA NA NA
NA uoll 2.9E-02 /ma/ka-dav) NA
o., , ,
Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Medial ,
712/2009
----
!scenario Trneframe: Future
IReceptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age; lifetime (cancer), Child (noncancer)
Medium E,pos,m E,po,rnm E,pos"m .,_m Point Route
Ground Water Ground Water Tap Ingestion
PW016
I~. Route Total
Ground Water Ground Water Showerhead Inhalation
PW016
C IExp. Route Total
jEx~ure Point Total
~~ure Medium Total
nd Water Total
Ram leatherRAGS _ D _ RME Rev O . .ds
--- - - - ---- ----
I
Table B-7 .5.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Ram Leather Care, Char1otte, NC
Chemical EPC Cancer Risk Calculations
of Potential Intake/ Ex ure Concentration CSF/Unit Risk
Concern Value Units Value Units Value Units
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND . "g/L NA "g/L 5.4E-03 (mg/kg-day)-1
Chloroform ND "g/L NA "g/L 3.1E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1
cis-t ,2-0ichloroethene 6.2E+OO "g/L 9E-05 "g/L NA NA
T etrachloroethene 5.6E+OO "g/L 8E-05 "g/L 5.4E-01 (mg/kg-day)-1
trans-1.2-Dich!oroethene ND "g/L NA "g/L NA NA
Trichloroethane 2.2E+OO ""' 3E--05 "g/L 1.3E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1
Vinvl Chloride ND ""' NA "o/L 1.5E+OO {ma/lm-day)-1
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND "g/L NA "g/L 3.9E--02 {mg/kg-day)-1
Chlorofoon ND "g/L NA "g/L 8.1E--02 (mg/kg-day)-1
cis-1,2-0ichloroelhene 6.2E+OO "g/L 9E-05 "g/L NA NA
T etrachloroethene 5.6E+OO "g/L SE-05 ""' 2.1E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND "g/L NA "g/L NA NA
T richloroethene 2.2E+OO "g/L 3E-05 "g/L 7.0E--03 (mg/kg-day)-1
Vinvl Chloride ND "o/L NA "g/L 3. lE-02 /n-v,r.n-davl--1
I II I I I Total of Receptor Risks Across All MediaH
Page 1 of 1
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Cancer Intake/ Eilposure Concentration RfD/RfC Hawd
Risk Value Units Value Units Quotient
NA NA "g/L NA NA NA
NA NA "'" 1E--02 {mg/kg-day) NA
NA 4.0E-04 "'" tE-02 (mg/kg-day) 0.04
SE--05 3.6E--04 "'" 1E.{)2 {mg/kg-day) 0.04
NA NA ""' 2E-02 {mg/kg-day) NA
4E--07 1.4E--04 ""' NA NA NA
NA NA "oil 3E--03 (mg/kg-day) NA
5E--05 DD
NA NA "g/L 2.3E-01 (mg/kg-day) NA
NA NA ""' 2.8E-02 (mg/kg-day) NA
NA 4.0E--04 ""' NA NA NA
2E-06 3.6E-04 ""' 7.7E-02 (mg/kg-day) 0.005
NA NA ""' 1.7E-02 (mg/kg-day) NA
2E-07 1.4E--04 ""' NA NA NA
NA NA "o/L 2.9E--02 !mo/ko-dav) NA
~ DD DD
SE-05 u Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Medial 0.1
7/2/2009
- ----
!scenario Tuneframe: Future -
!Receptor Population: Resident
IReceptOf Age: Lifetime (cancer), Child (noncancer)
Medium Exposure Exposure Exposure """'"m -· Route
Ground Water Ground Water Tap Ingestion
PW029
IE,,,. Route Total I
Ground Water Ground Water Showerhead Inhalation
PW029
IE,,,. Route Total II
IEx~ure Point Total 1,
~posura Medium Total
nd Water Total
Ram LeatherRAGS_D_RME Rev O.xls
--- ----
Table 8•7.6.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Ram Leather Care, Charlotte, NC
Chemical EPC Cancer Risk Galcu!alions
of Potential Intake/ ure Concentration CSF/Unit Risk
Concern Value Units . Value Units Value Units
1,4-0ichlorobenzene ND ,gll NA ,gll 5.4E-03 (mg/kg-day)-1
Chloroform ND ,gll NA ,g/l 3.1E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 6.6E+OO ,g/L 1E-04 ,g/l NA NA
Tetrachloroethene 1.0E+02 ,gll 2E-03 ,gll 5.4E-01 (mg/kg-day)-1
trans-1,2-Dk;hloroethene ND ,gll NA ,gll NA NA
Trichloroethane 6.4E+OO ,gll 1E-04 ,gll 1.3E-02 (mglkg-day)-1
Vuwt Chloride ND """ NA ,gll 1.SE+-00 {rnnll<n<{jay)-1
1,4-Dichlorobeozene ND ,gll NA ,gll J,ge-o2 (mg/kg-day}-1
ChJorofonn ND ""' NA ,gll 8.1E-02 (mg/kg-<iay}-1
cis-1,2-Dichloroelhene 6.6E-+-OO ,gll 1E-04 ,gll NA NA
T etrachloroelhene 1.0E+02 ,gll 2E-03 ,gll 2.1E-02 (mg/kg-Oay}-1
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ,gll NA ,gll NA NA
T richloroelhene 6.4E+OO ,gll 1E-04 ,gll 7.0E-03 (mg/kg-Oay}-1
Vinvl Chloride ND ,gJL NA ,gJL 3.1E-02 /mnlkn-Oay}-1
I
II I II II
II Total of Receptor Risks Across An Medial!
Paga 1 of 1
-- -- --
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Cancer Intake/ 1-rnn<>ure Concentration RfD/RfC "="' Risk Value Units Value Units Quotient
NA NA ,gll NA NA NA
NA NA ,g!L 1E-02 (mg/kg-day) NA
NA 4.2E-04 ,g/l 1E-02 (mgf,<;g-day) 0.04
8E-04 6.SE--03 ,gll 1E-02 (mg/kg-day) 0.6
NA NA ,gJL 2E..02 (mg/kg-day) NA
lE-06 4.1 E-04 ,gll NA NA NA
NA NA """ 3E-03 (mg/kg-day) NA
8E-04 ~
NA NA ,gll 2.3E-01 (rng/kg-<iay) NA
NA NA ,g!L 2.SE-02 (mglkg-Oay) NA
NA 4.2E-04 ,gll NA NA NA
3E-05 6.SE-03 ,g!L 7.7E-02 (mg/kg-Oay) 0.1
NA NA ,gll UE-02 (mg.lkg-Oay) NA
7E-07 4. lE-04 ,gll NA NA NA
NA NA ug/l 2.9E-02 (mg/kg-Oa~) NA
3E-05 ~
8E-04 I Du
8E-04 I Du
BE-04 II Total of Receptor Hazards Across All MediaJI ~
7/212009
- - - --
iscenano Tme!rame: Future
~eceptor Population: Construction Worker
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium E,posu,e E,posu,e Exposure
Medium Point Route
Subsurface Soil Subsurface Soil Site lnoestion
IExP. Route Total
Subsurface Soil Subsurface Soil Site Dermal
1i::w,,_ Route Total
Subsurface Soil "' Site Inhalation
IE;,;e. Route Total
~posure Point Total
ure Medium Total
Ground Water Ground Water Tap Ingestion
DW011
IE.-.p. Route Total
jEx~ure Point Total
i:::¥~ure Medium Total
Total
Ram LeatherRAGS_D_RME Ravo.xis
-l!!!!!!!I l!!!!!!!!!I 1111111
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Tetrachloroethene
I
T etrachloroethene
T etrachloroe\hene
II
11
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Chloroform
cis-1,2-0ichloroethene
T etrachloroelhene
trans-1,2-0ichloroelhene
T richloroelhene
Vinv1 Chloride
I I
Table B-7.7.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Ram Leather Care, Charlotte, NC
EPC Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/ sure Coricentralion I CSF/Unit Risk I
Vah.Je I Units Value Units I Value Units I
6.SE-t{){J I =•o I 1E-07 I m~a I 5.4E-01 I (m~~aU:11
II
I 6.SE+OO I mrurn I SE-09 I m~a I 5.4E-01 I t~g-aa~c, I
II
I 6.SE+OO I mmoo I 7E-06 I m9!!g I 2.1E-02 I (m~g-darc 1 I
I
ND ug/L NA ug/L 5.4E-03 (mg/kg-day)-1
ND ug/L NA ug/L 3.tE-02 {mg/kg-day)-1
1.6E+o3 ug/L 2E-04 ug/L NA NA
4.3E+o3 ug/L 6E-04 ug/L 5.4E-01 (mglkg-day)-1
1.SE+o1 ug/L 2E-06 ug/L NA NA
3.6E-t-02 ug/L SE--05 ug/L 1.3E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1
1.8E+o1 uo/L 3E-06 ug/L 1.SE+OO (ma/ko-day)-1
I I
Total of Receptor Risks I
Page 1 of 1
liiiiii iiiii -- --
Non.Cancer Hazard Calculations
Ganeer Intake/ Exposure Concentration I RID/RIC """"' Risk Value Units I Value I Units Quotient
8E-08 II 1.0E-05 I rn9lk51 I 1E-02 I {m9/kg-da~) 0.001 I
SE-08 II 0.001 I
2E-09 II 3.2E--07 I m~g I 1.0E-02 I \m~2-dal) 0.00003 I
2E-09 II 0.00003 I
tE-07 II 5.0E--04 I m~g I 7.7E-02 I (m~g-dar) 0.01 I
1E-07 0.01 I
2E-07 0.0, I
2E-07 0.0, I
NA NA ug/L NA NA NA
NA NA ug/L 0.01 (mg/kg-day) NA
NA 1.6E-02 ug/L 0.01 (mg/kg-day) 2
3E-04 4.2E-02 ug/L 0.01 (mg/kg-day) 4
NA 1.SE--04 ug/L 0.02 (mg/kg-day) 0.01
6E-07 3.SE-03 ug/L NA NA NA
4E-06 1.SE--04 ugll 0.003 (mg/kg-day) 0.1
3E-04 I 6 I
3E-04 I I 6 I
3E-04 I I 6 I
3E-04 II Total of Receetor H~rdsll 6 I
7f2J"l009
- --
!Scenario nmeframe:
IIReceptor Population;
!Receptor Age:
Medium Exposure Medium
-
NA
NA
NA
-
Exposure Point
Exposure Point Total
Ram LeatherRAGS_D_RME Rev 0.xls
-l!!!!!!I l!!!!!!!!I !!!!!I
Table B-8.1.RME
CALCULATION OF RADIATION CANCER RISKS
Ram leather Care, Chartotte, NC
Exposw-e Route Radionuclide of Potential Concern EPC Risk Calculation Approach
Value Units
~xp. Route Total I
Page 1 of 1
liliii iiii liiil ---
Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/Activity CSF Cancer Risk
Value Units Value Units
.
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media
7/212009
--
l=:Trneframe Popuation:
Medium
Ground Waler
--- -
Current/Future
Resident
lifetime (cancer). Child (noocancer)
Exposure Exposure Chemical
Medium Point of Potential
Corce,n
Ground Water Tap 1,4-DicNorobenzene
PW030 ChlOfoform
I!!!!!!!! !!!!!I !!!!I
Table B-9.1.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Ram Leather Care, Char1otte, NC
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Exposure
Routes Total
NA NA NA NA
lE--06 NA 4E--06 5E--06
cis-1,2-Dichloroelhene NA NA NA NA
T etraclioroethene NA NA NA NA
liiiiil iiii liii
Non-Carcinogenic-Hazard Quotient
Primary Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Exposure
Target Organ(s) Routes Total
NA NA NA NA NA
Liver 0.02 NA 0.01 0.03
Unkrown NA NA NA NA
liver NA NA NA NA
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene NA NA NA NA Increased serum phosphatase NA NA NA NA
T richloroethene NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Vinvl Chlocide NA NA NA NA Liver NA NA NA NA
Chemical Total 1E-06 NA 4E--06 5E-OO 0.02 NA 0.01 o~I ~xposure Medium Total
jExposure Point Total II SE--06 I 0.
II 5E--06 I 0.03
eceptor T olal I 5E-06 I I I 0.03
Total Risk = II SE-06 II Total Hazard .U=aaaO;;.Oa,3=="11
Ram leathefRAGS_D_RME Rev O.xls Page 1 of 1 7/212009
liiii
-----
;x;enario Timeframe: Future
tReceptor Population: Resident
Receptor: Lifetime (cancer), ChHd (noncancer)
Medium EJ.:posure Exposw-e
Medium Point
Ground Waler Ground Water Tap
DW011
l!!!!!!!!!I
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Cl'Klfoform
I!!!!!! l!!!!!!I
Table B-9.2.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Ram Leather Care, Charlotte, NC
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Exposure
Routes Total
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
cis-1,2-Oichloroethene NA NA NA NA
T etrachloroethene 3E-02 NA 1E-03 4E-02
== -iiii liii
Non-Carcinogenic-Hazard Quotient
Primary Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Exposure
Target Orga~s) Routes Total
NA NA NA NA NA
Liver NA NA NA NA
Uoknown 10 NA NA 10
liver 28 NA 4 31
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene NA NA NA NA Increased serum phosphatase 0.05 NA 0.1 0.1
T richloroethene 7E-05 NA 4E-05 1E-04 NA
y; ... d Chloride 4E-04 NA BE-06 4E-04 Liver
Chemical Total 4E-02 NA 1E-03 4E-02
!Exposure Medium Total
!Exposure Point Total I 4E-02
I 4E-02
Receptor Total
Total Risk = jl 4E-02
Ram LeatherRAGS_D_RME Rev 0.xls Page 1 ol 1
NA NA NA NA
0.4 NA 0.04 0.4
38 NA 4 42
42
42
42
Total Hazard~11==~•~2==dl
Total Liver Hazard Quotient
Total Unknown Hazard Quotient
Total Increased Serum Phosphatase Hazard Quolfent
I I I
32 I
10 I
0.1 I
7/2/2009
-
,.
f
--
::.cenario Timeframe;
!Receptor Population:
!Receptor:
Medium
Ground Water
-- --
Future
Resident
Lifetime (cancer), Child (noncanc8')
Exposure Exposure Chemical
Medium Pm of Potertial
Concern
Ground Water Tap 1,4-Dictiorobenzene
PW003 Chloroform
l!!!!l!!I 11!!1 . 111!11 -
Table 8-9.3.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Ram leather Care, Char1otte, NC
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion Dermal Inhalation EJ!:posure
Routes Total
5E-OB NA 4E-07 4E-07
NA NA NA NA
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene NA NA NA NA
T etracljOfoethene 3E-04 NA 1E-05 3E-04
illi
Non-Carcinogenic-Hazard Quotient
Primary Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Exposure
Target Organ(s) Routes Total
NA NA NA 0.0002 0.0002
U,,e, .NA NA NA NA
Uaknown 0.1 NA NA 0.1
Liver 0.3 NA 0.03 0.3
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene NA NA NA NA Increased serum phosphatase NA NA NA NA
T richloroethene 3E-07 NA 2E-07 5E-07 NA NA NA NA NA
Vinyl Chloride NA NA NA NA U,,e, NA NA NA NA
Chemical Total 3E-04 NA 1E-05 ~ 0.4 NA 0.03 0.4
i="posure Point Total 0.4
!Expos1Xe Medium Total I 0.4
Receptor Total 0.4
Total Rok all 3E-04 II Total Haza,olb[i =-0"'.4==dll[
Ram leathe{RAGS_D_RME Rev 0.xls Page 1 of 1 7/2/2009
-
--
~nario Timetrame:
!Receptor Population:
!Receptor:
Medium
Ground Water
-----
Future
Resident
Lifetime {cancer), Child (noncancer)
Exposure Exposure Chemical
MedUm Point of Potential
Concern
Ground Water Tap 1,4-Dichlorobenzene
PW010 Chloroform
-!!!!I !!!!!I
Table 8-9.4.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Ram Leather Care, Charlotte, NC
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Exposure
Routes Total
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
cis-1,2-Diclioroethene NA NA NA NA
T etrachloroethene BE-04 NA 3E-05 BE-04
Non-Carcinogenic-Hazard Quotient
Primary Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Exposure
Target Organ(s) Routes Total
NA NA NA NA NA
liver NA NA NA NA
Unkrown 0.5 NA NA 0.5
Liver 0.6 NA 0.1 0.7
trans-1,2-Diclioroethene NA NA NA NA Increased serum phosphatase NA NA NA NA
T richloroethene 7E-06 NA 4E-06 1E-05 NA NA NA NA NA
Vinyt Chloride NA NA NA NA Live, NA NA NA NA
Chemical Total BE-04 NA 3E-05 9E-04 1 NA 0.1 1
Exposure Point Total 9E-04 1
Exposure Medium Total 9E-04 1
Receplor Total 9E-04 1
Total Risk = 11 9E-04 Total Hazard[b=~=d
Ram LeatherRAGS_D_RME Rev 0.xls Page 1 of 1 7/2/2009
---- --
x:enario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor: Lifetime (cancer), Child {noncancer)
Med,un Ellposure Exposure Chemical
Medium Point of Potential
Corcem
Ground Water Ground Water Tap 1,4-Dichlorobenzene
PW016 Chloroform
-l!!!il!!!I -l!!l!l!!!I
Table B-9.5.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Ram Leather Care, Charlotte, NC
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion """"al Inhalation Exposu-e
Routes Total
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
cis-1,2-0ichloroelhene NA NA NA NA
T etrachloroethene SE-05 NA 2E-06 SE...05
1!!1!11
Non.Carcinogenic-Hazard Quotient
Primary Ingestion Dermal Inhalation E,;;posure
Target Organ(s) Routes Total
NA NA NA NA NA
Liver NA NA NA NA
Unkmwn 0.04 NA NA 0.04
U,e, 0.04 NA 0.005 0.04
lrans-1,2-Dichloroethene NA NA NA NA Increased serum phosphatase NA NA NA NA
T richloroethene 4E-07 NA 2E-07 7E-07 NA NA NA NA NA
Vinyl Clioride NA NA NA NA liver NA NA NA NA
Chemical Total 5E-05 NA 2E-06 5E.05 0.1 NA 0.005 0.1
!Exposure Medium Total
!Exposure Point Total II SE-05 I 0.1
II SE-05 I 0.1 .
eceptor Total 11 SE-05 I 0.1
Total R•k a [I SE-05 I[ Total Hazard.11==0=·=1 ==11
Ram leatherRAGS_D_RME Rev O.xls Page 1 of 1 7/212009
--
>eenario Timeframe:
Receptor Population:
.,eceptor:
Medium
Glound Water
--
Future
Resident
Lifetime (cancer), Child (norcancer)
Exposure Exposure Chemical
Medium Point of Potential
Concern
Ground Water Tap 1,4-Dictiorobenzene
PW029 ChlorofcH'm
l!!!!!I l!l!!I:
Table 8•9.6.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Ram Leather Care, Chartotte, NC
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Exposure
Rootes Total
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
cis-1,2-Dic:hloroethene NA NA NA NA
Tetrachloroethene BE-04 NA 3E-05 BE-04
iiilii --
Non-Carcinogenic-Hazard Quotient
Primary Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Ellposure
Target Organ(s) Routes Total
NA NA NA NA NA
Liver NA NA NA NA
Uoknown 0.04 NA NA 004
Liver 0.6 NA 0.1 0.7
trans-1,2-0ichloroethene NA NA NA NA lncteased serum phosphatase NA NA NA NA
Trictvoroethene 1E-06 NA 7E-07 2E-06 NA NA NA NA NA
Vi ..... A Chloride" NA NA NA NA Liver NA NA NA NA
Chemical Total BE-04 NA 3E-05 BE-04 0.7 NA 0.1 0.8
jExposure Point Total I 8E-04 II I 0.8 I !Exposure Medium Total BE= " I 0.8 I eceptor Total -04 II I 0.8 I
Total""' a II BE-04 n Total Hazardl~l===O·=•=="'
Ram LeatherRAGS_D_RME Rev 0.xls Page 1 of 1 7/212009
-
- --
~T,neframe Future
Population: Construction Worker
Adu!
Medum Exposure
Medium
Subsurface Soil Subsurface Soil
!Exposure Medium Total
Grourd Water Ground Water
!Exposure Medium Total
!Receptor Total
Ram leatherRAGS_D_RME Rev 0.xls
-
Exposure Chemical
Point of Potential
Coneem
Sile T etrachloroethene
Chemical Total
jExposure Point Total
Tap 1,4-Dichlombenzene
Ctioroform
11111, t:::='
Table B-9.7.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Ram Leather Gare, Char1otte, NC
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion Dem,at Inhalation Exposu-e
Routes Total
BE-08 2E--09 1E--07 2E-07
BE-08 2E-09 1E--07 2E-07
II 2E--07 I
II 2E-07 I
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene NA NA NA NA
Tetracl'Wfoethene 3E-04 NA NA 3E-04
iiilli iilli - - -
Non-Carcinogenic-Hazard Quotient
Primary Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Exposure
Target Organ(s) Routes Total
Live, 0.001 0.00003 0.01 0.01
0.001 0.00003 0,01 0.001
0.001
I 0.001 I
NA NA NA NA NA
Liver NA NA NA NA
Urumown 2 NA NA 2
Live, 4 NA NA 4
trans-1,2-Dichloroothene NA NA NA NA Increased serum phosphatase 0.0 NA NA 0.01 T richlornethene 6E-07 NA NA 6E--07
Vinyt Chloride 4E-06 NA NA 4E--06
Chemical Total 3E-04 NA NA 3E-04
!Exposure Point Total f3E-04
3E-04
11 3E-04
Total Risk = 11 3E-04
Page 1 of 1
NA
Liver
NA NA NA NA
0.1 NA NA 0.1
6 NA NA 6
6
6
6
Total Unknown Hazard Quotient I 2 I
Total Hazard.ull==,;•~=c!J
Total Liver Hazard Quotient~
Total Increased Serum Phosphatase Hazard Quotient I 0.01 I
7/2/2009
-
- --
::.cenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Resident
'Receptor: Lifetime (cancer). Child (noncancer)
Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical
Medium Point of
Co,cem
Ground Water Ground Water Tap NA
PW030
Chemical Total
~xposure Medium Total
!Exposure Point Total
eceptoc Total
Ram LeatherRAGS_D_RME Rev 0.xls
Table B-10.1.RME
RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Ram leather Care, Charlotte, NC
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion Dem,af Inhalation Exposu,e
Routes Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA NA NA NA
II NA
II NA
I NA
I
I
I
Total Risk = "=II ==N=A=·a,I/
Page 1 of 1
liiii ----
Non-Carcinogenic-Hazard Quotient
Primary Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Exposure
Target Organ(s) Routes Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA NA NA NA
I NA I
I NA I
I NA I
.
Total Hawd j"=I ==N=A==="I/
7/2/2009
----
:>eenario Timeframe: Futura
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor: Lifetime (cancer). Child (noncancer)
Medium Exposure Exposu--e Chemical
Medium Point of
Conoem
Ground Water Ground Water Tap cis-1,2-Dichloroelhene
DW011 T etrachloroethene
--
Table 8-10.2.RME
RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUfyi EXPOSURE
Ram Leather Care, Charlotte, NC
Carcioogenic Risk
Ingestion Dermal lnhalatioo Exposu,e
Routes Total
NA NA NA NA
3E--02 NA 1E-03 4E-02
trans-1,2-0ichloroethene NA NA NA NA
Trichloroethane 7E-05 NA 4E-05 1E-04
Vinyl C1jorjcie 4E-04 NA BE--06 4E-04
Chemical Total 4E-02 NA 1E-03 4E--02
!Exposure Point Total II 4E--02
!Exposure Medium Total II 4E--02
eceptor Total I 4E-02
Total Risk = II 4E-02
Ram LeatherRAGS_D_RME Rev 0.lds Page 1 of 1
I I I
I!!!!!!!
Non-Carcirogenic-Hazard Quotient
Primary Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Exposure
Target Orgar(s) Routes Total
Unknown 10 NA NA 10
Liver 28 NA 4 31
Increased serum phosphatase 0.05 NA 0 1 0.1
NA NA NA NA NA
liver 0.4 NA 0.04 0.4
38 NA 4 42
42
42
42
Total Hazardel1===4=2=="'
I I
Total Liver Hazard Quotient
Total Unknown Hazard Quotient
Total Increased Serum Phosphatase Hazard Quolien ti
32 I
10 I
0.1 I
7/212009
11!!!1
-lllllt> --
i;:x;enario Timeframe: Future
IJReceptor Population: Resident
!Receptor: lifetime {cancer), Child (noncarcer)
Medium Exposure Exposure Crem<aJ
Medum Point of
Concern
Ground Water Ground Walat Tap T etraclioroethene
PW003 Chemical Total
jExposure Point Total
!Exposure Medium Total
Receptor Total
Ram lealherRAGS_D_RME Rev 0.xls
--
Table B-10.3.RME
RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Ram Leather Cate, Charlotte, NC
-
Catcioogenic Risk
Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Exposure
Routes Total
3E-04 NA 1E-05 3E-04
3E-04 NA 1E-05 3E-04
II 3E-04
II 3E-04
I 3E-04
Total Risk : II 3E-04
Page 1 of 1
I
I I
1111!1 ... I!!!!!!
Non-Carcinogenic-Hazard Quotient
Primary Ingestion Dermal Inhalation E.llposure
Target Organ(s) Routes Total
Live< 0.3 NA 0.03 0.3
0.4 NA 0.03 0.4
I 0.4 I I 0.4 I I 0.4 I
Total Hazard,~11=~0;;;.4;,=,d
71212009
-111111 --.. -
::;cenario Timeframe: Futu,e
!Receptor Popjation: Resident
!Receptor: Lifetime (cancer), Child (noncancer)
Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical
Medium Point of
Coccem
Ground Water Ground Water Tap-PW010 T etrachloroethene
Chemical Total
1c:~posure Point Total
!Exposure Medium Total
:Receptor Total
Ram LeatherRAGS_D_RME Rev 0.xls
-- -
Table B-10.4.RME
RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Ram Leather Care, Charlotte, NC
Carcirngenic Risk
-
Ingestion Dennal Inhalation Exposure
Routes Total
BE-04 NA 3E-05 BE-04
BE-04 NA 3E-05 9E-04
9E-04
. 9E-04
9E-04
Total Risk = n 9E-04
Page 1 of 1
- -
e=
Non-Carcinogenic-Hazard Quotient
Primary Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Exposure
Target Organ(s) Routes Total
Live, 0.6 NA 0.1 0.7
1 NA 0.1 1
1
1
1
Total Hazacd"'n =='==="II
7/2/2009
----
pi;enario Timeframe: Future
IIReceptor Population: Resident
!Receptor: Lifetime (cancer), Child (noncancer)
Medium Expoou,e &posise Chemical
Moorum Point of
Concern
Ground Water Ground Water Tap NA
PW016
Chemical Total
n::xposure Point Total
IEJposure Medium Total
eceptor Total
Ram LeatherRAGS_D_RME Rev 0.xls
-
Talia B-10.5.RME
RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Ram Leather Care, Charlotte, NC
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion Denn~ Inhalation Expoou,e
Routes Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA NA NA NA
NA
NA : NA
Tot~ RSk a ~11=,,;N~A==du
Page 1 of 1
Primary
Target Organ(s)
- - --
Non-Carcinogenic-Hazard Quotient
Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Exposure
Routes Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA NA NA NA
~~ N
Totat Hawd-~/l=~NA=,dlll
7/2/2009
-... -
~nario Timeframe: Future
IIR eceptor Population: Resident
!Receptor: Lifetime (cancer). Child (noncancer)
Medium EJ(ix,sure Exposure Chemical
Medium Point of
Coocem
Ground Water Ground Water Tap T etraclioroethene
PW029 T riciioroethene
Chemical Total
!Exposure Point Total
!Exposure Medium Total
eceplor Total
Ram LeatherRAGS_D_RME Rev O.xls
iiii
Table B·10.6.RME
RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Ram Leather Care, Charlotte, N_C
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion Dennw Inhalation Exposure
Routes Total
8E-04 NA 3E--05 8E-04
1E-06 NA 7E--07 2E-06
8E-04 NA 3E-05 8E-04
II 8E-04
II 8E-04
I BE-04
Total Risk = n BE-04
Page 1 of 1
-·-- --
Non-Carcinogenic-Hazard Quotient
Primary Ingestion Dermal Inhalation ExpQsure
Target Orga~s) Routes Total
Liver 0.6 NA 0.1 0.7
NA NA NA NA NA
0.7 NA 0.1 0.8
I I 0.8 I I I 0.8 I I I I 0.8
Total Hazard.ull==~O~.•==='i
7/2/2009
-I!!!!. ==
><:enario Timeftame: Future
Receptor Population: Construction Worker
~eceptor: Adu!
Med"'" Expos,,e Expos...-e Chemical
Medium Point of
Coccem
Subsurface Soi Subsurface Soil Site Chemical Total
( IEx~e POint Total
jExposure Medium Total
Ground Water Ground Water Tap cis-1,2-0ichloroethene
Tetraclt)roethene
Vinyl C~oride
Chemical Total
!Exposure Point Total
jExposure Medium Total
Receptor Total
Ram lealherRAGS_D_RME Rev O.Jds
-
Table B-10.7.RME
RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Ram Leather Care, Chariotte, NC
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Exposure
Routes Total
NA NA NA NA
II NA
II NA
NA" NA NA NA
3E-04 NA NA 3E-04
4E-06 NA NA 4E-06
3E-04 NA NA 3E-04
u 3E-04
II 3E-04
I 3E-04
I I
I I I
Toi~ Risk -II 3E-04 IJ
Page 1 of 1
-
Primary
Target Orgar(s)
Uok~
Liver
Liver
- --
Non-Carcinogenic-Hazard Quotient
Ingestion Dermal Inhalation EJ::posure
Routes Total
NA NA NA NA
I NA I I NA I
2 NA NA 2
4 NA NA 4
0.1 NA NA 0.1
6 NA NA 6
I 6 I I 6 I I 6 I
Total Hazard,,ll==~'==dl
Total Liver Hazard QuotientJl~==i•c===ijl
Total Unknown Hazard Quotient ( 2 j_
7/212009
-
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
0
u
I
m
I
Appendix C
Central Tendency Calculations
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
I
I
I
I
I
Tables
Appendix C List of Tables
Ram Leather Care, Charlotte, NC
1 Selection of Exoosure Pathways
4IValues and Equations Used for Intake Calculations
I 4.1 RME Lifetime Resident
I 4.2 RME Child Resident
71 Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards
I 7.1 \RME Current/Future: PW030
I 7.2 RME Future: DW011
7.3 RME Future: PW003
7.4 RME Future: PW010
7.5 RME Future: PW016
7.6 RME Future: PW029
9 Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs
9.1 RME Current/Future: PW030
9.2 RME Future: DW011
9.3 RME Future: PW003
9.4 RME Future: PW01 O
9.5 RME Future: PW016
9.6 RME Future: PW029
10ISumma of Receotor Risks and Hazards for COCs
10.1 RME Current/Future: PW030
10.2 RME Future: DW011
10.3 RME Future: PW003
10.4 RME Future: PW01 O
10.5 RME Future: PW016
10.6 RME Future: PW029
Page1 of 1
----------- - -
lscenaoo Timeframe:
!Medium:
=Yrv>«Uf8 Medium:
E><pos,m Receptor
Rouite Population
Ingestion Resident
Inhalation/
o..ma, Resident
CurrenVFuture
Groundwater
Groundwater
Receptor
Ago
Child to Adult
Child to Adult
Exposure Point Parameter
Cod,
CW
Tap
"" aw.
aw.
'"-
'"-
ED0
EO..
EF
CF
AT.C
Vapors at cw
Showerhead 1
IF~
aw.
aw.
IR,..
'"-
ED0
EO..
EF
CF
AT.C
TableC-4.1.CT
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
Ram Leather Care, Chanotte, NC
Parameter Def1nition RMEValue Units RME Rationale/Reference
chemical concentration in water See Table 3 ,g11 See Table 3
ingestion factor, groundwater 0.23 liters-yr/kg-day EPA 1991a, b; 1993
body weight, child 15 kg EPA 1995
body weight, adult 70 kg EPA 1995
ingestion rate groundwater, child \ liter/day EPA 1991a
ingestion rate groundwater, adult 1.4 ~letS/day EPA 1993
exposure duration, child 2 ,.,,. EPA 1993
exposure duration, total 9 ,..,. EPA 1993
exposure frequency 234 da,.,,.., EPA 1993
conversion factor 0.001 mgl,g -
averaQinq lime {cancer) 25550 day, EPA 1991a
chemical concentration in water See Table 3 ,g11 See Table 3
ingestion factor, groundwater 0.23 Uters-yr/kg-day EPA 1991a, b; 1993
body weight, child 15 kg EPA 1995
body Wt!ight, adult 70 kg EPA 1995
ingestion rate groundwater, chik:I 1 ~ter/day EPA 1991a
ingestion rate groundwater, adult 1.4 liters/day EPA 1993
exposure duration, child 2 ,.,,. EPA 1993
exposure duration, total g ,.,,. EPA 1993
exposure frequency 234 days/year EPA 1993
conversion factor 0.001 -· -
averaciinci lime (cancer\ 25550 day, EPA 1991a
U.S. EPA. 1991a. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: -Standard Default Exposure Fact0f5," OSWER Directiv9 9285.6-03, Marcil 25.
U.S. EPA. 1991b. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part B: Development of Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation Goals." OSWER Directive 9285.7-018, December 13.
U.S. EPA. 1991c. "Guidance on Estimating Exposure to VOCs During Showering.■ Office of Research and Development. July 10.
U.S. EPA. 1993. "Draft: Superfund's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and Reasonable Maximum Exposure," Risk Assessment Council. November 4.
1 Chronic daily intake due to inhalation of volatiles calctJlated as equivalent to groundwater ingestion using inhalation toxicity values.
App C_Ram LeatherRAGS_D_CT Rev O.xls Page 1 of 2
Intake Equation/Model Name
lFgw,-= (ED• x If\-f BWc) + (ED1o1 • EO0) x (IRvwJBW0)
Chronic daily intake (mg/kg-day)= CW)( IF.x EF X CF X 1/AT
IFIJ"' = (ED0 x IRv,.e/ BW0) + (EO.,.-ED0) x (IRv-fBWJ
Chronic dally intake (mg/kg-day)= CW X IF,;., X EF X CF X 1/AT
--
716/2009
Scanario T IITl8frame:
Medium:
=v,v,sure Medium:
CurrenVFuture
Groundwater
Groundwater
Table C-4.2.CT
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS.
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
Ram leather Care, Chariotte, NC
Exposure Receptor Receptor Exposure Point Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units Rationale/ Reference
Route Population Age Code
chemical concentration in waler See Table 3 ,g11 CW Ingestion Resident Child Tap
'"-ingestion rate groundwater, child , Uters/day
EF 8J(p0Sure frequency 234 days/y9ar
ED eKpOSure duration 2 ,eara
CF conversion factor 0.001 mg/,g
BW body weight 15 kg
AT averaqing time lnon-cancerl 730 day,
Inhalation/ Vapors al cw chemical concentration in water See Table 3 ,g/1 Resident Child ShOW8lhead 1 Dermal '"-ingestion rate groundwater, adult , Utern/day
EF 8J(pOSUf8 frequ8flcy 234 days/year
ED 8J(pOSUre duration 2 ,eara
CF conversion factor 0.001 mg/ug
BW bodyweight 15 kg
AT-N averaaina time {non-cancer) 730 "" U.S. EPA. 1989a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superlund: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A) December. Appendix A.
U.S. EPA. 1991a. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: -Standard Default Exposure Factors," OSWER Directive 9265.6-03, March 25.
U.S. EPA. 1991c. "Guidance on Estimating Exposure to VOCs During Showering," Office of Research and Oevelopmenl July 10.
See Table 3
EPA 1991a
EPA 1993
EPA 1993
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991a
EPA 1989a
See Table 3
EPA 1991c
EPA 1993
EPA 1993
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991a
EPA 1989a
U.S. EPA. 1993. •□raft: Superfund's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tenden"cy and Reasonable Maximum Exposure," Risk Assessment Council. November 4.
1 Chronic daily intake due to inhalation of volatiles calculated as equivalent to groundwater ingestion using inhalation toKicity values.
. App C_Ram LeatherRAGS_D_CT Rev O.Kls Page 2of 2
.
Intake Equation/Model Name
Chronic daily intake = CW K lffgwc x EF x ED x CF x 1/BW x 1/AT
Chrooic daHy intake = CW K IRv,.., K EF K ED K CF K 1/BW K 1/AT
--· - -- ----7/6/2009
8111
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Tables
Appendix C List of Tables
Ram Leather Care, Charlotte, NC
1 Selection of Exposure Pathways
4IValues and Equations Used for Intake Calculations
I 4.1 CT Lifetime Resident
I 4.2 CT Child Resident
?!Calculation of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards
7.1 ICT ICurrenUFuture: PW030
7.2ICT I Future: DW011
7.3jCT I Future: PW003
7.4ICT I Future: PW010
I 7.5jCT I Future: PW016
I 7.6ICT I Future: PW029
9 Summary of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs
9.1 CT CurrenUFuture: PW030
9.2 CT Future: DW011
9.3 CT Future: PW003
9.4 CT Future: PW010
9.5 CT Future: PW016
9.6 CT Future: PW029
10 Summa of Receptor Risks and Hazards for COCs
10.1 CT CurrenUFuture: PW030
10.2 CT Future: DW011
10.3 CT Future: PW003
10.4 CT Future: PW01 O
10.5 CT Future: PW016
10.6 CT Future: PW029
Page1 of 1
-_, --- - -
Scenario Medium Exposure Exposure Point Timeframe Medium
Ground-water Private Well
Air Private Well
CurrenV Future Ground-
water
Ground-water Private Well
Air Private Well
Ground-water On-site Well
Ground-Air On-site Well -
Future water
Ground-water On-site Well
Air On-site Well
--
TableC-1
SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
Ram Leather Care, Charlotte, NC
Receptor Receptor Exposure On-Site/
Population Age Route Off-Site
Resident Child Ingestion On-site
Resident Child Inhalation On-site
Resident Lifetime Ingestion On-site
Resident Lifetime Inhalation On-site
Resident Child Ingestion On-site
Resident Child Inhalation On-site
Resident Lifetime Ingestion On-site
Resident Lifetime Inhalation On-site
- -----
Type of ---,
Analysis Rati
Quant. Groundwater is used as a drinking water source.
Quant. Eposure to voes while showering may be a complete
exposure route.
Quant. Groundwater is used as a drinking water source.
Quant. Eposure to VOCs while showering may be a complete
exposure route.
Quant. Groundwater may be used as a drinking water source in the
future.
Quant. Eposure to VOCs while showering may be a complete
exposure route.
Quant. Groundwater may be used as a drinking water source in the
future.
Quant. Eposure to VOCs while showering may be a complete
exposure route.
- ------- --
ex,os,,.
Rouite
Ingestion
Inhalation/
°""""
Receptor
Population
Resident
Resident
Current/Future
Groundwater
Groundwater
Receptor
Ago
Child lo Adult
ChildtoAdull
E!cposure Point Parameter
Cod,
cw
Tap
"~
BW.
sw.
IR,..
IR,,..
ED0
ED.
EF
CF
AT-C
Vapors at cw
Showerhead 1
"" sw.
sw.
IS.,.
IR,,..
ED0
EO.
EF
CF
AT-C
TableC-4.1.CT
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
Ram Leather Care, Charlotte. NC
Parameter Definition RMEValue Units RME Rationale/Reference
chemical concentration in water See Table 3 "" See Table 3
ingestion factor, groundwater 0.23 ~ters-)1"/kg-day EPA 1991a, b; 1993
body weight, child 15 kg EPA 1995
body weight, adult 70 kg EPA 1995
ingestion rate groundwater, child 1 liter/day EPA 1991a
ingestion rate groundwater, adult 1.4 liters/day EPA 1993
exposure duration, chik:I 2 ,..,. EPA 1993
eKP05ura duration, total g ,-,ra EPA 1993
Bl4)0Sure frequency 234 "'"""'' EPA 1993
conversion factor 0.001 mg/,g -
averaaillo time (cancer\ 25550 ,,,,. EPA 1991a
chemical concentration in water See Table 3 "" See Table 3
ingestion factor, grounctwater 0.23 liters-yr/kg-day EPA 1991a, b; 1993
body weight, child 15 kg EPA 1995
body weight, adult 70 kg EPA 1995
ingestion rate groundwater, child 1 liter/day EPA 1991a
ingestion rate groul'ldwater, adult 1.4 ~tera/day EPA 1993
exposure duration, chUd 2 ,..ra EPA 1993
exposure duration, total g ,-,ra EPA 1993
exposure frequency 234 "'"""'' EPA 1993
conversion factor 0.001 mg/ug -
ave~ina lime /cancer) 25550 "'" EPA 1991a
U.S. EPA. 1991a. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: ·standard Default Exposure Factarn," QSWER Directive 9285.6-03, March 25.
U.S. EPA. 1991b. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part B: Development of Risk-Based PreUminary Remediation Goals," OSWER Directive 9285.7-01B, December 13.
U.S. EPA. 19g1c. ·Guidance on Estimating Exposure to VOCs During Showering,· OfflCEI of Research and Development July 10.
U.S. EPA. 1993. "Draft: Superlund's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Teodency and Reasonable Maximum Exposure," Risk Assessment Council. November 4.
1 Chronic daily intake due to inhalation of volatiles calculated as equivalent to groundwater ingestion using W\alalion toxicity values.
App C_Ram leatherRAGS_D_CT Rev O.xls Page 1 of2
Intake Equation/Model Name
IF.,,. :: {ED~ x 11\,.c/ BW0) + (ED-,. -ED0) x (l~BW.)
Chronic daily intake (mg/kg-day) "' cw x IF,. )( EF x CF x 1/A T
IF'1" = (ED. x IR,,...c/BW.)-+ (ED,,,,-ED.Jx(IR_.fBWJ
Chronic daily intake (mg/kg-day)= cw X IFg,, X EF X CF X 1/AT
--
7/6/2009
Scenario Tameframe: CurrenUFulure
Medium: Groundwater
i= .. .v\<>ure Medium: Groundwater
Table C-4.2.CT
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCUlA TlONS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
Ram Leather Care, Charlotte, NC
E,pos,~ Receptor Receptor Exposure Point Parameter Parameter Definiliofl varu, Units Rationale/ Reference Route Population Ag, Cod,
Ingestion Resideot Child Tap cw chemical concentration in water See Table 3 ""' '"-ingestion rate groundwater, chik:l 1 liters/day
EF e,cposure frequency 234 days/year
ED exposure duration 2 ,..,.
CF conversion factor 0.001 mg/ug
BW bodyweight 15 kg
AT averaoino lime /non-cancer\ 730 days
Inhalation/ Resident Child Vapors at cw chemical concentration in water See Table 3 ""' °"""" Showerhead 1
'"-ingestion rate groundwater, adult 1 liters/day
EF exposure frequeocy I 234 days/year
ED exposure duration 2 ,..,.
CF conversion factor 0.001 mg/ug
BW body weight 15 kg
AT-N averaqinq time (non-cancer) 730 days
U.S. EPA 1989a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund; Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A) December. Appendix A
U.S. EPA 1991a. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: "Standard Default Exposure Factors.■ QSWER Directive 9285.6--03, March 25.
U.S. EPA 1991c. "Guidance on Estimating Exposure to VOCs During Showering.■ Off1ee of Research and Development. July 10.
See Table 3
EPA 1991a
EPA 1993
EPA 1993
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991a
EPA 1989a
See Table 3
EPA 1991c
EPA 1993
EPA 1993
EPA 1991a
EPA 1991a
EPA 1989a
U.S. EPA. 1993. "Draft: Superfund's Standard Default Exposure Factors for the Central Tendency and Reasonable Maximum Exposure," Risk Assessment Council. November 4.
1 Chronic dally intake dtJe to inhalation of volatiles calculated as equivalent to groundwate~ ingestion using inhalaticin toxicity values.
App C Ram LeatherRAGS D CT Rev 0.xls Page 2 of 2
Intake Equation/Model Name
Chronic daily intake = CW 1t lf\i-x EF x ED x CF x 1/BW x 1/AT
Chronic daily intake = CW x I~ x EF x ED K CF x 1/BW x 1/AT
--- --- --- --- - - - --7/612009 -
-- - --
Scenario Timeframe: CurrenVFuture
!Receptor Population: Resident
<>-eptor Age: Lifetime {cancer), Child {noncancer)
Medium E,po,""' E,po,""' E,po,""'
Medfum Point """"
Ground Water Ground Water Tap Ingestion
PW030
IExp. Route Total I
Ground Water Ground Water Showertiead Inhalation
PW030
IE><,. Route Total I
IExe2sure Point Total I
Ex"""'ure Medh.Jm Total
ater Total
App C_Ram LeatherRAGS_D_CT Rev O.Jds
- ------ -
TableC-7.1.CT
CALCUtA TlON OF CHEMJCAl CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
Ram leather Care, Charlotte, NC
Chemical EPC Cancer Risk Calculations
of Potential Intake/ J:v"""Uf8 Concentration CSF/Unil Risk
Concern Value Units Value Units Value Units
1,4-0ichlorobenzene . ND "g/l NA "g/l 5.4E-03 (mg/kg-day}-1
Chtorofoon 3E-+-OO "g/l 6E-06 "g/l 3.1E--02 (mg/kg-day}-1
cis-1,2-Dichloroelhene ND "g/l NA "g/l NA· NA
T etrachloroethene ND "g/l NA "g/l 5.4E-01 (mg/kg-day}-1
trans-1,2-0ichloroethene ND "g/l NA "g/l NA NA
Trichloroethane ND "g/l NA "g/l 1.3E--02 (mgfkg-day},-1
Vinvt Chloride ND ""' NA ""' 1.SE+OO /mn/1,n-dau\ 1
1,4-0ichlorobenzene ND ,g/l NA ,g/l 3.9E-02 (mglkg-day}-1
Chloroform 3E+OO ,gll 6E-06 ,giL 8.1E-02 (mg/kg-day}-1
cis-1,2-0ichloroethene ND "g/l NA ,gll NA NA
T etrachloroethene ND "g/l NA ,gll 2.1E-02 (mg/kg-day}-1
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ,g/L NA ,gll NA NA
Tncilloroethene ND ,gll NA "g/l 7.0E-03 (mg/kg-day}-1
Vinyl Chloride ND """ NA ""'' 3.1E-02 I lmnlkn-dav}-1
I
)I
Total of Rece• tor Risks Across All Media I
Page 1 ol 1
Cancer
Risk
NA
2E--07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2E-07
NA
5E-07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SE-07
7E-07
7E-07
7E--07
------
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Intake/ Ex"""'ure Concentration RID/RfC Hauird
Value Units Value Units Quotient
NA "g/l NA NA NA
1.3E--04 "g/L 1E--02 (mg/kg-day) 0.01
NA "g/L 1E-02 (mg/kg-day) NA
NA "g/l 1E-02 (mg/kg-day) NA
NA "g/L 2E--02 (mg/kg-day) NA
NA "g/l NA NA NA
NA ooll 3E-03 NA
0.01
NA ,gll 2.3E-01 (mg/kg-day) NA
1.3E-04 "g/L 2.BE-02 (mg/kg-day) 0.00
NA "g/l NA NA NA
NA ug/L 7.7E-02 (mg/kg-day) NA
NA "g/l 1.7E-02 (mg/kg-day) NA
NA "g/l NA NA NA
NA .· ,oil 2.9E--02 '=•o~ay)ffil .
I
II Total of Receetor Hazards Across All MedialJ 0.02 II
7/612009
-----
!scenario Timeframe: Future
jReceptor Population: Resident
IReceptoc Age: Lifetime (cancer), Child (noncancer)
.,_,m Exposure E,pose~ E><po,=
Medium Point Route
Ground Water Ground Water Tap Ingestion
DW011
I&,,. Route Total I
Ground Water Ground Water Showerhead Inhalation
DW011
~e-Route Total I
~~sure Point Total I
jEx~ure Medium Total
Ground Water Total
App C_Ram LeatherRAGS_O_CT Rev O.xls
---- --
Table C-7.2.CT
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS ANO NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
Ram Leather Care, Chanotte, NC
Chemical EPC Cancer Risk Calculations
of Potential Intake/ 1-~rv.<:ure Concentration CSF/Unit Risk
Concern Value U,,it, Value Units Value Units
1,4-0ichlorobenzene NO og/1. NA og/1. 5.4E-03 {mg/kg-day)-1
Chloroform ND og/1. NA og/1. 3.1E-02 (mglkg-day)-1
cis-1,2-0ichloroethene 1.6E+03 og/1. 3E-03 og/1. NA NA
Tetrachloroelhene 4.3E+03 og/l 9E-03 og/1. 5.4E-01 (mg/kg-day)-1
trans-t ,2-0ichloroethene 1.5E-t01 og/1. JE-05 og/1. NA NA
T richloroethene 3.6E+02 og/l BE-04 og/1. 1.3E-02 (mg/kg-day}-1
Vmyl Chloride 1.8E+01 ""' 4E-05 ""' 1.SE+OO fm-""'--dav\.1
1,4-Diehlorobenzene ND og/1. NA og/l 3.9E-02 (mg/kg-day}-1
Chloroform ND og/1. NA og/1. 8.1E-02 (mg/kg-day}-1
cis-1,2-0ichloroethene 1.6E+03 og/1. 3E-03 og/l NA NA
T etrachloroethene 4.3E+03 og/1. 9E-03 og/1. 2. lE-02 (mg/kg-day}-1
trans-1 ,2-0ichloroothene 1.5E+01 og/1. 3E-05 og/1. NA NA
T richloroethene 3.6E+02 Og/1. SE-04 llgtL 7.0E-03 (mg/kg-day}-1
Vinyl Chloride 1.8E+01 """ 4E-05 oo/l 3.1E-02 (m'"'"_,,1avi...1
I I II
fl
II Total of Receptor Risks Across AU Med--;:ir
Page 1 ol 1
-----
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Cancer Intake/ Exnn«ure Concentration RfD/RfC H=rn
Risk Value Units Value Units Quotient
NA NA og/l NA NA NA
NA NA og/1. 1E-02 (mglkg.(tay) NA
NA 6.9E-02 og/l tE-02 (mg/kg-day) 7
5E--03 1.SE-01 og/l 1E-02 (mg/kg-day) 18
NA 6.SE-04 og/l 2E-02 {mg/kg-day) 0.03
1E-05 1.SE-02 og/l NA NA NA
6E-05 7.SE-04 ogll 3E-03 /malko-day) 0.3
SE-03 26
NA NA og/1. 2.3E-01 (mg/kg-day) NA
NA NA og/1. 2.SE-02 (mg/kg-day) NA
NA 6.9E-02 og/l NA NA NA
2E-04 1.SE-01 og/l 7.7E-02 (mg/kg-day) 2
NA 6.SE-04 og/l 1.7E-02 (mg/kg-day) 0.04
SE-06 1.SE-02 og/l NA NA NA
lE-06 7.SE-04 ,oil 2.9E-02 1.-nn!l.n-day) 0.03
2E-04 Cu
SE-03 I DO
SE-03 DO
SE-03 Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Med~ DO
7/6/2009
--·--
!Scenario TIITl8frame: Future
IR:ecept°' Population: Resident
!Receptor Age: Lifetime (cancer). Child (noncancer)
"""""m E,pos,ce E,pos,ce E,pos""'
Medium Point Rout,
Ground Water Ground Water Tap Ingestion
PW003
IExe. Route Total I
Ground Water Ground Water Showertiead Inhalation
PW003
IE,,,. Roote Total I
!Exposure Point Total I
ura Medium Total
Ground Water Total
App C_Ram leatherRAGS_D_CT Rev O.xls
- - --- - -
.... ----
Table C-7.3.CT
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
Ram Leather Cara, Charlotte, NC
Chomkal EPC Cancer Risk Calculations
of Potential Intake/ t:cxnru:;ure Concentration CSF/Unit Risk
Concern Value Units Value Units Value Units
1,4-0ichlorobeflzene 6.1E--01 ,gll 1E-06 ,gll 5.4E--03 {rng/kg-<iay}-1
Chloroform ND ,gll NA ,g/L 3.1E-02 (mg/kg-day}-1
cis-1,2-0ichloroethene 1.8E+01 """ 4E-05 ,g/L NA NA
Tetrachloroethene 4.1E+01 ,gll 9E--05 ~ 5.4E--01 (rng/kg--day}-1
trans-1, 2-Dichloroethene ND ,gll NA ""' NA NA
T richlOl'Oethene 1.6E+OO ,gll 3E-06 ,gll 1.3E-02 (mg/kg-day}-1
V111yl Chloride ND """ NA "'"' 1.SE+OO '· ~,,,~-"'avJ..1
1,4--Dichlorobenzene 6.1E-01 ,g/L 1E-06 ,gll 3.9E-02 (mg/kg-day}-1
Chloroform ND ,gll NA ,gll 8.1E-02 (mg/kg-day}-1
cis• 1,2-Dichloroelhene 1.8E+01 og/L 4E-05 ,gll NA NA
T etrachloroelhene 4.1E+01 ,gll 9E-05 ,g/L 2.1E-02 (mg/kg-day}-1
trans-1,2-0ichloroothene ND ,gll NA ,g/L NA NA
Trichloroethane 1.6E+OO ,gll 3E-06 ""' 7.0E-03 (mg/kg-day)-1
Vinvt Chloride ND """ NA """ 3.1E-02 (m~,._,,__,.,,.,\.,
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media
Page 1 of 1
.
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Cancer Intake/ ure Concentration RfD/RfC H=rn
Risk Value Units Value Umts Quotient
7E-09 2.6E--05 ,g/L NA NA NA
NA NA ,gll 1E-02 (mg/kg-day) NA
NA 7.7E-04 ,gll 1E-02 (mg/kg-day) 0.1
SE--05 1.SE-03 ,gll 1E-02 (mg/kg-day) 0.2
NA NA ,gll 2E--02 (mg/kg-day) NA
4E-08 6.8E-05 """ NA NA NA
NA NA """ 3E-03 /mo/k.CJ-day) NA
5E-05 ~
SE-08 2.6E-05 ,gll 2.3E-01 (mg/kg-day) 0.0001
NA NA ,gll 2.8E-02 (mg/kg-day) NA
NA 7.7E-04 ugll NA NA NA
2E-06 1.BE-03 ,gll 7.7E-02 (mg/kg-day) 0.02
NA NA ,gll 1.7E-02 (mg/kg-day) NA
2E-08 6.BE--05 ,g/L NA NA NA
NA NA """ 2.9E-02 lmalko-davl NA=
2E-06 == I SE-05 I = SE-05 II
SE-05 11 Total of Receotor Hazards Across AU Media ~
7/612009
----
!scenario Tmetrame: Futuru
!Receptor Population: Resident
!Receptor Age: l.ifetune (cancer), Child (n011cancar)
Medium E.<pos"rn Exposure Exposure
Modrum Point Root,
Ground Water Ground Water Tap Ingestion
PW010
xp. Route Total
Ground Water Ground Water Showernead Inhalation
PW010
IExe. Route Total I
:t-uv·'-"-ure Point Total
ure Medium Total
nd Water Total
App C_Ram LeatherRAGS_D_CT Rev 0.xls
-- ------
Table C-7.4.CT
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS ANO NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
Ram Leather care, Chanotte, NC
Chemical EPC Cancer Risk Calculations
of Potential Intake/ Ex"""ure Concentration CSF/Unit Risk
Concern Value Units Value Units Value Units
1,4-0ichlorobenzene ND "g/1. NA "g/1. 5.4E-03 (mglkg-day}-1
Chlorof-ND "g/1. NA "g/1. 3.1E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1
cis• 1,2-Dichloroethene 7.4E+o1 ""' 2E--04 "g/1. NA NA
T etrachloroethene 1.0E+o2 "g/1. 2E--04 "g/1. 5.4E-01 (mg/kg-day}-1
trans-1,2-0ichloroethene ND "g/1. NA "g/1. NA NA
Trichloroethane 3.5E+01 "g/1. SE--05 "g/1. 1.3E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1
Vin',-t Chloride ND ""' NA ""' 1.5E+OO (mn/kn-,l3y~1
1,4-0ichlorobenzene ND "g/1. NA "g/1. 3.9E-02 (mglkg-day)-1
Chlorofom, ND "g/1. NA "g/1. 8.1E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1
cis-1.2-Dichloroelhene 7.4E+o1 "g/1. 2E--04 "g/1. NA NA
T elra(;hloroelhene 1.0E+-02 "g/1. 2E--04 "g/1. 2.1E-02 {mg/kg-day}-1
trans-1,2-Dichloroelhene ND "g/1. NA "g/1. NA NA
Tlichloroelhene 3.5Et-01 "g/1. 8E-05 "g/1. 7.0E-03 (mg/kg-day)-1
Cancer
Risk
NA
NA
NA
IE--04
NA
1E-06
NA
1 E--04
NA
NA
NA
4E-06
NA
5E-07
------
Non..Cancer Hazard Calculations
Intake/ Ex!'V>'Sure Coocentratioo RfO/RfC """'"' Vatue Units Value Units Quotient
NA "g/1. NA NA NA
NA "g/1. 1E-02 {mg/kg-day) NA
3.2E-03 ug/l 1E-02 (mg/kg-<fay) 0.3
4.3E-03 "g/1. 1E--02 (mg/kg-day) 0.4"
NA ""' 2E-02 (mg/kg-day) NA
1.SE-03 ""' NA NA NA
NA ""' 3E-03 /mo/Im-day) NA
~
NA "g/1. 2.3E-01 (rng/1<.g-day) NA
NA ""' 2.SE-02 (mg/kg-day) NA
3.2E-03 ""' NA NA NA
4.3E-03 "g/1. 7.7E-02 (mg/kg-day) 0.1
NA "g/1. 1.7E-02 (mg/kg-day) NA
1.5E-03 ""' NA NA NA
V111yt Chloride ND """ NA "" 3 1E-02 --••'I NA """ 2.9E-02 (ma.lko-day) NA
DD DD
E DD I Total af Receetor Risks Across All Medi~ Total af Receptor Hazards Across All Media DD
Page 1 of 1 7/6/2009
-----
lscenatio Tmeframe: Future
!Receptor Population: Resident
eceptor Age: Lifetime (cancer), Child (noncancer)
Medium Ellposure """°'""' """°'""' Medium Point Rout,
Ground Water Ground Water Tap Ingestion
PW016
~e-Route Total I
Ground Water Ground Water Showert,ead Inhalation
PW016
I.,., Route Total I
-i:; ~"""' ure Point T otaJ
Exposure Medium Total
m.;n•,und Water Total
App C_Ram Lea\herRAGS_D_CT Rev 0.xls
-.. - - --
Table C-7.5.CT
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS ANO NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
Ram Leather Care, Charlotte, NC
Chemical EPC " Cancer Risk Calculations
of Potential :take/ i:w,.,..,.ure Concentratkln CSF/1.Jnit Risk
Concern Value ,mos Value Units Value Units
1.4-0ichlorobenzee NO """-NA ug/l 5.4E-03 (mglkg-day)-1
Chk>rof-NO ug/l NA ug/l 3.tE--02 (mg/kg-day)-1
cis-1,2-0ichloroethene 6.2E+OO ug/l tE-05 ug/l NA NA
T etrachloroelhene 5.6E+OO ug/l lE-05 """-5.4E-01 (mg/kg-day)-1
trans-1,2-Dich!oroelhene NO ug/l NA ug/l NA NA
T richtoroethene 2.2E+OO ug/l 5£-06 ug/l 1.JE-02 (mg/kg-day)-1
Vinvt Chloride NO uo/1 NA uo/L 1.5E+OO /mn/L,n-davl-1
1,4-Dichlorobenzene NO ug/l NA ug/l 3.9E--02 (mg/kg-day}-1
Chloroform NO ug/L NA ug/l 8.1E--02 (mg/kg-day}-1
cis-1,2-0ichloroethene 6.2E+OO ug/l 1E--05 ug/L NA NA
T etrachJoroethene 5.6E+OO ug/l 1E--05 ,g/l 2.1E--02 (mg/kg-day}-1
trans-1,2-0ichloroethene NO ug/l NA ug/L NA NA
Trichloroethane 2.2E+OO ug/l SE--06 ug/L 7.0E-03 (mg/kg-day}-1
Vinyl Chloride NO .~, NA """ 3.1E-02 I lmnfkn-davl-1
Total of Receotor Risks Across All Medil
Page 1 of 1
Cancer
Risk
NA
NA
NA
6E-06
NA
6E-08
NA
7E--06
NA
NA
NA
2E--07
NA
3E-08
NA
3E-07
7E-06
7E-06
7E-06
----
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Intake/ i::w...,..,ure Coocentration RfO/RIC "='"'
Value Units Vah.Je Units 01.m\ient
NA ug/L NA NA NA
NA ug/L tE-02 (mg/kg-day) NA
2.6E-04 ug/L lE-02 (mg/kg-day) 0.03
2.4E--04 ug/L lE--02 (mg/kg-day) 0.02
NA ug/l 2E-02 (mg/kg-day) NA
9.4E--05 ug/l NA NA NA
NA uo/L 3E--03 (ma/ka-dav\ NA
0.1
NA ug/L 2.3E--01 (mg/kg-day) NA
NA ug/l 2.BE--02 (mg/kg-day) NA
2.6E--04 ,.,, NA NA NA
2.4E-04 ug/l 7.7E--02 (mg/kg-day) 0.003
NA ug/l 1.7E--02 (mg/kg-day) NA
9.4E--05 ug/l NA NA NA
NA """ 2.9E--02 /ma/kn-day) NA
~
7(6/2009
- --
Scenario T1meframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Lifetime (cancer), Child (noncancer)
Medium Exposure """°'"~ Exposure
Mod>,m Point "°""
Ground Water Ground Water Tap Ingestion
PW029
®e-Route Total
Ground Water Ground Water Showerhead Inhalation
PW029
11='.-n_ Roule Total
!Exposure Point Total
<=--sure Medium Total
~ •nd Water Total
App C_Ram lealherRAGS_D_CT Rev O.xls
- -- -----
Chemical
of Potential
Coocam
1,4-0ichlorobenzene
Chloroform
cis-1,2-0ichloroethene
T etrachloroelhene
Table C-7.6.CT
CALCUlATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
Ram Leather Care, Charlotte, NC
EPC Cancer Risk Cak;ulations
Intake/ Exoosurn Concentration CSF/Unit Risk
Vah.Je Units Value Units Value """' ND ,glL NA ,g/L 5.4E-03 (mglkg-day}-1
ND ,g/L NA ,g/L 3.1E-02 (mg/kg-day}-1
6.6E+OO ,glL 1E-05 ,g/L NA NA
1.0E+-02 ""' 2E--04 ,g/L 5.4E-01 {mg/kg-day}-1
trans-1,2-0ichloroethene ND ,g/L NA ""' NA NA
T richloroethene 6.4E+OO ,g/L 1E-05 ,g/L 1.JE-02 (mg/kg-Oay)-1
Vinvl Chloride ND ,~ NA """ 1.SE-1-{)() /mnn.n-0=-\1
If I
1,4-0ichlorobenzene ND ,glL NA ,g/L 3.9E--02 {mg/kg-Oay)-1
Chloroform ND ,,,._ NA ,g/L 8.1E--02 (mglkg-day)-1
cis-1,2-Dfchloroethene 6.6E+OO ,g/L 1E--05 ""' . NA NA
T etrachloroethene 1.0E+02 ,g/L 2E--04 ,glL 2.1E--02 (mg/kg-day)-1
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ""' NA ,g/L NA NA
Trichloroethane 6.4E+OO ""' 1E--05 ,glL 7.0E-03 (mg/kg-day)-1
V111vl Chloride ND ,-· NA """ 3.1E-02 fmnfl<n,day)-1
II I
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media I
Page 1 of 1
Cancer
Risk
NA
NA
NA
1E--04
NA
2E--07
NA
1E
NA
NA
NA
4E--06
NA
1E--07
NA
SE--06
IE--04
1 E--04
1 E--04
------
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Intake/ osure Concentration RfD/RIC Hazard
Value Units Value Units Quotient
NA ,g/L NA NA NA
NA ""' 1E-02 (mg/kg-day) NA
2.SE-04 ""' 1E-02 (mg/kg-day) 0.03
4.3E-03 ,g/L 1E-02 {mg/kg-day) 0.4
NA ""' 2E--02 (mg/kg-day) NA
2. 7E--04 ""' NA NA NA
NA ""'' 3E--03 /mn/1,n-Oav) NA
DD
NA ""' 2.3E--01 (mg/kg-day} NA
NA ,g/L 2.BE--02 (mg/kg-Oay} NA
2.BE--04 ,g/L NA NA NA
4.3E--03 ""' 7.7E--02 (mg/kg-Oay) 0.1
NA ,g/L 1.7E--02 (mg/kg-Oay) NA
2.7E--04 ,g/L NA NA NA
NA "'" 2.9E--02 (mq/kq-Oav) NA
DD
DD
DD II Tota! of Receptor Hazards Across All MedialDD
7/6/2009
-- ---
::>eenano Timeframe: Current/Future
!Receptor PopUation: Resident
!Receptor: Lifetime (cancer), Child (noncancer)
Med""' Exposure ExpoStxe
Medium Point
Ground Water Ground Waler Tap
PW030
- -
' Chemical
of Potential
Coccem
1.4-Dichlorobenzene
Ctioroform
- --
Table C-9.1.CT
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
Ram leather Care, Charlotte, NC
Carcinogenie Risk
Ingestion Dennal Inhalation Exposure
Routes Total
NA NA. NA NA
2E-07 NA . SE-07 7E-07
cls-1,2-Dic/-ioroelhene NA NA NA NA
T etrachloroethene NA NA NA NA
-----
Non-Carcinogenic-Hazard Quotient
Primary Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Exposure
Target Organ1:S) Routes Total
NA NA NA NA NA
Liver 0.01 NA 0.005 0.02
Unknown NA NA NA NA
Liver NA NA NA NA
trans-1,2-0icl1ofoethene NA NA NA NA Increased serum phosphatase NA NA NA NA
T riclioroethene NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Vinyl Ctioride NA NA NA NA Liver NA NA NA NA
Chemical Total 2E-07 NA SE-07 7E--07 0.01 NA 0.005 0.02
!Exposure Point Total II 7E--07 I 0.02
!Exposure Medium Total II 7E--07 I 0.02
or Total I 7E-07 I 0.02
Total R~k = II 7E-07 11 Total Hazard .11==0=·=02=="'
App C_Ram LeatherRAGS_D_CT Rev O.xls Page 1 of 1 7/6/2009
-
-----
i:=;cenario Timeframe: Future '.!Receptor PQPUation: Resident
!Receptor: Lifetime (cancer), Child (noncancer)
Medium Exposure Exposu-e
Medium Point
Ground Waler Ground Water Tap
OW011
- -
Chemical
of Potential
Coccem
1,4-0ichlorobenzene
Ctwrofonn
-----
Table C-9.2.CT
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
Ram Leather Care, Charlotte. NC
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion DennaJ Inhalation E>poou,e
Routes Total
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene NA NA NA NA
T etrachloroothene SE--03 NA 2E-04 SE-03
------
Non-Carcinogenic-Hazard Quotient
Primary Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Exposure
Target Organ(s) Routes Total
NA NA NA NA NA
Liver NA NA NA NA
Unkrown 7 NA NA 7
Liv"' 18 NA 2 21
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene NA NA NA NA Increased serum phosphatase 0.03 NA 0.04 0.1
Tnct<oroetl-.M 1E--05 NA 5E-06 2E-05
Vinyl Chloride 6E-05 NA 1E-06 6E--05
Chemical Total SE-03 NA 2E-04 SE-03
Exposure Point T otat SE-03
1~~posure Medium Total SE-03
Receptor Total 5E.O
Total Rok , II 5E.03 1/
App C_Ram leatherRAGS_D_CT Rev O.xls Page 1 of 1
NA
Liver
NA NA NA NA
0.3 NA 0.03 0.3
26 NA 2 28
28
28
28
Total Unknown Hazard Quotient 7
Total Hawd.~11 ==,;;28~=1111
Total Liver Hazard Ouotientffi21 I
Total Increased Serum Phosphatase Hazard Quotient I 0.1 I
7/6/2009
-
-----
.-:>CEnario Timeframe: F""-<e
!Receptor Population: Resident
IReceptoc Lifetime (cancer), Child (noncancer)
Medium Exposure Exposure
Medium Point
Grourxi Water Ground Water Tap
PW003
- -
Chemical
of Potential
Conoe,n
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Chloroform
----
Table C-9.3.CT
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
Ram leather Gare, Charlotte, NC
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion Dennal Inhalation Exposure
Routes Total
7E-09 NA 5E-08 GE-08
NA NA NA NA
cis-1,2-Dicl'Kroelhene NA NA NA NA
T etrachloroethene SE-05 NA 2E-06 SE-05
----- -
'
Non-Carcinogenic-Hazard Quotient
Primary Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Exposure
Target Organ(s) Routes Total
NA NA NA 0.0001 0.0001
Liver NA NA NA NA
Unkcown 0.1 NA NA 0.1
Liver 0.2 NA 0.02 0.2
trans-1,2-Dictioroethene NA NA NA NA locreased serum phosphatase NA NA NA NA
T richloroethene 4E-08 NA 2E-08 7E-08 NA NA NA NA NA
VIJlYI Clioride NA NA NA NA liver NA NA NA NA
Chemical Total SE-05 NA 2E-06 SE-05 0.3 NA 0.02 0.3
!Exposure Point Total I 0.3 I I1-~posure Medium Total I 0.3 I eceptor Total II I 0.3 I
Total R~k • II 5E-05 I) Total Hazard.~fj=~O;a;.3~=:!JII
App C_Ram LeatherRAGS_D_CT Rev 0.xls Page 1 of 1 7/6/2009
-
-- ---
.x:i:nario Timeframe: Fun,o
!Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor: Lifetime {cancer). Ch~d (noncarcer)
Medium Exposure Exposure
Medium Point
Ground Water Ground Water Tap
PW010
- -
Chemical
of Potential
Coacom
1,4-Dicliorobenzene
Cliorofocm
-----
Table C•9.4.CT
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
Ram Leather Care, Charlotte, NC
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Exposure
Routes Total
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene NA NA NA NA
T etrachlomethene 1E-04 NA 4E-06 1E-04
--- -- -
Non-Carcinogenic-Hazard Quotient
Primary Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Exposure
Target Organ(s) Routes Total
NA NA NA NA NA
Live, NA NA NA NA
Unknown 0.3 NA NA 0.3
Liver 0.4 NA 0.1 0.5 trans-1,2-Dictwroethene NA NA NA NA Increased serum phosphatase NA NA NA NA T richloroethene 1E-06 NA 5E-07 2E-06 NA NA NA NA NA Vinyl Chloride NA NA NA NA Live, NA NA NA NA
Chemical Total 1E-04 NA 5E-06 1E-04 0.7 NA 0.1 0.8
!Exposure Medium Total
~xposure Point Total II 1E-04 I I 0.8 I II 1E-04 I I 0.8 I Receptor Total 11 1E-04 I I I 0.8
Total R~k an 1E-04 II Tolal Hazacd,~11=~0.;;,8 =adll
App C_Ram leatherRAGS_D_CT Rev 0.xls Page 1 of 1 7/6/2009
-
-- - --
~ Timeframe: Futise
!Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor: lifetime (cancer), Child (noncancer)
Medium Exposure Exposure
Medium Point
Ground Water Ground Water Tap
PW016
- -
Chemical
of Potential
Co""'"'
1,4-0~obenzene
Ct"ioroform
!!!! liiiiiii
Table C-9.5.CT
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
Ram Leather care, Charlotte, NC
Garcinogenic Risk
Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Exposu,e
Routes Total
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
cis-1 ,2-0ichlornethene NA NA NA NA
T etracHoroothene 6E-06 NA 2E-07 7E-06
l!!!!!!!9 !!Ill ==
Non-Carcinogenic-Hazard Quotient
Primary Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Exposure
Target Organ(s) Routes Total
NA NA NA NA NA
U.,e, NA NA NA NA
Unknown 0.03 NA NA 0.03
Liver 0.02 NA 0.003 0.03
trans-1,2-Dichlornethene NA NA NA NA Increased serum phosphatase NA NA NA NA T richloroethene 6E-08 NA 3E-08 9E-08 NA NA NA NA NA Vlll)'I Chloride NA NA NA NA Liver NA NA NA NA
Chemical Total 7E-06 NA 3E-07 7E-06 0.1 NA 0.003 0.1
!Exposure Medium Total
!Exposure Point Total II 7E-06 I I 0.1 I II 7E-06 I I 0.1 I !Receptor Total I 7E-06 I I I 0.1
Total Risk "'jl 7E-06 Total Hazard.ull=~o;s.1~=4
App C_Ram LeatherRAGS_D_CT Rev 0.xls Page 1 of 1 7/612009
----
.;)l.;tjnario Timeframe: F,turn
jReceptor Populalioo: Resident
Receptor: lifetime (cancer), Child (noncancer)
Medwm Exposure Exposure
Medium Poot
Ground Water Ground Water Tap
PW029
--
Chemical
of Potertial
Concern
1,4-Oichlorobenz:ene
C"°""onn
--- - -
Table C-9.6.CT
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
Ram Leather Care, Chat1otte, NC
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion Dennal lnhalatiOn E,pos<,,e
Routes Total
NA NA NA NA . NA NA NA NA
cis-1,2-Dichlomethene NA NA NA NA
T etrachloroethene 1E-04 NA 4E-06 1E-04
- ---- -
Non-Carcinogenic-Hazard Quotient
Primary Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Exposure
Targel Organ(s) Routes Total
NA NA NA NA NA
Liver NA NA NA NA
Uaknown 0.03 NA NA 0.03
Liver 0.4 NA 0.1 0.5
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene NA NA NA NA Increased serum phosphatase NA NA NA NA
T richloroothene 2E-07 NA 1E-07 3E-07 NA NA NA NA NA
Vinvt Chloride NA NA NA NA Live, NA NA NA NA
Chemical Total 1E-04 NA 5E-06 1E-04 0.5 NA 0 1 0.5
!Exposure Point Total II 1E-04 I I 0.5 I jB;posure Medium Total II 1E-04 I I 0.5 I Receptor Total I 1E-04 I I I 0.5
Total R;,, = II 1E-04 1/ Total Hazard0jl==0;;·;,5=d
App C _ Ram LeatherRAGS _ D _ CT Rev 0 .xis Page 1 of 1 7/6/2009
-
-- -----
:::,cenario Timeftame: Current/Future
!Receptor Population: Resident
eceptor: Lifetime (cancer), Child (noncancer)
Medum E,:;posure Exposu,e Chemical
Medium Point of
Coocem
Ground Water Grourxl Water Tap NA
PW030
Chemical Total
~;,,;posure Medium Total
IExpoSlXe Point Total
eceptor Total
App C_Ram LeatherRAGS_D_CT Rev O.xls
---
TableC-10.1.CT
RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
Ram Leather Care, Charlotte, NC
Carcinogenic Risk
-
Ingestion Dem,aJ Inhalation E,;;posure
Routes Total
NA NA NA NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA NA NA NA
II NA I II NA I I NA I
Total R•k = llkl ==NA==dlJ
Page 1 of 1
---- --
Non-Carcinogenic-Hazard Quotient
Primary Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Blposure
Target Organ(s) Routes Total
NA NA NA NA NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA NA NA NA
I NA I I NA I I NA I
Total Hazard NA II
7/6/2009
-- - -- - -
.>ee11<1rio Timeframe: Future
!Receptor Population: Resident.
Receptor: Lifetime (cancer), Child (rorcancer)
Medrum Exposure Exposure Chemical
Medium Point of
Concern
Grourw:l Water Ground Water Tap cis-1,2-Dichloroelhene
DW011 T etraclioroelhena
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
T rd'roroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Chemical Total
!exposure Medium Total
!Exposure Point Total
!Receptor Total
App C_Ram LeatherRAGS_D_CT Rev O.xls
- -- -
Table e-10.2.cT
RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
Ram Leather Care, Charlotte, NC
Carcirogeric Risk
Ingestion Denn~ Inhalation Expost68
Routes Total
NA NA NA NA
SE-OJ NA 2E-04 5E-03
- - -- -- -
Non-Carcinogenic-Hazard Quotient
Primary Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Exposure
Target Organ(s) Routes Total
Unkoown 7 NA NA 7
Live, 18 NA 2 21
NA NA NA NA Increased serum phosphatase 0.03 NA 0.04 0.1
1E-05 NA 5E-06 2E-05 NA
6E-05 NA 1E-06 6E-05 Liver
SE-03 NA 2E-04 SE--03
I SE--03
I SE-03
SE-03
Total R~k a Ii 5E-03 II
Page 1 of 1
NA NA NA NA
0.3 NA 0.03 0.3
26 NA 2 28
I 28 I I 28 I I 28 I
Total Liver Hazard Qualle
Total Unknown Hazard Quotient
Total Increased Serum Phosphatase Hazard Ouotienllea=~',a==il
7/6/2009
-
-- --- - -
:x.at:nliila.l Timeframe: Futi,e
;Receptor Population: Resident
eceptor: lifetime (cancer). Child (noncancer)
Medum &posure Exposure Chemical
Medum Point of
Concern
Ground Water Ground Water Tap NA
PW003
Chemical Total
!Exposure Point Total
!Exposure Medium Total
oceptor Total
App C_Ram leatherRAGS_D_CT Rev 0.:ds
- -
l!!!!l!!!!I l!!!!!I
Table C-10.3.CT
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Ram Leather Care, Charlotte, NC
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion Denn~ Inhalation &posure
Routes Total
NA NA NA NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA NA NA NA
II NA
II NA
I NA
I I I
Total Risk = jib! ==N=A=eil!
Page 1 of 1
== iiii iiiiii l!!!!!!!!I !!!!!! !!!!!I
Non-Carcinogenic-Hazard Quotient
Primary lngeslion Dermal Inhalation Exposure
Target Organ(s) Routes Total
NA NA NA NA NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA NA NA NA
NA
NA
I NA I
Total Hazacd!lkl ==N=A~dl!
7/6/2009
-------
~nark> Timetrame: Future
IReceptOf Population: Resident
eceptor: Lifetime (cancer), Child (noncancer)
Medrum Exposure E<posu,e Chemical
Medium Point of
Co"'8rn
Ground Water Ground Water Tap-PW010 NA
Chemical Total
!Exposure Point T olal
jExposure Medium Total
Receptor Total
App C_Ram leatherRAGS_D_CT Rev 0.xls
--I!!!!!!!
TableC-10.4.CT
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Ram leather Gare, Chartotte, NC
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion Dermal Inhalation E<pos"'8
Routes Total
NA NA NA NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA NA NA NA
II NA
II NA
I NA
I
I
I
Total R~k = 1.,,1 =NA=="u
Page 1 of 1
iiii l!!!l!!!l I!!!!! !!II
Non-Carcinogenic-Hazard Quotient
Primary Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Exposure
Target Organ(s) Routes Total
NA NA NA NA NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA NA NA NA
NA
NA
I NA I
Total Hawdll!:1 =='N~A~dn
71612009
----- - -
Timeframe: Future
Population: Resident
lifetime (cancer), Child (noncancer) .
Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical
Medium Point of
Concern
Ground Water Ground Water Tap NA
PW016
Chemical Total
~xposure Medium Total
jExposure Point Total
Receptor Total
App C_Ram LeatherRAGS_O_CT Rev O.xls
- -
!!!!!I
Table C-10.5.CT
RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
Ram Leather Care, Charlotte. NC
Carcinogenic Risk.
Ingestion Dem,af lmalation Exposure_
Roules Total
NA NA NA NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA NA NA NA
II NA
II NA
I NA
1!!!!!11
I I I
Total Rok • ibU =,;;N;,;A=dJU
Page 1 of 1
liiii I!!!!!!!
Non-Carcinogenic-Hazard Quotient
Primary Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Exposure
Target Organ(s) Routes Total
NA NA NA NA NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA NA NA NA
NA
NA II
Total Hazard,,n==;;N;;A=d
7/6/2009
-- ---l!!!!!!!!!I
;:,cenario Timeframe: Future
!Receptor Populatioo: Resk:lent
!Receptor: Lifetime (cancer), Child (noncancer)
Med""' Exposu-e Exposu--e Chemical
Medium Point of
Concern
Ground Water Ground Water Tap NA
PW029
Chemical Total
jExposure Point Total
!Exposure Medium Total
eceptor Total
App C_Ram LeatherRAGS_D_CT Rev 0.xls
l!!!!!I
.
l!!l!I == -
Table C-10.6.CT
RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURE
Ram Leather Care, Charlotte, NC
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion Denn~ Inhalation Exposure
Routes Total
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
II NA I II NA I
11 NA I
Total Risk = "l)==,;,;NA~d
Page 1 of 1
liii iiiii i!!!!!!!I l!!!!I 11!!!!1
-
Non-Carcinogenic-Hazard Quotient
Primary Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Exposure
Target Organ(s) Routes Total
NA NA NA NA NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA NA NA NA
I NA I I NA I I NA I
Total Ha,a~•-,ll===NA==:adn
7/6/2009
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
D
D
I
m
I
I
m
I
I
u
Appendix D
SESD Field Sampling Investigation Report
May 30, 2006
1404 562 8699 •
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EPA Removal Operations 03:48:32 p.m. 06-29-2009
4SESD-EIB
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGF..NCY
REGION 4, SCIENCE and ECOSYSTEM SUPPORT DIVISION
ATHENS, GEORGIA 30605-2720
MAY 3 0 200R
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
THRU:
TO:
Ram Leather Care Study Plan
EPA ID NCD982096653
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County North Carolina
SESD Project Number: 06-0373
Hazardous Waste Sect~·
Danny France, Chief ~
Superfund & Air Section
Beverly Stepter, RPM
Superfund Remedial & Site Evaluation Branch
Waste Management Division
Attached is the report for the potable water sampling investigation conducted at the
residential properties adjacent to the Ram Leather Care facility in Charlotte, North Carolina. The
investigation was conducted the week of April 17, 2006. If you have any questions, please call
me at 706-355-8736.
Attachment
2 /18
1404 562 8699 • EPA Removal Operations 03:48:40 p.m. 06-29-2009
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIELD SAMPLING INVESTIGATION
RAM LEATHER CARE
CHARLOTTE, MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SESD PROJECT NUMBER 06-0373
INTRODUCTION
A potable water sampling investigation was conducted at residential properties adjacent to the Ram Leather Care facility in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. SESD staff collected 12 potable water samples from 11 properties. All samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The samples were collected the week of April 17, 2006. . .
BACKGROUND AND SCOPE
. The Ram Leather Co.re facility is located at 15100 Albemarle Road (Route 24/27) in eastern Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. It is located ln a rural area approximately four miles from the Charlotte city boundary. The Ram Leather Care fac_ility operated from 1977 to 1993.
The primary contaminants of concern at the Ram Leather Co.re site are chlorinated solvents. The owner and operator used chlorinated hydrocarbon chemicals, primarily tetrachloroethene (TCE), and petroleum hydrocarbons (mineral spirits) in the dry c;leaning and leather restoration process. TCE is a solvent primarily used to remove grease from metal parts and some textiles. Other TCE uses include spot remover and rug cleaning fluid. Elevated concentrations of some chlorinated solvents have been detected in surface and subsurface soils and groundwater.
Suspected routes of migration include the storm water runoff from the site and groundwater flow. Drums, surface soil, an on-site well, and off-site wells were sampled by the state, county, and owner in May of 1991. Analytical results indicated that sever.ii off-site potable wells were found to be contaminated. SESD conduced an Remedial Investigation at the site in April 1999. Additional potable water sampling investigations were conducted al residential properties adjacent to the site in 1999 and 2004.
SAMPLING DESIGN AND RATIONALE
SESD collected water samples from 11 potable wells for VOC analyses. All potable wells were monitored for pH, temperature, and turbidity prior to being sampled. All water samples were collected, containerized, preserved, handled, and documented in accordance with the Environmental Investigations Standard Operating Proced11res and Quality Assurance Manual (EISOPQAM), November 2001.
3 118
404 562 8699 ' EPA Removal Operations 03:48:55 p.m. 06-29-2009
In addition to environmental samples, quality control samplers were collected. One duplicate sample and one trip blank were submitted to the laboratory for voe analyses. All samples were analyzed by the SESD laboratory in Athens, Georgia. Low analytical detection limits, below drinking water MCLs, were requested.
DATASUMMARY
4/181
I
I
I
As stated previously, SESD staff collected 12 potable water samples from 1 i' properties. I voes were not detected in 11 of the samples. Chloroform (3.0 ug/1) was detected in sample Ram00l. Chloroform in drinking water is often formed as a by-product of drinking water I disinfection. It should be noted that there is no maximum contaminant level (MCL) for chloroform. MCLs are enforceable standards and are· defined as the highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water .. No other VOCs were detected in sample I RAMOOl.
VOCs were not detected in the trip blank, sample QA901, which would indicate that samples were not contaminated during transport to the Iaborat01-y. Complete analytical data I sheets are attached in Appendix A. All data are reported in ug/1 (parts per billion).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1404 562 8699 •
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EPA Removal Operations
APPENDIX A
ANALYTICAL DATA SHEETS
RAM LEATHER CARE
NOVEMBER 2004
03:49:03 p.m. 06-29-2009 5 /18
-------EPA• REGION IV SESD, ATHENS, GA -- -- --Production Date: 05/28/2006 13:51 ~la 4504 FY 2006 Project OIHl373
Volalllea Scan
Facility: Ram l.ea!her Care
Program: SF Challotle, NC
id/Station: RAMo10 /
Lledia:POTABLE WATER
RESULTS o.sow
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
2.0 U o.sou o.sou
0.50 u
0.50 U a.sou
0.50 U
10U o.sou
10 U o.sou
1.0 U
0.50 U
10 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50U
0.50 U o.sou
0.50 U a.sou
0.50 U
2.0 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50U o.sou o.sou
UNITS
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/L
UG/L
UGIL
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
\JG/I.
UGIL
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
U<l/1.
llG/L
UGJL
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/1.
UG/L
\JG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/1..
UGIL
UG/L
UG/L
UG/1.
UG/1.
IJG/L
lJG/L
ANALYTE
DichlorodiHuoromethane
ChlOIOmethane
1, 1,2-Trichlorc>-1,2,2-TriHuoroethane (Freon 113) Methyl T-Sutyl Elller (MTBE) Bromomelhane
Cyclohaxane
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroelhane
TrichloroflUoromelhane [Freon 11) 1, 1 ·0lchloroethsne (1, 1-0ichloroethytene) Melhylene Chloride
Ace1one
carbon Disulfide
Methyl Aceta1e
1, 1-0ichloroelhane
cis-1.2-Dlchloroethene
2,2-0icl!loropropane
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Bromochloromethane
trans--1,2-~oroelhene
Chlorofom,
1,2-0ichloroethane
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane
1, 1-0icllloropropene
Carbon Tetrachlodde
Bromodictioromelhane
Methyl lsobuM Ketone 1,2-0ict1loropropane
Melhylcyclohelame
Dibromomelhane
trans-1,3-Dlcllloropropene
Trichloroelhene [Trichloroethylene) Benzene
Dibromochloromelhane
1, 1,2• Trichloloelhane
Freon 12 J-qualifl8d due lo low recovery in the CCV
RESULTS
0.50 U
1.0U
0.50 U
0.50 U o.sou
0.50 U
2.0 U o.sou
0.50 u o.sou
0.50 U
0.50 u
0.50 U a.sou
1.0 U a.sou
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U o.sou
0.50 U
0.50 u
0.50 u
0.50 U
1.0 U o.sou
0.50 U
0.50 U
Produced by: Hale, Sallie
Aequeslor. Beverly Slepter
Project leader. TSIMPSON
Beginning: 04/17/200613;00
Ending:
IJNfTS ANALYTE
UG/L cis-1 ,3-Diohloropropene
UG/1. Bromoform UG/L Bromobenzene
UG/L 1, 1,2,2-Telrachloroelhane
UGA. Tetrachloroethene [Tetrachloroelhylene) UG/L 1,3-0ichloropropane UG/1. Methyl 8ulyt Ketone UG/1. Toluene
UG/L Chlombenzene UG/1. 1, 1, 1,2· Tetrachloroelhane UG/1.. Ethyl Benzene
UG/L (m-and/or p-))(ylene
UG/L o-Xylene
UG/l Styrene
UG/L 1,2,3-Trichloropropane
UG'I. o-Chlorotoluene
UGll p-Chlorototuene UG/L 1 ,3-DichlorobenZene UG/L 1,4-Dichlorobenzene
UGA. 1,2-Dichlorobenzene UG/1.. 1,2·Dibromoetl1ane (EDB) IJG,1.. lsopropylbenzene UG/L n-Propylbenzene
IJG,1.. 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
UG/L tert-Bulylbenzene
UGIL 1,2,4-TrimelhylbenZene
UGIL sec-!!utybenzene UGIL. p-lsOpropyltoluene UGIL n-Butylbenzene
UG/1. 1,2-llibromo-3-Chloropropane (DBCP) UGIL 1,2,4-Triehlorobenzene
\JG.IL Hexachloro-1,3-Buladiene
UGIL 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
U-Analy1a nol detected al or abova -rting imJL I J.ldermlication of analytB ia acceptable; reported value is an oatimate. J IJJ-Analyte not deled9d Bl or shove reporting I mil Reporung lim~ Is an estimate.
N-Presurnptiw, -anaJyte is ..-,a,; anatyte~ es --I NJ.Presumptive ovldence analyte Is pnent; onatyte <epo!1ed es 1e..-1denllficallon. Repofled value is en eotlmala.
K~dofllificatilln of anaJyle is ecceptable; _,ied value may be biaoed • Actual V1W8 ""IJOC!ed ID be less 1han tits lep0lled value. L-ldenliication of analy1e is acceptable; n,jXlrfed ¥a!Je may be -low. Actual value expectad ID be grealer 1han reporled value. NA-Not Analyzed. I HAI-Nol Analyzed due tn Interferences. I A-Analyt& analyzed in replicate. Repo,ted value Is •.-.gs• ot repli:ates. --..., or absence of analyte can R1'I b. deltiimiued hem data due to ......., quali\y conlrol probemo. llala are n,jecled and -unusable.
Page 1 of 1
-g ..
~
"' ., .,
"' "' "'
m ,,
► "' .. 3 0 < !!!.
0 .., ..
il ri 0 a
0 !'! .. !'?
0 "' ..,
~
0
"' I .,
"' I .,
0 0 "'
"' -.,
-
VOLATILES SAMPLE ANALYSIS EPA-REGION IV SESD. ATHENS, GA Production Date: 05/28/2006 13:51 Sample 4S05 FY 2006 Project: 06-0373
ValaWes Scan
Facility: Ram leather Care
Program: SF
Charlatte, NC
lcVStation: RAM002 I
Media: POTABLE WATER
RESULlS UNITS ANALYTE
0.50W UGII. Dichloraclilluaromelhane 0.50 U IJGII. Chlaromelhane 0.50 U IJG/L 1, 1,2-Trichlaro-1,2,2-Triftuoroelhane (Freon 113) 0.50U UCYL Methyl T-Butyt Bher{M1BEJ 2.0U UG/L Bromomethane 0.50 U UGIL Cyclohexane
0.50U UGI!. Vinyl Chloride 0.50U UGI!. Chloroethane 0.50U UG/L Tlichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11) 0.5DU UGI!. 1,1-0ichloroethane (1,1-llil:hloroelhyene} 0.5DU UG/1. Methylene Chlor1de 10 U UG/1. Acetone o.sou UG/1. Caman Disulfide 10 U UGI!. Methyl Acetala o.sou UGn.. 1,1-0lchloroelhane 1.0U UG/1. cis-1,2-0ichloroethene 0.50U UG/1. 2,2-0ichloropropane ,ou UGI\. Methyl Ethyl Ketone o.sou UGII. Bromochloromethane o.sou UG/L trans-1,2-Dlchloroethene o.sou UGll Chloroform 0.50U UG/1. 1 ,2-0ichloroethane 0.50U UG/1. 1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane 0.50U UG/L 1, 1-Dichloropropene 0.5DU UG/L carbon Tetradtloride 0.50 U UG/L Brornodichloromelhane 2.0 U UG/L Methyl lsobuly1 Ketone 0.50 U UG/1. 1,2-Dichloropropane 0.50 U UG/1. Melhytcyclohexane 0.50 U UG/1. Dlbromomelhane 0.50U UG/1. trans-1,3-Dlctioropropene 0.50 U UG/1. Trichloroe1hene (Trlchloroethylene) 0.50 U UGII. Benzene 0.50 U UGII. Dlbromocllloromelhane 0.50 U UGJL 1, 1,2-Trichloroelhane
Freon 12 .I-qualified due to low recovery in the CCV
RESULTS
0.50 U
1.0 U
0.50 U
0.50U
0.50 U
0.50U
2.0 u
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U o.sou
0.50 U o.sou
0.50U
1.0 U o.sou
0.50U a.sou
0.50U
0.50U o.sou
0.50 U o.so u
0.50U
0.50U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
1.0 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
Produced by: Hale, Same
Requestor. Beverty Slepter
Prajecl Leader. TSIMPSON
Beginning: 04/17/200613:40
Ending:
UNITS . ANALYTE
UGII. cis-1,3-0ichloropropene uar.. Bromottmn
UGIL Bromobenzene
UG/L 1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
UG/1. Tetrachloroethene (Telrachloroethylene) UGIL 1,3-Dichloropropane
UG/1. Me1hyt Butyl Ketone UG/L Toluene
UG'I. Chlorobenzene
UG'I. 1, 1, 1,2-Tetrachloroethane
UG/1. Elhyl Benzene
lJG/1. (m-and/or p-}Xylene UG/L o-Xytene
UGll Styrene
UG/1. 1,2,3-TlichlorOjl<Opane
UG/1. o-Chlorotoluene
UG/L p-Chlorctoluene
UG/1. 1,3-0ichlorobenzene
UG/L 1,4-Dichlorobenzene
UGI\. 1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
UG/1. 1,2-Dibromcethane (EDB) UG/L lsopropylbenzene
UG/L n-Prapylbenzane
UG/1. 1,3,S-T rimethylbenzene
UG/l te~-Bulylbenzene
UGIL 1,2,4-Trirnethylbenzene
UG/1. seo-Butylbenzane
UG/1. p-lsopropyttoluene
UG/L n-Butyi)enzene
UG/L 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane (DBCP} UGA.. 1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
UG/1. Haltachloro-1,3-Buladiene
UGII. 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
U-Analyle nol dslscled al or abow f8llC)ltlng !mil I J.klentilca1ion of snaly!a is acc:eptable; reported value is an estimate. I W-Analyta not d.-at or above reporting imlt. Reponing r,mtt is an estimate. N-PnisumpllYe IMdence analyta is -~ analyle n,pom,d as lerr!aliva ldenllllcatlon. I NJ.l'r8sllmpllY INidenca onaly1e is present; ana!yte JUpo:1ed as ten1alh,e lden!lfication. ROl)Orted value Is an estimate. K~1lon of anaJyta is accaptable; reported value may be biaood "91. Aclual vu e,cpeded ID be less 1han lhe reported value. -L-ldenlilicatlon of anatyte is aa:eptable; reponechalua may be biased low. A<tual value mql8CIJ!d to be gaaatec than r<1pmled valll8. NA•Nol Ar1alymd. I NA!-Not Analyad d11e ID lnle"8rer>:oa. I A·Ans!yle anatya,d in replicate. Ae!lorteci value is 'average" of repllcales. A-Presence or absence of anall/lB can not be -Imm data due to -re quality control probloma. Data an, rejected and conoiiered W1usablo.
Page 1 ol 1 ----------------
g .,. .,, e
"' "' "' "'
-
-tLA•s.J9ANA-·-- - - -·-EPA-REGION IV SESD, ATHENS, GA ------Production Date: 05/28/2006 13:51 Sample 4506 . FY 2006 Project: OSQ73
VolaUles Scan
Facility. Ram Lealher Cara ChallOlte, NC Program: SF
Id/Station: RAM001 /
Media: POTABLE WATER
RESULTS
0.50 W
0.50 U
0.50 U o.sou
2.0 U o.so u
0.50 U a.sou o.sou o.sou a.sou
10 U o.sou
10 U a.sou 1.ou o.sou
10 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
3.0J
0.50 U a.sou a.sou a.sou a.sou
2.0 U
0.50 U
0.50 U a.sou
0.50 U
0.50 U o.sou o.sou o.sou
UNITS
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/1..
UG/1..
UG/1..
UG/l
UG/1..
UG/1.
UG/L
UG/l
UM
UG/L
UG/1.
UG/1..
UGIL
UG/1.
UG/1.
UGIL
UG/L
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/L
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/l.
UG/1.
UG/1. .
UG/1.
ANALYTE
DichloroclHluoromelllane
Chloromelhane
1, 1,2-Tnchloro-1,2,2-Trifluoroethane (Fraon 113) Methyt T-BU1Y1 Ether (MTBE) Bromomethane
Cydohaxane
Vinyt Chloride
Chloroet/1ane
Trichlornfluoromelhane (Freon 11) 1, 1 ·0ichloroethene (1, 1 •Dichloroethylene) Methylene Chloride
Acetone Camon Disulfide
Methyl Acetate
1, 1-Dichlaroelhane
cis-1 ~chloroe1hene
2,2-0ichlaropropane
Methll Ethy1 Ketone Bromocltloromethane
trans-1,2-Dichloroethane
Chloroform
1,2-Dlchloroethane
1, 1,1-Trichlaroethane
1, 1-0lchloropropane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Brornodichlornmelhane
Methyt lsobutyt Ke1one 1,2-0ichloropropane
Methylcyclalwane
Dibromomelhane
trans-1 ,$-Oichloropropene
Trichlomethene (Trichloroethylene)
Benzene
Dibromochlaromethane
1,1,2-Trichloroelhane
Freon 12 .I-qualified due to low recovery in the CCV Chloroform J.((uallfied due to high % recovery in 1he LCS
RESULTS
o.sou
1.0 U o.sou
0.50 U
0.50 U a.sou
2.0 U a.sou a.sou a.sou
0.50 U a.sou a.sou o.so u
1.0 U o.sou a.sou
0.50 U o.sou o.sou
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 u.
0.50 U
0.50 U
1.0U
0.50 U a.sou
0.50 u
Produced by: Hale, Sallie
Requeslor. Beva~y Slep1er
Proje,:I Leader. TSIMPSON
Beginning: 04/171.100614:10
Endirg:
UNITS
UG,t
UG/1.
UG/L
UG/L
UG/l.
UG/l.
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
Ul3/L
UG/1.
UG/1.
UGll
UG/L
UG/1.
UG/L
UG/1.
UG/L
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/L
UG/L
UG/1.
UG/L
UG/L
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
ANALYTE
cis-1,3-Dicllloroprapene
Bramoform
Bromobenzene
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Telral:hlotoelhene (Tetrachloroe1hylene) · 1,3-llichloroprapane
Methyl Bu!yl Ketone
Toluene
Chlambonzene
1, 1, 1,2-Telrachloroethane
Ethyl Benzene
(m-and/or p-JXylene
a-Xylene
Styrene
1,2,3-TrichlaroprOj)ane
o-Chlorotaluene
p-Chlorataluene
1,3-0k:hlarobenzene
1,4-0ichlarobenzene
1,2-Dichlombenzene
1,2-llibrornoe1hane (EDB) lsopmpylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
1,3,5-Trimethyl!Jenz.ene
ter1-Butytbenzene
1 ,2,4-Trimelh)4benzene
sec-Bulylbenzene
p-lsaprapyttoluene . n-Butylbenzene
1,2~hlorapmpane (DBCP) 1,2,4-T richlorobenzene
Hexachlom-1,3-Buladiene
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
U-Analy!e not de1ecled at or above repor1ing limit. I .H-of analyte lo ~bfe: "!\lOned wlue is en os1inate. I W-Anatyte noi detactsd at or above reponing fimlt. Reportng limit is en estimate.
N-Preslsnpl;w ew1ence analy1a is present; analyte reported as ISnlaliW ldeutil'icd .. , I NJ.Presumptive Olridenoe ~ Is pn,sent analyts repo,tBd as lenlallve identification. Repol1ed value ls an estimate.
K-tdenti&cation of amoly\1> i.. acco,,latle; ,-,,o,ted value may be biased h!gh. Aolual value expecled to be less flan Ille reported value. L~dentlficallon 01 ana1y1e 1s ~;~value may be blesed low. Aclual "31ue e,p,c:aed 1D be gremr lhan repor1Bd v;we. NA-Nol Analyzed. I NAl-t~I Analyzed Gie to lntetferancea. I A·NW/,8 analyzed in repllca1B. Reported value ls 'average" of replicates. A-Presence or absence of arui¥e can 1101 be clatennlned from llata due lo......, quallly conlrd pn,bletns. lla1a are reje:led and consilered unusable.
Page 1 ol 1
-.. g
~
fl
"' "' "' "'
0 "' I N
"' I N ill
"' -"'
-
VOLATILES SAMPl.c AHALYSIS El'A · REGION IV SESD, ATtlENS, GA Production Date: 05/28/200613:51 Sample 4507 FY 2006 Prqect 06-0373
VolaUles Scan
Facility: Ram Leather Care Charlotta. NC Program: SF
kVSlation: AAM007 /
Madia:POTABLE WATER
RESULTS a.sow a.sou
0.50 U a.sou
2.0 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U a.sou
10 U a.sou
10 U a.sou
1.0U a.sou
10 U
0.50 U
0.50 U a.sou
0.50 U a.sou
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
2.0 U
0.50 U o.sou a.sou
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U a.sou
0.50 U
UNITS
U6"I.
UGIL
UG/1.
\JG/I.
UG/1.
UG/L
UG/1.
UGll
UGJl
UG/1.
UGA.
UG/1.
UGJL
UG/L
UG/L
UG/1.
UG/1.
UGIL
UGIL
U&Jl
UG/l
UG/l
UG/l
UG/l
IJGll
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/1.
UGA.
UG/1.
UG/1.
UGIL
ANALYTE
Dichlorodttluoromelhane
Chloromethane
1, 1,2-Trlchlom-1,2,2-T rifluoroethane (Freon 113) Melhyl T-Butyl Ether (MTBE) Bromomelhane
Cyclohexane
Vinyl ChJDride
Chloroe1hane
Trichlorofluommelhane (Freon 11) 1, 1-OichlDIOSlhene (1,1-0iclmrae1hylene) Methylene Chloride
Acetone
Carbon Disulfide
MethylAcetale
1.1 •Dichloroethana
cis-1,2-0ichlOIOelhene
2,2-Dichloropropane
Methyl Ethyl Ketone Bromochloromelhane
trans-1,2-DichlofOelhene
Chloroform
1,2-0l~e
1, 1,1-Trichloroethane
1, 1-0ichlo~ne
Carbon Tetrachloride
Bromodichloromethane
Methyl lsobu1yl Ketone 1,2-Dichloropropane
Melhylcyclohexane
Olbromomethane
trans-1,3-0ichloropropene
Trichloroethene (TricNoroelhylene) Benzene
Dibromochloromethane
1, 1,2· Trichloroethane
Freon 12 J-qualilied due to low '8COV8IY In 1he COi
RESULTS
0.50 u
1.0 U o.sou a.sou
0.50 U
0.50 U
2.0 U a.sou
0.50 U a.sou
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
1.0 U
0.50 u
0.50 U
0.50 u
0.50 U
0.50 u a.sou a.sou a.sou a.sou . 0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U a.sou
1.0 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
Produced by: Hale, Sallie
Reqi,estor: Beverly Stepler
Project Leader: TSIMPSON
Beginning: 04/17/2006 14:37
Ending:
UNITS
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/L
UG/1.
UG/1.
IJGJl
UGIL
UG,L
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/1..
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/L
UG/1.
llG/l
UG/1.
IJGJl
UG/L
UG/1.
UG/1.
UGI!.
UGIL
UG/1.
UGA..
UG/1.
UG/1.
ANALYTE
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
Bromoform
Bromobenzene
1, 1,2,2-Telrachloroelhane
Telrachloroelhene (Tetrachloroethylene) 1,3-0ichloropropane
Methyl Bu1YI Ketone Toluene
Chlorobenzene
1, 1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
Ethyl Benzene
(m-and/or p-)Xylene o-lfylene
Styrene
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
o-Chlorotoluene
p-Chlorotoluene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-0ic111orobenzene
1,2-Dich!orobenzeoo
1,2-0ibromoelhane (EDB) lsopropylbenzene
n-Propylllenzene
1,3,S-Trimelhyl)enzene
lerl-Buty\benzene
1,2,4-Trlmelhylbenzane
se,:-Butylbenzene
p-lsopropylloluene
n-Butylbenzene
1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane (DBCP) 1,2,4-Trichlortt>enzene
Hexachloro-1,3-Butadiene
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
lJ.Analyle nol -at or lll>ove reporting limit. I J-ldentitiC811on d analy!e ls ameplabfe; •"l)Olled value ls an-. I UJ-,\nalyla not delB<:ted at or allow, reporting Hntil Reporung limit is an estimale.
N·Presumptivo evtlence analym is presenl; ana¥e reported aa lerllall1,e idenlifica1ion. I NJ-Plasunq)tiw ellidenca 2"alyle Is presem; analyte repcrtad aa lenlative identllicalion. Reported value is an OS\llnare.
K-ldel1tilication of analyte is ac:ceplabto; iepor1ed "81uo may be -high. Adual value "'l)8Clad IO be less then \!le repolled value. L-ldentlficatlan al analyta ts ...,.plable; l9JXlll8d value may be based low. Actual value "'l)8Clad ID be g,eoler lhan repom,d vaJue. NA-NOi Analyzed. I NA1-Na1 Analyzed due ID lnlel1arencas. I A-Analyle anaJyzi,d In replica1a. Reported value ls •a,erage• al rel)llcates. R-Presance or absence of il\BlyUl can nol be detennined hnlll dala liJe ID sev,,,e qually COlllrol pcoblems. Oala are rejecl8d and considered unusable. --------------Pa,..1 -
0 "' I
"' ,0
I "' 0 iil
,0 -iii -
----- - - ---Production Date: 05/28/2006 13:51 Sample 4508 FY 2006 Prqect: 06-0m
VoJaUles Scan
Facility: Ram l..ealhar care ChaJlolle; NC Program: SF
Id/Station: RAM005 I
Media:POTABLE WATER
RESULTS o.sow
0.50U
0.50 U
0.50 U
2.0U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50U o.sou
0.50 U
0.50 U
10U
0.50 U
10 U o.sou
1.0U
0.50 U
10 U
0.50U
0.50 U
0.50U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
2.0U a.sou
0.50 U o.sou
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U o.sou
0.50 U
UNl15
UG/1.
UG/1.
lJG/L
lJG/1.
UClil.
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/L
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/1..
UG/1..
UG/1..
UG/1..
UG/1..
UG/L
lJG/L
lJG/L
lJG/1.
UG/1.
UGJL
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/1.
UGA.
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/L
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/1..
lJG/1..
ANALYTE
. Dichlorodilluarome1nane
Chlororne1hane
1, 1,2-Trichloro-1,2.2-Tr1Uuoroell1ane (Freon 113) Methyl T-&1yl Ether (MTBE) Bromormthane
Cyclohexane
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroethane
Trichlorolluoromelhane (Freon 11) 1, 1-Dil:hloroethene (1, 1-0ichloroelhytene) Methylene Chloride
Acetone
Carbon DisuHide
Methyl Acelate
1, 1-0ichloroelhane
cis-1,2-0ichloroethene
2,2-Dichloropropane
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Bromochloromelhane
trans-1,2-Dichloroelhene
CWorofOITTI
1,2-0ichloroelhane
1, 1, 1-Trichlotoethane
1, 1-0lchloropropene caroon Tetrachloride Bromodichloromelhane
Methyl lsobulyl Ke!one 1,2-Dlchloropropane
Meth}icyclohexane
Dibromomelhane
irans-1,3-Dichloropropene
Trichloroethane (Trichloroethy!ene) Benzene
Dlbromochloromelhane
1,1,2-Trichloroelhane
Freon 12 ~ due to low reoove,y in Iha CCII
RESULTS
0.50 U
1.0 U
0.50 lJ
0.50 lJ
0.50 U
0.50 U
2.0 U
0.50 U
0.50 U o.sou a.sou
0.50 U
0.50U a.sou
1.0U a.sou o.sou o.sou o.sou a.sou a.sou
0.50 U o.sou
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
1.0U a.sou
0.50 U a.sou
Produced by: Hale, same
Requestor. Be11er1y Stepler
Project Lsader. lSIMPSON
Beginning: 04/17/200615:05
Ending:
UNITS
UG/l
lJG/L
UG/l
UG/l
UG/l
lJG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/1.
UG,t.
UG/1.
UG/L
UG/L
lJGIL
UG/1.
lJGIL U&'l..
lJG/1.
IJG.II.
UGll.
lJG/1.
UGll.
UGIL
UG/1.
UG/L
UGA.
lJG/L
UG/1.
lJG/L
UG/1.
UG/L
UG/1.
UGI\.
ANALYTE
cis-1,3-Dichtoropropene
Bromotorm
Bromobenzene
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroelhene (Tetrachtoroethylene)
1,3-Dlchloropropane
Methyl Butyl Ketone
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
1,1,1,2-Telrachloroelhane
Ethyl Benzene
(m-and/or p-)Xylene
a-Xylene
Styrene
1,2.3-Trichloropropane
o-Chlorotob.Jene
p-Chlorotoluene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-0ichlorobenzene.
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) lsopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
1,3,5-Trlmethylbenzene
terl-l3ulylbenzene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
seo-Butyfbenzene
p-lsopropyltoluene
n-Butyfbenzene
1,2-0ibromo-3-Chloropropane (DBCP) 1.2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro-1,3-Buladiene
1,2,3-Tri:hlorobenzene
U-Anatyte not delectsd et or ai.m repolllng limll. I J.ldentilicalion al analyte Is" 1:e1••ile. •..po,IBd value ls an.-. / w.AnaJyta not deteeted a1 or above reporting limit Reporting llmtt is an estma1e. N-PresurnptiVe evidence analyte is presen~ IU1alyte rei,or1l!d as lefllalNe ldentifcaliolL I ~ evidell:e BIia¥• is presen~ analyts repor1ed as lenlatiw idenUDcaliln. Reponed ""lue is an estimate.
K•lden1ificalicn of aoalyte is accep1able; repo,1ed vwe may he biased high. Ac1Ua1 value expeded 1o be less than lhe raported value. Udentilication al analyte is acceplable; repelled value may be biased low. Aclual value _..,.i 1o bo gn,aler !han 1"1)011ed-.alue. · NA-Not Analyzed. I NAI-Not Analyzed due to lnterfeJ1!nces. I A-Analyte analyzed In replicale. Roportad value Is "average" al reiiicates. A-Presence or allse/U:e ol analyte can not be dele,mined holJ1 da1a due ID severe qu,ey con11o1 problsma. Dala are rajeCled and considered unusable.
Page 1 of 1
m ;; ,, ..
3 0 ~
0 ,, ..
ol ~ 0 a
0 .. I
"' "' I "' 0 0
"'
0 ..
-
VOLATILES SAMPLE ANALYSIS EPA· REGION IY SESD, ATHENS, GA Production Date: 05/2812006 13:51 Sample 4509 FY 2006 Project 06-0373
YalaUles Sean
FacilHy: Ram Leather Care
Program: SF
Charlotta, NC
Id/Station: OA901 /
Medla:TRJP BLANK-WATER
RESULTS UNITS ANALYTI: 0.50W UG/L Dichlorndifluorome!hane 0.50U UG/L Chloromethane 0.50 U UG/L 1, 1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-Triltuoroelhane (Freon 113) 0.50 U UG/L Melhyl T-Butyl Bher (MIBEl 2.0 U UG/L Bromomethane 0.50 U UG/L Cydohexane o.sou UG/L Vinyl Chloride o.sou UG/L Chloroelhane o.sou UG/L Trtchlorofluoromethane (Freon 11) o.sou UG/1. 1,1-llichloroethene (1, 1-Dichloroelhytene) o.sou UG/1. Melhytene Chloride 10 U UG/1. Acetone o.sou UG/L Carbon Disuttlda 10U UG/L Melhyt Acelale o.sou UG/1. 1,1-0lchloroelhane 1.0 U UG/1. cis-1,2-Dichloroelhene 0.50 U UG/l 2,2-Dichloropropane 10U UG/1.. Methyl Elhyt Ketone 0.50U · UG/1.. Bromochloromolhane 0.50 U UG/l. trans-1.2-0ichloroelhene 0.50 U UG/l Chlorolorm 0.50 U UG/L 1,2-Dlchloroethaine 0.50 U UG/L. 1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane 0.50 U UG/l 1, 1-0ichloroprapene 0.50 U UG/1. Carbon Tetracllloride a.sou UG/L Bromodichloromelhane · 2.0 U UG/l. Methyl tsobuty1 Ke1one a.sou UGIL 1,2-0ichloropropana o.sou UG/l. Methylcyclohe,cane 0.50 U UG/L Dlbromomelhane 0.50 U UG/l. Iran&-1,3-Dlchlorapropene 0.50 U UGA. Trichloroe1hene (Trlchloroethylene) 0.50 U UG/1. Benzene 0.50 U UG/1. Dibrornoa,loromethane a.sou UG/L 1 , 1,2· Trichloroelhane
Freon 12 J-qualified due to low mcovery in lhe CCV
RESULTS o.sou
1.0U
0.50 U a.sou
0.50 U
0.50 U
2.0 U
0.50 U
0.50 U o.sou
0.50 U o.sou
0.50 U
0.50 U
1.0U a.sou o.sou o.sou
0.50 U o.sou o.sou a.sou
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
1.0U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
Produced by: Hale, Salie
Requestor: Beverly Slepter
Project Leader. TSIMPSON
Begil'll1iflll: 04/17/200615:0D
Ending:
UNITS ANALYTS
UG/1. ci5-1,3-Dlchloropropene
UG/L Bromoform
UG/L Bromoboozene
UG/L 1, 1,2.2-Tetrachloroethane
UG/1. Tetrachloroethene (Tetrachloroethylene)
llG/L 1,3-Dichloropropane
UG/L Melhyl Butyl Ketone UG/L Toluene
UGI\. Chlorabenzene
UGI\. 1,1,1.2-Tetrachloroethane
UG/L Ethyl Benzene UG.IL (m-and/or p-)Xytene
UG/L a-Xylene
UG/L Slyrene
UG/L 1,2,3-Trichloropropane
UG/L o-Chlorotoluena
UG/L p-Chloratotuene
UG/1.. 1,3-0ichlorobenzene
UG/1.. 1,4-0lchlorobenzene
UG/L 1,2-0lchlorobenzene
UG/1. 1,2-0ibromoethane (EDB) UG/1.. lsopropylbenzene
UG/l n-Propylbenzene
UG/L 1,3,!>-Trimelhytbenzene
UG/L terl-Sulylbenzene
UG/L 1.2.4-Trimelhylbenzene
UGIL sec-Butylbenzene UG/1. p-lsopropylloluene UG/L n-Bulylbenzene
UG/L 1 ,2-Dibromo-3-Chlorapropane (DBCP) UGA. 1,2,4· Tru:hlorobenzene
UGA. Hexachloro-1,3-Butadiene UG/1. 1 ,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
U-l\naJyle not datecied al or obcNe !Op0ning limil. I J-ldentilicaion of 1St\a¥e Is ec eplal>le, r-1ed value is an estimate. J W-Analyte not deleded at or above repo,ting llmiL Reporting imit is an eslimale.
N-f'resumplive evidence anaJyta lo presem; analyle ~ as tema11Ve ide11111icat1or I NJ-l'resurrrphe evidence analyts is p,esent; anaJyte reporlad .. lenla1lve idenllflcallon. Reponed value Is an eswnate.
K~dentlficalion of analyte Is acceplable; reported value may be biased hirjl. Al:bal...,.. e,cpecled ID be loss 1han the reported valJe. l-ldentilicallon of analyta ia acceplable; repo,1ed vure may be biased low. Al:bal valuea,pecled 1o be gieater1I,aru-12dvalue. NA-Not AnBlyzed. I NAI-Not Analyzed El.re ID bderlerences. J A--Analyle analyzed in n,plicale. Repc,ted value la "a,,eraQd' of replales. R-Ptesenc:e or ahsence 'I' analyte can not be -lnlm data due ID severe quallly aintrol probtBlrs. Data are rqec!ed and considered ~•-
Page 1 of 1 ---

-
-------------
0 w
"' ~ w 0
'D ~
0 "' I ~ .. I ~ 0 0 ..
:: -"' -
-all)u--wtl £2...Jftls -------. EPA-REGION IV SESD, ATHENS, GA ------Production Date: 05/28/2006 13:51 Sample 4510 FY 2006 Prqect D&-0373
Volatiles Scan
FaciUty: Ram Leather Care
. Program: SF
Charlatla, NC
WSlalion: RAM006 I
Media: POTABI.E WATER
RESULTS o.sow a.sou
0.50 U o.sou
2.0 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U a.sou
10 U
0.50 U
10 U
0.50 U
1.0U o.sou
10 U o.sou
0.50 U o.sou
0.50U o.sou o.sou o.sou
0.50 U
2.0U
0.50 U
0.50 U o.sou o.sou
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
UNITS
UG/L
UG/l. .UGI\.
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
.UG/1.
UG/L
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/L
UG/L
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/l.
UGIL
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UGII.
UG/1.
UG/L
UG/l.
UGIL
IJG/I.
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/L
UGA.
UGA.
UGA.
UGA.
UG/l.
UG/L
ANALYTE
Dichlorodilluorornethane
Chloromethane
1, 1,2-Trichlcw-1,2,2-Trifluoroethana (Freon 11 S) Methyl T-eutyl Ether (MlBE)
Bromorrethane
Cyc/ohexana
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroethane
Trichlorofluoromothane (Freon 11) 1, 1-Dichloroelhene (1, 1-Dichloroethylene) Methylene Chloride
Acs1one
Carbon Disulfide
Methyl Acslal8
1,1-Dichloroelhane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
2.2-0icllloroprupane
Methyl E\hyl Ketone Bromochloromelhane
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
Chlorolonn
1,2-Dlchloroelhane
1, 1, 1-Trichloroelhane
1, 1-0ichlorcpropene
Carbon Tetrachlorida
Bromodichloromelhane
Methyl lsobulyl Ketone 1,2-Dlchloropmpane
MethylGVCICJh8Wle
Dibromomethane
trans-1,3-0ichloropropene
Trichloroethane (Trichloroethylene) Benzene
Dibromochloromethane
1, 1,2-Trich!oroelhane
Freon 12 J-qualilled due 10 low recovery in the CCV
RESULTS
0.50 U 1.0U
0.50 U
O.SOU o.sou
0.50 U
2.0 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U o.sou
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
1.0 U
0.50 U
0.50 U o.so u o.sou
0.50 U o.sou o.sou o.sou
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U o.sou
0.50 U
0.50 U
1.0U a.sou
0.50 U
D.50 u
Produced by: Hale, Sa!Ue
Requestor: Bewrty Stepter
Project Leader. TSIMPSON
Beginning; 04/1712006 15:35
Ending:
UNITS ANALYTE
UG/l. cis-1,3-Dlchloropropene
IJGIL Bromolorm
UG/L Brornobenzene
UGA. 1, 1,2,2-T elrachloroethane
UGll Te1rachloroe1hene (Telraohloroelhylene) lJG/L 1,3-Dichloropropane
lJG/1. Methyl Bulyl Ke1one UGA. Toluene
UG/1. Chtorobenzene
UGII. 1, 1, 1,2-Telrachloroethane
UG/1. Ethyl Benzene
UGIL (m-and/or p-)Xylene UG/L a-Xylene
UGIL Styrene
UG/L 1,2,3-Tri:hloropropane
UG/1.. o-Chlorololuene
UG/L p-Chlorototuene
UGIL 1,3-Dicliorobenzene
UGIL 1,4--Dlchlorobenzene
UGIL 1,2-Dichlorobenzene
UGIL 1,2-Dibromoelhane (EDB) UGIL lsopnipylbenzene
IJG/L n-Propylbenzene
UGJL 1,3,5-Trimelhylbenzene
UGJL terl-Butylbenzene
UG/1. 1,2,4-Trimelhylbenzene
UOIL sec-6utylbenzene
UG/L p-lsopropylloluene
UGA. n-Bulylbenzene
UGA. 1,2-0ibrcmo-3-Chloropropane (DBCP) lJllJI. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
UGA. Hexachloro-1,3-Buladlene
UGI\. 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
U-Anatyte no1 de-.J at or above ~ imlt. I J.!denifitallon of analyte L• 8CCf'lJ'1ll)le; •epotled value is an estinale. I W-!\nalyte nD1 de1ecled at or ab<Ne repolUlll rimll Reporting lirnil is en estimate.
~ evidence ansJyle is presaot; 8ll8lyta ieponad as-lden1fficalion. I N.Wn,surnpliw !Mdenceanalyle Is -1; anaiyle ,apol1ed as tematiw identm:alion. Reponed vakie is an eslimate.
K-ldenti!lcaliOn of analyle Is accsplable; reporled vahla may bo biaoed high. Ac1sJal value expscled to be less than 1he reported value. L-ldenlificaliu1 of anaJyle is acceptable: repo,led value maybe -bH. Aaualwlue _,,..., to bo grealerlhen report,,d vaJue. ~at Analyzed. I NAI-Not Analyzed due to tntsderencea. I """'1at,Jte analymd in llll)licate. Reported value is 'a,erage• of rei,lic:a1as. R-l'rasenc8 or absenca of analy1a can not be _from data we to &eVere <Pl!i1vconlllll pn,blems. Data are rejec:lsd ard considered unusable.
Page 1 of 1
-.. 0 ..
"' ~ . .. "'. .. ..
m
~ )>
"' .,
3 0
i
0 ..,
!! ~ " 0 a
0 ~
"'
0 "' " 3
0
"' I "' .. I "' 0 0 ..
;;; ..
-
VOLATILES SAMPLf ANALYSIS EPA-REGION IV seso, ATHENS, GA Production Date: 05/28/2006 13:51 Sample 4511 FY 2006 Project. 06-0373
ValaWes Scan
Facility: Ram Leather care Challatte, NC Program: SF
Id/Station: RAM206 I
Media:POTABLE WATER
RESULTS
o.sow
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
2.0U
0.50 U
050U
0.50 U
0.50U
0.50 U o.sou
10 U o.sou
10 U o.sou
1.0 U o.sou
10 U o.sou o.sou o.sou
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U o.50·u
2.0U
0.50 U
0.50 U . 0.50 U
0.50U
0.50 U
0.50 U o.sou
0.50 U
UNITS
IJG/L
UG/L
UG/l.
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
U(M.
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/1..
UG/1..
UG/1..
UG/1..
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
LIO/I.
LIO/I.
lJG/1.
11G/L
lJG/1.
llGll.
UG/1..
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/L
UG/L
UG/1..
lJGIL
ANALYTE
Oichlorodifluoromethane
Chloromelhane
1, 1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-Tritluoroelhane (FR!OR 113) Methyl T-Bulyl Ether (MTSE) Bromomelhane
Cyclohexane
V,ny! Chloride
Chloroethane
T richlorolluoromelhane (Freon 11 I 1, 1-0ichloroethene (1, 1-0ichloroethylene} Methylene Chloride Acetone
-Carbon Oisu11ide
Methyl Acetate
1, 1-Dichlomethane
cis-1,2-Dicl1oroo1hene
2,2-0ich!oropropane
Methyl Ethyl Ketone Bromochloromelhane
trans-12-0ichloroethene
ChlorolOll'!I
1,2-0ichloroethane
1, 1, 1-T richloroelhane
1, 1-0ichlotopropene
Catbon Tetrachloride
Btomodlchloromelhane
Methyl lsobu1yl Ketone 1,2-Dichloropropane
MethyJcyelohe)cane
llibromamethane
trans-1,S-Oichloropropene
Trichloroethene (Trichloroethylene) Benzene
Dibromochloromelhane
1, 1,2· Trichlorosthane
Freon 12 J-qualified due 1o low ,ecovery in the cc,/
RESULTS
0.50 U
1.0U
0.50 u o.sou
0.50 U o.sou
2.0 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
1.0 U
0.50 U o.sou
0.50 U o.sou o.sou
0.50 u.
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U o.sou
0.50 U
0.50 U
1.0U
0.50 U
0.50 u
0.50 U
Produced by: Hale, Sa!6e
Aequeslor. BelHtrty Stepter
Project Leader. lSIMPSON
Beginning; 04/17/200615:40
Ending:
UNllS
UG/1.
UG/1.
00/1.
UG/1.
UG/L
UG/1.
UG,l
UG,l
UG/1.
UG/L
UG/1.
UG/L
UG/1..
UG/L
UGI\.
UGI\.
UG/1..
UG/1.
UG/L
UG/l
UG/L
UG/L
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/1.
I/GA.
UGII.
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
ANALYTE
cis-1,3-0ich/oropropene
Bromolorm
Bromobenzene
1, 1,2,2-Telrachloroethane
Teuechloroethene (TetrachloroethyJene) 1,3-0ichloropropane
Methyl Butyl Ke1one Toluene
Chlorobenzene
1, 1, 1,2-T etrachloroethane
ElhyJ Benzene
(m-and/or p-)l(yJene a-Xylene
Styrene
1,2,3-Trlchloropropane
o-Chlorotoluene
p-Chlorotoluene
1,3-0\chlarobenzene
1,4-0ichlorooenzene
1,2-0ichlorobenzene
1,2-0ibromoelhane (EDB) lsopropyfbenzene
n-Propi,lbenzene
1,3,5-T rimelhyfbenzene
1erl-6ulylbenzen&
1,2,4• Trimelhyfbenzene
sec-8utylbenzene
p-lsopropyltoluene
n-Butylbenzene
1,2~hloropropane (DBCP) 12,4· Trichlorobenzene
Hexachloro-1 ,3-Butadlene
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
U-Analyte not de1scled at or above repo!1ing ltmil. I J-1-n of enalyle Is m:ceptable; reported value is an --I W-Analyla not detected al or abo,e reporting limii. Reporting linit Is an estimale.
~•• evidence analyte Is present: Bl1alyle mpmed aa lar1laliw idenlificalion. I NJ-Pn,sumptiva -anatjle is preeent analyla reporled as 11!ntatlve identitioauon. Repotled value is an estimate.
K·ldenti11C81ion of analyte is acce¢able; n,porti,d-.alue may be biased high. Ania/ value erpemd to Ile less 111an "" r"l)Olled value. L-tdentilicalion al ana/y1o Is a=plable; repo,led value may be bilSed tow. Actual value e,peoled to be grealerlhan repor18d value. NA-Nol Analyzed. I NAI-NatMalyied due IO lnterlannces. I A-Analyteanaly%ed in repli:ale. Rq,oded value is "average" olrq,lieates. R-l'rese,... or absence ol a...i,,te can not be delormined hum dala due to se\/el8 quality control pmblems. Cala are rejeded ..i considered unusable. ---------------
0
"' I "' "' I "' 0 0
"'
-
--- - --------EPA· REGION IV SESD, ,\THENS, GA Production Date: 05/28/2006 13:51 8ample 4512 FY 2006 Project: 06-0373
Volatiles Scan
Facility: Ram l.ealher Care
Program: SF Charlotta, NC
ld/SlatiOn: RAM008 /
Media: POTABLE WATER
RESULTS UNITS
0.50 W UGA. 0.50 U UGIL.
0.50 U UG/L .0.50 U UGIL
2.0 U UGIL 0.50 U UGll
0.50 U UG/1.
0.50 U UG/l
0.50 U UG/1.. 0.50 U UGn..
0.50 U UG/1.. 10 U UG/1. 0.50 U UGIL
10 U UGI\.
0.50 U UGA.
1.0 U UGA.
0.50 U UGI\.
10 U UGA.
0.50 U UG/l
0.50 U UG/L
0.50 U UGll
0.50 U UGll 0.50 U UG/L 0.50 U UGll
0.50 U UGI\.
0.50 U 00/L 20 U UG/1. 0.50 U UG1L
0.50 U UG/1.
0.50 U UG/l 0.50 U UG/1.
0.S0U UGA.
0.50 U UG/1.
0.50 U IJGA.
0.50 U UGIL
ANALVTE
Dichlorodlftuoromethane
Chloromethane
1, 1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-Trifluoroethane (Freon 113) Methyl T-Bulyl Elher (MTBE) Bromorne1hane
Cl/l:lohexane
Vinyl ctwide
Chloroelhane
Trichloroftuoromelhane (Freon 11) t, 1-0lchloroelhene (1,1-Dlchloroethylene) Methylene Chloride
Acetone
Carbon Disulfide
Methyl Acetate
1, 1-0ichloroethane
Gls-1,2-0lchloroelhene
2,2-Dichloropropane
Methyl Eth>/1 Ketone
Bromochlorometllane
trans-1,2-Dichlowelhene
Chloroform
1,2-0ichloroethane
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane
1, 1-llichloropropene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Bromodichloromethane
Methyl lsobutyJ Ketone 1,2-Dichloropropane
~hexana
Dibromomethane
tr.,,,... 1,3-Dlchloropropene
Jri<;ljoroethene (Tdchloroethylene)
Benzene
Dibromochloromelhane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Freon 12 J-quallfied due to low recovery In the CCV
RESULTS
0.50 U
1.0 U
0.50 U a.sou
0.50 U
0.50 U
20U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
1.0 U
0.50 U
0.50 U o.sou
0.50 U
0.50 u
0.50 U a.sou
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50U
0.50 U
0.50 U
1.0U
0.50U
0.50 U
0.50 U
Produced by: Hale, Sallla
Requester. Beverly Stepter
Project Leader. TSIMPSON
BegiMing: O<l/17/200616:10
Ending;
UNITS ANALYTE
UG/L cis-1,3-llichloropropene
UG/l. Bromoform
UG/L Bromobenzene
UGI\. 1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
UG/1. Teuachloroethene (Tetrachloroethytene) UG/L 1,3-Dichloropropane UGA. Methyt Bulyl Ketone UGll. Toluene
lJGIL Chlorobenzene
UG/L 1, 1, 1,2-Tetrachloroethane
lJG/1. Ethyl Benzene
IJG/l (m-and/or p-)Xylene UG/1. a-Xylene UG/L Styrene
UG/1. 1,2,3-Trichloropropane
UGA. o-Chlorotoluene
UGA. p-Chlorotoluene UGIL 1,3-Dichlorobenzene
UGIL 1,4-Dichlorobenzene UG/L 1,2-llichlorobenzene
UGll. 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) UG/1. lsopropylbenzene
UGIL n-Propytbenzene
UGll 1,3.5-Trimethylbenzene
UG/l. tert-~benzene
UG/1. 1,2.4-Trimethyl,enzene
UGI\. sec-Blltylbenmne
UGll p-lsopropyttoluene
UGI\. n-Butylbenzene
UGI\. 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane (DBCP) UGA. 1.2,4-Trfehlorobenzene UGA. Hexachlon>-1,3-Sutadiene UGA. 1,2,3-Tri<;ljorobenzene
l>-AnaMB not detected at or abow reporting liull. I ~ ol analyte l• aca,plable; reported value is en esllnale. I W-Analy1e not detecled at er above reporting UmiL Reporting Umit Is an estimate.
N-PresumpcJw evidence analyte is presen1; analyts repa,1l>d as tenlallw ldellflcaUon. J NJ..Preunptiw eoiderK:e analyte la presen~ analyts repolied as tanlatiVe ldantifil:ation. Reported value is an estimate.
K-ldenlification ol analyte is~: repo!1ed val.le may be liased tagh. Actual """e expeoted robe Joss than the n!pOlled value. L-ldentillcatlon of analyta Is acceplable; rei,ollsd value may be biaoed Jcw . .llclllal vwe expected ID be J1881er1han reporllld valUa. NA-Not Analyzed. I NAHlot Analyzed due le lrllerteteRces. I A-AnaiytB analyzed In replicale. Reportectvalue ls ._.. of re¢cales. R-Presenc:e or absence of analyte can,.,, be _from data due ID....,., quaity conlml ~-Dala 818 ~ andcoosidered unusallle.
Page 1 cl 1
-
m ~ )> ,, ..
3 0 < !'!.
0 .., .. i.1 " 0 :, ~
0
~
~
~ ..,
~
0
"' I N "' I N
0 0
"'
a,
-
VOLATILES SAMPLE ANALYSIS EPA-REGION IV SESD, ATHS'IS, GA Production Date: 05/28/2006 13:51 Sample 4513 FY 2006 Project 06-0S73
VolaWes Scan
Facility: Ram Leather Care
Program: SF Charlotte, NC
ld/S1ation: RAMlQ9 /
Media:POTABLE WATER
RESULTS UNITS ANALYTE 0,50W UGIL Dlchloroalfluoromethane 0.50 U UGIL Cllloromethane 0.50 U UG/1. 1, 1,2-Trlchloro--1,2.2-Trifluoroelhar.e (Freon 113) 0.50 U UGIL Methyl T·Bulyl Ether (MlBE} 2.0U UGA. Bromomelhane a.sou !JG,11. Cycfohexane a.sou UGIL Vinyl Chloride a.sou UGIL Chloroethane o.sou UGIL Trit:hlorofluoromethans (Freon 11) a.sou UGIL 1, 1-0ichloroethene (1, 1-Dichlotoelhylene) a.sou UG/1. Methylene Chloride 10 U UG/l Acetone a.sou UG/1. Carbon Disulfide 10 U UG/1. Methyl Acelala o.sou UG/l 1, 1-0ichloroelhane 1.0 U UG/1. cis-1 ,2-Dichloroelhene 0.50 U UG/l 2,2-0ichloropropane 10 U lJG/1. Methyl BhyJ Ketone 0.50 U UGJI. Brornochloromethane 0.50 U UG,l. 1ians-1,2-Dichloroelhene 0.50 U UGA. Chloroform 0.50 U UGA. 1,2-0ichloroelhane 0.50 U UG/1. 1 , 1.1 ·Trichloroethane 0.50 U UG/1. 1, 1-Dichloropropene 0.50 U UGIL Carbon Tetrachloride 0.50 U UGIL Bromodichloromelhane 2.0 U UGIL Methyl lsobulyl Ketone a.sou UGIL 1,2-Dichloropropane 0.50 U UG/l. MethyJ~ohexane 0.50 U UGll. Dlbromomethane 0.50 U UGI\. lrans-1,3-0ichloropropene 0.50 U UG/L Trichloroethane (Trichloroeth~) a.sou UG/l. Benzene a.sou UGIL Dibromochloromelt1ane 0.50 U UG/L 1,1,2.·Trlchloroelhane
Freon 12 ,kjualified due 1o low recovery in 1he CCI/
RESULTS a.sou
1.0U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 u
0.50 U
2.0U
0.50 U a.sou
0.50 U
0.50 U a.sou
0.50 U o.sou
1.0 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U a.sou o.so u
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U a.sou
0.50 U
0.50 U
1.0U o.so u a.sou a.sou
Produced by: Hale, Sallie
Requestor. Beverly Stepter
Project Leader: TStMPSON
Beginning: 04/17/2006 16:45 Ending:
UNITS ANALYTI:
UG/\. ois-1,3-Dichforopropene
UGA. Bromoform UG/1. Bromobenzene UGIL 1, 1,2.2-Tetrachloroethane UGIL Telrachloroethane (Tetrachloroethylene) UG'I.. 1,3-Dichloropropane
UGIL Methyl Butyl Ketone UG/L Toluene Ul>'l. Chlorobenzene
UG/L 1, 1, 1 ,2-T etrachloroethane UG/l Ethyl Benzene
UG/l (m-and/or p-)XJ!ene UG/1. o-Xylene UG/1. Styrene
UG/1. 1,2,3-Trichloroprapane
UG/1. o-Chlorotoluene
lJG/1. p-Chlorololuene
UGJL 1,3-Dichlorobenzene
IJG/L 1,4--Dichlorobenzene
UGA. 1,2-0ichlorobenzene
UG/L 1.2-0ibromoelhane (EDB) UG.\. Jsopropylbenzene UGIL n-Propylbenzene
UG/L 1,3,5-Trlmethylbenzene
UGA. lert-BU1ylbenzene UGIL 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
UGIL sec-Butylbenzooe
UGA. p-lsopropyltoluene UG/L n-Bu1ylbenzene
UG/1. 1.2-lllbromo-3-Chloropropane (OBCP) UGI\. 1.2,4--Trichlorcbenzene UG/L Hsxachloro-1,3-Butadiene
IJGA. 1.2,3-Trichlorcbenzene
u--Analyle nol detecled at or al>oVe ~ limlt f .Haentilloa1lon ol ana1yle is acceplallle; rep<ll1ed value ls an eslimale. f UJ-Anal)'\e ,.,, deleolecl at or obove reporting limlt Reporting timit Is an estimate.
N-Presumptiw elridence analyle is present; anaJyts repQr18d as lsn1alive ldentificatian. I NJ-l'l1>oumplNe evidence analyle is present analy1o reported as 1enlatiw idenlillcation. Repatted value is an estimate.
K-ldentification o1 ana1y1e., •02plable; ~ vauo may be liased tlgh. A&lual value e-,1ec11o be less 111an the oepollsd value. L·ldemificalian of &nalyte la acceptable; repor18d vaJue mav be -low. Adual Vdl8 e,q,ec:tecl to be grealer lllan rep()lled value. NA-Not Analped. f NAHlol Analyzed due 1o lntBrle,ences. f A--Analyte aneJyzsd in repli:a1e. Repo,1eohalue Is •average• cl n,picates. A-Presence o, absence al 8fl8lyte can fill be determined from dala due b.....,, quality oan1rol ~-llala.,. reJecled and considered wu;able. ---

-
-----------Page 1 ol 1 --
g
"' "' "'· ..,
"' "' "' "'
0 "'
0
"' I ..,
"' I .., g
"'
-
-- ----EPA· REGION IV SESD, ATHENS, GA ------Production Date: 05/2Bfl006 13:51 Sample 4514 FY 2005 Project: 06-0373
Volatiles Scan
Facility: Ram Lealhercare Challolle, NC Program: SF
Id/Station: MM011 /
Media: POTABLE WATER
RESULTS
-·0.50W
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
2.0U
0.50 U
0.50U
0.50U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
10 U
0.50 U
10 U
0.50 U
1.0U
0.50 U
IOU
0.50 U o.sou
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
2.0 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
UNITS
UG/L
UGII..
UG/L
UG/L
UGA.
UGA.
UGA.
UGA.
UG/L
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
lJG.11.
IJG/l
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
IJG/l
UG/L
UGll
UG/1.
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG.1..
UG/L
ANALYTI:
Dichlorodifluoromethane
ChlOIOmelhane
1, 1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-Trifluoroethane (Freon 113) Melhy1 T-Butyl Elher (MTBE) Bromornethane
CyclohaJane
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroethane
Trichlornlluoromethane (Freon 11) 1,1-0ichloroelhene (1, 1-0ichloroelhylene) Methylene Chlorlde
Acetone
Carbon Disulfide
MelhylAcelate
1, 1-0ichloroethane
Cis-1,2-0ict-.oroelhene
2,2-Dichloropropane
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Bromach!oromethane
trans-1,2-0ichloroethene
ChlOlOlotm
1,2-0ichloroelhane
1,1,1-Tricilloroethane
1, 1-0ichlorcpropene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Bromoolchtoromethane
Methyl lsobutyl Ketone 1,2-0ichloropropane
Malhylcyclohexane
Dibromomelhane
tran&-1,3-Dichloropropene
Trichloroethene (Trichloroetlly1ene) Benzene · Oibromoc:hloromethane
1 , 1,2· Trichloroethane
Freon 12 ~ualifled due to low recovery in Iha CCV
RESULTS
0.50 U
· 1.0 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
2.0 U o.sou
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 u
0.50 U
0.50U
0.50 u
1.0U
0.50U
0.50 0 0.50 u
0.50 U o.sou
0.50 U o.sou
0.50 U o.sou
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U o.sou
0.50 U
1.0 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
ProduCed by: Hale, Salie
Requaslllr. Beverly Sleplar
Projac\ Leader: TSIM?SON
Begimlng: 04/1 l!fl006 08:35
Ending:
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UGA.
UGll
lJGA.
UGA.
UG/1.
lJGA.
UGI!..
UG/1.
UG/L
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UGIL
UG/L
UG/L
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/L
UG/L
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/1.
UGJL
UG/1.
UG/L
UG/L
UG/1.
ANALYTE
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
Brornofonn
Bmmobenzene
1, 1,2.2• Tetrachla,oethane
Tetrachloroethene (Telrachloroethylene)
1,3-Dichloropropane
Methyl Butyl Ke!Dne
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
1, 1, 1,2· Tetrachlorosthane
Ethyl Benzene
(m-and/or p-)Xylene
o-Xylene
Styrene
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
o-chlorotoluane
p-Chlorotoluene
1,3-0lchlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-0ichlorobenzene
1,2-0il>romoethane (EDB) lsopropylbenzene
rrl'ropylbenzene
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
terHlutylbenzene
1,2,4-Tnmelhyl>enzene
sec-Butylbenzene
p-lsopropyltoluene
n-Butylbenzene
1,2-Dibron-o-3-Chloropropane (DBCP) 1,2,4-T richlorobenzene
Hexachloro-t ,3-Buladiene
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
l.l-AnaJyle not detected el or above reporting limil I J-ldentilication al analyte Is IIIXll'l)lable; repc,iled '40llle ls an estmate. I w-Analyte no1 detecll!d al or above reporting I mil Reporting limll ls an estimale.
N-l'R!sumpl!ve evidence analyte Is present; analyte reported as lenlallw iden1ificalJon. I NJ-Presurnptiw mlence anelylais peaenl; analyte reportsd so tenlaliw identiliaition. Reported value Is an esllmate.
· K~-caticn al~ is oa;eptable; reported value may be biased h!i;L AclUal value e,pec,1od to be less 1han tho reporl8d vwa. L~denllfication of analyle is acceptable; PlpOlled ..we may be biased low. Actual value e,cpeded ID be g,ea1sr than reportectwlue. NA-Nol Are!y.Zed. I NAI-Nct Analyzed we ID lntelf-.oes. I A-Arta;18 analyzed in replicele. Reported value is •average• ot ~ M'resence or absence ol analyla can not be determined Imm dala due 1D """9!8 qualily ccntn:tl pid:,tems. Dala 818 rqected and considered '"1~. Page 1 of 1
-
0
"' "' ..
0 ..
I .. ..
I .. 0 0 ..
<D
-
VOLATILES SAMPLE ANALYSIS EPA· REGION IV SESD, ATHENS, GA . Production Date: 05128/200613:51 Sample 4515 FY 21106 Project 06-0373
Volatiles Scan
Facility: Ram Leather Can, Charlol\e, NC Pnigram: SF
ld/Slalilln: RAM004 /
Me<ia:POTABLE WATER
RESULTS
0.50 lJJ a.sou a.sou
0.50 U
2.0 U a.sou a.sou a.sou
0.50 U
0.50 U a.sou
10 U a.sou
10 U
0.50U
1.0 U
0.50 U
10U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U a.sou
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
2.0U a.sou a.sou
0.50U
0.50U
0.50 U.
0.50 u
0.50U a.sou
UNITS
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/L
UG/L
UG/1.
lJG/1..
IJGll.
UGIL
UGIL
UGIL
UG/1.
00/L
UG/1.
UG/L
IJG/L
IJG/L
IJG/L
UG/1.
UGA.
UGI\.
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/l.
UGA.
UGA.
UG/1.
U(lJL.
UG/1.
UG/L
UG/L
Ula'L
UG/L
UG/L
ANALYTE
Dlchlorodilluoromelhane
Cllloromelhane
1, 1,2-Trictdoro-1,2,2-Trilluoroelhane (Freon 113) Me1hyl T-Bulyl Ether (M1BE) Bromomethane
Cyclohaxane
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroethene
Tlichloroftuoromethane (Freon 11) 1, 1-Dichloroelhene (1, 1-0ichloroet!TJlene) Melhylene Chloride . Acetone
Carbon Disulfide Melhyl Acetate
1, 1-0ichforoelhane
cis-1,2-Dlchloroelhene
2,2-0ichloropro;,ane
Methyl Bhyl Ketone
Bromochlorornelhane
trans-1,2-llic:hlaroelhene
Chlorotonn
1,2-Dichloroethane
1, 1, 1 • T richforoelhane
1, 1-Dichloropn:,pene
CatbOn Telrachloride Bromocichloromethane
Melhyl lsobutv( Ketone 1 ,2-0ichloropropar,e
Melhyleyclohelcane
Dibromomelhane
lrans-1,3-0ichlo,oprcpene
Trichloroelhane (TJicl1loroelhylene) Benzene
Dibromx:hloromelhane
1, 1.2-Trichloroettlane
Freon 12 J.qua!ilied we to low recovery In the CCV
Produced by: Hale, same
Requestor: Beverly Stepter
Project Leader. TSIMPSON
Bejjnning: 04/18/2006 09:05 . EndinQ:
RESULTS UNITS
0.50 U UGIL
1.0 U UG/1.
0.50 U UG/1. 0.50 U UG/1. 0.50 U UG/1. 0.50 U lJG/L 2.0 U UGIL 0.50 U UG/L
0.50 U UGIL a.sou UG/1. O.SOU UG/L
0.50 U UG/L a.sou UG1L 0.50 U UG/L
1.0 U UG/L
0.50 U UG/1.. 0.50 U UG/1.
0.50 U UG,t
0.50 U UG/1..
0.SOU UGIL.
0.SOU UGll
0.50 U UG/1. 0.50 U IJGA..
0.50 U UG/1.
0.50 U UG/1. a.sou UGA.
0.50 U UG/1.
0.50 U UG1L
0.50 U UGll
1.0 U UGIL
0.50 U UGIL 0.S0 U UGIL o.sou L8L
ANALYTE
cis-1,3-Dichloropropeoo
Bromolonn
Bromobenzene
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroe111ane
Tetrachloroelllene {Tetrachloroethylene) 1,3-0ichloropropane
Melhyl Butyl KetOl\8 Toluene
Chlorobenzene
1, 1, 1,2-Tetrachloroelhane
ElhylBenzene
(m-and/or p-)Xylene
o-Xyleoo
Slyrene
1,2,3-Trtchloropropane
o-Chloratoluene
p-Chlorotoluene
1,3-Dlchlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-0ichlorobenzene
1,2-Dlbromoethane (EDB) lsopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
1 ,3 .S--T rimethylbenzene
tert-Bulylbenzene
1,2,4-Trimelhylbenzene
580-Butylbenzene
p-lsopropyltolueoo
n-Butylbenzene
1.2--Dibromo-3-Chloropropane (DBCP) 1,2,+ Trichlorobenzene
Hexaehloro-1,3-Buladlene
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene .
U-Allalyte not dot<cled at or above reporting 6JnJt. I J-lde11tillcali>11 of analy1e '• acceptatile; reported value is an estinale. I lJJ-AnalytB not dewctsd al or abo"' reporting limit. Reporting limil is an es1ima1e.
N-Pr9surr¢ve evidence analyle is present: onalyta .,pooled as-idenlificaliorL I NJ.Pl88Ull1plMI 81,ldence analyle is -t onalyle reported .. lentatiw lden1i6c:ation. Reported vallJe is an estimale.
K·ldentitioatlon of analyle is accep1eblo; reported value may be-hut,. ActualvalUe upected lobe less 1han 11\e rep,,!edvalue.
L~denlfficalllll of anaJyte I• 8Cl'aplllble· "'IX)llod value may be blaoed low. Aclual value 8'll)eCled ID be Q!Hlat1han reporlBd value.
NA-Not Analyzed. I NA1-No1 Anal-Jzed due 1o lnlerle"""'8$. I A-Anat,'le analyzed In repicale. Rei,om,d value Is •~ of n,piicales.
R-Presenca or abseru:e ol ana¥ecan notba delem!lned from dais cu lo18111118qualitvCOllbd pmblems. Oala are rejaded and consideted unusable. --------------Page 1 of I -

-
-
0 "' I ..,
"' I ..,
0 0 "'
-
--------EPA-REGION IV SESO, ATHENS, GA Production Date: 05/28/2006 13:51 Sample 4516 FY 2006 Project: 06-0373
VolaUles Scan
Facifity: Ram Leather Care
Program: SF
ldiStaliort RAM003 /
Media:POTABLE WATER
RESULTS
o.sow
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
2.0 U
0.50U
0.50 U o.sou
0.50 U
0.50U
0.50U
10 U
0.50 U
10 U o.sou
1.0 U
0.50U
10 U
0.50 U
0.50U
0.50U
0.50U o.sou
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
2.0U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U o.sou
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UGIL
UG/1.
UG/1.
UGll.
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/1.
UG/L
UG/1.
UG/L
UG/L
00/l.
llGll
\JG/L
UGJL
UG/1.
UG/L
UG/L
UG/1.
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/1..
UG/L
UG/L
UG/1.
ANALYTE
Oichlorodifluoromslhane
Chloromelhane
1, 1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-TriHuoroelhane (Freon 113) Methyl Hlulyl Elher (MTBE) Brnmomethane
Cyclohexane
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroelhane
Trlchlorotluoromelhane (Freon 11) 1, 1-0ichloroethene (1, 1-0ichloroethytene) Methylene Chloride
A<:etone
Carbon Disulfide
Methyl Acetale
1, 1-llich!oroethane
cis-1,2-llichloroelhene
2,2-0ichloropropane
Methyl Ethyl Ketooe Bromochloromelhane
lrans-1,2-0idlJoroethene
Chloroform .
1,2-0ichloroelhane
1, 1, 1-T richloroethane
1, 1-Dichloropropene
Carbon Tetrachlorlde
Bromodichloromethane
Melllyl lsoou1y! Kalona .
1,2-0lchloropropane
Methylcyclollex
Oibromomethane
lraris-1,S-Oichloropropene
Trichloroelhene (Trichlomethylene) Benzene
Dibromochloromelhane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Freon 12 J.qualifled due to low raco\llllY in the CCV
RESULTS
0.50 U
1.0 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 u o.sou
2.0U
0.50 U
0.50 U o.sou
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
1.0 U a.sou
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U o.sou
0.50 U o.sou
0.50 U
0.50 U
0.50 U
0..50 U
1.0 U o.sou
0..50 u
0.50 U
Produced by. Hale, Salfle
Aequestor: Beverly Stepler
Project Leader. TSIMPSON
BegiMing: 04/18/2006 09:30
Ending:
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/L
UGA.
UG.11.
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/L
UG!L
lJG.11.
UG,1.
UG/1.
UG/1.
UG/L
UG/l
UGA.
UGI\.
UGII.
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UGA.
IJGIL
ANALYTE
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
Bromotonn
Bromobenzene
1, 1,2.2· T etrachloroelhane Telrachloroethene (Tetrachloroethylene) 1,3-0ichlorapropane
Methyl Butyl Ketone
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
1, 1, 1,2-T elrachloroethane
Ethyl Benzene
(rn-and/or p-)Xylene o-Xylene
Styrene
1.2.3-Trichloropropane
o-Chlorololuene
p-Chlorotorusne
1,3-0ichlorollenzene
1,4-Dic;htorobenzene
1,2-0ichlorobenzene
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) lsoj)ropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
1,3,S-Trimethyl)enzene
terl-Bulylbenzene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
sec-Butylbenzene
p-lsopropyllolu8fle
n-Butylbenzene
1,2•Dibromo-3-Chloropropane (OBCP) 1 ,2. 4-TriGlltorobenzene
Hexachloro-1 ,lHluladiene
1,2,3-Trichforcbenzene
l>-Analy1B nal clolec!ed at ct....., ,epormg lanH. I J.ldon1ilioa1io of snal)'le is acc,ep1Shle; ,_...i value is an estima"'-I UJ-Anayte not detecl9d at or above raporti"11 llmit. Reporting imtt is an estimate.
~ eviderce analyte is presen~ analyle rapolled as 1en1aTie iclonli1icallco. I NJ~ -analyle ls presen~ analyle l8p0(1ed es lenta\lV& lclon!llialtion. Repented value Is an estncate.
K-ldonliticalon of analyte is acceptable; reported value may be biased high. Aclual val1.11 ""l)l!ded to be less tl1an lhe"cepor1ed 1'1Wt1. l-lden1iflcation of anaJyle Is aa:eplahle; repo,1ed value may be biased low. Al::lual value e,pecl8d Jo be greal&r1han repo,ted vall.ll. NA-Nol Analyzed. I NAI-Not Analyzed ciJe lo lnl&rferencm. I A-Anaiyte analyzed In repioale. Reporled value is ·-•• at cepliceles. FI-Presenoeoraboencs olenaly1ecannotbedetennlnedkomdaladueto......,qu
a
i
l
y
o
o
n
t
n
l
l
p
m
b
l
a
n
s
.

Dalaan, n,jec!edand-lllUS8ble.
Page 1 ol 1
..
0 ..
"' ...
~ .. "' "' "'
0
"' I ~ "' I ~ 0 0 "'
.. ..
D
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Trichloroethene (TCE)
Non-cancer Health Effects· TCE at high doses has been linked with a variety of non-
cancer. conditions, including anemia and other blood disorders, stroke, nervous system
disorders, urinary tract disorders, liver problems, kidney dysfunction, diabetes, eczema,
and skin allergies. A study on the reproductive effects of TCE suggests that more
iscarriages might occur when mothers drink water containing TCE. Other studies have
linked prenatal TCE exposure with congenital heart disease, eye malformations, neural
tube defects, and oral cleft palates. The combined results of these studies are unclear;
however, and further study is needed to understand the risk for reproductive and
developmental effects associated with TCE exposure (A TSDR, 2008).
Cancer Health Effects The International Agency for Research on Cancer has determined
that TCE is a probable human carcinogen. TCE causes liver and kidney cancer in
experimental animals. Studies on the epidemiology of cancer among people exposed to
TCE have found. increases in kidney cancer, liver cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma,
cervical cancer, Hodgkin disease, multiple myeloma, and pancreatic cancer. However,
the association between exposure to TCE and cancer has been inconsistent across studies
(A TSDR, 2008).
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)
Non-cancer Health Effects Results from animal and human health studies indicate that
exposure to high doses of PCE can adversely affect the nervous system and reproductive
system. Findings from human studies suggest a causal relation between exposure to PCE
in-utero and reproductive and developmental effects, including reduced birth weight and
infants born small for gestational age. Studies in animals and humans suggest the
developing fetus may be susceptible to PCE exposure from maternal exposure(A TSDR,
2008).
Cancer Health Effects The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies PCE
as a probable carcinogen in humans. The findings from animal and human studies
provide some evidence of PCE carcinogenicity in animals and limited evidence for
carcinogenicity in humans. Cancer effects of PCE have been studied in laundry and dry-
cleaning workers, who also may have been exposed to other petroleum solvents. Among
these workers, excess incidence was reported of the following cancers: lymphosarcomas;
leukemia; and cancers of skin, larynx, colon, lung, urogenital tract, and urinary bladder.
Although these studies suggested a possible association between occupational exposure
to PCE and ICE and increased lymphatic malignancies, the evidence was inconclusive
because the workers also were exposed to petroleum solvents (A TSDR, 2008).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table F-1
Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options for Groundwater Based on Carcinogenic Risk
Lifetime Resident Land Use Assumptions
Equation Definition:
C = [TR x AT x 365(d/yr) x CF]/ [EF x [(IFw x (CSFo + CS Fi)]]
Parameter Definition Value
C chemical concentration in water (ug/L)
TR target risk 1 E-06
AT averaging time (yr) 70
CF conversion factor (ug/mg) 1,000
EF exposure frequency (d/yr) 350
CSFo oral cancer slope factor ((mg/kg-dayr') Chem. spec.
IFw ingestion factor (I-yr/kg-day) 1.09
CSFi inhalation cancer slope factor ((mg/kg-day)"') Chem. spec.
Chemical Cancer Risk level
of CSFo CSFi (ug/l)
Concern 1E-6 1E-5 1E-4
cis-1,2-Dich!oroethene NA NA NA NA NA
T etrachloroethene 5.4E-01 2.1 E-02 0.1 1 12 .
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene NA NA NA NA NA
Trichloroethane 1.3E-02 7.0E-03 3.3 33 335
Vinvl Chloride 1.5E+00 3.1 E-02 0.04 0.4 4
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table F-2
Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options for Groundwater Based on Non-Cancer Hazards:
Child Resident Exposure Assumptions
Equation Definition:
C = [THI x BW x AT x 365(d/yr) x CF)/ [EF x ED x [(IRw/RfDo)+(IRw/RfDi)]]
Parameter Definition Value
C chemical concentration in water (ug/L)
RfDo oral reference dose (mg/kg-day) Chem. spec.
RfDi inhalation reference dose (mg/kg-day) Chem. spec.
BW body weight (kg) 15
AT averaging time (yr) 6
CF conversion factor (ug/mg) 1000
EF exposure frequency (d/yr) 350
ED exposure duration (yr) 6
THI target hazard index 1
IRw daily water in, estion rate /Udav\ 1
Chemical Hazard Quotient Level
of RfDo RfDI Cua/Ll
Concern HQ=0.1 HQ=1 HQ=3
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 1.0E-02 NA 16 156 469
Tetrachloroethene 1.0E-02 7.?E-02 14 138 415
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 2.0E-02 1.?E-02 14 144 433
Trichloroethene NA NA NA NA NA
Vinvl Chloride 3.0E-03 2.9E-02 4 42 127
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
Table F-3
Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options for Groundwater Based on Cancer Risk:
Co,nstruction Worker Exposure Assumptions
Equation Definition:
C = [TR x BW x AT x 365(d/yr) x CF]/ [EF x ED x [(CSFo x IRw)l]
Parameter Definition Value
C chemical concentration in water (ug/L)
CSFo cancer slope factor (oral) Chem. spec.
CSFi cancer slope factor (inhalation) Chem. spec.
BW body weight (kg) 70
AT averaging time (yr) 70
CF conversion factor ( ug/L) 1000
EF exposure frequency ( d/yr) -250
ED exposure duration (yr) 1
TR target risk 1E-06
IRw daily water ingestion rate (Udav\ 1
Chemical Cancer Risk Level
of CSFo CSFI lua/Ll
Concern 1E-6 ' 1E-5 1E-4
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene NA NA NA NA NA
Tetrachloroethene 5.4E-01 NA 13 132 1,325
Vinvl Chloride 1.5E+00 NA 5 48 477
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table F-4
Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options for Groundwater Based on Non-Cancer Hazards:
Construction Worker Exposure Assumptions
Equation Definition:
C = [THI x BW x AT x 365(d/yr) x CF]/ [EF x ED x [(IRw/RfDo)+(IRw/RfDi)]]
Parameter Definition Value
C chemical concentration in water (ug/L)
RfDo oral reference dose (mg/kg-day) Chem. spec.
RfDi inhalation reference dose (mg/kg-day) Chem. spec.
BW body weight (kg) 70
AT averaging time (yr) 1
CF conversion factor (ug/mg) 1000
EF exposure frequency ( d/yr) 250
ED exposure duration (yr) 1
THI target hazard index 1
IRw dailv water inqestion rate (Udav\ 1
Chemical Hazard Quotient Level
of RfDo RfDI (ug/L)
Concern HQ=0.1 HQ=1 HQ=3
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 1.0E-02 NA 102 1,022 3,066
Tetrachloroethene 1.0E-02 NA 102 1,022 3,066
Vinvl Chloride 3.0E-03 NA 31 307 920
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Excess
Location Receptor Cancer
Risk
PW030 I Lifetime Resident I 5E-06
DW011 Lifetime Resident 4E-02
PW003 Lifetime Resident 3E-04
PW010 Lifetime Resident 9E-04
PW016 I Lifetime Resident 5E-05
PW029 Lifetime Resident 8E-04
Construction Site Worker 3E-04
Table 5-1
Summary of Human Health Risks and Hazards
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Ram Leather Care, Charlotte, NC
Note Receptor
CurrenVFuture Land Use
I Excess cancer risk within EPA's
generally acceptable risk range I Child Resident
Future Land Use
Exces~ cancer risk above EPA's
generally acceptable risk range.
Tetrachloroethene in ground water Child Resident
accounts for the majority of the
excess risk.
Excess cancer risk above EPA's Child Resident generally acceptable risk range
Excess cancer risk above EPA's Child Resident generally acceptable risk range
Excess cancer risk within EPA's Child Resident generally acceptable risk range
Excess cancer risk above EPA's Child Resident generally acceptable risk range
Excess cancer risk above EPA's
generally acceptable risk range. Construction Tetrachloroethene in ground water Worker accounts for the majority of the
excess risk.
Non-cancer
Hazard Note
Index
I 0.03 I Non-cancer hazards not expected
Non-cancer hazards possible.
Tetrachloroethene and cis-1,2-
42 dichloroethene in ground water
account for the majority of the
hazard.
0.4 Non-cancer hazards not expected
1 Non-cancer hazards not expected
0.1 Non-cancer hazards not expected
0.8 Non-cancer hazards not expected
Non-cancer hazards possible.
Tetrachloroethene and cis-1,2-
6 dichloroethene in ground water
account for the majority of the
hazard.
Cancer risks: An excess lifetime cancer risk of 1 E-06 indicates that an individual experiencing the reasonable maximum exposure has a 1 in .1,000,000 chance of
developing cancer as a result of site-related exposure. This is referred to as an "excess lifetime cancer risk" because ii would be in addition tci the risks of cancer
individuals face from other causes. EPA's generally acceptable risk range for site-related exposures is 1E-06 to 1E-04 (one-in-one million to one-in-ten thousand).
Noncancer hazards: EPA Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (EPA 1989) states that, generally, a hazard index (HJ) greater than 1 Indicates the potential for
adverse noncancer effects.
Page 1 of 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 6-1
Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options for Ground Water
Lifetime Residential Land Use Assumptions
Cancer Risk Level Hazard Quotient Level
Chemicals of Concern (uo/Ll (uo/Ll
1 x1 o·• 1x10·5 1x104 HQ=0.1 HQ=1 HQ=3
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene NA NA NA 16 156 469
Tetrachloroethene 0.1 1 12 14 138 415
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene NA NA NA 14 144 433
T richloroethene 3 33 335 NA NA NA
Vinvl Chloride 0.04 0.4 4 4 42 127
Notes:
ug/L: micrograms per liter
NC 2L = North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 02L.0202 Ground Water Standards
Cancer risk based on lifetime exposure assumptions; hazard q\Jotient levels based on child resident exposure assumptions.
NC 2L
(ug/L)
70
0.7
100
2.8
0.015
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 6-2
Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options for Ground Water
Construction Worker Exposure Assumptions
Cancer Risk Level Hazard Quotient Level
Chemicals of Concern (uQ/L) lua/Ll
1x10-6 1x10·5 1x104 HQ=0.1 HQ=1 HQ=3
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene NA NA NA 102 1,022 3,066
Tetrachloroethene 13.2 132 1,325 102 1,022 3,066
Vinvl Chloride 5 48 477 31 307 920
Notes:
ug/L: micrograms per liter
NC 2L = North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 02L.0202 Ground Water Standards
NC 2L
(ug/L)
70
0.7
0.015
ENERGY WATER INFORMATION GOVERNMENT
US EPA Region 4
Work Assignment No. 697-RICO-A419
Mr. Nile Testerman
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NC Superfund Section
401 Oberlin Road
Raleigh, NC 27605
BVSPC Project 048697.01.06
rr=;--;c,-;--=---July 7, 2009
l{B) ~ t I~ ~ V[~~ ff]1 --"-1!1LJ! /1/,!
/ JUL O 8 1009 ~
SU£_ERFUNO SECI_!ON
Subject: Draft Human Health Risk Assessment Update
Ram Leather Care Site
Charlotte, Mecklenberg County, NC
Dear Mr. Testerman:
Enclosed is one (I) copy of the draft Human Health Risk Assessment Update, Revision 0, dated
July 7, 2009, for the Ram Leather Care site located in Charlotte, Mecklenberg County, North
Carolina.
If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at [phone] or by
electronic mail at [e-mail].
Enclosures
Sincerely, ?c~ojcc,s Co~
Tim Eggert
Project Manager
cc: Meredith Clark, EPA Region 4 (w/o enclosure)
Beverly Stepter, EPA Region 4 (w/o enclosure)
Joseph Slykerman, Black & Veatch (w/o enclosure)
Harvey Coppage, Black & Veatch (w/o enclosure)
Scotti Bozeman, Black & Veatch (w/o enclosure)
Project File
Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp.• 1120 Sanctuary Parkway, Suite 200. Alpharetta, GA 30009 USA