HomeMy WebLinkAboutNCD991278540_20010124_Weyerhaeuser Company_FRBCERCLA RI_Response to Comments Revised Remedial Investigation Report-OCR\.. January 24, 2001
Ms. Jennifer Wendel
Integrated
£11 vi ro11 men ta f
Solutio11s
Remedial Project Manager
USEP A Region IV
Waste Management Division
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104
Subject: Response to Agency Comments
100 Verdae Blvd. 29607-3825
P.O. Box 16778 29606-6778
Greenville, SC
Telephone: 864-281-0030
Fax, 864-281-0288
Revised Remedial Investigation (RI) Report for the Former Chlorine Plant Area
Weyerhaeuser Martin County Facility
State Road 1565, Martin County, North Carolina
Dear J e1rnifer:
As requested in your letter dated October 31, 2000, and received November 16, 2000, Weyerhaeuser
Company (Weyerhaeuser) and RMT, Inc. (RMT), have reviewed and prepared responses to USEPA
technical review comments on the Revised Remedial Investigation (RI) Report for the Former
Chlorine Plant Area at the referenced facility.
The responses to USEP A review comments are presented in Attachment 1 to this letter. For ease of
• review, the original comment is presented in bold typeface with the accompanying response
following in normal typeface. Replacement pages for the Revised RI Report for the Former Chlorine
Plant, provided in Attachment 2, incorporate resolution to USEPA technical review comments.
Please call if you have any questions regarding the enclosed submittals.
Sincerely,
RMT, I ·c.
Attachment 1: Response to USEPA Comments on the Revised RI Report for the Former Chlorine
Plant Area
Attachment 2: Replacement pages for the Revised RI Report for the Former Chlorine Plant Area
cc: Joe Jackowski, Weyerhaeuser Company
Rodney Proctor, Weyerhaeuser Company
Jeff Stamps, Weyerhaeuser Company
Steve Woock, Weyerhaeuser Company
Project File 5100.31
!:\DATA \ HYOR0\5 JOO\ WORD\S!TECHAR\ FCP\ 1.0005 10031-007. DOC
•
•
Attachment 1
USEP A Comments on the Revised Remedial Investigation Report
Former Chlorine Plant
Weyerhaeuser Company Site, Martin County, North Carolina
1. Response to General Comment 7. Although mercuric chloride is more soluble than
elemental mercury, it does not necessarily follow that it is more bioavailable than
elemental mercury. In fact, according to ATSDR's draft Toxicological Profile for Mercury
(February 19, 1993), absorption following acute oral exposure to inorganic mercury
compounds is low both in humans and animals. Thus it is not, as claimed, reasonable to
assume that the toxicity of the less soluble species (elemental mercury) would be less than
mercuric chloride. They are both poorly absorbed. Reference to the difference in solubility
accounting for the greater toxicity of mercuric chloride and consequent overestimate of risk
should be removed.
2.
The narrative of the baseline risk assessment included in the Revised RI Report has been
modified as requested to remove discussion of mercuric compound solubility and relative
toxicity .
Region IV policy is to use a value of 100%, not 50%, for the Fraction Ingested from
Contaminated Source (FI) term for ingestion exposure to soil except in special
circumstances. Please revise.
Fraction Ingested (FI) is defined in Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS; USEP A,
1989) as the portion of the daily dose ingested from the affected area. RMT believes that
application of a fraction ingested value of 100 percent overestimates the exposure posed
through the ingestion route to populations who intermittently visit an affected area.
However, the risk estimated for populations potentially exposed to affected media in the
Chlorine Plant area have been revised to reflect the stated Region IV policy of a Fraction
Ingested assumption of 100 percent.
3. Section 6.2.3. This section states that the calculations are conservative because the
maximum observed mercury and methyl mercury concentrations for each medium were
used'. This is not true. The maximum concentration of mercury in subsurface soil was
45,800 mg/kg, and the calculated RME was 767 mg/kg. The maximum concentration of
mercury in surface soil was 59.8 mg/kg; 12.7 mg/kg was used as the RME. Further, using the
maximum detected concentration for the RME is not necessarily conservative; the
} L:\DAT A \HYDR0\5100\WORD\5ITECHAR\FCP\L000510031-0IJ7.DOC
•
maximum concentration may not have been discovered. This is especially true for small
data sets (total of 3 samples) such as the one used to estimate risk for surface soil.
We apologize for this oversight. The referenced text reflects the approach utilized in the
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment prepared for the initial draft version of the RI
Report submitted for agency review. In response to initial agency review comments, the data
set for risk evaluation was expanded to incorporate 1999 RI data and an extensive historical
post closure data set. The expanded data set was utilized in the Baseline Human Health Risk
Assessment presented in the Revised RI Report.
The reference text will be removed.
4. Section 6.3.1. See General Comment 3 regarding the inappropriateness of assuming that
water solubility is directly correlated with absorption and toxicity.
The narrative of the baseline risk assessment relating mercuric compound solubility to toxicity
has been modified as requested.
5. Section 6.3.3. Please quote the citation in A TSDR 1994 for dermal correction factors for
mercuric chloride. According to ATSDR's draft document, dated February 19, 1993,
absorption following acute oral exposure to inorganic mercury compounds is low both in
humans and animals. Further, the rates of absorption for mercuric chloride and metallic
mercury were not evaluated in any studies. The Region's policy in such cases is to use a
default absorption efficiency of 20%. Also, the cited correction factor for inorganic mercury
(10%) differs from what is presented in Table 6-3a. If 10% can be supported as claimed, this
value should be used in the calculations.
The text of the baseline risk assessment addressing dermal correction factors for absorption
has been modified to clarify the use of the correction factors (consistent with previous
technical review comments received on the Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment for the
Welch Creek Area).
Consistent with guidance, appropriate published data on oral absorption of specific chemicals
should be used to make the administered/ absorbed dose adjustment, where available. The
individual ATSDR Toxicological Profiles were utilized as the source of the chemical-specific
absorption efficiencies. A dermal correction factor of 100 percent was utilized for methyl
mercury (ATSDR, page 220, 1999). The Region 4 default oral absorption efficiency value for
inorganics of 20 percent was utilized for evaluations of mercury as mercuric chloride (USEP A,
1996). Given that oral toxicity information is not available for inorganic mercury, a dermal
correction factor was not relied upon in the assessment.
2 L:\DAT A \HYDR0\5100\ WORD\SITECHAR\FCP\L0005l0031-007.00C
•
6. Section 6.5.3. As noted in Section 6.5, not quantitatively evaluating constituents that do not
have toxicity data may underestimate risk. Since elemental mercury does not have toxicity
data for the oral or dermal routes of exposure, the uncertainty section should discuss the
fact that the Hazard Indices for elemental mercury exposure are biased low. This should be
summarized in Table 6-6 as well.
The narrative of the risk assessment and Table 6-6 currently addresses the potential of
underestimating the risk posed by not quantitatively evaluating constituents that do not have
toxicity data.
7. Section 6.5.3. It is not a given that the higher solubility of mercuric chloride compared to
elemental mercury means it is more toxic. In fact, as noted above, absorption following
acute oral exposure to inorganic mercury compounds is low. The statement that owing to
its greater solubility, using mercuric chloride as a surrogate will significantly overestimate
risk should be removed.
The text of the uncertainty discussion has been modified as requested to remove discussion of
mercuric compound solubility and relative toxicity .
3 L:\DAT A \HYDR0\5100\ WORD\SITECHAR\FCP\l..000510031-007.DOC
•
0
Attachment 2
Replacement Pages for the Revised Remedial Investigation Report
Former Chlorine Plant
Replacement pages
■ Executive Summary -page iii
■ Entire Section 6
■ Section 7 -Findings and Conclusions -page 7-5
Replacement appendices
■ Appendix K
■ AppendixM
■ AppendixN
■ AppendixO
L; \DAT A\ HYDR0\5100\ WORD\SITECHAR\FCP\ L000510031-007 .IXX:
•
•
Executive Summary
This Remedial Investigation report for the Former Chlorine Plant area has been developed in ,
response to Administrative Order by Consent No, 98-10-C issued by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency on March 24, 1998. The Former Chlorine Plant is one of three
source areas covered by the Order. This plant was operated at the Weyerhaeuser Company,
Martin County, North Carolina, facility from 1952 to 1968, to manufacture chlorine and caustic
used in mill processes. Demolition and soil excavation activities were completed by 1992.
Residual mercury present in soil below the groundwater table was covered with pavement, and
the area is currently used for storage and raw materials loading and unloading.
The Remedial Investigation activities at the Former Chlorine Plant, defined by the
USEPA-approved Work Planning documents, have been completed. The objectives of the
Remedial Investigation activities were as follows:
■ To evaluate the residual mass and location of mercury remaining in the soil
■ To estimate the amount of mercury that is being leached from soil by groundwater
■ To estimate the potential mass flux of mercury through groundwater to the Roanoke River
These objectives have been met, as will be addressed in this report. The results of the
investigation activities were consistent with previous data collected after demolition of the
Former Chlorine Plant manufacturing building, Surface soil mercury concentrations are well
below risk-based industrial screening criteria. Mercury is present in the subsurface soil below
the pavement in the former building footprint and associated U-drains at concentrations
ranging from <0.04 to 45,800 mg/kg (median concentration of 3.2 mg/kg). Methyl mercury
represented less than 1 percent of total mercury in the subsurface soil tested. The highest soil
concentrations are present below the former U-drains and sump associated with the Former
Chlorine Plant. A concentration of about 75 mg/kg total mercury was found to a depth of
45 feet beneath the Former Chlorine Plant building footprint. Approximately 7,500 pounds
(3,400 kilograms) of mercury are estimated to be present in the soil, but more than half is
present in shallow soil (to a depth of 10 feet). Only 2 percent of the mercury is found below a
depth of 26 feet.
The hydrogeology and groundwater flow system are complex in this area. Four geologic units
were observed: alluvium, upper marine confining unit, marine sand, and lower marine
confining unit. The alluvium forms an unconfined aquifer of moderate to high permeability,
whereas the marine sand forms a thin, high-permeability zone below the upper marine
RMT, Inc.
/: \ WPC VL \ PJT\00-05100\23\ROOOS 10023-6S6. DOC
Weyerhaeuser Company
Revised/Final January 2001
• confining unit. The lower marine deposit functions as a confirung unit above the Castle Hayne
Formation that forms the regional potable water aquifer. Groundwater flow patterns are
influenced by leakage from the cooling tower and storm sewer collection systems present in the
area. Water leakage forms subsurface mounds in the water table that prevent simple
groundwater flow toward the Roanoke River. Groundwater from the Former Chlorine Plant
area is forced to move either to the west or to the south and then east, before eventually
discharging north to the river.
Mercury has leached from the impacted soil to the groundwater under the Former Chlorine
Plant building footprint. Six of the 29 groundwater locations sampled contained mercury above
the North Carolina Maximum Acceptable Concentration for groundwater of 1.1 µg/L. The six
mercury exceedences were in shallow monitoring wells, within the footprint area. Mercury
concentrations decrease with distance from the footprint and with depth. Methyl mercury was
quantified in some groundwater samples at concentrations averaging approximately 0.6 to
2 percent of the total mercury concentrations. The biochemical conversion of inorganic mercury
to the more bioavailable form is affected by many geochemical conditions. However, the
amount of methyl mercury present on the Former Chlorine Plant site is low to moderate
compared to other surface water/sediment sites.
Sediment samples were collected in 10 locations in the Roanoke River. Four separate samples
were collected at each coring location and analyzed for total and methyl mercury to assess
potential groundwater discharges to the Roanoke River. Groundwater was not found to be
contributing significant levels of mercury to the sediment; however, historical impacts were
observed in the depositional area along the bulkhead adjacent to the Former Chlorine Plant.
Mercury concentrations were generally highest in the second or third depth level, implying that
burial with cleaner material occurred after the Former Chlorine Plant ceased operations.
Methyl mercury was present in low concentrations and at a low percentage of the total mercury
in the sediment and the pore water samples collected. Total mercury was not quantifiable in the
pore water samples, to a concentration of 0.2 µg/L. The highest concentrations of mercury in
the sediment were found in the two sediment samples upstream of the Former Chlorine Plant.
The baseline risk assessment evaluated potential human heath risks associated with incidental
ingestion and/ or contact with impacted soil and groundwater to construction and industrial
workers. For the industrial worker, the range of total receptor Hazard Indices (His),
representing both reasonable maximum and central tendency/ average exposure assumptions,
was less than 1. This result indicates that exposure to affected media in the Former Chlorine
Plant under both current and future land use scenarios does not present an unacceptable hazard
to the industrial worker population. For the construction worker, the total receptor HI,
representing central tendency/ average exposure assumptions, was more than two orders of
magnitude less than 1. Similarly, the construction worker HI based on mercury as inorganic
RMT, Inc.
/:\ WPGVL \PJT\<J0.05J()()\23\ROOOS/0023·6S6.DOC
ii Weyerhaeuser Company
Revised/Final January 2001
• mercury and reflecting reasonable maximum exposure assumptions was less than 1.0. This HI
conservatively based on mercury as mercuric chloride and reflective of reasonable maximum
exposures was greater than 1 (HI = 3.5). The results of the baseline risk evaluations of potential
construction activities in this area indicate that, if mercury was present as mercuric chloride,
reasonable maximum exposures to subsurface soil could result in a potential hazard for this
receptor in the absence of additional site controls or modified work practices. Actual exposure
and associated risk are likely to be reduced over those estimated given that Weyerhaeuser
Company has, at a corporate level, established PPE requirements and work practice protocols to
minimize potential exposures to construction workers. No ecological risk assessment was
performed in this area due to lack of receptors in this active manufacturing and industrialized
setting.
•
The migration of mercury from the impacted subsurface soil into the groundwater and potential
mercury discharge to the river was calculated and compared to anthropogenic (industrial)
sources through air deposition and estimated mercury loadings present in the Roanoke River.
The amount of mercury deposited from the air over a year, assuming 10 percent reaches the
river, is estimated to be 57 pounds/year (26,000 grams/year). In contrast, the estimated
quantity of mercury expected to migrate into the river through the groundwater is
0.012 pounds/year (5.4 grams/year). Even considering various uncertainties in the
assumptions, the mercury migrating from the Former Chlorine Plant represents 0.002 to
0.2 percent of the mercury deposited from the atmosphere on an annual basis.
The available data have been evaluated and are sufficient to support the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study and the decision-making process. Data limitations were
identified (i.e., groundwater flow path to the south/ southeast and limited rounds of
groundwater sampling); however, further data collection is not expected to significantly alter
the baseline risk assessment or remedial alternatives evaluation and is therefore not
recommended. Alternatives, including no action, monitored natural attenuation, source
control, and active remedies will be evaluated in the Feasibility Study. To further develop and
screen remedial alternatives, it is recommended that focused treatability studies be performed
to better evaluate technology performance .
RMT, Inc.
1: \ WPGV L \Pfr\()()..05100\23\ ROOOS 10023·6S6.DOC
iii Weyerhaeuser Company
Revised/Final January 2001
•
•
Section 6
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment
The objective of the baseline human health risk evaluations for the Former Chlorine Plant area
is to appropriately characterize the potential exposures and incremental risks to human
receptors posed by current or past site-related source area activities. As identified in the
Screening Ecological Risk Assessment (RMT, 1998d), due to the heavily industrialized setting of
the Former Chlorine Plant, and given that the area is predominantly paved, on-site exposure to
ecological receptors in the Former Chlorine Plant area is minimal. As a result, an ecological risk
evaluation will not be performed for the Former Chlorine Plant area. Potential human and
ecological receptors associated with the Roanoke River that may be exposed to mercury in
sediment or in the surface water will be addressed by the USEP A-led evaluation activities on
the Roanoke River.
The baseline human health risk assessment for the Former Chlorine Plant area assumes that no
additional site control or remediation will be implemented in the area. The human health risk
evaluations were performed consistent with methods described in Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund (RAGS), Human Health Evaluation Manual Part A (USEPA, 1989), and USEPA Region IV
Supplemental Guidance for RAGS (USEPA, 1996). The results of the human health risk
evaluations will be used in conjunction with source area-specific fate and transport
considerations to assess the need for remedial actions, and to effectively and efficiently
determine the extent of those remedial actions.
6.1 Constituents of Potential Concern
The first step in conducting a risk evaluation is the identification of the constituents of potential
concern (COPCs). The COPCs represent the constituents at the site that pose potential human
health risks. As a component of the RI/FS work planning conducted for the site (RMT, 1998b),
mercury was identified as the COPC for the Former Chlorine Plant area. Sections 5 and 6 of this
RI Report present the nature and distribution of mercury and methyl mercury in environmental
media at the Former Chlorine Plant.
The human health risk evaluations for the Former Chlorine Plant address potential risks
associated with exposure to mercury and methyl mercury in environmental media in the area.
RMT, Inc.
/: \ WPG VL \Pff\00-05 J 00\23\ ROOOS 10023·6S6.DOC
6-1 Weyerhaeuser Company
Revised/Final January_2001
•
•
•
6.2 Exposure Assessment
The objective of the exposure assessment is to estimate the type and magnitude of potential
exposures to mercury and methyl mercury in environmental media associated with the Former
Chlorine Plant. The exposure assessment for the Former Chlorine Plant follows the guidance in
RAGS (USEPA, 1989) and follows these steps:
1. Characterization of the exposure setting
2. Identification of migration and exposure pathways
3. Quantification of exposure
6.2.1 Characterization of Exposure Setting
As a component of characterizing the exposure setting for the Former Chlorine Plant,
potential human receptors and their expected types of exposure to the constituents
present at the site were identified for current land use scenarios. These potential human
receptors represent those segments of the population most likely to come into contact
with the COPCs present in environmental media at the Former Chlorine Plant.
Given the location of the Former Chlorine Plant area, human populations that may
potentially be exposed to mercury are limited to industrial and construction workers .
Fencing, paving, and 24-hour site security preclude trespasser exposure to soil and
groundwater. There are no other potential human receptors to soil and groundwater at
the Former Chlorine Plant.
6.2.2 Identification of Migration and Exposure Pathways
The Former Chlorine Plant conceptual site model (Figure 6-1) is based on
characterization of mercury sources, the affected environmental medium, and the
migration and transport potential of mercury to potential receptors.
An exposure pathway is the means by which a constituent moves from a source to a
receptor. A completed exposure pathway has the following four elements:
■ Constituent source
■ Mechanism for release of the constituent
■ Environmental transport medium
■ Feasible route of potential exposure to the receptor
The primary source of mercury in environmental media at the Former Chlorine Plant is
the historical operation of a chlor-alkali facility until 1968. Following demolition and
soil excavation activities completed in 1992, residual mercury remained in the
RMT, Inc.
/: \ W PG V L \P/T\00-05 I 00\23\ ROOOS I 0023-656.DOC
6-2 Weyerhaeuser Company
Rroised/Final January 2001
• subsurface soil primarily within the immediate footprint of the Former Chlorine Plant
operations. This residual mercury in the subsurface may serve as a secondary source to
groundwater.
The potential constituent release and transport pathways at the Former Chlorine Plant
are as follows:
■ Migration of residual mercury from subsurface soil into groundwater
■ Discharge of groundwater containing dissolved mercury into the Roanoke River
■ Mercury accumulation in sediment from groundwater discharge
The conceptual approach presented in the Rl/FS Work Planning documents for the
Former Chlorine Plant focused on the assessment and reduction of risks associated with
potential human exposures. As identified in the Screening Ecological Risk Assessment
(RMT, 1998d), because the area is heavily industrialized and predominantly paved, on-
site exposure to ecological receptors in the Former Chlorine Plant area is minimal.
Potentially completed exposure pathways at the Former Chlorine Plant are as follows:
■ Industrial worker exposure (ingestion, dermal contact, inhalation) to mercury in
uncovered surface soil
■ Incidental construction worker exposure (ingestion, dermal contact, inhalation) to
mercury in subsurface soil and dermal contact with groundwater
The exposure routes associated with the potentially completed exposure pathways
evaluated for the Former Chlorine Plant area were as follows:
RMT, Inc.
Industrial Worker
Incidental ingestion of surface soil
Dermal contact with surface soil
Inhalation of surface soil particulates
Constniction Worker
Incidental ingestion of surface soil and subsurface soil
Dermal contact with surface soil and subsurface soil
Inhalation of surface soil and subsurface soil particulates
Incidental dermal contact with groundwater
6-3
/: \ W PG V L \PJT\00-05 I 00\23\ ROOOS I 0023-656.DOC
Weyerhaeuser Company
Revised/Final January 2001
•
For the purposes of the risk evaluations, the construction worker was assumed
to have exposure to subsurface soil at a depth interval of Oto 10 feet below
ground surface.
6.2.3 Quantification of Exposure
The potential exposure to mercury for each receptor is represented by a chronic daily
intake (COi). The COI for an individual receptor is estimated from the exposure point
concentration of mercury in each environmental medium. Consistent with Region IV
Supplemental Guidance (USEPA, 1996), the exposure point concentrations used for
estimating COis are the lesser of the maximum detected concentration for each COPC or
the 95 percent upper confidence limit (95% UCL) of the mean concentration assuming a
log-normal distribution of the data set. A value equivalent to one-half the Quantitation
Limit was used in the exposure point concentration calculations for constituents
reported as not detected. The exposure point concentrations for mercury and methyl
mercury from the various environmental media are presented in Table 6-1.
A COi is the exposure expressed as the mass of a substance contacted per unit body
weight per unit of time, averaged over a period of years. The COis for mercury and
methyl mercury at the Former Chlorine Plant were calculated to represent both the
Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME) and the potential average or central tendency
exposure. The RME doses are defined as the "maximum exposure that is reasonably
expected to occur at the site" (USEPA, 1989). Several variables that determine the
exposure dose for the RME are based on upper-bound (typically 90th percentile or
greater) estimates. Therefore, the RME COi for any given constituent, which results
from a multiplication of all of these variables, represents an upper-bound value
(probably greater than 99th percentile) that is a conservative estimate of the actual
exposure dose. The average or central tendency exposure doses are defined as
representing more realistic exposures that are based on 50th percentile exposure
estimates. The exposure variables used to calculate the COi for each potential receptor
for both the RME and the potential average or central tendency exposure are outlined in
Table 6-2. Example intake calculations and exposure assumptions used for calculating
the COi for each complete exposure pathway are contained in Appendix K.
The industrial worker and the construction worker are assumed to have some
knowledge of site conditions, and as such, exposure variables for both RME and
average/ central tendency dose estimates incorporate considerations for limited personal
protective equipment (PPE) and modified work practices. It should be noted that
Weyerhaeuser Company has experience in the closure of historical chlor-alkali facilities
and has, at a corporate level, established strict PPE requirements and work practice
RMT, Inc.
/: \ W PG V L \ PJT\()().05100\2J \R000510023·656.DOC
6-4 Weyerhaeuser Company
Revised/Fina/ January 2001
•
•
•
protocols to minirn.ize potential mercury exposures to construction/remediation
workers.
For the inhalation pathway, a particulate emission factor (PEF) was used to convert the
concentration of mercury in soil to an estimated inhaled concentration (USEPA, 1996).
6.3 Toxicity Assessment
A toxicity assessment is conducted for two purposes: (1) to review available information on the
potential adverse effects that may result from exposure to mercury; and (2) to quantify the
relationship between exposure to mercury and the likelihood of potential health effects.
Toxicity values for mercury and methyl mercury were taken from Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS).
6.3.1 Toxicity Information for Noncarcinogenic Effects
The USEPA's preferred (USEPA, 1996) toxicity value for evaluating noncarcinogenic
effects resulting from chemical exposure is the chronic reference dose (RfD). The
chronic RfD is an estimate of a daily exposure level for the human population (including
sensitive populations) that should not cause an appreciable risk of harmful effects
during a lifetime of exposure .
Oral RfDs (RfDo) are published exposure dose estimates derived from ingestion-based
studies. RfDovalues will be used in estimating potential hazards associated with the
incidental ingestion pathway and, with modification, the dermal contact pathway.
Inhalation RfDs (RfD1) are published exposure dose estimates derived from inhalation-
based studies and are used in estimating the potential hazard for the inhalation
pathway.
Mercury in the media at the Former Chlorine Plant was analyzed as total mercury and
methyl mercury. Toxicity information for the oral route is not available for elemental
mercury and as such, a quantitative estimate of risk through oral or dermal pathways
cannot be estimated. At the request of the USEPA, the available toxicity values for
mercuric chloride were evaluated for use as a surrogate.
The total mercury present in the subsurface soil in the Former Chlorine Plant area is
unlikely to be present as the soluble chloride salt of mercury (mercuric chloride). The
geochemical conditions observed in the subsurface at the Former Chlorine Plant are
unlikely to support the formation of mercuric chloride as a dominant
thermodynamically stable form of mercury. As indicated on the attached phase diagram
for mercury (Figure 6-2), mercuric chloride is the predominant thermodynamically
RMT,lnc.
/;\ WPGVL \P]T\00--05l00\2J\ROOOSJ002J-656.DOC
6-5 Weyerhaeuser Company
Revised/Final January 2001
•
•
•
stable mercury species under conditions of positive redox potential (Eh >500 millivolts)
and low to neutral pH (0 to 6 s.u.). The geochemistry of the Former Chlorine Plant
subsurface is characterized by negative redox potential (Eh of -38 to -520 millivolts) and
neutral to high pH (5.5 to 10.8 s.u.). Elemental mercury or mercury-sulfur species are
the thermodynamically stable forms of mercury under the geochemical conditions
observed in the Former Chlorine Plant subsurface. Under observed conditions, mercuric
chloride would be expected to be an unstable species and represents a minimal
component of the total mercury present.
As indicated previously, toxicity information for the oral route is not available for
elemental mercury or mercury-sulfur complexes for use in a quantitative estimate of
risk. However, elemental mercury or mercury-sulfur species are less soluble than
mercuric chloride that was used as a surrogate to represent the upper range of risk
estimates in this baseline risk assessment. Given that mercuric chloride is not likely
present at the Former Chlorine Plant, based on presence of geochemical conditions that
do not support its formation, the use of mercuric chloride as a surrogate adds
uncertainty about potential risk to an exposed population.
In order to provide a conservative estimate of risk posed to receptors from mercury, this
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment presents a range of potential risks posed by
exposure to affected media. The upper end of the range of potential risk reflects the
requested use of surrogate mercuric chloride toxicity values for oral exposure to total
mercury.
Tables 6-3a and 6-3b present a summary of the available quantitative toxicity
information for elemental mercury, mercuric chloride, and methyl mercury for
noncarcinogenic effects to be used in the estimation of hazard reflecting incidental
exposure through ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation exposure pathways.
Appendix L contains additional noncarcinogenic toxicity information for elemental
mercury, mercuric chloride, and methyl mercury.
6.3.2 Toxicity Information for Carcinogenic Effects
Carcinogenic toxicity values for elemental mercury, mercuric chloride, and methyl
mercury are not available in the IRIS.
Mercury, as elemental or metallic mercury, is identified as·a Class D carcinogen; in other
words, it is not classifiable as a human carcinogen. This classification is based on the
absence of adequate human and animal data that show a correlation between exposure
to metallic mercury vapor and carcinogenicity .
RMT, Inc.
I:\ W PG VL \ PJT\00-05100\23\ R00051002J-6S6. DOC
6-6 WetJerhaeuser Company
Revised/Final January 2001
•
•
Mercury, as mercuric chloride, is identified as a Class C carcinogen. Class C indicates
that mercuric chloride is a possible human carcinogen indicating inadequate data in
humans and limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals. No data are available on the
carcinogenic effects of mercuric chloride in humans. The results from a dietary study in
rats and mice show equivocal evidence for carcinogenic activity in male mice and female
rats and some evidence for carcinogenic activity in male rats. Two other dietary studies
did not show any evidence for carcinogenicity, but these studies are limited by
inadequacies in the data and experimental design, including the small number of
animals/ dose and/ or a lack of complete histopathological examinations.
Similar to mercuric chloride, methyl mercury is identified as a Class C carcinogen; a
possible human carcinogen based on inadequate data in humans and limited evidence of
carcinogenicity in animals. TI_iree human studies were identified in the IRIS that
examined the relationship between methyl mercury exposure and cancer. No
persuasive evidence of increased carcinogenicity attributable to methyl mercury
exposure was observed in any of the studies. Interpretation of these studies, however,
was limited by poor study design and incomplete descriptions of methodology and/ or
results .
6.3.3 Absorbed Doses
Reference doses and slope factors are typically calculated based on toxicity testing that
involves ingestion of the constituent being evaluated. For the dermal route of exposure,
toxicity values that are expressed as an administered dose must be adjusted to reflect an
absorbed dose. To utilize oral toxicity values (RfDo or SFo) in estimation of hazard
associated with dermal contact exposures, it is necessary to apply a dermal correction
factor to the RfDo's (or SFo's) when they are used in the evaluation of absorbed intake
values. For compounds that have poor oral absorption efficiencies, the dermally-
adjusted RID would be expected to be lower and the dermally-adjusted SF would be
expected to be higher.
Consistent with guidance, appropriate published data on oral absorption of specific
chemicals should be used to make the administered/ absorbed dose adjustment, where
available. The individual ATSDR Toxicological Profiles were utilized as the source of
the chemical-specific absorption efficiencies. A dermal correction factor of 100 percent
was utilized for methyl mercury (ATSDR, page 220, 1999). A dermal correction factor of
10 percent was utilized for inorganic mercury (based on divalent mercury: ATSDR,
1994). The Region 4 default oral absorption efficiency value for inorganics of 20 percent
was utilized for evaluations of mercury as mercuric chloride (USEPA, 1996) .
RMT, Inc.
I:\ WPG VL \PfT\00-05 /00\ 23\ R0005 l 0023-656.DOC
6-7 Weyerhaeuser Company
Revised/Final January 2001
0
•
•
6.4 Human Health Exposure and Risk Calculations
In the baseline risk characterization, the results of the toxicity and exposure assessments are
summarized and integrated into quantitative and qualitative expressions of potential risk for
carcinogenic compounds and into an Hazard Index (HI) for noncarcinogenic compounds.
According to RAGS (USEPA, 1989), the risk characterization is complete only when the
numerical expressions of potential risk are accompanied by explanatory text interpreting and
qualifying the results. In addition, the baseline risk characterization presents reasonable
maximum and average/ central tendency exposures to baseline site conditions in the absence of
additional site controls or remediation. The baseline risk characterization for the Former
Chlorine Plant area was prepared consistent with applicable guidance and is presented below.
The IRIS does not include carcinogenic toxicity values for mercury as elemental mercury,
mercuric chloride, or methyl mercury. As a result, incremental carcinogenic risk cannot be
estimated.
Noncarcinogenic inhalation reference dose (Rf01) information is available in IRIS for elemental
mercury. Noncarcinogenic oral reference dose (RfDo) information is available in IRIS for
mercuric chloride and methyl mercury. As a result, noncarcinogenic hazard quotients (HQs)
were calculated for potential mercury exposures. As previously discussed, a range of potential
HQs is presented for potential exposures to total mercury in affected media which reflects
inorganic mercury toxicity values and the requested surrogate mercuric chloride toxicity values.
The HQ is a quantitative estimate of the potential hazard associated with individual
noncarcinogenic compounds. The HQ is the ratio of the intake (CDI) for each COPC to the RfD
for that constituent. Hazard quotients for individual COPCs are summed, where appropriate,
to calculate the Hazard Indices (His) for a pathway. If multiple pathways exist, appropriate
pathway His are added together to calculate a site HI. A total site HI of less than 1 indicates
that no significant hazard is likely, even for sensitive individuals. An HI of greater than 1
indicates that there may be a potential hazard at the site.
The human receptors evaluated under the current land use scenario were an industrial worker
and a construction worker. In addition, industrial worker exposure under hypothetical future
land use conditions was also evaluated. The HQs and His for potential receptors under the
current land use scenario representing both RME and average/ central tendency exposure are
summarized in Table 6-4 and Table 6-5, respectively.
As indicated in Table 6-4 and Table 6-5, the range of total industrial worker His under current
and hypothetical future land use conditions, representing both RME and central
tendency/ average exposure assumptions, was considerably less than 1. The total HI for the
RMT, Inc.
I:\ WPG VL \ PJT\()().05 l 00\23\ R0005 l 0023-6S6. DOC
6-8 Weyerhaeuser Company
Revised/Final January 2001
• industrial worker was based on a summation of pathway His for the incidental ingestion of
surface soil, dermal contact with surface soil, and the inhalation of airborne soil particulates.
•
As indicated in Table 6-5, the range of total construction worker His representing central
tendency/ average exposure assumptions was considerably less than 1. The range of total
construction worker His reflecting reasonable maximum exposures ranged from well below 1
(HI inocganic me,cury = 0.0049) to greater than 1 (HI meccuric chloride= 3.5). As previously discussed, the
range of potential His reflects inorganic mercury toxicity values and the requested surrogate
mercuric chloride toxicity values. Also, as presented in Subsection 7.3, based on observed
subsurface conditions at the Former Chlorine Plant, mercuric chloride would be expected to be
an unstable species and to represent a minimal component of the total mercury present. The
total HI for the construction worker was based on a summation of pathway His for the
incidental ingestion of surface and subsurface soil, dermal contact with surface and subsurface
soil, inhalation of airborne soil particulates, and incidental dermal contact with groundwater.
The results of the baseline risk evaluations for the Former Chlorine Plant indicate that exposure
to affected media in the Former Chlorine Plant area does not present an unacceptable hazard to
industrial workers even under reasonable maximum exposures evaluated in this study. The
results of the baseline risk evaluations of potential construction activities in this area indicate
that, if mercury was present in the subsurface soil as mercuric chloride, reasonable maximum
exposures could result in a potential hazard for this receptor in the absence of additional site
controls or modified work practices.
More detailed information regarding the RME HI calculations is contained in Tables M-1
through M-4 in Appendix M. Similarly, detailed information regarding the central
tendency /average HI calculations is contained in Tables N-1 through N-4 in Appendix N.
Standardized risk assessment tables prepared consistent with Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual, (Part D, Standardized Planning,
Reporting, and Review of Superfund Risk Assessments; USEP A, 1997) are provided in
Appendix 0.
6.5 Uncertainty Analysis
The primary goal of the uncertainty analysis is to provide a discussion of the key assumptions
made in the risk assessment that may significantly influence the estimate of potential risk.
Uncertainty is inherent in all of the principal components of the risk assessment. A discussion
of the sources of uncertainty contributing to the potential risk and the associated effects
(overestimation or underestimation of risk) of these factors is presented in this section .
RMT, Inc.
I:\ WPG VL \P/T\CJ0.05 J 00\23\ ROOOS 10023-656.DOC.
6-9 Weyerhaeuser Company
Revised/Final January 2001
• In the absence of empirical or site-specific data, assumptions are developed based on best
estimates of exposure or dose-response relationships. To assist in the development of these
estimates, the USEP A recommends the use of guidelines and standard factors in risk
assessments conducted under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA} (USEPA; 1989, 1991}. The use of these standard factors is intended
to promote consistency among risk assessments where assumptions must be made. Although
the use of standard factors undoubtedly promotes comparability, their usefulness in accurately
predicting potential risk is directly related to their applicability to the actual site-specific
conditions.
•
The potential noncarcinogenic risk estimates for the site are based on a number of assumptions
that incorporate varying degrees of uncertainty resulting from many sources, including the
following:
■ Environmental monitoring and data evaluation
■ Assumptions in the selection of exposure pathways and scenarios
■ Assumptions in the expression of potential noncarcinogenic risk
■ Estimation of the magnitude of exposure under selected exposure scenarios
The potential hazard index estimates for the exposure pathways quantified are summarized in
Tables 6-4 and 6-5. Several factors introduced in the risk assessment may contribute to the
uncertainty of the potential risk estimates, including the following:
■ Sampling concentrated in areas at the site believed to be affected by constituents (biased
sampling) is likely to overestimate exposure.
■ Using USEP A-approved toxicity values with low confidence ratings and high uncertainty
factors typically overestimates potential risk.
■ Using toxicity values that are largely based on animal studies and extrapolated to humans
most likely overestimates potential risk.
■ Not quantitatively evaluating constituents that do not have toxicity data may
underestimate actual risk.
■ Compounding conservative assumptions in the risk assessment yields conservative
(overestimated) potential risk estimates.
■ Assuming that constituents present in the surface soil and stream sediment have a
significant tendency to desorb from the soil and pass through the skin likely overestimates
exposure.
■ Using 95 percent upper confidence limits and maximum detected concentrations likely
overestimates intakes since actual exposure is probably at lower concentrations.
■ The assumption that on-site workers spend their workdays within the localized affected
areas of the site overestimates exposure.
RMT, Inc.
/: \ WPGV L \P]T\00--05100\23\R0005J002J.6S6.DOC
6-10 Weyerhaeuser Company
Revised/Fina/ January 2001
• ■ The assumption that industrial and construction workers ingest the entire daily soil dose
•
•
from the localized affected areas of the site overestimates exposure.
The following discussions detail the key assumptions and uncertainties in each phase of the risk
assessment that resulted in a significant contribution to total potential risk.
6.5.1 Characterization of Affected Media
The intent of the RI activities at the Former Chlorine Plant was to characterize the nature
and extent of mercury in various media due to the suspected and known releases that
have occurred at the site. To achieve this goal in a timely, cost-effective manner, the
investigation focused on those areas of the site that were known or suspected to be
affected by chemical releases. In the absence of a representative sample population
(i.e., an equally distributed number of data points from all portions of the site), the
available data used in the baseline risk assessment were assumed to be representative of
the entire area. With the exception of the construction worker, this assumption is more
likely to overestimate risk than to underestimate it, since potential receptors may spend
less time in the sampled areas than the site as a whole.
For the Former Chlorine Plant area, the calculated exposure point concentrations for
selected media (subsurface soil and groundwater) are biased high due to the presence of
elevated mercury concentrations in localized areas of the facility. The conservative
baseline risk assessment process assumes that the elevated exposure point concentration
is equally distributed over the property and equally accessible to the receptors being
evaluated.
6.5.2 Exposure Assessment
Numerous assumptions are made in the exposure assessment, including the selection of
exposure routes, scenarios, and factors (e.g., contact rates, exposure frequency, body
weight) used to estimate exposure doses.
The RME was used to develop exposure doses and is defined as the "maximum
exposure that is reasonably expected to occur at the site (USEPA, 1989)." Several
variables that determine the exposure dose for the RME are based on upper-bound
(typically 90th percentile or greater) estimates. These are the following:
■ Exposure concentration is the upper 95 percent confidence limit or the maximum
concentration observed
■ Intake rate is an upper-bound or maximum value
■ Exposure frequency is an average or upper-bound value
RMT, Inc. 6-11
I:\ W PG VL \ P/T\00-05 J 00\23\ R0005J0023-6S6.00C
Weyerhaeuser Company
Revised/Final January 2001
•
•
■ Exposure duration is an upper-bound value
Therefore, the calculated RME exposure dose for any given constituent, which results
from a multiplication of all of these variables, represents an upper-bound value
(probably greater than 99th percentile) that is a conservative estimate of the actual
exposure dose. The use of this exposure dose, coupled with conservative estimates of
toxicity, will yield a potential risk result that represents an upper-bound estimate of the
likelihood of noncarcinogenic effects.
The human health risk evaluations also evaluated exposure doses based on
average/ central tendency exposure assumptions. The average/central tendency
exposure assumptions remain highly conservative in that they continue to rely on inputs
to selected variables that represent upper-bound estimates. Specifically, these include
the following:
■ The exposure concentration for the average/central tendency dose calculations is
the upper 95 percent confidence limit or the maximum concentration observed.
■ Intake rate for soil (10 mg/ day) overestimates normal or typical ingestion in that it
represents a daily intake rate for an individual with a propensity for eating dirt .
Therefore, the calculated average/central tendency exposure dose for any given
constituent continues to represent a conservative estimate of the actual exposure dose.
As in the RME evaluations, the use of this exposure dose, coupled with conservative
estimates of toxicity, will yield a potential risk result that represents an upper-bound
estimate of the likelihood of noncarcinogenic effects.
6.5.3 Toxicity Assessment
In order for a potential risk to be present, both exposure to the constituents of concern
and toxicity at the 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. The toxicity values
developed by the USEP A may not reflect the current scientific consensus and, in most
instances, will result in an overestimation of potential hazards.
For dermal contact exposures in this baseline risk assessment, oral slope factors and
reference doses adjusted for dermal exposure are used. The adjustments are based on
studies on each individual parameter when available. However, the uncertainty
involved in this adjustment method is high .
RMT, Inc.
I:\ WPGVL \P/T\00-05 l00\23\R000510023-6S6.DOC
6-12 WetJerhaeuser Company
Revised/Final January 2001
•
In addition, mercury in the media at the Former Chlorine Plant was analyzed as total
mercury and methyl mercury. Toxicity information for the oral route is not available for
elemental mercury and, as such, a quantitative estimate of risk through oral or dermal
pathways cannot be estimated. At the request of the USEPA, the available toxicity
values for mercuric chloride were evaluated for use as a surrogate.
As indicated previously (see Subsection 6.3.1) based on observed geochemical
conditions, the total mercury present in the subsurface soil in the Former Chlorine Plant
area is unlikely to be present as the soluble chloride salt of mercury (mercuric chloride).
Given that mercuric chloride is not likely present at the Former Chlorine Plant, since
geochemical conditions do not support its formation, the use of mercuric chloride as a
surrogate adds uncertainty about potential risk to an exposed population.
In order to provide a conservative estimate of risk posed to receptors from mercury, this
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment presents a range of potential risks posed by
exposure to affected media. The upper end of the range of potential risk reflects the
requested use of surrogate mercuric chloride toxicity values for oral exposure to total
mercury.
Table 6-6 summarizes the assumptions of the risk assessment that affect the estimates of
exposure and potential risk. The assumptions of the exposure assessment are
conservative and, in general, result in overestimates of exposure. Therefore, the
exposure estimates are likely to be greater than the maximum exposures that can be
reasonably expected to occur. This conservative risk and hazard estimate approach,
dealing with uncertainties for exposure, conforms to USEP A guidance provided in
RAGS (USEPA, 1989) .
RMT, Inc.
/;\ WPG VL \P/T\00-05100\23\R000510023-6S6.DOC
6-13 Weyerhaeuser Company
Revised/Final January 2001
e
RMT, Inc.
Surface soil
Subsurface soil
Groundwater
Surface soil -
future land usel'l
Total mercury
Methyl mercury
Total mercury<'>
Methyl mercury
Total mercury
Methyl mercury
Total mercury
Methyl mercury
•
Table 6-1
Exposure Point Concentrations
7.3 mg/kg (I)
Not analyzed Not analyzed
45,800 mg/kg 767mg/kg
0.206mg/kg 22.5 mg/kg
116 µg/L 220 µg/L
1.65 µg/L 1,530 µg/L
59.8 mg/kg 12.7mg/kg
Not analyzed Not analyzed
7.3 mg/kg
Not analyzed
767mg/kg
0.206mg/kg
116 µg/L
1.65 µg/L
12.7mg/kg
Not analyzed.
(IJ Only three surface soil samples were collected during this RI activities. Given the small sample data set, the maximum observed concentration was used ns
the exposure point concentration.
(2J The subsurface soil database for total mercury reflects data collected within the Oto 10 foot interval during both U1e 1999 RI by Rt-.ff and the 1992 closure
of the Former Chlorine Plant by Roy F. Weston and HLA.
c.'/ The surface soil datnbasc for total mercury under a hypothetirnl future land use scenario reflects surface soil data collected during the 1999 RI by R/'vff and
shallow soil interval data outside the previous excavation area (Roy F. Weston and HLA, 1992).
6-14
e
/: \ WPG VL \ PfT\00-05100\ 23 \ ROOOS I OOZJ-656. DOC
Wt•11erharnser Company
Revised/Fi11nl January 2001
• e
Table 6-2
Reasonable Maximum Exposure and Average Exposure Assumptions
llld11strial Worker (C11rre11t a11d Future La11d Use)
Age
Incidental soil ingestion
rate
Skin surface area available
for dermal contact with
soil
Adherence factor
Exposure time
Exposure frequency
Exposure duration
Body weight
Adult
50 mg/day
5,660cm2/day
1.0 mg/cm2
Shours/day
250 days/year
25 years
70 kg
Region IV Guidance!'>
Dermal Exposure
Guidance13)
Region IV Guidance
Region IV Guidance
Region IV Guidance
Region IV Guidance
Region IV Guidance
Adult
lOmg/day
4,300 cm2/day
0.2 mg/cm2
8 hours/day
219 days/year
9 years
70 kg
<1J Region IV Guidance: USEPA. October 1996. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Region IV Bulletins -Human Health Risk Assessment
(lJ Exposure Factors Handbook: USEPA. August 1997. Exposure Factors Handbook. USEPA/600/P-95/002F.
Exposure Factors
Handbook12>
Dermal Exposure
Guidance
Dermal Exposure
Guidance
Region IV Guidance
Central Tendency12>
Central Tendency for
time at one residencel2>
Region IV Guidance
P> Dermal Exposure Guidance: USEPA. January 1992. Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications. Interim Report. USEPA/600/8-91 /011 B.
RMT, Inc.
/:\ WPGVL \P/T\o<J..-05/00\2J\R000510023-6S6.DOC
6-15 Weyerhnc11scr Company
Revised/Final Jnnunry 2001
•
Co11stnictio11 Worker
Age
Incidental soil ingestion
rate
Skin surface area available
for dermal contact (soil
and water)
Adherence factor
Exposure time
Exposure frequency
Exposure duration
Bodyweight
Table 6-2 (Continued)
Reasonable Maximum Exposure and Average Exposure Assumptions
Adult
100 mg/day
5,660cm2/day
1.0 mg/cm'
10 hours/ day
2 hours/ day for
dermal contact with
groundwater
250 days/year
25 days/year for
dermal contact with
groundwater
1 year
70 kg
Region IV Guidance111
Dermal Exposure
Guidancel'I
Region IV Guidance111
Professional judgment
Region IV Guidance111
Professional judgment
Region IV Guidance1 11
Adult
lOmg/day
4,300 cm2/day
2,000 cm2 / day for
dermal contact with
groundwater
0.2 mg/cm'
10 hours/ day
2 hours/ day for
dermal contact with
groundwater
250 days/year
25 days/year for
dermal contact with
groundwater
1 year
70 kg
Exposure Factors
Handbook121
Dermal Exposure
Guidancet31
Dermal Exposure
Guidancet31
e
Professional judgment
Region IV Guidance111
Professional judgment
Region IV Guidancel11
(I) Region IV Guidance: USEPA. October 1996. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Region IV Bulletins -Human Health Risk Assessment
(2J Exposure Factors Handbook: USEPA. August 1997. Exposure Factors Handbook. USEPA/600/P-95/002F.
(.'.\) Dermal Exposure Guidance: USEPA. January 1992. Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications. Interim Report. USEPA/600/8-91/01 lB.
RMT, Inc.
I:\ WPC VL \PJT\00-05100\23\ ROOOS 10023-656.DOC
6-16 Weyerlineuser Compn11y
Revised/Finni January 2001
e
Table 6-3a
Summary of Noncarcinogenic Toxicity Data· Oral/Dermal
Mercury, elemental NA NA NA NA NA
Mercuric chloride Subchronic 3E-04 0.2 6E-05 1,000
Methyl mercury Chronic lE-04 1.0 lE-04 10
,,, Supplemental Guidance to RAGS, USEPA 1996
"' For IRIS values, date IRIS was searched.
NA Not available.
RMT, Inc. 6-17
I:\ WPG V L \ PJT\00.05100\23\ ROOOSI 0023-6S6. DOC
e
IRIS 11/23/99
IRIS 05/12/00
IRIS 11 /23/99
Wryrrharnsa Compm1y
Revised/Final Ja111uny 2001
•
Table 6-3b
Summary of Noncarcinogenic Toxicity Data -Inhalation
Mercury, elemental Subchronic 3.0E-04 8.6E-05 30 IRIS 11/23/99
Mercuric chloride NA NA NA NA IRIS 05/12/00
Methyl mercury NA NA NA NA IRIS 11/23/99
(11 For nonca·rcinogcnic compounds: Inhalation RfD (mg/kg-day)::: RfC (mg/mi) x (70 kg)·1 x 20 m'/day, Supplemcntul Guidance to RAGS, USEPA 1996
(2J For IRIS values, date IRIS was searched.
NA Not available.
RMT, Inc.
/:\WPGVL \PjT\()(}.05100\13\R000510023-6S6.DOC
6-18 Wryerhae11srr Company
Revised/Filial Jn1111ary 2001
•
0
•
Table 6-4
Summary of Estimated Noncarcinogenic Hazard Indices
Based on RME Exposure Assumptions
Industrial worker (current land use)
Total surface soil hazard 0.0000013 0.019
Total industrial worker hazard 0.0000013 0.019
Industrial worker (future land use)
Total surface soil hazard 0.0000022 0.032
Total industrial worker hazard 0.0000022 0.032
Construction worker
Total surface soil hazard 0.000014 0.053
Total subsurface soil (0-10 ft) hazard 0.003 3.2
Total groundwater hazard 0.0019 0.22
Total construction worker hazard 0.0049 3.5
(ll A noncarcinogenk hazard of less than 1.0 indicates that no significant noncarcinogcnic hazard is likely,
even for sensitive members of the population.
m Range of potential HQ presented for potential exposures to total mercury in affected media which reflects inorganic
mercury toxicity values and the requested surrogate mercuric chloride toxicity v.ilues .
RMT, Inc.
J:\WPGVL \P[T\CJ0.05J00\23\R000510023-6S6.DOC
6-19 Weyerhaeuser Company
Revised/Final January 2001
•
•
Table 6-5
Summary of Estimated Noncarcinogenic Hazard Indices
Based on Central Tendency Exposure Assumptions
Industrial worker (current land use)
Total surface soil hazard 0.0000011 0.003
Total industrial worker hazard 0.0000011 0.003
Industrial worker (future land use)
Total surface soil hazard 0.0000019 0.0052
Total industrial worker hazard 0.0000019 0.0052
Construction worker
Total surface soil hazard 0.000011 0.006
Total subsurface soil (0-10 ft) hazard 0.0009 0.36
Total groundwater hazard 0.0007 0.076
Total construction worker hazard 0.0016 0.44
(ll A noncarcinogenic hazard of less than 1.0 indicates that no significant noncarcinogenic haz<1rd is likely,
even for sensitive members of the population.
(2) Range of potential HQ presented for potential exposures to total mercury in affected media which re~ects inorganic
mercury toxicity values and the requested surrogate mercuric chloride toxicity values .
RMT, Inc.
I:\ WPG VL \ PfT\00-05100\23\ROOOS 10023-656. DOC
6-20 Weyerhaeuser Company
Revised/Final January 2001
•
•
Table 6-6
Uncertainties in Risk Assessment
~14rr-~:;;.\J;~·•<k•.:.• "'-,l~=::u:i.:,.~"1''~••--.;-.:.,..,,:~-;.,o,•'5J'"~";'i-:;:~)tt~.-'J [iJC~~~;._•,J'"•¥•·~,.,.,.._.,Tt,: •••••-~:.· · ·•,,:~, .•-.~--• .j.;._..·,• !,,.•,:,..:.
,-.; ::cii,-w.,w;SOURCoE<OF,UNCER'f AINT-Y;,'l.".tr.!'§,,-~ r':.;,-~EFFECT,ON•ESTIMA'fE•.OF•EXPOSURE 0.-:,cc,4 ';.en.~:.,-,,;;•.,..!•~ :I\, ,,.,,., ~-'"-· ~•.r..,.:.,....-:r,.t,·••c-...,.. ••. _......__,._-.,..,.~ .• •~J • .,;,~.,..,.,._:,:;,>l:~.{l; _ ;'l,,~~ o:<,,:i:,-,1•••·..,,.,,..,:,. __ .,. ;:.~ .. ·,.• • •o.,-.,. ~,-~,"' -..,., •1.:·c-et ;:,:.,
Exposure point concentrations may not May overestimate or underestimate
represent actual exposure. exposure.
Assumes on-site workers spend entire their Most likely overestimates exposure and
workdays within, and ingest the entire daily resulting estimated risk.
soil dose from, the localized affected areas of
the site
Uses USEP A-approved toxicity values with Most likely overestimates risk.
low confidence ratings and high uncertainty
factors.
Uses toxicity values that are largely based on Most likely overestimates risk.
animal studies and extrapolated to humans.
Sampling schemes tended to be biased to Most likely overestimates exposure and
areas of probable concern (for example soil resulting estimated risk.
samples focused on the areas that were
known or suspected to be affected by
chemical releases).
Risk estimates represent potential exposures Mc1y underestimate risk.
to mercury and methyl mercury only.
Lower range of risk estimates assume Most likely underestimates risk attributable
mercury is present as inorganic mercury (oral to mercury.
and dermal risk not quantified).
Upper range of risk estimates assume Given that mercuric chloride is not likely
mercury is present as mercuric chloride and present based on geochemical conditions that
methyl mercury. do not support its formation, the use of
mercuric chloride as a surrogate adds
uncertainty about potential risk to an
exposed population .
RMT, Inc. 6-21 Weyerhaeuser Company
Revised/Final January 2001 I:\ WPG VL \ P/T\00-05 J 00\23 \ ROOOS 10023-6S6.DOC
e
Primary Sources
Former Chlorine Plant
Mercury Cells
Primary Release
Mechanisms
Releases from
UnJcrJrain S ·stem
Figure 6-1
Preliminary Conceptual Model for Former Chlorine Plant
Secondary
Sources
Surface Soil
• Subsurface
Soil
Secondary
Release
Mechanisms
Dust or Volatile
J_::missions
Infiltration into
Groundwater
►I
Pathway
I Exposure Route
Incidental In cslion
_. Dermal Contact
WinJ f----+ilnha]alion
lncidcnt.1! In cstion
Dcrm;1J Cont.tel
Groundwater }-..jDcrmal Contact
Roanoke River
Surface \\later
Incidental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Roanoke River
Sediment
Incidental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Receptor
lluman IJiota
Site Workersl
Construction
\i\'orkcr Aquatic
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
RUT COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN & DRAFTING
120
100
.BO
.80
AO
• ·.20
HgS c
8 N
N
..,
2c .;;
0 -AO
-.80 WAlER REDUCED
-.BO
0 8
WA 1ER OXIDIZED
pH
HgO c
Hg• I
8 10 12 14
MERCURY PHASE DIAGRAM
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
FINAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
WEYERHAEUSER CO. MARTIN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
CNtN. Bf: STORMERL .. ,. Bf: JMR
IM'IE:: JUNE 2000
PRO.I. 5100.23
FU£ I 51 002394.0WG
FIGURE 8-2
• Section 7
Summary and Conclusions
The purpose of this section is to provide a summary of the significant findings of this RI relative
to mercury distribution, migration, and associated risk, as well as conclusions regarding data
limitations, recommendations for future work, and recommended Remedial Action Objectives
for the Former Chlorine Plant area.
7.1 Summary
7.1.1 Mercury Distribution
The results of the RI activities for the Former Chlorine Plant area were consistent with
previous data collected following the demolition of the former manufacturing building
and the 1992 soil removal action. RI objectives were met through completion of the
investigation activities.
RMT, Inc.
Surface Soil
Surface soil was sampled in the limited unpaved area along the bulkhead
during this RI. Total mercury was detected in only one of three surface soil
samples. The observed total mercury concentration (7.3 mg/kg) is well below
the USEPA Region III risk-based industrial soil screening criteria for methyl
mercury (200 mg/kg). Total mercury concentrations in surface soil for the
combined Weston, HLA, and RI data ranged from <0.10 to 59.8 mg/kg, with a
median of 0.35 mg/kg, also well below the USEPA Region III criteria.
Subsurface Soil
Total mercury is present in subsurface soil below the pavement, and the highest
concentrations are coincident with the former building footprint and associated
U-drains. Total mercury concentrations range from <0.04 to 45,800 mg/kg,
with a median concentration of 3.2 mg/kg from the combined Weston, HLA,
and RI data. The occurrence and concentration of mercury decreases with
depth and distance from the Former Chlorine Plant footprint. Small beads of
metallic mercury were observed to an elevation of -34 feet, and are likely
present due to leaks from the historical building sump. The primary source of
mercury was removed with the building demolition and foundation
7-1
I:\ WPG VL \ PJT\00-05100\23\ROOOS 10023·6S6.DOC
Weyerhaeuser Company
Revised/Finni Jnnunn; 2001
•
0
RMT, Inc.
excavation. No continuous separate phase of metallic mercury was observed
during this RI. The residual mercury is adsorbed to the soil and is present as
small flecks of metallic mercury beneath the former building footprint.
The volume of soil estimated to have greater than 10 mg/kg of total mercury is
4,800 cubic yards. This volume contains approximately 7,500 pounds
(3,400 kilograms) of mercury. Approximately 54 percent of the mercury is
present in the 6 feet of soil located directly below the water table (4-foot to
2-foot elevation). Only 2 percent of the mercury is found below an elevation of
-18 feet. A comparison of soil volume and mercury mass shows that 95 percent
of the mercury mass is associated with concentrations above 100 mg/kg.
Methyl mercury represents less than 1 percent of the total mercury in the
subsurface soil tested.
Groundwater
Mercury has leached from the impacted soil beneath the Former Chlorine Plant
area to the groundwater. The groundwater flow system in the immediate
vicinity of the Former Chlorine Plant is complex as a result of cooling water and
storm water leakage. Groundwater from beneath the plant eventually
discharges to the Roanoke River.
In general, the highest total mercury concentrations in groundwater are at the
water table and are coincident with the highest mercury concentrations
observed in subsurface soil. Groundwater from 6 of the 29 monitoring wells
sampled contained mercury above the NCMAC for groundwater of 1.1 µg/L.
The six monitoring wells that had concentrations of mercury above the
NCMAC were shallow wells within the Former Chlorine Plant building
footprint or immediately downgradient of it. Groundwater mercury
concentrations decrease with distance from the Former Chlorine Plant building
footprint, and with depth. Total mercury concentrations from the -20-foot
elevation are less than an average of 0.34 µg/L, and concentrations from the
-40-foot elevation are less than about 0.05 µg/L.
The water table surface is mounded to the west and east as a result of cooling
and storm water leakage. These mounds, combined with the regional
groundwater flow, create a ridge in the south-central portion of the site. The
total mercury transport at the water table, based on this groundwater flow
pattern, is to the north/northwest of the divide, toward the Roanoke River, and
to the south/ southeast of the divide, eventually discharging to the Roanoke
7-2
I:\ W PG V L \ PJT\00-05100\23\ R000510023-656.DOC
Weyerhaeuser Company
Revised/Final January 2001
•
RMT, Inc.
River to the east of the Former Chlorine Plant. The leakage of cooling water
and storm water also generates vertically downward groundwater flow, such
that flow is both downward and outward from the Former Chlorine Plant
footprint. Total mercury concentrations in the groundwater are decreasing
with distance and depth from the source. In some areas, this decrease suggests
that natural attenuation is occurring; however, a detailed assessment of the
mechanisms of natural attenuation is not included in this RI report due to the
complexity of the flow system and the observed migration of groundwater at
concentrations below the NCMAC.
Methyl mercury was quantified in selected groundwater samples at
concentrations averaging 0.6 to 2 percent of the total mercury concentrations.
The biochemical conversion of inorganic mercury to the more bioavailable
methyl form is affected by many geochemical conditions. The fraction of
methyl mercury in groundwater beneath the Former Chlorine Plant is low to
moderate compared with other surface water/ sediment sites reported in the
literature. From the RI data collected, it does not appear that conditions
beneath the Former Chlorine Plant are enhancing the rate of methyl mercury
production above what is observed in other natural systems.
Locally, the aquifer in which the mercury is found is not used for water supply
purposes. The top of the local and regional water supply aquifer is found at a
depth of about 100 feet. Mercury-containing groundwater is separated
physically from the water supply aquifer by at least 50 feet of a clay aquitard
and hydraulically by upward groundwater flow from the water supply aquifer
to the shallow alluvial aquifer.
Roanoke River
A limited sediment and pore water sampling program was conducted in the
Roanoke River, during this RI, to assess potential mercury discharges to the
Roanoke River via groundwater. Groundwater was not found to be
contributing significant levels of mercury to the sediment; however, historical
impacts were observed in the depositional area of the river along the bulkhead
adjacent to the Former Chlorine Plant. Mercury concentrations were generally
highest in the middle to lower half of the sediment column, implying that
burial with cleaner material occurred after the Former Chlorine Plant ceased
operations .
7-3
/:\ WPGVL \PfT\00-05I00\2J\R0005J002J.656.DOC
Wei.1erhaeuser Company
Revised/Final January 2001
•
0
7.1.2
The highest concentrations of mercury in sediment were found in the two
upstream sediment samples at a depth of approximately 8 feet in the soft
sediment, covered with overlying clean sediment. This result is potentially
attributed to mobilization of sediment material upstream during barge
operations along the bulkhead adjacent to the operating facility and the Former
Chlorine Plant. Methyl mercury was present at low concentrations in the
sediment, representing 0.004 to 1.4 percent of the total mercury. The portion of
total mercury that is methylated in the Roanoke River sediment is at the low
end of literature-reported values for freshwater sediment.
Total mercury was not quantified in the pore water samples, to a detection limit
of 0.2 µg/L. Methyl mercury was detected at low concentrations (less than
about 0.0001 µg/L). Based on the maximum methyl mercury concentration,
and a conservative assumption of the ratio of total mercury to methyl mercury
reported in the literature for sediment, it is estimated that the total mercury
concentration in pore water would be below the North Carolina surface water
standard of 0.012 µg/L. This estimated total mercury concentration is
consistent with literature-reported values in the "noncontaminated" range
(i.e., pristine < 0.005 µg/L).
Mercury Migration
The migration of mercury from the impacted subsurface soil by groundwater flow was
calculated and compared with anthropogenic sources through air deposition and
estimated mercury loadings present in the Roanoke River. The amount of mercury
deposited from the air to the Roanoke River basin over a year is estimated to be
57 pounds/year (26,000 grams/year). This estimate is based on an evaluation of several
river basins in Wisconsin, Maryland, the Chesapeake Bay region, eastern Canada, and
Scandinavia where approximately 10 percent of the mercury deposited on the land
surface of these river basins has reached the respective river. Therefore, an estimated
5.7 pounds per year would be transported to the Roanoke River from airborne
deposition.
In contrast to the 5.7 pounds of mercury transported annually by the Roanoke River that
is derived from air deposition, the estimated quantity of mercury expected to migrate to
the river from groundwater flow beneath the Former Chlorine Plant area is
0.012 pound/year (5.4 grams/year). Even considering various uncertainties in the
assumptions used in the calculations, the mercury migrating from the Former Chlorine
Plant represents 0.002 to 0.2 percent of the mercury annually transported by the river
that is derived from air deposition.
RMT, Inc.
I:\ W re VL \ PJT\00-05 I 00\23\RDOOS 1 OOZJ.656.DOC
7-4 Wei;erhaeuser Company
Revised/Final January 2001
•
Looking at the groundwater mass flux of mercury versus the annual flux of mercury in
the Roanoke River is another way to compare the data. However, no low-level mercury
data for the Roanoke River have been found in the literature. Therefore, cited literature
values for surface water subject only to ambient atmospheric mercury deposition were
used in the estimate. The potential flux of mercury in the Roanoke River, assuming the
water contains the cited 0.003 to 0.005 µg/L total mercury at a mean flow rate of
8,930 cubic feet per second, is estimated to be 53 to 88 pounds/year (23,000 to
40,000 grams/year). The groundwater flux from the Former Chlorine Plant area ranges
from 0.001 to 0.22 percent of this computed mercury flux in the Roanoke River.
The potential discharge of mercury to the Roanoke River from the Former Chlorine
Plant was also evaluated on a concentration basis. The assumption that there is no
mercury in the river upstream of the mill, and that the Former Chlorine Plant
groundwater flux is the only source of mercury, results in river water concentrations of
0.0000001 µg/L to 0.00001 µg/L. These concentrations are 0.0009 to 0.09 percent of the
North Carolina surface water quality standard of 0.012 µg/L. Alternatively, assuming
the river contains 0.003 to 0.005 µg/L total mercury, the estimated mercury discharge to
the river by groundwater would increase the river concentrations by 0.002 to 0.4 percent.
7.1.3 Risk Assessment
The total HI for the industrial worker under both current and future scenarios was based
on a summation of pathway His for the incidental ingestion of surface soil, dermal
contact with surface soil, and the inhalation of airborne soil particles. The total HI for
the construction/ remediation worker was based on a summation of pathway His for the
incidental ingestion of surface and subsurface soil, dermal contact with surface and
subsurface soil, inhalation of airborne soil particles, and incidental dermal contact with
groundwater. For the industrial worker, the range of total receptor His, representing
RME and central tendency/ average exposure assumptions for mercury in
environmental media, was less than 1. This result indicates that exposure to affected
media in the Former Chlorine Plant under both current and future land use scenarios
does not present an unacceptable hazard to the industrial worker population through
exposure pathways evaluated in this study. For the construction worker, the total
receptor HI, representing central tendency/ average exposure assumptions for mercury
in environmental media, was considerably less than 1. Similarly the HI based on
mercury as inorganic mercury under the RME was less than 1.0. The HI based on
mercury as mercuric chloride and reflective of reasonable maximum exposures was
greater than 1 (HI= 3.5). The results of the baseline risk evaluations of potential
construction activities in this area indicate that, if mercury was present as mercuric
chloride, reasonable maximum exposures to subsurface soil could result in a potential
RMT, Inc.
I:\ WPG VL \P[T\CJ0.05 I 00\23\JW00S 10023-656.DOC
7-5 Weyerhaeuser Company
Revised/Fina/ Januan; 2001
hazard for this receptor in the absence of additional site controls or modified work
practices.
7.2 Conclusions
7.2.1 Data Limitations and Recommendations for Future Work
As stated previously, the objectives of this RI have been met. The extent of mercury
distribution in surface and subsurface soil has been defined laterally within the Fonner
Chlorine Plant footprint and associated U-drains. Mercury in subsurface soil has been
defined vertically to an elevation of -37 feet. The highest concentration reported at this
elevation was 74.7 mg/kg. Further vertical migration is limited by the marine clay
confining unit.
Two Work Plan Addenda were developed and executed to further delineate
groundwater flow directions in the Former Chlorine Plant area. The groundwater flow
path to the south/ southeast cannot be fully delineated based on the current monitoring
well network. However, further delineation of this flow path would not significantly
alter the baseline risk assessment or remedial alternatives evaluation. Therefore, no
additional work is recommended.
The distribution of mercury in groundwater was identified in this RI report based on the
installation of 29 monitoring wells. At several locations (CP-06, CP-07, CP-08, CP-09,
CP-10, CP-11, and CP-12), one round of groundwater quality data was collected. The
data from the wells were supplemented with 26 groundwater samples from 13 boring
locations. Reproducible results were obtained at the majority of locations at which more
than one round of data was collected (except for evidence of sampling or laboratory
error at CP-03-3). Therefore, additional data collection is not expected to change the
conclusions regarding potential risk or remedial approach, and therefore is not
recommended.
The available data have been evaluated and are sufficient to support the RI/FS and the
decision-making process. Potential remedial alternatives for the Fonner Chlorine Plant
were identified in the Preliminary Site Characterization Report (RMT, 1999c).
Alternatives, including no action, monitored natural attenuation, source control, and
active remedies will be evaluated in the FS. To further develop and screen the active
remedial alternatives, it is recommended that focused treatability studies be performed
to better evaluate technology performance.
RMT, Inc.
/: \ W PG VL \ PfT\00-05 J00\23\ ROOOS l 0023-656.DOC
7-6 We-yerhaeuser Company
Revised/Fina/ January 2001
•
0
Specifically, it is recommended that a treatability study be performed in support of
groundwater extraction and treatment, as part of a potential containment alternative.
This study would involve vendor testing of groundwater to identify achievable
treatment levels, capital costs, and operation and maintenance costs associated with the
treatment of mercury in extracted groundwater. In addition, a limited-scope bench-scale
treatability study is recommended to provide preliminary screening of
mercury-adsorbing media. This study would assess whether materials are potentially
available to be used as an in situ reactive barrier for control of mercury migration.
7.2.2 Preliminary Remedial Action Objectives
Preliminary Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) for the Former Chlorine Plant were
developed based on the requirements of the National Contingency Plan
(40 CFR 300.430[e][2][i]), which defines remedial action objectives as a listing of the
constituents and media of concern, potential exposure pathways, and remediation goals.
Specific RAOs were obtained from a review of the results of site characterization
activities, site-specific risk and fate and transport evaluations, and an initial review of
ARARs.
The preliminary remedial action objectives are as follows:
■ To maintain acceptable levels of potential risk to site-specific human receptors
associated with exposure to mercury in soil and groundwater at the property.
■ To address migration of mercury from soil through groundwater into the adjacent
river.
Consistent with the AOC, these RA Os will be refined in a Technical Memorandum upon
receipt of the USEPA's comments on this draft RI.
RMT, Inc.
/:\ WPGVL \Pff\OIJ.05100\23\R0005J002J..6S6.DOC
7-7 Weyerhaeuser Company
Revised/Final /anuary 2001
•
•
RMT, Inc.
/: \ WPG VL \P/T\OQ.05 l 00\23\R000510023-656.DOC
Appendix K
Exposure Assumptions and
Example Calculations
Weyerhaeuser Company
Revised/Fina/ January 2001
Appendix K
Exposure Assumptions and Example Calculations
Intake Equation and Exposure Assumptions for Incidental Ingestion of Constituents
in Surface Soil and Subsurface Soil
Equation:
Ingested Dose (mg/kg-day) = CS x IR x CF x FI x EF x ED
BWxAT
Where:
cs
IR
CF
FI
EF
ED
BW
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
chemical concentration in soil (mg/kg)
ingestion rate (mg/ day)
conversion factor (1 kg/106 mg)
fraction ingested (unitless)
exposure frequency (days/year)
exposure duration (years)
body weight (kg)
AT = averaging time (period over which exposure is averaged -days)
RME Variable Values:
CS: exposure point concentration
IR: surface soil and subsurface soil; 50 mg/ day for the industrial worker, 100 mg/ day for
construction/ remediation worker
Fl: 1.0 for the industrial worker and the construction/ remediation worker
EF: 250 days/year for the industrial worker and the construction/remediation worker
ED: 25 years for the industrial worker
1 year for the construction/ remediation worker
BW: 70 kg for the industrial worker and the construction/remediation worker
AT: pathway-specific period of exposure for noncarcinogenic effects
(i.e., ED x 365 days/year), and 70-year lifetime for carcinogenic effects
(i.e., 70 years x 365 days/year)
RMT, Inc.
I:\ WPG VL \P/T\00-05100\23\ ROODS 10023-656.DOC
Appendix K
K-1
Weyerhaeuser Company
Revised/Final Januan; 2001
Average/Central Tendency Variable Values:
CS: exposure point concentration
IR: surface soil and subsurface soil; 10 mg/ day for the industrial worker and the
construction/remediation worker
FI: 1.0 for the industrial worker and the construction/remediation worker
EF: 219 days/year for the industrial worker
250 days/year for the construction/remediation worker
ED: 9 years for the on-site adolescent trespasser
1 year for the construction/ remediation worker
BW: 70 kg for the industrial worker and the construction/ remediation worker
AT: pathway-specific period of exposure for noncarcinogenic effects
(i.e., ED x 365 days/year), and 70-year lifetime for carcinogenic effects
(i.e., 70 years x 365 days/year)
Example RME Intake Calculation:
. Industrial Worker, Incidental Ingestion of Mercury in Surface Soil, Noncarcinogenic
Effects
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI)
(7.3 myk~) x (50 m&(day) x (l.00E-06 k&(m&) x (1.0) x (250 da11s/11r) x (25 11rs)
(70 kg) x (9,125 days)
CDI = 3.58 x 10·6 mg/kg-day
RMT, Inc.
/: \ WPG V L \PJT\00-05100\23\R00051002J.656.DOC
Appendix K
K-2
Weyerhaeuser Company
Revised/Final January 2001
•
•
0
Intake Equation and Exposure Assumptions for Dermal Contact with Constituents in Surface
Soil and Subsurface Soil
Equation:
Absorbed Dose (mg I kg-day) = cs X SA X AF X ABS X FC X EF X ED X CF
BWxAT
Where:
cs
SA
AF
ABS
EF
ED
CF
BW
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
chemical concentration in soil or sediment (mg/kg)
skin surface area available for contact (cm2 / day)
adherence factor (mg/ cm2)
absorption factor (unitless)
exposure frequency (days/year)
exposure duration (years)
conversion factor (1 kg/ 106 mg)
body weight (kg)
AT = averaging time (period over which exposure is averaged -days)
RME Variable Values:
CS: exposure point concentration
SA: 5,660 cm2/day for the industrial worker and the construction/remediation worker
AF: 1 mg/cm2 for the industrial worker and the construction/remediation worker
ABS: 0.01 for organic constituents, 0.001 for inorganic constituents
EF: 250 days/year for the industrial worker and the construction/remediation worker
ED: 25 years for the industrial worker
1 year for the construction/ remediation worker
CF: 1 kg/1,000,000 mg
BW: 70 kg for the industrial worker and the construction/ remediation worker
AT: pathway-specific period of exposure for noncarcinogenic effects
(i.e., ED x 365 days/year), and 70-year lifetime for carcinogenic effects
(i.e., 70 years x 365 days/year).
RMT, Inc.
1: \ WPGV L \ P/T\00-05100\23\ R0005 l 0023·6S6. DOC
Appendix K
K-3
Weyerhaeuser Company
Revised/Final January 2001
Average/Central Tendency Variable Values:
CS: exposure point concentration
SA: 4,300 cm2/day for the industrial worker and the construction/remediation worker
AF: 0.2 mg/cm2 for the industrial worker and the construction/remediation worker
ABS: 0.01 for organic constituents, 0.001 for inorganic constituents
EF: 219 days/year for the industrial worker
250 days/year for the construction/remediation worker
ED: 9 years for the industrial worker
1 year for the construction/ remediation worker
CF: 1 kg/1,000,000 mg
BW: 70 kg for the industrial worker and the construction/remediation worker
AT: pathway-specific period of exposure for noncarcinogenic effects
(i.e., ED x 365 days/year), and 70-year lifetime for carcinogenic effects
(i.e., 70 years x 365 days/year).
Example RME Calculation:
Industrial Worker, Dermal Contact with Mercury in Surface Soil,
Carcinogenic Effects
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI)
(7.3 mykg) x (5,660 cm2/dau) x (1 mg!cm2} x(0.001) x (250 daus/ur} x(25 urs) x (10-6 kym5:)
(70 kg) x (25,550 days)
CDI = 1.44 x 10·7 mg/kg-day
RMT,Jnc.
I:\ WPC V L \ PJT\00-05100\23 \/WOOS I 0023•656.DOC
Appendix K
K-4
Weyerhaeuser Company
Revised/Final January 2001
•
•
•
•
0
Intake Equation and Exposure Assumptions for Incidental Inhalation of Constituents in
Surface Soil and Subsurface Soil
Equation:
Where:
cs =
IhR =
ET =
EF =
ED =
BW =
Ingested Dose (mg/kg-day) = CS x IhR x ET x EF x ED
BW x ATxPEF
chemical concentration in soil (mg/kg)
inhalation rate (m3 /hour)
exposure time (hour/ day)
exposure frequency (days/year)
exposure duration (years)
body weight (kg)
AT
PEF
=
=
averaging time (period over which exposure is averaged -days)
particulate emission factor (m3 /kg)
RME Variable Values:
CS: exposure point concentration
IhR: 0.63 m3 /hour for the industrial worker
3.3 m3 /hour for the construction/ remediation worker
ET 8 hours/ day for the industrial worker
10 hours/day for the construction/remediation worker
EF: 250 days/year for the industrial worker and the construction/remediation worker
ED: 25 years for the industrial worker
1 year for the construction/remediation worker
BW: 70 kg for the industrial worker and the constmction/remediation worker
AT: pathway-specific period of exposure for noncarcinogenic effects
(i.e., ED x 365 days/year), and 70-year lifetime for carcinogenic effects
(i.e., 70 years x 365 days/year).
PEF: 3.30E+09 m3/kg
RMT, Inc.
I:\ WPG VL \Pff\(J().05100\23\ROOOS /0023-656.DOC
Appendix K
K-5
Weyerhaeuser Company
Revised/Final January 2001
Average/Central Tendency Variable Values:
CS: exposure point concentration
IhR: 0.63 m3 /hour for the industrial worker
2.5 m3 /hour for the construction/ remediation worker
ET 8 hours/ day for the industrial worker
10 hours/ day for the construction/ remediation worker
EF: 219 days/year for the industrial worker
250 days/year for the construction/remediation worker
ED: 9 years for the industrial worker
1 year for the construction/remediation worker
BW: 70 kg for the industrial worker and the construction/remediation worker
AT: pathway-specific period of exposure for noncarcinogenic effects
(i.e., ED x 365 days/year), and 70-year lifetime for carcinogenic effects
(i.e., 70 years x 365 days/year).
PEF: 3.30E+09 m3/kg
Example RME Calculation:
Industrial Worker, Inhalation of Mercury in Surface Soil, Carcinogenic Effects
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI)
(7.3 mg/kg) x (0.63 m3(/wur) x (8 hours/da1() x (250 dal(s!11r) x (25 1(rs)
(70 kg) x (25,550 days) x (3.30E+09 m3/kg)
CDI = 3.9 x 10·11 mg/kg-day
RMT, Inc.
/: \ WPG VL \ PJT\00-05100\23 \ RCXXJS 10023-656. DOC
Appendix K
K-6
Weyerhaeuser Company
Revised/Final January 2001
•
•
•
0
•
Intake Equation and Exposure Assumptions for Dermal Contact with Constituents in
Groundwater
Equation:
Absorbed Dose (mg/kg-day) = CW x SA x PC x ET x EF x ED x CF
BWxAT
Where:
cw
SA
PC
ET
EF
ED
CF
BW
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
chemical concentration in groundwater (mg/liter)
skin surface area available for contact (cm2/ day)
chemical-specific dermal permeability constant (cm/hr)
exposure time (hours/ day)
exposure frequency (days/year)
exposure duration (years)
volumetric conversion factor for water (1 liter /1000 cm3)
body weight (kg)
AT = averaging time (period over which exposure is averaged -days)
RME Variable Values:
CW:
SA:
PC:
ET:
EF:
ED:
BW:
CF:
AT:
exposure point concentration
5,660 cm2/day for the construction/remediation worker
chemical-specific value
2 hours/ day for construction/ remediation worker
25 days/year for the construction/remediation worker
1 year for the construction/ remediation worker
70 kg for the construction/ remediation worker
1 liter /1,000 cm'
pathway-specific period of exposure for noncarcinogenic effects
(i.e., ED x 365 days/year), and 70-year lifetime for carcinogenic effects
(i.e., 70 years x 365 days/year).
Average/Central Tendency Variable Values:
CW: exposure point concentration
SA: 2,000 cm2 for the construction/ remediation worker
PC: • chemical-specific value
ET: 2 hours/ day for construction/remediation worker
EF: 25 days/year for the construction/remediation worker
ED: 1 year for the construction/remediation worker
RMT, Inc.
I:\ WPG V L \PJT\00-05100\23\ ROOOS J 0023-656. DOC
Appendix K
K-7
Weyerhaeuser Company
Revised/Final January 2001
BW: 70 kg for the construction/remediation worker
CF: 1 liter/1,000 cm3
AT: pathway-specific period of exposure for noncarcinogenic effects
(i.e., ED x 365 days/year), and 70-year lifetime for carcinogenic effects
(i.e., 70 years x 365 days/year).
Example RME Calculation:
Construction/remediation worker, Dermal Contact with Methyl Mercury in
Groundwater, Carcinogenic Effects
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI)
(0.0017 myliter) x (5,660 cm 2/da11) x (1.0 x 10-2 cm/hr) x (2 hrs(da11) x (25 days/yr) x(l yr.) x (1 liter/1,000 cm3)
(70 kg) x (25,550 days)
CDI = 2.69 x 10-9 mg/kg-day
RMT, Inc.
I:\ WPG VL \ P/T\00.05100\23 \ROOOS 10023-656.DOC
Appendix K
K-8
Weyerhaeuser Company
Revised/Final January 2001
•
•
•
•
•
RMT, Inc.
AppendixM
Hazard Quotient Calculations
Based on RME Assumptions
Table of Contents
■ RME Hazard Quotients Based on Inorganic Mercury
■ RME Hazard Quotients Based on Mercuric Chloride
/:\WPGVL \PJT\00-051D0\23\R000510023-6S6.DOC
Weyerhaeuser Company
Revised/Final January 2001
•
•
RMT, Inc.
/:\WPGVL \PfT\00-0S/00\2J\R000510023•656.DOC
RME Hazard Quotients
Based on Inorganic Mercury
Appendix M
Page 1 of 28
Weyerhaeuser Company
Revised/Final January 2001
•
core
Inorganics
Mercury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point Carcinogenic
Concentration Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
7.3 l.28E-06
• TABLE M-la -Mercury as Inorganic Mercury
INDUSTRIAL WORKER
INGESTION OF SURFACE SOIL
Oral Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
Slope Risk Risk Intake
Factor Total (mg/kg-day)
NA NC 3.57E-06
NC
Reference Hazard
Dose Quotient
NA NC
Carcinogenic Intake= CS• IR• CF• A• EF • ED/BW • AT where: Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS• IR •CF• Fl• EF • ED/BW • AT
CS =Constituent Concentration
IR= Ingestion Rate
CF= Conversion Factor
FI= Fraction Ingested
EF = Exposure Frequency
g: \data \hydro \5100\excel \hhriskass \Chlorine Plant\
Final Report-Dec 2000\CurrlndWrk\InorganicHg\ss_ind
See above
50
I.OOE-06
250
(mg/kg)
(mg/day)
(kg/mg)
Unitlcss
(days/year)
ED= Exposure Duration
BW = Body Weight
Averaging Time (Risk)
Averaging Time (Hazard)
Page 2 of 28
25
70
25,550
9,125
•
Hazard
Index
NC
12/6/2CKXJ
SSlng (Mla)
core
lnorganics
Mercury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point Dermal
Concentration Slope
(mg/kg) Factor
7.3 NA
TABLE M-lb -Mercury as Inorganic Mercury
INDUSTRIAL WORKER
DERMAL CONTACT WITH SURFACE SOIL
Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
Intake Risk Risk Intake
Total
l.44E-07 NC 4.04E-07
NC
Reference Hazard
Dose Quotient
NA NC
Carcinogenic Intake= CS• CF,.. SA •AF• ABS• EF • ED/BW,.. AT where: Non-<:arcinogenic Intake= CS •cF • SAc •AF• ABS• EF • EDc/BWc • AT
CS =Constituent Concentration
CF= Conversion Factor
SA = Skin Surface Area Adult
AF= Soil-Skin Adherence Factor
ABS= Absorption Factor -Organics
ABS= Absorption Factor -lnorganics
g: \data \h-~100\excel \hhriskass \Chlorine Plant\
Final Repw,ec 2000\CurrtndWrk\lnorganicHg\ss_ind
See Above (mg/kg)
l.00E-06 (kg/mg)
5660 (cmi)
1 mg/cm '
0.01 Unitless
0.001 Unitless
BW = Body Weight 70 (kgs)
AT= Averaging Time (Risk) 25,550 (days)
AT= Averaging Time (Ha7..ard) 9,125 (days)
EF = Exposure Frequency 250 (days/year)
ED= Exposure Duration 25 (years)
Hazard
Index
NC
•
S/2000
S (Mlb)
•
core
Inorganics
Mercury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Poinl
Concentration
(mg/kg)
7.3
• TABLE M-lc -Mercury as Inorganic Mercury
INDUSTRIAL WORKER
INHALATION OF SURFACE SOIL PARTICLATES
Carcinogenic Inhalation Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
Intake Slope Risk Risk Intake
Factor Total
3.90E-11 NA NC l.09E-10
NC
Reference Hazard
Dose Quotient
0.000086 l.27E-06
Carcinogenic Intake= CS• lhR • ET• EF • ED/BW •AT• PEF where: Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS• IRc • EF • ET• EDc/BWc •AT• PEF
CS =Constituent Concentration
IR= Inhalation Rate
ET = Exposure Time
EF = Exposure Frequency
ED= Exposure Duration
g: \data \hydro \5100\excel\hhriskass \Chlorine Plant\
Final Report -Dec 2CXXJ\CurrlndWrk\InorganicHg\ss_ind
See above (mg/kg)
0.63 (m·'/hour)
8 (hours)
250 (days/year)
25 (years)
BW = Body Weight 70 (kgs)
AT= Averaging Time (Risk) 25,550 (days)
AT= Averaging Time (Hazard) 9,125 (days)
PEF = Particulate Emisson Factor 3.30E+09 (m'/kg)
Page 4 ol 28
•
Hazard
Index
1.3E-06
12/6/2(XX)
SSPart (M Jc)
core
Inorganics
Mercury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point Carcinogenic
Concentration Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
12.7 l.78E-07
TABLE M-2a-Mercury as Inorganic Mercury
CONSTRUCTION WORKER
INGESTION OF SURFACE SOIL
Oral Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
Slope Risk Risk Intake
Factor Total (mg/kg-day)
NA NC l.24E-05
NC
Reference Hazard
Dose Quotient
NA NC
Carcinogenic Intake= CS• IR• CF• FI• EF • ED/BW • AT where: Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS• IRc "CF• FI• EF • EDc/BWc • AT
CS =Constituent Concentration Sceabm·e
IR= Ingestion Rate 100
CF= Conversion Factor l.OOE-06
FI= Fraction Ingested
EF = Exposure Frequency 250
g: \data \hydro \5100\excel \hh_risk\Chlorine Plant\
Final Repotf'° 2000\ConstWrk\InorganicHg\SS_con.XLS
(mg/kg)
(mg/day)
(kg/mg)
Unitless
(days/year)
ED= Exposure Duration
BW = Body Weight
Averaging Time (Risk)
Averaging Time (Hazard)
.5of28
70
25,550
365
(years)
(kgs)
(days)
(days)
Hazard
Index
NC
12/6/200()
SSln.(M2a)
•
COPC
In organics
Mercury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point Dermal
Concentration Slope
(mg/kg) Factor
12.7 NA
Carcinogenic Intake= CS• CF• SA •AF• ABS• EF • ED/BW • AT where:
CS =Constituent C.;mcentration See Above
CF= Conversion Factor 1.00E-06
SA = Skin Surface Area Adult 5660
AF= Soil-Skin Adherence Factor
ABS= Absorption Factor (inorganics)
EF = Exposure Frequency
ED= Exposure Duration
g: \data \hydro \51 ()()\excel \hh_risk \Chlorine Plant\
Final Report -Dec 2000\ConstWrk\lnorganicHg\SS_con.XLS
0.001
250
•
TABLE M-2b-Mercury as Inorganic Mercury
CONSTRUCilON WORKER
DERMAL CONTACT WITH SURFACE SOIL
Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Carcinogenic
Intake Risk Risk
Total
1.00E-08 NC
NC
•
Non-carcinogenic Reference Hazard Hazard
Intake Dose Quotient Index
7.03E-07 NA NC
NC
Non-carcinogenic [ntakc = CS •CF• SAc • AF• ABS• EF • EDc/BWc • AT
(mg/kg)
(kg/mg)
(cni2)
mg/cm2
Unitless
(days/year)
(years)
BW = Body Weight
AT= Averaging: Time (Risk)
AT= Averaging Time (Hazard)
ABS= Absorption Factor (organics)
Page 6 of 28
70
25,550
365
0.01
(kgs)
(days)
(days)
12/6/2000
SSDem1al (M2b)
core
Inorganics
Mercury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point
Concentralion
(mg/kg)
12.7
TABLE M-2c -Mercury as Inorganic Mercury
CONSTRUCTION WORKER
INHALATION OF SURFACE SOIL PARTICLATES
Carcinogenic Inhalation Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
Intake Slope Risk Risk Intake
Factor Total
l.78E-11 NA NC J.24E-09
NC
Reference Hazard
Dose Quotient
0.000086 1.44E-05
Carcinogenic Intake= CS,. lhR,. ET,. EF,. ED/BW,. AT,. PEF where: Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS,. !Re,. EF,. ET• EDc/BWc,. AT,. PEF
CS =Constituent Concentration
IRa = Inhalation Rate Adult
ET= Exposure Time
See above (mg/kg)
EF = Exposure Frequency
ED= Exposure Duration
g: \data \hydro \5100\excel\ hh_risk \Chlorine Plant\
Final Rep-Dec 2000\ConstWrk\InorganicHg\SS_con.XLS
3.3 (m.1/hour)
10 (hours)
250 (days/year)
(year.;)
BW = Body Weight 70 (kgs)
AT= Averaging Time (Risk) 25,550 (days)
AT= Averaging Time (Hazard) 365 (days)
PEF = Particulate Emisson Factor 3.30E+09 (m3 /kg)
Hazard
Index
1.4E-05
12/6/2000
SSPn.(M2c)
•
core
Inorganics
Mercury
Methylmercury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point Carcinogenic
Concentration Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
767 l.07E-05
0.206 2.88E-09
•
TABLE M-3a -Mercury as Inorganic Mercury
CONSTRUCTION WORKER
INGESTION OF SUBSURFACE SOIL (0-lOft)
Oral Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
Slope Risk Risk Intake
Factor Total (mg/kg-day)
NA NC 7.S0E-04
NA NC 2.02E-07
NC
•
Reference Hazard Hazard
Dose Quotient Index
NA NC
l.00E-04 0.002
0.002
0.003
Carcinogenic Intake= CS,. IR,. CF,. FI,.. EF,. ED/BW,. AT where: Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS,. IR *CF,. FI,. EF,. ED/BW,. AT
CS =Constituent Concentration See above (mg/kg)
IR= Ingestion Rate 100 (mg/day)
CF = Conversion Factor l.00E-06 (kg/mg)
FI = Fraction Ingested I Unitless
EF = Exposure Frequency 250 (days/year)
g: \data\ hydro \5100\excel\ hh_risk \Chlorine Plant\
Final Report-Dec 2000\ConstWrk\InorganicHg\SB-A_con.xls
ED= Exposure Duration 1
BW = Body Weight 70
Averaging Time (Risk) 25,550
Averaging Time (Hazard) 365
Page 8 of 28
(years)
(kgs)
(days)
(days)
12/6/2000
SBlngln0rg(M3a)
core
lnorganics
Mercury
Methyl mercury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point Dermal
Concentration Slope
(mg/kg) Factor
767 NA
0.206 NA
TABLE M-3b -Mercury as Inorganic Mercury
CONSTRUCTION WORKER
DERMAL CONTACT WITH SUBSURFACE SOIL (0-t0ft)
Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
Intake Risk Risk Intake
Total
6.07E-07 NC 4.25E-05
1.63E-10 NC I. 14E-08
NC
Reference Hazard Hazard
Dose Quotient Index
NA NC
l.00E-04 0.00011
0.00011
Carcinogenic Intake= CS" CF• SA ""AF" ABS• EF • ED/BW • AT where: Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS "CF• SAc" AF• ABS" EF"' EDc/BWc • AT
CS =Constituent Concentration See Above (mg/kg)
CF= Conversion Factor 1.00E-06 (kg/mg)
SA= Skin Surface Area Adult 5660 (cm2)
AF= Soil-Skin Adherence Factor
ABS= Absorption Factor
EF = Exposure Frequency
EDa = Exposure Duration Adult
g:\data \hydro \5100\excel\hh_risk \Chlorine Plant\
I
0.001
250
Final Rep. 2000\ConstWrk\lnorganicHg\SB-A_con.xls
mg/cm2
Unitless
(days/year)
(years)
BWa = Body Weight Adult 70 (kgs)
AT= Averaging Time (Risk) 25,550 (days)
AT= Averaging Time (Hazard) 365 (days)
•
COPC
Inorganics
Mercury
Methylmercury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point
Concentration
(mg/kg)
767
0.206
•
TABLE M-3c -Mercury as Inorganic Mercury
CONSTRUCTION WORKER
INHALATION OF SUBSURFACE SOIL (0-10 fl) PARTICLATES
Carcinogenic Inhalation Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
Intake Slope Risk Risk Intake
Factor Total
1.07E-09 NA NA 7.S0E-08
2.88E-13 NA NA 2.02E-1 I
NC
•
Reference Hazard Hazard
Dose Quotient Index
0.000086 0.001
NA NC
0.001
Carcinogenic Intake= CS• lhR,. ET• EF • ED/BW •AT• PEF where: Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS• !Re,. EF" ET• EDc/BWc,. AT• PEF
CS =Constituent Concentration See above (mg/kg)
!Ra = Inhalation Rate Adult 3.3 (m3 /hour)
ET = Exposure Time 10 (hours)
EF = Exposure Frequency 250 (days/year)
ED= Exposure Duration (years)
g: \data \hydro \5100\excel \hh_risk \Chlorine Plant\
Final Report -Dec 2000\ConstWrk\InorganicHg\SB-A_con.xls
BW = Body Weight 70
AT= Averaging Time (Risk) 25,550
AT= Averaging Time (Hazard) 365
PEF = Particulate Emisson Factor 3.30E+09
Page 10 of 28
(kgs)
(days)
(days)
(m3 /kg)
12/6/2000
SBPartlnorg(M3c)
/
TABLE M-4a-Mercury as Inorganic Mercury
CONSTRUCTION WORKER
DERMAL CONTACT WITH GROUNDWATER
core Exposure Point Dermal Permeability Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic Reference Hazard
lnorganics
Mercury
Methylmcrcury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Concentration
(mg/I)
0.116
0.0017
Slope Coefficient
Factor
NA I.OOE--02
NA I.OOE--02
Carcinogenic Intake= CS• CF.• SA• ABS• ET• EF • ED/BW • AT where:
CS =Constituent Concentration See Above (mg/I)
CF= Conversion Factor I.OOE--03 (l/cm3)
SA = Skin Surface Area Adult 5660 (cni)
PC= Aqueous Permeability Factor See Above (cm/hour)
ET = Exposure Time 2 (hours/day)
EF = Exposure Frequency 25 (days/year)
ED= Exposure Duration (years)
g: \data\ hydro \SI 00\excel\hh_risk \ Chlorine Plant\
Final Repo. 2000\ConstW,k\Ino,ganicHg\GW _con.ili
Intake Risk
I.84E--07 NC
2.69E-09 NC
Risk Intake Dose Quotient
Total
I.28E--05 NA NC
I.BBE--07 I.0E-04 0.0019
NC
Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS •CF• SA •PC• EF • ED/BW • AT
BW = Body Weight 70 (kgs)
AT= Averaging Time (Risk)
AT= Averaging Time (Hazard)
25,550 (days)
365 (days)
Hazard
Index
0.0019
core
lnorganics
Mercury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point
Concentration
(mg/kg)
12.7
Carcinogenic
Intake
(mg/kg-day)
2.22E-06
• TABLE M-5a -Mercury as Inorganic Mercury
FUTURE INDUSTRIAL WORKER
INGESTION OF SURFACE SOIL
Oral Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
Slope Risk Risk Intake
Factor Total (mg/kg-day)
NA NC 6.21E-06
NC
Reference Hazard
Dose Quotient
NA NC
Carcinogenic Intake= CS• IR• CF• Fl • EF • ED/BW • AT where: Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS• JR •CF• FI• EF • ED/BW • AT
CS =Constituent Concentration
IR= Ingestion Rate
CF= Conversion Factor
Fl = Fraction Ingested.
EF = Exposure Frequency
g: \data \hydro \51 ()()\excel \hhriskass \Chlorine Plant\
Final Report-Dec 2000\FutlndWrk\InorganicHg\ss_ind
See above
50
l.OOE-06
250
(mg/kg)
(mg/day)
(kg/mg)
Unitlcss
(days/year)
ED= Exposure Duration
BW = Body Weight
Averaging Time (Risk)
Averaging Time (Hazard)
Page 12 of 28
25
70
25,550
9,125
•
Hazard
Index
NC
12/6/2000
SS!ng (M5a)
core
Inorganics
Mercury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point Dermal
Concentration Slope
(mg/kg) Factor
12.7 NA
TABLE M-Sb -Mercury as Inorganic Mercury
FUTURE INDUSTRIAL WORKER
DERMAL CONTACT WITH SURFACE SOIL
Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
Intake Risk Risk Intake
Total
2.SlE-07 NC 7.03E-07
NC
Reference Hazard
Dose Quotient
NA NC
Carcinogenic Intake= CS• CF• SA •AF• ABS• EF • ED/BW • AT where: Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS •CF• SAc •AF• ABS• EF • EDc/BWc •AT
CS =Constituent Concentration
CF= Conversion Factor
SA= Skin Surface Area Adult
AF= Soil-Skin Adherence Factor
ABS= Absorption Factor -Organics
ABS= Absorption Factor -lnorganics
g: \data \-5100\cxcel \hhriskass \Chlorine Plant\
Final Rep~ 2000\FutlndWrk\InorganicHg\ss_ind
See Above (mg/kg)
l.OOE-06 (kg/mg)
5660 (cml)
mg/cm ,
001 Unitless
0.001 Unitless
BW = Body Weight 70 (kgs)
AT= Averaging Time (Risk) 25,550 (days)
AT= Averaging Time (Hazard) 9,125 (days)
EF = Exposure Frequency 250 (days/year)
ED= Exposure Duration 25 (years)
Page .28
Hazard
Index
NC
•
6/2(Xl0
S (M5b)
core
lnorganics
Mercury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Poinl
Concentration
(mg/kg)
12.7
• TABLE M-Sc -Mercury as Inorganic Mercury
FUTURE INDUSTRIAL WORKER
INHALATION OF SURFACE SOIL PARTICLATES
Carcinogenic lnhalalion Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
Intake Slope Risk Risk Intake
Factor Total
6.78E-11 NA NC l.90E-10
NC
Reference Hazard
Dose Quotient
0.000086 2.21E-06
Carcinogenic Intake= CS• lhR •ET• EF • ED/BW •AT• PEF where: Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS• IRc • EF •ET• EDc/BWc •AT• PEF
CS =Constituent Concentration
IR= Inhalation Rate
ET= ExIXJSUre Time
EF = Exposure Frequency
ED= Exposure Duration
g: \data \hydro \5100\excel \hhriskass \Chlorine Plant\
Final Report• Dec 2000\FutlndWrk\lnorganicHg\ss_ind
See above
0.63
8
250
25
(mg/kg)
(m.1/hour)
(hours)
(days/year)
(years)
BW = Body Weight
AT= Averaging Time (Risk)
AT= Averaging Time (Hazard)
PEF = Particulate Emisson Factor
Page 14 of 28
70
25,550
9,125
3.30E+09
(kgs)
(days)
(days)
(m''/kg)
•
Hazard
Index
2.2E-06
12/6/2[XXJ
SSPart (MSc)
·•
•
•
RMT, Jnc.
I:\ WPG V L \ PJT\00.05100\23\ ROOOS 10023·656. DOC
RME Hazard Quotients
Based on Mercuric Chloride
Appendix M
Page 15 of 28
Weyerhaeuser Company
Revised/Final January 2001
•
core
Inorganics
Mercury (as HgCh)
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point Carcinogenic
Concentration Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
7.3 l.28E-06
• TABLE M-la -Mercury as Mercuric Chloride
INDUSTRIAL WORKER
INGESTION OF SURFACE SOIL
Oral Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
Slope Risk Risk Intake
Factor Total (mg/kg-day)
NA NC 3.57E-06
NC
Reference Hazard
Dose Quotient
3.00E-04 l.2E-02
Carcinogenic Intake= CS• IR• CF• Fl• EF • ED/BW • AT where: Non4 cardnogenic Intake= CS• IR •cF •FI• EF • ED/BW • AT
CS =Con.'>titucnt Concentration Sec above
IR= Ingestion Rate so
CF= Conversion Factor l.OOE-06
FI = Fraction Ingested I
EF = Exposure Frequency 250
g: \data \hydro \5100\excel \hhriskass \Chlorine Plant\
Final Report -Dec 2000\CurrlndWrk\HgChloride\Ss_ind.xls
(mg/kg)
(mg/day)
(kg/mg)
Unitlcss
(days/year)
ED= Exposure Duration
BW = Body Weight
Averaging Time (Risk)
Averaging Time (Hazard)
Page 16 of 28
25
70
25,550
9,125
•
Hazard
Index
0.012
0.019
12/6/20<X)
SS!ng (Mla)
core
lnorganics
Mercury (as HgCJi)
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point Dermal
Concentration Slope
(mg/kg) Factor
7.3 NA
TABLE M-tb -Mercury as Mercuric Chloride
INDUSTRIAL WORKER
DERMAL CONTACT WITH SURFACE SOIL
Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
Intake Risk Risk Intake
Total
1.44E-07 NC 4.04E-07
NC
Reference Hazard
Dose Quotient
6.00E-05 0.007
Carcinogenic Intake= CS• CF• SA •AF• ABS• EF • ED/BW • AT where: Non-<:arcinogenic Intake= CS •CF• SAc •AF• ABS• EF • EDc/BWc • AT
CS =Constituent Concentration See Above (mg/kg) BW = Body Weight 70 (kgs) CF= Conversion Factor 1.00E-06 (kg/mg) AT= Averaging Time (Risk) 25,550 (days) SA = Skin Surf ace Area Adult 5660 (cnl) AT= Averaging Time (Hazard) 9,125 (days) AF= Soil-Skin Adherence Factor mg/cm ' EF = Exposure Frequency 250 (days/year) ABS= Absorption Factor• Organics 0.01 Unitlcss ED= Exposure Duration 25 (years) ABS= Absorption Factor -Jnorganics 0.001 Unitless
g:\dala_~-~100\excel\hhriskass\Chlorine Plant\
Final R~c 2000\CurrlndWrk\HgChloride\Ss_ind.xls Pa.of28
Hazard
Index
0.007
•
6/2000
S (Mlh)
•
core
Inorganics
Mercury (as HgCl2)
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point
Concentralion
(mg/kg)
7.3
• TABLE M-lc-Mercury as Mercuric Chloride
INDUSTRIAL WORKER
INHALATION OF SURFACE SOIL PARTICLATES
Carcinogenic Inhalation Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
Intake Slope Risk Risk Intake
Factor Total
3.90E-Il NA NC I.09E-IO
NC
Reference Hazard
Dose Quotient
0.000086 l.27E-06
Carcinogenic Intake= CS• IhR • ET• EF • ED/BW •AT• PEF where: Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS• !Re• EF •ET• EDc/BWc •AT• PEF
CS =Constituent Concentration See above (mg/kg) BW = Body Weight 70 (kgs)
IR= Inhalation Rate 0.63 (m·1/hour) AT= Averaging Time (Risk) 25,550 (days)
ET= Exposure Time 8 (hours) AT= Averaging Time (Hazard) 9,125 (days)
EF = Exposure Frequency 250 (days/year) PEF = Particulate Emisson Factor 3.30E+09 (m' /kg)
ED= Exposure Duration 25 (years)
g: \data \hydro \5100\excel \hhriskass \Chlorine Plant\
Final Report-Dec 2CXXl\CurrlndWrk\HgChloride\Ss_ind.xls
Page 18 of 28
•
Hazard
Index
1.JE-06
12/6/2000
SSPart (MI c)
core
Inorganics
Mercury
NA Not available
NC Not calrulated
Exposure Point Carcinogenic
Concentration Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
12.7 I.78E-07
TABLE M-2a -Mercury as Mercuric Chloride
CONSTRUCTION WORKER
INGESTION OF SURFACE SOIL
Oral Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
Slope Risk Risk Intake
Factor Total (mg/kg-day)
NA NC l.24E-05
NC
Reference Hazard
Dose Quotient
3.00E-04 4.14E-02
Carcinogenic Intake= CS• IR• CF"' FI • EF • ED/BW • AT where: Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS• IRc •cf• FI • EF • EDc/BWc • AT
CS =Constituent Concentration
IR= Ingestion Rate
CF= Conversion Factor
FI = Fraction Ingested
EF = Exposure Frequency
g: \data \hydro\ 5100\excel \hh_risk\Chlorine Plant\
Final Re~ 2000\ConstW,k\HgChloride\SS_conXLS
See above (mg/kg)
100 (mg/day)
1.00E-06 (kg/mg)
1 Unitless
250 (days/year)
ED= Exposure Duration
BW = Body Weight
Averaging Time (Risk)
Averaging Time (Hazard)
70
25,550
365
(years)
(kgs)
(days)
(days)
Hazard
Index
0.041
0.053
12/6/2(XJO
SSl.n(M2a)
•
COPC
Inorganics
Mercury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point Dermal
Concentration Slope
(mg/kg) Factor
12.7 NA
Carcinogenic lntake =CS• CF• SA •AF• ABS• EF • ED/BW • AT where:
CS =Constituent Concentration
CF= Conversion Factor
SA= Skin Surface Area Adult
AF= Soil-Skin Adherence Factor
ABS= Absorption Factor (inorganics)
EF = Exposure Frequency
ED= Exposure Duration
g: \data \hydro \5100\excel \hh_risk\Chlorine Plant\
Final Report-Dec 2000\ConstWrk\HgChloride\SS_con.XLS
See Above
1.00E-06
5660
0.001
250
•
TABLE M-2b-Mercury as Mercuric Chloride
CONSTRUCTION WORKER
DERMAL CONTACT WITH SURFACE SOIL
Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Carcinogenic
Intake Risk Risk
Total
1.00E-08 NC
NC
•
Non-carcinogenic Reference Hazard Hazard
Intake Dose Quotient Index
7.03E-07 6.00E-05 1.2E-02
0.012
Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS "CF• SAc •AF• ABS• EF • EDc/BWc • AT
(mg/kg)
(kg/mg)
(cni2)
mg/cm2
Unitless
(days/year)
(years)
BW = Body Weigh!
AT= Averaging Time (Risk)
AT= Averaging Time (Hazard)
ABS= Absorption Factor (organics)
Page 20 of 28
70
25,550
365
0.01
(kgs)
(days)
(days)
12/6/2000
SSDermal (M2b)
core
Inorganics
Mercury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point
Concentration
(mg/kg)
12.7
TABLE M-2c -Mercury as Mercuric Chloride
CONSTRUCTION WORKER
INHALATION OF SURFACE SOIL PARTICLATES
Carcinogenic Inhalation Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
Intake Slope Risk Risk Intake
Factor Total
l.78E-Il NA NC !.24E-o9
NC
Reference Hazard
Dose Quotient
0.000086 !.44E-05
Carcinogenic Intake= CS .. IhR •ET• EF • ED/BW •AT• PEF where: Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS• JRc • EF * ET• EDc/BWc .. AT• PEF
CS =Constituent Concentration See above (mg/kg) BW = Body Weight 70 (kgs)
IRa = Inhalation Rate Adult 3.3 (rn3 /hour) AT = Averaging Time (Risk) 25,550 (days) ET= Exposure Time 10 (hows) AT= Averaging Time (Hazard) 365 (days)
EF = Exposure Frequency 250 (days/year) PEF = Particulate Ernisson Factor 3.3DE+09 (m3/kg) ED= Exposure Duration (yem)
g: \data\ hydro \5100\ excel\ hh_risk \Chlorine Plant\
Final Re.Dec 2000\ConstW,k\HgChloride\SS_con.XLS Pa. of28
Hazard
Index
l.4E-05
12/6/2000
SSP.l(M2c)
•
core
Inorganics
Mercury (as HgCl2)
Methylmercury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point Carcinogenic
Concentration Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
767 l.07E-05
0.206 2.BBE-09
•
TABLE M-3a -Mercury as Mercuric Chloride
CONSTRUCTION WORKER
INGESTION OF SUBSURFACE SOIL (0-lOft)
Oral Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non•carcinogenic
Slope Risk Risk Intake
Factor Total (mg/kg-day)
NA NC 7.S0E-04
NA NC 2.02E-07
NC
•
Reference Hazard Hazard
Dose Quotient Index
3.00E-04 2.5
l.00E-04 0.002
2.5
3.2
Carcinogenic Intake= CS,. IR,. CF,. FI• EF,. ED/BW,. AT where: Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS* IR *CF* FI,. EF,. ED/BW • AT
CS =Constituent Concentration See above (mg/kg)
IR= Ingestion Rate 100 (mg/day)
CF = Conversion Factor 1.00E-06 (kg/mg)
FI = Fraction Ingested Unitless
EF = Exposure Frequency 250 (days/year)
g: \data\ hydro \5100\excel \hh_risk \Chlorine Plant\
Final Report. Dec 2000\ConstWrk\HgChloride\SB-A_con.xls
ED= Exposure Duration I
BW = Body Weight 70
Averaging Time (Risk) 25,550
Averaging Time (Hazard) 365
Page 22 of 28
(years)
(kgs)
(days)
(days)
12/6/2000
SBlngln0r>;(M3a)
core
Inorganics
Mercury
Methyl mercury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point Dermal
Concentration Slope
(mg/kg) Factor
767 NA
0.206 NA
TABLE M-3b -Mercury as Mercuric Chloride
CONSTRUCTION WORKER
DERMAL CONTACT WITH SUBSURFACE SOIL (0-lOft)
Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
Intake Risk Risk Intake
Total
6.07E-07 NC 4.25E-05
l.63E-10 NC 1.14E-08
NC
Reference Hazard Hazard
Dose Quotient Index
6.00E-05 0.71
l.00E-04 0.00011
0.71
Carcinogenic Intake= CS• CF• SA "AF• ABS• EF • ED/BW • AT where: Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS "CF• SAc •AF• ABS• EF • EDc/BWc • AT
CS =Constituent Concentration See Above
CF= Conversion Factor l.OOE-06
SA= Skin Surface Area Adult 5660
AF= Soil-Skin Adherence Factor 1
ABS= Absorption Factor 0.()01
EF = Exposure Frequency 250
EDa = Exposure Duration Adult
g: \data \hydro \5100\excel\hh_risk \Chlorine Plant\
Final Rep,. 20Cl0\ConstWrk \HgChloride \SB-A_con.x1s
(mg/kg) BWa = Body Weight Adult
(kg/mg) AT= Averaging Time (Risk)
(cm') AT= Averaging Time (Hazard)
mg/cm '
Unitless
(days/year)
(years)
70
25,550
365
(kgs)
(days)
(days)
12/6/2000
S8Der.(M3b)
•
core
Inorganics
Mercury
Methylmercury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point
Concentration
(mg/kg)
767
0.206
•
TABLE M-3c • Mercury as Mercuric Chloride
CONSTRUCTION WORKER
INHALATION OF SUBSURFACE SOIL (0·10 ft) PARTICLATES
Carcinogenic Inhalation Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
Intake Slope Risk Risk Intake
Factor Total
1.07E-09 NA NA 7.S0E-08
2.88E-13 NA NA 2.02E-ll
NC
•
Reference Hazard Hazard
Dose Quotient Index
0.000086 0.001
NA NC
0.001
Carcinogenic Intake= CS• IhR •ET• EF • ED/BW •AT• PEF where: Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS• IRc • EF •ET"" EDc/BWc •AT• PEF
CS =Constituent Concentration See above (mg/kg)
!Ra = Inhalation Rate Adult 3.3 (m3 /hour)
ET = Exposure Time 10 (hours)
EF = Exposure Frequency 250 (days/year)
ED= Exposure Duration 1 (years)
g: \data \hydro \5100\excel \hh_risk \Chlorine Plant\
Final Report -Dec 2000\ConstWrk\HgChloride\SB-A_con.xls
BW = Body Weight
AT= Averaging Time (Risk)
AT= Averaging Time (Hazard)
PEF = Particulate Emisson Factor
Page 24 of 28
70
25,550
365
3.30E+09
(kgs)
(days)
(days)
(m3 /kg)
12/6/2000
SBPart[norg(M3c)
core
Inorganics
Mercury
Methylmercury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point Dermal
Concentration Slope
(mg/I) Factor
0.116 NA
0.0017 NA
TABLE M-4a • Mercury as Mercuric Chloride
CONSTRUCTION WORKER
DERMAL CONTACT WITH GROUNDWATER
Permeability Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Carcinogenic
Coefficient Intake Risk Risk
Total
.
l.OOE-02 l.84E-07 NC
i.OOE-02 2.69E-09 NC
NC
Non•carcinogenic Reference Hazard
Intake Dose Quotient
l.28E-05 6.0E-05 0.21
l.BBE-07 l.0E-04 0.0019
Carcinogenic lntake =CS• CF• SA• AB.5 •ET• EF • ED/BW • AT where: Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS •CF• SA •PC• EF • ED/BW • AT
CS =Constituent Concentration See Above (mg/I)
CF= Conversion Factor
SA = Skin Surface Area Adult
PC= Aqueous Permeability Factor
ET = Exposure Time
EF = Exposure Frequency
ED = Exposure Duration
g: \ data \hydro\ 5 ICX)\e,:cel \ hh_risk \Chlorine Plant\
I.OOE-03
5660
See Above
2
25
Final Repo-2<JO(l\Con,tW,k\HgChloride\GW_<0n.,~
(l/cm3)
(cm2)
(cm/hour)
(hours/day)
(days/year)
(years)
BW = Body Weight
AT= Averaging Time (Risk)
AT= Averaging Time (llazard)
Pa.of28
70
25,550
365
(kgs)
(days)
(days)
Hazard
Index
0.22
•
core
Inorganics
Mercury (as Hh.-Cl2)
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point Carcinogenic
Concentration Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
12.7 2.22E-06
• TABLE M-5a -Mercury as Mercuric Chloride
FUTURE INDUSTRIAL WORKER
INGESTION OF SURFACE SOIL
Oral Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
Slope Risk Risk Intake
Factor Total (mg/kg-day)
NA NC 6.21E-06
NC
Reference Hazard
Dose Quotient
3.00E-04 2.IE-02
Carcinogenic Intake= CS• IR• CF• Fl • EF • ED/BW • AT where: Non--carcinogenic Intake= CS• IR "'CF• Fl • EF • ED/BW • AT
CS =Constituent Concentration See above
IR= Ingestion Rate 50
CF= Conversion Factor l.OOE-06
Fl = Fraction Ingested
EF = Exposure Frequency 250
g: \data \hydro \5100\excel \hhriskass \Chlorine Plant\
Final Report-Dec 2000\FutlndWrk\HgChloride\Ss_ind.xls
(mg/kg)
(mg/day)
(kg/mg)
Unit less
(days/year)
ED= Exposure Duration
BW = Body Weight
Averaging Time (Risk)
Averaging Time (Hazard)
Page 26 of 28
25
70
25,550
9,125
•
Hazard
Index
0.021
0.032
12/6/2lXXJ
SS!ng (MSa)
core
lnorganics
Mercury (as HgCl2)
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point Dermal
Concentration Slope
(mg/kg) Factor
12.7 NA
TABLE M-Sb -Mercury as Mercuric Chloride
FUTURE INDUSTRIAL WORKER
DERMAL CONT ACT WITH SURFACE SOIL
Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
Intake Risk Risk Intake
Total
2.SIE-07 NC 7.03E-07
NC
Reference Hazard
Dose Quotient
6.00E-05 0.012
Carcinogenic Intake= CS• CF• SA •AF• ABS• EF • ED/BW • AT where: Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS •cF • SAc •AF• ABS• EF • EDc/BWc • AT
CS =Constituent Concentration See Above
CF= Conversion Factor l.00E-06
SA = Skin Surface Area Adult 5660
AF= Soil-Skin Adherence Factor
ABS= Absorption Factor -Organics O.DI
ABS= Absorption Factor -lnorganics 0.001
g:\data\-5100\excel\hhriskass\Chlorine Plant\
Final Rei~ 2000\FutlndWrk\HgChloride\Ss_ind.xls
(mg/kg)
(kg/mg)
(en/)
mg/cmi
Unitless
Unitless
BW = Body Weight 70 (kgs)
AT= Averaging Time (Risk) 25,550 (days)
AT= Averaging Time (Hazard) 9,125 (days)
EF = Exposure Frequency 250 (days/year)
ED= Exposure Duration 25 (years)
Hazard
Index
0.012
•
/2()()()
S (MSb)
•
core
lnorganics
Mercury (as HgCl2)
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point
Concentration
(mg/kg)
12.7
• TABLE M-5c -Mercury as Mercuric Chloride
FUTURE INDUSTRIAL WORKER
INHALATION OF SURFACE SOIL PARTICLATES
Carcinogenic Inhalation Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
Intake Slope Risk Risk Intake
Factor Total
6.78E-1 I NA NC 1.90E-!O
NC
Reference Hazard
Dose Quotient
0.000086 2.21E-06
Carcinogenic Intake= CS• lhR .. ET• EF • ED/BW • AT• PEF where: Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS• !Re• EF •ET• EDc/BWc •AT• PEF
CS =Constituent Concentration
IR= Inhalation Rate
ET= Exposure Time
EF = Exposure Frequency
ED= Exposure Duration
g: \data \hydro \5100\excel\hhriskass \Chlorine Plant\
Final Report-Dec 2000\FutlndWrk\HgChloride\Ss_ind.xls
See above (mg/kg)
0.63 (m.1/hour)
8 (hours)
250 (days/year)
25 (years}
BW = Body Weight 70 (kgs)
AT= Averaging Time (Risk) 25,550 (days)
AT= Averaging Time (Hazard) 9,125 (days)
PEF = Particulate Emisson Factor 3.30E+09 (m'/kg)
Page 28 of 28
•
Hazard
Index
2.2E-06
12/6/2000
SSPart (MSc)
•
•
RMT, Inc.
Appendix N
Hazard Quotient Calculations
Based on Central Tendency
Table of Contents
■ Central Tendency Hazard Quotients Based on Inorganic
Mercury
■ Central Tendency Hazard Quotients Based on Mercuric
Chloride
/: \ WPG VL \PJT\00-05 I 00\23\ R0005 I 0023·6S6.DOC
Weyerhaeuser Company
Revised/Fina/ January 2001
•
RMT, Inc.
Central Tendency Hazard Quotients
Based on Inorganic Mercury
Appendix N
/:\ WPGVL \PJT\()(J.05100\23\R00051002..3-656.DOC
Page 1 of 28
Weyerhaeuser Company
Revised/Final Januan; 2001
•
core
Inorganics
Mercury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated.
Exposure Point Carcinogenic
Concentration Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
7.30 8.04E-08
• TABLE N-la -Mercury as Inorganic Mercury
INDUSTRIAL WORKER
INGESTION OF SURFACE SOIL
Oral Carcinogenic Carcinogenic
Slope Risk Risk
Factor Total
NA NC
NC
Non-carcinogenic
Intake
(mg/kg-day)
6.26E-07
Reference Hazard
Dose Quotient
NA NC
Carcinogenic Intake= CS• IR• CF• FI• EF • ED/BW • AT where: Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS• IRc •CF• Fl • EF • EDc/BWc • AT
CS =Constituent Concentration See above
IR= Ingestion Rate IO
CF= Conversion Factor 1.00E-06
Fl = Fraction Ingested 1
EF = Exposure Frequency 219
g: \data \hydro \5100\excel \hhriskass \Chlorine Plant\
Final Report -Dec 2000\CurrlndWrk\lnorganicHg\SS_ind_AVG.XLS
(mg/kg)
(mg/day)
(kg/mg)
Unitless
(days/year)
ED= Exposure Duration
BW = Body Weight
A vera~ing Time (Risk)
Averaging Time (Hazard)
Page 2 of 28
9
70
25,550
3,285
•
Hazard
Index
NC
12/6/21Xl0
SSlng (Nla)
COPC
lnorganics
Mercury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point Dermal
Concentration Slope
(mg/kg) Factor
7.30 NA
TABLE N-lb -Mercury as Inorganic Mercury
INDUSTRIAL WORKER
DERMAL CONTACT WITH SURFACE SOIL
Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
Intake Risk Risk Intake
Total
6.92E-09 NC 5.38E-08
NC
Reference Hazard
Dose Quotient
NA NC
Carcinogenic Intake= CS• CF• SA •AF• ABS• EF • ED/BW • AT where: Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS "CF• SAc •AF• ABS• EF • EDc/BWc • AT
CS =Constituent Concentration See Above (mg/kg) BW = Body Weight 70 (kgs) CF= Conversion Factor l.00E-06 (kg/mg) AT= Averaging Time (Risk) 25,550 (days) SA = Skin Surface Area Adult 4300 (cml) AT= Averaging Time (Hazard) 3,285 (days) AF= Soil-Skin Adherence Factor 0.2 mg/ani EF = Exposure Frequency 219 (days/year) ABS= Absorption Factor -Organics O.Ql Unitless ED= Exposure Duration 9 (years) ABS= Absorption Factor -lnorganics 0.001 Unit less
g: \data\ h,.00 \e,ccel \hhriskass \Otlorine Plant\
Final Repc., 2000\CurrlndWrk\InorgarucHg\SS_ind_AVG.Xl.S Page 3.
Hazard
Index
NC
•
/2000
S (Nib)
•
core
Inorganics
Mercury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point
Concentration
(mg/kg)
7.30
• TABLE N-tc-Mercury as Inorganic Mercury
INDUSTRIAL WORKER
INHALATION OF SURFACE SOIL PARTICLATES
Carcinogenic Inhalation Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
Intake Slope Risk Risk Intake
Factor Total
J.23E-11 NA NC 9.56E-ll
NC
Reference Hazard
Dose Quotient
0.000086 1.11 E-06
Carcinogenic Intake= CS• IhR •ET• EF • ED/BW •AT• PEF where: Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS• !Re• EF • ET• EDc/BWc • AT,. PEF
CS =Constituent Concentration Sec above (mg/kg) BW = Body Weight 70 (kgs)
IR= Inhalation Rate 0.63 (m'1/hour) AT= Averaging Time (Risk) 25,550 (days)
ET= Exposure Time 8 (hours) AT= Averaging Time (Hazard) 3,285 (days)
EF = Exposure Frequency 219 (days/year) PEF = Particulate Emisson Factor 3.30E+09 (m·'/kg)
ED= Exposure Duration 9 (years)
g: \data \hydro \5100 \excel \hhriskass \Chlorine Plant\
Page 4 of 28
Final Report -Dec 2000\CurrlndWrk\lnorganicHg\SS_ind_AVG.XI.5
•
Hazard
Index
1.lE-06
12/6/2f.XXJ
SSPart (Nlc)
core
lnorganics
Mercury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point Carcinogenic
Concentration Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
12.70 l.78E-08
TABLE N-2a-Mercury as Inorganic Mercury
CONSTRUCTION WORKER
INGESTION OF SURFACE SOIL
Oral Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
Slope Risk Risk Intake
Factor Total (mg/kg-day)
NA NC l.24E-06
NC
Reference Hazard
Dose Quotient
NA NC
Carcinogenic Intake= CS_. JR• CF• Fl_. EF • ED/BW • AT where: Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS• IRc •Cf• Fl • EF • EDc/BWc • AT
CS =Constituent Concentration
IR= Ingestion Rate
CF= Conversion Factor
Fl = Fraction Ingested
EF = Exposure Frequency
g: \data \hydro \5100\excel\hh_risk\Otlorine Plant\
Final Repo-2000\Con,tW,k\lno,gankHg\SS_con_avg.Xl.5
Sec above
10
1.00E-06
250
(mg/kg)
(mg/day)
(kg/mg)
Unit\ess
(days/year)
ED= Exposure Duration
BW = Body Weight
Averaging Time (Risk)
Averaging Time (Hazard)
1
70
25,550
365
(years)
(kgs)
(days)
(days)
Hazard
Index
NC
12/6/2000
SS!n-n(N2a)
•
COPC
Inorganics
Mercury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point Denna!
Concentration Slope
(mg/kg) Factor
12.70 NA
Carcinogenic Intake= CS• CF• SA• AF• ABS• EF • ED/BW • AT where:
CS =Constituent Concentration See Above
CF= Conversion Factor 1.00E-06
SA= Skin Surface Area Adult
AF= Soil-Skin Adherence Factor
ABS= Absorption Factor {inorganics)
EF = Exposure Frequency
ED= Exposure Duration
g: \data \hydro \5100\exce I \hh_risk \Chlorine Plant\
Final Report. Dec 2000\ConstWrk\lnorganicHg\SS_con_avg.XL5
4300
0.2
0.001
250
•
TABLE N-2b-Mercury as Inorganic Mercury
CONSTRUCTION WORKER
DERMAL CONTACT WITH SURFACE SOIL
Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Carcinogenic
Intake Risk Risk
Total
1.53E-09 NC
NC
•
Non-carcinogenic Reference Hazard Hazard
Intake Dose Quotient Index
1.07E-07 NA NC
NC
Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS •CF• SAc •AF• ABS• EF • EDc/BWc • AT
(mg/kg)
(kg/mg)
(cm2)
mg/cm2
Unitless
{days/year)
(years)
Page 6 of 28
BW = Body Weight 70 (kgs)
AT= Averaging Time (Risk)
AT= Averaging Time (Hawrd)
ABS= Absorption Factor (organics)
25,550
365
0.01
(days)
(days)
12/6/2000
SSDermal (N2b)
core
Inorganics
Mercury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point
Concentration
(mg/kg)
12.70
TABLE N-2c-Mercury as Inorganic Mercury
CONSTRUCTION WORKER
INHALATION OF SURFACE SOIL PARTICLATES
Carcinogenic Inhalation Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
Intake Slope Risk Risk Intake
Factor Total
l.34E-ll NA NC 9.41E-10
NC
Reference Hazard
Dose Quotient
0.000086 l.09E-0S
Carcinogenic Intake= CS• lhR •ET• EF • ED/BW •AT• PEF where: Non-<:arcinogenic Intake= CS• IRc,. EF,. ET• EDc/BWc •AT• PEF
CS =Constituent Concentration
IRa = Inhalation Rate Adult
ET= Exposure Time
EF = Exposure Frequency
ED= Exposure Duration
g: \data \hydro \5100\excel \hh_risk\Chlorine Plant\
Final~ 2000\ConstW,k\InmgankHg\SS_con_avg.XlS
See above
2.5
10
250
(mg/kg)
(m3 /hour)
(hours)
(days/year)
(years)
BW = Body Weight
AT= Averaging Time (Risk)
AT= Averaging Time (Hazard)
PEF = Particulate Emisson Factor
.e7of28
70
25,550
365
3.30E+09
(kgs)
(days)
(days)
(m3 /kg)
Hazard
Index
1.lE-05
12/6/2000
SSP-1 (N2c)
•
core
lnorganics
Mercury
Methylmercury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point Carcinogenic
Concentration Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
767 l.07E-06
0.209 2.92E-10
•
TABLE N-3a -Mercury as Inorganic Mercury
CONSTRUCTION WORKER
INGESTION OF SUBSURFACE SOIL (0-10ft)
Oral Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
Slope Risk Risk Intake
Factor Total (mg/kg-day)
NA NC 7.S0E-05
NA NC 2.0SE-08
NC
Reference Hazard
Dose Quotient
NA NC
!.00E-04 0.0002
Carcinogenic Intake= CS" JR• CF• FI• EF • ED/BW • AT where: Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS• IRc "CF• Fl• EF • EDc/BWc • AT
CS =Constituent Concentration
IR= Ingestion Rate
CF= Conversion Factor
Fl = Fraction Ingested
EF = Exposure Frequency
g: \data \hydro \5 I 00\excel \hhJisk \Otlorine Plant\
Final Report-Dec 2000\ConstWrk\lnorganicHg\SB-A_con_avg.xls
Sec above
10
IOOE-06
250
(mg/kg)
(mg/day)
(kg/mg)
Unitless
(days/year)
ED= Exposure Duration
BW = Body Weight
Averagin~ Time (Risk)
Averaging Time (Hazard)
Page 8 of 28
70
25,550
365
(years)
(kgs)
(days)
(days)
•
Hazard
Index
0.0002
0.0009
12/6/2000
SSlngPstion(N3a)
TABLE N-3b -Mercury as Inorganic Mercury
CONSTRUCTION WORKER
DERMAL CONTACT WITH SUBSURFACE SOIL (O-toft)
COPC
lnorganics
Mercury
Methylmercury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point Dermal
Concentration Slope
(mg/kg) Factor
767 NA
0.209 NA
Carcinogenic Intake= CS• CF• SA •AF• ABS• EF • ED/BW • AT where:
CS =Constituent Concentration See Above
CF= Conversion Factor 1.00E-06
SA= Skin Surface Area Adult 4300
AF= Soil-Skin Adherence Factor 0.2
AB.5 = Absorption Factor (inorganics) 0.001
EF = Exposure Frequency 250
ED= Exposure Duration
g: \ data \hydro \5 IOO\excel\hh_risk \Chlorine Plant\
Final Repo-2000\ConstW,k\lno,gani,Hg\SB-A_con_,vg.,~
Carcinogenic
Intake
9.22E-08
2.SlE-11 '
(mg/kg)
(kg/mg)
(cm2)
mg/cm2
Unitless
(days/year)
(years)
Carcinogenic
Risk
NC
NC
Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic Rererence Hazard Hazard
Risk Intake Dose Quotient Index
Total
6.45E-06 NA NC
1.76E-09 1.00E-04 I.SE-OS
NC 1.76E-05
Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS '"CF• SAc •AF• ABS• EF • EDc/BWc • AT
BW = Body Weight
AT= Averaging Time (Risk)
AT= Averaging Time (Hazard)
ABS= Absorption Factor (organics)
70
25,550
365
0.01
(kgs)
(days)
(days)
12/6/2000
S_,l(N3b)
• •
TABLE N-3c -Mercury as Inorganic Mercury
CONSTRUCTION WORKER
INHALATION OF SUBSURFACE SOIL (0-lOft) PARTICULATES
core
lnorganics
Mercury
Methylmercury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point Carcinogenic
Concentration Intake
(mg/kg)
767 8.12E-JO
0.209 2.21E-13
Carcinogenic Intake= CS• lhR •ET• EF • ED/BW •AT• PEF where:
CS =Constituent Concentration Sec above
IRa = Inhalation Rate Adult 2.5
ET = Exposure Time 10
EF = Exposure Frequency 250
ED= Exposure Duration
g: \data \hydro\5100\excel \hh_risk\Chlorine Plant\
Final Report -Dec 2000\ConstWrk\lnorganicl-lg\SB-A_con_avg.xls
Inhalation
Slope
Factor
NA
NA
(mg/kg)
(rn3 /hour)
(hours)
(days/year)
(years)
Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic Reference Hazard
Risk Risk Intake Dose Quotient
Total
NC 5.69E-08 0.000086 0.001
NC l.SSE-11 NA NC
NC
Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS• IRc • EF • ET• EDc/BWc •AT• PEF
BW = Body Weight 70 (kgs)
AT= Averaging Time (Risk) 25,550 (days)
AT= Averaging Time (Hazard) 365 (days)
PEF = Particulate Emisson Factor 3.30E+09 (m3 /kg)
Page 10 of 28
•
Hazard
Index
0.0007
12/6/2000
SSPartlnhal (N3c)
core
Inorganics
Mercury
Methylmercury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point Dermal
Concentration Slope
(mg/I) Factor
0.116 NA
0.0017 NA
TABLE N-4a-Mercury as Inorganic Mercury
CONSTRUCTION WORKER
DERMAL CONTACT WITH GROUNDWATER
Permeability Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Carcinogenic
Coefficient Intake Risk Risk
Total
1.00E-02 6.49E-08 NC
1.00E-02 9.S!E-10 NC
NC
Non-carcinogenic Reference Hazard
Intake Dose Quotient
4.54E-06 NA NC
6.65E-08 1.0E-04 0.0007
Carcinogenic Intake= CS• CF• SA •ABS• ET• EF • ED/BW • AT where: Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS •CF• SA •PC• EF • ED/BW • AT
CS =Constituent Concentration See Above (mg/I)
CF= Conversion Factor 1.00E-03 (l/cm3)
SA = Skin Surface Area Adult 2000 (cm1)
PC= Aqueous Permeability Factor See Above (cm/hour)
ET = Exposure Time 2 (hours/day)
EF = Exposure Frequency 25 (days/year)
ED= Exposure Duration (years)
g: \ data \hydro \5100\ excel\ hh_risk \ Chlorine Plant\
Fmal Repo.2000\Con,tW,kllno,ganidlglGW_con_ovg.,b
BW: Body Weight
AT= Averaging Time (Risk)
AT= Averaging Time (I lazard)
P.11 of28
70 (kgs)
25,550 (days)
365 (days)
Hazard
Index
0.0007
•
core
lnorganics
Mercury
NA Not availa_ble
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point Carcinogenic
Concentration Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
12.7 l.40E-07
• TABLE N-Sa-Mercury as Inorganic Mercury
FUTURE INDUSTRIAL WORKER
INGESTION OF SURFACE SOIL
Oral Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
Slope Risk Risk Intake
Factor Total (mg/kg-day)
NA NC l.09E-06
NC
Reference Hazard
Dose Quotient
NA NC
Carcinogenic intake= CS• JR •CF• Fl • EF • ED/BW • AT where: Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS• IRc •CF• Fl • EF • EDc/BWc • AT
CS =Constituent Concentration Sec above
IR= Ingestion Rate 10
CF= Conversion Factor 1.00E-06
Fl = Fraction Ingested 1
EF = Exposure Frequency 219
g: \data \hydro \5100\excel \hhriskass \Chlorine Plant\
Final Report -Dec 2000\FutlndWrk\lnorganicHg\SS_ind_AVG.Xl.5
(mg/kg)
(mg/day)
(kg/mg)
Unitless
(days/year)
ED= Exposure Duration
BW = Body Weight
Averaging Time (Risk)
Averaging Time (Hazard)
Page 12 of 28
9
70
25,550
3,285
•
Hazard
Index
NC
12/6/2<Xl0
SS!ng (N5a)
core
lnorganics
Mercury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point Dermal
Concentration Slope
(mg/kg) Factor
12.7 NA
TABLE N-Sb -Mercury as Inorganic Mercury
FUTURE INDUSTRIAL WORKER
DERMAL CONTACT WITH SURFACE SOIL
Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
lnlake Risk Risk Intake
Total
l.20E-08 NC 9.36E-08
NC
Reference Hazard
Dose Quotient
NA NC
Carcinogenic Intake= CS" CF" SA "AF• ABS" EF" ED/BW" AT where: Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS "CF" SAc" AF• ABS• EF • EDc/BWc • AT
CS =Constituent Concentration See Above (mg/kg) BW = Body Weight 70 (kgs) CF= Conversion Factor 1.00E-06 (kg/mg) AT= Averaging Time (Risk) 25,550 (days) SA = Skin Surface Arca Adult 4300 (on") AT= Averaging Time (Hazard) 3,285 (days) AF= Soil-Skin Adherence Factor 0.2 mg/cm ,
EF = Exposure Frequency 219 (days/year) ABS= Absorption Factor -Organics 001 Unitless ED= Exposure Duration 9 (years) ABS= Absorption Factor -lnorganics 0.001 Unitless
g:\data\hy~xcel\hhriskass\Otlorine Planl\
Final Repo:.vvv \FutlndWrk \InorganicHg\SS_ind_A VG.XLS Page -28
Hazard
Index
NC
•
/2(XXJ
S~ (NSh)
•
core
Inorganics
Mercury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point
Concentration
(mg/kg)
12.7
• TABLE N-Sc -Mercury as Inorganic Mercury
FUTURE INDUSTRIAL WORKER
INHALATION OF SURFACE SOIL PARTICLATES
Carcinogenic Inhalation Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
Intake Slope Risk Risk Intake
Factor Total
2.14E-11 NA NC l.66E-10
NC
Reference Hazard
Dose Quotient
0.000086 l.93E-06
Carcinogenic Intake= CS• lhR • ET• EF • ED/BW" AT • PEF wh~re: Non..-carcinogenic Intake= CS• !Re• EF •ET• EDc/BWc •AT" PEF
CS =Constituent Concentration Sec above (mg/kg) BW = Body Weight 70 (kgs)
JR= Inhalation Rate 0.63 (m.1/hour) AT= Averaging Time (Risk) 25,550 (days)
ET= Exposure Time 8 (hours) AT= Averaging Time (Hazard) 3,285 (days)
EF = Exposure Frequency 219 (days/year) PEF = Particulate Emisson Factor 3.30E+09 (m'/kg)
ED= Exposure Duration 9 (years)
g: \data \hydro \S 100\excel \hhriskass \Otlorine Plant\
Page 14 of 28
Final Report· Dec 2000\FutlndWrk\lnorgarticHg\SS_ind_AVG.Xl.S
•
Hazard
Index
1.9E-06
12/6/2CXJO
SSPart (NSc)
•
•
RMT, Inc.
Central Tendency Hazard Quotients
Based on Mercuric Chloride
Appendix N
/: \ WPG VL \ P/T\00-05100\23\ ROOOS I 0023-656.DOC
Page 15 of 28
Weyerhaeuser Company
Revised/Final January 2001
•
core
lnorganics
Mercury (as HgCh)
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point Carcinogenic
Concentration Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
7.30 8.04E-08
• TABLE N-ta-Mercury as Mercuric Chloride
INDUSTRIAL WORKER
INGESTION OF SURFACE SOIL
Oral Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
Slope Risk Risk Intake
Factor Total (mg/kg-day)
NA NC 6.26E-07
NC
Reference Hazard
Dose Quotient
3.00E-04 2.09E-03
Carcinogenic Intake= CS• JR• CF• FI• EF • ED/BW • AT where: Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS• !Re ""CF• Fl• EF • EDc/BWc • AT
CS =Constihtent Concentration See above
IR= Ingestion Rate 10
CF= Conversion Factor 1.00E-06
Fl = Fraction Ingested
EF = Exposure Frequency 219
g: \data \hydro \5100\excel \hhriskass \Chlorine Plant\
Final Report -Dec 2000\CurrlndWrk\HgChloride\SS_ind_AVG.XLS
(mg/kg)
(mg/day)
(kg/mg)
Unitless
(days/year)
ED= Exposure Duration
BW = Body Weight
Averaging Time (Risk)
Averaging Time (Hazard)
Page 16 of 28
9
70
25,550
3,285
•
Hazard
Index
0.0021
0.0030
12/6/2000
SSlng (Nia)
core
Inorganics
Mercury (as H~Cli)
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point Dermal
Concentration Slope
(mg/kg) Factor
7.30 NA
TABLE N-tb -Mercury as Mercuric Chloride
INDUSTRIAL WORKER
DERMAL CONTACT WITH SURFACE SOIL
Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
Intake Risk Risk Intake
Total
6.92E-09 NC 5.38E-08
NC
Reference Hazard
Dose Quotient
6.00E-05 0.0009
Carcinogenic Intake= CS .. CF• SA •AF• ABS• EF • ED/BW • AT where: Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS •cF • SAc" AF• ABS• EF" EDc/BWc" AT
CS =Constituent Concentration See Above (mg/kg) BW = Body Weight 70 (kgs) CF= Conversion Factor l.OOE-06 (kg/mg) AT= Averaging Time (Risk) 25,550 (days) SA= Skin Surface Arca Adult 4300 (cml) AT= Averaging Time (Hazard) 3,285 (days) AF= Soil-Skin Adherence Factor 0.2 mg/cm ' EF = Exposure Frequency 219 (days/year) ABS= Absorption Factor -Organics O.Dl Unitlcss ED= Exposure Duration 9 (years) ABS= Absorption Factor -lnorganics 0.001 Unitlcss
g:\data \h.100\excel \hhriskass \Otlorine Plant\
Final Rep 2000\CurrindWrk\HgChloride\S.S_ind_AVG.Xl.S Pa.of28
Hazard
Index
0.0009
•
6/2000
, (Nlb)
•
core
Inorganics
Mercury (as HgC!i)
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point
Concentration
(mg/kg)
7.30
• TABLE N-lc -Mercury as Mercuric Chloride
INDUSTRIAL WORKER
INHALATION OF SURFACE SOIL PARTICLATES
Carcinogenic Inhalation Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
Intake Slope Risk Risk Intake
Factor Total
l.23E-l I NA NC 9.56E-11
NC
Reference Hazard
Dose Quotient
0.000086 1.11 E-06
Carcinogenic Intake= CS• lhR • ET• EF • ED/BW • AT• PEF where: Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS• !Re• EF • ET• EDc/BWc • AT• PEF
CS =Constituent Concentration See above (mg/kg) BW = Body Weight 70 (kgs)
IR= Inhalation Rate 063 (mJ/hour) AT= Averaging Time (Risk) 25,550 (days)
ET= ExfX>Surc Time 8 (hours) AT= Averaging Time (Hazard) 3,285 (days)
EF = Exposure Frequency 219 (days/year) PEF = Particulate Emisson Factor 3.30E+09 (m'/kg)
ED= Exposure Duration 9 (years)
g: \data \hydro \5100\excel \hhriskass \Otlorine Plant\ Page 18 of 28
Fina.1 Report-Dec 2000\CurrlndWrk\HgChloride\SS_ind_AVG.XLS
•
Hazard
Index
l.lE-06
12/6/2000
SSPart (Nlc)
core
lnorganics
Mercury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point Carcinogenic
Concentration Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
12.70 J.78E-08
TABLE N-2a-Mercury as Mercuric Chloride
CONSTRUCTION WORKER
INGESTION OF SURFACE SOIL
Oral Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
Slope Risk Risk Intake
Factor Total (mg/kg-day)
NA NC 1.24E-06
NC
Reference Hazard
Dose Quotient
3.00E-04 4.14E-03
Carcinogenic Intake= CS• IR• CF• FI• EF • ED/BW • AT where: Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS• IRc •CF• Fl • EF • EDc/BWc • AT
CS =Constituent Concentration
IR= Ingestion Rate
CF= Conversion Factor
Fl = Fraction Ingested
EF = Exposure Frequency
g: \data \hydro \5100\excel \hh_risk \OiJorine Plant\
Final Repo-2000\Con,tW,k\HgOuoridelSS_con_avg.XIS
See above
IO
1.00E-06
250
(mg/kg)
(mg/day)
(kg/mg)
Unitless
(days/year)
ED= ExJX>sure Duration
BW = Body Weight
Averaging Time (Risk)
Averaging Time (Hazard)
70
25,550
365
(years)
(kgs)
(days)
(days)
Hazard
Index
0.004
0.006
12/6/2000
SSl.n(N2a)
•
COPC
Inorganics
Mercury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point Dermal
Concentration Slope
(mg/kg) Factor
12.70 NA
Carcinogenic Intake= CS •CF• SA •AF• ABS• EF• ED/BW • AT where:
CS :::Constituent Concentration See Above
CF= Conversion Factor l.OOE-06
SA= Skin Surface Area Adult 4300
AF= Soil-Skin Adherence Factor 0.2
ABS= Absorption Factor (inorganic;) 0.001
EF = Exrxisure Frequency 250
ED= Exposure Duration I
g: \data\ hydro \SI 00\excel \hh_risk \Chlorine Plant\
Final Report. Dec 2000\ConstWrk\HgChloride\S.S_con_avg.Xl..S
•
TABLE N-2b -Mercury as Mercuric Chloride
CONSTRUCTION WORKER
DERMAL CONTACT WITH SURFACE SOIL
Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Carcinogenic
Intake Risk Risk
Total
l.53E-09 NC
NC
•
Non-carcinogenic Reference Hazard Hazard
Intake Dose Quotient Index
l.07E-07 6.00E-05 l.BE-03
0.002
Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS •CF• SAc •AF• ABS• EF • EDc/BWc • AT
(mg/kg)
(kg/mg)
(on')
mg/cm '
Unitless
(days/year)
(years)
BW = Bcxiy Weight
AT= Averaging Time (Risk)
AT= Averaging Time (Hazard)
70
25,550
365
ABS= Absorption Factor (organics) 0.01
Page 20 of 28
(kgs)
(days)
(days)
12/6/2()()()
SSDt>rmal (N2b)
COPC
lnorganics
Mercury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point
Concentration
(mg/kg)
12.70
TABLE N-2c-Mercury as Mercuric Chloride
CONSTRUCTION WORKER
INHALATION OF SURFACE SOIL PARTICLATES
Carcinogenic Inhalation Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
Intake Slope Risk Risk Intake
Factor Total
l.34E-11 NA NC 9.41E-10
NC
Reference Hazard
Dose Quotient
0.000086 l.09E-05
Carcinogenic Intake= CS"" lhR"" ET"" EF • ED/BW ""AT• PEP where: Non--carcinogenic Intake= CS• IRc • EF • ET• EDc/BWc •AT"" PEF CS =Con.'>tituent Concentration See above (mg/kg) BW = Body Weight 70 (kgs) JRa = Inhalation Rate Adult 2.5 (m3/hour) AT= Averaging Time (Risk) 25,550 (days) ET = Exposure Time 10 (hours) AT= Averaging Time (Hazard) 365 (days) EF = Exposure Frequency 250 (days/year) PEF = Particulate Emisson Factor 3.30E+09 (m' /kg) ED= Exposure Duration I (years)
g: \data \hydro \5100\exce!\hh_risk \Chlorine Plant\
Final Repo-2000\ConstW,k\HgChloride\SS_con_avg.XLS Page 21 of 28 •
Hazard
Index
UE-05
12/6/2000
SSPar. (N2c)
·----
•
core
Inorganics
Mercury
Methylmercury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point Carcinogenic
Concentration Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
767 1.07E-06
0.209 2.92E-10
•
TABLE N-3a -Mercury as Mercuric Chloride
CONSTRUCTION WORKER
INGESTION OF SUBSURFACE SOIL (0-lOftl
Oral Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
Slope Risk Risk Intake
Factor Total (mg/kg-day)
NA NC 7.S0E-05
NA NC 2.05E-08
NC
Reference Hazard
Dose Quotient
3.00E-04 0.25
I.OOE-04 0.0002
Carcinogenic Intake= CS• tR •CF,. FI • EF • ED/BW • AT where: Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS• !Re •c_F •FI• EF • EDc/BWc • AT
CS =Constituent Concentration See above
IR= Ingestion Rate 10
CF= Conversion Factor 1.00E-06
Fl = Fraction Ingested
EF = Exposure Frequency 250
-----
g: \data \hydro\5100\excel\hh_risk \Odorine Plant\
Final Report -Dec 2000\ConstWrk\HgChloride\SB-A_con_avg.xls
(mg/kg)
(mg/day)
(kg/mg)
Unitless
(days/year)
ED= Exposure Duration
BW = Body Weight
Averaging Time (Risk)
Averaging Time (Hazard)
Page 22 of 28
70
25.550
365
(years)
(kgs)
(days)
(days)
•
Hazard
Index
0.25
0.36
12/6/2000
SS!ngestion(N3a)
TABLE N-3b-Mercury as Mercuric Chloride
CONSTRUCTION WORKER
DERMAL CONTACT WITH SUBSURFACE SOIL (0-1011)
core
Inorganics
Mercury
Methyl mercury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point
Concentration
(mg/kg)
767
0.209
Dermal
Slope
Factor
NA
NA
Carcinogenic Intake= CS• CF• SA •AF• ABS• EF • ED/BW • AT where:
CS =Constituent Concentration See Above
CF= Conversion Factor 1.00E-06
SA = Skin Surface Area Adult 4300
AF= Soil-Skin Adherence Factor
ABS= Absorption Factor (inorganics)
EF = Exposure Frequency
ED= Exposure Duration
g:\data\hydro\5100\e,c:cel\hh_risk\Chlorine Plant\
Final Repo-2Cl0CJ\Con,tWek\HgChloridelSB-A_rnn_avg.,S
0.2
0.001
250
Carcinogenic
Intake
9.22E-08
2.SIE-11
(mg/kg)
(kg/mg)
(on2)
mg/cm2
Unitless
(days/year)
(years)
Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic Reference Hazard Hazard
Risk Risk Intake Dose Quotient Index
Total
NC 6.45E-06 6.00E-05 1.1 E-01
NC l.76E-09 l.OOE-04 l.SE-05
NC 0.11
Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS "CF• SAc •AF• ABS• EF • EDc/BWc • AT
BW = Body Weight
AT= Averaging Time (Risk)
AT= Averaging Time (Hazard)
ABS= Absorption Factor (organics)
P-23of 28
70
25,550
365
0.01
(kgs)
(days)
(days)
12/6/2000
SS-(N3b)
• •
TABLE N-3c-Mercury as Mercuric Chloride
CONSTRUCTION WORKER
INHALATION OF SUBSURFACE SOIL (0-tofl) PARTICULATES
core
Inorganics
Mercury
Methylmercury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point Carcinogenic
Concentration Intake
(mg/kg)
767 8.12E-JO
0.209 2.2JE-13
Carcinogenic Intake= CS• lhR •ET• EF • ED/BW •AT• PEF where:
CS =Constituent Concentration
JRa = Inhalation Rate Adult
ET= Exposure Time
EF = Exposure Frequency
ED= Exposure Duration
g: \data \hydro \5100 \excel \hh_risk \Chlorine Plant\
Fina) Report• Dec 20CX)\ConstWrk\HgChloride\SB-A_con_avg.xls
See above
2.5
10
250
Inhalation
Slope
Factor
NA
NA
(mg/kg)
(m3 /hour)
(hours)
(days/year)
(years)
Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic Reference Hazard
Risk Risk Intake Dose Quotient
Total
NC S.69E-08 0.000086 0.001
NC I.SSE-I I NA NC
NC
Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS• IRc • EF •ET• EDc/BWc •AT• PEF
BW = Body Weight
AT= Averaging Time (Risk)
AT= Averaging Time (Hazard)
PEF = Particulate Emisson Factor
Page 24 of 28
70 (kgs)
25,550 (d•)~)
365 (days)
3.30E+09 (m3 /kg)
•
Hazard
Index
0.001
12/6/2000
SSPartlnhal (N3c)
core
In organics
Mercury
Methylmercury
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Poinl Dermal
Concenlration Slope
(mg/I) Factor
0.116 NA
0.0017 NA
TABLE N-4a -Mercury as Mercuric Chloride
CONSTRUCTION WORKER
DERMAL CONTACT WITH GROUNDWATER
Permeability Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Carcinogenic
Coefficient Intake Risk Risk
Total
l.OOE-02 6.49E-08 NC
l.OOE-02 9.SIE-10 NC
NC
Non-carcinogenic Reference Hazard
lnlake Dose Quolient
4.54E-06 6.0E-05 0.076
6.65E-08 1.0E-04 0.0007
Carcinogenic Intake= CS• CF• SA• ABS• ET• EF • ED/BW • AT where: Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS •CF• SA •PC• EF • ED/BW • AT CS =Constituent Concentration See Above (mg/I)
CF= Conversion Factor
SA= Skin Surface Area Adult
PC= Aqueous Permeability Factor
ET = Exposure Time
EF = Exposure Frequency
ED= Exposure Duration
g: \data\ hydro \5100\ excel\hh_risk \ Chlorine Plant\
1.00E-03
2000
Sec Above
2
25
Final Repo-2000\Con.stW,k \ lno,ganicHg \ GW _ con_,vg.ili
(l/cm3)
(cm2)
(cm/hour)
(hours/day)
(days/year)
(years)
BW = Bcx:ty Weight
AT= Averaging Time (Risk)
AT= Averaging Time (Hazard)
Pa.of28
70 (kgs)
25,550 (days)
365 (days)
Hazard
Index
0.076
12/6/2000
GWDe.(N4a)
•
core
In organics
Mercury (as HgCl2)
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point Carcinogenic
Concentration Intake
(mg/kg) (mg/kg-day)
12.7 l.40E-07
• TABLE N-5a -Mercury as Mercuric Chloride
FUTURE INDUSTRIAL WORKER
INGESTION OF SURFACE SOIL
Oral Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
Slope Risk Risk Intake
Factor Total (mg/kg-day)
NA NC 1.09E-06
NC
Reference Hazard
Dose Quotient
3.00E-04 3.63E-03
Carcinogenic Intake= CS .. IR• CF .. FI • EF • ED/BW • AT where· Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS• IRc •CF• Fl• EF • EDc/BWc • AT
CS =Constituent Concentration See above
IR= Ingestion Rate 10
CF= Conversion Factor 1.00E-06
Fl = Fraction Ingested I
EF = Exposure Frequency 219
g: \data \hydro \5100\excel \hhriskass \Chlorine Plant\
Final Report -Dec 2000\CurrlndWrk\HgChloride\SS_ind_AVG.Xl.5
(mg/kg)
(mg/day)
(kg/mg)
Unitlcss
(days/year)
ED= Exposure Duration
BW = Body Weight
Averaging Time (Risk)
Averaging Time (Hazard)
Page 26 of 28
9
70
25,550
3,285
•
Hazard
Index
0.0036
0.0052
12/n/2000
SS/ng (NSa)
COPC
lnorganics
Mercury (as HgCh)
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point Dermal
Concentration Slope
(mg/kg) Factor
12.7 NA
TABLE N-Sb -Mercury as Mercuric Chloride
FUTURE INDUSTRIAL WORKER
DERMAL CONTACT WITH SURFACE SOIL
Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
Intake Risk Risk Intake
Total
1.20E-08 NC 9.36E-08
NC
Reference Hazard
Dose Quotient
6.00E-05 0.0016
Carcinogenic Intake= CS• CF• SA •AF• ABS• EF • ED/BW • AT where: Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS •CF• SAc •AF• ABS• EF • EDc/BWc • AT
CS =Constituent Concentration See Above (mg/kg) BW = Body Weight 70 (kgs) CF= Conversion Factor 1.00E-06 (kg/mg) AT= Averaging Time (Risk) 25,550 (days) SA = Skin Surface Area Adult 4300 (cm1) AT= Averaging Time (Hawrd) 3,285 (days) AF= Soil-Skin Adherence Factor 0.2 mg/cm1 EF = Exposure Frequency 219 (days/year) ABS= Absorption Factor -Organics 001 Unit less ED= Exposure Duration 9 (years) ABS= Absorption Factor -lnorganics 0.001 Unitless
g:\data\~-00\e:,c:cel\hhriskass\Otlorine Plant\
Final Rep~ 2000\CWTlndWrk \HgCh]oride \5.5_ind_A VG.XL5
Hazard
Index
0.0016
•
/2000
S (NSb)
•
core
Jnorganics
Mercury (as HgCJi)
NA Not available
NC Not calculated
Exposure Point
Concentration
(mg/kg)
12.7
• TABLE N-Sc -Mercury as Mercuric Chloride
FUTURE INDUSTRIAL WORKER
INHALATION OF SURFACE SOIL PARTICLATES
Carcinogenic Inhalation Carcinogenic Carcinogenic Non-carcinogenic
Intake Slope Risk Risk Intake
Factor Total
2.14E·l l NA NC l.66E-10
NC
Reference Hazard
Dose Quotient
0.000086 l.93E-06
Carcinogenic Intake= CS• lhR •ET• EF • ED/BW •AT• PEF where: Non-carcinogenic Intake= CS• IRc • EF •ET• EDc/BWc •AT• PEF
CS =Constituent Concentration See above (mg/kg) BW = Booy Weight 70 (kgs)
IR= Inhalation Rate 0.63 (m.l/hour) AT= Averaging Time (Risk) 25,550 (days)
ET= Exposure Time 8 (hours) AT= Averaging Time (Hazard) 3,285 (days)
EF = Exposure Frequency 219 (days/year) PEF = Particulate Emisson Factor 3.30E+09 (m'/kg)
ED= Exposure Duration 9 (years)
g: \data\ hydro \5100\excel \hhriskass \Otlorine Plant\ Page 28 of 28
Final Report -Dec 2000\CurrlndWrk\HgChloride\SS_ind_AVG.XLS
•
Hazard
Index
l.9E-06
12/6/2000
SSPart (NSc)
•
•
•
RMT, Inc.
Appendix 0
Standardized Risk Assessment Tables '
I:\ W PG VL \ PJT\00.0S 100\23 \ROOOS J 0023-656,DOC
Weyerhaeuser Company
Revised/Fina/ January 2001
•
Scenario Medium Exposure Exposure
Timeframe Medium Point
Current/ Future Surface Soil Surface Soil Surface soil at Former
Chlorine Plant
Subsurface Soi I Subsurface Soi Subsurface soil at Former
Chlorine Plant
Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater at Former
Chlorine Plant
G:\Data\Hydro\5100\Exce~HHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised Final Report -Jan 2001 \Part DIFCP1 .xis
•
TABLE 1
SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
Receptor Receptor Exposure On-Sile/
Population Age Route Ott-Site
Industrial Worker Adult Ingestion On-site
Dermal Absorption
Inhalation
Construction Worker Adult Ingestion On-site
Dermal Absorption
Inhalation
Construction Worker Adult Ingestion On•site
Dennal Absorption
Inhalation
Construction Worker Adult Dermal Absorption On•site
Page 1 of 57
Type of
Analysis
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
-
•
Rationale for Selection or Exclusion
of Exposure Pathway
Industrial worker may have exposure to surface soil during routine work.
Industrial worker may have exposure lo surface soil during routine work.
Industrial worker may have exposure to surface soil during routine work.
Construction worker may have exposure to surface soil during contract work.
Construction worker may have exposure to surface soil during contract work.
Construction worker may have exposure to surface soil during contract work.
Construction worker may have exposure to subsurface soil during contract
work.
Construction worker may have exposure to subsurface soil during contract
worl<
Construction worker may haYe exposure to subsurface soil during contract
work.
Construction worker may haYe exposure to groundwater during contract
work.
-
FCP1
1/23/2001
TABLE 2.1
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
FORMER CHLOf:IINE PLANT
Scenario Timeframe: Curren!
jMedium: Surface Soil
Exposure Medium: Sur1ace Soil
Exposure Point: Sur1ace Soil at the Former Chlorine Plant
(1) (1)
CAS Chemical Minimum Minimum Maximum Maximum Units Location
Number Concentration Qualifier Concentration Ouali!ier o! Maximum
Concentration
/7439-97-6 Mercury 0.53 7.3 mg/lq CPSS-01
(1) Minimum/maximum detected concen1rat1on.
{2) NIA -Reier lo supporting information tor background discussion.
(3) USEPA Region Ill ABC (April 13. 2000) tor residen1ial soil ingestion Target risk: lE-06; Target HI: 0.1.
Methylmercury value used as a surrogate !or 1o1al mercury during screening.
(4) Rationale Codes Selec1ion Reason:
Deletion Reason·
ln!rBQuen! Detection bu! Associated Historically (HIST)
Frequent Detection (FD)
Toxicity Information Available CTX)
Above Screening Levels (ASL)
Infrequent Detection (IFD)
Background Levels (BKG)
No Toxicity lnlormat1on (NTX)
Essential Nulrienl (NUT)
Below Screening Level (BSL)
G:\Data\Hydro\5100\Excel\HHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised.Report -Jan 2001\Part D\FCP2.xls
Detection Range o1
Frequency Detection
Limits
3/3
Concentration
Usedlor
Screening
I
, 31
Definitions:
(2) (3)
Background Screening
Value Toxicity Value
I
0.78 N
I
NIA= Not Applicable
SOL = Sample Ouanlitatioo Limit
COPC = Chemical ol Potential Concern
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Value
NIA
(4)
Potential COPC Rationale lor
ARAR/TBC Flag Contaminant
Source Deletion
or Selection
I
NIA
I
Yes
I
ASL
ARAR/TBC" Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate RequiremenVTo Be Considered
MCL = Federal Maximum Contaminant Level
SMCL = Secondary Maximum Contaminant level
J = Estimated Value
C = Carcinogenic
N = Non-Carcinogenic
FCP2.1
.3/2001
I
• • •
TABLE 2.2
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Sur1ace Soil
EKJX)Sure Medium: Surface Soil
EKJX)SUre Point: Surface Soil at the Former Chlorine Plant
{1) (1)
CAS Chemical Minimum Minimum Maximum Maidmum Units Location
Number Coocentration Oua!dier Concentration Qualifier of Maximum
Coocentration
[439-97-6 IM,=,y
I
0.1
I
"
I
59.8
I lm~J S-59
I
(1) Minimum/maximum de!ected concentration.
(2) NIA • Refer to supporting information for background discussion.
Background values derived lrom statistical analysis. Follow Regional guidance and provide supporting in!ormalion.
(3) USEPA Region Ill ABC (April 13, 2000) for residential soil ingestion. Target risk: lE-06: Target HI: 0.1.
Methyl mercury value used as a surrogale lor total mercury during screening.
(4) Aationa!e Codes Selection Reason:
Deletion Reason:
lnlreQuent Detection but Associated Historically (HIST)
Frequent Detection (FD)
To)dcity Information Available (TX)
Above Screening Levels (ASL)
ln!r9Quen1 Detection (IFD)
Background Levels (BKG)
No Toxicity lntorma!ion (NTX)
Essen Hal Nutrient (NUT)· --
Below Screening Level (BSL)
Detection Range of
Frequency Oe!eclion
limits
30/41
I
G:\Data\Hydro\5100\Excel\HHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised Final Report -Jan 2001\Part D\FCP2.xls Page 3 of 57
Concentration
Used lor
Screening
II "'I
Definitions:
(2) (3)
Background Screening
Value Toxicity Value
I
0.78 N
I
NIA,:: Nol Applicable
SOL :: Sample Quantitalion limit
COPC :: Chemical ol Potential Concern
Potential
AAAMBC
Value
NIA
(4)
Potential COPC Rationale for
AAAMBC Flag Contaminant
Source Deletion
or Selection
I
NIA
I
Y6
I
ASL
AAAR/TBC:: Applicable or Aelevan1 and Appropriate Requirement/To Be Considered
MCL = Federal Maximum Contamfnanl Level
SMCL = Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
J = Estimated Value
C = Carcinogenic
N = Non-Carcinogenic
FCP2.2
1/23/2001
I
TABLE 2.3 OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION ANO SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
FOAMER CHLORINE PLANT
I'5cenario Timelrame: CurrenVFuture
Medium: Subsurface Soil
Exposure Medium: Subsurface Soil
EKposure Point: Subsurface Soil at the Former Chlorine Plant
(1) (1)
CAS Chemical Minimum Minimum MaKimum Maximum Units Locarion Detection
Number Concentration Oua111ier Concentration Qualifier of Maximum Frequency
Concentration
17439-97-6 Mercury 0.08 J 45800 mg/k CPSB-03
122967-22-6 Methyl mercury 0.000959 0.206 mg/k CPSB-04
(1) Minimumtmaximum de!ecied conceolration.
(2) NIA -Reier to supporting inlormation ror background discussiOn.
Background values derived lrom statistical analysis. Follow Regional guidance and provide supporting information.
(3) USEPA Region Ill ABC (April 13, 2000) lor industrial sOil ingestion. Target risk: lE-06; Target HI: 0.1.
Methy1mercury value used as a surrogate for total mercury during screening.
(4) Rationale Codes Seleciion Reason:
Oeletioo Reason:
lnfrequenl Detection but Associated His1orically (HIST)
Frequenl Detection (FD)
Toxic·~y ln1ormation Available (TX)
Above Screening Levels (ASL)
ln1requent Detection (IF□)
Background Levels (8KG)
No Toxicity Information (NTX)
Essential Nutrient (NUT)
Below Screening Level {BSL)
G:\Oata\Hydro\.5100\Excel\HHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised -•port -Jan 2001\Part DIFCP2.xls
1681204
518
RallgeOI Concentralion
Detection Used tor
Limits Screening
45800
0.206
Oetinitions:
(2) (3)
Background Screening
Value Toxicity Value
20 N
20 N
NIA = Not Applicable
SOL = Sample Ouantltalion Limit
COPC = Chemical ol P01ential Concern
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Value
NIA
NIA
(4)
Potential COPC Rationale for
ARAR/TBC Flag Contaminant
Source Deletion
or Selection
NIA Y,s ASL
NIA No BSL
ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate R~iremenVTo Be Considered
MCL = Federal MaKimum Contaminant Level
SMCL = Secondary MaKimum Contaminant Level
J = Estimated Value
C = Carcinogenic
N = Non-Carcinogenic
FCP23 .,2001
• • •
TABLE 2.4
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
CAS
Scenario Timelrame; Current/Future
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Point: Groundwater at the Former Chlorine Plant
(1)
Chemical Minimum Minimum Ma)Cjmum
(1)
Number Concentration Qualifier Concentration
17439.97.5 Men::ury 4.J0E-04 0.116
22967-22-< Methyl mercury LSE-07 0.00166
(1) Minimum/maximum detected concentration.
(2) NIA • Aeter to supporting information tor background discussion
Maximum Units Location
Qualifier o! Mal(imtrm
Concentration
mg/L CP-04-1
mg/L CP-04-1
Background va!ues derived from statistical analysis. Follow Regional guidance and provide supporting information.
(3) USEPA Region Ill ABC (April 13. 2000) !or tap water ingestion. Target risk: lE-06; Target HI: 0.1.
Methy!mercury value used as a surrogate !or 1o1al mercury during screening.
(4) Rationale Codes Selection Reason:
Deletion Reason:
ln!requen1 Detection but Associated Historically (HIST)
Frequent Detection (FD)
Toxicity Information Available (TX)
Above Screening Levels (ASL)
Infrequent Detection (IFDJ
Background Levels (BKG)
No Toxicity ln!onnation (NTXJ
Esse~iia~ Nu~rient (NUT)
Below Screening level (BSLJ
G:\Data\Hydro\5100\Excel\HHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised Final Report -Jan 2001\Part D\FCP2.xls
Detection Range ol Concentration
Frequency Detection Used tor
limits Screening
"'"' 0.116
7/13 0.00168
Detinitions:
Page 5 of 57
(2) (3)
Background Screening
Value Toxicity Value
0.00037 N
0.00037 N
NIA= Nol Applicable
SOL = Sample Ouantitalion Umit
COPC = Chemical ot Potential Corn:em
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Value
0.0011
0.0011
(4)
Potential COPC AaliOflaTe !or
ARAMBC Flag Contaminant
Source Deletion
or Selection
NC MAC Yes ASL
NC MAC Yes ASL
ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate RequiremenVT o Be Considered
MCL = Federal Maximum Con1aminant Level
SMCL = Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
NC MAC = North Carolina Maximum Allowable Concentration
J = Estimated Value
C = Carcinogenic
N = Non-Carcinogenic
FCP2.4
1/23/2001
-.,cenano 11meTrame: 1.,urrem
Medium: Surface Soil
Exposure Medium: Surface Soil
TABLE 3.1
MEOIUM·SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
Exoosure Point: Surface Soil from the Former Chlorine Plant
Chemical Units Arithmetic 95% UCL of Maximum Maximum EPC Reasonable Maximum Exposure
of Mean Normal Detected Qualifier Units
Potential Data Concentration Medium Medium Medium
Concern EPC EPC EPC
Value Statistic Rationale
Mercury mg/kg 4 70 7.3 mg/kg 7.3 Max W•Test (2)
Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max): 95% UCL of Normal Data (95% UCL·N); 95% UCL of Log.transformed Data (95% UCL·T); Mean of log·transformed Data (Mean-T); Mean of Normal Data (Mean-N).
G:\Data\Hydro\5100\Exce~HHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised-Report -Jan 2001\Part D\FCP3.xls
.ge 6of 57
Medium
EPC
Value
7.3
Central Tendency
Medium
EPC
Statistic
Max
Medium
EPC
Rationale
W•Test (2)
FCP3.1
.,2001
•
Chemical
of
Potential
Concern
Mercury
cenano 1rne1rame: i-uIure
!Medium: Surface Soil
Exposure Medium: Surface Soil
•
TABLE 3.2
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
J:xposure Point: Surface Soil from the Fonner Chlorine Plant
Units Arithmetic 95'% UCL of Maximum Maximum EPC Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Mean Normal Detected Qualifier Units
Data Concentration Medium Medium Medium
EPC EPC EPC
Value Statistic Rationale
mg/kg 4.1 6.8 59.8 mg/kg 12.7 95% UCL-T W-Test (2)
Medium
EPC
Value
12.7
Statislics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Normal Data (95%, UCL-N); 95% UCL of Log-transformed Data (95% UCL-T); Mean of Log-transformed Data (Mean-T);
Mean of Normal Data (Mean-N).
G:\Data\Hydro\5100\Excel\HHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised Final Report -Jan 2001\Part D\FCP3.xls Page 7 of 57
•
Central Tend ency
Medium
EPC
Stalistic
95%, UCL-T
Medium
EPC
Rationale
W-Tesl (2)
FCP3.2
1/23/2001
Chemical
of
Potential
Concern
Mercury
Methyl mercury
=nano 11me1rame: vurren.,, u1ure
Medium: Subsurface Soil
Exposure Medium: Subsurface Soil
TABLE 3.3
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
Exposure Point: Subsur1ace Soil at the Former Chlorine Plant
Unils Arithmetic 95% UCLol Maximum Maximum EPC Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Mean Normal Detected Qualifier Units
Data Concentration Medium Medium Medium
EPC EPC EPC
Value Statistic Rationale
mg/l<g 406.2 797 45800 mg/kg 767 95% UCL-T W-Test (2)
mg/l<g 0.08 0.143 0.206 mg/kg 0.206 Max W-Test (21
Medium
EPC
Value
767
0.206
Statistics; Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Normal Data (95% UCL-N); 95% UCL of Log-transformed Data (95% UCL-T): Mean of Log-transformed Data (Mean-T);
Mean of Normal Data (Mean-N).
G:\Data\Hydro\5100\Excel\HHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revise.al Report -Jan 2001 \Part DIFCP3.xls .e8of57
Central Tendency
Medium
EPC
Statistic
95%UCL-T
Max
Medium
EPC
Rationale
W-Test (2)
W-Test (2)
FCP3.3
912001
•
Chemical
of
Potential
Concern
Mercury
Methyl mercury
::,cenano 1 1me1rame; currenu uture
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Groundwater
•
TABLE 3.4
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
Exposure Point: Groundwater at the Former Chlorine Plant
Units Arithmetic 95% UCLof Maximum Maximum EPC Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Mean Normal Detected Qualifier Units
Data Concentration Medium Medium Medium
EPC EPC EPC
Value Statistic Rationale
mg/L 0.014 0.027 0.116 mg/L 0.116 Max W-Test (2)
mg/L 0.00019 0.0005 0.0017 mg/L 0.0017 Max W-Test (2)
Medium
EPC
Value
0.116
0.0017
Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Normal Data (95% UCL-N): 95% UCL of Log-transformed Data (95% UCL-T); Mean of Log-transformed Data (Mean-T);
Mean of Normal Data (Mean-N).
G:\Data\Hydro\5100\Excel\HHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised Final Report -Jan 2001\Part D\FCP3.xls Page go! 57
•
Central Tendency
Medium
EPC
Statistic
Max
Max
Medium
EPC
Rationale
W-Test (2)
W-Tesl (2)
FCP3.4
1/23/2001
Exposure Roub
,_...,
"'='
lnhalabon
Scenario Tlmeframe: CurrenVFuture
Medium: Surface Soil
Exposure Medium: Surface Soil
Exposure Point. Surface soil lrom the Former Chlorine Plant
Receplor Popolallon. Industrial Wor',c.er
:Mitt
Parameter Parameter Definition
c""'
cs Chemical concentration In soil
IR-S Ingestion Ra!e o1 Soi
CF Conversion Factor
Fl Fraction tnges!ed
EF Eqiosure Frequency
E0 E ,;,osure Duration
BW Body Weigh\
AT•N Averagir,g Tine (Non-Cancel')
cs Chemical concentration in soil
SA Skin Surface Area Available !or Contact
SSAF Soil to Skin Adherence Factor
DABS Dermal Absorpbon Fador (solid)
EF E,cposure Frequency
ED Exposure Duration
CF Conversion Factor
BW SodyWelgtil
AT•N Averaging Tine (Non-Cancer)
cs Chemical concentra!ion in soil
lhR Inhalation Rate
ET Exposure Time
EF Eqiosure Frequency
ED Eiq>OSure Duration
BW Body Weight
AT·N Averaging Tine (Non-Cancer)
PEF Particulate Emission !actor
G:\Data\Hyyro\5100\Excel\HHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised .eport. Jan 2001\Part D\FCP4.xls
TABLE4.1
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
Units RME RME CT
Value Ra~onalel Value
Reference -see table 3 see table 3
""""' 50 Region IV guidance 10 ·-1.00E·OO 1.00E-06
unilless 1 Region IV guidance 1
days/year 250 Region IV guidance 219
years 25 Region IV IP(iance 9
kg 70 Region IV guidance 70
days/year 9,125 365 x ED 3,285 -Seti table 3 see table 3
=' 5660 Dermal Exposure 4300 G""'""'
mg,'c::rrl/event 1 Region IV guidance 02
unitless 0001 Region IV guidance 0.001
days/year 250 Region IV guidaoce 219
years 25 Region IV guidance 9 -1.00E-06 1.00E·06
kg 70 Region IV guidance 70
days/year 9.125 365 x ED 3,285
""" see table 3 see table 3
m'lhour 0.63 Region IV guid.m:;e 063
hours/day B Region IV guidance B
days/year 250 Region IV guidance 219
years 25 Region IV guidance 9
kg 70 Region IV guidance 70
days/year 9,125 365 x ED 3,285
m''1<g 3.E+09 Region IV guidance 3.E+09
CT
Rationale'
Rererence
Exposure Factors Handbook
Region IV guidance
Central TendencylEFH
Central Teodercy/'EFH
Region IV guidance
365 x ED
Dermal El<l)OSure Guidance
Oennat Exposure Guidance
Region IV guidance
Central Tendercy!EFH
Central Tendercy!EFH
Region IV guidance
365 x ED
Region IV guidance
Region IV guidance
Central Tenden;y/'EFH
Central Tenden:y/EFH
Region IV guidance
365 x ED
Region IV guidance
Intake Equaliorv
Model Name
tnges!ed Dose (mgtkg·day)"
C:S !IR•S xC,F 11E! xi;;Ex l;;Q
SW x AT•N
Absorbed Dose (mglkg·day)=
C:S x SA~SSAF x Q~Sx f;;F xl;;Q !C:E
SW x AT•N
Inhaled Dose (mglkg·day)=
!;;;SxthRxl;;TxEFx!;Q
SW xAT-N xPEF
FCP4.1
.23/2001
•
!Exposure Rout1
Ingestion
Dermal
-·--
!nhalahon
Scenario Timeframe: CurrenVFu!ure
Medium. Surtace Soil
Exposure Medo,1m· Sur!ace Soil
Exposure Point. Sur1ace soil from lhe Former Chlonne Plan1
Receptor Population: Construction Worker
Recentor A--· Adi.Ill
Parameter Parameter Delini~on
Coo,
cs Chemical concentration in soil
IR-5 Ingestion Rate of Soil
CF Co,wersion Factor
Fl Fraction Ingested
EF Exposure Frequency
ED Exposure Duration
BW Body Weight
AT-N Averaging r1ne (Non-Cancer)
cs Chemical concentration in soil
SA Skin Surface Area Available lo, Contact
SSAF Soil to Sl<in Adherence Factor
DABS Dermal Absorpbon Factor (solid)
EF E>pOSUre Frequency
ED Exposure Duration
CF Conversion Factor
BW ---Body Weight _ ---.. -----
AT•N Averaging Tine (Non-Cancer)
cs Chemical concentration in sod
i,A Inhalation Rate
ET E,q:,osu,e Time
EF E>pOSUre Frequency
ED Exposure Duration
BW Body Weight
AT-N Averaging nne (Non-Cance,)
PEF Particulate Emission lacio1
G :\Data\Hydro\5 1 00\ExceN-lHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised Final Report. Jan 2001\Part D\FCP4.xls
•
TABLE42
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
Units AME AME
Value Ra~onalel
Reference -see !able 3
mgday 100 Region IV guidance
komg I.OOE·06
unitless I Region IV guidance
days/year 250 Region IV guidance
years I Prolessional Judgment
kg 70 Region IV guidance
days/year 365 365 x ED ,.,.,., see table 3
=' 5660 Dermal Exposure
Guidance
mg1cm21even1 I Region IV guidance
UMless 0001 Region IV guidance
days/year 250 Region IV guidance
years I Professional Judgment
komg 1.00E-06 ---·-·-------. -kg 70--Region IV guidance
days/year 365 365 • ED -see table 3
m3/hour 3 30 Region IV guidance
hours/day IO Prolessiooal Judgment
days/year 250 Region IV guidance
years I Professional Judgment
kg 70 Region IV guidanee
days/year 365 365 • ED
m"/1":g 3.3.E+09 Region IV guidance
Page 11 of 57
CT CT
Value Rabonalel
Retereoce
see table 3
IO Exposure Factors Handbook
1.00E-06
I Region IV guidance
250 Region IV guidance
I Professiooal Judgment
70 Region IV guidance
365 365 x ED
see table 3
'300 Dermal Exposure Guidance
02 Dermal Exposure Guidance
0001 Ae!Jlon IV guidance
250 Reg,on IV guidance
I Proressional Judgment
1.~-~----------
70 Region IV guidance
365 365 • ED
see table 3
2.50 Region IV guidance
IO Professional Judgment
250 Region IV gvidarce
I Professional Judgment
70 Region IV gvldan:.e
365 365 x ED
3 3 E+09 Region IV guidance
•
Intake Equatiorv
Model Name
Ingested Dose (mg,'kg-Oay)-=
!;;:S xlB-S •l:::E x Fl x !;;Fx !;;Q
BW xAT-N
Absorbed Dose (mg,1,g-day)=
QS •SA•SSAE • Q~S x EF• l;Q• QF
BW • AT•N
---------
Ingested Dose ("'!,"kg-day)=
t;SxlhAx!;;I•EFxED
BW x AT-N • PEF
FCP4.2
1/23/2001
EJq)OSure RoutE
ingestion
Dermal
lnhalatioo
Scenario Timeframe: CurrenVFuture
Medium· Subsur1ace Soil
Exposure Medium: Subsurface Soil
Exposure Point: Subsurface Soil from the Former Chlorine Planl
Receptor Population: Construction Worller
Roceotor A""': Adult
Parameter Parameter DelinitiOo
Cod•
cs Chemical concentration in soil
IR·S Ingestion Rate of Soil
CF Conversion Factor
Fl Fraction Ingested
EF Exposure Frequency
ED Exposure Duration
BW Body Weight
AT•N Averaging Tine (Non-Cancer)
cs Chemical concentration in soil
SA Skin Surface Area Available lor Contact
SSAF Soil 10 Skin Adherence Factor
DABS Dermal Absorplion Factor (solid)
EF Exposure Frequency
ED Exposure Duration
CF Conversion Factor
BW Body Weight
AT-N Averaging Tine (Non-Cancer)
cs Chemical concentration in soil
lhR Inhalation Rate
ET EJq)OSure Time
EF EJq)OSure Frequency
ED Exposure Duration
BW Body Weight
AT-N Averaging Tine (Non-Cancer)
PEF Particulate Emission !actor
G :\Data\Hydro\51 00\Excel\HHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Reirised -pon -Jan 2001\Pan D\FCP4.xls
TABLE 4.3
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCutATlONS
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
Units RME RME
Value Rationale/
Reference
m<J'l<g see table 3
mg/day 100 Region IV guidance
kGfmg 1.00E-06
unitless 1 Region JV guidance
days/year 250 Region IV guidance
years 1 Professional Judgment
kg 70 Region IV guidance
days/year 365 365 x ED
m<J'l<g see table 3
om' 5660 Dermal Exposure Guidance
mg/cm:/event 1 Region IV guidance
uniUess 0001 Region IV guidance
days/year 250 Region IV guidance
''"" 1 Pmtessionar Judgment
kGfmg 1.00E·06
kg 70 Region IV guidance
days/year 365 365 x ED
m<J'l<g see table 3
m3/hour 3 30 Region IV guidance
hours/day 10 Professional Judgment
days/year 250 Region IV glidance
yeara 1 Professional Judgment
kg 70 Region rv guidance
days/year 365 365 x ED
mJ/kg 3.3.E+09 Region IV guidance
.ge 12of57
CT
Value
see table 3
10
1.00E--06
1
250
1
70
365
see table 3
4300
02
0 001
250
1
1.00E-06
70
366
see table 3
2.50
10
250
1
70
365
3.3 E+09
CT
Rationale/
Reference
Exposure Factors Handbook
Region 1V guidance
Region IV guidance
Professional Judgment
Region IV guidance
365 x ED
Dermal Exposure Guidance
Dermal Exposure Guidance
Region IV guidance
Region IV guidance
Professional Judgment
Region IV guidance
365 x ED
Region 1V guidance
Professional Judgment
Region IV guidance
Professional Judgment
Region IV guidance
365 x ED
Region IV guidance
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Ingested Dose (ml)"kg-day)=
CS x IR-S xCF x Fl x EF x ED
BW xAT-N
Absomed Dose (mg/kg-day)"
CSx SAxSSAF xOABS x EF x ED x CF
BW x AT-N
lngestod Dose (ml)"kg-day)=
CSxlhRxETxEFxED
BW x AT-N x PEF
FCP4.3
.3/2001
•
E,cposure Route
Dermal
!Scenario Timeframe: CurrenVFuture
!Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Point: Groundwater frnm the Former Chlorine Plant
Receptor Population: Construction Worker
Receotor Aae: Adult
Parameter Parameter Definition
Code
cw Chemical concentration in water
SA Skin Surface Area Available for Contact
PC Chemical -specific dermal permeability constant
ET Exposure Time
EF Exposure Frequency
ED Exposure Duration
BW Body Weighl
CF Conversion Factor
AT-N Averaging Tine (Non-Cancsr)
G:\Data\Hydro\51 OO\Excel\HHrisk\Ch1orine Plant\
Revised Final Report -Jan 2001\Part D1FCP4.xls
•
TABLE 4.4
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
Units AME AME
Value Rationale/
mg/\. see table 3
cm1/day 5660 Dermal Exposure Guidance
cm/hour chemical specific
hours/day 2 Professional Judgment
days/year 25 Region IV guidance
years 1 Professional Judgment
kg 70 Region IV guidance
1U1000cm3 1U1000cm3
days/year 365 365 x ED
Page 13 of 57
CT
Value
see table 3
2000
chemical specific
2
25
1
70
1U1000cm3
365
CT
Rationale/
Dermal Exposure Guidance
Professional Judgmenl
Region IV guidance
Professional Judgment
Region tV guidance
365 x ED
•
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Absorbed Dose (mg/kg-day)=
CWxSAx PC xET x EF x EDxCF
BW x AT-N
FCP4.4
1/23/2001
Chemical Chronid Oral RfD Oral RID
of Potential Subchronic Value Units
Concern
Mercury NA NA mg/kg-day
Mercuric chloride Subchronic 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day
Methyl Mercury Chronic 1E-04 mg/kg-day
NIA= Not Applicable
(1) Refer to RAGS, Part A
(2) Oral RfD x Adjustment Factor = Dermal RIO
(3) For IRIS values, provide the date IRIS was searched.
For HEAST values, provide the date of HEAST.
For NCEA values, provide the date of the article provided by NCEA
G:\Data\Hydro\5100\Excel\HHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revise.I Report -Jan 2001\Part D\FCPS.xls
TABLE 5.1
NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA --ORAUDERMAL
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
Oral to Dermal Adjusted Units
Adjustment Factor (1) Dermal
RID (2)
NA NA mg/kg-day
Primary
Target
Organ
NA
0.2 6.0E-05 mg/kg-day Nervous system
1.0 1.0E-04 mg/kg-day Kidney
.ge 14 of 57
Combined
Uncertainty/Modifying
Factors
NA
1000
10
Sources of RID:
Target Organ
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
Dates of RID:
Target Organ (3)
(MM/DD/VY)
11/23/99
05/12/00
11/23/99
FCP51
-/2001
•
Chemical Chronic/ Value Units
of Potential Subchronic Inhalation
Concern RfC
Mercury Subchronic 3.00E-04 mg/m3
Mecuric chloride NA NA mg/m3
Methy1 Mercury NA NA mg/m3
N/A = Not Applicable
(1) Oral RID x Adjustment Factor= Inhalation RfD
(2) For IRIS values, provide the date IRIS was searched.
For HEA~T ~a_!_ues, provide the date of HEAST. -·--
For NCEA values, provide the date of the artide provided by NCEA.
G:\Data\Hydro\5100\Excel\HHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised Final Report • Jan 2001 \Part D\FCP5.xls
•
TABLE 5.2
NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA --INHALATION
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
Adjusted Units Primary
Inhalation Target
RfD (1) Organ
B.60E-05 mg/kg-day Nervous system
NA mg/kg-day NA
NA mg/kg-day NA
Page 15 of 57
Combined Sources of
Uncertainty/Modifying RfC:RfD:
Factors Target Organ
30 IRIS
NA IRIS
NA IRIS
•
Dates (2)
(MM/DD/YY)
11/23/99
05/12/00
11/23/99
FCP52
1/23/2001
TABLE 6.1
CANCER TOXICITY DATA·· ORAUDERMAL
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
Chemical Oral Cancer Slope Factor Oral to Dermal Adjusted Dermal Units Weight of Evidence/
of Potential Adjustment
Concern Factor
NA
IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System
HEAST = Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
(1) Provide equation for derivation in text.
(2) For IRIS values, provide the date IRIS was searched.
For HEAST values, provide the date of HEAST.
For NCEA values, provide the date of article provided by NCEA.
G:\Data\Hydro\5100\Excel\HHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revise-al Report -Jan 2001\Part D\FCP6.xls
Cancer Slope Factor (1) Cancer Guideline
Description
EPA Group:
A -Human carcinogen
81 -Probable human carcinogen -indicates that limited human data are available
B2 -Probable human carcinogen -indicates sufficient evidence in animals and
inadequate or no evidence in humans
C • Possible human carcinogen
D • Not classifiable as a human carcinogen
E • Evidence of noncarcinogenicity
Weight of Evidence:
Known/Likely
Cannot be Determined
Not Likely
Source
Target Organ
Date (2)
(MM/DD/YY)
FCP61
-2001
•
Chemical Unit Risk
of Potential
Concern
NA
IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System
HEAST= Health Elfects Assessment Summary Tables
Weight of Evidence:
Known/Likely
Cannot be Determined
Not Likely
(1) For IRIS values, provide the date IRIS was searched.
For HEAST values, provide the date of HEAST.
Units
For NCEA values, provide the date of the article provided by NCEA.
G :\Data\Hydro\5100\Exce~HHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised Final Report -Jan 2001\Part DIFCP6.xls
•
TABLE 6.2
CANCER TOXICITY DATA--INHALATION
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
Adjustment Inhalation Cancer
Slope Factor
EPA Group:
A -Human carcinogen
Units Weight of Evidence/ Source
Cancer Guideline
Description
B 1 -Probable human carcinogen -indicates that limited human data are available
B2 -Probable human carcinogen -indicates suHicient evidence in animals and
inadequate or no·evidence in-huITlafls
C • Possible human carcinogen
D -Not classifiable as a human carcinogen
E -Evidence of noncarcinogenicity
page 17 of 57
Date (1)
(MM/ODNY)
•
FCP62
1/23/2001
TABLE 6.3
CANCER TOXICITY DATA --SPECIAL CASE CHEMICALS
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
Chemical Value Units
of Potential
Concern
NA
(1) For IRIS values, provide the date IRIS was searched.
For HEAST values, provide the date of HEAST.
For NCEA values, provide the date of the article provided by NCEA.
G:\Data\Hydro\5100\Excel\HHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revis-inal Report -Jan 2001\Part D\FCP6.xls
.age 18 of 57
Source Date (1)
MM/DD/YY
FCP63
1-2001
•
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
loermal
Inhalation
!scenario Timeframe: Current
Medium: Surface Soil
Exposure Medium: Surface So~
Exposure Point: Surface So~ from the Former Chlorine Plant
Receplor Population: Industrial Worker
Aeceplor Age: Adult
Chemical Medium Medium
ol Potential EPC EPC
Concern Value Units
Mercury (as Inorganic Hg) 7.3 mg/kg
Methlll Mercurv NA mg/kg
Mercury (as Inorganic Hg) 7.3 mg,\<g
Methvl Mercurv NA mg/kg
Mercury (as Inorganic Hg) 7.3 mgl1<g
Methyl Mercury NA mg,\<g
Route
EPC
Value
7.3
NA
7.3
NA
7.3
NA
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (A) EPC selected !or hazard calculation.
(2) Oral AfD for HgCliis subchrooic, Inhalation RID !or inorganic Hg is subchronic
G:\Data\Hydro\5100\ExceN--IHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised Final Report -Jan 2001\Part D\FCP7a.xls
•
TABLE 7.1.RME
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
FOAMER CHLORINE PLANT
Route EPC Intake
EPC Selected (Non-Cancer)
Units for Hazard
Calculation (1)
mg,\<g M 3.S?E-06
mg,\<g NA NC
mg,\<g M 4.0E-07
mg,\<g NA NC
mg,\<g M 1.1E-10
mg,\<g NA NC
Page 19 of 57
Intake Aelerence Reference Reference Reference
(Non-Cancer) Dose (2) Dose Units Concentration Concentration
Units Units
mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-day NA NA
1E-04 m~11.--"av NA NA
mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-day NA NA
1.0E-04 m~,.,--,.av NA NA
mg/kg-day 8.60E-05 mg/kg-day NA NA
NA mg/kg-day NA NA
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways I
•
Hazard
Quotienl
NC
NC
1.3E-06
1.3E-06 I
FCP7.1RME
1/23/2001
Exposure
Route
lngesUoo
Dermal
Inhalation
!scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Surface Soil
Exposure Medium: Surface Soil
Exposure Poi'lt: Surface Soil from the Former Chlorine Plant
Aeceplor Population: Industrial Worker
Receptor Age: Adull
Chemical Medium Medium
ol Polential EPC EPC
Concern Value Units
Mercury (as Inorganic Hg) 12.7 mg/kg
Methvl Mercurv NA mg/kg
Mercury (as Inorganic Hg) 12.7 mg/kg
Methv1 Mercurv NA mg/kg
Mercury (as Inorganic Hg) 12.7 mg/kg
Meth',1 Mercury NA mg/kg
Ro"1e
EPC
Value
12.7
NA
12.7
NA
12.7
NA
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (A) EPC selected tor. hazard calculation.
(2) Oral AID !or HgCt, is subchrooic, lnhala!iorl RID !or inorganic Hg is subchronic
G:\Data\Hydro\5100\Excel\HHrisk\Chtorine Plant\
Revised-Report -Jan 2001\Part DIFCP7a.xls
TABLE 7.2.AME
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
FOAMER CHLORINE PLANT
Ro"1e EPC Intake
EPC Selected (Non-cancer)
Units for Hazard
Calculation (1)
mg/kg M 6.21E-06
mg/kg NA NC
mg/kg M 7.0E-07
mg/kg NA NC
mg/kg M 1.9E-10
mg/kg NA NC
Intake Reference Reference Reference Reference
(Non-Cancer) Dose (2) Dose Units Concenlration Concentration
Units Units
mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-day NA NA
1E-04 mnllm-dav NA NA
mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-day NA NA
1.0E-04 rnn/lm.dav NA NA
mg/kg•day 8.60E-05 mg/kg•day NA NA
NA mg/kg•day NA NA
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways
Hazard
Quotient
NC
NC
2.2E-06
FCP7.2RME
-23/2001
E:,:posure
Route
Ingestion
!Dermal
Inhalation
!Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Surface So~
i::xposure Medium: Surface SoD
Exposure Poi'lt Surface Soil fTom lhe Former Chlorine Plant
Receptor Population: Construction Woril.er
Receptor Age: Adult
Chemical Medium Medium
of Potential EPC EPC
Concern Value Units
Mercury (as Inorganic Hg) 12.7 mg/kg
Melhvl Mercurv NA mg/kg
Mercury (as Inorganic Hg} 12.7 mg/kg
Melhvl Mercurv NA mg/kg
Mercury (as Inorganic Hg) 12.7 mg/kg
Methyl Mercury NA mg/kg
Route
EPC
Value
12.7
NA
12.7
NA
12.7
NA
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (Ml or Roule-Specific (A) EPC selected !or hazard calculation.
(2) Orat RfD !or HgC~ is subchronic, lnhalatioo RID for inor~ni~-~g _'.: su~h~nic
G :\Data\Hydro\51 00\Excef\HHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised Final Report• Jan 2001\Part D\FCP7a.xls
•
TABLE 7.3.RME
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
FORMER CHLORINE PL.ANT
Route EPC Intake
EPC Selected (Non-Cancer)
Units tor Hazard
Calculation (1)
mg/kg M 1.2E-05
mg/kg NA
mg/kg M 7.0E-07
mg/kg NA
mg/kg M 1.2E-09
mg/kg NA
Page 21 of 57
Intake Reference Reference Reference Reference
(Non-Cancer) Dose (2) Dose Units Concentration Concentration
Units Units
mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-day NA NA
1E-04 m~11.,~-dav NA NA
mg/kg-clay NA mg/kg-day NA NA
1.0E-04 -•--•as NA NA
mg/kg-day 8.60E-05 mg/kg-day NA NA
NA m9-'kg-day NA NA
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways I
•
Hazard
Quotient
NC
NC
1.44E-05
1.4E-05 I
FCP7_3RME
1/23/2001
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Dermal
Inhalation
!Scenario Timeframe: CurrenVFuture
Medium: Subsurface Soil
Exposure Medium: Subsurface Soil
Exposure Point: Subsurface Soil from the Former Chlorine Plant
Receptor Population: Construction Worker
Receptor Age: Adult
Chemical Medium Medium
of Potential EPC EPC
Concern Value Units
Mercury (as Inorganic Hg) 767 mg/kg
Methvl Mercur-. 0.206 mg/kg
Mercury (as Inorganic Hg) 767 mg/kg
Melhvl Mercur-. 0.206 mg/kg
Mercury (as Inorganic Hg) 767 mg/kg
Melhyl Mercury 0.206 mg/kg
Route
EPC
Value
767
0.206
767
0.206
767
0.206
TABLE 7.4.RME
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
Route EPC Intake
EPC Selected (Non-Cancer)
Units for Hazard
Calculation ( 1)
mg/kg M 7.SE-04
mg/kg NA 2.0E-07
mg/kg M 4.3E-05
mg/kg .NA 1.1 E-08
mg/kg M 7.SE-08
mg/kg NA 2.0E-11
(1) Specify Med1um-Spec1flc {Ml or Route-Specific (A) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
(2) Oral RID for HgCI:? is subchronic, Inhalation AID tor inorganic Hg is subchronic
G:\Data\l-lydro\5100\ExceN-IHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revis.Repart -Jan 2001\Part D\FCP?a.xls Pa.of57
Intake Reference Reference Reference Reference
(Non-Cancer) Dose {2) Dose Units Concentration Concentration
Units Units
mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-day NA NA
mg/kg•day 1E-04 ma/kc-day NA NA
mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-day NA NA
mg/kg-day 1.0E-04 ma/kc-day NA NA
mg/kg-day 8.SOE-05 mg/kg-day NA NA
mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-day NA NA
Total Hazard Index Across All Expasure Routes/Pathways
Hazard
Quotient
NC
2.00E-03
NC
1.tE-04
1.00E-03
NC
3.1E·03
FCP7.4RME
.23/2001
; .. •
Exposure
Route
Dermal
lscenario Timelrame: CurrenVFuture
!Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Point: Groundwater
Receptor Populalion: Groundwater
Receptor Age: Adult
Chemical Medium
of Potential EPC
Concern Value
Mercury (as Inorganic Hg) 0.116
Methyl Mercury 0.0017
Medium
EPC
Unils
mgA.
mgA.
Roule
EPC
Value
0.116
0.0017
•
TABLE 7.5.RME
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
Route EPC Intake
EPC Selected (Non-Cancer)
Units for Hazard
Calculation (1)
mgA. M 1.3E-05
mgA. NA 1.9E-07
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Roule-Spec1lic (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
(2) Oral AfD for HgCl2is subchronic. Inhalation RID !or inorganic Hg is subchronic
G:\Data\l-lydro\5100\Excel\HHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised Final Report -Jan 2001\Part D\FCP7a.xls Page 23 of 57
Intake Reference Reference Reference Reference
(Non-Cancer) Dose (2) Dose Units Concentration Concentration
Units Units
mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-day NA NA
mg/kg-day 1.0E-04 mg/kg-day NA NA
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways
•
Hazard
Quotient
NC
0.0019
0.0019
FCP7.5RME
1/23/2001
Exposure
Ao<rte
Ingestion
""~~
Inhalation
!Scenario Timeframe: Current
Medium: Surface Soil
Exposure Medium: Surface Soff
!Exposure Point: Surface SoH fTom the Former Chloriie Planl
Receptor Population: Industrial Wol1ter
Receplor Age: Adult
Chemical Medium Medium
ot Potential EPC EPC
Concern Value Units
Mercury (as Inorganic Hg) 73 mg/kg
Melhvt Mercury NA mg/kg
Mercury (as Inorganic Hg) 7.3 mg/kg
Methvt Mercury NA mg/kg
Mercury (as Inorganic Hg) 7.3 mg/kg
Methyl Mercury NA mg/kg
Ao<rte
EPC
Value
7.3
NA
7.3
NA
7.3
NA
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (RJ EPC selected !or hazard calculation.
(2) Oral RfO !or HgCt2 is subchronic, lnhafalioo RfO for inorganic Hg is subchronic
G:\Data\Hydro\5100\Excel\HHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised.Report -Jan 2001\Part D\FCP7a.xls
TABLE7.1.CT
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY
FOAMER CHLORINE PLANT
Route EPC lnlake
EPC Selected (Non-Cancer)
Units for Hazard
Calculation (1)
mg/kg M 6.3E-07
mg/kg NA NC
mg/kg M 5.4E-08
mg/kg NA NC
mg/kg M 9.6E-11
mg/kg NA NC
tnlake Reference Reference Reference Reference
(Non-Cancer) Dose (2) Dose Units Concentration Concentiation
Units Units
mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-day NA NA
mg/kg-day 1E-04 m~"'~ da11 NA NA
mg/kg-day NA. mg/kg-day NA NA
mg/kg-day 1.0E-04 m~"'~ '"'a11 NA NA
mg/kg-day 8.60E--05 mg/kg-day NA NA
mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-day NA NA
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways I
Hazaid
Ouotienl
NC
NC
1.1E-06
1.1E-06 I
FCP7.1CT
.3/2001
•
Exposure
Ao~•
Ingestion
Dermal
Inhalation
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Surface SoR
Exposure Medium: Surface Soil
Exposure Point: Surface Soi from the Former Chlorine Plant
Receptor Population: lndustrlal Worker
Receptor Age: AdlAI
Chemical Medium Medium
of Potential EPC EPC
Concern Value Units
Mercury (as Inorganic Hg) 12.7 mg/kg
Melhlli Mercurv NA mg/kg
Mercury (as Inorganic Hg) 12.7 mg/kg
Methvl Mercurv NA mgi1c;g
Mercury (as Inorganic Hg) 12 .. 7 mg/kg
Methyl Mercury NA mg/kg
Ao~•
EPC
Value
12.7
NA
12.7
NA
12.7
NA
(\)
(2)
Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific {A) EPC selected !or hazard calculation.
Oral RfD for HgC'2 is subchronic:, Inhalation RID !or inorganic Hg is su_bch!on~c -----·-- ----- --------
G:\Data\J-lydro\5100\ExceN-iHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised Final Report -Jan 2001\Part D\FCP7a.xls
•
l "~ TABLE 7.2.CT •, fl
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS .
CENTRAL TENDENCY
FOAMER CHLORINE PLANT
Ao~• EPC Intake
EPC Selected (Non-Cancer)
Units for Hazard
Calculation (1)
mg/kg M UE-06
mg/kg NA NC
mg/kg M 9.4E-08
mg/kg NA NC
mg/kg M 1.7E-10
mg/kg NA NC
Page 25 of 57
Intake Reference Reference Reference Reference
(Non-Cancer) Dose (2) Dose Units Concentration Concentration
Units Units
mg/kg-day NA mg,,\lg-day NA NA
mg/kg-day tE-04 -nJL.n "av NA NA
mg/kg-day NA rng.,kg-day NA NA
mg/kg-day 1.0E-04 NA NA
mg/kg-day 8.SOE-05 mg/kg-day NA NA
mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-day NA NA
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways I
•
Hazard
Quotient
NC
NC
1.9E-06
1.9E-06 I
FCP7.2CT
1/23/2001
Exposure
RoUle
Ingestion
!Dermal
Inhalation
ario Timeframe: CurrenVFuture
edium: Sur1ace Soil
xposure Medium: Surface Soi
xposure Point Surface Sol from the Former Chlorine Plant
eceptor Population: Construction Worker
eceptor · Adult
Chemical Medium Medium
of Potential EPC EPC
Concern Value Units
Mercury (as Inorganic Hg) 12.7 mgi11g
Methyt MerCUl"f NA mgil<.g
Mercury (as Inorganic Hg) 12.7 mgi\lg
Methvt Mercur'f NA mg/kg
Mercury (as Inorganic Hg) 12.7 mg/kg
Methyt Mercury NA mg/kg
RoUle
EPC
Value
12.7
NA
12.7
NA
12.7
NA
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Spec1f1C (R) EPC selected for hazard calculatI00.
(2) Oral RID tor HQC'2 is subchronic. Inhalation RfD for inorganic Hg is subchronic
G :\Data\l-lydro\51 00\ExceN--IHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised.Repcrt -Jan 2001\Part D\FCP7a.xls
TABLE 7.3.CT'
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
RoUlo EPC Intake
EPC Selected (Non-Cancer)
Units tor Hazard
Calculation (1)
mgi11g M 1.2E-06
mg/kg NA NC
mg/kg M 1.tE-07
mg/kg NA NC
mg/kg M 9.4E-10
mg/kg NA NC
Intake Reference Reference Reference Reference
(Non-Cancer) Dose (2) Dose Units Concentration Concentration
Units Units
mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-day NA NA
mg/kg-day 1E-04 mo/lm-day NA NA
mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-day NA NA
mg.'11g-day 1.0E-04 mnllm-day NA NA
mgftlg-day B.60E-05 mg/kg-day NA NA
mgftlg-day NA mg/kg-day NA NA
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways
Hazard
Quotient
NC
NC
1.1E-05
1.1E-05
FCP7.3CT
-3/2001
•
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Dermal
Inhalation
!scenario Timelrame: CurrenVFuture
Medium: Subsurlace Soil
Exposure Medium: Subsurface Soil
Exposure Point: Subsurface Soil from the Former Chlorine Plant
Receplor Population: Conslruction Worker
Receptor Age: Adutl
Chemical Medium Medium
ol Potential EPC EPC
Concern Value Units
Mercury (as Inorganic Hg) 767 mg/kg
Methvl Mercurv 0.206 mg/kg
Mercury (as Inorganic Hg) 767 mg/kg
Meth"' Mercurv 0.206 mg/kg
Mercury (as Inorganic Hg) 767 mg/kg
Methyl Mercury 0.206 mg/kg
Route
EPC
Value
767
0.206
767
0.206
767
0.206
•
TABLE 7.4.CT
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
Roule EPC Intake
EPC Selecled (Non-Cancer)
Units for Hazard
Calculation (1)
mg/kg M 7.5E-05
mg/kg NA 2.lE-08
mg/kg M 6.SE-06
mg/kg NA 1.8E-09
mg/kg M 5.7E-08
mg/kg NA 1.6E-11
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (Ml or Route-Specific (A) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
(2) Oral AID for HgC!:z is subchronic, Inhalation RID for inorganic Hg is subchronic
G:\Data\t-lydro\5100\Excel\HHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised Final Report -Jan 2001\Part D\FCP7a.xfs Page 27 of 57
Intake Reference Reference Reference Reference
(Non-Cancer) Dose (2) Dose Units Concentration Concentration
Units Units
mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-day NA NA
mg/kg-day 1E-04 mn/kn-day NA NA
mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-day NA NA
mg.lkg-day 1.0E-04 mnlkn-day NA NA
mg.lkg-day 8.60E-05 mg.lkg-day NA NA
mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-day NA NA
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways
•
Hazard
Quotient
NC
2.0E-04
NC
1.BE-05
7.00E-04
NC
9.2E-04
FCP7.4CT
1/2312001
Exposure
Route
Dermal
!Scenario Timeframe: CurrenVFuture
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Poinl: Groundwater
Receptor Population: Groundwaler
Receptor Age: Adult
Chemical Medium
of Potential EPC
Concern Value
Mercury (as Inorganic Hg) 0.116
Methyl Mercury 0.0017
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/I.
mg/I.
Route
EPC
Value
0.116
0.0017
TABLE 7.5.CT
CALCUL.A TION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
Route EPC Intake
EPC Selected (Non-Cancer)
Units for Hazard
Calculation (1)
mg/I. M 4.SE-06
mg/I. NA 6.7E-08
(1) Specify Med1um-Spec1f1c (M) or Route-Spec1f1c (R) EPC selected tor hazard calculation.
(2) Oral RfD for HgC'2 is subchronic, Inhalation RfD !or inorganic Hg is subchronic
G:\Data\l-lydro\5100\ExceN-IHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised.Report• Jan 2001\Part DIFCP7a.x1s .ge 28of 57
Intake Reference Reference Reference Reference
(Non-Cancer) Dose (2) Dose Units Concentralion Concentration
Units Units
mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-day NA NA
mg/kg-day 1.0E-04 mg/kg-day NA NA
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways
Hazard
Quotient
NC
7.00E-03
7.00E-03
FCP7.5CT
-3/2001
•
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Dermal
Inhalation
!Scenario Timeframe: Current
Medium: Surface Soil
Exposure Medium: Surface Soil
Exposure Point: Surface Soil from the Fonner Chlorine Plan!
Receptor Population: Industrial Worker
Receptor Age: Adull
Chemical Medium Medium
of Potential EPC EPC
Concern Value Units
Mercury (as HgCl2) 7.3 mg/kg
Methvl Mercurv NA mg/kg
Mercury (as HgCl2l 7.3 mg/kg
Methv1 Mercurv NA mg/kg
Mercury (as Inorganic Hg) 7.3 mg/kg
Methyl Mercury NA mg/kg
Route
EPC
Value
7.3
NA
7.3
NA
7.3
NA
•
TABLE 7.1.RME
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
Route EPC Intake
EPC Selected (Non-Cancer)
Units for Hazard
Calculation (1)
mg/kg M 3.57E-06
mg/kg NA NC
mg/kg M 4.0E-07
mg/kg NA NC
mg/kg M l.lE-10
mg/kg NA NC
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route·Specllic (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation
(2) Oral RID for HgC~ is subchronic, Inhalation RID for inorganic Hg is subchronic
G:\Data\l-lydro\5100\Excel\HHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised Final Report -Jan 2001\Part D\FCP7b.xls Page 29 of 57
Intake Reference Reference Reference Reference
(Non-Cancer) Dose (2) Dose Units Concentration Concentration
Units Units
mg/kg-day 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day NA NA
1E-04 m~"'---dav NA NA
mg/kg-day 6.0E·0S mg/kg-day NA NA
1.0E-04 m,.11,,._dav NA NA
mg/kg-day B.60E·05 mg/kg-day NA NA
NA mg/kg-day NA NA
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure RouteSl'Pathways
•
Hazard
Quotient
1.2E-02
7.0E-03
1.3E-06
1.9E-02
FCP7.1RME
1/23/2001
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
!Dermal
Inhalation
!Scenario Timelrame: Future
!Medium: Surface Soil
Exposure Medium: Surface Soil
Exposure Point: Surface Soil from the Former Chlorine Plant
Receptor Population: Industrial Worker
Receptor Age: Adult
Chemical Medium Medium
ol Potential EPC EPC
Concern Value Units
Mercury (as HgCl2) 12.7 mg/kg
Methyl Mercury NA mg/kg
Mercury (as HgC'2) 12.7 mg/kg
Methyl Mercury NA mg/kg
Mercury (as Inorganic Hg) 12.7 mg/kg
Methyl Mercury NA mg/kg
Route
EPC
Value
12.7
NA
12.7
NA
12.7
NA
TABLE 7.2.AME
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
FOAMER CHLORINE PLANT
Route EPC Intake
EPC Selected (Non-Cancer)
Units tor Hazard
Calculation (1)
mg/kg M 6.21E·06
mg/kg NA NC
mg/kg M 7.0E-07
mg/kg NA NC
mg/kg M 1.9E-10
mg/kg NA NC
(1) Specify Med1um-Spec1f1c (M) or Route-Spec1f1c (A) EPC selected for hazard calcu1at1on.
(2) Oral AID !or HgCl:i is subchronic, Inhalation RID !or inorganic Hg is subchronic
G:\Data\Hydro\5100\Excel\HHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised.Report -Jan 2001\Part D\FCP7b.xls
ln1ake Reference Reference Reference Reference
(Non-Cancer) Dose (2) Dose Units Concentration Concentration
Units Units
mg/kg-day 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day NA NA
1E·04 mn/L-.... dav NA NA
mg/kg-day 6.0E-05 mg/kg-day NA NA
1.0E-04 mn/1,..,_dav NA NA
mg/kg-day 8.60E-05 mg/kg-day NA NA
NA mg/kg-day NA NA
Total Hazard Index Across All Expasure Routes/Pathways I
Hazard
Quotient
2.1E·02
1.2E-02
2.2E-06
3.3E-02 I
FCP7.2RME
.3/2001
•
Exposure
Rocrt,
Ingestion
Dermal
Inhalation
i::,cenario Tmeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sur1ace Soil
JExposure Medium: Sur1ace Soil
)E,:posure Point Surface Soil from the Former Chlorine Plant
fAeceptor Population: Construciion Worker
Receptor Age: Adult
Chemical Medium Medium
of Potential EPC EPC
Concern Value Units
Mercury (as HgC'2) 12.7 mg,1<g
Methyl Mercury NA mg,1<g
Mercury (as HgC'2) 12.7 mg,1<g
Meth-,.t Mercury NA mg,1<g
Mercury (as Inorganic Hg) 12.7 mg,1<g
Meth)"i Mercury NA mg,1<g
Rocrt,
EPC
Value
12.7
NA
12.7
NA
12.7
NA
(1)
(2)
Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (A) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
Oral AfD for HgCI;, is subchronic, Inhalation AID for inorganic Hg is subchronic _ . --- ----- - - --· -----
G:\Data\Hydro\5100\ExceN-IHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised Final Report• Jan 2001\Part O\FCP7b.xls
•
TABLE 7.3.RME
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
FOAMER CHLORINE PLANT
Rocrte EPC Intake
EPC Selected (Non-Cancer)
Units for Hazard
Calculation (1)
mg,1<g M 1.2E-Q6
mg,1<g NA
mg,1<g M 7.0E-07
mg,1<g NA
mg,1<g M 1.2E-Q9
mg,1<g NA
Page 31 of 57
Intake Reference Reference Reference Reference
(Non-Cancer) Dose (2) Dose Units Concentration Concentration
Units Units
mg/kg-day 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day NA NA
lE-04 m-A·--dau NA NA
mg/kg-day 6.0E-05 mg/kg-day NA NA
1.0E-04 m-A·--dav NA NA
mg/kg-day 8.60E-05 mg/kg-day NA NA
NA mg/kg-day NA NA
Total Hazard Index Across All,Exposure Routes/Pathways
•
Hazard
Quotient
4.1E-02
1.2E-02
1.40E-05
5.3E-02
FCP7.3RME
1/23/2001
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
bermal
Inhalation
!Scenario Timetrame: CurrenVFuture
!Medium: Subsurface Soil
Exposure Medium: Subsurface Soil
Exposure Point Subsurface Soil from the Former Chlorine Plant
Receptor Population: Construction Worker
Receptor Age: Adult
Chemical Medium Medium
of Potential EPC EPC
Concern Value Units
Mercury (as HgCl2) 767 mglkg
Methvl Mercurv 0.206 mglkg
Mercury (as HgCl2) 767 mglkg
Methvl Mercurv 0.206 mglkg
Mercury (as Inorganic Hg) 767 mglkg
Methyl Mercury 0.206 mglkg
TABLE 7.4.RME
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
Route Route EPC Intake
EPC EPC Selected (Non-Cancer)
Value Units for Hazard
Calculatlon (1)
767 mglkg M 7.SE-04
0.206 mglkg NA 2.0E-07
767 mglkg M 4.3E-05
0.206 mglkg NA 1.1E·08
767 mglkg M 7.SE-08
0.206 mglkg NA 2.0E-11
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (R) EPC selected for hazard calculation
(2) Oral RfD tor HgCl2 is subchronic, Inhalation RID tor inorganic Hg is subchronic
G:\Data\Hydro\51 00\Excel\HHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised-Report -Jan 2001\Part DIFCP7b.xls
Pa.of57
Intake Reference Reference Reference Reference
(Non-Cancer) Dose (2) Dose Units Concentration Concentration
Units Units
mg/kg-day 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day NA NA
mg/kg-day 1E-04 mn/1,n.dav NA NA
mg/kg-day 6.0E-05 mg/kg-day NA NA
mg/kg•day 1.0E-04 mn/1,n.dav NA NA
mg/kg-day 8.60E-05 mg/kg-day NA NA
mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-day NA NA
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways I
Hazard
Quotient
2.5
0.002
7.0E-01
1.1E-04
1.00E-03
NC
3.2E+OO I
FCP7.4RME
.3/2001
•
Exposure
Route
Dermal
Scenario Timeframe: CurrenVFuture
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Point Groundwater
Receptor Population: Groundwater
Receptor Age: Adult
Chemical Medium
ol Potential EPC
Concern Value
Mercury (as HgCl2) 0.116
Methyl Mercury 0.0017
Medium
EPC
Units
mglL
mglL
•
TABLE 7.5.AME
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
Route Route EPC Intake
EPC EPC Selecled (Non-Cancer)
Value Units for Hazard
Calculation ( 1)
0.116 mglL M 1.JE-05
0.0017 mglL NA 1.9E-07
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (A) EPC selected for hazard calculalion.
(2) Oral RIO for HgClz is subchronic, Inhalation RID for inorganic Hg is subchronk:
G:\Data\Hydro\5100\Excel\HHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised Final Report -Jan 2001\Part O\FCP7b.xls Page 33 of 57
Intake Reference Reference Reference Reference
(Non-Cancer) Dose (2) Dose Units Concentration Concentration
Units Units
mg,1cg-day 6.0E-05 mg/kg-day NA NA
mg,1cg-day 1.0E-04 mg/kg-day NA NA
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways
•
I
Hazard
Quotient
0.21
0.0019
0.21 I
FCP7.SRME
1/23/2001
Exposure
Roule
ngestion
Dermal
nhalation
l5cenario Timeframe: Curren!
Medium: Surface Soil
Exposure Medium: Surface Soil
Exposure Point Surface Soll from the Former Chlorine Plant
Receptor Population: Industrial Worker
Receptor Age: Adult
Chemical Medium Medium
of Polential EPC EPC
Concern Value Units
Mercury (as HgCl2) 7.3 mg/kg
Methvl Mercurv NA mg/kg
Mercury (as HgC'2) 7.3 mg/kg
Methv\ Mercurv NA mg/kg
Mercury (as Inorganic Hg) 7.3 mg/kg
Methyl Mercury NA mg/kg
Route
EPC
Value
7.3
NA
7.3
NA
7.3
NA
TABLE7.1.CT
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
Route EPC Intake
EPC Selected (Non-Cancer)
Units for Hazard
Calculalion (1)
mg/kg M 6.JE-07
mg/kg NA NC
mg/kg M 5.4E-08
mg/kg NA NC
mg/kg M 9.6E-11
mg/kg NA NC
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Roule-Specific {A) EPC selected !or hazard calculation.
(2) Oral AID for HgC'2 is subchronic, Inhalation AID !or inorganic Hg is subchronic
G:\Data\Hydro\5100\Excel\HHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised -Report -Jan 2001\Part DIFCP7b.xls
• 34 of 57
Intake Reference Reference Reference Reference
(Non-Cancer) Dose (2) Dose Units Concentration Concentration
Units Units
mg/kg-day 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day NA NA
mg/kg-day tE-04 m,.11,,.._dav NA NA
mg/kg-day 6.0E-05 mg/kg-day NA NA
mg/kg-day 1.0E-04 m,.11,,..._dav NA NA
mg/kg-day B.60E-OS mg/kg-day NA NA
mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-day NA NA
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways
Hazard
Quotien1
2.1E-03
9.0E-04
1.1E-06
3.0E-0
FCP7.1CT
-3/2001
•
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
,loermal
lnha1aIion
Scenario Timetrame: Future
Medium: Surface Soil
Exposure Medium: Surface Soil
Exposure Point: Surface Soil from the Former Chlorine Plant
Receptor Population: Industrial Worker
Receptor Age: Adult
Chemical Medium Medium
ol Potential EPC EPC
Concern Value Units
Mercury (as HgCl2) 12.7 mg/kg
Methvl Mercurv NA mg/kg
Mercury (as HgCl2) 12.7 mg/kg
Methyl Mercurv NA mg/kg
Mercury (as Inorganic Hg) 12 .. 7 mg/kg
Methyl Mercury NA mg/kg
Route
EPC
Value
12.7
NA
12.7
NA
12.7
NA
•
TABLE 7.2.CT
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
Route EPC lnlake
EPC Selected (Non-Cancer)
Units for Hazard
Calculation (1)
mg/kg M 1.1 E-06
mg/kg NA NC
mg/kg M 9.4E-08
mg/kg NA NC
mg/kg M 1.7E-10
mg/kg NA NC
(1) Specify Mechum-Spec1f1c (M) or Route-Spec1hc (A) EPC selected for hazard calculation
(2) Oral RfD for HgCJiis_:u~h~oni:, l~~alali~n R!P t_or i~organic Hg is subchronic-
G:\Data\t-lydro\5100\ExceN--IHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised Final Report -Jan 2001\Part D\FCP7b.xls page 35 of 57
Intake Reference Aelerence Reference Reference
(Non-Cancer) Dose (2) Dose Units Concentration Concentration
Unils Units
mg/kg-day 3.0E-04 mg/kg-day NA NA
mg/kg-day 1E-04 m,.11,,,_dav NA NA
mg/kg-day 6.0E-05 mg/kg-day NA NA
mg/kg-day 1.0E-04 m,.11,,,_dav NA NA
mg/kg-day 8.60E-05 mg/kg-day NA NA
mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-day NA NA
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways I -
•
Hazard
Ouolient
3.6E-03
1.6E-03
1.9E-06
5.2E-03 I
. -
FCP7.2CT
1/23/2001
Exposure
Aou!e
Ingestion
loermat
Inhalation
cenario Timeframe: Current/Future
IMedfum: Surface Soil
rexposure Medium: Surface Soil
rexposure Point Surface Soil from the Former Chlorine Plant
Receptor Population: Construction Worker
Receptor Age: Adil!
Chemical Medium Medium
of Potential EPC EPC
Concern Value Units
Mercury (as HgCI;,) 12.7 mg,1<g
Meth'fi Mercury NA mg,1<g
Mercury {as HgCI;,) 12.7 mg,1<g
Meth'fi Mercury NA mg,1<g
Mercury {as Inorganic Hg) 12.7 mg,1<g
Methyt Mercury NA mg,1<g
Roule
EPC
Value
12.7
NA
12.7
NA
12.7
NA
(1) Specify Medrum-Specific (M) or Roule-Spec1f1C (R) EPC selected for hazard calculalion.
(2) Oral RID for HgC'2 is subchronic, Inhalation AfD for inorganic Hg is subchronic
G :\Oata\rlydro\51 00\ExceNiHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised .Report• Jan 2001\Part DIFCP7b.xfs
TABLE 7.3.CT
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
Aou!e EPC Intake
EPC Selected (Non-Cancer)
Units for Hazard
Calculation (1)
mg,1<g M 1.2E-06
mg,1<g NA NC
mg,1<g M UE-07
mg,1<g NA NC
mg,1<g M 9.4E-10
mo,1<g NA NC
Intake Reference Reference Reference Reference
(Non-Cancer) Dose (2) Dose Units Concentration Concenlration
Units Units
mg/kg-day 3.0E-04 mg,1cg-day NA NA
mg/kg-day 1E-04 m-"--dav NA NA
mg/kg-day 6.0E-05 mg/kg-day NA NA
mg/kg-day 1.0E-04 m-"--dav NA NA
mg/kg-day 8.SOE-05 mg/kg-day NA NA
mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-day NA NA
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways I
Hazard
Quotient
4.0E-03
1.SE-03
1.1E-05
5.SE-03 I
FCP7.3CT
.3/2001
•
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Dermal
Inhalation
Scenario Timeframe: CurranVFuture
Medium: Subsurface Soil
Eii:posure Medium: Subsurface Soil
Exposure Point: Subsurface Soil from the Former Chlorine Plant
Receptor Population: Construction Worker
~eceotor Ano,· Adult
Chemical Medium Medium
ol Potential EPC EPC
Concern Value Units
Mercury (as HgCl2) 767 mg/kg
Methyl Mercury 0.206 mg/kg
Mercury (as HgCl2) 767 mg/kg
Methv1 Mercury 0.206 mg/kg
Mercury (as Inorganic Hg) 767 mg/kg
Methyl Mercury 0.206 mg/kg
Route
EPC
Value
767
0,206
767
0.206
767
0.206
•
TABLE 7.4.CT
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
Route EPC Intake
EPC Selected (Non-Cancer)
Units for Hazard
Calculation ( 1)
mg/kg M 7.SE-05
mg/kg NA 2.1E·OB
mg/kg M 6.SE-06
mg/kg NA 1.BE-09
mg/kg M 5.7E·OB
mg/kg NA 1.6E-11
(1) Specify Med1um-Spec1f1c (M) or Route-Spec1f1c (A) EPC selected for hazard calculal1on.
(2) Oral RID for HgCl2 Is subchronic, lnha'.atio~ ~~ !_or ~no!gaf!iC ~g ls_subchronic
G:\Data\J-lydro\5100\Excel\J-IHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised Final Repcrt-Jan 2001\Part O\FCP7b.x1s Page 37 of 57
Intake Reference Reference Reference Reference
{Non-Cancer) Dose (2) Dose Units Concentration Concentration
Units Units
mg/kg-day 3.0E-04 mg/1<:g-day NA NA
mg/kg-day 1E-04 mnllm-day NA NA
mg/kg-day 6.0E-05 mg/kg-day NA NA
mg/kg-day 1.0E-04 mMn-day NA NA
mg/kg-day 8.GOE-05 mg/kg-day NA NA
mg/kg-day NA mg/kg-day NA NA
Total Hazard Index Across All ExPosure Routes/Pathways
•
I
Hazard
Quotient
2.SE-01
2.0E-03
1.1 E-01
1.BE·0S
1 OOE-03
NC
3.6E-01 I --
FCP7.4CT
1/23/2001
Exposure
Route
Dermal
Scenario Timelrame: CurrenVFulure
Medium: Groundwa!er
Exposure Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Point Groundwater
Receptor Population: Groundwater
Receptor Age: Adult
Chemical Medium
of Potential EPC
Concern Value
Mercury (as HgCl2) 0.116
Methyl Mercury 0.0017
Medium
EPC
Units
mg/I.
mg/I.
Route
EPC
Value
0.116
0.0017
TABLE 7.5.CT"
CALCULATION OF NON-CANCER HAZARDS
CENTRAL TENDENCY
FOAMER CHLORINE PLANT
Route EPC Intake
EPC Selected (Non-Cancer)
Units !or Hazard
Calculation (1)
mg/I. M 4.5E·06
mg/I. NA 6.7E-oa
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific {A) EPC selected for hazard calculation.
(2) Oral RfD !or HgCl2 is subchronic, Inhalation RfD !or inorganic Hg is subchronic
G:\Data\Hydro\5100\ExceN-iHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revis .. RePort • Jan 2001\Part D\FCP7b.xls
• 38of57
Intake Reference Reference Reference Reference
(Non-Cancer) Dose (2) Dose Units Concentration Concentration
Units Units
mg/kg-day 6.0E-05 mg/kg-day NA NA
mg,'lcg-day 1.0E-04 mg,,'kg-day NA NA
Total Hazard Index Across All Exposure Routes/Pathways I
Hazard
Quotient
0,076
0.0007
0.077 I
FCP7.5CT
-23/2001
-
•
Scenario Timeframe:
Medium:
Exposure Medium:
Exposure Point:
Receptor Population:
Receptor Age:
Exposure Chemical Medium Medium
Route of Potential EPC EPC
Concern Value Units
-----------------
-
•
TABLE 8.1.RME
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISKS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
Route Route EPC Selected
EPC EPC for Risk
Value Units Calculation (1}
-------·--------
Intake
(Cancer)
-----
(1) Specify Medium-Specific (M) or Route-Specific (A) EPC selected for risk calculation.
G:\Data\Hydro\5100\Excel\HHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised Final Report• Jan 2001\Part D\FCPB.xls
Page 39 of 57
Intake Cancer Slope Cancer Slope
{Cancer) Factor Factor Units
Units
- -------·---------
Total Risk Across All Exposure Rolltes/Pathways I
•
Cancer
Risk
--
I
FCPB
1/23/2001
l~enario Timeframe: Current
eceplor Population: lnduslrial Worller
eceolor Aoe: Adult
Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical
Medium Point
TABLE 9.1.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure
Routes Total
Chemical Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal EKposure
large! Organ Routes Tola!
urlace Soil Surlace Soil Surlace Soil From FCP Mercury (as Inorganic Hg) NC NC NC NC !!Mercury {as Inorganic Hg) Nervous System NC 1.30E-06 NC 1.30E-06
Methyl Mercury
G:\Oata\Hydro\5100\Excel\HHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised.Report -Jan 2001\Part D\FCP9a.xls
NC NC NC NC
I NC I
NC Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
"====="
Methyl Mercury
Total Hazard lndeJC Across All Media and AJI EKposure Routes 1.J0E-06
FCP9.1RME
.3/2001
•
IEcenario Timeframe: Future
eceptor Population: Industrial Worker
Recf!fl!0r A"e: AdlJII
Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical
Medium Point
:Surface SoH Surface Soij Surface Soil From FCP !Mercury (as lnorgan~
Methyl Merrury
•
TABLE 9.2.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS ANO HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
Carcinogenic Risk Chemical
Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure
Routes Total
NC NC NC NC Mercury (as Inorganic: Hg)
NC NC NC NC Methyl Mercury
I NC I
Tolal Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes I NC I
G:\Data\J-lydro\51 00\ExceN--IHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised Final Report -Jan 2001\Part D\FCP9a.xls Page 41 of 57
•
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure
Target Organ Routes Tola!
Nervous Syslem NC 2.20E-06 NC 2.20E-06
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes 2.20E-06
FCP9.2RME
1/23/2001
Scenario Timetrame: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Conslruction Worker
Recector Aae: Adult
Medium Exposure EJCl)Osure Chemical
Medium Poinl
lsur1ace Soil Surface Soil Surface Soil From FCP Mercury (as Inorganic Hg)
Methyi Mercury
Subsurface Soil Subsurface Soil Subsurface Soil From FCP Mercury (as Inorganic Hg)
Methyi Mercury
Groundwaler Groundwater Groundwater From FCP Mercury (as Inorganic Hg)
Methyi Mercury
TABLE 9.3.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
FOAMER CHLORINE PL.ANT
Carcinogenic Risk Chemical
Ingestion Inhalation Dermal EJCl)Osure
Routes T olal
NC NC NC NC Mercury (as Inorganic Hg)
NC NC NC NC Methyi Mercury
NC NC NC NC Mercury (as Inorganic Hg)
NC NC NC NC Methyi Mercury
NC NC NC NC Mercury (as Inorganic: Hg)
NC NC NC NC Melhyi Mercury
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Ouolient
Primary Ingestion Inhalation Derma! EKposure
Target Croan Routes Total
Nervous System NC 1.44E-05 NC 1.44E-05
Kidney NC NC NC NC
Nervous System NC 1.00E-03 NC 1.00E-03
Kidney 0.002 NC 0.00011 2.11E-03
Nervous System NC NC NC NC
Kidney NC NC 0.0019 1.90E-03
Total Hazard rnoex Across A/I Media and All Exposure Rou1es 5.02E-03
G :\Data\Hydro\5100\Excel\HHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revis~Repart-Jan 2001\Part O\FCP9a.xls
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
.42of57
Tolal !Nervous System! HI"' I 1.00E-03
Total [Kidney) HI= 3.00E-03
FCP9.3AME
.23/2001
•
li:cenario Timelrame: Currenl
eceptor Population: Industrial Worl<.er
ecentor A"e: Adult
Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical
Medium Point
Surface Soil Surface Soil Surface Soil From FCP !Mercury (as Inorganic
Methyl Mercury
•
TABLE 9.1.CT
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
CENTRAL TENDENCY
FOAMER CHLORINE PLANT
Carcinogenic Risk Chemical
lngestiofl Inhalation Dermal Exposure
Routes Total
NC NC NC NC Mercury (as Inorganic Hg)
NC NC NC NC !Methyl Mercury
I NC I
Total Risk Across All Media aod All Exposure Routes NC
G:\Data\Hydro\5100\Excel\HHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised Final Report -Jan 2001\Part O\FCP9a.xts Page 43 of 57
•
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure
Target Organ Routes Tolal
Nervous System NC 1.10E-06 NC 1.10E-06
NC NC NC NC
Total Hazard lndex Across All Media and All Exposure Routes I 1.10E-06
FCP9.1CT
1/23/2001
I
IE:nario Timelrame: Future
eceptor Poputalion: Industrial Worker
Aecer lor Ane: Adult
Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical
Medium Point
Surface Soil Surface SoD Surface Soil From FCP Mercury (as lnorgani<
Methyl Mercury
TABLE 9.2.CT
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS_ AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
CENTRAL TENDENCY
FOAMER CHLORINE PLANT
Carcinogenic Risk Chemical
Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure
Aoules Tolal
NC NC NC NC Mercury (as Inorganic Hg)
NC NC NC NC Methyl Mercury
I NC I
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes I NC I
G :\Data\l-lydro\51 00\ExceN-!Hrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised -Report -Jan 2001\Part DIFCP9a.xls Pa.of57
Non-Carcinogenic: Hazard Quotient
Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure
Target Organ Roules Tolal
Nervous System NC 1.90E-{)6 NC 1.90E-06
NC NC NC NC
Total Hazard lnde• Across All Media and All Exposure Routes I 1.90E-06
FCP9.2CT
-3/2001
I
•
If ::aria Timeframe. Curreol/Future eptor Population. Construction Worker
ector Aae. Adult
Medium faposure Exposure
Medium Point
Surface Soil Surface Soil Surface Soil Frcm FCP
lSubsurtace Soil Subsurface Soil Subsur1ace Soil From FCI
jGroundwater Groundwater Groundwater From FCP
G:\Data\l-lydro\5100\Excel\HHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised Final Report -Jan 2001\Part D\FCP9a.x1s
Chemical
Mercury (as Inorganic Hg)
Methyl Mercury
Mercury (as Inorganic Hg)
Methyl Mercury
Mercury (as Inorganic Hg)
Methy1 Mercury
•
TABLE93CT
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS ANO HAZARDS FOR COPCs
CENTRAL TENDENCY
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
Carcinogenic Risk Chemical
Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Elcposure
Routes Total
NC NC NC NC Mercury (as Inorganic Hg)
NC NC NC NC Methyl Mercury
NC NC NC NC Mercury (as Inorganic Hg)
NC NC NC NC Methyl Mercury
NC NC NC NC Mercury (as Inorganic Hg)
NC NC NC NC Methyl Mercury
•
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure
Target Clfgan Routes Total
Neivous System NC 1.10E-05 NC 1.10E--05
Kidney NC NC NC NC
Nervous System NC 00007 NC 7E-O<
Kidney 2E-04 NC 1.SOE-05 2E-O<
Nervous System NC NC NC NC
Kidney NC NC 00007 7E-04
NC Total Huard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Roules I l.6JE-03 I
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Page 45 of 57
Total [Nervous System] HI,. \ 1.00E-03
Total [Kichey) HI= \ 8 OOE-03
FCP9.3CT
1/23/2001
Medium
!Surface Soil
nario Timelrame: Current
ptor Population: Industrial Worker
lor A e: AduH
Exposure Exposure
Medium Point
Surface Soil Surface Soil From FCP
Chemical
Mercury (as HgC~)
Methyl Mercury
TABLE 9.1.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
Carcinogenic Risk Chemical
Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure
Routes Total
NC NC NC NC !Mercury (as HgClil
NC NC NC NC !Methyl Mercury
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal
Target Organ
Nervous System 1.20E·02 1.30E-06 7.00E-03
Kidney NC NC NC
NC Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Roules NC
G :\Oata\Hydro\51 00\ExceN-iHrisk\Chtorine Plant\
Revised.eport • Jan 2001\Part D\FCP9b.xls .ge46 of57
Exposure
Routes Total
1.90E-02
NC
I 1.90E-02
FCP9.1RME
.3/2001
I
•
cenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Industrial Worker
Recenter Ane: Adult
Medium Exposure EqlOSUre Chemical
Medium Point
lsurtace Soil Surface Soil Surface Soil From FCP \r1ercury (as HgCl2)
Methyl Mercury
•
TABLE 9.2.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
Carcinogenic Risk Chemical
Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure
Routes Total
NC NC NC NC Mercury (as HgC'2)
NC NC NC NC Methyl Mercury
•
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure
Target Organ Routes Total
Nervous System 2.10E-02 2.20E-06 1.20E-02 3.30E-02
Kidney
I NC I Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes I 3.30E-02
G:\Data\J-lydro\5100\ExceNiHrisk\Chtorine Plant\
Revised Final Report• Jan 2001\Part D\FCP9b.xls
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes I NC
Page 47 of 57
I
FCP9.2RME
1/23/2001
I
cenario Timeframe: CunenVFuture
Receptor Population: Construction Worker
Receotor Ace: Adult
Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical
Medium Point
Surface Soil Surface Soil Surface Soil From FCP Mercury (as HgC~)
Methyl Mercury
:iubsurface Soi Subsurface Soil Subsurface Soil From FCF Mercury (as HgC~)
Methyl Mercury
Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater From FCP !Mercury (as HgC'2)
!Methyl Mercury
TABLE 9.3.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
FOAMER CHLORINE PLANT
Carcinogenic Risk Chemical
Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure
Routes Total
NC NC NC NC Mercury (as HgCl2)
NC NC NC NC Methyl Mercury
NC NC NC NC Mercury (as HgC'2)
NC NC NC, NC Methyl Mercury
NC NC NC NC ~ercury (as HgC'2)
NC NC NC NC Methyl Mercury
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure
Target Organ Routes Total
Nervous System 4.14E-02 1.40E-05 t.20E-02 5.34E-02
Kidney NC NC NC NC
Nervous System 2.50 1.00E-03 7.00E-01 3.20E-t00
Kidney 0.002 NC 0.00011 2.11E-03
Nervous System NC NC 0.21 2.t0E-01
Kidney NC NC 0.0019 1.90E-03
NC Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes 3.SE+OO
G:\Data\Hydro\5100\ExceNiHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised ·•Port -Jan 2001\Part D\FCP9b.x1s
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Page 48.
NC
Total [Nervous System) HI :. I 2.20E+OO
Total {Kidney] Hl = 3.00E-03
FCP9.3RME .,2001
Medium
ISurtace Soil
cenario Timetrame: Current
Receptor Population: Industrial Worker
Rece tor A e: Adult
Exposure Exposure
Medium Point
Surface Soil Surface Soil From FCP
Chemical
Mercury (as HgCl2)
Methyl Mercury
•
TABLE9.1.CT
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
CENTRAL TENDENCY
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
Carcinogenic Risk Chemical
Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure
Routes Total
NC NC NC NC Mercury (as HgCI.,)
NC NC NC NC Methyl Mercury
•
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure
Target Organ Routes T otat
Nervous System 2.1E-03 1.10E-06 9.00E-04 2.99E-03
Kidney NC NC NC NC
I NC I Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes I 3.0E-03
G:\Data\J-lydro\5100\ExceN-IHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised Final Report -Jan 2001\Part O\FCP9b.xls
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes I NC
Page 49 of 57
I
FCP9.1CT
1/23/2001
I
Medium
!surface Soil
cenario Timetrame: Future
Receptor Population: Industrial Worker
Race lor A e: Adult
Exposure Exposure
Medium Point
Surface Soil Surface Soil From FCP
Chemical
Mercury (as HgC'2)
Methyl Mercury
TABLE 9.2.CT
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
CENTRAL TENDENCY
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
Carcinogenic Risk Chemical
Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure
Routes Total
NC NC NC NC Mercury (as HgCl2)
NC NC NC NC Melhyl Mercury
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal
Target Organ
Nervous System 3.60E-03 1.90E-06 1.60E-03
Kidney NC NC NC
I NC I Total Hazard Index Across AU Media and All Exposure Routes
Total Risk Across AH Media and Alt Exposure Routes NC
G :\Data \Hydro\.51 00\Excel\HH risk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised-Report -Jan 2001\Part DIFCP9b.xls
Exposure
Routes Total
5.20E-03
NC
5.20E-03
FCP9.2CT
.3/2001
Medium
!surface Soil
P,ubsurface Soi
!Groundwater
enano imetrame: UITent/Future
eceptor Population: Construction Worker
ec8 tor A e: Adult
Exposure Exposure
Medium Poinl
Surface Soil Surlace Soil From FCP
Subsurface Soil Subsurface Soil From FCF
Groundwater Groundwater From FCP
Chemical
Mercury (as HgCl2)
IMe!hyt Mercury
Mercury (as HgCl2)
Methyt Mercury
Mercury {as HgCI.,)
Methyl Mercury
•
TABLE 9.3.CT
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
CENTRAL TENDENCY
FOAMER CHLORINE PLANT
Carcinogenic Risk Chemical
Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure
Routes Total
NC NC NC NC Mercury (as HgC'2)
NC NC NC NC Methyl Mercury
NC NC NC NC Mercury (as HgCl2)
NC NC NC NC Methyl Mercury
NC NC NC NC Mercury (as HgCl2)
NC NC NC NC Methyl Mercury
•
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure
Target Organ Routes Total
Nervous System 4.14E-03 1.10E·OS 1.BOE-03 5.95E·03
Kidney NC NC NC NC
Nervous System 3E-01 0.001 1.10E-01 3.6E-01
Kidney 2E·04 NC 1.B0E-05 2.2E-04
Nervous System NC NC 0.076 7.SE-02
Kidney NC NC 0.0007 7.0E-04
NC Total Hazard lode)( Across All Media and Alt E)(posure Routes I 4.4E-01
G:\Data\J-lydro\5100\Excel\J-!Hrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised Final Repcrt -Jan 2001\Part D\FCP9b.x1s
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes NC
Page 51 of 57
Total (Nervous System] Hl = I 2.B0E-01
Total [Kidney] Hf= I 8.00E-03
FCP9.3CT
1123/2001
I
Medium
lSurface Soil
cenario Timeframe: Current
eceptor Population: Industrial _Worker
ece tor A e: Adult
Exposure Exposure
Medium Polnl
Surface Soil Surface Soil From FCP
Chemical
Ingestion
Mercury (as HgCI:?)
IMethyt Mercury
TABLE 10.1.AME
A1SK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
FOAMER CHLORINE PLANT
Carcinogenic Risk
Inhalation Dermal Exposure
Routes Total
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
G :\Data\J-iydro\51 00\ExceN-iHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revis89Report -Jan 2001\Part D\FCP10_new.xls
Chemical Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotien1
Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure
Target Organ Routes Total
Mercury (as HgCl2) Nervous System
Methyl Mercury Kidney
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Aou1es
FCP10.1RME
.3/2001
•
: Future
ll~eceplor Population: Industrial Worker
ecenlor Ace: Aduh
Medium Exposure faposure
Medium Point
lsurlace Soil Surface Soil Surface Soil From FCP
Chemical
Ingestion
IMe,cu,y (as HgCl,J
Methyl Mercury
I
•
TABLE 10.2.RME
RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
Carcinogenic Risk
I Inhalation I Dermal faposure
Routes Total
I I I
T ala! Risk Across All Media and All EKposure Routes
G:\Data\l-lydro\5100\ExceN--IHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised Rnal Repart • Jan 2001\Part D\FCP10_new.xts Page 53 of 57
•
Chemical Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary lngeslion Inhalation Dermal Exposure
Target Organ Routes Total I Meccucy (as HgCl,J Nervous System
Kidney Methyl Mercury
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Aou1es I
FCP10.2RME
1/23/2001
I
cenario Timeframe: CurrenVFuture
Receptor Population: Construction Worker
Aecentor AQe; Adult
Medium Exposure Exposure
Medium Point
Surface Soll Surface Soll Surface Soil From FCP
Subsurface Soi Subsurface Soil Subsurface Soil From FCF
Groundwater Groundwater Groundwa1er From FCP
Chemical
Ingestion
Mercury (as HgC~)
Methyl Mercury
Mercury (as HgCl2)
Methyl Mercury
Mercury (as HgCl2)
Methyl Mercury
TABLE 10.3.RME
RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
Carcinogenic Risk
Inhalation Dermal Exposure
Routes Total
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Chemical Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure
Target Organ Routes Total
Mercury (as HgC~) Nervous System
Methyl Mercury Kidney
Mercury (as HgCl2) Nervous System 2.50 1.00E-03 7.00E-01 3.20E+OO
Methyl Mercury Kidney
Mercury (as HgCl2) Nervous System
Methyl Mercury Kidney
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes I 3.20E+OO I
Total [Ne,voos System] HI c II 320E•OO II
Total (Kidney] HI= I I
G :\Data\Hydro\5100\Excel\HHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised ·•port -Jan 2001\Part DIFCP10_new.xls
.age 54of 57
FCP10.3RME
.3/2001
•
Medium
ISurtace Soil
cenario Timeframe: Current
Receptor Population: Industrial Worker
Aece tor A e: Adult
Exposure Exposure
Medium Point
Surface Soil Sur1ace Soil From FCP
Chemical
IMe,cu,y (as HgC,J
Methyl Mercury
Ingestion
I
•
TABLE 10.1.CT
RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
CENTRAL TENDENCY
FOAMER CHLORINE PLANT
Carcinogenic Risk
l Inhalation I Dermal Exposure
Routes Total
I I I
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
G :\Data\t-lydro\51 00\ExceN-IHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised Final Report -Jan 2001\Part D\FCP10_new.x1s Page 55 of 57
•
Chemical Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure
Target Organ Routes Total
I Me,cu,y (as HgC,J Nervous System
Kidney Methyl Mercury
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes I
FCP10.1CT
1/23/2001
I
Medium
lsurface Soil
cenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population· Industrial Worker
Race lor A e: Adult
Exposure Exposure
Medium Point
Surface Soil Surface Soil From FCP
Chemical
Ingestion
vlercury {as HgCl2)
Methyl Mercury
TABLE 10.2.CT
RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
CENTRAL TENDENCY
FORMER CHLORINE PLANT
Carcinogenic Risk
Inhalation Dermal Exposure
Roules To1a1
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
G :\Data\J-lydro\51 00\ExceN-iHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised.eport -Jan 2001\Part D\FCP10_new.x1s
Chemical Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Ouolient
Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal
Target Organ
Mercury (as HgCi:2) Nervous System
Methyl Mercury Kidney
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
Exposure
Routes Total
FCP10.2CT
.312001
Medium
!,surface Soil
~ubsurface Soi
!Groundwater
cenario Timeframe: CurrenVFulure
Receptor Population: Construction Worker
Race tor A e: Adult
Exposure Exposure
Medium Point
Surface Soil Surface Soil From FCP
Subsurface Soil Subsurface Soil From FCf
Groundwater Groundwater From FCP
Chemical
Ingestion
Mercury (as HgCl,i)
Methyl Mercury
Mercury (as HgCI;,)
Methyl Mercury
Mercury (as HgCI;,)
Methyl Mercury
•
TABLE 10.3.CT
RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
CENTRAL TENDENCY
FOAMER CHLORINE PLANT
Carcinogenic Risk
Inhalation Dermal Exposure
Routes Total
Total Risk Across All Media and All Exposure Aoules
G :\Data\Hydro\51 00\ExceN-IHrisk\Chlorine Plant\
Revised Flnat Repart -Jan 2001\Part D\FCPlO_new.xls Page 57 of 57
Chemical Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Ouotienl
Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure
Tarnet Ornan Routes Total
Mercury (as HgCI;,) Nervous System
Methyl Mercury Kidney
Mercury (as HgCl,i) Nervous System
Methyl Mercury Kidney
Mercury (as HgCL.,J Nervous System
Methyl Mercury Kidney
Total Hazard Index Across All Media and All Exposure Routes
" Total [Nervous System] HI= l~=====SI
Total [KidneyJ HI = lb====d
FCP10.3CT
1/23/2001