Loading...
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