OCLC14701843
',- DRAFT
SUPERFUND PUBLIC HEALTH EVALUATION MANUAL
Prepared By:
ICF Incorporated
1850 K Street, N.W.
Suite 950
Washington, D.C. 20006
EPA Contract Number 68-01-7090
Task Number: 07
December 18, 1985
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATE!
-------
GSwcR Directive 9233. -*-L
NOTICE
This manual provides draft guidance on methods for public health
evaluations that are conducted as part of the feasibility study process at
Superfund sites. The manual specifically supports Chapter 5 of the Guidance
for Feasibility Studies (U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
April, 1985), which briefly describes public health evaluation procedures.
The procedures and data given in this draft manual supersede information
previously released by the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response on public
health evaluation at Superfund sites.
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATK
-------
Directive 7235.-.-1
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This document was prepared for EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response by ICF Incorporated, in partial fulfillment of Contract No.
68-01-7090, Task 7. Dr. Craig Zamuda and Mr. Bruce Clemens1-1 of the Office
of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) were the EPA Project Officers.
Additional guidance and direction were provided by Mr. Jim Lounsbury of OERR
and Ms. Stacey Katz of the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation (OPPE).
The ICF effort was directed by Mr. Jeff Goodman and Mr. Baxter Jones.
The efforts of several additional major contributors were instrumental in
the development of this manual,'including:
Brint Bixler2J OERR
Chris DeRosa Office of Research and Development (ORD)
Priscilla Holtzclaw OERR
Abe Mittelman Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE)
Jim Spatarellalj OERR
Steve .Bailey ICF Incorporated
David Cooper ICF Incorporated
Hugh Huizenga ICF Incorporated
Janice Longstreth ICF Incorporated
Additional assistance was provided by the EPA Work Group, whose members
included:
Harry Allan OERR/Hazardous Response Support Division
Doug Ammon ORD
James Baker Region 8
Judy Bellin Office of Solid Waste
Paul Bitter Region 5
Bonnie Casper ORD
Margaret Chu ORD
Terry Eby OERR/Emergency Response Division
Sally Edwards Region 1
Dick Hill Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPTS)
Josephine Huang ORD
Phil Jalbert OERR/Policy Analysis Staff
Meg Kelly Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Jack Kooyoomjian OERR/Emergency Response Division
Arnie Kuzmack Office of Drinking Water
John Mateo Region 2
Esther Rinde OPTS
John Schaum ORD
Anita Schmidt OPTS
Paul Schumann OERR/Hazardous Site Control Division
Ed Schoener Region 3
Ellen Siegler Office of General Counsel
George Sugiyama Office of Air and Radiation
1J Currently with Clean Sites, Inc.
2J Currently with CH2M Hill.
3J Currently with Versar.
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATE!
-------
ui'wER Directive 9235.--1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE 1
1. OVERVIEW OF THE SUPERFUND PUBLIC HEALTH EVALUATION PROCESS 4
1.1 Description of Process Components 6
1.1.1 Baseline Public Health Evaluation 6
1.1.2 Analysis of Remedial Alternatives and
Development of Design Goals 7
1.2 Applicability of Process Components to Various Sites 7
2. BACKGROUND: AGENCY RULES, POLICIES, AND GUIDELINES 11
2.1 The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP) 11
2.2 Guidance for Remedial Investigations and Feasibility
Studies 12
2.3 CERCLA Compliance with Other Environmental Statutes........... 14
2.4 Agency Policy for Planning and Implementing Off-Site
Response Actions . 15
2.5 Agency Guidelines on Risk Assessment 16
2.6 Memorandum of Understanding Between EPA and the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 16
3. STEP 1: SELECTION OF INDICATOR CHEMICALS 18
3. 1 Develop Initial List of- Indicator Chemicals 20
3.2 Select Final Indicator Chemicals. 28
4. STEP 2: ESTIMATION OF EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS OF
INDICATOR CHEMICALS 34
4.1 Identify Exposure Pathways . 38
4.1.1 Determine Possible Chemical Release Sources
and Release Media 40
4.1.2 Identify and Characterize Possible Human
Exposure Points 40
4.1.3 Integrate Release Sources, Environmental Transport
Media, Exposure Points, and Exposure Routes into
Exposure Pathways . 44
4.1.4 Determine Presence of Sensitive Human Populations 47
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICFINCORPORATE!
-------
CSWER Directive 3255.--L
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
e
4.2 Estimate Exposure Point Concentrations 47
4.2.1 Quantify Chemical Releases 49
4.2.2 Predict Environmental Fate and Transport 51
4.3 Compare to Requirements, Standards, and Criteria . 55
4.3.1 Compare to Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements 55
4.3.1.1 National Primary Drinking Water Standards/
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) 57
4.3.1.2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) 61
4.3.1.3 Federally-Approved State Water
Quality Standards 61
4.3.2 Compare to Other Federal Criteria, Advisories,
and Guidances and "State Standards 62
4.3.2.1 Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria 70
4.3.2.2 Drinking Water Health Advisories 72
5. STEP 3: ESTIMATION OF CHEMICAL INTAKES 74
5 . 1 Calculate Air Intakes 76
5 .2 Calculate Ground-Water Intakes 76
5 . 3 Calculate Surface Water Intakes 79
5 .4 Calculate Intakes From Other Exposure Pathways 82
5.5 Combine Pathway-Specific Intakes to Yield Total Oral
and Total Inhalation Intakes ~r -.-. 83-
6. STEP 4: TOXICITY ASSESSMENT 88
7. STEP 5: RISK CHARACTERIZATION 93
7 .1 Noncarcinogenic Effects 93
7 . 2 Potential Carcinogenic Effects 94
7 . 3 Uncertainties 97
8. DEVELOPMENT OF DESIGN GOALS AND ANALYSIS OF RISKS FOR
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 100
8.1 Reevaluate- Indicator Chemicals 102
8.2 Identify Potential Exposure Pathways 104
8.2.1 Determine Possible Sources of Chemical Release 104
8.2.2 Determine Human Exposure Points 104
* * *
December 18, 1985 Draft
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
OS'wER Directive '3255. --1
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
8.2.3 Integrate Release Sources, Transport Media, Exposure
Points, and Exposure Routes into Exposure Pathways 107
8.2.4 Identify All Exposure Pathways for Each Exposure
Point 107
8.3 Determine Target Concentrations at Human Exposure Points 107
8.3.1 Target Concentrations for Chemicals With Applicable
or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements 110
8.3.2 Target Concentrations for Chemicals Without Applicable
or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements 112
8.3.2.1 Apportion Total Potential Carcinogenic Risk
Among Multiple Carcinogens 112
8.3.2.2 Calculate Target Air Concentrations 116
8.3.2.3 Calculate Target Drinking Water
Concentrations 116
8.3.3 Summarize Data 119
8.4 Estimate Target Release Rates : '. 119
8.4.1 Predict Environmental Fate and Transport 124
8.4.2 Summarize Data 124
8.5 Assess Chronic Risk For Noncarcinogens 124
8.6 Assess Potential Short-Term Health Effects of Remedial
Alternatives 126
9 . SUMMARIZING THE PUBLIC HEALTH EVALUATION. .....' 133
9.1 Summarize the Baseline Public Health Evaluation. . 137
9.2 Summarize Analysis of Remedial Alternatives 138
APPENDICES
Appendix A - References
Appendix B - Glossary
Appendix C - Summary Tables for Chemical-Specific Data
Appendix D - Detailed Procedures for Determining Toxicity
Constants for Indicator Chemical Selection
Appendix E - Memorandum of Understanding Between EPA and the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Appendix F - Blank Worksheets
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
ICF INCORPORATE!
-------
'wiR ~uirective 9253.-*-L
LIST OF-EXHIBITS
1-1 Flowchart of the Superfund Public Health
Evaluation Process 8
1-2 Continuum of Analytical Complexity for Superfund Public
Health Evaluations 10
3-1 Overview: Selecting Indicator Chemicals 19
3-2 Concentration and Toxicity Constant Units 22
4-1 Overview: Estimating Exposure Point Concentrations 37
4-2 Illustration of Exposure Pathways 39
4-3 Common Chemical Release Sources At Sites in the
Absence of Remedial Action 41
4-4 Typical Exposure Points for Chemical Releases from
Hazardous Waste Sites 45
4-5 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Ambient Requirements.. 58
4-6 EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria (WQC) for
Protection of Human Health 63
4-7 EPA Drinking Water Health Advisories 67
5-1 Standard Values Used in Daily Intake Calculations 75
8-1 Flowchart of Design Goals Process 103
8-2 Possible Chemical Release Sources Following Remedial
Actions 105
8-3 Common Temporary Chemical Release Sources During
Implementation of a Remedial Alternative 130
9-1 Worksheets that Should be Included in a Public Health
Evaluation Summary 134
9-2 Summary of the Baseline Public Health Evaluation. 135
9-3 Summary of'the Public Health Evaluation of Remedial
Alternatives 136
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATED
-------
Directive 3 35.>+-L
LIST OF EXHIBITS (continued)
Page
B-l List of Frequently Used Acronyms B-l
B-2 Definitions of Terms Developed Specifically for the
Superfund Public Health Evaluation Process B-3
C-l Physical, Chemical, and Fate Data C-8
C-2 Half-Lives in Various Media C-13
C-3 Toxicity Data for Potential Carcinogenic Effects --
Indicator Chemical Selection Only C-19
C-4 Toxicity Data for Potential Carcinogenic Effects --
Risk Characterization C-23
C-5 Toxicity Data for N'oncarcinogenic Effects --
Indicator Chemical Selection Only C-27
C-6 Toxicity Data for Noncarcinogenic Effects --
Risk Characterization C-34
C-7 Chemicals and Chemical Groups Having EPA Health Effects
Assessment Documents C-42
D-l Rating Constants (RVe) for Noncarcinogens D-3
D-2 EPA Weight-of-Evidence Catego-ries for Potential Carcinogens.. D-5
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * *
ICF INCORPORATE
-------
/irecc iv
LIST OF WORKSHEETS
3-1* Scoring for Indicator Chemical Selection: Concentrations
and Koc Values in Various Environmental Media 24
3-2 Scoring for Indicator Chemical Selection: Toxicity
Information 25
3-3 Scoring for Indicator Chemical Selection: Calculation of
CT and IS Values for Carcinogenic Effects 26
3-4 Scoring for Indicator Chemical Selection: Calculation of
CT and IS Values for Noncarcinogenic Effects 27
3-5* Scoring for Indicator Chemical Selection: Evaluation of
.Exposure Factors and Final Chemical Selection 29
4-1 Preliminary Release Source Analysis for Baseline Site
Conditions 42
4-2* Matrix of Potential Exposure Pathways 46
4-3 Results of Release Quantification 52
4-4* Contaminant Concentrations at Exposure Points 56
4-5* . Comparison'of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements to Estimated Exposure Point Concentrations 60
4-6* Comparison of Other Federal Criteria, Advisories, and
Guidances and State Standards to Estimated Exposure
Point Concentrations 71
5-1 Calculate Air Intakes . . ; 77
5-2 Calculate Ground-Water Intakes 78
5-3 Calculate Surface Water Intakes 80
5-4 Calculate Intakes from Ingestion of Contaminated Fish 31
5-5* Pathways Contributing to Total Exposure 84
5-6* Total Subchronic Daily Intake (SDI) Calculation 85
5-7* Total Chronic Daily Intake (GDI) Calculation 36
6-1 Critical Toxicity Values 90
6-2 Site-Specific Factors Increasing Uncertainty. 91
7-1* Calculation of Subchronic Hazard Index. 95
7-2* Calculation of Chronic Hazard Index. 96
7-3* Calculation of Risk from Potential Carcinogens 98
8-1 Release Source Analysis 106
8-2* Matrix of Potential Exposure Pathways for Remedial
Alternatives 108
8-3 Identify All Pathways for Exposure Points 109
8-4 Target Concentrations for Chemicals with Ambient
Requirements Ill
8-5 Apportioning Total Target Risk Among Multiple Potential
Carcinogens 114
8-6 ' Calculation of Target Air Concentrations 117
8-7 Calculation of Target Drinking Water Concentrations. 118
8-8 Apportionment of Target Oral Intake via Drinking Water
and Fish Consumption 120
8-9 Calculation of Target Surface Water Concentrations Based
on Fish Consumption 121
8-10 Final Target Concentrations of Potential Carcinogens 122
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICFINCORPORATK
-------
Directive 3155.--L
LIST OF WORKSHEETS (continued)
Page
8-11* Summary of Exposure Pathways, Exposure Points, and
Target Concentrations 123
8-12 Long-Term Target Releases 125
8-13 Summary Table: Exposure to Noncarcinogens 127
8-14* Summary Table: Chronic Intakes and Risks from
Noncarcinogens 128
8-15 Matrix of Potential Short-Term Exposure Pathways 131
8-16* Summary Table: Subchronic Intakes and Risks 132
* Designated for inclusion with public health evaluation summary.
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * IGFINCORPORATEC
-------
Jirective 9_s^.--1
PREFACE
This manual establishes a framework for analyzing public health risks at
Superfund sites and for developing design goals for remedial alternatives that
are based on applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements of other laws,
where available, or risk analysis where those requirements are not available.
These procedures were developed by EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response (OERR) in conjunction with an Agency-wide Task Force, which included
representatives from the program offices, the Office of Waste Programs
Enforcement, the Office of Research and Development, the Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation, and several Regional offices. The procedures
provided in the manual are designed to conform to EPA's proposed risk
assessment guidelines (49 Federal Register 46294-46331, November 23, 1984
and 50 Federal Register 1170-1176, January 9, 1985). In addition, guidance
developed by EPA's-Office of Waste Programs Enforcement for endangerment
assessments at enforcement-lead sites will build upon the procedures in this
manual.
Public health evaluation is an important component of the remedial investi-
gation (RI) and feasibility study (FS) phase of cleanup at Superfund sites.
This procedures manual was developed to supplement Chapter 5 of. the Guidance on
Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA. That guidance describes what the public
health evaluation process is, but not how to conduct it. In contrast, this
manual provides detailed guidance on how to conduct the evaluation.
The Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual has been developed for use
by a diverse audience, including EPA regional staff, state Superfund program
staff, federal and state remedial contractors, and potentially responsible
parties. Individuals having different levels of scientific training and
experience are likely to use the manual in designing, conducting, and reviewing
public health evaluations. Because assumptions and judgments are required in
many parts of the analysis, the individuals conducting the evaluation are key
elements in the process. The manual is not intended for use by non-technical
personnel to perform technical evaluations, nor to allow one discipline to_
perform the work of another. Rather, it is the responsibility of remedial
project managers, using the manual as a guide, to match the scientific support
they deem necessary with the appropriate resources at their disposal.
Public health evaluation cannot be reduced to simple, "cookbook"
procedures. If all judgment could be removed from the process, undoubtedly
the results from various sites would be far more consistent. State-of-the-art
public health evaluation techniques, however, have not been fully validated
and important chemical data are frequently unavailable. For instance, toxicity
testing has not kept pace with the need for information on many chemicals, and
procedures used in exposure assessment often require many assumptions. In
addition, the universe of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites is both variable
and complex, with each site posing a unique set of circumstances. It would be
unrealistic to expect that all data necessary to determine precisely the
health risks associated with every site will be available. Where data gaps
necessitate making assumptions to conduct the public health evaluation for a
site, the manual instructs that all such assumptions be clearly documented.
The manual is designed to be flexible, allowing the use of professional
December 18, 1985 Draft * *
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
Directive JC
-2-
judgment. It is not a "cookbook". Instead, it provides a systematic process
for evaluating public health impacts at site and for documenting and
supporting the assessment, its assumptions, and its conclusions.
The manual provides a range of analytical requirements that may be needed
at a particular site. It is up to the remedial project manager to determine
the level of analysis required by using criteria discussed in this manual. In
addition, the manual provides a series of worksheets to assist in performing
the public health evaluation. The worksheets are not intended to drive the
analysis, but to provide a consistent format for reporting results. The
results of the public health evaluation should be presented within the
appropriate section of the RI/FS report.
Information gathered for the public health evaluation can be organized in
the appropriate worksheets provided in the manual or in a comparable format.
The information for the evaluation is important and the worksheeets are only a
suggested format. Not all worksheets will be applicable to all sites;
site-specific characteristics will determine which worksheets are relevant.
Worksheets in this manual are filled in with illustrative examples to help
explain the various procedures given in the text. These sample worksheets are
for instructional purposes only; indicated values should not be construed as
representing actual conditions. Appendix F of the manual provides blank forms
for each worksheet.
The Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual is divided into nine
chapters. Some of the chapters are applicable to all sites, while some are
applicable to a subset of sites. Chapter 1 is an overview of the entire
Superfund public health evaluation framework. The second chapter provides
background on Agency rules, policies, and guidance relevant to the public
health evaluation process. Chapters 3 through 7 give procedures for the
baseline public health evaluation, and Chapter 8 presents methods to formulate
design goals for remedial alternatives. The final chapter provides guidance
on how to summarize and present the results of the analysis. Additional
information related to the public health evaluation process is included in
several appendices to the manual.
Two necessary supplements to this manual are: (1) a set of Health Effects
Assessments (HEAs) for toxic chemicals typically found at uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites, and (2) the Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual, which
provides detailed methods for analyzing chemical releases from waste sites and
assessing fate and transport in environmental media. The 58 available HEAs
provide a rapid index of up-to-date toxicological information and should be
used by EPA personnel and contractors to avoid inconsistency and duplication
of effort. Other parties may also find the assessments useful and time-saving.
The Agency is planning to develop additional HEAs for many commonly occurring
chemicals found at Superfund sites. Copies of HEAs for specific chemicals
will be available through the National Technical Information 'Service.
Appendix C of this manual provides a list of chemicals with HEAs (Exhibit C-7)
and summarizes data from the HEAs necessary for the public health evaluation
process (Exhibits C-4 and C-6). Because toxicity data will change as new
information becomes available, OERR will distribute updated summary tables on
a regular basis. In addition, OERR is developing a comprehensive risk
assessment information directory to supplement the Superfund Public Health
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF .NCORPORAT*
-------
irective 9235.--
-3-
Evaluation Manual and other risk assessment guidance prepared by EPA. The
directory will assist in decision-making by providing EPA officials with ready
access to the most current risk assessment information. Such a compilation of
sources, models, previous efforts, and individuals will make it possible to
rapidly evaluate state-of-the-art risk assessment information, allow quick
response to inquiries, reduce possible duplications of effort, and maximize
consistency among sources of information.
For further information concerning the Superfund Public Health Evaluation
Manual and process contact the Director, Policy Analysis Staff, Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington,
D.C. 20460.
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPOfiATlJ
-------
o i v»:. ft Directive ? 2.5 5 . - L
-4-
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE SUPERFUND PUBLIC HEALTH EVALUATION PROCESS
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
of 1980 (CERCLA) establishes a national program for responding to releases of
hazardous substances into the environment. In addition, the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establishes the process
for determining appropriate remedial actions at Superfund sites. Together,
CERCLA and the NCP require that a remedial action selected for a' Superfund
site be cost-effective and that it be adequate to protect public health. The
NCP, Guidance on Remedial Investigations under CERCLA (EPA, 1985b), and
Guidance on Feasibility Studies under CERCLA (EPA, 1985a) require that
selection of a cost-effective remedy be based on a comparison of alternatives
that examine public health impacts, environmental impacts, technological and
engineering feasibility, cost, and institutional factors. As a general rule,
EPA will pursue remedies that attain or exceed1-1 the requirements of
applicable or relevant and appropriate federal public health or environmental
laws. However, because of unique circumstances at particular sites, there may
be alternatives that do not meet the standards of other laws, but that still
provide protection of public health, welfare, and the environment. The
Agency's most current toxicity data, documented in Health Effects Assessments
(HEAs), along with other criteria, advisories and guidance will also be
considered and may be used in fashioning remedies.
This manual supplements Chapter 5 of the feasibility study guidance, which
provides interim guidance on conducting an analysis of potential public health
impacts at Superfund sites. The manual provides an approach that may be
followed for analyzing public health impacts of remedial alternatives. EPA
recognizes that other approaches may be equally valid. This manual covers the
two key elements of a public health evaluation that should be addressed in any
feasibility study, regardless of the approach that is used: (1) the baseline
public health evaluation, and (2) the public health analysis of remedial
alternatives.
Section 104 of CERCLA authorizes taking a removal or remedial action to
protect public health, welfare, or the environment when there is a release or
substantial threat of release of any hazardous substance or when there is a
release or substantial threat of release of any pollutant or contaminant which
may present an imminent and substantial danger to the public health or welfare.
A baseline public health evaluation is an analysis of site conditions in the
absence of remedial action. It provides the remedial project manager with an
understanding of the nature of chemical releases from the site, the pathways
of human exposure, the degree to which such releases violate applicable or
IJ For instance, the Agency might choose incineration as an alternative
that exceeds what would be required by applicable standards because it is a
more permanent and r.eliable solution than RCRA closure standards for land
disposal facilities.
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATE
-------
--
relevant and appropriate requirements, and in the absence of these require-
ments, a measure of the threat to public health as a result of releases. The
information developed in the baseline analysis provides input for developing
and evaluating remedial alternatives. In addition, the baseline evaluation
satisfies the NCP requirement to complete a detailed analysis of the no-action
alternative, including an evaluation of public health impacts.
The baseline analysis may also be applied in enforcement situations.
Although the level of effort may be more rigorous in an enforcement-lead
situation, the basic process is the same. For administrative and judicial
enforcement actions under Section 106 of CERCLA, an endangerment assessment
must be performed to justify the enforcement action. The endangerment
assessment is the risk management process the Office of Waste Programs
Enforcement (OWPE) uses to determine the magnitude and probability of actual
or potential, harm to public health, welfare or the environment by the
threatened or actual release of a hazardous substance. The endangerment
assessment process is described in the Endangerment Assessment Guidance
document signed by the Assistant Administrator of OSWER in the fall of 1985
and explained in the Endangerment Assessment Handbook released by OWPE in
October, 1985. The Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual provides
methodology employed in the endangerment assessment process and therefore has
been made compatible with the requirement for conducting endangerment
assessments for Superfund enforcement sites.
Development of design goals for remedial alternatives is the second key
phase of the public health evaluation. The manual describes specific
procedures for comparing health risks and developing design goals for remedial
measures. The process builds on information collected and evaluated in the
baseline evaluation and closely follows the guidelines in the NCP and EPA's
policy on CERCLA compliance with the requirements of other environmental
statutes.2J
The analytical framework provided in the manual is a flexible one. -
While it provides a series of analytical procedures, these procedures are not
intended to substitute for a well-reasoned thought process or scientific
judgment. The manual recognizes that there is a minimum level of analysis and
documentation that is necessary in any feasibility study, regardless of the
particular approach used. The manual also recognizes that, depending on the
number and type of substances present, the amount and adequacy of chemical,
physical, and toxicological information known about the substances, proximity
of receptors, and effectiveness of available technology, and the
characteristics of the exposure pathways, the remedial project manager will
need to carefully consider the level of effort and the amount of quantification
needed to conduct its analysis. The remainder of Chapter 1 explains these
factors in more detail; however, only experience and judgment by the remedial
project manager will determine the appropriate level of analysis.
It is also important to realize that not all of the components of the
manual are appropriate to use at all sites. For example, an analysis of the
baseline situation must be conducted at all sites, using this or some other
2J EPA's CERCLA compliance policy is included as an appendix to the
preamble of the NCP.
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF.INCOBPORATEI
-------
Ca'ttER Directive 9_i5..*-L
-6-
approach. However, the approach presented in Chapter 3 for selecting
indicator chemicals is useful only at sites with a wide array of chemicals.
Similarly, part of the design goal development approach in Chapter 8 is useful
only at sites where applicable or relevant and appropriate ambient
concentration requirements are not.available for all chemicals of interest.
1.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROCESS COMPONENTS
The public health evaluation framework presented in this manual has two
major components:
baseline public health evaluation, and
development of design goals for remedial alternatives.
As previously mentioned, an analysis of the baseline is a requirement for all
remedial sites. It can range from a straightforward, uncomplicated assessment
to a very detailed and complex public health evaluation. In addition to a
baseline analysis, the remedial project manager must develop design goals
which form the basis for developing appropriate remedial alternatives.
1.1.1 Baseline Public Health Evaluation
The baseline public health evaluation covers a wide range of complexity,
quantification, and level of effort, depending on numerous site factors. The
analysis can be viewed as spanning a continuum of complexity and resource
requirements. An appropriate level of detail for a public health evaluation
is a site-specific decision.
The baseline analysis, as described in this manual, involves five steps.
They are not a required set of procedures to be followed at all sites because
some of the steps (or parts of steps) do not necessarily apply at some sites.
As a first step in the process, indicator chemicals are selected, if needed,
from among the list of contaminants known to be at the site. The procedure
for selecting indicator chemicals, discussed in Chapter 3, incorporates
chemical toxicity information, physical/chemical factors, and measured
concentrations at the s.ite. The second step in the analysis, an assessment of
exposure concentrations of the indicator chemicals is described in Chapter 4.
Chemical releases are estimated and environmental fate and transport may be
modeled to project exposure levels via air, ground water, surface water, or
other pathways. Following the estimation of exposure concentrations,
comparison to applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (e.g.,
Federal standards) is made.
The next step involves estimating human intakes. Standard assumptions for
daily water and air intake, fish consumption, and other relevant factors are
provided in Chapter 5 for use if more accurate information is unavailable.
The fourth step of the analysis, presented in Chapter 6, involves an in-depth
review of the toxicity of the indicator chemicals as well as an assessment of
the combined toxicity from exposure to them. Appendix C, which contains a
listing of critical toxicity values for chemicals commonly occurring at
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites, and EPA's Health Effects Assessment
documents are important companions to Chapter 6. Finally, in Step 5 (Chapter
7), human health risks are characterized for carcinogens and noncarcinogens by
combining the exposure and toxicity information developed in Steps 1 through 4.
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATE!
-------
GSWER Directive 9235. -*-!
-7-
1.1.2 Analysis of Remedial Alternatives and Development of Design Goals
The final component of the Superfund public health evaluation process is
analysis and development of design goals for proposed remedial alternatives.
This component is described in Chapter 8. Design goals for source contro!3J
remedies will be based on applicable or relevant and appropriate design and
operating requirements and best engineering judgment. Where soil removal is
part of the remedial action, a risk-based approach will be used to determine
the extent of removal. Design goals for management of migration''-'
alternatives will be based on applicable or relevant and appropriate ambient
chemical concentration requirements, if available. Otherwise, a target
carcinogenic risk range will be used to develop numerical design goals. The
emphasis of the design goal procedure is to use techniques of risk analysis to
assist in setting target levels of contaminant concentrations at exposure
points (and for some 'remedial technologies, such as waste treatment plant, to
set target levels of contaminant discharge or emission). The public health
evaluation for remedial alternatives is closely linked with other components
of the feasibility study, especially the detailed technical evaluation.
EPA is developing additional guidance to aid in the development of
remedial alternatives for certain specific situations (including guidance
documents for the cleanup of surface tank and drum sites, alternative water
supplies, and surface impoundments). These manuals will assist in the
development of design goals in many circumstances.
Exhibit 1-1 is a flowchart illustrating the major components of the
Superfund public health evaluation process. The flowchart shows a possible
sequence of activities but does not indicate which activities are applicable
to which sites, an important topic that is discussed in the next section.
1.2 APPLICABILITY OF PROCESS COMPONENTS TO VARIOUS SITES
It should be apparent that not all of the components of the Superfund
public health evaluation process described in Section 1.1 apply to all
remedial sites. This manual establishes a generic framework that is broadly
applicable across sites. As a consequence of attempting to cover a wide
variety of sites, many of the process components, steps, and techniques
described in the manual do not apply to some sites. In addition most of the
components can vary greatly in level of detail. Obviously, determining which
elements of the process are necessary, which are desirable, and which are
extraneous is a key decision for each site. All components should not be
forced into the assessment of a site, and the analysis should be limited to
the complexity and level of detail necessary to adequately assess risks. It
cannot be overemphasized that the manual is not a "cookbook" of procedures
JJ Source control remedies are those that remove or control the source
of contamination at a site.
*J Management of migration remedies are those that address substances
that have already migrated away from the source.
'* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
ICF INCORPORATE!
-------
Exhibit 1-1
FLOWCHART OF THE SUPERFUND PUBLIC HEALTH EVALUATION PROCESS
RE-
QUIREMENTS
FOR ALL IN-
ICATORS T, NO
o
11
COMPARE
PROJECTED
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATIONS
TO AMBIENT
REQUIREMENTS
ANALYZE AND
DEVELOP DESIGN
GOALS FOR
MANAGEMENT
OF MIGRATION
REMEDIES BASED
ON TARGET RISK
RANGE AND
APPLICABLE OR
RELEVANT AND
APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS
u.
3~
PI
:*'
LI
t-
n
0>
(-1
ft
I 1
Ijl
I
-------
CS'wER Directive 3_f3.--;
-9-
that must be followed without exception for each and every site. Rather, the
manual establishes a public health evaluation framework that must be adapted
to individual sites. Although professional judgment and common sense are
the ultimate inputs to deciding applicability and level of detail, the
following paragraphs provide some guidance in this area.
Public health evaluation can be thought of as spanning a continuum of
complexity, detail, and level of effort, just as sites vary in conditions and
complexity. Exhibit 1-2 illustrates the concept of an analytical continuum
and identifies some of the site-specific factors affecting level of effort
that the remedial project manager must consider. These factors include:
number and identity of chemicals present;
availability of appropriate standards and/or toxicity
data;
number and complexity of exposure pathways (including
complexity of release sources and transport media);
necessity for precision of the results, which in turn
depends on site conditions such as the extent of
contaminant migration, proximity, characteristics and
size of potentially exposed populations, and enforcement
considerations (additional quantification may be
warranted for some enforcement sites); and
quality and quantity of available monitoring data.
Sites best represented by the descriptions toward the left of the
continuum on Exhibit 1-2 correspond to a relatively low level of effort and
analytical complexity, while sites corresponding to the descriptions toward
the right are more complex and generally will require a greater level of
effort. It- is important to understand that the factors given on the continuum
are largely independent. Thus, one factor may correspond to the need for a
complex analysis while others correspond to a simple analysis (e.g., a site
may have two chemicals with available standards and only one exposure pathway,
via ground water, but may have a complex subsurface and need considerable
precision). Although it is clearly a simplification, Exhibit 1-2 should
assist in defining the appropriate level of quantitative analysis for a site.
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICFINCOHPORATII
-------
EXHIBIT 1-2
CONTINUUM OF ANALYTICAL COMPLEXITY FOR
SUPERFUND PUBLIC HEALTH EVALUATIONS
Increasing Complexity/Level of Effort
1 or 2 chemicals
10-15 chemicals
many chemicals
standards/toxicity
data available
I significant
exposure pathway
no ground water,
or simple geo-
hydrology
standards/toxicity
data mostly
available
< 3 significant
exposure pathways
complex geohydrology
standards/toxicity
data missing for
key chemicals
> 3 significant
exposure path-
ways
complex geo-
hydrology
1 simple
source
limited need
for precision
monitoring data
fully available
complex sources
precision needed
some monitoring
data available, limited
extrapolation required
multiple complex
sources
considerable
precision needed
inadequate mon-
itoring data;
modeling required
ICF
INCORPORATE!
-------
-11-
CHAPTER 2
BACKGROUND: AGENCY RULES, POLICIES, AND GUIDELINES
To understand the context of the public health evaluation process, it is
important to be familiar with EPA rules, policies, and guidelines relevant to
remedial actions at Superfund sites. In this chapter, the most important
related rules, policies, and guidelines are summarized and references for
further information are provided.
2.1 THE NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION
CONTINGENCY PLAN (NCP)
The NCPSJ is a regulation that provides a framework for implementing the
response powers and responsibilities established under CERCLA. Subpart F of
the NCP outlines the hazardous substance response process and includes
provisions for both removal and remedial actions. Federal and state agencies
and private parties responsible for preparing feasibility studies for Superfund
remedial sites should be familiar with the NCP. The most recent version of
the NCP was published on November 20, 1985 (EPA, 1985c). A copy can-be
obtained from EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR), U.S. EPA
CERCLA Docket Clerk, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.
The NCP sets forth a five-step remedial response process:
Site discovery or notification: Releases of
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
identified by federal, state, local government agencies,
or private parties are reported to the National Response
Center. Upon discovery, such potential sites are
screened to identify release situations warranting
further remedial response consideration. These sites
are entered into the Emergency and Remedial Response
Inventory System (ERRIS). This computerized system
serves as a data base of site information and tracks the
change in status of a site through the response process.
Preliminary assessment and site inspection (PA/SI):
The preliminary assessment involves collection and
review of all available information-and may include
off-site reconnaissance to evaluate the source and
nature of hazardous substances present and to identify
the responsible party(s). Depending on the results of
the preliminary assessment, a site may be referred for
further action. Site inspections routinely include the
collection of samples and are conducted to determine the
Part 300, Chapter 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 300).
*-* * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
ICF INCORPORATE!
-------
'ui'v»ER Direct.ve 3233.--'
-12-
excent of the problem and to obtain information needed
to determine whether a removal action is needed at the
site or whether the site should be considered for
inclusion on. the National Priorities List (NPL).
Establishing priorities for remedial action: Sites
are scored using the Hazard Ranking System and data from
the PA/SI. This scoring process is the primary mechanism
for determining the sites to be included on the NPL,
which identifies sites eligible for Superfund-financed
remedial action. Sites that receive a score of 28.5 or
greater will be proposed as candidates for the NPL.
Remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS):
The RI/FS process is the framework, for determining
appropriate remedial actions at sites on the NPL.
Remedial investigations are conducted to obtain
information needed to identify, evaluate, and select
cleanup alternatives. The feasibility study is the
actual analysis of alternatives based on technological,
public health, institutional, cost, and environmental
factors. The RI/FS process was developed to identify
the most appropriate, cost-effective solution at a site.
Remedial action design and construction: The
detailed design of the selected remedial action is
developed and then implemented.
The Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual provides detailed guidance for
the public health analysis that is part of the RI/FS process.
2.2 GUIDANCE FOR REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS AND FEASIBILITY
STUDIES
As noted in Section 2.1, the NCP requires that a remedial investigation
and feasibility study be conducted for sites listed on the-National Priorities
List. EPA has developed and published guidance for both the remedial
investigation (EPA, 1985b) and feasibility study (EPA, 1985a). The RI/FS
guidance provides the context into which the public health evaluation fits.
The remedial investigation and feasibility study are described briefly below.
For more details, refer to the guidance documents referenced above.
The Guidance for Remedial Investigations Under CERCLA is intended to
provide a detailed structure for field studies to support remedial decisions
under CERCLA. The remedial investigation emphasizes data collection and site
characterization and is conducted concurrently with the feasibility study.
The remedial investigation also supports remedial alternative evaluation and
design through bench and pilot studies.
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATE!
-------
-13-
The initial activity in the remedial investigation is scoping. The
scoping effort includes the collection "and evaluation of existing data,
identification of remedial investigation objectives, and identification of
general response actions for the feasibility study. A preliminary
determination of which federal environmental and public health requirements
are applicable or relevant and appropriate to the site is also made as a part
of the scoping effort.
Several activities supporting the remedial investigation may require
preparation of specific plans or implementation of specific procedures. These
include preparing a sampling plan; identifying data management procedures;
planning for worker health and safety needs; and identifying and reviewing
institutional issues arising from federal, state, and local regulations,
policies, and guidelines.
Site characterization is the focal point of the remedial investigation and
involves collection and analysis of data needed for various types of
assessments in the feasibility study. Because site data and complexity vary,
a multilevel approach to data collection is recommended, including problem
identification and scoping, followed by problem quantification, followed if
necessary by further problem quantification and detailed investigation. The
focils, data needs, and data evaluations conducted at each level of the
investigation are described in the guidance document.
The Guidance for Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA is intended to provide a
detailed structure for identifying, evaluating, and selecting remedial action
alternatives under CERCLA. The feasibility study process begins with
development ofspecific alternatives, based on the general response actions
identified in the remedial investigation. Remedial technologies are screened
for their applicability to the site. Technologies considered appropriate are
then combined to form alternatives, which are screened on the basis of public
health and environmental concerns and order-of-magnitude costs.
Alternatives that pass the screening process undergo detailed analyses to
provide site decision-makers with information for selecting an alternative
that is cost-effective. The guidance document describes methods for
engineering, institutional, public health, environmental, and cost analyses.
The engineering analysis evaluates constructability and reliability to ensure
the technical feasibility of alternatives. The institutional analysis
examines alternatives in terms of the federal, state, or local requirements,
advisories, or guidance. The public health analysis, for which this manual
provides more detailed guidance, evaluates potential health risks if no action
is taken and for remedial alternatives that are developed. The environmental
analysis includes assessment of adverse impacts if no action is taken and the
short- and long-term effects of the alternatives. The cost analysis examines
capital and operating costs of each alternative.
Once the detailed analyses are conducted, the information is organized to
compare findings of the evaluations for each alternative. The objective of
this summary is to ensure that important information is presented in a concise
format so that the decision-maker can choose the remedy that provides the best
balance of human health and environmental protection, engineering reliability,
and cost.
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICFINCORPORATEC
-------
ua»c.ix _. ;.rec-ive .?_:o.--i
-14-
Although there are separate guidance documents, the remedial investigation
and the feasibility study are interdependent. The activities comprising the
remedial investigation and feasibility study are generally performed
concurrently rather than sequentially. The remedial investigation emphasizes
data collection and site characterization, whereas the .feasibility study
emphasizes data analysis and evaluation of alternatives.
2.3 CERCLA COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES
Section 104 of CERCLA requires that wastes taken off-site during a
remedial action be disposed in a facility approved under Subtitle C of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) ._ CERCLA, however, does not
address the requirements of other federal environmental and public health laws
(e.g., Clean Water Act, Toxic Substances Control Act) in conducting on-site
response actions.
The N'CP requires that remedies selected for on-site CERCLA response
actions attain or exceed applicable or relevant and appropriate environmental
and public health requirements in CERCLA response actions unless one of five
specific situations exists.6-1 Other federal criteria, advisories,
guidances, and state standards should also be considered in fashioning CERCLA
remedies and, if pertinent, may be used. For on-site actions (i.e., where
wastes are treated, stored, or disposed on-site), permits (e.g., federal/state
RCRA or NPDES) will not be required for CERCLA response actions; however, all
appropriate permits are required for off-site action.
The CERCLA compliance policy is critical to an evaluation of remedial
alternatives and therefore must be reviewed before remedial options are
developed. A copy of the policy is included as an appendix to the preamble of
the N'CP (50 Federal Register 47946-47950, November 20, 1985). To the extent
that it is both possible and appropriate, at least one remedial alternative
should be developed as part of the feasibility study in each of the following
categories:
alternatives for off-site treatment or disposal, as
appropriate;
alternatives that attain applicable or relevant and
appropriate Federal public health or environmental
requirements;
as appropriate, alternatives that exceed applicable
or relevant and appropriate Federal public health or
environmental requirements;
SJ The five exceptions are fund balancing, technical impracticality,
unacceptable environmental impacts, interim measures, and enforcement actions
when strong public interest calls for expedited cleanup and litigation
probably would not result in a desired response (see 40 CFR 300.68(i)(5)).
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft *' * * ICF INCORPORATED
-------
-15-
as appropriate, alternatives that do not attain
applicable or relevant and appropriate Federal public
health or environmental requirements, but that will
reduce the likelihood of present or future threat from
the hazardous substances and that provide significant
protection to public health, welfare, and the
environment; and
the no-action alternative.
The CERCLA compliance policy provides a list of requirements that are
applicable or relevant and appropriate (i.e., must be used in the development
of alternatives) and other federal criteria, advisories, guidances, and state
standards that should be considered. In cases where requirements are deemed
applicable or relevant and appropriate to the feasibility study process, they
should be applied carefully in the public health evaluation, with
consideration given to the economic and technical factors used to establish
the requirement that may be significantly different from circumstances at a.
specific Superfund site. In addition, various requirements may be applicable
at different points in the exposure pathway;
f
This manual provides guidance for incorporating applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements into the public health evaluation process. Although
RCRA design and operating standards are clearly important requirements to
consider in remedial design at Superfund sites, they are not discussed at
length in this manual because they do not provide ambient concentration levels
for chemicals. This manual focuses on ambient chemical concentration
standards and criteria that can be used for comparison to baseline conditions
and to set quantitative design goals. The Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response is also preparing further guidance for implementing the policy on
CERCLA compliance with other laws. That guidance will explain specifically
how standards under other laws should be used in the design of remedial
alternatives and will also include case studies to illustrate different
situations. For further information contact U.S. EPA CERCLA Docket Clerk, 401
M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.
2.4 AGENCY POLICY FOR PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING
OFF-SITE RESPONSE ACTIONS
EPA has recently adopted a policy for Superfund response actions involving
off-site storage, treatment, or disposal of CERCLA hazardous substances.7-
The policy requires that certain criteria must be met in selecting1 a hazardous
waste management facility to receive CERCLA hazardous substances. The
facility must have either a permit or interim status under RCRA. A RCRA
compliance inspection must have been performed within six months prior to
7J "Procedures for Planning and Implementing Off-Site Response Actions,"
Memorandum from Jack W. McGraw, Acting Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste
and Emergency Response to EPA Regional Administrators, May 6, 1985.
* '* * December 18, 1985 Draft » * * ICF INCORPORATE!
-------
-16-
receiving the hazardous substances. No Superfund hazardous substances may be
taken off-site to a RCRA facility if the facility has significant RCRA
violations or other environmental conditions that affect the satisfactory
operation of the facility unless the owner or operacor commits to correct the
problem and disposal occurs within the facility only at a new of existing unit
in compliance with RCRA requirements. In addition, that new or existing unit
must not contribute in any significant way to adverse conditions at the
facility. The policy also establishes a preference for response actions that
use treatment, reuse, or recycling rather than land disposal.
Copies of the procedures and further information are available from EPA's
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement U.S. EPA CERCLA Docket Clerk, 401 M
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.
2.5 AGENCY GUIDELINES ON RISK ASSESSMENT
EPA has proposed guidelines to improve consistency in Agency risk
assessments. The guidelines address five areas: carcinogenicity,
mutagenicity, reproductive effects, exposure assessments, and assessment, of
chemical mixtures (EPA, 1984a,b,c,d, and 1985d). Guidelines for assessment of
other systemic effects are currently in preparation. The proposed risk
assessment guidelines were used in development of the procedures described in
this manual and supporting toxicity data provided in the Health Effects
Assessment Documents. For further background scientific information, users
should obtain and review these guidelines and their support documents. Copies
are also available from EPA's Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Technical Information Staff, 410 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 2.0460.
2.6 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN EPA AND THE
AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY
EPA and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) have
developed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to define and coordinate joint
and respective responsibilities under CERCLA, Executive Order 12316,*J and
the NCP. The MOU establishes policies for conducting response and
non-response health activities related to releases of hazardous substances. A
copy of the MOU is provided in Appendix E.
Under the MOU, ATSDR1s major responsibilities include evaluation of
populations with current or potential exposure to waste sites, development of
health advisories, and follow-up investigation of populations to evaluate
future health effects. EPA's major health-related responsibilities are risk
assessment a'nd risk management. Risk assessment is defined as a
IJ E.O. 12316 delegates to EPA the primary response authority under
CERCLA section 104 relating to release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants. E.O. 12316 delegates to the Department of Health and Human
Services authorities' for conducting activities relating to illness, disease,
and complaints thereof.
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * |CF INCOBPORATEI
-------
Directive 9235.--I
-17-
qualitative/quantitative process conducted to characterize the nature and
magnitude of potential risks to public health from exposure to hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants released from specific Superfund
sites. The framework for such EPA public health evaluations is given in this
procedures manual.
Where ATSDR is involved, EPA and ATSDR are to coordinate any
health-related activities during the remedial process. Health assessments,
health advisories, and other information developed by ATSDR should be
considered by the public health evaluation team at Superfund sites, and
appropriate data and conclusions should be incorporated into the public health
evaluation process and reports. Likewise", EPA public health evaluations
should be made available to ATSDR for consideration during their analyses. It
is EPA's responsibility to incorporate the results of risk assessments, and .
any ATSDR analyses, into risk management determinations of extent of remedy.
At sites where ATSDR is involved, its staff should be consulted for
assistance in interpretation of human health data, such as clinical or
epidemiologic survey information. The MOU clearly states that if human
subjects testing is necessary, ATSDR will be responsible for such testing and
will coordinate it with EPA.
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATE
-------
-.SiR directive 91S3.--1
-18-
CHAPTER 3
STEP 1: SELECTION OF
INDICATOR CHEMICALS
The baseline public health evaluation process consists of five steps,
which are shown in the flowchart given earlier in Exhibit 1-1. These steps
are discussed individually in Chapters 3 through 7. As emphasized in Chapter
1, not all steps will be needed at all sites because of variability in site
conditions.
Prior to initiating these five steps, available site data relevant to
detailed public health evaluation should be gathered, organized, and
reviewed. Among the types of information to be collected are site background
data, disposal history (and records, if available), types of remedial actions
being considered, on-site and off-site chemical analysis data, site
characterization data necessary for exposure assessment (e.g., topography,
hydrogeology), information on local human populations, and any human body
burden and health effects data (unlikely to be available a-t most sites). Data
sources will include preliminary assessments and reports, site inspection
reports, Field Investigation Team (FIT) reports, remedial investigation
scoping documentation, and analytical data and reports available from ongoing
site characterization (RI) and alternatives screening (FS) activities.
The next task of the public health evaluation is to determine whether
indicator chemicals need to be selected for the site. In general, if less
than 10 to 15 chemicals are actually identified at a site, this indicator
selection step is not necessary. The list of chemicals is already small
enough to easily handle. In such cases, proceed to Chapter 4 and evaluate all
of the chemicals at the site. This "shortcut" will be especially useful when
only a very few chemicals are present at a site and a simple quantitative
analysis is appropriate. However, -remedial investigation sampling at
hazardous waste sites often demonstrates the presence of a large number of
chemical substances. In such instances, conducting a public health evaluation
that includes all the identified chemicals may be both impractical and
unnecessarily time-consuming. To avoid these difficulties, the Superfund
process is based on selected indicator chemicals that pose the greatest
potential public health risk at a site. Such indicator chemicals must be
chosen carefully so that they represent the most toxic, mobile, and persistent
chemicals at the site, as well as those present in the largest amounts (i.e.,
the "highest risk" chemicals).
Step 1 of the bas'eline analysis (i.e., analysis of a site in the absence
of any remedial action) is selection, if necessary, of a subset of the
chemicals present at a site as indicator chemicals. An outline of this step
is presented in Exhibit 3-1, and procedures for the selection are given in the
remainder of this chapter. The toxicity data required to complete the
selection procedure for many commonly found chemicals are listed in Exhibits
C-3 and C-5 in Appendix C. Appendix D documents the methods used to derive
the toxicity data given in Exhibits C-3 and C-5.
December 18, 1985 Draft * * .* ICF INCORPORATE!
-------
'wr-R Directive '-J153.--L
-19-
EXHIBIT 3-1
OVERVIEW: SELECTING INDICATOR CHEMICALS
Identify Chemicals
Present at Site
Record Environmental
Concentrations from
Site Monitoring Data,
Determine Representa-
tive Values, and
Evaluate Transport
Potential
Calculate Indicator
Scores (IS) for All
Chemicals
Select Indicator
Chemicals Based on
IS and Additional
Factors
December 18, 1985 Draft
* *
ICF INCORPORATE
-------
Directive 3155. »-!
-20-
Two important factors for ranking chemicals in the indicator chemical
selection process are their measured concentrations at the site and their
toxicity. Additional factors to be considered include physical and chemical
parameters related to environmental mobility and persistence. The indicator
chemicals selected for the baseline public health evaluation by following the
procedures in this chapter will be reviewed later for applicability to the
remedial alternatives. Because of concerns related to treatability and
additional exposure pathways, more chemicals may need to be assessed in the
analysis of remedial alternatives (see Section 8.1).
It is emphasized that the indicator chemical selection process presented
here is not supposed to contravene professional judgment. If, after
completing the procedures given in this chapter, certain chemicals considered
to be potentially significant are not selected, do not hesitate to include
them. Simply amend Worksheet 3-5 with an explanation of the reasoning and why
this process did not identify them. It is not intended that the indicator
chemical selection process exclude any chemical that may cause significant
human or environmental harm-. Rather, the intent of the process is to focus
resources on the primary chemicals of concern.
3.1 DEVELOP INITIAL LIST OF INDICATOR CHEMICALS
The first task in the indicator chemical selection process is development
of an initial indicator chemical list, which is based principally on chemical
toxicity information, site concentration data, and environmental mobility as
reflected in KOC'J (the organic carbon partition coefficient), values.
This list will eventually be pared down using additional factors to develop a
final indicator list. The indicator chemical selection process is designed
for sites with large numbers of chemicals where consideration of all physical,
chemical, and concentration information at one time is too cumbersome. If
only a moderate number of chemicals are present at a site, all toxicity,
chemical, and physical factors may be considered simultaneously.
Each chemical detected at the site above local background levels is
scored. If, based on recent monitoring data in the site vicinity, it is clear
that levels of certain chemicals do not exceed local background
concentrations, and there is no known source (e.g., intact drums, waste pile)
at the site, these chemicals may be excluded from the evaluation. However,
determining background may be difficult. If there is a question about what
background is or the relation of the chemical concentration to background,
report these doubts and estimate the possible risks from those chemicals.
The following algorithm is used to score each chemical:
IS. = C. T.
111
9J A chemical's KQ<, is being used as an estimator of environmental
mobility. In general, chemicals with high values have correspondingly high
bioconcentration factors, whereas chemicals with low values will tend to be
leachable from soil and mobile in ground water. A more detailed discussion of
KQC is presented later in the text of this chapter.
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF
INCORPORATE
-------
wbwcx jireceive }^
-21-
where
IS. = indicator score for compound i
C. = the concentration of compound i at the site based on monitoring
data (units will be mg/1 in water, mg/kg in soil, or mg/m3 in air)
T. = a toxicity constant for the chemical i (units will be inverse
of concentration units).
Concentration values used in this equation for a given chemical should be
representative of all available site monitoring data.10-1 Toxicity constants
(T values) are derived for each environmental medium and two- types of toxic
effects (carcinogenicity and other chronic effects). Exhibit 3-2 lists the
media of concern, the units of concentration normally used to express exposure
levels, the exposure route (e.g., ingestion or inhalation), and the
corresponding toxicity constants and their units. In all cases, toxicity
constant units are the inverse of their respective concentration units so that
indicator scores (C»T) will always be unitless. Essentially, the indicator
score is a ratio between measured concentration and a toxicity-based
concentration benchmark that is used to rank the site chemicals.
Toxicity constants for noncarcinogens (Tn) are derived from the minimum.
effective dose (MED) for chronic effects, a severity of effect factor, and
standard factors for body weight and oral or inhalation intake (e.g., 70 kg
body weight, 2 liters/day of drinking water, 20 cubic meters/day of air).
Toxicity constants for potential carcinogens (Tc) are based on the dose at
which a 10 percent incremental carcinogenic response is observed (ED..-.) and
the same standard intake and body weight factors. The intake factor for soil
toxicity constants is based on an assumption of 100 milligrams of soil consumed
per day for 2- to 6-year-olds (EPA, 1984e). K is included to account for
the contribution of substances leaching out of the soil and being introduced
into surface and ground water, which can be a critical exposure route.
Toxicity constants, T, are medium-specific. The toxicity constant for use
w
with drinking water concentrations is referred to as T, whereas one for
concentrations in air is T, and one for concentrations in soil is T.
Values for toxicity constants ( T, T, and T) for a number of compounds
are given in Appendix C. Appendix D describes in detail the methods used for
calculating the toxicity constants in Appendix C. The data base for this
procedure is adopted from the supporting documentation for the Superfund
Reportable Quantities rulemaking. Its use for selection of indicator
chemicals at Superfund sites will be reconsidered if another more appropriate
data base becomes available for ranking the toxicity of chemicals.
Because of probable differences in dose-response mechanisms (non-threshold
vs. threshold), potential carcinogens (PCs) and noncarcinogens (NCs) are
scored and selected independently. Indicator scores for carcinogens and
noncarcinogens are not on comparable scales and should never be compared.
IOJ QA/QC validated monitoring data should be used for selecting
indicator chemicals.
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATED
-------
EXHIBIT 3-2
CONCENTRATION AND TOXICITY CONSTANT UNITS
Environmental
Medium
Water
Soil
Air
Environmental
Concentration
Units
mg/1 a/
mg/kg b/
. 3 .
mg/m c/
Exposure
Route
ingest ion
ingestion
inhalation
Toxicity
Constant
WT
ST
*T
Toxicity
Constant Units
(mg/1)"1 -
(mg/kg)
, . 3-1
(mg/m )
a/ Milligrams per liter of drinking water.
b/ Milligrams per kilogram of soil.
c/ Milligrams per cubic meter of air.
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft
* *
ICF INCORPORATE
-------
wS'wER Directive ?»i5.--L
-23-
To begin the indicator selection process, use Worksheet 3-1 to list all
compounds found at the site. For each compound record its Chemical Abstract
Service (CAS) number and K value from Appendix C. Record the maximum and
minimum observed concentrations as well as a "representative" concentration
for each compound. Determination of the representative concentration should
be based on an analysis of all the site monitoring data, with the goal being
to represent long range trends at potential human exposure points. It may be
appropriate to use a geometric or arithmetic mean of some or all of the
samples as the most representative concentration, or it may be more appropriate
to choose a concentration that reflects a time trend occurring at the site.
Use the monitoring data most relevant to a public health evaluation at- the
site. For example, generally averaging upgradient and downgradient well
results is inappropriate. Focus on data from locations nearest to exposure
points. Also, consider detection frequency in determining a representative
concentration, giving relatively less weight to chemicals detected
infrequently. Be sure to be consistent for all chemicals within each medium
so that the selection process is not biased (i.e., do not choose a geometric
mean concentration for one chemical and an arithmetic mean for a second).
Indicate on the worksheet the basis for the representative concentration
chosen and note any assumptions or additional information required to use this
information. If there are concerns about use of these concentrations, note
them. For example, even if the concentrations adequately represent the
quantitative monitoring information available, they may not seem to. reflect
the reality of a 450 ,000-gallon lined lagoon whose liner may fail at any
time. Another concern related to representativeness of monitoring data is
detectability . If there is reason to believe that a chemical 'is present but
is not being detected by the sampling arid analytical protocols used, be sure
to note this also. If a chemical is considered sufficiently important, it may
be chosen as an indicator chemical regardless of its concentration. Also note
any chemicals that were identified analytically but for which no quantitative
data are available.
After completing Worksheet 3-1, refer to Appendix C to determine each
compound's toxicologic class (potential carcinogen (PC) and/or noncarcinogen
(NC)), severity rating value (noncarcinogens) or weight of evidence rating
(carcinogens), and appropriate toxicity constants ( T, T, and i) .
Enter this information on Worksheet 3-2. If a chemical is designated as both
a PC and NC, complete the indicator scoring procedure for it in both
toxicologic classes. Generally, compounds not listed in Appendix C or with
insufficient data for indicator scoring should be classified as unknown under
toxicologic class. These substances should be listed in the final report to
provide an indication of the uncertainty associated with omitted chemicals and
to assist headquarters personnel in identifying data gaps. If you have reason
to believe that these compounds may be significant at your site, contact the
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office (ECAO) , U.S. EPA, 26 W. St. Clair
Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, for guidance in estimating the necessary
toxicity constants .
The next task is to calculate IS values for each chemical. List all
potential carcinogens on Worksheet 3-3 and all noncarcinogens on Worksheet
3-4. Calculate C times T (C»T) for each medium for each chemical, using
both the peak and the representative concentrations. To develop an indicator
score (IS), sum the C»T values across media. If a compound is present in
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
ICF INCOHPORATEC
-------
Name of Site:
Da te:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEE1 3-1
SCORING FOR INDICATOR CIIIMH .1 SI Ltd ION: CONClNIRATIONS AND Kuc VALUES
IN VARIOUS FNVIRONMCNIAL MLOIA
Chemical
(CAS No. )
Koc
yalue Range
Ground Water
(mg/ I ) ______
Repres a/ Ref b/
Surface Water
tfliaZLL
Soi I
_Ra nge Reg res a/
Arsenic
(7MlO:38-21
leirachlor; 36'j
petiiy jene
<,010-.t|6
BPL e/-67
B.112
A. 18
Ref b/ Ramie c/ Repres c/ Ref b/
B.112 1.7-36 7 A.22
A.18_ OQL^U.OOQ 2 A^23
Range
Ai r
_ !U/ffl
Repres
Ref b/
Beryllium
HUMP-MI-'?)
.
_ TrichlQro-
__ benzene
(120-82-11
2200
BPL-1.2
,006
B. 112
A, 18
BOLr,026 .002
^-2^-2 =6_ 0.6
BDL-210 15.8
A,23
1.
2.
a/ Mean of reported values used as representative concentration for surface and ground water; zero used for all values
reported as below detection limit.
b/ A - feasibility Study document, B - Remedial Investigation document. Page numbers follow document designation.
c/ Soil concentration range is across surface, subsurface soils, and sediments; mean of the surface soil values used as
representative concentration; zero used for all values reported as below detection limit.
d/ No data reported for this medium.
e/ BOL = below detection limits.
INS I RUCTIONS
Write down each chemical found at the site with its CAS Number and Koc value (see Appendix C).
If more than 20 chemicals are listed, identify those with the ten highest Koc values with an II and those with the ten
lowest Koc values with an L.
3. Indicate the range of concentrations for each chemical in each medium and the source of the information (e.g., Rl report).
'(. Determine a "representative" concentration and enter it; indicate in footnotes the basis of the representative value.
List all the major assumptions made in developing the data fo.r this worksheet; also indicate any concerns about the
monitoring data:
t
t-
t\
-------
HOKKSHLEI 3-2
SCORING I OH INUICAIOR CIILMICAl SilfCIION:
IOXICIIY INFORMATION
Name of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
qcT
Toxicologic Rating Value/EPA w b/ s b/
Chemical Class Category a/ 1 T
Arsenic
Tetrachlproethy lene
Ue ry 1 1 i urn
1 . 2.»t-Trichloroben2ene
PC A 3. / 1.9E-U
PC
PC
_J1C_
9 18 9.0L"-l|
02 !>. 11 -3 c/ 2.6E-7
TO (]T>ha 1 a t ion)
B2 ( inha lat ion)
8
1 ( inha lat ion)
a b/
T
Tao
0.0'^ 1
0.028
13.000
a/ Rating value is for severity of effect for noncarcinogens, range in 1(low) to 10(high); EPA
category is a qualitative weight-of-evidence designation for potential carcinogens; explanation of
the categories is presented in Exhibit 0-2, Appendix D. Information taken from Appendix C.
b/ Data taken from Appendix C. ,
c/ 5E-3 is the same as b.O x 10-3.
INSIHUC MONS
1. Record compounds from Worksheet 3-1, then refer to Appendix C and note whether they are classed as PC
or NC or both.
2. -Record the rating value or LPA category for each compound in each class (see Appendix C). If there
are route-specific differences, record both values.
3. Record the T values from Appendix C.
u.
3
t".
t
(C
o
ASSUMPLIONS
list all the major assumptions made in developing the data for this worksheet:
(D
I
-------
Name of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
WORKSHEET 3-3
SCORING I OK INDICATOR CHEMICA1 SUfCllUN:
CALCULATION OF CI AND IS VALUES FOR CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
Repres
Client ica 1
Arsenic
Tet rachloroethy lene
Be ry 1 1 i urn
Ground Water Surface Water ' Soil
CI CI CT
Max Repres Max Repres Max Repres
1.7 0.28 - - 6.8E-3 I.3E-3
CLiii 0.016 6E-5 } tiL:5 3.J
o
it
-------
Name of Site;
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 3-'i
SCOKING IOK INDICATOR CHIMICAI SH 1C II ON:
CALCULATION Of CI AND IS VALUES tOI< NONCARC 1 NOCl N 1C IffLCTS
Chemica 1
Arsenic
Tetrachloroethy Icue
Be_ry IJjum
T r ichlorobenzene
Ground Water Surface Water
CT CT
Air
CI
Max Repres Max Repres Max Repres Max Kcpres
_U> _Va Uie
Max Repres
0.25 0.023
0^.60 0,028 1.1E-H 2:JLr^ 6,21^ 9.6F-7
>E-3 ?L_2.Ldi 2.2E-3 1 . 7E-*>
Max
Tentat ive
Rank
Retires
IL6Q !L_Q28 _2_
0,023 _1_ _3_
o
Tl
INSTRUCT IONS
1. list all of the chemicals to be considered for noncarcinogenic effects.
2. Calculate concentration times toxicily (CT) values using the information from WuiKsheets 3-1 and 3-2. Calculate CT
values based on both maximum and representative concentrations for all media in which the chemical was detected.
3. Sum the CT values across media, keeping the two types of concentration separate. Use only the highest CT value of
ground water and surface water if both were contaminated. Record the sums in the IS column.
l|. Rank the compounds based on both their maximum and representative IS values.
ASSUHPTIQNS
List all major assumptions made in developing the data for this worksheet:
r-i
u
!
M
(D
n
CI
I >
o.
-------
Jireccive '1265. *-!
both ground and surface water use only the higher C»T value for these two
media (i.e., do not include both in the IS score). This approach for water
makes the conservative assumption that all drinking water is obtained from the
source giving the highest C»T value. Rank the compounds on these two
worksheets separately on the basis of the indicator scores.
Record on Worksheet 3-5, in rank order based on IS values, the top-scoring
10 to 15 compounds from both Worksheet 3-3 (potential carcinogenic effects)
and Worksheet 3-4 (noncarcinogenic effects). Compare the list of chemicals on
Worksheet 3-5 to the chemicals identified with either an H or an L on
Worksheet 3-1 (H indicates one of 10 chemicals with highest K values, L
indicates one of 10 with lowest). If an important exposure scenario at the
site involves consumption of contaminated fish and none of the 10 chemicals
designated with an H made it onto the initial list, consider placing one or
more of them onto that list. Also, if exposure via ground-water contamination
is a concern and none of the 10 chemicals designated with an L made it onto
the initial indicator list, consider enlarging the list to include one or more
of these chemicals.
The list of 20 to 30 compounds on Work-sheet 3-5 is the initial list of
indicator chemicals "from which the final set of indicators is selected for the
site. In most cases the initial list and final selection should be based on
representative concentrations, although those based on maximum or peak
concentrations may be used to modify the selection. There is no predetermined
number of indicator chemicals appropriate for all sites; between 5 and 10
chemicals would be a manageable number and may be sufficient for most sites.
However, if a very large number of chemicals has been detected at a site, it
may be wise to select more indicators. The number and identity of indicator
chemicals selected is a site-specific decision that must be made and
documented for the site. Guidance for making the final selection is given in
the following section.
3.2 SELECT FINAL INDICATOR CHEMICALS
There is not a numerical ranking algorithm o-r set of precise decision
rules on which to base the selection. Instead, there are several
chemical-specific factors to consider, plus a few general selection rules.
The initial factor to consider is the relative indicator scores (IS) of the
chemicals. The IS has already been used to rank chemicals for the initial
indicator chemical list (Worksheet 3-5). In general, higher ranking chemicals
based on representative IS values should be selected in preference to lower
ranking chemicals within the same toxicologic class (PC or NC). This rule can
be modified, however, on the basis of the additional selection factors
discussed below.
Because values of IS for PC and NC are not directly comparable, the IS
value is not relevant to a determination of the relative number of PC and NC
to select. In fact, this determination is subjective. Always include at
least some of both classes, and consider the relative number of PC and NC
present at the site (e.g., if 90 percent of the chemicals at a site are
noncarcinogens, probably more noncarcinogens than carcinogens should be
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * - ICF INCORPORATE!
-------
Name of Situ:
Date:
Analyst:
~QCl
WORKSHEET 3-^>
SCORING I OK INDICAIOR ClllMICAl SH 1C I I ON:
EVAIUA1ION OF IXPOSURf IACIORS AND HNAL CHIMICAL SUECIION
ChemicaI
PC
i j ties
NC
a/
Arsenic
] eijrachj oroethyj ene
Beryl!iuffl
1r i chloroben^ene
0.016 OJ)28
NA 0.023
.1
a/ Based on representative concentrations.
!SO
Q;!0,()00
>LQ.QO(J
NA_ _____
__^ _ >10aOOO >1 0.000 > 1.0. 1)00
2^200 >1 0,000 1.2 NA _
NA
O
T1
INSIRljCI IONS
1. I ist the top 10 to 15 PC and NC based on IS scores, giving their IS values and their ranking.
2. Refer to Appendix C and record each chemical's solubility, vapor pressure, Henry's law constant, Koc, and half-lives in
a i r, water, and soiI.
3. Select the final indicator chemicals. Use your judgement -- if a compound has a high water solubility and a long
half-life yet is ranked lower than a compound with minimal water solubility and a short half-life, you may wish to move
it up in the ranking (refer to Section 3.2 for additional guidance on the final selection).
i|. Document, any changes in ranking made because of exposure factors.
5. In the last column indicate with a + those chemicals which have been selected as indicator chemicals (in this example all
were selected because there are only four chemicals).
AbSUMPI JON.S
List all major' assumptions made in the development of data for this worksheet:
o
c/.
S'
I'l
CJ
(D
O
d
I j
u-
-------
uswZR Directive JI55.--1
-30-
selected). In any case, include several top-ranked (by IS) PC and NC as
indicator chemicals unless there are extremely strong site-specific reasons
for doing otherwise.
Although IS is the initial selection factor, several additional factors
are also important. These factors include five important chemical properties
related to exposure potential: water solubility, vapor pressure, Henry's Law
constant, organic carbon partition coefficient (K ), and persistence in
oc
various media. High or low values of any of these factors for a chemical
found at a site may produce a high exposure potential and may warrant
inclusion of a particular chemical in the list of indicator chemicals despite
a low IS score. Values for these factors are given in Appendix C for many
chemicals. Record appropriate values for the preliminary indicator chemicals
listed on Worksheet 3-5. For chemicals not listed in Appendix C, determine
values using sources listed in Appendix C or other standard references. Also,
estimation techniques are available for many physical/chemical parameters and
have been summarized in Lyman et al. (1982) and Mabey et al. (1982). -Use of
estimation techniques in the absence of experimental data is encouraged, as
long as the procedures are documented.
Clearly, other chemical properties could affect exposures and risks at a
specific site. However, to limit the amount of data to be collected and
considered, the indicator selection procedure focuses on the five properties
listed above. These properties are important, but not exclusive, determinants
of environmental transport and fate. Some of the properties have different
implications for different exposure pathways. As a result, consideration of
the potentially important exposure pathways at a site is important when
applying physical/chemical factors in the selection process. A brief
description of the relevance of each property to potential chemical release,
transport, and fate is given below. Additional discussion of these parameters
is available in numerous references, including Kenaga and Goring (1978), Lyman
et al. (1982), Nelson et al. (1983), and Maki et al. (1980).
Water solubility is the maximum concentration of a chemical that
dissolves in pure water at a specific temperature and pH. Solubility of an
inorganic species can vary widely, depending on temperature, pH, Eh (redox
potential), and the types and concentrations of complexing species present.
Solubilities range from less than 1 ppb to greater than 100,000 ppm, with most
common organics falling between 1 and 100,000 ppm (Lyman, 1982a). Water
solubility is a critical property affecting environmental fate (Menzer and
Nelson, 1980). Highly soluble chemicals can be rapidly leached from wastes
and contaminated soil and are generally mobile in ground water. Solubility is
one of the controlling factors affecting leachate strength and migration of
chemicals from waste sites (along with sorption potential, soil type, and
water infiltration). Soluble chemicals also tend to be more readily
biodegradable than those with low solubility (Lyman, 1982a). Water solubility
is especially important in the evaluation of aquatic exposure pathways.
Solubility affects "leachability" into both ground water and surface water,
and highly soluble compounds are usually less strongly adsorbed (thus more
mobile) in both ground and surface water. Solubility, along with several
ather factors, also affects volatilization from water -- in general, high
solubility is associated with lower volatilization rates (Menzer and Nelson,
1980).
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF
INCORPORATE
-------
-31-
Some chemicals may be measured at a site at concentrations higher than
their water solubilities. This situation can arise in the case of non-aqueous
phase liquids (i.e., liquids that are not dissolved in water and that form a
second liquid layer, often floating on top of an aqueous phase or perched on
top of an aquifer). In these cases almost pure contaminant may be found.
Also, contaminants may be dissolved in the non-aqeous phase at concentrations
higher than their water solubilities. Chemicals detected at concentrations
higher than their water solubilities may warrant special consideration in
selection of indicator chemicals.
Vapor pressure and Henry's Law constant are two measures of chemical
volatility and thus are important in evaluating air exposure pathways. Vapor
pressure is a relative measure of the volatil-ity of a chemical in its pure
state (Jaber et al., 1984). Vapor pressures of liquids range from 0.001 to
760 torr (mm Hg), with solids ranging down to 10 (Grain, 1982). Vapor
pressure is an important determinant of the rate of vaporization from waste
sites, but other factors, including temperature and wind speed, degree of
adsorption, water solubility, and soil conditions, are also important. Vapor
pressure is most directly relevant to exposure pathways involving chemical
releases to air from spills or contaminated surface soils. Henry's Law
constant, which combines vapor pressure with solubility and molecular weight,
is more appropriate for estimating releases to air from contaminated water
(e.g., ponds, lagoons) and should be used to evaluate chemicals for which this
type of pathway is expect'ed. At sites where air exposure pathways are not
important, these two factors should not be used in the selection of final
indicator chemicals.
The organic carbon partition coefficient (K ) is a measure of
relative sorption potential for organics and is a significant environmental
fate determinant for all exposure pathways, especially aqueous pathways. The
K indicates the tendency of an organic chemical to be adsorbed, and it is
largely independent of soil properties (Lytnan, 1982b) . K is expressed as
the ratio of amount of chemical adsorbed per unit weight of organic carbon to
the chemical concentration in solution at equilibrium. Therefore:
K = mg adsorbed/kg organic carbon
oc a 'a
mg dissolved/liter solution
The normal range of K values is from 1 to 107, with higher values
indicating greater sorption potential (Lyman, 1982b). Many other partition
coefficients exist (e.g., K , K,, K ), but K was selected for this
& ora d ow oc
purpose because it is chemical-specific (essentially independent of soil
conditions) and for organics is directly related to soil and sediment
sorption, both of which are significant chemical fate processes at many
Superfund sites. For inorganics, some other parameter such as the
distribution coefficient for a specific soil type (K.) or the maximum
exchangeable mass may be a better measure of relative adsorption potential.
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICFINCOBPORATEI
-------
Li'«c.R Directive 9253.--L
-32-
The significance and interpretation of K varies with different exposure
pathways. For ground water, low K values indicate faster leaching from the
waste source into an aquifer and relatively rapid transport through the aquifer
(i.e., limited retardation of the chemical). K is directly proportional to
the retardation factor, which is used in many ground-water transport models.
Therefore, among chemicals with similar IS values due to ground-water pathways,
high mobility (low K ) chemicals generally would be of more concern. If a
chemical with a low K is present at a high concentration in soil but is
not chosen because of- a low IS value, consider adding it to the final
indicator list.
For surface water pathways, K also has several significant
implications. A high K indicates tight bonding of a chemical to soil,
which means that less of the chemical will be dissolved in site runoff, but
also implies that runoff of contaminated soil particles may occur over a
longer time period. At some Superfund sites', direct recharge of surface water
.by ground water is important; in these situations, because of ground-water
mobility considerations, chemicals with high K are of relatively lower
concern. Once a chemical gets into surface water, however, a high K may
be of great concern because it indicates a tendency to bioaccumulate (K is
related to bioaccumulation potential). If aquatic food chain pathways are
possibly significant, this implication of K should be considered.' The
OG
K value also indicates the relative amount of sediment adsorption in
oc ^
surface waters.
An example of the consideration of K in indicator chemical selection
oc
follows. For a. site with: (1) potential ground-water exposure pathways, (2)
high soil concentrations of a chemical with low K , and (3) low
concentrations of the same chemical in available ground-water monitoring data,
consideration should be given to selecting that chemical despite its probable
low indicator score. The combination of low K and high soil concentration
indicates that significant releases of the chemical to ground water are
possible in the future.
The final chemical property to be considered in the indicator selection
process is persistence in various environmental media. This property is a
measure of how long a chemical will exist in a given medium, obviously a
critical factor in assessing exposure potential. Important removal processes
are phase transfer (e.g., water to air, soil to water), chemical
transformation (hydrolysis, photolysis), and biological transformation.
Available persistence data are given in Appendix C as ranges of overall
half-lives (i.e., due to all removal processes) in air, soil, ground water,
and surface water. If half-life values from- other sources are used, be sure
to know whether they represent overall disappearance rates or whether they
correspond to a specific removal mechanism.
December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICFIHCORPORATO
-------
GSWER Directive 3255.--!
-33-
Half-lives of chemicals vary from seconds to thousands of years. Small
half-lives generally indicate a lower level of concern, although degradation
products may have a higher toxicity or environmental mobility than the
original chemical. In considering persistence as a secondary factor for
selecting indicator chemicals, you must consider the exposure pathways
contributing to the IS score (Worksheets 3-3 and 3-4). Do not use relative
persistence in one medium to approximate it in another because the important
removal processes may be very different.
One additional factor, to be considered for potential carcinogens only, is
the qualitative weight-of-evidence rating. This rating is an indication of
the quality and quantity of data underlying a chemical's designation as a
potential human carcinogen. The categories of evidence-for human
carcinogenicity include sufficient, limited, and inadequate. Chemicals on the
preliminary indicators list with sufficient evidence of human carcinogenicity
(EPA Group A) and chemicals with limited human evidence and sufficient animal
evidence (EPA Group Bl) should generally be selected as final indicators
unless there are convincing reasons to do otherwise. For chemicals with
similar IS values, ones with stronger weight-of-evidence should usually be
selected.
Using the preceding discussion as guidance, make the final selection of
indicator chemicals. Starting with the initial chemical list given in
Worksheet 3-5, consider IS scores and relevant additional factors in the final
selection process. Indicate'on Worksheet 3-5 the final selections. If toxic
organics and inorganics are both present at the site, be sure to include at
least one of each on the final list of indicator chemicals.
* * it -ft if
By following the procedures described in.this chapter, a subset of the
chemicals present at the site has been selected to serve as indicator
chemicals. The procedure has been structured to favor the selection of those
chemicals chat pose the greatest potential risks and therefore should serve as
indicator chemicals. There are many components of the selection procedure
that require individual judgment. Care must be taken to apply the general
principles set forth in each step-in a consistent manner so that the final
scores are comparable. The scores developed here are used only for relative
ranking and have no meaning outside the context of this procedure. They
should not be considered as a quantitative measure of a chemical's toxicity or
exposure. As a next step in the quantitative analysis process, exposure
pathways will be identified for these indicator chemicals and exposure point
concentrations estimated.
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATE!
-------
Directive *235.--l
CHAPTER 4
STEP 2: ESTIMATION OF EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATIONS OF INDICATOR CHEMICALS
This chapter describes methods for estimating baseline environmental
concentrations of indicator chemicals so that the extent and duration of human
exposure in the absence of any remedial action can be determined. During the
remedial investigation, it is essential to collect sufficient environmental
sampling data so that if contamination has reached a human exposure point,
some actual data may be used in the evaluation of potential effects. However,
at many Superfund sites, contamination has not yet reached the point of human
exposure. As a result, it is necessary to estimate how and when such exposure
will take place. Chemical fate and transport equations and models may be
useful for predicting exposures. Many models, ranging widely in
sophistication, data input requirements, cost, and reliability, are
available. Ultimately, the remedial project manager must decide what model to
use in exposure assessment. Consideration should be given to the complexity
of the site and'the environment', the precision needed, and the time available
for analysis. The Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual, a companion to
this manual, describes the various models available and provides guidance in
selecting1 appropriate modeling techniques for each site. It should be
recognized, however, that the uncertainty associated with modeling results can
be significant.
*
At most sites, a combination of site monitoring data and environmental
modeling results will be required to estimate chemical concentrations at
exposure points. Alone, both types of information have considerable
drawbacks. Taken together, site monitoring data and environmental modeling
offer the best approach to estimating exposure levels.
Site monitoring data have the advantage of being actual measurements of
chemical concentrations on and in the vicinity of the site. Within the
accuracy and precision of the sampling and analysis procedures, these
measurements are real chemical levels representative of the sampling time,
location, and medium.11-1 Consideration of site monitoring data alone,
however, has several disadvantages for public health evaluation, particularly
for assessment of long-term effects. Potential drawbacks include:
Temporal representativeness -- Monitoring data may be
representative of current and/or past conditions, but do
not give a clear indication of future conditions. Often
at Superfund sites the sampling history is too short to
detect time trends, especially in ground water. Because
it is necessary to predict future exposures to quantify
long-term risks, especially if contaminants have yet to
reach any exposure points, monitoring data must be
llj Site monitoring data should be QA/QC validated before use in the
risk assessment process.
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
CSV.ER Directive
-35-
suppleraented by some kind of environmental fate modeling
(or simple assumptions, such as that concentration will
remain constant or continue to change at the observed
trend for the next 70 years). Over-reliance on
environmental monitoring data can lead to an
underemphasis on chemicals not yet released from a
source and on slow-moving chemicals that have not yet
reached monitoring points. Source monitoring data can
help identify these chemicals.
Spatial representativeness -- Monitoring data are
representative of their sampling locations, which may or
may not be relevant to a risk assessment. In the past,
monitoring at Superfund sites was often conducted
on-site at or near a contaminant source. Because
chemical concentrations are spatially variable, and
available data may not cover off-site human exposure
points, monitoring data usually must be supplemented by
modeling to allow an adequate assessment of public
health effects.
The extreme time and space variability of environmental concentration data
at Superfund sites and the need for projections of future health risks, often
at off-site exposure points, necessitate the use of chemical fate modeling
along with site 'monitoring data. Monitoring usually represents a time
"window" that is too small and a spatial distribution that is too limited to
fully represent site conditions. However, at all sites the available
monitoring data must be reviewed thoroughly and used to the extent possible.
For example, monitoring data should always be used to assist in selection,
calibration, and verification of chemical fate models and to help in the
estimation of source terms (i.e., release rates) for these models.
Environmental fate modeling at Superfund sites also has significant
disadvantages. However, models can project chemical concentrations over space
and time and thus overcome the major drawback to site monitoring data. With
all fate models, especially ones dealing with long-term subsurface transport,
there is considerable uncertainty. Ground-water models have not been
validated over the long time periods of concern, and many subsurface
environments (e.g., anisotropic, heterogeneous) are not well suited to
available models. More sophisticated computer models are expensive to use,
often require extensive data inputs, and still may not be very accurate
because of limitations in the characterization of the source term or other
input data. Thus, simple environmental fate models using conservative (i.e.,
reasonable worst case), assumptions are usually most appropriate for Superfund
sites.
In the event that data from human monitoring in the site vicinity (e.g.,
blood or tissue analyses, genetic testing data) are available or such
monitoring is planned, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) should be consulted. ATSDR should take the lead in conducting any
human monitoring and in assessing the current health status of people near the
site based on human monitoring data.
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICFINCORPORATEI
-------
uiWER Directive
-36-
At some Superfund sites, background chemical contamination is
significant and should be accounted for in a complete risk assessment.
Background is defined here as chemical contamination due to a source other
than the site under evaluation. Background can be either "natural," as in the
case of certain inorganics such as arsenic, or from various anthropogenic
sources (e.g., industrial point sources, other uncontrolled waste sites,
agricultural pesticide applications). Try to define local background
conditions for chemicals of concern based on recent monitoring data, such as
RI site characterization results, at locations clearly unaffected by the site
(e.g., upgradient, upwind). Three or four upgradient samples taken on one day
are insufficient to establish background. .However, if background conditions
can be assessed with confidence based on available monitoring data, this
information should be incorporated into the evaluation.
The recommended option for including background is to estimate all
chemical concentrations, intakes, and risks for two scenarios: (1) actual
conditions at the site, reflecting both background and site-specific
contamination, and (2) background alone, as if the site did not exist. The
first scenario allows an estimate of overall health risk at exposure points
affected by the site, without attribution of the source of the risk. The
second scenario indicates the probable risk due to sources other than the
site, and comparison of the two scenarios gives information on the relative
importance of the site to overall risk. For example, if background arsenic
was 5 ppm in drinking water and projected exposure from all sources was 15
ppm, both values could be carried through the entire process, completing
parallel worksheets for background and overall risk scenarios.
The methods for estimating environmental concentrations described in this
chapter and the Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual should be applied to the
selected indicator chemicals. Exhibit 4-1 diagrams the activities involved in
estimating exposure point concentrations. The first task is a detailed
exposure pathway analysis, which is described in Section 4.1. The second
task,, estimation of short-term and long-term concentrations for each indicator
chemical at each human exposure point, is discussed in Section 4.2. These
concentrations will generally be derived from a combination of site monitoring
and modeling information. Short-term concentrations (STC) are averaged over a
relatively short time period (10 to 90 days) and are used to evaluate
potential subchronic effects; long-term concentrations (LTC) are averaged over
a human lifetime (70 years) and are used in the assessment of chronic effects,
including carcinogenicity. For example, volatilization from a site may be
rapid for a few months and then decrease substantially. The peak STC would be
obtained by averaging concentrations over the 10 to 90-day period of greatest
volatilization. The LTC would be averaged over the entire 70-year period,
beginning with the date of the site assessment. The LTC will always be less
than or equal to the peak STC.
The concentrations derived in Step 2 of the public health evaluation
process will be the inputs to Step 3 -- estimation of chemical intakes. The
exposure point concentrations will also be compared to applicable or relevant
and appropriate ambient concentration requirements, a task described in
Section 4.3.
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * ICF INCORPORATEB
-------
'wER Directive 9~i5
-37-
EXHIBIT 4-1
OVERVIEW: ESTIMATING EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS
Indicator
Chemicals
(Chapter 3)
Identify Potential
Pathways of Human
Exposure
Estimate Exposure Point
Concentrations of
Chemicals (STC and LTC)
Compare Projected Concentra-
tions to Applicable or Relevant
and Appropriate Requirements
Use STC and LTC
Projections as Input
to Intake Estimation
(Chapter 5)
* if
December 18, 1985 Draft * *
ICF
INCORPORATE
-------
-38-
Worksheets are provided as a means for organizing and documenting the data
collected for estimating exposure point concentrations. Filling in these
worksheets will not be sufficient to complete the quantitative analyses
required. Rather, they serve to direct and focus the analysis so that the
results can be used directly in later steps of the public health evaluation.
All procedures, assumptions, and calculations used to develop concentration
estimates must be clearly documented in a format that will facilitate review.
4.1 IDENTIFY EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
This section describes an approach for identifying potential human
exposure pathways at a Superfund site. An exposure pathway consists of four
necessary elements: (1) a source and mechanism of chemical release to the
environment, (2) an environmental transport medium (e.g., air, ground water)
for the released chemical, (3) a point of potential human contact with the
contaminated medium (referred to as the exposure point), and (4) a human
exposure route (e.g., drinking water ingestion) at the contact point. Exhibit
4-2 illustrates the elements of an exposure pathway. Each pathway therefore
describes a unique mechanism by.which a population or an individual is exposed
to contaminants originating from a site. The overall risks posed by a site
are- a composite of the set of individual pathway risks. Risks for individual
pathways, however, may not be additive because they may represent risks to
different populations!
The Superfund risk assessment process is based on concern fo-r both
individual risk and risk to exposed populations. One exposure point that
should be evaluated for a pathway is the geographic point of highest individual
exposure for a given release source/transport medium combination (i.e., the
geographic location where human inhabitants are exposed to the highest
predicted chemical concentrations). Exposure points with lower predicted
chemical concentrations and large potentially exposed populations should also
be evaluated. For example, a potentially vulnerable public water supply
serving a large population should be included in the evaluation even if higher
exposures are projected at a few private wells closer to the site.
To identify possible exposure pathways, human activity patterns near the
site sKould be defined and combined with chemical release source and transport
media information. This task is accomplished using a qualitative, yet
systematic procedure that relies on professional judgment and experience.
Because chemical release and transport are more rigorously analyzed in the
next phase of the exposure assessment (Section 4.2), the initial list of
exposure pathways can be modified as the analysis proceeds. If there are
questions or uncertainties about a possible exposure pathway, it should not be
eliminated from the analysis until the next phase is completed.
The analysis described here is a first-cut organization of the relevant
site information so that major exposure pathways can be defined. It is not
intended as a time-consuming task in the overall public health evaluation
process. Iterations of this procedure following the results of additional .
site sampling and/or modeling will confirm the important exposure pathways. A
four-step framework for the exposure pathway analysis is described below.
December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATED
-------
. Exhibit 4-2
ILLUSTRATION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
- Prevailing Wind Direction
Transport
Medium (Air)
Exposure'
Point
o
n
1
Source
(Voiatization)
Inhalation
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Exposure
Route
';/ Release Source
(Site Leaching)
Water Table
V
Ground-water Flow
x:: ./^Transport Medium
' ^(Ground Water)
- Ground-water Exposure Pathway
Air Exposure Pathway
c
t/,
5'
t'l
O
(D
O
ft
-------
-40-
4.1.1 Determine Possible Chemical Release Sources and Release Media
To determine possible release sources for a site in the absence of
remedial action, use all available site descriptions and data from preliminary
assessment, site inspection, and remedial investigation. Also obtain and use
any appropriate information being developed as part of the feasibility study.
Monitoring data showing off-site contamination in excess of background levels
are especially valuable because they demonstrate chemical release and
transport from the site. Exhibit 4-3 lists some typical release sources at
Superfund remedial sites, organized by release medium. In many cases the
release, transport, and exposure media will be the same (i.e., release to air
will result in transport and exposure via air). However, intermedia transfers
can occur and may be critical at some sites (e.g., fish ingestion exposures,
which result from releases to surface water).
Use Worksheet 4-1 to summarize the results of the initial release source
analysis. Supplement Worksheet 4-1 with a site map that indicates locations
of the release sources. At this point, combinations of release
source/transport medium for a site (i.e., the first two components of exposure
pathways) have been identified and the exposure points for each must now be
determined.
4.1.2 Identify and Characterize Possible Human Exposure Points
First, identify' for each combination of release source and transport
medium (Worksheet 4-1) the location of highest individual exposure to the
general public (defined here as the "significant" exposure point). Next,
determine the number of people potentially affected at each of the significant
exposure points and record the basis for the estimate. Both short-term and
long-term exposures must be considered. In addition, include any locations
with the potential for exposure of large numbers of people, (e.g., public
drinking water supplies, shopping centers, industrial parks) or sensitive
populations (e.g., schools, hospitals). Some of these locations should be
included as supplementary exposure points in the exposure and risk analysis to
follow. In addition to identifying locations of exposure points, determine
the probable routes of exposure at each. Guidance for identifying significant
exposure points is given below for each transport medium.
Consider including the site itself as an exposure point, based on a
reasonable future use scenario. Clearly, this consideration would be
inappropriate at sites where future development is improbable, but some sites
may have future human contact uses. Consult with local planning and zoning
officials to determine a reasonable future use scenario. If the scenario
includes human contact, include these on-site exposure pathways in the
analysis .
Air Exposure. For air exposures, the individuals exposed to highest
concentrations will generally be the people located downwind of and nearest to
the source. This may not always be true; for example, the point of highest
ambient ground- level concentration may be some distance from the source if the
source is elevated. In these cases, the appropriate exposure point must be
determined later, in conjunction with sampling or air modeling efforts (as
described in Section 4.2). At the majority of Superfund sites, however, it
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATED
-------
-------
,i«c.A Jirecrive 9255.--:
-42-
N'ame of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 4-1
PRELIMINARY RELEASE SOURCE ANALYSIS
FOR BASELINE SITE CONDITIONS
Release
Medium
Potential
Release Source
Release
Mechanism
Release
Time Frame
Release
Probability/
Amount
Air
Contaminated
surface soil
Volatilization
100?; probability;
amounts may be high
Surface On-site lagoon
water
Overflow
Low probability;
relatively high
amounts
Ground
water
Soil
INSTRUCTIONS
For each medium, list potential release sources and mechanisms.
Estimate release time frame: chronic (C) or episodic (E).
1.
2.
3.
Record any information, qualitative or quantitative, on release
probabilities and amounts. If quantitative data from observations made
during the remedial investigation on frequency, duration, probability, and
quantity of releases are available, report those values here.
4. Attach a site map indicating locations of release sources.
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumptions in developing the data for this worksheet:
* * December 18, 1985 Draft
ICF
INCORPORATE!
-------
-43-
can probably be assumed that t.he nearest population is the pertinent exposure
point. Once the release sources into air are determined in the first task, it
is relatively straightforward to locate the closest population. These
populations can be located in residential, industrial, or commercial areas or
at other points of human activity. Potential sources of this information
include:
site vicinity surveys;
topographic maps;
aerial photos of the site;
county or city land-use maps; and
census data.
On a map, indicate precisely for each air release source the direction and
distance to the significant exposure point.
The point of highest short-term individual exposure by air may well be
different from the point of highest long-term exposure. The highest short-
term exposure point will generally be the closest population in any direction
from the site, whereas the highest long-term exposure point will, in most
cases, be downwind. Therefore, select the exposure point for determining
long-term concentration within the downwind 90° arc from the emission source
(45° on each side of the average downwind centerline as determined from
historical wind data for locations near the site) , unless it can be
demonstrated that long-term concentrations will be higher elsewhere.
Historical wind data are usually available for airports and some other
locations through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (N'OAA) .
Surface Water Exposure. The -significant exposure points for surface
water pathways depend on downstream uses of the water. Both withdrawal points
and areas of in-stream use must be considered. Withdrawal uses to be
considered include domestic water supply (drinking, cooking, bathing),
agricultural use (livestock watering, irrigation), and industrial use.
Relevant in-stream uses include swimming and other water contact sports and
private and commercial fishing (resulting in ingestion of contaminated fish).
Sources for identifying withdrawal points and uses include:
site vicinity surveys;
state water agency records;
local water utility records;
withdrawal permits; and
EPA Office of Drinking Water data bases (Federal Reporting Data
System, or FRDS).
Locate on a map the exact points of withdrawal in relation to the source from
topographic maps. Indicate points of in-stream use from site vicinity surveys
and possibly from local or state planning and recreation agencies.
At some sites, an important potential route of exposure via surface water
is through the ingestion of contaminated fish or shellfish. Fish living in
contaminated water concentrate contaminants from the water in their tissue.
Due to the solubility of some contaminants in fats, many chemicals are
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * |CF
INCORPORATE
-------
-44-
bioconcentrated and appear in the tissue at concentrations higher than in the
surrounding water. Consumption of fish from surface water near sites should
be considered as a possible exposure route.
Ground-Water Exposure. Determining points of highest exposure to
ground-water contaminants will often be difficult unless subsurface flow
modeling is done. In general, nearby wells will have higher concentrations
than distant wells, and wells in the direction of ground-water flow (often
approximated by surface slope) will be higher. If comprehensive ground-water
modeling is planned, do not determine the significant exposure point until it
is completed. Determine instead the locations, depths, pumping rates, and
uses of all wells in the immediate site vicinity and in the likely direction
of flow. Specify the ground-water formations from which various wells are
pumping, and determine the general extent of hydraulic connection among the
multiple formations. Identify well information through state or local agency
well logs or site vicinity surveys. This information can then be used in
conjunction with monitoring and/or modeling results developed to determine the
significant exposure points.
If subsurface modeling is not planned, determine the likely flow direction
from geohydrologic data and assume that the closest domestic well in that
direction is the highest individual exposure point. Locations and depths of
public" water supply wells should also be determined.' In a-ddition to domestic
wells, locations of agricultural and industrial.wells and any other relevant
ground-water uses must be determined.
Hydraulic connections between ground water and the surface.water exposure
points identified above should also be determined.
Soil Exposure. Areas of highest direct exposure to contaminated surface
soil will generally be on or directly adjacent to the waste site. If access
to the site is not restricted or otherwise limited (e.g., by distance), the
site itself usually can be assumed to be the point of highest individual
exposure to surface soil. If site access is limited, the significant exposure
point for soil often will be the nearest residence or other human use area
(e.g., playground). If there is no evidence of surface soil contamination in
the site vicinity, there may be no important direct exposure pathways
resulting from soil contamination. A possible indirect route of exposure from
soil .contamination to be considered is chemical uptake by plants, with
subsequent ingestion by humans.
Typical exposure points for the four environmental exposure media are
summarized in Exhibit 4-4. This exhibit can be used as guidance for
determining exposure points, but this determination is a site-by-site analysis
and the possibility of other exposure points must be considered for each site.
4.1.3 Integrate Release Sources,, Environmental Transport Media,
Exposure Points, and Exposure Routes into Exposure Pathways
Assemble the information developed in the previous two steps and determine
the complete exposure pathways that exist for the site. Use Worksheet 4-2 to
record the exposure pathway information. A complete exposure pathway is one
that has all the necessary components: a source and mechanism of chemical
* * * .December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATE!
-------
irective
-MO -
EXHIBIT 4-4
TYPICAL EXPOSURE POINTS FOR CHEMICAL
RELEASES FROM HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
Transport/Exposure
Medium
Typical
Exposure Point
Major
Exposure Route
Air
Nearest residence to
source
Nearest population magnet
(e.g., shopping center,
school, industrial park)
Other residence/population
at point of highest
concentration
Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
Surface water
Withdrawal point for
potable use
Withdrawal point for
agricultural use
Withdrawal point for other
uses (e.g., industrial)
Nearest point for
swimming/contact sports
Nearest point for fishing"
Ingestion, dermal,
inhalation
Inhalation, inges-
tion (food),
dermal
Inhalation, dermal
Ingestion, dermal
Ingestion (food)
Ground water
Nearest potable well
(private or public)
Nearest agricultural well
Nearest well for other
uses (e.g., industrial)
Ingestion, dermal,
inhalation
Inhalation, inges-
tion (food),
dermal
Inhalation, dermal
Soil
On-site
Immediately adjacent to
site (if site is
restricted)
Nearest cropland
Dermal, inges t ion
Dermal, ingestion
Ingestion (food)
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
ICF
INCORPORATEC
-------
WORKSHEET »i-2
MATRIX 01 POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Name of Site:
Date?~
Ana lyst :
QC:
Re lease/
Transport Medium
Air
Release/Source Exposure
Mechanism Po int
Contaminated soil/
volat i 1 izat ion
Barest residences *
10. 7 mi le SW of si te)
Exposure
Route
Inha la t ion
Number of
People
50
Pathway
Complete
Yes
QfiQ-iaK! US ted sui I /
volat i iization
] f
o
n
i-
i J
tu
Ui
4
-------
-47-
release, an environmental transport medium, a potential human exposure point,
and a likely route of exposure. For example, if a release to ground water is
projected but there is no ground-water use (or projected use) from the
affected aquifer, then the exposure pathway is incomplete. The exposure
points for the complete exposure pathways define the spatial locations at
which chemical concentrations must be projected. The health risk estimates
developed later in this process are based on exposures at these locations.
In some cases, exposures via identified pathways may be non-quantifiable.
There are a number of possible reasons for this, including the absence of data
on which to base estimates of chemical releases, environmental concentrations,
or human intakes. If an exposure pathway is determined to be non-quantifiable
during the exposure assessment procedure to follow, continue to include it as
a potential pathway on all subsequent worksheets, designating it as
non-quantified. This information can be taken into account in assessments of
the uncertainty of the results.
4.1.4 Determine Presence of Sensitive Human Populations
Review the information on the site area and determine if any population
groups with high sensitivity to chemical exposure are present. Sensitive
subpopulations include infants and children, elderly people, pregnant women,
and people with chronic illnesses. Many sites may be located in areas without
readily identifiable sensitive subpopulations, but if present, the number of
people involved and their location should be determined.
To identify sensitive subpopulations in the site area, determine locations
of schools, day care centers, hospitals, nursing homes, and retirement
communities that are within three miles of the -site or that use drinking water
potentially affected by. the site. Use local census data and information from
local public health officials for this determination. Record this information
on Worksheet 6-2 (see Chapter 6).
4.2 ESTIMATE EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS
To the extent available, measured chemical concentration data should be
reviewed for each chemical, exposure medium, and exposure point. Such
monitoring data can be used to estimate peak short-term concentrations at
exposure points. However, in addition to short-term indications of
concentration, long-term concentrations (averaged over a human lifetime, 70
years) need to be estimated. Long-term concentrations are more difficult to
estimate and usually require environmental fate modeling (see Sections 4.2.1
and 4.2.2). The short-term and long-term concentration estimates will be used
in the next phase of the public health evaluation -- calculating human
intake. By understanding the potential long-term exposures from a site, one
will better understand the consequences of not taking any action. Short-term
concentrations will be important in the evaluation of chemicals to which even
short-term exposure is a concern and which can be contained by certain
management practices. Note that the only chemicals being evaluated here are
those that have been selected as indicator chemicals.
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF
INCORPORATED
-------
c irective 'JI
-48-
Relevant monitoring results from points of human exposure should be
recorded on Worksheet 4-4 (near the end of Chapter 4) to provide short-term
concentration values. Because several samples are generally taken, some
measure of the variability of the estimate (confidence interval, range) should
be recorded. Long-term concentrations on which to base lifetime exposures may
be estimated on the basis of both monitoring data and the chemical release and
fate models described in the Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual.
After potential exposure pathways are determined, environmental
concentrations for each indicator chemical must be estimated at each of the
significant and supplementary exposure point locations identified in Worksheet
4-2. Concentrations of substances need to be estimated as a function of time
(i.e., short-term and long-term) in each environmental medium -- air, surface
water, ground water, or soil -- through which potential exposures could
occur. For example, if in completing Worksheet 4-2, it is determined that
potential exposure routes for a nearby residential area are inhalation of
contaminated air and ingestion of contaminated ground water, chemical
concentrations over time must be predicted for both air and ground water at
this location.
Estimating environmental concentrations at an exposure point is
essentially a two-step process. First,' quantify the amounts of chemicals that
will be released to the environment by the various sources identified in the
exposure pathway analysis.- Given these release quantities, then predict the
environmental transport and fate of- each indicator substance in the identified
medium of the exposure pathway. An example would be the movement of a
contaminant released to ground water from contaminated soil and then
transported to a drinking water well.
Numerous analytical techniques are available to perform the calculations
required in these two steps. These techniques are described in detail in the
Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual. The techniques vary in sophistication
from simple, desk-top methods that provide rapid, order-of-magnitude
projections, to more rigorous approaches involving computer modeling that may
give more accurate results, but require more time and resources to undertake.
All techniques require certain chemical- and site-specific data, although the
data requirements vary with the degree of sophistication of the method used.
Regardless of the technique used, it is likely that numerous assumptions will
be required because of gaps in available data. The appropriate level of
sophistication will be influenced by data availability, and by the demands and
bounds of the remedial investigation/feasibility study effort at a specific
site. Relatively simple chemical release and transport -odels are usually
appropriate for Superfund public health evaluation exposure assessments.
There are two recommended approaches for addressing the unavoidable
estimation uncertainties likely to be encountered in the exposure assessment.
One is to use a conservative (not necessarily "worst-case") approach in making
the assumptions necessary for a particular estimation method. The consequence
of making conservative assumptions is that risks may be substantially
overstated but will not be understated in the final analysis. All assumptions
and the basis for each should be recorded.
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATE!
-------
-49-
A second, and generally preferred, approach is to calculate and present
both best estimates and conservative upper bound estimates for all exposure
point chemical concentrations. If this approach is followed and both sets
of concentration estimates are carried through the entire risk analysis
(ultimately resulting in two sets of risk estimates), the results will provide
not only an estimate of the risk magnitude but also a good indication of the
overall uncertainty of the analysis. Of course, this approach requires more
calculation effort, but it is a straightforward way to account for analytical
and data uncertainties. This approach, which yields an upper bound and best
estimate of each risk projection, emphasizes the uncertainty involved by
displaying it quantitatively. A large disparity between the upper bound and
best estimates of risk would indicate relatively high uncertainty, and
vice-versa. This approach requires that two sets of most subsequent
worksheets be completed, one for the best estimate and one for the upper bound.
A third possible approach, generally beyond the scope of the Superfund
public health evaluation process, is to model the important variables
determining chemical concentration and risk stochastically. This allows
estimation of a risk distribution, from which median and 90th percentile (or
other upper bound) values can be determined. This approach is more complex
and time-consuming than a deterministic "approach, and it still only accounts
for uncertainty due to the variables modeled stochastically. It does not
address other sources of uncertainty, such as applicability of the release or
transport models to the real site situation.
The following subsections explain how chemical release and transport
models should be used and the types of outputs that are needed to continue the
risk assessments process. Detailed guidance on chemical release, transport,
and fate assessment at Superfund sites is contained in the Superfund Exposure
Assessment Manual, which accompanies this manual. In addition, a set of
background documents for EPA's proposed guidelines for exposure assessment
(EPA, 1984b) is being prepared and will be a convenient source of this
information when released.
4.2.1 Quantify Chemical Releases
Chemical releases are quantified in terras of release rates. These rates
are then used along with other factors to predict environmental fate and
transport. Various methods are available for estimating release rates. They
are fairly straightforward and can be verified with the use of site sampling
data. Evidence of chemical release into an environmental medium such as ground
water, air or surface water must have been observed to warrant a quantitative
analysis. When release rates calculated from a model result in concentrations
that do not make sense in light of the site sampling data, reexamine the
selection of the model or the reliability of the sampling results.
To quantify releases, consider separately each release medium and the
associated sources and mechanisms of release that have been identified in the
exposure pathway analysis (Section 4.1) for a specific chemical. Calculate
the mass loading of the chemical contaminant from each release source to the
environmental medium. In some cases, it will be sufficient to calculate a
constant, or steady-state loading rate, based on the assumption that
insignificant reductions in contaminants occur at the source during the
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * |CF
INCORPORATE
-------
ire^c.ve ;_ --
-50-
evaluation time period. In other instances, reductions in release rates over
time may need to be accounted. Ultimately, professional judgment must be used
to decide which course to take for each specific release source.
Brief descriptions of methods available to calculate releases are
presented below for each of the four primary environmental media of interest
-- air, surface water, ground water, and soil. References are also made to
more detailed descriptions of the methods contained in other documents. A
substantial amount of data is required to complete the analyses described.
Recognizing that all of the necessary data will rarely be available, the
analyses can be conducted with proper application of professional judgment in
making assumptions. Again, all assumptions and their basises should "be
recorded.
Air Release Modeling. Releases of hazardous constituents to air from a
remedial action site generally occur as- a result of volatilization or fugitive
dust generation. The calculation of the site volatilization rate depends on
the situation in which the waste constituent exists in the environment. The
rate differs according to whether the wastes are covered with soil, are
concentrated on the surface, or are dissolved in water. Volatilization rate
is determined primarily by the chemical properties^of a given substance, the
concentration of that substance, and environmental conditions such as wind
speed and temperature.
There are a number of mathematical models available that describe
volatilization rates for various types of physical situations. For a review
and discussion of mathematical models describing volatile releases from
hazardous waste sites and the selection of appropriate k-values, refer to the
Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual.
Contaminated fugitive dusts from a waste site can result from many
activities, including:
wind erosion of wastes and soils
vehicular traffic movement over contaminated roads
heavy equipment activity at the site.
One or any combination of these activities can create emissions of toxic
materials associated with the fugitive dust. In addition to the Superfund
Exposure Assessment Manual, a manual recently prepared for EPA's Exposure
Assessment Group, "Rapid Assessment of Exposure to Particulate Emissions from
Surface Contamination Sites" (Cowherd et al., 1984) is a valuable reference
for fugitive dust calculations.
Surface Water Release Modeling. Releases of hazardous constituents to
surface water can occur due to the point discharge of treated runoff,
leachate, or ground water (this mechanism is not usually relevant to
assessment of the no-action alternative); contaminated surface runoff;
recharge by contaminated ground water; or episodic overland flow from leaks,
spills, or lagoon or pond overtopping. Refer to the Superfund Exposure
Assessment Manual for additional guidance.
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATE]
-------
.j ^receive 1-
-51-
Ground-Water Release Modeling. Calculating releases to ground water
involves the estimation of leachate migration from the site. For an
uncontrolled site, one approach is to use site sampling data to determine the
extent of soil contamination directly beneath the source of chemical release
at the site, and convert these to release rates of constituents. For detailed
guidance, refer to the Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual.
Soil Releases. Surface soils may become contaminated with toxic
materials as a result of intentional placement of the wastes on the ground, or
from spills, lagoons or pond failures, contaminated site runoff, or downwind
deposition of contaminated airborne particulates. The substances of concern
are generally those that adsorb to or are otherwise associated with the soil
particles. Determine the extent of contamination of soils using the results
of the sampling and analysis conducted during the remedial investigation
phase. Monitoring is really the only practical method to provide direct
quantification of soil contamination. The Superfund Exposure Assessment
Manual gives more detailed guidance on estimating soil releases.
Worksheet 4-3 is provided as a convenient mechanism for compiling the
results of the quantification of contaminant releases calculated for each
exposure point. List the results of release calculations in the appropriate
-columns of the worksheet and attach all documentation for the release
calculations.
4.2.2 Predict Environmental Fate and Transport
In the second step of the process for estimating environmental
concentrations, use the estimates of mass loadings of chemicals released to
predict the environmental fate and transport of chemicals from the release
source to identified exposure points. For e'ach chemical and each exposure
pathway, the outcome of this exercise will be a short-term and long-term
environmental concentration at the significant exposure point. To arrive at
these concentrations, the entire concentration profile of a substance over
time at' the exposure point may have to be modeled, and then the short-term and
long-term values can be determined from the profile.
To account for the behavior of all released chemicals, it is necessary to
consider systematically the extent of chemical fate and transport in each
environmental medium. In this way, the remedial project manager can consider
the predominant mechanisms of chemical transport, transfer, and transformation
and disregard less significant processes. In the following sections, brief
descriptions of the mechanisms for each of the major environmental release
media are presented. More detailed descriptions of available techniques and
computer models are given in the Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual.
Air Transport Modeling. The predominant mechanisms that affect the
atmospheric fate and transport of substances released to the air are
advection, dispersion and, in some cases, natural decay. Ambient
concentrations of a chemical at a specified downwind distance from the site
can be determined as a direct function of chemical release rate when these key
processes are considered. Refer to the Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual
for guidance on appropriate modeling techniques.
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATED
-------
Name of Site:
O
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET <4-3
RISUIIS Of RELEASE QUANT IfICA1 I ON
Exposure Point: Nearest Residence
Chemica 1
t . Benzene
2. Lead
3.
Release Release Mass toad (mass/time)
Release Source/ Best f-stinuito U^ger-Bound Estimate
Medium Mechanism Short-Term- Eong-Term Short-Term Long-Term
Ground water leachate *> kg/day 150 kq/yr £0 kg/day 2500 kg/yr
Ai r Site vola-. Q^Jiy/day 2.^ _kg/y_r 2 kfl/day 5Q_ka/yr
t i 1 i /a t i on
Groitnd water leachate J.5 kq/day 3^ kq/yr 23 kq/day 700 kq/yr
iNsif load, as
calculated. Attach the documentation for all calculations.
ASSUMPtlONS
List all major assumptions in developing the data For this worksheet:
o.
s
en
o
1 1
O
a
-------
-53-
At some sites, relatively precise estimates of chemical fate and transport
in air may be required. Sophisticated computer models are available for
predicting the behavior of chemicals released to the atmosphere. The models
have varying capabilities, data requirements, computer resource requirements
and sophistication of output. The Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual lists
some computer models that are applicable to the analysis of remedial action
sites. Exercise care in selecting the model most appropriate to the specific
site and the hazardous substance characteristics. The reasons for selecting a
particular model should be documented. Generally, for risk assessments in the
feasibility study, the simplest model that reasonably represents the system
should be used.
Surface Water Transport'Modeling. The environmental fate of hazardous
materials, entering surface water bodies is highly dependent on the type of
water body and the specific chemicals involved. Relatively simple,
straightforward approaches are available for estimating environmental
concentrations in rivers and streams. However, more complex methods are
necessary for predicting concentrations resulting from releases to lakes,
reservoirs, and estuaries. Applicable methods are described or referenced in
the Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual. In addition, EPA's. Water Quality
Assessment documents (Mills et al'. , 1982) may be helpful in selecting water
models.
Sophisticated computer models are also available for the analysis of
environmental fate of hazardous substances in surface water bodies. As with
the sophisticated air models, these vary in complexity, input data
requirements, computer resource requirements, and model capabilities. Again,
simple models are generally preferable. If a computer modeling approach is
desired for a site, select the modeling procedure most appropriate to the
circumstances under study. Again, document the rationale for selecting a
particular model.
Ground-Water Transport Modeling. In describing the behavior of contami-
nants released to ground water from a hazardous waste site, two major sub-
surface zones must be considered: the unsaturated soil zone above the ground
water (vadose zone), and the saturated zone, commonly called the aquifer. In
general, after a substance is released, it first moves vertically down through
the unsaturated soil zone to the ground water. Then, after initial mixing in
the ground water, the substance travels horizontally because of the advective
flow of the ground water underlying the site. The primary processes that
affect the fate and transport of contaminants in these two zones are advection
(including infiltration and leaching from the surface), dispersion, sorption
(including reversible adsorption, ion exchange, complexation, and
precipitation), and degradation. As a released substance flows away from the
source area, these processes act to reduce its concentration.
Time plays a key role in the movement of contaminants in the subsurface
environment. Unlike the air and surface water media where releases of
chemicals generally result in downwind or downstream ambient concentrations
within relatively short times after release (i.e., minutes, hours, or days),
ground water moves slowly and takes much longer (years) to transport
contaminants. Consequently, the estimation of ground-water concentrations at
a given exposure point must be bounded by a specified time frame for which the
public health evaluation will be conducted.
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATE!
-------
For purposes of evaluating individual risks for the no-action alternative
at Superfund sites, ground-water concentrations should be estimated for at
least 70 years. This period is selected because it approximates an average
human life span, and it is the basis for establishment of the acceptable
chronic chemical intakes contained in the health effects assessments (HEAs).
Use the highest concentration value predicted at an exposure point during the
70-year period to represent the short-term concentration. For long-term
concentrations, use a 70-year time-weighted average.
Numerous mathematical models are available that describe pollutant fate
and transport in the subsurface environment. These models are described or
referenced in the Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual. These models attempt
to define waste migration over time and distance using the physical and
chemical processes involved. The physical and chemical characteristics
considered by these models include:
Boundary conditions (hydraulic head distributions,
recharge and discharge points, locations and types of
boundaries);
Material constants (hydraulic conductivity, porosity,
transmissivity, extent of hydrogeologic units)-;
Attenuation mechanisms (adsorption-desorption, ion
exchange, complexing, nuclear decay, ion filtration, gas
generation, precipitation-dissolution, biodegradation,
chemical degradation);
Molecular diffusion and hydrodynamic dispersion
(transverse, longitudinal, and vertical); and
Waste constituent concentrations (initial and
background concentrations, boundary conditions).
These characteristics are incorporated into models by combining two sets of
transport expressions: a ground-water flow equation and a chemical mass
transport equation. The result is a prediction of solute transport in the
ground-water system, with chemical reactions considered.
Separate models exist for predicting transport through both the
unsaturated and saturated zones. Models are often linked into a comprehensive
package to effectively simulate movement through both unsaturated and
saturated soil zones. In addition, some ground-water models have the
capability of predicting hazardous substance fate throughout both zones. Most
of these models are designed to be used with a computer. The Superfund
Exposure Assessment Manual lists some computer models applicable for site
analysis.
Models for ground-water transport generally have not been fully verified,
and their reliability is difficult to assess. Site-specific conditions and
the analyst's ability to account for site-specific characteristics with
quantitative input data influence the reliability of model results. Carefully
applied professional judgment is therefore necessary both in using the models
and in interpreting the results. Ground-water monitoring data collected in
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATE
-------
the vicinity of the site should be used whenever possible to test the
reasonableness of model results. Models can sometimes be calibrated with the
measurements taken during the RI. When no monitoring data are available,
important sources of uncertainty should be noted and their impact on model
results should be anticipated and recorded.
Worksheet 4-4 is provided as a format for recording the estimated chemical
concentrations for each exposure point.
4.3 COMPARE TO REQUIREMENTS, STANDARDS, AND CRITERIA
At this point in the process, the projected baseline concentrations of
indicator chemicals at exposure points should be compared to applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (as defined by the NCP and identified in
the CERCLA compliance policy memo that is an appendix to the NCP; see Section
2.3). Other federal criteria, advisories, guidances, and state standards may
also be compared to exposure point concentrations, if appropriate to site
exposure conditions. The following subsections describe the procedure for
comparing both to requirements and to other criteria.
4.3.1 Compare to Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
If all indicator chemicals at a site have applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements, then the full quantitative risk characterization
described in Chapters 5 through 7 -is not necessary. In these cases, the
comparison of predicted exposure point concentrations of indicator chemicals
to applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements will suffice as a
baseline public health evaluation. (Note: When risk levels associated with
these requirements are known, they should be recorded in the fina-1 report.)
At sites where some indicator chemicals do not have applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements, make the comparison to requirements for those
chemicals that have them and then proceed with the complete risk
characterization process for alj. indicator chemicals. Therefore, in cases
where applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements are not available
for all indicator chemicals, the baseline public health evaluation will
include both a comparison to requirements and a quantitative risk
characterization.
At the present time, EPA considers drinking water maximum contaminant
levels (MCLs), national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), and federally-
approved state water quality standards12-1 developed under the Clean Water
Act to be the only potentially applicable or relevant and appropriate ambient
concentration requirements. Other state standards are not in this same
12J States with specific numerical ambient water quality standards for
toxic chemicals include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana,
Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and
Wisconsin. Appropriate agencies in other states should be consulted to
determine if such standards are currently in effect.
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * |CF
INCORPORATtC
-------
Name of Siie:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET l\-H
CONIAMINANI CONCENTRATIONS AT EXPOSURE POINIS
Short-Term Coiicuntrat ion
L«!\Q~ [fLTHL Concent ra t i on
Chemical
1 . Benzene
2. Lead
3.
Re lease
Med i urn
Air
Ground
wat&r
Ground
water
Exposure
Po IIIL
No;i rest
Hi; s idence*
Neil tost
Kes. ideiice*
Nearest
Residence*
Best ' Upper Bound Best Upper Bound
Lstimate Estimate Estimate Estimate
3
0.026 mq/m O.t>0 O.IM'JO mq/m3 0.03
0.20 inq/i _8.u._ iLooa^jnaZl Q._io
0.0i»^> mq/ 1 2.0 0.001)0 mq/ 1 0.03
Significant exposure point.
O
n
^^
I
INSTRUCTIONS
1. List all indicator chemicals.
2. List all release media for each chemical: air, ground water, surface water, soil.
3. List all exposure points for each releHse medium. Indicate significant exposure point with an asterisk.
U. list projected short-term and long-term concentrations (best estimate and upper bound) for each exposure
point, as calculated. Note that air concent rat ions are in imj/ni] units, wdter concentrations are in mg/1,
and fish concentrations are i'n my/kg. Attach all calculations documenting the concentration estimates to
this worksheet.
ASSUMIJI IONS
List all major assumptions in developing Liu; data for this worksheet.:
o
I-'
1-1
(p
o
ft
I >
Ui
Ul
-------
-57-
category. Exhibit 4-5 lists potentially applicable or relevant and
appropriate ambient requirements. RCRA design and operating requirements are
also applicable or relevant and appropriate for design of remedial
alternatives but, because they are not pertinent to the baseline public health
analysis, they are not discussed further here (see Chapter 8).
The determination of exactly which requirements are applicable or relevant
and appropriate to a particular site should be made on a site-specific basis.
Potentially applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements, as listed in
Exhibit 4-5, will not necessarily be appropriate for every site. For
potential ground-water and surface water exposure via drinking water,
appropriate comparison values are Safe Drinking Watef Act MCLs; for air
exposure, national ambient air quality standards may be appropriate comparison
values; for surface water contamination with possible exposure via ingestion
of aquatic organisms, federally-approved state water quality standards may be
appropriate. Requirements should correspond to the medium (e.g., air, water)
for which they were developed and must be applicable or relevant and
appropriate to site conditions. If requirements are available for all
indicator chemicals, but are not appropriate to site exposure conditions, a
full risk characterization should be completed.
Use Worksheet 4-5 to compafe applicable or relevant and appropriate
ambient requirements to environmental concentrations projected for exposure
points. Calculate ratios between predicted concentrations and requirements
and designate whether concentrations exceed or fall below the requirements.
This information will be carried through to the end of the process and
included in summary tables for the baseline public health evaluation. Factors
in the development of the requirements listed in Exhibit 4-5 are discussed
briefly in the following sections.
4.3.1.1 National Primary Drinking Water Standards/Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs)
Drinking water standards under the Safe Drinking Water Act are promulgated
as maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). MCLs are currently available for 16
specific chemicals (10 inorganics and 6 organic pesticides), total
trihalomethanes (covers four chemicals), certain radionuclides, and
microorganisms. An MCL for a toxic chemical represents the allowable lifetime
exposure to the contaminant for a 70 kg adult who is assumed to ingest two
liters of water per day. Total environmental exposure of a particular
contaminant from various sources was considered in calculating specific MCLs.
EPA estimated the amount of the substance to which the average person is
likely to be exposed from all sources (e.g., air, food, water) and then
determined the fraction of the total intake resulting from drinking water
ingestion. Lifetime exposure limits were set at the lowest practical level to
minimize the amount of contamination ingested from water, especially when
exposure from other sources is large. The MCL calculation is adjusted by an
exposure factor to reflect bodily absorption associated with water consumption.
In addition to health factors, an MCL is required by law to reflect the
technological and economic feasibility of removing the contaminant from the
water supply. The limit set must be feasible given the best available
technology and treatment techniques. A safety factor is included in each of
the standards to provide adequate protection for more sensitive populations
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCOBPORATlt
-------
-58-
EXHIBIT 4-5
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND
APPROPRIATE AMBIENT REQUIREMENTS a/
CHEMICAL
SAFE DRINKING
WATER ACT
MCLs b/
(mg/1)
CLEAN AIR ACT
NAAQS
(ug/m3)
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Carbon monoxide
Chlorophenoxys
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D)
2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy-propionic
acid (2,4,5-TP)
Chromium VI (hexavalent)
Endrin
Fluoride
Lindane (99% gamma-HCCH)
Hydrocarbons (non-methane)
Lead
Mercury
Methoxychlor
Nitrate (as N)
Nitrogen dioxide
Ozone
Particulate Matter
Radionuclides
Radium-226 and 228
Gross alpha activity
Tritium
Strontium-90
Other man-made radionuclides
Selenium
Silver
Sulfur oxides
Toxaphene
Trihalomethanes (total) h/
0.05
1.0
0.01
0. 1
0.01
0.05
0.0002
1.4-2.4
0.004
0.05
0.002
0.1
10.0
5 pCi/1
15 pCi/1
20,000 pCi/1
8 pCi/1
&/
0.01
0.05
0.005
0.1
40,000 (1-hour) c/
10,000 (8-hour) c/
160 (3-hour) c/
1.5 (90-day) d/
100 (1-year) e/
235 (1-hour) c/
260 (24-hour) c/
75 (1-year) f/
365 (24-hour) c/
80 (1-year) e/
December 18, 1985 Draft * *
ICF INCORPORATEt
-------
-59-
FOOTNOTES TO EXHIBIT 4-5
a/ Federally-approved state water quality standards developed under the
Clean Water Act are also applicable or relevant and appropriate for Superfund
remedial actions.
b/ EPA has also proposed MCLs for eight volatile organic chemicals:
trichloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, vinyl
chloride, 1,2-dichloroethane, benzene, 1,1-dichloroethylene, and
p-dichlorobenzene (50 Federal Register 46902-46933, November 13, 19B5).
c/ Maximum concentration not to be exceeded more than once per year.
d/ Three-month arithmetic mean concentration.
e/ Annual arithmetic mean concentration.
_f/ Annual geometric mean concentration.
g/ Radionuclides in drinking water are limited to activity levels
corresponding to a total body or any internal organ dose of 4 millirem/year,
summed over all radionuclides present.
h/ Total trihalomethanes refers to the sum concentration of chloroform,
bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane, and bromoform.
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
Name uf Situ:
Da to:
Analyst:
QG:
WORKSHEET '1-5
COMPARISON Ol AI'IMICABIE OH KUEVANl ANO APPKOI'R I AH
REQUIREMENTS 10 tSllMATEO EXPOSURE POINT CONCI N1RAMONS
Exposure Point:
_Pr_i va te Dnnkifui Water Wells at Nea rust Residences
Chemica 1
1. Lead
2.
3.
14.
Applicable/Relevant and
Appropriate Reqm rement
being Compared
Drinkinq Water MCL
Value ur
Rcqui roinunt/
Standard
0.05 mq/l
Projected
Exposure Point
Concentration
0.0'i'j mq/l (STCl
.
Concent rat i on:
Standard
Ratio
0.9
I NSIKUCTIONS
1. Eist all indicator cttemicals.
2. Indicate the identity of applicable or relevant and appropriate requi rements (e.g., primary
drinking water HCls, federal ly-approvad state ambient water quality standards developed under
the Clean Water Act).
3. Obtain values for requirements fiom Exhibit 'i
standards, from the appropriate state agency.
or, for federally-approved state water quality
t\. Obtain the exposure point concentrations to be compared from Worksheet i|-'i. Identify the
values as short-term concentrations (SIC) or long-term concentrations (LIC).
5. Record the ratios between exposure point concentrations and requirements; ratios greater than
1.0 indicate exceedance of the requirement.
ASSUMPIJONS
I ist all major assumptions in developing the data for this worksheet:
-------
-61-
such as infants and children. Safety factors vary from chemical to chemical
because of the different risks associated with each.
EPA is now in the process of developing recommended maximum contaminant
levels (RMCLs), which are entirely health-based, to serve as guidance for
establishing drinking water MCLs. RMCLs are classified differently, as "other
criteria to be considered", at Superfund sites. EPA recently promulgated
RMCLs for eight volatile organic chemicals (40 CFR 141.50; 50 Federal
Register 46880-46901, November 13, 1985) and proposed RMCLs for a larger
group of synthetic organic chemicals, inorganic chemicals, and microorganisms
(50 Federal Register 46936-47022, November 13, 1985). EPA also proposed
MCLs, which will be applicable or relevant and appropriate for Superfund sites
when promulgated, for the same eight volatile organic chemicals for which final
RMCLs were promulgated (50 Federal Register 46902-46933, November 13, 1985).
4.3.1.2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
NAAQS are available for six chemicals or chemical groups and for airborne
particulates; of these, the NAAQS for lead and airborne particulates appear to
be most useful for Superfund public health evaluations. In the development of
NAAQSs, sources of the contaminant that contribute to air pollution and all
sources of exposure to the contaminant (e.g, food, water, air) are considered
in determining the health risk. In addition, the statute states that NAAQSs
must be based exclusively on air quality criteria issued by EPA for each air
pollutant. The Act does not require EPA to consider the costs (economics) of
achieving the standards or the technological feasibility <\£ implementing the
standards. Standards can be promulgated as annual maximums, annual geometric
means, annual arithmetic means, or other time periods which vary from one hour
to one year depending on the pollutant.
Primary standards must allow for an adequate margin of safety to account
for unidentified hazards and effects. There is no rule used in setting the
margin of safety for the standards. The law requires EPA to direct its efforts
at groups of particularly sensitive citizens, such as bronchial asthmatics and
emphysematics. In developing primary NAAQSs, EPA must specify the nature and
severity of the health effects of each contaminant, charactPrize_the sensitive
population involved, determine probable adverse health effect levels in sensi-
tive persons, and estimate the level below which an adequate margin of safety
reduces or eliminates risks. Primary NAAQSs rely primarily on the direct
health effects of chemicals to sensitive groups based on scientific data.
4.3.1.3 Federally-Approved State Water Quality Standards
Federally-approved state water quality standards developed under the Clean
Water Act are applicable or relevant and appropriate for Superfund remedial
actions in that state. At a minimum, states listed in footnote 12 have
promulgated at least some federally-approved water quality standards for
specific toxic chemicals. The remedial project manager is responsible for
determining the availability of applicable or relevant and appropriate state
water quality standards for a site.
State water quality standards under the Clean Water Act serve the dual
purposes of establishing the water quality goals for a specific water body and
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * |CF
INCORPORATEC
-------
-62-
as the regulatory basis for establishing water quality-based controls beyond
the technology-based levels of treatment required by Sections 301(b) and 306
of the Clean Water Act. Water quality standards are adopted by states (or,
where necessary, promulgated by EPA) to protect the public health or welfare,
enhance the quality of the water, and serve the purposes of the Act. A water
quality standard consists of basically two parts: (1) a "designated use" (or
uses), which considers the water body's use and value for public water
supplies, propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, recreational purposes,
navigation, and agriculture, industrial, and other purposes; and (2)
"criteria", which are numerical limits or narrative statements necessary to
protect the designated use.
States must adopt appropriate water quality criteria sufficiently
stringent to protect the designated uses. Numerical criteria may be based on
ambient water quality criteria recommendations published by EPA (see Section
4.3.2.1) or developed by other scientifically defensible methods. States may
also modify EPA's recommended criteria to reflect local environmental
conditions and human exposure patterns before incorporation into water quality
standards'. When a criterion for the protection of human health must be
developed for a chemical for which a national criterion has not been
recommended, the state should consult EPA headquarters for assistance.
Guidelines for deriving human health based water quality criteria were
published on November 28, 1980 (EPA, 1980).
4.3.2 Compare to Other Federal Criteria, Advisories, and Guidances and
State Standards
In addition to applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements, other
federal criteria, advisories, and guidances and state standards should be
compared to predicted ambient concentration values as part of the baseline
evaluation. Complete risk characterization using toxicity data (e.g., from .
HEAs, ADIs) is still needed, but information on how exposure point
concentrations compare to other ambient standards is useful as a supplement to
the complete public health evaluation and should be noted in the public health
evaluation chapter in the feasibility study report. At sites where
appropriate toxicity values are not available for several indicator chemicals,
the comparison of ambient concentrations to other criteria may provide an
important basis on which to judge the potential health effects of
environmental concentrations of toxic substances.
For the purposes of Superfund public health evaluations, EPA considers
federal ambient water quality criteria and adjusted criteria (adjusted for
drinking water ingestion only) and drinking water health advisories to be
pertinent for comparison with predicted concentrations, provided they are for
the same exposure pathway. Exhibit 4-6 lists federal ambient water quality
criteria and Exhibit 4-7 lists health advisories. For potential ground-water
exposures, appropriate comparison values may include both health advisories
and adjusted ambient water quality criteria. For surface water when aquatic
organism ingestion is an exposure pathway, unadjusted ambient water quality
criteria may be most appropriate. Other standards may be used for comparison
as well, provided they correspond to the environmental medium for which they
were designed and are appropriate to site conditions. Criteria inappropriate
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
ICF IHCORPORATEl
-------
-63-
EXHIBIT 4-6
EPA AMBIENT WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
(WQC) FOR PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH
CHEMICAL
WQC (Concentrations in Parentheses
Correspond to Midpoint of Risk Range
for Potential Carcinogens Only) a/
Aquatic Organisms
and Drinking Water
Adjusted for Drinkii'
Water Only b/ -
Acenaphthene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin*
Antimony
Arsenic'"
Asbestos
Benzene*
Benzidine*
Beryllium*
Cadmium*
Carbon tetrachloride*
Chlordane*
Chlorinated benzenes
Hexachlorobenzene*
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
Pentachlorobenzene
Trichlorobenzene
Monochlorobenzene*
Chlorinated ethanes
1,2-Dichloroethane*
1,1,1-Trichloroethane*
1,1,2-Trichloroethane*
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane*
Hexachloroethane
Monochloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane*
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
Pentachloroethane
Chlorinated naphthalenes
Chlorinated phenols
3-Monochlorophenol
4-Monochloropheno1
2,3-Dichlorophenol
2,5-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dichlorophenol
3,4-Dichlorophenol
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol*
20 ug/1 (Organoleptic)
320 ug/1
0 (58 ng/1)
0 (0.074 ng/1)
146 ug/1
0. (2.2 ng/1)
0 (30,000 fibers/1)
0 (0.66 ug/1)
0 (0.12 ng/1)
0 (3.7 ng/1)
10 ug/1
0 (0.4 ug/1)
0 (0.46 ng/1)
ng/D
0 (0.72
38 ug/1
74 ug/1
Insufficient
488 ug/1
data
0 (0.94 ug/1)
18.4 mg/1
0 (0.6 ug/1)
0 (0.17 ug/1)
0 (1.9 ug/1)
Insufficient data
Insufficient data
Insufficient data
Insufficient data
Insufficient data
0.1 ug/1 (Organoleptic)
0.1 ug/1 (Organoleptic)
0.04 ug/1 (Organoleptic)
0.5 ug/1 (Organoleptic)
0.2 ug/1 (Organoleptic)
0.3 ug/1 (Organoleptic)
1.0 ug/1 (Organoleptic)
2600 ug/1
c/ 20 ug/1 (Organoleptic
540 ug/1
0 (63 ng/1)
0 (1.2 ng/1)
146 ug/1
(25 ng/1)
(30,000 fibers/1)
0 (0.67 ug/1)
0 (0. 15 ng/1)
0 (3.9 ng/1)
10 ug/1
0 (0.42 ug/1)
0 (22 ng/1)
0 (21 ng/1)
180 ug/1
570 ug/1
Insufficient data
488 ug/1 -
0 (0.94 ug/1)
19 mg/1
0 (0.6 ug/1)
0 (0.17 ug/1)
0 (2.4 ug/1)
Insufficient data
Insufficient data
Insufficient data
Insufficient data
Insufficient data
0.1 ug/1 (Organoleptic
0.1 ug/1 (Organoleptic
0.04 ug/1 (Organolepti
0.5 ug/1 (Organoleptic
0.2 ug/1 (Organoleptic
0.3 ug/1 (Organoleptic
1.0 ug/1 (Organoleptic
2600 ug/1
December 18, 1985 Draft
ICF
INCORPORATE!
-------
EXHIBIT 4-6
(Continued)
EPA AMBIENT WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
(WQC) FOR PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH
CHEMICAL
WQC (Concentrations in Parentheses
Correspond to Midpoint of Risk Range
for Potential Carcinogens Only) a/
Aquatic Organisms
and Drinking Water
Adjusted for Drinki
Water Only b/
2,4,6-Tr ichloropheno1*
2-Methyl-4-chlorophenol
3-Methy1-4-chloropheno1
3-Methyl-6-ch loropheno 1
Chloroalkyl ethers
bis-(Chloromethyl) ether*
bis-(2-Chloroethyl) ether*
bis-(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether
Chloroform*
2-Chlorophenol
Chromium Cr+6*
Cr+3*
Copper*
Cyanide*
DDT*
Dichlorobenzenes* (all isomers)
Dichlorobenzidines
Dichloroethylenes
1, 1-Dic.hloroethylene*
1,2-Dichloroethylene
Dichloromethane*
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Dichloropropanes/Dichloropropenes
Dichloropropanes
Dichloropropenes
Dieldrin*
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene*
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine*
Endosulfan
Endrin
Ethylbenzene*
Fluoranthene
Haloethers
Halomethanes
Heptachlor*
Hexachlorobutadiene*
Hexachlorocyclohexanes (HCCH)
alpha-HCCH*
0 (1.2 ug/1)
1800 ug/1 (Organoleptic)
3000 ug/1 (Organoleptic)
20 ug/1 (Organoleptic)
0 (0.0038 ng/1)
0 (30 ng/1)
34.7 ug/1
0 (0.19 ug/1)
0.1 ug/1 (Organoleptic)
50 ug/1
170 mg/1
1 mg/1 (Organoleptic)
200 mg/1
0 (0.024 ng/1)
400 ug/1
0 (10.3 ng/1)
0 (33 ng/1)
Insufficient data
See Halomethanes
3.09 mg/1
Insufficient data
87 ug/1
0 (0.071 ng/1)
400 ug/1 (Organoleptic)
0 (0.11 ug/1)
0 (42 ng/1)
74 ug/1
1 ug/1
1.4 mg/1
42 ug/1
Insufficient data
0 (0.19 ug/1)
0 (0.28 ng/1)
0 (0.45 ug/1)
0 (9.2 ng/1)
0 (1.8 ug/1)
1800 ug/1 (Organolep
3000 ug/1 (Organolep
20 ug/1 (Organoleptit
0.(0.0039 ng/1)
0 (30 ng/1)
34.7 ug/1
0 (0.19 ug/1)
0.1 ug/1 (Organolept:
50 ug/1
179 mg/1
1 mg/1 (Organoleptic;
200 mg/1
0 (> 1.2 ng/1)
470 ug/1
0 (20.7 ng/1)
0 (33 ng/1)
Insufficient data
see Halomethanes
3.09 mg/1
Insufficient data
87 ug/1
0 (1.1 ng/1)
400 ug/1 (Organolept:
0 (0.11 ug/1)
0 (46 ng/1)
138 ug/1
1 ug/1
2.4 mg/1
188 ug/1
Insufficient data
0 (0.19 ug/1)
0 (11 ng/1)
0 (0.45 ug/1)
0 (13 ng/1)
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * *
ICF
INCORPORATE
-------
EXHIBIT 4-6
(Continued)
EPA AMBIENT WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
(YVQC) FOR PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH
CHEMICAL
WQC (Concentrations in Parentheses
Correspond to Midpoint of Risk Range
for Potential Carcinogens Only) a/
Aquatic Organisms
and Drinking Water
Adjusted for Drinking
Water Only b/
beta-HCCH*
gamma-HCCH*
delta-HCCH
epsilon-HCCH
Technical-HCCH
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene*
Isophorone
Lead*
Mercury*
Naphtha-lene
Nickel*
Nitrobenzene*
Nitrophenols
2,4-Dinitro-o-cresol
Dinitrophenol
Mononitrophenol
Trinitrophenol
N'itros amines
n-N'itrosodimethy lamine
n-N'itrosodiethylamine
n-N'itrosodi-n-buty lamine
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine
n-N'itrosopyrrolidine
Pencachlorophenol*
Phenol*
Phthalate esters
Dimethylphthalate
Diechylphthalate
Dibutylphthalate
Di-2-ethylhexylphthalate
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)*
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs)*
Selenium*
Silver
2,3,7,8-TCDD*
Tetrachloroethylene*'
Thallium*
0 (16.3 ng/1)
0 (12.3 ng/1)
Insufficient data
Insufficient data
0 (5.2 ng/1)
206 ug/1
5.2 mg/1
50 ug/1
144 ng/1
Insufficent data
13.4 ug/1
19.8 mg/1
13.4 ug/1
70 ug/1
Insufficient data
Insufficient data
0 (1.4 ng/1)
0 (0.8 ng/1)
0 (6.4 ng/1)
0 (4.9 ug/1)
0 (16 ng/1)
1.01 mg/1
3.5 mg/1
313 mg/1
350 mg/1
34 mg/1
15 mg/1
0 (0.079 ng/1)
0 (2.8 ng/1) .
10 ug/1
50 ug/1
0 (0.000013 ng/1)
0 (0.8 ug/1)
13 ug/1
0 (23.2 ng/1)
0 (17.4 ng/1)
Insufficient data
Insufficient data
0 (7.4 ng/1)
206 ug/1
5.2 mg/1
50 ug/1
10 ug/1
Insufficient data
15.4 ug/1
19.8 mg/1
13.6 ug/1
70 ug/1
Insufficient data
Insufficient data
0 (1.4 ng/1)
0 (0.8 ng/1)
0 (6.4 ng/1)
0 (7.0 ug/1)
0 (16 ng/1)
1.01 mg/1
3.5 mg/1
350 mg/1
434 mg/1
44 mg/1
21 mg/1
0 (> 12.6 ng/1)
0 (3.1 ng/1)
10 ug/1
50 ug/1
0 (0.00018 ng/1)
0 (0.88 ug/1)
17.8 ug/1
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
-66-
EXHIBIT 4-6
(Continued)
EPA AMBIENT WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
(WQC) FOR PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH
WQC (Concentrations in Parentheses
Correspond to Midpoint of Risk Range
for Potential Carcinogens Only) a/
Aquatic Organisms Adjusted for Drinkin
CHEMICAL and Drinking Water Water Only b/.
Toluene* 14.3 mg/1 15 mg/1
Toxaphene 0 (0.71 ng/1) 0 (26 ng/1)
Trichloroethylene* 0 (2.7 ug/1) 0 (2.8 ug/1)
Vinyl chloride* ' 0 (2.0 ug/1) 0 (2.0 ug/1)
Zinc* 5 mg/1 (Organoleptic) 5 mg/1 (Organoleptic)
* Toxicity values necessary for risk characterization are given in Appendix C
a/ The criterion value, which is zero for all potential' carcinogens, is listec
for all chemicals in the table. The concentration value given in parentheses for
potential carcinogens corresponds to a risk of 10 , which is the midpoint of the
-5 -7
range of 10 to 10 given in water quality criteria documents. To obtain
concentrations corresponding to risks of 10 , the 10 concentrations should
be multiplied by 10. To obtain concentrations corresponding to risks of 10 ,
the 10 concentrations should be divided by 10.
b/ These adjusted criteria, for drinking -wateriftg-estion only-, were derived
from published EPA ambient water quality criteria (45 Federal Register 79318-79379
November 28, 1980) for combined fish and drinking water ingest ion and for fish
ingestion alone. The adjusted values are not official EPA ambient water quality
criteria, but may be appropriate for Superfund sites with contaminated ground
water. In the derivation of these values, intake was assumed to be 2 liters/day
for drinking water and 6.5 grams/day for fish, and human body weight was assumed t
be 70 kilograms. Values for bioconcentration factor, carcinogenic potency, and
acceptable daily intake were those used for water quality criteria development.
c/ Criteria designated as Organoleptic are based on taste and odor effects,
not human health effects. Health-based water quality criteria are not available
for these chemicals.
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF
INCORPORATE!
-------
O
n
§
§
Name of Site:
Oat u":
Analyst:
qc:
WORKSHEET 5-1
<;AI cui ATE AIR INTAKLS
txposure Point: Dearest Residence
Chemica 1
1 . Benzene
2. Lead
3.
Human Short -Usrni Subchronic Duration Long-term Chronic
Intake Factor Concentration Daily Intake (fraction Concentration Daily Intake
(m3/kg/day) (my/ml) (mg/kg/day) of year) (mg/mj) (mg/kg/day)
0.
0.
0.
0.
29 0.()?6 0.0075 0.5 0.001)0 0.0012
29 0 0 d . > 0 0
29
29
INSTRUCT IONS
1. List all indicator chemicals.
2. List the short-term and long-term concentration of each chemical in air (from Worksheet 14-1*) in the
appropriate column.
3. Determine subchronic daily intake (SUI) using the following formula:
Short-term Human
SOI = Concentration x Intake
factor
'». Determine chronic daily intake (CDI) using the following formula:
CD I
5. Include duration of subchronic exposure represented by the intake estimate, in fraction of year.
long-term Human
Concentration x Intake
factor'
ASStJMPilONS
List all major assumptions in developing the data for tins worksheet:
3T
m
(D
O
ri
UJ
r >
a
-------
Chemica 1
1 . Benzene
2. Lead
3.
1.
C;AI cm AI
Lxposure Po i fit :
human Short- lei in
Intake Factor Concent ra t io
(1 /kg/day) (nig/ I)
0.029 0.20
0.029 0.01)5.
0.029
0.029
Name of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WOKKSHEM 5-2
t GROUND-WAHK INIAKLS
Private Orinkinq Water Wells
Subchronic Duration long-term Chronic
n Daily Intake (traction Concentration Daily Intake
(mg/kg/day) or year) (mg/l) (mg/kg/day)
0.0058 O.b 0.0(185 0.00025
0.0013 0.5 0.0050 0.00015
INSTRUCT IONS
1. list all indicator chemicals.
2. List the short-term and long-term concentration or each chemical 'in ground water (from Worksheet
')-')) in the appropriate column.
3. Determine subchroriic daily intake (Sl)l) using the following formula:
Short-term Human
SDI - Concentration x Intake
factor
it. Determine chronic daily intake (CDI ) using the following formula:
CD I
5. Include duration of subchronic exposure represented by the intake estimate, in fraction of year.
long-term Human
Concentration x intake
f actor
ASSOMPIiQNS
List all major assumptions in developing the data for this worksheet:
c
u.
i'
t'l
'1
(D
O
-------
3ElV«OdUOONI
JOI
r»
*
tt
3
Vl
i
.0)
»
^0
1
w
.
f;
_
0
^
o
re
r+
y
<
re
re
PO
».
PC
PO
^p
PO
c
c
c
"^
UJ
u-
c
c
OJ
^r
C
n
_.
en
i
w«
*
PO
1
c
R
2"
_
0
O
ffi
r"
^
<<
K
re
re
f
^
^
^
u
C
^
^
te»
w
C"1
c
c
OJ
^T
O
^
^
i
O
0
3"
_
o
"T
o
CD
»
t<
_
ro
D
ft
£
O
^
c
o
^
o
*
c
o
UJ
^
/
c
1
1
^
PO
1
o
0
3
H
O
1
o
re
f+
3
0
3
re
*
^j
^
c
M^
^
O
^J
,ir
C
PO
c^
c
2
>
o
1
o
o
^
~
'o
i
o
a-
CD
^
N
re
5
c
<
o
o
**J
o
o
o
*w
o
o
u>
^
o
o
CO
*J
\^
o
o
1
\
s
1
o
rj
3
o
-^
o
cr
re
N
re
3
re
*
CD
VC
w
o
CD
\0
UJ
o
CO
^c
U)
c
l*>
ro
o*
c
L>-
«*
PO
u-
o PO o
er £ n>
-J 1 3
0 C -
s a-
C CD
0 *
3
O
O
T5
e
o
B
3
re
_j
PO PO
C C PO
ceo
u PO
\Ji C PO
o c o
PO
2 1 PO
> 1 0
' J
Z I \&
> i 0
O>J =*J
gy vj* v_n
> C 0
0
3
I
c
3
J;
2
^
_
£
0
o
XT
o
o
PO
£
c
«
_
4^
o
0
.»
o
^
o
a
re
3
N
CD
3
n>
_
CO
c
o
ce
C
0
\o
^
c
o
t*l
o
c
5
u>
^
O
O
n o n rs B B
3 a a> a> re a>
-1 -5 0. 3 -)
C O- cr 3 N
-j O 0 0 Z
0. 3 -> = 3 3
u = 3 re «
3 -1 -> * »
re re ^
* n- 3
"j
0)
f^
jy
K
0
w
c.
*
^.
C PO
C^ C VT1 £" L*J 1
i*) O C Cfc) (A) 1
ro
U) O O OS u> i
1 ~J \J< 21
i C U > i
\J*
i O Co -> 2 i
I O C CB > I
CO
1 1 CO 2
1 1 C CD > C
tn a
re
3 o
O -!
* a
CD
n
a.
re
o
C V
c o
o o
lo c
T"^ I
1C I C.
c ^
\j< o c
o PO o o
1C 3
srt>. >
iDi a.
2 PO
ro > O
C PO > O 3Tj i:
>
i
i2
12
z: '-
> X
2
>
C
ro
> c
PO
2
2
>
o
PO
O
UJ
PO
o
O
>
O
C
c ->
C C
re re1
-jf n,
Ofc C'
ID r =
-------
0
n
S
I
CHEMICAL
Dichloromethane*
1,2-Oichloropropane
p-Dioxane
Oioxin*
Ethylene Di bromide
Endrin
Ep i ch 1 o rohyd r i n*
Ethy Ibenzene*
Ethylene Glycol*
Heptachlor*
lleptachlor Cpoxjde
Hexachlorobenzene*
n-Hexane
Lead*
Lindane*
Mercury*
Methoxychlor
Methyl Ethyl Ketone*
Nickel*
Nitrate c/
Nitrite c/
One-day
lua/il
10 kg
13300
--
5680
0.001
8
20
110
21000
19000
10
--
50
13000
--
1200
--
6'IOU
75000
10000 ('l kg)
111000 (10 kg)
1000 ('I Kg)
11000 ( 10 kg)
EPA OH
Ten-day
ti'am
10 kg
1500
90
568
0.0001
8
5
I'lO
2100
5500
10
--
50
'1000
--
1200
2000
7500
1000
10000 (4 kq)
1 11000 ( 10 kg)
1000 ('I kg)
11000 (10 Kg)
IXHIBIT
-------
CHEMICAL
Oxamy I
PCBs*
Pen tach lorophenol*
Styrene
Tetrachloroethy lene*
Toluene*
Toxaphene*
2.U.5-TP
1,1,1-1 richlo roe thane*
Trichloroethylerie*
Vinyl Chloride*
Xylenes*
* Toxicity values
t,
One-day Ten-day
luam tuuZl)
10 kg 10 kg
350 350
_.
1000 300
27000 20000
3
-------
-70-
for public health evaluation of long-term chemical exposures, such as LD-n
values and unadjusted occupational threshold limit values (TLVs), should not
be used in this comparison.
Some ambient concentration requirements or criteria will be directly
applicable to specific site conditions, while others can be adjusted to make
them applicable. For example, if a requirement applies to a different
environmental medium or exposure route than the one threatened by a site, it
would probably not be appropriate to use it without adjustment. As an
illustration of this, water quality criteria, which were developed for surface
water, can be adjusted for ground water by recalculating without the
assumption of fish ingestion (as in Exhibit 4-6). Concentration requirements
and criteria may also be based on a different level, frequency, or duration of
exposure than found at a specific site. Guidance on adjustment of standards
for site-specific applications is currently under development by EPA.
For some chemicals several "other criteria, advisories, guidances and
state- standards" may be available as comparison values. In this case choose
the most suitable value for comparison. Suitability is determined in part by
relevance of the criterion to exposure conditions at the site (e.g., exposed
population characteristics, duration and timing of exposure, exposure
pathways) and in part by how recently the value was developed. Some criteria
have been developed recently and may reflect new information compared to older
values. Some standards or criteria may have been scrutinized more closely
than others and may consequently have more scientific credibility. Other
standards may be current and scientifically accepted but irrelevant for
exposure routes at the s.ite and therefore be unsuitable. Consequently, the
most suitable comparison value is the most current, credible, and relevant
value available.
Use Worksheet 4-6 to compare other ambient criteria to environmental
concentrations projected for exposure points. Calculate the ratios between
predicted .concentrations and requirements and be sure to designate whether
concentrations exceed or fall below the requirements. This information will
be carried through to the end of the process and included in summary tables
for the baseline public health evaluation. Factors in the development of the
criteria and advisories in Exhibits 4-6 and 4-7 are discussed briefly in the
following sections.
4.3.2.1 Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
Federal ambient water quality criteria for the protection of human health
have been developed for 62 out of 65 classes of toxic pollutants (a total of
95 individual chemicals have numerical health criteria) . .The health criterion
is an estimate of the ambient surface water concentration that will not result
in adverse health effects in humans . In the case of suspect or proven
carcinogens, concentrations associated with a range of incremental cancer
risks are provided to supplement a criterion of zero. The federal criteria
are non-enforceable guidelines, which many states have used in the development
of enforceable ambient water quality standards (see Section 4.3.1.3). Exhibit
4-6 lists federal ambient water quality criteria for specific chemicals.
For. most chemicals, federal water quality criteria to protect human health
are available for two different exposure pathways. One criterion is based on
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATE
-------
Name of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKStim
COMPARISON 01 OIHIK I H)lHAL CRIILRIA, ADVISORIES, ANDGUIOANCtS
AND STATE STANDARDS TO ESTIMATED EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS
Exposure Point: 1'riyate Drinking Water Wells at Nearest. Resjdences
Chemical
App/Rel
Requi rement
Ava i table
Cr i tor KIM
Be i rig Conipu red
Value of
Cri terion
Projected
Exposure Point
Concentration
Concentration:
Standard Ratio
. Benzene
2.
3.
Water Reference
Concent ra i inn for Pot en-
iJi! i. Care i nogt.-nic I f i't;cts_
il!ii§itl!_Ady i so ry _Sumnia ry^_
Exhibit i>-7\ '.;..~~;j
O.U003!) ing/1*
* Reference concentration listed corresponds to 10-6 potential carcinogenic risk.
o
INSTRUCTIONS
1. List all indicator chemicals and designate for each whether it was compared to an applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirement in Worksheet 't-'j.
2. for each chemical identify the criterion/criteria being compared. In general each chemical should be
compared to the criteria/criterion most appropriate to exposure conditions at the site.
3. Obtain values for criteria from Exhibit '1-6, 'I-/, or other sources.
ij. Obtain the exposure point concentrations to bo compared from Worksheet 'i-'i and identify each value as a
short-term concentration (SIC) or long-teuu concuniraiion (LIC).
&. Record the ratios between exposure point concentrations and criteria; ratios greater than 1.0 indicate
exceedance of the criterion.
ASSUMl'I IONS
1 ist aii major assumptions KI developing Hit: tl.ita Vor this worksheet:
^
M
O>
r.
(i
r .
u
Oi
-------
-79 -
lifetime ingestion of both drinking water and aquatic organisms, and the other
is based on lifetime ingestion of aquatic organisms alone. The calculations
incorporate the assumption that a 70-kilogram adult consumes 2 liters of water
and/or 6.5 grams of aquatic organisms daily for a 70-year lifetime. Of
course, calculations can be made to derive an adjusted criterion for drinking
water ingestion only, based on the two published criteria and the same intake
assumptions (as was done for Exhibit 4-6). These adjusted criteria are more
appropriate than non-adjusted criteria for Superfund sites with contamination
of potential ground-water sources of drinking water because they are based on
more realistic exposure assumptions (i.e., exclusion of aquatic organism
ingestion as an exposure pathway).
Derivation of Criteria for Noncarcinogens. On the basis of a survey of
the toxicology literature, EPA established a "no observed adverse effect
level" (NOAEL) for each chemical. The N'OAELs were usually based on animal
studies, although human data are used whenever available. By applying a
safety factor to account for the uncertainty in using available data to
estimate human effects, an acceptable daily intake (ADI) is determined.
Criteria (i.e., water concentrations) were then derived from the ADIs and the
standard intake assumptions given above.
Derivation of Criteria for Carcinogens. The same exposure and intake
assumptions were used for potential carcinogens. A literature search for
human and animal carcinogenic effects formed the basis for EPA's estimate of
the risk posed by potential human carcinogens. Because methods are not
currently available to establish the presence of a threshold for carcinogenic
effects, the criteria for all carcinogens state that the recommended
concentration for maximum protection of human health is zero. EPA also
estimated water concentrations corresponding to incremental risk levels, using
a linear, non-threshold extrapolation model. Extrapolation models provide
only an estimate of risk, but represent the best available tool for describing
the potential threat of a substance, given certain assumptions. In its
published criteria, EPA provides water concentrations corresponding to
- 7 - A * ^
incremental lifetime cancer risks of 10 ,10 , and 10
4.3.2.2 Drinking Water Health Advisories
In addition to MCLs, EPA also provides drinking water suppliers with
guidance on chemicals that may be encountered in a water system, but for which
no federal standard exists. The Office of Drinking Water's nonregulatory
health advisories are concentrations of contaminants in drinking water at
which adverse effects would not be anticipated to occur. A margin of safety
is included to protect sensitive members of the population. The health
advisory numbers are developed from data describing noncarcinogenic end-points
of toxicity. They do not incorporate quantitatively any potential carcinogenic
risk from such exposure. The Office of Drinking Water has recently developed
health advisories for 54 chemicals or chemicals groups, and these values are
summarized in Exhibit 4-7.
Under certain circumstances and when the appropriate toxicological data
are available, health advisories may be developed for one-day, ten-day,
longer-term (several months to several years), and lifetime durations of
exposure. One-day and ten-day health advisories are calculated for a 10 kg
child (a one-year old infant) assumed to drink .one liter of water per day.
December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATE
-------
-73-
Lifetime health advisories are calculated for a 70 kg adult, assumed to drink
two liters of water per day. Longer-term health advisories are calculated for
both a 10 kg child and a 70 kg adult. For chemicals that are known or
probable human carcinogens according to the proposed Agency classification
scheme, non-zero one-day, ten-day, and longer-term health advisories may be
derived, with attendant caveats. Health advisories for lifetime exposures are
not recommended for this group of substances. For these potential
carcinogens, drinking water concentrations associated with projected upper 95
percent confidence limit excess lifetime cancer risks are provided.
Comparison of these values to measured or predicted drinking water
concentrations can give an indication of the magnitude of potential
carcinogenic risk.
This chapter, in conjunction with the Superfund Exposure Assessment
Manual, has presented instructions for estimating exposure point
concentrations of the indicator chemicals selected in Chapter 3. Important
exposure pathways have been identified. Ambient concentrations of the
indicator chemicals have been modeled from the point of release to the point
of human exposure for important exposure pathways, and these estimated
concentrations have been compared to applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements -and other federal criteria, advisories, and guidances and state
standards. If all indicator chemicals have applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements, the baseline public health evaluation is now
complete. In this case, proceed to Chapter 8 to begin the analysis of
remedial alternatives. Otherwise, the exposure point concentrations estimated
here will be used in Chapter 5 to calculate chemical intakes, which
subsequently will be used to estimate risk.
* * * ' December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATEC
-------
CHAPTER 5
STEP 3: ESTIMATION OF CHEMICAL INTAKES
To assess the potential adverse health effects associated with a site, the
amount of human exposure to the selected contaminants must be determined. In
this chapter, methods are presented for estimating human exposures using the
environmental concentrations of substances that were estimated using the
methods described in Chapter 4 and the Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual.
Human exposure is expressed in terms of intake,-which is the amount of
substance taken into the body per unit body weight per unit time.ljj Intakes
are calculated separately for exposures to chemical contaminants in each
environmental medium -- air, ground water, surface water, and soil. Then, for
each exposed population-at-risk, intakes for the same route of exposure are
summed, resulting in a total oral exposure and total inhalation exposure.
Dermal exposure, if determined to be important, should be estimated separately.
Because short-term (subchronic) exposures to relatively high
concentrations of chemical contaminants can cause different toxic effects than
those caused by long-term fchronic) exposures to lower concentrations, two
intake levels are calculated for each chemical -- the subchronic daily intake
(SDI) and the chronic daily intake (GDI). These calculated intakes are based
on the short-term and long-term concentrations derived for each chemical in
the preceding chapter. All intakes are expressed in mg/kg/day.
«
In circumstances where contamination already has reached a point of human
exposure, actual intake calculations may be made based on personal air
monitoring and body burden analysis data for exposed individuals. All human
subject monitoring and assessment should be coordinated with the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Department of Health and Human
Services. Results should be re'ported directly on Worksheets 5-1 through 5-4.
The sections that follow give standard methods to estimate human intakes
through air, ground water, and surface water. If other exposure routes, such
as dermal absorption and soil ingestion are important, contact the Exposure
Assessment Group, Office of Research and Development, U.S. EPA, Washington,
D.C. 20460, for additional guidance. Standard intake assumptions are given
in Exhibit 5-1. If more accurate site-specific information is available, it
can be used to give a better representation of risk at the site. See Exhibit
5-1 for an example of how to use the standard assumptions and how to make
13J The term intake is used instead of dose because the information
required to estimate dose is often unavailable. To estimate dose, information
indicating the amount of a chemical that may be absorbed (e.g., across lung or
gastrointestinal tract lining or through the skin) and subsequently distributed
to target organs or tissues would be needed. When absorption data are
available they should be incorporated into the assessment. Because adequate
absorption data for specific chemicals are relatively rare, they cannot be
used consistently and are not included here.
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATE
-------
EXHIBIT 5-1
STANDARD VALUES USED IN DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS'a/
Parameter Standard Value Reference
Average body weight, adult 70 kg EPA, 1980
Average body weight, child 10 kg ICRP, 1975
Amount of water ingested
daily, adult 2 liters NAS, 1977
Amount of water ingested
daily, child 1 liter NAS, 1977
Amount of air breathed
daily, adult ' 20 m3 . EPA, 1980
Amount of air breathed 5 m3 FDA, 1970
daily, child
Amount of fish consumed
daily, adult 6.5 g . EPA, 1980
a/ Example 1: how to apply the standard assumptions.
If contaminant concentration is 3 mg/liter in drinking water:
3 mg/liter x 2 liters/day water consumption * 70 kg body weight
= 0.086 mg/kg/day intake
Example 2: how to apply adjusted assumptions.
If site data indicate that the exposed population has a water consumption
rate of 1.2 liters/day and an average weight of 60 kg, and the contaminant
concentration is 3 mg/liter in drinking water:
3 mg/liter x 1.2 liters/day water consumption * 60 kg body weight
=0.06 rag/kg/day intake
* * December 1'8, 1985 Draft * * * ICF
INCORPORATED
-------
-re-
adjustments based on more accurate intake and body weight information for the
exposed population. The standard intake values do not account for reduced
intakes resulting from human activity patterns that reduce human contact with
the contamination (i.e., it is assumed that exposure occurs 24 hours per day
for the entire period that contamination is present). This conservative
approach can be modified based on. site-specific information to the contrary.
For example, if an industrial area is an inhalation exposure point, it may be
appropriate to adjust the standard intake factor by the fraction of a year
spent at the exposure point.
Worksheets are provided as a method of organizing information and keeping
track of calculations. However, they will not generally be required as part
of the final report. Only Worksheets 5-5, 5-6, and 5-7, the summary
worksheets, will be required for submission with the final report.
5.1 CALCULATE AIR INTAKES
Human intake of contaminants present in the air is dependent on the
contaminant coacentration, the frequency and volume of inhalation, the
duration of exposure, and in the case of particulates, particle size.
The measured or predicted atmospheric concentrations (short-term and
long-term) of each contaminant at specific exposure points are given in
Worksheet 4-4. Insert these values into the appropriate columns of Worksheet
5-1. N'ote that a separate worksheet must be prepared for each inhalation
exposure point.
A standard human intake coefficient has been calculated for use in
determining air exposures in the absence of more accurate site-specific intake
information. This value takes into account the frequency (breathing rate),
volume, and duration of inhalation intake as well as an average human body
weight. This value has been inserted into Worksheet 5-L and is based on the
standard adult values given in Exhibit 5-1. For short-term exposures, include
the duration of exposure on Worksheet 5-1.
Using Worksheet 5-1, estimate subchronic and chronic air intakes for each
indicator chemical at all relevant exposure points. Absorption of chemicals
into the body is not accounted for by the intake estimates (or by the critical
toxicity values described in Chapter 6). However, if chemical-specific
absorption data are available, they can be used to refine the assessment as
long as the procedures and values are clearly documented.
5.2 CALCULATE GROUND-WATER INTAKES
Human exposure to contaminated ground water can occur when contaminated
wells are used as a drinking water source. The degree of exposure depends on
the concentration of the contaminant in drinking water, the amount of water
consumed per day, and the duration of exposure.
The measured or predicted concentrations (short-term and long-term) of
each contaminant in ground water at each exposure point are given in Worksheet
4-4. Insert these values into appropriate columns of Worksheet 5-2. Note
that separate worksheets must be prepared for each ground-water exposure point.
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF
INCORPORATE!
-------
'uwii irective j_:,5.--L
-79-
A standard human intake-coefficient has been calculated for use in
determining drinking water exposures. This value takes into account both
average daily consumption of water and average body weight. This value has
been inserted into Worksheet 5-2 and is based on the standard adult values
given in Exhibit 5-1. For short-term exposures, also include the duration of
exposure on Worksheet 5-2.
Using Worksheet 5-2, estimate subchronic and chronic drinking water
intakes for each indicator chemical at all relevant ground-water exposure
points.
5.3 CALCULATE SURFACE WATER INTAKES
For potential exposures to contaminated surface water, calculate, as
appropriate, intakes from ingestion of drinking water and ingestion of
contaminated fish.
Drinking Water. Human exposure to contaminated surface water can occur
when the surface water is used as a drinking water source. The degree of
exposure to contaminants present in drinking water derived from surface water
depends on the same factors described for drinking water derived from ground
water.
Obtain the concentrations (short-terra and long-term) of each chemical
present in surface water at each exposure point from Worksheet 4-4. Insert
these values into the appropriate columns of Worksheet 5-3. The standard
human intake coefficient for drinking water is the same as that used for
calculating ground-water intakes and has been inserted into Worksheet 5-3.
For short-term exposures, include the duration of exposure on Worksheet 5-3.
Using Worksheet 5-3, estimate subchronic and chronic drinking water
intakes for each indicator chemical at all relevant surface water exposure
points.
Fish Consumption. Another potential route of exposure from contaminated
surface water is through the ingestion of contaminated fish. The factors that
determine human exposure from contaminated fish are the contaminant
concentration in the fish, the amount of fish consumed, and the duration of
exposure.
The concentration of a contaminant in fish can be estimated by multiplying
the concentration of the contaminant in surface water by the fish bioconcen-
tration factor for that chemical. Obtain surface water concentrations for
each chemical at each exposure point from Worksheet 4-4. Insert the
appropriate values into the appropriate columns of Worksheet 5-4. Standard
human intake coefficients have been inserted-into the worksheet. Obtain the
fish bioconcentration factor for each chemical from Appendix C. Again, for
short-term exposures include the duration of exposure on Worksheet 5-4. If
the concentration of contaminants in fish has been measured, this
concentration can be used for short-term exposure. It should not be used for
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICFINCORPORATED
-------
Chemical
1 . , Benzene
2. Lead
3.
_
I
Human
Intake factor
(1 /kg/day)
0.029
0 . 029
0.029
0.029
Net me of S i te:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 5-3
CAlUMAIt SURFACE WAHR INIAMS
xposure I'oint: Downstream Drinkinq Water
Stunt- 1 ei in Subchronic Duration long-term
Concent i a t i on Daily Intake (fraction Concentration
(my/I) (mg/kg/day) of year) (mg/l)
0.0068 0.00020 0.5 1.5 x 10-3
0.00028 8.1 x 10-6 0.5 1.0 x U)^>
Chronic
Da i ly Intake
(mg/kg/day)
2.9 x 10- £
INSIKUCIIONS
1. List all indicator chemicals.
2. list the short-term and long-term concentration of. each chemical in surface water (from Worksheet
'<-'() in the appropriate column.
3. Determine subchronic daily intake (SDI) using the following formula:
SOI
I). Determine chronic daily intake (COI| using the following formula:
CO I
5. Include duration of subchronic exposure represented by the in lake estimate, in fraction of year.
Short-term Human
- Concentration x Intake
f actor
Long-term Human
- Concentration x Intake
factor
3"
f'l
O>
(-1
[I
List all major assumptions in developing the data for this worksheet:
-------
Name of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
ChemicaI
WORKSHEET 5-
-------
wSViER Directive 9255.--1
-82-
long-term exposure because surface water concentrations are likely to change
over the 70-year period being considered, causing the concentration of
contaminants in the fish to change over time.
Using Worksheet 5-4, estimate subchronic and chronic daily intakes from
contaminated fish for each indicator chemical at all relevant surface water
exposure points.
5.4 CALCULATE INTAKES FROM OTHER EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
There are a number of possible exposure pathways that are more difficult
to quantify than those just described. Nevertheless, the human chemical
intakes received though such pathways may be extremely important to certain
populations-at-risk. For example, at some sites children playing outdoors may
be exposed to contaminated soil through dermal absorption or through direct
ingestion of soil. If young children have access to a site or adjacent area
with contaminated surface soil, exposure for this subpopulation via soil
ingestion can be estimated based on the following assumptions:
Ingestion is' primarily of concern for children between
age two and six;
Ingestion .rate varies from 0.1 to 5 grams per day,
with higher values representative of pica behavior; and
Body weight of children in this age group averages 17
kg, and ranges from 10 to 25 kg.
These assumptions are based on EPA (1984e), Kimbrough et al. (1984), and
Anderson et al. (1984). In addition to exposures via soil ingestion, other
soil-related pathways, particularly migration of contaminants to ground and
surface waters, may be very important at a site and therefore should be
cons idered.
Another potential exposure pathway could be agricultural land being
irrigated with contaminated surface or ground water; human exposure would
occur if produce is contaminated and ingested. Humans may also be exposed via
consumption of game animals that reside in contaminated areas. Contaminated
surface waters, in addition to providing drinking water, may be used for
recreation and humans may be exposed by swimming in such waters. This may
result in dermal, oral, and inhalation exposures. During bathing or
showering, dermal or inhalation exposure may occur. Volatilization while
cooking with contaminated water may result in inhalation exposure.
Formulas and worksheets for these less common exposure pathways have not
been included in this manual because there has been little experience on which
to base the formulas. It should be noted, however, that at certain sites and
for certain populations-at-risk, these less common routes of exposure may be
significant. If one of these exposure pathways (e.g., exposure to soil,
dermal exposure or surface water ingestion while swimming) has been identified
as significant, the Exposure Assessment Group at EPA headquarters should be
contacted for guidance on a method for calculating chemical intakes.
* December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF iNCOHPOfUTf
-------
-83-
5.5 COMBINE PATHWAY-SPECIFIC INTAKES TO YIELD TOTAL ORAL AND
TOTAL INHALATION INTAKES
In this seep, total exposure scenarios are developed for each exposure
point, and the relevant route-specific intakes are combined for the affected
population. This exposure summation gives the total daily oral intake and
total daily inhalation intake of each chemical to which the population may be
exposed.
In Chapter 4, chemical concentrations at the significant exposure point
were estimated for each identified exposure pathway (see Worksheets 4-2 and
4-4). Recall that the significant exposure point for a pathway is the point
of highest individual exposure, although locations with large exposed
populations and lower exposure levels should also be included in the analysis
as supplementary exposure points. Now the task is to determine, for each
significant exposure point identified in Chapter 4, which of the other
exposure pathways could contribute to total exposure at that point. Use
Worksheet 5-5 to record this information. Be sure to list any potentially
important non-quantified exposure pathways on Worksheet 5-5. If the
populations-at-risk for different exposure pathways are mutually exclusive, do
not sum intakes from both pathways for the same exposure point. For examplev
it is incorrect to sum the intakes associated with ingesting drinking water
from different sources if the exposure is exclusively from one source.
After a total exposure scenario has been -developed for each significant
exposure point (in the case just described, a population living near the site
with private drinking water), combine the individual chemical intakes
calculated for each of the oral exposure pathways identified for that exposure
point. Do the same for inhalation. Referring to Worksheet 5-5, insert the
appropriate intakes to be combined (from Worksheets 5-1 through 5-4) into
Worksheet 5-6 (SDIs) and Worksheet 5-7 (GDIs). Some intake values from
Worksheets 5-1 through 5-4 may need to be adjusted when applied to exposure
points other than those specified. In situations where the significant
exposure points of two pathways are relatively far apart, the project
management team must judge whether the additional calculation effort is
warranted or whether simply summing the intakes for the significant exposure
points is sufficient. For example, if the significant exposure points for an
air and a ground-water pathway differ, the project manager may choose to
adjust the intakes from Worksheets 5-1 and 5-2 before using them for a total
exposure estimate or may combine the unadjusted intakes for a conservative
total exposure estimate.
The next step in the summation procedure is to add the intakes from food
and water for each chemical to give the total oral SDI (Worksheet 5-6) and GDI
(Worksheet 5-7) for the population-at-risk at each significant exposure
point. The existence of any non-quantified exposure pathways should be noted
on these summary intake worksheets. In addition, be sure to note the number
of people exposed at each significant exposure point.
The intake summation procedure described here is most relevant to the
estimation of total chronic exposure levels. When estimating total subchronic
exposures, be sure not to sum peak intake values estimated for different time
periods. Remember, the time period defined as short term is anywhere from a
December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATED
-------
-84-
Same of Sice:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 5-5
PATHWAYS CONTRIBUTING TO TOTAL EXPOSURE
Exposure Point
Exposure Pathways
Contributing to
Total Exposure
Comments
1.
Nearest downgradient
residences on private wells'1
2.
3.
Residences 1. mile SW on
vulnerable public wells
Hospital at 2 miles on
public well (sensitive)
Ground-water ingest ion
Air inhalation
Soil contact
Ground-water ingestion
Air inhalation
Ground-water ingestion
Non-quantified
Low exposure
"'' Significant exposure point.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. List the exposure points for all exposure pathways being evaluated (from
Worksheet 4-2).
2. Determine the exposure pathways contributing to total exposure for each
listed exposure point.
3. Mote in the comments column which exposure pathways are only short-term,
which are non-quantified, and any other pertinent information.
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumptions in developing the data for this worksheet:
* * December 18, 1985 Draft. * * *
ICF INCORPORATE
-------
-85-
Narae of Sice:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 5-6
TOTAL SUBCHRONIC DAILY INTAKE (SDI) CALCULATION
Total Exposure Point: Nearest Residences on Private Wells
Number of People: 40
Chemical
1-. Benzene
2. Lead
Ground-
Water
SDI
0.0058
0.0013
Surface Fish Total
Water Ingestion Oral
SDI SDI SDI
'4.7 x 10"6 0.0058
3.8 x 10~6 0.0013
Total
Air
SDI
0.0075
0
3.
4.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. List all indicator chemicals.
2. Refer to Worksheet 5-5 and determine which exposure pathways are relevant
for the total exposure point.
3. Record SDIs (in mg/kg/day) for the total exposure point from Worksheets
5-1 through 5-4 in the appropriate columns. Be sure only to include SDIs
estimated for the same time period.
4. For relevant exposure pathways that had intakes calculated for a different
exposure point, adjust the intake estimates for the total exposure point.
Record the rationale and calculations supporting any adjustments and
attach to this worksheet.
5. Determine total oral SDI by adding the component SDIs (ground-water,
surface water, fish) for each chemical.
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumptions in developing the data for this worksheet:
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * *
ICF
INCORPORATE!
-------
orc Jirecz
-86-
N'ame of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 5-7
TOTAL CHRONIC DAILY INTAKE (CDI) CALCULATION
Total Exposure Point: Nearest Residences on Private Wells
Chemical
1. Benzene
2. Lead
Number
Ground-
Water
CDI
- 0.00025
0.00015
of People: 40
Surface Fish Total
Water Ingestion Oral
CDI CDI CDI
1.3 x 10"6 0.00025
1.5 'X 10"6 Q. 00015
Total
Air
CDI
0.0012
0
3.
4.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. List all indicator chemicals.
2. Refer to Worksheet 5-5 and determine which exposure pathways are relevant
for the total exposure point.
3. Record GDIs (in mg/kg/day) for the total exposure point from Worksheets
5-1 through 5-4 in the appropriate columns.
4. For relevant exposure pathways that had intakes calculated for a different
exposure point, adjust the intake estimates for the total exposure point.
Record the rationale and calculations supporting any adjustments and
attach to this worksheet.
5. Determine total oral CDI by adding the component GDIs (ground-water,
surface water, fish) for each chemical.
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumptions in the development of data for this worksheet:
if if it
December 18, 1985 Draft
ICF
INCORPORATE!
-------
-87-
10 to a 90 day period. If the SDI for one pathway is estimated to occur
immediately and the SDI for another pathway affecting the same exposure point
is predicted to occur in 5 years, it would be improper to sum these -- they
would affect the same population, but at different times. In this situation,
assessing short-term risks based on the higher of the two values usually will
provide a reasonable assessment of short-term risks. However, exposures
likely to occur immediately should also be assessed.
Human intakes for the indicator chemicals have been calculated from
measured or predicted ambient exposure point concentrations. Intakes received
from air, ground water, surface water, and fish consumption have been
calculated separately for each exposure pathway and combined to give total
oral and total inhalation intakes for each significant exposure point and each
selected indicator chemical. . These intake estimates will be combined with
toxicity information gathered for Chapter 6 to perform the risk
characterization for Chapter 7.
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft . * * * ICF INCORPORATE
-------
-38-
CHAPTER 6
STEP 4: TOXICITY ASSESSMENT
This chapter describes the critical toxicity values (i.e., numerical values
describing a chemical's toxicity) needed in the Superfund public health
evaluation process. This information is used in conjunction with the results
of the exposure assessment to characterize risk. Draft EPA-reviewed
acceptable daily intake values (ADIs), evaluations by EPA's Carcinogen
Assessment Group, and Health Effects Assessment documents (HEAs) developed by
EPA's Office of Research and Development, will serve as a consistent source of
critical toxicity values for the Superfund public health evaluation process.
Critical toxicity values from these sources are summarized in Appendix C to
this Manual. These are currently the best available toxicity values.
However, this process is intended to accommodate new information and, as new
toxicity data become available, Appendix C will be updated to reflect these
changes. Toxicity information for specific chemicals not covered in Appendix
C is available through the Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office
(ECAO), U.S.- EPA, 26 W. St. Clair Street, Cincinnati, Oh.io 45268. In
situations where Appendix C does not contain the necessary critical toxicity
values for all indicator chemicals at a site, ECAO should be contacted for
additional information. In some cases it may be necessary to derive
appropriate values based on available toxicological or epidemiologic data.
Three values that describe the degree of toxicity posed by a chemical are
required in the process:
the acceptable intake for subchronic exposure (AIS);
the acceptable intake for chronic exposure (AIC); and
the carcinogenic potency factor (for potential
carcinogenic effects only).
These values are based on empirical data and have not been adjusted for
site-specific conditions. In general, separate critical toxicity values will
be available for ingestion and inhalation routes of exposure.
AIS and AIC values are required for all chemicals being evaluated. These
values are derived from quantitative information available from studies in
animals (or observations made in human epidemiologic studies) on the
relationship between intake and toxic effect. They are designed to be
protective of sensitive populations. The units for the AIS and AIC are the
same as those developed for SDI and GDI in the human exposure phase of the
public health evaluation -- rag/kg body weight/day. For teratogenic chemicals,
AIS values are generally derived for the teratogenic effects.
AIS values are determined by a process similar to the procedure used to
develop Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) values, except that subchronic effects
are the basis of the values instead of chronic effects. Most AIS values are
based on subchronic (10-90 day) animal studies, although some are derived from
human exposure data. For chemicals without appropriate human data, the
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATED
-------
ire di
-39-
highest subchronic exposure level not causing adverse effects, or
no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL), is determined from all of the animal
studies available in the literature. The NOAEL is then divided by appropriate
uncertainty factors to give the AIS. Uncertainty factors usually include a
factor of 10 to account for extrapolation from animal experiements to human
effects and a factor of 10 for intraspecies variability (i.e., to account for
the fact that two individuals of the same species may not react to the same
quantity of a chemical with the same level of response).
AIC values are developed in a process similar to ADI development. In
general, AIC values are based on long-term animal studies. For a few
chemicals, however, adequate human data are available and are used. The
highest chronic exposure level not causing an adver.se effect (NOAEL) is
determined by examining literature values from all appropriate animal
studies. The NOAEL value is then divided by uncertainty factors as in AIS
development. Again, a factor of 10 is used for extrapolation from animal
effects to human effects, and a factor of 10 is used to account for
intraspecies variability. If chronic studies are not available, subchronic
NOAELs are used and divided by an additional factor of 10 to Account for
differences between chronic and subchronic exposures.
The carcinogenic potency factor is expressed as the lifetime cancer risk
per mg/kg body weight/day. This factor is equivalent to q * when it is
based on animal study data evaluated by the multistage model. This factor is
an estimated upper 95 percent confidence limit of the carcinogenic potency of
the chemical. From it, an upper bound estimate of cancer risk can be
determined.
Although toxicity assessment is an integral part of the overall public
health evaluation, little effort will actually be required of the site analyst
to complete this step. To prevent duplication of effort and ensure
consistency among public health evaluations, the toxicity assessment step has
already been done for many common toxic substances and is documented in a
HEA. If EPA has completed validation of an acceptable daily intake (ADI) or a
reference dose (RfD) for a specific chemical, then that value should be used
as an AIC. Use the available critical toxicity values for the indicator
chemicals being evaluated (see Appendix C). If values are not available,
contact ECAO for this information. Worksheet 6-1 is provided as a format for
summarizing the required toxicity data.
It is theoretically possible to adjust the generic toxicity values to
account for site-specific factors affecting risk. This possibility is
currently being evaluated within EPA. Until the issue is resolved and further
guidance is distributed, site-specific factors should be recorded on Worksheet
6-2, but they should not be incorporated into the quantitative public health
evaluation. They should be considered in assessing the overall uncertainty of
the results, however. Important site-specific factors could include:
(1) Exposure uncertainties such as non-quantifiable exposure
pathways recorded earlier in the exposure assessment;
(2) Poor quantity or quality of site-specific exposure data;
* * * December 18, 1985.Draft , * * * . ICF INCORPORATE
-------
- i w c. A\
-90-
Name of Sice:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 6-1
CRITICAL TOXICITY VALUES
Chemical
AIS
(mg/kg/day)
AIC
(mg/kg/day)
Carcinogenic
Potency Factor
(mg/kg/day)
Inhalation Route
1.
Benzene
2. Lead
3. Methyl ethyl
ketone
Ingestion Route
1. Benzene
2. Lead
3. Methyl ethyl
ketone
0.00043
0.0014
0.046
O.Q26(A)-
M/A
N/A
0.045(A)-
N'/A
N/A
* EPA weight-of-evidence rating in parentheses for potential carcinogens.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. List all indicator chemicals.
2. List AIS, AIC, and carcinogenic potency factor values and carcinogenicity
weight-of-evidence ratings, obtained from Appendix C (or EPA/ECAO).
3. For teratogenic chemicals, list a separate AIS for that effect only.
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumptions in developing the data for this worksheet:
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
ICF INCORPORATE
-------
ua'wiR Directive 3235.--
-91-
Name of Sice:
Dace:
Analyse:
QC:
WORKSHEET 6-2
SITE-SPECIFIC FACTORS INCREASING UNCERTAINTY
(1) Sensitive Population(s):
Yes, specifically: Hospical 1/2 mile souchwesc from sice - 300 people
potencially exposed via air and drinking u-acer
(2) Exposure, Uncertainties: ' '
A. Non-Quantifiable Exposure Routes
Yes, minor pathways: 1. Ingestion of vegetables and livestock
contaminated by spray irrigation
2. Ingest ion/dermal absorption by swimmers
B. Overall Data Adequacy
The site characterization and sampling data is believed to be
sufficiently decailed co allow a reasonable assessment; QA/QC is
acceptable
(3) Percentage of Chemicals Evaluated (number and volume):
Approximately 10 percent of the total number of chemicals detected
(represents over 70 percent of the total estimated volume)
(4) Chemical or Biological Interactions:
Yes, chemicals: 1. Benzene and PCBs
Extent of Interaction (if known):
Unknown, but PCBs increase metabolism of benzene
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Complete worksheet, based on results of analysis of the listed factors at
the site.
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
ICF INCORPORATE!
-------
oiWER Directive ^2
-92-
(3) Extreme heterogeneity of the site environment;
(4) The percentage of site chemicals explicitly evaluated
(i.e., chosen as indicator chemicals);
(5) The presence and characteristics of sensitive
populations, number of people involved, and their
location; and
(6) Evidence of chemical or biological interactions. While
it is unlikely that quantitative data on interactions
will be available for most chemicals, whatever is
available should be noted, including qualitative
information.
In this chapter, toxicity information was collected to combine with
exposure information from the previous chapter to allow characterization of
the health risks of the indicator chemicals. Three kinds of data were
collected: chronic and subchronic acceptable intakes for noncarcinogens and
carcinogenic patency factors for potential carcinogens. Using these data,
long-term and short-term health risks can be characterized. Guidance for risk
characterization is presented in Chapter 7.
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATE!
-------
^ivv Directive ?_
-93-
CHAPTER 7
STEP 5: RISK CHARACTERIZATION
In this step of the public health evaluation process, a comparison is made
between projected intakes and acceptable intakes for noncarcinogens and
between calculated risks and target risks for potential carcinogens. In the
following sections, the methodology for making these comparisons is
described. There are separate discussions for noncarcinogenic and
carcinogenic effects because the methodology differs for these two classes of
chemical toxicity. Remember, comparisons to applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements and other standards and criteria should already have
been made for those chemicals having them (see Section 4.3). This comparison
to requirements, in addition to the risk characterization results, will be
included in the final public health evaluation report in the feasibility study.
7.1 NONCARCINOGENIC "EFFECTS
Most sites being assessed will have more than one indicator chemical that
has noncarcinogenic effects. To assess the overall potential for
noncarcinogenic effects posed by multiple chemicals, a hazard index approach
has been developed based on EPA's proposed Guidelines for Health Risk
Assessment of Chemical Mixtures (EPA, 1985d). This approach assumes that
multiple sub-threshold exposures could result in an adverse effect and that
the magnitude of the adverse effect will be proportional to the sum of the
ratios of the sub-threshold exposures to acceptable exposures. This can be
expressed as:
Hazard Index = E,/AL + E2/AL + ... + E./AL.
where E. = Exposure level (or intake) for the i toxicant
AL, = Acceptable level (or intake) for the i toxicant
Any single chemical with an exposure level greater than the acceptable
level will cause the hazard index to exceed unity, and when the index exceeds
unity, there may be concern for a potential health risk. For multiple chemical
exposures, the hazard index can exceed one even if no single chemical exceeds
its acceptable level. However, the assumption of additivity reflected in the
hazard index equation is most properly applied to compounds ;hat induce the
same effect by the same mechanism. Consequently, application of the equation
to a mixture of compounds that are not expected to induce the same type of
effects could overestimate the potential for effects. If the hazard index
results in a value greater than unity, segregate the compounds in the mixture
by critical effect and derive separate hazard indices for each effect.
Critical effects are described in the Health Effects Assessment documents.
To make the comparison between estimated subchronic exposure to several
chemicals and acceptable subchronic intakes, calculate the subchronic hazard
index by calculating and then summing the SDI:AIS ratios for all chemicals.
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft *"* * ICF
INCORPORATED
-------
-94-
Use Worksheet 7-1 to record this calculation and summation. A separate
subchronic hazard index should be developed for each total exposure point. Be
careful to sum ratios only for chemicals and exposure pathways for which the
short-term concentration time period is the same.
If any chemicals with teratogenic effects are being assessed, calculate a
separate subchronic hazard index for them. The subchronic daily intake (SDI)
and the acceptable level for teratogenic effects should be used for assessment
of teratogenic risk.
To make the comparison between estimated chronic exposure to indicator
chemicals and acceptable chronic intake, follow a similar procedure,
calculating and then summing the ratios of CDI:AIC for all chemicals to give a
chronic hazard index. Calculate a separate index for each total exposure
point, using Worksheet 7-2 to calculate and record the necessary information.
Throughout this entire public health evaluation process, intakes and risks
from oral and inhalation exposure pathways have been estimated separately.
This was done so that route-specific toxicity data could be used. However,
the possible effects of multimedia exposure should be evaluated by summing the
hazard indices for inhalation and oral exposures at each total exposure
point. This will ensure that acceptable levels are not being exceeded by
combined intakes when multiple exposure pathways exist.
It is emphasized that the hazard index is not a mathematical prediction of
incidence or severity of effects. It is simply a numerical index to help
identify potential exposure problems. Results for multiple chemicals should
not be interpreted too strongly. It should also be noted that the approach
taken in EPA's proposed chemical mixtures guidelines has not been universally
accepted by the scientific community. Comments on the proposed guidelines
have been solicited, and incorporation of responses to comments into the
guidelines may change them. The approach in this chapter follows the proposed
guidelines in their current form. If they should change, this chapter will be
modified to reflect those changes.
7.2 POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
For potential carcinogens, risks are estimated as probabilities. The
carcinogenic potency factor, which is an upper 95 percent confidence limit on
the probability of response per unit intake of a chemical over a lifetime
(i.e., only 5 percent chance that the probability of response could be greater
than the estimated value for the experimental data used), converts estimated
intakes directly to incremental risk. Because only relatively low intakes are
likely from environmental exposure, it can be assumed that the dose-response
relationship will be in the linear portion of the dose-response curve. Under
this assumption, the slope of the dose-response curve is equivalent to the
carcinogenic potency factor, and risk will be directly related to intake at
low levels of exposure. The carcinogenic risk equation is:
Risk = GDI x Carcinogenic Potency Factor
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICFINCORPORA71
-------
£.x jirec.ive i2
-95-
of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 7-1
CALCULATION OF SUBCHRONIC HAZARD INDEX
Total Exposure Point: Nearest Residences on Private Wells
Inhalation Oral
Chemical SDI AIS SDI:AIS SDI AIS SDI:AIS
1. Benzene 0.0075 0.15* 0.05 0.0058 0.15* 0.04
2 . Lead
0 0.5*- 0 0.0013 0.5* 0.003
3.
4.
* Values for illustration only; not in Appendix C.
Sum of Inhalation SDI:AIS Ratios = 0.05
Sum of Oral SDIrAIS Ratios = 0.04
Sum Total of All Ratios = 0.09
INSTRUCTIONS
1. List all indicator chemicals.
2. List the total inhalation SDI and total oral SDI (in mg/kg/day) from
Worksheet 5-6 in the appropriate columns for each chemical.
3. List route-specific AIS values (from Worksheet 6-1) and calculate
route-specific SDI:AIS ratios for each chemical.
4. Sum and record route-specific SDI:AIS ratios.
5. Sum and record total (inhalation plus oral) SDI:AIS ratios only if the
SDIs for the two routes refer to the same time period. If total is less
than 1, there is probably no subchronic health hazard. If the sum is
greater than 1, separate the ratios according to health endpoint and do a
separate worksheet for each endpoint.
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumptions in developing the data for this worksheet:
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATE
-------
uS'wER Directive 9255.--'
-96-
N'ame of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 7-2
CALCULATION OF CHRONIC HAZARD INDEX
Total Exposure Point: Nearest Residences on Private Veils
Inhalation Oral
Chemical GDI AIC CDI:AIC GDI AIC GDI:AIC
1. Benzene
2. Lead
0.0012 0.002- 0.6 0.00025 0.002* 0.1
0 0.00043 0 0.00015 0.0014 0.1 -
3.
4.
.-' Values for illustration only; not in Appendix C.
Sum of Inhalation CDI:AIC Ratios = 0.6
Sum of Oral CDI:AIC Ratios = 0.2
Sum Total of All Ratios = 0.8
INSTRUCTIONS
1. List all indicator chemicals.
2. List the total inhalation GDI and total oral GDI (in mg/kg/day) from
Worksheet 5-7 in the appropriate columns for each chemical.
3. List route-specific AIC values (from Worksheet 6-1) and calculate
route-specific GDI:AIC ratios for each chemical.
4. Sum and record route-specific GDI:AIC ratios.
5. Sum and record tocal (inhalation plus oral) CDI:AIC ratios. If total is
less than 1, there is probably no chronic health hazard. If the sum is
greater than 1, separate the ratios according to health endpoint and do a
separate worksheet for each endpoint.
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumptions in developing the data for this worksheet:
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATE
-------
-97-
This equation is valid only ac low risk levels. For sices where chemical
intakes may be large (e.g., estimated carcinogenic risk above 0.1), an
alternate model should be considered. In this situation, consult ECAO in
Cincinnati for guidance on an appropriate model.
For multiple compounds, this equation may be generalized to:
Risk = I (GDI. x Carcinogenic Potency Factor.)
This risk summation, based on EPA's proposed Guidelines for Carcinogenic Risk
Assessment (EPA, 1984c), assumes that individual intakes are small. It also
assumes independence of action by the compounds involved (i.e., that there are
no synergistic or antagonistic chemical interactions and that all chemicals
have the same endpoint, cancer). If these assumptions are incorrect, over- or
under-estimation of the actual risk could result. Again, it is noted that the
proposed guidelines may change following consideration of public comments.
Should that happen, appropriate modifications to the approach given in this
section will be made.
For Superfund public health evaluations, it is also assumed that cancer
risks from various exposure routes are additive. Expressed mathematically
this is:
Carcinogenic Risk [CDI (inhalation) x Potency Factor (inhalation)]
for Chemical X = +
[CDI (oral) x Potency Factor (oral)]
Therefore, the total carcinogenic risk for a site is estimated by:
Total Risk = (Carcinogenic Risk for Chemical 1 -t- . . . + Chemical.)
The result of the characterization will be upper-bound estimates of the
potential carcinogenic risk for each total exposure point. Estimates for
individual chemicals and pathways as well as estimates of aggregate risk
should be developed and reported. Use Worksheet 7-3 to record the risk
calculations for potential carcinogens.
7.3 UNCERTAINTIES
The public health evaluation process has been designed to place reliance
on a subset of the chemicals present at the site. These indicator chemicals
were identified on the basis of certain preliminary data. It is important at
this time to review the original data used to select the indicator chemicals
to make sure that it remains valid and that new indicator chemical candidates
have not been uncovered during the process. It is wise to reevaluate the
initial choice of indicator chemicals at this time to assure yourself that,
having been through the entire process, they are still the appropriate
chemicals on which to base the public health evaluation.
It is emphasized that all estimates of carcinogenic risk and hazard index
are dependent on numerous assumptions, and many uncertainties are inherent in
the risk assessment process. Probably without exception, information on site
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATE
-------
»E.ri Direct
-98-
N'ame of Sice:
Dace:
Analyst:
QC:
2.
WORKSHEET 7-3
CALCULATION OF RISK FROM POTENTIAL CARCINOGENS
Total Exposure Point: Nearest Residences on Private Veils
Carcinogenic
Exposure GDI Potency Factor
Chemical Route (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day) -1
1. 'Benzene Oral 0.00025 0.045
Route-
specific
Risk
1 x 10"5
Total
Chemical-
specific
Risk '
- 4 x 10"0
Inhalation
0.0012
0.026
3 x 10
-5
TOTAL UPPER BOUND RISK = 4 x 10
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
INSTRUCTIONS
List all potentially carcinogenic indicator chemicals.
List all exposure routes for each chemical.
Record GDIs (Worksheet 5-7) and carcinogenic potency factors (Worksheet
6-1) for each chemical and each exposure route.
Multiply the potency factor by the GDI to get the route-specific risk;
then sum the route-specific risks for each chemical.
Sum all of the chemical-specific risks to give an upper bound estimate of
total incremental risk due to potential carcinogens.
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumptions in developing the data for this worksheet:
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
ICF INCORPORATE
-------
>-biv£R _/irec_ive 7.155.--I
-99-
history and site characterization data will be lacking in some areas. Most
toxicity information is derived from animal studies; extrapolation to humans
is a source of uncertainty. Many toxicity studies are done at high doses-
relative to exposures associated with waste disposal sites; extrapolation from
high to low doses increases the uncertainty of risk numbers at sites.
Exposure modeling is based on many simplifying assumptions that add to the
uncertainty. The additivity of toxicants and the additivity of doses of the
same toxicant from different exposure routes are additional assumptions and
additional sources of uncertainty. Consequently, the results of the baseline
assessment should not be taken as a characterization of absolute risk. An
important use of these results is to highlight potential sources- of risk at a
site so they may be dealt with effectively.
The process described above is not expected to supplant expert judgment
nor can it be designed to include all of the information which may be
available. If there are specific data germane to the assumption of additivity
discussed above (e.g., if two compounds are present at the same site and it is
known that the combination is five times more toxic than the sum of toxicities
for the two compounds), then modify the risk estimate accordingly. If data on
chemical interactions are available but are not good enough to support
quantitative assessment, note the information on the "assumptions" portion of
the appropriate worksheet.
As a result of the procedures described in Chapters 3 through 7, indicator
chemicals at a site have been identified, releases calculated, exposure routes
identified, and exposure point concentrations calculated. Applicable or
relevant and appropriate standards were compared to concentration estimates
for chemicals that have standards. Human intakes for each exposure pathway
were calculated and summed, then combined with toxicity data to get risk
estimates for both potential carcinogens and noncarcinogens . The results of
the public health evaluation of baseline site conditions will now be used as a
starting point for the formulation of numerical design goals for management of
migration remedial alternatives. These re-suits also can be considered in the
design of source control measures and as a check to make sure all potential
sources of health risk at a site have been considered.
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * .* ICF INCORPORATE!
-------
-100-
CHAPTER 8
DEVELOPMENT OF DESIGN GOALS AND ANALYSIS OF RISKS
FOR REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
The baseline public health evaluation, using the procedures described in
the preceding chapters, provides considerable information on the baseline
health risks (i.e., in the absence of remedial action) from the site. This
information about chemical releases, routes of. exposure, human exposure
points, and the level and timing of risk will be used as input to further
development of the proposed remedial alternatives. This chapter describes the
procedures for developing target chemical concentrations for remedial
alternatives based on public health considerations and for comparison of
health risks associated with each remedial alternative being considered.
Conceptual alternatives have already been developed as a concurrent part of
the feasibility study process. By this time, site engineers should have
defined the options available for remedial actions at a site based on
feasibility and technical considerations. This chapter provides methods to
compare public health risks from the remedial actions being considered.
The proposed revisions to the NCP define two different types of remedial
alternatives that can be developed during the feasibility study process:
source control alternatives and management of migration alternatives.
This chapter provides guidance for developing design goals and for estimating
risks associated with a given level of control for management of migration
alternatives.
Source control alternatives are those that control or remove the source of
contamination before it has migrated much beyond the source. For example,
site excavation and waste immobilization techniques are considered source
control alternatives. Such remedial alternatives should be assessed and
designed on the basis of applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(as defined by the NCP; see Section 2.3) and best engineering judgment.
However, best engineering judgment does not indicate how much to excavate or
help to determine acceptable residual levels of chemicals in soil. The
methods described in this chapter can be used to derive target soil
concentrations associated with a target risk range. Otherwise, the procedures
given in this chapter, with the exception of those described in Section 8.6
for assessing short-term effects, do not apply to source control alternatives.
Management of migration alternatives are those that address contaminants
that have migrated away from the source. For example, pump and treat
techniques for removing ground-water contamination are considered management
of migration alternatives. These alternatives should be analyzed based on
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements and/or target health risk
levels for population exposure points.
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ' INCORPORATE!
-------
-101-
The determination that proposed remedial alternatives attain, exceed, or
fall below RCRA design and operating standards or any other applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirement that is not an ambient concentration
level is made independently of the procedures in this chapter. Thus,
although RCRA requirements are a key consideration in the development of
remedial alternatives, they do not provide ambient concentration targets for
specific chemicals and are not discussed further in this chapter. The
procedures of this chapter allow development of ambient concentation goals to
assist in refining remedial alternatives.
Some sites may have both source control and management of migration
alternatives under evaluation. For these sites, follow the procedures
described in this chapter for management of migration alternatives. Also, in
some cases remedial alternatives may have both source control and management
of migration components (e.g., an alternative that combines partial
excavation/capping with ground-water pumping and treatment). In these
situations, use applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements and best
engineering judgment in the design of the source control component and
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements and health-based design
goals, as described in this chapter, in the development of the management of
migration component.
The remedial alternative ultimately chosen is a risk management decision
that is made as part of the overall feasibility study. This chapter provides
methods for a health-based comparison among alternatives. After a remedial
action has been chosen, the target concentrations developed for the comparison
can be used as design goals for the remedial alternative and to calculate
allowable release rates for contaminants at the site. When applicable or
relevant and appropriate ambient requirements are available for all indicator
chemicals at a site, the project manager will have specific environmental
concentration levels for each chemical to use as design goals.
When applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements are not available
for all indicator chemicals, remedies considered should reduce ambient
chemical concentrations to levels associated with a carcinogenic risk range of
-4 -7
10 to 10 (e.g., at least one remedial alternative being considered
could be associated with a carcinogenic risk of 10 , one with 10 , and
one with 10 ) where possible. For noncarcinogenic contaminants, exposure
point concentrations should be reduced to correspond to acceptable intake
levels. At sites where both potential carcinogens and noncarcinogens are
involved, the potential carcinogens will generally drive the design process
because concentrations corresponding to the target risk range are usually
lower than acceptable concentrations of noncarcinogens.
When some indicator chemicals have applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements and others do not, the preferred approach is first to evaluate
remedial alternatives based on the total target carcinogenic risk range, as
when there are no applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements. Then,
for each chemical with a requirement, determine whether at least one
alternative attains, one exceeds, and one falls below its requirement. .Given
the broad target range of carcinogenic risk, it is likely that these three
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
ICF INCORPORATE
-------
-102-
conditions would be met. If not, additional remedial options may have to be
developed to satisfy the proposed policy of considering options that exceed,
attain, and fall below applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements.
A tiered approach for evaluating and comparing alternatives is described
in this chapter. The first step is a reevaluation of the indicator chemicals
to determine whether any additions are necessary due to treatability
concerns. Second, human exposure pathways are determined for each remedial
alternative. The next step is development of preliminary target
concentrations, based either on applicable.or relevant and appropriate
requirements or the potential carcinogenic indicator chemicals at the site.
The initial focus on potential carcinogens greatly simplifies the process, and
it is a logical approach because potential carcinogens will usually drive the
final design (i.e., environmental concentrations of potential carcinogens will
generally have to be reduced to lower levels than concentrations of
noncarcinogens). For sites without applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements, the next step, after developing preliminary target
concentrations, is to estimate corresponding long-term concentrations of
noncarcinogenic indicator chemicals to ensure that acceptable levels are
attained. If necessary, the alternative should be modified to provide
adequate control of noncarcinogens.. The final steps of the tiered approach
are to assess potential short-term health risks associated with the remedial
alternative and to evaluate the potential health effects that could result
from failure of the alternative.
Exhibit 8-1 presents a simple flowchart of the process for formulating
design goals. The remainder of this^ chapter describes specific procedures for
comparing health risks and developing design goals for management of migration
remedial measures. The presentation of methods in this chapter assumes an
understanding of the previous sections of the manual.
8.1 REEVALUATE INDICATOR CHEMICALS
The first step in determining target concentrations for management of
migration remedial alternatives is a review of indicator chemicals. Indicator
chemicals have already been selected for assessing baseline site risks, but
the list of indicators may need to be modified because of differences among
chemicals in treatability, chemical class, and propensity to be released from
specific remedial alternatives. Some chemicals may be more difficult to treat
than those chosen as indicators for the baseline analysis. These more
recalcitrant chemicals should be considered in the design of remedial
alternatives. It may be possible to use chemical class as a surrogate for
treatability because chemicals within a class have similar physical and
chemical properties. Consequently, chemical classes that were not important
in the baseline analysis may become important. In addition, some remedial
alternatives will control or release different chemicals than others (e.g.,
volatiles will be of more concern for an air stripping alternative than a site
capping alternative). Review the list of selected indicator chemicals
(Worksheet 3-5) and the list of all chemicals present at the site (Worksheet
3-1) to determine whether additional chemicals should be included as
indicators, taking into account treatability, chemical class, and new release
sources associated with each specific alternative.
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
ICF INCORPORATE!
-------
Exhibit 8-1
FLOWCHART OF DESIGN GOALS PROCESS
DEVELOP TARGET
CONCENTRATION
RANGE FOR POTENTIAL
CARCINOGENS
BASED OH BISK
ANALYSE/REFINE ALTER-
NATIVES TO ENSURE THAI
THEY 8PAN THE IAROEI
CONCENTRATION RANGE
EVALUATE
NONCARCINOOENIC
RISK FOR EACH
ALTERNATIVE
(HE WITH
AIELIHE
PUBLIC HEALTH
EVALUATION
COMPLETE
REEVALUATE
CHEMICALS
IDENTIFY
POTENTIAL
EXPOSURE
PATHWAY!
FOR EACH
ALTERNATIVE'
'APPLICABLE/^
RELEVANT fit
UIHEMENIS FOR/
AIL INDICA-
TORS?
YE a
ASSESS POTENTIAL
SHORT-TERM
HEALTH RISK OF
IMPLEMENTATION
AND POTENTIAL
EFFECTS OF
REMEDY FAILURE
DEVELOP TARGET
CONCENTRATION
RANGE ABED ON
REQUIREMENTS
ANALYZE/REFINE ALTER-
NATIVES TO ENSURE THAT
THEY SPAN THE TARGET
CONCENTRATION RANGE
'ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPED PREVIOUSLY IN THE FEASIBILITY STUDY PROCESS
-------
-104-
8.2 IDENTIFY POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
The next step in determining target concentrations for management of
migration remedial alternatives is identifying potential exposure pathways.
Again, this task has been completed for the no-action alternative, but it
should be reviewed in light of the particular remedial alternatives under
consideration. Some exposure routes identified for the baseline analysis may
not exist for certain remedial alternatives, while some new exposure routes
may result. For example, long-term pumping and air-stripping treatment of
ground water may result in air exposures not occurring under the no-action
alternative.- Therefore, for each management of migration remedial alternative
remaining after initial screening (Chapter 2 of the Guidance for Feasibility
Studies), determine the possible sources of chemical release, transport media,
human exposure points, and exposure routes.
8.2.1 Determine Possible Sources of Chemical Release
Based on available information from preliminary site assessments and the
remedial investigation, identify and evaluate the sources of chemical release
that could result from each remedial alternative being evaluated. Consider
the possibilities of chemical releases to air,.surface water, ground water,
and soil from sources on the site itself and also from certain off-site
sources resulting from the remedial action (e.g., a ground-water aeration
tower away from the site). In all situations where contaminated materials are
removed from the site and treated, stored, or disposed at a RCRA-permitted
facility, it is not necessary to include the RCRA facility as a source for
purposes of this assessment. Potential releases during transport of wastes
from the site to the RCRA facility also need not be considered.11*-1
Exhibit 8-2 gives some examples of sources of release to each medium
resulting from typical remedial activities. Evaluate the sources given in
Exhibit 8-2 and any others relevant to the site to determine whether each is
important or unimportant, taking into consideration the potential quantity of
waste that may be released,- the frequency of releases, and any other important
considerations. Be sure to consider the possibility of other release sources
not listed in Exhibit 8-2.
Obtain descriptions and details of the remedial alternatives as a basis
for identifying additional potential release sources. Use Worksheet 8-1 to
list and qualitatively evaluate potential release sources for each remedial
alternative. Worksheet 8-1 should be supplemented with a map that indicates
the locations of the release sources for each alternative.
8.2.2 Determine Human Exposure Points
Review Worksheets 4-2 and 4-5 to determine whether the same populations
included in the baseline analysis will be affected by the specific remedial
l
-------
-105-
EXHIBIT 8-2
POSSIBLE CHEMICAL RELEASE SOURCES
FOLLOWING REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Release
Medium
Release
Mechanism
Release Source
Air
Volatilization
Stack emission
Aeration treatment processes
Residual contaminated soil or surface
water
Incineration
Surface water
Ground-water seepage Residual contaminated ground water
Effluent: discharge Treatment plant
Site runoff Residual contaminated surface soil
Ground water
Site leaching
Effluent discharge
Residual contaminated soil
Treatment plant
Soil
Site leaching
Surface runoff
Residual contaminated soil
Residual contaminated surface soil
* * December 18, 1985 Draft
ICF
INCOflPORAI
-------
-106-
Medium
Same of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 8-1
RELEASE SOURCE ANALYSIS
Remedial Alternative: Pumping and treatment of
ground water using air stripping
Potential
Release Source/
Mechanism
Release
Time
Frame
Release Probability/
Amount
Air
Aeration treatment
plant emissions
100°; probability for 10
years, then zero; amounts
may be high for some
volatile chemicals
Surface water Aeration treatment
plant discharge
-100% probability for 10
years, then zero; amounts
may be .high for non-
volatile chemicals
Ground water
Soil
INSTRUCTIONS
For each medium, list potential release sources.
Estimate release time frame: chronic (C) or episodic (E).
1.
2.
3.
4.
Record any information, qualitative or quantitative, on release amounts
and probabilities.
Attach a site map with sources located.
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumptions made in developing data for this worksheet:
*
December 18, 1985 Draft
* *
ICF
INCORPORATED
-------
-107-
alternative under consideration. If so, note the same information previously
collected. Any new significant or supplementary exposure points resulting
from implementation of a remedial action should be noted (see Section 4.1.2,
for definition and discussion of significant exposure points). Populations at
these points will be characterized in a later step.
To assist in your evaluation of specific human exposure points, review
Section 4.1. Exhibit 4-3 in that section lists common exposure points for
chemical releases. Remember, the purpose of this task is to evaluate exposure
pathways from a site after'the implementation of remedial alternatives. In
subsequent sections, methods are presented for modeling environmental
transport processes from the point of exposure back to the source of
contamination to define allowable releases.
As mentioned above, the affected populations may be identical to those
defined in the baseline assessment. If a new population might be exposed by
the remedial alternative (e.g., a population that_will be exposed to air
emissions from an air stripping tower located at a distance from the site),
this group must be identified and characterized.
8.2.3 Integrate Release Sources, Transport Media, Exposure Points,
and Exposure Routes into Exposure Pathways
Assemble the information developed in the previous tasks and determine the
complete exposure pathways that would exist for each remedial alternative.
Use Worksheet 8-2 to integrate the exposure pathway information. A complete
exposure pathway has four components -- a source of chemical release, an
environmental transport medium, a point where human receptors could be
exposed, and a likely exposure route. For example, if a release to ground
water is projected but ground water from the affected aquifer is not now used
or projected to be used, the exposure pathway is incomplet-e.
8.2.4 Identify All Exposure Pathways for Each Exposure Point
To determine the total exposure at each exposure point for a remedial
alternative, review the pathways developed in Worksheet 8-2. Develop
realistic total exposure scenarios (e.g., drinking contaminated ground water
or contacting contaminated surface water) that combine the different pathways
through which the population at an exposure point could conceivably be
exposed. Record these on Worksheet 8-3.
8.3 DETERMINE TARGET CONCENTRATIONS AT HUMAN EXPOSURE
POINTS
This task involves analysis of each indicator chemical relevant to each
significant exposure point (and supplementary exposure points, if necessary)
to determine a target concentration range for each indicator chemical at the
points of human exposure. Target concentrations will be calculated on the
basis of applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements or the target
-4 -7
cancer risk range of 10 to 10 . If applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements are not available for all indicator chemicals,
proceed to Section 8.3.2.
*_* * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCOBPORAfl
-------
-108-
Name of Site:
Dace:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 8-2
MATRIX OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS FOR REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE
Remedial Alternative: Limited excavation
Release
Medium
Release
Source
Exposure Point
Exposure
Route
Air
Ground water Remaining con-
taminated soil
Surface water
Private well, 1/8 mile Ingest ion
away ( downgradient)'"
Soil
''Significant exposure point.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. List all potential release sources, by medium (see Worksheet 8-1).
2. Describe the nature of the exposure point (i.e., point of highest
exposure) and its location with respect to release source (e.g., nearest
residence to volatilization release area, 100 meters NW). Denote
significant exposure points with an asterisk.
3. List Exposure Route: inhalation, oral, or dermal.
ASSUMPTIONS
' List all major assumptions made in developing the data for this worksheet:
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * *
ICF INCORPORATE!
-------
-log-
s'ame of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 8-3
IDENTIFY ALL PATHWAYS FOR EXPOSURE POINTS
Remedial Alternative: Limited excavation
Exposure Pathways
Exposure Point
No. of
People Source
Exposure
Route
Exposure
Medium
1. Nearest residence
on private wells
100 Site leachate
Site volatiles
Ingestion
Inhalation
Drinking water
Air
INSTRUCTIONS
List each exposure point.
Note the number of people potentially exposed at each exposure point.
1.
2.
3.
Record all exposure pathways relevant to each listed exposure point so
that total exposure can be determined.
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumptions made in developing the data for this worksheet:
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
ICF INCORPORATE
-------
-110-
8.3.1 Target Concentrations for Chemicals With Applicable or Relevant
and Appropriate Requirements
If all indicator chemicals have applicable or relevant and appropriate
ambient concentration requirements, those requirements will be used as the
basis for the target concentration range. Otherwise, target concentrations
will be based on the target carcinogenic risk range. Some chemicals may have
more than one.applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement. In these
cases, the requirement most appropriate for site exposure conditions should be
used. For drinking water, Safe Drinking Water Act MCLs should generally be
used if available.
List on Worksheet 8-4 the numerical value and source of applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements for all of the indicator chemicals. The
proposed revision to the NCP requires consideration of remedies that attain,
exceed, and fall below applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements.
Therefore, on Worksheet 8-4, list a target concentration that exceeds and one
that falls below the applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements.
Once target concentrations have been determined for each medium affected,
determine which of the concentrations can be achieved by each of the various
remedial alternatives under consideration. Engineering judgment must be used
to initially determine which remedies are likely to reduce chemicals to the
various target concentrations. One approach is to review Worksheet 8-4 and
consider which of the alternatives under consideration will reduce the most
difficult chemical to treat to the most restrictive target concentration, the
"exceeds requirements" category. Next, determine which alternative will
reduce the most difficult chemical to treat to the level of the requirement.
Then determine which remedy meets the "falls below requirement" category by
reducing the concentration of the most difficult chemical to treat to the
least restrictive level. Some of these options may actually be the same
conceptual remedy modified to meet different operating levels, such as a pump
and treat option with different levels of removal; conversely, they may be
completely different remedies. Be sure to verify and document, using chemical
release and transport modeling (see Section 4.2), that the target
concentrations will be met.
Regardless of the "attain, exceed, and fall below requirements" policy,
all remedies that eventually will be considered by the site decision-maker
must be evaluated on public health grounds. This may be done for the
remainder of the alternatives either by matching them with target
concentrations or by using a public health evaluation as described in Chapters
3 through 7.
An example for a hypothetical site is provided in Worksheet 8-4. In this
example, site contamination has polluted the ground water. Only two
contaminants are present, cadmium and arsenic, both of which have applicable
or relevant and appropriate requirements. Values for the standards and for
concentrations exceeding and falling below requirements are included. Assume
that four alternatives are being considered for the site: cap and slurry
wall; pump, treat, and reinject; pump, treat, and discharge effluent to
surface" water; and provide an alternate water supply that meets the drinking
water standards. The most restrictive concentration level is a concentration
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICFINCORPORATE!
-------
ive j_
-Ill-
Name of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 8-4
TARGET CONCENTRATIONS FOR CHEMICALS WITH AMBIENT REQUIREMENTS
Requirement Used/
Target Applicable/ Target
Concentration Relevant Concentration
Exceeding Ambient Falling Below
Chemical Appropriate Medium Requirement Requirement Standard
1.
2.
3.
4.
Cadmium MCL/drinking water .001 mg/1 0.01 mg/ 1 0.1 mg/ 1
Arsenic MCL/drinking water .005 mg/ 1 0.05 mg/1 0.5 mg/ 1
3.
4.
INSTRUCTIONS
List chemicals with applicable or relevant and appropriate ambient
concentration requirements (see Exhibit 4-5).
List the numerical value of the requirement, the source of the
requirement, and the appropriate exposure medium in the appropriate
columns.
Determine a target concentration exceeding the standard.
Determine a concentration falling below the standard.
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumptions made in developing the data for this worksheet;
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft
ICF
INCORPORATES
-------
-112-
of 0.0001 mg/1 for cadmium. Providing an alternate water supply would satisfy
the "exceeds requirement" policy by reducing cadmium below that level. The
pump/treat/reinject alternative can be designed to satisfy the arsenic and
cadmium standards; by modifying the operating parameters, it can also satisfy
the "falls below requirement" policy. Now the other two options under
consideration must be assessed, either by determining what risks are likely as
a result of their implementation (i.e., forward risk evaluation) or by back-
calculating allowable release rates based on the target concentration range.
8.3.2 Target Concentration for Chemicals Without Applicable or Relevant
and Appropriate Requirements
For situations where all indicator chemicals do not have applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements, target concentrations for potential
carcinogens are calculated based on toxicity and chemical intake data.
Potential carcinogens are evaluated first because target concentrations for
potential carcinogens generally will be lower than acceptable concentrations
for noncarcinogens; thus, potential carcinogens will usually drive the design
process. Remedial alternatives under consideration must span the target
carcinogenic risk range. Noncarcinogen exposures will subsequently be
assessed to ensure that they are below acceptable levels.
The remedial alternatives under consideration should have been assessed to
the extent that exposure points and routes have been determined for each
alternative. This section describes how to quantify the target concentrations
for each remedy at each exposure point. It is necessary to evaluate the risk
of each alternative and to ensure that the proposed alternatives cover a wide
range of risk. According to Agency policy, the target total individual
carcinogenic risk, resulting from exposures at a Superfund site may range
-4 -7
anywhere between 10 to 10 . Thus, remedial alternatives being
considered should be able to reduce total potential carcinogenic risks to
individuals to levels within this range. The Agency also encourages
development of alternatives that eliminate carcinogenic risk where such a
remedy is feasible. One remedy being considered could correspond to a
-7 -6 -4
carcinogenic risk of 10 , one to 10 , and one to 10 . These may be
the same conceptual alternative with different operating parameters or may be
different alternatives altogether. In addition, the remaining remedial
alternatives under consideration must also be evaluated either by calculating
risks for those alternatives (i.e., forward risk evaluation as described in
Chapters 3 through 7), or by back-calculating allowable release rates based on
the target concentration range. For any remedial alternative which was
developed by back-calculating release rates, a "forward" risk assessment of
the proposed alternative should be performed to verify that it meets the risk
level it was designed to achieve. This can be accomplished by following the
steps described in Chapter 3 through 7.
8.3.2.1 Apportion Total Potential Carcinogenic Risk Among Multiple
Carcinogens
There are a number of ways of translating total risk levels into target
concentrations for individual chemicals. Ultimately, the site assessor must
judge how the carcinogenic exposure should be apportioned among multiple
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * *
ICF INCORPORATE!
-------
~ o n _ A _ _:. e C '_ _ V e r _ ; ^ --.
-113-
potential carcinogens and multiple routes of exposure. Two simple approaches
to this problem are presented below as illustrative examples. The project
manager is not restricted to these methods, though they will provide a
reasonable starting point. These approaches assume low-dose additivity of
carcinogenic risk, which is consistent with Agency risk assessment guidelines.
One method is to divide a target carcinogenic risk level by the number of
indicator chemicals that are potential carcinogens. For example, at a target
risk level of 10 where 5 potential carcinogens are of interest, the
resulting target risk level for each individual potential carcinogen would be
2x10 . Once the target risk is determined, the target intake can be
determined using the following formula:
Potential Carcinogenic Risk = (Chronic Daily Intake) x (Potency Factor)
-2 -1
Thus, if the potency factor for benzene is 5.2x10 (mg/kg/day) , the
target benzene intake would be 3.8x10 mg/kg/day:
- [2 x 10"7] r [5.2 x 10"2 (mg/kg/day)"-1] = 3.8 x 10"6 mg/kg/day
The same calculations would then be repeated for each potential carcinogen and
each level of the carcinogenic risk range. This approach is simple and
conservative, ensuring that the target risk will not be exceeded if the target
intakes are attained, but it may not result in the most efficient design.
Another approach is to let one or two chemicals drive the design process.
One -indicator chemical may be so difficult to treat or so potent (e.g.,
dioxin) that exposure levels must be extremely low so that the total risk
falls within the target range. By designing remedies to reduce levels of such
"bad actors" to within the range, concentrations of other indicator chemicals
may become negligible by default, although it should still be demonstrated
chat these remaining concentrations of other indicator chemicals would not
violate the risk range.
These approaches, however, may not be optimal with regard to engineering
design or cost-effectiveness considerations. Thus, the specific means by
which the target carcinogenic risk is apportioned must be determined on a
site-by-site basis. Worksheet 8-5 illustrates a method for risk apportionment.
-4 -7
This should be done for target risk levels between 10 and 10
It is understood that this approach assumes additivity, while in fact
there may be chemical interactions taking place. Until guidance is issued in
this area, report any information available on chemical interaction among the
substances of interest. In the unlikely event that quantitative data are
available on the degree to which interactions affect risk, they should be used
to adjust risk estimates.
Remember, the total individual risks from all routes of exposure must fall
within the target range. If exposure to a chemical for a given population
occurs by more than one route, the risk must be apportioned among routes in a
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATE!
-------
^. -
-114-
Name of Sice:
Date:
Analvsc:
QC:
WORKSHEET 8-5
APPORTIONING TOTAL TARGET RISK
AMONG MULTIPLE POTENTIAL CARCINOGENS
Target Risk Level: ,10~6*
Remedial Alternative:
Exposure Point:
Limited excavation
Nearest residence
Potential Carcinogen
Target
Risk for Each
Chemical
Potency
Factor -1
(mg/kg/day)
Target CDI
(mg/kg/day)
1.
2.
3.
4,
1.
2.
3.
Benzene
5x10
-7
Creosote
5x10
-7
0.045 (oral)
58 (oral)
1x10
9x10
-9
Total Target Risk =
10
-6
"^Risk level used for illustrative purposes only.
INSTRUCTIONS
Fill in target carcinogenic risk level under consideration.
List all potentially carcinogenic indicator chemicals.
Determine apportioned risk'level for each chemical. Any method can be
used as long as the total equals the target risk level. One method is
equal apportionment, as follows:
Total Target Risk
Number of Potential Carcinogens
Target Risk
for Each Chemical
List the potency factor for the appropriate exposure route for each
chemical (obtained from Exhibit C-4 in Appendix C). Be sure to indicate
the exposure route.
*
December 18, 1985 Draft
* * *
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
-115-
WORKSHEET 8-5 INSTRUCTIONS (continued)
5. Calculate target intake (GDI) for each potential carcinogen:
Target Risk * Potency Factor = Target Chronic Daily Intake
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumptions in developing the data for this worksheet
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * - ICF
INCORPORAT)
-------
-116-
similar manner to the apportionment among multiple chemicals. To determine
where the most efficient reductions in risk can be made, one should first
determine the target concentrations associated with both air and water routes
of exposure independently. Then, the design engineers may refine the
conceptual design iteratively so that the combined exposures from various
routes fall within the stated range. These adjustments should be made based
on the most risky routes of exposure and the most cost-effective way to reduce
total carcinogenic risk from various exposure routes. The following sections
present methods for calculating target concentrations in air and drinking
water.
8.3.2.2 Calculate Target Air Concentrations
Using the following formula, calculate the target long-term concentration
in air for each potential carcinogen:
Target Chronic Daily Intake
Long-term Air Concentration =
Human Intake Factor
\
Use Worksheet 8-6 to calculate target air concentrations for appropriate
chemicals. This should be done for each remedial alternative. The human
intake factor for air is giveti in the worksheet, and the target chronic daily
intake is the intake corresponding to the target risk (see Worksheet 8-5).
8.3.2.3 Calculate Target Drinking Water Concentrations
A population-at-risk can be exposed to contaminated surface or ground
water (or bothj by ingestion of drinking water. Calculate the target
long-term concentration of potential carcinogens in drinking water using the
following formula:
Target Chronic Daily Intake
Long-term Drinking Water Concentration =
Human Intake Factor
Use Worksheet 8-7 to calculate the target concentrations for potential
carcinogens in drinking water. The intake factor is given in the worksheet.
If intakes from water exposure besides drinking water and fish ingestion, such
as dermal exposure or intake of chemicals volatilizing from water, are
important and can be quantified, those intakes should be included by varying
the standard intake assumptions.
This target chronic daily intake level represents total oral exposure.
When drinking water is the only route of oral exposure, then the above
calculation is appropriate. The drinking water concentration may need further
adjustment to account for treatment processes to calculate target ground-water
or surface water concentration. An added complication arises in cases where
there is exposure to the same population through both drinking water and fish
consumption. If the contaminated drinking water is from a different water
source than the fish (i.e., ground water or a different surface water body),
apportion the target oral intake between the two routes of ingestion. Use
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATE
-------
-117-
Name of Site:
Dace:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 8-6
CALCULATION OF TARGET AIR CONCENTRATIONS
Limited excavation
Chemical
Remedial Alternative:
Exposure Point:
Target
GDI
(mg/kg/day)
Nearest residence
Human
Intake Factor
(mVkg/day)
Target Long-Term
Concentration
(mg/m3)
1.
2.
3.
4,
Benzene
N/A
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
N/A
INSTRUCTIONS
List all indicator potential carcinogens with air as an exposure medium.
List the target chronic daily intake from Worksheet 8-5.
1.
3.
Determine the target long-term air concentration using the following
formula:
Human
Target = Target Chronic * Intake
Concentration Daily Intake Factor
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumtions made in developing the data for this worksheet:
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft
ICF
INCORPORATED
-------
-118-
Name of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 8-7
CALCULATION OF TARGET DRINKING WATER CONCENTRATIONS
Remedial Alternative: Limited excavation
Exposure Point: Nearest residence
Target Human Target Long-Term
GDI Intake Factor Concentration
Chemical (mg/kg/day) (1/kg/day) (mg/1)
1. Benzene 1x10 0.029
2. 0.029
3. 0.029
4. 0.029
INSTRUCTIONS
1. List all indicator potential carcinogens with drinking water as an
exposure route.
2. List the target chronic daily intake for each chemical from Worksheets 8-5
or 8-8.
3. Determine the target long-term drinking water concentration using the
following formula:
Human
Target = Target Chronic * Intake
Concentration Daily Intake Factor
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumptions made in developing the data for this worksheet:
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
ICF INCORPORATE!
-------
-119-
Worksheet 3-8 for this apportionment and Worksheet 8-9 to calculate target
surface water concentrations based on intake via fish consumption. The
illustrative apportionment on Worksheet 8-8 assigns equal chronic daily intake
to drinking water and fish consumption. It is important to note that other
apportionments are possible, permitting some tradeoffs between target
concentrations for a drinking water source and surface water where fish are
caught.
If exposure through drinking water and fish consumption originate from tht
same surface water body, consider both intake routes simultaneously in
calculating target surface water concentrations. No apportionment is required
because a single variable, the surface water concentration, controls the total
intake. If there is simultaneous exposure to the population-at-risk via fish
consumption and drinking water ingestion, calculate the target surface water
concentration using the following equation:
Target Target Chronic Daily Intake
Surface Water = ;
Concentration ["(Bioconcentration x ' (Human Intake ~J+ (.'Human Intake Factor
[_ Factor) Factor for Fish) I for Drinking Water)
Record the final target concentrations for each potential carcinogen on
Worksheet 8-10. A separate worksheet should be completed for each target risk
-4 -7
level being assessed between 10 and 10 . Usually three risk levels
should be assessed: the primary target (10 ).and the extremes of the
-4 -7
allowable range (10 and 10 ). In Section 8.4, methods are described to
convert the target environmental concentrations calculated here to allowable
release rates of chemicals from the source.
8.3.3 Summarize Data
Several data collection and calculation tasks have been completed thus far
and now this information should be integrated to assist in the analysis and
refinement of remedial alternatives. For each alt-ernative, this involves
combining the data from Worksheets 8-3 through 8-10. Worksheet 8-11 provides
a format for this data collection.
8.4 ESTIMATE TARGET RELEASE RATES
Using environmental fate and transport models, target exposure point
concentrations from the previous section can be applied to calculate target
release rates at the identified sources of release for some remedial options.
For options such as capping, slurry walls, and excavation, using models to
calculate these releases is not a straightforward process. For other options
such as pumping and treating, air stripping, and other point source treatment
options with graded effectiveness, this step can be used to calculate
allowable release rates. The estimated target chemical releases can
eventually be incorporated into the remedial design. For example, the target
effluent discharge levels from a contaminated ground-water treatment plant can
be used to specify the treatment and removal efficiency of the facility.
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATE!
-------
-120-
N'ame of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 8-8
APPORTIONMENT OF TARGET ORAL INTAKE VIA
DRINKING WATER AND FISH CONSUMPTION*
Chemical
Remedial Alternative:
Exposure Point:
Total Target
Oral GDI
(mg/kg/day)
' Limited excavation
Nearest residence
Intake Via
Drinking Water
fmg/kg/day)
Intake Via Fish
Consumption
(mg/kg/day)
1. Benzene
1x10
5x10
-6
' 5x10
-6
2.
3.
"Not required when contaminated fish and drinking water originate from the
same surface water source (see text for methods in this situation).
INSTRUCTIONS
1. List potential carcinogens which have both drinking water and fish
consumption as exposure routes and for which the fish originate from a
different water source than the drinking water.
2. List total target oral intake for each of these (Worksheet 8-5).
3. List apportioned intakes for both drinking water and fish consumption,
remembering that:
Intake via + Intake via = Total target
drinking water fish consumption oral intake
As a first approximation, intake may be apportioned equally between the
two (as in the example). Engineering and economic considerations may
alter the apportionment on subsequent iterations.
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumptions made in developing the data for this worksheet:
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft
ICF INCORPORATE
-------
-121-
Name of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 8-9
CALCULATION OF TARGET SURFACE WATER CONCENTRATIONS
BASED ON FISH CONSUMPTION
Remedial Alternative:
Limited excavation
Exposure Point: Nearest residence
Chemical
1. Benzene
2 .
3.
4.
Human Intake
Target Factor
GDI (kg fish/
(mg/kg/day) kg/day)
5xlO~6 .00009
. .00009
.00009
. OQ009
Target
Bio- Surface Wate
concentra- Concentratio
tion Factor (mg/1)
5.2 l.lxio"2
-
1.
2.
3.
4.
INSTRUCTIONS
List all indicator potential carcinogens with fish consumption as an
exposure pathway.
List the target chronic daily intake for each chemical (Worksheet 8-5 or
8-8).
Record the bioconcentration factors (Appendix C) for each chemical.
Determine target long-term surface water concentration using the following
formula:
Target
= Target Chronic
Concentration Daily Intake
Human Bioconcen-
Intake x tration
JFactor
Factor
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumptions made in developing the data for this worksheet:
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * *
ICF INCORPORAt
-------
-122-
Name of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 8-10
FINAL TARGET CONCENTRATIONS OF POTENTIAL CARCINOGENS
Target Risk Level: _10~6"
Limited excavation
Exposure
Route
Remedial Alternative:
Exposure Point:
Chemical
Nearest residence
Target
Concentration
Target
Risk
Inhalation
N/A
N'/A
N/A
Drinking water
Benzene
-4
1.7x10 mg/1
2 x 10
-7
Surface water
(fish consumption)
Benzene
-2
1.1x10 mg/1
2 x 10
-7
"'Risk level used for illustrative purposes only.
INSTRUCTIONS
Fill in target risk level.
List chemicals that account for exposures by each route.
1.
2.
4.
List target concentrations from air route (Worksheet 8-6), drinking water
route (Worksheet 8-7), and fish consumption route (Worksheet 8-9).
List target risk associated with each chemical concentration from
Worksheet 8-5.
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumptions made in developing data for this worksheet:
December 18, 1985 Draft
* * *
ICF INCORPORATE!
-------
WORKSHEET 8-U
SUMMARY 01 [XPOSURE PA1HWAYS, EXPOSURE POINIS,
AND 1ARCET CONCENTRATIONS
Remedial Alternative: Ground-water pump ing/t rea iinent
Name of Site:
"Date:
Ana iyst:
QC:
Exposure Point
Number of
People
Source
Exposure
Route
1 iansport
Medium
Target Concent ra 11 (ins
a (. Po i nt of Human fxpi);,nre
Chemicals " target Concuntration
Nearest group of
residences on private
wells
100
Effluent from
water treat-
ment ( re-
in,) ec{.edl
digestion of
drinking water
Ground water
!. Benzene
2. " .
3.
lj. __
5.
J^/xJP.ziL fl!U/ !
1,
2.
3.
5l
c
r/
5
I'
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Record exposure pathway information from Worksheet 8-3.
2. Record all potential indicator carcinogens for each pathway and their target exposure point coneentrations (see
Worksheet 8-10).
ASSIJMIM IONS
I ist all major assumptions made in developing data for this worksheet.
'1
(0
o
tt
-------
^ i .> c. x _/:. r e c - i v-e
-124-
Estimation of release rates requires the use of environmental fate and
transport models. A great deal of uncertainty is inherent in the use of
models, and it should be understood that the values generated by the models
represent "ball park" estimates rather than precise values.
8.4.1 Predict Environmental Fate and Transport
Because the concentration of contaminants changes as substances move from
release sources to exposure points, environmental fate and transport must be
assessed to project allowable releases. Each exposure pathway will have an
identified medium of interest through which the contaminant travels, such as
chemicals released to the subsurface that move through ground water to a well.
For each potential carcinogen moving through a specific transport medium,
the output of this step will be a target release from the source, based on
public health considerations at each exposure point. Using the pathways
already identified for each chemical, systematically consider the extent of
chemical fate and transport in each environmental medium. By doing so, the
predominant mechanisms of chemical transport, transfer, and transformation can
be considered and less significant processes disregarded.
Refer to the Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual for details on modeling
environmental fate and transport for air, ground water, and surface water.
Remember, in developing design criteria, you will be using "C", the
concentration, to solve for "R", the release rate of a substance (mass/time).
Some of the packaged computer models cannot be used for this because the
software is designed only to determine concentration. Examine the chosen
model carefully to ensure that it will work in this case. Otherwise, you may
have to determine the release rate iteratively. That is, one could
arbitrarily select a release rate and solve for concentration, repeating this
step until the correct exposure point concentration is determined. The
release rates calculated in this process can be used as design goals for the
remedial alternatives of interest.
8.4.2 Summarize Data
Use Worksheet 8-12 to present the average allowable release rates for each
chemical and each source modeled for each remedial alternatives.
8.5 ASSESS CHRONIC RISK FOR NONCARCINOGENS
Now that remedial alternatives have been considered to reduce estimated
carcinogenic risk to acceptable target levels, each alternative must be
checked to ensure that it reduces noncarcinogenic risk to acceptable levels.
This is done similarly to the quantitative analysis for noncarcinogens for the
no-action alternative (Chapters 3 through 7).
Release sources and exposure routes for each remedial alternative have
already been determined on Worksheets 8-1 and 8-2. Significant exposure
points for each alternative have also been determined on Worksheet 8-3.
Contaminant releases should be obtained or estimated from the remedial design
December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATE
-------
2.
3.
4.
-125-
Name of Sice:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 8-12
LONG-TERM TARGET RELEASES
Remedial Alternative: Limited excavation
Exposure Point: Nearest residence
Long-Term
Chemical Exposure Pathway Target Release
1. Benzene Site volatilization to air 0.00027 kg/day
INSTRUCTIONS
1. List indicator potential carcinogens.
2. Using Worksheet 8-2 indicate all the pathway/release sources identified
for each chemical.
3. List the long-term target release rates calculated for each combination of
chemical and pathway/release source, using the target concentrations
listed in Worksheet 8-10. Release rates should be listed in units of mass
per time (e.g. kg/day or Ibs/hr).
ASSUMPTIONS
List all assumptions made in developing the data for this worksheet:
* » * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
ICF INCORPORATE
-------
-5'wr.R Directive 3_o5.--l
-126-
specif ications . These are then converted to environmental concentrations
using chemical fate and transport models as described in Section 4.2. Human
intakes for the environmental concentrations are calculated as described in
Chapter 5. Worksheet 8-13 should be used to. summarize the release and
exposure data.
A Chronic Hazard Index should be calculated, as described in Section 7.1,
to determine risk from noncarcinogens . Assessment of short-term risks is
discussed in the next section. Remember, the equation for the Hazard Index
is, for this situation:
HI = CDI^AICj, + CDI2/AIC2 +-... GDI
where GDI . = Chronic daily intake for the i toxicant
AIC . = Acceptable intake for chronic exposure for the i
toxicant (noncarcinogenic effects only).
Again, if the Hazard Index is less than one, no adverse effects are expected.
If the value is near or greater than unity, the toxicants should be considered
separately, according to the health endpoints they produce.- If -unity is
exceeded for any health endpoint, consider revising the design to reduce the
risk from noncarcinogens -to a lower level. Worksheet 8-14 should be used to
summarize the intake and toxicity information used to calculate the
noncarcinogenic risk. Worksheets from Chapters 4 and 5 may be useful to
organize this information.
8.6 ASSESS POTENTIAL SHORT-TERM HEALTH EFFECTS OF REMEDIAL
ALTERNATIVES
After remedial alternatives have been analyzed for chemical risks, the
potential short-term public health effects of each alternative should be
considered. Short-term health risks should not be used as a selection
criterion for remedial alternatives, but should be used to determine
appropriate management practices during implementation of the remedial
action. In other words, if predicted short-term concentrations are likely to
exceed short-term toxicity thresholds in the process of constructing or
implementing a remedial alternative, certain management practices should be
employed to reduce the potential risks. For example, a remedial option at a
site may involve excavating and removing contaminated soil. In the absence of
precautionary measures, fugitive dust generation by heavy equipment and
remedial activities may create a short-term health hazard. These and other
temporary sources of chemical release associated with construction and
implementation of a remedy are not grounds for rejecting the remedial
alternative. However, management practices, such as the temporary relocation
of potentially exposed populations, should be considered to mitigate the
health risks associated with temporary sources of release.
Data on acceptable short-term exposures are often difficult to obtain, and
a qualitative analysis of short-term health effects from remedial actions may
be all that is possible. Also remember that the remedial action itself, in
addition to the initial implementation of an action, may increase short-term
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATED
-------
Name of Site:
""Dale:
Analyst:
QC:
3.
WORKSHEET 8-13
SUMMARY IAIHI: IXPOSURE TO NONCAHCINOGINS
Remedial AI terna 11 vo: Ground-wa te r pump i IK)/ t rea tinunt
ChemicaI
Release
Source
1. Chlorobenzene
2. Lead
Effluent from
water treatment
Pathway
Transport Medium
Surface
Surface water
Exposure Point
Re lease
Rate
Long-Term Concent rat ion
at Exposure Point
Publ_i_c drtnkiny liQq/day
Waiter
. 6 x 10-6 nig/ I
£klb.Lic_
Wa
gUOOq/day
INStRUCTIONS
1. 'List all nonca re i nogen ic indicator chemicals.
2. For each indicator list its release source, transpoit medium and exposure point.
353. list the release rate and appropriate units for uacli indicator.
T| k. Calculate and record the long-term concentration at I In; exposure point.
ASSUMPTIONS
list all majo'r assumptions made in developing data lor this worksheet:
n
iO
r,
-------
Name of Si 10:
Date:
Analyst:
qcT
WORKSHEET 8-114
SUMMARY IABIE: CHRONIC INTAKES AND RISKS FROM NONCARCINOCCNS
Remedial Alternative: Limited excavation
Chemica 1
1. Chlorobenzene
2. Lead
3.
«». __________
Chronic Da i ly
Intake (mg/kg/day)
1.6 x 10-6
_JJ.0 x 10-3
Exposure Point: Pub I ic clr inking water supply and f i sh j n. List the health endpoirit for each nonca re i nogen ic indicator.
c
u
s
p:
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumptions made in developing the data for this worksheet:
-------
-129-
exposure at a site. For example, a pump and treat alternative for
ground-water contamination may increase the concentration of volatiles in the
air near a site until the clean-up at the site is completed, which could be
several years.
Public health evaluation of short-term effects is similar to the preceding
evaluation for chronic noncarcinogenic effects. However, because new
exposures are possible, the exposure assessment must be reviewed. Review
Section 4.2 to assist in identifying possible human exposure points and in
characterizing sensitive human populations. Exhibit 8-3 lists some common
types of release sources at sites during remedial action. Worksheet 8-15
should be completed to document potential short-term exposure pathways.
Environmental concentrations of the indicator chemicals at the site for
the potential exposures must now be determined. Review Section 4.2 for the
details of this process. Releases of chemicals will probably have to be
estimated. Use any technical information available to generate a best
approximation. Environmental fate and transport should be modeled from the
release to obtain environmental concentrations. Intakes are calculated from
the environmental concentration. Review Chapter 5 for the details of this
process.
Short-term chemical concentrations are compared to the AIS, the acceptable
intake of contaminants for subchronic exposures, to assess health risk. A
Hazard Index should be calculated, as described in Section 7.1. Use Worksheet
8-16 to assess the short-term noncarcinogenic risk. If noncarcinogenic risk
exceeds unity, management practices to mitigate or eliminate releases must be
devised.
In this chapter, information from the baseline public health evaluation
has been used as input to the analysis and refinement of remedial
alternatives. For source control measures, best engineering judgment and
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements were used to refine
remedial alternaLtlye_§^__Fqr management of migration alternatives, applicable
or relevant and appropriate requirements and health-based design goals for
potential carcinogens were used as inputs to the design process. Predicted
exposure levels for noncarcinogens were checked to ensure that they would not
be above their thresholds of safety. Short-term effects of remedial
alternatives were also considered. All that remains to be done for the public
health evaluation is organizing this information for use by the site
decision-makers .
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICFINCORPORATEI
-------
-130-
EXHIBIT 8-3
COMMON TEMPORARY CHEMICAL RELEASE SOURCES
DURING IMPLEMENTATION OF A REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE
Release
Medium
Release
Mechanism
Source of Released Materials
Air
Surface water
Volatilization
Fugitive dust
generation
Direct effluent
discharge
Contaminated deep soil (during
excavation)
Water/wastewater treatment facilities
Contaminated surface soil
Contaminated deep soil (during
excavation)
Treatment of contaminated runoff
Treatment of contaminated ground water
Treatment of leachate
Ground water
Site runoff
Land application
of effluents
Contaminated surface soil
Treatment of various waste streams
Soil
Underground injec-
tion of effluents
Land application
Treatment of various waste streams
Treatment of various waste streams
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
ICF INCORPORATE!
-------
WORKSHEET 8-1&
MAIRIX 01 POHNIIAL SIIORT-1ERM IXPOSURL PATHWAYS
Remedial Alternative: Ground-water pumping/treatmeni
Name of Site:
OaTeT
Analyst:
QCl
Release
Med i urn
Release Source
Exposure Point
Air
Exposure Route
Number of
People
Re lease
Rate
Ground water
o
1.
2.
3.
"-
Surface water
Soil
InttfQasfe'L! volume of Pijbjic (jijnkiug
contaminated surface_ water intake, ? km
water resulting from dowiistieam i'rum
groundwater treatment discharge point
3^000
I ow
INSIRUCTIONS
List all potential short-term release sources.
Describe the nature of the exposure point for the maximum exposed individual ami its location with respect to release source
(e.g., nearest residence to volatilization release source, 300 feet NW of site).
List exposure route: inhalation, oral, or dermal.
Record the number of people potentially exposed.
Record the expected potential release rate.
ASSUHPIiONS
list all major assumptions made in developing the data for this worksheet:
-------
Name of Si te:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 8-16
SUMMARY TABLE: SUBCHRONIC INTAKES AND RISKS
Remedial Alternative: Limited excavation Exposure Point: Public drinking water supply and fish maestuin
Chemica 1
1 . Chlorobenzene
2. Lead
3.
Subchronic Da i ly
Intake (mg/kg/day)
1,2 x 10-5
2.8 x 10-14
AIS
(my/kg/day) SDI/AIS Heal th Endpomt
l.*j x 10-2 8.6 x 10-5 Nervous system
l.i» x 10-2 2.0 x 10-2 Blood and nervous system
«t.
5.
1O1AL (Hazard Index) - 0.02
o
INSIRUCTIONS
1. List all indicator chemicals.
2. List the subchronic daily intake (SOI) that has been calculated for each noncarcinogenic indicator.
3. List the AIS (acceptable intake for subchronic exposure). AIS values for some chemicals are listed in Exhibit C-6
in Appendix C.
4. Calculate the SOI:AIS ratio. Sum for all indicators to calculate the Hazard Index.
5. List the health endpoint for each indicator.
ASSUMPT K)y§
List all major assumptions made in developing data Tor this worksheet:
-------
-133-
CHAPTER 9
SUMMARIZING THE PUBLIC HEALTH EVALUATION
At this point in the public health evaluation process, the following
analyses have been completed:
Assessment-of the baseline health risks posed by a
site, and
Assessment of the proposed remedial alternatives based
on applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
and, for management of migration alternatives and soil
excavation procedures, health-based design goals.
The results of the public health evaluation should be reported to site
decision-makers for consideration in the remedy selection proess. For
.fund-financed remed-ial investigations/feasibility studies, this reporting
requirement will typically be fulfilled by a public health evaluation chapter
in the feasibility study. A separate handbook has been distributed for
enforcement-lead sites; in general, the principles of public health evaluation
for those sites wi-ll be similar.
This chapter provides guidance for summarizing the results of a Superfund
public health evaluation. In general the report should provide a rationale
for the level of detail of the analysis, a description of each of the steps
discussed in Chapters 3 through 7, and a summary of the analysis of remedial
alternatives. The worksheets listed in Exhibit 9-1 (or their equivalent)
should be a part of the public health evaluation report.15-1
It is important to note- that the narrative component of all public health
evaluations plays a very important role. The narrative should be used to
clearly explain the data used in the evaluation and the results of the
evaluation. Recognizing that public health evaluation reports may be reviewed
by the public and especially by members of the exposed or potentially exposed
population, care must be taken to explain the major steps and the results of
the evaluation in terms that are easily understood by the general public.
In addition to the narrative report and worksheets, the two summary
exhibits described in this chapter (or their equivalent) should be included as
a key part of the quantitative analysis report: Exhibit 9-2 for the baseline
analysis and Exhibit 9-3 for remedial alternatives. Both exhibits require
qualitative and quantitative information. The qualitative entries are as
important as the numbers and, in some cases, perhaps more important;
consequently, be sure to complete the columns accurately and completely.
1SJ Other worksheets from Chapters 3 through 8 may be included as an
appendix to the feasibility study.
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATE!
-------
-134-
EXHIBIT 9-1
WORKSHEETS THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED
IN A PUBLIC HEALTH EVALUATION SUMMARY
Title
Number
Scoring for Indicator Chemical Selection: Koc Values
and Concentrations in Various Environmental Media
Scoring for Indicator Chemical Selection: Evaluation of
Exposure Factors
Matrix of Potential Exposure Pathways
Contaminant Concentrations at Exposure Points
Comparison of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Require-
ments to Estimated Exposure Point Concentrations
Comparison of Other Federal Criteria, Advisories, and Guidances
and State Standards to Estimated Exposure Point Concentrations
Pathways Contributing to Total Exposure
Total Subchr'onic Daily Intake (SDI) Calculation
Total Chronic Daily- Intake (GDI) Calculation
Calculation of Subchronic Hazard Index
Calculation of Chronic Hazard Index
Calculation of Risk from Potential Carcinogens
Matrix of Potential Exposure Pathways for Remedial
Alternatives
Summary of Exposure Pathways, Exposure Points, and
Target Concentrations
Summary Table: Chronic Intakes and Risks from
N'oncarc inogens
Summary Tables: Subchronic Intakes and Risks
3-1
3-5
4-2
4-4
4-5
4-6'
5 -5
5-6
5-7
7-1
7-2
7-3
8-2
8-11
8-14
8-16
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * *
ICF
INCORPORATE
-------
I-XIII BIT 9-2
SUMMARY OF THE BASELINE PUBLIC HEALTH EVALUATION
Indicator Chemicals: '
1
1
1
Human 1
Exposure 1 Exposure
Point a/ 1 Pathway £/
1
I
1. II.
1
1
I
1
1
2. II.
1
1
1
I
1
1
1 1
(Requirements/Or Her tal Potential Carcinoqenlc Risk I
Number 1
or People 1
Potentially 1 Compared
Exposed cl \ Al
1
1
1. II.
1 2.
13.
l«.
15.
1
1. II.
12.
11.
1 «.
15.
1
1 1 . 1
1 Standard I
|concentra-| disk
Itlon ratio! Estimate
1 e/l tj
\ \
1 1
II. II .
12. 1
13. 1
M. 1
15. 1
1 1
II. II.
12. 1
13. 1
M. 1
15. 1
1 1
1 Welqht-of-l Chronic
dominant I Evidence 1 Hazard
Chemicals I for Don. 1 Index
g_/ 1 Chem. h/ 1 I/
1 1
1 1
1. II. 11.
2. 12. 1 .
3. h. 1
1 . 1
1 1
1 1
1 . 11. 11 .
2. 12. 1
1. 13. 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1
Noncarclnogenlc Risk
1 1 Severity I
1 Dominant I Rating I Subchrontc
1 Chemicals) for Dom. I Hazard
1 J/ I Chem. k/ | Index J/
1 1 ~ 1
1 1 1
II . 11. II.
12. |2. 1
13. 13. I
1 1 1
1 1 ' 1
1 1 1
II . 11 . II.
12. |2. I
13. 13. I
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
Significant
Sources of
Uncertainty
/
I-
1.
Cements n/
1.
1.
1
£/ List each human exposure point evaluated.
b_/ Include Information on release source, transport medium, and exposure route.
cl List the population potentially exposed for each exposure point. Nearby populations also warrant llatinq separately tf they are large or especially
sensitive.
d/ List all requirements/criteria that were compared to ambient concentration values for indicator chemicals. Record the chemical and its numerical value,
and indicate whether It is an applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement or other criterion.
e/ Record the ratio between the projected exposure point concentration ami the requirement criterion.
JY List the total potential carcinogenic risk for each exposure point. Include best estimate and upper bound estimate, If available.
gY List the dominant chemicals that contribute most to the carcinogenic risk at the site. These chemicals may dominate because of high toxicity, high
concentration, or large quantity.
h/ Height-of-evldence Is a qualitative, graded scale based on the Kl'A classification scheme, to capture differences In amount and quality of toxicity data
(see Exhibit D-2 and D-3). It should be reported as sufficient human, limited human, sufficient animal, insufficient.
I/ Chronic Hazard Index Is calculated for all noncarcinogenlc indicator chemicals. If unity Is exceeded, segregate chemicals by their health endpoint a and
Hat separately for each endpoint. Include the health endpoint and the hazard index. Report best estimate and upper bound estimate. If available.
\/ The chemicals that contribute most significantly to noncarcinogenlc risk, whether due to high toxicity, high concentration, or large quantity.
jt/ * qualitative, graded scale to capture differences In health endpoint severities (see Exhibit 0-1).
\J Subchronlc Hazard Index Is calculated for short-term exposures for all Indicator chemicals.
/ Sources of uncertainty for the assessment process may Include data qaps. Incomplete toxicity Information, sample variation, uncertainty due to modeling.
ft/ Comments may be necessary to explain assumptions, difficulties, results, or conclusions relatinq to the assessment process. Where available, background
concentrations should be noted. Orqanoleptic (taste and odor) thresholds may be relevant to compare to environmental concentrations and toxicity values.
O
in
O
CD
o
rt
N>
CO
-------
OSWER Directive 9285.4-1
u.
c
o
I £
» 5
ic <
01
I
Q
C
U
u
n
a.
1S
6-
1
Conunenta k/
~
Significant Sourcea
of uncertainty J/
~
Short-term
Risk
Summary i/
1
i Nonca rci nogen i c
Risk Summary h/*
i
4)
01 JV
- c c
a- a. «
- -r "
0 k.
c- u u
i
TJI ijet
"oncei.t rat i onb
<_/
I X
a oi I
a - 01
X 3 4J
arc
a. I u
< X s
Indicator
'hemicals d/
^
Potent ia
Exposure
Pathways c
"
Si
13
41
-
~~1<^TU-J _ (N r- « u- vO -
- T -. Vi -
-^ ^ j
-. J <« » u- VO -
« tN
>r chemicals.
tj
u
ents available
i>
requir
41
W
X
41
U
"S.
c.
"
-
"3.
a
c
01
* Column doe
4J >
*- » 0
o a
a * TJ
t* c
u 41 «
41 4J 15
> 3 4J «
J; a .a « u
o » -< 13 a
S i u 2
' C 41
9 ° =
* O 4J U
U >. o -
*4 U 4J 4J
-; o m 13 a.
Q. T J= c 4)
0. « 4J 19 -1
« 4J 0
IQ 01 » c
« o -i 01 a
> « 41 0*
fl 41 U -4 L,
£ U -. 4J C
c s
O 41 U 3
* T3 j; o
« i u - m
u > <4» a
-. 41 41 uw a
§i j: ~* g
^ 4J TJ 0
j= 0 w
O 'O 1 41 CT a
41 u 13 c
U > 01 £ 3 ._ oi
JJ O IB ^* CJ 41 fl
fl > U 41 C 13 n
u e -i » M o 8-
-" - S E
a 5 < c
c 01 j: a. . . . c-
- C U U 4V 4J 01 -
0 C C 01
^ «4 U414I «4 *H14)
-1 *J ore o T3U-3
|Q « 4J4J4) O.41*
"^ in . tj 4J E *j
01 a. -*4I3 41 1T.Z4.
41 0 ^ 4J rr - o
-> Q.CC8.C S 0
C -4)k- .-» CA-
ST _ -. 41
C UQ4I V 3J4IT
r~ -OOOI.C4I jc
1 >» 4J j; U 4J -
o * fl c 4: ^ -ji
71 51 14. T3 .2 .-0 ^;
" *j ~ c c -o 01
C C C~ fl 4I.*4!"*
4J -^ 414141 TTlfc-v.
0 S > 3 X fl -
» Q. 141 01 CU014.
I nj T3 ,TJ c n
O 41 < > c g u. C 0*
3 ( 01 41 41 31 D
g 01 5 .C T3 ^4J3J
0 Q UW4J w ^
W U. fl c U w T
*. x 4i4Jw N ggcc
4I-U414I 1 C-CC'O
41 fl 51 4J ^: c c
(T --"WC 010)
C 01 --'54) .C ^ u -
^3 D 2.*J 4J '^_CC
3 k; 1' Jl .£ -C.JT
-^ T-.LU1V1~
T = roi - ^ = C:
41 3 a - ? c C -
.1 »- 3-4-0 2 -r;
- 41J-_U ,» - _ 1
oi ; -c-fl - - =
H'^ U^-13"3 ",T-
ji *j> a.^jr jisc-z
U *4J-^^J 4i>» i^r
- ^ ^ - i s ? - 3 v - ;
C UOJO.V 0, ClC.;
4: C4jC.*j*-j:"7 c = -
tr - fl c e u - - i. 2 i
C S « iuu> S '" -
C U >JJ- "3 £ " £
cj3icznuo C^-^-cz '_
UwCC 14.4!W3^ -
u c - u ^ i- i- 3i-« -:
jo»j oiS'a -e i.3ii!-^
ffl^s1"!'-!*- -«: -T -
-C41 4-CC 0 01 : T
C-41 ..41^ 3 X 0.
3-^41W 3 '4J »3 C~"
»)TMOOi«Oj5wXS'S t
C4lCk.i4.> HJCO3- - -
G w 0 3 ia 0 2. ^ c 51 > =
(U U14JG --fli!JI£-
-» "C c ? "« c u « i- o c ^" '.* ~
U12.3C-J5 *Jll«NOW w-
30 C = >*.U> flc - i =
guco c-Uwfj*.*" c*-r
i^-ptj-^i-^rtj C"*.-
jj^-u 1 aicaJf/iu-t**^*^
aj 3JW^-DOi--OC>,U)s
u^S C ;
jrco,1*-'-) C-" w«c -.A
«uwc- ou»£ri.ifc.si
41-41 S^U-4- CJ 1 ^^
4-C^41JT*Jj2'^ 4l-»-231
flflW'CU 4JCrj1Ti4.-ii =
u > 3 .. u 3 - V, , i
iaQiJ»«4j4i4j 0 " e u .. B k.
Ci.^*ylUOl4J01 UO9*3t32^
4I41-«C c-^4lC:.-olC 5~
u*wJ»^[d^i«ce»oicvi'w3
X XXXXX XX XXX
-------
jivM^K w i receive ^_;5.--l
-137-
9.1 SUMMARIZE THE BASELINE PUBLIC HEALTH EVALUATION
Complete Exhibit 9-2 to provide a summary table for the baseline public
health evaluation. First, list the indicator chemicals from Worksheet 3-5
which were used in the evaluation. Then describe the significant exposure
points associated with the site. Describe where they are in relation to the
site and how exposure might occur there. Next, discuss the exposure pathway
qualitatively. List the release source, the transport media (e.g., ground
water, surface water, air), and exposure routes (e.g., oral, inhalation,
dermal) for each significant exposure point. The exposure pathway summary
should be a combination of information from Worksheets 4-1 and 4-2. Also,
from Worksheet 4-2, record the number of people at each significant exposure
point and describe any other important populations that are nearby. For
example, a town which draws water from a well down gradient from the point of
maximum ground-water exposure or a school near the peak air exposure point
might be included.
The next major topic of the exhibit is a summary of ambient concentration
requirements that are relevant and appropriate or applicable to the site. You
should list all requirements that were considered and compared to predicted
ambient concentrations. In the next column, list any requirements that were
violated. For this column you should include the type of requirement (e.g.,
Safe Drinking Water Act MCLs), the name of the chemicals which violated the
requirements (e.g., arsenic) and the numerical value of the requirements .-
(e.g., 0.05 mg/1). This information can be found on Worksheet 4-5.
Information about carcinogenic risk-will be summarized next. First, enter
the total carcinogenic risk due to all potential carcinogens. This risk value
can be found on Worksheet 7-3. If possible include some measure of the
reliability of this information (e.g., 95% confidence level, standard
deviation). At many sites one, two, or three chemicals will be responsible
for most of the risk at the site because of high toxicity, large projected
releases, or high concentrations. List these especially important chemicals
here. The weight-of-evidence rating, a qualitative scale based on the amount,
relevance, and quality of the toxicity data, should be included. This value
can be found in AppendixG~or on Worksheet 3-2.
Health risk due to noncarcinogens should be summarized in the next
section. From Worksheet 7-2, list the chronic hazard index calculated for all
noncarcinogens. If the index exceeds unity and was recalculated for each
health endpoint, that information should be included. For noncarcinogens, as
for carcinogens, one or two chemicals may dominate the risks. This (or these)
chemical(s) should be listed along with their severity rating, a qualitative
scale indicating the severity of their health endpoint (the severity rating
scale is given in Exhibit D-l). Also, list the subchronic hazard index
calculated for short-term exposures for all indicator noncarcinogens. This
index can be found on Worksheet 7-1. Subchronic hazards may require
qualitative description.
Sources of uncertainty, such as data gaps, incomplete toxicity
information, sample variation, and uncertainty contributed by modeling, that
were encountered in a particular assessment should be discussed briefly. If
ranges of uncertainty or confidence levels for particular circumstances are
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATID
-------
-138-
known, they should be included. Finally, any comments that are necessary to
explain assumptions, difficulties, results, or conclusions relating to the
assessment should be written in the final column.
Qrganoleptic (taste and odor) thresholds should be included if they are
known because they may affect consumption. Background concentration may be
important for some sites. Timing of exposures should also be noted if it can
be determined.
3.2 SUMMARIZE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
Exhibit 9-3 provides a format for a table to summarize remedial
alternatives. For each site, relevant information should be provided for all
remedial alternatives being considered and should include alternatives
-4 -7
spanning a carcinogenic risk range of 10 to 10 . Several remedies
under consideration for a site can be included on a single summary table as
long as they correspond to the same risk level.
Describe"the remedial action under consideration in the first column of
Exhibit 9-3. This action might be excavation, removal, a pump-and-treat
remedy, or air stripping. Next, qualitatively summarize the significant
potential exposures pathways. The exposure pathways might be an air release
from air stripping towers or migration of contaminated ground water. Sources
of contaminants, the transport media and routes, possible exposure points,
timing and amount of releases should be included. The exposure pathway column
should be a synthesis of information appearing in Worksheets 8-1, 8-2, 8-3,
and 8-11.
The indicator chemicals used in the assessment of a particular remedy
should be listed in the next column.' Any applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements should also be listed. Include both the identity of
the requirement and its numerical value in .this column. Next to this, list
target concentrations for potentially carcinogenic indicator chemicals.
Values for each chemical and each transport medium of concern have been
summarized on Worksheet 8-10 and should be recorded here also. In the next
column, list the individual target risks due to each potential carcinogen.
These target risks were the bases for the calculated target concentrations in
the previous column. The target risk column should display how carcinogenic
risk has been apportioned among the chemicals at the site, as determined on
Worksheet 8-10.
Noncarcinogenic risk should be summarized in the next column. Results of
the chronic hazard index calculation should be included and risks from each
remedial alternative should be described. If no risks are expected, that
should be noted also. Information on noncarcinogenic risks can be found on
Worksheets 8-13 and 8-14. Short-term risks should also be qualitatively
described. Identify each and briefly discuss how they can be managed at the
site. These risks were identified on Worksheet 8-16.
The possible effects and public health consequences of remedy failure,
discussed in Section 8.9, should be summarized in the next column. Any
information concerning the significant sources of uncertainty involved in the
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * *
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
-139-
calculations, assumptions, or data inputs for the design goals portion of the
risk assessment should be discussed next. Comments about assumptions,
difficulties, results, and conclusions should be written in the final column.
The process of public health evaluation is complete when all remedies
under consideration, including the no-action alternative, have been
summarized. Site decision-makers can use this information along with other
elements of the feasibility study (e.g. engineering reliability of
alternatives, life-cycle costs, and cost-effectiveness) in the selection of a
remedial alternative.
December 18 j 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATE
-------
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * 1CF INCORPORATE
-------
A-l
APPENDIX A
Anderson, E. , Browne, N., Duletsky, S., and Warn, T., 1984. Development
of Statistical Distributions or Ranges of Standard Factors Used in Exposure
Assessments, Draft Report. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C., Contract No. 68-02-3510.
Callahan, M.A., Slimak, M.W., Gabel, N.W., May, I.P., Fowler, C.F., Freed,
J.R., Jennings, P., Durfee, R.L., Whitmore, F.C., Maestri, B., Mabey, W.R.,
Holt, B.R., and Gould, C., 1979. Water-Related Environmental Fate of 129
Priority Pollutants, Volumes I and II, Office of Water Planning and Standards,
Office of Water and Waste Management, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., EPA Contract Nos. 68-01-3852 and 68-01-3867.
Cowherd, C., Muleski, G.E., Englehart, P.J., and Gillette, D.A., 1984.
Rapid Assessment of Exposure to Particulate Emissions from Surface
Contamination Sites. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
Contract No. 68-03-3116.
Cupitt, L.-T. , 1980. Fate of Toxic and Hazardous Materials in the Air
Environment. Environmental Sciences Research Laboratory, ORD, U.S. EPA, PB
80-22/948.
Dobbs, R.A., and Cohen, J.M., 1980. Carbon Adsorption Isotherms for Toxic
Organics, Wastewater Research Division. Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA-600/8-80-023.
Donigian, A.S., Lo, T.Y.R., and Shanahan, E.W.,.1983. Rapid Assessment of
Potential Ground Water Contamination Under Emergency Response Conditions.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., Contract No.
68-03-3116.
Food and 4)r-ug Administration-^ 1970. Radiological Health Handbook: Bureau
of Radiological Health. Rockville, Maryland.
Freeze, R. and Cherry, J., 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey.
GCA Corporation, 1982. Evaluation and Selection of Models for Estimating
Air Emissions from Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C.
Grain, C.F., 1982. Vapor Pressure. Chapter 14 in Lyman et al., Handbook
of Chemical Property Estimation Methods, McGraw-Hill, 1982.
International Committee on Radiologic Protection (ICRP), 1975. Report of
the Task Group on Reference Man. Pergamon Press, New York.
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
ICF INCORPORATE!
-------
wo»iA jireciive _ 3 ;.--..
A-2
Jaber, H.M., Mabey, W.R., Liu, A.T., Chou, T.W., Johnson, H.L., Mill, T. ,
Podoll, R.T., and Winterle, J.S., 1984. Data Acquisition for Environmental
Transport and Fate Screening. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment;
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA 600/6-84-009.
Kenaga, E.E. and Goring, C.A.I., 1978_ Relationship Between Water
Solubility, Soil-Sorption, Octanol/Water Partitioning, and Bioconcentration of
Chemicals in Biota. In: Aquatic Toxicology, ASTM STP 707, J.G. Eaton, P.R.
Parrish, and A.C. Hendricks, Eds. American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, PA.
Kimbrough, R.D., Falk, H., Stehr, P., and Fries, G., 1984. Health -
implications of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD) contamination of
residential soil. J. Tox. Environ. Health 14:47-93.
Loucks, D., Stedinger, J., and Haith, D., 1981. Water Resource Systems
Planning and Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Lyman.'W.J., Reehl, W.F., and Rosenblatt, D.H., 1982. Handbook of
Chemical Property Estimation Methods. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
Lyman, W.J., 1982a. Solubility in,Water. Chapter 2 in Lyman et al.,
Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation Methods, McGraw7Hill, 1982.
Lyman, W.J., 1982b. Adsorption Coefficient for Soils and Sediments.
CRapter 4 in Lyman et al., Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation Methods,
McGraw-Hill, 1982.
Mabey, W.R., Smith, J.H., Podoll, R.T., Johnson, H.L., Mill, T. , Chou,
T.W., Gates, J., Patridge, I.W., Jaber, H., and Vandenberg, D., 1982. Aquatic
Fate Process Data for Organic Priority Pollutants. Prepared by SRI
International, EPA Contract Nos. 68-01-3867 and 68-03-2981, prepared for
Monitoring and Data Support Division, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, Washington, D.C.
Maki, A.W., Dickson, K.L., and Cairns, J., eds., 1980. Biotransforma-
tion and Fate of Chemicals in Aquatic Environments. American Society for
Microbiology, Washington, DC.
Menzer, R.E. and Nelson, J.O., 1980. Water and Soil Pollutants. Chapter
25 in Doull, J,, Klaassen, C.D., and Amdur, M.D., Toxicology, MacMillan, 1980.
Mills, W.B.,.Dean, J.D., Porcella, D.B. et al., 1982. Water Quality
Assessment: A Screening Procedure for Toxic and Conventional Pollutants,
Parts One and Two. Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Athens, GA. EPA 600/6-82-004 a and b.
National Academy of Sciences, 1977. Drinking Water and Health. NRC
Press, Washington, D.C.
Nelson, D.W., Elrick, D.E., Tangi, K.K.,-Kral, D.M., and Hawkins, S.L.,
eds., 1983. Chemical Mobility and Reactivity in Soil Systems: Proceedings of
a symposium sponsored by the American Society of Argonomy and the Soil Science
Society of America. American Society of Agronomy, The Soil Science Society of
America, Madison, Wisconsin.
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
A-3
NIOSH, 1980. Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances. DHHS
Publication No. 80-111.
Tabak, H.H., Quave, S.A., Mashni, C.I., and Barth, E.F., 1981. Biodegrad-
ability studies with organic priority pollutant compounds. J. Water Pollution
Control Fed. 53(10):1503-1518.
Turner, D.B., 1970. Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates. AP-26,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina.
U.S.. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985a. Guidance on Feasibility
Studies Under CERCLA. ' Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington,
D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985b. Guidance on Remedial
Investigations Under CERCLA. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985c. National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan: Final Rule. Federal Register
50(224):47912-47979.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985d. Proposed Guidelines for the
Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures. Federal Register
S0(6):1170-1176.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1984a. Proposed Gu-idelines for
Carcinogenic Risk Assessment. Federal Register 49(227)':46294-46301.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1984b. Proposed Guidelines for
Exposure Assessment. Federal Register 49(227):46304-46312.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1984c. Proposed Guidelines for
Mutagenicity Risk Assessment. Federal Register 49(227):46313-46321.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1984d. Proposed Guidelines for the
Health Assessment of Suspect Developmental Toxicants. Federal Register
49(227):46323-46331.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1984e. Risk Analysis of TCDD
Contaminated Soil. Prepared by the Exposure Assessment Group, Office of
Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C., EPA-600/8-84-031.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1980. Water Quality Criteria
Documents: Availability. Federal Register 45:79318-79379.
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF
INCORPORATE!
-------
APPENDIX B
GLOSSARY
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCO«POltt-re
-------
irecc ive ?_i5.--;
3-1
EXHIBIT B-1
LIST OF FREQUENTLY USED ACRONYMS
Acronym
Meaning
ACL Alternate Concentration.Limit
ADI Allowable Daily Intake
AIC Acceptable Intake for Chronic Exposures
AIS Acceptable Intake for Subchronic Exposures
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
CAG . Carcinogen Assessment Group, U.S. EPA
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
GDI Chronic Daily Intake
ECAO Environmental Criteria 'and Assessment Office, U.S. EPA
ED Q Ten Percent Effective Dose
FRDS Federal Reporting Data System
FS Feasibility Study
HEA Health Effects Assessment
HRS Hazard Ranking System
IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer
IS Indicator Score
LD5Q Median Lethal Dose
LTC Long-term Concentration
MCL . Maximum Contaminant Level
MED Minimum Effective Dose
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft *
ICF
INCORPORATE
-------
uireczive ?.;
B-2
EXHIBIT B-l
(Continued)
LIST OF FREQUENTLY USED ACRONYMS
Acronym
Meaning
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
N'C Noncarcinogen
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
N'OAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOAEL So Observed Adverse Effect Level
.NPL National Priorities List
OERR Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, U.S. EPA
OHEA Office of Health Effects Assessment, U.S. EPA
ORD Office of Research and Development, U.S. EPA
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. EPA
PC Potential Carcinogen
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RfD Reference Dose
RI Remedial Investigation
RMCL Recommended Maximum Contaminant Level
SDI Subchronic Daily Intake
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
STC Short-term Concentration
TLV Threshold Limit Value
WQC Water Quality Criteria
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
ICF INCORPORATE
-------
wS'rt^A _/irSCI-'/"i -'-si .- - L
B-3
EXHIBIT B-2
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS DEVELOPED SPECIFICALLY
FOR THE SUPERFUND PUBLIC HEALTH EVALUATION PROCESS
Acronym . Definition
STC Short-term Concentration. The projected chemical
concentration in an exposure medium averaged over a short
time period (10 to 90 days). The peak STC (i.e., highest
one projected over the entire evaluation period, usually
70 years) is used for subchronic risk characterization.
Unless otherwise stated, the STC refers to a best
estimate concentration value, not an upper bound estimate.
LTC " Long-term Concentration. The projected chemical
concentration at an exposure point averaged over a human
lifetime, assumed to be 70 years. The LTC for the
70-year period beginning with the date of the RI/FS is
used for chronic risk characterization. Unless otherwise
stated, the LTC refers to a best estimate concentration
value, not an upper bound .estimate.
SDI Subchronic Daily Intake. The projected human intake of
a chemical averaged over a short time period, expressed
as mg/kg/day. The SDI is calculated by multiplying peak
STC by human intake and body weight factors and is used
for subchronic risk characterization.
CDI Chronic Daily Intake. The projected human intake of a
chemical averaged over 70 years, expressed as mg/kg/day.
The CDI is calculated by multiplying LTC by human intake
and body weight factors and is used for chronic risk
characterizat ion.
AIS Acceptable Intake for Subchronic Exposure. The highest
human intake of a chemical, expressed as mg/kg/day, that
does not cause adverse effects when exposure is
short-term (but not acute). The AIS is usually based on
subchronic animal studies.
AIC Acceptable Intake for Chronic Exposure. The highest
human intake of a chemical, expressed as mg/kg/day, that
does not cause adverse effects when exposure is long-term
(lifetime). The AIC is usually based on chronic animal
studies.
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * |CF
INCORPORATED
-------
Cii'we.R Direc'.ve ,-153.--!
B-4
EXHIBIT B-2
(Continued)
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS DEVELOPED SPECIFICALLY
FOR THE SUPERFUND PUBLIC HEALTH EVALUATION PROCESS
Acronym . Definition
IS Indicator Score. A unit less score that is the product
of a media-specific concentration of a chemical and the
media-specific toxicity constant for that chemical. The
indicator score is one of the factors considered in the
selection of indicator chemicals.
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATED
-------
>i K^rt Jirec-ive
APPENDIX C
SUMMARY TABLES FOR CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC DATA
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICFINCOHPOIUTO3
-------
OSWER Directive 9285.4-1
C-l
APPENDIX C
SUMMARY TABLES FOR CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC DATA
Appendix C contains the following six summary data tables:
* Exhibit C-l: Physical, Chemical, and Fate Data
Exhibit C-2: Half-Lives in Various Media
Exhibit C-3: Toxicity Data for Potential Carcinogenic Effects
-- Selection of Indicator Chemicals Only
Exhibit C-4: Toxicity Data for Potential Carcinogenic Effects
-- Risk Characterization
Exhibit C-5: Toxicity Data for Noncarcinogenic Effects --
Selection of Indicator Chemicals Only
Exhibit C-6: Toxicity Data for Noncarcinogenic Effects -- Risk
Characterization
These tables summarize key quantitative parameters for more than 260
chemicals or chemical groups that were evaluated as part of the Superfund
reportable quantity CRQ) adjustment process or the intra-agency acceptable
daily intake (ADI) review process. These specific chemicals are included
because of the amounts of readily available toxicity information. This list
should not be interpreted as a complete list of chemicals of concern at
Superfund sites. Other substances may be important at certain sites.
However, this appendix covers many toxic chemicals commonly detected at
Superfund sites.
Chemical-specific parameters listed in the -tables are primarily those
referred to in this manual, although a limited amount of other useful
information (e.g., CAS number, molecular weight) is also provided. Values for
physical, chemical, and fate parameters given in Exhibits C-l and C-2 are
provided for the convenience of the user and have not been fully peer reviewed
within EPA. Conversely, values given in Exhibits C-4 and C-6 for acceptable
intake level and/or carcinogenic potency have been reviewed within EPA and
should generally be used in the public health evaluation process at Superfund
sites. The sources of values and data transformation procedures, if any, are
described in the following sections.
In addition to the six data summary tables described above, a list of
chemicals for which EPA Health Effects Assessment documents are available is
provided in Exhibit C-7.
C.I EXHIBIT C-l: PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL, AND FATE DATA
The physical, chemical, and fate data shown in Exhibit C-l were either
recorded"directly from standard secondary references or were derived based on
information contained in such references. A general hierarchy of sources was
established, and values were taken from sources in order of the hierarchy.
The hierarchy was ordered with documents developed specifically for the .
» December 18, 1985 Draft * - * JCF
INCORPORATED
-------
CS'wER Directive 9I33.--L
C-2
Superfund program at the top, followed by other relevant EPA data
compilations, and then general reference texts at the bottom. In general,
succeeding references were used only when a value could not be obtained from a
reference higher in the hierarchy. Priority was given to more recent sources,
and measured values were chosen over estimated values even if obtained from a
source lower on the hierarchy. The hierarchy of sources used to select values
for Exhibit C-l is shown below and is lettered to correspond with the sources
referenced in the exhibit. More complete reference information for each of
these sources is in the reference list for Appendix C. A brief description of
the derivation of values for each parameter in Exhibit C-l follows the
hierarchy listed below.
A) ECAO, EPA, Health Effects Assessments, 1985
8) Jaber et al., 1984
C) Mabey et al., 1982
D) Callahan e_t al. , 1979
E) ORD, EPA, 1981
F) Dawson et a_l. , 1980
G) Lyman et al., 1982
H) OWRS, EPA, 1980
I) Weast e_t al. , 1979
J) Verschueren, 1983
K) Windholz et al., 1976
L) Perry and Ghilton, 1973
M) OSW, EPA, 1984b
N) OSW, EPA, 1984a
Water Solubility is the.maximum concentration of a chemical that
dissolves in pure water at a specific temperature and pH. It is a critical
property affecting environmental fate and transport. Values for water
solubility, in cng/1, were recorded in Exhibit C-l directly using the hierarchy
of sources "and general decision rules outlined above. Values are given for a
neutral pH and a temperature range of 20 to 30 C. Chemicals listed in the
literature as being "infinitely soluble" were assigned a solubility value of
1,000,000 mg/1.
Vapor Pressure is a relative measure of the volatility of a chemical in
its pure state and is an important determinant of the rate of vaporization
from waste sites. Values for this parameter, in units mm Hg, were recorded
directly from the hierarchy of sources described above. Values are given for
a temperature range of 20 to 30 C.
Henry's Law Constant is another parameter important in evaluating air
exposure pathways. Values for Henry's Law Constant (H) were calculated using
the following equation and the values previously recorded for solubility,
vapor pressure, and molecular weight:
3
H(atm-m /mole) = Vapor Pressure (atm) x Mole Weight (g/mole) .
3
Water Solubility (g/m )
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATED
-------
C-3
Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient (Koc) is a measure of the tendency
for organics to be adsorbed by soil and sediment and is expressed as:
Koc = mg chemical adsorbed/kg organic carbon
mg chemical dissolved/liter of solution
The Koc-is chemical specific and is largely independent of soil properties.
Most Koc values in Exhibit C-l were recorded directly from the above hierarchy
of sources. However, some Koc values were estimated using methods specified .
in Lyman (1982). Estimated values are clearly designated as such.
Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient (Kow) is a measure of how a chemical
is distributed at equilibrium between octanol and water. Although Kow is not
directly referenced in the text of this manual, it is an important parameter
and is used often in the assessment of environmental fate and transport for
organic chemicals. Additionally, Kow is a key variable used in the estimation
of other properties. For the convenience of the' user, values for log Kow have
been included in Exhibit C-l. These values were recorded directly from the '
hierarchy of sources referenced above.
Bioconcentration Factor as used in this manual is a measure of the
tendency for a chemical contaminant in water to accumulate in fish tissue.
The equilibrium concentration of a contaminant in fish can be estimated by
multiplying the concentration of the chemical in surface water by the fish
bioconcentration factor for that chemical. This parameter is therefore an
important determinant for human intakes via the aquatic food ingestion rout'e.
Values for bioconcentration factors shown in Exhibit C-l were recorded
directly from the above hierarchy of sources.
C.2 EXHIBIT C-2: HALF-LIVES IN VARIOUS MEDIA
Chemical Half-Lives are used in this manual as measures of persistence,
or how long a chemical will remain, in various environmental media. Exhibit
C-2 presents values for overall half-lives, which are the result of all
removal processes (e.g., phase transfer, chemical transformation, and
biological transformation) acting together rather than a single removal
mechanism. All of the half-life values in Exhibit C-2 were recorded directly
from two sources, ECAO Health Effects Assessments (ECAO, 1985) and exposure
profiles for the RCRA Risk-Cost Analysis Model (OSW, 1984b). The same source
lettering convention was followed for Exhibit C-2 as for Exhibit C-l.
C.3 EXHIBIT C-3: TOXICITY DATA FOR POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC
EFFECTS SELECTION OF INDICATOR CHEMICALS ONLY
For the risk assessment process outlined in this manual, data presented in
Exhibit C-3 are used only in the selection of indicator chemicals and not in
actual risk characterization. These data were obtained from information
* *. * December 18, 1985 Draft » * * ICFINCORPORAH
-------
Directive
C-4
contained in the Reportable Quantity (RQ) data base (OHEA, 1983). The
procedures used to convert source data to the values given in Exhibit C-3 are
described briefly below.
The 10°o Effective Dose (ED .) represents the dose at which a 10 percent
incremental carcinogenic response is observed. This parameter was calculated
for both oral and inhalation routes by taking the reciprocal of the Potency
Factor Estimate (PFE) given in the RQ data base (this source defines PFE =
I/ED ; therefore, ED . = 1/PFE). The ED is in units of rag/kg/day.
Toxicity Constants vary for different exposure media. As such, Exhibit
C-3 contains toxicity constant values specific to water (wTc) and soil (sTc)
for the oral route, and a value for air (aTc) for the inhalation route. Each
of these constants for potential carcinogens is based on the ED.-, standard
intake assumptions for the respective media, and a standard body weight. The
specific equations and assumptions used to calculate the various toxicity
constants are presented and discussed in further detail in Appendix D.
C.4 EXHIBIT C-4: TOXICITY DATA FOR POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC
EFFECTS -- RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Data presented in Exhibit C-4 are for use in risk characterization, as
opposed to the selection of indicator chemicals. Values in this exhibit were
derived in the following manner.
Carcinogenic Potency Factors are upper 95 percent confidence limits on
the slope of the dose-response curve. -These values were recorded directly
from HEAs or from CAG summary tables, with the actual source cited in the
exhibit for each value and then fully referenced at the end of the exhibit.
Potency factors are'used to estimate potential carcinogenic risk. These
factors, specific to different exposure routes, are given in Exhibit C-4 in
units of (mg/kg/day)
Weight of Evidence ratings qualify thelevel o^-evidence£hat supports
designating a chemical as a human carcinogen. Exhibit C-4 lists ratings based
on EPA categories for potential carcinogens, which are fully itemized in
Exhibit D-2. The ratings were recorded directly from the RQ data base.
(Note: Weight-of-evidence ratings are also used in the procedure for
selecting indicator chemicals.)
C.5 EXHIBIT C-5: TOXICITY DATA FOR NONCARCINOGENIC EFFECTS --
SELECTION OF INDICATOR CHEMICALS ONLY
The data in Exhibit C-5 were generated based on information contained in
the RQ data base for chronic effects (ECAO, 1984). Values for the parameters
in Exhibit C-5, which are used in the selection of indicator chemicals but not
in risk, characterization, were derived in the following manner. In addition,'
chemicals marked in Exhibit C-5 with "@" also exhibit potential carcinogenic
effects. The reader is referred to Exhibits C-3 and C-4 for information
concerning these effects.
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATED
-------
ER Jireczive
To determine the human Minimum Effective Dose (MED), the RQ data base was
reviewed to identify the studies with the highest composite score (a score
th-at combines MED and severity of effect) for oral and for inhalation exposure
routes. These MEDs were recorded under the appropriate exposure route in
Exhibit C-5. If composite score values were reported to be equal, the study
that yielded the lowest MED was used. For metals, one MED value was derived
from all studies for the various compounds of a given metal. Human MED values
are expressed in Exhibit C-5 in terms of mg/day. If an MED was available for
only one exposure route, it was recorded in Exhibit C-5 for the other exposure
routes without modification unless the toxic effect was at the site of entry.
Severity of Effect Ratings, or RVe's, were recorded from the RQ data base
for the same study used to determine MED values. These rating constants are
unit less integers ranging from 1 to 10, corresponding to various levels of
severity of effects. The severity scale is presented in Exhibit D-l.
Toxicity Constants for noncarcinogenic effects, like those for
carcinogens, are specific to water, soil, and air and are designated in
Exhibit C-5 as wTn, sTn, and aTn, respectively. Again, these toxicity
constants are used only in the indicator chemical selection step of the
process. Values in Exhibit C-5 are based on standard intake assumptions as
well as a chemical's RVe and MED values. Refer to Appendix D for the specific
toxicity constant equations and for a discussion on their application.
C.6 EXHIBIT C-6: TOXICITY DATA FOR NONCARCINOGENIC
EFFECTS -- RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Exhibit C-6 gives values for parameters that are used in actual risk
characterization-. The methods used to derive these values are describ'ed
below. Although the data in Exhibit C-6 are for noncarcinogenic effects,
several of the chemicals listed in the exhibit (those marked with an "5") also
exhibit potential carcinogenic effects. Exhibits C-3 and C-4 should be
referred to for information concerning carcinogenic effects.
Subchronic acceptable intake (AIS) values are short-term acceptable
intake levels ^airdarerecorded- directly from the appropriate HEA. Likewise,
values for chronic acceptable intake (AIC), which is the long-term acceptable
intake level for noncarcinogenic effects, were recorded directly from the
appropriate HEA or from a draft compilation of agency-reviewed acceptable
daily intake (ADI) values. These ADI values, also referred to as reference
doses, were developed by an EPA work group chaired by the Office of Research
and Development in 1985. The actual source used for each value is cited in
Exhibit C-6 and is referenced fully at the end of the exhibit. AIS and AIC
are used to characterize risks of noncarcinogenic effects. Both AIS and AIC
values are in units of mg/kg/day.
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * |CF
INCORPORATED
-------
CS'WER Directive 9235.~-l
C-6
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX C
GAG, U.S. EPA, 1985. Relative Carcinogenic Potencies Among 54 Chemicals
Evaluated by the Carcinogen Assessment Group As Suspect Human Carcinogens.
Callahan et al. , 1979. Water-Related Environmental Fate of 129 Priority
Pollutants, Volumes I and II, Office of Water Planning and Standards, Office
of Water and Waste Management, U.S. EPA, EPA Contract Nos. 68-01-3852 and
68-01-3867. '[Source D*]
Dawson, e_t al. , 1980. Physical/Chemical Properties of Hazardous Waste
Constituents. Prepared By Southeast Environmnetal Research Laboratory for
U.S. EPA. (Source F*j
ECAO, U.S. EPA, 1985. Health Effects Assessment for [Specific Chemical].
[Mote: 58 individual documents available for specific chemicals or chemical
groups] [Source A*]
ECAO, U.S. EPA, 1984. Summary Data Tables for Chronic Noncarcinogenic
Effects. [Noxe: Prepared during RQ adjustment process]
Jaber,. e_t al. , 1984. Data Acquisition for Environmental Transport and Fate
Screening. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, U.S. EPA,
Washington, DC, EPA 600/6-84-009 [Source B*]
Lyman, 1982. Adsorption Coefficient for Soils and Sediments. Chapter 4 in
Lyman e_t aJL. , Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation Methods.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Lyman, et al., 1982. Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation Methods.
McGraw-Hill, New York. [Source G*]
Mabey, et al., 1982. Aquatic Fate Process Data for Organic Priority
Pollutants. Prepared by SRI International, EPA Contract Nos. 68-01-3867 and
68-03-2981, prepared for Monitoring and Data Support Division, Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC. [Source C*J
OHEA, U.S. EPA, 1983. Technical Support Document and Summary Table for the
Ranking of Hazardous Chemicals Based on Carcinogenicity, External Review
Draft. OHEA-C-073.
ORD, U.S. EPA, 1981. Treatability Manual, Volume I, EPA 600/2-32-OOla.
[Source £*]
OSW, U.S. EPA, 1984a. Characterization of Constituents from Selected Waste
Streams Listed in 40 CFR Section 26-1. Prepared by Environ Corporation.
[Source N*]
^Source letters correspond to Exhibits C-l and C-2.
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * |CF INCORPORATE
-------
C-7
OSW, U.S. EPA, 1984b. Exposure Profiles for RCRA Risk-Cost Analysis Model.
Prepared by Environ Corporation. [Source M*]
OWRS, U.S. EPA, 1980. Ambient Water Quality Criteria Documents for [Specific
Chemical). [Source H*]
Perry and Chilton, 1973. Chemical Engineers' Handbook, McGraw-Hill, 5th Ed.
[Source L*]
Verschueren, 1983. Handbook of Environmental Data for Organic Chemicals.
Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, 2nd ed. [Source J*]
Weast et a_l. , 1979. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. [Source I*]
Windholz, et a_l. , 1976. The Merck Index. [Source K*]
^Source letters correspond to Exhibits C-l and C-2.
* * * December 18, 1985. Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATE
-------
CSWER Directive 9235.»-l
== 3
CV
si
y
=:
a
2
5"
5
a
i
CJ
_
a
X
VI _
C? i
;j
i
^
A re
>i >"
~ ."-.
<
O a
a »rt
i n a
> *-
a a.
^
.
< >
u -
-j -
j "
-si
<
y ;
ji "cr
> 3 -
r z a
3. J
»
-X
*x
c
;/t
c
VI
^
\
s
i
5
~
a
*
C/l
3>
g
*
!/J
-
=
~"
-^
£
3
^
31
S =? * =
CM
^cj*^.*a«>cj cja aa^^
33JJ30'^-'* C3CM a0003J^
3-~CM^CM CM -*1CM ~ 3 3 JT
Ji-I33"033 ^*>3 CM CM 3 ^
II II
cj cj =a «a »a u cj * =a 4 4 u
S^CMCM^ 3^ J <*1 3
4r ra 30 J
£2£3< ^z^5 §i§S
T T T i T it i ii
cSoO ^ H 3v 5v CM
CW^T^O ao O«o J^ ruO
O^^-'cJj o o c*rv
I/N O\ f^ -9 OO OJ O -fl ^
fUOjr* j1*- \OfU ^ "- <
"> ij^^ocO'*^^
^ ^ CM i^l f> "
""" 00
co i ^
^ l^l l i i (**} *O 3 03 l l l^CM
CM CN -^ in ^ 3 1 3 CJ\ * CM 1
crt **} i *0 3 CJ* ** i CM i i >n *o co ^r i
^ l 03 lilt "* *O ^ "* 33 l 1 *O O
"* ooru*a.'~inr~'-'-'S CM o> vo r»
a a
s c
to O
z t- a
3 -o
i) « <- "a>
- c 3 a ui s
g 3j u a C-3 a a 3J
3 S _ S3 i i ,S
.= a >, S o - aa-a «
w k!B<^C U - C
_, _j ^ _ ._._ S J O 39
«> >ocx < 3 a « a
as.c = - eac a s a «
ceaaaca -> s-ci-
= C-.->u>1>>«s->,sg-'=
os)3jo<-- -o s < - e ;
CJCJUUi 'jcji- i BE£
««CM«««JT<«
J3
J
<
z
zzz
Z UJ
33^
3 3 Z
§o
3
-0
Z
CM r-Z
3 C\JJ
^ r*f CM
1 1 1
3 3CM
^ ^ c*i
riri
M
O u)
c -3
3 C
a 3
ta
at
u _a
£3
s c
n
>. Ul
c o a
o -
- a si
3 u j;
a a
-O S3
33
3 '
CM
ZZ 3
l
m
S
s\
a
CM
3
\o 3
03 3 ~ m
CM ,n.ff*osa^ovocM CM 3 3 CMCMCMCM^CMJCM 3
OCJCJogCJCJCJCJ^j OCJCJfliJ^ oB «~^CM J *~3P*100
OS 3 .n 3 iTv 3
- ,n -
333Z33333Z3333ZZ3 33333Z3ZZZZ
lit i i l l l i i i l l i i i i i l
cr\ i j ^nc?.jjvo mvooa -n ro -ocsu l~-
J^3 J\ m&O t-> 3 . r CM J O ^ "> 3O3OCO^ 033333^^33** 22
a3OCMCMsOCM'*.C7*'**- in.S'scCM ^OC'3'^inaDO CJC1*^
'-^aSCMfu^-'^'^-'^CM ^**-- int** 33^-in CM3f"03J^in
CM CM CM CM CM CM m CM JT « CM
r O\ f-><->n ^-r~ vO'~inin >n k 3 C
= £0 M ~ 3.3
O CD 3 ** >»J* "U 3J Cl a 2 3.
c = o a c.-t c . -a s c e s
-
o
3
3
a
1
^
3
"*
1
f^i
vO
<
«
£
~
S
*»
%
c^
I
"
3
C
.
CM
3 ca z~ gi. at. a u
a c -> CB ^ ax a a. a a " **T5
a. as c eousa>> s -a oa ass-3
S os3)cB>>(o-a -Ju> oa -^ cj o ucj aag a i
w L. >, aaa-- "> -> SN-S a >
c is 5 -».£ -~u s^^a Qf-caa aaass
a .- . a .a gut cj u ^ S > «aaT3" S>---
c -a m o C.... i issxsct-cs-oaaaaaa
CB o a a a >.- cMCM-a-O'-astnaai.'--;;^;; = s
NNNNNNNNN > I 33^^1 ^338333 33
aaaaaaaaaaaasa uejuuuuuOuucO^Ui:
CM
Z
^
3
>
Mj
3
3
-
*C
S
i
3
.n
i
j
>
fji
a
c
3
?
CJ
3
> £.
Z
<
Z
CJ>
1
s
.n
i
3
OO
a
0
c
a
.^
c>
' ^
3
5
1
3
*
-5
O
1
W
^
-
*
2
-o
cc
o
""
("^
f
p^
t
m
«
3J
1CF INCORPORATII
-------
Chemical Name
Cyanides
-- Barium Cyanide
Calcium Cyanide
-- Copper Cyanide
-- Cyanogen
Cyanogen Chloride
-- Hydrogen Cyanide
-- Nickel Cyanide
-- Potassium Cyanide
-- Potassium Silver Cyanide
-- Si Iver Cyanide
-- Sodium Cyanide
-- Zinc Cyanide
CypIopho spham i de
UOO
DUE
OUT
Dial late
2,1-1) i ami no toluene
1,2,7,8-Oibenzopyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
1,2-Oibroroo-3-chloropropane
D i butyIn i t rosamine
Dibutyl Phtlialate
1,2-Oichlorobenzene
1, 3-Djchlurobenzene
I ,
1, l-l)ichloroetliylene
1,2-Oichloroethylene (trans)
1,2-Oichloroethylene (cis)
Dichlorumuthane
2,1-Dichlorophenol
2,1-Oichlorophenoxyacet ic
Acid'(2.1-D)
1-( 2, 1-Oichlorophenoxy) butyric
Acid (2,1-DB)
01 ch I o ropheny I a r s i cie
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Oichloropropene
Oicldriu
Oiepoxybutane
Dicthanolni trosamine
Dicthyl Arsini;
1, 2-1) i ethyl hydra ei lie
Oiothy In i trosiiini ne
Die thy I Plithalate
Oieiliylbti Ibestrol (OES)
Dihydrosafrole
Dimeihoate
3,3'-Uimethoxybenzidine
Dimethy I amine
Dimethyl Sulfate
I XIII fill C-t
(Cont inued)
PHYSICAL, CtltMlCAL. AND FATE DATA
Date Prepared: December 18, 1985^
CAS
Halo Waiter
Weight So IubiIity
(g/mole) (mg/l) ,
S»
Vapor Henry's Law
Pressure Constant Hoc
(mm Hg) S»(aim-m3/mol) (rol/g) S»
Iog Iish
Kow BCf
S" (I/kg) S»
57-12-5
512-62-1
502-01-8
511-92-3
160-19-5
506-77-11
7M-90-8
557-19-7
151-50-8
506-61-6
506-64-9
113-33-9
557-21-1
50-18-0
72-51-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
2303-16-1
95-80-7
189-55-9
53-70-3
96-12-8
921-16-3
81-71-2
95-50-1
511-73-1
106-16-7
91-91-1
75-71-8
75-31-3
107-06-2
75-35-1
510-59-0
510-59-0
75-09-2
120-83-2
91-75-7
91-82-6
696-28-6
78-87-5
512-75-6
60-57-1
1161-53-5
1116-51-7
692-12-2
1615-80-1
55-18-5
B1-66-2
56-53-1
91-58-6
60-51-5
119-90-1
121-10-3
77-78-1
NA
189
92
90
52
61
27
182
65
199
U1
19
I17
261
320
318
355
2?1
122
305
278
236
152
278
117
117
117
253
121
99
99
9?
97
97
85
163
221
223
113
1 11
381
86
131
131
88
102
222
268
U>1
2;>9
211
15
126
2.5111 +115
2.501 + 03
1 .001+06
5.00E+05
8.201+05
1.311 +09
1 .001 -01
1.001-02
5.001 -03
1.101+01
1. 7/1 +01
1. 10f-OI
5.001 -01
1 .001+03
1.301 +01
1 .001 +02
1.23C +02
7.901+01
1.01)1+00
2.801 +02
5.501 +03
8.521+03
2.251+03
6.301 +03
3.501 <03
' 2.0OI +1)1
1.601+03
6.20E+02
2. 701 +03
2.801+03
1.95E-OI
1.1/1 +02
2.881 +07
8.961 +02
9.601 -03
1 .501 +03
;J.5(H +01
1 .001 +06
3.211 +05
K
r
*
K
II
B
C
C
A
B
B
B
C
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
r
c
c
c
(t
0
c
II
It-
J
1
u
1.00E+03
6.20E+02
1.flOf>06
6.50E-06
5.50E-06
6.10E-03
3.80E-05
. OOE-10
.OOE+00
.OOE-05
. OOE+00
2.28E+00
. 18C+00
.OOE-05
1.87E+03
I.82E*02
6.10E+0)
6. ODE +02
3.21E+02
2.08E+02
3.62E*02
5.90E-02
1.00E-OI
1.20E+01
2.50E+OI
1.78E-07
3.50E+OI
5.00E*00
3.501-03
2.50E-02
1.521+03
6.801-01
J
I
C
C
A
B
B
C
B
C
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
F
C
C
C
B
f
C
J
1
B
NA
NA
7.961-06
6.801 -O5
5. 131-01
1.651 -01
1.281-10
NA
7.331-08
3. lit -01
NA
2.8?l -07
1.931-03
3.591-03
2.891-03
8.331-07
1. 31E-03
9. 78E-01
3. lot -02
6.56E-03
7.581-03
2.03E-03
2.75E-06
1 .88E-01
NA
2. 3H-03
1. 3(H-OJ
1.58E-07
NA
NA
I.IBE-O;'
NA
NA
1 . Ht-O(>
NA
NA
NA
y .021 -05
3.181 -07
0.012
770000
1100000
21300O
1000
12
1200
3300000
98
1 70000
1 700
1700
1 700
1553
58
30
11
65
59
19
8.8
380
20
51
18
1700
160
0. 3
11?
28
78
2.2
1. 1
fc .
C
C
C
&
ic
&
c
&
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
&
c
c
G
c
c
c
k
&
c
&
&
&
&
0.00
-0.25
-3.22
6.20
7 . 01)
6.19
0. 73
0.35
6.62
6.80
2.29
5.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.50
2. 16
1.79
1.18
1.81
0.18
0.70
1.30
2.90
2.81
2 . 00
2 . 00
3.50
2.97
-1.68
0.18
2.50
5.16
2.56
2. /I
-0.38
- 1 . 21
1
B
C
C
J
B
B
B
C
B
C
C
C
C
c
D
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
f
C
C
c
B
B
r
c
B
B
J
1
B
0
5IOOO
510OO
56
56
56
312
1 .2
5.6
1.6
1.6
5
11
1.9
1760
Ml
0
I
G
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
C
1
O
C/)
3~
P1
CJ
i-*-
n
(B
O
rl
I-
( J
O.
-------
IXIIIBIl C-l
(Continued.)
PIIYSICAI. CIUMICAL. AND FATE DATA
Pate Prepared: December.18,_19.85.
Chemical Name
D i me t hy I am i noazobenzene
7. l2-Dimethylbenz(a)anlhracene
Dimethylcarbamoyl Chloride
I . l-Dimethylhydrazine
1.2-Uimethylhydrazine
0 i me thy I n i i rosam i no
1 , 3-Dini trobenzene
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
2.4-Oini trophenol
2.3-Diriitrotoluene
2,4-Dini troioluene
2. S-l)ini i ro toluene
2 . 6- 0 i n i l ro to I uene
3,4-Dini trotoluene
Oinuseb
1 ,4-Qioxane
N . N- n i pheny I am i ne
1 ,2-Uiphenylhydrazine
0 i p ropy I n 1 1 rosam i ne
fpichlorohydrin
1 1 ha no I
(thy I Methanesulfonate
( thy I benzene
(thy I ene Oi bromide (EDB)
I thy I ene Oxide
[ thylenethiourea
1-1 thy I -ni trosourea
ferric Oextran
f luoranthcne
I luorene
f HID rides
forma Idehyde
i u rm i c Ac i d
Clycidaldeliyde
Glycol fitters
-- Uiethylene Glycol,
Honoethyl It her
-- 2-Elhoxyethanol
-- Ethyl ene Glycol,
Honobutyl fitter
-- 2-Muthoxyethanol
-- Propylerie Glycol,
Honoethyl fther
Prupylune Glycol,
Monomethyl Ether
lleptachlor
lluplachlor [poxide
llexachlorobcnzerie
llexachlorobutadiene
llexach I orocyc I open tad i ene
a Ipha-Mcxachlorocyclohexane ( IICCH)
beta-IICCII
(jawunii-liccii ( I i fuianu )
lit: I la-HCCII
iicli I o ro|>ht:no
Mole W.uer
Weight Sol tit) i I i ty
CAS f (g/mole) (ing/ 1 )
60-11-7
57-97-6
79-44-7
57-14-4
540-73-8
62-75-9
99-65-0
534-52-1
51-28-5
602-01-7
121-14-2
619-15-8
606-20-2
610-39-9
88-85-7
123-91-1
122-39-4
122-66-7
621-64-7
106-89-8
64-17-5
62-50-0
100-41-4
106-93-4
75-21-8
96-45-7
759-73-9
9004-66-4
206-44-0
86-73-7
7782-41-4
50-00-0
64-16-6
765-34-4
NA
111-90-0
110-80-5
111-76-2
109-86-4
52125-53-8
107-98-2
76-44-8
1024-57-3
118-74-1
87-68-3
77-47-4
319-84-6
319-85-7
5B-B9-9
319-86-8
67-72-1
70-30-4
225
256
108
60
60
74
168
198
184
182
182
182
182
182
240
88
169
184
130
93
46
124
106
188
44
102
117
7500
202
116
NA
30
46
72
NA
134
90
1 18
76
374
389
285
261
273
291
2')1
291
291
237
407
1 . 361 +01
4.401-03
1 .'I'll +07
1.241 +08
1 .001 K>6
4. 701 +02
2.901 +02
5.6OI +03
3. 101 +03
2.401 +02
1. 321 +03
1.321+03
1 .081 +03
5.001 +01
4.311 +05
5. 761 +01
1 .841 +03
9.901 +03
6.001 +04
1 .001 +06
3.691 +05
1 .521 +02
4. 301+03
1 .001 +(>6
2.001 +03
3. 311 +08
2.061 -01
1 .691+00
4.001 +05
1 .001 +06
1 . 701 +08
1 .001+06
1 .001 +06
1 .OOL+06
1 .801 -01
,3.501-01
6.001 -03
1.501 -01
2. 1OI +OO
1 .631 +00
2.401 -01
7 .HOI +00
3. I'll +01
5. (Mil »Ol
4.001 -03
S»
B
B
B
B
n
J
C
c
B
C
B
U
B
J
B
B
C
C
J
1
B
A
J
B
F
B
A
C
K
B
f
F
K
C
C
A
A
A
C
C
C
c-
C
(
Vapor
Pressure
(mm Mg)
3.30E-07
l.95EtOO
1.57£t02
8. IOE+00
5.00E-02
1.49C-05
5. 10E-03
1.80E-02
3.99E+01,
3.BOE-05
2.60E-05
4.00E-OI
1.57£tOI
7.40E+02
2.06E-01
7. OOEtOO
1. 17E+01
I.31E+03
5.00E-06
7. 10E-04
l.OOf+01
4.00E+01
1.97E*01
3.00i-04
3.001-04
1.09E-05
2. OOEtOO
8.00E-02
2.50E-05
2.80E-07
1.60E-04
1.70E-05
4.00E-01
Henry1 s 1 aw
Constant
S"( alfl)-in3/mol )
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
B
H
C
C
B
G
B
A
B
B
A
C
E
E
B
C
c
A
A
A
C
C
C
C
C
7.
1 .
1.
7.
4.
6.
5.
3.
1 .
1 .
3.
6.
3.
14 .
9.
6.
6.
7.
6.
6.
9.
1 .
8.
4.
6.
4.
1 .
5.
4.
7.
2.
2.
191 -09
NA
921-08
001 -07
NA
901-07
NA
491 -05
451-10
NA
09L-06
NA
27E-06
NA
ll/f -05
4/1 -07
421 -09
921-06
191-05
481 -05
121 -08
431 -03
731 -04
56f-0'j
NA
NA
NA
46f-06
421 -05
NA
871-07
10E-08
NA
191-04
391-04
811-04
57f +00
371-02
871 -06
471 -07
851 -06
0/1 -d/
491 -OJ
NA
Hoc
1.00O
476000
0.5
0.2
0. 1
150
240
16.6
53
45
84
92
94
3.5
4/0
418
15
10
2.2
3.8
1100
44
2.2
67
0. 1
38000
7300
3.6
0. 1
12000
220
3900
29000
4800
380O
380O
1O80
66UO
2OUOO
9ioyu
s»
k
C
k
k
C
k
c
c
k
C
k
C
k
k
k
C
C
k
k
k
C
G
k
k
k
C
C
k
k
C
C
G
C
C
C
C
G
C
C
&
1 og
Kow
3. 72
6.94
-1.32
-2.42
-0.68
1.62
2 . 70
1 . 50
2.29
2 . 00
2.28
2.00
2.29
0.01
3.60
2 . 90
1.50
0. 15
-0. 32
0.21
3. 15
1. 76
-0.22
-0.66
4.90
4.20
0 . 00
-0.54
-1.55
0.00
0.00
4.40
2. 70
5.23
4. 78
5 . 04
3.90
3 . 90
3 . 90
4. 10
4 . 60
7.54
S"
U
n
o
B
c
1
c
c
B
C
B
C
B
B
B
C
C
B
J
B
A
U
B
J
A
C
f
f
B
1
r
c
c
A
A
A
C
C
C
c
c
K
1 ish
BCf
0
0
0
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
30
25
37.5
0
1 150
1 300
0
0
15700
14400
8690
2.8
4.3
130
130
130
130
87
S"
1)
t
1)
II
II
II
II
II
G
II
H
1
II
G
1
f
II
G
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
ft
Lfi
S'
PI
XI
tJ
V
n
(D
O
U
VkJ
I J
O.
-------
IXIIIflll C-l
(Cum mued)
PHYSICAi, CMIMICAI, AND FATE DATA
Date Prepared: OuceMibec (84
Chemical Name
llydrazine
Hydrogen Sulfide .
lndeno( 1,2. 3-cd)pyrene
lodometharie
Iron and Compounds
1 sop rune
Isosa Prole
Kepone
1 as iocarpine
lead and Compounds (Inorganic)
1 inuron
Ma la ih ion
Manganese and Compounds
Mercury and Compounds (Alkyl)
Mercury and Compounds (Inorganic)
Mercury fulminate
Methyl Chloride
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Ethyl Ketone Peroxide
Methyl Me thai: ry late
Methyl Par a ih ion
Mole Water
We ight So lub i 1 i ty
CAS H (g/mole) (mg/l ) S»
302-01-1
7783-06-1
193-39-5
77-88-1
15138-31-0
78-79-5
120-58-1
113-50-0
303-31-1
7139-92-1
330-55-2
121-75-7
7139-96-5
7139-97-6
7139-97-6
628-86-1
71-87-3
78-93-3
1338-23-1
80-62-6
298-00-0
2-Methyl-1-chlorophenoxyacet ic Acid 91-71-6
3-Methylcholanthrene
1,i|' -Meihy lene-bi s-2-chloroam 1 me
Me thy In i trosourea
'Methyl thiouraci 1
Me thy 1 viny Ini trosaroine
56-19-3
101- 11-1
681-93-5
56-01-2
1519-10-0
32
31
276
112
56
68
168
191
112
207
330
55
201
50
72
100
263
201
268
267
103
112
86
3 . 1 1 f +08
1. 131 +03
5. 301-01
1 . lot +01
1 .091 +03
9.90F-03'
1 . 60f +03
1.15E+02
6.501 +03
2.68E+05
2.001 +01
6.00E+0!
6.891+08
7.601+05
B
K
C
J
B
B
B
E
C
A
F
E
B
B
Vapor
Pressure
(mm llg)
1.10E+01
l.OOE-10
1.00E+02
1.00E+02
1.60E-06
O.OOE+00
1.00E-05
2.00E-03
1. 31E+01
7.75E+01
3. 70E+OI
9. 70E-06
1.23E40I
henry1 s 1 aw
C.unsiitnt Hoc
S"( atm-mVmol ) (ml/y )
B
C
J
I
B
E
E
E
B
A
F
E
B
N-Methyl-N'-ni tro-N-ni trosoguanadin70-25-7
Mi tomycin C
Mustard Gas
1-Napthy lamine
2-Niipthy lamine
Nickut and Compounds
Nitric Oxide
Ni trobenzene
Nitrogen Dioxide
Ni trosomethy lurethane
N-Ni trosopiper id ine
N-Ni trosopyrrol id ine
5-Ni t ro-o-toluid ine
Pontachlornbenzene
Pen lachlorom trobenzene
Pcntachlorophenol
Phenacel in
Phenanlhrene
Phenobarbi lal
Phenol
Phunyl Mercuric Acetate
Phosphine
Plieny la lanme Mustard
Pol yell lor ma ted Biphenyls (PCBs)
Propane Sultone
Piopy lenimine
Pyriiiie
Pyr ul me
Saccharin
50-07-7
505-60-2
131-32-7
91-59-8
7110-02-0
10102-13-9
98-95-3
10102-11-0
615-53-2
100-75-1
930-55-2
99-55-8
608-93-5
82-68-6
87-86-5
62-11-2
85-01-8
50-06-6
108-95-2
62-38-1
7803-51-2
118-82-3
1336-36-3
1120-71-1
75-55-8
129-00-0
110-86-1
81-07-2
331
159
Hi 3
1 'i 3
59
30
123
16
111
100
250
295
266
179
1/8
232
91
337
31
305
328
5/
202
79
183
8.001 +02
2. 351 +03
5.86E+02
1 .90E+03
1 .901 +06
7. OOF +06
1. 351 -01
1 . lit -02
1 . 101 +01
1 .001 +00
1 .001 +03
9. 3OI +(Hi
I.67E+03
. 3. 101 -02
9.111 +0'j
1. 3i'l -01
1 .001 +06
B
B
B
C
B
B
F
B
C
A
B
A
K
C
U
A
1
1. 70E-01
6.50E-05
2.56E-01
O.OOE+00
1.50E-01
1.1OE-01
1.10E-OI
1. 13E-01
1. 10E-01
6.80E-01
3 . 1 IE-0 1
/. 70E-05
1.11 £402
2 . 501 -06
2.00E+01
B
B
B
D
B
B
B
B
C
A
A
C
B
A
F
1 .73E-09
, 6.861-00
5.311 -03
NA
NA
3.251-12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1 . 101 -02
2 . 711 -O5
2.13E-OI
5.591-08
NA
NA
NA
NA
1 .831-06
NA
NA
1.151 -05
5.211-09
8.23L-06
NA
NA
1.111 -08
2.0/F-09
NA
NA
6. 181 -01
2. 751-06
NA
1 . 591 -oil
NA
1.511-07
NA
I .071 -03
NA
I. 1,'t -O'J
5.011 -06
NA
0. 1
1600000
23
93
55000
76
35
1.5
810
160
0. 1
2.5
110
61
130
36
1 .5
0.8
130OO
19OOO
53000
11(100
98
11.2
530000
2.3
38000
S"
&
C
Ic
Ic
&
&
Ic
Ic
Sc
Ic
Ic
&
&
&
&
C
Ic
Sc
Ic
Ic
C
C
&
C
C
ic
C
1 og
Kow
-3.08
6.50
1.69
2.66
2.00
0.99
2.89
0.95
0.26
. 0. 79
1.91
-3.81
-0.23
1.37
2.07
2.07
1.85
-0.19
- 1 . 06
5. 19
5.15
5
1.16
-0. 19
1.16
6.01
-0.18
1.88
0.66
S"
U
C
J
H
B
B
J
B
A
F
t
B
B
B
II
B
D
1)
B
1
B
C
A
B
A
C
B
A
1
1 ish
( I/kg) S"
8100 G
19 II
0 F
3750 II
5500 II
0 F
15 i
17 H
2125 H
7/0 G
2630 C
1.1 II
10OOOO G
o
C/)
o
ri
I i
O.
-------
IXMIBII C-l
(Coot inued)
PIIYSICAl, UUMICAl, AND fAll DAlA
Date Prepared: IJeL'ember. 18,
Chemical Name
Safrole
Selenium and Compounds
-- Selenious Acid
-- Selenpurea
-- Thallium Selenite
Silver and Compounds
Streptozocin
Strychnine
1,2,4,5-Tetrachloroben^ene
2, 3, 7,8-I COD (l)ioxin)
1,1,1,2-Telrachloroethane
1,1.2,2-letrachloroethane
T e t rachIo rue thy Iene
2,3,4.6-Tetrachlorophenol
Tetraelhyl lead
Thallium arid Compounds
-- lhalIium Acetate
-- Thallium Carbonate
-- Iha 11ium Chloride
lhalIium Nitrate
-- I ha 11 ic Oxide
-- lhalIium Sulfate
Ihioacetamide
Ihiourea
o-Iolidine
Toluene
o-loluidine
Toxaph.ene
1ribromomethane (Bromororm)
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1-lriehloroeiltaiie
1.1,2-1 rich to roethane
Trichloroethy Iene
1iichloi Ton
Ir i eh Io romono rIuorome thane
2.4. 5 - T r i ch I o ropherio I
2,4,6-1richlorophenol
1,1,2-Ir ichloro-1,2,2,-
triflnoroethane
lris(2,3-dibromopropyl(phosphate
1rypan Blue
UraciI Mustard
Uranium and Compounds
Or ethane
Vanadium and Compounds
Vinyl Chloride
o-Xylune
m-XyIene
p-Xy I iiiiu
Xylene (mixed)
/iin: and Compounds
CAS H
94-59-7
7/82-49-2
7/83-00-8
630-10-4
12039-52-0
7440-22-4
18883-66-4
57-24-9
95-94-3
1746-01-6
630-20-6
79-34-5
127-18-4
58-90-2
78-00-2
7440-28-0
563-68-8
6533-73-9
7791-12-0
10102-45-1
1314-32-5
7446-18-6
62-55-5
62-56-6
119-93-7
108-88-3
636-21-5
8001-35-2
75-25-2
120-82-1
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
52-68-6
75-69-4
95-95-4
88-06-2
76-13-1
126-72-7
72-57-1
66-75-1
7440-61-1
51-79-6
7440-62-2
75-01-4
95-47-6
1O8-3ft-3
106-42-3
I330-20-/
Mi '10-66-6
Mo 1 e
Height
(g/mole
162
79
129
488
108
457
334
216
322
166
168
166
142
323
204
263
469
240
505
75
76
212
92
107
414
253
181
133
133
131
25 /
13/
19/
198
187
698
961
252
238
89
51
63
106
Hi6
106
106
65
Water
So 1 iibi 1 i ly
(nig/I)
1
1
6
2
2
?
1
1
a
2
2
1
7
5
1
5
3
3
1
4
1
1
1
1
8
1
1
6
^
1
1
1
1
501+03
561 +02
OOI +OO
ool -04
901 +03
901 +03
501 +02
001+03
001-01
9OI +03
001+02
/2l +06
351+01
351 +02
501 +04
OOI -Ol
011+03
OOI +01
501 +03
501 +03
101 +03
541 +05
101+03
191+03
001 +02
OOI +01
201 +02
411+02
6/1 +03
I'A +02
301 »02
981 +O2
98t +02
S"
B
E
E
A
J
A
A
E
J
E
E
B
B
A
J
C
C
C
A
A
A
E
C
A
A
E
B
B
A
F
I
r
i
Vapor
Pressure
(mm llg)
9.
0.
0.
1 .
5.
5.
1.
1.
0.
O.
0.
2.
1.
4.
5.
2.
1.
3.
5.
7.
6.
I.
1.
2.
2.
1.
1.
1 .
| .
0.
IOE-04
OOE+OO
OOE+OO
70E-06
OOE+OO
OOE+OO
78E+01
50E-01
OOE+OO
OOE+OO
OOE+OO
8IE+OI
OOE-01
OOE-01
OOE+OO
90E-01
23E+02
OOE+01
79E+01
80E-06
67E+02
OOE+OO
20E-02
70E+02
661 +03
OOt +01
OOE+O1
OOL +01
OOE+01
OOE+OO
Hem y ' s 1 aw
Constant Hoc
S"( a tm-in3/mol ) (ml/g)
B
E
0
A
J
A
A
J
E
E
E
A
J
C
C
C
A
A
A
E
C
A
A
^
A
I
1
1
1
0
1 .291-07
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.601 -03
3. Bit -04
3.811 -04
2.591-02
NA
/. 971-02
NA
NA
NA
6. 3/1-03
9. 391-07
4. 361 -01
5.521-04
2. 311 -03
1 . 44t -02
1. 171-03
9. IOf-03
1.711-11
2. 18E-04
3.90E-06
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8. 191-02
7.041-03
NA
78
16OO
3300000
54
118
364
98
4900
1.6
410
300
22
964
116
92OO
152
56
126
6. 1
159
89
2000
310
120
5/
240
S"
&
&
C
&
C
C
&
Ic
&
ic
C
tc
C
C
C
C
C
C
&
C
&
C
fc
8c
&
&
1 og
Kow
2.53
4.6/
6. 12
2. 39
2.6
4.1
-0.46
-2.05
2.88
2.73
1.29
3.3
2.4
4. 3
2.5
2.47
2. 38
2.29
2.53
3. 72
3.87
2.00
4. 12
-1.09
1 . 38
2.95
3.26
3. 15
3.26
S»
B
1
A
A
A
E
J
B
B
A
J
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
0
A
A
I
B
B
A
1
1
1
1
1 ish
HCI
16
3080
1 125
500O
42
31
240
10. 7
13100
2800
5.6
5
10.6
110
150
2. 7
I.I/
47
S-
It
I)
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
G
II
H
II
II
II
G
M
II
O
D1
f.
PI
Cl
I-'-
H
(P
O
It
" liilti.'rs denote Uu: sourc:e of the data, as listed in Section 3.1.
H Solubility of 1,000,000 imj/l assigned because of repotted "infinite solubility" in Hie literature.
& Koc estimated by the Col lowing equation: |0g Hoc - |-0.55*logS) + 3.64 (Note: S in nig/1 ].
-------
Chemical Name CAS
Acenaphlhene 83-32-9
Acunaphthylene . 208-96-8
Acetone 67-6'!-1
Aceionitrile 75-05-8
2-AcetyI ami notluorene 53-96-3
Aery Iic Acid 79-10-7
Acrylonitrile 107-13-1
Allatoxin BI 1162-65-8
Aldrin 309-00-2
Ally) Alcohol 107-18-6
Aluminum Phosphide 20859-73-8
1-Aminobiphenyl 92-67-1
Amitrole 61-82-5
Ammonia 766<4-'il-7
Anthracene 120-12-7
Antimony and Compounds 7110-36-0
Arsenic and Compounds 7110-38-2
Asbestos 1332-21-'!
Auramine 2'i65-27-2
A/aserino 115-02-6
Aziridine 151-56-1
Barium and Compounds 7110-39-3
Benzene 71-13-2
Benzidirie 92-87-5
fti:nz( a (anthracene 56-55-3
Benzjclacridine 225-51-1
Bun.zo( aJpyrene 50-32-8
Benzujbjfluoranthene 205-99-2
Benzojghi )perylene 191-2'i-2
Bi!iizo( k | f I uo ranthene 20 f-08-9
Benzyl Chloride loo-Mi-7
Beryllium and Compounds 7110-11-7
Bis(2-chloroethyI)ether 111-11-1
Iti s(?-chloroi sopropy I(ether 108-60-1
Bisjchloromethyl(ether 512-88-1
1.3-Butadiene 106-99-0
Cacodylic Acid 75-60-5
Cadmium and Compounds 7710-13-9
Captan 133-O6-2
Carbaryl 63-25-2
Carbon Disullide 75-15-0
Carbon Tetrachloride 56-23-5
Chlordane 57-71-9
Chlnrobenzene 108-9O-/
Chiorobenzilate 510-15-6
Chiot oil ibromomethane 121-18- I
Chlorofoim 67-66-3
Chloroniethyl Methyl § ther 1O/-30-2
1-Chloro-o-toluidine Hydrochloride 3165-93-3
Chromium III and Compounds
Chromium VI and Compounds
Chrysene 2I8-O1-9
Copper and Compounds 7110-'JO-8
IXHIBII C-2
MAI I-I I VIS IN VARIOUS MfDIA
Oate Prepa'red: Qecemhor..!B._ 19.85.
tl.il I -I i le Range (Days)
Sot 1
Low high
Ai r
S* Low High
Suilace Water
tow High S"
Ground W.iUM
low High
S»
120.00 180.00 A
5.50
390.00
1.90
1.80
5.00
1.80
1.80
6.00
5.50
1 .00
5.50
M.80
8030.00
10.00
3.50
80 . 00
1.80
5.50
6.00
M 0.125
M 7.00
M
M
M
M
M
A
A
M
M
M
2 .
1 .00
6.00
5.00
2.00
2.00 M 0.OOO1
M PLRS
0.30
3.00
1.10
30.00
M
M
H
M
A
A
M
A 0.30 300.00 A
M 120.OO 500.00 A
A O.30 - A
M
M
C)
C/i
f.
CJ
0)
o
ft
I J
0"
-------
O
n
Chemical Name
Creosote
Cresol
Cyanides
-- Barium Cyanide
-- Calcium Cyanide
-- Copper Cyanide
-- Cyanogen
-- Cyanogen Chloride
-- Hydrogen Cyanide
-- Nickel Cyanide
-- Potassium Cyanide
-- Potassium Silver Cyanide
-- Si Iver Cyanide
-- Sodium Cyanide
-- Zinc Cyanide
Cyc I opliospliara i de
ODD
POF
DO I
Dial late
2,4-01ami notoluene
1,2,7,8-Dibenzopyrene
0 i ben?( a, h )aiuhracene
1, ;>-Oibromo-3-chloropropane
Oibiitylni irosamine
Uibutyl Phthalate
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1.3-Oichlorobeiizene
1,4-Oichlorobeiizcne
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Oichlorodi fluoromethane
1.1-Oichloroethane
1,2-Dichtoroethane (IOC)
1, 1-Dichloroetliy lene
l,2-l)ichloroetliylene (trans)
t,2-Oichloroethylene (cis)
Oichloiomothane
2.4-Oicliluroplienol
2, (I - 0 i ch I o r opheitoxyace t i c
Acid (2,4-11)
4-(2,4-l)iuhloiophenoxy)butyric
Acid (2.4-Uli)
I) i ch I o ropheny I a rs i ne
1,2-Dictiloropropane
1.3-Oichloropropene
Oitildrin
Diclliiiiio t n i irosamine
DuMliyl Arsino
1. 2-1) i «- thy I hydras ine
Diclliy In 11 rusanune
Diethyl Phthalate
CAS
8001-58-9
1319-77-3
57-12-5
542-62-1
502-01-8
544-92-3
460-19-5
506-77-4
74-90-8
557-19-7
151-50-8
506-61-6
506-64-9
1*13-33-9
557-21-1
50-lfl-O
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
2303-16-4
95-80-7
189-55-9
53- /O- 3
96-12-8
92(4-16-3
al>or 18.
(Days)
Sot I
Ai r
low
S»
tow
High
Surface Water
tow High S«
Ground Walor
(ow
73000.00
1000.00 5500.00
5.50
26.00
23.00
15.00
36.00
2.00
2. 10
1.30
53.20
2.30
80.00
127.00
0.33 0.80 M
56.00
H 0.0208
M 1.50
M 1.50
1.40
1 10.00
2.08
8.50
8.50
7.70
H
N
A
A
A
A
A
M
M
1.00
o. u
1.00
1 . 00
i . no
i . 20
6 . HO
5.00
-
6.00
6.0O
6.00
5.80
-
A
A
A
A
A
M
M
C)
if,
5T
PI
X)
u
fj-
r-l
n>
o
IJ
O>
Ui
-------
O
-n
If
S
3
Chemical Name CAS It
DicthylstiIbestrol (OLS) 56-53-1
Dihydrusafrole 9*1-58-6
Oimethoate 60-51-5
3. 3'-Uimethoxybenzidine 119-9H-'!
'Di methyl am i fie 12iniirophenol 51-28-5
2,3-Oinitrutuliiene 602-01-7
2,14-Qinitrutoliieiie 121-l't-2
2.5-1) in it ro toluene 619-15-8
2.6-Oinitroioluone 606-20-2
3.'i-l)ini trululuene 610-39-9
Oinoseb 88-85-7
I.it-Oioxane 123-91-1
N.N-Diphenylamme 122-39-'!
1.2-l)i phuity I hyd raz i ne 122-66- 7
Oipropylni trusamine 621-6*1-7
fpichlorohydrin 106-89-8
Lthanol 6l»-17-5
(ihyt Meihanesulfonate 62-50-0
I i by I benzene IDO-iil-'i
ilhylene Otbrumide (EDO) U)6-93-i<
Ltbylene Oxide 75-21-8
Fthylenethiourea 96-M5-7
1-1 thyl-nitrosourea 759-73-9
ferric Uextran 9«0«»-66-U
I Inoraruhene 206-'i'i-(l
IInurene 86-73-7
I liiurides 7782-
c/i
n
a>
O
n
l«0.00
M U.96
-------
O
Chemical Name
Heptachlor { pox i tie
Huxachloroben/ene
HexachIorobulad i one
liexacli I o rocyc I operi tad i ene
CAS
1021-57-3
na-71-1
87-68-3
77-17-1
C-2
(Cunt imied)
HAII-IIVfS IN VARIOUS HIOIA
Date Prepared: Ooconiber IB,
Hair-life Kange (Days)
So i I
low Hiyh
Ai r
Low High
S*
Surface Ha lor
low High S»
Ground
low
High
1100.00 2200.00
alpha-Huxachlorocyclohexane (HCCH) 319-8(4-6
beta-IICCH 319-85-7
gamma-MCCM (lindane) 38-69-9
delta-HCCH 319-86-8
llexachloroethane 67-72-1
Hexachlorophene ' 70-30-
-------
Chemical Name CAS H
Pentachlorophenol 67-66-5
Phenacetin 62-44-2
Phenanthrene 83-01-8
Pheitobarbi tal 50-06-6
Phenol 108-95-2
I'ltenyl Mercuric Acetate 62-38-4
Phosphine 7803-51-2
Plienylaianine Mustard 1146-62-3
Polychlormated Biphenyls ( PCUs | 1336-36-3
Propane Sultone 1l20-71-*t
Propylenimine 75-55-8
Pyrene 129-00-0
Pyridine 110-66-1
Saccharin 81-07-2
Safrole 94-59-7
Selenium and Compounds 7782-1*9-2
-- Selenious Acid 7783-00-8
Selenourea 630-10-4
-- Thai Iium Selenite 12039-52-0
Silver and Compounds 7440-22-4
Sircptozocin 18883-66-4
Strychnine 57-24-9
1,2.4,5-Teirachlorobeiizene 95-94-3
2.3. 7,8-ICOO (Uioxin) 1746-01-6
1.1,1,2-1 elrachIoroethane 630-20-6
1. 1.2,2-Telrachloroethane 79-34-5
letrachloroethylene 127-18-4
2.3.4.6-Tetrachlorophenol 56-90-2
letraethyl Lead 78-00-2
lhallium and Compounds 7440-28-0
-- Iha 11ium Acetate 563-68-8
-- I ha 11ium Carbonate 6533-73-9
-- I ha 11ium Chloride 7791-12-0
thai Iium Nitrate 101U2-U5-1
-- lhallic Oxide 131*1-32-5
-- lhallium Sul fate 7't'i6-l8-6
Ihioacetamide 62-55-5
Ihiourca 62-56-6
o-lolidine 119-93-7
Toluene 108-88-3
o-loluiduie 636-21-5
Toxaphene 60O1-35-2
I ribromomelhano ((Iromoform) 75-25-2
1,2,!|-Tricliloroben/une 120-82-1
1,1,1-1richloroethane 71-55-6
1.1,2-lrichloroethane 79-00-5
Irichloroeihylene 79-01-6
11 iclilorfon 52-68-6
I richlororoonoriiioromethane 75-69-'<
2,4,5-1richloiophenol 95-95-1
2, 'i. 6- I r i i;h I o ropheno I 88-06- 2
I, 1,2-lric;hloro-l,2,2,-
tri riiioroetliune 76-11-1
I XMIIM I C-2
(Continued I
HAll-llVlS IN VARIOUS MIDI A
Prepared:
Ha II -I ilu ftanye (Days)
So I I
low High
Ai r
S»
Low
th.jh
Surfacu w.n»;r
Low Iliijh
S«
(iround WciLor
low 1119(1
21.00
0.62
58.00
0.08
9.00 A
2.00 A
3650.00 4380.00 A
584.00
47.00
A
A
/2.0U
5.00
A
A
1.30
40.00
803.00
24 . 00
3.70
1.00
A
M
A
A
A
5.00 - M
0.38 2.00 A
0.62 9-00 A
2.00
O.Oll
1 .00
0. 17
2.00
0. 14
1 .01)
1.00
12.90 M
365.00 730.00
30.00
14.20
/ . 00
90 . 00
19.00
A
M
A
A
O
en
PI
LJ
(O
O
C1
o>
*i.<
i j
-------
Chemical Name CAS
Iri s(2.3-dibromopropylJphosphate 126-72-7
liypan Blue 72-57-1
Uracil Mustard 66-75-)
Uranium and Compounds 7'i'iO-61-1
I) re thane 51-79-6
Vanadium and Compounds 7MO-62-2
Vinyl Chloride 75-OI-M
o-Xylerie 95-««i-6
m-Xylene 108-38-3
p-Xylene 106-12-3
Xyiene (mixed) 1330-20-7
Zinc arid Compounds. 7MO-66-6
ixiiiOIT C-2
(Cunlinued)
pate Piepared: Bu«'i!B!U£_r_!8» }'J»'j
HAIt-IIVrS IN VARIOUS Ml 1)1 A
Half-life K.tiujti (U.iys)
Soil Air Surface Water Ground Water
low Mi'jli S" Low liign S" tow high S* low llitjli S»
1.20
0.50
't. 60
20.01)
M
M
I .00
1.50
PERS
5.00 A
9.00 M
M
o
to
CJ
M-
n
(0
O
* Letters denote the source of the data, as Iibled in Suction C.I.
"» PIRS indicates the chemical is persistent for Hut medium.
Ol
I
-------
OSWER Directive 5255.--1
C-19
Date Prepared: December 18, 1985
EXHIBIT C-3
TOXICITY DATA FOR POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
-- SELECTION OF INDICATOR CHEMICALS ONLY lj
Oral Route
Inhalation Route
Chemical Name
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
2-Acetylaminofluorene
Acrylonitrile
Aflatoxin Bl
Aldrin
4-Aminobiphenyl
Amitrole
Anthracene
Arsenic and Compounds
Asbestos
Auramine
Azaserine
Aziridine
Benzene
Benzidine
Benz(a)anthracene
Benz(c)acridine
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzyl Chloride
Beryllium and Compounds
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(chloromethyl)ether
Cacodylic Acid
Cadmium and Compounds
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlordane
Ch1o robenz i1at e
Chloroform
Chloromethyl Methyl Ether
4-Chloro-o-toluidine Hydrochloride
Chromium VI and Compounds
Chrysene
Creosote
Cyclophosphamide
10%
Effective
Dose
(ED10)
mg/kg/day
3
1
1
1
1
1
7
8
3
3
5
4
6
2
6
7
5
2
1
6
S
1
2
1
5
. 13E-02
. 67E+01
. OOE-04
.59E-02
. 15E-02
.09E-01
.69E-03
.33E-Q1
.23E-03
.85E-I-00
.26E-01
. 76E-02-
.67E-04
.OOE-03
.67E-03
NA
.69E-02
.26E-04
NA
.56E-Q2
.2QE-02
.25E-01
.OOE-01
.43E+01
NA
.OOE-01
.72E-02
.56E-02
Toxicity Constant
Water
(wTc)
1/mg
9.
1."
2.
1.
2.
2.
3.
3.
8.
7.
5 .
6.
4.
1.
4.
3.
5 .
1.
2.
4.
5.
2.
1.
1.
5.
14E-01
71E-03
86E+02
80E+00
49E+00
63E-01
71E+00
43E-02
86E-HDO
43E-03
43E-02
OOE-01
29E+Q1
43E+01
29E+00
NA
71E-01
43E-K11
NA
HE-t-00
37E+00
57E-02
71E-02
OOE-03
NA
43E-01
66E-K10
14E-01
4
8
1
9
1-
1
1
1
4
3
2
3
2
7
2
1
2
5
1
2
2
1
7
8
'2
Soil
(sic)
kg/mg
.57E-05
.57E-08
.43E-02
.OOE-OS
.-24E-04
.31E-05
.86E-04
. 71E-06
.43E-04
.71E-07
.71E-06
.OOE-05
. 14E-03
.14E-04
. 14E-04
NA
.86E-05
.71E-03
NA
.57E-05
.19E-04
.29E-06
.86E-06
.OOE-07
NA
.14E-06
.29E-05
.57E-05
ior.
Effective
Dose
(ED10)
mg/kg/day
3
1
1
1
1
1
7
8
3
3
5
4
6
2
6
5
7
5
1
2
1
6
5
1
5
2
1
5
. 13E-02
. 67E+01
.OOE-04
.59E-02
. 15E-02
.09E-01
.69E-03
.33E-01
.23E-03
. 85E+00
.26E-01
. 76E-02
.67E-04
.OOE-03
.67E-03
.88E-02
.69E-02
.26E-04
.67E-02
.56E-02
.20E-02
.25E-01
.OOE-01
.43E-HD1
.26E-01
.OOE-01
.72E-02
.56E-02
Air
Toxicity
Constant
(aTc)
m3/mg
9
1
2
1
2
2
3
3
8
/
5
6
4
1
4
4
3
5
1
1
2
4
5
2
5
1
I
5
. 14E+00
.71E-02
. 86E-HD3
.80E+01
.49 £+01
.63E+00
. 71E+01
.43E-01
.86E-H31
.43E-02
.43E-01
.OOE-l-00
.29E+02
.43E-HD2
.29E-t-01
.86E+00
.71E+00
.43E+02
.71E+01
.HE+Ol
.37E+01
.57E-01
.71E-01
.OOE-02
.43E-01
.43E+00
.66E+01
. 14E+00
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * *
ICF INCORPORATE!
-------
GSVE.R Directive
C-20
Date Prepared: December 18, 1985
EXHIBIT C-3
(Continued)
TOXICITY DATA FOR POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
-- SELECTION OF INDICATOR CHEMICALS ONLY
Oral Route
Inhalation Route
Chemical Name
ODD
DDE
DDT
Diallate
2 ,4-Diaminotoluene
1,2,7,8-Dibenzopyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
1,2-Dib.romo-3-chloropropane
Dibutylnitrosamine
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC)
1,1-Dichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
D ichlorophenylars ine
Dieldrin
Diepoxybutane
Diethanolnirrosamine
Diethyl Arsine
1,2-Diethylhydrazine
Diethylnitrosamine
Diethylstilbestrol (DES)
Dihydrosafrole
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine
Dimethyl Sulfate
D irnethy 1 aminoazobenzene
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
Dimethylcarbamoyl Chloride
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine
1,2-Dimethylhydrazine
Dimethylnitrosamine
2,3-DinitrotolueneA
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,5-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
3,4-Dinitrotoluene
1,4-fDioxane
N,N-Diphenylamine
10°;
Effective
Dose
(ED10)
mg/kg/day
Toxicity Constant
Water
(wTc)
1/mg
Soil
(sic)
10% Air
Effective Toxicity
Dose Constant
(ED10) (aTc)
mg/kg/day m3/mg
l.OOE-KH
2.63E-01
1.79E-Q1
4. 17E-01
3.33E-01
2.86E-03
1.09E-01
1.60E-01
6.86E-Q2
8.57Z-02
1.43E-07
5.43Er06
8.00E-06
3.43E-06
4.29E-06
l.OOE+01
2.63E-01
1.79E-01
4.17E-01
3.33E-01
2.63E-01 1.09E-01 5.43E-06
3.33E+01 8.57E-04 4.29E-08
2.86E-02
1.09E-HDO
1.60E+00
6.86E-01
8.57E-01
1
5
2
1
4
2
.OOE-03
.88E-03
.94E-02
.41E-01
.35E+00
.17E-01
2
4
9
2
6
1
.86E+01
'. 86E+00
.71E-01
-03E-01
.57E-03
.31E-01
1
2
4
1
3
6
.43E-03
.43E-04
.86E-05
.01E-05
.29E-07
.57E-06
1
5
2
1
4
2
.OOE-03
.88E-03
.94E-02
.41E-01
. 35E+00
. 17E-01
2
4
9
i
6*
6
1
.86E+02
.86E-K11
.71E+00
.03E+00
.57E-02
.31E-»-00
7.69E-03 3.71E+00 1.86E-04 7.69E-03 3.71E-K31
1.18E-01 2.43E-01 1.21E-05 1.18E-01 2.43E-rOO
5.88E-02 4.86E-01 2.43E-05 5.88E-02 4.86E+00
1
1
9
1
.OOE-03
.27E-04
.09E-01
.OOE-MD2
2.
2.
3.
2.
86E+01
26E+02
14E-02
86E-04
1
1
1
1
.43E-03
. 13E-02
.57E-06
.43E-08
1
1
9
1
.OQE-03
.27E-04
.09E-01
.OOE-t-02
2 .
2.
3.
2.
86E+02
26E+03
14E-01
86E-03
3
5
1
7
1
3
.57E-03
.OOE-06
.96E-03
.69E-02
. 15E-03
.45E-02
8
5
1
3
2
8
.OOE-fOO
.71E-K33
.46E+01
.71E-01
.49E-W1
.29E-01
4
2
7
1
1
4
.OOE-04
.86E-01
.29E-04
.86E-05
.24E-03
.14E-05
3
5
1
7
1
3
.57E-03
.OOE-06
.96E-03
.69E-02
. 15E-03
.45E-02
8
5
1
3
2
8
. OOE+01
.71E-t-04
.46E+02
.71E4-00
.49E+02
.29E+00
2.63E-01 1.09E-M30
3.33E+01 8.57E-03
*
December 18, 1985 Draft * *
ICF INCORPORAT1D
-------
;SWER Directive 9135. *-!
C-21
Date Prepared: December 13, 1985
EXHIBIT C-3
(Continued)
TOXICITY DATA FOR POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
-- SELECTION OF INDICATOR CHEMICALS ONLY
Oral Route
Inhalation Route
Chemical Name
10%
r1 c £ «- '
directive
Dose
(ED10)
mg/kg/day
Toxicity
Water
(wTc)
1/mg
Constant
Soil
(sic)
kg/mg
10°;
Dose
(ED10)
mg/kg/day
Air
loxicity
Constant
CaTc)
m3/mg
2.17E-01 1.31E-01 6.57E-06
8.
0
4. .
2.
8.
i
4.
5 .
5.
33E-01
78E-02
78E-02
33E-02
OOE+00
74E-03
88E-01
88E-01
3
1
1
3
1
6
4
4
.43E-02
.03E-H30
.03E+00
.43E-01
.43E-02
.03E+00
.86E-02
.86E-02
1.
5.
5.
I.
7".
3.
2.
2.
71E-06
14E-05
14E-05
71E-05
14E-07
01E-04
43E-06
43E-06
8
2
"i
8
2
4
5
S
.33E-01
. 78E-02
. 78E-02
.33E-02
. OOE+00
. 74E-03
.88E-01
.88E-01
3,
1.
1.
3.
1.
6 .
4.
4
.43E-01
. 03E+01
. 03E+01
.43E+00
.43E-01
. 03E-t-01
.86E-01
.86E-01
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
DipropyInitrosamine
Epichlorohydnn 6.25E+00 4.57E-03 2.29E-07
Ethyl Methanesulfonate 7.14E-Q3 4.00E+00 2.00E-04
Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) 7.69E-02 3.71E-01 1.S6E-05
Ethylene Oxide ' 1.67E-01 1.71E-01 8.57E-06
Ethylenethiourea ' 1.03E+00 2.77E-02 1.39E-06
1-Ethyl-nitrosourea 1.15E-01 2.49E-01 1.24E-05
Ferric Dextran
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Glycidaldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
aLpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCCH)
beta-HCCH
gamma-HCCH (Lindane)
delta-HCCH
Hexach loroethane 3.70E-I-00 7.71E-03 3.86E-07
Hydrazine l.OOE-02 2.86E+00 1.43E-04
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
lodomethane
Isosafrole
Kepone
Las iocarpine
3-MethyIcholanthrene
4,4'-Methylene-bis-2-chloroaniline
MethyInitrosourea
MethyIthiouracil
MethyIvinyInitrosamine
S-Methyl-N'-nitro-N-nitrosoguanadin 1
M i corny c in C
Mustard Gas
1-Napthylamine
2-Napthylamine 1.92E-01
Nickel and Compounds NA
2.17E-01 1.31E+00
6.25E+00
7.14E-03
7.69E-02
l."67E-01
1.03E+00
1.15E-01
3.70E+00
l.OOE-02
72E-02 1.66E+00 8.29E-05
1.49E-01 7.43E-Q6
NA NA
4.57E-02.
4.00E+01
3.71E+00
1.71E+00
2.77E-01
2.49E-t-00
7.71E-02
2.86E+01
1
2
2
8
5
8
3
.85E+00
.27E-02
.63E-02
.33E-02
.88E-01
.33E-OS
.33E-02
1
1
1
3
4
3
8
.54E-02
.26E+00
.09E-I-00
.43E-01
.86E-02
.43E+02
.S7E-01
7
6
5
1
2
1
"4
.71E-07
.29E-05
.43E-05
.71E-OS
.43E-06
.71E-02
.29E-05
1
2
2
8
5
8
3
. 85E+00
.27E-02
.63E-02
.33E-02
.88E-01
.33E-05
.33E-02
1.
1.
1.
3.
4.
3.
8.
54E-01
26E+01
Q9E+01
43E-K10
86E-01
43E+03
57E+00
1.72E-02 1.66E+01
1.92E-01
9.09E-01
3.14E-01
* December 18, 1985 Draft *
ICF INCORPORATE
-------
C-22
Date Prepared: December 18, 1985
EXHIBIT C-3
(Continued)
TOXICITY DATA FOR POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
-- SELECTION OF INDICATOR CHEMICALS ONLY
Chemical Name
Nitrosomethylurethahe
N-Nitrosopiperidine
N'-Nitrosopyrrolidine
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phenobarbital
Phenylalanine Mustard
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Propane Sultone
Propylenimine
Pyrene
Saccharin
Safrole
Streptozocin
2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin)
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2, 2-rTetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Thioacetamide
Thiourea
o-Tolidine
o-Toluidine
Toxaphene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Tris(2,3-dibromopropy1)phosphate
Trypan Blue
Uracil Mustard
Urethane
Vinyl Chloride
Oral Route
10°;
Effective
Dose
Toxicity
Constant
Water
(ED10)
mg/kg/day
4
5
3
1
6
5
1
9
2
2
6
. 17E-04
.88E-03
.45E-03
.89E+00
.67E-01
.OOE+01
. 33E-K30
.09E-04
. 70E-02
. 70E-02
.67E-02
6
4
8
1
4
5
2
3
1
1
4
(wTc)
I/rag
.86E+01
.86E+00
.29EKIO
.51E-02
.29E-02
.71E-04
. 14E-02
. 14E+01
. 06E-MXD
.06E+00
.29E-01
3.
2.
4.
7.
2.
2.
1.
1.
5.
5.
2.
Soil
(sic)
kg/mg
43E-03
43E-04
14E-04
57E-07
14E-06
86E-08
07E-06
57E-03
29E-05
29E-05
14E-05
Inhalation Route
10%
Effective
Dose
Air
Toxicity
Constant
(ED10)
mg/kg/day
4
5
3
1
6
5
1
9
2
2
6
.17E-04
.88E-03
.45E-03
.89E+00.
.67E-01
.QGE+01
.33E-H30
.09E-04
. 70E-02
. 70E-02
.67E-02
6
t
4
8
1
4
5
2
3
1
1
h+
(aTc)
m3/mg
.86E+02
.86E-t-01
.29E+01
.51E-01
.29E-01
.71E-03
.14E-01
. 14E+02-
.06E-MM
.06E+01
.29E+00
1
5
9
8
7
5
5
3
1
3
4
1
3
5
1
1
1
.OOE+02
.OOE+00
.09E-03
.33E-06
.69E+00
.88E-01
.56E+00
.70E-02
.25E-02
.70E-02
.55E-t-00
.03E-01
. 33E+00
.56E+00
.2SE+01
.02E-01
.OOE-l-02
2.
5 .
3.
3.
3.
4.
5.
7.
2.
7.
6.
2.
8.
5.
2.
2.
2.
86E-04
71E-03
14E+00
43E-HD3
71E-03
86E-Q2
14E-03
71E-01
29E+00
71E-01
29E-03
77E-01
57E-03
14E-03
29E-03
80E-01
86E-04
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
3
1
3
3
1
4
2
1
1
1
.43E-08
.86E-07
.57E-04
.71E-01
.86E-07
.43E-06
.57E-07
.86E-05
.14E-04
.86E-05
.14E-07
.39E-05
.29E-07
.57E-07
.14E-07
.40E-05
.43E-08
1.
5 .
9.
8.
7.
5 .
5.
3.
1.
3.
4.
1.
3.
5.
1.
1.
1.
OOE-HD2
OOE+00
09E-03
33E-06
69E+00
88E-01
56E+00
70E-02
2SE-02
70E-02
55E-M)0
03E-01
33E+00
56E-t-00
25E+01
02E-OL
OOE+02
2
5
3
3
3
4
5
7
2
7
6
2
8
5
2
2
2
.86E-03
.71E-02
. 14E-MH
.43E+04
. 71E-02
.86E-01
. 14E-02
. 71E+00
.29E+01
.71E+00
.29E-02
. 77E-H30
.57E-02
.14E-02
.29E-02
.80E+00
.86E-03
1.56EH-00 1.83E-02 9.14E-07 1.56E+00 1.83E-01
6.25E+00 4.57E-03 2.29E-07 6.25E+00 4.57E-02
lj The list'of chemicals presented in this exhibit is based on EPA's Reportable
Quantities Analysis and should not be considered an all-inclusive list of suspected
carcinogens. Refer to Exhibit C-4 for toxicity data for risk characterization for the
chemicals listed here.
*
December 18, 1985 Draft
* *
ICF
INCORPOR£71C
-------
C-23
Dace Prepared: December 18, 1985
EXHIBIT C-4
TOXICITY DATA FOR POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
- RISK CHARACTERIZATION l>
Oral Route
Inhalation Route
Chemical Name
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthy1ene
2-Acetylaminofluorene
Acrylonitrile
Aflatoxin Bl
Aldrin
^.-Aminobiphenyl
Amitrole
Anthracene
Arsenic and Compounds
Asbestos
Auramine
Azaserine
Aziridine
Benzene
Benzidine
Benz(a)anthracene
Benz(c)acridine
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b) fluoranthene
Benzo(ghi) pery lene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzyl Chloride
Beryllium and Compounds
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(chloromethy1)ether
Cacodylic Acid
Cadmium and Compounds
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chlorobenzilate
Chloroform
Chloromethyl Methyl Ether
4-Chloro-o-toluidine Hydrochloride
Chromium VI and Compounds
Chrysene
Creosote
Cyclophosphamide
ODD
DDE
Potency EPA
Factor Weight
(PF) of
(mg/kg/d)-l Source2-1 Evidence
Potency EPA
Factor Weight
(PF) of
(mg/kg/d)-l Source2-1 Evideno
2
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
7
-90E+03 CAG
. 10E+01 CAG
.50E+01 HEA
.45E-02 HEA
. 15E+01 HEA
NA
. 10E-KJO CAG
NA
.30E-01 HEA
.61E+00 HEA
.OOE-02 HEA
NA
B2
Bl 2.iOE-01 CAG
B2
B2
32
B2
A 5.00E+01 HEA
A
B2
B2
B2
A 2.60E-02 HEA
A 2.30E-HD2 CAG
B2
C
B2 6.10E+00 HEA
B2
D
C
D 2.60E+00 CAG
B2
A 9 . 30E+03 CAG
D
D 7 . aOE+00 HEA
B2
B2
B2
B2
Bl
B2
D 4.10E+01 ' HEA
B2
Bl
Bl
B2
B2
32
Bl
B2
B2
B2
82
A
A
B2
B'2
B2
A
A
B2
C
B2
B2
D
C
B2
B2
A
D
Bl
B2
B2
32
B2
Bl
B2
A
B2
Bl
Bl
B2
B2
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft
* * *
ICF INCORPORATE!
-------
C-24
Date Prepared: December 18, 1985
EXHIBIT C-4
(Continued)
TOXICITY DATA FOR POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
-- RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Oral Route
Inhalation Route
Chemical Name
DDT
Diallate
2,4-Diaminotoluene
1,2,7,8-Dibenzopyrene
D ibenz (a, h) anthr acen-e
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
Dibutylnitrosamine
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC)
1,1-Dichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
Dichlorophenylarsine
Dieldrin
Diepoxybutane
Diethanolnitrosamine
Diethyl Arsine
1,2-Diethylhydrazine
Diethylnitrosamine
Diethylstilbestrol (DES)
Dihydrosafrole
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine
Dimethyl Sulfate
Dimethylaminoazobenzene
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
Dimethylcarbamoyl Chloride
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine
1,2-Dimethylhydrazine
DimethyInitrosamine
2,3-Dinitrotoluene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,5-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
3,4-Dinitrotoluene
1,4-Dioxane
N,N-DiphenylaBine
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
DipropyInitrosamine
Epichlorohydrin
Ethyl Methanesulfonate
Potency EPA Potency EPA
Factor Weight Factor Weight
(PF) of (PF) of
(mg/kg/d)-l Source2-1 Evidence (mg/kg/d)-l Source2j Evidence
3
5
1
6
3
4
I
3
7
9
.40E-01 HEA
. 40E+00 CAG
. 70E+00 CAG
.90E-02 HEA
.OOE+01 CAG
.40E+01 CAG
"
.60E-HH CAG
.10E-01 CAG
.70E-01 CAG
.90E-03 CAG
B2
B2
B2
B2
B-2 .
B2
B2
B2
B2
C 1.50E-ai HEA
B2 6.30E-04 HEA
D
32
B2
B2
D
B2
B2
A
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
D
B2
D
C
D
B2
D
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
B2
C
B2
D
32
32
32
D
32
32
A
32
32
32
B2
32
82
32
32
32
D
32
D
C
D
B-2
D
32
32
B2
32
December 18, 1985 Draft
ICF
INCORPORATE
-------
- i v> ^ .-<
C-25
Dace Prepared: December 18, 1935
EXHIBIT C-4
(Continued)
TOX1CITY DATA FOR POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
- RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Oral Route
Inhalation Route
4.10E+01
3.30E-KI1
3. 40E+00
.69E+00
.75E-02
.IOE+01
.aoE+oo
.33E+00
1.40E-02
Chemical Same
Echylene Dibromide (EDB)
Ethylene Oxide
Echylenethiourea
1-Echyl-nitrosaurea
Ferric Dextran
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Glycidaldehyde
Kepcachlor
Hepcachlor Epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCCH)
beta-HCCH
gamma-HCCH (Lindane)
delca-HCCH
Hexachloroechane
Hydrazine
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
lodomechane
Isosafrole
Lasiocarpine
3-Methylcholanthrene
4,4'-Methylene-bis-2-chloroaniline
MethyInitrosourea 3.OOE+02
MethyIthiouracil
MethyIvinylnitrosamine
N-Methy1-N'-nitro-N-nitrosoguanadin
Mitoraycin C
Mustard Gas
1-Mapthylamine
2-N'apthylamine
Nickel and Compounds NA
N i trosomechylurethane
N-Mitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine 2.10E+00
5-Nitro-o-toluidin«
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Potency EPA
Factor Weight
(PF) of
(mg/kg/d)-l Source2-1 Evidence
Potency EPA
Factor Weight
(PF) of
(mg/kg/d)-l Source2-1 Evidence
CAG
CAG
CAG
HEA
HEA
CAG
CAG
HEA
CAG
CAG
CAG
B2
B1/B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
C
B2
C
B2/C
D
C
B2
C
C
C
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
A
C
A
D
B2
B2
B2
C
C
3.50E-01
CAG
1.20E+00
HEA
B2
I1/B2
B2
32
B2
B2
B2
B2
C
B2
r
32/C
D
C
B2
C
C
C
B2
B2
B2
32
32
32
B2
32
32
A
C
A
A
B2
B2
B2
C
C
* * December 18, 1985 Draft *
ICF
INCORPORATED
-------
,:>»;. A
C-26
Dace Prepared: December 18, 1935
EXHIBIT C-4
(Continued)
TOXICITY DATA FOR POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
-- RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Oral Route
Inhalation Route
Chemical Name
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phenobarbital
Phenylalanine Mustard
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Propane Sultone
Propylenimine
Pyrene
Saccharin
Safrole
Streptozocin
2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin)
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Thioacetamide
Thiourea
o-Tolidine
o-Toluidine
Toxaphene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
2,4,6-Trichloropheno1
Tris(2,3-dibromopropy1)phosphate
Trypan Blue
Uracil Mustard
Urethane
Vinyl Chloride
Potency EPA
Factor Weight
CPF) of
(mg/kg/d)-l Source2-1 Evidence
Potency EPA
Factor Weight
(PF) of
(mg/kg/d)-l Source1-1 Evidence
4.34E+00
1. 15E-KU
HEA
HEA
1.56E+05
2.00E-01
5.10E-02
1.10E+00
5.73E-02
1.10E-02
1.98E-02
2.30E+00
HEA
HEA
HEA
CAG
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
B2
D
B2
81
B2
B2
B2
C
B2
B2
B2
C
C
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
C
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
A
6.10E+00
HEA
1.70E-03
HEA
4.60E-03
HEA
2.50E-02
HEA
B2
D
B2
31
B2
32
B2
C
32
32
B2
C
C
32
32
32
32
B2
32
C
32
B2
82
B2
32
32
A
u The list of chemicals presented in this exhibit is based on EPA's Reportable Quantities
Analysis and should not be considered an all-inclusive list of suspected carcinogens. Refer
to Exhibit C-3 for toxicity data for indicator selection for the chemicals listed here.
2J Sources for Exhibit C-4:
HEA = Health Effects Assessment document, prepared by the Environmental Criteria and
Assessment Office, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1985.
CAG = Evaluation by Carcinogen'Assessment Group, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C., 1985.
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
ICF INCORPORATES
-------
C-27
EXHIBIT C-5
.Date Prepared: December 18, 19
TOXICITY DATA FOR NONCARCINOGEN 1C EFFECTS
-- SELECTION OF INDICATOR CHEMICALS ONLY 1J
Oral Route
Chemical Name
Acenaphthene @
Acenaphthylene @
Acetone
Acetonitrile
2-Acetylaminofluorene @
Acrylic Acid
Acrylonitrile (§
Aflatoxin 81 @
Aldrin <§
Allyl Alcohol
Aluminum Phosphide
4-Aminobiphenyl @
Amitrole (§
Ammonia
Anthracene (§
Antimony and Compounds
Arsenic and Compounds <§
Asbestos '<§
Auramine @
Azasenne !§
Azindine @
Barium and Compounds
Benzene (2
Benzidine (§
3enz(a)anthracene 3
3enz(c)acridine (§
Benzo(a)pyrene <§
Benzo(b)fluoranthene !§
Benzo(ghi)perylene §
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (3
Benzyl Chloride @
Beryllium and Compounds @
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether @
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(chloromethyl)ether (§
1,3-Butadiene
Cacodylic Acid @
Cadmium and Compounds @
Captan
Carbaryl
Carbon Disulfide
Inhalation Route
Minimum
? f f Ar*+ i ir^
L r rect ive
Dose
(MED)
tng/day RVe
2.99E+01 9
3.54E-t-00 * 6
8.80E-01 3
4;60E+00 10
l.OOE+OO 9
4.90E+00 10
8.55E-I-01 5
2.24E-H)! 8
6.00E-01 8
7.43E+Q2 10
2.39E-I-QO 4
4.49E+00 10
9.85E-H32 10
Toxicity
Water
(wTn)
1/og
6.02E-01
3.39E+00
6.32E-t-00
4.35E-I-00
l.SOE-t-01
4.08E+00
1. 17E-01
7.14E-01
2.67E+01
2.69E-02
3.35E-K)0
4.45E+00
2.03E-02
Constant
Soil
(sin)
kg/rag
3.01E-05
1.69E-04
3.41E-04
2. LTE-04
9.00E-04
2.04E-04
5.35E-06
3.57E-05
1.33E-03
1.35E-06
1.67E-04
2.23E-04
1.02E-06
Minimum
Effective
Dose
(MED)
mg/day
1.23E+02
4.34E+01
3.54E+00
4.25E-I-01
7.00E-01
L.OOE-t-00 *
2.70E-02
4.90E-M30 *
1.70E+00
1.19E+01
6.28E+00
1. 10E-02
7.43E+02 *
2.39E+00 *
4.46E-01
9.85E-I-02 -
RVe
a
10
6
5
8
9
10
10
10
7
6
8
10
*+
8
10
Air
Toxic]
Const=
(aTn)
m3/kg
1.3 IE*
4 . 6 IE*'
3 . 39E-H
2.35E-K
2.29E+C
i.aoE-rO
7 4LE-K3
4.08E-I-0
1.18E-t-0
1. 18E-t-0
1.91E-HD
l.-5E*Oi
2.69E-01
3.35E*01
3.59E-02
2.G3E-01
3.30E+01 * 7 4.24E--01 2.12E-05 3.30E-M31
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *.
ICF INCORPORATE!
-------
C-23
i'w^rc Directive ?I55.--L
Date Prepared: December 13, 1935
EXHIBIT C-5
(Continued)
TOXICITY DATA FOR NONCARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
-- SELECTION OF INDICATOR CHEMICALS ONLY
Oral Route
Inhalation Route
1.40E+01
1.34E+00 *
Chemical Name
Carbon Tetrachloride @
Chlordane @
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate @
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroform @,
Chloromethyl Methyl Ether @
4-Chloro-o-toluidine Hydrochloride<2
Chromium III and Compounds
Chromium VI and Compounds @
Chrysene @
Copper and Compounds
Creosote (§
Cresol
Cyanides (n.o.s.) IJ
-- Barium Cyanide
-- Calcium Cyanide
-- Cyanogen
-- Cyanogen Chloride
-- Copper Cyanide
-- Hydrogen Cyanide
-- Nickel Cyanide
Potassium Cyanide
Potassium Silver Cyanide
- Silver Cyanide
-- Sodium Cyanide
-- Zinc Cyanide
Cyclophosphamide !§
ODD @
DDE @
DDT @
Diallate @
2,4-Diaminotoluene (§
1,2,7,8-Dibenzopyrene (§
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene @
l,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane §
Dibutylnitrosamine (§
Dibutyl Phthalate 4.20E+02
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1.54E-t-02
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1.54E-t-02
Minimum
Dose
(MED)
mg/day RVe
6.30E-I-01 * 10
5.60E+01 4
6.60E-KDO 6
Toxicity
Water
(win)
1/mg
3.17E-01
1.43E-01
1.82E+00
Constant
Soil
(sin)
kg/mg .
1.59E-05
7.14E-06
9.09E-05
Minimum
Effective
Dose
(MED)
rag/ day
6.30E+01
7.13E+01
6.60E+00 -'-
/
5.90E+00
RVe
10
1
6
7
Air
Toxicif
Cons i an
(aTn)
m3/kg
3. 17E+OI
2.79E-0
1.32E+0
2.37E+0
5
4
7.14E-01 3.57E-05
5.97E-I-00 2.99E-04
8
4
4
3.81E-02 1.90E-06
5.19E-02 2.60E-06
'5. 19E-02 2.60E-06
6.40E-KDO 8
1.40E+01 * 3
1.34E+00 4
4.20E-t-02 * 8
2.77E-MD2 * 5
2.77E+02 5
December 18, 1985 Draft
ICF
INCORPORATED
-------
Jirec..ve
C-29
EXHIBIT C-5
(Continued)
Dace Prepared: December 13, 19
TOXICITY DATA FOR NONCARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
-- SELECTION OF INDICATOR CHEMICALS ONLY
Chemical Name
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine @
Dichlorodlfluoromethane
1,1-Oichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) @
1,1-Dichloroethylene (§
1,2-Dichloroethylene -(cis)
1,2-Dichloroethylene (trans)
Dichloromethane'@
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic
Acid (2,4-D)
4-(2,4-Dichlorophenoxy)butyric
Acid (2,4-DB)
Dichlorophenylarsine @
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichloropropene
Dieldrin <§
Diepoxybutane (§
Diethanolnitrosamine §
Diethyl Arsine (§
1,2-Diethylhydrazine (§
Diethylnitrosamine (§
Diethyl Phthalate
Diethylstilbestrol (DES) @
Dihydrosafrole @
Dimethoate
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine @
Dimethylamine
Dimethyl Sulfate @
Dimethylaminoazobenzene (§
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene (3
Dimethylcarbamoyl Chloride (§
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine (§
1,2-Dimethylhydrazine (§
Dimethylnitrosamine <§
1,3-Dinitrobenzene
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
2 ,4-Dinitrophenol
2,3-Dinitrotoluene (§
Minimum
Effective
Dose
(MED) .
mg/day
1.54E+02
Oral
RVe
4
Route
Toxic ity
Water
(win)
1/mg
5.19E-02
Inhalation Route
Constant
Soil
(sTn)
2.60E-06
Minimum
Effective
Dose
(MED)
mg/day
2.77E+02
Air
Toxic i
Consta
CaTn)
RVe m3/kg
5 3.61E-
5
1
3
1
1
2
1
.42E+02 *
. 14E-KJ3
.77E+01
.89E+02 *
.89E+02 *
. 1SE+04
.21E+02
1
10
7
5
5
10
5
2
1
3
5,
5
9
8
. 58E-Q2
. 76E-02
. 71E-01
. 29E-Q2
.29E-02
. 20E-04
.26E-02
1.
8.
1.
2.
2.
4.
4.
29E-06
80E-07
86E-05
65E-06
65E-06
60E-08
13E-06
5
1
1
1
1
2
1
.42E-KJ2
.45E+02
.77E+01
.89E-I-02
.89E+02
.18E+04 *
.21E+02 *
7
8
5
5
5
10
5
o
1
5
5 .
5 ,
9.
a,
. 53E-<
. IQE><
. 65E-M
.29E-(
, 29E-(
.20E-C
,26E-(
1.29E+02
2.00E+02 * 10
6.00E-01 1
1.24E-01 6.20E-06 1.29E+02 * 8 1.24E-K
l.OOE-01 5.00E-06 2.0QE+02
3.33E-HDO 1.67E-04 3.24E+00
10 l.OOE-t-0
5 3.09E+0
2.99E4-04
2.67E-04 1.34E-08 2.99E+04
3.70E+01 * 6 3.24E-01 1.62E-05 3.70E-*-01
1.35E+00 6 8.89E-t-00 4.44E-04
2.45E+00 8 6.53E+00 3.27E-04
1.40E-H31 8 1.14E+00 5.7IE-05
1.35E+00 *
2.45E+00 *
1.40E+01 *
6
3
3
2.67E-0.
3.2-E-rQC
6 iSE^-Ol
1.14E-01
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
ICF INCORPORATE!
-------
C-30
Date Prepared: December 18, 1985
EXHIBIT C-5
(Continued)
TOXICITY DATA FOR NONCARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
-- SELECTION OF INDICATOR CHEMICALS ONLY
Oral Route
Inhalation Route
Chemical Name
2,4-Dinitrotoluene @
2,5-Dinitrotoluene @
2,6-Dinitrotoluene §
3,4-Dinitrotoluene @
Dinoseb
1,4-Dioxane @
N,N-Diphenylamine @
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine @ 5.98E-t-01
Dipropylnitrosamine @
Epichlorohydrin l§
Ethanol 2.40E+04
Ethyl Methanesuifonate @
Ethylbenzena 7.24E+02 *
Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) @
Ethylene Oxide @
Ethylenethiourea @
1-Ethyl-nitrosourea @
Ferric Dextran (2
Fluoranthene (2
Fluorene (3
Fluorides 8.01E+00
Formaldehyde
Formic Acid
Glycidaldehyde @
Glycol Ethers (n.o.s.)
-- Diethylene Glycol, Monoethyl Ether
-- 2-Ethoxyethanol
-- Ethylene Glycol, Monobutyl Ether
-- 2-Methoxyethanol
-- Propylene Glycol, Monoethyl Ether
-- Propylene Glycol, Monomethyl Ether
Heptachlor @
Heptachlor Epoxide (§
Hexachlorobenzene (§ 5.00E-t-01
Hexachlorobutadiene (§
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCCH)(§
beta-HCCH (§
gamma-HCCH (Lindane) (§
delta-HCCH (§
Minimum
Oose
(MED)
rag/ day
2.05E-M31
2.99E+01
Toxic ity
Water
(win)
RVe I/ rag
9 8.78E-01
9 6.02E-01
Constant
Soil
(sin)
kg/mg
4.39E-05
3.01E-05
Minimum
Effective
Dose
(MED)
mg/day RVe
2.05E+01 * 9
2.99E+01 * 9
Air
Toxicity
Constai' '
(aTn)
ai3/kg
8.78EfOO
. 6.02E-H30
10
10
4
3.34E-01 1.67E-05 5..98E+01 * 10 3 . 34E+00
8.33E-04 4.17E-08
1.10E-02 5.52E-07
2.40E+04
7.24E*02
10
4
1.25E+00 6.24E-05
l.OOE+00
8.33E-03
1.10E-01
1.40E+02
10 4.00E-01 2.00E-OS 5.00E-t-01 * 10 4.00E+00
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * *
ICF
INCORPORATE
-------
C-31
EXHIBIT C-5
(Continued)
Date Prepared: December 18, 1935
TOXICITY DATA FOR NONCARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
-- SELECTION OF INDICATOR CHEMICALS ONLY
5.50E+02
2.24E-HD1
7.60E-01
Chemical Name
Kexachloroethane @
Hexachlorophene
Hydrazine @
Hydrogen Sulfide
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene £
lodomethane @
. Iron and Compounds
Isoprene
Isosafrole @
Kepone @
Lasiocarpine @
Lead and Compounds (Inorganic)
Linuron
Malathion
Manganese and Compounds
Mercury and Compounds (Alkyl)
Mercury and Compounds (Inorganic)
Mercury Fulminate
Methyl Chloride
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Ethyl Ketone Peroxide
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl Parathion
2-Methyl-4-Chlorophenoxyacetic Acid
3-Methylcholanthrene @
4,4' -Methylene-bis-2-chloroaniline_t.A-<
10
' 10
4
9,
7 .
4,
1
OSE-02
. 75E-03
.55E-03
a"rr> Lrtrt
4.
3.
2.
rt
52E-06
87E-07
28E-07
» et* /^ Bf
2.
?
1.
O
, 21E+02
.58E+03
. 22E+02
10
10
7
9
/ .
/.
.05E-01
. 73E-02
. 15 E"**OQ
i "* ** A ^
1.S7E+02
December 18, 1985 Draft
it If it
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
C-32
Date Prepared: December 18, 19
EXHIBIT C-5
(Continued)
TOXICITY DATA FOR NONCARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
- SELECTION OF INDICATOR CHEMICALS ONLY
Oral Route
Inhalation Route
Chemical Name
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine @
5-Nitro-o-toluidine @
Per.achlorobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene @
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacetin @
Phenanthrene (3
Phenobarbital ;§
Phenol
Phenylalanine Mustard @
Phenyl Mercuric Acetate
Phosphine
Polychiorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) (§
Propane Sultone @
Propylenimine @
Pyrene (§
Pyridine
Saccharin §
Safrole @
Selenium and Compounds (n.o.s.)
-- Selenious Acid
-- Selenourea
Thallium Selenite
Silver and Compounds
Streptozocin !§
Strychnine
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin) @
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane @
1,1,2,2-Tecrachloroethane 3
Tetrachloroethylene §
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
Tetraethyl Lead (§
Thallium and Compounds (n.o.s.)
-- Thallium Acetate
-- Thallium Carbonate
-- Thallium Chloride
- Thallium Nitrate
- Thallic Oxide
- Thallium Sulfate
Minimum
IT f f af*f i IT a
C* L X BC 1 IVts
Dose
(MED)
mg/day
8.62E+02
2.20E-01
Toxicity
Water
(win)
RVe 1/mg
10 2.32E-02
6 5.45E+01
Constant
Soil
(sTn)
fcS/mg
1.16E-06
2.73E-03
Minimum
C" C £
Lt tect ive
Dose
(MED)
rag/ day RVe
8.62E-KJ2 * 10
2.20E-01 * 6
Air
T* ' '
Toxici
Consta
(aTn)
oi3/kg
2.32E-(
5 . 45E-K
5.98E+01
l.OOE-01 5.02E-06 8.02E>01 10 2.49E-»-C
1.90E-01 10 1.05E-H32 5.26E-03 1.90E-01 * 10 1.03E-*-0:
l.OOE-01
2.0SE-I-01
2.20E-*-01 * 5
1.46E+03 7
1.07E+01 8
1.40E-03 5
2.00E-MD1 l.OOE-03 l.OOE-01
9.76E-02 4.38E-06 2.0SE+01
4.55E-01 2.27E-05
9.62E-03 4.81E-07
1.50E+00 7.48E-05
7.14E+03 3.57E-01
2.00E-K32
9.76E-01
2.20E+01
7.27E+03
1.07E-t-01
2.50E-I-00
5
.10
* 8
5
4. 55E-KDC
2.75E-02
1.50E-KI1
4.00E+01
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
C-33
Dace Prepared: December 18, 1985
EXHIBIT C-5
(Continued)
TOXICITY DATA FOR NONCARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
-- SELECTION OF INDICATOR CHEMICALS ONLY
Oral Route
Inhalation Route
Chemical N'ame
Thioacetamide (§
Thiourea (§
o-Tolidine @
Toluene 2.69E+Q3 * 7
o-Toluidine @
Toxaphene @
Tribromomethane (Bromoform) 6.60E+00 6
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 3.73E+01 4
1,1,1-Trichloroethane - " 5.45E+Q3 * 2
1,1,2-Trichlaroethane @
Trichloroethylene (§ 9.50E+00 5
Trichlorofon 4.52E-I-01 10
Trichloromonofluororaethane
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 1.18E+02 6
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol @
1,1,2-Trichloro-l,2,2-crifluoroethane
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate (§
Trypan Blue @
L'racil Mustard @
Uranium and Compounds 1.70E-*-00 6
Urethane @
Vanadium and Compounds 1.40E+01 1
Vinyl Chloride 3 2.28E+02 * 10
o-Xylene
m-Xylene
p-Xylene
Xylenes (mixed)
Zinc and Compounds 1.50E+02 8
Minimum
Dose
(MED)
mg/day
Toxic ity ConstanC
Water Soil
(win) (sin)
RVe 1/mg k.g/mg
Minimum
Effective
Dose
(MED)
mg/day
Air
Toxicit
Cons tan
(aTn)
RVe m3/kg
5.20E-Q3 2.60E-07 2.69E+03
1.82E+00 9.09E-05
2.14E-01 1.07E-05
7.33E-04 3.67E-08
1.05E-HDO S.26E-05
4.42E-01 2.21E-05
2.70E-*-00 4
4.52E-H31 * 10
1.02E-01 5.10E-06 1.18E-KJ2 * 6
7.06E-I-00 3.53E-04 1.70E+00 * 6
1.43E-01 7.14E-06
8.77E-02 4.39E-06
5.20E-0
6.60E+00 * 6 1.82E+0
1.32E-HD1 1 1.52E+OI
5.45E-t-03 2 7.33E-0
2.96E-K)
4.42E+OI
1.02E-I-OI
'.06E-1-0:
1.40E+01 * 1 1.43E-KX
2.28E-H02 10 8.77E-0:
1.07E-01 5.33E-06 1.50E+02
1.07E-KK
§ Potential carcinogenic effects also. See Exhibits C-3 and C-4.
* MED and RVe values marked with an asterisk are based on values for the other exposure
route.
lj Refer to Exhibit C-6 for coxicity data for risk characterization for the chemicals
listed here.
2j N.O.S. = not otherwise specified.
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
ICF INCORPORATtl
-------
C-34
Date Prepared: December 13, 1935
EXHIBIT C-6
TOXICITY DATA FOR NONCARCINOGENIC
EFFECTS -- RISK CHARACTERIZATION 1J
Chemical Name
Acenaphthene @
Acenaphthylene @
Acetone
Acetonitrile
2-Acetylaminofluorene @
Acrylic Acid
Acfylonitrile @
Aflatoxin Bl @
Aldrin @
Allyl Alcohol
Aluminum Phosphide
4-Aminobiphenyl @
Amitrole @
Ammonia
Anthracene @
Antimony and Compounds
Arsenic and Compounds @
Asbestos ,3
Auramine @
Azaserine @
Aziridine §
Barium and Compounds
Benzene @
Benzidine @
Benz(a)anthracene @
Benz(c)acridine (§
Benzo(a)pyrene @
Benzo(b)f luoranthene (§
Benzo(ghi)perylene @
Benzo(k)fluoranthene §
Benzyl Chloride @
Beryllium and Compounds (§
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether @
B is(2-chloroisopropy1)ether
Bis(chloromechyl)ether 3
1,-3-Butadiene
Cacodylic Acid @
Cadmium and Compounds {§
Oral Route
Acceptable Intake
Inhalation Route
Acceptable Intake
Subchron Chronic Subchron Chronic
(AIS) (AIC) (AIS) (AIC)
--mg/kg/day- Source2-1 --mg/kg/day- Source2"
3.00E+01 3.00E-t-00
HEA
8.30E-02
4.30E-04
ADI1J
ADI
5.10E-02 HEA 1.4E-3(T)"J 1.40E-04 HEA
l.OOE-02
2.90E-04
ADI
HEA
December 18, 1985 Draft
ICF
INCORPORATED
-------
C-35
Date Prepared: December 18, 1985
EXHIBIT C-6
(Continued)
TOXICITY DATA FOR NONCARCINOGENIC
EFFECTS -- RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Oral Route-
Inhalation Route
Chemical Name
Captan
Carbaryl
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride (§
Chlordane @
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate @
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroform @
Chloromethyl Methyl Ether @
4-Chloro-o-toluidine Hydrochloridei?
Chromium III and Compounds
Chromium VI and Compounds @
Chrysene <§
Copper and Compounds
Creosote (3
Cresol
Cyanides (n.o.s.) SJ
-- Barium Cyanide
-- Calcium Cyanide
-- Cyanogen
-- Cyanogen Chloride
-- Copper Cyanide
-- Hydrogen Cyanide
-- Nickel Cyanide
-- Potassium Cyanide
-- Potassium Silver Cyanide
-- Silver Cyanide
-- Sodium Cyanide
-- Zinc Cyanide
Cyclophosphamide @
ODD <§
DDE @
DDT (§
Diallate @
2,4-Diaminotoluene 5
Acceptable Intake
Subchron Chronic
(AIS) (AIC)
--mg/kg/day--
Source
Acceptable Intake
Subchron Chronic
(AIS) (AIC)
--mg/kg/day--
Source
l.QOE-01
. 1. 10E-01
r.CCE-04
2.70E-02
1.40E-H31
2.50E-02
l.SOE-t-00
5.00E-03
3.70E-02 3.70E-02
ADI
ADI
ADI
ADI
3.30E-02 5.70E-03
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
5.10E-03
L.OOE-02
HEA
HEA
5.10E-02
2.00E-02 '
7.QQE-02
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
5.00E-02
7.00E-02
2.00E-02
1.90E-02
5.00E-02
2.00E-01
l.OOE-01
4.00E-02
5.00E-Q2
ADI
ADI
ADI
ADI
ADI
ADI
ADI
ADI
ADI
ADI
ADI
ADI
ADI
ADI
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
ICF INCORPORATE!
-------
C-36
Date Prepared: December 13, 1935
EXHIBIT C-6
(Continued)
TOXICITY DATA FOR NONCARCINOGENIC
EFFECTS -- RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Oral Route Inhalation Route
<««* *. *.»*_.««
Acceptable Intake Acceptable Intake
Subchron Chronic Subchron Chronic
(AIS) (AIC) (AIS) (AIC)
Chemical Name --mg/kg/day-- Source --mg/kg/day- Source
1,2,7,8-Dibenzopyrene @
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene @
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane @
Dibutylnitrosamine (§
Dibutyl Phthalate
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 9.00E-02 ADI
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
3 ,3'-Dichlorobenzidine @
Dichlorodiflucroraethane ' 1.50E-01 ADI
1,1-Dichloroethane 1.20E-HDO 1.20E-01 HEA 1.38E+00 1.40E-01 HEA
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC) @
1,1-Dichloroethylene @
1,2-Dichloroethylene (cis)
1,2-Dichloroethylene (trans)
Dichloromethane @ 5.00E-02 ADI
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic
Acid (2,4-D)
4-(2,4-Dichlorophenoxy)butyric
Acid (2,4-DB) 8.00E-03 ADI
Dichlorophenylarsine (§
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichloropropene
Dieldrin @
Diepoxybutane (§
Diethanolnitrosamine (§
Diethyl Arsine @
1,2-Diethylhydrazine (§
Diethylnitrosamine (§
Diethyl Phthalate
Diethylstilbestrol (DES) (§
Dihydrosafrole (§
Dimethoate 2.00E-02 ADI
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine @
Dimethylamine
Dimethyl Sulfate @
Dimethylafflinoazobenzene (§
7,12-Dimethylben-z(a)anthracene (§
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * -
ICF INCORPORATCC
-------
C-37
Date Prepared: December 18, 1985
EXHIBIT C-6
(Continued)
TOXIC1TY DATA FOR NONCARCINOGENIC
EFFECTS -- RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Oral Route .Inhalation Route
Acceptable Intake Acceptable Intake
Subchron Chronic Subchron Chronic
(AIS) (AJC) (AIS) (AIC)
Chemical Name --mg/kg/day-- Source --mg/kg/day-- Source
Dimethylcarbamoyl Chloride @
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine @
1,2-Dimethylhydrazine @
Dimethylnitrosamine !§
1,3-Dinitrobenzene
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,3-Dinitrotoluene @
2,4-Din'itrotoluene @
2,5-Dinitrotoluene @
2,6-Dinitrotoluene (§
3,4-Dinitrotoluene @
Dinoseb l.OOE-03 ADI
1 ,^-Dioxane (§
N,N-Diphenylamine (3
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine @
Dipropylnitrosamine (§
Epichlorohydnn @
Ethanol
Ethyl Mechanesulfonate (§
Ethylbenzene 9.70E-01 9.70E-02 HEA
Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) (§
Ethylene Oxide @
Ethylenethiourea ^
1-Ethyl-nitrosourea (§
Farric Dextran (§
Fluoranthene (§
Fluorene (§
Fluorides 5.00E-02 ADI
Formaldehyde
Formic Acid 2.00E+00 ADI
Glycidaldehyde @
Glycol Ethers (n.o.s.)
-- Diethylene Glycol, 5.00E+00 2.00E+00 HEA
Monoethyl Ether
-- 2-Ethoxyethanol . 4.7E-1(T) 3.60E-01 HEA 6.9E-2(T) 5.00E-02 HEA
-- Ethylene Glycol, 1.60E-01 1.60E-02 HEA
Monobutyl Ether
2-Methoxyethanol 5.9E-2(T) 2.40E-02 HEA
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
ICF INCORPORATEC
-------
C-38
Date Prepared: December 18, 1985
EXHIBIT C-S
(Continued)
TOXIC1TY DATA FOR NONCARCINOGENIC
EFFECTS RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Oral Route
Inhalation Route
Chemical Name
Acceptable Intake
Subchron Chronic
(AIS) (AIC)
--mg/kg/day-- Source
Acceptable Intake
Subchron Chronic
(AIS) (AIC)
--mg/kg/day-- Source
6.
6.
80E-MDO
80E+00
6.30E-01
6.80E-01
-- Propylene Glycol,
Monoethyl Ether
-- Propylene Glycol,
Monomethyl Ether
Heptachlor @
Heptachlor Epoxide @
Hexachlorobenzene (§
Hexachlorobutadiene @
H.exachlorocyclopentadiene ' 7.00E-02 7.00E-03
alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCCH)@
beta-HCCH @
gamma-HCCH (Lindane) @
delta-HCCH @
Hexachloroethane (§
Hexachlorophene
Hydrazine (§
Hydrogen Sulfide 2.00E-03
Indeno( 1,2,3-cd)pyrene (§
lodomethane <§
Iron and Compounds
Isoprene
Isosafrole §
Kepone (§
Lasiocarpine (§
Lead and Compounds (Inorganic)
Linuron
Malathion
Manganese and Compounds
Mercury and Compounds (Alkyl)
Mercury and Compounds (Inorganic)
Mercury Fulminate
Methyl Chloride
Methyl Ethyl Ketone 4.60E-02
Methyl Ethyl Ketone Perioxide
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl Parathion
2,-Methyl-4-Chlorophenoxyacetic Acid l.OOE-03
3-ttethylcholanthrene <§
HEA
HEA 4.90E+00 4.90E-01
HEA
HEA 2.90E-03 6.60E-05
HEA
ADI
1.40E-03
6.00E-03
2.00E-02
5.30E-01 2.20E-01
2.80E-04 2.80E-04
2.QQE-03 2.00E-03
2.80E-03
HEA
ADI
ADI
" HEA
HEA
HEA
ADI
8.60E-03
4.30E-04
3.00E-04 3.00E-04
l.OOE-04 l.OOE-04
5.10E-04 5.10E-05
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
ADI
ADI
-.v * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
C-39
Date Prepared: December 18, 1985
EXHIBIT C-6
(Continued)
TOXICITY DATA FOR NONCARC1NOGENIC
EFFECTS -- RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Oral Route
Inhalation Route
Chemical Name
Acceptable'Intake
Subchron Chronic
(AIS) CAIC)
--mg/kg/day-- Source
Acceptable Intake
Subchron Chronic
(AIS) (AIC)
--mg/kg/day-- Source
4,4'-Methylene-bis-2-chloroaniline(a
Methylnitrosourea @
Methylthiouracil (§
Methylvinylnitrosamine !§
N-Methyl-N" -nitro-N-nitrosogUanadine<§
Mitomycin C {§
Mustard Gas @
5.-Napthylamine @
2-N'apthylamine @
Nickel and Compounds @ 2.00E-02 l.OOE-01 HEA
Nitric Oxide l.OOE-01 ADI:
Nitrobenzene 4.60E-04 ADI
Nitrogen Dioxide L.OOE-t-00 ADI
Nitrosomethylurethane @
N-Nitrosopiperidine @
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine !§
5-Nitro-o-toluidine (§
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene (§ 8.00E-03 ADI
Pentachlorophenol 3.0E-2(T) 3.00E-02 HEA
Phenacetin ^
Phenanthrene (§
Phenobarbital (§
Phenol
Phenylalanine Mustard (§
Phenyl Mercuric Acetate
Phosphine
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) @
Propane Sultone (§
Propylenioine (§
Pyrene (3
Pyridine
Saccharin (§
Safrole (§
Selenium and Compounds (n.o.s.) 3.20E-03 3.00E-03 HEA
-- Selenious Acid - 3.00E-03 ADI
-- Selenourea 5.00E-03 ADI
l.OOE-01 l.OOE-01
8.00E-05
3.00E-04
2.10E-03
1.20E+00
HEA
HEA 1.90E-01 2.00E-02
ADI
ADI
ADI
l.OOE-03
HEA
HEA
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * *
ICF INCORPORATE
-------
re-:
C-40
Date Prepared: December 13, 1985
EXHIBIT C-6
(Continued)
TOXICITY DATA FOR NONCARCINOGENIC
EFFECTS -- RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Oral Route
Inhalation Route
Chemical Name
-- Thallium Selenite
Silver and Compounds
Screptozocin @
Strychnine
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin) @
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane @
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane @
Tetrachloroethylene @
2,3,4,6-Tetrachloropheno1
Tetraethyl Lead @
Thallium and Compounds (n.o.s.)
-- Thallium Acetate
-- Thallium Carbonate
-- Thallium Chloride
-- Thallium Nitrate
-- Thallic Oxide
-- Thallium Sulfate
Thioacetamide @
Thiourea @
o-Tolidine @
Toluene
o-Toluidine @
Toxaphene @
Tribromomethane (Bromoform)
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane @
Trichloroethylene @
Trichlorofon
Trichloromonofluoromethane
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol @
l,l,2-Trichloro-l,2,2-
Trifluoroethane
Tr is (2,3-dibromopropyl) phosphate @
Trypan Blue @
L'racil Mustard @
Acceptable Intake
Subchron Chronic
(AIS) (AIC)
--mg/kg/day-- Source
Acceptable Intake
Subchron Chronic
(AIS) (AIC)
--mg/kg/day- Source
5.40E-04
2.00E-04
2.00E-02
l.OOE-02
l.OOE-07
ADI
ADI
ADI.
ADI
ADI
5.00E-04
4.50E-04
4.60E-04
5. 10E-04
4.40E-04
4.80E-04
ADI
ADI
ADI
ADI
ADI
ADI
4.30E-01 2.90E-01 HEA
5.40E-01 HEA
3.49E-01 ADI
.OOE+00 l.OOE-01 HEA
2.73E+01 ADI
1.10E+01 6.30E-HDO
HEA
December 18, 1985 Draft
ICF
INCORPORATES
-------
C-41
Data Prepared: December 18, 1985
EXHIBIT C-6
(Continued)
TOXICITY DATA FOR NONCARCINOGENIC
EFFECTS -- RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Chemical Name
Uranium and Compounds
Crethane @
Vanadium and Compounds
Vinyl Chloride @
o-Xylene
m-Xyiene
p-Xylene
Xylene (mixed).
Zinc and Compounds
Oral Route
Acceptable Intake
Subchron Chronic
(AIS) (AIC)
--mg/kg/day-- Source
Inhalation Route
Acceptable Intake
Subchron Chronic
(AIS) (AIC)
--mg/kg/day-- Source
l.OOE-01 l.OOE-02
l.OOE-01 l.OOE-02
l.OOE-01 l.OOE-02
2.10E-01 2.10E-01
HEA 9.6E-KT) 2.00E-01 HEA
HEA l.OOE+00 2.00E-01 HEA
HZA 6.9E-KT) 4.00E-01 HEA
HEA l.OOE-01 l.OOE-02 HEA
(§ Potential carcinogenic effects also. See Exhibits C-3 and C-4.
1J Refer to Exhibit C-5 for coxicity data for indicator selection for the
chemicals listed here.
2J Sources for Exhibit C-6:
ADI = Agency-wide draft acceptable daily intake value, developed by an
inter-office work group chaired by the Office of Research and Development, U.S.
EPA, Washington, D.C., 1985 (these values are also referred to as reference
doses).
HEA = Health Effects Assessment document, prepared by the Environmental
Criteria and Assessment Office, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1985.
1J The ADI values listed here are EPA-reviewed draft numbers. All ADI values
were derived based on oral exposure; however, in the absence of other more specific
data, these values may also be useful in assessing risks of inhalation exposure.
%J T indicates that teratogenic or fetotoxic effects are the basis for the AIS
value listed.
*J N.O.S. = not otherwise specified.
December 13, 1985 Draft
* *
ICF INCORPORATE!
-------
EXHIBIT C-7
CHEMICALS AND CHEMICAL GROUPS HAVING EPA HEALTH
EFFECTS ASSESSMENT (HEA) DOCUMENTS 1J
Acetone
Arsenic and Compounds
Asbestos
Barium and Compounds
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Cadmium and Compounds
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chromium III and Compounds
Chromium VI and Compounds
Coal Tars
Copper and Compounds
Creosote
Cresol
Cyanides
DDT
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC)
1,1-Dichloroethylene
1,2-Dichloroethylene (cis/trans)
Dichloromethane
Ethylbenzene
Glycol Ethers
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
gamma-Hexachlorocyclohexane (Lindane)
Iron and Compounds
Lead and Compounds (Inorganic)
Manganese and Compounds
Mercury and Compounds (Alkyl)
Mercury and Compounds (Inorganic)
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Naphthalene
Nickel and Compounds
Pentachlorophenol
PHenanthrene
Phenol
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Pyrene
Selenium and Compounds
Sulfuric Acid
2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin)
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Vinyl Chloride
Xylene
Zinc and Compounds
1J As of the date of publication for this manual.
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
ICF
INCORPORATE
-------
APPENDIX D
DETAILED PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING TOXICITY
CONSTANTS FOR INDICATOR CHEMICAL SELECTION
* * * December 18, 1985" Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATE
-------
D-l
APPENDIX D
DETAILED PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING TOXICITY
CONSTANTS FOR INDICATOR CHEMICAL SELECTION
The method for selecting indicator chemicals for a site, described in
Chapter 3 of this manual, requires the determination of toxicity constants
(T). For many chemicals, these values are given in Appendix C. This appendix
(Appendix D) presents methods for calculating toxicity constants for chemicals
not listed in Appendix C. If, in the process of preparing a public health
evaluation, for a site, such chemicals are found, you should request help from
EPA headquarters before doing these calculations. As new information becomes
available or new chemicals are identified as problems, the list in Appendix C
will be updated and expanded.
Toxicity constants, T, are medium-specific. A toxicity constant for use
w
with drinking water concentrations is referred to as T, whereas one for
concentrations in air is T, and and one for concentrations in soil is
T. Toxicity constants for potential carcinogens are based on the
ED lj ; for noncarcinogens they are based on the minimum effective dose
(MED) and a severity of effects rating. All toxicity constants also have
standard intake assumptions built in. Units of toxicity constants are the
inverse of concentration units.
a_, s w
Values of I, T, and T for a variety of compounds are given in
Appendix C. In the event that values are not present in Appendix C, they can
be calculated as follows:
Potential Carcinogens
. w 2 liters drinking water/day
70 kg ED1Q
s 0.0001 kg soil/day
Tc = [2]
70 kg ED1Q
a 20 mj air/day
Tc = [3]
70 kg ED1Q
lj ED.Q = dose in mg/kg/day at which 10* incidence above control is
observed for a tumor type showing a statistically significant incidence.
'* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
>;, r e c c _ v e ,-_^;.--_
D-2
where the ED... is derived from carcinogenicity dose-response data and is
expressed in mg/kg/day.
N'oncarcinogens
w 2 liters drinking water/day RVe
Tn =
MED (oral)
s 0.0001 kg soil/day RVe
Tn =
MED (oral)
a 20 mj air/day RVe
Tn =
MED (inhalation)
where RVe is a rating value based on the severity of effect and scored as
indicated in Exhibit D-l, and MED is the human minimum effective dose in
mg/day for a giv'en effect. If the MED is given in mg/kg/day, multiply it by
70 and then substitute it into the above equation.
The soil toxicity constant ( T) is incorporated as a way to estimate the
overall exposure that might be contributed by contaminated soil. Inclusion of-
T in the indicator selection process is a way to use the soil concentration
data gathered in most site characterizations, in part so that compounds found
in soil and not in air and water could be considered in indicator compound
scoring. The T equation is based on a child's consumption of contaminated
soil as detailed in a recent ORD risk assessment of contaminated soil (EPA,
1984b).
The ORD document estimates that children between the ages of two and six
consume at least 100 mg of soil per day, and that in situations of direct
ingestion of soil (i.e., pica) the rate could go as high as 5 g per day. The
lower value was selected for this procedure because it was more comparable to
the standard consumption values used in calculating the other T values. The 5
g per day value is representative of a pathologic state (pica), and using it
to calculate T, would correspond to assuming 8 liters or more as the daily
consumption of water (to reflect the diabetic who consumes 8 liters of water
per day)2.
2 Data to validate or change these values are currently under evaluation
at the Centers for Disease Control. After this data analysis is complete, the
procedure given here will be modified as appropriate.
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF INCORPORATEC
-------
^CJVM-A Direct-ve ? 13 5 . - -1
D-3
EXHIBIT D-1
RATING CONSTANTS (RYe) FOR NONCARCINOGENS1-
Severity
Effect Rating (RVe)
Enzyme induction or other biochemical change with no pathologic 1
changes and no change in organ weights.
Enzyme induction and subcellular proliferation or other changes 2
in organelles but no other apparent effects.
Hyperplasia, hypertrophy or atrophy, but no change in organ 3
weights.
Hyperplasia, hypertrophy or atrophy with changes i-n organ weights. 4
Reversible cellular changes: cloudy swelling, hydropic change, 5
or fatty changes.
Necrosis, or metaplasia with no apparent decrement of organ 6
function. Any neuropathy without apparent behavioral, sensory,
or physiologic changes.
Necrosis, atrophy, hypertrophy, or metaplasia with a detectable 7
decrement of organ functions. Any neuropathy with a measurable
change in behavioral, sensory, or physiologic activity.
Necrosis, atrophy, hypertrophy, -or metaplasia with definitive 8
organ dysfunction. .Any neuropathy with gross changes in behavior,
sensory, or motor performance. Any decrease in reproductive
capacity, any evidence of fetotoxicity.
Pronounced pathologic changes with severe organ dysfunction. Any 9
neuropathy with loss of behavioral or motor control or loss of
sensory ability. Reproductive dysfunction. Any teratogenic
effect with maternal toxicity.
Death or pronounced life-shortening. Any teratogenic effect with- 10
out signs of maternal toxicity.
1J Rating scale identical to that used by EPA in the RQ adjustment
process, as described in EPA (1983).
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * *
ICF
INCORPORATED
-------
D-4
Although Equations 2 and 5 are based on ingestion by a child, the intake
is not normalized to an equivalent lifetime intake. The equations use an
intake rate during childhood rather than an lifetime average daily intake to
ensure that compounds are identified on the basis of their potential to harm a
child. Thus, the equations compare a child's daily intake rate to a lifetime
average daily intake (expressed as an MED or an EDin), which, strictly
speaking, may be inappropriate. Unfortunately, the most appropriate data to
use, dose-response information for children, do not exist, and even data for
dose-response relationships in immature animals are rare. What little
information is available seems to indicate that the young are generally more
sensitive to the toxic effects of chemicals than adults. Although this
approach is not strictly accurate it errs on the more protective side, while
at the same time achieving the goal of being a simple way to incorporate soil
concentration information into the indicator selection process.
Although not used directly in the calculation of indicator scores for
potential carcinogens, a qualitative weight-of-evidence rating is considered
in the final selection of indicators.- The EPA weight-of-evidence criteria
(EPA, 1984a) are given in Exhibit D-2 and should be used to categorize
potential carcinogens not listed in Appendix C. The EPA approach for
determining weight of evidence is similar to the International Agency for
Research on Cancer (IARC) approach, differing primarily by having an
additional category for "no evidence of carcinogenicity in humans" and revised
criteria for defining evidence as "sufficient", "limited", or "inadequate."
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX D
U.S. EPA, 1983. Methodology and Guidelines for Reportable Quantity
Determinations Based on Chronic Toxicity Data, External Revlrecr Drafr.
Prepared by the Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Office of Health
and Environmental Assessment. ECAO-CIN-R245.
U.S. EPA, 1984a. Proposed Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment.
Federal Register (49) 227:46294-46301.
U.S. EPA, 1984b. Risk Analysis of TCDD Contaminated Soil. Prepared by
the Exposure Assessment Group, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment.
EPA 600/8-84-031.
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICFINCORPORATED
-------
OSWER Directive 9235. H.-
D-5
EXHIBIT D-2
EPA WEIGHT-OF-EVIDENCE
CATEGORIES FOR POTENTIAL CARCINOGENS
EPA
Category
Description
of Group
Description of Evidence
Group A Human Carcinogen Sufficient evidence from epidemiologic studies
to support a causal association-between exposure
and cancer
Group Bl
Probable Human
Carcinogen
Limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans
from epidemiologic studies-
Group B2
Probable Human
Carcinogen
Sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in
animals, inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity
in humans
Group C Possible Human Limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals
Carcinogen
Group D Not Classified Inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity ia animals
Group E
No Evidence of
Carcinogenicity
in Humans
No evidence for carcinogenicity in at least two
adequate animal tests or in both epidemiologic
and animal studies
December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
ICF INCORPORATE!
-------
APPENDIX E
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
THE AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY
AND
THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * * ICF
INCORPORATED
-------
QSWER Directive 9235.4-1
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
THE AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY
AND
THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I. PURPOSE
The Agency Cor Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agree
that guidance is -required to define and coordinate joint and
respective responsibilities under the Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Public Law
96-510, 94 Stat. 2796, 42 USC 9601-et seq; CERCLA), Executive
Order 12316 (Responses to Environmental Damage)', and the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP?
40 CFR Part 300). This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
establishes oolicies and procedures for conducting response
and non-response health activities relatpd to releases of
hazardous substances.
2. AUTHORITY
CERCLA section 104 authorizes the President to respond
to releases or substantial threats of releases into the
environment of hazardous substances and certain releases of
pollutants or contaminants. CERCLA also establishes the
Hazardous Substance Response Trust Fund. CERCLA section 104(i)
authorizes ATSDR (part of the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS)) to effectuate and imolement specific health-
related activities with the cooperation of EPA and other agencies
Executive Order 12316 further delegates to the Secretary of
HHS certain investigatory authorities vested in the President
under CERCLA section 104 for conducting activities with the
cooperation of other agencies, relating to illness, disease or
complaints thereof. Executive Order 12316 delegates to EPA
the primary resoonse authority, under CERCLA section 104
relating to release or extent of release of hazardous sub-
stances, pollutants, or contaminants, and determination of
the presence of an imminent and substantial danger to the
public health or welfare or the environment. Exceptions to
this authority include responses to releases from Department
of Defense (DOD) facilities or vessels (delegated to DOD) and
releases involving the coastal zone, Great Lakes waters,
ports, and harbors (delegated to the U.S. Coast C-uard) .
-------
OSWER Directive 9285.4-1
-2-
3. SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITIES
This MOU covers the coordination of health-related
activities by ATSDR and EPA as authorized bv CERCLA and
delegated by Executive Order 12116. ATSDR has statutory
responsibilities under CERCLA and Executive Order 12316 for
activities related to illness, disease, or complaints thereof,
for disease registries and other responsibilities related to
response actions. EPA has statutory authority under CERCLA
and Executive Order 12316 for activities related to release
or threat of release of hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants, and for determination of the extent of .danger
to public health, welfare or the environment, as well as,
other responsibilities related to response actions.
ATSDR and EPA will carry out their resoonsibi1ities
according to CERCLA, Executive Order 12316, the NCP, and
this MOU. ATSDR's major responsibility will be the
evaluation of populations with current or potential exposure
to waste sites, development of health advisories, and the
follow up on populations' for the evaluation of future health
effects. EPA's major resoonsibility in the health area will
be risk assessment and risk management as defined herein.
Health advisories will be based on ATSDR's evaluations of
current health effects and will adapt EPA's risk assessments
at a site or sites. ATSDR will not perform risk assessments
as defined herein, using the funds made available from the
Hazardous Substances Response Trust Fund. If risk assessments
are not available ATSDR will consult EPA on a case-by-case
basis. ATSDR will conduct some o? its activities through
interagency agreements with other participating agencies of
the Public Health Service through cooperative agreements with
State health departments, and through contractual arrangements
whenever appropriate. Such interagency agreements include
those with the Centers for Disease Control to conduct health
studies and conduct research and nrovide assistance on worker
health and safety issues; with the Library of Medicine to
establish and maintain the needed data bases on health effects
of toxic substances; and with the National Toxicology Program
to conduct standard toxicological assays.
Definitions for the key terms used in this section follow:
0 Health Consultation; Immediate or short-term
consultation by ATSDR to nrovide health advice and/or
health effects information regarding a specific site.
° Health Assessment: Initial multi-disciplinary reviews
by ATSDR of all readily available data to evaluate
-------
OSWER Directive 9285.4-1
-3-
the nature and magnitude of any threat to human
health at a site. These evaluations will adapt
EPA's risk assessment for the characterization of
potential health threats at a site or sitas, and may
include literature searches, information summari-
zation and evaluation of existing environmental data,
pilot samples, testing for food chain contamination,
and similar activities.
0 Public Health Advisory; An advisory issued by ATSDR
based on the results of its health assessment.
0 Epidemiologic Studies; Long-term epidemiologic study
by ATSDR involving a comprehensive protocol designed
to add knowledge of the health effects of a specific
substance or substances at a site or sites.
0 Health Registry; A site-specific or adverse health
ef fects-sp'ecif ic registry established and maintained
to track specific diseases and illnesses and long-
term health effects to persons exposed to toxic
substances.
0 Pilot Study; A preliminary or short term medical,
laboratory, or epidemiologic study on a limited human
population to decide if additional, large scale
studies are warranted. The study populations can
include those living at, or near, a site and those
not residing at, or near, a site (control or reference
population ) .
0 Risk Assessment; A qualitative/quantitative process
conducted by EPA to characterize the nature and
magnitude of potential risks to public health from
exposure to hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants released from specific sites. This
process consists of hazard identification, dose-
response assessment, exposure assessment, and risk
characterization and supports EPA's risk management
process.
0 Risk Management; The process conducted by EPA to
determine the nature and extent of remedy for a site,
including alternative selection.
A. Removal Actions
Removal actions are Superfund response activities
involving the short-term cleanup or removal of released
hazardous substances that pose an immediate hazard. These
actions generally are limited.by CERCLA to SI million in cost
and six months in duration.
-------
OSWER Directive 9285.4-L
-4-
ATSDR activities in support of soecific removal
actions involve health consultations and health advisories.
In addition, ATSDR may monitor the health of residents who
have been exposed to the hazardous substances or who live
near the release site. ATSDR may also provide technical
assistance to EPA on natters-of worker health and safety
durinq the removal and may provide community relations
assistance to EPA. ATSDR may become involved in removal
act ions'through a variety of mechanisms and at various stages
of a removal action. The On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) shall
recommend that ATSDR be called in at any time during the
removal action, at the time that the criteria under Section
8.3 are met, unless in the OSC's opinion there is no need for
further public health input into the removal action. Altern-
atively, the recommendation for ATSDR involvement may be
initiated by ATSDR itself, the 3tate> or the EPA Regional
Administrator.
B. Remedial Response
Remedial actions' are those response actions consistent
with a permanent remedy at a site. Remedial action is
preceded by detailed planning. This section discusses
coordination of ATSDR and EPA efforts during the remedial
response process, which involves five major stages:
0 Site discovery, preliminary
assessment, and site inspection;
a Site ranking and NPL listing;
0 Remedial investigation (RI);
0 feasibility study (FS); and
0 Remedial design and construction.
The roles of ATSDR and EPA during these stages are
discussed in the subsections below.
3.1 Site Discovery, Preliminary Assessment, and Site
Inspection
There are different methods for identifying sites for
potential remedial response under the Superfund program.
CERCLA section 103 requires certain parties to notify the
National Response Center when they have knowledge of a
release of a hazardous substance equal to or in excess of the
reportable quantity for that substance. Notification is
forwarded to EPA and the affected State. In addition to this
formal notification process, EPA may receive notification of
a potential or actual release from a local, State, or Federal
agency that discovers the release in the performance of its
responsibilities. Following notification of a potential or
actual release, EPA conducts a preliminary assessment of. the
site to determine whether further investigation and Hazard
Ranking System (HRS) scoring is warranted.
-------
GS'wER Directive 9235.4-1
-5-
Site discovery, preliminary assessment, and site
inspection are primarily the responsibility of EPA. If
ATSDR discovers a potential or actual release during the
performance of its responsibilities, ATSDR will notify EPA
of this release. EPA may perform preliminary assessments and
site inspections of such releases, as warranted, and will
determine whether further investigation is necessary.
8.2 Site Ranking and NPL Listing
CERCLA section 105(8) reauires the President to develop
criteria for determining priorities among releases or
threatened releases of hazardous substances and, based upon
those criteria, oublish and amend the NPL. Executive Order
12316, section l(c.) delegates to EPA "[t]he responsibility
for. . .all of the. . .functions vested in section 105" of
CERCLA.
Decisions regarding snecific site scoring and listing of
sites on the NPL are the responsibility of EPA. If ATSDR
discovers any information about potential candidates for the
MPL during the performance of-"its responsibi lities, ATSDR
will submit that information to ^PA. To facilitate this, EPA
Headquarters will notify ATSDR prior to each amendment of the
NPL to allow ATSDR to recommend sites to ^>e considered for
the NPL, and EPA will consider such recomnendations, based upon
the data used by ATSDR to make the recommendation, before
publishing the amended NPL. EPA may decide to rank sites
identified by ATSDR, retain the sit?? information on EPA files
for future -reference, or seek further information about such
sites, and will notify ATSDR of its decision.
B.3 Remedial Investigation
CERCLA section 104(b) authorizes the President to under-
take "such investigations, monitoring, surveys, testing, and
other information gathering" necessary to "identify the
existence and extent of the release or threat thereof, the
source and nature of hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants involved, and the extent of danger to public
health or welfare or the environment." Section 2(a) of
Executive Order 12316 delegates to the Secretary of HHS in
cooperation with other agencies, those functions of Section
104(b) "relating to illness, disease, or complaints thereof."
HHS's responsibilities are performed by ATSDR. Section 2(e)
delegates to EPA most of the remaining authorities under
section 104, including those functions under section 104(b)
listed above as they relate to the occurrence or potential
occurrence of a release.
The EPA Regional Administrator, or his designee, will
determine as <=»arly as possible in the RI/FS process for a
site whether concurrent ATSDR involvement in the RI/FS is
-------
OSWER Directive 9285.4-1
-6-
necessary. In deciding whether to request concurrent ATSDR
involvement, the Regional Administrator, or his designee,
will consider the following criteria:
0 Whether the presence of toxic substances has been
confirmed at the site;
0 Whether pathways of huma-. exposure to toxic substances
have been demonstrated to exist at the site, especially
if such pathways involve direct contact with toxic
substances; and
0 Whether a human population has been exposed to toxic
substances via the identified pathways, and whether
there exists a threat of current or future health
effects to the population being so exposed, after
considering EPVs risk assessments or.health
effects information from other sources.
If these criteria are met, the EPA Regional Administrator, or
his designee, shall request concurrent ATSDR involvement,
unless in his opinion there is- no need for further public
health input into the RI/FS. Alternatively, the recommendation
for ATSDR involvement may be initated by ATSDR itself, or the
State.
Elements of the remedial investigation in which ATSDR
participates may include review of site sampling plans and
analysis protocols, site sampling, data analysis and interpre-
tation, worker health and safety, community relations, and the
remedial investigation report. The division of responsibilities
and coordination between EPA and ATSDR in conducting these
activities is described in the following paragraphs. EPA and
ATSDR will agree to strict time schedules on a site-specific
ba-sis for all activities to be performed by ATSDR, to ensure
that the response process is not delayed. Any changes in the
time schedule will be mutually aareed upon by EPA and ATSDR.
Site Sampling. Where EPA has recuested concurrent ATSDR
involvement, ATSDR will advise EPA during the preparation of
sampling and analysis protocols to ensure collection of data
useful to ATSDR for health assessments and epidemiological
studies. EPA will be responsible for the development and
conduct of any environmental and biological (other than
human) sampling, and developing the tests therefor. ATSDR
will consult with appropriate health agencies and will summarize
recommendations regarding the necessity for testina of human
subjects." I? human subject testing is determined to be
necessary, ATSDR will be responsible for any such testing.
EPA shall review the protocols or sampling plans for such
testing to ensure collection of data useful to EPA in perform-
ing subsequent risk assessment and risk management.
-------
swER Directive 9265. ^--
-7-
Sampling Protocol. Where EPA has requested concurrent
ATSDR involvement, EPA and ATSDR will submit a draft of all
protocols to each other for review prior to institution of
any site sampling or monitoring. Any changes in the sampling
protocols will also be provided to ATSDR for review. With
regard to the review of non-site soecific protocols, (e.g.,
protocols for standard Contract Laboratory Program analysis)
EPA will provide-'these to ATSDR for review as early as possible
to avoid the necessity of ATSDR review of these protocols on
a site specific basis.
Data Analysis and Interpretation. At sites where EPA
has requested concurrent ATSDR involvement, EPA will-provide
its data from environmental, toxicological and other biolog-
ical sampling and testing to ATSDR. ATSDR will review all
available data for a site, -including EPA's hazard identifi-
cation, dose-response assessment, exposure assessment, and
risk cha racte-r izat. ion information, -drawing conclusions about
any threats to public health associated with the site. Based
on its interpretation of the site data, ATSDR will characterize
the health threats based on its evaluation of current health
effects and -in consultation with EPA concerning the magnitude
and timing of potential future health effects. -ATSDR will
communicate all health concerns to regional EPA staff and
will provide copies of health assessments and advisories to
EPA.
Worker Health and Safety. EPA may request assistance
from ATSDP on worker health and safety issues during a
remedial investigation, includina consultation on the design
of worker health and safety plans and monitoring of plan
implementation. ATSDR will make arrangements for laboratory
and field testing related to work?r health and safety and
worker surveillance.
Community Relations. ATSDR may provide, at EPA's reguest,
assistance in conducting community relations activities d'urina
the remedial investigation. Such assistance may include:
0 Preparation of technical and non-technical information
material for the public describing human health threats
posed by substances at a site;
0 Reviewing and commenting on human health-related
documents prepared and submitted by citizens
(e.g., citizen-generated health survey protocols);
0 Participation in-public meetings, small group
meetings, and workshops; and
°- 'Preparing responses to specific public inquiries
regardinq human health impacts of site problems.
-------
OSWER Directive 9285.-*-!
-3-
Remedial Investigation Report. At the conclusion of the
remedial investigation .at sites where ATSDR is involved, EPA
will send a copy of the remedial investigation report to ATSDR.
ATSDR will review health-related data and interpretations of
such data in the report and provide comments to EPA within a
mutually agreed upon time frame.
If EPA and ATSDR agree that ATSDR involvement is not
required at a site, ATSDR will not participate in the remedial
planning process at that site. ATSDR may undertake other
statutory activities, such as epidemiological studies or
disease registries, at a site or sites. ATSDR will coordinate
all such activities with EPA and will advise EPA of imminent
threats to human health at any site and at any time during
EPA's remedial process. . In addition, EPA may request ATSDR
assistance in disseminating health information to the public
and in responding to health concerns of local citizens.
B.4 Feasibility Study
EPA has the final authority for determining the extent
of remedy at a site and. selecting a specific remedy during
the feasibility study. In conducting feasibility studies,
EPA will develop, evaluate, and select remedial options using
the approach described in its feasibility study guidance. For
those sites where there has been concurrent ATSDR involvement,
EPA staff will consult ATSDR for its assessment of any
human health data (e.g., clinical, epidemiologic) and EPA's
risk assessment resulting from the remedial investiaation.
EPA will be resoonsible for performing qualitative/quantitative
risk assessments evaluating long-term risks to the public that
may result from exposure to hazardous substances from Superfund
s ites.
L'
:t is the responsibility of EPA (Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response) to incornorate the results of the
risk assessment process and of health assessments by ATSDR
into risk management determinations of the extent of remedy
for a sits. The goal of this process is to ensure that the
remedial action is adequate with regard to eliminating or
mitigating the existing and future public health threats.
EPA may consider and incorporate applicable information
provided by ATSDR on the current status of public health at
the site into the selection of the preferred remedy. At the
discretion of the appropriate Regional Administrator, EPA
staff may also consult with ATSDR staff for any interpre-
tation of human health data at sites where ATSDR is not
concurrently involved. In addition, EPA may request ATSDR
assistance at any site in disseminating health information to
the public and in responding to health concerns of local
citizens. In the course of performing its health activities,
should ATSDR discover any site which, in its ooinion, poses
-------
OSWER Directive 9285.4-i
-9-
an imminent threat to public health, ATSDR will immediately
notify the relevant EPA Regional Office and EPA Headquarters
of this finding.
For each remedial response site where ATSDR involvement
is reauested , EPA will provide ATSDR with a copy of the
draft feasibility study, and where appropriate with rough.
draft sections of the feasibility study relating to human
health and interpretation,"prior to the public comment period
if possible. ATSDR will review the interpretation of the
human health data in the draft feasibility study and provide
comments to EPA during the public comment period. ATSDR will
also provide to EPA any health information it possesses on
the site during the public comment period
B.5 Remedial Design and Construction
The design and construction of. the selected remedy at
Superfund sites is EPA's responsibility. The Regional
Administrator may, at his discretion, request a health
assessment from ATSDR with regard to certain elements of the
remedial design. At the conclusion of the design stage,
EPA should provide advance copies of the Remedial. Design and
Construction Plans to ATSDR whenever possible if:' they wish
review and comment by ATSDR. ATSDR will notify EPA if the
remedial design does*not, in its opinion, eliminate or miti-
gate the public health threat.
C. Cost Recovery
r.'nder CERCLA, EPA is authorized to recover from responsible
narties all government costs 'incurred during a response
action. ATSDR agrees to conform with all procedures and
requirements -f-o-c^document ing__cos ts that are to be recovered.
0. Funding
All costs incurred by ATSDR in performing its CERCLA
responsibilities are funded by ATSDR through funds provided
for this purpose. Funding for ATSDR activities performed
under CERCLA is from the Hazardous Substances Response Trust
Fund and is provided by EPA through the budget task force
required by Section 7 of Executive Order 12316 or through
seoarate interagencv agreements ^or specific health- studies.
ATSDR will comply with the financial and reporting requirements
outlined in the Interagencv Agreements that transfer Fund
monies to ATSDR.
4. PERIOD OF AGREEMENT
This Memorandum of Understanding will continue in effect
until modified'or amended" by the assent of both parties or
terminated by either party uoon a thirty (30) day advance
-------
OSWER Directive 9285.4-1
-10-
written notice of the other party. Nothing in the Memorandum
is intended to diminish or otherwise alter statutory authority
of the agencies involved.
5. AMENDMENTS
This Memorandum may be amended at any time by the agree-
ment of both parties. Each amendment must be in writing and
signed by the appropriate ATSDR and EPA officials.
6. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Memorandum will become effective at noon on the date
of the last signature below.
Date: MAY '- * '^ - Datte:
-------
APPENDIX F
BLANK WORKSHEETS
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
ICF INCORPORATE!
-------
Name of Si te;
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 3-1
SCORING TOR INDICATOR CllfMICAl SEIECTION: CONCINIRAIIONS AND Koc VAt UES
IN VARIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA
Ground Water Surface Water " SoiT A TV"
Chemical Koc l«!U/il . (mg/LJ _ _ (mg/kal 1 Inia/m3»
t£AS_No.J Vaiiie _Rang.e Repres a/ Ref b^ Range Rt-'erB§_aZ MfJ^l Ranae c/ Rep res c/ Ref b/ Range Rep res Ref b/
a/ Mean of reported values used as representative concentra t ion for surface and ground water; zero used for all values
reported as below detection limit.
b/ A feasibility Study document, B = Remedial Investigation document. Page numbers follow document designation.
c/ Soil concentration range is across surface, subsurface soils, and sediments; mean of the surface soil values used as
representative concentration; zero used for all values reported as below detection limit.
i NS1 RUCTIONS
1. Write down each chemical found at the site with its CAS Number and Koc value (see Appendix C).
2. If more than ?() chemicals are listed, identify those with the ten highest Koc values with an H and those with the ten
lowest Koc values with an I . *
3. Indicate the range of concentrations for each chemical in each medium and the -source of the information (e.g., Rl report). o
it. Determine a "representative" concentration and enter it; indicate in footnotes the basis of the representative value.
*~*
ASSUMPTIONS °
list it I I the major assumptions made in developing the data for this worksheet; also indicate any concerns about the <"
monitoring data: °
CJ
00
Oi
-------
HOKKSIIEIT 3-2
SCORING fOK INDICATOR CHEMICAL SELECTION:
10XICITY INFORMATION
Name of Site;
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
ChemicaI
Tox ico log ic
Class
Rating Value/EPA
Category a/
w b/
I
s b/
T~
a b/
T
a/ Rating value is for severity or effect for noncareinogens, range in 1(low) to 10(high); EPA
category is a qualitative weight-of-evidanc.-t' designation for potential carcinogens; explanation of
tlie categories is presented in Exhibit D-2, Appendix D. Information taken from Appendix C.
b/ Data taken from Appendix C.
INSIHUCTIOMg
1. Record compounds from Worksheet 3-1, then refer to Appendix C and note whether they are classed as PC
or NC or both.
2. Record the rating value or EPA category for each compound in each class (see Appendix C). If there
are route-specific differences, record both values.
3. Record the T values from Appendix C.
ASSUMPTIONS
List all the major assumptions made in developing the data for this worksheet:
o
tri
o
O
rt
CO
Ul
-------
Name of Si te:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WOKKSHEFT 3-3
SCUKING I OK INDICATOR CHCMICAl SI I 1C I I ON:
CAtCULATION OF CT AND IS VALUES FOR CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
ChemicaI
Ground Water
CT
Max Repres
Surface Water
JIT
Ma:j< Repres
Ai r
. CT
Max Repres
Max
a J ue __
Repres
Tentative
Rank
Max
Repres
INSTRUCT IONS
1. list all of the chemicals to be considered as potential carcinogens.
2. Calculate concentration times toxicity (CT) values using the information from Worksheets 3-1 and 3-2. Calculate a CT
based on both the maximum and representative concentration for all 'media in which the chemical was detected.
3. Sum the CI values across media, keeping the two types or concentration separate. Use only the highest Cl value of
ground water and surface water if both were contaminated. Record the sums in the IS column.
it. Rank the compounds based on both their maximum and representative IS values. Also, enter their EPA weight-of-evidence
category in parentheses next to their rank.
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumptions made in developing the data tor this worksheet:
o
in
f.
a
H-
l-t
a>
o
rt
to
CO
Ui
-------
WORKSHEET 3~«4
SCORING [OK INDICATOR CHEMICAL StlECUON:
CALCULATION OF CF AND IS VAl UES FOR NONCARCINOCENIC EFFECTS
Name of Si te:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
Ctiemica I
Ground Water
MTxRepres
Surface Water
CT
Max Repres
So i I
Max Repres
A i r
C,}
Max Repres
IS Vai ue
Max Repres
Max
Tentat ive
Rank
Repres
INSIKUCTIONS
1. List all of the chemicals to be considered for noncaremogenic effects.
2. Calculate concentration times toxicity (CT) values using the information from Worksheets 3-1 and 3-2. Calculate CT
values based on both maximum and representative concentrations for all media in which the chemical was detected.
3. Sum the CT values across media, keeping the two types of concentration separate. Use only the highest CT value of
ground water and surface water if both were contaminated. Record the sums in the IS column.
*t. Rank the compounds based on both their maximum and representative IS values.
ASSUMPJJOJiS
List all major assumptions made in developing the data for this worksheet:
o
in
f.
m
o
H-
M
n>
o
rt
H-
ro
oo
Ol
-------
Name or Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 3-5
SCUKING IOR INDICATOR CHEMICAL SELEC1ION:
EVALUA1ION OF EXPOSURE fACTORS AND FINAL CHEMICAL SELECTION
Water Vapor Henry's Law
IS Values Hanking Solubility Pressure Constant Half-Life (Days)
Chemical PC NC PC NC (mg/l) (mm Hg) (atm-m3/mole) Koc GW SW Soil Air 1C
INSIHUCTIONS
1. List the top 10 to 15 PC and NC based on IS scores, giving their IS values and their ranking.
2. Refer to Appendix C and record each chemical's solubility, vapor pressure, Henry's law constant, Koc, and hair-lives in
air, water, and soil.
3. Select the final indicator chemicals. Use your judgement -- if a compound has a high water solubility and a long ^
ha If-Iife yet is ranked lower than a compound with minimal water solubility and a short half-life, you may wish to move ar
it up in the ranking (refer to Section 3.2 for additional guidance on the final selection). £!|
I). Document any changes in ranking made because of exposure factors. d
H
5. In the last column indicate with a + those chemicals which have been selected as indicator chemicals.
o
rl
ASSUMPTIONS m
List all major assumptions made in the development of data for this worksheet: ^
Ul
4-^
-------
OSWER Directive 9285.4-1
Mame of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 4-1
PRELIMINARY RELEASE SOURCE ANALYSIS.
FOR BASELINE SITE CONDITIONS
Release
Medium
Potential
Release Source
Release
Mechanism
Release
Time Frame
Release
Probability/
Amount
Air
Surface
water
Ground
water
Soil
INSTRUCTIONS
1. For each medium, list potential release sources and mechanisms.
2. Estimate release time frame: chronic (C) or episodic (E).
3. Record any information, qualitative or quantitative, on release
probabilities and amounts. If quantitative data from observations made
during the remedial investigation on frequency, duration, probability, and
quantity of releases are available, report those values here.
4. Attach a site map indicating locations of release sources.
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumptions in developing the data for this worksheet:
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft
-------
I WORKSHEET *»-2
MAIIUX 01 POHNTIAL EXPOSURE PAIHWAYS
Na.T.G Of Si 16;
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
Re lease;/
1ransport Medium
Ai r
Re I ease/Source
Median i sm
Exposure
Po i n l
Exposure
Route
Number of
People
Pathway
Complete
Ground water
Surface water
Soi I
I US I HUG I IONS
1. list all release sources and mechanisms by release medium.
2. Describe the nature of the exposure point and its location with respect to release source (e.g., nearest
residence to volatilization release site, 300 feet NW). Denote significant exposure points with an asterisk.
3. List exposure route (e.g., inhalation, iriyestion).
'I. Report the number of people potentially exposed at the exposure point.
!>. Mark where exposure pathways are complete (i.e., where release source, transport medium, exposure point, and
exposure route all exist).
list all major assumptions in developing the data for this worksheet:
o
CO
f.
en
o
CD
O
rt
ro
00
Ul
-------
Name of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET »4-3
RESUI fS OF RELEASE QUANTIFICATION
Exposure Point:
1.
ChemicaI
Release
Moil i urn
Re loase Release Mass Load (mass/time)
Source/ Best Estimate Upper-Bound Estimate
Mechanism Short-ferm long-term Short-Term Long-Term
2.
3.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. List all indicator chemicals.
2. List the release media for each chemical: air, ground water, surface water, soil.
3. list all release sources.
'I. Record best and upper-bound estimates for both short-term and long-term release mass load, as
calculated. Attach the documentation for all calculations.
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumptions in developing the data for this worksheet:
o
tn
o
H
n
a>
o
rt
(D
VD
CO
L/i
-------
Name of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET *4-l4
CONlAMINANf CONCIN1KA1IONS AT EXPOSURE POINTS
ChemicaI
Keleasc
Med i urn
Exposure
Point
Short-Term Concent rut[on
Best Upper Bound
Estimate Estimate
1.
2.
3.
Long-Term Concentration
best Upper Bound
Estimate Estimate
INS I HUG I IONS
1. List all indicator chemicals.
2. List all release media Tor eaclt chemical: air, ground water, surface, water, soil.
3. List all exposure points for each release medium. Indicate significant exposure point with an asterisk,
it. Eist .projected short-term and long-term concentrations (best estimate and upper bound) for each exposure
point, as calculated. Note that air concentrations are in my/in5 units, water concentrations are in mg/1,
and fish concentrations are in my/kg. Attach it I I calculations documenting the concentration estimates to
this worksheet.
ASSUMPJIONS
List all major assumptions in developing the data for this worksheet:
o
C/)
f.
u
H-
n
a>
o
rt
VD
N>
CO
Ui
-------
Name of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET i<-5
COMPARISON 01 Am ICABIE OR Rt LEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS TO ESMMATED EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS
Exposure Point;
Chemica 1
Appi icab le/Re 1
Appropriate Re
Being Comp
:vant and
)u i remerit
jred
Value or
Requi rement/
Standard
Projected
Exposure Point
Concent rat ion
Concentration:
Standard
Ratio
1.
2.
3.
H.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. List all indicator chemicals.
2. Indicate the identity or applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (e.g.. primary
drinking water MCls, federally-approved state ambient water quality standards developed under
the Clean Water Act).
3. Obtain values for requirements from Exhibit <4-5 or, for federally-approved state water quality
standards, from the appropriate state agency.
do
Ul
-------
Name of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET U-6
COMI'AKISON Of OltltR IllMRAt CRITERIA, ADVISORIES. AND GUIDANCES
AND STATE STANDARDS 10 ESTIMAIED EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS
Exposure Point:
Chemica I
App/ReI
Requi rement
Avai(able
Cr i tenon
Being Compared
Va Iue of
Criterion
Projected
txposure Point
Concent rat ion
Concent ra t i on:
Standard Ratio
1.
2.
3.
t.
; INS! RUCTIONS
1. list all indicator chemicals and designate for each whether it was compared to an applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirement in Worksheet ^-5.
2. for each chemical identify the criterion/criteria being compared. In general each chemical should be
compared to the criteria/criterion most appropriate to exposure conditions at the site.
3. Obtain values for criteria from Exhibit '1-6, '(-/, or other sources.
14. Obtain the exposure point concentrations to be compared from Worksheet 'i-'i and identify each value as a
short-term concentration (STC) or long-term concentration (ETC).
5. Record the ratios between exposure point concentrations and criteria; ratios greater than 1.0 indicate
exceedance of the criterion.
o
CO
pi
t-t
(0
o
rt
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumptions in developing the data fur this worksheet:
a>
Ui
-------
Name of Site:
Date:
1.
2.
3.
Analyst:
QC:
Chemical
Human
intake Factor
(m3/kg/day)
WORKSHEET b-\
CALCUIATE AIR INTAKES
Exposure Point:
Short-lerm
Concent rat ion
(mg/m3)
1. List all indicator chemicals.
Subchronic Duration Long-term
Oai-ly Intake (fraction Concentration
(mg/kg/day) of year) (mg/m3)
Chronic
Da i ly Intake
(mg/kg/day)
INSTRUCTIONS
2. List the short-term and long-term concentration of each chemical in air (from Worksheet tf-'i) in the
appropriate column.
3. Determine subchronic daily intake (SDI) using the following formula:
Short-term Human
SDI - Concentration x Intake
factor
'». Determine chronic daily intake (CDI) using the following formula:
CD)
5. Include duration of subchronic exposure represented by the intake estimate, in fraction of year.
Long-term Human
= Concentration x Intake
factor
ASSUMIM IONS
List all major assumptions in developing the data for this worksheet:
o
en
f.
tn
O
H-
f-t
(0
n
to
CX>
Ul
-------
N3SR8 of Si te:
1.
2.
3.
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 5-2
CALCULATE GROUND-WATER INTAKES
Exposure Point:
Client ica I
Human
Intake Factor
(l/kg/day)
Short-lerm
Concent ra t ion
(mg/l)
Subchronic
Daily Intake
(mg/kg/day)
Durat ion
(fract ton
of year)
Long-term
Concent rat ion
(mg/l)
Chron i c
Da i ly Intake
(mg/kg/day)
1. List all indicator chemicals.
INSTRUCTIONS
2. list the short-term and long-term concentration of each chemical in ground water (from Worksheet
'i-'l( in the appropriate column.
3. Determine subchronic daily intake (SOI) using the following formula:
SDI
'l. Determine chronic daily intake (CDI) using the following formula:
CD I
5. Include duration of subchronic exposure represented hy the intake estimate, in fraction of year.
Short-term Human
= Concentration x Intake
factor
Long-term Human
= Concentration x Intake
factor
ASSUMPT LQNJ
List all major assumptions in developing the data for this worksheet:
o
en
tri
fa
H-
H
O
rt
00
Ul
-------
Name of Site:
Date;
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 5-3
CAICUIAIE SURFACE WATER INIAKES
Exposure Point:
Chemica 1
Human Short-Term Subchronic Duration Long-term Chronic
Intake Factor Concentration Daily Intake (fraction Concentration Daily Intake
(I/kg/day) (mg/l) (mg/kg/day) of year) (mg/1) (rog/kg/day)
1.
2.
3.
it.
INSTRUCTIONS
I. list all indicator chemicaIs.
2. list the short-term and long-term concentration of each chemical in surface water (from Worksheet
'i-14) in the appropriate column.
3. Determine subchronic daily intake (SDI) using the following formula:
SDI
Short- term
Concentration
Human
x Intake
Factor
'I. Determine chronic daily intake (CDI) using the following formula:
CDI
5. Include duration of subchronic exposure represented by the intake estimate, in fraction of year.
long-term
= Concentration
Human
Intake
Factor
ASSUMPTIONS
list all major assumptions in developing the data for this worksheet:
o
C/5
pi
l-l
0>
o
n
CX>
l/l
-------
Name or Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WOKKSUEET 5-H
CAICUIATE INJAKIS FROM
INCISIION Of CONTAMINATED HSU
Exposure Point:
Chemica 1
Bio- Human Short- term Subchronic Duration long-term Chronic
concentra- Intake Factor Concentration Daily Intake (fraction Concentration Daily Intake
tion Factor (kg fish/kg/day } (mg/l) (mg/kg/day) of year) (mg/1) (mg/kg/day)
1.
2.
3.
it.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. List all indicator chemicals.
2. List the short-term and long-term concentration of each chemical in surface water (from Worksheet
appropriate column.
3. Record the bioconcent rat ion factor (BCf) for ench chemical from Appendix C.
it. Determine subchronic daily intake (SDI) using the following formula:
Short-term Human
SDI = Concentration x Intake x BCF
Factor
5. Determine chronic daily intake (GDI ) using the following formula:
long-term Human
CDI = Concentration x Intake x BCF
Factor
6. Include duration of subchronic exposure represented by .the intake estimate, in fraction of year.
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumptions in developing the data fur this worksheet:
in the
H
(0
o
n
Co
Ul
-------
OSWER Directive 9285.4-1
Name of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 5-5
PATHWAYS CONTRIBUTING TO TOTAL EXPOSURE
Exposure Pathways
Contributing to
Exposure Point Total Exposure Comments
1..
2.
3.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. List the exposure points for all exposure pathways being evaluated (from
Worksheet 4-2).
2. Determine the exposure pathways contributing to total exposure for each
listed exposure point.
3. Note in the comments column which exposure pathways are only short-term,
which are non-quantified, and any other pertinent information.
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumptions in developing the data for this worksheet:
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
-------
OSVER Directive 9285.4-1
Name of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 5-6
TOTAL SUBCHRONIC DAILY INTAKE (SDI) CALCULATION
Total Exposure Point:
Number of People:
Chemical
Ground- Surface Fish Total Total
Water Water Ingestion Oral Air
SDI SDI SDI SDI SDI
1.
2.
3.
4.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. List all indicator chemicals.
2. Refer to Worksheet 5-5 and determine which exposure pathways are relevant
for the total exposure point.
3. Record SDIs (in rag/kg/day) for the total exposure point from Worksheets
5-1 through 5-4 in the appropriate columns. Be sure only to include SDIs
estimated for the same time period.
4. For relevant exposure pathways that had intakes calculated for a different
exposure point, adjust the intake estimates for the total exposure point.
Record the rationale and calculations supporting any adjustments and
attach to this worksheet.
5. Determine total oral SDI by adding the component SDIs (ground-water,
surface water, fish) for each chemical.
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumptions in developing the data for this worksheet:
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft' * * *
-------
OSVER Directive 9285.4-1
Name of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 5-7
TOTAL CHRONIC DAILY INTAKE (GDI) CALCULATION
Total Exposure Point:
Number of People:
Ground- Surface Fish Total Total
Water Water Ingestion Oral Air
Chemical GDI GDI GDI GDI GDI
1.
2.
3.
4.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. List all indicator chemicals.
2. Refer to Worksheet"5-5 ano~determine~which exposure pathways are relevant
for the total exposure point.
3. Record GDIs (in mg/kg/day) for the total exposure point from Worksheets
5-1 through 5-4 in the appropriate columns.
4. For relevant exposure pathways that had intakes calculated for a different
exposure point, adjust the intake estimates for the total exposure point.
Record the rationale and calculations supporting any adjustments and
attach to this worksheet.
5. Determine total oral GDI by adding the component GDIs (ground-water,
surface water, fish) for each chemical.
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumptions in the development of data for this worksheet:
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
-------
OSWER Directive 9285.4-1
Name of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 6-1
CRITICAL TOXICITY VALUES
Carcinogenic
AIS AIC Potency Factor
Chemical (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day)
Inhalation Route
1.
2.
3.
Ingest ion Route
1.
3.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. List all indicator chemicals.
2. List AIS, AIC, and carcinogenic potency factor values and carcinogenicity
weight-of-evidence ratings, obtained from Appendix C (or EPA/ECAO).
3. For teratogenic chemicals, list a separate AIS for that effect only.
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumptions in developing the data for this worksheet:
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
-------
OSVER Directive 9285.4-1
Name of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 6-2
SITE-SPECIFIC FACTORS INCREASING UNCERTAINTY
(1) Sensitive Popuiation(s):
(2) Exposure Uncertainties:
A. Non-Quantifiable Exposure Routes
B. Overall Data Adequacy
(3) Percentage of Chemicals Evaluated (number and volume)
(4) Chemical or Biological Interactions:
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Complete worksheet, based on results of analysis of the listed factors at
the site.
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
-------
OSWER Directive 9285.4-1
Name of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 7-1
CALCULATION OF SUBCHRONIC HAZARD INDEX
Total Exposure Point:
Inhalation Oral
Chemical SDI AIS SDI:AIS SDI AIS SDIrAIS
1.
2. _ _ ^_ '_
3.
4.
Sum of Inhalation SDI:AIS Ratios =
Sum of Oral SDI:AIS Ratios =
Sum Total of All Ratios =
INSTRUCTIONS
1. List all indicator chemicals.
2. List the total inhalation SDI and total oral SDI (in mg/kg/day) from
Worksheet 5-6 in the appropriate columns fox each chemical.
3. List route-specific AIS values (from Worksheet 6-1) and calculate
route-specific SDI:AIS ratios for each chemical.
4. Sum and record route-specific SDI:AIS ratios.
5. Sum and record total (inhalation plus oral) SDI:AIS ratios only if the
SDIs for the two routes refer to the same time period. If total is less
than 1, there is probably no subchronic health hazard. If the sum is
greater than 1, separate the ratios according to health endpoint and do a
separate worksheet for each endpoint.
ASSUMPTIONS .
List all major assumptions in developing the data for this worksheet:
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
-------
OSWER Directive 9285.4-1
Name of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 7-2
CALCULATION OF CHRONIC HAZARD INDEX
Total Exposure Point:
Inhalation Oral
Chemical GDI AIC CDI:AIC GDI AIC GDI:AIC
1.
2.
3. '
4.
Sura of Inhalation CDIrAIC Ratios =
Sum of Oral GDI:AIC Ratios =
Sum Total of All Ratios =
INSTRUCTIONS
1. List all indicator chemicals.
2. List the total inhalation GDI and total oral GDI (in mg/kg/day) from
Worksheet 5-7 in the appropriate columns for each chemical.
3. List route-specific AIC values (from Worksheet 6-1) and calculate
route-specific GDI:AIC ratios for each chemical.
4. Sum and record route-specific GDI:AIC ratios.
5. Sum and record total (inhalation plus oral) GDI:AIC ratios. If total is
less than 1, there is probably no chronic health hazard. If the sum is
greater than 1, separate the ratios according to health endpoint and do a
separate worksheet for each endpoint.
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumptions in developing the data for this worksheet:
'* * * December 18, 1985 Draft
-------
OSWER Directive 9285.4-1
Name of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 7-3
CALCULATION OF RISK FROM POTENTIAL CARCINOGENS
Total Exposure Point:
Exposure
Chemical Route
GDI
(mg/kg/day)
Carcinogenic
Potency Factor
(mg/kg/day)-1
Route-
specific
Risk
Total
Chemical-
specific
Risk
1.
2.
TOTAL UPPER BOUND RISK =
INSTRUCTIONS
1. List all potentially carcinogenic indicator chemicals.
2. List all exposure routes for each chemical.
3. Record GDIs (Worksheet 5-7) and carcinogenic potency factors (Worksheet
6-1) for each chemical and each exposure route.
4. Multiply the potency factor by the GDI to get the route-specific risk;
then sum the route-specific risks for each chemical.
5. Sum all of the chemical-specific risks to give an upper bound estimate of
total incremental risk due to potential carcinogens.
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumptions in developing the data for this worksheet:
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft *.* *
-------
9255.4-
Name of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 8-1
RELEASE SOURCE ANALYSIS
Remedial Alternative:
Potential Release
Release Source/ Time
Medium Mechanism Frame
Release Probabi-lity/
Amount
Air
Surface water
Ground water
Soil
1.
2.
3.
INSTRUCTIONS
For each medium, list potential release sources.
Estimate release time frame: chronic (C) or episodic (E).
Record any information, qualitative or quantitative, on release amounts
and probabilities.
4. Attach a site map with sources located.
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumptions made in developing data for this worksheet:
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft
* *
-------
OSWER Directive 9285.4-1
Name of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 8-2
MATRIX OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS FOR REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
Remedial Alternative:
Release " Release Exposure
Medium Source Exposure Point Route
Air
Ground water
Surface water
Soil .
INSTRUCTIONS
1. List all potential release sources, by medium (see Worksheet 8-1).
2. Describe the nature of the exposure point (i.e., point of highest
exposure) and its location with respect to release source (e.g., nearest
residence to volatilization release area, 100 meters NW). Denote
significant exposure points with an asterisk.
3. List Exposure Route:' inhalation, oral, or dermal.
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumptions made in developing the data for this worksheet:
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft
-------
OSWER Directive 9235.4-i
Name of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 8-3
IDENTIFY ALL PATHWAYS FOR EXPOSURE POINTS
Remedial Alternative:
Exposure Pathways
No. of Exposure * Exposure
Exposure Point People Source Route r Medium
1.
2.
3.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. List each exposure point.
2. Note the number of people potentially exposed at each exposure point.
3. Record all exposure pathways relevant to each listed exposure point so
that total exposure can be determined.
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumptions made in developing the data for this worksheet:
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
-------
OSWER Directive 9235.4-1
Name of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 8-4
TARGET CONCENTRATIONS FOR CHEMICALS WITH AMBIENT REQUIREMENTS
Requirement Used/
Chemical Appropriate Medium
Target
Concentration
Exceeding
Requirement
Applicable/ Target
Relevant Concentration
Ambient Falling Below
Requirement Standard
1.
2.
3.
4.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. List chemicals with applicable or relevant and appropriate ambient
concentration requirements (see Exhibit 4-5).
2. List the numerical value of the requirement, the source of the
requirement, and the appropriate exposure medium in the appropriate
columns.
3. Determine a target concentration exceeding the standard.
4. Determine a concentration falling below the standard.
ASSUMPTIONS
. List all major assumptions made in developing the data for this worksheet:
December 18, 1985 Draft
*
-------
Name of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 8-5
APPORTIONING TOTAL TARGET RISK
AMONG MULTIPLE POTENTIAL CARCINOGENS
Target Risk Level: . ^ ".
Remedial Alternative:
Exposure Point:
Potential Carcinogen
Target
Risk for Each
Chemical
Potency
Factor -1
(mg/kg/day)"
Target GDI
(mg/kg/day)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Total Target.Risk =
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Fill in target carcinogenic risk level under consideration.
2. List all potentially carcinogenic indicator chemicals.
3. Determine apportioned risk level for each chemical. Any method can be
used as long as the total equals the target risk level. One method is
equal apportionment, as follows:
Total Target Risk
Number of Potential Carcinogens
Target Risk
for Each Chemical
List the potency factor for the appropriate exposure route for each
chemical (obtained from Exhibit C-4 in Appendix C). Be sure to indicate
the exposure route.
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
-------
J5'ȣ,R Directive 3285
WORKSHEET 8-5 INSTRUCTIONS (continued)
5. Calculate target intake (GDI) for each potential carcinogen:
Target Risk * Potency Factor = Target Chronic Daily Intake
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumptions in developing the data for this worksheet:
December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
-------
OswiA Directive 9285.4-1
1.
2.
3.
4.
Name of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 8-6
CALCULATION OF TARGET AIR CONCENTRATIONS
Remedial Alternative:
Exposure Point: .
Target - Human Target Long-Term
GDI Intake Factor Concentration
Chemical (mg/kg/day) (ra3/kg/day) (mg/m3)
INSTRUCTIONS
1. List all indicator potential carcinogens with air as an exposure medium.
2. List the target chronic daily intake from Worksheet 8-5.
3. Determine the target long-term air concentration using the following
formula:
Human
Target = Target Chronic * Intake
Concentration Daily Intake Factor
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumtions made in developing the data for this worksheet:
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft *
-------
OSW&R Directive 9285.4-1
Name of Site:
Date :
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 8-7
CALCULATION OF TARGET DRINKING WATER CONCENTRATIONS
Remedial Alternative: '
Exposure Point:
Target Human Target Long-Term
GDI Intake Factor Concentration
Chemical (mg/kg/day) (I/kg/day) (rag/1)
1.
2.
3.
4.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. List all indicator potential carcinogens with drinking water as an
exposure route.
2. List the target chronic daily intake for each chemical from Worksheets 8-5
or 8-8.
3. Determine the target long-term drinking water concentration using the
following formula:
Human
Target = Target Chronic * Intake
Concentration Daily Intake Factor
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumptions made in developing the data for this worksheet:
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft
-------
OSWER Directive 9285.4-1
Name of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 8-8
'* "*j , B''
APPORTIONMENT OF TARGET ORAL INTAKE VIA
DRINKING WATER AND FISH CONSUMPTION*
Remedial Alternative:
Exposure Point:
- : Total Target Intake Via Intake Via Fish
Oral GDI Drinking Water Consumption
Chemical (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day)
1.
2. ,_
3.
" - ~ *Not required when contaminated fish and drinking water originate from the
same surface water source (see text for methods in this situation).
INSTRUCTIONS
1. . List potential carcinogens which have both drinking water and fish
consumption as exposure routes and for which the fish originate from a
different water source than the drinking water.
2. List total target oral intake for each of these (Worksheet 8-5).
3. List apportioned intakes for both drinking water and fish consumption,
remembering that:
Intake via + Intake via = Total target
drinking water fish consumption oral intake
As a first approximation, intake may be apportioned equally between the
two (as in the example). Engineering and economic considerations may
alter the apportionment on subsequent iterations.
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumptions made in developing the data for this worksheet:
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * *
-------
OSWER Directive 9285.4-1
Name of Sice:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 8-9
CALCULATION OF TARGET SURFACE WATER CONCENTRATIONS
BASED ON FISH CONSUMPTION
Remedial Alternative:
Exposure Point:
Chemical
Target
GDI
(mg/kg/day)
Human Intake
Factor
(kg fish/
kg/day)
Bio-
concentra-
tion Factor
Target
Surface Watei
Concentration
(ng/1)
1.
2.
3.
4.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. List all indicator potential carcinogens with ,fish consumption as an
exposure pathway.
2. List the target chronic daily intake for each chemical (Worksheet 8-5 or
8-8).
3. Record the bioconcentration factors (Appendix C) for each chemical.
4. Determine target long-term surface water concentration using the following
formula:
[Human Bioconcen-
Target = Target Chronic * Intake x tration
Concentration Daily Intake LJactor Factor
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumptions made in developing the data for this worksheet:
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft *
-------
OSWER Directive 9285.4-1
Name of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 8-10
FINAL TARGET CONCENTRATIONS OF POTENTIAL CARCINOGENS
Target Risk Level:
Remedial Alternative: -
Exposure Point:
Exposure Target Target
Route Chemical Concentration Risk
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Fill in target risk level.
2. List chemicals that account for exposures by each route.
3. List target concentrations from air route (Worksheet 8-6), drinking water
route (Worksheet 8-7), and fish consumption route (Worksheet 8-9).
4. List target risk associated with each chemical concentration from
Worksheet 8-5.
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumptions made in developing data for this worksheet:
* * December 18, 1985 Draft * * *
-------
WORKSHEET 8-11
SUMMARY Of EXPOSURE PATHWAYS. EXPOSURE POINTS.
AND TARGET CONCENTRATIONS
Name or Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
Remedial Alternative:
Exposure Point
Number of
Peop le
Source
Exposure
Route
1ransport
Med i um
Target Concentrations
at Point of human Exposure
Chemicals target Concentration
1.
2.
3.
i».
5.
1.
2.
1. * _t
2. "' If'
1 -'
5.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Record exposure pathway information from Worksheet 8-3. j '.
2. Record all potential indicator carcinogens for each pathway 'and their target exposure point concentrations (see
Worksheet 8-10). !
o
c/i
tn
D
H-
H
(D
O
rt
VD
ro
oo
ASSUMIMjON.S
Lust all major assumptions made in developing data for this worksheet.
-------
OSWER Directive 9285.4-1
Name of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 8-12
LONG-TERM TARGET RELEASES
Remedial Alternative:
Exposure Point:
Long-Term
Chemical Exposure Pathway Target Release
1.
2.
3.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. List indicator potential carcinogens.
2. Using Worksheet 8-2 indicate all the pathway/release sources identified
for each chemical.
3. List the long-term target release rates calculated for each combination of
chemical and pathway/release source, using the target concentrations
listed in Worksheet 8-10. Release rates should be listed in units of mass
per time (e.g. kg/day or Ibs/hr).
ASSUMPTIONS
List all assumptions made in developing the data for this worksheet:
* * * December 18, 1985 Draft
* *
-------
Name or Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
2.
3.
14.
WORKSHEET 8-13
SUMMARY IABIT: EXPOSURE TO NONCARCINOGLNS
Remedial Alternative:
Ixppsmrti Pathway
Chemica I
Re lease
Source
1.
Release
Transport Medium Exposure Point Rate
Long-Term Concentration
at Exposure Point
*?* c*
J *',
INSTRUCTIONS , -
1. List all noncarcinogenic indicator chemicals. } j |
2. for each indicator list its release source, transport medium and exposure point. 1
3. I ist the release rate and appropriate units ("or each indicator.
^. Calculate and record the long-term concentration at the exposure point.
ASSUMPnONS
Lisi all major assumptions made in developing data Tor this worksheet:
-------
Name of Site:
Da te:
Analyst:
QC:
I? .-.*:..
Remedial Alternative:
ChemicaI
SUMMARY TABLE: CHRONIC INTAKES AND RISKS FROM NONCARC I NOGENS
_ ______ Exposure Point: _ _____
Chronic Da ily
Intake (mg/kg/day)
AIC
(mg/kg/day)
CDl/AIC
Health Cndpoint
1.
2.
3.
ii.
5.
1OTAL (Hazard Index.) =
INSTRUCTIONS
I. I. ist all noncarc inogen ic indicator chemicals.
2. List chronic daily intake for each indicator- nunca re inogen.
3. List the AIC value for each indicator noncareinogen. These are listed in Exhibit C-6 in Appendix C.
'I. Calculate the CDl/AIC ratio. Sum these to determine magnitude of the Hazard Index.
5. List the health endpoint for each noncareinogenic indicator.
ASSUMPTIONS
List all major assumptions made in developing the data Tor this worksheet:
o
en
to
o
H-
H
(P
O
rt
to
CO
Ul
-------
Name of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 8-15 ~
MATRIX Ot POHNnAL.SHORf-TERM EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Remedial Alternative:
Release Number of Release
Medium Release Source Exposure Point Exposure Route People Rate
Air
Ground water
Surface water
Soi
INSTRUCTIONS o
C/i
1. list all potential short-term release sources. *~
5u
2. Describe the nature of the exposure point for the maximum exposed individual and its location with respect to release source
(e.g., nearest residence to volatilization release source, 300 feet NW of site). ^
n
3. List exposure route: inhalation, oral, or dermal. n>
rt
'i. Record the number of people potentially exposed. H-
f). Record the expected potential release rate. ""
>JO
ASSUMP1IONS »
Ol
list all major assumptions made in developing the data for this worksheet: *>
-------
Name of Site:
Date:
Analyst:
QC:
WORKSHEET 8-16
SUMMARY TABLE: SUBCHRONIC INTAKES AND RISKS
Remedial Alternative: Exposure Point:
Siibchronic Daily AIS
Chemical intake (ing/kg/day) (mg/kg/day) SOI/AIS . Health Endpoint
1.
2.
3.
1.
5.
TOIAL (Hazard Index) =
INSTRUCTIONS
1. List aft indicator chemicals.
2. Li«t the stitochronic daily intake (SOI) that has been calculated for each noncareinogenic indicator. o
3. List the AIS (acceptable intake for subchronic exposure). AIS values for some chemicals are listed in Exhibit C-6 H
i n Append i x C. ' V)
o
ii. Calculate the SOIrAIS ratio. Sum for ail indicators to calculate the Hazard Index. H-
H
CD
5. List the health endpoint for each indicator. o
n
t-"-
<
ASSiJMPJipJiS «>
VD
List aH major assumptions made in developing data for tliis worksheet: »J
oo
Ol
------- |