PB98-964201
EPA 541-R98-047
October 1998
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Lincoln Creosote Site
Bossier City, LA
11/26/1997
-------
LINCOLN CREOSOTE SITE
BOSSIER CITY, LOUISIANA
RECORD OF DECISION
DECLARATION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Lincoln Creosote Site, Bossier City, Louisiana
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the Lincoln Creosote Site
in Bossier City, Louisiana, developed in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), and, to the extent practicable, the
National Contingency Plan. This decision is based on the Administrative Record for the site.
The State of Louisiana concurs on the selected remedy.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
EPA has selected no further remedial action at the Lincoln Creosote Site. Previous
removal actions have eliminated existing and potential threats to human health or the
environment. The Risk Assessment documents that the removal actions taken on the Site
eliminate the need for further response action, and that the Site poses no current or potential
threat to human health or the environment.
The no further action remedy does not include any element of future work such as
maintenance or monitoring, engineering controls, or institutional controls. Unlimited Site access
can occur without unacceptable exposure to hazardous substances.
DECLARATION STATEMENT
EPA has determined that its response at this site is complete and no further action is
necessary at this site. Therefore, the site now qualifies for inclusion on the Construction
Completion List. Because this remedy will not result in hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants remaining on-site above concentration levels that allow for unrestricted use and
unlimited exposure, the five year review will not apply to this action.
// Date
onal Administrator
-------
LINCOLN CREOSOTE SITE
BOSSIER CITY, LOUISIANA
RECORD OF DECISION
DECISION SUMMARY
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Lincoln Creosote Site ("Site") is located in Bossier City, Louisiana, and consists of a 20-acre
industrial area that includes the former location of a wood treatment plant. (Hereinafter the
former wood-treatment plant area is referred to as the plant. That is, when this Record of
Decision (ROD) refers to the plant it means the approximately 20-acre area which is identified on
Figure 1 as the plant area.) In addition to the plant, the Site also includes parts of an adjacent
residential neighborhood which has been contaminated by storm water runoff from the wood-
treatment facility that operated on the plant. The area of the contaminated portions of the
residential neighborhood is shown on Figure 6. It should be noted that in certain earlier
documents (e.g.. work plans, and sampling analysis reports) the contaminated parts of the
residential neighborhood were referred to as "off-site"; however, the Site includes those areas
which were previously referred to as "off-site" as well as the plant. The map which is Figure 5
describes the Site area. The Site is largely undeveloped, with a few light industrial properties
located on about 3 acres of the northwest part of the Site. The areas immediately surrounding the
plant to the north, northeast, south and west are primarily residential with some commercial areas
interspersed. Two apartment complexes, the Northpark Apartments and Cloverdale Apartments,
are located on the Site. Small areas of commercial development also are present on the Site, and
a Louisiana and Arkansas Railroad right-of-way is located in the Southern part of the Site.
SITE HISTORY
A wood-treatment facility operated on the plant from about 1935 through 1969. Since 1969, no
activities have been reported at the Site except for light commercial activities in the northwest
comer which have been underway since 1985 (electrical parts distributor and mini-warehouse
facility). Wood products such as railroad ties and utility poles were pressure treated at the plant,
using creosote, chromated copper-arsenate (CCA) and pentachlorophenol (PCP) as wood
preservatives. The compounds used for wood treatment contained metals, a number of semi-
volatile organic base-neutral extractable compounds such as polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
(PAHs).
Lincoln Creosote Site
Record of Decision
Pagcl
-------
The CCA, PCP, and PAHs are hazardous substances and were dumped, spilled and disposed of
on the plant in sludges, sediments, wastewater, process residuals, preservative drippings and
spent formulations.
The original wood treating process area was located in the western portion of the plant, and was
about 10,000 square feet in area. Untreated wood was stacked in the northeastern part of the
plant in an untreated-wood storage yard that measured approximately 4 acres. The untreated-
wood storage area included buildings and machinery used for timber sizing, pole machining, and
wood drying. Piles of untreated wood spread to other plant areas as the plant grew in the 1960's.
Figure 1
Ponding Area
Lincoln Creosote Site
Lincoln Creosote Site
Record of Decision
Page 2
-------
Treated wood generally was stacked in the southern portion of the plant in a treated-wood storage
area which occupied approximately 30,000 square feet of the plant. Treated wood piles extended
to other parts of the plant in the 1960's. Several railroad spurs used to transport wood were
located throughout the plant. These spurs connected with the railroad line located along the
southern boundary of the plant. A petroleum pumping station was located slightly southeast of
the wood-treating process area. This pumping station reportedly was operated from 1946 to
1966.
Wood-treating wastes arid PCP-, CCA- and PAH-contaminated soil were left on the plant when
the wood-treating facility was closed. This release of hazardous substances resulted in the need
for later investigation and remediation of the Site. Periodic releases of hazardous substances
during plant operation may have occurred as a result of chemical handling, leaks and spills
during the treatment processes. During facility operation and after the wood-treatment facility
was closed at the plant, surface impoundments used to collect facility waste overflowed,
resulting in the release of hazardous substances onto plant soils. The overflow from the surface
impoundments migrated along drainage pathways located downgradient from the plant thereby
contaminating those pathways with hazardous substances including PCP, CCA, and PAHs.
Some of these migrating hazardous substances contaminated soil in the residential
neighborhoods located on the Site.
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
In April 1994, Joslyn Manufacturing Co. ("Joslyn") approached EPA, and proposed to
undertake a removal action to address contamination found in a drainage ditch basin located in a
neighborhood northeast of the plant. Historically, contaminated rainwater runoff from the plant
collected in this ditch. Joslyn prepared a work plan and a draft Engineering Evaluation and Cost
Analysis (EE/CA) and submitted it to EPA for review in late July 1994. An EE/CA is an
analysis of removal alternatives. In August 1994, EPA made the decision to conduct a non-time-
critical removal in the neighborhood northeast of the plant. On August 24, 1994, EPA issued
special notice letters to five potentially responsible parties (PRPs). The notice letters requested
the PRPs to perform or finance the removal action to address the contamination found in the
neighborhoods near the plant. Only Joslyn responded to the notice with a good-faith offer.
In late December IV'M, Joslyn submitted a revised EE/CA to EPA, along with a pre-excavation
sampling plan for the neighborhood. EPA approved the pre-excavation sampling plan on
January 20, 1995, and sampling of the neighborhood began on January 25,1995. EPA held a
public comment period regarding the EE/CA from June 29, 1995 to July 29, 1995. Utilizing the
EE/CA and the sampling results, EPA selected a removal action to address the contaminated soil
in the neighborhoods located near the plant. EPA memorialized its decision in an Action
Memorandum issued on August 17, 1995. EPA's selected removal action called for excavation
of residential soils containing concentrations of wood treatment product residuals above an
Lincoln Creosote Site
Record of Decision
Page 3
-------
N
V.,'
o
CD
..a,
LEGEND:
STE PROPERTY BOUNDARY
HISTORICAL DRAINAGE
PATHWAY/STORM SEWERS
CURRENT OPEN CMTCH
SAMPLE LOCATION WHERE TOTAL BAP
EQUIVALENT PAHi CONCENTRATIONS
2. 30OO
SAMPLE LOCATION WHERE PAH. WERE
DETECTED ABO\C BACKGROUND UPPER
TOLERANCE LJUJlT (UTL)
SAMPLE LOCATION WHERE NO PAM« WERE
DETECTED ABOvC UTL»
BACKGROUND STATION LOCATION
RAILROAD
ESTIMATED AREA WHCR£ BAP EQUIVALENT
PAHs CONCENTRATIONS iJ.OOO )><)/*<)
ESTIUAIEO AREA OF SITE- ATTRIBUTABLE
PAH CONTAMINATION
ESTIMATED AREA Of PAH CONTAMINATION
MTH UNCERTAIN ATTRIBUTION
F1CIIKK 2
BEN20 (A) PYRENE
(BAP) EQUIVALENT-AFFECTED
SOIL *3 mg/kg
LINCOLN CREOSOTE SITE
BOSSIER CITY. LOUISIANA
US EPA REGION V1
ARCS rSI/RI
-------
action level of 3 parts benzo(a)pyrene equivalents per million parts soil (ppm). Under the removal
action, excavated soil was disposed of off-site, and excavated areas were backfilled with clean
soil.
EPA entered into an Administrative Order on Consent with Joslyn to implement the removal
action. The effective date of the Order was November 27, 1995. After obtaining access
agreements from affected property owners, Joslyn began the removal action in May 1996.
Approximately 15,000 tons of contaminated soils were removed from the affected areas shown in
Figure 3, and replaced with clean backfill. The affected areas were regraded and landscaped. The
removal work was completed in October 1996.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
EPA developed a Community Involvement Plan in September 1994 in order to actively involve
the neighborhoods and the rest of the public in the Superfimd process at the Lincoln Creosote
Site. Several open houses and workshops were held in the community starting in 1994. Fact
sheets have been distributed on four occasions to the approximately 220 persons on the mailing
list for the Site.
In a newspaper announcement dated September 17,1997, which was published in the Shreveport
Times, a major local newspaper of general circulation, EPA solicited public comments on EPA's
Proposed Plan for the long-term remediation of the Site. That same newspaper announcement
informed the public of a public meeting which EPA held to solicit oral comments on the Proposed
Plan. The meeting was held on September 29, 1997. The purpose of the Proposed Plan was to
inform the public of the recommended alternative for remedial action at the Site (in this case EPA
had decided to take no action), and to solicit review and comment by the public. Specifically, the
objectives of this Proposed Plan were as follows:
Summarize the circumstances that resulted in the selection of the no action alternative;
and
Solicit public review and comment on the proposed no action alternative and on
information contained in the Administrative Record File.
Public comments on the Proposed Plan and on the Administrative Record File were accepted
during the period beginning September 18, 1997 and ending October 17, 1997. No written
comments were received during the period. Additionally, oral comments were accepted at the
public meeting held on September 29, 1997. EPA has considered and responded to all significant
comments received during the public comment period either through a direct reply at the public
meeting or in a document called a Responsiveness Summary. A transcript from the public
meeting is part of the Administrative Record. The Responsiveness Summary is attached to this
ROD.
Lincoln Creosote Site
Record of Decision
PageS
-------
The purpose of this ROD is to document EPA's final decision, regarding the remedial action
(i.e.. no further action) to be taken at the Site. The purpose of the ROD is to, as appropriate.
document all facts, analyses of facts, and site-specific policy determinations considered in the
course of carrying out the requirements of the National Contingency Plan (NCP) in a level of
detail appropriate to the situation (the NCP can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) in Title 40 at Part 300).
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
The Lincoln Creosote Site was proposed to the National Priorities List (NPL) in January 1994.
The NPL is the list of uncontrolled hazardous substance releases in the United States that are
priorities for long-term remedial evaluation and response. The NPL is compiled by EPA. The
proposed Site listing included the plant and the surrounding residential areas. At the time that
the Site was proposed to the NPL, an action was taken by LDEQ to address contaminated soils
remaining on the plant after the cessation of wood treating activities. The work was performed
by Joslyn under LDEQ oversight, and resulted in the removal of more than 100,000 cubic yards
of contaminated soils from the plant. This work is documented in a Removal Action Report
dated March 18, 1994, which is part of the Administrative Record for this ROD. In a letter dated
August 22, 1997, LDEQ notified EPA that it had determined that conditions on the plant were
protective of human health and the environment, and that, therefore, LDEQ had decided that all
response action at the plant was complete and that no further action was anticipated.
As explained above, a second action taken at the Site was performed by Joslyn, under EPA
authority pursuant to CERCLA. The second action addressed hazardous substances
contamination in neighborhoods adjacent to the plant. The hazardous substances were chemical
residuals which migrated from the wood treatment operation, and contaminated neighborhood
soils. This work is documented in a Removal Action Report dated February 1997 which is also
part of the Administrative Record for this ROD.
As explained above, Joslyn, under LDEQ oversight, addressed the contamination on the plant,
and Joslyn, under EPA oversight, also addressed the contamination on the rest of the Site.
Therefore, since these previous responses eliminated the need for further remedial responses at
the Site, EPA has decided to take no further response action at the Site. EPA's decision is
documented in this ROD. The A •linistrative Record is the documents which are the basis for
EPA's decision. The ROD addresses all the problems associated with hazardous substance
contamination on the entire Site (i.e., the neighborhoods and the plant). No other operable units
are defined for the Site.
Lincoln Creosote Site
Record of Decision
Page 6
-------
SS3
L_:J
LECENO
EXCAVATION GREATER THAN OR
EQUAL to 2 FEET
EXCAVATION LESS THAN 2 FEET
AREAS WITHIN THE LATERAL LIMITS OF
EXCAVATION COVERED WITH A STRUCTURALLY
STABLE LOW PERMEABILITY MATERIAL
SITE BOUNDARY
rtfi
lERM-Soulhwesl, Inc
HOUSTON • Ht» OtUUO • 1U3TU • 04LU3 • BUUMONT
fKUK i
AND L*TC(U1 uutr^ Of CXCAVATBM
CWOSOIt SHI
dly. I
-------
SITE CHARACTERIZATION
Activities at the Site generally can be divided into the response actions taken to address the
contamination on the plant, and the response actions taken to address the contamination of the
neighborhoods near the plant. The cleanup of the plant was generally undertaken by Joslyn under
LDEQ oversight. The cleanup of the neighborhoods was generally undertaken by Joslyn with
EPA oversight. LDEQ has determined that conditions on the plant are now protective of human
health and the environment, that all response action on the plant is complete, and that no further
construction is anticipated, and EPA is relying on LDEQ's determination with respect to the
plant. That is, EPA is basing its decision not to take further action at the plant on LDEQ's
determination. With respect to the neighborhoods, EPA has conducted its own Remedial
Investigation (RI) which included a baseline risk assessment to characterize the risks to human
health and the environment that were posed by the contaminants prior to the response actions
taken by Joslyn under EPA oversight. As explained below, based on the Risk Assessment, EPA
believes that no remedial action is necessary to ensure protection of human health and the
environment in the neighborhoods. In short, EPA has determined, that no remedial action is
necessary at the Site in order to ensure protection of human health and the environment.
In 1985, EPA conducted an investigation of the plant. The analytical samples of soil collected on
the plant indicated high concentrations of hazardous substances including creosote-related semi-
volatile organic compounds, pentachlorophenol, and chromated copper arsenate. A remedial
investigation of the plant was completed by Joslyn, a former owner and operator of the plant, in
1989 under LDEQ oversight. During this investigation, significantly elevated concentrations of
hazardous substances including numerous creosote-related semi-volatile compounds,
pentachlorophenol, chromium, and arsenic were discovered in the soils on the plant. Joslyn began
remedial activities at the plant in February 1992 under LDEQ oversight. Remedial activities
included excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated soils. Currently, the plant is largely
abandoned and undeveloped except for the northwest corner of the plant where there is an
electrical supply company and a mini-warehouse complex.
Due to a request from a citizen who lives in the neighborhood northeast of the plant, EPA
conducted an Expanded Site Inspection (ESI) in March 1992. EPA found hazardous substances
including creosote-related semi-volatile organic compounds at concentrations significantly above
background levels i" the on-Site neighborhood surrounding the plant. Based upon that d ta, the
Site was proposed for the National Priorities List on January 18, 1994 (59 :ed. Reg. 25t .>).
Based on information provided by neighborhood residents, in March 1994, EPA began planning
additional sampling in the neighborhoods near the plant. EPA took environmental samples in the
neighborhood during the period from June 1994 to July 1994. The results of this investigation
are contained in the ESI/RI Report. Site-attributable constituents that EPA investigated include
semi-volatile organics, metals, and dioxin/furans. The findings of the ESI/RI are presented below.
Lincoln Creosote Site
Record of Decision
Page8
-------
Nature and Extent of Contamination - Polynuclcar Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH)
Prior to the removal action taken in the neighborhoods near the plant, approximately 16 PAH
compounds and pentachlorophenol (PCP), attributable to the wood-treating chemicals formerly
used at the Lincoln Creosote Site were present in soils and ditch sediments in the neighborhood
near the plant. PAHs were frequently detected in ESI/RI soil samples at concentration levels
above PAH concentrations found in soil samples taken in areas near the Site for use as
background comparison values. Total PAH concentrations in the affected soil and ditch sediment
were as high as 328,290 micrograms per kilogram (wg/kg) and 24,750 wg/kg, respectively. PCP
was detected in soil at concentration levels above background comparison values much less
frequently than the PAHs, and was generally found only where elevated PAH concentrations
were also present. PCP concentrations in the affected soil were as high as 8,900 wg/kg, and PCP
concentrations in the affected sediment were as high as 740 wg/kg. Total benzo(a)pyrene (BAP)
equivalent concentrations were calculated based on the reported PAH results. Total BAP
equivalent concentrations provide a means of evaluating total PAH as if it were composed solely
of BAP, the most toxic of the PAH.compounds. The estimated extent of total BAP equivalent
affected soil as it existed before the removal action is shown in Figure 2. Affected soils were
found to the depth of 2 feet below ground surface in Site neighborhoods.
Nature and Extent of Contamination - Metals
Prior to the removal action, copper, chromium, and arsenic attributable to the chromated copper
arsenate (CCA) used for wood treating at the Lincoln Creosote plant were found in Site
neighborhoods in certain locations in concentrations exceeding the background comparison
levels. The metals sampling results found:
• Copper-affected soils occurred at scattered locations within the Site, primarily within or
immediately adjacent to the historic plant drainage pathways. The highest copper
concentration found was 47,000 wg/kg.
• Chromium-affected soils occurred at scattered locations within the Site, generally along
the historic plant drainage ways. The highest chromium concentration found is 71,200
wg/kg.
• Arsenic-affected soils occurred at scattered locations within the Site that were more
extensive than those of copper and chromium-affected soils. In addition to the arsenic in
ureas along the historic plant drainage ways, elevated arsenic levels were found at some
of the residential properties immediately west and south of the Lincoln Creosote plant.
An unusually high 770,000 wg/kg concentration of arsenic was found west of the plant.
Except for the certain locations described above, prior to the removal action, the concentration
levels of copper, chromium, and arsenic generally detected in the Site neighborhood soils were
not especially high in most cases when compared to the local and regional background levels.
Most of the concentration levels of these contaminants which exceeded background levels were
within the same order of magnitude as the local background results; nonetheless, as explained
below, some of these concentrations above background level did pose a health threat.
Lincoln Creosote Site
Record of Decision
Page 9
-------
Nature «nd Eitent of Contamination -Dioiin/Furans
Prior to the removal action, dioxin/furan compounds, organic byproducts of the wood-treating
process, were present in soil and ditch sediments found in Site neighborhoods in concentrations
above the background comparison values. Total 2,3,7,8 TCDD equivalent concentrations were
calculated based on the reported dioxin/furan results. Total 2,3,7,8 TCDD equivalent
concentrations provide a means of evaluating total dioxin/furan results as if it were composed
solely of 2,3,7,8 TCDD, the most toxic of the dioxin/furan compounds. This 2,3,7,8 TCDD
equivalent process is similar to the calculation of a total BAP equivalent described above. Both
processes are used by EPA to help produce a conservative estimate of the risk to human health.
The 2,3,7,8 TCDD equivalent concentrations for dioxin/furans for the study area samples were
found up to .4 ug/kg. The extent of dioxin/furan contamination coincides with the estimated area
of PAH-affected soil/sediment.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Risks at the Site were generally addressed in two operations. The risk at the plant was generally
addressed by Joslyn under LDEQ oversight. The risk in the neighborhoods was generally
addressed by Joslyn with EPA oversight. LDEQ has determined that conditions on the plant are
now protective of human health and the environment, that all response action on the plant is
complete, and that no further construction is anticipated, and EPA is relying on LDEQ's
determination with respect to the plant. That is, EPA is basing its decision not to take further
action at the plant on LDEQ's determination. With respect to the neighborhoods, EPA has
conducted its own RI and Risk Assessment. As explained below, based on the Risk Assessment,
EPA believes that no remedial action is necessary to ensure protection of human health and the
environment in the neighborhoods. In short, EPA has determined, that no remedial action is
necessary at the Site in order to ensure protection of human health and the environment.
EPA conducted a human health and ecological Risk Assessment for the Site neighborhoods. The
approach used was in accordance with EPA Risk Assessment guidance. The objectives of the Risk
Assessment were to assess health risks which contaminated soil and sediment posed to current
and hypothetical future residents of the neighborhoods near the plant, and to evaluate the impact
of contaminated soils and sediments on local wildlife in the neighborhoods. In this ROD EPA
calls each medium (e.g.. soil, water, air, sediment), which may carry contamination to the human
body or to the environment, an "exposure pathway." The Risk Assessment examines the soil
and sediment exposure pathways. In this ROD, EPA calls the mechanism through which
contamination may enter the human body (i.e.. ingestion, inhalation, skin absorption) an
"exposure route." The baseline risk assessment process used for Super-fund sites is illustrated in
Figure 4. The plant area was not included in the baseline risk assessment because the
contamination on the plant was removed during the comprehensive State-lead removal, and the
excavated soils were replaced with clean backfill, and because the LDEQ has determined that the
plant poses no threat to human health or to the environment.
A draft Risk Assessment for the neighborhoods near the plant was prepared by Roy F. Weston,
Inc. for EPA in January 1995. The draft Risk Assessment was revised based upon new data,
Lincoln Creosote Site
Record of Decision
Page 10
-------
acquired in 1996 and 1997 after removal of a large volume of soil and sediment, and finalized.
The Risk Assessment is not based on data gathered regarding the specific behavior of Site
residents. Instead the Risk Assessment is based on certain assumptions regarding human
behavior in general. These assumptions are consistent with EPA policy and were developed
through EPA study and experience. Risks were calculated for humans living on the Site under
various scenarios including current use scenarios and future use scenarios.
The results of the Risk Assessment are not exact estimates of the number of individuals who will
develop health problems. Rather, they are a statement of the relative magnitude of risk if the
assumed exposure occurs. Risk assessment is a tool which, when performed using the standard
algorithms and assumptions, provides risk managers with a way to quantitatively compare sites
and to set priorities in the interest of protecting human health.
Data Evaluation and Reduction
Data evaluated for the human health component of the Risk Assessment included soil samples
from neighborhood areas taken at sampling depths 0-6" and/or 0-24'". Samples were collected
in three study zones which were called exposure pathway scenarios (EPS), and numbered EPS 1,
EPS 2 and EPS 3. These study zones were designated based on the proximity of the study zone
to the plant, and on the land use in each study area respectively. The sampling locations
evaluated for EPS 1, EPS 2 and EPS 3 are shown on Figures 5 and 6.
• EPS 1 - Includes residential areas in close proximity to the plant.
• EPS 2 - Includes residential and non-residential areas more distant from the northern,
western, southern, and eastern boundaries of the plant.
• EPS 3 - Includes non-residential areas northeast of the plant. These areas are distant
from the plant boundaries, and EPA assumes that these areas will be used for
residential purposes in the future.
Constituents of Potential Concern (COPCs) (i.e.. the chemicals which EPA believed to pose a
risk) chosen for evaluation in the Risk Assessment included PAHs, PCP, hazardous metals, and
dioxin/furans. The Risk Assessment calculated the concentration of COPCs at the point at which
humans may be -xposed to the COPCs (the "exposure point"). The Risk Assessment used
statistical methods which assure that exposure point concentrations were determined with 95%
confidence. However, in order to be realistic, if the statistical method utilized projected an
exposure point concentration that exceeded the maximum concentration of a COPC found in the
sample with the highest concentration of the COPC in queston, the maximum concentration was
used rather than the statistically-derived concentration. The exposure point concentrations for
the three study zones are presented in Tables 1-4.
Human Health Exposure Assessment
Figure 7 is a conceptual model of the Site detailing the primary and secondary sources of
COPCs, potential COPC migration pathways, exposure pathways, and exposure routes evaluated
for the human receptors in EPS 1, EPS 2 and EPS 3. For the current residents (EPS 1 and EPS
Lincoln Creosote Site
Record of Decision
Page 11
-------
2), 0 to 6 inch soil samples were used to evaluate the soil-related exposure routes, except for fruit
and vegetable consumption which was based on the 0 to 24 inch soil samples. For the
hypothetical future residents (EPS 3), the 0 to 24 inch soil samples were used for the soil-related
exposure routes.
Both reasonable maximum exposure (RME) and central tendency exposure (CTE) scenarios were
developed for EPS 1, EPS 2 and EPS 3. The RME estimate is designed to be a measure of "high-
end exposure" (i.e.. the maximum exposure that a hypothetical person could face) and the CTE
estimate provides a measure of "average" exposure (i.e.. the average exposure that a hypothetical
person would face).
The following subsections provide a description of probable circumstances ("scenarios") under
which people living on the Site (or who may live on the Site in the future) may be exposed to
COPCs in the media of concern (i.e.. soil and sediment). This information is summarized in
Table 5.
Current Use Scenarios
EPS I - Exposure to Soil and Sediment in Residential Areas Closest to the Plant
For EPS 1, the neighborhood closest to the plant, EPA evaluated the risk from soil and sediments
under an RME scenario and under a-CTE scenario. For the RME scenario, EPA evaluated the
risk to a current resident (child and adult). For the CTE scenario, EPA evaluated the risk to a
five- to 13-year-old current resident. The soil and sediment sampling locations included in the
risk assessment for EPS 1 are shown on Figures 5 and 6. Under the current resident scenario for
EPS 1, the Risk Assessment evaluated the risk to residents living in the Northpark Apartments,
and the risk to the residents living in areas just north of the plant. In EPS 1, the current residents
were assumed to be exposed to soil during outdoor activities such as gardening, yard work, and
recreational activities. A soil ingestion rate of 200 milligrams per day (mg/day) was used for the
child residents and an ingestion rate of 100 mg/day was used for the adult residents. A year-
round exposure to soil of 350 days/year was assumed for both the RME and CTE scenarios.
The exposure duration for the CTE scenario was assumed to be nine years which represents the
national average estimate of time spent at one residence. The exposure duration for the RME
scenario was divided into two i le groups. A six-year duration was evaluated for young children
aged one to six, and a 30-year exposure duration was used for an adult. The thirty-year RME
exposure duration assumed that the adult was exposed for six years as a child and 24 years as an
adult (30 years is the national upper 90th percentile estimate of time spent at one residence). For
the CTE scenario, the exposure duration of nine years assumed two years of exposure as a child
and seven years of exposure as an adult. A resident over the age of six is considered an adult for
risk assessment purposes.
In EPS 1, in addition to soil exposure, the current residents (under both the CTE and RME
scenarios) were also assumed to be exposed to sediment in the drainage ditches, which are
located north and west of the Northpark Apartments, during outdoor recreational activity. An
exposure frequency of 52 days/yeu. was assumed for the sediment pathway based on one day per
Lincoln Creosote Site'
Record of Decision
Page 12
-------
Data Evaluation
• Gather and analyze relevant sue data
• Identify chemicals of potential concern
• Identify exposed populations
• Identify potential exposure pathways
• Estimate exposure concentrations for
identified pathways
• Estimate chemical intakes for these
pathways
• Collect qualitative and quantitative
loxicity information
• Determine appropriate ujxicity values
Cfcantfacfaatka
• Charaoerize potential for occurrence
of adverse health effects
- Estimate carcinogenic risks
- Estimate noncarcinogenic hazard
quouenu
• Summarize rsk information
Uncertainty Aiudysas
• Data Evaluation
- Sampling considerations
- Comparison with background
• Exposure Assessment
- Exposure scenarios
- Exposure assumptions
• Toxiciry Assessment/Risk Characterization
- Noncarcinogenic effects
- Carcinogenic effects
- Risk estimates
LINCOLN CREOSOTE SITE
BOSSIER CITY, BOSSIER PARISH
LOUISIANA
FIGURE 4
SCHEMATIC OF THE HUMAN HEALTH
RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS
-------
N
LEGEND:
SITt PROPERTY BOUNDARY
HISTORICAL DRAINAGE
PATHWAY/STORM SCwERS
CURRENT OPEN DtTCM
SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION
SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATION
BACKGROUND SAMPLE LOCATION
RAILROAD
EPS - I CURRENT OFFSITE RESIDENTS
EPS - 2 CURRENT OFFSITE RESIDENTS
EPS - 3 FUTURE OFFSITE RESIDENTS
NOTE:
SEDIMENT BACKGROUND SAMPLES SEDb
AND SED7 ARE LOCATED APPROXIUATEL i
1 MILE SOUTH-SOUTHWEST OF THE SITT
(SEE FIGURE 2-1)
on or •*••*• OTT. LA
ftjMnaai tun (iiim-
Ililtt-l. IIIUI.))
FIGURE 5
PRE-REMEDIAL ACTION
SOIL AND SEDIMENT
SAMPLING LOCATION MAP
LINCOLN CREOS01C SITE
BOSSIER CITY. LOUISIANA
US fl'A (Vr.ttON VI
ARCS fSI/KI
n.u
IAN '!••
5 IW.HI
I4KO3O4/O75 I *'• '•""»
-------
VERTICAL SOIL SAMPLE
VERTICAL SECXMENT SAMPLE
LATERAL SAMPLE COLLECTED IN IMS
LATERAL SAMPLE COLLECTED IN 1996
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
LATERAL uurr or EXCAVATION
SITE BOUNDARY
EPS1
EPS2
EXCAVATION AREA
NOTE: SB 103. SB 104 AND SB 105 SON. BORINGS
SAMPLED IN THE VICINITY OF THE DITCH
AND SOUTH OF GREEN ACRES JUNIOR
HIGH SCHOOL ARE NOT SHOWN ON THIS
FICURE.
150
300
rtn
FIGURE A
POST REMEDIAL CONFIRMATORY SAMPLE LOCATIONS
AND AREA OF EXCAVATION
LINCOLN CREOSOTE SITE
Bonwr City. LouMono
-------
PRIMARY
SOURCES
PRIMARY
RELEASE
MECHANISM
SECONDARY
SOURCES
SECONDARY
RELEASE
MECHANISM
PATHWAY
EXPOSURE
ROUTES
RECEPTORS
WOOD TREATMENT
PROCESS SPENT
CHEMICAL
PRODUCT AND
WASTEWATER
(ON-SITE)
WASTEWATER
AND
CHEMICAL
PRODUCT
DISCHARGE
1
CHEMICAL
PRODUCT STORED
IN IMPOUNDMENTS
AND TANKS
(ON-SITE)
TREATED WOOD
CONTAINING
CHEMICAL
PRODUCT
(ON-SITE)
I
I
STORMWATER
RUN-OFF
DRAINAGE
DITCH AND
IMPOUNDMENT
SEDIMENTS
(ON-SITE)
1
SOIL IN
PRIMARY
SOURCES AND
ADJACENT
AREAS, foN-S
AND (OIT
eiivi
;I-SITE)
-SITE)
I
L
RME
SCENARIO
CTB
SCENARIO
DUST
RELEASED
INTO THE
AIR
INCESTION
DERMAL
CONTACT
INGESTION
DERMAL
CONTACT
INHALATION
OF AIRBORNE
SOIL
INCESTION
OF HOMEGROWN
PRODUCE
DATD 08/05/97
V.O.NO.: 17208B78H97
FIGURE 7
CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL
HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
LINCOLN CREOSOTE SITE
BOSSIER CITY. LOUISIANA
-------
TABLE 1
Exposure Point Concentrations for Chemicals of Potential Concern in Soil (0-6")
Current Off-Site Resident (EPS 1)
Chemical
Organica
te(2-Elhytwxyf)phthalate
Butyt>enzytohtfca/ate
Carbazofe
PAHt
Acenaphthytone
Anthracene
B«nzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo
-------
TABLE 2
Exposure Point Concentrations for Chemicals of Potential Concern in Sediment (0-6")
Current Off-Site Residential Area (EPS 1)
I Chemical
rganics
bis(2-Ethyfoexyl)phthalate
Butylbenzytphthalate
Carbazole
Oibenzofuran
Diethytphthalate
Di-n-butytprithalate
Dioxins / furans (e)
(as 2,3,7,8 - TCDD equKralerrtsl
Hexachlorobenzene
Statistical
Distribution
of Data (a)
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
....
Lognormal
95% UCL of
Mean Concentration
(mg/kg) (b)
2.44E+02
3.50E+01
888E-01
3.99E+06
2.95E+08
2.74E+00
1.72E-05
9.27E+02
Maximum
Concentration
(mg/kg) (c)
1.60E+00
7.20E-02
1.50E-01
1.90E-02
1.50E-02
1.50E-01
5.83E-05
1.70E+00
Exposure Point
Concentration
(mg/kg) (d)
1.60E+00
7.20E-02
1.50E-01
1.90E-02
1.50E-02
1.50E-01
1.72E-05
1.70E+00
PAHs
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
1 Anthracene
Benzo(a]anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a.h)anthracene
Fkioranthene
Fluorene
lndeno(1 ,2.3-cd)pyrene
2-Methytnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
2.95E+06
1.89E+08
1.85E+04
2.60E+00
1.72E+01
1.01E+02
1.44E+04
2.81E*00
2.42E+02
2.49E+00
3.26E+06
7.70E+06
1.82E+01
7.70E+06
248E+04
7.07E-01
3.97E+01
2.00E-02
1.60E-02
1.30E+00
1.30E+00
2.30E+00
3.60E*00
2.00E+00
1.80E*00
6.70E*00
8.60E-01
9.20E-01
1.70E-02
2.80E*00
1.70E-02
3.10E-02
3.70E-01
980E-01
2.00E-02
1.60E-02
1.30E+00
1.30E+00
2.30E+00
3.60E+00
2.00E+00
1.80E*00
6.70E+00
8.60E-01
9.20E-01
1.70E-02
2.80E*00
1.70E-02
3.10E-02
3.70E-01
9.80E-01
llnorganics
1 Manganese
[ Vanadium
Normal
Normal
618E+02
342E»01
6.00E+02
328E+01
6.00E+02
3.28E+01
NOTES:
(a) Based on the Shapiro-Wilk test results 'or EPS-1 and EPS-2 data. See discussion in text
(b) Calculated according to Supplemental Guidance to RAGS Calculating the Concentration Term, U.S. EPA. 1992,
after averaging rounds and duplicates at each location.
(c) Based on raw data prior to averaging the rounds and duplicates at each location.
(d) Exposure Point Concentration is equal to the UCL unless the calculated UCL rs greater than the maximum detected
concentration; then the maximum concentration was used.
(e) Distribution testing for dioxins / furans was not performed due to the sample size. The value listed as the 95% UCL
for dioxins / furans is the mean concentration.
-------
TABLE 3
Exposure Point Concentrations for Chemicals of Potential Concern in Soil (0-6")
Current Off-Site Residential Area (EPS 2}
Chemical
Organics
bis(2-Etfiy1hexy1)phthalate
DHvtoutytphthalate
Dioxins / furans (e)
(as 2,3,7,8 • TCOD equivalents)
Statistical
Distribution
of Data (a)
Lognormal
Lognormal
• • • •
95% UCL of
Mean Concentration
(mg/kg) (b)
Maximum
Concentration
(mg/kg) (c)
Exposure Point
Concentration
(mg/kg) (d)
3.25E-01
2.32E-01
446E-05
7.70E+00
1.60E-01
3.41E-04
3.25E-01
1.60E-01
4.46E-05
PAHs
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluorarrthene
Benzo{g.h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
lndeno{ 1,2. 3-cdJpyrene
Pyrene
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
2.24E-01
2.60E-01
2.92E-01
2.90E-01
2.63E-01
2.81E-01
2.29E-01
2.52E-01
3.36E-01
2.33E-01
3.80E-01
2.20E+00
2.60E+00
8.10E+00
2.40E+00
3.30E*00
9.20E-01
1.40E+00
5.90E»00
1.20E+00
2.24E-01
2.60E-01
2.92E-01
2.90E-01
2.63E-01
2.81 E-01
2.29E-01
2.52E-01
3.36E-01
2.33E-01
NOTES:
(a) Based on the Shapiro-Wilk test results for EPS-1 and EPS-2 data. See discussion in text
(b) Calculated according to Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calculating the Concentration Term. U.S. EPA. 1992;
alter averaging rounds and duplicates at each location.
(c) Based on raw data prior to averaging the rounds and duplicates at each location.
(d) Exposure Point Concentration is equal to the UCL unless the calculated UCL is greater than the maximum detected
concentration; then the maximum concentration was used.
(e) Distribution testing for dioxins / furans was not performed due to the sample size. The value Gsted as the 95% UCL
for dioxins / furans is (he mean concentration.
-------
TABLE 4
Exposure Point Concentrations for Chemicals of Potential Concern in Soil (0-24*)
Current Off-Site Residential Area (EPS 3)
1 Chemical
Organic*
bis(2-EthylH«yl)phtnalate
Carbazob
Diethylphthalate
Di-n-toutylphtnalatB
2.6-Dirvtrotoluene
Dwv-octylpnthalate
Statistical
Distribution
of Data (a)
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
95% UCL Of
Mean Concentration
(mg/kg) (b)
2.47E-01
3.90E-01
3.28E-01
5.1BE-01
3.18E-01
3.14E-01
Maximum
Concentration
(mg/kg)(c)
1.10E400
1.30E-01
4.20E-01
4.80E-02
2.50E-02
6.30E-02
Exposure Point
Concentration
(mgrtig) (d)
2.47E-01
1.30E-01
328E-01
4.80E-02
2.50E-02
6.30E-02
PAHs
Acenaprrthytene
Anthracene
IBenzofalanthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h.i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Oibenzo(a,hjanthracene
Fluoranlhene
Fluor one
|lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd}pyrene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Phonol
Pyrene
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormai
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Inorganics
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
Lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Normal
Normal
Lognormal
Normal
lognormal
Lognormal
Lognormal
Normal
Lognormal
4.36E-01
3.24E-01
4.66E-01
7.38E-01
1.55E*00
1.69E401
4.11E-01
6.98E-01
3.64E-01
4.76E-01
318E-01
1.76E+00
9.28E-01
3.47E-01
4.03E-01
1.34E+00
2.90E+O4
847£«00
5.32E*02
190E+00
323E+01
1.42E*01
2.39E«01
325E+01
305E+01
5.78E-01
499E+01
858EKJ1
9.80E-02
6.20E-01
1.40E+00
2.80E+00
5.10E-KW
4.60E-KX)
2.00E+00
2.50E+00
130E-KX)
1.30E+00
S.30E-02
460E+00
2.80E-01
1.60E-01
1.00E+00
1.70E+00
9.80E-02
3.24E-01
4.66E-01
7.38E-O1
1.55E-KX)
4.60E-KX)
4.11E-01
6.98E-01
3.64E-01
4.76E-01
530E-02
1.76E-KX)
2.80E-01
1 60E-01
4.03E-01
1.34E*00
3.28E+O4
1.19E+01
1.S8E*03
2.40E+00
4.08E+01
1.55E+01
3.17E+01
7.19E«01
3.29E«01
1.10E+00
6.77E+01
1.38E+02
2.90E+04
8.47E*00
5.32E+02
1.90E*00
3.23E+01
1.42E*01
2.39E-K)!
3.25E+01
3.05E+01
5.78E-01
4.99E+01
8.58E+01
NOTES:
(a) Based on the Shapiro-Wilk test results for EPS-1 and EPS-2 data. See discxesion in text
(b) Cak^Mateda, U.S. EPA, 1992;
after averaging rounds and duplicates at each location.
(c) Based on raw data prior to averaging the rounds and duplicates at each location.
(d) Exposure Point Concentration is equal to the UCL unless the calculated UCL is greater than the maximum detected
conceoti alien; then the maximum concentration was used.
-------
week, year-round exposure to the ditches. The residents were assumed to be exposed to ditch
sediment for one hour per exposure event. These estimates for the exposure frequency and
exposure time account for higher potential exposures during warmer months and lower potential
exposures during colder months.
EPS 2 • Exposure to Soil in Residential Areas Further from the Plant
For ESP 2, the residential and non-residential areas more distant from the northern, western,
southern, and eastern boundaries of the plant, EPA evaluated the risk from soil under an RME
scenario and under a CTE scenario. For the RME scenario, EPA evaluated the risk to a current
resident (child and adult). For the CTE scenario, EPA evaluated the risk to a five- to 13-year-old
current resident. The soil sampling locations included in the risk assessment for EPS 2 are
shown on Figures 5 and 6. The current resident scenario evaluated for EPS 2 represents the
residents living in the areas distant from the plant boundaries (primarily to the north and
northeast of the plant). In EPS 2, trie current residents were assumed to be exposed to soil
utilizing the same exposure duration assumptions as EPS 1.
Future Use Scenario
EPS 3 - Exposure to Soil in Non-Residential Areas (Northeast of the Plant)
For the EPS 3 risk analysis, it was assumed that the non-residential areas northeast of the plant
(distant from the plant boundaries) will be used for residential purposes in the future. The risk
analysis for EPS 3 evaluated the risk to hypothetical future residents. EPA evaluated the risk
from soil under an RME scenario and under a CTE scenario. For the RME scenario, EPA
evaluated the risk to a hypothetical current resident (child and adult). For the CTE scenario, EPA
evaluated the risk to a hypothetical five- to 13-year-old current resident. The soil sampling
locations included in the risk assessment for EPS 3 are shown on Figures 5 and 6. In EPS 3, the
future residents were assumed to be exposed to soil utilizing the same exposure duration
assumptions as EPS 1 and EPS 2. If the area remains non-residential, then human exposure
would be less than the assumed residential scenario.
Human Health Toxicity Assessment
Toxicity factors are values that represent a COPC's dose-response relationship that is used in :isk
assessments. The dose-response relationship quantifies the amount of a COPC received and the
corresponding incidence of adverse health effects. The most common toxicity factor values used
in risk assessments are reference doses (for noncarcinogenic effects) and slope factors (for
carcinogenic effects). Toxicity factors for carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects of the
COPCs were obtained from the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and the Health Effects
Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST), with a few exceptions based on alternate EPA guidance.
Lead toxicity factors are not available, and therefore blood lead levels were predicted for children
using the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) model.
Lincoln Creosote Site
Record of Decision
Page 21
-------
Table 5
Potential Exposure Pathways/Routes
Exposure
Pathway
EPS1
Soil (0-6")
f
Soil (0-24")
Sediment (Drainage
ways)
EPS 2
Soil (0-6")
Soil (0-24")
EPS 3
Soil (0-24")
Scenario
Current Use
Current Use
Current Use
Current Use
Current Use
Future Use
Receptor
RME - Child and adult
residents
CTE- 5- 13 year old
resident
RME -Child and adult
residents
CTE -5- 13 year old
resident
RME - Child and adult
residents
CTE -5- 13 year old
resident
RME - Child and adult
residents
CTE -5- 13 year old
resident
RME - Child and adult
residents
CTE -5- 13 year old "
resident
RME - Child and adult
residents
CTE -5- 13 year old
resident
Exposure
Routes
* Incidental .ingestion
- Dermal contact
- Inhalation of
windblown dust
- Ingestion of
homegrown produce
- Incidental ingestion
- Dermal contact
- Incidental ingestion
- Dermal contact
- Inhalation of
windblown dust
- Ingestion of
homegrown produce
- Incidental ingestion
- Dermal contact
- Inhalation of
windblown dust
- Ingestion of
homegrown produce
Lincoln Creosote Site
Record of Decision
Page 22
-------
In predicting potential human health risks, both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic health effects of
a COPC must be considered. When considering carcinogenic effects, EPA considered only the effects
pf those substances shown to cause cancer in animals and/or humans. The EPA categorization of
carcinogens is shown in Table 6. Excessive exposure to certain COPCs classified as both carcinogens
and noncarcinogens, can produce adverse noncarcinogenic effects as well as carcinogenic effects.
Therefore, cancer slope factors (CSFs) were developed for those COPCs classified as carcinogens,
and reference doses (RfDs) are developed to express the noncancer toxic effects for all COPCs. A
reference dose is an estimate of a daily exposure level for the human population, including sensitive
subpopulations (e.g.. children and pregnant women), that is likely to be without an appreciable risk
of deleterious effects during a lifetime. The CSFs and the RfDs for the COPCs are presented in
Tables 7 and 8.
Human Health Risk Characterization
Carcinogenic Risk
Table 9 presents a summary of the estimated carcinogenic risks posed by the COPCs on the Site. The
risks are listed by exposure pathway and scenario for the current and hypothetical future residents.
Ingestion and inhalation exposure routes are included in the risk summation. The actual carcinogenic
risk may be zero, or the actual risk may be some value which lies between zero and the estimates
summarized in Table 9.
Each person living in the United States has a lifetime cancer risk of between one in three and one in
four. The risks posed by the COPCs on the Site, as described in Table 9, are additional risks that
are posed by the neighborhood portion of the Site now that it has been cleaned up by Joslyn under
EPA oversight. That is, the risks listed in Table 9 are lifetime cancer risks, posed by the COPCs on
the Site (not including the plant), over and above the cancer risk that each U.S. resident faces. These
risks, calculated for the Site (not including the plant) are generally referred to in this ROD as "excess"
lifetime cancer risks because they are risks which are in addition to the lifetime cancer risk posed to
the members of the U.S. population in general. All risk estimates in Table 9 for all exposure
scenarios are within the risk range of one in ten thousand to one in one million excess lifetime cancer
risk that may be acceptable under the NCP. These risks are probabilities that are generally expressed
in scientific notation. In scientific notation, 1E-04 means one in ten thousand, IE-OS means one in
one hundred thousand, and 1E-06 means one in one million. An excess lifetime cancer risk of 1E-04
indicates that, as a reasonable maximum estimate, an individual has (in addition to the cancer risk
which ever, U.S. resident faces) a 1 in 10,000 chance of developing cancer as a result of location-
specific exposure to a carcinogen over a 70-year lifetime under specific exposure conditions at a given
site. Table 10 identifies the COPCs on the neighborhood portion of the Site which pose a greater
than 1E-06 excess lifetime cancer risk according to the exposure pathways and exposure routes in
question. It should be noted that all risks which exceed 1E-06 are less than 1E-04, which places the
risks within the risk range that may be acceptable under the NCP.
Lincoln Creosote Site
Record of Decision
Page 23
-------
Table 6
EPA and IARC Categorizations of Carcinogens
EPA Cateaorization of Carcinooens (EPA. 1 986a)
ANIMAL EVIDENCE
HUMAN EVIDENCE
Sufficient
Limited
Inadequate
No Data
No Evidence
Sufficient
A
B1
B2
B2
B2
Limited
A
B1
C
C
C
Inadequate
A
B1
D
D
D
No Data
A
B1
D
D
D
No Evidence
A
B1
0
E
E
Kav:
Group A
Group 61
Group B2
Group C
Group D
Group E
Human carcinogen (sufficient evidence from epkjemiological studies).
Probable human carcinogen (at least limited evidence of carcinogenitity to humans).
Probable human carcinogen (a combination of sufficient evidence in animals and inadequate
data in humans).
Possible human carcinogen (limited evidence in animals in the absence of human data).
Not classified (inadequate animal and human data).
No evidence for carcinogenicity (no evidence for carcinogenicrty in at least two adequate
animals tests in different species, or in both epidemiological and animal studies).
-------
Table 7
Carcinogenicity Classifications and Route-Specific
Cancer Slope Factors (CSFs) (mg/kg-day)'
Ckoueal
6&JWKS . .v, ;i'<:
IButf-edrylhe^Dpothalate
Burybenzyl phthalate
Carbazole .
2 ,6-Dinitrotoluene
Dioxins/Furani
Hexachlorobenzene
>Aft
Benzo[a]anthraceneb
Benzo[a|pyrene
Benzo[b]fluoranlhenel>
BenzoMfhiorantbeoe
ChryMoe"
Dibeoi[«,b|«nthr»ceoek
Indeoo (l,2,3-cd)pyreneb
Peatachloropbenol
INORGANICS
Arsenic
Beryllhim
ChfXMnium VI
Lead
Nickel(refinery dust)
.EPA
CttPOMConoty
flurifirAtBOB
B2
C
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
A
B2
A
B2
A
Oral
CSF
1.4E-02
NTV
2E-02
6.8E-01
1.5E+05
1.6E+00
7.3E-01
7.3E+00
7.3E-01
7.3E-02
7.3E-03
7.3E+00
7.3E-01
1.2E-01
1.8E+00
4.3E-KX)
NC
NTV
NC
Rrfertnc*
EPA, 1994a
_
EPA, I994b
EPA, 1994*
EPA, 1994.
EPA, 1994*
EPA, 1992
EPA, 1994a
EPA, 1992
EPA. 1992
EPA, 1992
EPA, 1992
EPA, 1992
EPA, 1994a
EPA, I994a
EPA, I994a
_
_
-
InhalatiM
CSF
NTV
NTV
NTV
NTV
1.5E+05
1.6E+00
• • ;'. •:•''••>
NTV
NTV
NTV
NTV
NTV
NTV
NTV
NTV
1.5E+01
8.4E+00
4.1E+01
NTV
8.4E-01
RcferaKe
„
r
ul
_
EPA, 1994.
EPA, 1994b
__
__
_
_
__
_
EPA, 1994«
EPA, 1994"
EPA, 1994'
_ .
EPA, 1994'
DcruuT
CSF
1.4E-02
NTV
2E-02
6.8E-01
1.5E+05
1.6E+00
NTV
NTV
NTV
NTV
NTV
NTV
NTV
1.2E-01
6E+00
1.4E+01
NC
NTV
NC
' The dermal slope factor was obtained by dividing the oral slope factor by the GI absorption factor: organics (1.0); inorganics (0.3)
according to EPA Region VI (WESTON, 1994).
k The oral slope factors are for benzo[a)pyrene adjusted for the equivalent toxicities as recommended by EPA Region VI (EPA, 1992;
WESTON. 1994). Refer to '-xt in Section 4 for TEF values.
NC = Not a carcinogen by mi* exposure route.
NTV = Slope factor not available through IRIS or HEAST.
-------
Table 8
Reference Doses (RfDs) and Toxicity Endpoints
(mg/kg-day)
Chemicals
ORGANICS
Bii(2-ethylhexyl)ph«halate
Butylbearvlpbthalate
Carbazole
Dibenzofunn
DiethvDhthalate
Di-n-bulylphthalale
2,6-Dinitrotohiene
Di-n-octylphthalate
Dioxins/Furans
Hexachlorobenzene
2-Methyln*phthalene
Naphthalene
fAHS
Aceoaphthene
AcenaDhthylene
Anthncene
Benzolalanthracene
Benzolblfluoranthene
Renzolalnvrene
OralRfD
2E-02
2E-O1
NTV
NTV
8E-O1
1E-OI
1E-O3
NTV
NTV
8.4E-04
NTV
NTV
6E-02
NTV
3E-01
NTV
NTV
NTV
Reference
EPA, 1994a
EPA, 1994«
--
—
EPA, 1994*
EPA. I994a
EPA, 1994b
--
--
EPA. 1994a
--
--
EPA, 1994*
--
EPA, 1994a
--
--
--
==«===
Inhalation
RH>
NE
2E-01
NTV
NTV
8E-01
1E-01
1E-01
NTV
NTV
8.4E-04
NTV
NTV
6E-02
NTV
3E-01
NTV
NTV
NTV
:^^^=^^!^^fa-i- i TTTW
Reference
—
Ic
„
..
(0
(c)
(c)
..
..
EPA, 1994b
—
..
(c)
-
(0
—
--
-•
»«==
DermaT
RfD
2E-02
2E-01
NTV
8E-01
1E-01
1E-03
NTV
NTV
8.4E-04
NTV
NTV
6E-02
NTV
3E-01
NTV
NTV
NTV
====*™"*^^^"™^^™^=^^^^^^=««>=«««^^^«i
Toxicity Endpointk
_
•
Increased liver weieht
Liver effect*
NA
NA
Decreased growth/weight
Increased mortality
Increased mortality; neurdojucity;
methemoglobinemia; bile duct hypeml««i«
NA
NA
Liver effects
NA
NA
NA
No effects
NA
NA
NA
-------
Table 8
Reference Doses (RfDs) and Toxicity Endpoints
(Continued)
Chemicals
Benzofe.h.iloerylene
Benzofklfluormnthene
Chmene
Dibenz[«.hl«nthracene
Fluorantbene
Fluorene
tndeno(1.2.3-cd)pyrene
Phenanthrene
Pyretic
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Antimonyfpentoxide) . —
Arsenic
Barn""
rhrnmmm HI .
P j
OralRfD
NTV
NTV
NTV
NTV
4E-02
4E-02
NTV
NTV
3E-02
3E-02
6E-01
NTV
5E-04
3E-04
7E-02
5E-03
1E+00
5E-03
NTV
3.7E-02
Reference
—
-
..
..
EPA, 1994 A
EPA, 1994a
—
--
EPA, 1994a
EPA, 1994 A
EPA, 1994a
--
EPA, 1994a
EPA. 1994a
EPA, 1994a
EPA, 1994«
EPA, 1994a
EPA, 1994a
„
EPA, I994h
Inhalnlinn
RfD
NTV
NTV
NTV
NTV
4E-02
4E-02
NTV
NTV
3E-02
3E-02
6E-01
NTV
5E-04
3E-04
7E-02 _,
5E-03
1E+00
5E-03
NTV
3.7E-02
Reference
_
-
_
-
(0
(0
-
-
(0
(0
0
--
(0
(0
w
EPA, 1994b
(0
EPA, 1994b
W
Dermal*
RfD
NTV
NTV
NTV
NTV
4E-02(1)
4E-02
NTV
NTV
3E-02
3E-02
6E-01
NTV
1.5E-04
9E-05
2.1E-01
1.5E-03
3E-01
1.5E-03
NTV
1.1E-02
Toricity Endpoint"
NA
NA
NA
NA
Nephropathy; increased liver weight
HemoKlobinemia
NA
NA
Nephropathy
Fetotoxicity
Decreased fetal body weight
NA
Decreased longevity
Keratosis; hyperpigmentation
Hypertension, fetotoxicity
No effects
No effect*
No effects
NA
Gastrointestinnl irritation
-------
Table 8
Reference Doses (RfDs) and Toxicity Endpoints
(Continued)
Chemicals
Lead*
Manganese (food)
Mercury
Nickel (soluble salt)
Selenium
Silver
Thallium (sulfate)
Vanadium
Zinc
OralRfD
N1V
1.4E-O1
3E-04
2E-02
5E-03
5E-03
8E-OS
9E-03
3E-01
Reference
...
EPA, 1994.
EPA, 1994b
EPA, 1994*
EPA, 1994*
EPA, I994a
EPA, 1994.
EPA, 1994a
EPA, 1994a
=^=^^™=
Inhalation
RfD 1
NTV
1.4E-01
3E-04
2E-02
5E-03
SE-03
8E-05
9E-03
3E-01
KmHKOEBEBBS:
Reference
--
(0
(0
CO
(0
(0
M
(c)
(*)
t^^^m^m^m^m
DermaT
RfD
NTV
4.2E-02
9E-05
6E-03
1.5E-03
1.5E-03
2.4E-05
2.7E-03
9E-02
•
Toxicity Endpoint*
?993? 1°"d ** Child (EPAl 1W4c: AT^DR-
Central nervous system effects
Argyria
Increased SOOT, LDH
Decreased hair cystine
• The dermal reference dose was obtained b> n uliiplying the oral reference dose by the GI absorption factor: organics (1.0); inorganics (0 3)- according to EPA Refiion
VI (WESTON, 1994). ' B *
" The toxiciry endpoint is the critical toxic effect which serves as the basis for the development of the RfD (EPA, 1989).
• For volatile organics or compounds inhaled through the dust pathway, EPA Region VI recommends that the oral reference dose be used for the inhalation reference dose
(route-to-rout* extrapolation) if the latter is unavailable through IRIS or HEAST (Personal Communication, 1994; EPA, 1989).
d The reference dose for copper was based on the MCL of 1.3 mg/L. This is not a true reference dose. Uncertainty for the calculated copper hazard index is discussed
in Section 6.
* Refer to Section S for evaluation of blood lead using IEUBK model (EPA, 1994c).
NE - Not evaluated.
NTV = No toxiciry vahies available from IRIS or HEAST.
NA = Mot applicable
-------
Table 9
Summary of Carcinogenic Risks
Ingestion and Inhalation Pathways
Exposure Pathway
iPS 1 - Current Exposure
to Soil and Sediment
EPS 2 - Current Exposure
to SoU
:PS 3 - Future Exposure
to Soil
Scenario
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
Receptor
Adult Resident
5- 13 year old Resident
Adult Resident
5-13 year old Resident
Adult Resident
5-13 year old Resident
Total Carcinogenic Risk
Through All Chemicals <§> Sum of risk for soil ingestion, sediment ingestion, and dust inhalation pathways.
Risk for dioxins/furans is summarized separately.
(b)
A risk between 1E-06 and 1E-04 is within the EPA-defined acceptable risk range.
-------
EPS1
A total excess lifetime carcinogenic risk of 3.37E-05 was calculated for the current adult resident
(RME scenario) living in study zone EPS 1. Approximately 78% of the risk was due to ingestion
of soil, with the largest proportion of the risk contributed by arsenic (50%) and benzo(a)pyrene
(24%). The risk for dioxins/furans (6.27E-05) was estimated separately from the other COPCs due
to the limited data set (only two samples).
A total excess lifetime carcinogenic risk of 1.08E-05 was calculated for the five- to 13-year-old
resident (CTE scenario) living in study zone EPS 1. The exposure pathways and COPCs which
contributed the greatest proportion of risk were identical to the RME scenario. Arsenic and benzo(a)
pyrene contributed 74% of the total carcinogenic risk. The risk for dioxins/furans was estimated to
be2.01E-05.
EPS 2
A total excess lifetime carcinogenic risk of 6.60E-06 was calculated for the current adult resident
(RME scenario) living in study zone EPS 2. Carcinogenic risks were due entirely to soil ingestion,
with 85% of the risk contributed approximately equally by two PAHs, benzo(a)pyrene and
dibenz(a,h)anthracene. The risk for dioxins/furans was estimated to be 1.09E-05.
A total excess lifetime carcinogenic risk of 2.12E-06 was calculated for the five- to thirteen-year-old
resident (CTE scenario) living in study zone EPS 2. Carcinogenic risks were due entirely to soil
ingestion, with 85% of the risk contributed by the two PAHs identified above. The risk for
dioxins/furans was estimated to be 3.49E-06.
EPS 3
A total excess lifetime carcinogenic risk of 4.97E-05 was calculated for the future adult resident
(RME scenario) in study zone EPS 2. Carcinogenic risks were due entirely to soil ingestion, with
approximately 66% of the risk contributed by arsenic and beryllium. These two COPCs are naturally
occurring inorganics, and the estimated risk represents the sum of background and incremental Site-
related risk (if any).
A total excess lifetime carcinogenic risk of 1.59E-05 was calculated for the five- to 13-year-old
resident (CTE scenario) in study zone EPS 3. Carcinogenic risks were due entirely to soil ingestion,
with approximately 66% of the risk contributed by arsenic and beryllium.
Noncarcinogenic Risk
Table 11 presents a summary of the estimated noncarcinogenic risks due to ingestion and inhalation
exposure routes by scenario for the current and hypothetical future residents. The hazard quotients
and indices have been calculated separately for the child and adult residents in EPS 1, 2 and 3
scenarios. All exposure scenarios resulted in hazard indices less than 1, which is the acceptable level
defined by EPA.
Lincoln Creosote Site
Record of Decision
Page 30
-------
Table 10
Summary of Chemicals Exceeding Carcinogenic Risk of 1E-06
Ingestion of Soil and Sediment and Inhaltion of Soil
Exposure Pathway
EPS 1 - Current Exposure
to Soil and Sed .lent
EPS 2 - Current Exposure
to Soil
EPS 3 - Future Exposure
to Soil
'
Scenario
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
-. i
Receptor
Adult Resident
5- 13 year old Resident
Adult Resident
5-13 year old Resident
Adult Resident
5-13 year old Resident
Ingestion of Soil
Dioxins / furans 6.20E-05
Benzo(a)pyrene 4 I8E-06
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1. 01 E-06
Dibenzo(a,h Anthracene 3.03E-06
Arsenic 1 68E-05
Dioxins / furans I.99E-05
Benzo(a)pyTene I.34E-06
Arsenic 5.40E-06
Dioxins / furans 1 09E-05
Benzo(a)pyrene 2.97E-06
Dioxins / furans 3.49E-06
Benzo(a)pyrene 8.44E-06
Benzo(b)fluuranthene 1.78E-06
Dibenzo(«,h)anthracene 4.17E-06
Indeno(1.2.3-cd)pyrene 2.01 E-06
Arsenic 1 .99E-05
Beryllium 1 28E-05
Benzo(a)pyrene 2.71 E-06
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 1.34 E-06
Arsenic 6.38E-06
Beryllium 4.10E-06
Ingestion of Sediment
Benzo(a)pyrene 3.9 1 E-06
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 1 .46E-06
Benzo(a)pyrene 1.25E-06
NA
NA
NA
NA
Inhalation of Soil
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
Table 11
Summary of Hazard Indices
Ingestion and Inhalation Pathways
Exposure Pathway
EPS 1 - Current Exposure
to Soil and Sediment
EPS 2 - Current Exposure
to Soil
:PS 3 - Future Exposure
to Soil
Scenario
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
RME
CTE
Receptor
Child Resident
Adult Resident
S-13 year old Resident
Child Resident
Adult Resident
S-13 year old Resident
Child Resident
Adult Resident
S-13 year old Resident
Total Hazard Index
Through Chemicals
and Exposure Routes
7.38E-01
2.15E-01
2.30E-01
4.08E-04
1.17E-04
1.25E-04
9.74E-01
2.81E-01
2.65E-01
-------
Evaluation of Lead Taxicity
Using the IEUBK model, the estimated blood lead levels in children residing near the Lincoln
Creosote She is 1.9 Mg/dL, which is five fold lower than the critical blood level of 10 ug/dL identified
by EPA and the Centers for Disease Control. This estimate was calculated under conservative
conditions such that the 1.9 ug/dL value represents an overestimation. Based on these observations
lead does not pose a significant human health risk in the residential areas (or in areas that may be used
as residential areas in the future) on the Site. The soil lead level of 32.5 milligrams per kilogram
(mg/kg) used as an input into this calculation is approximately 12 times lower than the currently
recognized soil lead screening level for residential properties of 400 mg/kg.
Human Health Uncertainty Analysis
Risk assessment uncertainties were evaluated in the data evaluation, exposure assessment and toxicity
assessment sections of the Risk Assessment. In addition, quantitative risk estimates are presented for
ingestion of homegrown produce and for dermal contact with soil and sediment. Risk estimates for
these exposure routes are included in the Uncertainty Analysis because of the high uncertainty
associated with intake and toxicity factor estimates. It was concluded that risk estimates were
conservatively derived and are overestimated based on integration of all the uncertainties.
The following summary provides a brief statement of some of the factors or assumptions employed
in the Risk Assessment. Due to these conservative assumptions, it is very likely that the Risk
Assessment overestimates the actual risk to Site residents.
• Portions of the exposure areas were excavated and backfilled. However, samples used to
analyze risk were not taken from the clean backfill, but only from undisturbed areas of the
Site. Including samples taken from clean backfill would have lowered the statistical
calculation of the exposure point concentration, thus lowering the calculated risk.
• Once contaminated areas were excavated, samples were taken to confirm that PAHs were
cleaned up to target levels. However, post-excavation data are not available for inorganics,
dioxins/furans, and other organic constituents. Including samples taken from the post-
excavation areas would have lowered the statistical calculation of the exposure point
concentration, thus lowering the calculated risk.
• When concentrations of COPCs were below the detection limits of the instruments used to
analyze samples, it was assumed that the concentration in the sample in question was one half
the detection limit, when in fact there could have been no COPCs present. This assumption
was applied to each dioxin/furan congener as well. This may result in an overestimation of
risk.
• EPA treated possible carcinogens as if they were probable carcinogens for the purpose of this
Risk Assessment. Therefore, if any of the possible carcinogens are not in fact carcinogens,
the risk has been overestimated.
Lincoln Creosote Site
Record of Decision .
Page 33
-------
Conclusions - Human Health Risk Assessment
Remediation goals are COPC concentrations that EPA establishes as a cleanup standard for
contaminated media such as soil or sediment. Remediation goals establish acceptable exposure
levels that are protective or human health and the environment and are developed by considering
ARARs which are "applicable requirements" or "relevant and appropriate requirements" as those
terms are defined at 40 CFR § 300.5 and 42 U.S.C. Section 962 l(d ). Where ARARs are not
available for carcinogenic COPCs, as in the case of the COPCs found at the Site, EPA selects
remediation goals that represent an excess upper bound life-time cancer risk to an individual of
between 1E-04 and 1E-06. EPA uses 1E-06 as a point of departure which means that a cumulative
risk level of 1 E-06 is used as the starting point (or initial "protectiveness" goal) for determining the
most appropriate risk level that the cleanup alternatives considered for the site in question should
be designed to attain. However factors related to exposure uncertainty and technical limitations may
justify a modification of the remediation goal as long as the goal falls within the range of 1E-04 to
1E-06.
The carcinogenic risks for the Lincoln Site exceed 1 E-06; however, EPA has determined that certain
factors present at the Site warrant leaving the Site as is with no further remedial action to be taken.
Specifically, background concentrations of PAHs at the Site are such that the background
concentrations of PAHs alone would result in an excess lifetime cancer risk of 1 E-06. Therefore,
it is technically impracticable for EPA to attain a remediation goal of 1 E-06 at the Site. Moreover,
the Site risk as calculated is also consistent with previous PAH cleanup goals utilized in EPA
Region 6.
The carcinogenic risks for dioxins/furans were estimated separately from the other COPCs, and were
not included in the summation of risk because of the limited data set. The calculated excess lifetime
cancer risk for dioxin exceed 1 E-06; however, EPA has determined that no further action is required
due to the amount of uncertainty present in the risk assessment. Several conservative procedures and
assumptions were incorporated in the risk assessment for dioxins.
The data that was used to derive the risk is limited based on the small number of data points
available to characterize exposure (in some cases only two data points were used), and the lack of
post-removal data. The small number of samples and the lack of post-removal data will bias the
exposure concentration high and result in a conservative estimate of risk.
The dioxin risk was calculated using all the various forms of dioxins (or congeners). The risk from
the congeners were estimated using a 2,3,7,8 TCDD equivalent, similar to the method used for the
BAP equivalent used at the Site. 2,3,7,8 TCDD is the most toxic of the dioxins, however, it was not
detected in any of the samples at the Site. The risk assessment assumed that all the congeners of
dioxin were present in every sample if they were detected in any sample. This conservative
assumption was pronounced in EPS1 which had the highest calculated dioxin risk. Several
congeners of dioxin (the most potent) were assumed to be present in EPS1 which were not detected
in any samples in EPS1. The conservative treatment of the dioxin data may result in an
Lincoln Creosote Site
Record of Decision
Page 34
-------
overestimation of risk. Moreover, all detections of dioxins/rurans in soil and sediment were less than
the 1 ng/kg (ppb) cleanup level used by EPA in some Records of Decision for residential sites.
The methodology used to evaluate noncarcinogenic risk, unlike the methodology used to evaluate
carcinogenic risk, is not a measure of risk probability. For noncarcinogenic toxic risk EPA uses the
Hazard Index (HI) concept. If an HI exceeds unity (i.e.. exceeds one), there might be a potential for
noncarcinogenic health effects occurring under the defined exposure conditions. For the Site, the
total hazard indices for all the receptors and exposure pathways evaluated in EPS 1, EPS 2 and EPS
3 were lower than one for both the RME and CTE scenarios. Therefore, EPA has determined that
there is no significant noncarcinogenic toxic risk to human health at the Site.
Ecological Risk Assessment
Complete exposure pathways were not identified for ecological receptors due to the remediation of
the plant and the Site neighborhood areas, the urbanization of the study area and the intermittent
nature of the drainage pathways. A suitable habitat for ecological receptors is not present within the
Site; therefore, it is believed that the occurrence of ecological species and subsequent exposures and
risks to Site-related constituents are insignificant.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY - NO FURTHER ACTION
EPA considers a no further action alternative when the site poses no current or potential threat to
human health or the environment or when a previous response action eliminated the need for further
remedial.response.
At the Lincoln Creosote Site, previous removal actions eliminated existing and potential threats to
human health or the environment. The Risk Assessment documents that the removal actions taken
on the Site eliminated the need for further response action, and that the Site poses no current or
potential threat to human health or the environment. Accordingly, EPA has selected no further
remedial action at the Lincoln Creosote Site.
The no further action remedy does not include any element of future work such as maintenance or
monitoring, engineering controls, or institutional controls. Unlimited Site access can occur without
unacceptable exposure to hazardous substances.
Lincoln Creosote Site
Record of Decision
Page 35
-------
LINCOLN CREOSOTE SUE
BOSSIER CITY, LOUISIANA
RECORD OF DECISION
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
This Responsiveness Summary is prepared from oral comments received during the public
comment period on the Proposed Plan. The comment period ran fiom September 18, 1997,
through October 17,1997. No written comment letters were received.
A public meeting was held on September 29, 1997, at the Bossier City Municipal Complex.
Approximately 20 people attended the meeting. Approximately eleven people provided comment
during the meeting. A transcript of the meeting was prepared and is part of the Administrative
Record. A review of the transcript revealed one comment that was not fully addressed during the
public meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Where were background samples collected and evaluated as part of the ESI/RI and what
levels of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons were found?
EPA RESPONSE
In an effort to evaluate the background level of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)
occurring in the soils of the study area for the Lincoln site, EPA collected 69 background
soil samples from 6-inch depth intervals ranging from 0 to 2 feet at 20 locations. The
background samples were collected in areas where impacts attributable to a release from
the Lincoln Creosote site were not suspected to occur. The sample locations are identified
in the ESI/RI (Figure 4-1) but are generally located in the residential areas to the north
anJ west.
Several PAH compounds found in the background samples that were also found at the
Lincoln Creosote site include:
anthracene 4 ug/kg
benzo(a)anthracene 42.3 ug/kg
benzo(a)pyrene 46.3 ug/kg
benzo(b)fluoranthene 7.1 ug/kg
benzo(g,h,i)perylene 273.2 ug/kg
benzo(k)fluoranthene 37.7 ug/kg
chrysene 51.9 ug/kg
fluoranthene 116.3 ug/kg
indeno( 1,2,3-cd)pyrene 19 ug/kg
phenanthrene 67.3 ug/kg
pyrene 92.3 ug/kg
Section 6 of the ESI/RI contains additional information concerning the background
investigation.
------- |