Final Report On The Background Soil Characterization Project At The Oak Ridge Reservation, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Volume 1, Results Of Field Sampling Program : Oak Ridge Reservation Environmental Health Archives (Orreha) Document Number Xiv.


Oak Ridge Reservation
Environmental Health Archives
Current as of 10FEB99
Compiled by
Captain John R. Stockwell, M.D., M.P.H.
U.S. Public Health Service
Final Report on the Background Soil
Characterization Project at the Oak Ridge
Reservatii a, Oak 3idge, Tennessee, Volume 1
Results of Field Sampling Program
c. 010CT93
Oak Ridge Reservation
Environmental Health Archives
(ORREHA)
Document Number

-------
£)Q<4(lQtfOQ3r\
DOE/OR/Ol-1175/Vl
ES/ERyTM-84/Vl
Final Report on the Background Soil Characterization Project
at the Oak Ridge Reservation, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Volume 1—Results of Field Sampling Program
Environmental Restoration Division
P.O. Box 2003
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-7298
Date Issued—October 1993
Prepared by
Environmental Sciences Division
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
ESD Publication 4144
US EPA REGION 4 LIBRARY
AFC-TOWER 9th FLOOR
61 FORSYTH STREET SW
ATLANTA, GA. 30303
Prepared for
U.S. Department of Energy
OfGce of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
under budget and reporting code EW 20
MARTIN MARIETTA ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC.
managing the
Oak Ridge K-25 Site
Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
under contract DE-AC05-840R21400
for the

-------
Authors
D. R. Watkins
J. T. Amnions
J. L. Branson
B. B. Burgoa
P. L. Goddard
T. L Hatmaker
L. A Hook
B.	L. Jackson
C.	W. Kimbrough
S. Y. Lee
D.	A Lietzke
C. W. McGinn
B. D. Nourse
R. L. Schmoyer
S. E. Stinnette
J. Switek
Author Affiliations
D. R. Watkins (Project Manager), L. A Hook, S. Y. Lee, and J. Switek
are affiliated with the Environmental Sciences Division: B. L. Jackson is
a member of the Computing Applications Division; P. L. Goddard is with
the K-25 Site Program Office; T. L Hatmaker is with the Measurement
Applications and Development Group; C. W. McGinn, B. D. Nourse, and
S. E. Stinnette are members of the Health Sciences Research Division; and
R. L. Schmoyer is with the Engineering, Physics and Mathematics Division,
all part of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. C. W. Kimbrough is
manager of the Analytical Projects Office. All of these organizations are
managed by Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc. J. T. Amnions,
J. L. Branson, and B. B. Burgoa are with the Department of Plant and Soil
Science at The University of Tennessee in Knoxville. D. A Lietzke is a

-------
DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of
the United Stales Government. Neither the United States Government nor any
agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process
disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
Reference herein to any specific commercial-product, process, or service by
trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily
constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favonng by the United
Stales Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors
expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States
Government or any agency thereof.
This report has been reproduced directly from the best available copy.
Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific and
Tecnmcal Information, P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831; pnces
avajlable from 615-576-8401.
Available to the public from the National Technical Information Service,
U.S. Department of Commerce. 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA

-------
Final Report on the Background Soil Characterization Project
at the Oak Ridge Reservation, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
(DOE/OR/Ol-1175)
APPROVALS
ddle, Chief
Decontamination and Decommissioning Branch
DOE Oak Ridge Operations Office
/O
U9 Jtj
/ ' Date

1/2.7/q:
D. M/Carden
DOE Program Manager
DOE Oak Ridge Operations Office
Date
JPft^uaLcT "fitJ&.
'o/z^hs
D. T. Bell
ER Program Manager
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.
Date
J0//S/7J
D. R. Watkins
BSCP Manager
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.
Date

-------
CONTENTS
VOLUME 1
TABLES 		xiii
FIGURES 		xri
ABBREVIATIONS		xxiii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS		xxvii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 		xxix
1. INTRODUCTION 		1-1
1.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH		1-1
12 REPORT ORGANIZATION 		1-1
1.3	SAMPLE REFERENCE DESIGNATIONS 		1-2
1.4	DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES		1-3
Z PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DATA USER INFORMATION		2-1
2.1 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ORGANIZATION		2-1
22	REGULATORY INITIATIVES 		2-1
23	DATA MANAGEMENT AND VERIFICATION		2-5
23.1	Responsibilities for Data Management and Verification 		2-5
23.2	Data Storage and Records Management		2-5
2.4	DATA USER GUIDELINES 		2-6
2.4.1	How To Use Data—A Field Perspective		2-6
2.4.2	How To Use Data—An Analytical Perspective 	-		2-18
2.43 Statistical Guidelines for Users of Background Soil Data		2-20
2.4.4	Data User Guidelines for Risk Assessments 		2-21
2.4.5	Data Access Considerations 		2-23
2.5	EXAMPLE APPLICATIONS OF DATA USER GUIDELINES 	2-24
3. FIELD INVESTIGATION, GAMMA SCREENING ANALYSES. AND
QUALITATIVE SITE EVALUATION 		3-1
3.1 SUMMARY 		3-1
32 INTRODUCTION 		3-1
3.3	SAMPLING SITE SELECTION		3-2
3.3.1 Site Evaluation		3-2
33.2 Selected Sites		3-7
333 Composited Sample Sites 		3-7
3.3.4 Selection and Initial Evaluation of Off-Site Locations		3-8
3.4	SITE AND SOIL DESCRIPTIONS		3-8
3.5	SAMPLING PROCEDURES 		3-8
3.6	SOIL SAMPLING AND SAMPLE PREPARATION 		3-9
3.6.1 Scope and Objective		3-9

-------
3.6.2	Materials 		3-9
3.6.3	Field Activities 		3-9
3.7	FIELD QUALITY CONTROL OBJECTIVES AND METHODS 		3-16
3.8	QUALITATIVE RESULTS OF GAMMA SPECTROSCOPY
SCREENING 		3-18
3.9	QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF OAK RIDGE
RESERVATION SITES		3-19
3.10	QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF ROANE COUNTY SITES		3-35
3.11	QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF ANDERSON COUNTY SITES		3-39
4.	ANALYTICAL LABORATORY ANALYSES
AND DATA VALIDATION		4-1
4.1	SUMMARY OF DATA VALIDATION		4-1
4.2	SCOPE		4-3
4.3	SELECTION OF LABORATORIES 		4-3
4.4	QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL AND
DATA VALIDATION 		4^
4.5	DATA VALIDATTON 				4-4
4.5.1 Organic Data Validation Results		4-5
452 Inorganic Data Validation Results	4-17
4.53 Radiochemical Data Validation Results	4-26
4.5.4	ICP/MS Data Validation Results	4-35
4.5.5	Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) Data Validation Results 	4-37
4.6	SCREENING ANALYSES FOR VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS 		4-38
5.	STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 		5-1
5.1	SUMMARY 		5-1
5.2	INTRODUCTION 		5-1
5.2.1 Basic Assumptions 		5-5
522 Graphical Screening			5-5
5.23 Comparison of Formation-Locations and Horizons 		5-12
5.2.4 Field Duplicates and Splits 		5-13
53 INORGANICS 		5-14
5.4	HERBICIDES		5-34
5.5	PESTICIDES 		5-35
5.6	PAHs		5-35
5.7	RADIONUCLIDES 		5-39
5.8	GAMMA SCREENING 		5^0
5.9	VOLATILE ORGANICS 		5-54
5.10	VARIANCE COMPONENTS 		5-54
5.11	NAA DATA		5-61
5.12	ICP/MS DATA		5-65
5.13	ADDITIONAL REMARKS 		5-65
6.	DATA INTERPRETATION 		6-1
6.1 SUMMARY 		6-1

-------
6.2 BASIC IDEAS AND CONCEPTS OF INTERPRETING
SOILS DATA 		6-12
6.2.1 Soil Extraction Factors That Can Affect
the Measured Chemical Content of Soils		6-13
6.2^ Landscape Factors That May Affect the Chemical
Content of Soils		6-14
6.23 Factors That Can Affect the Chemical
Contents of A, B, And C Soil Horizons 		6-14
63 BASIC DATA COMPARISONS 		6-15
63.1	Site and Soil Factors That Must Be Considered in the Initial
Comparison of Results		6-15
63.2	Comparisons Between Methods of Extraction and Analysis 		6-16
6.4	VALID DATA COMPARISONS		6-17
6.4.1	Volatile Organic Compounds		6-17
6.4.2	Pesticides, Herbicides, and Polychlorinated Biphenyls		6-17
6.4.3	Inorganics 		6-17
6.4.4	Radionuclides 		6-18
6.5	INTERPRETATION OF DATA BY INDIVIDUAL ELEMENT
OR COMPOUND		6-18
6.5.1	Organic Compounds		6-19
6.5.2	Inorganic Compounds and Metals 		6-20
6.53 Summary of Inorganics		6-30
63.4 Radionuclides 		6-31
6.6	TRACE ELEMENTS ANALYZED BY NAA		6-37
7. BACKGROUND RISK EVALUATION 		7-1
7.1	SUMMARY 		7-1
7.2	INTRODUCTION 		7-2
73 DATA EVALUATION		7-3
73.1 Data Usability 		7-3
7.3.2 General Site-Specific Data Collection Considerations		7-3
733 General Site-Specific Data Evaluation Considerations 		7-4
73.4 Identification of Constituents Included
in the Background Risk Evaluation 		7-4
7.4	EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT		7-19
7.4.1	Characterization of Exposure Setting		7-19
7.4.2	Identification of Exposure Pathways		7-19
7.4.3	Quantification of Exposure 		7-20
7.5	TOXICITY ASSESSMENT		7-21
7.5.1 Inorganics 		7-57
1.52	Radionuclides 		7-62
7.53	Polvnuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons	7-66
7.6	RISK CHARACTERIZATION		7-67
7.6.1	EPA Guidance—Carcinogens		7-68
7.6.2	EPA Guidance—Noncarcinogens		7-68
7.63 Background Risk and Hazard Index Comparisons
Between the ORR and Anderson and Roane Counties 		7-74
7.6.4	Background Risk Characterization for the ORR		7-108

-------
7.7	UNCERTAINTIES AND ASSUMPTIONS		7-128
7.8	PERSPECTIVE		7-130
8.	ASSESSMENT OF OVERALL DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES 		8-1
8.1	SUMMARY 		8-1
8.2	INTRODUCTION 		8-1
8.3	DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR FIELD
MEASUREMENT DATA		8-2
8.4	DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR
LABORATORY MEASUREMENT DATA		8-2
8.5	ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE
WITH DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES		8-3
8.5.1	Audits and Surveillances		8-3
8.5.2	Data Quality Indicators for Field Measurement Data 		8-4
8.5.3	Data Quality Indicators for Analytical Laboratory
Measurement and Soil Preparation Laboratory Data 		8-4
8.5.4	Training of Field and Soil Preparation Laboratory Personnel 		8-5
8.5.5	Held Data and Records Management		8-6
8_5.6 Field Quality Program		8-6
8-5.7 Field Data Validation		8-9
8.5.8	Assessment of Field Quality Control Methods and Procedures ....	8-9
8.5.9	Analytical Data Quality Assessment 			8-14
8.6	LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS		8-17
9.	REFERENCES 		9-1
VOLUME 2
PREFACE TO VOLUME 2		vii
Appendix A. SITE DESCRIPTIONS, SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTIONS,
AND GENERAL ANALYSIS OF SITES 		A-l
A-l OAK RIDGE RESERVATION SITE DESCRIPTIONS		A-3
A.2 ROANE COUNTY SITE DESCRIPTIONS 		A-17
A3 ANDERSON COUNTY SITE DESCRIPTIONS		A-21
A.4 OAK RIDGE RESERVATION SOIL PROFILES . . .'		A-25
A.5 ROANE COUNTY SOIL PROFILES		A-97
A.6 ANDERSON COUNTY SOIL PROFILES		A-121
A.7 SITE LOCATIONS		A-145
A.7.1 Oak Ridge Reservation Site Locations 		A-145
A7.2 Latitudes and Longitudes for Roane and
Anderson Counties		A-146
Appendix B. SCREENING ANALYSIS DATA 		B-l
Appendix C. ORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA 		C-l

-------
Appendix D. INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA 	 D-l
Appendix E. RADIONUCLIDE ANALYSIS DATA 	 E-l
Appendix F. RELATION OF SAMPLE NUMBERS TO
LABORATORY SAMPLE DELIVERY GROUPS (SDGs)	 F-l
Appendix G. SUMMARY OF STATISTICALLY TREATED DATA
AND THE SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL OF DIFFERENCES
IN THE DATA	 G-l
Appendix H. NEUTRON ACTIVATION ANALYSIS (NAA) DATA	 H-l
Appendix I. ICP/MS ANALYSIS DATA	 1-1
Appendix J. OCCURRENCES OF REJECTED DATA 	 J-l
VOLUME 3
TABLES	 Td
FIGURES 	 xiii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 	 xv
1.	INTRODUCTION	 1
1.1	REGULATORY BACKGROUND 	 1
1.2	SCOPE OF THE BACKGROUND SOIL CHARACTERIZATION
PROJECT 	 1
2.	OBJECTIVES AND PROJECT ORGANIZATION 	 3
2.1 OBJECITVES AND APPROACH 	 3
22 ORGANIZATION OF THE BACKGROUND SOIL
CHARACTERIZATION PROJECT PLAN 	 3
3.	HISTORY AND CURRENT CONDITIONS	 5
3.1	HISTORY OF THE OAK RIDGE FACILITIES 		5
3.2	GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANT FACILITIES 		5
3.2.1 Oak Ridge National Laboratory		5
3JZ.2 Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant 		5
3.2.3 Oak Ridge K-25 Site 		6
3.3	CONTAMINANT RELEASES BEYOND THE OAK
RIDGE RESERVATION 	 6
4.	ENVIRONMENTAL SETITNG 	 7
4.1	GEOGRAPHY OF THE OAK RIDGE RESERVATION 	 7
4.2	TOPOGRAPHY	 7

-------
4.3	GEOLOGY		12
4.4	SOILS		14
4.5	HYDROLOGY		14
4.6	CLIMATE		16
5.	PROJECT PLAN		17
5.1 PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT		17
5.1.1	Project Organization and Responsibilities		17
5.1.2	Project Schedule 		21
52	SITE SELECTION PLAN			23
5.2.1	Introduction and Scope 		23
5.2.2	Approach		23
53	SOIL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN		25
53.1 Introduction and Scope 		25
5.3.2 Sample Collection 		25
533 Sample Analysis		31
5.4 SAMPLE TRACKING AND RECORDS MANAGEMENT 32
5.4.1	Logbooks		30
5.4.2	Sample Custody Documentation		33
5.43 Data Management		33
5_5 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS PLAN 		33
5.5.1	Objectives of Statistical Analysis		33
5.5.2	Statistical Methods		34
5.53 Statistical Sampling 		35
5.6 RISK ANALYSIS PLAN		36
5.6.1	Determining Potential Contaminants of Concern 		37
5.6.2	Calculation of Risks		37
6.	QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN		40
6.1	INTRODUCTION (including Approvals Statement) 		40
6.2	PURPOSE	:		40
63 SCOPE			40
6.4	PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TRAINING 		44
6.5	PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND QA RESPONSIBILITIES 		44
6.6	DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES		47
6.6.1	Quality Assurance Objectives For Field Measurement Data		49
6.6.2	Quality Assurance Objectives for Laboratory Measurement Data		57
6.6.3	Data Reduction, Validation and Reporting		63
6.7	INTERNAL QUALITY CONTROL CHECKS		85
6.7.1 Field QA/QC Samples 		85
6.12. Laboratory QA/QC Samples		85
6.8	PERFORMANCE AND SYSTEM AUDITS		91
6.8.1	Laboratory			91
6.8.2	Field . ..'		91
6.9	PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE		92
6.9.1	Laboratory		92
6.9.2	Field . . .'		93

-------
6.10	PROCEDURES TO ASSESS DATA PRECISION, ACCURACY
AND COMPLETENESS		94
6.11	NONCONFORMANCES AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS		94
6.11.1 Laboratory		94
6.112 Field .		94
6.12	QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORTS TO MANAGEMENT		94
6.12.1 Formal Written Reports		94
6.122 Project Reports 		95
6.13	RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM		95
6.13.1	Records Administration 		95
6.13.2	Records Receipt		95
6.133 Storage, Preservation, and Safekeeping		96
6.13.4 Retrieval and Final Disposition 		96
6.14	DOCUMENT CONTROL		96
6.15	PROCUREMENT DOCUMENT CONTROL 		96
6.16	PURCHASED ITEMS AND SERVICES CONTROL 		97
7.	DATA MANAGEMENT PLAN 	 98
7.1	INTRODUCTION 	 98
7.2	OBJECTIVES	 98
73 DATA MANAGEMENT 	 98
73.1	Data Collection 		99
73.2	Data Entry 		101
733 Data Encoding		101
73.4 Data Traceability		102
7.3.5 Quality Assurance/Quality Control		102
73.6	Facilities 		102
73.7	Data Security and Availability 		102
7.4 DOCUMENT CONTROL		102
7_5 RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM		103
7.5.1 Records Control Process 		103
7-5.2 Document Archive and Index		103
7.53 Document Accessibility 		104
7.6 ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD 	 104
8.	HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN	 107
8.1	INTRODUCTION 	 107
8.1.1	Purpose	 107
8.1.2	Applicabilitv	 107
8.2	SITE INFORMATION 	 107
8.2.1	General	 107
8.2.2	Physical Hazards 	 108
83 SITE TASK HAZARD ANALYSIS 	 108
8.3.1	Site Requirements 		109
8.3.2	Suspected Contaminants		110
833 Hazard Evaluation		110
83.4 Sampling 		110
8.3.5 Equipment Cleaning		110

-------
8.4	SPECIAL HAZARDS		Ill
8.4.1	Heat Stress 		Ill
8.4.2	Biological Stress		112
8.43 Illumination		112
8.4.4	Dust 		112
8.4.5	Ergonomics 		112
8.4.6	Physical Sampling Location Hazards		113
8.5	PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES		113
8.5.1	Technical Integration Manager		114
8.5.2	Project Manager 		114
8.5-3 Technical Coordinator		114
8.5.4 Site Health Safety Officer/Project Personnel 		115
8.5 .5 ORNL Industrial Hygiene (HAZWOPER)		116
8.5.6 ORNL Health Physics 		117
85.7 ORNL Safety		117
8.6	EMERGENCY PROCEDURES		117
8.6.1	Shift Superintendent 		118
8.6.2	Reporting an Emergency		119
8.7	SITE MONITORING ...!		120
8.7.1	Monitoring Frequency		120
8.7.2	Instrument Calibration/Response Checks 		120
8.73 Monitoring Equipment Action Limits		120
8.8	SITE CONTROL MEASURES-SAMPLING AREA 	!	121
8.9	HEALTH AND SAFETY TRAINING REQUIREMENTS 		122
REFERENCES 	 123
Appendix A. REFERENCE SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTIONS 	 127
Appendix B. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN SUPPLEMENT	 141
Appendix C. CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY FORMS FOR SOIL SAMPLES 	 149
Appendix D. STATISTICAL ASPECTS OF DQOS 	 153

-------
TABLES
VOLUME 1
2.1	Soil horizons and sample designations for Phase I and II 		2-7
4.1	Definition of data validation qualifiers		4-2
4.2	Summary distribution of pesticide/PCB data validation results		4-9
4.3	Summary distribution of herbicide data validation results 		4-12
4.4	Summary distribution of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
data validation results	 4-17
4.5	Summary distribution of inorganic data validation results 	 4-25
4.6	Summary distribution of radiochemical data validation results	 4-36
4.7	Summary distribution of ICP/MS data validation results 	 4-37
4.8	Summary distribution of neutron activation analysis data
validation results 	 4-39
5.1	Summary statistics for inorganics 	 5-15
5.2	Additional summary statistics for inorganics with fewer than
20% detects	 5-33
5.3	Herbicides—95% UCBs for probabilities of detection or of exceeding
the MAXDL	 5-35
5.4	Pesticides—95% UCBs for probabilities of detection or of exceeding
maximum detection limit 	 5-36
5.5	PAHs—95% UCBs for detection probability	 5-36
5.6	Additional summary statistics for PAHs 	 5-37
5.7	Summary statistics for radionuclides with fewer than 20% detects	 5-41
5.8	Additional summary statistics for detected radionuclides
by horizons 	 5-43
5.9	Overall results of gamma screening for cesium-137	 5-52
5.10a Standard deviation estimates for inorganics 	 5-56

-------
5.10b Standard deviation estimates for PAHs		5-58
5.10c Standard deviation estimates for radionuclides 		5-59
5.11a Correlation statistics for radionuclides 		5-62
5.11b Correlation statistics for metals 		5-62
5.12a Regression statistics for radionuclides		5-65
5.12b Regression statistics for metals		5-65
5.13	Correlation statistics for metals 		5-67
5.14	Regression statistics for metals		5-67
6.1a Summary statistics for inorganics on the ORR by group		6-3
6.1b Summary statistics for selected radionuclides on the ORR by group		6-9
6.1c Summary statistics by group for PAHs on the ORR	6-13
62 Ratios of radionuclides concentrations		6-34
7.1a Oak Ridge Reservation background soil analytes evaluated
quantitatively—Dismal Gap 		7-5
7.1b Oak Ridge Reservation background soil analytes evaluated
quantitatively—Nolichucky 		7-6
7.1c Oak Ridge Reservation background soil analytes evaluated
quantitatively—Copper Ridge 		7-7
7.Id Oak Ridge Reservation background soil analytes evaluated
quantitatively—Chepultepec 		7-8
7.1e Oak Ridge Reservation background soil analytes evaluated
quantitatively—Chickamauga (Bethel Valley) 		7-10
7.1f Oak Ridge Reservation background soil analytes evaluated
quantitatively—Chickamauga (K-25) 		7-11
7.2a Oak Ridge Reservation background soil analytes evaluated
qualitatively—Dismal Gap 		7-13
7.2b Oak Ridge Reservation background soil analytes evaluated
qualitatively—Nolichucky 		7-14

-------
7.2c Oak Ridge Reservation background soil analvtes evaluated
qualitatively—Copper Ridge 	 7-15
12A Oak Ridge Reservation background soil analytes evaluated
qualitatively—Chepultepec 	 7-16
7.2e Oak Ridge Reservation background soil analytes evaluated
qualitatively—Chickamauga (Bethel Valley) 	 7-17
7.2f Oak Ridge Reservation background soil analytes evaluated
qualitatively—Chickamauga (K-25) 	 7-18
73 On-site resident exposure scenario	 7-22
7.4a Chronic daily intake of ORR background soil by the on-site
resident—Dismal Gap 	 7-25
7.4b Chronic daily intake of ORR background soil by the on-site
resident—Nolichucky 	 7-27
7.4c Chronic daily intake of ORR background soil by the on-site
resident—Copper Ridge	 7-29
7.4d Chronic daily intake of ORR background soil by the on-site
resident—Chepultepec 	 7-32
7.4e Chronic daily intake of ORR background soil by the on-site
resident—Chickamauga (Bethel Valley) 	 7-35
7.4f Chronic daily intake of ORR background soil by the on-site
resident—Chickamauga (K-25) 	 7-38
7.5a Chronic daily intake of ORR background soil by the on-site
resident—Dismal Gap 	 7-41
7.5b Chronic daily intake of ORR background soil by the on-site
resident—Nolichucky 	 7-43
7.5c Chronic daily intake of ORR background soil by the on-site
resident—Copper Ridge	 7-45
7.5d Chronic daily intake of ORR background soil by the on-site
resident—Chepultepec 	 7-48
7.5e Chronic daily intake of ORR background soil by the on-site
resident—Chickamauga (Bethel Valley) 	 7-51

-------
7.5f Chronic daily intake of ORR background soil by the on-site
resident—Chickamauga (K-25) 	 7-54
7.6	Toxicity information for carcinogenic potential analvtes of
concern on the Oak Ridge Reservation 	 7-69
7.7	Toxicity information for poiycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon analytes
of potential concern on the Oak Ridge Reservation	 7-70
7.8	Toxicity information for external exposure to potential
radionuclides of concern on the Oak Ridge Reservation	 7-71
7.9	Toxicity information for inorganic noncarcinogenic potential
analytes of concern on the Oak Ridge Reservation 	 7-72
7.10a Comparative background risk estimates from exposure to soil
constituents from the Oak Ridge Reservation, Anderson County,
and Roane County—Dismal Gap 	 7-77
7.10b Comparative background risk estimates from exposure to soil
constituents from the Oak Ridge Reservation, Anderson County,
and Roane County—Copper Ridge 	 7-79
7.10c Comparative background risk estimates from exposure to
soil constituents from the Oak Ridge Reservation—Chickamauga	 7-81
7.11a Comparative background hazard index estimates from exposure to
soil constituents from the Oak Ridge Reservation,
Anderson County, and Roane County—Dismal Gap	 7-85
7.11b Comparative background hazard index estimates from exposure to"
soil constituents from the Oak Ridge Reservation,
Anderson County, and Roane County—Copper Ridge 	 7-87
7.11c Comparative background hazard index estimates from exposure to
soil constituents from the Oak Ridge Reservation
(Bethel Valley and K-25)—Chickamauga 	 7-89
7.12a Comparative background risk estimates from exposure to
soil constituents on the Oak Ridge Reservation,
Anderson County, and Roane County—Dismal Gap	 7-92
7.12b Comparative background risk estimates from exposure to
soil constituents on the Oak Ridge Reservation,
Anderson County, and Roane County—Copper Ridge 	 7-94

-------
7.12c Comparative background risk estimates from exposure to
soil constituents on the Oak Ridge Reservation,
(Bethel Valley and K-25)—Chickamauga 	 7-96
7.13a Comparative background risk estimates from exposure to soil
constituents from the Oak Ridge Reservation—Nolichuckv 	 7-98
7.13b Comparative background risk estimates from exposure to soil
constituents from the Oak Ridge Reservation—Chepultepec 	 7-100
7.14a Comparative background hazard index estimates from exposure to
soil constituents from the Oak Ridge Reservation, Anderson County,
and Roane County—Dismal Gap	 7-102
7.14b Comparative background hazard index estimates from exposure to
soil constituents from the Oak Ridge Reservation, Anderson County.
and Roane County—Copper Ridge 	 7-103
7.14c Comparative background hazard index estimates from exposure to
soil constituents from the Oak Ridge Reservation (Bethel Valley
and K-25)—Chickamauga	 7-104
7.15a Comparative background hazard index estimates from exposure to
soil constituents from the Oak Ridge Reservation—Nolichucky 	 7-106
7.15b Comparative background hazard index estimates from exposure to
soil constituents from the Oak Ridge Reservation—Chepultepec 	 7-107
7.16a Background cancer risk estimates from exposure to Oak Ridge
Reservation soil constituents—inorganics and organics/ingestion
and dermal contact	 7-110
7.16b Background cancer risk estimates from exposure to Oak Ridge
Reservation soil constituents—radionuclides/ingestion	 7-114
7.16c Background cancer risk estimates from exposure to Oak Ridge
Reservation soil constituents—radionuclides/external exposure	 7-117
7.17a Background hazard index estimates for residents exposed to
Oak Ridge Reservation soil constituents—ingestion 	 7-120
7.17b Background hazard index estimates for residents exposed to
Oak Ridge Reservation soil constituents—dermal contact	 7-124
7.18 General uncertainty factors in risk assessment 	 7-129
8.1 Comparison of rinse water and source water for metals on the ORR .... 8-12

-------
82 Comparison of source water and rinse water for
Anderson and Roane counties		8-13
8.3 Distribution of data usability 		8-15
TABLES
VOLUME 2
B.l Volatile organic analysis results for soil samples		B-3
B.2	Weighted gamma screening results for soil samples 		B-71
B3 Unweighted gamma screening results for soil samples		B-91
C.l	Organic analysis results for soil samples 		C-3
D.l	Inorganic analysis results for composite soil samples		D-3
E.1	Radionuclide analysis results for composite soil samples		E-3
E2 Tritium analysis results for noncomposited soil samples 		E-53
F.l	Relation of sample numbers to laboratory
sample delivery groups (SDGs) 		F-3
G.l	Summary statistics for NAA data 		G-5
G2 Summary statistics for ICP/MS data 		G-20
GJ Significance levels for comparing inorganics		G-28
G.4 Significance levels for comparing PAHs		G-30
G-5 Significance levels for comparisons of selected radionuclides
(by type of analysis)		G-31
G.6 Comparisons of horizons for inorganics 		G-32
G.7 Comparisons of horizons for selected radionuclides 		G-47
G.8 Summary statistics for ORR inorganics—overall		G-54
G.9 Summary statistics for ORR radionuclides—overall		G-57
G.10 Summary statistics for ORR PAHs—overall 		G-59

-------
H.l	NAA analysis results for composite soil samples	 H-3
I.1	ICP/MS metals results for composite soil samples		1-3
J.l Occurrences of rejected data 		J-3
TABLES
VOLUME 3
5.1 On-site resident exposure scenario		39
6.1	Modular profile and cross-reference of EPA QAMS-005/80 and
NQA-1 elements 		41
6.2	Functional responsibility chart for the BSCP 		45
6.3	QA/QC levels to which BSCP measurement tasks have been assigned 		50
6.4	Recommended sample containers, sample preservation, sample size,
and sample holding time requirements for analytical samples 		53
6.5	Analyte list for volatile organics by EPA-8240 using the
target compound list 		59
6.6	Analyte list for organochlorine pesticides/PCBs by EPA CLP SOW (3/90) . .	60
6.7	Analyte list for herbicides by EPA-8150		61
6.8	Analyte list for poivaromatic hydrocarbons by EPA-8310 		62
6.9	Analyte list for atomic absorption of metals 		64
6.10	Analyte list for inductively coupled plasma metals 		65
6.11	Analyte list for inductively coupled plasma/mass spectrometry metals		66
6.12	Analyte list for inorganic parameters 		66
6.13	Analyte list for radionuclides 		67
6.14	Deliverables for the BSCP		70
6.15	Analyte concentration equivalent (milligram per liter) arising
from interferants at 100 mg/L		80
6.16	BSCP-1992 Schedule of surveillance activities 		93

-------
7.1 Records to be included in the BSCP DMA and the originating office.
8.1	Protective equipment for on-site activities 	 109
8.2	Safe working distances from electrical transmission lines
for drill rigs	 Ill
83 Key BSCP personnel	 113

-------
FIGURES
VOLUME 1
2.1	Staff organization of the BSCP 		2-2
2.2	BSCP schedule 		2-3
2.3	Data user guideline flow chart	2-25
3.1	Approximate locations of BSCP sampling areas 		3-3
3.2	Sampling site locations for the ORR 		3-4
3.3	Sampling sites in Roane County 		3-5
3.4	Sampling sites in Anderson County 		3-6
5.1	Example of a plot to check for outliers 		5-6
5.2	.Another plot to check for outliers; data are consistent		5-7
5.3	Plot of observation logs by corresponding normal scores
for horizon B aluminum	 5-9
5.4	Plot of observation logs by corresponding normal scores
for pseudorandom lognormal data with means and variance the same
as for the horizon B aluminum data	5-10
5.5	Plot similar to Fig 5.3 but based on product limit estimates for
horizon A mercury data, which have nondetects	5-11
5.6	Gamma scan results by sampling area	5-53
5.7	Example plot for potassium for comparing NAA
with AA/ICP results	5-63
5.8	Example comparison of NAA and gamma results for potassium-40	5-64
7.1 Comparison of total background cancer risks calculated from
soil samples from the Dismal Gap Formation in Anderson County.
Dismai Gap in Roane County, Dismai Gap on the ORR. and the
Nolichuckv Formation on the ORR	 7-83

-------
FIGURES
VOLUME 3
4.1	Regional map showing location of the Oak Ridge Reservation		8
4.2	General site map of the Oak Ridge Reservation 		9
4.3	Location of communities near the Oak Ridge Reservation		10
4.4	Schematic of ridge-valley province near Oak Ridge Reservation		11
4 J Distribution of geologic units on the Oak Ridge Reservation		13
4.6 Location map of streams and rivers at the Oak Ridge Reservation		15
5.1	BSCP staff organization		18
5.2	BSCP schedule 		22
5.3	Location of candidate geology formations near the Oak Ridge Reservation .	24
5.4	Distribution of candidate soil series selected for background
soil characterization project in the Oak Ridge Reservation		26
5-5 Approximate location of off-site background soil sampling areas in
Roane County and Anderson County		27
5.6	Selected soil sampling sites in Roane County		28
5.7	Selected soil sampling site in Anderson County 		29
6.1 Field change request/variance form 	 55
7.1 Responsibility matrix and process flow of BSCP samples,
data, and documents 	 100

-------
ABBREVIATIONS
AA
atomic absorption
AESG
Analytical Environmental Support Group at the Oak Ridge K-25 Site
AND
Anderson County
APO
Analytical Projects Office
BEIAS
Biomedical Environmental Information Analysis Section
BSCP
Background Soil Characterization Project
BV
Bethel Valley
CCB
continuing calibration blank
CCV
continuing calibration verification
CDI
chronic daily intake
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (1980)
CHE
Chepultepec Formation
CHI
Chickamauga Formation
CLP
Contract Laboratory Program
COC
chain of custody
CR
Copper Ridge Formation
CRDL
contract required detection limit
CVAA
cold vapor atomic absorption
DG
Dismal Gap Formation
DOE
U.S. Department of Energy
DOE-ORO
DOE Oak Ridge Operations Office
DQ
data quality
DQO
data quality objective
ECD
electron capture detector
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ER
environmental restoration
ESD
Environmental Sciences Division of ORNL
ED
field duplicate
FL
formation-location
FLAA
flame atomic absorption
FWHM
full-width half-maximum
GC
gas chromatography
GC/ECD
gas chromatograph/electron capture detector
GFAA
graphite furnace atomic absorption
GI
gastrointestinal
GOF
goodness of Gt
HE AST
Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
m
hazard index
HPLC
high performance liquid chromatography
HSWA
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to RCRA (1984)
ICB
initial calibration blank
ICP
inductively coupled plasma
ICP/MS
inductively coupled plasma/mass spectroscopy
ICRP
International Commission on Radiological Protection

-------
ICS
interference check sample
ICV
initial calibration verification
ED
identification number
EDL
instrument detection limit
IRIS
Integrated Risk Information System
LCS
laboratory control sample
LET
linear energy transfer
LLWDDD
Low-Level Waste Disposal Development Demonstration
LTB
lower tolerance bound
MAD
Measurement Applications and Development Group
MAXDL
maximum detection limit
MDA
minimum detectable activity
MDL
method detection limit
MS
mass spectroscopy
MSA
method of standard additions
MSD
matrix spike duplicate
MS/MSD
matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate
NAA
neutron activation analysis
ND
no data
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act (1968)
NIST
National Institute for Standards and Testing
NOL
Nolichucky Formation
NPL
National Priorities List
OREIS
Oak Ridge Environmental Information System
ORNL
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
ORR
Oak Ridge Reservation
OSWER
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
OU
operable unit
PAH
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
PARCC
precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, and comparability
PC
personal computer
PCB
polychlorinated bipbenyl
PE
performance evaluation
PEM
performance evaluation mixture
PQL
practical quantitation limit
PSD
percent standard deviation
QA/QC
quality assurance/quality control
RAGS
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1976)
RfD
reference dose
ROA
Roane County
ROW
right of way
RPD
relative percent difference
RSD
relative standard deviation
SARA
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (1986)
SDG
sample delivery group
SF
slope factor
SOP
standard operating procedure

-------
sow
statement of work
SPL
Soil Preparation Laboratory
SVOC
semi-volatile organic compound
SWMU
solid waste management unit
TEC
tentatively identified compound
TSD
treatment, storage, and disposal
TVA
Tennessee Valley Authority
UCB
upper confidence bound
UTK
The University of Tennessee—Knoxville
USDA
U.S. Department of Agriculture
VOA
volatile organic analysis
VOC
volatile organic compound
WAG
waste area grouping
WM
waste management

-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to express their thanks and appreciation to the many contributors who
made this effort possible. Chief among these were D. M. Carden (DOE-ORO) and D. T. Bell
of Program Integration and Administration for program management support for this project;
P. L. Goddard, A. J. Kuhaida, and V. J. Brumback, the K-25, ORNL, and Y-12 Site Program
Office representatives, respectively, for valuable suggestions in scoping the project;
T. M. Koepp of the ER/Central quality organization for providing dedicated QA/QC
oversight; F. F. Dyer and-L Robinson of the Analytical Chemistry Division at ORNL for
performing and analyzing NAA data; I. L. Larsen of the Environmental Sciences Division at
ORNL for conducting gamma screening analyses of soil samples; M. A. Cannon,
T. M. French, and J. C. Wright of the Measurement. Applications and Development Group
for technical coordination of analytical laboratory activities: and B. Ladd, S. N. Burman, and
D. C. Landguth of the Health Sciences Research Division for assisting in performing risk
analyses and developing the BSCP Health and Safety Plan, respectively.
Special thanks are reserved for D. M. Carden and other reviewers at DOE-ORO; to
R. J. Lewis of UTK. J. R. Stokely of the Analytical Chemistry Division, and R. R. Turner for
review of this document; and for H. L Boston, ORNL Site ER Manager, F. P. Baxter of the
Office of Environmental Compliance and Documentation, L. K. Mann, and P. M. Jardine for
very helpful technical reviews of other prominent documents in the BSCP; A. L. Harkey,
P. L Lund, and other members of the Publications Division for insightful suggestions to
improve quality of the documents throughout this project; and M. J. Jenkins, T. P. McKenzie,
and V. L Lewis for their excellent word processing support on earlier project documents;
those not specified are with the Environmental Sciences Division at ORNL.

-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Many constituents of potential concern for human health occur naturally at low
concentrations in undisturbed soils. The Background Soil Characterization Project (BSCP)
was undertaken to provide background concentration data on potential contaminants (organic
compounds, inorganics, and radionuclides) in relatively undisturbed soils on the Oak Ridge
Reservation (ORR). The objectives of the BSCP are to provide (1) baseline data for
contaminated site assessment and (2) estimates of potential human health risk associated with
background concentrations of hazardous and other constituents in natural soils.
Background soil characterization data will be used for three purposes. The first
application is in differentiating between naturally occurring constituents (including global or
regional fallout) and site-related contamination. This is a very important step in risk
assessment because, if sufficient background data are not available, no constituent known to
be a contaminant can be eliminated from an assessment even if the sampled concentration
is measured at a minimum level. The second use of background data is in calculating baseline
risks against which site-specific contamination risks [i.e, those associated with waste area
groupings (WAGs)] can be compared. The third application is in establishing corrective action
(cleanup) levels for contaminated soils on the ORR.
To evaluate realistically the level of contamination (with implications for risk and
remedial actions), it is necessary to know the background levels of contaminants that would
be expected at a specific site. To understand the geologic soil environment, the BSCP
addresses variability of concentration levels in terms of (1) taxonomical types (soil series)
occurring in different geologic formations, (2) soil sampling depths (horizons) within a specific
soil profile, and (3) natural areal variations in soils both on-site and off-site developed from
the same geologic formations. Early in the project, soils from two on-site parent geologies
were sampled and analyzed—the Nolichucky Shale and the Dismal Gap formations in the
Conasauga Group, which are the dominant formations located at WAGs and operable units
in imminent remedial projects on the ORR. One of these, the Dismal Gap Formation, was
sampled off-site in two areas. Data on the remaining soil series were obtained later, including
soils from the other representative groups (the Chickamauga and Knox groups) required to
provide comprehensive, sitewide data. Rome Formation soils do not appear with regularity
at contaminated sites on the ORR and for that reason have not been considered to date.
The BSCP data base is intended for unrestricted use, with recommendations provided
on how to use the data for contaminated site assessment In addition, the data can be used
to provide estimates of any potential human health risks associated with background level
concentrations of potentially hazardous constituents. All results were required to adhere to
the highest, most rigorous Environmental Protection Agency protocols and requirements for
analysis procedures, data validation, and data record documentation [U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Level IV]. These procedures yield data that are both technically
and legally defensible.
This report contains all analytical and field data obtained in the BSCP. It is organized
in three volumes: Volume 1 is devoted to discussion of the results, Volume 2 contains the

-------
detailed tabulated data and supporting information, and Volume 3 presents the BSCP Plan
that governed all project-related activities and established the basis for the project
The primary conclusion drawn from analysis and interpretation of the data is that there
is general consistency between most constituents of interest and in the levels of risk associated
with background soil concentrations between sampling sites on the ORR and those located
off-site in remote areas of both Roane and Anderson counties. All analytical laboratory
results presented in this report have been fully validated and peer reviewed, and verified as
being representative of and corresponding to the formations of interest In addition, the
resulting data have been organized in formats suitable for inclusion in the Oak Ridge
Environmental Information System (OREIS) and for distribution through OREtS to data
users. Statistical analyses to establish data validity in meeting project objectives and yielding
summary statistical parameters necessary for application of the data to subsequent assessment
of risk have been completed and are presented in this report The report also contains
discussion of technical interpretation of the Geld data integrated with analytical data to
determine the meaning and implications of the results. Finally, the Final Report discusses
assessment of the project data in meeting and complying with project data quality objectives.
Key information is summarized at the beginning of each section.
Risks were estimated for exposure to background soil constituents on the ORR to
provide a framework or reference for interpreting the magnitude and relative importance of
risks evaluated at hazardous waste sites on the ORR and to provide a context for the
discussion and comparison of risks associated with site-related contamination in future risk
assessments. The results of the background evaluation have been discussed within the context
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, which uses
the estimated potential risks from site-related contamination to determine if remedial action
is necessary at a waste site. Most of the risk modeled from the exposure to background soil
constituents discussed in this report is a subset of the unavoidable risk associated with
exposure to natural radiation sources. EPA has determined that risks from exposure to
hazardous waste sites are avoidable sources of exposure. The risk resulting from exposure to
avoidable hazardous sources is referred to as incremental or excess cancer risk, because it is
risk in addition to background, which is unavoidable. The information presented in this
document should be used to differentiate between unavoidable (background) and avoidable
risks and to ensure that risk management decisions are based on excess cancer risk associated
with actual site contamination. Furthermore, the background risk results reported and
discussed in this report are not indicative of concerns or actions that would be identified with
similar potential risks from a contaminated site, and care should be taken not to misinterpret
these results to pertain direcdy to remediation decisions.

-------
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1	PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH
This report presents, evaluates, and documents data and results obtained in the
Background Soil Characterization Project (BSCP). It is intended to be a stand-alone
document for application and use in structuring and conducting remedial investigation and
remedial action projects in the Environmental Restoration (ER) Program.
The objectives of the BSCP consist of the following:
•	determine background concentrations of organics, metals, and radionuclides in natural
soils that are key to environmental restoration projects;
•	provide remediation projects with 100% validated data on background concentrations,
which are technically and legally defensible; and
•	quantify baseline risks from background constituents for comparison of risks associated
with contaminated sites.
The approach detailed in the BSCP Plan (Energy Systems 1992, Volume 3) is
summarized as follows:
•	identification of the most important geologic formations underlying potentially
contaminated sites on the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR);
•	identification of the dominant residuum soil type corresponding to each selected
formation;
•	randomized selection of candidate soil sampling sites on the ORR, in western Roane
County, and in eastern Anderson County;
•	field screening and soil sampling for site acceptability;
•	chemical and radiological analyses by commercial analytical laboratories;
•	data validation, verification, statistical analysis, and interpretation; and
•	data transfer to the Oak Ridge Environmental Information System.
1.2	REPORT ORGANIZATION
The BSCP Final Report is organized in three volumes to provide a logical flow of
information for the reader from relevant background through to the discussion of analytical
data, results, and evaluations. Section 1 of Volume 1 presents the project objectives and
approach and the regulatory background and data quality objectives (DQOs) that define the
project environment in terms of uses and applicability of the data. Section 2 presents the
project organization, the data management and storage and records management systems, and
the data user guidelines. These systems are part of the analytical laboratory data repository
and meet requirements for record content, data formats, electronic storage, and data access
guidelines.
Section 3 of Volume 1 discusses field investigation activities and initial gamma screening
operations and analyses, along with site selection criteria and requirements and descriptions
of specific field site locations. Section 3 also includes a discussion of objectives and methods
for soil sampling and field quality control (QC).

-------
1-2
Analytical laboratory analyses and data validation are discussed in Sect. 4. In this section,
laboratory selection criteria employed by the Analytical Projects Office (APO) are discussed,
along with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Level IV data requirements and
documentation. The QA/QC and data validation subsection presents procedures and provides
narrative on EPA Level IV data quality requirements. Finally, specific results are presented
and described, and these include screening analyses [volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
gamma screening], organic compounds, inorganics (metals), and radionuclide constituents.
Section 5 of Volume 1 provides a summary of relevant statistical parameters, discusses
the adequacy of the field sampling program, infers trends in natural variability versus
system/sampling errors, and discusses the statistical procedures used to distinguish types of
errors.
Sections 6, 7, and 8 present results of data interpretation, risk evaluation studies, and an
evaluation of how well the project met the DQOs. Section 6 provides the summary of trends
and background constituent concentration levels and assesses applicability of the data.
Section 7 presents results of the risk evaluation based on statistical data. Section 8. an
evaluation of DQOs, explores further applicability of the data to ER projects.
Volume 2 presents detailed soil descriptive data and site screening data, as well as all
validated results and associated statistical data. Volume 3 contains the project plan that
governed all field operations and analytical laboratory activities.
13 SAMPLE REFERENCE DESIGNATIONS
In the BSCP Final Report, analytical results are compared and discussed with respect to
(1) sampling areas, (2) geologic rock groups, (3) individual geologic formations within a group,
(4) sampling sites within formations, and (5) A horizons vs B horizons vs C horizons of soils
within formations. A summary of such statistically treated data is presented in Appendix G.
There are three distinct sampling areas in this project: the ORR. Roane County, and
Anderson County. However, in pan of the statistical treatment in Sect. 5, oniy two sampling
areas are discussed: on-site (ORR) and off-site (Anderson and Roane counties together).
There are three major geologic rock groups of interest: Conasauga, Knox, and Chickamauga.
ORR samples were obtained from all three rock groups, but Roane and Anderson samples
were only from the Conasauga and Knox. There are six geologic formations: the Dismal Gap
and Nolichucky from the Conasauga Group, Copper Ridge and Chepultepec from the Knox
Group, and two different sections, designated as Bethel Valley and K-25 (which includes
several formations), from the Chickamauga Group.
The ORR is represented by samples from all six formations, but both Roane and
Anderson are represented only by samples from the Dismal Gap Formation of the Conasauga
Group and the Copper Ridge Formation of the Knox Group. Twelve sites were sampled for
each formation. Several samples were collected from all A horizons for a variety of analytical
procedures, but B and C horizons were sampled only for the analysis of inorganics and
radionuclides. The following hierarchy summarizes the discussion that follows in this report
regarding sampling from each category (i.e„ sampling areas, groups, formations, and individual

-------
1-3
Designation
On-site
Off-site
Sampling areas
1
2
Geologic rock groups
o
2
Geologic formations
6
2
Individual sites
72
48
Soil horizons
216
144
1.4 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES
Determination of naturally occurring concentrations of constituents in soils in the Oak
Ridge area necessitated a systematic investigation because there are several different
underlying formations from which soils are derived, and because of the natural variability
within different soils. To evaluate the ranges of concentrations of organics, metals, and
radionuclides with high confidence levels, the project participants followed the steps described
in this section for project planning found in the report Characterizing Heterogeneous Wastes:
Methods and Recommendations (Rupp and Jones 1991). This section outlines the approach
taken to establish DQOs for this project.
State the Problem To Be Resolved
The problem to be resolved by conducting the BSCP is to determine the ranges in
concentration of naturally occurring organics, metals, and radionuclides in soils. Ranges of
concentrations for these constituents are required because of the variability found in any
naturally occurring substance and because of the varying soils resulting from different
underlying geologic formations in the Oak Ridge area. The sample collection program was
designed to account for some of this variability (Sect. 5.2. Energy Systems 1992) through the
collection of field duplicates and splits.
Identify the Decision To Be Made
Decisions will be made with respect to the characterization of background concentrations
of organics, inorganics (metals), and radionuclides found in nature. Standards for cleanup of
potentially contaminated soils on the ORR will be based on the concentrations above those
established as background in this project for typical constituents. If data from this project can
be used to determine that levels of organics, metals, and radionuclides at a suspected
contaminated site are no greater than those found in nature, then those constituents will not
be considered contaminants of concern for that particular site. However, if the concentrations
of these constituents are significantly greater than those found in nature, then appropriate
remedial activities will be evaluated in site specific cleanup projects to reduce the elevated

-------
1-4
Identify Inputs to the Decision
The approach taken to provide needed quantitative data on background concentration
levels is based on collecting and analyzing samples from representative soil horizons. The
determination that sample collection locations are representative was made by assimilating
information from relevant disciplines. Those disciplines included site history, geology, soil
science, statistics, and analytical chemistry. To ascertain that samples would reflect accurate
background concentrations, the history of each sample collection site was determined to be
unaffected by process and research operations of the ORR, and the site was determined to
have the same underlying geologic units and soils as those underlying suspected and
contaminated sites. To determine the probable ranges of background concentrations, a
statistically based sample collection and analysis program was designed. To provide defensible
laboratory analyses upon which to base statistical analysis and the resulting conclusions,
analytical chemists determined that EPA Analytical Level IV QC and documentation were
required.
Narrow the Boundaries of the Study
Upon defining the problem to be resolved and the decisions to be made from project
data, the boundaries of the study were narrowed in three ways: (1) appropriate locations for
sample collection were determined, (2) analytical parameters were agreed upon, and
(3) statistical analytical procedures were designed. From these decisions, the appropriate
levels of QA documentation required from field sampling and laboratory activities were
established. The process for selecting sample collection sites is described in the BSCP Plan
(Energy Systems 1992, Volume 3). Therein, the process is discussed in detail, as are the
analytical parameters of interest for both the field and laboratory activities, the associated QA
documentation requirements for each, and the statistical analysis techniques.
Develop a Decision Rule
Upon completion of sample collection and analysis according to the requirements
discussed above, the results were statistically analyzed, compiled, and reported including the
ranges of concentrations for each constituent. This information will be used to address the
following statement: If concentrations of contaminants of concern at potentially contaminated
sites are above those established as background, then appropriate remedial measures will be
evaluated for application at that site.
Develop Uncertainty Constraints
The uncertainty of all results from this project must be as low as reasonably achievable
or, in other words, the confidence level must be high, because the information developed in
this study will be used as a basis upon which to make decisions in remedial projects that may
cost millions of dollars and require several years to implement It is important that resources
be directed at sites that are truly contaminated. To achieve the lowest uncertainty in the
statistical analysis conducted as a part of this project, proper field sampling program design
and sampling/analytical methodologies were required. The project team decided that the
analytical data required EPA Level IV quality control and documentation and 100% data
validation to ensure high quality. Preliminary screening analyses were assigned EPA Analytical
Level II quality control documentation. To ensure that sample collection and Geld

-------
1-5
legally defensible information, these activities were conducted according to procedures that
had been reviewed and approved by technical experts, knowledgeable managers, and
regulators, subject to appropriate QA oversight
It is difficult, at best, to assign a simple uncertainty constraint to this or any
environmental investigation. These types of investigations differ from other experiments
where uncertainty constraints are commonly used, in that little is known about the sample
population (background concentration) before the experiment. In many uses of uncertainty
constraints, there is some knowledge of the sample population (such as the length of a
manufactured item or a combination of poker hands) before the experiment Furthermore,
while uncertainty constraints can be calculated for the end result of the data acquisition effort
(the analytical results), there are several controlling aspects of an environmental investigation
that do not lend themselves to quantifiable uncertainties:
1.	the certainty that the sample was collected within the geologic unit for which it was
intended.
2.	the certainty that the sample was collected within the soil horizon for which it was
intended,
3.	the certainty that the sample collection locations accurately reflect the actual constituent
concentrations of areally distributed soil types, and
4.	the certainty that sample analyses accurately reflect the actual concentrations in the
sample.
Each of the above controlling factors is based on the best professional judgment of highly
qualified individuals, but even then a numerical value on these factors would be difficult to
calculate objectively. Consequently, uncertainty descriptors such as high, medium, and low are
recommended for the DQO process.
The uncertainty constraints that can be calculated for the BSCP are described in
Appendix D of the BSCP Plan. These include probability calculations on the laboratory
analyses. The analyses upon which these calculations aire based were the basis for the
sampling program. This program was in turn based on examination of the available data;
however, the available data came from an experiment that was much different from the
BSCP. Those data were collected upgradient of a known contaminant source in the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) investigation of the K-1070-A Contaminated Burial
Ground, which is in the Knox Group. BSCP data were collected from strata that included
representative soil groups but were removed from any known contaminant sources.
The quantifiable uncertainty constraints that can be made in this experiment are based
on two scenarios or combinations of them: (1) concentrations will be above the detection
limits of laboratory instrumentation and (2) concentrations will be below the detection limits
of laboratory instruments.
In the first scenario, where manv or all analytical results are above the detection limit of
the laboratory instrument, the distribution, standard deviation, mean, and median were
computed. Upper confidence bounds of any percentile can be computed from this
information, and for this experiment the 95th percentile was reported. The range of the 95th
percentile will vary according to the range of the analytical results. If the analytical results for

-------
1-6
95th percentile will be smalL On the other hand, if the analytical results for any constituent
vary considerably, then the spread between the median value and the 95th will be large.
In the second scenario, where all analytical results are below the detection limit of the
laboratory instrument, confidence bounds for detection probabilities will be reported. As
discussed in Appendix D of the BSCP Plan, when the sample size is 4, as is the case in this
experiment where four composited soil samples are analyzed, the 90% lower confidence
bound for the probability that another composited sample would also be less than the
detection limit is 0-56. If the composited samples from different geologic units and/or horizons
were combined and all have concentrations less than detection limits, thereby increasing the
sample size to 12, for example, then the 90% confidence bound would be 0.83. However,
combining the sample populations to increase sample size needs to be evaluated for technical
defensibility before statements on the probabilities of doing so can be made.
A detailed explanation of statistical implications can be found in Appendix D of the
BSCP Plan (Energy Systems 1992, Volume 3).
Optimize Design for Obtaining Data
The data collection design for this project is described in the BSCP Plan (Sect. 5.3,
Energy Systems 1992). This design was optimized to account for variability within soils by
compositing soil samples. Additional optimization was achieved by conducting field screening
analyses on soils to ensure that the site was not contaminated by unrecorded disposals or
inadvertent releases. The field screening analyses were supplemented by laboratory analysis
for man-made contaminants that would render a site unacceptable for determining natural
background concentrations.
The sampling plan was further optimized by repeating the sample collection and statistical
analyses obtained on the ORR at two separate remote areas in adjacent counties. These areas
were selected to ensure the same underlying geologic formations and, consequently, similar
soils. This repeat analysis technique was designed to verify the results of the analysis

-------
2-1
2. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DATA USER
INFORMATION
2.1 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ORGANIZATION
The Background Soil Characterization Project (BSCP) is under the management of the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and Martin Marietta Energy Systems for the
Environmental Restoration (ER) Program at Oak Ridge. Project scope is discussed in detail
in the BSCP Plan (Energy Systems 1992, Volume 3). The BSCP staff organization is
summarized in Fig. 2.1. Functional responsibilities for individual participants in project
activities are described in the BSCP Plan (Energy Systems 1992, Volume 3). The project
schedule is presented in Fig. 2.2. Individual schedule elements have been discussed previously
(see Energy Systems 1992 and DOE 1993).
22. REGULATORY INITIATIVES
The Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) encompasses three major installations: the Oak
Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant weapons complex, and the
Oak Ridge K-25 Site (formerly referred to as the Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant). These
installations were constructed in the early to mid 1940s as research, development, and process
facilities in support of the Manhattan Project. These installations, along with the Paducah
Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Paducah, Kentucky, and the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant
in Piketon, Ohio, are currently administered by the DOE Oak Ridge Operations Office
(DOE-ORO) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and are managed by Martin Marietta Energy Systems,
Inc.
During the construction and operation of these research, development, and process
facilities, the associated-decontamination, maintenance, and fabrication-processes resulted in
the generation of various hazardous and radioactive waste by-products. Hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities were created at each of the DOE-ORO
facilities to handle such by-products. Some of these facilities continue to receive hazardous
wastes while others are inactive or surplus. The ER Program was established to reduce the
risks to human health and the environment posed by these inactive and surplus sites and
facilities. All facilities under the ER Program are subject to the requirements of several laws;
the relationship of the BSCP to these laws is discussed here.
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). RCRA was enacted in 1976 as a
system for managing hazardous wastes. It requires that TSD facilities apply for permits
and meet certain operating criteria to safeguard the environment (RCRA 1976). These
TSD facilities are referred to as solid waste management units (SWMUs), which are
defined as any "discernible waste management unit at a RCRA facility from which
hazardous waste or hazardous constituents might migrate, irrespective of whether or not
the unit was intended for the management of solid or hazardous waste." Such units
include any area at a facility at which hazardous wastes or hazardous constituents have

-------
QA/QC Oversight
T. M Koopp
Risk Assoeament
C. W. McGinn
Sile nepreaonlntlve
¦ Dala Assessment/
Inlorprelallon
9 Y. Lee
- K 25
P L Ooddord
- Laboratory QA/QC
T. L. Hatrnaker
- OnBlle Sampling
0. A. Lielike
- Organic Analyses
Contract Laboratory
A J KuholdB
— Metals A/ialyaoa
Contract Laboratory
- Off site Sampling
J. T. Ammona
V J. Brumback
— Radionuclide Annlye
Contract Laboratory
Flold QA/Flold Dale
Validation
J Swltek
— Dnta Mgt/Verification
- Laboratory Dat
Technical Coordinator
S Y.Lee
Pro|ect Manager
D. 0 Watklna
Analytical Coordinator
C. W. KJmbrough
DOE Program Manager
D M Carden
Statlatlcal Anelyal
n L Schmoyer
ER Program Manager
D. T Bell
L A Hook	Validation
B L Jackson	1 L Hatmaker

-------
O I • c t
T I «-• Hov
o« t •
BACKGROUND SOIL CHARACTERIZATION PROJECT
MMES
~RNL-DWQ 92-6047
REV 3
P*l O ¦ . 1
•tltntT OtUrlotlWi
start
f mim
0ur
O 1
O 1
O 1
O 1
~ 1
O 1
O 1
0 1
O 1




OC T
JAM
APR
JUL
OC T
JAN
aph
juc
OC T




V 1
02
9a
93
9a
93
93
93
93










~
imanow


iooooo cru/i ppoj i\w mr>
01CCI91
310(91
a










iooom cauj woj f\ih oninor
119(11
3IDCC9I
0

I








100010 BSC? F|K4 PTIXICI FMff
0?JW»

101










IOOOIS 8SP f JH* f\l* CfllrtflT
79U11)

0


A







1X0tt nus I JCIIVIWS
ISOLH9?
3IN1A91
»l










l&ooiooru/i uhjil ppi musitK
»3PJ?
»SP«
0




>





100C60 nus i rmjet sums htm«
nam
?;aiv
0




~





loooto rrnao fiuu wi mitim
IOUI9)
t<*il9)
0







A


loocts nu<* ii kiwihs
oniv
XMM)
r>*







IlfTTTIITIIII


rooo/o nua ii muci sums mm
orirmi
ouffln
0







1


toooAe itflfb Mil uu/oiii liifcrrci
9Kkt1l

0










looces nua ii ou» Pirmi niivnn
MJLMJ
»J(W)
0







i
i

ICW» ?KI(0 Al» LS3S9CNI
01X191
II11C9)
n








iiiiii

lOOtOO PI* *SStSTHll FCtlf*
ItUXI)
line?)
0








A

100110 OAJ/I MRU nrai PffP/rfv
07HJC11
109 P9)
79








rrrrm

ico115 owji Mm uuvtnr
1KIP9)

0








~

loom dci min/inm ri»u «poh
IH«)

5








0

100130 rrcici r [km. ffrcRi ff(?
W5P9J
noct9i
30








a
TTTT1
icoitt mil CI nut Wrcni cfihtw
nocm
790C191
0









A
soooio nua I sm ( uoi r\u

;imu
11










somjo snt suciich ix) saicu vc
«rt6«

19

¦¦1








sooo» err sin htwiiiih;
ovist?
Mi&j
tt

¦¦








sooo«o muTiKH. SfifdiCH
tyiiM
10 uw
H










smov} nust i f ki o
1WWI
?6)U9?
M










SOOOW nU9 1 V-11 oiti rwxtss/vtoiricjiio
I90C19?
J0LTP91
0)










UOCQU IMKS PHIS II OKI 10 OR IS
0VUI9)

»







CT3


uoooeo miuisis
16KJV9?
79UI9I
111





















UOOOtt nust It out UltPFCCMttCH
0IIC1?
»JLM»
IM




















UQ006S l|HU M9( IHUISIS
lO^S]
XJUfl)
II)










uooioo rwa ii qui wpoti top/ry
I51TO9)
»JLW)
M










U0Q110 mi* II OH* F1PCP1 mittur


0







i


IO
i
LO
		Lo oanu
BV«ln progress
¦ ¦ -° 1 anna a
CELD-Cr 11 i c • l
Bar Chart Key: Early Dates

-------
2-4
•	Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA). These amendments to RCRA were
enacted in 1984 and provided the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the
authority to enforce corrective actions by broadening the scope of the RCRA Corrective
Action Program. In addition to evaluating and correcting releases to the uppermost
aquifer from regulated RCRA units, HSWA promotes the cleanup of continuing releases
to any environmental media resulting from waste management units and practices at
RCRA facilities (HSWA 1984). Among the most significant provisions of HSWA are the
following:
1.	Section 3004(u), Corrective Action for Continuing Releases. Section 3004(u) states
that for permits issued after November 8, 1984, corrective action is required for
releases of hazardous waste or constituents from any SWMU at any TSD facility
seeking a permit for permanent operation, regardless of when waste was placed in
the unit Thus, corrective actions apply to current as well as past releases.
2.	Section 3004(v), Corrective Action Beyond the Facility Boundary. Section 3004(v)
authorizes EPA to require that corrective action be taken by the facility owner or
operator for releases that have migrated off-site beyond the facility boundary. Such
action should be taken where necessary to protect human health and the
environment unless the owner/operator demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
administrator that permission to undertake such action was denied.
•	Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),
also referred to as Superfund. Created in 1980, CERCLA established a program to
identify sites (operable units) from which environmental releases of hazardous substances
might occur or have occurred. At such sites, Superfund promotes the evaluation of
damage to natural resources, ensures cleanup by the responsible party or the
government, and creates a claims procedure for parties involved in site cleanup and
natural resource reclamation. Sites identified by CERCLA are evaluated and then placed
on the National Priorities List (NPL), if appropriate. The ORR was listed on the NPL
in December 1989 in the Federal Register (54 FR 48184) (EPA 1989b)..
•	Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). This act was created in 1986
as a 5-year extension of the Superfund/CERCLA program to clean up hazardous releases
at uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites.
•	National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Created in 1968, NEPA directs public
officials to consider the impacts of their actions (e.g., construction, remediation) on the
human environment as a part of all decision-making processes.
When the ORR was placed on the NPL, CERCLA became the primary regulatory driver
for environmental studies and cleanup actions. Part of the requirements of CERCLA are that
remedial actions be based on nine criteria: (1) overall protection of human health and the
environment; (2) compliance with applicable, or relevant and appropriate requirements; (3)
long-term effectiveness and permanence; (4) reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through
treatment; (5) short-term effectiveness; (6) implementability, (7) cost; (8) state acceptance;
and (9) community acceptance. To determine whether or not proposed remedial activities for
contaminated sites can meet these criteria, the concentration of suspected contaminants must
be compared with the concentrations of those same constituents in natural environments. The

-------
inorganics (metals), and radionuclides in soils in the Oak Ridge area so that they could be
used for comparing the concentrations found at contaminated sites undergoing remedial
investigation under CERCLA. Key constituents are those that are of interest to ongoing, as
well as anticipated, remedial actions and investigations.
23 DATA MANAGEMENT AND VERIFICATION
23.1 Responsibilities for Data Management and Verification
Records of data collection and analysis of samples for the BSCP are generated by field
and laboratory personnel. The BSCP data base, using SAS1 software, has been established
on a mainframe computer system at ORNL. The purpose of the data base is to provide
retrievability, integrity, security, and organization of the data, according to the data
management plan (Sect. 7) in the BSCP Plan (Energy Systems 1992). All project data have
been verified to be correct and representative of the background soil sampling sites, validated
against project requirements, and assessed for compliance with project data quality objectives.
.All validated project data packages from the contract laboratories were verified by data
management personnel to be correct as input into the project data base and cross-checked
with field records to corroborate the one-to-one correspondence of laboratory results with
field sampling sites from where soil samples were originally obtained.
Field data were verified in two ways. First, field activities were subject to surveillances
and were found to be satisfactory with regard to in-force standard operating procedures
(SOPs). Early on the SOPs needed to be refined to ensure that all items specified in the
BSCP Plan were accounted for. Second, this required that all field records for sampling be
reviewed site-by-site and checked for completeness against the ESP-500 procedures, as called
for in the BSCP Plan. These records were found to be complete but lacked an index or user's
guide (see Sect 23 of the BSCP Plan). Validation of analytical laboratory data is discussed
fully in Sect 4.5.
Data summaries, statistical analysis, risk evaluation, and availability of data are discussed
briefly in this section. Programs have been developed to provide working data reports to the
technical coordinator, analytical coordinator, field operations personnel, and in-house
laboratory personnel. These working reports are available throughout the project and
facilitate accurate record keeping and status reporting of progress.
232. Data Storage and Records Management
The BSCP data base is cataloged and resides on a disk pool volume on the IBM 3090
computer system at ORNL. A partitioned data set of source programs is cataloged and resides
on the disk pool volume. Read, write, execute, and delete accesses to these data sets are
restricted. Daily and weekly backups are performed. Working data sets may be accessed on
PC diskette, PC fixed disk, the STC10 VAX. or UNIX workstation. However, all data appear
in final form in the SAS data base on the IBM 3090.

-------
2-6
The following field data records and laboratory analysis records have been entered or
transferred to the SAS data base:
•	field sample tracking information entered from ORNL Environmental Sciences Division
(ESD) and University of Tennessee sampling crew field sample logbooks and from
sample compositing/sample processing laboratory logbooks;
•	gamma sample laboratory parameter information, activity measurements, and
concentration summaries transferred from diskettes provided by the ESD Radioanalytical
Laboratory;
•	volatile organic analysis screening results provided by the Y-12 Plant analytical
laboratory, which were transferred to and included in the SAS data base;
•	organic (pesticides, PCBs, herbicides, and PAHs) sample laboratoiy information and
concentration levels entered from analysis data sheets provided by Lockheed Analytical
Services;
•	inorganic sample laboratory information and concentrations entered from analysis data
sheets provided by Lockheed Analytical Services; and
•	radionuclide sample laboratory parameter information, concentrations, and detection
limits entered from analysis data sheets provided by Ecotek Laboratory Services, Inc.
Data sets of analytical laboratory results were provided to the statistical coordinator for
conducting statistical analysis, generating data summaries, and performing data reduction. The
statistical coordinator in turn provided data summaries to the risk evaluation coordinator.
Baseline risk to human health was calculated for later use in comparison of risks associated
with contaminated sites.
Validated and verified analytical data and field data will be transferred to"the Oak Ridge
Environmental Information System (OREIS) with the approval of the project manager. Other
ER Division projects needing background soil concentration data may access data from
OREIS.
The complete summary printout bowing types of analyses (except gamma screening data)
is provided in Table 2.1.
2.4 DATA USER GUIDELINES
2.4.1 How To Use Data—A Field Perspective
The purpose of this section is to advise data users on how to use the BSCP data base.
The BSCP Plan (Energy Systems 1992) discussed the approach for site selection and sampling
requirements. Reading the plan will help in understanding the objectives and the scope of
activities. If your intended use of background soils data is beyond the scope of the BSCP
Plan, you must develop scientific rationale to justify such use. Users are advised to read the
entire text of this report instead of just the data summaries appearing in Sect. 5 and

-------
Tabic 2.1. Soil horizons and sample designations for Phase I and II
Site
1 lorizon
Phase
Weld .
duplicate
l^b
split
I'AII
Herbicides
Pesticides
PCBs
ICP
metals
AA
melals
Sulfate
Cyanide
Gamma
emitters
Tritium
Alpha
emitters
Beta
emitters






l>ocatioo=ANI>;
Forma lion
= COPPtZR RIDCI2






31
A
2


2257
2257
2257








31,32,36
A
2





7057
7057
7057
7057
7058

7058
7058
31,32.36
1)
2





7060
7060
7060
7060
7061

7061
7051
31,32,36
C
2





7063
7063
7063
7063
7064

7064
7064
32
A
2


2259
2259
2259





2260


33
A
2


2262
2262
2262





2263

7084
33,34,35
A
2

Split 1



7046
7046
7046
7046
7048

7048
7048
33,34,33
A
2

Spill 2



7047
7047
7047
7047
7049

7049
7049
33,34,35
0
2





7051
7051
7051
7051
7052

7052
7052
33,34,35
C
2





7054
7054
7054
7054
7055

7055
7055
34
A
2


2265
2265
2265





2266

7085 t;J
35
A
2


2268
2268
2268





2269

-J
36
A
2


2271
2271
2271







7086
37
A
2


2273
2273
2273








37,38,41
A
2





7075
7075
7075
707J
7076

7076
7076
37,38,41
D
2





7078
7078
7078
7078
7079

7079
7079
37,38,41
C
2





7081
7081
7081
7081
7082

7082
7082
38
A
2


2275
2275
2275








39
A
2


2277
2277
2277








39,40,42
A
2





7066
7066
7066
7066
7067

7067
7067
39,40,42
n
2





7069
7069
7069
7069
7070

7070
7070
39,40,42
c
2





7072
7072
7072
7072
7073

7073
7073
40
A
2


2279
2279
2279








41
A
2


2281
2281
2281








42
A
2


2283
2283
2283

-------
Tabic 2.1 (continued)
.1 • n.	Field	Lab	Pesticides ICP AA	Gamma	Alpha Beta
Site	llnnzon Phase	PAH Herbicides	Sulfate Cyanide	Tnllum
duplicate split	PCBs metals metals	emitters	emitters emitters
I/xatk>o=ANI); Formatk>o=DISMAL CAP
1
A

2157
2157







1,20,22
A



7028
7028
7028
7028
7029
7029
7029
1,20,22
~



7031
7031
7031
7031
7032
7032
7032
1,20,22
C



7034
7034
7034
7034
7035
7035
7035
10
A

2143
2143







11
A

2112
2112







12
A

2080
2080







19
A

2116
2116







19
A
II)
2120
2120







20
A

2070
2070







21
A

2101
2101







22
A

2090
2090







3
A

2059
2059







3
A









7087
3,5,11
A



7010
7010
7010
7010
7011
7011
7011
3,5,11
B



7013
7013
7013
7013
7014
7014
7014
3,5,11
C



7016
7016
7016
7016
7017
7017
7017
4
A

2039
2039







4
A









708R
4
A
11)








7089
4,12,21
A



7019
7019
7019
7019
7020
7020
7020
4,12,21
B



7022
7022
7022
7022
7023
7023
7023
4,12,21
C



7025
7025
7025
7025
7026
7026
7026
5
A

2149
2149







9
A

2130
2130







9,10,19
A



7001
7001
7001
7001
7002
7002
7002
9,10,19
A
!•"


7037
7037
7037
7037
7038
7038
7038
9,10,19
n



7004
7004
7004
7004
7005
7005
7005
9,10,19
1)
ro


7040
7040
7040
7040
7041
7041
7041
9,10,19
C



7007
7007
7007
7007
7008
7008
7008
9,10,19
C
rn


7043
7043
7043
7043
7044
7044

-------
Tabic 2.1 (continued)
Site
I lorizon
Phase
Field
duplicate
I jib
spill
_ .. Pesticides
PAI1 Herbicides
PCBs
ICP
metals
AA
metals
Sulfate
Cyanide
Gamma
emittera
Tritium
Alpha
emitters
ncta
emitter





1 vocation=ORR; Formation
=ampui;iT!PHc






50
A
2


1548





1549


50,66,73
A
2

Split 1

5165
5165
5165
5165
5167

5167
5167
50,66,73
A
2

Split 2

5166
5166
5166
5166
5168

5168
5168
50,66,73
A
2
FD
Split 1

5173
5173
5173
5173
5175

5175
5175
50,66,73
A
2
FD
Split 2

5174
5174
5174
5174
5176

5176
5176
50,66,73
H
2



5170
5170
5170
517 0
5171

5171
5171
50,66,73
D
2
FD


5178
5178
5178
5178
5179

5179
5179
50,66,73
C
2



5181
5181
5181
5181
5182

5182
5182
50,66,73
C
2
111


5184
5184
5184
5184
5185

5185
5185
52,53,78
A
2



5127
5127
5127
5127
5128

5128
5128
52,53,78
n
2



5130
5130
5130
5130
5131

5131
5131
52,53,78
c
2



5133
5133
5133
5133
5134

5134
5134
53
A
2


1553








66
A
2


1738 1738 1738





1739


68
A
2


1741 1741 1741







4272
68,74,90
A
2

Split 1

5154
5154
5154
5154
5156

5156
5156
68,74,90
A
2

Split 2

5155
5155

5155
5157

5157
5157
68,74,90
I)
2



5159
5159
5159
5159
5160

5160
5160
68,74,90
c
2



J162
5162
5162
5162
5163

5163
5163
73
A
2


1744 1744







4273
74
A
2


1746 1746





1747

4274
77
A
2










4276
77,85,86
A
2



5136
5136
5136
5136
5137

5137
5137
77,85,86
A
2
FID


5145
5145
5145
5145
5146

5146
5146
77,85,86
n
2



5139
5139
5139
5139
5140

5140
5140
77,85,86
n
2
10


5148
5148
5148
5148
5149

5149
5149
77,85,86
c
2



5142
5142
5142
5142
5143

5143
5143
77,85,86
c:
2
II)


5151
5151
5151
5151
5152

5152
5152
78
A
2










4277
85
A
2








1607


86
A
2

Split 1








4278
86
A
2

Split 2








4279
90
A
2


1749 1749

-------
emille
4281
4282
5197
>1283
4284
5206
5209
5212
5218
5219
5223
5226
4285
4286
5188
5191
5194
4280
Tabic 2.1 (continued)
.. .	Field	Lab	Pesticides ICP AA	Oamma . ,
Horizon Phase	PAII Herbicides	Sulfate Cyanide	Tritium
duplicate spill	PCBs metals metals	emitters
Ij>calioa°OI(R; Fonnatk>n=ClIICKAMAUGA Bet lid V
A
2

1906

1906





4218
A
2

1897
1897
1897





4219
A
2
Split 1









A
2
Split 2









A
2




5196
5196
5196
5196
5197

1)
C
2
2




5199
5202
5199
5202
5199
5202
5199
5202
5200
5203

A
2

1894

1894





4220
A
2

1891
1891
1891





4221
A
2

1964
1964
1964





1965
A
2




5205
5205
5205
5205
5206

n
2




5208
5208
5208
5208
5209

c
2




5211
5211
5211
5211
5212

A
2

1967

1967





1968
A
2

1970
1970
1970





1971
A
2

1973

1973





1974
A
2
Split 1



5216
5216
5216
5216
5218

A
2
Split 2



5217
5217
5217
5217
5219

n
2




5222
5222
5222
5222
5223

C
2




5225
5225
5225
5225
5226

A
2

1976
1976
1976





1977
A
2

1979

1979





1980
A
2

1900

1900





4216
A
2




5187
5187
5187
5187
5188

IJ
2




5190
5190
5190
5190
5191

C
2




5193
5193
5193
5193
5194

A
2

1903
1903
1903

-------
Tabic 2.1 (continued)
Site
I lorizon
Phase
Field
duplicate
Ijib
split
Pesticides
PA1I Herbicides
PCDs
ICP
metals
AA
metals
Sulfate
Cyanide
Gamma
emitters
Tritium
Alpha
emitters
. IJela
emitters





|jocatk>n=OHR; Formalioo=ClHCKAMAlJOA
K-25





118
A
2


4095 4095 4095





4096


118,122,124
A
2

Split 1

5240
5240
5240
5240
4942

5242
4942
118,122,124
A
2

Split 2

5241
5241
5241
5241
5243

5243
5243
118,122,124
1)
2



5246
5246
4246
5246
4247

4247
4247
118,122,124
C
2



5249
5219
5219
5249
5250

5250
5250
119
A
2


4127 4127







4287
119,123,127
A
2

Split 1

5252
5252
5252
5252
5254

5254
5254
119,123,127
A
2

Spilt 2

5253
5253
5253
5253
5255

5255
5255
119,123,127
1)
2



5257
5257
5257
5257
5258

5258

119,123,127
C
2



5260
5260
5260
5260
5261

5261

120
A
2


4092 4092 4092





4093


120,126,129
A
2

Split 1

5228
5228
5228
5228
5230

5230
5230
120,126,129
A
2

Split 2

5229
5229
5229
5229
5231

5231
5231
120,126,129
D
2



5234
5234
5234
5234
5235

5235
5235 £
120,126,129
C
2



5237
5237
5237
5237
5238

5238
5238
121
A
2


4129 4129







4288
121,125,128
A
2

Split 1

5263
5263
5263
5263
5265

5265
5265
121,125,128
A
2

Split 2

5264
5264
5264
5264
5266

5266
5266
121,125,128
B
2



5268
5268
5268
5268
5269

5269

121,125,128
C
2



5271
5271
5271
5271
5272

5272

122
A
2


4105 4105 4105





4106


123
A
2


4131 4131








124
A
2


4115 4115 4115





4116

4289
125
A
2


4133 4133








126
A
2


4089 4089





4090


127
A
2


4135 4135







4290
128
A
2


4137 4137







4291
129
A
2


4086 4086 4086





4087

-------
Tabic 2.1 (continued)
Site
1 lorizon
Phase
Field
duplicate
l_ah
split
PAH
Herbicides PcS"dl,eS
PCDs
ICP
metals
AA
metals
Sulfate
Cyanide
Gamma
emitters
Tritium
Alpha
emitters
Dcta
emitters






IvOcation=OKR; Formation
=COPPER RHJOIJ






45
A
2


1544









45,60,75
A
2




5109
5109
5109
5109
5110

5110
5110
45,60,75
n
2




5112
5112
5112
5112
5113

5113

45,60,75
C
2




5115
5115
5115

5116

5116

51
A
2


1546








4267
51,55,62
A
2




5100
5100
5 UK)
5100
5101

5101
5101
51,55,62
1)
2




5104
5104
5104
5104
5103

5103
5103
51,55,62
C
2




5106
5106
5106
5106
5107

5107
5107
54
A
2


1497
1497







4268
54,64,83
A
2




5118
5118
5118
5118
5119

5119
5119
54,64,83
11
2




5121
5121
5121
5121
5122

5122
5122
54,64,83
C
2




5124
5124
5124
5124
5125

5125
5125
55
A
2


1495
1495







to
1
58
A
2


1542









58,59,91
A
2




5091
5091
5091
5091
5092

5092
5092
58,59,91
n
2




5094
5094
5094
5094
5095

5095
5095
58,59,91
c
2




5097
5097
5097
5097
5098

5098
5098
59
A
2


1491
1491








60
A
2


1493
1493







4269
62
A
2


1480
1480





1481

4270
64
A
2


1483
1483





1484

4271
74
A
2











4275
75
A
2


1477
1477





1478


83
A
2


1474
H74





1475


91
A
2


1471
1471





1472

-------
Tabic 2.1 (continued)
Site
1 lorizon
Field
Phase
duplicate
Ub
split
PAII
Herbicides
Pesticides
PCBs





IjOcMkx^ORR; Formation
10
A
1

1127
1127
1127
10,33,35
A
1




10,33,35
n
1




10,33,35
C
1




11
A
1

1080
1080
1080
11,27,41
A
1




11,27,41
D
1




11,27,41
C
1




19
A
1

1099
1099
1099
19,22,32
A
1




19,22,32
n
1




19,22,32
c
1




2
A
1

1190
1190
1190
2
A
1 I7D

1201
1201
1201
2
A





2,26,43
A
1




2,26,43
A
1 I'D




2,26,43
n
1




2,26,43
n
1 11)




2,26,43
c
1




2,26,43
c
1 l"L>




22
A
1

1106
1106
1106
26
A
1

1213
1213
1213
26
A





27
A
1

1072
1072
1072
27
A





32
A
1

1107
1107
1107
32
A





33
A
1

1108
1108
1108
33
A





35
A
1

1115
1115
1115
41
A
1

1064
1064
1064
43
A
1

1231

1231
43
A
2




ICP
metals
AA
metnls
5019
5022
50Z5
5001
5004
5007
5010
5013
5016
5028
5037
5031
5040
5034
5043
5019
5022
5025
5001
5004
5007
5010
5013
5016
5028
5037
5031
5040
5034
5043
Gamma . .	Alpha Beta
Sulfate Cyanide ,	Tritium
emitters	emitters emitters



1128


5019
5019
5020

5020
5020
5022
5022
5023

5023
5023
5025
5025
5026

5026
5026



1079


5001
5001
5002

5002
5002
5004
5004
5005

5005
5005
5007
5007
5008

5008
5008



1122




5011

5011
5011
5013
5013
5014

5014
5014
5016
5016
5017

5017
5017



1189





1198







4255
5028
5028
5029

5029
5029
5037
5037
5038

5038
5038
5031
5031
5032

5032
5032
5040
5040
5041

5041
5041
5034
5034
5035

5035
5035
5043
5043
5044

5044
5044
1123
1214
4260
1071
4261
1124
4263
1125
426-1
1126
1063

-------
Site
13
13
15
15
15,2
15,2
15,2
16
16,2
16,2
16,2
21
21
23
24
24
24
25
28
28
3
3,13,
3,13,
3,13,
31
42
5
5
5,21,
5,21
5,21
Uela
emittei
4254
4256
5056
5059
5062
5065
5068
5071
4257
4258
4259
4262
5083
5086
5089
4253
5074
5077
5080
Tabic 2.1 (continued)
1 Iori7.on Phase
Field
duplicate
Lab
split
PAM
I Icrbicides
Pesticides 1CP
AA
PCBs
metals metals
Sulfate Cyanide
Gamma
emitters
Tritium
Ijocalion=ORR; Formatlon=NOL!CI IIJCK.Y
1299	1299
Split 1
Split 2
1300
1301
1296
1295
1294
1293
1292
1297
131)3
1302
1298
1300
1301
1296
1295
1294
1293
1292
1297
1303
1302
1298
5055
5058
5061
5064
5067
5070
5082
5085
5088
5073
5076
5079
5055
5058
5061
5064
5067
5070
5082
5085
5088
5073
5076
5079
5055
5058
5061
5064
5067
5070
5082
5085
5088
5073
5076
5079
5055
5058
5061
5064
5067
5070
5082
5085
5088
5073
5076
5079
5056
5059
5062
5065
5068
5071
5083
5086
5089
5074
5077

-------
Tabic 2.1 (continued)
Site
1 loruon
Phase
Field
duplicate
Lab
Split
PAH
1 lcrbiciiles
Pesticides
PCDi
ICP
metals
AA
metals
Sulfate
Cyanide
Gamma
emitters
Tritium
Alpha
emitters
Beta
emitter






I.ncalk>n = ROA; FofmalJoo:
=COPPI2R RIDGH






33
A
2


3203
3203
3203







6093
33,35,4-1
A
2





6046
6046
6016
6046
6047

6047
6047
33,35,44
11
2





6049
6049
6049
6049
6050

6050
6050
33,35,44
C
2





6052
6052
6052
6052
6053

6053
6053
34
A
2


3206
3206
3206





3330

6094
34,39,41
A
2

Split 1



6082
6082
6082
6082"
6083

6083
6083
34,39,41
A
2

Split 2



6084
6084
6084
6084
6085

6085
6085
34,39,41
B
2





6087
6087
6087
6087
6088

6088

34,39,41
C
2





6090
6090
6090
6090
6091

6091

35
A
2


3209
3209
3209







6095
39
A
2


3214
3214
3214





3329


40
A
2


3211
3211
3211





3327


40,42,43
A
2





6055
6055
6055
6055
6056

6056
6056
40,42,43
R
2





6058
6058
6058
6058
6059

6059
6059
40,42,43
C
2





6061
6061
6061
6061
6062

6062
6062
41
A
2


3217
3217
3217





3328


42
A
2


3235
3235
3235








43
A
2


3231
3231
3231








43
A
2
IT)

3233
3233
3233








44
A
2


3229
3229
3229








45
A
2


3227
3227
3227








45,46,47
A
2





6073
6073
6073
6073
6074

6074
6074
45,46,47
A
2
FD




6076
6076
6076
6076
6077

6077
6077
45,46,47
D
2





6070
6070
6070
6070
6071

6071
6071
45,46,47
n
2
FID




6079
6079
6079
6079
6080

6080
6080
45,46,47
C
2





6064
6064
6064
6064
6065

6065
6065
45,46,47
c:
2
FD




6067
6067
6067
6067
6068

6068
6068
46
A
2


3225
3225
3225








47
A
2


3223
3223
3223

-------
Tabic Z1 (continued)
Site
1 lorizon
Field
Plinse
duplicate
Lab
split
PAII
I lerbicides
Pesticides
PCBs
ICP
metals
AA
metals
Sulfate
Cyanide
Gamma
emitters
Tritium
Alpha
emitters
Beta
emitters





1 vocation=ROA; Formation
=D1SMAL GAP






10
A
1

3168

3168








10,13,14
A
1




6028
6028
6028
6028
6029

6029
6029
10,13,14
A
1 I'D




6037
6037
6037
6037
6038

6038
6038
10,13,14
I)
1




6031
6031
6031
6031
6032

6032
6032
10,13,14
n
i m




6040
6040
6040
6040
6041

6041
6041
10,13,14
C
i




6034
6034
6034
6034
6035

6035
6035
10,13,14
C
i id




6043
6043
6043
6043
6044

6044
6014
13
A
i

3127

3127








13
A
1 ID

3139

3139








14
A
1

3148

3148








17
A
1

3018
3018
3018





3016


19
A
1

3032
3032
3032





3031


19
A












6096
20
A
1

3046
3046
3046





3045


20
A












6097
21
A
1

3113

3113








21
A












6098
22
A
1

3058
3058
3058





3057


3
A
1

3099
3099
3099





3098


3,7,21
A
1




6019
6019
6019
6019
6020

6020
6020
3,7,21
1)
1




6022
6022
6022
6022
6023

6023
6023
3,7,21
C
1




6025
6025
6025
6025
6026

6026
6026
7
A
1

3085
3085
3085





3084


8
A
1

3072
3072
3072





3071


8,20,22
A
1




6010
6010
6010
6010
6011

6011
6011
8,20,22
II
1




6013
6013
6013
6013
6014

6014
6014
8,20,22
C
1




6016
6016
6016
6016
6017

6017
6017
9
A
1

3003
3003
3003





3004


9,17,19
A
1




6004
6004
6004
6004
6005

6005
6005
9,17,19
n
1




6001
6001
6001
6001
6002

6002
6002
9,17,19
c
1




6007
6007
6007
6007
6008

6008

-------
2-17
The following checklist of pertinent questions is provided to guide the prospective data
user.
1. Do you know your site geological formations and soil characteristics? Have you read the
BSCP sampling protocols? Will you be using a qualified soil scientist for identifying and
collecting samples from A, B, and C horizons of the soil?
2. Did you compare your analytical methods with those contained in the BSCP Plan
(Energy Systems 1992)? Were the samples analyzed according to the EPA methods and
procedures referenced in BSCP Plan? Either extraction or total dissolution methods (as
specified in this document) for metals, organics, and some radionuclides must be the
same, only in terms of analyte specificity and similar analyte recovery efficiency, if results
from contaminated sites are to be compared with results from this project. The use of
neutron activation analysis data and mass spectroscopy analysis of EPA methods of soil
dissolution or extraction to currently accepted EPA methods is compared and discussed
in Sect. 6.
3. What geologic formation is beneath your soil sampling site? This question is important
when contaminants, such as metals and radionuclides, occur naturally in soils and
bedrock.
a. Rome Formation: Naturally occurring metal and radionuclide BSCP data may not
be applicable. No sampling was performed, so there is no basis for comparison.
b. Conasauga Group: For Pumpkin Valley, Rutledge (Friendship), and Maynardville
formations, BSCP data for metals and radionuclides may not be applicable. There
was no sampling of these formations. The data may be applicable for the Dismal
Gap (Maryville) and Nob'chucky formations in the Melton Creek section, even
though this section of the Conasauga was not sampled.
c. Knox Group: For the Copper Ridge and Chepultepec formations, the data are
nearly all similar. For the Longview, Kingsport, and Mascot formations, which were
not sampled, BSCP metals and radionuclides data should generally be applicable for
the geologic group (see Tables 6.1a and 6.1b). The Melton Hill section of the Knox
should be able to use the Knox Group values contained in Tables 6.1a and 6.1b.
d. If there is no significant difference between two formations in a group for a
particular constituent, the group data may be applicable to other formations in the
same group.
e. Chickamauga Group: For the Bethel Valley area, the Bethel Valley section BSCP
data should be applicable although some geologic units (A, B, C, and D) were not
sampled. For the K-25 area, the K-25 section BSCP data should be applicable across
all formations.
4. Was your sample collected from a ridgetop or upper side slope and from a residual soil?
If your sample came from a floodplain or from a concave-shaped landform with
alluvial-colluvial soils, then the data you obtain will probably vary. However, the

-------
2-18
5. Was your sample collected from a forested mineral soil surface layer (A horizon or A
plus E horizons) or from an Ap horizon in a grassland Geld? You can use the
appropriate values from the A horizon from the geologic formation that you checked
above.
6. Was your sample collected from the surface of a site that has been disturbed or stripped
of topsoil in the past 30 to 45 years? If so, then the B horizon data from the particular
geologic formation will probably be the most appropriate for comparisons.
7. Was your sample collected from a depth of 3 ft or more below the surface? You can
compare your data with the median values for the C horizon for the geologic formation
or geologic group that you checked above.
8. Was your sample collected from fill materials or cover above waste trenches? Can you
identify the geologic formation source of those soil materials? If so, then you can
compare your data with the appropriate C horizon data. If the geologic source of the
cover or fill material cannot be identified according to its geologic origin, or if it was
imported, do not compare your data with any BSCP data! If the fill came from Chestnut
Ridge or from Melton Hill on the ORR, then you should be able to use the appropriate
C horizon data from the Copper Ridge or Chepultepec formations or the Knox Group
data of Tables 6.1a and 6.1b.
9. Are your results equal to or lower than the median value plus two sigma deviation units?
If so, your sample is probably not contaminated. If your results are significantly higher
than the mean plus two sigma units, then your sample may be contaminated. Note: The
data user should keep in mind that some properties of natural soils are extremely
variable and complex and that the BSCP data represent only a very small subset of soils
on the ORR.
10. With respect to man-made organic compounds and radionuclides, these represent a
separate issue and are not connected to geology. We do not want to limit the application
of BSCP data because of these artificial soil constituents. We do want to base the
analytic thresholds on instrument detection limits or on detection limits associated with
method dilution factors. The presence of man-made chemical compounds and
radionuclides above background should be interpreted as a sign of potential
contamination.
11. Please use only the relevant numbers from Tables 6.1a and 6.1b for most of your data
comparisons. If the discussion for a particular element or compound in Sect 6 indicates
a significant difference by formation within a geologic group, then use the appropriate
formation data by horizon from Sect. 5. If A B, and C horizon data are significantly
different, use the data for specific horizons from a specific formation. For some very
broad uses, the data across all geologic groups have been merged but have limited
usefulness as a result (see Tables G.8 and G.9).
2.4.2 How To Use Data—An Analytical Perspective
The data reported in this document have been collected, analyzed, and validated
according to the guidelines and requirements detailed in the BSCP Plan (Energy Systems

-------
2-19
the data were validated according to the criteria described in Sect. 4.4. For these data to be
properly used by future users, the user must use similar data analysis methods as described
in this report. In addition, the user must ensure that any deviation in protocols be considered
during the planning stage.
To use these data properly, the user must understand the purpose of the data validation
and the validation qualifiers used. The purpose of validation was to assess the quality of the
data against EPA's nationally applicable criteria. The criteria followed for most of the
chemical data were the EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) Data Validation Criteria.
The criteria used for the non-CLP chemical and radiological data were prepared according
to the requirements provided in the BSCP Plan and the EPA CLP Data Validation Criteria.
The validated data were given validation qualifiers that explain the overall judgment of the
data validator as to the worthiness of the data points. Two types of qualifiers are provided in
the data tables: laboratory qualifiers and validation qualifiers. The definitions of the contract
laboratory qualifiers are found in Sects. 4.4.1 and 4.42. The data validation qualifiers used in
this project are listed in Table 4.1.
Data with validation qualifiers J, UJ, UJN, UN, and JN in Table 4.1 can be used, but the
data user must be aware that the data must be used with the limitations that the qualifier
defines. An example would be that a project could use the data qualified as J, but it must be
understood that they are using a data value that represents an estimated or approximate
concentration of the analyte and not a true concentration.
The following questions are presented to provide additional guidance.
1. Did you compare your analytical methods with those contained in the BSCP Plan
(Energy Systems 1992)?
2. Were the samples analyzed according to the EPA methods and procedures contained in
the BSCP Plan (Energy Systems 1992)?
3. Did you follow the same sample preparation methods and requirements as those stated
in the BSCP Plan (Energy Systems 1992)?
4. Did you use total dissolution methods for radiological analyses?
5. Did you incorporate any deviations or modifications in the methods as described in the
BSCP Plan (Energy Systems 1992) or in this report?
6. Is your data based on wet weight or dry weight?
7. Are the units associated with your data the same as those presented in this report?
8. Did you compare your detection limits with those contained in the BSCP Plan (Energy
Systems 1992)? Are you using instrument detection limits, method detection limits,
practical quantitation limits, or contract required detection limits? For explanation of
terminology on detection limits, refer to EPA/SW-846 (2nd ed.) and to the EPA/CLP

-------
2-20
9. Did you use the data validation guidelines developed for the BSCP, and did you refer
to the validation qualifiers (list of data validation qualifier definitions can be found in
Sect 4.4) for data in this report when evaluating your data?
2.43 Statistical Guidelines for Users of Background Soil Data
The scope of possible applications of the BSCP data is so broad that it is not feasible to
elaborate on statistical methods appropriate for each possible application. The following is
presented as a starting point
Is your goal
1. to design a soil sampling program for which the BSCP is to be a reference? Refer to the
BSCP Plan (Energy Systems 1992) and to Sect. 5 (particularly Sect 5.10) of this report
for discussions of laboratory and spatial variance and compositing.
2. to compare background levels in various formations or horizons? See Sect. 5.2
(particularly Sect. 523) and discussion on analytes of interest in Sects. 5 and 6 of this
report.
3. to determine target values for remediation? See Sect 52. for general discussion on the
computation of confidence bounds, and Sects. 53-5.9 for particular analytes of interest.
— to obtain a target value that is within the normal background range? Use a lower
tolerance bound for an upper percentile (e.g., the 95th).
— to obtain a target value that is near the mean (or median, see Sect 52, Measures
of Central Tendency) of normal background levels? Use a confidence bound for the
mean. If you want to be confident that a target is no higher than the median, use
a lower confidence bound. (Use an upper confidence bound for the median only if
you want to be confident that the target is above the median.)
4. to determine if the detection of a PAH, pesticide, herbicide, or other normally absent
substance is inconsistent with a practical definition of background (i.e., one for which
some limited anthropogenic effects are admitted)? Refer to upper confidence bounds for
detection probabilities, discussed in Sect 5 (particularly Sect. 52), but note that some
of these confidence bounds are not useful because overall sample sizes are small.
5. to determine if detected concentrations are within normal background levels? Refer to
appropriate upper percentile estimates and lower tolerance bounds in Sect. 5 (Table 5.1
for inorganics, for example) and discussion in Sects. 52 and 5.10.
Exclusions
Certain applications will be sufficiently sensitive to warrant a close look at the
background data and statistical methods of analysis. How well the lognormal and alternate
models apply for the particular analytes of concern should be considered. Data already
collected may not be automatically compared to BSCP data without further scrutiny and
analysis—for example, if samples are not composited or if they are composited at significantly

-------
2-21
nonrandomized sampling site selection process that results in the selection of hot spots.
Alternatives for composites of other than three are discussed in Sect. 5.10. The statistical
variability of new observations, which may be expressed in means or percentiles from
replicates, should be considered.
Confidence bounds and other statistics are intended to reasonably delineate states of
knowledge. For some purposes, some of the BSCP data statistics may seem unreasonably high
or low. In most cases the problem is not in the statistics but is rather in the actual uncertainty
in the state of knowledge. If a statistic is questionable, the costs of getting additional
information, for example, by additional sampling, should be weighed against the losses due
to relying on values that may be too high or low. Practical considerations should go beyond
statistical confidence and significance. For example, in light of risks, some background levels
may be unnecessarily low remediation targets.
2.4.4 Data User Guidelines for Risk Assessments
The following questions are intended to focus attention on aspects of using BSCP data
for risk assessments.
What is risk assessment as it pertains to the BSCP?
Risk assessment is used to evaluate potential risks to human health from exposure to
constituents in background soils (from the ORR, Anderson County, and Roane County).
There are two types of risk, carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic (systemic) risk. For
carcinogens, risks are estimated as the incremental probability of an individual developing
cancer over a lifetime as a result of exposure to the carcinogen. Cancer risk from the
exposure to contamination is expressed as excess cancer risk; that is, cancer incurred in
addition to normally expected rates of cancer development. An excess cancer risk of 1.0 X
10"6 indicates one person in one million is predicted to incur cancer from exposure to this
contamination level.
Noncarcinogenic effects are systemic toxic effects, that is, they are toxic effects to an
organ or system which occur when a threshold dose is reached. Unlike carcinogenic risk,
which is represented by a probability of incurring cancer over a lifetime, systemic risk is posed
only if a threshold is exceeded.
What are the primary goals of this risk assessment?
The primary objectives of this BSCP risk assessment are to (1) evaluate the BSCP data
in terms of potential adverse effects to human health (carcinogenic and systemic); (2) produce
a comprehensive database for naturally occurring constituent concentrations in soils on the
ORR; (3) provide the context for discussion of risks associated with ORR site related
contamination (which includes identifying contaminants of concern); and (4) provide a
comparison, based on risk, between soils collected from the sampling areas (ORR, Anderson

-------
2-22
How are risks and hazard indices determined?
To evaluate potential risk to human health from background constituents, EPA-approved
dose/response information must be available—that is, slope factors (for carcinogenic risk
analysis) and reference doses (for analysis of noncarcinogenic/systemic effects).
Carcinogenic effects are expressed in terms of risk. The risk is calculated by multiplying
the daily intake of a constituent by the EPA-approved slope factor. There are three regions
of concern according to EPA guidelines for contaminated sites: risk < 1.0 x 10"6, no concern;
risk between 1.0 x 10"6 and 1.0 x 10"\ range of concern; and risk > 1.0 x 10"\ unacceptable.
Risks due to background soil concentrations are reported in this manner, but the results are
only for comparison with site-related risk; the results do not pertain to remediation goals.
Systemic risks are expressed in terms of a hazard index. The hazard index is calculated
by determining the ratio of the daily intake of a constituent to the EPA-approved reference
dose. If this ratio is less than 1.0, no adverse effects from exposure to this chemical are
expected; if the hazard index is greater than 1.0, adverse systemic effects may possibly occur.
How are the calculated risk values to be used?
The most important aspect of the background soil data for risk assessment is in the
selection of contaminants of potential concern. These background values can be used to attain
an accurate assessment of the risk to human health posed by contaminants found at higher
concentrations [two orders of magnitude above background concentrations according to the
EPA (EPA 1990)] than naturally occurring background concentrations on the ORR. The total
^oil background risk reported in this document can be used to discuss site-related risk in the
context of background risk.
Although background risk numbers are presented for Anderson and Roane counties in
addition to the ORR. risk assessments conducted on the reservation are to employ the
background risk numbers calculated for the ORR, as these data best represent background
levels at an ORR site. The background risk numbers presented in Sect. 7 should be used in
a baseline risk assessment or in a feasibility study for screening of alternatives on the ORR.
In some cases (refer to Sect. 7), the background risk is unacceptable for an analyte in terms
of EPA guidance (i.e, risk >1 x 10"*); this information should also be reported in the site-
specific risk assessment Cleanup goals should not be below the reported background level.
The risk assessment in this report is subject to uncertainty pertaining to sampling and
analysis, exposure estimation, and toxicological data. Several sources of uncertainty exist that
are associated with site risk assessments. The following are examples of factors that may
contribute to uncertainty in the risk assessment (Sect. 7).
• Assuming that risk doses within an exposure route are additive does not account for
synergism or antagonism, which may overestimate or underestimate risks.
• Not all toxicity values represent the same degree of certainty. These values are subject
to change as new evidence becomes available.
• Assuming exposures to be constant does not account for environmental fate, transport,

-------
2-23
In addition, land use for this risk assessment was assumed to be residential. Although the
assumption of residential land use is generally recommended when determining risk at a site
(EPA 1989), risk numbers that result from the residential land use scenario are at the
conservative end of the scale, when in fact residential use may not be the most likely future
land use for the ORR. This assumption contributes to the uncertainty by possibly
overestimating risks. Identifying these, and other, key site-related variables and assumptions
that contribute to uncertainty will enable the risk estimates to be placed in proper perspective
(EPA 1989).
What are the uncertainties associated with the risk and hazard index numbers?
Risk assessment, as a scientific activity, is subject to uncertainty. Although the
methodology used in this risk assessment follows EPA guidelines, uncertainties pertaining to
sampling and analysis, exposure estimation, and toxdcological data still exist.
The major assumptions used in risk assessment are that (1) contaminant concentrations
detected and reported by the analytical laboratory are representative of the analyte
concentrations in the soil, (2) the intake rates and exposure parameters are representative
of actual potentially exposed populations, and (3) all contaminant exposure and intakes are
from the site-related exposure media.
Given these assumptions, there are other areas which can result in uncertainty. The
toxicological data (slope factors and reference doses) are often updated and revised, which
could alter risk values. Furthermore, these values are often extrapolations from animals to
humans, which also induces uncertainties in toxicity values. In addition, not all of the detected
background chemicals reported in this study currently have toxicity values; hence, this can
underestimate total risk because quantitative assessment of such chemicals is currently not
obtainable.
2.4.5 Data Access Considerations
BSCP analytical results are available from OREIS. Users wishing to access the data
should refer to ER/C-P2702, Rev. 0, "Obtaining Access to Data in OREIS," and the "Oak
Ridge Environmental Information System (OREIS) User Interface Manual for General Users,
Version 1.0."
All data definitions are consistent within OREIS and are described in the OREIS
documentation. Based upon user responses to the previous and the following guideline
questions, the various fields can be queried to extract specific information.
Note: Additional considerations follow.
1. Does the user want to distinguish between data collected for screening purposes and
those for higher quality analytical results? Attention must be given to qualifiers which
indicate the original purpose for which the data were collected and then determine the
appropriate use of the data.
2. Does the user want to distinguish among results for the same analyte but determined by
different analytical methods? Users are cautioned to separate the results by method

-------
2-24
3. Does the user want to reproduce the risk calculations using alternate risk factors or
exposure scenarios? The mean and upper 95% confidence bounds were calculated using
a maximum likelihood estimation technique to appropriately account for values reported
at their detection limit
2.5 EXAMPLE APPLICATIONS OF DATA USER GUIDELINES
The process flow for applying the data user guidelines discussed in Sect. 2.4 is
summarized in Fig. 23. This section presents two example cases to illustrate the suggested
approach for applying the background soil characterization data in this report.
EXERCISE IN USING BACKGROUND SOIL DATA
Refer to the series of questions in Sect. 2.4.1 for guidance in determining applicability,
both in general and for geological aspects in particular, of BSCP data to the two hypothetical
situations under discussion here. Then refer specifically to Sect. 2.4.2 when comparing
contaminated site data directly with BSCP data. The central question is: Are the data
comparable? Refer to Sect. 2.4.3 when determining whether the treatment of the
contaminated site data has been statistically similar to the treatment of the BSCP data.
Finally, refer to Sect 2.4.4 for data user guidelines relative to risk assessment.
The primary concern in this discussion is whether the contaminated site data are
comparable or are even compatible with the BSCP data. If this is not the case, then obtain
technical assistance.
Case I - Hypothetical Situation
A waste treatment facility has had two leaks from a pressurized line that runs through
a wooded area to the injection well. One slow leak occurred at a joint in the above-ground
part of the pipe. This leak spread a plume on the surface that reached out into the woods.
The area was roped off, and samples were collected and analyzed to locate the extent of the
contaminated area and to estimate the level of contamination. This preliminary analysis
identified the following radionuclide analytes of concern in the plume: cesium-137,
technetium-99, and tritium. Samples were collected from the upper 10 cm of soil. The other
line leak occurred in a below-ground section of the pipe at a depth between 50 and 100 cm.
The same contaminants were found at this depth, too.
Site Characteristics
Geology: Use the provisional ORR geology map (ORNL/TM-12074), have a qualified
geologist make a site determination of the geologic formation, or use the ORR soils map,
which relates soils to the underlying geologic formations. The leaks were found to be
underlain by the Nolichucky Formation of the Conasauga Group.
Soils: Use the ORR soils map to determine if the leaks occurred in residual soils or
colluvial-alluvial soils, or have a qualified soil scientist make an on-site evaluation. The leaks

-------
2-25
OflNL-DWG B3M-»tei
Review BSCP Ran
Energy Systems 1992
(ES/ER/TM-26/R1)
Consider
Using NAA Data
for Inorganics
(Table H.1) and
Consult with
BSCP Team
Consult with
BSCP Team
Same
Analytical
Methods?
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Same
Geologic
Group?
Review Your Site
Information Using
ORR Geology
Map and Fig. 32.
No
Man-Made
Analytes?.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Select
Comparable
Horizons
Use ORR-Wide Data
Tables 5.3,5.4,5.5,
G.8, G.9, G.10
Select
Comparable
Horizons
Select Data from
Tables 5.3, 5.4,
5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 6.1a,
6.1b, 6.1c
Select Data from
Tables 5.1, 5.3,
5.4, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8
Use Sect. 7 and
Consult with Risk
Analysis Group
No
No
Yes
Yes
/ Same\
Geologic
\ Formation?
/ Need
Independent
Statistical
-.Analysis?^
/ Need \
Independent
Risk
s. Analysis?^
/AretheX
Analytical
Methods
.Comparable^
Individual Site Soil Data
Available from OREIS

-------
2-26
Landfonn: The above-ground leak is on a sidesiope, and the below-ground leak is on
a ridgetop landform.
Vegetation: The vegetation is mixed hardwoods and pines.
Background Data Selection
The surface (0 to 10 cm) sampling depth is roughly equivalent to the A horizon of the
soil profile, and the 50 to 100 cm depth is approximately equivalent to the C horizon of the
soil profile. Where formation data are available in Sect. 5, they will be used; if formation data
are not available, geologic group data from Sect 6 will be used.
• Background data are available for cesium-137 from the A horizon for the Nolichucky
Formation. See Table 5.8 for NOL-ORR A horizon data.
• Technetium-99 data are available for the Nolichucky A horizon. See Table 5.8.
• There are no tritium data available for the Nolichucky Formation; therefore, the
Conasauga Group A horizon data for tritium from Table 6.1b will be used.
• There are no cesium-137 detect data from the Nolichucky Formation for the C horizon;
therefore, data from Table 6.1b can be used for the C horizon, because the Nolichucky
Formation belongs to the Conasauga Group.
• BSCP soil samples were not collected from B and C horizons for technetium and tritium;
however, those data should be below the instrument detection limits (DDLs), and we can
resort to use of the DDLs in this case.
Data for 0 to 10 cm depth of contaminated sofl samples (from Sect. 5)
Analyte
Units
Median
UCB95
X95
LTB9595
Cesium-137
pCi/g
0.53
1.26
2.99
1.18
Tc-99
pCi/g
1.10
1.91
2.63
1.57
Tritium
pCi/g
032
0.43
0.70
0.05
Data for 60 to 100 cm
depth of contaminated soil samples (from SecL 6)
Analyte
Units
Median
UCB95
X95
LTB9595
Cesium-137
pCi7g
0.0008
0.091
0.803
0.008
Tc-99
pCi/g
IDL

Tritium
pCi/g
IDL

Note that numerical rounding of data has been done for this exercise. For an explanation
of the headings in the tables above, please see pages 5-15 of this report.
Analytical Method Selection
The analytical coordinator reviewed the following information to ensure that the

-------
2-27
• Did you compare your analytical methods with those contained in the BSCP Plan
(Energy Systems 1992, Volume 3)? Were the samples analyzed according to the EPA methods
and procedures contained in the BSCP Plan?
— The methods used for this investigation were taken from the BSCP Plan. The
coordinator referred to Tables 6.5 to 6.13 in the Plan and used the following methods:
— HASL 300 Method for technetium:
— EPA 901.1 for cesium, which is the gamma spectrometry method; and
— EPA 906.1 for tritium, which is the liquid scintillation method.
• Did you follow the same sample preparation methods and requirements as those stated
in the BSCP Plan (Energy Systems 1992, Volume 3)?
— The laboratory used a distillation method to prepare the tritium sample, just as in the
BSCP.
— The laboratory prepared the technetium sample using the HASL-300 method, which
means that the laboratory did not ash the samples. This does not compromise the data,
since the ashing step is only used to remove the organics that interfere with the analysis.
— Radiochemical preparation methods must be considered, because it is very important that
the laboratory use a method employing total dissolution. Radiochemical preparation
methods are not standardized, so individual laboratory procedures should be evaluated.
The BSCP used methods that provide for total dissolution.
• Did you use total dissolution methods for radiological analyses?
— Total dissolution methods were used.
• Did you incorporate any deviations or modifications in the methods, as described in the
BSCP Plan or in this report?
— No deviations or modifications reported by BSCP were used for this investigation, since
the laboratory adhered to the HASL-300 method for technetium-99 analysis.
• Are your data based on wet weight or dry weight?
— All weights were based on oven-dry-soil weight ( — 105CC), with percent moisture also
reported.
• Are the units associated with your data the same as those presented in this report?
— All units were the same.
• Did you compare your detection limits with those specified in the BSCP Plan?
— In the decision process to arrive at appropriate analytical methods, the detection limits
found in Tables 6.5 to 6.13 of the BSCP Plan were reviewed and determined to be
sufficient for the investigation (cesium-137 = 3 pCi/g, technetium-99 = 2 pCi/g, tritium
= 1 pCi/g).
• Did you use the data validation guidelines developed for the BSCP, and did you refer
to the validation qualifiers (list of data validation qualifier definitions appears in Sect 4.4) for
data in this report when evaluating your data?

-------
2-23
Statistical Methods
From analytical considerations, it can be concluded that the data are compatible. The
question of comparability is to determine, if analyte levels at the site are within "normal"
background ranges. Suppose that "normal" means below the 95th percentile. (Of course,
other percentiles could be used instead.)
From Table 5.10c, essentially all of the variance in background A horizon cesium-137
measurements'is due to laboratory variability (i.e., there is no spatial component). Therefore,
compositing does not affect the variance of sample values, and the normal backgrond range
is indicated by X95, the 95th percentile estimate, and by tolerance bounds for that percentile.
X95 for cesium-137 is 2.99 pCi/g. LTB9595 for cesium-137 is 1.18. An upper 95% tolerance
bound (UTB9595) for X95 can be computed using the expression
UTB9595 = exp[2*ln(X95) - ln(LTB9595)]. (2.1)
That value is 7.58. Thus, the true 95th percentile could be anywhere from LTB9595 = 1.18
to UTB9595 = 7.58. Assuming that the laboratory variability for the site and background
studies are about the same and under the assumptions made in the BSCP statistical analysis,
we can be about 95% confident that site samples below 1.18 are normal and 95% confident
that site samples above 7.58 are abnormal. Site samples between those two values may
warrant additional consideration (e.g., of risics) or more sampling.
For C horizon cesium-137, there were no Nolichuckv detects. There were, however,
several C horizon ORR-Dismal Gap detects, and there were also detects at Dismal Gap sites
in Anderson County. The P-value (probability) for comparing Nolichucky and Dismal Gap
sites (P-DGN in Table G_5) is 0.017. This suggests that the Dismal Gap and Nolichucky sites
may differ for C horizon cesium-137. If so, combining Conasauga site data may not be
justified. However, the significance level 0.017 is borderline (see discussion on significance
levels in Sect. 5.5.3), and so we can consider the combined Conasauga data.
The values for Conasauga C horizon cesium-137 in Table 6.1b are median = 0.00078,
UCB95 = 0.091, X95 = 0.803. and LTB9595 = 0.0077. The spatial variability of C horizon
cesium-137 is appreciable: 220 base-ten-log pCi/g (from Table 5.10c). The laboratory standard
deviation is 0.532. Therefore, the standard deviation for noncomposites is
[(0.532)2 + (120)2]172 = 22.6 and 10108 (median) + i-« • "6 - 3 97)
estimates the 95th percentile for noncomposites. If the variability of the variance estimate is
ignored, substituting upper or lower confidence bounds for the median provides upper and
lower tolerance bounds for the 95th percentile. These values are 0.000004 and 4.02. The
median and these tolerance bounds may be used as references for cesium-137 at Conasauga
C horizon sites.
The degrees-of-freedom for C horizon cesium-137 in Table 5.10c are 29 and 28. This
suggests that the standard deviation estimates are fairly accurate. Nevertheless, the more
detailed approach sketched in Sect. 5.10 could also be performed to account for the variability

-------
2-29
As with A horizon cesium-137, the spatial component of variance for technetium-99 is
negligible (see Table 5.10c). The technetium-99 samples were also noncomposites. Thus, the
approach described for A horizon cesium-137 can be taken for technetium-99. The lower, and
upper tolerance bounds for the 95th percentile are 1.57 and 4.41 pCi/g, respectively.
Tritium samples were also noncomposites, so lower and upper tolerance bounds for the
95th percentile are again calculated as for A horizon cesium-137. They are 0.045 and
0.100 pCi/g, respectively.
Case II—Hypothetical Situation
The Y-12 Burial Ground in the Bear Creek Valley section of the ORR has suspect
surface contamination of uranium dust and naphthalene at one of its disposal trenches.
Samples were collected and analyzed to determine the extent and amount of contamination.
The analytes of concern were identified as uranium-235, uranium-238, and naphthalene. Most
of the contamination was found to be in the upper 30 cm of soil.
Site Characteristics
Geology: Use the provisional ORR geology map (ORNLTM-12074) to obtain the
location of the contaminated areas with respect to the underlying geology. The contaminated
area was found to be underlain by the Pumpkin Valley Formation.
Soils: Soil mapping was purposely not done in burial grounds or in suspected
contaminated areas behind fences, so no soil data are available in such areas. The trench was
initially installed to a depth of 8 ft After filling, the spoil taken from the trench was used as
cover material. Contamination evidently occurred when an adjacent trench was being filled.
The soil scientist confirmed that the cover materials above the trench consisted essentially of
C horizon soil from the Pumpkin Valley Formation of the Conasauga Group, although recent
covering of nearby trenches with red clayey soil from the Knox Group had occurred, and
some red clay soil material had been pushed onto the outer edges of the contaminated area.
Background Data Selection
• BSCP data for the Pumpkin Valley Formation do not exist Since the Pumpkin Valley
Formation is part of the Conasauga Group, the Conasauga Group C horizon will be used
for obtaining background uranium values. See Table 6.1b for uranium-235 (alpha) and
uranium-238 (alpha) data. (Use of the total uranium data shown in Table 6.1b is not
recommended.)
• Data for naphthalene were collected only from the A horizons of undisturbed soils.
There were no data determined for any Conasauga Group soils. For this man-made
organic, data from overall ORR PAH analyses (Table G.10) are applicable to provide
the required estimated values.
Data for Conasauga Group C horizon (from Sect 6)
Analyte
Units
Median
UCB95
X95
LTB9595
Uranium-235
pCi/g
0.039
0.057
0.112
0.071
Uranium-238
pCi/g
0.864
1.03
1.44

-------
2-30
Data combined over sampling areas (from Table G)
Analyte
Units
Median
UCB95
X95
LTB9595
Naphthalene
Mg/kg
4.79
7.27
3130
17.10
Please refer to page 5-15 for an explanation of the headings that appear in the tables above.
Analytical Method Selection
The analytical coordinator reviewed the following information to ensure that the methods
were comparable.
• Did you compare your analytical methods with those contained in the BSCP Plan
(Energy Systems 1992, Volume 3)? Were the samples analyzed according to the EPA methods
and procedures contained in the BSCP Plan?
— The methods used for this investigation were taken from the BSCP Plan. The analyst
referred to Tables 6.5 to 6.13 in the Plan for the methods:
— EPA 8310 for napthalene and
— EPA 907.0 for isotopic uranium by alpha spectrometry.
• Did you follow the same sample preparation methods and requirements as those stated
in the BSCP Plan (Energy Systems 1992, Volume 3)?
— The laboratory used the same preparation methods as in the BSCP for napthalene, and
the uranium method was based on an anion exchange column separation (HASL
E-U-02-01). Radiochemical preparation methods must be considered, because it is very
important that the laboratory use a method employing total dissolution. Radiochemical
preparation methods are not standardized so individual laboratory procedures should be
evaluated. The BSCP used methods that provided for total dissolution.
• Did you use total dissolution methods for radiological analyses?
— Total dissolution methods were used.
• Did you incorporate any deviations or modifications in the methods, as described in the
BSCP Plan or in this report?
— No deviations or modifications to those reported by the BSCP were used for this
investigation.
• Are your data based on wet weight or dry weight?
— All weights were based on oven-dry-weight (approximately 105 °C) with percent moisture
also reported.
• Are the units associated with your data the same as those presented in this report?
— All units are the same. Napthalene was reported in jig/kg, and isotopic uranium was
reported in pCi/g.

-------
2-31
— In the decision process to determine methods, the detection limits found in Tables 6.5
to 6.13 of the BSCP Plan were reviewed and determined to be sufficient for this case
(naphthalene = 1206 /ig/kg, uranium-235 and -238 each = 0.1 pCi/g).
• Did you use the data validation guidelines developed for the BSCP, and did you refer
to the validation qualifiers (list of data validation qualifier definitions can be found in Sect
4.4) for data in this report when evaluating your data?
— Data validation guidance was used consistent with BSCP definitions.
Statistical Methods
The issue is to determine whether analyte levels at the site are within "normal"
background ranges. In Table G.5, the P-values for comparing the Dismal Gap and Nolichucky
formations in the C horizons are 0.62 for uranium-235 and 0.0018 for uranium-238. The
significant difference in uranium-238 levels for the Dismal Gap and Nolichucky formations
suggests that extrapolating from the BSCP data to the Pumpkin Valley Formation may not
be justified, at least for uranium-238 values. Nevertheless, this can be done for both uranium-
235 and uranium-238; calculations such as those for the C horizon cesium-137 are then
appropriate.
In some cases a tolerance bound for a composite may be a more useful reference value
than a tolerance bound for a noncomposite. The tolerance bounds for composites of three
are straightforward: for uranium-235, the LTB9595 is 0.071, and UTB9595, calculated using
equation 2.1, is 0.177. For uranium-238, the LTB9595 is 1.16, and the UTB9595 is 1.79.
When a noncomposited sample is analyzed, it could come from a localized area of
elevated or higher concentration, but humans, due to their normal movements, are never
exposed continuously to the upper end of the normal analyte distribution. If the analyte is
sufficiently toxic, a person continuously exposed to these high concentrations might be
affected. But, because of normal movements, the actual human exposure would always be
closer to the mean concentration than to an upper percentile concentration. In such a case,
the upper percentile would make an inappropriate reference value, and a percentile (or
tolerance bound) for a composite would be a more representative reference.
Because of analytical laboratory problems, the naphthalene data for the Conasauga
Group were excluded from the statistical analysis presented in Sect. 5. However, it is
reasonable to assume that the distribution of concentrations of naphthalene (a PAH) does
not vary with formation. (See Table G.4. None of the tests comparing naphthalene
concentrations was significant.) Thus, it is appropriate to consider statistics for the ORR as
a whole (Table G.10): median = 4.790, UCB95 = 7.27,.X95 = 3130, LTB9595 = 17.10, all
in /xg/kg. These statistics may be combined as in Case I for technetium-99 or tritium, which,
like naphthalene, were also sampled as noncomposites.
As the foregoing shows, consideration of the situation in the Geld and of the analytical
procedures at the time of sampling can establish compatibility of the site data with BSCP
data. Further analysis using statistical methods was needed to determine actual direct
comparability of the results quantitatively. Thus, if results of Geld sampling and laboratory
analyses indicate that concentrations of analytes of concern exceed pre-established criteria or

-------
2-32
in the data)—then the site can be considered contaminated and in need of remediation, with
appropriate realistic cleanup targets based on measured and validated background levels of
the analytes of concern.
Refer to Sect. 2.4.4 for guidance relative to the evaluation of risk due to background

-------
3-1
3. FIELD INVESTIGATION, GAMMA SCREENING ANALYSES,
AND QUALITATIVE SITE EVALUATION
3.1 SUMMARY
This section discusses pertinent aspects of obtaining soil samples for analysis according
to project objectives. To this end, the section covers sampling site selection, sample
preparation procedures, field quality control, and results of site screening activities. To meet
sampling requirements, field operations were planned and executed as follows:
•	In the first half of Phase I, the Dismal Gap Formation was sampled at 24 locations, both
on-site (12 on the ORR) and off-site (12 in Roane County).
•	In the second half of Phase I, 24 more sites were sampled (12 on the ORR in the
Nolichucky and 12 in the Dismal Gap in Anderson County) for a total of 48 sites in
Phase L These operations were conducted during FY 1992.
•	In Phase II activities, 12 Copper Ridge sites and 12 Chepultepec sites were sampled on
the Oak Ridge Reservation's (ORR's) Chestnut Ridge plus 12 Chickamauga sites in
Bethel Valley and 12 Chickamauga sites in the East Fork (designated as K-25) area of
the ORR, In addition, 12 Copper Ridge sites were sampled in Roane County and 12
Copper Ridge sites were sampled in Anderson County during Phase H
32. INTRODUCTION
The Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) lies in an area characterized by elongated ridges and
broad-to-narrow valleys which run northeast to southwest The hydrologic system on the
ORR, including both surface water and groundwater, is controlled regionally by the Clinch
River. The climate of the area is generally temperate with warm, humid summers and cool
winters, and the average annual rainfall in the Oak Ridge area is approximately 136 cm.
Geologically, the area is characterized by three principal rock groups (the Conasauga,
Knox, and Chickamauga). There are two major categories of soils: residual soils developed
from in-place weathered residuum of the geologic groups and soils developed in partially
sorted colluvial and alluvial soil materials. Within the first of these residual soil groups, only
the major formations of the area are considered in this investigation, because they represent
the dominant soils at waste area groupings and operable units in imminent remedial action
projects on the ORR. These formations are Dismal Gap and Nolichucky of the Conasauga
Group, Copper Ridge and Chepultepec of the Knox Group, and deeply weathered soils of
the Chickamauga Group. Soils formed in the Knox and Chickamauga groups were sampled
and analyzed in the Phase II activities of this project Soils from the Rome Formation, which
is not one of the three major rock groups, do not appear with regularity at contaminated sites
on the ORR and, for that reason, were not addressed in this project
Early soil sampling activities were restricted to residual soils of the two most
representative Conasauga Group geologic formations of six: the Dismal Gap Formation
(formerly Maryville Limestone) and Nolichucky Formation within the Bear Creek Valley
section. Three areas within this geologic section were chosen. The ORR area extended from

-------
3-2
Two off-site areas in the same geologic strike zone were located to the southwest in Roane
County and to the northeast in Anderson County (Fig. 3.1). Only residual soils of the Dismal
Gap and Copper Ridge formations were sampled at both on-site ORR and off-site locations:
Three geographic areas within the Chestnut Ridge section of this formation were chosen. The
ORR area extended from the Clinch River on the west to the Roane County-Anderson
County boundary on the east Two off-site areas in the same geologic strike zone were
located to the southwest in Roane County and to the northeast in Anderson County
(Fig. 3.1). In addition, the Chepultepec Formation was sampled on the ORR, as were
Chickamauga sites located both in Bethel Valley and in the East Fork (K-25 Site) area of the
ORR. Several Bethel Valley Chickamauga sites were located in Anderson County. The
selection of which parent materials to sample in each sampling area reflected the availability
of limited resources and the goal of maximizing project effectiveness, in addition to
considering technical factors, such as site accessibility and the availability of suitable sampling
sites that fit the selection criteria discussed in Sect 33.
33 SAMPLING SITE SELECTION
Sampling sites on the ORR were confined mostly to the Roane County portion, but some
ORR Bethel Valley Chickamauga sites were located in Anderson County (Fig. 3.2). Recent
digitized soil maps (available from the Oak Ridge Environmental Information System), where
residual soils had been related to the underlying geologic formations, provided the base map
for generating most potential ORR sites. A statistical program was used to randomly select
grid coordinates that fell on predetermined soil map delineations of those soils of greatest
extent. No two sites were to be less than 250 ft apart. This methodology resulted in the
generation of a base map with potential sampling locations for the Dismal Gap, Nolichucky,
Copper Ridge, Chepultepec and some of the Bethel Valley Chickamauga soils. Each ORR
potential sampling site was assigned a unique number. In addition, the statistical program
determined primary and secondary sampling sites. Secondary sites are alternate site locations
in case the primary sites were unacceptable in terms of the selection criteria discussed below.
In several cases on the ORR. both primary and secondary sites were unacceptable, resulting
in the soil scientist looking nearby for enough potential sites that would meet the criteria. The
majority of ORR Chickamauga sites were selected by the soil scientist became of the extreme
soil variability. Potential sites in southwestern Roane (Fig. 33) and northeastern Anderson
(Fig. 3.4) counties were selected somewhat differently because of ownership, vegetation
(Figs. 3.1-3.4), and past disturbance constraints. Anderson County and Roane County sites
are located within the shaded remote site areas, as shown in Fig. 3.1. In these off-site
locations, more than 48 potential sites were located in the field. Those sites eventually chosen
were located along the entire distance of the evaluated area and had to meet the vegetation
and disturbance requirements discussed below.
33.1 Site Evaluation
Individual site evaluation used the following criteria.
Vegetation and disturbance. The site had to be in forest that had not been disturbed for
at least the past 40 ± 5 years. Forest was either hardwoods, mixed old-field successional
pines-cedars and hardwoods, or older planted loblolly pine plantations. Recently replanted
pine plantations were rejected because the surface had been disturbed too recently. Each site

-------
3-3
OHNL-OWG S1Z-14221R
ANDERSON
COUNTY
COUNTY LINE
~ OAK RIDGE
RESERVATION
ROANE
COUNTY
SAMPLING AREA
Fig. 3.1.

-------
3-4
ORNL-DWG 93M-9336
5.OOOE
10.000E
15.000E
20.000E
25.000E
30.000E
35.000E
40.000E
EXPLANATION
Och	Undivided Chickamauga Group £mn	Maynardville Formation
Ock	Undivided Knox Group	-Gn	Nolichucky Formation
Ock(R)	Knox Group (Remaining)	-Cdg	Dismal Gap Formation
Oc	Chepultepec Formation	-Gr	Rome Formation
"Gcr	Copper Ridge Formation	•	Approx. Site Locations
-ec(R)	Conasauga Group (Remaining)
Ock(R)
Others
26* 2/* 32. . yyr»4f»"43
23»«»25.31» 	 «42
Bear Creek
Valley Road
Oc i
Ock(R)
Bethel Valley Road
ORNL
-ec(R)
-Emn
TRUE
NORTH NOBTH
1 5 Km
5.000E
10.OOOE
15.000E
20.000E
25.000E
30 OOOE
35.000E
40OOOE
45 OOOE
50,OOOE
55.OOOE
60 OOOE
65 OOOE

-------
3-5
ORNLDWG 93M-1364R2
730600

%
Salem
Baptist
Church
730600
149650
Roads
IAH Transmission lines
P*1 Phase I soil sampling sites
m Phase II soil sampling sites
Source map: Pattie
Gap Quadrangle
Projection: Tennessee
State Plane (meters)
METERS
BSE
n
1000
I
\
si
&

-------
3-6
ORNLDWG 93M-1365R2
794700
209000
> Nonis
jf J ___/ Zion^ 40
6 Church

Church
To Haife
35A36l
32 A A A *
31 ts34!
To Knoxville
(14 mi)
f/vl Roads
UVI Transmission lines
I -k 1 Phase I soil sampling sites
1 a 1 Phase II soil sampling sites
Source map: Parts of Powell, Norris
and Big Ridge Quadrangles
Projection: Tennessee
State Plane (meters)
METERS
1000
\
FN

-------
3-7
to the actual landform in the woods. If the vegetation parameter was met, then the next
evaluation parameter was considered.
Initial soO evaluation. Several soil evaluations were made in an area surrounding the
potential 3- by 3-m sampling site to determine whether the soil there was entirely of residual
origin and not colluvium, or of a thin capping of colluvium over residuum, which was
considered to be an acceptable site. The center of the actual sampling site was then located,
and plastic ribbon was tied around one or more trees. The closest route in from the nearest
point of accesswas also flagged so that the site could be located again some time after the
initial evaluation.
332. Selected Sites
After the initial vegetation and soil screenings were finished for all of the potential sites,
the following ORR sites were found to be suitable:
•	Dismal Gap/primary; 11, 22, 26. 3Z 33, and 41;
•	Dismal Gap/secondary: 1. 2, 4, 10, 19, 27, 35. and 43;
•	Nolichucky/primary: 15. 23, 24, 25, and 31;
•	Nolichucky/secondary: 3, 5, 13, 16, 21, 28, and 42;
•	Copper Ridge/primary; 45, 55, 60, 62, 64, 75, 83, and 91;
•	Copper Ridge/secondarv: 51, 54, 58, and 59;
•	Chepultepec/primary: 50, 52, 66, 68, 73, 74, 77, 78, 85, 86, and 90;
•	Chepultepec/secondary: 53;
•	Chickamauga: No primary or secondary sites were designated. Twenty of the 24 were
selected by the soil scientist using criteria described elsewhere in this section. Field
variance procedures were also used for the Bethel Valley part of the Chickamauga
sampling and site grouping procedures.
333 Composited Sample Sites
After 12 sites were chosen for each formation, a randomizing process was used to
determine the grouping of threes for the compositing procedure specified in the sampling
plan in Sect. 53 of the Background Soil Characterization Project (BSCP) Plan (Energy
Systems 1992).
Following are the groupings for the ORR sites:
•	Dismal Gap: [27 41 11] [22 19 32] [33 10 35] [2 43 26],
•	Nolichucky: [15 23 25] [16 28 42] [5 21 31] [3 13 24],
•	Copper Ridge: [91 59 58] [62 51 55] [75 60 45] [83 54 64],
•	Chepultepec: [53 78 52] [85 86 77] [74 68 90] [66 50 73],
•	Chickamauga-Bethel Valley: [93 99 100] [101 102 103] [104 108 110] [115 116 117] (The
Bethel Valley groupings were not randomly generated because of a systematic
distribution of cesium-137 but were instead cluster grouped to determine whether other
anthropogenic compounds had a similar nonrandom distribution.), and
•	Chickamauga-K-25: [120 129 126] [118 124 122] [119 127 123] [125 128 121].
The exact sequence of sampling a site within any particular sampling group was not

-------
3-8
33.4 Selection and Initial Evaluation of Off-Site Locations
Conventional U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps were used to locate potential
sampling areas in southwest Roane County and in northeast Anderson County, so that these
potential areas were in the same strike belt Conasauga Group section and Copper Ridge
section as the ORR Dismal Gap and Cr->per Ridge sites. The University of Tennessee
sampling crew made the potential site .ection by using the same vegetation and soil
parameters described elsewhere in this section. Independent confirmation was obtained that,
of the-Roane County sites, 12 were in the Dismal Gap Formation and 12 in the Copper
Ridge Section. Because of both present and past land uses off-site, the potential number of
sampling areas was severely limited, but no two adjacent sampling sites could be closer than
250 ft Twenty four sampling sites that met the vegetation, soils, and past land use criteria
were selected in Roane County and 24 in Anderson County (12 in the Dismal Gap and 12
in the Copper Ridge). A radiation scan was not performed for any off-site sampling location.
After the Roane and Anderson sites were selected, a random drawing process was used
to generate combinations of sites for compositing purposes. Following are the combinations
that were generated:
•	Roane County/Dismal Gap: [9 17 19] [3 7 21] [8 20 22] [10 13 14],
•	Anderson County/Dismal Gap: [21 4 12] [19 9 10] [3 5 11] [22 1 20],
•	Roane County/Copper Ridge: [33 35 44] [40 42 43] [46 47 45] [34 39 41], and
•	Anderson County/Copper Ridge: [31 32 36] [34 35 33] [39 42 40] [41 37 38].
3.4	SITE AND SOIL DESCRIPTIONS
The site and soil narrative descriptions are presented in Appendix A for on-site ORR
locations and off-site locations in Roane and Anderson counties. Also included in Appendix A
are tables giving the approximate coordinates of each site. Each site is described in numerical
order within any location. In the appendix. ORR sampling sites are described first, followed
by descriptions of the Roane County and Anderson County sites.
3.5	SAMPLING PROCEDURES
Field operations and sample handling were governed by the following procedures
developed specifically for this project:
•	Background Soil Characterization Project, Procedure BSCP-SOP-01, Rev. 1, May 23,
1992; and
•	Background Soil Characterization Project, Procedure BSCP-SOP-02, Rev. 0, August 6,
1992.
These procedures were developed based on the following references: EPA (1980. 1987a,
1987b, and 1991a); ANSI/ASTM (1980); and Kimbrough et al. (1988).
A performance-based training plan was initiated for all personnel involved with soil
sampling activities. The technical coordinator tested the team sampling leader in all aspects

-------
3-9
the soil sampling and signing chain-of-custody forms received performance-based training and
testing. Technicians received on-the-job training for those activities in which they were
involved and were supervised in these activities, either by the technical coordinator or by the
sampling team leader.
3.6 SOIL SAMPLING AND SAMPLE PREPARATION
3.6.1 Scope and Objective
Procedure BSCP-SOP-Ol, Rev. 1 describes the siting of soil sampling locations and soil
sampling methodology. The objectives of the procedure are to (1) select representative
sampling sites and (2) obtain representative soil samples for characterization. This procedure
was prepared to meet the project quality assurance/quality control and health and safety
objectives (BSCP Plan, Energy Systems 1992).
3A2 Materials
Required equipment for Geld sampling operations is described in Procedure
BSCP-SOP-Ol, Rev. 1.
3.63 Field Activities
3.63.1 Locating sampling sites
The soil scientist located potential sampling sites based on location of grid nodes on site
location maps (Figs. 32 through 3.4). At selected sites, the following stepwise assessment was
made before sampling based on the following criteria:
1. Field evidence must substantiate that the present forest vegetation had not been
disturbed for the last 40 ± 5 years. Young pine plantations were not considered. Only old
hardwood forest, old field forest regrowth, and old pine plantation areas were considered
as potential sampling sites. If a primary site was unsuitable because of recent surface
disturbance, it was rejected with an explanatory note in the soil scientist's logbook, and
the secondary site was evaluated for its potential suitability. If this process did not
provide sufficient primary and secondary sites selected by random procedures, the soil
scientist made additional selections.
2. If a site was deemed to have potential based on vegetation cover, the first soil observed
near the grid point that qualified for sampling marked one corner of the proposed
sample site. This was one way of reducing soil scientist bias. After one corner of the
sample site had been located, additional soil observations were made within a 4-m radius
of the located grid point to determine whether the proposed site was uniform enough
for sampling or for additional sampling in the future. Proposed sampling areas were
located on the most stable part of the landform with the intent that there would have
been minimal overland runoff and removal of surface soil materials over the past 40 or
so years or recent deposition. The purpose of the additional soil observations was to
determine that most of the site was composed of residual soils, not of thick colluvium or

-------
3-10
locating enough suitable sites, soils with a thin colluvial or alluvial capping less than
50 cm thick were considered suitable for sampling.
3. If the soils and vegetation cover were suitable, then an area approximately 3 by 3 m was
selected and located by flagging around nearby trees. Soil observations were made at the
four corners of this square area, and brief soil evaluations were made. Disturbance within
the square was kept to a minimum. Soil from these limited observations was not placed
within the 3-by-3-m area. The site number was painted on at least one marker stake. This
stake was driven into the ground at one corner of the sampling square. Other stakes
were placed at the other three corners. These stakes remained in place until all sampling
had been completed. Care was taken to minimize surface disturbance of the sampling
area when digging pits. On a sloping site, the sampling pit was always located at the
lowest point, and the upslope face, if suitable, was sampled. Often, in a forested area,
filled-in stump holes were exposed in digging the pit, and another pit face had to be
selected. In situations where there was highly variable depth to rock, a pit face other
than the upslope face had to be sampled. Soil removed from the pit was placed outside
the 3-by-3-m site.
4. The most feasible route from the sampling site to the road was flagged so that the site
could be easily relocated.
5. All ORR sites were scanned before any sampling using a hand-held radiation detector.
An air reading and a ground-level reading were obtained. If the ground-level radiation
reading was higher than 100 cpm, then the site was considered contaminated. Where
ground-level readings were above 80 counts per minute (cpm), a reading was taken in
the top of the auger hole to determine whether a higher level of radioactivity existed in
the upper mineral soil. Off-reservation sites in Roane and Anderson counties were not
scanned with the detector. Volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from selected
sites were monitored by an industrial hygienist during sampling (only 25% of ORR sites).
6. After all sampling had been completed, a permanent, steel-marker fence post, suitably
labeled, was placed at the center of each site (only ORR sites), so that the site could be
relocated.
3.632. Sampling methods
After arriving at or near the sampling site, all equipment to be used for sampling (which
had been precleaned, rinsed, and wrapped in aluminum foil in the laboratory) was thoroughly
rinsed with deionized water and then rewrapped with aluminum foii. A small pit was dug in
a topographically lower part of the sampling square, so that the area above the pit was not
disturbed. Soil horizons were evaluated in this small pit If the soil exposure was suitable, the
pit width was enlarged, so that enough soil area was exposed to acquire the volume needed
for the sample. Initial pit excavation was done with a steel shovel or spade. The soil profile
was described from the pit face to be sampled before collecting Environmental Sciences
Division (ESD) composite samples of A, B, and C horizons. The newly exposed pit face was
cut back about 1-2 cm with stainless steel soil sampling equipment to expose a fresh face.
The forest litter layer was removed down to the mineral surface. If a pit had been opened
previously for other sampling, the old pit face was cut back at least 18 cm, exposing a fresh
face to obtain undisturbed samples. A fresh, precleaned, and field-rinsed stainless steel

-------
3-11
not reused in the field until they had been thoroughly cleaned back at the Soil Preparation
Laboratory (SPL).
Surface horizon sampling. At least two conditions could be encountered in sampling the
surface layer. First, the site could be located in an area that had never been plowed. The
horizonation would usually be an O horizon followed by an A horizon. This A horizon,
usually thin, is less than 10 cm thick unless there has been recent deposition, and is underlain
by an E horizon. Second, the site could be located in an old field with naturally regenerated
forest or in- a pine plantation with trees at least 40 years okL Here the soil would usually have
an O horizon of forest litter followed by a dark-colored A horizon that is 2 cm to about 5 or
6 cm thick. Beneath this horizon is a lighter colored old Ap horizon that typically extends to
a depth of 15 to 18 cm. This particular horizon may not always be recognized as an old Ap
horizon but instead as an E horizon. In the event of old fields that have been abandoned to
forest 40 to 50 years ago, the surficial organic O horizon and the uppermost A horizon have
reformed since the last disturbance. The upper organic enriched mineral horizons, designated
as A or Ap, were sampled and labeled A horizon. At some sites, there was no A horizon or
only an A horizon less than 2 cm thick. In this situation, the thin A horizon and the
underlying E horizon were sampled. At all forested sites, sampling usually required the
removal of tree roots. As poison ivy grows nearly everywhere, care was taken by samplers to
protect against it. A small stainless steel trowel or spatula was used to push soil into the
mouth of the sample jar. If any soil went past the mouth of the jar and came into contact
with the sampler's hand, the soil was discarded. All sampling was done in this manner, where
the soil that was collected came into contact only with the stainless steel sampling tool. The
only exception was for gamma screening samples where, because of the geometry of the
sampling container, the soil was packed into the lower part of the container using a clean
tool, which conformed to QC Level H
Three different soil samples were collected from the surface A horizon soiL
Noncomposited A horizon samples were collected for (1) VOC analysis in a 250-mL amber
glass bottle, (2) tritium analysis in a 1000-mL clear glass bottle, and (3) organic compound
(such as PAHs, pesticides, and herbicides) analyses in a 1000-mL amber bottle. Bottles were
capped, labeled, and sealed with a custody seal One additional A horizon sample was
collected in a 2-L bottle and labeled, "ESD A Horizon Composite." All A horizon samples
were placed in a chilled ice chest in the field and then placed into a refrigerator maintained
at 4° ± 4°C
Each soil sample had an attached label to uniquely identify that sample. If an A horizon
field duplicate sample was obtained for VOC, organics, or tritium analysis, it was identified
by the letters "FD" after the sample identification number. The choice of site from which to
obtain an A horizon duplicate was at the discretion of the soil scientist. Any used gloves were
discarded into a trash bag.
Subsoil (B horizon) sampling. The subsoil, either a Bt horizon or a Bw horizon, was
sampled at all sites but only for compositing purposes. Only horizons 8 cm thick or thicker
were sampled individually. Thin subsoil horizons were grouped so that a minimum 15-cm
thickness was sampled. The surface of the subsoil horizon was exposed by removing any soil
horizons above it. Final removal of overlying soil was done using stainless steel equipment
At least 1.5 kg of the subsoil samples were collected at a designated depth determined from
the field description using stainless steel sampling equipment and placed into a suitably

-------
3-12
in the SPL. If the Bt or Bw horizon was less than 15 cm thick, its entire thickness was
sampled. Otherwise, only the upper 15 cm was sampled. Samplers wore suitable gloves as
needed for the hand work, and the presence of poison ivy roots necessitated protection at
some sites. B horizon samples were all labeled, "ESD B Horizon Composite."
C horizon or substratum sampling. Soils having a shallow depth to the C or Cr horizon
were sampled with manual digging equipment This included soils in the Dismal Gap and
Nolichucky formations and some soils in the Chickamauga. Soils in the Copper Ridge and
Chepultepec formations required hand augering equipment to penetrate deep enough to
reach such soil materials. The C horizon or substratum is defined as that depth in the soil
where there is minimal evidence of translocated clay and where there is minimal expression
of pedogenic soil structure. The C horizon of soils varied; in some, it was composed of mostly
saprolite; in some, saprolitic materials; and in some, clayey materials lying directly on bedrock.
Depth to the soil layer to be sampled was established by the project soil scientist at each site
as sampling was done. However, earlier observations assisted in determining the approximate
depth of sampling. At least 1.5 kg of C horizon soil samples were collected from depths
predetermined from field description using clean stainless steel equipment, placed in glass jars,
and labeled, "ESD C Horizon Composite."
Duplicate samples and composited SPL splits. Duplicate soil samples from A. B, and C
horizons were collected from at least one composited group per geologic formation for the
ORR, Roane, and Anderson locations. The practice of collecting field duplicates for
compositing purposes required that a set of A, B, and C horizon samples be collected from
one face of the soil pit Then, the field duplicate set was obtained from a side face of the
same soil pit to expedite field operations, rather than digging another soil pit Field duplicates
for compositing purposes were identified by the letters "FD" after the sample number. The
primary set and the field duplicate set were treated as completely different during SPL
compositing procedures.
Field splits were generated in the following manner. Enough additional sample from each
of the three horizons to be composited was collected in the field. After the SPL compositing
was done, the thoroughly mixed sample was divided into two parts. The first part was placed
into a precleaned sample jar and labeled, for example, "metals, A horizon." Another jar, filled
with the second part, would have the same designation but a different number and would be
listed as a composited split in the laboratory note ooL The contract laboratory was not
informed in advance that there were splits. Field dut_ acates were obtained periodically during
BSCP sampling activities. Composited field splits were generated only during the latter part
of sampling activities.
Gamma screening samples. Six 5-cm-deep increment samples were collected from a 10-
by 10-cm area in special plastic containers for cesium-137 determination by gamma
spectroscopy. Detailed steps for collecting ESD gamma soil samples follow.
1. After a site had been located and preliminary observations made, including a radiation
scan, a pit was dug to a depth of 50 to 60 cm at one corner of the 3- by 3-m site.
2. Surface litter and organic matter layers were removed to expose the mineral soil surface

-------
3-13
3. A 10 cm x 10 cm x 5 cm-deep stainless steel frame was laid on the soil surface and
carefully hammered into the soil to its 5-cm depth.
4. Soil from three sides of the frame was removed. A knife or a spatula was used to sever
roots and soil from beneath the frame. All soil was removed from the outer sides of the
frame before it was placed onto aluminum foil.
5. The soil inside the frame was packed into a 500-mL marinelli beaker. The label was filled
out after packing and cross-checked with the field book entry: Large roots (> 1 cm diam)
were not put into the container. When samples had a considerable number of coarse
fragments—for example, soils in the Knox Group—fine earth was packed into the
container first, and the coarse fragments were added on top. The container lid was
placed, taped, and custody sealed.
6. The sampling frame and equipment were wiped clean of soil using paper towels and a
brass wire brush before the next 5-cm increment was collected.
7. The soil from the sampling area was removed down to the top of the next depth in an
area larger than that to be sampled. The clean stainless steel frame was placed on the
soil and driven into its full 5-cm depth. The soil was removed and packed following the
previously described procedure.
8. This procedure was repeated at 5-cm increments to a depth of 30 cm.
3.633 Preparation of composited sofl samples in the SPL
The following steps were employed in preparing soil samples for analysis.
1. Composite samples (to be composited) of A, B, and C horizons brought from sampling
sites were refrigerated until soil sampling of all three sites in the predetermined group
was completed.
2. Individual composite samples were placed on clean blotting paper to partially dry before
sieving. All of the samples were passed through a 4.75-mm stainless steel sieve in the
laboratory. The coarse fragments (>4.75 mm) were discarded after determination of the
weight contribution to the whole soil sample. An equal amount (about 1 kg or more) of
three equivalent horizon samples (passed through the 4.75-mm sieve) was composited by
through mixing in stainless steel containers. Mi-ring involved pouring the sample from one
stainless steel container into another several times while the pouring container was
rotated. If a sample splitter was used, it produced a mixed composited sample sooner, but
care had to be taken not to raise excess dust. One-third of each composited sample was
stored in a precleaned glass jar for metal analyses, one-third in a polypropylene bottle
for radionuclide analyses, and the remaining one-third (labeled "extra") in a glass bottle
for use in measurement of soil properties, such as pH, and for neutron activation analysis
(NAA). Additional samples and jars were required if composited splits were generated.
The compositing procedure resulted in the destruction of the original field composite A,
B, and C horizon soil samples. New sample numbers were assigned to all SPL composited
soil samples, and a new chain-of-custody form was completed. The sampling time (and
date) for composited samples corresponded to the original field composite sample with

-------
3-14
3. The composited B and C horizon soil samples and noncomposited A horizon soil samples
were preserved in the SPL refrigerator until packed for shipment Samples were shipped
to the designated contract laboratories through the Analytical Projects Office according
to Procedure BSCP-SOP-OZ Rev. 0.
Additionally, note that
• Soil profile descriptions were recorded in the field sampling notebook. Soil profile
descriptions were not made until the soil pit was dug to the depth required for sampling
B and C horizons. Any horizons that were field grouped for sampling because of thinness
were noted in the field book.
• A variance form was used where field conditions necessitated a change in sampling
procedure (none were needed in Phase I, but more than one were executed in ORR
Phase II activities). It was intended that the sampling and compositing procedures would
be the same for all sites underlain by a particular geologic formation(s).
3.63.4 NAA samples
Composited samples of all A, B, and C horizons that had been labeled "extra" and
preserved in a refrigerator were subsampled for NAA. A'40-mL precleaned glass sample jar
with a teflon seal was filled with soil from a large clear glass "extra" jar. A small sampling
device was used to obtain a vertical cross-section sample from the large glass jar. Sampling
was done in this manner until the 40-mL jar was filled. The small sample jar was given the
same "extra" composited sample number but was designated "NAA." A laboratory
chain-of-custody form was completed, and the samples were transferred to the Analytical
Chemistry Division at ORNL. After the samples had been returned to the SPL, the moisture
content of each was determined. Consistent with other CLP method requirements, the
moisture content was used to convert all NAA results to an oven-dry-soil basis.
3.63.5 Cleaning sample containers and sampling tools
Precleaned glass jar sample containers used by field sampling teams were obtained from
a commercial supplier. Analytical results of the last rinse water for the lot were provided by
the supplier. Stainless steel sampling devices were cleaned by field sampling teams in the SPL
using Method ESP-900 (Environmental Surveillance Procedures, Kimbrough et al. 1988).
Soil-contaminated tools were brought into the soils laboratory. They were first washed in tap
water and a detergent, then thoroughly rinsed with warm tap water. The tools were then
carefully rinsed with SPL distilled water for a total of five rinses. The tools were given
another five rinses with deionized distilled water and then wrapped while wet in one or more
thicknesses of aluminum foil and placed in a cardboard box ready for transport to the field.
An acid rinse and a solvent rinse called for in the above ESP-900 procedure were not applied
to stainless steel field and laboratory equipment. A final deionized water rinse of the sampling
devices was performed in the field before sampling. The effectiveness of the equipment
cleaning and any potential contamination during sampling trips was monitored by submitting
rinse water samples for analysis (five times by on-site and off-site sampling teams). The quality
of the deionized and organic-free water used was monitored by collecting samples (once from
on-site and off-site water sources) in standard precleaned sample containers and submitting

-------
3-15
3.63.6 Maintenance and calibration of SPL balances, oven, refrigerator, and
other equipment used in so3 preparation activities
The SPL balance was used to weigh soil for compositing, to obtain the weight of coarse
fragments, and to determine moisture contents of soil samples. The electronic balance is
recalibrated every 6 months. In use, the balance was zeroed before anything was placed on
the pan. The weight was recorded after the balance stabilized and an "OK" appeared in the
display window. The accuracy of the balance was verified using a standard weight In addition,
a set of brass weights ranging from 1 g to 2000 g was used to determine both accuracy and
precision. This information was recorded in the BSCP laboratory notebook.
Periodic temperature monitoring was conducted of the refrigerator, the ice chests used
to cool soil samples in the field, and the ice chests used in the transfer to analytical
laboratories. Temperature measurements made with a max/min thermometer indicated that
a temperature range of 4° ±4°C was maintained most of the time. However, the EPA
standard is 4° ±2°C. The addition of several relatively warm samples could raise the
temperature above 8°C for a short time. There were a few instances where a VOC trip blank
was taken to the field with too much ice, resulting in partial freezing of the trip blank before
warmer soil samples were added to the ice chest. Temperature data were recorded in the
laboratory and field notebooks where appropriate.
The oven in the SPL was monitored periodically to ensure that the drying temperature
was maintained between 100° and 104° C. These monitoring data were recorded in the
laboratory notebook.
The deionized water used for sampling equipment rinsing was monitored periodically for
conductivity. This information was put in the laboratory notebook.
3.63.7 Maintenance and transfer of records
Original records were maintained in the SPL (Building 1505, Room 375 at ORNL) for
all BSCP ORR sampling activities. For University of Tennessee sampling activities, some
original documents were kept there, and copies were kept in Room 375. Records were kept
in a file cabinet with a list of contents. After each phase of the project had been completed
and the data verified, copies were made of each document, and the originals were transferred
to archived storage. Transfer was accomplished by a chain-of-custody procedure, where the
original documents to be transferred were listed individually. Copies remain in the SPL for
reference and review.
3.63.8 Management of noncontaminated waste in the SPL
Waste generated in the SPL consisted of emptied glass jars, excess soil beyond what was
needed for compositing purposes, soil in gamma scan containers, soil in VOC sample bottles
returned from the Y-12 Plant VOC analytical laboratory, and blotting paper. Because none
of the these waste materials contained any hazardous metals, organics, or radionuclides,
disposal was done as follows. The plastic lids and teflon seals were removed from the glass
jars and placed into a suitable trash container at the rear of Building 1505. The glass jars were
placed in the glass dumpster at the rear of Building 1505. Blotting paper was placed into the
waste container in Room 375 for removal by cleaning personnel. Excess soil was returned to

-------
3-16
If the SPL should have any contaminated samples, they would be disposed of under
laboratory standard operating procedures.
3.7 FIELD QUALITY CONTROL OBJECTIVES AND METHODS
There were three major objectives for achieving field quality control:
1. selection of representative sampling sites undisturbed by recent activities, including ORR
facility activities or off-site activities, such as farming operations or recreational uses, that
resulted in surface soil disturbance;
2. collection of representative samples and transfer of these samples to analytical
laboratories; and
3. prevention of cross-contamination at any site and between sites, which included
maintaining a complete chain of custody and detailed records of all field and laboratory
compositing activities.
Any sign of recent (in the past 40 to 50 years) land disturbance or the presence of
man-made organic compounds or radionuclides above global fallout levels would immediately
result in a site being rejected. Potential sites were initially chosen on the basis of the lack of
any recent land disturbance which, for most sites, was the presence of old-field successional
forest Nearly all of the sites had been cultivated and severely eroded before being abandoned
or planted in pine trees on the ORR or allowed to revert back to forest on private lands.
Site screening on ORR sites included the following:
1. Sites were scanned for radiation. Any ground-level reading above 100 cpm resulted in a
site being rejected. However, no potential sampling sites were rejected for this reason.
2. Selected ORR sites were monitored for organics by an industrial hygienist while a
sampling pit was opened, either for the first time or when the pit was reopened to collect
additional samples.
3. Samples of each A horizon were collected for VOC analysis at all sites. Site screening
at Roane County and Anderson County sites consisted of collecting VOA samples from
all A horizons. The BSCP Plan stated that VOC analyses would be done according to
EPA Analytical Level IL Analytical laboratory data in the BSCP adhere to EPA
Level IV methods, procedures, and documentation requirements. The Y-12 Plant
Laboratory used Level IV methodology and procedures in determining VOC levels but.
because the results were to be used only for screening purposes to reject unacceptable
sampling sites (by preactivitv), these results were required to be reported anc
documented only to Level II, because more rigorous requirements were unnecessary.
Field quality levels ranged from data quality (DQ) Level II to DQ Level IV. However,
in practice, DQ Level IV was adhered to throughout all field sampling activities, including
screening samples for VOCs, where samples were placed into precleaned glass containers.

-------
3-17
(Energy Systems 1992). The following discussion covers the procedures followed in collecting
samples.
Before going to the field, all stainless steel sampling equipment was thoroughly washed
with soap and water followed by a prescribed number of distilled water rinses. After the final
rinse, the equipment was wrapped with aluminum foil. The sampling equipment was taken to
the field in the back of a pickup truck. At or near the site, the sampling equipment was
unwrapped and given a field rinse, then immediately rewrapped until it was used. Some sites
were - located a considerable distance from the closest point of access.- In these instances,
rinsing was done at the truck and the equipment was wrapped in aluminum foil, placed into
a backpack, and carried to the site. A small pit was dug with a steel shovel deep enough to
place the sample jar below the soil horizon to be sampled. A sampling tool was unwrapped
and used to remove soil from the pit face directly into the jar. At no time did fingers touch
a soil sample placed into a precleaned glass sample container. Soil pushed by the sampling
tool beyond the mouth of the jar was discarded. The only exception to this rule was placing
soil into the ESD gamma poly containers. Placing the entire volume of soil into the gamma
poly container required that the soil be packed into the lower restricted space either with
fingers or with a freshly cut stick of a convenient diameter. After each soil horizon was
sampled, a new sampling tool was used to collect samples from the next soil horizon. All soil-
contaminated stainless steel sampling tools were returned to the laboratory for standard
cleaning, rinsing, and wrapping in aluminum foil. Shovels used to open and fill pits were
thoroughly cleaned between sites to prevent any cross-contamination. In addition, soil
removed from pits was placed outside the 3- by 3-m sample area.
Each sample was given its own identification number in the field. This number and the
description of each sample were first recorded in the field logbook. From the field logbook,
sample container labels were completed and placed on glass sample jars, after the jar was
filled. Each sample logged into the field logbook then was transcribed onto a field
chain-of-custody form which was signed by all personnel involved in the sampling operation.
SPL operations after compositing consisted of placing soil samples in a refrigerator,
preparing laboratory chain-of-custody forms, packing samples into ice chests, and taking them
to shipping or, in the case of the UT SPL, bringing them to the ESD SPL at ORNL for
storage until they were sent for analysis. In the latter half of Phase I and all of Phase II
activities, preparation of laboratory chain-of-custody forms and new container labels, the
packing, and the shipping were done by MAD/APO personnel, according to Procedure
BSCP-SOP-02, Rev. 0.
The compositing process resulted in the destruction of the individual site A horizon, B
horizon, and C horizon samples and the creation of new composited samples. All of these
activities were recorded in the ESD soils laboratory logbook. New sample numbers were first
recorded in the laboratory logbook, then transcribed onto container labels and the
appropriate chain-of-custody form.
The field change/variance system (Sect. 6.6.1.9 of the BSCP Plan, Energy Systems 1992,
Volume 3) was not utilized in any Phase I activities, but it was used in certain ORR Phase
II activities, primarily to make changes in implementing cluster compositing of the Bethel
Valley Chickamauga sites (see Sect. 5.2.1). The clustering procedure grouped each set of

-------
3-18
3.8 QUALITATIVE RESULTS OF GAMMA SPECTROSCOPY SCREENING
The objective of gamma screening was to determine whether any of the sites had been
affected by ORR facility or off-site activities in the past or had been subjected to recent
erosion or deposition. Gamma spectroscopy shows the activities of several radionuclides in
soils. There are several important natural radionuclides such as potassium-40. thorium, and
radon-226, and there can be several anthropogenic radionuclides including cesium-137.
Cesium-137 activities in the upper 30 cm of soil profiles at each site were used as a screening
parameter. If the potential site bad a cesium-137 radioactivity level caused by local sources
that was much higher than regional background fallout level, it could be rejected as a
sampling site, if there was no obvious explanation from the site description. The presence of
any other anthropogenic radionuclide would also have resulted in rejection of a sampling site.
The average background level of cesium-137 for the southeastern United States is now about
8.5 pCi/cm2. However, soils located in areas that received deposition from higher areas could
have up to 14 pCi/cm2, and soils from erosional landforms could have much lower values. Soils
located on a stable landform would be ideal for the BSCP. However, it was necessary to use
some sites that were less desirable than the ideal, but which, in fact, represent the real world
better, as there are no ideal sites.
The gamma screening samples were counted on a high-resolution, solid state, coaxial,
intrinsic, germanium detector coupled to an ND9900 multichannel analyzer with 4096
channels. The gamma system had previously been calibrated with a laboratory control sample
(National Bureau of Standards SRM 4353 Rocky Flats Soil) in the geometry used to contain
the soil samples. The documentation of analytical results was prepared at DQ Level II, but
the analytical procedure used for the soil samples was DQ Level IV. For example, the
laboratory control sample, laboratory blank, and duplicate counts were performed within a
batch of 20 or fewer samples and documented. In addition, sources were counted on a weekly
or daily schedule to verify that the detectors remained, in calibration.
Cesium-137 values in picocuries per square centimeter were summed for the upper 30 cm
of the soil profile (see Appendix B). In another part of Appendix B. the gamma screening
data have been converted to picocuries per gram after moisture content analysis, and the dry
weight of each scanned sample was determined. Statistical analysis shows that there are
significant differences between ORR, Anderson, and Roane Dismal Gap sites, but no
differences exist between Copper Ridge sites. Roane County sites have lower mean values,
but this can be accounted for by present and recent past land use practices causing localized
erosion in Roane County. One Roane County site. No. 13, had a total cesium-137 value of
1.98 pCi/cm2. The soil profile description for this site (Appendix A) strongly indicates that this
severely eroded site has only very recently become stabilized with a forest litter layer, thus
reducing surface erosion. Two Roane County sites had high cesium-137 values compared with
the expected average background level of approximately 8.5 pCi/cm2. Both sites had a surface
capping of either colluvium or alluvium, a situation where there is lateral water and sediment
movement and localized transport and deposition from higher areas. Note that a global source
of cesium-137 exists via atmospheric deposition over the entire region of the ORR and Roane
and Anderson counties. In addition, the ORR has superimposed on it, at least in certain
locations, the contribution of cesium from sources within the ORR. No transport or
movement of cesium or other soil constituents is postulated or implied from these results
between on-site and off-site sampling areas. Two Anderson County sites had the highest
values: AND-19, with a value of 14.42 pCi/cm2, and AND-41, with a value of 1431 pCi/cm2.

-------
3-19
surface horizon with about 13 cm of modern sediment overwash that contains considerable
cesium-137, while AND-41 also has an overthickened A horizon. The ORR Dismal Gap data
are slightly higher than the Anderson County and Roane County Dismal Gap data because
of higher minimum values, which indicates a longer period of minimal disturbance for the
ORR sites. The Nolichucky data have the highest mean values and also the highest minimum
values. This is most likely caused by the more gentle slope gradients which resulted in less
lateral transport of particles downsiope. The ORR Dismal Gap sites were significantly
different from the Roane and Anderson county sites. There were no differences between the
ORR, AND and ROA Copper Ridge sites. The gamma scan results for some of the
ORR-Bethel Valley sites indicate that a localized cesium-137 source exists. A characteristic
bell-shaped curve of cesium-137 distribution occurs with the highest value from ORR-101 of
22.89 pCi/cm2. This ORR-101 site is located just east of the new water treatment plan and
at the west end of Building 4500. The adjacent two sites 100 and 102 (on either side of 101),
also have elevated cesium-137 levels. Background levels are reached at ORR-104, which is
located just east of the KFTR road. The ORR K-25 Chickamauga sites had typical cesium-137
background values that were slightly lower than the ORR Copper Ridge mean value, but this
is to be expected because the Chickamauga soils tend to be more erosive. In conclusion, most
variations in the cesium-137 gamma screening data could be accounted for by past land use
and by landform variability. The cesium-137 data from ORR sites 101,102, and 103 were not
used for statistical analysis and for risk assessment because there was possible local
contamination with cesium-137 at these sites. Tritium data from ORR sites 101,102, and 103
were also deleted because of suspected local contamination.
3 3 QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF OAK RIDGE RESERVATION SITES
ORR Site 2. This site, based on both geologic information and soil survey data, is situated
within the Dismal Gap Formation. The soils are typical of ORR Dismal Gap soils in that they
possess a very high degree of spatial variability. No visual field evidence existed of any recent
surface disturbance, nor had the site ever been plowed. The A horizon sample consisted of
A and E horizon soil material. The B horizon sample consisted of the entire argillic horizon,
and the C horizon consisted of transition horizons between the argillic horizon and the Cr
horizon. The VOA sample 1257 contained chloroform. This is considered to be caused by
instrument contamination. The related water trip blank did not contain chloroform. Two sets
of A horizon samples were collected for tritium analysis (samples 1189 and 1198). No tritium
was detected in either sample, but the reported detection limits were different Two sets of
A horizon samples were collected for organics analysis (samples 1190 and 1201). Most of the
reported numbers, below detection limits, are similar, but statistical analysis would be needed
to determine whether any of the reported results are different The ESD gamma scan analysis
for cesium-137 gave a value of 833 pCi/cm2, a typical value for cesium in the upper 30 cm
of the soil on a sloping site.
ORR Site 3. This site is located on the Nolichucky Formation and within 50 ft of the
north edge of the cutslope above Bear Creek Road. This site is in old-field successional
woods, and no field evidence existed of recent surface disturbance. The A horizon soil sample
consisted of a thin A horizon and the old Ap horizon beneath. The B horizon sample
consisted entirely of argillic horizon soil material, and the C horizon sample was collected
entirely of C horizon material between the B horizon above and the Cr horizon beneath.
Acetone from instrument contamination was detected in VOA sample 1271, but the reported

-------
3-20
indicated no detects. The ESD gamma scanning results gave a cesium-137 value of
8.47 pCi/cm2 in the upper 30 cm of the soil profile.
ORR Site 5. This site is located in the Nolichucky Formation. This site is located behind
the security fence of the Central Training Facility and about 50 ft south of Bear Creek Road.
The vegetation is old-field successional forest dominated by pines. This site had a layer of
pine needles and mosses 5 cm thick and differed from many other sites in this respect The
A horizon sample consisted of an old Ap horizon. The B horizon sample consisted of the
entire argillic horizon, and the C horizon consisted of a mixture of C and Cr horizon materials
because of the steeply dipping strata. VOA sample 1272 contained acetone (from sporadic,
accidental instrument contamination). All organics were below detection limits. ESD gamma
scanning results gave a cesium-137 value of 9.03 pCi/cm2 in the upper 30 cm of the soil
profile, a typical value of a stable site where no recent erosion has occurred.
ORR Site 10. This site is situated in the transition zone between the Dismal Gap
Formation and the Rogersville Formation. Vegetation includes hardwoods, indicating that this
site had reverted from agricultural activities well before other sites because of very severe
erosion before abandonment The A horizon sample consisted entirely of A horizon materials,
the B horizon consisted of cambic materials, and the C horizon consisted of C and
Cr materials, an example of a fairly typical Dismal Gap soiL VOA sample 1258 contained
acetone (instrument contamination). The tritium result was rejected (refer to Sect 4.53.10
for explanation). All organic results were below detection limits. ESD gamma scanning results
gave a cesium-137 value of 10.97 pCi/cm2 in the upper 30 cm of the soil profile, an indication
that this site was stable even though the slope was about 20%, and evidence indicates that
the site had once been severely eroded before global fallout started. The slightly higher than
normal value indicates that there has been 1 to 2 cm of recent deposition.
ORR Site 11. This site is located about 400 ft downslope from ORR Site 10. This site is
located in the Dismal Gap Formation. Vegetation consisted of old-field successional forest,
indicating that this site was open when abandoned in 1942-43. The A horizon sample
consisted of the old Ap horizon, the B horizon sample consisted of the entire thickness of the
argillic horizon, and the C horizon sample consisted mostly of C materials. Because ORR Site
10 and ORR Site 11 are close together, the results should be closely comparable, except for
the differences in past land use, surface stability, and present vegetation. VOA analysis
(sample 1259) shows nothing above detection limits, except for acetone (instrument
contamination). No tritium was detected. All organic results were below detection limits. ESD
gamma scanning results gave a cesium-137 value of 7.26 pCi/cm2 in the upper 30 cm of the
soil profile, considerably lower than that for ORR Site 10, indicating that some soil erosion
has occurred since global fallout started.
ORR Site 13. This site is located in an abandoned farm yard. The soil had a thick, dark
surface layer, indicating that it had formed beneath grass vegetation. This site, in the
Nolichucky Formation, is underlain by a brecciated zone having higher porosity than is typical.
VOA sample 1273 showed acetone as an instrument contaminant Organics results indicated
the estimated "J" presence of a PAH, benzo[b]fluoranthene. All other data were below
detection limits. Recent pine harvesting and replanting activity near this site might have
caused this PAH to be in the soiL ESD cesium-137 gamma scanning results gave a value of

-------
3-21
ORR Site 15 and ORR Site 16. These sites are located about 250 ft apart on the
Nolichucky Formation. They have similar vegetation of 40- to 50-year-old planted loblolly
pines. The major difference is that one site, ORR Site 15, is located on a nearly level
landform, and ORR Site 16 is located on a sideslope with 10% slope gradient and was
severely eroded before abandonment. Except for acetone caused by instrument contamination,
there were no VOAs above detection limits. The organic results were also very similar to all
results below detection limits except for "J" estimates of benzo[a]pyrene,
benzo[£>]Quoranthene, and benzo[i»]fluoranthene at very low levels at ORR Site 16. ESD
gamma scanning results from ORR Site 15 gave a median value of 8.08 pCi/cm2 in the upper
30 cm of the soil, indicating that this site has been stable. ESD cesium-137 gamma results for
ORR Site 16 gave a value of 9.93 pCi/cm2 in the upper 30 cm of the soil profile, indicating
that this site has also been stable since global fallout began.
ORR Site 19. This site is located on the Dismal Gap Formation. It is in an old field with
old-field successional forest dominated by pines. All samples were collected from appropriate
soil horizons. Except for acetone resulting from instrument contamination, there were no
VOAs above detection limits. Tritium was not found at this site, but the results were rejected
because of analytical laboratory problems. The organic results were all below detection limits,
except for fluorene which has a "J" qualifier. ESD cesium-137 gamma scanning results from
ORR Site 19 gave a value of 9.01 pCi/cm2 in the upper 30 cm of the soil, indicating that this
site has been stable.
ORR Site 21. This site is underlain by the Nolichucky Formation. Present vegetation is
old-field successional forest once dominated by pines. This site is situated on a bench
landform below an upper convex slope and had been severely eroded before abandonment
All VOA results were below detection limits except for acetone caused by instrument
contamination. All organics results were below detection limits. ESD cesium-137 gamma
scanning results from ORR Site 21 gave a value of 11.46 pCi/cm2 in the upper 30 cm of the
soil, indicating that this site has probably received some soil deposition from higher areas
since global fallout began.
ORR Site 22. This site is in the transition zone between the Dismal Gap Formation and
the Rogersville Formation. It is situated on a high point in the landscape. The site is in an
old field The present forest vegetation is old-field successional dominated by pines. The
A horizon sample consists of a recently formed A horizon and the old Ap horizon beneath.
The B horizon consists of the entire thickness of the argillic horizon, and the C horizon
sample consists of a mixture of the C and Cr soil materials. The soil is very typical of the
geology and landform location. The VOA data show no detects except for acetone, which is
the result of instrument contamination. Tritium was detected at this site (sample 1123) (refer
to Sect 4.53.10 for explanation). All organics were below detection limits. ESD gamma
scanning results for cesium-137 gave a value of 9.63 pCi/cm2, indicating that this site has been
stable since global fallout began, and that little cesium had been removed by erosion.
ORR Site 23, ORR Site 24, and ORR Site 25. These three sites are closely related in
terms of their geology, landscape position, vegetation, and past land use. They are all
underlain by the Nolichucky Formation, and all are in forest dominated by old-field
successional pines. All three sites have similar soil morphology with a superficial layer of
organic materials. The A horizon samples consisted of a thin A horizon and the old
Ap horizon beneath. The B horizon samples consisted of a mixture of the argillic and cambic

-------
3-22
samples were collected for VOA analysis from two of the three sites. The results were all
below detection except for acetone caused by instrument contamination- The organic results
were also veiy similar for all three sites, except for "J" estimates of acenapthene in ORR Site
23 and pyrene in ORR Site 24. The results for benzoanthrene, chrysene, and fluoranthene
were all rejected (discussed in Sect. 4.5.1.3). ESD cesium-137 gamma scanning results are
similar for ORR Site 23 and ORR Site 24,9.17 and 10.49 pCi/cm2, respectively, indicating site
stability. ORR Site 25 had a result of 7.69 pCi/cm2, indicating that some erosion had occurred
since global fallout started.
ORR Site 26 and ORR Site 27. These sites are also close together. Both are underlain by
the Dismal Gap Formation, have similar forest vegetation and past land use, and are
separated by a quite deeply incised drainageway. Both sites are in old Selds that were
abandoned well before 1942-43. The early successional pines on both sites had all been
replaced by hardwoods. The A horizon samples consisted of a recently formed A horizon and
the older Ap horizon beneath. The B horizon samples consisted of the entire thickness of the
argillic horizon, and the C horizons consisted of a mixture of C and Cr horizon materials.
VOA results were all non-detects except for acetone and 2-butanone, which are caused by
instrument contamination. ORR Site 26 contained "J" estimated tritium, while ORR Site 27
did not. The organic results for both sites were below detection limits. ESD gamma scanning
data for cesium-137 indicated a normal result of 8.59 for ORR Site 26 and 635 pCL/cm2 for
ORR Site 27, an indication of recent erosion from this site. ORR Site 26 is on a steeper
slope gradient than ORR Site 27 but appears to be more stable. One cannot rule out a forest
fire on ORR Site 27 that could have led to some soil erosion.
ORR She 28. This site is located a short distance south of ORR Site 26 and ORR
Site 27. ORR Site 28 is underlain by the Nolichucky Formation and is in a dense stand of
young pines with some scattered hardwoods. The old-field successional pines had already been
harvested from this site or had died and fallen over. The soil profile is typical of Nolichucky
soils. The A horizon sample consisted of a thin, recently formed A horizon and the older
Ap horizon beneath. The B horizon sample consisted entirely of the argillic horizon, and the
C horizon sample consisted of mostly C horizon materials. Two samples were sent for VOA
analysis. There were no detects in the VOA results exception for an acetone "J" value caused
by instrument contamination. All organics were below detection limits, with two PAHs
rejected. ESD gamma scan results for cesium-137 showed a value of 9.69 pCi/cm2, indicating
that this site had not been to erosion since global fallout started, even though this
site had been severely eroaea oeiuie abandonment
ORR Site 31. This site is underlain by the Nolichucky Formation, but the upper 61 cm
consisted of colluvium. Most of the old-field successional pines had been harvested in the past
10 to 15 years, and there was evidence that the larger area around this site had been
disturbed, but the site did no: show any evidence of disturbance. This site was considered
marginal in terms of site quality during the site selection process, but, with the difficulty of
locating suitable Nolichucky sites, it was sampled. Two samples were collected for VOA
analysis. One result showed the presence of trichlorofluoromethane, but the other sample did
not Both samples had acetone, and one had 2-butanone, which is considered to be caused
by instrument contamination. The organic results had a "J" estimate for benzo[£>]fluoranthene,
and the result for fluoranthene was rejected. All other organics were below detection limits.
ESD gamma scanning data showed a value of 11.14 pCi/cm2 for cesium-137. a value slightly

-------
3-23
some deposition of soil from higher on the slope. Specific data for this site do not indicate
that it should be rejected.
ORR Site 32, ORR Site 33, and ORR Site 35. These sites are all located adjacent to each
other and are separated by about 250 to 300 ft. All three sites are underlain by the Dismal
Gap Formation and have had similar old-field successional forest dominated by pines. Most
of the pines have recently died and fallen over, releasing a dense understory of brush, small
pines, and small hardwoods. All three sites had similar soil morphology. The A horizon sample
consisted-of-a thin,-recently formed A horizon and the older - Ap horizon beneath. The -
6 horizon sample consisted of the entire thickness of the argillic horizon, and the C horizon
sample consisted of a mixture of C and Cr materials. Acetone was found in all VOA samples,
but it is considered to be caused by instrument contamination. All three sites have detectable
tritium. All organics were below detection limits. Data from ESD cesium-137 gamma scanning
had some spread, indicating that one site (ORR Site 35) was more subject to erosion than
the other two sites. ORR Site 32 had a value of 7.88, ORR Site 33 had a value of 938, and
ORR Site 35 had a value of 5.87 pCi/cm2. These differences cannot be explained in terms of
soil morphology, slope gradient, vegetation, or landscape position but are the result of micro
erosion and deposition on hill slopes.
ORR Site 41, ORR Site 42, and ORR Site 43. These sites are located near the west end
of the Y-12 burial grounds. ORR Site 41 and ORR Site 43 are underlain by the Dismal Gap
Formation, while ORR Site 42 is underlain by the Nolichucky Formation. All sites had typical
soils of their geologic formation and had similar morphology. Except for acetone, all
A horizon VOA analytes were below detection limits. Tritium was not detected in ORR
Site 41, and the other sites were not analyzed. No organics registered above detection limits
in ORR Site 41 and ORR Site 43. Benzo[Z>]fluoranthene and pyrene were estimated at very
low levels in ORR Site 42. The results of some PAHs for these sites were rejected. ESD
cesium-137 gamma scan data for two of the three sites showed that minimal surface instability
had occurred since global fallout started. ORR Site 41 had a value of 10.89 pCi/cm2 in the
upper 30 cm of soil, ORR Site 42 had a value of 6.75, indicating erosion, and ORR Site 43
had a value of 8.48. Soil morphology for ORR Site 42 shows that this site had been somewhat
less stable than the sites on either side.
ORR Site 45. This site is located within the Copper Ridge Formation. Vegetation is old-
growth hardwoods that have been cut several times. The most recent logging near this site
was done 15 to 25 years ago. An access road was cut nearby, about 100 to 150 ft away, to
allow access for well drilling. The soil surface was leaf-covered. The A horizon samples were
collected from a thin A horizon and the El horizon immediately beneath. There were no
VOA detects, but there were one or more PAHs. These PAH compounds were found at
every Copper Ridge and Chepultepee site on the ORR. ESD gamma scanning results gave
a cesium-137 value of 8.00 pCi/cm2 indicating a stable site. Based on all screening data, this
site was considered suitable and representative.
ORR Site 50. This site is located within the Chepultepec Formation. Vegetation is
old-field successional forest, where most of the early pines have died and fallen over. The soil
surface was covered both by leaves and by an underlying Oa horizon. The A horizon samples
were collected wholly from the A horizon. Because of the thickness of the subsoil Bt horizon,
the C horizon sample (at a depth of 140 to 160 cm) was sampled in the lower Bt horizon.
Both acetone and butanone were detected in the VOA analysis, but the presence of these

-------
3-24
several PAHs. After examination of the data, these PAHs were considered to be natural
background. ESD gamma scan results gave a cesium-137 value of 839 pCi/cm2 indicating a
stable site. Based on ail site parameters and screening tests, this site was considered suitable
and representative.
ORR She 51. This site is located in the Copper Ridge Formation. Vegetation is old-field
successional forest, but most of the original pines have died and fallen over, releasing poplar,
red maple, and sugar maple. This site is near an area that was recently cleared and planted
in loblolly pines and is within 80 ft of a bulldozed road to allow access for drilling wells. Both
acetone and butanone were detected in the VOA analysis, but these compounds were caused
by instrument contamination. One or more PAHs were detected, but these occur at all
Copper Ridge and Chepultepec sites. ESD gamma scanning results gave a cesium-137 value
of 830 pCi/cm2 indicating a stable site. Based on site selection criteria and screening criteria,
this site was considered suitable and representative.
ORR She 52 This site is located in the Chepultepec Formation. Vegetation is old-Geld
successional, but most of the original pines have died and fallen over. The soil surface is leaf-
covered. The A horizon sample was collected from the regenerated forest soil A horizon and
the older Ap (plowed) horizon beneath. The C horizon sample, obtained from a depth of 140
to 170 cm, consisted of clay-plugged saprolitic materials. Both acetone and butanone were
detected in the VOA analysis, but these compounds are caused by instrument contamination.
Data for PAHs are missing, but, based on all other Copper Ridge and Chepultepec data,
these compounds can be presumed to be present ESD gamma scan results for cesium-137
gave a value of 10.14 pCi/cm2, indicating that this site has received some recent deposition.
Based on site selection criteria and screening analysis, this site was considered suitable.
ORR Site 53. This site is located on the Chepultepec Formation. Vegetation is old-field
successional forest, but the field had been abandoned to woods well before 1940. Present
forest is dominated by white oak. The soil on this site has a layer of local cherty colluvium
that is 36 cm thick. The soil surface was leaf-covered. The A horizon sampled was collected
from the regenerated forest soil A horizon and the underlying old Ap horizon. The B and C
horizons were sampled in the underlying residuum. The C horizon sample, obtained at a
depth of 140 to 160 cm, consisted of clay-plugged saprolitic materials. There were no VOA
detects, but there were one or more detects for PAHs. The ESD gamma scan results gave a
value of 6.23 pCi/cm2 indicating some recent erosion. Based on site selection criteria and
screening analysis, this site was considered suitable and representative.
ORR She 54. This site is located in the Copper Ridge Formation. The vegetation is older
but cutover forest Most of the large trees are chestnut oak along with smaller red maple. The
soil surface was leaf-covered. The A horizon sample consisted of a thin A horizon and part
of the E horizon beneath. The C horizon sample, obtained from a depth of 155 to 165 cm,
consisted of clav-plugged saprolitic materials. VOA data are missing for this site. One to
several PAHs were detected at -.his ^ite. ESD gamma scan results gave a value of
7.76 pCi/cm2, indicating a stable site. Based on site selection criteria and screening analysis,
this site was considered suitable and representative.
ORR She 55. This site is located in the Copper Ridge Formation. Present vegetation
consisted of cut-over forest. This site did not appear to have ever been plowed. Large trees
are mostly chestnut oak along with mid-level sugar maple and poplar. The ground surface was

-------
3-25
immediately beneath. The A horizon sample was obtained from the colluvium, but the B
horizon sample was obtained from residuum. The C horizon sample, obtained from a depth
of 140 to 165 cm, consisted of high-clay-content subsoil materials. VOA data for this site are
missing, and there were one or more detects for PAHs. ESD gamma scan results for
cesium-137 gave a value of 833 indicating a stable site. Based on site selection criteria and
screening analysis, this site was considered suitable and representative.
ORR Site 58. This site is located in the Copper Ridge Formation. Present forest
vegetation is old-field successionaL but the early pines have been succeeded by red oak, sugar
maple, and some poplar. The ground surface was leaf-covered. The A horizon samples
consisted of a thin, regenerated forest soil A horizon and the old Ap horizon beneath. The
C horizon sample, obtained from a depth of 140 to 173 cm, consisted of high-clay-content
subsoil materials. Both acetone and butanone were detected at this site, but these compounds
are the result of instrument contamination. There were one or more PAH detects. ESD
gamma scan results for cesium-137 gave a value of 7.01 pCi/cm2, indicating that there has
been slight erosion. Based on site selection criteria and screening analysis, this site was
considered suitable and representative.
ORR Site 59. This site is located in the Copper Ridge Formation. Present forest
vegetation is old-field successionaL There are mature short-leaf pine and mature white oak
with an understory of dogwood, beech, red maple, and sassafras. There were sparse blueberry
shrubs and a few hickory sprouts, and the forest floor was leaf-covered. The A horizon sample
consisted of a thin A horizon and the £ horizon beneath. The C horizon sample, obtained
at a depth of 140 to 165 cm, consisted of clay-plugged saprolitic materials. Results from VOA
analysis are missing, but there were one or more detects for PAHs. ESD gamma scanning
results gave a value for cesium-137 of 7.71 pCi/cm2, indicating that this site has been fairly
stable. Based on site selection criteria and screening analysis, this site was considered suitable
and representative.
ORR Site 60. This site is located in the Copper Ridge Formation. This site was once a
severely eroded agricultural field. Present forest vegetation is old-field successionaL The early
pine have either died and fallen over or were harvested. Present canopy trees are oaks and
red maple with a few white pine and a regrowth of Virginia pine. There were a few blueberry
shrubs along with tree sprouts on the leaf-covered forest floor. The A horizon sample
consisted of a thin A horizon and the old Ap horizon beneath. The C horizon sample,
obtained from a depth of 145 to 175 cm, consisted of partially clay-plugged saprolitic
materials. Results of the VOA analysis are missing, but there were one or more detects for
PAHs. ESD gamma scan results for cesium-137 gave a value of 6.23 pCi/cm2, an indication
of erosion. Based on site selection criteria and screening analysis, this site was considered
suitable and representative.
ORR Site 62. This site is located in the Copper Ridge Formation. Present vegetation
consists of old-field successional forest. Most of the early pines have died and fallen over,
allowing oak and hickory to become dominant in the canopy. The forest floor is leaf-covered.
This site is located within 75 to 80 ft of an area that was clear cut and replanted to loblolly
pine. The VOA results are missing, but there were one or more detects for PAHs. The A
horizon sample consisted of a thin A horizon and the old Ap horizon beneath. The C
horizon, obtained at a depth of 140 to 163 cm, consisted of highly mottled lower subsoil

-------
3-26
that there has been a slight amount of sediment deposition. Based on site selection criteria
and screening analysis, this site was considered suitable and representative.
ORR Site 64. This site is located in the Copper Ridge Formation. Present vegetation is
old-field successional forest The early pines have all disappeared, leaving oaks and poplar.
The forest floor is leaf-covered. The A horizon sample consisted of a thin A horizon and the
old Ap horizon beneath. The C horizon sample, obtained at a depth of 150 to 160 cm, was
composed of saprolite. The VOA data is missing, but there were one or more detects for
PAHs. ESD gamma scan results for cesium-137 gave a value of 8.76 pCi/cm2, indicating that
this site has been stable. Based on site selection criteria and screening analysis, this site was
considered suitable and representative.
ORR Site 66. This site is located in the Chepultepec Formation. Present vegetation is
old-field successional with many of the early pines still standing. There are few poplar and red
maple along with many red maple saplings and dogwood. The site was in a dense stand of
ferns. The A horizon sample consisted of the old Ap horizon. The C horizon, obtained at a
depth of 150 to 173 cm, was composed of highly clay-plugged saprolitic materials. There were
no VOA detects and one or more detects for PAHs. The herbicide 2-4-D was detected at this
site, but, given the remoteness of this site and no close access to a road, this particular detect
is highly questionable and most likely caused by contamination after the sample left the ORR
or by analytical instrument contamination. ESD gamma scan results for cesium-137 gave a
value of 5.53 pCi/cm2 indicating recent erosion. Based on site selection criteria and screening
analysis, this site was considered suitable and representative.
ORR-68. This site is located in the Chepultepec Formation. Vegetation is old forest
where periodic logging has occurred. Present large trees are oaks and hickories. The forest
floor is leaf-covered. The upper 40 to 50 cm of the soil consists of local cherty colluvium. The
A horizon soil sample consisted entirely of the A horizon. The B horizon sample was
collected in the residuum beneath the surficial colluvium. The C horizon soil sample, obtained
from a depth of 150 to 175 cm, consisted of clayey subsoil material. Acetone was detected,
but this compound is caused by instrument contamination. One or more PAHs were detected.
ESD gamma scan results for cesium-137 on samples collected from colluvium gave a value of
1033 pCi/cm2 indicating some recent deposition. Based on site selection criteria and screening
analysis, this site was considered suitable. The presence of the colluvium makes this site
slightly less desirable in representing residual soils.
ORR Site 73. This site is located in the Chepultepec Formation. Vegetation on this site
is old-growth forest that has been periodically logged. Stumps were close to the pit. Indeed,
the pit face cut through an old stump hole. Present canopy trees are poplar, oak, and red
maple. There is a thick sapling stand of red maple, oak cherry, and cedar. TTie ground surface
is leaf-covered. Soil samples were obtained away from the filled-in stump hole. The A horizon
soil sample consisted of the A horizon. The C horizon soil sample, obtained at a depth of 145
to 160 cm, consisted of saprolite. ESD gamma scan results for cesium-137 gave a value of
12.87 pCi/cm2 indicating recent deposition. There are recent tree throw mounds above this
site which could have contributed sediments. Based on site selection criteria and screening
analysis, this site was considered to be suitable and representative.
ORR Site 74. This site is located in the Chepultepec Formation. Present vegetation is
old-field successional forest. The site is located close to an old fence row. Barb wire was

-------
3-27
trees in the old field area axe black gum, sweet gum, oak and red maple. The ground surface
is leaf-covered. The A horizon soil sample consisted of the A horizon and part of the E
horizon immediately beneath. The C horizon soil sample, obtained from a depth of 140 to 160
cm, consisted of very cherty saprolitic materials. Acetone was detected, but its presence is
caused by instrument contamination. From one to several PAHs were detected. ESD gamma
scan results for cesium-137 gave a value of 7.15 pCi/cm2 indicating relative stability. Based on
the site selection criteria and screening analysis, this site was considered suitable and
representative.
ORR Site 75. This site is located in the Copper Ridge Formation. Present vegetation is
old-field successional forest The original pines are in the process of being replaced by a thick
stand of seedling pines along with poplar, black gum, sourwood, and dogwood. The ground
surface is covered by leaves, needles, and fallen pine trees. The A horizon soil sample
consisted of the thin regenerated A horizon and the old Ap horizon beneath. The C horizon
soil sample, obtained from a depth of 150 to 160 cm, consisted of the lower clayey subsoiL
The VOA analysis data is missing, but there were one or more detects for PAHs. ESD
gamma scan results for cesium-137 gave a value of 10.04 pCi/cm2 indicating relative stability.
Based on the site selection criteria and screening analysis, this site was considered suitable
and representative.
ORR Site 77. This site is located in the Chepultepec Formation. Vegetation is old-Geld
successional forest. A few of the early pines are still standing, but the dominant canopy trees
are hardwoods. The ground surface is leaf-covered. The A horizon soil sample consisted of
a thin, regenerated A horizon and the old Ap horizon beneath. The C horizon soil sample,
obtained from a depth of 140 to 160 cm, consisted of saprolitic materials that contained
considerable manganese oxide. There were no VOA detects. The PAH data are missing, but,
based on the widespread presence of one or more PAHs in all other sites, these compounds
should be present at this site. ESD gamma scan results for cesium-137 gave a value of
11.76 pCi/cm2 indicating slight recent deposition. Based on site selection criteria and screening
analysis, this site was considered suitable and representative.
ORR Site 78. This site is located in the Chepultepec Formation. The soil has a layer of
ancient colluvium that is about 36-cm-thick. Vegetation is old-Geld successional forest. Most
of the early pines have died and fallen over, and the present forest is dominated by
hardwoods. The forest floor is leaf-covered. The A horizon soil sample consisted of the thin,
regenerated A horizon and the old Ap horizon beneath. The B horizon soil sample was
obtained from the clayey subsoil of the residuum beneath the colluvial capping. The C
horizon soil sample, obtained from a depth of 140 to 150 cm, consisted of clay-plugged
saprolitic materials. There were no VOA detects, and the organic data are missing. Based on
the widespread presence of one or more PAHs in all other sites, these compounds should be
present at this site. ESD gamma scan results for cesium-137 gave a value of 8.56 indicating
stability. Based on site selection criteria and screening analysis, this site was considered
suitable and representative.
ORR Site 83. This site is located in the Copper Ridge Formation. Vegetation is old-field
successional forest Most of the early pines have died and fallen over. Hie forest canopy is
now dominated by hardwoods, but some pines are present The forest floor is leaf-covered.
The A horizon soil sample consisted of a thin A horizon and the old Ap horizon beneath.
The C horizon soil sample, obtained from a depth of 100 to 170 cm, consisted of very cherty

-------
3-28
sample, because of the high chert content The VOA data are missing. One or more PAHs
were detected at this site. ESD gamma scan results for cesium-137 gave a value of
9.01 pCi/cm2 indicating stability. Based on site selection criteria and screening analysis, this
site was considered suitable and representative.
ORR Site 85. This site is located in the Chepultepec Formation. The present forest is
cutover old-growth. Because of the site steepness, it does not appear that the soil has ever
been plowed. Present canopy trees are red oak, sugar maple, white pine, and umbrella
magnolia. The soil at this site has a layer of creep-derived colluvium that is about 42-cm-thick.
The soil also has a thick, dark surface layer because of the northerly aspect. The A horizon
soil sample consisted of the upper 15 cm of the 23-cm-thick A horizon. The B horizon was
sampled from the clayey residuum. The C horizon soil sample, obtained from a depth of 140
to 160 cm, consisted of saprolitic materials. Acetone was a detect in the VOA analysis, but
the presence of this compound is the result of instrument contamination. The data for PAHs
are missing. Based on the widespread presence of one or more PAHs in all other sites, these
compounds should be present at this site. All ESD gamma scan samples were collected from
the surficial colluvium. The value of 832 pCi/cm2 indicated stability. Based on site selection
criteria and screening analysis, this site was considered suitable and representative of soils on
steeper slopes on the ORR.
ORR Site 86. This site is located in the Chepultepec Formation. Vegetation is old-growth
forest. Dominant canopy trees are chestnut oak and hickory. There are smaller red maple and
sassafras. The ground surface was leaf-covered. The soil at this site had an extremely cherty
lag-gravel surface layer. Because of the slope steepness, this site had never been plowed. The
A horizon soil sample was obtained from the very thin A horizon and part of the E horizon
beneath to a depth of 15 cm. The B horizon soil sample was obtained from the clayey residual
subsoil beneath the creep capping. The C horizon soil sample, obtained from a depth of 140
to 155 cm, consisted of clayey saprolitic materials. There were no VOA detects, and the
organics data are missing. Based on the widespread presence of one or more PAHs in all
other sites, these compounds should be present at this site. ESD gamma scan results for
cesium-137 gave a value of 7.89 pCi/cm: indicating stability. Based on site selection criteria
and screening analysis, this site was considered suitable and representative of soils on steeper
slopes.
ORR Site 90. This site is located in the Chepultepec Formation. Vegetation is a 30- to
40-year-old stand of planted loblolly pine. The understory is red maple, poplar, and seedling
pines. The ground is covered by honeysuckle, roses, and blackberry briars. The ground surface
is covered by pine needles and leaves. This site is located about 60 ft north of Chestnut Ridge
Road. This is a heavily traveled road with a limestone gravel surface. As a result, calcium
content of the surface may be higher than in areas farther from the road. The A horizon soil
sample was obtained from the entire thickness of the Ap horizon. The C horizon soil sample,
obtained from a depth of 140 to 160 cm. consisted of clav-plugged saprolitic materials.
Acetone was detected in the VOA analysis, but this compound is caused by instrument
contamination. One or more PAHs were detected at this site. The closeness of the road to
this site evidently did not contribute to higher VOA or organics levels than at more remote
sites. ESD gamma scan results for cesium-137 gave a value of 9.88 pCi/cm2 indicating stability.
Based on site selection criteria and screening analysis, this site was considered suitable and

-------
3-29
ORR Site 91. This site is located in the Copper Ridge Formation. Vegetation is old-
growth woods. Several chestnut stumps are located nearby, and barb wire is embedded in
nearby trees, an indication of an old fence row. Dominant canopy trees are poplar, cheny,
post oak, and white oak. One chestnut sprout occurred close to the soil pit. The ground
surface was leaf- covered. The A horizon soil sample consisted of a thin A horizon and the
entire thickness of the E horizon beneath. The C horizon sample, obtained from a depth of
135 to 155 cm, consisted of the lower part of the clayey argillic horizon. The VOA data are
missing. One or more PAHs were detected. ESD gamma scan results for cesium-137 gave a
value of 10.85 pCi/cm2 indicating a slight amount of recent deposition. Based on site selection
criteria and screening analysis, this site was considered suitable and representative.
The following sites (ORR Site 93 through ORR Site 117) were sampled in the Bethel
Valley area of the ORR. Site screening with a hand-held radiation detector revealed higher-
than-background levels of radiation, but no sites were rejected, because all site readings were
less than 100 cpm. A decision was made to continue sampling to determine whether other
elevated levels of metals or organics could be related to the higher cesium-137 levels.
ORR Site 93. This site is located within the Moccasin Formation of the Chickamauga
Group of the Bethel Valley section. Vegetation is old-field successional. The old field had
been severely eroded before abandonment The canopy is now dominated by hardwoods, but
a few large pines and cedars remain. The ground surface is leaf-covered. The A horizon soil
sample consisted of a very thin, regenerated A horizon and the old Ap horizon beneath. The
C horizon soil sample, obtained from a depth of 65 to 80 cm, consisted of clayey lower
subsoiL Rock was encountered at a depth of 85 cm. This site, located at the west end of the
Bethel Valley sampling area, had a cesium-137 level slightly elevated above background.
Because this site is not in a concave landform position, the elevated cesium is interpreted to
be of local ORNL origin. Tritium was below detection limit at this site. No other elevated
levels of metals or radionuclides were associated with the elevated cesium. Acetone was a
detect in the VOA analysis, but this compound is caused by instrument contamination. One
or more PAHs were detected. The ESD gamma scan results for cesium-137 gave a value of
10.4 pCi/cm2, indicating relative stability or perhaps a slight amount of contamination. Based
on site selection criteria and screening analysis, this site was considered suitable and
representative.
ORR Sile 99. This site is located in the Bethel Valley section of the Chickamauga Group
Moccasin Formation. This site was a very severely eroded field before abandonment
Vegetation is old-field successional forest Most of the original pines are still standing. The
ground surface was about 70% covered by mosses and the remainder, by pine needles and
leaves. The A horizon soil sample consisted of a very thin A horizon and the old Ap horizon
beneath. The C horizon soil sample, obtained from a depth of 98 to 113 cm, consisted of
clayey saprolitic materials with abundant manganese. Depth to limestone at this site was more
than 1.5 m. Both acetone and butanone were VOA detects, but these two compounds are the
result of instrument contamination. There were one or more PAHs detects. Technetium-99
was detected at this site. Cesium-137 from the ESD gamma scan was slightly elevated above
background (12_5 pCi/cm2) and is interpreted to be caused by local ORNL input Tritium was
below detection limits. However, no other metals or radionuclides were elevated at this site
except for the higher than normal cesium. Based on site selection criteria and screening

-------
3-30
ORR Site 100. This site is in the Bethel Valley section of the Chickamauga Group
(Unit G). Vegetation is old-growth woods that had been partially cut over and pastured
before abandonment. The present open forest stand has large oaks, some white pine, and
sugar maple. There are low bush blueberry plants, and the ground surface is leaf-covered.
This site, located southwest of Bldg. 1505, has the third highest level of cesium-137 (18.4
pCi/cm2) and second highest level of tritium (0.14 pCi/g). These elevated levels are
interpreted to be caused by local ORNL emissions. There were no elevated levels of other
metals or radionuclides. The A horizon soil sample was obtained from the entire thickness
of the old Ap horizon. The C horizon soil sample, obtained from a depth of 55 to 70 cm,
consisted of saproiite. There was a paralithic Cr horizon at a depth of 85 cm. Acetone was
detected in the VOA analysis, but this compound is caused by instrument contamination. One
or more PAHs were detected. Based on site selection criteria and screening analysis, this site
was considered suitable and representative except for cesium and tritium.
ORR Site 101. This site is in the Bethel Valley section of the Chickamauga Group
Moccasin Formation. Vegetation consists of mature oaks, cedars, and american beech with
saplings of beech, sugar maple, and dogwood. This site was severely eroded before
abandonment and was probably a woods pasture. The forest floor was leaf-covered. This site
had the highest elevated level of cesium-137 (22.9 pCi/cm2) and the third highest level of
tritium (0.12 pCi/g). Both of these elements are interpreted to be caused by local
contamination from ORNL. There were no other elevated levels of organics, metals, or
radionuclides. The A horizon soil sample consisted of a 12-cm-thick A horizon. An old stump
infilling occurred in part of the pit face but was avoided in sampling- The C horizon soil
sample, obtained from a depth of 60 to 70 cm, consisted of clayey saprolitic materials. Depth
to rock was highly irregular in the soil pit Rock was at a depth of 70 cm in the section of the
pit face that was sampled. Acetone was detected in the VOA analysis, but this compound is
caused by instrument contamination. One or more PAHs were detected. Based on site
selection criteria and screening analysis, this site was considered suitable and representative
except for cesium and tritium.
ORR Site 102. This site is in the Bethel Valley section of the Chickamauga Group
Moccasin Formation. This site was evidently the front yard or back yard of a farmstead
Vegetation is an open stand of large, mature oaks and pines. Poison ivy was very abundant
The ground surface was covered with leaves and pine needles. This site had an elevated level
of cesium-137 (173pCi/cm2) and the highest level of tritium (0.22 pCi/g). This site and ORR
Site 101 are on either side of Bldg. 4500. However, no other elevated levels of organics,
metals, or radionuclides were associated with either the cesium or tritium. The elevated levels
are interpreted to be caused by local input from ORNL. The A horizon soil sample was
collected in the upper 10 cm of the A horizon. The C horizon, obtained from a depth of 90
to 101 cm, consisted of saprolitic materials. Rock ledges were encountered at a depth of
101 cm in the vertical section of the soil pit that was sampled. Depth to rock in the soil pit
varied from 34 cm to 101 cm. Acetone was a detect in the VOA analysis, but this compound
is caused by instrument contamination. One or more PAHs were detected. Based on site
selection criteria and screening analysis, this site was considered suitable and representative
except for the elevated levels of cesium-137 and tritium.
ORR Site 103. This site is in the Bethel Valley section of the Chickamauga Group
Moccasin Formation. Vegetation is old-field successional forest. This site was severely eroded
before abandonment. Some of the early pines and cedars remain along with a few large oaks.

-------
3-31
levels of cesium-137 (14.0 pCi/cm2) and tritium (020 pCi/g). These higher levels are
interpreted to be caused by local input from ORNL. There were no other elevated levels of
organics, metals or radionuclides at this site when compared to all of the Bethel Valley.sites.
The A horizon soil sample was collected from a 4-cm-thick A horizon. The A horizon was
mostly composed of Rome colluvium that had moved downslope. The C horizon soil sample,
obtained from a depth of 90 to 100 cm, consisted of saprolitic materials. Acetone was
detected in the VOA analysis, but this compound is caused by instrument contamination. One
or more PAHs were detected. Based on site selection criteria and screening analysis, however,
this site was considered suitable and representative, even though it exhibited elevated levels
of cesium-137 and tritium.
ORR Site 104. This site is in the Bethel Valley Section of the Chickamauga Group
Moccasin Formation. Vegetation is old-field successional forest The early pines and cedais
have mostly been replaced by hardwoods dominated by oaks, red maple, and hickory. There
are low-bush blueberries, and the forest floor is leaf-covered. Levels of cesium-137
(10.2 pCi/cm2) and tritium were at background and below-detection limits, respectively. There
were no other elevated levels of metals or other radionuclides. The A horizon soil sample
consisted of a reformed E horizon and the old Ap horizon beneath. The C horizon sample,
obtained at a depth of 75 to 95 cm, consisted of saprolitic materials. No rock was encountered
within a depth of 100 cm. There were no VOA detects, but there were one or more detects
for PAHs. Based on site selection criteria and screening analysis, this site was considered
suitable and representative.
ORR Site 108. This site is in the Bethel Valley section of the Chickamauga Group.
Vegetation is old-field successional. There are still many older pines and cedars. The forest
floor was mostly leaf-covered, but there were patches of mosses. There were no elevated
levels of either cesium-137 (&5 pCi/cm2) or tritium, nor of any other metals or radionuclides.
The A horizon soil sample consisted of the old Ap horizon. The C horizon, obtained from
a depth of 80 to 90 cm, consisted of highly clav-plugged saprolitic materials. Depth to rock
was variable in the soil pit, ranging from 53 to 95 cm. The vertical section of soil sampled was
in the deepest part of the pit Butanone was detected in the VOA analysis, but this compound
is caused by instrument contamination. One or more PAHs were detected. Based on site
selection criteria and screening analysis, this site was considered suitable and representative.
ORR She 110. This site is underlain by the Bethel Valley section of the Chickamauga
Group. Vegetation is old-field successional forest with pines, cedars, and oaks. The understory
consists of beech and hickory sprouts along with weeds and honeysuckle. The forest floor is
leaf-covered. This site had been severely eroded before abandonment There were no
elevated levels of cesium-137 (7.9 pCi/cm2) or tritium, although there was a reading of 90 cpm
in the top of the auger hole from the hand-held radiation detector used in site screening.
There were apparent elevated levels of Pa-234 and Np-237 that might have caused this higher
than normal instrument reading. The A horizon soil sample consisted of the 3-cm-thick
reformed A horizon. The C horizon, obtained from a depth of 75 to 85 cm, consisted of
clayey saprolitic materials. There were thin rock ledges at several depths in the pit face. Based
on site selection criteria and screening analysis, this site was considered suitable and
representative.
ORR Site 115. This site is underlain by the Bethel Valley section of the Chickamauga.
Vegetation is old-field successional forest of Virginia pine, cedar, oak, hickory, ash, and

-------
3-32
appear to have been plowed, but evidently was a woods pasture. There were no elevated
levels of cesium-137 (9-5 pCi/cnr) nor tritium. The A horizon soil sample consisted of the A
horizon and the transitional EB horizon beneath. The C horizon sample, obtained from a
depth of 60 to 75 cm, consisted of saprolitic materials. Depth to rock was mostly 25 to 45 cm,
except in the deep part of the pit that was sampled. There, rock occurred at a depth of
75 cm. Acetone was a detect in the VOA analysis, but this compound is caused by instrument
contamination. One or more PAHs were detected. This site had an apparent higher level of
Pa-234 than most other Bethel Valley sites. Based on site selection criteria and screening
analysis, this site was considered suitable and representative.
ORR Site 116. This site is underlain by the Bethel Valley section of the Chickamauga
Group. Vegetation is a planted loblolly pine plantation. The trees appear to be about 40 years
old. The site is within 50 to 60 ft of an old house or barn (disturbed area). There were no
elevated levels of cesium-137 (7.8 pCi/cm2), nor of tritium, nor of any other radionuclides or
metals. The A horizon soil sample consisted of a thin, reformed A horizon and the old Ap
horizon beneath. The C horizon, obtained from a depth of 70 to 85 cm, consisted of saprolitic
materials. No rock was encountered within a depth of 100 cm. Both acetone and butanone
were detected in the VOA analysis, but these two compounds are caused by instrument
contamination. One or more PAHs were detected. Technetium-99 was also detected in this
sample. This site also had an elevated level of Pa-234 when compared with most other Bethel
Valley sites. Based on site selection criteria and screening analysis, this site was considered
suitable and representative.
ORR Site 117. This site is underlain by the Bethel Valley section of the Chickamauga
Group. The soils are formed in residuum, but the presence of rounded river gravels indicates
that this site had been covered with alluvium in the past Vegetation is a loblolly pine
plantation. The trees appear to be about 40 years old. There were no elevated levels of
cesium-137 (8.9 pCi/cm2), nor of tritium, nor of any other radionuclides or metals. The A
horizon soil sample consisted of a thin, reformed A horizon and the old Ap horizon beneath.
The C horizon soil sample, obtained from a depth of 85 to 95 cm, consisted of clayey
saprolitic materials. Limestone rock was encountered at a depth of 106 cm. Butanone was a
detect in the VOA analysis, but this is caused by instrument contamination. One or more
PAHs were detected. This site had a higher level of Pa-234 than most of the other Bethel
Valley sites. Based on site selection criteria and screening analysis, this site was considered
suitable and representative.
ORR Site 118. This site is underlain by the East Fork (K-25 Site) section of the
Chickamauga Group. Vegetation is old-growth hardwood forest dominated by large white
oaks, American beech, cherry, and sugar maple. There were no elevated levels of cesium-137
(9.64 pCi/cm2) nor of tritium. No VOAs were detected, but there were one or more detects
for PAHs. The A horizon soil sample consisted of the 5-cm-thick, reformed A horizon. The
C horizon soil sample, obtained from a depth of 70 to 80 cm. consisted of saprolitic materials.
No rock was encountered within a depth of 100 cm. Based on site selection criteria and
screening analysis, this site was considered suitable and representative.
ORR Site 119. This site is underlain by the East Fork (K-25 Site) section of the
Chickamauga Group. Vegetation is cut-over old woods. Present large trees are cedars, oak,
and ash. There were no elevated levels of cesium-137 (7.79 pCi/cm2) nor of tritium, but there
was a detect for technetium-99. There were no VOA detects, but there were one or more

-------
3-33
horizon beneath. The C horizon soil sample, obtained from a depth of 75 to 88 cm, consisted
of the transitional horizon beneath the Bt horizon and limestone bedrock. Depth to rock in
the soil pit varied from 30 cm to more than 100 cm. Based on site selection criteria and
screening analysis, this site was considered suitable and representative.
ORR Site 120. This site is underlain by the East Fork (K-25 Site) section of the
Chickamauga Group. The soil had a thin layer of alluvium, 27-cm-thick over the residuum.
Vegetation is old-growth hardwoods dominated by large American beech. There were no
elevated levels of cesium-137 (9.01 pCi/cm2) or tritium. There were no VOA detects, but
there were one or more detects for PAHs. The A horizon sample was obtained from the
upper 10 cm of the soiL The B horizon sample was collected from the residuum beneath the
surficial alluvium. The C horizon soil sample, obtained from a depth of 85 to 100 cm,
consisted of saprolitic materials. No rock was encountered within a depth of 100 cm. Based
on site selection criteria and screening analysis, this site was considered suitable and
representative.
ORR Site 121. This site is underlain by the East Fork (K-25 Site) section of the
Chickamauga Group. Vegetation is old-field successional forest dominated by Virginia pine
with an understory of gum, red maple, and beech. There were no elevated levels of
cesium-137 nor of tritium, but technetium-99 was detected. Butanone was a VOA detect, but
this compound is caused by instrument contamination. There were one or more detects for
PAHs. Of special interest is a detect for chlordane. This site is close to an old farm building
site, so it may be a real detect and not caused by instrument contamination. The A horizon
soil sample consisted of a thin, reformed A horizon and the old Ap horizon beneath. The C
horizon soil sample, obtained from a depth of 70 to 90 cm, consisted of saprolitic material.
No rock was encountered within a depth of 100 cm. ESD gamma scan results for cesium-137
gave a value of 636 pCi/cm2, an indication of recent erosion. Based on site selection criteria
and screening analysis, this site was considered suitable and representative.
ORR Site 122. This site is underlain by the East Fork (K-25 Site) section of the
Chickamauga Group. Vegetation is a planted loblolly pine plantation with trees more than
40 years old. There are abundant honeysuckle and briars on the needle-covered forest floor.
There were no elevated levels of cesium-137 nor of tritium. There were no VOA detects, but
there were one or more detects for PAHs. The A horizon soil sample consisted of the entire
thickness of the old Ap horizon. The C horizon soil sample, obtained from a depth of 70 to
80 cm, consisted of saprolitic materials. No rock was encountered within a depth of 100 cm.
Based on site selection criteria and screening analysis, this site was considered suitable and
representative.
ORR Site 123. This site is underlain by the East Fork (K-25 Site) section of the
Chickamauga Group. Vegetation is a planted loblolly pine plantation with trees more than
40 years old. There are abundant honeysuckle and briars on the needle-covered forest floor.
There were no elevated levels of cesium-137 or tritium. Acetone was a detect in the VOA
analysis, but this compound is caused by instrument contamination. One or more PAHs were
detected. The A horizon soil sample was obtained from a depth of 0 to 3 cm. The C horizon
soil sample, obtained from a depth of 80 to 90 cm, consisted of saprolitic materials. No rock
was encountered within a depth of 100 cm. ESD gamma scan results for cesium-137 gave a
value of 730 pCi/cnr, an indication of recent erosion. Based on site selection criteria and

-------
3-34
ORR Site 124. This site is underlain by the East Fork (K-25 Site) section of the
Chickamauga Group. Vegetation is a planted loblolly pine plantation with trees more than
40 years old. There are abundant honeysuckle and briars on the needle-covered forest floor.
The actual site is at the very edge of the plantation and close to a rock escarpment
overlooking East Fork of Poplar Creek. There were no elevated levels of cesium-137
(8.09 pCi/cm2) nor of tritium, but technetium-99 was detected. There were no VOA detects
for VOAs, but there were one or more detects for PAHs. The A horizon soil sample,
obtained from a depth of 10 cm, consisted of a thin, reformed A horizon and part of the old
Ap horizon beneath. The C horizon soil sample, obtained from a depth of 80 to 90 cm,
consisted of saprolitic materials. Rock was encountered in the soil pit from very close to the
surface at one end to more than 100 cm at the other end, about 3 ft away. Based on site
selection criteria and screening analysis, this site was considered suitable and representative.
ORR Site 125. This site is underlain by the East Fork (K-25 Site) section of the
Chickamauga Group. Vegetation is a planted loblolly pine plantation with trees more than
40 years old. There are abundant honeysuckle and briars on the needle-covered forest floor.
There were no elevated levels of cesium-137 or tritium. Acetone was a detect in the VOA
analysis, but this compound is caused by instrument contamination. There were one or more
detects for PAHs. The A horizon soil sample consisted of the very thin, reformed A horizon
and part of the older Ap horizon beneath. The C horizon soil sample, obtained from a depth
of 70 to 90 cm, consisted of clayey saprolitic materials. No rock was encountered in the soil
pit within a depth of 100 cm. ESD gamma scan results for cesium-137 gave a value of
7.50 pCi/cm2, an indication of relative stability. Based on site selection criteria and screening
analysis, this site was considered suitable and representative.
ORR Site 126. This site is underlain by the East Fork (K-25 Site) section of the
Chickamauga Group. Vegetation is old-field successional forest dominated by Virginia pine
and hardwoods. Poison ivy, honeysuckle, and mosses were abundant on the ground surface.
There were no elevated levels of cesium-137 (9.31 pCi/cm2) nor of tritium. Acetone was a
VOA detect, but this compound is caused by instrument contamination. There were one or
more detects for PAHs. The A horizon soil sample consisted of a thin, reformed A horizon
and the old Ap horizon beneath. The C horizon soil sample, obtained from a depth of 80 to
90 cm, consisted of saprolitic materials. No rock was encountered in the soil pit within a
depth of 100 cm. Based on site selection criteria and screening analysis, this site was
considered suitable and representative.
ORR Site 127. This site is underlain by the East Fork (K-25 Site) section of the
Chickamauga Group. Vegetation is old-Geld successional forest dominated by Virginia pine,
cedars, and hardwoods. There were abundant poison ivy and honeysuckle on the ground
surface. There were no elevated levels of cesium-137 (9.62 pCi/cm2) nor of tritium. There
were no VOA detects, but there were one or more detects for PAHs. The A horizon soil
sample consisted of a thin, reformed A horizon. The C horizon soil sample, obtained from
a depth of 65 to 75 cm, consisted of clayey saprolitic materials. No rock was encountered in
the soil pit within a depth of 100 cm. Based on site selection criteria and screening analysis,
this site was considered suitable and representative.
ORR Site 128. This site is underlain by the East Fork (K-25 Site) section of the
Chickamauga Group. Vegetation is old-field successional forest dominated by Virginia pine,
cedars, and hardwoods along with some dogwood and red maple. Poison ivy and honeysuckle

-------
3-35
(8.89 pCi/cm2) nor of tritium. Both acetone and butanone were VOA detects, but these
compounds are caused by instrument contamination. One or more PAHs were detected. The
A horizon soil sample consisted of a thin, reformed A horizon and the old Ap horizon
beneath. The C horizon soil sample, obtained from a depth of 70 to 90 cm, consisted of
saprolitic materials. No rock was encountered in the soil pit within a depth of 100 cm. Based
on site selection criteria and screening analysis, this site was considered suitable and
representative.
ORR Site 129. This site is underlain by the East Fork (K-25 Site) section of the
Chickamauga Group. Vegetation is old-field successional forest. The site was probably an
open woods pasture. There are a few large oaks. White pine is now invading and rapidly
reproducing. There are a few holly trees, along with red maple and oak sprouts. There were
no elevated levels of cesium-137 (8.96 pCi/cm2) nor of tritium. Butanone was a VOA detect,
but this compound is caused by instrument contamination. One or more PAHs were detected.
The A horizon soil sample consisted of a thin, reformed A horizon and the old Ap horizon
beneath. The C horizon soil sample, obtained from a depth of 100 to 116 cm, consisted of
saprolitic materials. No rock was encountered in the soil pit within a depth of 100 cm. Based
on site selection criteria and screening analysis, this site was considered suitable and
representative.
3.10 QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF ROANE COUNTY SITES
ROA Site 3, ROA Site 9, ROA Site 19, ROA Site 20, ROA Site 21, and ROA Site 22.
These sites are located close together in the central part of the sampling transect All of these
sites had old-field successional forest of pines and hardwoods.
ROA Site 3. This site is located in a toeslope position. The entire soil profile consists of
colluvium/alluvium derived from soils of Conasauga Group rocks rather than residuum from
the Dismal Gap Formation. Acetone and 2-butanone were "J" estimates in the VOA analysis,
but these are caused by instrument contamination. There were no other VOA analytes above
detection limits. No tritium was detected in the A horizon sample from this site. In the
organics analysis, only naphthalene was estimated to be present. All other organics were
below detection limits. ESD cesium-137 gamma scan analysis for this site showed a median
value of 5.63 pCi/cm2, a low value, indicating that this site has experienced erosion since the
start of global fallout
ROA Site 7 and ROA Site 8. These sites are close together. ROA Site 7 and ROA Site 8
are on a lower sideslope. The upper 44 cm of the ROA Site 7 and the ROA Site 8 soil
profiles are formed in colluvium. The soil beneath is residuum of the Dismal Gap Formation.
Present forest is old-field successional dominated by pines. This site is in a group of trees
surrounded by cattle pasture, and the site is open to cattle grazing. Except for acetone, no
VOAs were detected and no tritium was detected. Benzo[6]anthracene was an estimated "J"
detect but no other organics were detected. ESD cesium-137 gamma scan results gave a value
of 6.64 pCi/cnr for ROA Site 7, indicating that this site has been eroding since global fallout
started. The corresponding value for ROA Site 8 is 11.93 pCi/cnr, indicating that there has
been some deposition on this site.
ROA Site 9. This site is located in a toeslope position. The upper 52 cm of the soil

-------
3-36
the C horizon sample consists of Cr materials from the Dismal Gap Formation. No VOAs
were detected, no tritium was detected, and no organics were detected. ESD cesium-137
gamma scan showed a value of 10.15 pCi/cm2 for the upper 30 cm of the soil profile, an
indication of some recent deposition.
ROA Site 10. This site is located at the north end of the Roane County transect This site
is surrounded by an open field, and cattle have access to this site. The upper 18 cm of the soil
formed in alluvium, but the lower part formed in residuum of the Dismal Gap Formation.
Present forest is old-field successional with both pines and hardwoods. Except for acetone,
no VOAs or organics were detected. ESD cesium-137 gamma scan results gave a value of
8.56 pCi/cm2, indicating that this site has been relatively stable.
ROA Site 13 and. ROA Site 14. These sites are close together. The soil at ROA Site 13
formed in residuum of the Dismal Gap Formation. Present forest is old-field successional
dominated by pines on ROA Site 13. The site is at the base of a long slope. Except for
acetone and 2-butanone, no VOAs were detected. Benzo[£>]£luoranthene was an estimated
"J" detect No other organics were detected. ESD cesium-137 gamma scan results gave a
value of 1.98 pCi/cm2, a very low value, indicating that this site has been actively eroding.
ROA Site 14 occurs on a convex sideslope. The upper 41 cm of the soil profile formed in
colluvium. Below 41 cm, the soil formed in the transition zone between the Dismal Gap and
Rogersville formations. Present forest is old-field successional dominated by red maple,
poplar, dogwood, and poison ivy. Except for acetone, no VOAs were detected.
Benzo[a]pyrene was an estimated "J" detect, but no other organics were detected. ESD
gamma scan results gave a value of 8.20 pCi/cm2 for this site, an indication of relative stability.
ROA Site 17. This site is isolated. The soil on this site is residuum of the Dismal Gap
Formation. Present forest vegetation is old-Geld successional dominated by pines. The site is
open to cattle. Exception for acetone and 2-butanone resulting from instrument
contamination, no other VOAs were detected, no tritium was detected, and no organics were
detected. ESD cesium-137 gamma scan results gave a value of 9.61 pCi/cm2, indicating that
this site has not been eroding.
ROA Site 19. This site is located in a toeslope position. The upper 47 cm of the soil
profile is formed in colluvium. The A horizon and B horizon samples came from this soil
material. The C horizon sample came from residuum of the Dismal Gap Formation. No
VOAs were detected, no tritium was detected, and no organics were detected in the
A horizon sample. ESD cesium-137 gamma scan results showed a median value of
4.16 pCi/cm2, an indication that this site has been eroding since the start of global fallout
ROA Site 20. This site is located in a toesiope position. The soil is derived from residuum
of the Dismal Gap Formation. No VOAs were detected, no tritium was detect, but fiuorene
was a "J" estimated detect in the A horizon. No other organics were detected. ESD
cesium-137 gamma scan results gave a value of 6.11 pCi/cm2, indicating that some soil erosion
has occurred since global fallout started.
ROA Site 21. This site is located in a midslope position. The upper 74 cm of the soil
profile formed in colluvium from the Dismai Gap Formation. The 2Cr horizon beneath is
residuum of the Dismal Gap. Present forest is old-field successional dominated by pines. No

-------
3-37
results show a value of 5.40 pCi/cm:, an indication that this site has been eroding since global
fallout started.
ROA Site 22. This site is located on a bench landform. The upper 45 cm of the soil
profile is colluvium. Below is residuum of the Dismal Gap Formation. Present forest is
old-Geld successional, but it is now dominated by hardwoods. No VOAs were detected, no
tritium was detected, but there was an estimated "J" detect for naphthalene in A horizon
samples. ESD cesium-137 gamma scan results gave a value of 4.16 pCi/cnr to a depth of
30 cm for this site, indicating that erosion has occurred since global fallout started.
ROA Site 33. This site is underlain by the Copper Ridge Formation of the Knox Group.
This site is about 400 ft away from an old quarry. The surface of the site was covered with
carbonate fragments up to boulder size. These were the result of blasting operations.
Vegetation is old-field successional forest. The pines have all been replaced by hardwoods.
Acetone was a VOA detect, but this compound is caused by instrument contamination. A
pesticide product, 4-4' DDT was detected. One or more PAHs were detected. This site had
a slightly elevated cesium-137 level, but this is considered within the norm. Based on site
selection criteria and screening analysis, this site was considered to be typical and
representative.
ROA Site 34. This site is underlain by the Copper Ridge Formation of the Knox Group.
Vegetation is old-field successional forest with some of the early pines still remaining, but
most of the trees are now hardwoods. Acetone was a VOA detect, but this compound is
caused by instrument contamination. One or more PAHs were detected. This site had an
elevated cesium-137 leveL The soil profile description indicated that there had been about
4 cm of recent overwash, which would explain the higher-than-normal level. Based on site
selection criteria and screening analysis, this site was considered to be typical and
representative.
ROA Site 35. This site is underlain by the Copper Ridge Formation of the Knox Group.
Vegetation is old-field successional forest with all of the early pines having been replaced by
hardwoods dominated by oaks. No VOAs were detected, but there were one or more PAHs.
This site had an elevated cesium-137 level. The soil profile description indicated that there
had been some recent overwash. resulting in an over-thickened A horizon, which would
explain the higher-than-normal level. Based on site selection criteria and screening analysis,
this site was considered to be typical and representative.
ROA Site 39. This site is underlain by the Copper Ridge Formation of the Knox Group,
but the upper 95 cm of the soil consisted of local colluvium. Vegetation is old-field
successional forest, but the early pines have been replaced by oaks. No VOAs were detected,
but there were one or more PAHs. This site had a slightly elevated cesium-137 accumulation,
an indication that some local sediment accumulation has occurred. Because of the excessive
thickness of the colluvium, this site is not considered to be representative of residual soils, but
would be representative of local cherty colluvial soils of the Copper Ridge Formation.
ROA Site 40. This site is underlain by the Copper Ridge Formation of the Knox Group,
but the upper 52 cm of the soil consisted of local cherty colluvium. Vegetation is old-field
successional forest, but most of the early pines have been replaced by oaks and hickories.
Acetone was a detect in the VOA analysis, but this compound is caused by instrument

-------
3-38
was within the normal (average) background range of about 8.7. The slightly excessive
thickness of colluvium is borderline to consider this site to be representative of Copper Ridge
residual soils.
ROA Site 41. This site is underlain by the Copper Ridge Formation of the Knox Group.
Vegetation is old-field successional forest, but most of r - early pines have been replaced by
oaks. No VOAs were detected, but there were one or z.. ~e detects for PAHs. Cesium-137
accumulation of 9.1 pCi/cm2 was within the normal background range of about 8.7. Based on
site selection criteria and screening analysis, this site was considered to be typical and
representative.
ROA Site 42. This site is underlain by the Copper Ridge Formation of the Knox Group.
Vegetation is old-field successional forest Most of the early pines have been replaced by
oaks, red maple, and sumac. Acetone was a VOA detect, but this compound is the result of
instrument contamination. One or more PAHs were detected. Cesium-137 accumulation of
6.7 pCi/cm2 was the beiow background range of about 8.7, an indication that some surficial
erosion has occurred at this site. The soil profile description does not indicate the presence
of any A horizon. Based on site selection criteria and screening analysis, this site was
considered to be typical and representative, except for the slight amount of erosion (1 to
2 cm).
ROA Site 43. This site is underlain by the Copper Ridge Formation of the Knox Group,
but the upper 72 cm of the soil consisted of local cherty colluvium. Vegetation is old-field
successional forest Present vegetation is chestnut oak, dogwood, sumac, and sassafras.
Acetone was a VOA detect, but this compound is the result of instrument contamination.
One or more PAHs were detected. Cesium-137 accumulation of 11.1 pCi/cm2 was above
normal background range of about 8.7, an indication that there has been some surficial
deposition on this site, although the presence of any recent deposition was not described in
the soil profile description. Because of the excessive thickness of the colluvium, this site is not
considered to be representative of residual soils, but would be representative of local cherty
colluvial soils of the Copper Ridge Formation. The second problem is the recent deposition
on this site, but sediment accumulation of about 2 cm would account for the higher
cesium-137 value.
ROA Site 44. This site is underlain by the Copper Ridge Formation of the Knox Group,
but the upper 88 cm of the soil consisted of local cherty colluvium. Vegetation is old-field
successional forest Most of the early pines have been replaced by oaks, red maple, poplar,
and dogwood. Acetone was a VOA detect, but this compound is the result of instrument
contamination. One or more PAHs were detected. Cesium-137 accumulation of 5.8 pCi/cm*
was considerably below the normal background range of about 8.7, a strong indication that
this site has been eroding since radioactive cesium deposition began. Because of the excessive
thickness of the colluvium. this site is not considered to be representative of residual soils, but
it would be representative of local cherty colluvial soils of the Copper Ridge Formation. The
second problem is the recent erosion from this site.
ROA Site 45. This site is underlain by the Copper Ridge Formation of the Knox Group,
but the upper 33 cm of the soil consisted of local cherty colluvium. Vegetation is old-field
successional forest Most of the early pines have been replaced by sassafras, oaks, hickories,
and dogwood. Acetone was a VOA detect, but this compound is the result of instrument

-------
3-39
was very close to the normal background range of about 8.7. Based on site selection criteria
and screening analysis, this site was considered to be typical and representative.
ROA Site 46. This site is underlain by the Copper Ridge Formation of the Knox Group,
but the upper 64 cm of the soil consisted of local ancient alluvium. Vegetation is old-field
successional forest. Most of the early pines have been replaced by red maple and dogwood.
Acetone was a VOA detect, but this compound is the result of instrument contamination.
One or more PAHs were detected. Cesium-137 accumulation of 7.7 pCi/cm2 was within the
normal background range of about 8.7. Because of the excessive thickness of the ancient
alluvium, this site is not considered to be representative of residual soils.
ROA Site 47. This site is underlain by the Copper Ridge Formation of the Knox Group,
but the upper 43 cm of the soil consisted of local cherty colluvium. Vegetation is old-Geld
successional forest Most of the early pines have been replaced by poplar, red maple, and
dogwood. Acetone was a VOA detect, but this compound is the result of instrument
contamination. One or more PAHs were detected. Cesium-137 accumulation of 43 pCi/cm2
was well below the normal background range of about 8.7, an indication that there has been
considerable erosion. Because of the thickness of colluvium, this site is marginally
representative of residual soils. The second problem is the recent erosion from this site.
3.11 QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF ANDERSON COUNTY SITES
AND Site 1, AND Site 10, and AND Site 11. These sites are located close together. AND
Site 1 is located in Dismal Gap residuum and is situated in a woodlot that is also used for
cattle pasture. The A horizon sample consisted of an old Ap horizon, the B horizon sample
consisted of the entire thickness of the argillic horizon, and the C horizon samples of
Cr horizon materials. This site is also on a 30% slope and subject to accelerated soil erosion.
No VOAs registered above detection limits, but several organics were detected. The results
from ESD cesium-137 gamma scanning gave a value of 6.58 pCi/cm2 in the upper 30 cm of
soiL This value indicates that this site has been, and perhaps still is, eroding, although at a
very slow rate. AND Site 10 occurs in an old field with old-field successional forest dominated
by pines. This site is on a nearly level ridge top. The A horizon sample consisted of an
A horizon, the B horizon sample consisted of the entire thickness of the argillic horizon, and
the C horizon sample consisted of Cr materials. Except for acetone, all VOA analytes were
below detection limits, but several organics were estimated. All were PAHs. In addition, there
were several organic rejects. ESD cesium-137 gamma scanning results gave a median value
of 939 pCi/cm2, which agrees with the soil morphology indication of surface stability. AND
Site 11 occurs in a stand of hardwoods that was once an old field. The soil morphology is
typical of a more strongly weathered and developed soil from the Dismal Gap Formation than
what is generally typical. Except for acetone, no VOA analytes registered above detection
limits. There were several "J" estimated organics. The ESD cesium-137 gamma scanning
results gave a median value of 10.27 pCi/cm2 for the upper 30 cm of the soil profile. This
value indicates that this site has not been eroding, but may have received 1 to 2 cm of recent
deposition.
AND Site 3, AND Site 4, AND Site 5, and AND Site 20. These four sites are clustered
close together. They are all under the same ownership and have a similar old-Geld
successional forest dominated by pines. The underlying geology is the Dismal Gap Formation.

-------
3-40
and the underlying residuum. AND Site 5 was formed in 70 cm of coliuvium and the
underlying residuum. AND Site 20 was formed in 21 era of coliuvium and the underlying
residuum. Except for acetone resulting from instrument contamination, no VOA analytes
registered above detection limits. All sites showed estimated "J" amounts of several PAHs.
ESD cesium-137 gamma scan results indicated that AND Site 3, with a value of 4.73 pCi/cm2,
had been quite eroded. AND Site 20, with a value of 7.03 pCi/cm2, had been eroded to some
extent, but AND Site 4, with a value of 9.97 pCi/cm2, had not experienced any erosion.
AND Site 9 and AND Site 19. These sites are located close together, separated by about
300 ft. Both sites have typical soils that formed in Dismal Gap residuum. AND Site 9 occurs
on a convex sideslope, while AND Site 19 occurs on the lower part of a sideslope. Except for
acetone, no VOA analytes registered above detection limits for either site. However, there
were several "J" estimated organics, mostly PAHs, for both sites. ESD cesium-137 gamma
scan results for AND Site 9 show a value of 8.95 pCi/cm2 in the upper 30 cm of the soil
profile, while AND Site 19 shows a value of 14.42. The soil profile description indicates that
there has been some soil deposition at this site.
AND Site 12, AND Site 21, and AND Site 22. These sites are underlain by the Dismal
Gap Formation, and the soils are typical of Dismal Gap residual soils. They exhibit similar
old-field successional forest dominated by pines but have slightly differing landscape positions.
Cattle are allowed to graze on AND Site 12 and Site 21 but not on AND Site 22. Except for
acetone, no VOA analytes registered above detection limits. All sites contain estimated "J"
PAHs. AND Site 12 also contains Aroclor 1242 above detection limits. ESD cesium-137
gamma scan data show a value of 731 pCi/cm2, a lower-than-nojmal value, indicating that
there has been some soil erosion from AND Site 12. The value for AND Site 21 is 635, also
a lower- than-normal value, indicating that there has been soil erosion from this site. In
addition, AND Site 22 has a value of 3.80 pCi/cm2 an indication of considerable erosion.
AND Site 31. This site is underlain by the Copper Ridge Formation, but the upper 61 cm
of the soil profile consisted of local cherty coliuvium. Vegetation is old-field successional
forest and is now dominated by Virginia pine, sassafras, and oaks. Both acetone and butanone
were VOA detects, but these compounds are the result of instrument contamination. One or
more PAHs were detected. Cesium-137 accumulation of 8.6 pCi/cm2 was well within normal
background range of about 8.5. Because of the excessive thickness of the coliuvium, this site
is not considered to be representative of residual soils but would be representative of local
cherty colluvial soils of the Copper Ridge Formation.
AND Site 32. This site is underlain by the Copper Ridge Formation, but the upper 45 cm
of the soil profile consisted of local cherty coliuvium. Vegetation is old-field successional
forest and is now dominated by oaks, hickories, and sassafras. Both acetone and butanone
were VOA detects, but these compounds are the result of instrument contamination. One or
more PAHs were detected. Cesium-137 accumulation of 7.1 pCi/cm2 was slightly below the
normal background of about 8.5, an indication that some erosion has occurred at this site.
Because of the thickness of coliuvium, this site is marginally representative of residual soils.
AND Site 33. This site is underlain by the Copper Ridge Formation, but the upper 46 cm
of the soil profile consisted of local cherty coliuvium. Vegetation is old-field successional
forest and is now dominated by hickories, oaks, dogwood, and sassafras. No VOAs were

-------
3-41
accumulation of &5 pCi/cm2 was the same as the normal background range of about 8.5.
Because of the thickness of colluvium, this site is marginally representative of residual soils.
AND Site 34. This site is underlain by the Copper Ridge Formation, but the upper 52 cm
of the soil profile consisted of local cherty colluvium. Vegetation is old-field successional
forest which is now dominated by chestnut oaks, sassafras, dogwoods, and red maple. No
VOAs were detected. One or more PAHs were detected. Technetium-99 was detected at this
site. Cesium-137 accumulation of 11.4 pCi/cm2 was above the normal background of about
&5, an indication that some sediment accumulation has occurred on this site. Because of the
thickness of colluvium, this site is marginally representative of residual soils. The above-
normal cesium level indicating deposition also makes this site less representative of stable
sites.
AND Site 35. This site is underlain by the Copper Ridge Formation, but the upper 62 cm
of the soil profile consisted of local cherty colluvium. Vegetation is old-Seld successional
forest and is now dominated by oaks, sassafras, and red maple. Both acetone and butanone
were VOA detects, but these compounds are the result of instrument contamination. One or
more PAHs were detected. Cesium-137 accumulation of 7.5 pCi/cm2 was slightly below the
normal background of about 8.5, an indication that some erosion has occurred at this site.
Because of the thickness of colluvium, this site is not considered to be representative of
residual soils but is very representative of the associated colluvial soils.
AND Site 36. This site is underlain by the Copper Ridge Formation, but more than 90 cm
of the soil profile consisted of local cherty colluvium. Vegetation is poplar, white oak, red
oak, and hickory. Both acetone and butanone were VOA detects, but these compounds are
the result of instrument contamination. One or more PAHs were detected. Cesium-137
accumulation of 5.1 pCi/cm2 was well below normal background range of about 8-5, an
indication that erosion has occurred at this site. Because of the thickness of colluvium, this
site is not representative of residual soils but is representative of adjacent colluvial soils. The
second problem with this site is the amount of erosion that has occurred.
AND Siie 37. This site is underlain by the Copper Ridge Formation. Vegetation is
old-field successional forest and is now dominated by cedar, red maple, and oak. No VOAs
were detected. One or more PAHs were detected. Cesium-137 accumulation of 12.8 pCi/cm"
was well above the normal background of about 8.5, an indication that some sedimentation
has occurred on this site. Based on site selection criteria, this site would appear to be
representative, but the high cesium-137 value, an indication of sediment deposition, makes
this site marginally suitable.
AND Site 38. This site is underlain by the Copper Ridge Formation, but the upper 40 cm
of the soil consisted of locai cherty colluvium. Vegetation is old-field successional forest and
is now dominated by cedar, privet, red maple, and oak. No VOAs were detected. One or
more PAHs were detected. Cesium-137 accumulation of 10.5 pCi/cm2 was above the normal
background range of about 8.5, an indication that some sedimentation has occurred on this
site. Based on site selection criteria, this site would appear to be representative, but the
colluvial capping and the higher than normal cesium-137 value would make this site marginally
representative.
AND Site 39. This site is underlain by the Copper Ridge Formation, but the upper 34 cm

-------
3-42
is now dominated by oaks, hickories, and red maple. No VOAs were detected. One or more
PAHs were detected. Cesium-137 accumulation of 6.8 pCi/cm" was below the normal
background range of about 8.5, an indication that some erosion has occurred at this site.
Based on site selection criteria, this site would appear to be representative, but the thin
alluvial capping and the lower than normal cesium-137 value would make this site marginally
representative.
AND Site 40. This site is underlain by the Copper Ridge Formation, but the upper 36 cm
of the soil consisted of local cherty colluvium or alluvium. Vegetation is old-field successionai
forest and is now dominated by Virginia pine and red maple with a ground cover of ferns.
Acetone was a VOA detect, but this compound is the result of instrument contamination
One or more PAHs were detected. Cesium-137 accumulation of 13 pCi/cm2 was slightly
below the normal background of about 8-5, an indication that some erosion has occurred on
this site. Based on site selection criteria, this site is considered to be representative.
AND Site 41. This site is underlain by the Copper Ridge Formation, but the upper 38 cm
of the soil consisted of local cherty colluvium. Vegetation is old-field successionai forest and
is now dominated by red maple, dogwoods, and Virginia pine with a ground cover of ferns.
There were no VOA detects. One or more PAHs were detected. Both alpha chlordane and
endosulfon-1 were pesticide detects. Cesium-137 accumulation of 143 pCi/cm2 was well above
the normal background of about 8.5, an indication that considerable sedimentation has
occurred on this site. Based on site selection criteria, this site would appear to be
representative, but much higher than normal cesium-137 value would make this site marginally
representative.
AND Site 42. This site is underlain by the Copper Ridge Formation, but the upper 53 cm
of the soil consisted of local cherty colluvium. Vegetation is old-field successionai forest and
is now dominated by Virginia pine and red maple with a ground cover of ferns. Acetone was
a VOA detect, but this compound is the result of instrument contamination. One or more
PAHs were detected. Cesium-137 accumulation of 7.1 pCi/cm2 was slightly below the normal
background of about 8_5. an indication that some erosion has occurred at this site. Based on
site selection criteria, this site would not be representative of residual soils, but would be

-------
4-1
4. ANALYTICAL LABORATORY ANALYSES AND DATA
VALIDATION
4.1 SUMMARY OF DATA VALIDATION
The data generated in the Background Soil Characterization Project (BSCP) were
validated according to project-specific validation guidelines. These guidelines were prepared
according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Contract Laboratory Program
(CLP) Validation Functional Guidelines and the BSCP Project Plan (Energy Systems 1992).
A total of 55 data packages was received for the BSCP Project, 23 chemical and 32
radiological. (Please note that the number of chemical packages from the Phase I annual
report was incorrect; the report stated 35 data packages and there were only 12 data
packages, which is the reason for the decrease in the number of chemical packages). The
laboratories reported 22,370 results, with only a total of 1715 results (8.0%) being rejected
by data validation and 6.947 results (31%) being estimated (J) or (UJ) (Table 4.1).
Occurrences of rejected data appear in Appendix H. The quality control (QC) problems
observed in the chemical data validation consisted of (1) calibration problems; (2) blank spike,
matrix spike (MS), and surrogate recoveries outside QC limits; and (3) coelution1 problems.
The major concern in the chemical data centered on the analysis of polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs). The analytical laboratory had problems related to the method, with
only 75% of the data being usable. There were minor problems with herbicides and metals;
31% of the dalapon results and 87% of the osmium results were rejected. The problems
encountered in the radiological data ranged from calibration problems to blank spike and MS
recoveries outside of QC limits. Usability was lowest for two isotopes—curium-244 and
neptunium-237—for which only 43% of the curium-244 and 70% of the neptunium-237 were
usable. The curium-244 data were rejected because the laboratory was unable to recover
blank spikes, matrix spikes, or duplicates due to interferences. The neptunium-237 results
were rejected because of calibration errors and calculation errors in matrix spike/matrix spike
duplicate (MS/MSD) and blank spike recoveries that, upon correction, yielded recoveries that
were outside limits. Lists of sample numbers belonging to each sample delivery group (SDG)
are presented in Appendix F. Information on numbers of samples involved in these summary
percentages is provided in Tables 4.2 through 4.6.
Lessons learned during the course of this project can benefit future Environmental
Restoration (ER) projects. The initial planning process focused on sampling, with a general
idea of what analyses were required. Upon review of QC requirements and analytical methods
required, the project had to re-evaluate the schedule and budget to address analytical needs.
In addition, the BSCP was the first ER project to utilize fully the new Analytical Projects
OfEce (APO). The laboratories performing the work—the first large project they had received
from Energy Systems—required a period of adjustment to Energy Systems requirements and
needs. Many of the concerns that surfaced during early validation activities may be attributed
to this learning period; however, there were some problems that Energy Systems might have
been able to avert. A project-specific preaudit [with reference to the BSCP Project Plan
(Energy Systems 1992, Volume 3) and the APO Statement of Work] of the laboratories,
including review of the laboratories' procedures and quality assurance (QA) review process,
'Coelution is defined as the condition of insufficient separation of two compounds during the

-------
4-2
Table 4.1. Definition of data validation qualifiers
Qualifier Definition
U The analyte was analyzed for but was not detected above the
reported sampie quantitation limit.
J The analyte was positively identified; the associated numerical
value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the
sample.
N The analysis indicates the presence of an analyte for which there is
presumptive evidence to make a tentative identification.
JN The analysis indicates the presence of an analyte that has been
tentatively identified, and the associated numerical value represents
its approximate concentration.
UJ The analyte was not detected above the reported sample
quantitation limit. However, the reported quantitation limit is
approximate and may or may not represent the actual limit of
quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the
analyte in the sample.
R The sample results are rejected because of serious deficiencies in
the ability to analyze the sample and meet quality control criteria.
The presence or absence of the analyte cannot be verified.
UN The laboratory did not register this compound, but there was
presumptive evidence of a compound that was within the retention
time window but was not reported. No other qualification of the
data was made.
UJN The laboratory did not report the compound, but there was
presumptive evidence of a compound that was within the retention
time window but was not reported. The data were qualified as
estimated, J, because of other discrepancies with the data.
RN The laboratory did not report the compound, but there was
evidence of a compound that was within the retention time window
but was not reported. The data were qualified as unusable, R,
because of other discrepancies with the data.
would have been helpful. In addition, sending performance evaluation samples to the
laboratory for each of the methods requested would have indicated the types of data packages
each laboratory can provide and demonstrated the laboratory's ability to perform the
requested analyses. For example, during validation of the technetium-99 data, a copy of the
laboratory's procedure for analyzing technetium was requested, and it was discovered that the
laboratory furnaced the samples at 500°C. This temperature caused the rejection of the
technetium data. A preaudit would have revealed the furnacing step of the procedure before
the samples were shipped. Because no preaudit was performed, project personnel had to study

-------
4-3
technetium in order to determine the acceptability and usefulness of the data. Follow up and
results are discussed in Sect 4.4.
4.2 SCOPE
The objective of the analytical program was to determine the background concentration
levels of selected metals, organics, and radionuclides in natural soil samples.
The assumptions used to select the analytical parameters follow.
• Background concentrations of naturally occurring inorganic, organic, and radiological
parameters or analytes of interest to be determined are those normally found in soils and
sediments of natural origin that indicate contamination when found above natural
background. These include heavy metals, organic compounds, and radionuclides that are
used in or generated by industrial, agricultural, and research activities associated with the
Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR).
• The parameters or analytes not occurring naturally were assumed to have an a priori
concentration equivalent to zero background, which would be below the analytical
detection limits. Some of these include manmade compounds such as volatile organics
and some semivolatile organics. Radionuclides were an exception due to nuclear
activation and fission products that may have been added to the natural background by
natural processes, such as atmospheric deposition.
The analytical methodologies used for this project are those consistent with EPA's
analytical Level IV. The EPA CLP procedures were used where appropriate and SW-846
methods were used for the non-CLP parameters. Due to the nature of the project, the
contract-required detection limits were too high, so the laboratory adapted the SW-846
detection limits to their procedures.
43 SELECTION OF LABORATORIES
The laboratories selected to perform the analyses were
• evaluated, selected, and approved by the APO,
• capable of performing the requested analyses as stated in the work plan, and
• the lowest in cost
The laboratories selected for the BSCP were Lockheed Analytical Services (chemical)
and EcoTek LSI (radiological). These laboratories were chosen by comparing the responses
of four laboratories to the issued statement of work [consisting of the Project Sampling and
Analysis Plan and the Quality Assurance Plan contained in the BSCP Plan (Energy Systems
1992, Volume 3)]. All the laboratories did not submit prices for each analvte required for this
project, so common analvtes were selected and a price comparison was performed for
evaluation purposes. Of the laboratories submitting prices for the chemical portion of the
project, only Lockheed provided pricing and availability for all requested parameters. An
analysis of the submitted prices also indicated that Lockheed had the overall lowest cost of

-------
4-4
Only two laboratories submitted responses to the statement of work for the radiological
analyses. A comparison of the responses indicated that EcoTek was capable of performing
the analyses at the lowest cost.
4.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL AND DATA VALIDATION
The QA and QC of this project was conducted according to the requirements of the
EPA CLP. The Analytical Level as defined by the EPA Data Quality Objectives document
is Level IV. This level is characterized by rigorous QA/QC protocols and documentation. The
pesticide/PCB analyses were performed according to the EPA CLP March 1990 Organics
Statement of Work. The metals analyses (except osmium) were performed according to the
EPA CLP March 1990 Inorganics Statement of Work. All other analyses were analyzed under
"CLP-like" procedures with the minimum QC outlined in the project plan.
During this project there were some modifications to the analytical program. The
following lists the modifications and how they affected the project
• The method for the volatile organic analysis was changed from EPA Method 8240 to
EPA Method 8260, because the laboratory was using a gas chromatographic system that
utilized a capillary column for separation instead of a column packed with graphitized
carbon coated with carbowax (which method 8240 uses). This change did not affect the
detection limits specified by the work plan.
• The analysis of nitrate was removed from the analytical program because of the 24-h
holding time. Due to the compositing of samples, the samples were not shipped for 2 to
5 days after sample collection, which meant that the nitrate holding time was already
exceeded. Therefore, analyzing for nitrate would be futile.
• The work plan indicates that EPA 200.7 CLP-M was to be used for the preparation and
analysis of silicon. However, silicon was prepared according to EPA Method 3050 and
analyzed according to EPA 200.7 CLP-M. This change does affect the recovery of silicon,
since the preferred method is to use a hydrogen fluoride digestion.
• Since it was found that the laboratory was mu: ,e-furnacing technetium-99 samples, a
method was needed to remove organic matter bu. not volatilize the technetium. EcoTek
LSI performed an in-house study of the effects of furnace temperatures and detrmined
that there was no appreciable loss of technetium at 400°C or less. Because of this
finding, we resampied for technetium and reanalyzed using the lower furnace
temperature. As an additional precaution, we had the laboratory spike the samples
before furaacing and determine recovery efficiency before carrying out the technetium-99
method analysis. Using this technique, it was found that the technetium was
quantitatively recovered, and the results were usable for the BSCP.
4.5 DATA VALIDATION
The data validation for this project was conducted by the K-25 Analytical Environmental
Support Group (AESG), the ORNL Measurement Applications and Development Group

-------
4-5
All sample data were delivered to the ORNL/MAD Analytical Coordinator who had ultimate
responsibility for the data throughout the validation process. ORNL/MAD screened the data
packages to ensure contract compliance and that project deliverables were provided, and K-25
AESG performed the technical review of the data.
The criteria for the data validation are outlined in the BSCP Plan (Energy Systems 1992,
Volume 3). However, the project plan did not provide detailed requirements; therefore, the
K-25 Site AESG personnel developed project-specific criteria. They were prepared consistent
with the EPA CLP Validation Functional Guidelines, as well as the validation guidelines
outlined in the BSCP Plan.
The quality of the data validation process was ensured by a defined and documented
process. Initially, the data package was screened for completeness of project deliverables.
Secondly, the data were reviewed and evaluated against the project-specific data validation
criteria. This evaluation was then assessed by a peer review that examined the qualified data,
checked the rationale of the professional judgments, and evaluated the reasonableness of the
findings in light of the data quality objectives. The peer-reviewed data package was then
reviewed by a third individual who concentrated on the rationale and reasonableness of the
qualifications. This extensive review and oversight process was designed to ensure that
consistency was maintained throughout the process. Upon completion of the validation, a
report was issued; a summary of the findings is presented below.
4.5.1 Organic Data Validation Results
4.5.1.1 Pesticide/PCB validation results
The analysis of pesticide/PCB samples was performed according to the USEPA Contract
Laboratory Prop-am Statement of Work for Organic Analysis, Multi-media, Multi-Concentration,
March 1990. There were 118 samples analyzed for the pesticide/PCB compounds listed in the
statement of work.
Holding Times. Holding times were met for both the extraction and analysis for all samples
except samples in SDGs 0514260 and 0727260. Samples in SDG 0514260 were re-extracted
outside of the extraction holding time, thus qualifying the data as estimated (J). The
extraction holding time for samples in SDG 0727260 was exceeded by one day, so the data
was qualified as estimated (J).
Gas chromatographlelectron capture detector (GCIECD) Instrument Performance. The
frequency and sequence of the resolution check mixture and the performance evaluation
mixtures were evaluated.
1. A resolution check mixture was analyzed at the beginning of every initial calibration
sequence, on each GC column and instrument used for analysis.
2. The depth of the valleys between two adjacent compounds (dieldrin and DDE) in the
resolution check mixture could not be verified as being >60% of the height of the
shorter peak.
• Dieldrin and DDE were qualified as estimated (J) for positive results and estimated
nondetect (UJ) for nondetects in SDGs 0523260. 0508260. 0511260. 042260,

-------
4-6
3.	A performance evaluation mixture (PEM) was analyzed at the beginning and end of each
initial calibration sequence and at the beginning of every other 12-h analytical sequence.
4.	Adjacent peaks in the PEM were reviewed and appeared to be 100% resolved for all
compounds except beta-BHC and gamma-BHC on one column. Retention times were
within the specified retention time windows.
•	Beta-BHC and gamma-BHC were qualified as estimated (J) for positive results and
estimated nondetect (UJ) for nondetects for SDGs 0523260, 0508260, 0511260,
0430260, 0514260, and 0519260.
5.	The relative percent difference (RPD) between the calculated amount and the true
amount for each of the single component pesticides and surrogates in the PEMs was
£25% for ail target compounds except the following:
•	4,4'-DDT was qualified as estimated (J) for positive results and estimated nondetect
(UJ) for nondetects in SDG 0523260;
•	beta-BHC was qualified as estimated (J) for positive results and estimated nondetect
(UJ) for nondetects in SDG 0508260;
•	beta-BHC and methoxvchlor in sample 3072 of SDG 0511260 were qualified as
estimated (J) for positive results and estimated nondetect (UJ) for nondetects;
•	alpha-BHC was qualified as estimated (J) for positive results and estimated
nondetect (UJ) for nondetects in samples 1064, 1072, 1080, and 3003 of SDG
042260;
•	beta-BHC and methoxvchlor were qualified as estimated (J) for positive results and
estimated nondetect (UJ) for nondetects in sample 3018 of SDG 042260;
•	alpha-BHC was qualified as estimated (J) for positive results and estimated
nondetect (UJ) for nondetects in samples 1099 and 1106 of SDG 0424260;
•	beta-BHC and methoxvchlor were qualified as estimated (J) for positive results and
estimated nondetect (UJ) for nondetects in samples 1107, 1108, and 1115 of SDG
0424260;
•	beta-BHC and methoxvchlor were qualified as estimated (J) for positive results and
estimated nondetect (UJ) for nondetects in samples 1127 and 3032 of SDG 0430260;
•	4,4'-DDT was qualified as estimated (J) for positive results and estimated nondetect
(UJ) for nondetects for SDG 0722260;
•	beta-BHC was qualified as estimated (J) for positive results and estimated nondetect
(UJ) for nondetects in SDG 0727260; and
•	beta-BHC was qualified as estimated (J) for positive results and estimated nondetect
(UJ) for nondetects in SDG 0? 03260.
Initial and Verification Calibration. Results on initial calibration and calibration verification
forms were examined to ensure that reported results met required QC criteria.
1.	Individual standard mixtures A and B contained all of the single component compounds
and surrogates and were analyzed at low, midpoint, and high concentrations during the
initial calibration on each GC column and instrument used for analysis.
2.	Adjacent peaks in the individual standard mixtures were reviewed and appeared to be
at least 90% resolved for all target compounds.
3.	Retention times reviewed were within the specified retention time windows.
•	Endosulfan I and alpha-BHC had almost the same retention time window that
qualified the data as estimated (J) for positive results and estimated nondetect (UJ)

-------
4-7
4.	All percent standard deviation (%RSD) results for the calibration factors met the QC
criterion of <20% for target compounds, with the exception of the following:
•	alpha-BHC was qualified as estimated (J) for positive results and estimated
nondetect (UJ) for nondetects in SDGs 0803260 and 0727260;
•	4,4'-DDT was qualified as estimated (J) for positive results and estimated nondetect
(UJ) for nondetects in SDG 0722260;
•	alpha-BHC, delta-BHC, 4,4'-DDD and 4,4'-DDE were qualified as estimated (J) for
positive results and estimated nondetect (UJ) for nondetects in SDGs 0519260 and
0508260;
•	alpha-BHC, 4,4'-DDD and 4,4'-DDE were qualified as estimated (J) for positive
results and estimated nondetect (UJ) for nondetects in SDG 0430260 and sample
3072 of SDG 0511260;
•	alpha-BHC and endrin aldehyde were qualified as estimated (J) for positive results
and estimated nondetect (UJ) for nondetects in samples 1099 and 1106 of SDG
0424260 and samples 1064, 107Z 1080, and 3003 of SDG 042260;
•	alpha-BHC, 4.4'DDE, 4,4'-DDD, and 4,4'-DDT were qualified as estimated (J) for
positive results and estimated nondetect (UJ) for nondetects in samples 1107,1108,
and 1115 of SDG 0424260 and sample 3018 of SDG 042260;
•	alpha-BHC, delta-BHC, gamma-BHC, 4,4'-DDD and 4,4'-DDE were qualified as
estimated (J) for positive results and estimated nondetect (UJ) for nondetects in
samples 3058, 3099, and 3085 of SDG 0511260; and
•	alpha-BHC, gamma-BHC, 4,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDT, and endrin aldehyde were qualified
as estimated (J) for positive results and estimated nondetect (UJ) for nondetects in
SDG 0523260.
5.	Surrogates met the criterion of <30% RSD.
6.	A single concentration calibration standard was analyzed for multi-component
compounds.
7.	All RPDs between calculated and nominal amounts for each target compound and
surrogate in the midpoint continuing calibration concentrations met the QC criterion of
<25%, with the exception of the following:
•	aldrin, which was qualified as estimated (J) in SDG 0430260; and
•	delta-BHC, heptachlor, and 4.4'-DDD, which were qualified as estimated (J) in SDG
0523260.
Laboratory Blanks. Samples were extracted with a method blank, and an instrument blank was
run immediately prior to analysis of either a PEM or an individual continuing calibration
midpoint standard mixture. The was no significant contamination found in the blanks, with
the exception of PBBLK02 of SDG 0514260. PBBLK02 was found to contain Aroclor 1242,
which was also identified in two of the samples. Therefore, samples 3046 and 3148 were
qualified as non-detected (U) since the concentration of the samples was less than five times
the concentration found in the associated blanks.
Surrogates. All surrogates were within the 60 to 150% QC limits with the following
exceptions:
• sample 3058 of SDG 0511260, all target compounds in this sample were qualified as

-------
4-8
• sample 3018 of SDG 042260, no qualification was necessary because all surrogates were
outside the limits on the high side and no target compounds were detected;
• sample 3113 of SDG 0514260, all target compounds in this sample were qualified as
estimated (J);
• some surrogates for SDG 0722260 were outside the QC limits. Sample 2130 showed a
TCMX recovery of 175%. Samples 2090 and 2143 showed one recovery of DCB below
the minimum QC criterion of 60% and sample 2149 showed DCB recoveries less than
the QC criterion of 60% on both columns; therefore, late eluters (those eluting within
10 min of the DCB surrogate) were qualified as estimated (J) in sample 2149;
• samples 2179 and 1462 of SDG 0727260 showed recoveries of DCB of less than QC
criterion of 60% on both columns; therefore, late eluters (those eluting within 10 min
of the DCB surrogate) were qualified as estimated (J) in samples 1462 and 2179; and
• SDG 0727260 showed recovery of DCB less than the QC criterion of 60% on both
columns; therefore, late eluters (those eluting within 10 min of the DCB surrogate) were
qualified as estimated (J) in this SDG.
Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicates. Results were checked to ensure that reported results
met the required QC criteria. MS and MSD data are not used to qualify data alone. All MS
and MSD recoveries were within QC limits with the exception of the following:
• MS and MSD recoveries in SDGs 0727260 and 0803260 exceeded the QC limit of 150%.
However, there was no qualification of the data because no target compounds were
found in the samples.
• Endrin failed to be recovered in the MS of SDG 0523260 and was pooriy recovered in
the MSD. However, since there were no problems with recovery and breakdown of
endrin in the standards and PEMs, there was no qualification of the data.
Overall Assessment The laboratory did not always adhere to CLP protocol.
• Extract volumes were condensed to 4 mL instead of 10 mT_
• Only 1 mL of matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate solutions were added to samples
instead of the required 2 mL
• Chromatograms for standards were non-compliant (less than 10% full scale for single
component compounds and less than 25% full scale for multi-component compounds).
• The Florisil cartridge check and cleanup were not performed as required.
• Target compounds were detected on both columns above the detection limit, but below
the contract required quantitation limit; however, they were not reported on Form Is.
A summary of the pesticide/PCB data validation results is presented in Table 4.2.
4.5.1.2 Chlorinated herbicide validation results
The analysis of chlorinated herbicide samples was performed according to the USEPA
SW-846 Method 8150, Second Edition with the QC performed in a "CLP-like" manner. There

-------
4-9
Table 43. Summary distribution of pesticide/PCB data validation results
Compound
No
qualifier
U
UJ
P
J
R
SUM
% usable
alpha-BHC

27
90


1
118
99
beta-BHC

60
57


1
118
99
delta-BHC

45
72


1
118
99
gamma-BHC(Lindane)

27
90


1
118
99
Heptachlor

57
60


1
118
99
Aldrin
1
77
39


1
118
99
Heptachlor epoxide

96
21


1
118
99
Endosulfan I

89
25
1
1

118
98
Dieldrin

49
68


1
118
99
4,4'-DDE

46
71


1
118
99
Endrin

%
21


1
118
99
Endosulfan 11

95
22


1
118
99
4,4'-DDD

53
64


1
118
99
Endosulfan sulfate

94
22


1
117
99
4,4'-DDT

24
91

2
1
118
99
Methoxychlor

88
29


1
118
99
Endrin ketone

94
23


1
118
99
Endrin aldehyde

87
29


1
117
99
alpha-Chlordane
1
91
24

1
1
118
99
gamma-Chlordane

96
21


1
118
99
Toxaphene

96
21


1
118
99
Aroclor-1016

96
21


1
118
99
Aroclor-1221

96
21


1
118
99
Aroclor-1232

96
21


1
118
99
Aroclor-1242
2
93
21
1

1
118
99
Aroclor-1248

96
21


1
118
99
Aroclor-1254

96
21


1
118
99
Aroclor-1260

95
21

1
1
118
99
Holding Times. All holding times fell within the specified range, except for the following:
•	All samples in SDGs 1204260, 1209260 and 1211260 exceeded holding times by greater
than two times the limit All non-detects were flagged unusable (R) and detects were
flagged estimated (J).
•	Sample 3359 in SDGs 1118260, 1120260 and 1124260 was three days outside holding
time limit and was flagged estimated non-detect (UJ) for nondetects and estimated (J)
for detects.
•	Sample 1734 in SDGs 1015260, 1016260, 1020260, and 1023260 exceeded holding time
limits by one day and was qualified estimated non-detect (UJ) for nondetects and
estimated (J) for detects.
•	All samples in SDGs 1204260, 1209260, and 1211260 were re-extracted, exceeding
holding time greater than two times the holding time limit They were qualified as

-------
4-10
Initial and Verification Calibration. Some of the chlorinated herbicides were found to be
outside the QC limits (r2 ^ 0.990). The data was quaiified by reviewing the exceedance of the
QC limits in regard to other problems encountered during the validation.
• In SDGs 0508260 and 0511260, the data were qualified as non-detected (U) because
dalapon, dichloroprop, dinoseb, and the surrogate 2.4 dichlorophenylmethylacetate were
outside QC limits, but there were no compounds detected in the samples and the second
column values were within QC limits (with the exception of dalapon). Since dalapon
failed the QC criteria on both columns, this compound was qualified as estimated
nondetected (UJ) for all samples except 1213.
• In SDGs 0803260 and 0727260/0728260/0729260, the data were qualified as non-detected
(U) because 2,4-DB was outside the QC limits on one column while dinoseb and the
surrogate 2,4 dichlorophenylmethylacetate were outside the limits on the second column.
Since no compounds were detected in the samples and since the compounds met the QC
criteria on at least one column, the data was qualified nondetected.
• The data in SDG 0430260 were qualified because dalapon, MCPA, and
2,4-dichlorophenyl-methylacetate were outside QC limits on both columns and 2,4—DB
was outside on one column, and dichloroprop was outside on the other column. Another
initial calibration should have been run due to the failure of the surrogate on both
columns. Therefore, all data is qualified estimated non-detected (UJ), because the
surrogate value was not within the QC limits. Dalapon was rejected (R) due to it gross
failure of the QC criteria.
• Dalapon in SDG 0424260 was rejected because it was found to be significantly outside
the QC limits.
• All calibration verifications were run under the initial calibration, with the exceptions of
SDGs 042260 and 0424260. Dalapon was rejected (R) in SDG 042260, because it failed
the QC limit (%D <15%), while dichloroprop, dinoseb, and 2,4-DB were qualified
estimated nondetected (UJ).
• Dicamba, MCPP and Z4-D were qualified estimated non-detected (UJ) because they
were found outside the QC limits (%D < 15%).
• In SDGs 1204260, 1209260, and 1211260. dalapon on column RTX-35 and dalapon on
column RTX-5 were outside the 20% RSD limit- All results qualified as estimated
non-detects (UJ) and estimated detects (J).
• Calibration factor %RSD for SDGs 10152 0. 1016260, 1020260, and 1023260 was
exceeded. The compounds dalapon, dichloroprop, MCPP, and MCPA were qualified UJ
for nondetects and J for detects.
• MCPP and MCPA in SDGs 0828260 and 0827260 exceeded QC limits. Dalapon, 2,4-D,
2,4-DB, silvex and dinoseb were qualified UJ for nondetects and J for detects because
initial calibration exceeded 20%.
Laboratory Blanks. There were no significant contamination problems found except for the
following:
• SDG 0430260, where the laboratory experienced a contamination problem and diluted
all the samples and QC samples by a factor of 1:10 and
• SDGs 1204260, 1209260, and 1211260, where the surrogate recovery for the blank

-------
4-11
1970, and 1976 were qualified UJ for nondetects and J for detects. Samples associated
with AB6960 from both columns qualified as R because holding times were greater than
two times the limit.
Surrogates. All surrogate recoveries were found within the QC criteria of 50 to 150%, with
the exception of some samples within SDGs 0430260 (1064, 1080, 1127, and 3032), 0424260
(1099,1106,1107, and 1115), 0511260 (3046 and 3072), and 0508260 (1201-FD). Samples that
had surrogate recoveries outside the QC limits on both columns and no detects reported were
qualified as estimated nondetected (UJ). However, if surrogate recoveries were less than 10%
on both columns, the data was rejected (R).
Laboratory Control Samples. All samples met requirements for laboratory control sample
(LCS) recoveries except for the following:
• Silvex and 2, 4, 5-T had LCS recoveries slightly outside the QC limits: therefore, data for
SDGs 0508260 and 0511260 were qualified as estimated (J);
• all samples of SDG 0424260 were qualified estimated nondetected (UJ) because the LCS
recoveries were outside QC limits;
• all data in SDGs 0803260 and 0727260/0728260/0729260 were qualified estimated
nondetected (UJ) because no LCS was analyzed;
• in SDGs 1015260, 1016260, 1020260, and 1023260, the recovery of 2,4-D, silvex, 2^5-T
exceeded the acceptable range, and the data were qualified (J); and
• samples in SDGs 1204260, 1209260, and 11211260 had low surrogate recoveries;
nondetects were qualified R and detects J.
Overall Assessment. The overall performance of the laboratory was acceptable, but the
following problems were noted:
• initial calibration information was not provided for SDG 0424260;
• there were contamination problems with some of the SDGs, and the laboratory had to
dilute some samples at a factor of 1:20;
• improper amounts of soil were used. The proper amount was 50 g, but the laboratory
used 25 g in some of the SDGs; and
• verification of practical quantitation limits was not possible, because the information was
not provided.
A summary of the chlorinated herbicide data validation results is presented in Table 43.
4.5.1.3 Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
The analysis of PAH samples was performed according to the USEPA SWS46 Method
8310, Second Edition, with the QC performed in a "CLP-like" manner. There were
131 samples analyzed for the PAH compounds.
The PAH data generated from the Phase II (1993 sampling) sampling effort had more
detected values than the data results in Phase I. The reason for this cannot be definitively

-------
4-12
Table 43. Summary distribution of herbicide data validation results
Compound
No qualifier U
UJ P*
J R
SUM
% usable
Dalapon
8
32
18
58
69
Dicamba
33
19
6
58
90
Dichloroprop
21
31
6
58
90
Dinoseb
21
31
6
58
90
MCPA
14
37 1
6
58
90
MCPP
17
35
6
58
90
Silvex
15
37
6
58
90
2,4-D
18
33
1 6
58
90
2,4-DB
20
32
6
58
90
2,4,5-T
24
28
6
58
90
"Qualifier P is a laboratory data qualifier defined in the preface to Volume Z
problems with contamination in Phase I than in Phase II. This contamination problem could
be the cause of the larger number of detected results in Phase II data.
Holding Times. All samples met established holding times, except for those associated with
SDG 0722260. These samples were re-extracted 14 days outside of the extraction holding
times. Therefore, all detected results were estimated (J), and nondetected results were
qualified estimated nondetected (UJ).
Initial and Verification Calibration. The initial calibration is assessed by the review of the data
against the correlation coefficient. The QC limit for the correlation coefficient is r2 s 0.990.
• Benzo(a]anthracene and chrvsene for SDGs 0422260, 0424260, 0430260, 0508260,
0511260, 0514260, 0519260, 0*722260, and 0722260/0723260 were found to coelute and
were qualified as unusable (R) for all positive hits, because it was impossible to
distinguish one from the other and nondetected (U) for results less than reporting limits.
• Anthracene and acenaphthene for SDGs 0422260 and 0424260 exceeded the initial
calibration QC limits and were qualified estimated (J) for positive hits and estimated
nondetected (UJ) for nonaetects.
• Pyrene and decafiuorobiphenyl (the surrogate) for SDGs 0508260 and 0511260 exceeded
the initial calibration QC limits, so all pyrene data were flagged as estimated (J) for
detects and estimated nondetected (UJ) for nondetects. All other data must be estimated
(J) because of the coelution of the surrogate with a target compound.
• The surrogate decafluorobiphenvl and Quoranthene coelute. Therefore, detected
Quoranthene results in SDG 0511260 were qualified as unusable (R). All other data must
be estimated (J) because of the coelution of the surrogate with a target compound.
• Positive hits for Quoranthene were qualified unusable (R), because decafiuorobiphenyl
and Quoranthene coelute. All other data must be estimated (J) because of the coelution
of the surrogate with a target compound.
• Decafiuorobiphenyl and benzo[a]anthracene/chrysene for SDG 0523260 exceeded the
initial calibration QC limits. All data were estimated (J) for detected compounds and

-------
4-13
•	Benzo [g/zi]perylene coelutes with dibenzo[a/i]anthracene, therefore, results for SDGs
0727260, 0727260 and 0803260 for these two compounds must be qualified as unusable
(R), because the laboratory could not quantify the MS/MSD and LCS recoveries for
dibenzo [ah] anthracene.
•	Anthracene, benzo[fc]fluoranthene, benzo [a] pyrene, and benzo[g/zi]perylene/
dibenzo [ah] anthracene for SDG 0727260 exceeded initial calibration QC limits, so
detected results for anthracene and benzo[A:]Quoranthene were qualified as estimated (J)
and estimated nondetects for nondetected results of these compounds. Because
benzo[fl]pyrene is only slightly below criteria (0.9891) it was not qualified.
•	Anthracene, benzo[/c]Quoranthene, benzo[a]pyrene, and benzo [g/xz]peryiene/
dibenzo[oA]anthracene for samples 1458, and 1464 of SDG 0803260 exceeded initial
calibration QC limits, so detected results for anthracene and benzo[&]fluoranthene were
qualified as estimated (J) and estimated nondetects for nondetected results of these
compounds. Because benzo[a]pyrene is only slightly below criteria (0.9303) it was not
qualified.
•	Benzo[£>]fluoranthene and benzoj^fc/jperylene in SDG 1216260/1016260/1020260/
1023260 were qualified as estimated (J), because the chromatograms for these samples
indicated the presence of these analytes even though they were not reported.
The verification of the calibration was assessed by determining the percent difference of
the verification calibration result sample to the initial calibration result. All verification
analyses were within the QC criteria (%D <15%) except the following:
•	Benzo[fc]fluoranthene,indeno[/23-c
-------
4-14
•	Pyrene exceeded QC criteria in SDG 0828260, therefore, detected values of pyrene were
qualified as estimated (J), and nondetected values were qualified estimated nondetects
(UJ).
Laboratory Blanks. The laboratory experienced some laboratory blank contamination during
the course of this project The laboratory experienced a contamination problem in the
samples of SDGs 0422260 and 0424260. The laboratory had to dilute all the samples and QC
samples by a factor of 1:100 and 1:10, respectively. Due to this problem, all the samples were
estimated (J) for detected compounds and estimated nondetect (UJ) for nondetected
compounds.
Sample concentrations of the analytes listed below that were greater than or equal to the
maximum detection limit (MDL) but less than five times the highest concentration found in
any blank were qualified as nondetected (U). Sample concentrations of the analytes listed
below that were found to be below the MDL were qualified as nondetected (U), while sample
concentrations greater than five times the highest concentration found in any blank were not
qualified.
•	For SDG 0828260, acenapthalene, phenanthrene, fluoranthene, benzo[a]anthracene,
chrysene, and indeno[i2J-af]pyrene were found in the blank.
•	For SDG 0924260/1002260/1009260, phenanthrene and fluoranthene were found in the
laboratory blank
•	For SDG 1015260/1016260/1020260/1023260, fluorene was found in the laboratory blank.
•	For SDG 1118260/1120260/1124260, phenanthrene, fluoranthene, and pyrene were found
in the laboratory blank.
•	For SDG 1204260/1209260/1211260, napthalene, phenanthrene, anthracene,
fluoranthene, pyrene, benzo[a]anthracene, and benzol/12] fluoranthene were found in the
laboratory blank.
•	For SDG 1216260/1217260/1218260, phenanthrene, pyrene, benzo[a]anthracene,
benzo[g/u]perylene, and indeno[723-af]pyrene were found in the blank.
•	For SDG 1204260/1209260/121126, gross contamination of anthracene, pyrene,
benzo[a]anthracene, and benzo(^/u]perylene was found in the laboratory blank. This gross
contamination caused these analytes to be qualified unusable (R) in this SDG.
Surrogates. All surrogate recoveries were found within the QC criteria of 50 to 150% with the
exception of the following:
•	Surrogate recoveries were below 10% for SDG 0422260, therefore, all positive results
were qualified as estimated (J), and all nondetected compounds were qualified as
estimated nondetect (UJ).
•	Surrogate recoveries were reported outside the QC limits for all samples except sample
1099 of SDG 0424260. All results except for sample 1099 were qualified as NJ for
detected compounds and UNJ for nondetected compounds. The N qualification was
added because of the laboratory's inability to properly integrate the surrogate peak.
•	Decafluorobiphenyl had a 0% recovery for sample 1213 in SDG 0508260, so all
-------
4-15
•	Decafluorobiphenvl had extremely high values for samples 1190 and 1201 of SDG
0508260, so all positive results were estimated (J) and all nondetects were estimated
nondetects (UJ).
•	All results for SDG 0511260 were qualified as J (detects) and UJ (nondetects) and
~ondetect results for sample 3099 were qualified unusable (R), because a surrogate
recovery of 0% was reported.
•	Surrogate recoveries were outside of QC limits for SDG 0514260, so all positive results
were estimated (J), and all nondetects were estimated nondetects (UJ).
•	Surrogate recoveries were outside of QC limits for samples 3148 and 3168 of SDG
0519260, so all positive results were estimated (J), and all nondetects were estimated
nondetects (UJ).
•	Surrogate recoveries were outside of QC limits for all samples of SDG 0523260 except
samples 1293, 1295, 1300, and 1301, so all positive results of the samples outside of QC
limits were estimated (J), and all nondetects were estimated nondetects (UJ).
•	Surrogate recoveries were outside of QC limits for samples 2039, 2143, 2130, and 2059
of SDG 077,7,7.60, so all positive results were estimated (J), and all nondetects were
estimated nondetects (UJ).
•	All samples in SDG 0722260/0723260 exceeded the surrogate QC limits, therefore, all
positive results of the samples outside of QC limits were estimated (J), and all nondetects
were estimated nondetects (UJ). Sample 2080 had a surrogate recovery below 10%, so
all positive results were estimated (J), and nondetects were rejected (R).
•	Compounds quantitated off the fluorescence detector were qualified estimated for
detected compounds and unusable (R) for nondetects for the following SDGs:
1204260/1209260/1211260, 1216260/1217260/1218260 (with acenapthalene and
indeno[i2J-af]pyrene qualified as estimated for detects and estimated nondetects for
nondetects in samples 1964, 1967, 1970, and 1973), 0924260/1002260/1009260, and
0828260 (samples 3223, 3227, 3229, 3231 and 3233-FD).
•	For SDG 1015260/1016260/1020260/1023260, sample 1744 had surrogate recoveries of
322%, so detects were qualified as estimated (J), and nondetects were not qualified.
Samples 1738 and 1741 had no surrogate recovery, so detects were qualified as J and
nondetects as R.
. • For SDG 0828260, samples 3227 and 3229 had no recovery off the UV/Vis detector, so
detects were qualified as J, and nondetects as R. Samples 3233-FD and 3235 had
surrogate recoveries exceeding 150%. so detects qualified as J, and nondetects as UJ.
Sample 3223 had a surrogate recovery less than 50% but greater than 10%. so qualified
detects as J and nondetects as UJ.
Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicates. Reported results were checked to ensure that they met
the required QC criteria. MS and MSD data are not used to qualify data alone. All MS and
MSD recoveries were within QC limits, with the exception of the following:
•	SDGs 0422260 and 0424260 had MS recoveries for naphthalene and acenaphthalene of
0%.
•	SDGs 0508260 and 0511260 had MS recoveries for naphthalene, acenaphthalene,
-------
4-16
•	SDG 0514260 had MS recoveries for fluorene of 0%. Naphthalene was reported at twice
the amount spiked.
•	SDG 0523260 had MS recoveries for naphthalene, acenaphthalene, fluorene, and
acenaphthene (MSD) of 0%.
•	All results for dibenzo[flh]anthracene and benzo[g/zi]perylene of SDG 0722260 were
rejected (R) because these two compounds coelute.
•	SDGs 0727260 and 0803260 had MS recoveries for anthracene and
dibenzo[d/i]anthracene (MS/MSD) of 0%.
•	SDG 1204260/1209260/1211260 was grossly contaminated with pyrene and anthracene.
Laboratory Control Samples. All samples met requirements for LCS recoveries except for the
following:
•	An LCS was not provided in SDG 0422260, therefore, all the data was qualified as
estimated (detects) and UJ (nondetects).
•	The LCS for SDG 0424260 was diluted 1:10, indicating a problem. Because of this,
samples in this SDG were estimated J (detects) or UJ (nondetects).
•	Fluorene results for SDG 0511260 were estimated J (detects) or UJ (nondetects)
because LCS recoveries for fluorene were outside QC limits (D-142%).
•	Acenaphthalene results for SDG 0523260 were estimated J (detects) or rejected R
(nondetects) because a 0% LCS recovery was reported.
•	SDG 1204260/1209260/1211260 was grossly contaminated with pyrene and anthracene,
so pyrene and anthracene were qualified as unusable (R).
Overall Assessment There were three major problems identified with the PAHs: coelution,
compound identification, and reporting of diluted and undiluted samples.
The conditions used by the laboratory for method 8310 resulted in coelution problems.
Initially the laboratory was using decafluorobiphenyl as a surrogate, which coeluted with
fluoranthene. The laboratory also experienced coelution problems with benzo[a]anthracene
and chrysene under these conditions. A change of conditions took place after June 1, 1992,
including a change of surrogates to 2-fluorobiphenyl. Coelution problems were resolved for
the surrogate and fluoranthene and for benzo[a]anthracene and chrysene: however, this led
to a coelution problem between benzo[g/u]perylene and dibenzo[a/i] anthracene.
There were several identification problems with the PAHs. The laboratory's method of
determining retention time windows and their criteria for determining whether a compound
is within or outside the retention time window is not consistent For samples experiencing this
problem, the compounds were qualified as N, because there was presumptive evidence of the
compound.
The laboratory does not consistently perform dilutions when a compound exceeds the
initial calibration linear range. When dilutions are performed, the laboratory reports both the
diluted and undiluted samples on the same Form Is. The laboratory was found to report
sample results at the practical quantitation limit (PQL) even though a positive hit was found
-------
4-17
again used in these cases, because the validator felt that there was presumptive evidence of
a compound.
A summary of the PAH data validation results is presented in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4. Summary distribution of potynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
data validation results
Compound
No
Qual.
U
UJ
J
JN
R
RN UN
UJN
SUM
%
usable
Acenaphthene

12
28
27
5
48

11
131
63
Acenaphtbylene
2
42
46
8

19
2
12
131
84
Anthracene
2
3
36
42
1
34
2
11
131
73
Benzo[a]anthracene
2
3
12
65
5
34

10
131
74
Benzo[a]pyrene
2

25
74
6
10

14
131
92
Benzo [£> ] fluoran thene
3
4
28
58
6
21

11
131
84
Benzo[gfti]perylene
4
1
24
51

38
1
12
131
70
Benzo[)k]fluoranthene
2

28
65

19
1 1
15
131
85
Chrvsene
2
12
24
21

61
1
10
131
53
Dibenzo[o/x]anthracene

6
26
29

60

10
131
54
Fluoranthene
7

8
55

57
1
3
131
56
Fluorene

8
34
24
4
48
2
11
131
62
Indenofi 23-cd\ pyr ene
11
20
52
18

18
L.
10
131
85
Naphthalene

7
39
27

46
1
11
131
64
Phenanthrene
4

23
76
11
4

13
131
97
Pyrene
6
1
20
67
1
16

20
131
88
4.5.2 Inorganic Data Validation Results
The analysis of inorganic species was performed according to the USEPA Contract
Laboratory Program Statement of Work for Inorganic Analysis, Multi-media, Multi
-Concentration, August 1987. The analytes that are not governed under this statement of work
were osmium and sulfate, which were done using a CLP-like SW-846 method with a QC
protocol similar to CLP. There were 158 samples analyzed for all analytes listed in the BSCP
work plan, except for the following. There were 157 samples analyzed for boron, lithium, and
strontium. There were 159 samples analyzed for cadmium, 153 samples analyzed for
chromium, 152 samples analyzed for cyanide, 139 samples analyzed for sodium, and 154
samples analyzed for sulfate. These data results are missing because of laboratory
inconsistencies in data reporting. The low number of sodium samples is due to the laboratory
inconsistently reporting an analyte that was not requested.
Holding Times. All holding times were within the specified times, except for the following:
• Mercury and sulfate were analyzed outside of their specified holding times for samples
5001, 5004, and 5007. Sample 5010 also had the holding time exceeded for sulfate. In
addition, sample 3144 (water sample) had a pH of 5 upon receipt at the laboratory. The
-------
4-18
•	Soil samples 6046, 6049, and 6052 of SDG 0909260/0915260 exceeded the cyanide
technical holding time of 14 days by 5 days. Cyanide results for these samples were
qualified as "J" for detects and "UJ" for nondetects.
•	Soil samples 6064, 6067, 6070, 6073, 6076. and 6079 of SDG 1015260/1020260/1023260
exceeded the cyanide technical holding time of 14 days by 1 day. Cyanide results for
these samples were qualified as "J" for detects and "UJ" for nondetects.
•	SoU samples 6082, 6084, and 6090 of SDG 1118260/1120260/1124260 exceeded the
cyanide technical holding time of 14 days by 5 days. Cyanide results for these samples
were qualified as "J" for detects and "UJ" for nondetects.
•	Soil samples 5205, 5208, and 5211 of SDG 1204260/1209260/1211260 exceeded the
cyanide technical holding time of 14 days by 3 days. Cyanide results for these samples
were qualified as "J" for detects and "UJ" for nondetects.
Initial Calibration and Calibration Verification. The calibrations for the SDGs for graphite
furnace atomic absorption met all the requirements, or the deviations did not warrant any
action by the validator.
The calibration for ICP analyses met all requirements except for the following SDGs:
042260, 0430260, 0508260, 0511260, 0514260, and 0519260. The calibration for ICP analyses
of these SDG did not comply with the CLP criteria or the manufacturers' criteria. In addition,
there were three SDGs where the calibration did not comply for the ICP analytes of boron,
lithium, osmium, and silicon. These three SDGs are 0722260, 0723260, and 0803260. In each
case, the laboratory used the update function of the instrument instead of the calibration
called for in the CLP statement of work. Also, an update slope function was used in
conjunction with the update function. The update slope determines percent correction factors
to be used by the instrument to "recalibrate" the instrument This, too, is a deviation from
CLP. The laboratory did not use the proper manufacturer's guidance in applying this
correction. The laboratory allowed percent corrections to exceed manufacturer criteria for
recalibration without performing a recalibration. The technical judgment was to not qualify
the data as estimated (J) because of acceptable initial calibration verification (ICV) and
continuing calibration verifications (CCVs), but it may be necessary to consider the added
uncertainty for certain uses of the data, as well as regulatory and defensibility concerns.
The cyanide results were qualified estimated (J) or estimated nondetect, because there
was no evidence that the middle standard or ICV was distilled as specified by CLP.
The osmium CCV samples (CCV-3, -4, -5, and -6) for SDG 0722260/0723260 were
outside the criteria at 110.9, 113.0, 112.1, and 111.4, respectively. This would qualify the
osmium data as estimated (J), but the MS recovery finding supersedes this qualification
because it qualifies the data as unusable (R).
Samples 5216 and 5217 of SDG 1204260/1209260/1211260 were assayed for lead and
found to be over the calibration limit of the instrument. The samples were diluted and
reanalyzed, but the dilution was not taken into account when recalculating the dry
concentration; thus, the results for lead were qualified as unusable (R).
(Note: The laboratory used SDG numbers for some of the data packages which were a
-------
4-19
The laboratory used slash marks to separate the combined SDGs from individual SDGs. This
nomenclature was not carried through consistently in every case.)
Laboratory Blank Results. The analysis of laboratory blanks provides a means of assessing the
existence of contamination in the analytical method. Blanks did not show evidence of
significant contamination except for the analytes discussed below.
•	For SDG 0422260, the level of selenium in the preparation blank was comparable to that
- found in-some of the samples; so those samples were qualified as nondetect (U).
•	Sample 6004 of SDG 0430260 was qualified as nondetect for lithium, because the sample
result was less than five times the value of the associated CCV.
•	The lithium result for sample 6010 (SDG 0511260) was also qualified as nondetect,
because the result was less than 5 times the associated CCV. In addition, calcium and
selenium were qualified as nondetects, because the results of the preparation blank were
comparable to the sample results.
•	The preparation blanks for SDG 0514260 contained levels of calcium and thallium
comparable to that found in the samples; therefore, these samples were qualified as
nondetect.
•	Thallium results for SDG 0519260 were qualified nondetect because the preparation
blank results were comparable to those found in the samples.
•	Boron and silicon results for SDG 0727260/0728260/0729260 were qualified as estimated
nondetects (UJ), because the continuing calibration blank (CCB) before or between
which they were determined had values approaching the negative reporting limit and well
beyond the negative instrument detection limit (EDL). Calcium results were qualified
nondetect when the calcium sample results were less than 5 times the concentration in
the preparation blank.
•	Antimony data for SDG 0722260/0723260 was qualified nondetect when sample results
were less than 5 times the concentration found in the preparation blanks.
•	The boron and silicon results in SDG 0803260 were qualified as estimated nondetected
(UJ) and estimated (J), respectively. The boron result was qualified estimated
nondetected because the CCBs between which it was determined had values approaching
the negative reporting limit and well beyond the negative EDL. Silicon results were
qualified estimated (J), because the CCBs between which the sample was analyzed had
values exceeding the negative reporting limit
•	Overall, the laboratory did not comply with the sample analysis order for CCBs and
CCVs. The laboratory analyzed the CCB before the CCV, which is against the
specifications of the CLP statement of work. In addition, in some cases the laboratory
analyzed a rinse blank before the CCB. By doing so, the evaluation of the CCBs does
not provide information regarding carryover contamination.
•	Boron results were above the IDL and above "negative" sample results; therefore, all
boron results for SDG 0909260/0915260 were qualified as unusable (R).
•	Lithium had an absolute value greater than IDL in SDG 1118260/1120260/1124260; all
lithium data were qualified estimated (J).
•	Copper results for samples 6055, 5118, 5127, 5136, 5145, 6076, and 6079 of SDGs
0909260/0915260 and 1015260/1020260/1023260 were qualified U, because the sample
-------
4-20
•	Cobalt results for samples 5094, 5097, 5104, 5115, 6061, 6058. 6052, 6049, 5121, 5124,
5130, 5133, 5139, 6064, 6076, 6079, and 6084 of SDGs 0909260/0915260, 0924260/
1002260/1009260, 1015260/1020260/1023260, and 1118260/1120260/1124260 were
qualified U became the sample results were less than five times the blank result
•	Nickel results for samples 6061, 6058,6055,6046,5118,5127,5130, 5136,6076, and 6079
of SDGs 0909260/0915260 and 1015260/1020260/1023260 were qualified U, because the
sample results were less than five times the blank result.
•	Strontium results for samples 5094, 5097, 5106, 5115, and 7057 of SDGs 0924260/
1002260/1009260 and 1204260/1209260/1211260 were qualified U, because the sample
results were less than five times the blank result.
•	Chromium results for samples 1735 and 5145 of SDG 1015260/1020260/1023260 were
qualified U, because the sample results were less than five times the blank result
•	Beryllium results for samples 5118, 5121, 5124, 5127, 5130, 5133, 5136, 5139,5142, 5145,
5148, 6076, and 6079 of SDG 1015260/1020260/1023260 were qualified U, because the
sample results were less than five times the blank result
•	Sodium results for sample 5118 of SDG 1015260/1020260/1023260 were qualified as U,
because the sample results were less than five times the blank result
•	Calcium results for sample 5124 of SDG 1015260/1020260/1023260 were qualified U,
because sample results were less than five times the blank result
•	Cadmium results for samples 5133 of SDG 1015260/1020260/1023260 were qualified U,
because the sample results were less than five times the blank result
•	Potassium results for samples 5127, 5136, 5145, and 6076 of SDG 1015260/1020260/
1023260 were qualified U, because the sample results were less than five times the blank
result
•	All osmium results were qualified U, because of soil preparation blank results in SDG
1118260/1120260/1124260.
•	Nickel results for sample 7057 of SDG 1204260/1209260/1211260 was qualified UJ,
because the sample results were less than five times the blank result
•	All silicon results less than the IDL were qualified as estimated (J), due to consistently
reported negative values in SDG 1216260/1217260/1218260.
Interference Check Sample. The analysis of an interference check sample (ICS) was to verify
the interelement and background correction factors. All ICS results were acceptable except
for the following:
•	Vanadium was outside the criteria on both the initial and final ICS; therefore, all
vanadium data was qualified estimated (J) in SDGs 0514260 and 0519260.
•	Zinc consistently had results over the contact required detection limit (CRDL) when
supposedly no analvte was present Due to this, zinc results in all samples of SDG
1015260/1020260/1023260 were qualified as estimated (J) when the reported value was
greater than the CRDL
•	Silicon and osmium were qualified as estimated (J) in all samples, due to an ICS recovery
greater than 120% and because the results in all samples exceeded the EDL, with the
exception of sample 6082 for osmium. The osmium result for sample 6082 was less than
IDL; therefore, osmium for sample 6082 was qualified U in SDG 1118260/1120260/
-------
4-21
•	Samples 6082,6084,6087, and 6090 for potassium had results below the CRDL and were
qualified as unusable (R), because the ICS was -808 /ig/L and the results were false
negatives in SDG 1118260/1120260/1124260.
•	Strontium, manganese, vanadium, zinc, and molybdenum all had results over the CRDL
when supposedly no analyte was present All strontium results were qualified J if over
CRDL and UJ if under CRDL, due to the possibility of negative interference. All
manganese, vanadium, zinc, and molybdenum results were qualified J if over CRDL and
UJ if under CRDL, due to the possibility of false positives, in SDG 1204260/1209260/
1211260.
•	All potassium, silicon and boron results less than the DDL were qualified as estimated (J),
due to consistently negative results that could be of greater magnitude than the IDL. All
associated results for these analytes may be false negatives in SDG 1216260/1217260/
1218260.
•	All manganese, vanadium, zinc, and molybdenum results greater than the EDL were
qualified as estimated, since the results were consistently greater than the IDL when no
analytes were present, and all associated samples may be affected bv false positives in
SDG 1216260/1217260/1218260.
Matrix Spikes. The spiking levels and analytes did not agree with CLP requirements, so it was
difficult to apply CLP criteria for Phase I data. However, the laboratory did bring spiking
levels to CLP requirements in analyzing Phase II samples. In addition, post-digestion spikes
were also not performed as specified by CLP. The data was qualified because MS samples
were outside criteria, as follows.
•	Magnesium and potassium results for SDG 0422260 were qualified estimated (J).
Osmium results were qualified as estimated nondetects, because the predigestion spike
was outside criteria.
•	The results for SDGs 0422260 and 0430260/0508260/0511260 for silicon were qualified
as estimated (J), because the spike recovery was below the lower limit.
•	Osmium results for SDGs 0430260, 0508260, and 0511260 were qualified as estimated
nondetect, because predigestion spike was outside criteria.
•	Silver results for SDG 0727260/0728260/0729260 were qualified as estimated nondetected
(UJ), because of low predigestion spike recoveries. Silicon was qualified as estimated (J),
because of low recoveries, while osmium results were rejected (R) because of very low
recoveries.
•	Antimony and silver results for SDG 0722260/0723260 were qualified as estimated
nondetected (UJ), because spike recovery was low. Magnesium and potassium results
were qualified estimated (J), because the predigestion spike results were outside criteria,
greater than 125%. All osmium results were rejected (R), because the spike recovery was
outside criteria at 22% (criteria 75 to 125%).
•	Silicon and cadmium results for SDG 0803260 were qualified estimated (J) because of
low spike recoveries. Sulfate was qualified as estimated (J) because the postdigestion
spike recovery was very low.
•	All osmium results for SDGs 0909260/0915260 and 0924260/1002260/1009260 were
-------
4-22
•	All silicon results for SDGs 0909260/0915260 and 0924260/1002260/1009260 were
qualified as unusable (R) because spike recovery was reported <0%.
•	Lead results for samples 6052 and 6061 were qualified as estimated (J) due to spike
recoveries outside the established range of 85 to 115% for SDG 0909260/0915260.
•	All cadmium results for SDG 0909260/0915260 reported above the CRDL were qualified
as estimated (J) due to spike recovery out of acceptable limits.
•	All manganese results above the CRDL for SDG 0924260/1002260/1009260 were
qualified as estimated (J) due to spike recovery out of acceptable limits.
•	All antimony and mercury results greater than the CRDL were qualified estimated (J)
due to the spike recoveries out of acceptable criteria in SDG 1015260/1020260/1023260.
•	All silicon results reported as detected were qualified estimated (J) and nondetects
qualified (UJ) due to the spike recovery out of acceptable criteria in SDG 1015260/
1020260/1023260.
•	Cadmium samples 6070 and 5151 of SDG 1015260/1020260/1023260 were qualified as
estimated (UJ for nondetects) due to high postdigestion spike recovery.
•	Selenium samples 5124. 5127, 5136. 5139. 514Z 5145, 5148, and 5151 of SDG 1015260/
1020260/1023260 were qualified as estimated (J for detects and UJ for nondetects) due
to low postdigestion spike recovery.
•	All results for arsenic and lead less than the IDL were not qualified; however, due to the
MS recovery exceeding criteria, all results for arsenic and lead above the IDL were
qualified estimated (J) in SDG 1118260/1120260/1124260.
•	All results for antimony, cadmium, manganese, and cyanide were qualified J if over
CRDL and UJ if under CRDL, due to low MS recoveries in SDG 1118260/1120260/
1124260.
•	All results for barium, lithium, molybdenum, silicon, strontium, and osmium were
qualified as unusable (R) due to the lack of a predigestion spike in SDG 1118260/
1120260/1124260.
•	All results for antimony and silicon were qualified J if over CRDL and UJ if under
CRDL, due to low MS recoveries in SDG 1204260/1209260/1211260.
•	All results for osmium were qualified as unusable (R), due to MS recovery near zero in
SDG 1204260/1209260/1211260.
•	Arsenic results were qualified estimated (J), due to poor MS recovery and omission of
method of standard additions for this analyte in SDG 1204260/1209260/1211260.
•	All antimony results were qualified as UJ if less than the CRDL due to low spike
recovery in SDG 1216260/1217260/1218260.
•	All lead results were qualified as estimated (J) if greater than the CRDL, due to high
spike recovery in SDG 1216260/1217260/1218260.
•	All osmium results were qualified as unusable (R) due to spike recovery of approximately
zero in SDG 1216260/1217260/1218260.
•	Arsenic results for samples 7066, 7072, and 7075 (SDG 1216260/1217260/1218260) were
qualified as estimated (J) due to spike recovery outside control limits.
•	Selenium results for samples 5240 and 5268 (SDG 1216260/1217260/1218260) were
-------
4-23
•	Thallium results for sample 5241 (SDG 1216260/1217260/1218260) were qualified as
estimated (J) due to spike recovery outside control limits.
•	Lead results for samples 7078 and 7081 (SDG 1216260/1217260/1218260) were qualified
as estimated (J) due to spike recovery outside control limits.
Duplicates. All laboratory duplicates were within the QC limits, except for the following:
•	Copper,_ iron, boron, and sulfate results for SDGs 0422260, 0430260, 0508260, and
0511260 were qualified as estimated (J), because the duplicate results exceeded criteria.
•	Chromium results for SDG 0803260 were qualified estimated (J), because the duplicate
results exceeded criteria.
•	All results for chromium, iron, vanadium, and sulfate were qualified as estimated (J) for
SDG 0909260/0915260, due to the RPD exceeding criteria in the soil duplicates.
•	All results for arsenic, iron, manganese, selenium, and vanadium were qualified as
estimated (J) for SDG 0924260/1002260/1009260, due to the RPD exceeding criteria in
the soil duplicates.
•	Chromium and zinc soil analysis results were qualified as estimated (J), due to duplicate
spike recoveries exceeding the maximum RPD for soils in SDG 1118260/1120260/
1124260.
Laboratory Control Samples. An aqueous LCS was used. The CLP statement of work specifies
that a solid LCS be used when analyzing solid samples. The results from the aqueous LCS
may not be indicative of analyte recovery, making the evaluation difficult Aqueous control
samples are being used with more frequency becuase of the difficulty in finding comparable
matrix material. Sand or pure silica has been used by some laboratories, but it still does not
provide the matrix related effects.
Osmium results in SDGs 042260, 0430260, 0508260, and 0511260 were qualified
estimated (J) or estimated nondetected (UJ), because LCS recoveries were outside of criteria.
Osmium results for SDGs 0514260, 0519260. and 0803260 were rejected (R) because of very
poor recovery.
All results for cadmium greater than the EDL were qualified as estimated (J), because
the LCS recovery was outside criteria in SDG 0909260/0915260.
All results for osmium were qualified as unusable (R), because the LCS recovery was
outside criteria in SDG 1015260/1020260/1023260.
The aqueous LCS was not spiked with osmium according to the case narrative
accompanying package 1118260/1120260/1124260; therefore, the results for aqueous samples
were qualified UJ for nondetects and J for detects.
Method of Standard Additions. The method of standard additions (MSA) was performed on
the following samples. Lead samples 5031, 5034,5040, 6028, 6034, 6040,5079,5088,1468, and
1468D had MSAs performed with no problems, except that the spiking levels used in sample
5079 and 5088 were not adapted well to the concentration of the samples. Chromium samples
-------
4-24
Serial Dilutions. The serial dilution results for SDG 0422260/0430260/0508260/0511260 for
silicon exceeded the acceptance criteria; therefore, all silicon data was qualified as estimated
(J)-
Silicon results for SDG 0727260/0728260/0729260 were qualified estimated (J) because
the serial dilution exceeded acceptance criteria.
Silicon and zinc serial dilution results exceeded acceptance criteria for SDG 0803260.
Chromium and lead for SDG 1015260/1020260/1023260 did not meet the percent
difference requirements; therefore, all associated chromium and lead data were qualified as
estimated (J).
The percent difference for zinc was reported in excess of 10% with a concentration of
fifty times the CRDL. Data were qualified J if results were over CRDL and UJ if under
CRDL in SDG 1204260/1209260/1211260.
Results for chromium, lead, and zinc were qualified as estimated (J), because they
exceeded limits for ICP serial dilution.
Other Laboratory QC. Accompanying the soil samples were equipment water rinsates. The
equipment rinsates for samples collected during Phase I were taken after the completion of
sampling, whereas potential contamination of samples is normally identified from rinsates
taken before samples are collected. Association of rinsates with particular samples was not
identified, so specific qualification of data could not be performed.
•	SDG 047,7.7.60: Antimony analytical spike recoveries were below limits, so those results
were qualified as estimated (J).
•	SDG 0430260: Antimony graphite furnace atomic absorption (GFAA) analytical spike
recovery is based on a spike concentration of 20 mg/L. The laboratory qualified sample
6001 with a "W"; all antimony results should have been so qualified, since the values of
the analytical spike ranged from 73 to 80%. On this basis, all antimony results were
qualified as estimated nondetects.
•	SDG 0508260: Antimony GFAA results for sample 5019, 5022, and 5010 were qualified
as estimated nondetected because the analytical spike recovery was low.
•	SDG 0519260: Antimony GFAA results were qualified as estimated nondetected (UJ)
because of low analytical spike recoveries.
•	SDG 0727260/0728260/0729260: The arsenic results for sample 5070 was qualified
estimated nondetectec (UJ), because the analytical spike results exceeded limits.
•	SDG 0772260/0723260: Antimony GFAA results were qualified as estimated nondetected
(UJ) because of low re - sries for the analytical spike.
Overall Assessment There were numerous deviations from CLP protocol that could affect
data comparability and create increased uncertainty in the quality of the data. Some of the
deviations were
-------
4-25
•	spiking levels for matrix spikes, postdigestion spikes, and GFAA analytical spikes were
inconsistent with CLP, and the analytes in the matrix spike were not in agreement with
the CLP;
•	preparation volumes were noncompliant;
•	the laboratory analyzed postdigestion spikes when they were not called for;
•	matrix spikes for GFAA were analyzed with an analytical spike added, which is not called
for in CLP;
•	reanalysis when the blank exceeded the absolute value of the CRDL or reporting limit
was not performed; and
•	aqueous rather than solid LCSs were analyzed with soil samples.
A summary of the inorganic data validation results is presented in Table 4.5.
Table 45. Summary distribution of inorganic data validation results
Compound
No qualifier
B*
U
UJ
J
R
SUM
% usable
Aluminum
150
3
5
0
0
0
158
100
Antimony
1
9
68
76
4
0
158
100
Arsenic
85
23
12
2
36
0
158
100
Barium
115
34
9
0
0
0
158
100
Beryllium
32
104
22
0
0
0
158
100
Boron
12
5
79
33
13
15
157
90
Cadmium
1
0
142
13
2
1
159
99
Calcium
45
84
29
0
0
0
158
100
Chromium
79
0
10
1
63
0
153
100
Cobalt
73
47
26
3
9
0
158
100
Copper
121
3
18
0
16
0
158
100
Cyanide
4
0
19
105
12
12
152
92
Iron
104
¦ 2
4
0
48
0
158
100
Lead
106
15
10
1
24
2
158
99
Lithium
61
57
21
0
8
10
157
94
Magnesium
66
65
9
0
18
0
158
100
Manganese
94
3
6
0
55
0
158
100
Mercury
74
1
65
0
18
0
158
100
Molybdenum
1
26
118
0
3
10
158
94
Nickel
117
10
31
0
0
0
158
100
Osmium
0
0
3
18
0
136
157
13
Potassium
72
39
13
6
23
5
158
98
Selenium
3
46
13
6
80
10
158
94
Silicon
49
0
2
2
80
25
158
84
Silver
1
0
130
27
0
0
158
100
Sodium
42
89
8
0
0
0
139
100
Strontium
59
45
25
0
18
10
157
94
Sulfate
125
2
7
0
20
0
154
100
Thallium
1
16
127
2
0
12
158
92
Vanadium
64
1
9
0
84
0
158
100
Zinc
73
4
3
1
77
0
158
100
-------
4-26
4.53 Radiochemical Data Validation Results
Iodine-129 was initially considered as an analvte of concern, but the unavailability of
qualified laboratories capable of analyzing for this radionuclide caused the project team to
drop it from the analyte list
4.53.1 Thorium isotopic validation results
One hundred fifty samples were analyzed for isotopic thorium by the alpha spectrometry
technique.
Holding times. The holding times for isotopic thorium were met
Calibration. The laboratory was unable to provide information on the standard used for the
initial energy and efficiency calibration. The laboratory included the daily full-width half
maximum information, centroid information, and efficiency information. Background
information pertaining to these samples was acceptable, except for SDGs 21262,2123Z 21123,
21058, 21081, 21383, 21328, 21377, and 30044. Either the background information was not
provided at all or it was not provided for the detectors of interest. Without the correct
information, the data must be qualified estimated (J) for results greater than minimum
detectable activity (MDA) and (UJ) for results less than MDA.
Incorrect monthly calibration information was provided for SDGs 2658, 2419, 2423,
21262, 21232, 21299,21345, 21247, 2878, 21081, 21383, 2847, 21169,2924,21328, and 21377.
The information that they provided was not for the detectors of interest Also, no monthly
calibration was provided for SDGs 21046, 2970, 21034, 21123, 21003, 21058, 21205, and
30044. Without the correct information, the data must be qualified estimated (J) for results
greater than the MDA and (UJ) for results less than MDA.
The laboratory did not provide daily calibration information for SDGs 2633, 2638, 21383,
21169, and 21345-10,11. so it is impossible to determine the behavior of the "instrument on
the day of the analysis. All results greater than MDA were qualified as (J), and all results less
than MDA were qualified as (UJ).
Laboratory blank results. All laboratory blank results were either less than the MDA or the
lowest sample activity was 5 times greater than the ->lank activity and deemed acceptable.
Tracer results. Tborium-229 was used as the tracer for this analysis. All tracer recoveries were
within the QC limits (15 to 125%), except for SDGs 2419, 2423, and 2633. These SDGs were
qualified estimated (J) for results greater than MDA and unusable (R) for results less than
MDA An outdated tracer solution was used for Phase II, and all results greater than MDA
were estimated (J), and all results less than MDA were rejected (R) for SDGs.
Matrix spikeImatrix spike duplicates. Thorium-230 was the spike used in the MS/MSD. All
MS/MSD results were within the QC limits (75-125%), except for SDGs 21262 and 21232.
RPDs between the MS/MSD were all within QC limits ( <50% maximum).
Duplicates. The RPD acceptance criterion was +35% for samples with values greater than
-------
4-27
Blank Spike. The spike was thorium-230. All blank spike results were within QC limits
(75-125%).
Chemical separation specificity. No energy spectra or library matches were provided to check
the chemical separation specificity of the isotope. All results were qualified as estimated (J)
for results greater than the MDA and (UJ) for results less than MDA.
Overall assessment All the data were estimated (J) or (UJ) because the laboratory was unable
to provide information on the standard used for the initial energy and efficiency calibration,
an outdated tracer was used, and no energy spectra and library matches were provided to
assess the chemical separation specificity. Also, there was a failure to run a daily calibration
on SDGs 21383, 21169, 21345-10,11.
4.53.2 Uranium isotopic validation results
One hundred forty-eight samples were analyzed for isotopic uranium by the alpha
spectrometry technique.
Holding times. The holding times for isotopic uranium were met
Calibration. Sample 6038 of SDG 2423 was qualified estimated (J) for results greater than
MDA and estimated nondetect (UJ) for results less than MDA. The laboratory was unable
to provide information on the standard used for the initial energy and efficiency calibration.
The laboratory included the daily full-width half maximum information, centroid information,
and efficiency information. Background information pertaining to these samples was
acceptable, except for SDGs 21383, 21046, 2970, 21003, 21034, 21366, 21081, 21377, and
21377. Either the background information was not provided or it was not provided for the
detectors of interest. Without the correct information, the data must be qualified estimated
(J) for results greater than MDA and (UJ) for results less than MDA.
Incorrect monthly calibration information was provided for SDGs 21123, 21299, 21247,
21328, 21377, and 21169. The information that they provided was not for the detectors of
interest Also, no monthly calibration was provided for SDGs 21383,2924,21046.2970,21003,
21058, 21205, 2847, 21345, 2878, 21034, 21366. 21081, 30044, 21262, and 21232. Without the
correct information, the data must be qualified estimated (J) for results greater than the
MDA and (UJ) for results less than MDA.
The laboratory did not provide daily calibration information for SDGs 21046, 21034,
30044, and 21383-06A, so it is impossible to determine the behavior of the instrument on the
day of the analysis. All results greater than MDA were qualified as (J~), and all results less
than MDA were qualified as (UJ).
Laboratory blank results. All laboratory blank results were either less than the MDA or the
lowest sample activity was 5 times greater than the blank activity and deemed acceptable.
There were no detected activities found above the MDA. except for SDGs 2391 and 2658.
• Uranium-238 was found in the laboratory blank of SDG 2391 above the MDA, but it was
-------
4-28
• Uranium-234, -235, and -238 were found in the laboratory blank of SDG 2658 above the
MDA. All the samples had positive results greater than the MDA but less than 5 times
the blank value. Therefore, all results less than 5 times the blank were qualified U.
Tracer results. All tracer recoveries were within the QC limits (15-125%), except for sample
6038 of SDG 2423, which had tracer recoveries below the QC limits- Results above the MDA
were qualified J, and results below the MDA were rejected (R).
Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates. All MS/MSD recoveries were within the QC limits
(75-125%), with the exception of SDGs 2419, 2423, 2878, and 2847. RPDs between the
MS/MSD were all within QC limits (<50% maximum).
Duplicates. The RPD acceptance criterion was +35% for samples with values greater than
or equal to 5 times the MDA All duplicate RPDs were within QC limits, except for
uranium-235 of SDGs 2684, 2970, 21046, 2847, 21003, 21058, 21205, and 2924. All data
associated with these SDGs were qualified (J) for results greater than the MDA.
Blank Spike. All the blank spike results were within QC limits (75-125%), with the exception
of SDGs 21046, 21034, and 2924.
Chemical separation specificity. No energy spectra or library matches were provided to check
the chemical separation specificity of the isotope. All results were qualified as estimated (J)
for results greater than the MDA and (UJ) for results less than MDA
Overall assessment. All the data was estimated (J) or (UJ) because the laboratory was unable
to provide information on the standard used for the initial energy and efficiency calibration
and no energy spectra and library matches were provided to assess the chemical separation
specificity. Also, there was a failure to run a daily calibration on SDGs 21046, 21034, 30044,
and 21383-06A. Samples in SDG 2423 were qualified estimated (J) because of the failure of
the MS to meet acceptance criteria.
4.5.3-3 Plutonium isotopic validation results
Sixty-three samples were analyzed for plutonium-238 and 56 samples for
plutonium-239/240 by the alpha spectrometry technique.
Holding times. The holding times for isotopic plutonium were met.
Calibration. The laboratory was unable to provide information on the standard used for the
initial energy and efficiency calibration. The laboratory included the daily full-width half
maximum information, centroid information, and efficiency information. Background
information pertaining to these samples was acceptable, except for SDGs 21232,21003, 21299,
21366, 2970, 2847, and 21046. Sample 5029 of SDG 2419 was qualified estimated (J) for
results greater than MDA and UJ for results less than MDA because no background
information was provided. Data in SDG 2633 was qualified J for results greater than MDA
and UJ for results less than MDA because daily calibration information was not provided,
-------
4-29
Incorrect monthly calibration information was provided for SDGs 21169, 30044, 21377,
and 2847. The information that they provided was not for the detectors of interest Also, no
monthly calibration was provided for SDGs 21081, 21232. 2924, 21328, 21383, 21058, 21003,
21123, 21345, 21299, 21366. 2970, 2847, 21034, and 21046. Without the correct information,
the data must be qualified estimated (J) for results greater than the MDA and (UJ) for
results less than MDA.
The laboratory did not provide daily calibration information for SDGs 21232, 2970, and
21046, so it is impossible to determine the behavior of the instrument on the day of the
analysis. All results greater than MDA were qualified as (J), and all results less than MDA
were qualified as (UJ).
Laboratory blank results. All laboratory blank results were either less than the MDA or the
lowest sample activity was 5 times greater than the blank activity and deemed acceptable.
Tracer results. All tracer recoveries were within the QC limits (15-125%), with the exception
of SDGs 2684 and 2391 and 2878. The data in SDGs 2684 and 2391 was J for results above
the MDA and R for results less than MDA because of the use of an outdated tracer solution.
The tracer could not be recovered in samples of SDG 2878.
Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates. All MS/MSD recoveries were within the QC limits
(75-125%). RPDs between the MS/MSD were all within QC limits (<50% maximum).
Duplicates. The RPD acceptance criterion was +35% for samples with values greater than
or equal to 5 times the MDA All duplicate RPDs were within QC limits (<50% maximum),
except for SDGs 21058,21081, and 2924, which had several isotopes (Pu-238 and Pu-239/240)
outside QC limits. Also, the following SDGs had just Pu-238 RPD outside QC limits: 2970,
21366,21299,21345,21003,21262,21383,21328,21232,21377, 30044, and 21169. SDG 21123
and SDG 2878 had only Pu-239/240 outside QC limits. All data associated with these SDGs
were qualified (J) for results greater than the MDA
Blank Spike. All the blank spike results were within QC limits (75-125%), with the exception
of SDG 2878, for which a blank spike could not be calculated, because the tracer activity
could not be recovered. Samples in this SDG were qualified unusable (R).
Chemical separation specificity. No energy spectra or library matches were provided to check
the chemical separation specificity of the isotope. The preparation notes mention the
presence of iron hydroxide precipitate at the time of plating, suggesting the presence of
uranium, which would interfere with the plutonium. All results were qualified as estimated
(J) for results greater than the MDA and (UJ) for results less than MDA
Overall assessment. All the data were estimated (J) or (UJ) [with the exception of the samples
in SDGs 2684, 2391, and 2878, which were qualified (R)], because the laboratory was unable
to provide information on the standard used for the initial energy and efficiency calibration
and no energy spectra and library matches were provided to assess the chemical separation
specificity. Also, no daily calibration was run on SDGs 21232, 2970, and 21046.
Plutonium-239/240 are isotopes that are analyzed by alpha spectrometry. In this procedure,
the Pu-239/240 isotopes are not separated out by this method. Therefore, these two isotopes
-------
4-30
laboratory reported some samples individually. There were 7 Pu-239 samples and 6 Pu-240
samples reported in this way. The reasons for this are not clear, so caution must be used
when using these data.
4.53.4 Neptunium-237 validation results
Sixty-four samples were analyzed for neptunium-237 by alpha spectrometry technique.
Holding Times. All technical holding times were met
Calibration. The tracer (neptunium-239) for this analysis was run by gas proportional counter,
and determination of neptunium-237 was done by alpha spectrometry; therefore, calibration
information was needed for each instrument The laboratory was unable to provide
information on the standard used for the initial energy and efficiency calibration. The
laboratory included the c..ijy full-width haif maximum information, centroid information, and
efficiency information. Background information on these samples was acceptable, except for
SDGs 21262 and 21232. Either the background information was not provided or it was not
provided for the detectors of interest- Without the correct information, the data must be
qualified estimated (J) for results greater than MDA and (UJ) for results less than MDA.
Incorrect monthly calibration information was provided for SDGs 21299, 21169, 21123,
21345, 30044, 21377, 2924, 21328, and 21383. The information provided was not for the
detectors of interest. Also, no monthly calibration was provided for SDGs 21262, 21232,
21081,21034,21003,21366,21046, and 2970. Without the correct information, the data must
be qualified estimated (J) for results greater than MDA and (UJ) for results less than MDA
The laboratory did not provide daily calibration information for SDGs 21123, 21345, and
21299, so it is impossible to determine the behavior of the instrument on the day of the
analysis. All results greater than MDA were qualified as (J), and all results less than MDA
were qualified as (UJ).
Calibration information for the gas proportional counter contained self-absorption curves
with all raw data and the beta plateau curves. The crosstalk information was present, but raw
data counts were not provided. Gas proportional counter calibration met all criteria.
Laboratory blank results. All laboratory blank results were less than the MDA, except for
SDGs 21262 and 21232. Blank activities exceeded the MDA; therefore, possible blank
contamination exists, and all data above the MDA were estimated (J). No laboratory blank
data was provided for SDG 2684, so all data above the MDA was J.
Tracer results. All tracer recoveries were within the QC limits (15-125%).
Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate. MS/MSD recoveries were within the QC limits (75-125%)
for SDGs 2391, 21232, 21262, and 21169, but all other SDGs were outside QC limits. The
laboratory used an incorrect activity vaiue, which changed their MS/MSD results. The data
were qualified estimated (J) for results greater than the MDA because of the failure to meet
QC criteria.
Duplicates. The RPD acceptance criterion was +35% for samples with values greater than
-------
4-31
maximum) except for SDGs 21299, 21345, 21058, 21034, 2878, 21081, 21383, 21328, 2924,
21377, 30044, and 2847. All data associated with these SDGs were qualified (J) for results
greater than the MDA.
Blank spike results. All blank spike recoveries were within QC limits (75-125%) except for
SDGs 2970, 21046, 21366, 21299, 21345, 21003, 21058, 21034, 2878, 21081, 21383, 21328,
2924,21377,30044, and 2847. All results greater than the MDA were qualified estimated (J),
while all results less than the MDA were rejected (R). There were six results less than the
MDA that should have been rejected, but professional judgment was used to determine that
only one of the six should be rejected (R). The other results had blank spike recoveries above
70%. The sample that was rejected was 6074 of SDG 21034.
Chemical separation specificity. No energy spectra or library matches were provided to check
the chemical separation specificity of the isotope. All results were qualified as estimated (J)
for results greater than the MDA and (UJ) for results less than MDA.
Overall assessment All the data were estimated (J) or (UJ) [with the exception of the sample
in SDG 21034, which was qualified (R)], because the laboratory was unable to provide
information on the standard used for the initial energy and efficiency calibration and no
energy spectra and library matches were provided to assess the chemical separation specificity.
Also, there was a failure to run a daily calibration on SDGs 21123, 21345, and 21299. Data
in SDGs 2419 and 2391 were rejected, because there was no self-absorption information to
assess calibration.
4-53.5 Curium-244 validation results
Sixty-one samples were analyzed for curium-244 by alpha spectrometry technique.
Holding times. All technical holding times were met for curium-244.
Calibration. The laboratory was unable to provide information on the standard used for the
initial energy and efficiency calibration. The laboratory included the daily full-width half
maximum information, centroid information, and efficiency information. Background
information pertaining to these samples was acceptable except for SDG 2847. Either the
background information was not provided or it was not provided for the detectors of interest
Without the correct information, the data must be qualified estimated (J) for results greater
than MDA and (UJ) for results less than MDA.
Incorrect monthly calibration information was provided for SDGs 21366, 21299, 21345,
21328, 21377, 30044, and 2847. The information that they provided was not for the detectors
of interest Also, no monthly calibration was provided for SDG 21383. Without the correct
information, the data must be qualified estimated (J) for results greater than the MDA and
(UJ) for results less than MDA.
The laboratory did not provide daily calibration information for SDGs 21366, 21299,
21345, 21383, 21328, 21377, 30044, and 2847, so it is impossible to determine the behavior
of the instrument on the day of the analysis. All results greater than MDA were qualified as
-------
4-32
Laboratory blank results. All laboratory blank results were either less than the MDA or the
lowest sample activity was 5 times greater than the blank activity and deemed acceptable.
Tracer results. All tracer recoveries were within the QC limits (15-125%).
Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate. MS/MSD recoveries were all within the QC limits
(75-125%) except for SDGs 21046, 21123, 21003, 21058, 21034, 2878, 21081, 2924, 21169,
21262, 21232, and 2970. There was no recovery of the duplicate sample or the unspiked
sample. Therefore, neither a duplicate nor a matrix spike could be calculated. All of these
SDGs with no recovery were qualified as unusable (R).
Duplicates. The RPD acceptance criterion was +35% for samples with values greater than
or equal to 5 times the MDA All duplicate RPDs were within QC limits of (^50%
maximum) except for SDGs 21046, 21123, 21003, 21058, 21034, 2878, 21081, 2924, 21169,
21262, 21232, and 2970. There was no recovery of the duplicate sample or the unspiked
sample. Therefore, neither a duplicate nor a matrix spike could be calculated. All of these
SDGs with no recovery were qualified as unusable (R).
Blank spike results. All blank spike recoveries were within QC limits (75-125%).
Chemical separation specificity. No energy spectra or library matches were provided to check
the chemical separation specificity of the isotope. All results were qualified as estimated (J)
for results greater than the MDA and (UJ) for results less tnan MDA.
Overall assessment The data were estimated (J) or (UT; be use the laboratory was unable
to provide information on the standard used for the initial energy and efficiency calibration,
and no energy spectra and library matches were provided to assess the chemical separation
specificity. Also, there was a failure to run a daily calibration on SDGs 21366, 21299, 21345,
21383, 21328, 21377, 30044, and 2847. The following SDGs were all qualified unusable (R),
because there was no recovery of the duplicate sample or the unspiked sample. Therefore,
neither a duplicate nor a matrix spike could be calculated SDGs 21046, 21123, 21003, 21058,
21034, 2878, 21081, 2924, 21169, 21262, 21232, and 2970.
4-53.6 Strontium-90 validation results
Fifty-four samples were analyzed for strontium-90 by gas flow proportional counting.
Holding times. All technical holding times were met for strontium-90.
Calibration. All calibration criteria were met for strontium-90.
Laboratory blank results. There were no detected activities found above the MDA
Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates. All MS/MSD recoveries were within the QC limits
(75-125%) with the exception of SDGs 2633, 2638, 2658, 21046, and 21034, which had MS
recoveries below the QC limits.
Duplicates. The RPD acceptance criterion was +35% for samples with values greater than
or equal to 5 times the MDA All duplicate results met this criterion except for SDGs 21299
-------
4-33
Blank spike results. All blank spike recoveries were within the QC limits (75-125%) except
for SDGs 21058 and 21081.
Overall Assessment. The data for strontium-90 were qualified as usable. All detects had no
qualifiers and all nondetects had (U) qualifiers.
4_53.7 Gamma spectrometry validation results
One hundred forty-eight samples were analyzed by gamma spectrometry.
Holding times. All technical holding times were met
Calibration. All calibration criteria were met for all samples and were within the upper and
lower ranges.
Laboratory blank results. No analytical laboratory blank samples were analyzed.
Duplicates. The RPD acceptance criterion was +35% for samples with values greater than
or equal to 5 times the MDA. All duplicate RPDs were within QC limits of (<50%
maximum) except for SDGs 2419, 2423, 21345 and 21247, which had RPD results outside the
QC limits.
Overall Assessment The data were qualified as usable for all analytes except europium-155.
All detects had no qualifiers and ail nondetects bad estimated (U) qualifiers. Europium-155
data were qualified unusable (R) because the laboratory incorrectly identified a thorium x-ray
line as europium-155.
4.53.8 Total uranium validation results
Sixty-one samples were analyzed for total uranium by pulsed laser phosphorimetry. This
technique provided results on a mass basis, which the laboratory converted to activity by
multiplying by an activity conversion factor (0.679 pCi/^g). This conversion factor was based
on the specific activities and natural distribution of uranium-234, uranium-235, and
uranium-238. The natural distribution of uranium isotopes was 0.0055% uranium-234, 0.72%
uranium-235, and 992.7% uranium-238. The specific activities used for the conversion were
6.13E + 3 pCi//xg for uranium-234, 2.14 pCi/fig for uranium-235, and 033 pCi/jtg for
uranium-238.
Holding times. All technical holding times were met
Calibration. All calibration criteria were met except for the SDGs 2423, 2684,2658, 2638, and
2633. These SDGs had correlation coefficients outside criteria for the high and low standards;
therefore, detects were J and nondetects were UJ.
Laboratory blank results. All laboratory blank results were either less than the MDA or the
lowest sample activity was 5 times greater than the blank activity and deemed acceptable.
Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates. All MS/MSD recoveries were within the QC limits
(75-125%) with the exception of SDGs 21123, 21058, 21081, 2924, 21169, 21262, and 21232.
-------
4-34
Duplicates. The RPD acceptance criterion was +35% for samples with values greater than
or equal to 5 times the MDA. All duplicate RPDs were within QC limits of (<50%
maximum), except for SDG 2878.
Blank spike results. All blank spike recoveries were within QC limits (75-125%).
Overall assessment. The data for total uranium were estimated (J) or (UJ) because the
laboratory was unable to provide information on the amount of spiking compound used and
the amount of tracer used, since the laboratory was putting the spike and tracer in the same
aliquot or because of spike recoveries. However, later the laboratory began to separate the
spike from the tracer, and the amounts were able to be determined. The following SDGs have
no qualifiers, because of this change: 21383, 30044, 2847, 21328, and 2878.
4_53-9 Technetium-99 validation results
Fifty-one samples were analyzed for technetium-99 by liquid scintillation. These samples
were obtained from the resampling discussed in Sect. 4.4.
Technetium-99 data met all necessary criteria, and it was determined that the data is
usable, and there were no validation qualifiers assessed to the data. Therefore, all detects
have no qualifiers and all nondetects are qualified estimated (U).
4.53.10 Tritium validation results
Sixty-one samples were analyzed for tritium by liquid scintillation.
Holding times. All technical holding times were met.
Calibration. The liquid scintillation counter was calibrated with NIST traceable quench
standards; however, this information was not verifiable according to the information
submitted. The carbon-14 daily standard check did not include a radioactive source report.
There is no information to relate the raw data for the quench curve to the standard used, and
there is no preparation information for the quench curve. Also, the daily standard information
and the control charts used to monitor the daily standard checks were not present, and there
is no way to verify whether the standard checks passed or failed.
Due to the laboratory's failure to include proper documentation for the carbon-14
standard and the exclusion of the daily standard information, including control charts used to
monitor the daily standard and background checks, all of the data must be qualified as
estimated (J) for detects and (UJ) for nondetects.
Laboratory blank results. There were no detected activities found above the MDA.
Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates. All MS/MSD recoveries were within the QC limits
(75-125%), except SDG 2369, 2391, 2970.
Duplicates. The RPD acceptance criterion was +35% for samples with values greater than
or equal to 5 times the MDA. All duplicate RPDs were within QC limits of (<50%
maximum), except for SDG 2391. This qualifies SDG 2391 as J for results above the MDA
-------
4-35
Blank spike results. All blank spike recoveries were within QC limits (75-125%) except for
SDG 21345.
Overall assessment Data for these soil samples (Table 4.6) were qualified as estimated due
to the laboratory's failure to include all relevant information for calibration. Therefore, all
detects are (J) and all nondetects (UJ). However, there is one sample, 21205-05, that is
qualified unusable (R), because the laboratory reported it at a point outside of the quench
curve that makes it invalid.
4.5.4 ICP/MS Data Validation Results
Of the 150 samples collected for ICP/MS analysis, 144 were analyzed. The remaining six
samples were not analyzed, because sample volume was depleted before ICP/MS analysis
could take place.
Holding times. There were no holding time requirements for the soil samples in this case.
Initial calibration and calibration verification. Four runs of tuning solution with %RSD < 10%
were shown. The spectra for mass calibration and resolution checks for the 12/28/92 run were
nearly illegible, hence, the factors could not be verified. A mass calibration report did not
accompany the graphical representation of the scans. The %R for ICV and CCV were within
limits, and true values were verified.
Laboratory blank results. The analysis of laboratory blanks provides a means of assessing the
existence of contamination in the analytical method. Blanks did not show evidence of
significant contamination.
Interference check samples. The analysis of an ICS was to verify the interelement and
background correction factors. ICS samples were run. The laboratory used 6020 CLP-M
Version 8.1 and adhered to recommended values in Table 4.7, except for those recommended
values that were higher than the linear range of the instrument Solution A indicates no
barium, copper, nickel, or zinc, but low levels of these elements were found.
Matrix spike. Spiking levels did not agree exactly with CLP. The spike for antimony was
outside QC limits and was rerun, as required.
Duplicates. All duplicate %RSD were acceptable, except for selenium (40.2%). The selenium
data will be qualified as estimated (J) due to this finding.
Laboratory control samples. The LCS was identified in the laboratory response, and true
values and recoveries are correct
Serial dilutions. Serial dilutions would be required for barium, chromium, lead, and zinc. All
%D values were acceptable except for zinc. The results of the diluted samples were higher
-------
4-36
Table 4.6. Summary distribution of radiochemical data validation results
Analyte
No
Qualifier
U
J
UJ
R
SUM
%
usable
Americium-241
1
147



148
100
Barium-133

148



148
100
Cesium-137
80
68



148
100
Chromium-51

148



148
100
Cobalt-57

148



148
100
Cobalt-60

148



148
100
Curium-243

61



61
100
Curium-244



24
32
56
43
Curium-245

61



61
100
Curium-247
2
59



61
100
Europium-152

148



148
100
Europium-154

148



148
100
Europium-155




148
148
0
Hafnium-181

136



136
100
Iridium-192

136



136
100
Neptunium-237


35
10
19
64
70
Neptunium Gamma

90



90
100
Niobium

134



134
100
Plutonium-238


28
33
2
63
97
Plutonium-239/240


16
39
1
56
98
Potassium-40
139
9



148
100
Radium-226
147
3



150
100
Ruthenium-103
1
147



148
100
Stroniium-90
2
52



54
100
Technetium-99
10
41



51
100
Thonum-223


148


150
100
Thorium-230


149
1

150
100
Thorium-232


150


150
100
Thorium-234
51
1
18
59

129
100
Thorium-234 Gamma
7
8



15
100
Total Uranium
9

51
1

61
100
Tritium


18
39
4
61
93
Uranium-233/234


136
12

148
100
Uranium-235


107
41

148
100
Uranium-235 Gamma
59
89



148
100
Uranium-236


6
142

148
100
Uranium-238


136
12

148
100
Zinc-65

148



148
100
Zirconium-95

148



148
-------
4-37
Table 4.7. Summary distribution of I CP/MS data validation results
Compound
No qualifier
B
U
UJ
J
R SUM
% usable
Aluminum
143




143
100
Antimony

3
140


143
100
Arsenic
140
3



143
100
Barium
106
37



143
100
Beryllium
25
113
5


143
100
Cadmium


143


143
100
Chromium
143




143
100
Cobalt
79
64



143
100
Copper
137
6



143
100
Lead
143




143
100
Manganese
142
1



143
100
Nickel
111
32



143
100
Selenium



14
56
70
100
Silver


143


143
100
Thallium

71
72


143
100
Zinc




143
143
100
4-5_5 Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) Data Validation Results
The method of NAA was used to determine 34 trace elements in the samples according
to procedures given in Standard Analytical Method ORNL-AC-MM-222003. There were a
total of 143 samples analyzed. They were broken down into seven different batches.
Holding Times. All holding times fell within the specified range.
Initial calibration and calibration verification. There is no information provided about the
energy calibration of the detectors, but inspection of peak searches for standards shows peak
energies at the expected locations. Efficiency information was provided, and all other criteria
for calibration was met. The laboratory performed three different counts: long counts (20-day
decay), medium counts (4-day decay), and short counts (20-min decay). In the long and
medium counts, all standards were counted in the same geometry, and the same efficiency
files were applied to all. For these longer-lived nuclides, decay corrections were not necessary.
The short counts for the standards were counted in different geometries. Exact efficiencies
were provided for the standards, and decay corrections were implemented.
Laboratory blank results. The procedure states that the blank is acceptable if the activity in
each peak of interest is less than 5% of analyte level. However, no activities are given for the
blank values in milligrams per kilogram. Comparison of the milligrams per kilogram values
from the blank with those of sample 5030 shows that the blank is less than 5% of the analyte
levels, except for hafnium. The blank level for hafnium was a significant fraction (>10%) of
most sample values. Hafnium will be qualified as J.
Laboratory control samples (LCS). The percent recovery limits for the LCS were 80 to 120%.
-------
4-38
chromium, iron, hafnium, lutetium, and samarium. The following elements are qualified R:
cadmium, selenium, and zinc. The laboratory felt that the zinc results for this batch were
anomalous, but upon review it was determined that only batches 1 and 5 should be R.
Matrix spike recoveries. The percent recovery could not be calculated with the information
given in the table. Upon speaking with the laboratory, it was determined that all values should
be converted to mass rather than concentration. Tabular results can be produced in this way.
However, spike recovery limits do not apply for analytes with concentrations more than 4
times the spike amount This was the case for hafnium, iron, magnesium, manganese,
potassium, scandium, and sodium. Therefore, even though some of these were out of the
control limits, no qualifier was applied. The following elements were qualified estimated (J)
due to out-of-control-limit recoveries: arsenic, cadmium, cerium, cobalt, chromium, gallium,
lanthanum, samarium, and thorium. These elements are qualified rejected (R): tungsten and
zinc. Note: Cobalt batches 4 and 5 had no qualifier.
Duplicates. For values that are undetected (U), control limits do not apply. The laboratory
applied limits of +35% and indicated that the out-of-limits elements for the duplicate samples
are antimony, arsenic, gallium, terbium, and uranium. However. EPA control limits for soils
are very wide (only %RPD > 100% are estimated). Thus, no elements required qualification.
Continuing calibration verification (CCV). The following guidelines were used to qualify the
data: 90-110% no qualifier; 89-75% and 111-125% are J; all others will be R. The following
elements are out of limits: lutetium and yttrium are qualified J; and cadmium, samarium, and
zinc are qualified R.
Overall Assessment The final validation qualifiers for the NAA data are as follows: arsenic,
barium, cerium, chromium, gallium, hafnium, iron, lanthanum, lutetium, silver, and thorium
are all qualified estimated J. Cobalt is also qualified J, but only for batches 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7.
The following elements are qualified unusable R: cadmium, samarium, selenium, and tungsten.
Zinc batches 1 and 5 were also qualified R. Note: all "0" concentrations are to be interpreted
as MISSING DATA. Information cannot be retrieved. In contrast, cadmium, selenium, and
zinc data obtained by ICP analyses were 99%, 94%, and 100% usable, respectively.
4.6 SCREENING ANALYSES FOR VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
The analyses of volatile organic ompounds were performed on non-composited surface
soil samples. This analysis was conducted as a screen to determine whether there was any
disposal of wastes at the site or evidence of contamination of groundwater plumes under the
site. Since this analysis was being performed as a screen, the analytical level was set at EI,
which provided quantitative data with less rigorous QA/QC and documentation.
The results of most volatile organic screens were that no volatile organic compounds
were detected. However, there were some samples found with detectable quantities of
compounds found typically associated as laboratory contaminates (acetone and 2-butanone).
Sixty-seven samples showed acetone; 8 samples showed 2-butanone; 2 samples showed
trichloroethylene; 17 samples showed both acetone and 2-butanone; 3 samples showed
acetone, 2-butanone, and trichloroethylene; 1 sample showed acetone and trichloroethene;
and 1 sample showed acetone, 2-butanone, and toluene as contaminants. In addition, there
-------
4-39
showed detectable quantities of trichlorofluoromethane, and the other sample showed
detectable quantities of chloroform. Each of these compounds was found in low concentration
and could conceivably be associated with the laboratory performing the analysis.
Table 4.8. Summary distribution of neutron activation analysis data validation results
Analyte
No qualifier
J
UJ R
Sum
% Usable
Aluminum
143


143
100%
Antimony
143


143
100%
Arsenic

143

143
100%
Barium

143

143
100%
Cadmium


143
143
0%
Cerium

143

143
100%
Cesium
143


143
100%
Chromium

143

143
100%
Cobalt
40
103

143
100%
Europium
143


143
100%
Gallium

143

143
100%
Gold
143


143
100%
Hafnium

143

143
100%
Iron

143

143
100%
Lanthanum

143

143
100%
Lutetium

143

143
100%
Magnesium
143


143
100%
Manganese
143


143
100%
Mercury
143


143
100%
Potassium
143


143
100%
Rubidium
143


143
100%
Samarium


143
143
0%
Scandium
143


143
100%
Selenium


143
143
0%
Silver

143

143
100%
Sodium
143


143
100%
Terbium
143


143
100%
Thorium

143

143
100%
Titanium
143


143
100%
Tungsten


143
143
0%
Uranium
143


143
100%
Vanadium
143


143
100%
Ytterbium
143


143
100%
Zinc
103

40
143
-------
5-1
5. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
5.1 SUMMARY
This section contains data summary statistics for the Background Soil Characterization
Project (BSCP), which include detection frequencies, median estimates as measures of central
tendency, upper 95th quantile estimates as measures of the upper ends of the normal
background range, and confidence bounds for these estimates. Detection probability
confidence bounds are given for the data that were primarily "nondetects." The statistical
methodology for "detect" data assumes that data follow the lognormal distribution, with
possibly different means but the same variance in each formation-location (FL). The statistical
methodology incorporates each nondetect as "between zero and the detection limit" without
resorting to approximation, such as setting its value to the detection limit
All data were examined graphically to assess the lognormal assumption and to check for
outliers. With the exception of a few outliers, the data appear to be consistent with the
assumptions. However, sample size limitations precluded thorough statistical testing of these
assumptions. Comparisons were made across FLs and horizons, and some significant
differences were determined. These differences include differences among the Oak Ridge
Reservation (ORR) and Anderson County and Roane County FLs (see Sect 6). Laboratory
and spatial variances were estimated and compared. On the basis of these estimates and the
relative costs of laboratory and Geld sampling, the advantage of using composited soil samples
was demonstrated.
5.2 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this section is to provide a statistical overview of the BSCP data and to
demonstrate statistical methodology. The data are either "detects" or "nondetects," depending
on whether they exceed detection limits. Each nondetect was considered "censored," that is,
known only to be less than the detection limit. Data qualified as "unusable" were rejected a
priori.
Statistical analyses were performed to
1.	assess the data graphically—that is, to screen for statistical outliers and to make
preliminary decisions about the statistical distributions of the soil constituents;
2.	compute summary statistics: means, medians, confidence bounds, and tolerance bounds
for soil concentration levels, and estimates and confidence bounds for detection
probabilities;
3.	resolve and estimate laboratory and Geld components of variance;
4.	compare, to a limited extent, the three soil horizons and the geologic formations in three
different sampling areas: the Dismal Gap and Copper Ridge formations on the ORR and
in Anderson and Roane counties, the Nolichucky and the Chepultepec formations on the
ORR, and the Chickamauga formations in Bethel Valley and K-25 on the ORR;
5.	compare NAA and ICP/MS results with the AA/ICP inorganics and with alpha, beta, and
-------
5-2
6. uncover, through the above five steps, data problems not revealed earlier by data
validation and verification.
Different anaiytes tend to have different statistical distributions, variance properties,
patterns of detection, and patterns of missing or rejected data. For many of the anaiytes. the
statistical analysis is preruised on the assumption that the data arise from lognormal
distributions with equal variances but possibly different means in different FLs. These
assumptions are discussed further in Sect. 5.2.1. How appropriate these assumptions are varies
with the analyte. Available time and budget constraints precluded the tailoring of individual
statistical analysis for each analyte.
However, special attention may be warranted in certain cases, especially for anaiytes
whose background levels are near levels of risk concern. In such cases, the discussion in this
section may provide useful guidance, but the users of the background data should perform
their own analysis.
All results were plotted to check for outliers and other anomalies. For those soil
constituents that were mostly detected, which includes most of the inorganics and PAHs and
some of the radionuclides, the same plots were used to decide whether a parametric statistical
distribution (e.g., normal or lognormal) was appropriate for modeling the data or whether the
statistical scatter in the data was similar over the different FLs. On the basis of this visual
assessment, the decision was made that the lognormal distribution and homogeneity-of-
variance (equal scatter) assumptions were adequate for the data analyses considered here.
Graphical data assessment is discussed further in Sect. 522.
For the mostly detected constituents, the usual array of means, standard errors, and
confidence bounds were computed using the SAS Lifereg procedure and the method of
maximum likelihood with lognormal errors and homogeneity of variance (SAS 1990). This is
described further below.
The nondetects were entered as censored data using the Lifereg procedure. The method
of analysis used to handle nondetects (the method of maximum likelihood) makes full use of
the data, without "imputing" them or resorting to other compromises, such as setting them
to zero, to the detection limit, or to half the detection limit
Maximum likelihood estimation for censored . gnormal data is discussed in Lawless
(1982, Sect 5.2). For the mostly detected constituents, separate means are estimated for the
lognormal analyte distributions for each formation and horizon, but results for all formations
contribute to a single variance estimate. In this way the data were pooled over formations,
thus reducing the statistical noise in the estimates and making confidence limits tighter.
Results cannot, in the same way, be pooled across horizons because of the statistical
dependence of the results from different horizons at the same individual site.
Summary statistics are given in Sects. 5.3-5.9 for inorganics, herbicides, pesticides/PCBs,
PAHs, radionuclides, volatile organics, and gamma screening data. These statistics can
ordinarily be computed when there are detects. There are exceptions, however (e.g., when
each FL having a detect, has just one, and it is less than the detection limits for nondetects
from that FL). Exceptions also occur in a few cases for numerical reasons (e.g., the computing
algorithm may fail to converge because of a nonrobust starting value). In such cases these
-------
5-3
Means and confidence bounds for means are computed as standard procedure. However,
focusing exclusively on means skirts the issue of data scatter and the question of how large
a constituent level has to be before it can reasonably be assumed to exceed background. To
address this question, tolerance bounds are used: If a background distribution percentile is
known exactly, it would be logical to assume that a particular sample exceeds background if
it exceeds some particular upper percentile of the background distribution, selected as a
reasonable bound on the usual background range. For example, if the sample result exceeds
the 95th percentile, then either (1) contamination is present, or (2) it is an unusual (l-in-20)
background sample. As the percentile level is increased, statement (1) becomes ever more and
(2) ever less tenable. While background percentiles are not known exactly, they can be
estimated from background data. Tolerance bounds, which are just confidence bounds for
percentiles, account for estimation error; lower tolerance bounds for upper percentiles are
of particular interest If a sample value is below such a lower tolerance bound, then one can
be confident that it does not exceed the corresponding percentile. If the sample percentile
level is not too high, then one can be confident that the sample level is within the usual
background range. For the same reason, a lower tolerance bound for an upper percentile
would be a reasonable candidate for a remediation target (particularly a tolerance bound for
a single noncomposite sample).
For analyses with sufficiently many detects, tolerance bounds along with their
corresponding percentile estimates and the mean estimates and upper confidence bounds
(UCBs) provide a good assessment of the statistical accuracy of the results. When the vast
majority of the results are nondetects, as with herbicides and pesticides, the usual statistics
cannot be computed, and only detection probabilities are estimated. UCBs for detection
probabilities (binomial probability distributions) are discussed in Owen (1962). Similar UCBs
are also computed for probabilities of exceeding the maximum detection limit (MAXDL) of
the nondetects.
UCBs for detection probabilities can be used as follows: If there is confidence that the
true background detection probability is less than the UCB, if that UCB is small enough and
if the detection limits do not change much in the future, then any future detect would suggest
contamination. For example, if the detection probability is less than 0.05, then a detect
indicates either a l-in-20 chance background event or else contamination.
To be useful, the detection probability UCBs should be around 0.05 or less. To achieve
this, sample sizes need to be 50 or more, and data must be combined over FLs. Similar use
can be made of UCBs for probabilities of exceeding MAXDLs. Of course, the probability of
detection depends on the laboratory and can change in future surveys.
Comparisons of results for different FLs and horizons are discussed in Sects. 5.23 and
53-5.9. Comparisons are of interest because of their implications on (1) combining FLs for
data analysis (e.g., to increase degrees of freedom for error estimates) and (2) extrapolations
to other sampling areas, formations, locations, and sites not sampled in the BSCP. Possible
differences in background values among areas for which there are data may require using
caution in extrapolating to other areas.
Gamma screening and volatile organic results are discussed in Sects. 5.8 and 5.9, and
-------
54
Composite Sample Data
BSCP herbicide, pesticide, PAH, and volatile organic samples were not composited, but
the inorganics and radionuclide samples were. For most of the inorganics and radionuclides,
there are sufficient numbers of detects to make estimating medians and computing tolerance
bounds the primary approach to statistical analysis. But some inorganics and, especially, some
radionuclides were mostly undetected. In such cases, detection probabilities are given for
composites of three.
When a contaminant or unusual constituent is detected in composites, the individual
samples are sometimes analyzed separately to determine the original site or sites that it came
from. This procedure was not pursued in the BSCP. Therefore, detection probabilities for
single (noncomposite) samples cannot be estimated directly for the inorganics and
radionuclides. A bound for these probabilities can be found as follows: Suppose X, an
observation from a composite of three, is [(x, + x2 + x3)/3] • e, where e is laboratory error,
and X,, Xj, and x3 represent the true concentrations in the individual composited samples. The
random variable X, = x, • e has the same statistical distribution as an observation from a
single noncomposite sample. For any x, P(X > x) ^ P(x, • e > 3 • x). T-,us, a UCB for
P(X > x) is a conservative UCB for P(X[ > 3 • x), and a UCB for the detection probability
for composites is a conservative UCB for the detection probability of noncomposites with
detection limits tripled.
BSCP results for composites can be compared to results for noncomposites, though in
some cases it will be necessary to account for the smaller variance of the composite results.
To do this, variance components (i.e., field and laboratory) must be estimated. This is
discussed in Sect. 5.10, where the advantage of compositing is also demonstrated for the
background data. Variance component estimates can also be used in planning future surveys.
Variance component estimates require replicate observations at the same site. Replicates in
the BSCP, which are in the form of duplicates and splits, are discussed in Sect 5.2.4.
Measures of Central Tendency
Analysis of lognormal data is generally accomplished by analyzing the logs of the data,
that is by computing means, standard errors, etc. of the logs. A problem arises when the
results are transformed back to the original scale, because the mean of the logs is not the
same as the log of the means. However, the median (50th percentile) of the logs is the log
of the median. Other percentiles transform in the same way, as do confidence bounds for
them. For this reason, in this section attention is restricted mostly to medians and other
percentiles, instead of means. But, medians are usually considered to be more appropriate
measures of central tendency for skewed distributions, such as the lognormal.
Rejected Data
Many of the background results are nondetects (designated by validation codes "U,"
"UJ"); the results given in the background data sets are then detection limits. Data designated
with the validation code "R" (rejected) were not used in the following analyses but. with a
few exceptions, the remaining data were used, including data designated "J" (estimated). The
exceptions, which are discussed in the following sections, were usually obvious outliers and,
at the suggestion of soil scientists, were deleted from further statistical analyses. For most of
-------
5-5
assignment of Rs was not based on the detection status of results. In particular, results of the
same analyses should not be differentially rejected because they are nondetects.
5.2.1 Basic Assumptions
Residual soils that are underlain by a particular formation are represented as the union
of numerous small disjoint regions. For each BSCP formation, a subset of that union, suitable
as background and within particular property boundaries, defines a targeted area for the
BSCP (e.g., ORR Dismal Gap). As described in the BSCP Plan (Volume 3, Energy Systems
1992), to the extent feasible, targeted areas were sampled randomly. For composites, samples
were partitioned randomly into sets of three and composited. (Note, however, one procedural
variance discussed at the end of Sect 3.7). Therefore, to the extent that sites are sampled
randomly, the data, both composites and noncomposites, are simple random samples. A close
approximation to random sampling was achieved for ORR sites. Access limitations were more
severe off-site, and so the approximation is not as good there. Nevertheless, on the basis of
graphical inspection, on-site and off-site data seem to have similar distributions, and it is
reasonable to assume that the goal of simple random sample site selection was met. Certain
applications, however, may warrant closer scrutiny of these assumptions.
For those analytes that were mostly undetected, spatial distribution assumptions play no
role in the analysis. For many of the inorganics and radionuclides, however, there are detects.
For these analyses, on the basis of data plots, the decision was made to model the data as
lognormal with equal variances (but possibly different means) within FLs. Separate analyses
are made for each horizon. By using the same statistical model for all of the detected analytes,
the analysis is greatly simplified. This is consistent with the goal of providing a statistical
overview. Furthermore, more formal assessment of the model assumptions, [e.g., using
goodness-of-Ot (GOF) tests] is difficult (because of small numbers of observations in each
area, nondetects, etc.) and fraught with logical problems (failing to reject a model may be due
only to weakness of the GOF test, which is itself very complicated to assess). GOF tests are
discussed in Lawless (1982, Chapter 9), where the lack of procedures appropriate for this
setting is made clear. Nevertheless, the lognormal and equal variance assumptions may be less
appropriate for some analytes than others, and closer scrutiny may be warranted in
applications different from this. A graphical approach to assessing these assumptions is
discussed in the next section.
5.Z2 Graphical Screening
All results, whether detects or nondetects, were plotted to check for outliers,
homogeneity of variance, and deviations from lognormality, which, for these data with so few
observations for each formation, amounts to checking for outliers. The large number of
graphs precludes presenting them all here. An example is the horizon A aluminum plot in
Fig. 5.1. In this example, the highest Dismal Gap-ORR result is suspect, especially since there
is another observation at the same site that is much lower. Such discrepancies were resolved
by BSCP soil scientists. By contrast, the horizon B aluminum results in Fig. 5.2 are more
consistent. Major outliers and anomalous results are noted in Sects. 53-5.9.
For each analysis and horizon, a graphical assessment of the fundamental assumption—
that the analyte concentrations have lognormal distributions with the same variance but means
-------
INORGANIC ANALYSES
ANALYSIS=Aluminum Horizon=A
. 8 ,	
*
*
o
o


*
*
o
o
0
o
T>
\
%
%


\

L
%
\
\
o

*
*
\
%

o
<~/l
c ode s :
* * *
cicjl. ect.
area.
+ + + nondfit.GC l: D 1:1 1:1 name nit. e
-------
INORGANIC ANALYSES
ANALY SIS=Aluminum Horizon=B
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
$
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Lt\
o.
%
%
G>
O
C>
\
%


A
\
\
¦$>

\
\
%
%
%
%
o
codes:
* * *
detect
area
+ + + nondel.ecl: ~ ~ ~ same site
-------
5-8
1.	For each FL, convert the observations—denoted as xu ... , x^—to logs, y1 = logfo),
..., yB = log(xJ (y is simply the logarithm of the observations).
2.	For the data in each FL, depending on whether or not there are nondetects, compute
either the empirical distribution function or the product limit estimate of the distribution.
FB(y), the empirical distribution function of (uncensored) observations, y„ _., yB, is the
proportion of i with y; <, y. The product-limit estimate is analogous but adjusts for
nondetects (see Lawless (1982), Sects. 23.1 and 9.1.1).
3.	Compute the normal scores, G[F((y)], where G is the inverse of the standard normal
distribution function.
4.	For all FLs plot the y values by the normal scores using symbols that distinguish FLs.
Under the lognormal model these GOF plots should be roughly linear with the same
slope, that is, parallel lines. In fact, it can be shown that the intercepts of the lines should be
approximately the means and that the slopes should be approximately the pooled standard
deviation from the analysis of variance of the log concentrations. The word "roughly" is
operative because there are only a few observations for each FL, and so the distribution
function estimates tend to be noisy. One can get an idea about how such data should behave
by performing this procedure with simulated (pseudorandom) lognormal data.
Figure S3 is a GOF plot of normal scores for aluminum in horizon B. Figure 5.4 is a
GOF plot with the same medians and scale, but simulated lognormal data. Thus, the
horizon B aluminum data seem to be consistent with the lognormal assumption. All of the
data are detects. Figure 5.5 is a plot of normal scores computed from the product-limit
estimates of the logs of the data for mercury in horizon A, which had numerous nondetects.
(A plot analogous to Eg. 5.4 for mercury could also be made, but to properly account for
nondetection would require detection limits for all observations, including the detects. Then
the ith simulated concentration would become a nondetect, if it happens to fall below the ith
detection limit)
This graphical GOF procedure could be turned into a more formal , test as follows:
compute a GOF statistic—say a sum of squares—that measures the deviations of the plotted
values (Le^ logs by normal scores, as in Fig. 53) from the fitted lines having slope equal to
the overall standard deviation and intercepts equal to the means. Next, simulate
pseudorandom normal data having those means and that standard deviation. Figure 5.4 is one
realization of such a simulation. Then compute the GOF statistic for the simulated data.
Repeat the simulation many times (e.g., 1000), and recompute the GOF statistic for each
repetition. Then, see where the original GOF statistic (computed from the original plotted
data) lies in the range of simulated ones. An original value that is unusually large relative to
the range of simulated values suggests that the lognormal model does not hold. Note,
however, that this is still not a formal GOF test (it is a "bootstrap" test).
The GOF plots reported do not support the lognormal assumption for every analyte and
horizon. For example, there is an outlier in the horizon A aluminum data plot These
deficiencies were not pursued, because the purpose of this section is to provide an overview
and to demonstrate methods. Nevertheless, the GOF plots could be used to assess
-------
5-9
4.7 H
4.01
Goodness of Fit Check
Anaiysis=AIuinimim Horizon=B

~—
&

XT'
-1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0J. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
normal score
codes: "+~H—~ dg-and *~h--x dg-roa
&-S-Q nl-ORR O O O chi-bv
n n H CHE-ORR	CR-ORR
CR-ROA
DG-ORR
A A & CHI-K2S
O—CR-AND
Fig. 53. Plot of observation logs by corresponding normal scores for horizon B aluminum. In the
Absence of statistical variation, the curves should be parallel lines—if the lognormal, equal-variance model
-------
5-10
4.7
4.6
e4-5
cs
u
Ofi
lm
a>
Q.
05
4.4
cs
La
OX)
o
h 43
o
OB
© 4.2
4.1
4.0
Goodness of Fit Check
Analysis=Fictitious Horizon=Fictitious
' ¦ ' ¦ I ¦	i | ¦ i i i |	| ¦ i ¦ | . . ¦ ¦ ! i ¦ ¦ ¦ ! . . . ¦ (	¦ i |
-1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
normal score
codes: J, J, dg-and	dg-roa >*—*•-* dg-orr
NL-ORR O O G CHI-BV ^ A 4 CHI-K2S
° ° ° CHE-ORR Q-9-* CR-ORR 0—*—$ CR-AND
• * • CR-ROA
Fig. 5.4. Plot of observation logs by corresponding normal scores for pseudorandom lognonnal data
with means and variance the same as for the horizon B aluminum data This illustrates the departure from
-------
5-11
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
§ -0.3
03
u
WD
g -0.4
Qa
50
S
2 -0.5
61)
o
La
w
s -#-6
Cm
1-0.7
-0.8
-0.9
¦1.0
Goodness of Fit Check
AnaIysis=Mercury Horizon=A
/

y

	*
b—-*


-1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
normal score
codes: H—1—•" dg-and	*--x--x dg-roa
S"9-Q NL-ORR	o o Q CHI-BV
° ° ° CHE-ORR	CR-ORR
CR-ROA
DG-ORR
6-A-6 CHI-K25
CR-AND
Fig. 5.5. Plot similar to Fig. 53 but based on product limit estimates for horizon A mercury data,
-------
5-12
523 Comparison of Formation-Locations and Horizons
Comparisons of FLs and horizons are discussed briefly here. The intent is to sketch a
method by which these comparisons can be made, rather than to give a detailed discussion
of the nature of the differences among FLs or horizons for each anaiyte. These differences
are discussed further in Sect 6.
Comparisons of FLs can be made by using chi-square likelihood ratio (LR) tests
(Lawless 1982, ppr524-525). This can be done using the SAS Proc Lifereg and the lognonnal
equal variance model, even when there are nondetects. The tests involve computing
likelihoods under two (null and alternative) models, their LR, and then comparing the
likelihoods using -21n(LR), which, under the null model, has approximately a chi-square
distribution. This is essentially a one-way analysis of variance, but nondetects are admitted
into the analysis. When there are no nondetects, FLs can also be compared using F-tests or
t-tests, for example, with SAS Proc GLM (SAS 1990). This is the usual one-way analysis of
variance—a standard statistical procedure.
When there are no nondetects, the LR and F-test significance levels are the same
asymptotically (Len in theory for large sample sizes). In practice, as with the BSCP sample
sizes, the LR significance levels are generally smaller. [The LR and F-tests actually coincide
in this case (Wilks 1962, Chapter 13). The approximation incurred in the LR test is only
through using the chi-square to approximate the F-distribution.] For the majority of analytes,
there are some nondetects. To be consistent for both these and the all-detect cases, the LR
test was used to make all comparisons. But since the corresponding significance levels tend
to be smaller (and especially since many comparisons are. being made), the 0.01
significance-level cut-off is likely to be better than the usual 0.05 for declaring differences to
be significant
When FLs differ significantly, the question becomes how they differ (comparison of
means). Unlike the SAS Proc GLM, the software in Proc Lifereg has not been developed to
answer this question easily. Under project constraints, pursuing that question fully for each
anaiyte and horizon was not feasible. Nevertheless, tests were performed to compare (1) all
FLs in general, (2) Dismal Gap locations, (3) Copper Ridge locations, (4) ORR FLs,
(5) Chickamauga locations, (6) ORR Dismal Gap with Nolichucky FLs, (7) ORR Copper
Ridge with Chepuitepee FLs, and (8) groups on the ORR—the Chickamauga, Conasauga
(Dismal Gap and Nolichucky formations), and Knox (Copper Ridge and Chepultepec
formations).
Formal comparisons can also be made of detection frequencies (using a different
chi-square test). Here, frequencies are the focus only when there are few or no detects, and
in such cases frequency comparisons are almost always negative.
By virtue of the sampling, BSCP soil samples are statistically independent for each
horizon. They are not, however, independent across horizons, as observations for the three
horizons come in triples for each site or (in the case of composites) combination of sites.
When there is no censoring, this dependence can be accounted for by analyzing differences
between results at different horizons: B from A, C from B, and C from A. When there is
censoring, these differences are themselves censored. For example, if a horizon A observation
-------
5-13
detect, say 15, then the A-B difference is interval censored: between 0 - 15 = —15
and 10 — 15 = —5.
The censored differences between horizons can also be analyzed using the SAS Lifereg
procedure. For this section, these differences are assumed to arise from approximately normal
distributions. Horizon comparisons are made for inorganics and radionuclides (Sects. 53 and
5.7). The differences are first compared to check for differences (in the differences) between
FLs. Generally, the FL does seem to play a role in horizon differences, and thedifferences
are examined for eadrFL.
5.2.4 Held Duplicates and Splits
BSCP results include two kinds of replication at the same site: (1) Geld splits—separate-
subsamples from one original (possibly composited) sample and (2) field duplicates—samples
(possibly composited) from the same general sites (e.gM holes) but taken a small distance (or
distances) apart In the BSCP, the distance was unspecified but was generally about 3 ft Field
splits can be used to estimate laboratory error along with any error associated with sample
granularity. Field duplicates measure both of these errors plus small-scale spatial variability.
How to combine replicates into the data analysis is not straightforward. A duplicate or
split does not represent new independent information because it is from a site already
sampled, and so these replicates should not be treated as independent observations. On the-
other hand, replicates, having been measured more than once, represent more information
than an ordinary, single sample.
For data that are uncensored (all detects), duplicates and splits can be handled using
variance components models (see, for example, Searie 1971, Chapter 9). Sites-within-FLs can
be modeled as a random effect, but even then approximation is necessary. How to compute
exact confidence intervals for the spatial variance estimates is unknown.) For most BSCP
analytes, however, there are nondetects. Unfortunately, software is not readily available for
analogous analyses with nondetects. Therefore, our approach to replication at the same site-
is as follows.
For analyses with primarily nondetects, only one member of each replicate pair, triple,
etc. was included in the data analysis. In most cases that means simply that one nondetect was.
included in the analysis and that additional nondetects at the same site were dropped.
For analyses with more than just a few detects, replicates at a site were averaged. This
may cause a slight downward bias in variance estimates, but the alternative of not using
replicates ignores useful information, and the alternative of modeling the replicates—a
random effects model with censored data—is not feasible under project cost and time
constraints. When all are detects, this is straightforward. When there are nondetects (which
are left-censored), the averages are either left-censored or interval-censored. For example,,
if at the same site there are two splits, one a nondetect with detection limit 1 and the other,
a detect at level d, then the average is interval-censored, between 1/2 and (d + l)/2. If both
splits are nondetects with limits 1, and then the average is a nondetect, between 0 and-:
(lj + lj)/!-Notice that these averages are computed BEFORE taking logs. If the averaging
was done after taking logs, because the log of zero is minus infinity, the average for replicates-'
with even a single nondetect would be a nondetect regardless of the number of detects among
-------
5-14
Variance components are discussed in Sect. 5.10. In order to increase the frequency of
data that can be used to estimate variance components, duplicates and splits are treated the
same—as replicates.
53 INORGANICS
Inorganics include metals, cyanide, and sulfates. For several of these, some or all values
are nondetects, but most results are detects. Data screening reveals that many of the ORR
A horizon composite results for sites 2,26, and 43 are much higher than the other values for
the ORR A horizon, including the field duplicate, which also happens to be from sites 2,26,
and 43. Figure 5.1 illustrates this for aluminum. It is also true for nickel, vanadium, and Tinr,
and to a lesser extent for barium, beryllium, cobalt, copper, iron, lithium, magnesium,
potassium, and strontium. The duplicates are consistently high, suggesting the possibility of
laboratory error.
There is an. unusually high nondetect among the Roane County, Copper Ridge,
horizon C results for antimony. There are four detects (of four composites) for antimony in
Nolichucky horizons B and C, but there were very few detects elsewhere in horizon C An
ORR, Dismal Gap, horizon C cadmium nondetect is suspiciously high. There is an extremely
low horizon C, Dismal Gap, ORR mercury value. There is an extremely high horizon A,
Anderson County, Copper Ridge selenium value.
There are in horizons A and B of the Nolichucky, arsenic, chromium, and lead values
that are extremely low, and single high values of arsenic for ORR Copper Ridge in each of
horizons B and C These were all deleted (though not validation rejects). All nondetects for
calcium were deleted. There are extremely low values of copper and vanadium for ORR
Dismal Gap horizon B; they were deleted.
Some of the cyanide results are negative. The negative results were set to zero for the
statistical analysis, but this still remains a problem because a zero value implies that the
cyanide detection limit is zero.
Summary statistics for inorganics that have sufficiently many detects are given in
Table 5.1. They include estimates of the medians, made under the assumption that the data
are lognormal with' equal variances across FLs. The estimates are based on all of the data,
whether detects or not Results for Geld duplicates and originals were averaged. The
percentile estimate and lower tolerance bounds are for composites of three.
For each analyte, horizon, and formation, Table 5.1 also shows UCB95, a 95% UCB for
the median, X95, an estimate of the 95th percentile of the analyte's distribution, and
LTB9595, the 95% lower tolerance bound for the 95th percentile. N, the number of samples,
D, the number of true detects (single detects or all-detect averages), and I, the number of
interval-censored averages, are also given. The information contained in Table 5.1 can be
applied directly in utilization of the data, as discussed in Sect 2.43. The estimates and
confidence bounds arc computed using the Lifereg procedure in SAS, which gives standard
errors of percentile estimates in addition to the estimates themselves. The standard errors are
-------
5-15
Table S.l. Summary statistics for inorganics"
(Estimates and confidence bounds are in milligrams per kilogram.)
orizon
Formation-
location
N
I
D Median
UCB95
X95
LTB9595



Aluminum




A
DG-AND
4
0
4
23100
26000 -
29200
25800
A
DG-ROA
4
0
4
15400
17300
19500
17200
A
DG-ORR
4
0
4
20700
23200'
26200
23100
A
NL-ORR
4
0
4
22200
25000
28100
24800
A
CHI-BV
4
0
4
16500
18600
20900
18500
A
CHI-K25
4
0
4
16500
18600
20900
18500
A
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
8450
9510
10700
9440
A
CR-ORR
4
0
4
10500
11800
13300
11800
A
CR-AND
4
0
4
13600
15300
17200
15200
A
CR-ROA
4
0
4
9150
10300
11600
10200
B
DG-AND
4
0
4
35500
40100
45200
39800
B
DG-ROA
4
0
4
23700
26700
30100
26500
B
DG-ORR
4
0
4
31100
35100
39600
34800
B
NL-ORR
4
0
4
34800
39200
44300
38900
B
CHI-BV
4
0
4
29700
33500
37800
33200
B
CHI-K25
4
0
4
34800
39300
44300
39000
B
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
18400
20800
23500
20700
B
CR-ORR
4
0
4
17000
19200
21700
19000
B
CR-AND
4
0
4
19400
21900
24700
21700
B
CR-ROA
4
0
4
15400
17300
19600
17200
C
DG-AND
4
0
4
38900
44000
49900
43700
C
DG-ROA
4
0
4
25100
28500
32200
28200
C
DG-ORR
4
0
4
39000
44200
50100
43900
C
NL-ORR
4
0
4
37900
42900
48600
42600
C
CHI-BV
4
0
4
33300
37800
42800
37500
C
CHI-K25
4
0
4
34300
38900
44000
38600
C
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
17600
20000
22600
19800
c
CR-ORR
4
0
4
17800
20200
22900
20000
c
CR-AND
4
0
4
20900
23700
26900
23500
c
CR-ROA
4
0
4
16800
19100
21600
18900




An! in* my




A
DG-AND
4
0
1
0.885
0.929
0.936
0.882
A
NL-ORR
4
0
1
0.463
0.485
0.490
0.470
A
REMAINDER
32
0
0




B
DG-AND
4
0
1
0.663
1.000
1.200
0.780
B
NL-ORR
4
0
4
0.717
0.965
1300
0.838
B
REMAINDER
32
0
0
•



C
DG-AND
4
0
1
0.710
1.090
1310
0.847
C
NL-ORR
4
0
4
0.673
0.914
1.240
0.808
C
CHI-BV
4
0
1
0328
0.512
0.606
0393
C
REMAINDER
28
0
0



-------
5-16
Tkbte 5.1 (contipped)
orizoa
Formaticm-
location
N I
D
Median
UCB95
X95
LTB9595



Arsenic




A
DG-AND
4 0
4
435
5.56
7.10
5.47
A
DG-ROA
4 0
4
5.86
7.49
936
736
A
DG-ORR
4 0
4
6.24
isn
1020
7.84
A
NI?ORK
3 0

6.16
8.18
10.16
7.47
A
CHI-BV
4 0
4
6.25
139
1020
1J86
A
CHI-K25
4 0
4
7.61
9.73
12.40
937
A
CHE-ORR
4 0
4
11.30
14.40
18.40
1420
A
CR-ORR
4 0
4
24.10
30.70
3930
3020
A
CR-AND
4 0
4
12.10
15.50
19.80
1520
A
CR-ROA
4 0
4
9.22
11.80
15.00
11.60
B
DG-AND
4 0
3
4.04
5.42
7.18
527
B
DG-ROA
4 0
4
7.03
937
1230
9.18
B
DG-ORR
4 0
4
7.77
10.40
13.80
10.10
B
NL-ORR
3 0
3
6.45
859
1130
8.08
B
CHI-BV
4 0
4
7.05
9.40
1230
921
B
CHI-K25
4 0
4
7.41
9.87
1320
9.67
B
CHE-ORR
4 0
4
2120
2830
37.70
27.70
B
CR-ORR
3 0

4250
59.20
7530
5320
B
CR-AND
4 0
4
20^0
27JO
36.60
26.90
B
CR-ROA
4 0
4
16.70
2230
29.70
21.80
C
DG-AND
4 0
3
3.80
5.69
834
5.45
C
DG-ROA
4 0
4
7.43
11.00
1630
10.70
C
DG-ORR
4 0
4
12.60
18.70
27.70
1820
C
NL-ORR
4 0

6.63
9.96
14.60
9.48
C
CHI-BV
4 0
4
6.24
925
13.70
9.00
C
CHI-K25
4 0
4
6.79
10.10
14.90
9.79
C
CHE-ORR
4 0
4
32D0
4&S0
7230
47.40
C
CR-ORR
3 0
3
68.40
108.00
150.00
93.10
C
CR-AND
4 0
4
26.10
38^0
5730
37.60
C
CR-ROA
4 0
4
29 JO
43.40
64.40
4220



Barium




A
DG-AND
4 0
4
80.7
105.0
136.0
103.0
A
DG-ROA
4 0
4
87.9
114.0
148.0
112.0
A
DG-ORR
4 0
4
99.1
129.0
167.0
126.0
A
NL-ORR
4 0
4
75.4
97.8
127.0
962
A
CHI-BV
4 0
4
79.6
103.0
134.0
102.0
A
CHI-K25
4 0
4
76.7
99.6
129.0
97.9
A
CHE-ORR
4 0
4
53.6
695
903
68.4
A
CR-ORR
4 0
4
71.8
932
121.0
91.6
A
CR-AND
4 0
4
116.0
151.0
196.0
148.0
A
CR-ROA
4 0
4
613
79.6
103.0
782
B
DG-AND
4 0
4
76.0
893
105.0
88.4
B
DG-ROA
4 0
4
69.4
81.7
96.1
80.8
B
DG-ORR
4 0
4
96.7
114.0
134.0
113.0
B
NL-ORR
4 0
4
862
101.0
119.0
100.0
B
CHI-BV
4 0
4
113.0
133.0
156.0
131.0
B
CHI-K25
4 0
4
89.4
105.0
124.0
104.0
B
CHE-ORR
4 0
4
35.6
41.9
493
-------
5-17
Table 5.1 (contmocd)
Horizon
Forma tion-
locatioo
N
I
D Median
UCB95
X95
LTB9595
B
CR-ORR
4
0
4
39.8
46.8
55.0
463
6
CR-AND
4
0
4
46.9
55.2
64.9
54.6
B
CR-ROA
4
0
4
36.1
42.4
49.9
42.0
C
DG-AND
4
0
4
83.2
115.0
158.0
112.0
C
DG-ROA
4
0
4
-73:0
• im.u

98.6
C
DG-ORR
4
0
4
109.0
150.0
207.0
147.0
C
NL-ORR
4
0
4
80S
112.0
154.0
109.0
C
CHI-BV
4
0
4
145.0
200.0
276.0
196.0
C
CHI-K25
4
0
4
79.0
109.0
150.0
107.0
C
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
263
363
50.1
35.6
C
CR-ORR
4
0
4
11.6
16.0
211
15.7
C
CR-AND
4
0
4
263
37.1
51.1
363
C
CR-ROA
4
0
4
16.0
221
30.4
21.6




Bdyflann




A
DG-AND
4
0
4
0.833
1.020
1.250
1.010
A
DG-ROA
4
0
4
0.647
0.793
0.973
0.782
A
DG-ORR
4
0
4
0.781
0.957
1.170
0.944
A
NL-ORR
4
0
4
0.786
0.964
1.180
0.950
A
CHI-BV
4
0
4
1.020
1.250
1.530
1230
A
CHI-K25
4
0
4
0.912
1.120
1370
1.100
A
CHE-ORR
4
0
2
0350
0.460
0.526
0397
A
CR-ORR
4
0
3
0.511
0.634
0.768
0.613
A
CR-AND
4
0
4
0.743
0.911
1.120
0.898
A
CR-ROA
4
0
4
0.455
0.558
0.684
0550
B
DG-AND
4
0
4
0.962
1.230
1.580
1210
B
DG-ROA
4
0
4
0.628
0.805
1.030
0.791
B
DG-ORR
4
0
4
0.728
0.934
1200
0.917
B
NL-ORR
4
0
4
1.000
1.290
1.650
1260
B
CHI-BV
4
0
4
1.450
1.850
2380
1.820
B
CH3-K25
4
0
4
1.440
1.840
2360
1.810
B
CHE-ORR
4
0
2
0.503
0.693
0.828
0596
B
CR-ORR
4
0
3
0.544
0.715
0.895
0.673
B
CR-AND
4
0
4
0.656
0.841
1.080
0.826
B
CR-ROA
4
1
3
0.428
0.554
0.704
0.537
C
DG-AND
4
0
4
1.170
1.470
1.840
1.450
C
DG-ROA
4
0
4
0.825
1.030
1300
1.020
C
DG-ORR
4
0
4
1.020
1270
1.600
1250
C
NL-ORR
4
0
4
1.170
1.460
1.830
1.440
C
CHI-BV
4
0
4
1.910
2390
3.000
2360
C
CHI-K25
4
0
4
1.420
1.770
2220
1.750
C
CHE-ORR
4
0
2
0.548
0.738
0.860
0.633
C
CR-ORR
4
0
3
0.753
0.960
1.180
0.918
C
CR-AND
4
0
4
0.682
0.855
1.070
0.842
C
CR-ROA
4
0
4
0.555
0.695
0.871
-------
5-18
Table 5.1 (continued)
31 iam
Farmation-
(nratjon
N
I
D Median
UCB95
X95
LTB9595




Bonn




A
DG-ROA
4
1
3
26.00
38.10
55.80
33.80
A
DG-ORR
3
1
1
13.70
2170
2930
16.80
A
CHE-ORR
4
1
0
238
4.87
5.12
2-50
A
REMAINDER
23
0
0
•
•

•
B
DG-ROA
4
0
3
15.20
25.60
41.80
21.80
B
DG-ORR
4
1
3
21.40
35.60
S&90
30.20
B
CHE-ORR
4
0
1
3.49
6.99
9.61
4.88
B
REMAINDER
24
0
0
•
•

•
C
DG-ROA
4
0
4
23.40
3230
45.00
29.90
C
DG-ORR
4
0
4
27.40
37.90
5230
34.90
C
CHE-ORR
4
1
1
4.82
7.09
9.25
6.15
C
REMAINDER
23
0
0







(Tailmiuin




A
REMAINDER
40
0
0

-


B
CR-ROA
4
1
0




B
REMAINDER
36
0
0
•
•
•
•
C
REMAINDER
40
0
0
•
•
•
•




Cairo rm




A
DG-AND
4
0
4
1350
1860
2570
1820
A
DG-ROA
2
0
2
1310
2070
2490
1560
A
DG-ORR
3
0
3
1250
1810
2370
1600
A
NL-ORR
2
0
2
689
1080
1310
817
A
CHI-BV
4
0
4
1860
2560
3530
2500
A
CHI-K25
4
0
4
1360
1880
2590
1830
A
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
443
611
843
597
A
CR-ORR
4
0
4
505
696
960
679
A
CR-AND
4
0
4
899
1240
1710
1210
A
CR-ROA
4
0
4
547
755
1040
737
B
DG-AND
4
0
4
764
1080
1520
1050
B
DG-ROA
1
0
1
779
1550
1550
769
B
DG-ORR

0
2
886
1440
1760
1060
B
NL-ORR

0
3
768
1140
1530
1000
B
CHI-BV
4
0
4
2210
3110
4390
3030
B
CHI-K25
4
0
4
1190
1680
2370
1640
B
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
484
682
961
664
B
CR-ORR
4
0
4
312
439
619
428
B
CR-AND
4
0
4
^ 15
585
825
570
B
CR-ROA
4
0
4
305
430
607
419
C
DG-AND
4
0
4
383
563
828
547
C
DG-ROA

0
1
594
1280
1280
585
C
DG-ORR
4
0
4
898
1320
1940
1280
C
NL-ORR

0
2
1240
2130
2680
1520
C
CHI-BV
4
0
4
4590
6760
9930
-------
5-19
Table 5.1 (continued)
orizon
Formation-
locatioo
N
I
D Median
UCB95
X95
LTB9595
C
CHI-K25
4
0
4
1210
1780
2620
1730
C
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
251
369
543
359
C
CR-ORR
3
0
3
172
269
372
232
c
CR-AND
4
0
4
364
536
788
520
c
CR-ROA
4
0
4
244
358
527
348



Qjramium




A
DG-AND
4
0
4
28.1
333
39.5
32.9
A
DG-ROA
4
0
4
273
323
383
31.9
A
DG-ORR
4
0
4
24.7
29.2
34.6
28.9
A
NL-ORR
3
0
3
28.0
34.0
392
31.9
A
CHI-BV
4
0
4
34.0
40.2
47.7
39.8
A
CHI-K25
4
0
4
32-5
385
45.6
38.1
A
CHE-ORR
4
1
3
14.6
17.4
205
17.1
A
CR-ORR
4
0
4
15.4
183
21.6
18.1
A
CR-AND
4
0
4
20.2
23.9
283
23.6
A
CR-ROA
4
0
4
12.7
15.0
17.8
14.8
B
DG-AND
4
0
4
35.0
413
48.7
40.8
B
DG-ROA
4
0
4
38.1
44.9
525
44.4
B
DG-ORR
4
0
4
37.4
44.1
52.0
43.6
B
NL-ORR

0
3
37.1
44.9
515
42-2
B
CHI-BV
4
0
4
34.1
40.2
473
39.7
B
CHI-K25
4
0
4
34.2
403
475
39.9
B
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
29.7
35.0
412
34.6
B
CR-ORR
4
0
4
293
34.6
40.7
34.2
B
CR-AND
4
0
4
30.1
35.5
41.8
35.1
B
CR-ROA
4
0
4
24.6
29.0
34.2
28.7
C
DG-AND
4
0
4
37.7
45.0
53.7
44.4
C
DG-ROA
4
0
4
38.7
46^
55 2
45.7
C
DG-ORR
4
0
4
46.0
54.9
655
543
C
NL-ORR
4
0
4
54.4
64.9
77.4
64.1
C
CHI-BV
4
0
4
33.1
395
412
39.1
C
CHI-K25
4
0
4
293
34.9
41.7
345
C
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
27.0
322
38.4
31.8
C
CR-ORR
4
0
4
28S
34.5
412
34.1
C
CR-AND
4
0
4
32.7
39.0
465
385
C
CR-ROA
4
0
4
35.4
423
50.4
41.8




Cobalt




A
DG-AND
4
0
4
12.40
16.50
21.90
1620
A
DG-ROA
4
0
4
21.40
28.40
37.70
27.90
A
DG-ORR
4
0
4
14.50
1930
25.60
18.90
A
NL-ORR
4
0
4
14.40
19.20
25.40
18.80
A
CHI-BV
4
0
4
18.50
24.50
3250
24.10
A
CHI-K25
4
0
4
19.50
25.90
34.40
25.40
A
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
1150
1530
2030
15.00
A
CR-ORR
4
0
4
7.76
1030
13.70
10.10
A
CR-AND
4
0
4
15.90
21.10
28.00
20.70
A
CR-ROA
4
1
2
5.16
7.02
9.09
-------
5-20
Table S.l (continued)
Horizon
Formation-
location
N I
D
Median
UCB95
X95
LTB9595
B
DG-AND
4 0
4
1220
1920
3020
1830
B
DG-ROA
4 0
4
9.80
15.40
2430
14.90
B
DG-ORR
4 0
4
8.92
14.10
2210
13.60
B
NL-ORR
4 0
4
13.40
21.10
3330
20.40
B
CHI-BV
4 0
4
1330
2120
33.40
2030
B
CHI-K25
4 0
4
12.70
20.00
3130
1930
B
CHE-ORR
4 1
1
229
3.94
5.69
326
B
CR-ORR
4 0
1
1.70
3.16
422
226
B
CR-AND
4 0
4
9.62
1520
2330
14.60
B
CR-ROA
4 1
1
226
3.94
5.61
3.17
C
DG-AND
4 0
4
14.60
27.80
53.10
26.40
C
DG-ROA
4 0
4
10.10
1930
36.90
1830
C
DG-ORR
4 0
4
1200
2290
43.60
21.70
C
NL-ORR
4 0
4
14.50
27.70
5290
2630
C
CHI-BV
4 0
4
23.00
43.90
83.80
41.70
C
CH3-K25
4 0
4
1430
2720
51.90
25.80
C
CHE-ORR
4 0
3
6.79
13.10
24.70
1230
C
CR-ORR
4 0
1
131
334
530
236
C
CR-AND
4 0
4
630
1200
2290
11.40
C
CR-ROA
4 0
1
037
237
333
1.45



Copper




A
DG-AND
4 0
4
14.90
18.90
24.00
18.60
A
DG-ROA
4 0
4
11.00
14.00
17.80
13.80
A
DG-ORR
4 0
4
16.10
2030
26.10
20.10
A
NL-ORR
4 0
4
11.70
14.90
18.90
14.60
A
CHI-BV
4 0
4
1620
20.60
2620
2020
A
CHI-K25
4 0
4
11.40
1430
1830
1430
A
CHE-ORR
4 1
1
3.92
526
633
4.68
A
CR-ORR
4 0
3
625
8.19
10.10
739
A
CR-AND
4 0
4
9.15
11.60
14.80
11.40
A
CR-ROA
4 1
2
5.76
7.41
930
7.15
B
DG-AND
4 0
4
19.00
2330
29.00
23.10
B
DG-ROA
4 0
4
13.70
16.90
20.90
16.70
B
DG-ORR
3 0
3
20.60
2620
3130
2420
B
NL-ORR
4 0
4
1930
23.80
29.40
2330
B
CHI-BV
4 0
4
23.60
2920
36.00
28.70
B
CHI-K25
4 0
4
17.90
22.10
2730
21.80
B
CHE-ORR
4 0
4
16.80
20.70
2530
20.40
B
CR-ORR
4 0
4
18.60
23.00
28.40
2260
B
CR-AND
4 0
4
22.40
27.60
34.10
2720
B
CR-ROA
4 1
3
1220
15.10
18.60
14.80
C
DG-AND
4 0
4
2730
33.90
4210
33.40
C
DG-ROA
4 0
4
23.80
29.60
36.70
2920
C
DG-ORR
4 0
4
28.70
35.70
4430
35.10
C
NL-ORR
4 0
4
24.90
30.90
38.40
3030
C
CHI-BV
4 0
4
29.00
36.00
44.70
3530
C
CH3-K25
4 0
4
19.00
23.60
2930
2330
C
CHE-ORR
4 0
3
21.40
27.10
3290
25.70
C
CR-ORR
4 0
4
30.80
3830
4730
-------
5-21
Table 5.1 (con tinned)
rizoo
Formation-
location
N
I
D
Median
UCB95
X95
LTB9595
C
CR-AND
4
0
4
30.00
37.20
46.20
36.70
C
CR-ROA
4
0
4
16.50
20.50
25 JO
20.20




Cyanide




A-
DG-AND
4
1
1
0.1340
0:253
0.416-
0:195
A
DG-ROA
4
1
2
03190
0.583
0.979
0.447
A
DG-ORR
3
0
1
0.1300
0.281
0398
0.177
A
REMAINDER
26
0
0
-

•

B
DG-AND
4
0
1
0.0688
0.210
0-291
0.102
B
DG-ORR
4
0
2
0.2460
0.594
1.040
0.292
B
REMAINDER
30
0
0




C
DG-ORR
4
0
2
0.2660
0.760
1.450
0.278
C
REMAINDER
33
0
0








Iron




A
DG-AND
4
0
4
25600
29700
34600
29400
A
DG-ROA
4
0
4.
25400
29600
34400
29300
A
DG-ORR
4
0
4
29400
34200
39800
33900
A
NL-ORR
4
0
4
27900
32400
37700
32100
A
CHI-BV
4
0
4
36000
41800
48600
41400
A
CH3-K25
4
0
4
31000
36000
41800
35600
A
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
14200
16500
19200
16400
A
CR-ORR
4
0
4
12000
13900
16200
13800
A
CR-AND
4
0
4
15300
17800
20700
17600
A
CR-ROA
4
0
4
11600
13400
15600
13300
B
DG-AND
4
0
4
39400
44500
50200
44100
B
DG-ROA
4
0
4
32600
36800
41600
36500
B
DG-ORR
4
0
4
37300
42100
47600
41800
B
NL-ORR
4
0
4
42400
47900
54100
47500
B
CHI-BV
4
0
4
48900
55200
62400
54800
B
CHI-K25
4
0
4
55100
62300
70300
61800
B
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
33500
37800
42700
37500
B
CR-ORR
4
0
4
32700
36900
41700
36600
B
CR-AND
4
0
4
29400
33200
37500
33000
B
CR-ROA
4
0
4
23000
26000
29300
25700
C
DG-AND
4
0
4
42700
47100
52000
46800
C
DG-ROA
4
0
4
38800
42900
47300
42600
C
DG-ORR
4
0
4
43000
47400
52300
47100
C
NL-ORR
4
0
4
41700
46000
50800
45700
C
CHI-BV
4
0
4
52800
58200
64300
57900
C
CHI-K25
4
0
4
53700
59200
65400
58800
C
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
34500
38100
42000
37800
C
CR-ORR
4
0
4
41200
45500
50200
45200
C
CR-AND
4
0
4
33800
37300
41100
37000
C
CR-ROA
4
0
4
37900
41900
46200
-------
5-22
Table 5.1 (continued)
orizon
Formation -
location
N
I
D
Median
UCB95
X95
LTB9595




Lead




A
DG-AND
4
0
4
28.6
39.1
53.4
383
A
DG-ROA
4
0
4
23.6
322
44.0
315
A
DG-ORR
4
0
4
203
27.7
37.9
27.2
A
NL-ORR
3
0
3
175
25.1
3Z7
214
A
CHI-BV
3
0
3
35.7
51.1
665
455
A
CHI-K25
4
0
4
31.6
43.2
59.0
422
A
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
18.0
24.6
33.6
24.1
A
CR-ORR
4
0
4
3&2
5Z2
713
51.1
A
CR-AND
4
0
4
33.1
45.2
61.7
44.2
A
CR-ROA
4
0
4
19.8
27D
36.9
26.4
B
DG-AND
4
0
4
18J5
25.9
35.6
253
B
DG-ROA
4
0
4
12.8
17.6
24.2
17.2
B
DG-ORR
4
0
4
11.8
16.2
223
15.8
B
NL-ORR
3
0
3
lii
17.1
22.4
15.2
B
CHI-BV
4
0
4
20.1
27.7
38.0
27.1
B
CHI-K25
4
0
4
16.7
123
315
22.4
B
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
10.0
13.8
19.0
135
B
CR-ORR
4
0
4
183
25.4
35.0
24.9
B
CR-AND
4
0
4
23.5
323
445
31.7
B
CR-ROA
4
0
4
10.9
15.0
20.7
14.7
C
DG-AND
3
0
3
213
343
48.7
295
C
DG-ROA
4
0
4
15.7
23.8
36.0
23.1
C
DG-ORR
4
0
4
14.7
¦222
33.6
21.6
C
NL-ORR
4
0
4
23.7
35.9
54.2
34.9
C
CHI-BV
4
0
4
40.0
60.5
915
58.9
C
CHI-K25
4
0
4
16.7
253
382
24.6
C
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
20.9
315
47.7
30.7
c
CR-ORR
4
0
4
335
51.2
77.4
49.8
c
CR-AND
4
0
4
17.5
26.5
40.0
25.7
c
CR-ROA
4
0
4
15.7
23.7
35.9
23.1




iKlnnn




A
DG-AND
4
0
4
10.40
1330
16.90
13.00
A
DG-ROA
4
0
2
10.50
14.10
17.10
12.60
A
DG-ORR
3
0
3
16.20
21.40
26.40
1950
A
NL-ORR
4
0
4
10.90
14.00
17-80
13.70
A
CHI-BV
2
0
2
1130
16.00
18.40
12J80
A
CHI-K25
4
0
4
13.70
17.40
2230
17.10
A
CHE-ORR
4
1
]
3.85
4.99
628
4.78
A
CR-ORR
4
0
2
2.60
3.48
424
3.15
A
CR-AND
4
0
4
7.18
9.17
11.70
8.98
A
CR-ROA
3
0
. 3
3.51
4.66
5.74
4.24
B
DG-AND
4
0
4
19.20
24.60
31.60
24.20
B
DG-ROA
4
0
4
19-20
24.60
3150
24.10
B
DG-ORR
4
0
4
22.10
28.40
36.40
27.80
B
NL-ORR
4
0
4
23.80
30.50
39.20
30.00
B
CHI-BV
2
0
2
29.00
41.20
47.70
33.10
B
CHI-K25
4
0
4
32^0
41.80
53.60
-------
5-23
Table S.l (continued)
orizon
Forma tion-
locatioc
N
I D
Median
UCB95
X95
LTB9595
B
CHE-ORR
4
0 3
10.60
13.90
17.40
13.00
B
CR-ORR
4
0 4
633
8.12
10.40
7.97
B
CR-AND
4
0 4
12.10
15.60
20.00
1530
B
CR-ROA
3
0 3
8.76
11.70
14.40
10.60
C
DG-AND
4
0 4
20.70"
27.30
35.90
26.70
C
DG-ROA
4
0 4
24.60
3230
42.50
31.60
C
DG-ORR
4
0 4
27.60
3630
47.70
35.50
C
NL-ORR
4
0 4
23.40
30.80
40.50
3020
C
CHI-BV
2
0 2
37.10
54.60
64.10
4Z90
C
CHI-K25
4
0 4
36.00
4730
6230
46.40
C
CHE-ORR
4
1 2
11.40
15.60
19.70
14.20
C
CR-ORR
4
0 3
4.09
5.40
7.07
526
C
CR-AND
4
0 4
12JS0
16.80
22.10
16 JO
C
CR-ROA
3
0 3
9.88
13.60
17.10
1220



Magnesium



A
DG-AND
4
0 4
2690
3230
3880
3190
A
DG-ROA
4
0 4
1580
1900
2290
1880
A
DG-ORR
4
0 4
2850
3420
4110
3380
A
NL-ORR
4
0 4
2010
2410
2900
2380
A
CHI-BV
4
0 4
1380
1660
2000
1640
A
CHI-K25
4
0 4
1080
1300
1570
1290
A
CHE-ORR
4
0 4
369
443
533
438
A
CR-ORR
4
0 4
463
557
669
550
A
CR-AND
4
0 4
680
817
982
807
A
CR-ROA
4
0 4
411
494
594
488
B
DG-AND
4
0 4
2890
3370
3930
3340
B
DG-ROA
4
0 4
1980
2320
2700
2290
B
DG-ORR
4
0 4
3280
3820
4460
3790
B
NL-ORR
4
0 4
2720
3180
3710
3150
B
CHI-BV
4
0 4
2330
2720
3170
2690
B
CHI-K25
4
0 4
2310
2690
3140
2660
B
CHE-ORR
4
0 4
813
949
1110
940
B
CR-ORR
4
0 4
569
664
776
658
B
CR-AND
4
0 4
869
1010
1180
1000
B
CR-ROA
4
0 4
556
648
757
642
C
DG-AND
4
0 4
3560
4260
5080
4210
C
DG-ROA
4
0 4
3010
3590
4290
3550
C
DG-ORR
4
0 4
4370
5210
6230
5150
C
NL-ORR
4
0 4
3380
4040
4820
3990
C
CHI-BV
4
0 4
3230
3860
4610
3820
C
CHI-K25
4
0 4
2290
2740
3270
2710
C
CHE-ORR
4
0 4
735
877
1050
867
C
CR-ORR
4
0 4
451
539
644
533
C
CR-AND
4
0 4
859
1030
1230
1010
c
CR-ROA
4
0 4
449
536
640
-------
5-24
Table 5.1 (continued)
JtiZDQ
Formation -
location
N
I
D Median
UCB95
X95
LTB9595



Manganese



A
DG-AND
4
0
4
708.0
970
1330
950
A
DG-ROA
4
0
4
1720.0
2360
3230
2310
A
DG-ORR
4
0
4
997.0
1370
1870
1340
A~
NfcORR-
4
0
4
653.0
895
1230
877
A
CHI-BV
4
0
4
1050J)
1440
1980
1410
A
CH3-K25
4
0
4
1670.0
2290
3130
2240
A
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
921.0
1260
1730
1240
A
CR-ORR
4
0
4
1070.0
1460
2000
1430
A
CR-AND
4
0
4
2230.0
3060
4190
3000
A
CR-ROA
4
0
4
853.0
1170
1600
1140
B
DG-AND
4
0
4
279.0
484
841
467
B
DG-ROA
4
0
4
341.0
593
1030
572
B
DG-ORR
4
0
4
279.0
484
842
467
B
NL-ORR
4
0
4
265.0
460
799
444
B
CHI-BV
4
0
4
378.0
656
1140
633
B
CHI-K25
4
0
4
328.0
571
992
550
B
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
114.0
197
343
190
B
CR-ORR
4
0
4
139.0
242
421
233
B
CR-AND
4
0
4
519.0
902
1570
870
B
CR-ROA
4
0
4
123J)
214
372
206
C
DG-AND
4
0
4
535.0
1080
2180
1030
C
DG-ROA
4
0
4
265D
535
1080
511
c
DG-ORR
4
0
4
344.0
693
1400
662
c
NL-ORR
4
0
4
321.0
648
1310
619
c
CHI-BV
4
0
4
675.0
1360
2740
1300
c
CHI-K25
4
0
4
370.0
747
1510
713
c
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
206.0
415
838
397
c
CR-ORR
4
0
4
915
186
376
00
c
CR-AND
4
0
4
326.0
658
1330
629
c
CR-ROA
4
0
4
67 9
137
276
131




Mercury




A
DG-AND
4
0
1
0.095
0.1180
0.1310
0.1050
A
DG-ROA
4
0
2
0.154
0.1840
0.2120
0.1770
A
DG-ORR
4
0
4
0316
03700
0.4340
03650
A
NL-ORR
4
0
4
0.185
0.2170
0.2540
0.2140
A
CHI-BV
4
0
4
0.160
0.1880
0.2200
0.1850
A
CHI-K25
4
0
4
0.494
05790
0.6780
0.5710
A
CHE-ORR
4
1
2
0.129
0.1530
0.1770
0.1490
A
CR-ORR
4
0
4
0.157
0.1840
0.2150
0.1810
A
CR-AND
4
1
3
0.110
0.1300
0.1500
0.1260
A
CR-ROA
4
0
3
0.118
0.1390
0.1620
0.1360
B
DG-ROA
4
0
1
0.136
0.1660
0.1850
0.1520
B
DG-ORR
4
0
2
0.151
0.1800
0.2060
0.1710
B
CHI-K25
4
0
3
0.117
0.1370
0.1590
0.1330
B
CHE-ORR
4
0
3
0.104
0.1220
0.1410
0.1180
B
CR-ORR
4
0
4
0.107
0.1250
0.1460
0.1220
B
CR-AND
4
0
4
0.131
0.1530
0.1790
-------
5-25
Table 5.1 (continued)
xizon
Formation-
location
N
I
D
Median
UCB95
X95
LTB9595
B
CR-ROA
4
1
3
0.145
0.1690
0.1970
0.1650
B
REMAINDER
12
0
0
•
-
•
-
C
DG-ROA
4
0
1
0.126
0.1570
0.1760
0.1410
C
DG-ORR
4
0
1
0.060
0.0838
0.0838
0.0594
c
CH1-BV
4
0
2
0.098
0.1180
0.1370
0.1130
c
CHI-K25
4
0
4
0.135
0.1590
0.1880
0.1560
c
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
0.161
0.1900
0.2250
0.1870
c
CR-ORR
4
0
4
0.248
0.2930
03460
0.2880
c
CR-AND
4
0
4
0.179
0.2110
0.2500
02070
c
CR-ROA
4
0
4
0.232
0.2740
03240
02690
c
REMAINDER
8
0
0
•

•
•



MoiyMcainn



A
DG-AND
4
1
0
1.28
1.72
1.69
1.24
A
CR-ORR
4
0
1
1.41
1.75
1.87
1.48
A
REMAINDER
29
0
0




B
DG-AND
4
1
1
132
1.89
237
1.62
B
NL-ORR
4
0
1
131
1.95
235
1.59
B
CH3-BV
2
0
1
233
3.74
4.19
2.56
B
CHI-K25
4
0
1
2.13
3.20
3.82
2.56
B
CHE-ORR
4
0
1
2.03
3.05
3.64
Z43
B
CR-ORR
4
0
3
3.03
4.08
5.43
3.82
B
CR-AND
4
0
2
2.66
3.70
4.78
335
B
CR-ROA
3
0
1
1.47
230
2.64
1.68
B
REMAINDER
8
0
0
-

•

C
DG-AND
4
0
2
1.57
2.02
2.44
1.86
C
CHE-ORR
4
1
1
2-21
2.96
3.45
256
C
CR-ORR
4
0
4
3.80
4.74
533
433
C
CR-AND
4
0
2
2.71
3.48
A22
3.23
C
CR-ROA
3
1
2
2.62
3.44
4.08
3.01
C
REMAINDER
18
0
0

•
•





Nickel




A
DG-AND
4
0
4
20.80
25.80
32.00
25.40
A
DG-ROA
4
0
4
16.70
20.80
25.80
20.40
A
DG-ORR
4
0
4
23.50
29.10
36.10
28.60
A
NL-ORR
4
0
4
1730
21.40
26.60
21.10
A
CHI-BV
4
0
4
13.50
16.70
20.70
16.40
A
CHI-K25
4
0
4
17.20
2130
26.50
21.00
A
CHE-ORR
4
1
0
5.74
7.65
8.83
6.62
A
CR-ORR
4
0
3
7.65
9.71
11.80
9.15
A
CR-AND
4
0
3
8.64
10.70
1330
1050
A
CR-ROA
4
2
0
4.29
6.06
639
4.63
B
DG-AND
4
0
4
2430
30.40
38.00
29.80
B
DG-ROA
4
0
4
17.90
22.40
28.00
22.00
B
DG-ORR
4
0
4
22.90
28.60
35.70
28.10
B
NL-ORR
4
0
4
20.80
26.10
32jS0
25.60
B
CHI-BV
4
0
4
22.60
2820
3530
27.70
B
CHI-K25
4
0
4
21.70
27.10
33.90
-------
5-26
Table S.l (continued)
Horizon
Formation-
location
N
I
D Median
UCB95
X95
LTB9595
B
CHE-ORR
4
0
1
10.50
13.80
1630
12.60
B
CR-ORR
4
0
4
11.50
1430
17.90
14.10
B
CR-AND
4
0
4
14.5 J
17.80
2230
17.50
B
CR-ROA
4
1
2
8.44
10.70
13.20
1030
C
DG"-AND

0
' 4
29.20
3730
47.80
36.70
C
DG-ROA
4
0
4
2630
34.40
44.10
33.80
C
DG-ORR
4
0
4
28.80
36.90
4730
3630
C
NL-ORR
4
0
4
2430
31.10
39.90
30.60
c
Cffl-BV
4
0
4
31.90
40.90
5230
40.20
c
CHI-K25
4
0
4
2250
29.40
37.60
28.90
c
CHE-ORR
4
0
3
19.90
25.60
32.70
25.10
c
CR-ORR
4
0
4
15.80
20.20
25.90
19.90
c
CR-AND
4
0
4
16.00
20.60
2630
20.20
c
CR-ROA
4
0
3
10.90
14.00
17.90
13.70




Osmium




A
REMAINDER
4
0
0

•
-

B
REMAINDER
5
0
0
•



C
REMAINDER
5
0
0
•
•
•
•



Potassium




A
DG-AND
4
0
4
3890
4740
5770
4670
A
DG-ROA
4
0
4
1300
1590
1940
1570
A
DG-ORR
4
0
4
2300
2800
3410
2760
A
NL-ORR
4
0
4
2950
3590
4380
3540
A
CHI-BV
4
0
4
1550
1890
2300
1860
A
CHI-K25
4
0
4
1690
2060
2510
2030
A
CR-ORR
4
0
4
370
451
549
444
A
CR-AND
4
0
4
505
615
749
606
A
CR-ROA
3
1
2
290
370
430
335
A
REMAINDER
4
0
0


•

B
DG-AND
4
0
4
3850
4540
5350
4490
B
DG-ROA
4
0
4
1730
2040
2410
2020
B
DG-ORR
4
0
4
2590
3050
3590
3010
B
NL-ORR
4
0
4
3690
4350
5130
4300
B
CHI-BV
4
0
4
2400
2830
3330
2800
B
CHI-K25
4
0
4
3860
4550
5360
4500
B
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
1100
1300
1530
1280
B
CR-ORR
4
0
4
597
703
829
696
B
CR-AND
4
0
4
854
1010
1190
996
B
CR-ROA
3
0
3
479
578
664
545
C
DG-AND
4
0
4
4460
5180
6020
5130
C
DG-ROA
4
0
4
2490
2890
3360
2860
C
DG-ORR
4
0
4
3130
3630
4220
3600
C
NL-ORR
4
0
4
5020
5830
6770
5770
C
CHI-BV
4
0
4
2470
2870
3330
2840
C
CHI-K2S
4
0
4
3810
4420
5140
4380
C
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
1210
1410
1640
-------
5-27
Table 5.1 (continued)
jrizon
Formation-
location
N
I
D Median
UCB95
X95
LTB9595
C
CR-ORR
4
0
4
798
927
1080
918
C
CR-AND
4
0
4
1010
1170
1360
1160
C
CR-ROA
3
0
3
500
595
675
563




Sdcnaim




A
DG-AND
4
0
4
0.746
0.940
1.190
0.919
A
DG-ROA
4
0
1
0.723
0.996
1.150
0.833
A
NL-ORR
4
0
3
0365
0.718
0.898
0.695
A
CHI-BV
4
0
4
0.739
0.931
1.170
0.911
A
CHI-K25
4
0
4
0.763
0.962
1.210
0.940
A
CHE-ORR

1
1
0.440
0.625
0.699
0.486
A
CR-ORR
4
0
4
0.637
0.803
1.010
0.785
A
CR-AND
4
0
4
1.040
1310
1.650
1.280
A
CR-ROA
4
0
2
0.483
0.621
0.767
0391
A
REMAINDER
4
0
0


•

B
DG-AND
4
0
4
0.676
0.809
0.967
0.795
B
DG-ROA
4
0
1
0.429
0395
0.613
0.440
B
NL-ORR
4
0
3
0.649
0.779
0.928
0.763
B
CHI-BV
4
0
4
0.785
0.938
1.120
0.922
B
CH3-K25
4
0
3
0.721
0.877
1.030
0.838
B
CHE-ORR
3
0
2
0.474
0392
0.677
0337
B
CR-ORR
4
0
4
0.813
0571
1.160
0.955
B
CR-AND
4
0
4
0.622
0.744
0.889
0.731
B
CR-ROA
4
0
3
0.588
0.706
0841
0.691
B
REMAINDER
4
0
0
-
•
•

C
DG-AND
4
1
3
0.495
0.637
0.804
0.612
C
NL-ORR
4
0
3
0.817
1.050
1.330
1.020
C
CHI-BV
4
0
2
0.612
0.792
0.994
0.758
C
CHI-K25
4
0
3
0330
0.681
0.861
0.658
C
CHE-ORR
3
0
2
0331
0.709
0.862
0.635
C
CR-ORR
4
0
4
0.880
1.120
1.430
1.090
C
CR-AND
4
0
4
0.646
0.824
1.050
0.802
C
CR-ROA
4
0
4
0.651
0.830
1.060
0.808
C
REMAINDER
8
0
0








Sificoo




A
DG-AND
4
0
4
221
243
267
241
A
DG-ROA
4
0
4
484
532
585
528
A
DG-ORR
4
0
4
506
556
611
552
A
NL-ORR
4
0
4
245
269
295
267
A
CHI-BV

0
2
510
583
616
536
A
CHI-K25
4
0
4
636
699
769
694
A
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
541
595
653
590
A
CR-ORR

0
1
633
764
764
631
A
CR-AND
4
0
4
451
496
545
492
A
CR-ROA
1
0
1
580
700
700
577
B
DG-AND
4
0
4
239
268
299
265
B
DG-ROA
4
0
4
519
580
649
575
B
DG-ORR
4
0
4
491
549
613
-------
5-28
Table 5.1 (continued)
XTZOD
Formauon-
kxauon
N
I
D
Median
UCB95
X95
LTB9595
B
NL-ORR
4
0
4
248
277
310
275
B
CHI-BV
2
0
2
553
647
691
586
B
CHI-K25
4
0
4
790
883
987
875
B
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
600
671
750
665
B
CR-ORR
1
0
1
663
828
828
660
B
CR-AND
4
0
4
509
569
636
564
B
CR-ROA
1
0
1
581
725
725
578
C
DG-AND
4
0
4
214
243
277
241
C
DG-ROA
4
0
4
423
481
547
476
C
DG-ORR
4
0
4
514
584
664
578
C
NL-ORR
4
0
4
280
319
363
316
C
CHI-BV
2
0

496
595
641
531
C
CHI-K25
4
0
4
750
852
969
843
C
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
585
665
756
658
C
CR-ORR
1
0
1
637
823
823
634
c
CR-AND
4
0
4
505
574
653
569
c
CR-ROA
1
0
1
597
771
771
593




Silver




A
REMAINDER
40
0
0
•
•
•

B
REMAINDER
40
0
0
•
•
•

C
REMAINDER
40
0
0
•
•
•





Sodium




A
CHI-BV
4
0
4
392
417
445
414
A
CHI-K25
4
0
4
426
454
483
451
A
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
323
344
366
341
A
CR-ORR
4
0
3
357
381
405
377
A
CR-AND
4
0
4
395
421
448
418
A
CR-ROA
4
0
4
354
377
401
374
A
REMAINDER
1
0
0

•
•

B
CHI-BV
4
0
4
C
447
480
443
B
CHI-K25
4
0
4
453
488
524
485
B
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
318
342
367
339
B
CR-ORR
4
0
4
357
383
411
380
B
CR-AND
4
0
4
374
401
431
398
B
CR-ROA
4
0
4
343
368
395
365
B
REMAINDER
1
0
0

-
•

C
CHI-BV
4
0
4
419
454
492
450
C
CHI-K25
4
0
4
438
474
514
470
C
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
329
356
386
353
C
CR-ORR
4
0
4
359
389
422
386
C
CR-AND
4
0
4
379
410
445
407
C
CR-ROA
4
0
4
360
390
423
386
C
REMAINDER
1
0
0
.


-------
5-29
Table 5.1 (continued)
irizon
Formauon-
kxaiioo
N
I
D Median
UCB95
X95
LTB9595



Strontium




A
DG-AND
4
0
4
6.180
8.480
11.60
8.270
A
DG-ROA
4
0
4
4.970
6.820
935
6.650
A
DG-ORR
3
0
3
7.930
11.400
14.90
10.100
¦A*
NL-ORR
4
0
4
4550
6.250
857
6.090
A
Cffl-BV
2
0
2
5520
8.640
10.40
6530
A
CHI-K25
4
0
4
11.700
16.000
2200
15.600
A
CHE-ORR
4
0
2
2360
3330
4.45
3.120
A
CR-ORR
4
0
4
3510
4.810
6.60
4.700
A
CR-AND
4
0
4
5590
7.680
1050
7.490
A
CR-ROA
3
0
3
3.480
5.020
656
4.460
B
DG-AND
4
0
4
4320
6340
932
6.150
B
DG-ROA
4
0
4
4.630
6.810
10.00
6.600
B
DG-ORR
4
0
4
7520
11.100
16.20
10.700
B
NL-ORR
4
0
4
5520
8.100
11.90
7.860
B
Cffl-BV
2
0
2
6.900
11.900
14.90
8.450
B
CHI-K25
4
0
4
14.400
21.200
31.10
20500
B
CHE-ORR
4
0
2
2830
4300
6.11
3.970
B
CR-ORR
4
0
3
1.910
2840
4.13
2710
B
CR-AND
4
0
4
2.890
4.250
6.24
4.120
B
CR-ROA
3
0
3
2380
3.710
5.14
3.210
C
DG-AND
4
0
4
3.760
5.900
9.26
5.670
C
DG-ROA
4
0
4
4.170
6550
1030
6.290
C
DG-ORR
4
0
4
8.970
14.100
2110
13.600
C
NL-ORR
4
0
4
5.190
8.150
12JS0
7.840
C
Cffl-BV
2
0
2
13.200
25.100
3270
16.800
C
CHI-K25
4
0
4
12.800
20.000
. 3150
19300
C
CHE-ORR
4
0
2
0596
0.962
1.47
0.893
C
CR-AND
4
0
4
1.860
2930
4.60
2820
C
CR-ROA
3
0
3
1.480
2490
3.65
2090
C
REMAINDER
4
0
0



•




Sulfate




A
DG-AND
4
0
4
14.10
19.6
27.4
19.2
A
DG-ROA
4
0
4
69.90
975
136.0
953
A
DG-ORR
3
0
3
86.70
127.0
169.0
113.0
A
NL-ORR
4
0
4
18.70
26.0
363
255
A
Cffl-BV
4
0
4
94.70
1320
184.0
129.0
A
CHI-K25
4
0
4
178.00
248.0
346.0
243.0
A
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
73.70
103.0
143.0
101.0
A
CR-ORR
4
0
4
63-20
882
123.0
863
A
CR-AND
4
0
4
104.00
146.0
203.0
1420
A
CR-ROA
4
0
4
54.90
76.6
107.0
74.9
B
DG-AND
4
0
4
41.80
582
81.0
56.9
B
DG-ROA
4
0
4
134.00
187.0
260.0
183.0
B
DG-ORR
4
0
4
103.00
143.0
199.0
140.0
B
NL-ORR
4
0
4
79.00
110.0
153.0
108.0
B
Cffl-BV
4
0
4
79.40
111.0
154.0
108.0
B
CHI-K25
4
0
4
137.00
191.0
266.0
187.0
B
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
46.00
64.1
893
-------
5-30
Table 5.1 (continued)
Horizon
Formation-
location
N
I
D
Median
UCB95
X95
LTB9595
B
CR-ORR
4
0
4
44.90
62.6
873
613
B
CR-AND
4
0
4
55.40
77.1
107.0
75.4
B
CR-ROA
4
0
4
57.60
80.2
112.0
785
C
DG-AND
4
0
4
16.00
24.7
37.9
23.9
•€-
DG-ROA
4
0
4
47.20
725
112.0
703
C
DG-ORR
4
0
4
129.00
199.0
306.0
192.0
C
NL-ORR
4
0
4
3830
58i>
90.6
57.0
C
CHI-BV
4
0
4
36.70
56.5
86.8
54.7
C
CHI-K25
4
0
4
43.70
673
103.0
65.2
C
CHE-ORR
4
1
2
13.50
213
3Z0
19.9
C
CR-ORR
4
0
2
9.83
16.1
233
14.1
C
CR-AND
4
0
4
35.80
55.1
84.7
533
C
CR-ROA
4
0
3
10.80
17.1
25.7
16.0




Thalliiim



A
DG-ROA
4
0
1
0.105
0387
0523
0.154
A
DG-ORR
4
0
1
0.165
0556
0.818
0257
A
CR-AND
4
1
0
0394
1370
1.950
0.605
A
REMAINDER
26
0
0

-


B
DG-ROA
4
0
1
0232
0.405
0.496
0286
B
DG-ORR
4
0
2
0326
0500
0.696
0.414
B
NL-ORR
4
0
1
0343
0597
0.732
0.430
B
CR-ORR
4
0
1
0273
0.486
0583
0335
B
REMAINDER
22
0
0


•

C
DG-ROA
4
0
1
0269
0394
0.489
0335
C
DG-ORR
4
0
2
0345
0.485
0.626
0.430
C
NL-ORR*
4
0
4
0576
0.777
1.050
0.712
C
CHE-ORR
2
1
0
0313
0542
0569
0321
C
CR-AND
4
0
1
0.463
0.710
0.840
0553
C
REMAINDER
20
0
0







Vanwfium



A
DG-AND
4
0
4
303
34.8
39.8
345
A
DG-ROA
4
0
4
322
36.9
423
36.6
A
DG-ORR
4
0
4
34.2
39.1
44.8
38.8
A
NL-ORR
4
0
4
32.4
37.1
425
36.8
A
CHI-BV
4
0
4
36.5
41.9
48.0
415
A
CHI-K25
4
0
4
36.6
42.0
48.1
41.6
A
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
30.0
343
393
34.0
A
CR-ORR
4
0
4
26.4
303
34.7
30.0
A
CR-AND
4
0
4
34.4
39.4
45.1
39.0
A
CR-ROA
i
0
4
23.0
26.4
30.2
26.1
B
DG-AND
4
0
4
44.8
50.7
575
503
B
DG-ROA
4
0
4
39.1
443
50.2
43 3
B
DG-ORR
3
0

39.8
45.9
51.0
43.9
B
NL-ORR
4
0
4
45.9
5Z0
58S
515
B
CHI-BV
4
0
4
44.1
50.0
56.6
49.6
B
CHI-K25
4
0
4
52.7
59.7
67.6
59 2
B
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
61.7
69.9
192
-------
5-31
Table 5.1 (continued)
Horizon
Forma tkra-
location
N
I
D
Median
UCB95
X95
LTB9595
B
CR-ORR
4
0
4
63.4
71.8
813
7U
B
CR-AND
4
0
4
573
652
73.8
64.6
B
CR-ROA
4
0
4
493
55A
633
55.4
C
DG-AND
4
0
4
42.6
47.6
532
473
c
DG-ROA
4
0
4
35.0
39.1
43.7
38.8
c
DG-ORR
4
0
4
46.6
52.1
582
51.7
c
NL-ORR
4
0
4
41.4
46.2
51.6
455
c
dH-Bv
4
0
4
42.1
47.0
523
46.7
c
CHI-K25
4
0
4
45.8
51.2
57.1
50.8
c
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
575
64.6
712
64:2
c
CR-ORR
4
0
4
783
87.4
97.6
86.8
c
CR-AND
4
0
4
63.6
71.0
192
70.5
c
CR-ROA
4
0
4
81.1
90.5
101.0
895




Zinc




A
DG-AND
4
0
4
49.7
61.4
755
60.6
A
DG-ROA
4
0
4
40.7
503
62.1
49.6
A
DG-ORR
4
0
4
50.6
62.6
77.4
61.7
A
NL-ORR
4
0
4
375
46.8
575
46.2
A
CHI-BV
4
0
4
44.9
55.5
68.6
54.8
A
CHI-K25
4
0
4
46.0
565
70.4
56.1
A
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
393
48.6
60.1
475
A
CR-ORR
4
0
4
345
43.2
53.4
42.6
A
CR-AND
4
0
4
44.1
54.5
673
53.7
A
CR-ROA
4
0
4
39.4
48.7
60.2
48.0
B
DG-AND
4
0
4
51.0
662
86.0
65.1
B
DG-ROA
4
0
4
41.1
53.4
69.4
523
B
DG-ORR
4
0
4
51.5
665
865
65.8
B
NL-ORR
4
0
4
44.5
57.8
75.0
56.8
B
CH3-BV
4
0
4
58.9
763
99.4
152
B
CHI-K25
4
0
4
71.0
922
120.0
90.6
B
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
116.0
151.0
196.0
149.0
B
CR-ORR
4
0
4
76.7
99.6
129.0
975
B
CR-AND
4
0
4
733
95.2
124.0
93.6
B
CR-ROA
4
0
4
43.5
565
73.4
55.6
C
DG-AND
4
0
4
59.5
79.0
105.0
773
C
DG-ROA
4
0
4
51.1
67.8
90.0
663
c
DG-ORR
4
0
4
61.5
81.6
108.0
80.1
c
NL-ORR
4
0
4
44.6
593
78.7
58.1
c
CHI-BV
4
0
4
82.9
110.0
146.0
108.0
c
CHI-K25
4
0
4
65.4
86.8
115.0
852
c
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
171.0
227.0
302.0
223.0
c
CR-ORR
4
0

129.0
173.0
227.0
166.0
c
CR-AND
4
0
4
82£
110.0
146.0
108.0
c
CR-ROA
4
0
4
552
132
912
715
"N — number of observations, possibly averages over replicates at sites; I = number of interval
censored observations (see text); D ¦= Dumber of true detects (see tea); UCB95 = 95% upper
confidence bound for median; X95 = estimate of 95th percentile; LTB9595 = 95% lower confidence
-------
5-32
y
Abbreviation
Definition
DG-AND
DG-ROA
DG-ORR
NL-ORR
I CHI-BV
OH-K25
UHh-ORR
CR-ORR
CR-AND
CR-ROA
Dismal Gap-Anderson County
Dismal Gap-Roane County
Dismal Gap-Oak Ridge Reservation
Nolichucky-Oak Ridge Reservation
Chickamauga-Bethel Valley
Chickamauga-K-25 Area
Chepultepec^Oak Ridge Reservation
Copper Ridge-Oak Ridge Reservation
Copper Ridge-Anderson County
Copper Ridge-Roane County
The statistical accuracy of the results can be assessed by comparing the estimates to their
corresponding confidence bounds: the median to the UCB95 and the percentile X95 (for
composites of three) to the lower tolerance bound LTB9595, and by comparing the two
confidence bounds. Consider, for example, the beryllium, A horizon of the ORR Dismal Gap
row in Table 5.1. The median and 95th percentile estimates are 0.78 and 1.17 mg/kg per gram.
But, as indicated, we can be 95% confident only that the median is less than 0.%, and 95%
confident that the 95th percentile exceeds 0.94 mg/kg. On the basis of these data and
statistical arguments, and given a beryllium measurement of a composite of three from a new
test location; one could not rule out beryllium contamination at the new location, unless the
level there was less than about 0.94. Since it is 95% certain only that the background median
is less than 0.96, one cannot be confident of not getting future beryllium samples for which
contamination would not be ruled out—even in uncontaminated areas—on the basis of these
data. This is an unavoidable consequence of the study's small sample sizes. Of course, in
practice, on the basis of risk arguments, EPA guidelines, etc-, levels much higher than this
might be needed to trigger an alarm. Nevertheless, on a purely statistical basis, the results are
inadequate. To increase statistical precision, further combining of data may be necessary, or
it may simply be necessary to collect more data.
An example of further data combination is presented in Table 6.1a, which is like
Table 5.1 except that the breakdown is by ORR groups rather than formations. The groups
are the Conasauga (Dismal Gap and Nolichucky formations), Knox (Copper Ridge and
Chepultepec formations), and Chickamauga soils group, represented by the two ORR
Chickamauga sampling locations. The UCB95 statistics tend to be lower than the LTB9595s
in Table 6.1a, a reflection of the combination of data (over formations) for each group. Of
course, combining data as in Table 6.1a should be justified. To this end, tests to compare
areas within groups are discussed here and in Sect. 6.
The usual summary statistics are not meaningful when nearly all of the observations are
nondetects. For those inorganics, Table 52 presents an alternative. Table 5.2 contains 95%
UCBs for the probabilities of detection or exceeding the MAXDL for those analytes having
fewer than 20% detects. Field duplicates and splits were dropped. (Consequently, there may
be a few discrepancies between number of detects in Tables 5.1 and 5.2.) The MAXDLs are
only for the nondetects: When the UCBs in Table 53. are less than 0.05 or perhaps 0.10, the
observation of a new detect in a siipilar area suggests that the background values may have
-------
5-33
Table 5.2. Additional summary statistics for inorganics with fewer than 20% detects'
(Data have been combined over sampling areas.)
Analysis
Horizon
N
MAXDL
(mg/kg)
Number of
detects
95% UCB for
probability
Number
exceeding
MAXDL
95% UCB' for
prob. > MAXDL
Antimony
A
40
1.40
2
0.15
0
0.07
Antimony
B
40
1.40
5
0.25
0
0.07
Antimony
c
40
120
6
027-
0
O07
Boron
A
34
19.80
6
0.32
4
0.25
Bonn
B
36
10.20
7
033
6
030
Cadmium
A
40
0.25
0
0.07
0
0.07
Cadmium
B
40
0.24
1
0.11
0
0.07
Cadmium
C
40
0.31
0
0.07
0
0.07
Cyanide
A
37
130
5
0.26
0
0.08
Cyanide
B
38
1.10
3
0.19
0
0.08
Cyanide
C
37
1.10
2
0.16
0
0.08
Molybdenum
A
37
9.80
2
0.16
0
0.08
Osmium
A
4
14.80
0
0.53
0
0.53
Osmium
B
5
15.20
0
0.45
0
0.45
Osmium
C
5
19.90
0
0.45
0
0.45
Silver
A
40
2.10
0
0.07
0
0.07
Silver
B
40
220
0
0.07
0
0.07
Silver
C
40
2JS0
0
0.07
0
0.07
Thallium
A
38
0.78
2
0.16
1
0.12
Thallium
B
38
0.67
5
0.26
0
0.08
'Composited samples—95% UCBs for probabilities of detection or of exceeding tbe MAXDL. N = number of observations,
duplicates and splits not toduded. MAXDL = maximum detection limit for noodetects.
Some of the UCBs in Table 52 are above 0.10. Results in the table have been combined
over all BSCP FLs to increase the sample sizes. Reducing the UCBs further would require*
additional sampling from the same or new areas.
Tests for differences between FLs and between horizons are discussed in Sect 5.23 and
in Appendix G. Significance levels for tests for FL differences in inorganics are presented in
Table G.5. Cadmium, boron, cyanide, osmium, silver, and horizon A antimony and
molybdenum were not analyzed for FL differences because of little detection of these
analytes. Neither were horizon B and C antimony, which have almost no detects, except in
the Nolichucky Formation, where there were four.
To see how to use Table G3, consider, for example, horizon A arsenic. It shows -
significant differences among all FLs in general (p < 0.0001), among Copper Ridge locations
(p = 0.0002), among ORR FLs (p < 0.0001), between the ORR Copper Ridge and the
Chepultepec FLs (p = 0.0008), and among the three groups (p < 0.0001), but not among
Dismal Gap locations (p = .020), or between the two ORR Chickamauga locations
(p = 035), or between the ORR Dismal Gap and Nolichucky formations (p = 0.96).
FL comparisons are discussed further in Sect. 6. The differences can be further explored ¦
-------
5-34
t-tests; and, less formally, using Table S.l or graphical techniques. For example, horizon B
aluminum, which shows significant differences among FLs overall, among Dismal Gap
locations, and among ORR FLs, does not show differences among Copper Ridge locations.
This is illustrated in Fig. 5.2. From the figure and Table 5.1, it is clear that horizon B
aluminum is lowest in the Copper Ridge and Chepultepec formations, and, among Dismal
Gap locations, slightly lower in Roane County.
Differences between horizons for the inorganics are analyzed first to see if the FL makes
a difference in the horizon differences (it does seem "to) and then to estimate the average
differences for the various FLs. Significance levels for these comparisons are presented in
Table G.6. For example, for aluminum the FL has a significant effect on the horizon A-B
differences (p = 0.0002). The average differences in aluminum concentrations (mg/kg)
between horizons A and B by FL are
Formation-
Average difference1
location
(mg/kg)
DG-AND
-12425
DG-ROA
-8700
DG-ORR
-9975
NOL-ORR
-12925
CHI-BV
-13450
CHI-K25
-18150
CHE-ORR
-10037
CR-ORR
-6805
CR-AND
-5675
CR-ROA
-6249
*with standard error 2071.
Athough these differences vary significantly with FL, each is also highly significant
(p 0.0061 in each case): in each FL, there is significantly more aluminum in horizon B than
in A. Horizon differences for inorganics are discussed further in Sect. 6.
5.4 HERBICIDES
All results for herbicides are horizon A noncomposites. There are two detects, one on
the ORR (2,4-D in the Chepultepec FL) and one in Roane County (MCPA in the Copper
Ridge). Graphical examination reveals that the field duplicates and originals are generally in
extremely close agreement for the herbicides. This suggests that perhaps the designation "U"
for nondetect may have been applied too conservatively. Of course, these data are
nevertheless handled here as nondetects. Table 53 parallels Table 5.2 for the inorganics. For
a fixed N (number of samples), as long as the number of detects is fixed (e-g-, at 0), the UCB
is the same.
These UCBs are useful because they are small enough that we can be confident that a
detect in a background area is a low-probability event Thus, statistically, a detect suggests a
-------
5-35
Table 53. Herbicides—95% UCBs for probabilities of detection or of cxrrwltng the MAXDL*
(Horizon A data have been combined over sampling areas.)
Analysis
N
MAXDL
Gigfcg)
Number of
detects
UCB for
detection
probability
Number
exceeding
MAXDL
UCB for
prob. >
MAXDL
2,4,5-T
50
316.0
0
0.06
0
0.06
2,4-D
50
1894.0
1
0.09
0
0.06
2,4-DB„
50
1421.0
0
1106
0_
(106
Dalapon
38
5527.2
0
0.08
0
0.08
Dicamba
50
421.0
0
0.06
0
0.06
Dichlorprop
50
1052.0
0
0.06
0
0.06
Dinoseb
50
221.0
0
0.06
0
0.06
MCPA
50
394685.0
1
0.09
0
0.06
MCPP
50
299961.0
0
0.06
0
0.06
SQvoc
50
263.0
0
0.06
0
0.06
*N = number of observations, duplicates and splits not included. MAXDL = maximum detection limit for nonricirttu- -
5.5	PESTICIDES
All pesticide results are A horizon noncomposites. There are no statistical outliers.-As;
with the herbicides, field duplicates and original results are all very close. After excluding,
duplicates, there were either 108 or 109 samples for each pesticide. Of these there were eight',
detects—four in Anderson County, two in Roane County, and two on the ORR. These results,
are discussed in Sect 6. Table 5.4 for pesticides is analogous to Tables 52. and 5-3.
In spite of the detects, like the herbicide UCBs, the pesticide UCBs are useful because
they are small enough that we can be confident that a detect in a background area is a
low-probability event
5.6	PAHs
All PAH results are A horizon noncomposites. Many results have the validation
designation "R" and are thus not used in the statistical analysis. (All of the originals in the
original-reanalysis pairs are so designated.) There are no statistical outliers. However, most
of the results for the Dismal Gap and Nolichucky formations are designated as nondetects
(even though the PAH field duplicate and original results are nearly identical for all of the
PAH samples from these areas and are exactly equal for most). However, most of the results
for the other formations are detects, sometimes lower than the detection limits for the Dismal
Gap and Nolichucky data. This is due to analytical laboratory contamination problems in the
samples (see Sect 4). Therefore, the results of those samples were excluded from the
statistical analysis discussed in this section.
Table 5J5 gives UCBs for detection probabilities. Table 5.6 gives summary statistics for
those PAHs having one or more detects. Tables 5.5 and 5.6 parallel Tables 5.1 and 53. for
-------
5-36
Table 5.4. Pesticides 95% UCBs for probabilities of
detection or of exceeding maximum detection limit*
(Horizon A data have been combined owr sampling areas.)
Analysis
N
MAXDL
O&'-s)
Number of
detects
UCB for
detection
probability
Number
exceeding
MAXDL
UCB for proh.
> MAXDL
4,4'-DDD
109
13.0
0
0.03
0
0.03
4,4'-DDE
109
13.0
0
0.03
0
0.03
4,4'-DDT
109
13.0
2
0j06
1
0.04
Aldrin
109
63
1
0.04
0
0.03
Arodor 1016
109
130.0
0
0.03
0
0.03
Arodor 1221
109
254.0
0
0.03
0
0.03
Arockx- 1232
109
130.0
0
0.03
0
0.03
Arockx 1242
109
130.0
1
0.04
1
0.04
Arodor 1248
109
130.0
0
0.03
0
0.03
Arodor 1254
109
130.0
0
0.03
0
0.03
Arodor 1260
109
130.0
0
0.03
0
0.03
Dtddrin
109
13.0
0
0.03
0
0.03
Endosulfan 1
108
63
2
0.06
0
0.03
Endosulfan II
109
13.0
0
0.03
0
0.03
Endosulfan sulfate
109
23.5
0
0.03
0
0.03
Endrin
109
13.0
0
0.03
0
0.03
Endrin aldehyde
109
13.0
0
0.03
0
0.03
Endrin ketone
109
13.0
0
0.03
0
0.03
Heptacfalor
109
63
0
0.03
• 0
0.03
Hrpfachlnr epoxide
109
63
0
0.03
0
0.03
Metbaxycblar
109
63D
0
0J13
0
0.03
Totraphenc
109
630.0
0
OjOS
0
0.03
alpba-BHC
109
63
0
0.03
0
0.03
alpba-ChlordaDe
109
235.0
2
0.06
0
0.03
beta-BHC
109
63
0
0.03
0
0.03
delta-BHC
109
63
0
0.03
0
0.03
nmms-BHr (T mrtaiv)
109
63
0
0.03
0
0.03
gamma-Chlordane
109
46.0
0
0.03
0
0.03
"N = number of observations, duplicates and splits not included. MAXDL = maximum "nkrn limit for noodetects.
Significance levels for comparisons of PAHs by FL are in Table G.4. Many of the PAHs
do exhibit some significant differences.
Tabic 5.5. PAHs—95% UCBs for detection probability"
(Horiffln A data has been combined over sampling areas.)
Analysis
N
MAXDL
(Mgfrg)
Number of
detects
UCB for
detection
probability
Number
rsxnding
MAXDL
UCB for
prob. >
MAXDL
Acenaphtbeae
25
4.7
11
0.62
0
0.11
Acenaphtbyteoe
61
236.7
5
0.16
2
0.10
Anthracene
44
4.7
39
055
3
0.17
Benzo(6]fluoranthene
52
4.7
47
0.96
12
035
Cbrysene
36
4.7
23
0.77
11
0.45
Dibenzofo^Janthraceoe
33
4.7
27
0S2
1
0.14
Fluoreae
34
4.7
20
0.73
1
0.13
Indeoo(7,2^-c;rf]pyrene
64
45.2
27
0.53
1
0.07
Naphthalene
32
23.7
19
0.74
2
0.18
*N = number of obtervatioos, duplicates and splits not included MAXDL = maximum detection limit for noodetects.
-------
5-37
Table 5.6. Additional summary statistics for PAHs"
(Estimates and confidence bounds are in micrograms per kflogram.)
Formation- N j D Median UCB95 X95 LTB9595
location
Arrnaphrbcoc
CHI-BV
1
0
1
3.50
5.96
5.96
3390
CHI-K25
3
0
3
133
1.82
227
1390
CHE-ORR
4
0
1
0.80
136
136
0.775
CR-ORR
6
0
3
1:42
1.93
2.42
1.700
CR-AND
2
0
2
1.20
1.74
2.04
1340
CR-ROA
9
0
1
0.80
136
136
0.775



ArnnphthyiMR



CR-ORR
10
0
4
57.6
240
1580
306.0
CR-ROA
8
0
1
13.6
151
372
50.7
REMAINDER
43
0
0


-




Anthracene



CHI-BV
5
0
5
0.623
1.15
2.44
1260
CH3-K25
10
0
10
1.240
1.91
4.85
1950
CHE-ORR
4
0
2
0.398
1.04
1.56
0381
CR-ORR
8
0
8
0.880
1.42
3.44
1000
CR-AND
7
0
7
1340
225
5 26
1960
CR-ROA
10
0
7
1.410
230
532
3240



TlfjiinjaJjulln-irmf.



CHI-BV
6
0
6
430
6.42
1130
7.49
CHI-K2S
12
0
12
5.65
7.51
15.10
11.00
CHE-ORR
7
0
7
1.70
146
434
3.04
CR-ORR
12
0
12
2.01
2.67
538
3.91
CR-AND
11
0
11
2.13
187
5.70
4.10
CR-ROA
12
0
12
3.22
428
8.62
626



Benzo(a]pyTcne



CHI-BV
12
0
12
3.78
4.92
9.42
7.00
CH3-K25
12
0
12
5.19
6.75
12.90
9.60
CHE-ORR
5
0
5
3.28
4 S3
8.17
531
CR-ORR
10
0
10
2.66
334
6.61
4.81
CR-AND
10
0
10
1.70
226
4.22
3.07
CR-ROA
12
0
11
1.21
1.59
3.01
222



Beazof&piuarantbcae



CHI-BV
8
0
8
4.45
630
11.90
8.10
CHI-K25
12
0
12
4.58
6.09
1230
8.83
CHE-ORR
4
0
2
2.97
5.28
7.96
4.44
CR-ORR
8
0
8
2.19
3.11
5.87
4.00
CR-AND
8
0
8
166
3.77
7.12
4.85
CR-ROA
12
0
9
1.79
2.46
4.80
338



Baxzofgjijpayiaic



CHI-BV
5
0
5
3.46
5.13
835
5.49
CHI-K25
12
0
12
4.78
6.16
11.50
8.62
CHE-ORR
6
0
6
237
3.68
620
421
CR-ORR
9
0
9
2.85
3.82
6.87
4.96
CR-AND
10
0
10
231
3.05
557
4.07
CR-ROA
11
0
10
1.90
251
439
-------
5-38
Tabic 5.6 (continued)
Formauoo- N j D Median UCB95 X95 LTB9595
location
CHI-BV
12
0
12 2210
2.91
534
4.04
CHI-K25
12
0
12
2.910
3.72
6.84
5.18
CHE-ORR
5
0
5
1.570
129
3.68
2.46
CR-ORR.
11
0
11
1.400
1.81
329
2.47
CR-AND
9
0
9
1360
1.81
3.19
234
CR-ROA
12
0
12
0.943
1.21
122
1.68
CHI-BV
5
0
4
Chryseoe
4.98
1£2
13.20
8.02
CHI-K25
6
0
4
531
8.01
14.10
8.92
CR-ORR
9
0
9
3.93
5.45
10.40
6.98
CR-AND
1
0
1
430
11.40
11.40
4.18
CR-ROA
12
0
5
2.13
3.09
5.66
3.83
REMAINDER
3
0
0
-

•

CHI-BV
3
0
Dibean^o^iJanUiraceac
2 0.597
1.42
2.05
0.83
CHI-K25
3
0
3
0.765
1.56
2.62
1.23
CHE-ORR
5
0
3
1.030
2.03
331
1.70
CR-ORR
8
0
8
1.030
139
333
2.12
CR-AND
2
0
2
1310
3.12
4.48
1.80
CR-ROA
12
0
9
0.960
1.44
3.29
2.04







CHI-BV
8
0
8
4.95
726
14.60
9.61
CHI-K25
11
0
11
6.82
9.45
20.10
1350
CHE-ORR
7
0
7
3.09
4.64
9.09
5.85
CR-ORR
¦12
0
12
5.95
8.12
1730
1230
CR-AND
6
0
6
Z&S
4.42
839
523
CR-ROA
12
0
12
438
Ffcjoreae
5.99
12.90
9.06
CHI-BV
2
0
2
2.600
5.540
738
3.400
CHI-K25
7
0
7
1.410
2.110
4.12
2340
CHE-ORR
6
0
2
0365
0.726
1.07
0323
CR-ORR
6
0
3
0.873
1390
235
1340
CR-AND
3
0
3
2.160
4.010
630
3.220
CR-ROA
10
0
3
0.935
1.660
2.73
1.480
CHI-BV
11
0
Indeao(Jr23-c^]pyrcae
8 11.20
16.2
34.1
22.4
CHI-K25
12
0
7
9.48
13.6
28.8
19.4
CHE-ORR
7
0
1
1J85
15.9
23.9
1Z0
CR-AND
12
0
8
8.99
123
273
183
CR-ROA
10
1
3
13.10
20.4
39.8
25.2
REMAINDER
12
0
0
•

•

CHI-BV
7
0
7
Napbtiufene
6.20
10.90
27.70
1350
CHI-K25
6
0
6
1.88
3.46
839
4.06
CHE-ORR
4
0
3
9.50
2130
42.40
1730
CR-ORR
7
0
3
8.05
1630
35.90
17.00
REMAINDER
8
0
0



-------
5-39
Table 5.6 (continued)
Formauon-
locabon
N
I
D
Median
UCB95
X95
LTB9595



Pbeoanlbrcae



CHI-BV
12
0
12
6.63
8.79
17.70
12.90
CHI-K25
12
0
12
7.16
9.50
19.10
13.90
CHE-ORR
7
0
7
3.12
4.52
831
5.59
CR-ORR
12
0
12
4.06
539
10.80
7.90
CR-AND
12
0
12
3.63
4.81
9.67
7.05
CR-ROA
12
0
12
3.17
"'4.21
8.45
~6.16




Pyrcne



CHI-BV
6
0
6
7j84
1230
24.80
15.00
CHI-K25
12
0
12
10.90
15 JO
34.60
23.80
CHE-ORR
7
0
7
3.42
5.28
10.80
6.76
CR-ORR
12
0
12
5.04
7.02
15.90
10.90
CR-AND
10
0
10
3.07
4.42
9.70
6.48
CR-ROA
12
0
12
2.12
Z96
6.71
4.61
'N = number of observations, possibly averages over replicates at sites; I = number of
interval censored observations (see text); D = number of true detent (see test); UCB95 = 95%
upper confidence bound for median; X95 = estimate of 95th percentile; LTB9595 = 95% lower
confidence bound for 95th percentile; REMAINDER refers to the remaining observations-no
detects.
5.7 RADIONUCLIDES
Many of the radionuclide soil results are validation rejects, and in general, the missing
data structures for radionuclides vary considerably with analyte. There are no usable data for
europium-155. There are substantial proportions of missing data for various sampling areas,
formations, and horizons for isotopes of curium, hafnium, iridium, neptunium, niobium,
plutonium, ruthenium, and zirconium.
Upon graphical analysis, several radionuclide results (including detection limits) seemed
anomalous. One of the plutonium-239/240 results for horizon A Copper Ridge in Roane
County is extremely high. A uranium-736 detect in the Chickamauga-K-25 area is much lower
than all other uranium-236 reported values, almost all of which are nondetects. For several
analytes (e.g., americium-241 and barium-133), the detection limits for Dismal Gap and
Nolichucky samples from on- and off-site were almost all higher than the remaining
formations.
Uranium-233/234 and uranium-238 were not detected in the Nolichucky Formation but
were detected in all other formations. Uranium-235 was also not detected in the Nolichucky
Formation but was detected at most other formations. For the statistical analyses discussed
in this section and for the Nolichucky Formation, NAA uranium-238 data were substituted
for alpha uranium-238 data, as well as for uranium-233/234 data. NAA uranium-235 data were
also substituted for the alpha uranium-235 data. For the alpha detects, the uranium-233/234
to uranium-238 ratio is 0.984 + 0.032, very close to the theoretical value of 1. This motivates
using uranium-238 data for uranium-233/234. The relationship of NAA data to alpha uranium
results is discussed in Sects. 5.11 and 6.6.4.
One of the niobium-95 detection limits (82,000 pCi/g) is clearly due to laboratory error
-------
5-40
After the data deletions and substitutions, with the exceptions of potassium-40,
thorium-232, uranium-233/234, and uranium-238, all of the radionuclides have one or more
nondetects. Results for the mostly undetected analytes arc summarized in Table 5.7. Results
for the detected analytes are summarized in Table 5.8. Statistics are also given for tritium in
Table 5.7, computed from all BSCP data except data from ORR Copper Ridge, ORR Dismal
Gap, and Bethel Valley, where tritium contamination appears likely (see Table 5.8).
Summary statistics for radionuclides by group are presented in Table 6.1b. Significance
levels for comparisons of radionuclides by FLs in Table G.5. The radionuclides do not exhibit
as many significant differences across FLs as the inorganics, but there are differences.
Thorium-232, for example, shows differences and seems to be elevated in horizon A in the
Nolichucky Formation (p = 0.0045 for the Dismal Gap comparisons, p < 0.0001 for the ORR
comparisons, p = 0.0001 for the comparison of Nolichucky with ORR Dismal Gap locations,
and see Table 5.8).
Similarly, although there are horizon differences, there seem to be fewer for
radionuclides than for inorganics. For example, thorium-232 horizon A-B differences are not
affected significantly by FL (p = 034):
Formaiion-
kxatioo
Difference
estimate
(po/g)
Standard
error
(pO/g)
Significance
level
DG-AND
-0.06
0.24
0J5160
DG-ROA
-032
0.24
0.1707
DG-ORR
—0.64
0.24
0.0072
NL-ORR
—0.03
Q.2A
0.9158
CHI-BV
-0.14
0.24
0.5501
CHI-K25
-0.71
0.24
0.0027
CHE-ORR
-054
0.24
0.0234
CR-ORR
-055
0.24
0.0207
CR-AND
-0.41
0.24
0.0829
CR-ROA
-0.47
0.24
0.0475
NOTE: Table G.9 contains this table and similar ooes for other
To further explore the nature of the differences, see Table 5.8 for the data. For data with
all detects, formal comparisons can also be made using an analysis of variance (Proc GLM).
For example, by that approach, horizon A thorium-232 levels are significantly different in the
Dismal Gap areas (p = 0.02) and on the ORR (p < 0.0001). FL and horizon differences for
radionuclides are also discussed in Sect. 6.
5.8 GAMMA SCREENING
The primary purpose of the gamma screening is to affirm that background cesium-137
levels are not higher than normal for the southeastern United States, (about 10 pCi/cm2).
The Nolichucky-ORR and Dismal Gap-Roane County data differ very slightly from those
in the Phase I report (DOE/OR/Ol-l 136), because of some minor discrepancies in dates and
-------
5-41
Table 5.7. Summary statistics for radionuclides with fewer than 20% detects"
(Data have been combined over sampling areas.)
Number UCB for Number UCB for
Analysis	Horizon N MAXDL of detection exceeding prob. >
detects probability MAXDL MAXDL
Alpha
Curium-244
A
15
7.540
0
0.18
0
0.18
Curium-244
B
1
0.830
0
0.95
0
0.95
Neptunium-237
B
1
2.600
0
0.95
0
0.95
Plutomum-238
C
3
0.095
0
0.63
0
0.63
Uranium-236
A
40
0.084
3
0.18
0
0.07
Uranium-236
B
39
0.058
1
0.12
1
0.12
Uranium-236
C
40
0.110
2
0.15
0
0.07



Beta




Hafnium-181
A
12
0.0120
0
0.22
0
0.22
Hafiiium-181
B
11
0.0110
0
024
0
0 2A
Hafnium-181
C
11
0.0110
0
0.24
0
0.24
Iridium-192
A
12
0.0100
0
0.22
0
0.22
Iridium-192
B
11
0.0080
0
0.24
0
0.24
lridiam-192
C
11
0.0088
0
0.24
0
0.24
Niobium-95
A
12
0.0140
0
0.22
0
022
Niobium-95
B
10
0.0120
0
0-26
0
0 26
Niobium-95
C
10
0.0260
0
0.26
0
026
Ruthenium-103
A
16
0.1100
0
0.17
0
0.17
Ruthenium-103
B
15
0.0100
0
0.18
0
0.18
Ruthenium-103
C
15
0.0100
1
0.28
0
0.18
Strcmtium-90
-A
36
4.2000
2
0.16
0
0.08
Zirconium-95
A
16
0.0240
0
0.17
0
0.17
Zirconium-95
B
15
0.0220
0
0.18
0
0.18
Zirconium-95
C
15
0.0200
0
0.18
0
0.18



namma




Americium-241
A
40
0.1160
0
0.07
0
0.07
Ameriaum-241
B
39
03420
0
0.07
0
0.07
Americium-241
C
39
0.1960
0
0.07
0
0.07
Barium-133
A
40
0.0426
0
0.07
0
0.07
Barium-133
B
39
0.1310
0
0.07
0
0.07
Barium-133
C
39
0.0957
0
0.07
0
0.07
Cesiuni-137
C
39
0.0944
5
025
2
0.15
Chromium-51
A
40
1.0700
0
0.07
0
0.07
Chromium-51
B
39
0.8680
0
0.07
0
0.07
Chromium-51
C
39
0.7680
0
0.07
0
0.07
Cobalt-57
A
40
0.0239
0
0.07
0
0.07
Cobalt-57
B
39
0.0719
0
0.07
0
0.07
Cobalt-57
C
39
0.0501
0
0.07
0
0.07
Cobalt-60
A
40
0.0431
0
0.07
0
0.07
Cobalt-60
B
39
0.1130
0
0.07
0
0.07
Cobalt-60
C
39
0.1950
0
0.07
0
0.07
Curium-243
A
36
0-2350
0
0.08
0
0.08
Curium-243
B
4
0.0686
0
0.53
0
0.53
Curium-243
C
4
0.0680
0
0.53
0
0.53
Cunum-245
A
36
0.2900
0
0.08
0
0.08
Curium-245
B
4
0.1100
0
0.53
0
-------
5-42
Table 5.7 (continned)




Number
UCB for
Number
UCB for
Analysis
Horizon
N
MAXDL
of
detects
detection
probability
rxnrwling
MAXDL
prob, >
MAXDL
Curium-245
C
4
0.1100
0
033
0
033
Curium-247
A
36
0.2720
2
0.16
0
0.08
Curium-247
B
4
0.0114
0
033
0
033
Curium-247
C
4
0.0110
0
033
0
033
EuropinxD-152
A
40
0.2360
0
0.07
0
0.07
Europium-152
B
39
0.7520
0
0.07
0
0.07
Europcum-152
C
39
03000
0
0.07
0
0.07
Europium-154
A
40
0.0466
0
0.07
0
0.07
Europiuro-154
B
39
0.1400
0
0.07
0
0.07
Europium-154
C
39
03160
0
0.07
0
0.07
Hafoium-181
A
24
0.0877
0
0.12
0
0.12
Hafnium-181
B
24
0.1990
0
0.12
0
0.12
Hafnium-181
C
24
0.1760
0
0.12
0
0.12
Iridium-192
A
24
0.0440
0
0.12
0
0.12
Iridium-192
B
24
0.1990
0
0.12
0
0.12
Iridium-192
C
24
0.1020
0
0.12
0
0.12
Neptunium-237
A
23
4.6800
0
0.12
0
0.12
Nepuinium-237
B
24
13.7000
0
0.12
0
0.12
Nepuinium-237
C
24
9.9100
0
0.12
0
0.12
Niobium-95
A
24
0.1190
0
0.12
0
0.12
Niobiiim-95
B
24
3.0300
0
0.12
0
0.12
Niobium-95
C
24 .
0^450
0
0.12
0
0.12
Rutbcnium-103
A
24
0.0860
0
0.12
0
0.12
Ruthenium-103
B
24
0.2070
0
0.12
0
0.12
Ruthenium-103
C
24
0.1780
0
0.12
0
0.12
Uranium-238
A
24
26.7000
0
0.12
0
0.12
Uranium-238
B
24
74.8000
0
0.12
0
0.12
Uranium-238
C
24
283000
1
0.18
1
0.18
Zinc-65
A
40
0.0991
0
0.07
0
0.07
Zinc-65
B
39
0.2890
0
0.07
0
0.07
Zinc-65
C
39
0.2310
0
0.07
0
0.07
Zircomum-95
A
24
0.1140
0
0.12
0
0.12
Zircomum-95
B
24
03320
0
ai2
0
0.12
Zirconium-95
C
24
0.2600
Tritium
0
0.12
0
0.12
Tritium4
A
24
03
0
0.12
0
0.12
"Composited samples—95% UCBs for probabilities of detection or of exceeding the MAXDL. N = number of
observations, duplicate* and splits not included. MAXDL = mammum detection Limit for nondetects.
-------
5-43
Table 5JL Additional summary statistics for detected radionodides by horizons
(Estimates and confidence bounds are in picocnnes per gram.)
orizon
Formaiion-
location
N
I
D Median
UCB95
X95
LTB9595


Cesum-137 (Gamma)




A
DG-AND
4
0
3
0.12700
03060
0.723
02850
A
DG-ROA
4
0
3
0.29700
0.7130
1.690
0.6650
A
DOOKR...
4-
0
4
039800
1.4300
3.400
13400
A
NL-ORR
4
0
4
0.52700
1.2600
2.990
1.1800
A
CHI-BV
3
0
3
1.17000
3.1900
6.640
23000
A
CHI-K25
4
0
4
1.09000
25900
6.170
2.4300
A
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
0.99900
23800
5.670
22300
A
CR-ORR
4
0
4
0.84200
2.0100
4.780
1.8800
A
CR-AND
4
1
3
0.63300
1.5100
3.590
1.4100
A
CR-ROA
4
0
4
0.95000
22600
5.400
2.1200
B
DG-AND
4
0
4
0.06190
0.2500
1.010
0.1940
B
DG-ROA
4
0
4
0.00935
0.0378
0.153
0.0292
B
DG-ORR
3
0
2
0.03740
02000
0.611
0.0979
B
NL-ORR
4
0
3
0.00762
0.0329
0.125
0.0239
B
CR-ORR
4
0
1
0.00625
0.0436
0.102
0.0150
B
CR-AND
4
0
1
0.02320
0.1290
0379
0.0684
B
REMAINDER
15
0
0
•
-

-
C
DG-AND
4
1
2
0.02730
02280
1.600
0.0896
C
DG-ORR
3
0
2
0.03450
a4180
2.010
0.0920
C
REMAINDER
31
0
0
-
•

-


Curium-247 (Gamma)




A
NL-ORR
4
0
2
.00552
.00649
.00716
.00578
A
REMAINDER
32
0
0




B
REMAINDER
4
0
0




C
REMAINDER
4
0
0






Neptunium-237 (Alpba)



A
DG-AND
4
0
4
0.0877
0.1130
0.1450
0.1100
A
NL-ORR
2
0
2
0.1330
0.1900
02200
0.1510
A
CHI-BV
3
0
3
0.0934
0.1250
0.1550
0.1130
A
CHI-K25
4
1
3
0.0928
0.1200
0.1540
0.1160
A
CHE-ORR
4
1
2
0.0672
0.0891
0.1110
0.0824
A
CR-ORR
4
0
4
0.0841
0.1080
0.1390
0.1050
A
CR-AND
4
1
i.
0.0601
0.0793
0.0995
0.0744
A
CR-ROA
4
0
3
0.0526
0.0682
0.0870
0.0659
B
REMAINDER
1
0
0






Phitorauro-238 (Alpha)



A
DG-AND
4
1
0
0.0209
0.0443
0.0508
0.0239
A
DG-ROA
4
1
2
0.1040
0.1660
02530
0.1520
A
DG-ORR
4
1
0
0.0413
0.0825
0.1010
0.0503
A
CHI-BV
3
1
1
0.0739
0.1290
0.1800
-------
5-44
Table 5.8 (continued)
orizon
Forma tioc-
locaboo
N
I
D
Median
UCB95
X95
LTB9595
A
CHI-K25
4
3
1
0.0725
0.1150
0.1770
0.1050
A
CHE-ORR
4
2
1
0.0802
0.1310
0.1960
0.1150
A
CR-ORR
4
0
3
0.0232
0.0382
0.0566
0.0329
A
CR-AND
4
0
1
0.0865
0.1530
0.2110
0.1190
A
CR-ROA
3
2
0
0.1110
0.1980
02720
0.1510
A
REMAINDER
4
0
0
-
•
-
•
B
DG-ROA
1
0
1
0.0980
0.1160
0.1160
0.0946
B
DG-ORR
2
0
2
0.0853
0.0964
0.1010
0.0857
C
REMAINDER
3
0
0
•
•
•



PhHmium-239/240 (Alpha)



A
DG-ORR
4
0
1
0.0135
0.0371
0.0555
0.0205
A
CHI-BV
3
1
1
0.0320
0.0806
0.1320
0.0482
A
CHI-K25
4
2
1
0.0237
0.0505
0.0975
0.0408
A
CHE-ORR
4
2
0
0.0172
0.0452
0.0707
0.0251
A
CR-ORR
4
0
3
0.0191
0.0397
0.0787
0.0337
A
CR-ROA
3
0
1
0.0671
0.1650
02760
0.1080
A
REMAINDER
16
0
0
•

•

B
DG-ORR..
2
0
1




B
REMAINDER
1
0
0
•
-
¦
•
C
DG-ROA
1
0
1




C
REMAINDER
2
0
0
•
•
-
-


Poksssnim-40 (Gamma)



A
DG-AND
4
0
4
1930
23.40
28-50
2320
A
DG-ROA
4
0
4
11.10
13.50
1630
1330
A
DG-ORR
4
0
4
1630
19.80
24.10
19.60
A
NL-ORR
4
0
4
15.20
18.40
22.40
1820
A
CHI-BV
4
0
4
15.20
18.40
2230
1820
A
CHI-K25
4
0
4
9.70
11.80
1430
11.60
A
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
3.15
3.82
4.64
3.77
A
CR-ORR
4
0
4
4.10
4.97
6.04
4.91
A
CR-AND
4
0
4
3JT
4.09
4.97
4.04
A
CR-ROA
4
0
4
2.74
333
4.04
329
B
DG-AND
4
0
4
26.20
34.90
46.40
3420
B
DG-ROA
4
0
4
18.20
2420
3220
23.70
B
DG-ORR

0

19.90
29.80
3520
2320
B
NL-ORR
4
0
4
16.60
22.10
29.40
21.70
B
CHI-BV
4
0
4
22.60
30.10
40.00
29.50
B
CHI-K25
4
0
4
22-SO
3030
4020
29.60
B
CHE-ORR

0

0
14.10
17.90
12.70
B
CR-ORR
4
0
4
ss
8.75
11.60
8.57
B
CR-AND
4
0
4
6.07
8.07
10.70
7.90
B
CR-ROA

0

7.16
9.95
12.70
8.95
C
DG-AND
4
0
4
2230
29-80
39.80
2920
C
DG-ROA

0
4
23.40
31.20
41.70
30.60
C
dg-orr:
3
0
3
1930
2720
34.70
-------
5-45
Table 5.8 (continned)
jrizon
Formauon-
locaticra
N I
D
Median
UCB95
X95
LTB9595
C
NL-ORR
4 0
4
2520
33.60
44.80
3250
C
CHI-BV
4 0
4
14.50
1930
25.70
18.90
C
CHI-K25
3 0
3
34.40
48.00
6130
43.10
C
CHE-ORR
2 0
2
10.90
16 JO
19.50
1250
C
CR-ORR
4 0
4
6.83
9.11
1220
8.93
C
CR-AND
4 0
4
523
6.98
932
6.84
C
CR-ROA
4 0
4
3.75
5.00
6.68
4.90


Rarthim-226 (Alpha)




A
DG-AND
4 0
4
1.820
2.640
3.84
2510
A
DG-ROA
4 0
4
0.833
1-210
1.76
1.180
A
DG-ORR
4 • 0
4
0.786
1.140
1.66
1.110
A
NL-ORR
4 0
4
0.740
1.080
137
1.050
A
CHI-BV
4 0
4
1.080
1.570
228
1.530
A
CHI-K2S
4 0
4
0.931
1350
1.97
1320
A
CHE-ORR
4 1

0X70
1.270
1.84
1230
A
CR-ORR
4 0
4
1.220
1.780
238
1.730
A
CR-AND
4 0

0.573
0.834
121
0.813
A
CR-ROA
4 0
4
0.911
1330
1.93
1290
B
DG-AND
4 0
4
1.710
2250
2.97
2210
B
DG-ROA
4 0
4
0.865
1.140
1.50
1.120
B
DG-ORR
4 0

0.747
1.010
130
0.947
B
NL-ORR
4 0
4
0.880
1.160
1.53
1.140
B
CHI-BV
4 0
4
1.070
1.410
1.86
1390
B
CHI-K25
4 0
4
0.950
1.250
1.65
1230
B
CHE-ORR
4 0
4
1.580
2.080
2.74
2.040
B
CR-ORR
4 0
4
1.490
1.970
239
1.930
B
CR-AND
4 0
4
1340
1.760
232
1.730
B
CR-ROA
4 0
4
1.120
1.470
1.94
1.440
C
DG-AND
4 0
4
1.670
2.180
2.84
2.140
C
DG-ROA
4 0
4
0.786
1.030
134
1.010
C
DG-ORR
4 0
4
0.763
0.995
130
0.977
C
NL-ORR
4 0
4
0.970
1-260
1.65
1240
C
CHI-BV
4 0
4
1.200
1.570
2.04
1.540
C
CHI-X25
4 0
4
1.190
1.550
2.02
1320
C
CHE-ORR
4 0
4
1.290
1.680
2.19
1.650
c
CR-ORR
4 0
4
1.610
2.110
2.75
2.070
c
CR-AND
4 0
4
1.270
1.660
2.17
1.630
c
CR-ROA
4 0
4
1370
1.790
233
1.760


Stroothim-90 (Beta)




A
DG-ORR
3 0
1
0.701
138
136
0.762
A
CR-ROA
4 1
0
0.647
1.25
1.44
0.762
A
REMAINDER
29 0
0
•





Tedmctium-99 (Beta)



A
DG-AND
2 1
1
3.99
739
933
4.67
A
NL-ORR
6 0
1
1.10
1.91
2.63
137
A
CHI-BV
6 0
2
1.26
1.98
3.00
-------
5-46
Tfrbtc 5.8 (continued)
orizon
Formation-
location
N I
D Median
UCB95
X95
LTB9595
A
CH3-K25
6 0
3
1.11
1.67
165
1.66
A
CR-AND
3 0
2
226
3.82
5.41
196
A
REMAINDER
23 0
0
-





Tborium-228 (Alpha)




A
DG-AND
4 0
4
1.200
1.710
1430
1.670
A
DG-ROA
4 0
4
0.988
1.410
1010
1370
A
DG-ORR
4 0
4
0.713
1.020
1.450
0.992
A
NL-ORR
4 0
4
1.510
2.150
3.060
1100
A
CH1-BV
4 0
4
1.290
1.840
1620
1.790
A
CHI-K25
4 0
4
1.130
1.610
1290
1.570
A
CHE-ORR
4 0
4
0.606
0.863
1.230
0.842
A
CR-ORR
4 0

0339
0.484
0.688
0.472
A
CR-AND
4 0
4
0.845
1.200
1.720
1.170
A
CR-ROA
4 0
4
0.615
0.877
1.250
0.856
B
DG-AND
4 0
4
1.010
1380
1.900
1360
B
DG-ROA
4 0
4
0.733
1.010
1380
0.985
B
DG-ORR
4 0
4
1.030
1.410
1540
1380
B
NL-ORR
4 0
4
1.590
2.190
3.000
1140
B
CHI-BV
4 0
4
1.500
2.060
1830
1020
B
CH1-K25
4 0
4
1.530
2.100
1880
1060
B
CHE-ORR
4 0
4
1.070
1.470
1020
1.440
B
CR-ORR
4 0
4
1.160
1.600
1190
1.570
B
CR-AND
4 0
4
1.200
1.640
1250
1.610
B
CR-ROA
4 0
4
1.090
1.490
1050
1.460
C
DG-AND
4 0
4
1.090
1.590
2340
1.550
C
DG-ROA
4 0
4
0.712
1.040
1.530
1.020
C
DG-ORR
4 0

0.629
0.924
1350
0.899
C
NL-ORR
4 0
4
1.570
2300
3370-
1240
C
CHI-BV
4 0
4
1.410
2.060
3.020
1010
C
CHI-K25
4 0
4
1000
1930
4.290
1850
C
CHE-ORR
4 0
4
1.190
1.750
1560
1.700
C
CR-ORR
4 0
4
1.260
1.840
1700
1.800
C
CR-AND
4 0
4
1.190
1.740
1550
1.700
C
CR-ROA
4 0
4
1.250
1.830
1680
1.780


Thohum-230 (Alpta)




A
DG-AND
4 0
4
0.912
1.090
1310
1.080
A
DG-ROA
4 0
4
0.746
0.894
1.070
0.884
A
DG-ORR
4 0
4
0.565
0.677
0.812
0.669
A
NL-ORR
4 0
4
0.966
1.160
1390
1.140
A
CHI-BV
4 0
4
1.060
1.270
1.520
1250
A
CHI-K25
4 0
4
1.040
1240
1.490
1230
A
CHE-ORR
4 0
4
0.774
0.927
1.110
0.916
A
CR-ORR
4 0
4
1.110
1330
1.590
1310
A
CR-AND
4 0
4
1.090
1310
1570
1300
A
CR-ROA
4 0
4
0.864
1.040
1240
1.020
B
DG-AND
4 0
4
0.958
1230
1JS70
1210
B
DG-ROA
4 0
4
0.868
1.110
1.430
-------
5-47
Table 5.8 (continued)
Horizon
Formation-
location
N
I
D
Median
UCB95
X95
LTB959S
B
DG-ORR
4
0
4
0.727
0.931
1.190
0.916
B
NL-ORR
4
0
4
1.000
1.290
1.650
1260
B
CHI-BV
4
0
4
1.070
1370
1.750
1350
B
CHI-K25
4
0
3
1.060
1390
1.740
1310
B
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
1220
1.570
2.010
1.540
B
, CBJ2RR

0

..Lisa,
L990.
7 ssn
1.960
B
CR-AND
4
0
4
1-510
1.940
2.480
1-910
B
CR-ROA
4
0
4
1.050
1350
1.720
1320
C
DG-AND
4
0
4
0.833
1.070
1380
1.050
C
DG-ROA
4
0
4
0.508
0.654
0341
0.643
C
DG-ORR
4
0
4
0.571
0.735
0.945
0.723
c
NL-ORR
4
0
4
0.877
1.130
1.450
1.110
c
CHI-BV
4
0
4
1.080
1390
1.790
1370
c
CHI-K25
4
0
4
1.250
1.610
2.060
1.580
c
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
1.440
1.850
2380
1.820
c
CR-ORR
4
0
4
1.640
2.110
2.710
1080
c
CR-AND
4
0
4
1.620
2.080
2.670
1040
c
CR-ROA
4
0
4
1380
1.770
2280
1.740


Thoriuro-232 (Alpha)




A
DG-AND
4
0
4
1.060
1230
1.430
1220
A
DG-ROA
4
0
4
0.945
1.100
1280
1.090
A
DG-ORR
4
0
4
0.683
0.794
0.923
0.786
A
NL-ORR
4
0
4
1.490
1.740
2.020
1.720
A
CHI-BV
4
0
4
1.250
1.450
1.690
1.440
A
CHI-K25
4
0
4
1.100
1.280
1.490
1270
A
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
0.622
0.722
0.840
0.715
A
CR-ORR
4
0
4
0.679
0.789
0.917
0.781
A
CR-AND
4
0
4
0.784
0.912
1.060
0.903
A
CR-ROA
4
0
4
0.544
0.632
" 0.735
0.626
B
DG-AND
4
0
4
1.100
1.400
1.780
1380
B
DG-ROA
4
0
4
1.280
1.630
2.070
1.600
B
DG-ORR
4
0
4
1.020
1300
1.650
1280
B
NL-ORR
4
0
4
1.500
1.900
2.410
1.870
B
CHI-BV
4
0
4
1380
1.760
2230
1.730
B
CHI-K25
4
0
4
1.770
2240
1850
2210
B
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
1.150
1.470
1.860
1.440
B
CR-ORR
4
0
4
1-220
1.550
1.970
1.530
B
CR-AND
4
0
4
1.200
1.530
1.940
1.500
B
CR-ROA
4
0
4
0.949
1210
1.530
1.190
C
DG-AND
4
0
4
1.070
1.460
1000
1.440
C
DG-ROA
4
0
4
0.680
0.930
1270
0.911
C
DG-ORR
4
0
4
0.841
1.150
1.580
1.130
C
NL-ORR
4
0
4
1370
1.870
2.560
1.830
C
CHI-BV
4
0
4
1.430
1.960
1690
1.920
C
CHI-K25
4
0
4
1.640
2250
3.080
1200
C
CHE-ORR
4
0
4
1.210
1.660
2270
1.630
C
CR-ORR
4
0
4
1.250
1.710
2340
1.670
C
CR-AND
4
0
4
1.120
1.530
1090
1300
C
CR-ROA
4
0
4
1-240
1.700
2320
-------
5-48
Table 5-8 (continued)
DriZOD
Formation-
location
N
1
D
Median
UCB95
X95
LTB9595


Thorium-234 (Beta)




A
DG-AND
4
0
4
1.060
1230
1.410
1200
A
DG-ROA
3
0
3
1.430
1.680
1.890
1380
A
DG-ORR
4
0
4
1.630
1.880
2.170
1.850
Ji.
-NL.ORR-
4
0
4-.
1.420
1.640-
1.890
1.610
A
CHI-K25
2
1
0
0.945
1.200
1.250
0574
A
CHE-ORR
4
1
0
0.616
0.761
0.817
0.657
A
CR-ORR
3
0
2
1.560
1.840
2.070
1.730
A
CR-AND
4
1
0
0.703
0.932
0533
0.701
A
REMAINDER
6
0
0
•
•

•
B
DG-AND
4
0
4
1.050
1.520
2220
1.450
B
DG-ROA
3
0
3
1.290
1.990
2.730
1.690
B
DG-ORR
4
0
3
0.757
1.110
1.600
1.050
B
NL-ORR
4
0
4
1.100
1.600
2330
1.520
B
CHE-ORR
4
1
0
0.725
1.200
1330
0526
B
CR-ORR
3
0
2
1.640
2.590
3.470
2.130
B
CR-AND
4
0
3
1.920
2J510
4.050
2.660
B
REMAINDER
8
0
0
•


•
C
DG-AND
4
0
4
1.020
1.440
2.040
1370
C
DG-ROA
3
0
3
1350
2000
2.680
1.710
C
DG-ORR
4
0
4
1.160
1.640
2310
1.550
C
NL-ORR
4
0
4
1.070
1.510
2.120
1.420
C
CHE-ORR
4
1
0
0.720
1.140
1.430
0510
C
CR-AND
4
0
1
0-886
1350
1.760
1.160
C
CR-ROA
3
0
1
1.050
1.630
2.090
1330
C
REMAINDER
8
0
0


•



Tborium-234 (Gamma)



A
CHI-BV
1
0
1




A
CR-ROA
1
0
1




A
REMAINDER
2
0
0



•
B
chi-bv
1
0
1




B
CR-RC \
1
0
1

.


B
REMAINDER
2
0
0




C
CHI-BV
1
0
1




C
CR-ROA
1
0
1




C
REMAINDER
2
0
0






Total Uranium (A^iba)



A
DG-AND
4
0
4
0.999
1.730
2,99
1.660
A
DG-ROA
4
0
3
0.670
1.160
2.01
1.120
A
DG-ORR
4
0
4
1.310
2270
353
2.180
A
NL-ORR
4
0
4
1.150
1.990
3.44
1.910
A
CHI-BV
3
0
3
1.250
2350
3.73
1510
A
CHI-K25
4
0
4
0.923
1.600
2.77
1340
A
CHE-ORR

0
3
1.920
3.630
5.76
2.960
A
CR-ORR
A.
0
4
2.710
4.690
8.12
4310
A
CR-AND
4
0
4
1.040
1.810
3.13
-------
5-49
I
Table 5.8 (continued)
Horizon Formation- N I D Median UCB95 X95 LTB9595
	 location
A
CR-ROA
4
0 4
1.920
3320
5.75
3.190
B
DG-ROA
1
0 1
0.450
1.650
1.65
0345
B
DG-ORR
2
0 2
0316
0.791
1.16
0326
C
DG-ROA
1
0 1
1300
9340
934
0.869
.C
DG-ORR
-2
0 Z- -
0.299 -
mo—
2. IS.
0315



Tritium (Tritium)




A
DG-ORR
9
0 5
0.0324
0.0421
0.0653
0.0476
A
CHI-BV
9
3 0
0.0776
0.1080
0.1560
0.1110
A
CR-ORR
5
0 4
0.0166
0.0231
0.0335
0.0226
A
REMAINDER
24
0 0
•

•



Uranhns-233/234 (Alpba)



A
DG-AND
4
0 4
0.925
1.120
1350
1.100
A
DG-ROA
4
0 4
0.934
1.130
1360
1.120
A
DG-ORR
4
0 4
0.937
1.130
1370
1.120
A
NL-ORR
4
0 4
1.280
1.550
1.870
1.530
A
CHI-BV
4
0 4
1.010
1.220
1.480
1.210
A
CHI-K25
4
0 4
1.220
1.470
1.780
1.450
A
CHE-ORR
4
0 4
1.100
1340
1.610
1320
A
CR-ORR
4
0 4
1.450
1.750
2.120
1.730
A
CR-AND
4
0 4
1.170
1.420
1.710
1.400
A
CR-ROA
4
0 4
1.230
1.490
1.800
1.470
B
DG-AND
4
0 4
0.916
1.150
1.430
1.130
B
DG-ROA
4
0 4
0.766
0.957
1.200
0.943
B
DG-ORR
4
0 4
1.110
1390
1.740
1370
B
NL-ORR
4
0 4
1.050
1320
1.640
1300
B
CHI-BV
4
0 4
0.893
1.120
1390
1.100
B
CH3-K25
4
0 4
1.200
1.490
1.870
1.470
B
CHE-ORR
4
0 4
1320
1.650
2.060
1.620
B
CR-ORR
4
0 4
1.740
2.180
2.720
1140
B
CR-AND
4
0 4
1.630
1040
2350
1010
B
CR-ROA
3
0 3
0.897
1.160
1.400
1.070
C
DG-AND
4
0 4
0.871
1.040
1.250
1.030
C
DG-ROA
4
0 4
0.671
0-804
0.964
0.795
C
DG-ORR
4
0 4
0.663
0.795
0.953
0.785
C
NL-ORR
4
0 4
1.120
1340
1.610
1330
C
CHI-BV
4
0 4
1.050
1-260
1.510
1.250
C
CHI-K25
4
0 4
1.160
1390
1.670
1370
C
CHE-ORR
4
0 4
1.290
1340
1.850
1.520
C
CR-ORR
4
0 4
1.910
2290
2.750
1270
C
CR-AND
4
0 4
1.490
1.790
2.140
1.770
C
CR-ROA
4
0 4
1.180
1.420
1.700
1.400


Uramum-235 (Alpba)




A
DG-AND
4
1 0
0.0355
0.0579
0.0708
0.0434
A
DG-ROA
4
1 3
0.0542
0.0777
0.1080
0.0738
A
DG-ORR
4
1 2
0.0541
0.0779
0.1080
0.0737
A
NL-ORR
4
0 4
0.0548
0.0774
0.1090
-------
5-50
	Table 5.8 (continned)	
Horizon Formation- N i D Median UCB95 ' X95 LTB9595
	 	location			
A
CHI-BV
4
0
4
0.0930
0.1310
0.1860
0.1280
A
CHI-K25
4
1
3
O.OS83
0.0824
0.1160
0.0802
A
CHE-ORR
4
1
2
0.0721
0.1040
0.1440
0.0978
A
CR-ORR
4
0
4
0.1250
0.1770
0.2500
0.1720
A
CR-AND
4
0
4
0.0741
0.1050
0.1480
0.1020
•A.
CR-ROA

1
3-
0.03S2
0.0501
0.0702
0.0482
B
DG-AND
4
1
2
0.0366
0.0747
0.1430
0.0677
B
DG-ROA
4
1
2
0.0311
0.0645
0.1220
0.0567
B
DG-ORR
4
1
2
0.0643
0.1330
0.2520
0.1180
B
NL-ORR
4
0
4
0.0477
0.0944
0.1870
0.0896
B
CHI-BV
4
0
4
0.0860
0.1700
03370
0.1620
B
CHI-K25
4
0
4
0.1040
0.2060
0.4080
0.1960
B
CHE-ORR
4
0
3
0.2920
0.5870
1.1400
0.5470
B
CR-ORR
4
0
4
0.1770
03500
0.6920
03320
B
CR-AND
4
0
4
0.1550
03070
0.6080
0.2920
B
CR-ROA

0
3
0.0633
0.1390
0.2480
0.1080
C
DG-AND
4
1
2
0.0348
0.0664
0.1180
0.0596
C
DG-ROA
4
1
0
0.0329
0.0732
0.1110
0.0502
C
DG-ORR
4
1
2
0.0337
0.0644
0.1140
0.0575
C
NL-ORR
4
0
4
0.0440
0.0810
0.1490
0.0769
C
CHI-BV
4
0
4
0.1210
0.2230
0.4100
0.2110
C
CHI-K25

0
4
0.0759
a 1400
02570
0.1320
C
CHE-ORR
4
0
3
0.0728
0.1360
0.2460
0.1260
C
CR-ORR
4
0
4
0.1950
03590
0.6610
03410
C
CR-AND
4
0
3
0.1110
0.2070
03760
0.1940
C
CR-ROA
4
0
3
0.0738
0.1380
0.2490
0.1280


Uranhnn-235 (Gamma)



A
DG-AND
4
0
4
0.0606
0.0727
0.0872
0.0706
A
DG-ROA
4
0
4
0.0768
0.0922
0.1110
0.0896
A
DG-ORR
4
0
4
0.0792
0.0950
0.1140
0.0923
A
NL-ORR
4
0
4
0.0713
0.0855
0.1030
0.0831
A
REMAINDER
23
0
0


•

B
DG-AND
4
0
4
0.0537
0.0733
0.1000
0.0696
B
DG-ROA
4
0
4
0.0639
0.0873
0.1190
0.0829
B
DG-ORR
3
0
3
0.0700
0.1000
0.1310
0.0870
B
NL-ORR
4
0
4
0.0412
0.0563
0.0769
0.0534
B
REMAINDER
24
0
0



•
C
DG-AND
4
0
4
0.0345
0.0447
0.0578
0.0430
C
DG-ROA
4
0
4
0.0626
0.0810
0.1050
0.0781
C
DG-ORR
4
0
4
0.0433
0.0560
0.0725
0.0540
C
NL-ORR
4
0
4
0.0473
0.0612
0.0792
0.0589
C
CR-ORR
4
0
1
0.1620
0.2270
0.2720
0.1950
C
CR-ROA
4
0
1
0.0918
0.1320
0.1540
0.1080
C
REMAINDER
16
0
0



-------
5-51
Table 5.8 (continued)
arizon
Formation-
location
N I D
Median
UCB95
X95
LTB9595


Uranjum-236 (Alpfaa)




A
DG-ORR
4 0 1
0.0165
0.0292
0.0325
0.0185
A
CHI-K25
4 1 0
0.0103
0.0180
0.0204
0.0113
A
CR-ORR
4 0 1
0.0107
0.0174
0.0210
0.0126
A
REMAINDER
28 0 0
•

•

B
DG-ORR
4 0 1
0.0111
03290
03110
0.0156
8
REMAINDER
35 0 0
-


•
C
CHI-K25
4 0 1




C
CR-ROA
4 1 0



.
C
REMAINDER
32 0 0
•


•


Uranium-238 (Alpba)




A
DG-AND
4 0 4
0.890
0.996
1.11
0.988
A
DG-ROA
4 0 4
0.992
1.110
1.24
1.100
A
DG-ORR
4 0 4
1.020
1.150
128
1.140
A
NL-ORR
4 0 4
1.280
1.430
1.60
1.420
A
CHI-BV
4 0 4
1.060
1.190
133
1.180
A
CH3-K25
4 0 4
1.220
1360
152
1350
A
CHE-ORR
4 0 4
1.120
1260
1.40
1250
A
CR-ORR
4 0 4
1380
1540
1.73
1530
A
CR-AND
4 0 4
1360
1520
1.70
1510
A
CR-ROA
4 0 4
0.836
0.935
1.05
0.928
B
DG-AND
4 0 4
0.966
1.170
1.42
1.160
B
DG-ROA
4 0 4
0.825
1.000
121
0.987
B
DG-ORR
4 0 4
1.120
1350
1.64
1340
B
NL-ORR
4 0 4
1.050
1280
- 155
1260
B
CHI-BV
4 0 4
1.050
1.280
155
1260
B
CHI-K25
4 0 4
1.260
1520
1.85
1500
B
CHE-ORR
4 0 4
1-540
1.870
226
1.840
B
CR-ORR
4 0 4
1.840
2-230
2.70
2200
B
CR-AND
4 0 4
1.760
2.140
259
2.110
B
CR-ROA
3 0 3
0.940
1.170
138
1.090
C
DG-AND
4 0 4
0.871
1.050
125
1.030
C
DG-ROA
4 0 4
0.743
0.892
1.07
0.881
C
DG-ORR
4 0 4
0.666
0.800
0.96
0.790
C
NL-ORR
4 0 4
1.120
1350
1.62
1330
C
CHI-BV
4 0 4
1.040
1.250
150
1240
C
CH3-K25
4 0 4
1.250
1-500
1.80
1.480
C
CHE-ORR
4 0 4
1300
1.560
1.87
1540
C
CR-ORR
4 0 4
2.100
2.520
3.03
2.490
C
CR-AND
4 0 4
1.490
1.790
2.15
1.770
C
CR-ROA
4 0 4
1.420
1.710
2.05
-------
5-52
Table 5.8 (continued)
Horizon
Formation-
location
N
I
D Median
UCB95
X95
LTB9595


Uranwra-238 (Gamma)



A
REMAINDER
24
0
0



B
REMAINDER
24
0
0
-


C
CHI-BV
4
0
1 3.42
86.4
912
4.91
C
REMAINDER
20
0
0



"N = Dumber of otxavatioos, possibly averaget over replicates at sites; 1 = number of interval censored observations
(see text); D = number of true detccu (see tea); UCB95 = 95% upper confidence bound for median; X95 — estimate of
95 th percentile; LT39S95 = 95% lower confidence bound for 95th percentile; REMAINDER refers to the remaining
observations—do delects.
Table 53. Overall results of gamma screening for cesium-137
(Values are in pioocaries per square centimeter.)
Formation
Location
N
Mean
Std Dev
Min
Max
Chep ul tepee
ORR
12
8.931
2.190
5.534
12.819
Chickamauga
ORR-BV
12
11.502
4.602
7.631
22.975
Chickamauga
ORR-K25
12
8_586
0.946
7.103
9.730
Copper Ridge
AND
12
8.952
2.722
5.611
14.516
Copper Ridge
ORR
12
8.619
1380
6^33
10.977
Copper Ridge
ROA
12
9.105
2.410
4.956
13.182
Dismal Gap
AND
12
7.870
3.007
3.775
14.424
Dismal Gap
ORR
12
8341
1.525
6.024
11.053
Dismal Gap
ROA
12
6.577
2.923
1.975
11.937
NolichucJcy
ORR
12
9.128
1_537
6.760
11.842
The very low result (<3 pCi/cm2) in the Dismal Gap Formation of Roane County is from a
severely eroded site; the several very high results (>14 pCi/cm2) are from sediment deposition
sites.
All of the gamma scan cesium data are detects, and so tt~v were analyzed using the usual
F-tests (Proc GLM). Probably because they arise as counts, the data seem to be modeled
more appropriately using the square-root rather than the log transformation. Therefore, the
square-root transformation was used to statistically analyze the gamma screening data. This
is a departure from the general lognormal approach. However, both transformations as well
as no-transformation were investigated, and the following conclusions about differences across
areas are not materially affected by the choice. The conclusions are also essentially the same
if data greater than 14 pCi/cm2 or less than 3 pCi/cm2 are discarded.
There are some significant differences between FLs (p = 0.003): the Chickamauga—
Bethel Valley cesium-137 levels are significantly higher than levels in the two off-site Dismal
Gap locations. The on-site FLs have significantly higher levels than the off-site (p = 0.008),
but that could result from formation differences. The significance level for the comparison
-------
GAMMA SCAN RESULTS (CESIUM 137)
i
%
*
*
*
$
*
*
$
m
5 C
*
*
*
*
*
I
*
*
*

*
*
¥
*
~
*
*
*
*
*
0 V
o
©
%
%
©
0
T>
©
O.
x?
0

%

A
%

\
\
0
•fc
*p
%
0rp

%
\
\
o
area
-------
5-54
5.9 VOLATILE ORGANICS
No statistical analyses were performed on the volatile organics data. The purpose of.
these analyses was to screen for volatile organics—ideally to confirm that, since sampling is
from background areas, volatile organics are absent Although there are a few exceptions, this
is generally true. The exceptions are discussed in Sect 6.
5.10 VARIANCE COMPONENTS
The term "variance components" refers to the contributions to an overall variance or
standard deviation by individual sources of error. Here there are two main sources, the field
(spatial error) and the laboratory. In this section estimates of the standard deviations for these
separate components are given. These standard deviation estimates can be used to compute
tolerance bounds for composites of other than three. They can also be used in sample si™».
calculations for future surveys, and to assess the advantage of compositing. These applications
are discussed further here.
For radionuclides (except tritium and technetium-99) and inorganics, the variable
LTB9595 is a tolerance bound for composites of three. Tolerance bounds for noncomposites
or composites of other than three can also be computed from the BSCP data, but to do this,
estimates of laboratory and spatial standard deviations are needed. Tolerance bounds for
composites of other than three are useful as references for new composites of that same
order. Tolerance bounds for noncomposites may also be useful as references for remediation.
BSCP data inherently exhibit a component of randomness due to laboratory and sampling
errors. The variance of each observation satisfies
V = L + S/k,	(5.1)
where L is the variance of laboratory error, S is the spatial variance of single (noncomposited)
samples, and k is the level of compositing. S is the hypothetical variance of single samples
measured without error. Strictly speaking, equation (5.1) applies to untransformed data, but
it also holds approximately for log-transformed data. (To see this consider the equation X =
(xj + _ + xj • e/k, where X is the observation, e represents laboratory error, and X!,...,
represent the contributions of the k individual samples to the overall composite. Note that
expectation (E) satisfies E[(xj + ... + xj/k] = Efo), and the variance (Var) (distinct from
V) satisfies
Var[(xj + _. + x^/k] = Var^/k .	(52)
From the variance approximation, Var[log(Y)] = Var(Y)/[E(Y)]2, it follows that
Var[log(X)] = Varpog(e)] +Var[log(x!)]/k, which is equation (5.1) for the log-transformed
data.) We will assume that equation (5.1) holds on the log scale for the log-transformed data.
For the lognormal model, computing a tolerance bound for a composite of k requires an
estimate of V. For composites of three, the quantity V can be estimated simply by computing
the maximum likelihood estimate of the pooled standard deviation of individual (composited)
-------
5-55
differences, using data from all horizons. S can then be estimated using equation (5.1) with
k = 3.
Tables 5.10a through 5.10c contain standard deviation estimates for base-ten log
concentrations of inorganics, PAHs, and radionuclides. Each standard deviation is the square
root of the corresponding variance, V, L, or S, of the log-transformed observations. A
degree-of-freedom adjustment has been made so that the standard deviations coincide with
the usual unbiased standard deviations when there are no nondetects. The degrees of freedom,
for the overall variance estimate is the number of observations, possibly averages, less thfr
number of FLs for which there are observations.
As in the estimation analysis discussed above, results for this error analysis were averaged
over sites so that the two analyses would be consistent Because there is not much replication,
this should not substantially affect the error estimates.
The degrees of freedom for laboratory error in Tables 5.10a-5.10c is the number of^
observations that are replicates less the number of sites for which there are replicates. Here
degrees of freedom refers to both detects and nondetects. The quantity D is the number of
true detects among the observation averages, which were used to compute the estimates and
confidence bounds in Tables 5.1-5.8. Both degrees of freedom shov/ that the standard-
deviation estimates are based on data that are combined over FLs (to increase precisions-
Standard deviations of the estimates of standard deviations are also given in the Proc Lifereg*
output
For a number of horizons and analyses, the spatial standard deviation is missing (.), whidfe£
indicates that the best estimate is actually zero. In particular, this happens when there is a
relatively small overall standard deviation (of composites) and relatively large laboratory -
standard deviation. It can be a consequence of the noise inherent in these small-sample-size
standard deviations or of anomalous discrepancies between field duplicates, as in Fig. 5.1. It"
may also be due to bias in the laboratory and spatial standard deviations, a consequence of
imperfect replication: in addition to laboratory error, field duplicates reflect small-scale spatial.-
variability, and both duplicates and splits reflect variability due to granularity of subsamples^r
These additional sources of variation may cause the laboratory standard deviations to be*
upwardly biased, which can in turn lead, via equation (5.1), to negative estimates of the spatial
standard deviation.
The standard deviation estimates might be improved by basing the laboratory standard:
deviations solely on field splits rather than on both splits and duplicates. Then, however, the-
statistical imprecision would increase because of smaller sample sizes (i.e., df for the-
laboratory standard deviation). The standard deviation would most likely be improved with
additional data based on standards (e.g., NIST-traceable) or replicates from homogeneous
samples (with negligible granularity). This is also a good quality control procedure.
Means of untransformed observations do not depend on the degree of compositing, and
the same holds approximately for their logs. Thus, estimates of and confidence bounds for the
mean of BSCP composites-of-three are estimates and confidence bounds for other
-------
5-56
Table 5.10a. Standard deviation estimates for inorganics"


Number of


Std dev for

Std dev for

Spatial
Analysis
Horizoo
areas
N
Detect
composites
df
laboratory
df
std dev





(log of mgAcg)

(log of mg/kg)

(log of mg/kg
Aluminum
A
10
40
40
0.07200
30
0.05086
28
0.08827
Aluminum
B
10
40
40
0.07389
30
0.05086
28
0.09283
Aluminum
C
10
40
40
0.07602
30
0.05086
28
0.09785
Antimony
A
10
40
2
0.01716
30
0.00018
28
0.02972
Antimony*
B-
10
40
5
0.18080
30
0.00018
28
031315
Antimony
C
10
40
6
0.18723
30
0.00018
28
032429
Arsenic
A
10
39
39
0.15001
29
0.13435
28
0.11555
Arsenic
B
10
38
37
0.17662
28
0.13435
28
0.19856
Arsenic
C
10
39
37
0.24104
29
0.13435
28
034662
Barium
A
10
40
40
0.15906
30
0.07471
28
0.24323
Barium
B
10
40
40
0.09891
30
0D7471
28
0.11228
Barium
C
10
40
40
0.19613
30
0.07471
28
031410
Beryllium
A
10
40
37
0.12431
30
0.07061
28
0.17720
Beryllium
B
10
40
36
0.14932
30
0.07061
28
022788
Beryllium
C
10
40
37
0.13762
30
0.07061
28
0.20458
Boron
A
10
34
7
0.25692
24
0.17883
27
031949
Boron
B
10
36
8
0.26000
26
0.17883
27
032688
Boron
C
10
35
10
0.20537
25
0.17883
27
0.17488
Calcium
A
10
35
35
0.20090
25
0.04110
25
034061
Calcium
B
10
34
34
0.21585
24
0.04110
25
036703
("fllriiitn
C
10
34
34
0.24230
24
0.04110
25
0.41360
Chromium
A
10
39
39
0.09722
29
0.09812
28

Chromium
B
10
39
39
0.10045
29
0D9812
28
0.03720
Chromium.
C
10
40
40
0.10780
30
0.09812
28
0.07731
Cobalt
A
10
40
39
0.17417
30
0.14833
28
0.15811
Cobalt
B
10
40
33
0.26813
30
0.14833
28
038687
Cobalt
C
10
40
33
039403
30
0.14833
28
0.63228
Copper
A
10
40
36
0.14634
30
0.08647
28
0.20448
Copper
B
10
39
38
0.12734
29
0.08647
28
0.16190
Copper
C
10
40
39
0.13172
30
0.08647
28
0.17209
Cyanide
A
10
37
6
0.41034
27
0.65423
22"

Cyanide.
B<
10
38 -
3
0.44352
28
0-65423
22

Cyanide
C
10
37
2
0.52389
27
0£5423
22
.
Iron
A
10
40
40
0.09175
30
0.09009
28
0.03010
Iron
B
10
40
40
0.07428
30
OD9009
28
.
Iron
C
10
40
40
0.06003
30
0.09009
28
.
Lead
A
10
38
38
0.19194
28
0.15899
27
0.18625
Lead
B
10
39
39
0.19485
29
0.15899
27
0.19508
Lead .
C •:
10
39
39
0.25300
29
0.15899
27
034088
Lithium
A
10
36
29
0.15474
26
0.09431
27
0.21248
Lithium
B
10
37
36
0.15403
27
0.09431
27
0.21093
Lithium
C
10
37
34
0.16763
27
0.09431
27
0.24002
Magnesium
A
10
40
40
0.11218
30
0.05647
28
0.16789
Magnesium
B
10
40
40
0.09429
30
0.05647
28
0.13078
Magnesium
C
10
40
40
0.10823
30
0.05647
28
0.15992
Manganese
A
10
40
40
0.19166
30
0.14480
28
0.21748
Manganese
B
10
40
40
033699
30
0.14480
28
032705
Manganese
C
10
40
40
0.42776
30
0.14480
28
0.69717
Mercury
A
10
40
32
0.09395
30
0.06908
28
0.11029
Mercury
B
10
40
21
0.08383
30
0.06908
28
0.08226
Mercury
C
10
40
24
0.10199
30
0.06908
28
0.12996
Molybdenum
A
10
37
2
0.13156
27
0D7594
Z7
0.18608
Molybdenum
B
10
37
12
0.18852
27
0.07594
27
-------
5-57
Table 5.10a (continaed)
Analysis
Horizon
Number of
areas
N
Detect
Std dev for
composites
(log of mg/kg)
df
Std dev for
laboratory
(log of mg/kg)
df
Spatial
std dev
(log of mg/kg)
Molybdenum
C
10
37
13
0.14134
27
0.07594
27
020647
Nickel
A
10
40
32
0.13026
30
0.07374
28
0.18598
Nickel
B
10
40
35
0.13349
30
0.07374
28
0.19273
Nickel
C
10
40
38
0.15103
30
0.07374
28
022828
Potassium
A
10
39
35
0.12090
29
0.07729
26
0.1610r
Potassium
B
10
39
39
0.10031
29
0.07729
26
0.11074
Potassium
C
10
39
39
0.09202
29
0.07729
26
0.08650
Selenium
A
10
38
28
0.14337
28
0.16249
22
.
Selenium
B
10
39
28
0.10935
29
0.16249
22

Selenium
C
10
39
26
0.14860
29
0.16249
22

Silicon
A
10
32
32
0.06008
22
0.05260
27
0.05029
Silicon
B
10
32
32
0.07088
22
0.05260
27
0.08228
Silicon
C
10
32
32
0.08176
22
0.05260
27
0.10841
Sodium
A
7
25
23
0.03937
18
0.02680
19
0.04996
Sodium
B
7
25
24
0.04408
18
0.02680
19
0.06061
Sodium
C
7
25
24
0.05022
18
0.02680
19
0.07357
Strontium
A
10
36
34
0.19646
26
0.09055
27
030197
Strontium
B
10
37
34
0.23779
27
0.09055
27
038084
Strontium
C
10
37
31
027897
27
0.09055
27
0.45703
Sulfate
A
10
39
39
0.20390
29
0.15394
28
023159
Sulfate
B
10
40
40
020194
30
0.15394
28
022638
Sulfate
C
10
40
36
0.26151
30
0.15394
28
036616
Thallium
A
10
38
3
0.49763
28
0.49717
22
0.03688
Thallium
B
10
38
5
023344
28
0.49717
22

Thallium
C
10
38
9
0.19571
28
0.49717
22

Vanadium
A
10
40
40
0.08288
30
0.08567
28

Vanadium
B
10
39
39
0.07638
29
0.08567
28

Vanadium
C
10
40
40
0.06723
30
0.08567
28

Zinc
A
10
40
40
0.12926
30
0.06856
28
0.18979
Zinc
B
10
40
40
0.15942
30
0.06856
28
024928
Zinc
C
10
40
39
0.17288
30
0.06856
28
027488
"All results arc for base-tea log concentrations. N = number of sites having observations. The degrees of freedom (df) for
"3d dev for composites" is the number of observations, possibly averages, less the number of areas for which there are
observations. The degrees of freedom for "std dev for laboratory" is the number of observations thai are replicates less the
number of sites for 'which there are replicates. See tea for descriptions of the standard deviations.
A	.
For a general composite of k' an estimate V' of its variance V' can be computed using
Table 5.10 and equation (5.1). These estimates can be used in planning future surveys. If the
laboratory variance L changes, new estimates can be substituted for the laboratory standard
deviation estimates in Table 5.10.
For example, let y. denote the mean on the log scale of an analyte constituent in some
area. On^the log scale, with an estimate £ of /t, a percentile estimate can be computed as
£ + A(V')1/2, where A is a percentile of the normal distribution (e.g., A = 1.64 for the 95th
percentile). To obtain a tolerance bound (i.e., confidence bound for the percentile), there is
a need to estimate the standard error of this percentile estimate. The following two
paragraphs present a sketch of how this can be done. Tolerance bounds can then ber
computed from the standard errors in the usual (normal theory) way. Estimates and tolerance
-------
5-58
Table 5.10b. Standard deviation estimates for PAHs"
(All results for A horizon are nonannposites.)
Analysis
Number of
areas
N
Detect
Std dev
(tog of
d£/lce)
df
Laboratory
std dev (log
of Mg/kg)
df
Spatial std dev'
(log Of Mg/kg)
Acenaphtheoe
10
69
20
034213
59
0.12120
3
031995
Arroaphthyie&e
10
103
6
0.87895
93
0.00223
4
0.87895
Anthracene
10
86
39
038305
76
0L24522
4
029428

	10
94-
-70-
0.27652
84
039868
3
.
Benzo{a]pyreae
10
106
69
0.24590
96
0.05568
4
0.23951
Benzo{l>]fluorantbeoe
10
94
53
0.25815
84
0.77358
4

Beazo(gfti]peryleae
10
88
53
0.24457
78
0.08351
3
0.22987
Benzoffcjfluaranthene
10
103
62
0.23387
93
0.21286
4
0.09688
Chrysene
10
67
23
0.27935
57
0.00000
2
027935
Dibenzo{aA]anihraceoe
9
67
27
034946
58
0.72932
3
.
Fluorantbeae
9
68
58
032783
59
0.23984
2
022349
Fluoreae
10
77
26
0.42111
67
0.04101
3
0.41911
Indeno(ir^3-c,
-------
Tabic 5.10c. Standard deviation estimates for radionuclides"
,	Sid dev for •	Std dev for	Spatial std
Analysis	Horizon Um er0 N D composites df laboratory df dev (log of
arC3S	(log of pCI/g)	(log of pCi/g)	pCi/g)
Alpha
Neptunlum-237
A
8
29
26
0.15728
21
0.13623
12
0.13612
PlutonIum-238
A
10
38
16
0.19954
28
0.39234
16

Plutonium-239/240
A
10
38
10
0.51850
28
0.58490
15
.
Radium-226
A
10
40
39
0.22688
30
0.19687
28
0.19529
Radlum-226
B
10
40
39
0.16870
30
0.19687
28
.
Radlum-226
C
10
40
40
0.16180
30
0.19687
28
.
Thorlum-228
A
10
40
39
0.21591
30
0.08428
28
0.34430
Thorlum-228
B
10
40
40
0.19299
30
0.08428
28
0.30070
Thorlum-228
C
10
40
39
0.23313
30
0.08428
28
0.37647
Thorium-230
A
10
40
40
0.11044
30
0.10342
28
0.06711
Thorium-230
B
10
40
39
0.15119
30
0.10342
28
0.19101
Thorium-230
C
10
40
40
0.15336
30
0.10342
28
0.19613
Thorium-232
A
10
40
40
0.09172
30
0.09469
28
.
Thorium-232
B
10
40
40
0.14587
30
0.09469
28
0.19219
Thorium-232
C
10
40
40
0.19136
30
0.09469
28
0.28803
Total uranium
A
10
38
37
0.33747
28
0.32526
15
0.15580
Uranlum-233/234
A
10
40
40
0.11548
30
0.06742
27
0.16239
Uranium-233/234
B
10
39
39
0.13642
29
0.06742
27
0.20541
Uranium-233/234
C
10
40
40
0.11070
30
0.06742
27
0.15208
Uranium-235
A
10
40
33
0.19423
30
0.27946
27
.
Uranium-235
B
10
39
32
0.41693
29
0.27946
27
0.53589
Uranium-235
C
10
40
31
0.37560
30
0.27946
27
0.43466
Uranium-236
A
10
40
3
0.24580
30
0.30884
27

Uranium-236
B
10
39
1
1.02053
29
0.30884
27
1.68473
Uranium-236
C
10
40
1
0.17440
30
0.30884
27
-------
Table 5.10c (continued)
Number of	dev ^or	dev "t)r	Spatial std
Analysis	Horizon	N D composites df laboratory df dev (log of
are3S	(log of pCi/g)	(log of pCi/g)	pCI/g)
Uranlum-238
A
10
40
40
0.06817
30
0.06118
27
0.05208
Uranlum-238
B
10
39
39
0.11781
29
0.06118
27
0.17438
Uranium-238
C
10
40
40
Beta
0.11134
30
0.06118
27
0.16113
Strontlum-90
A
10
36
2
0.12755
26
0.47729
16

Technetium^
A
10
46
10
0.25012
36
1.00549
4

Thorlum-234
A
10
34
20
0.09083
24
0.23733
25

Thorlum-234
B
10
34
20
0.23650
24
0.23733
25

Thorium-234
C
10
34
18
Oamma
0.21492
24
0.23733
25

Ceslum-137
A
10
40
38
0.52601
30
0.53234
28
.
Cesium-137
B
10
39
16
0.83589
29
0.53234
28
1.11625
Ceslum-137
C
10
39
5
1.37535
29
0.53234
28
2.19649
Curlum-247
A
10
36
2
0.08058
26
0.00558
15
0.13924
Potasslum-40
A
10
40
40
0.11814
30
0.07937
25
0.15156
Potassium-40
B
10
36
36
0.17712
26
0.07937
25
0.27426
Potassium-40
C
10
36
36
0.17937
26
0.07937
25
0.27862
Uranlum-235
A
10
39
16
0.11140
29
0.10418
28
0.06831
Uranlum-235
B
10
39
15
0.19108
29
0.10418
28
0.27744
Uranium-235
C
10
40
18
0.15724
30
0.10418
28
0.20398
Uranlum-238
C
6
24
1
Tritium
1.00470
18
0.00096
19
1.74018
Tritium*
A
8
50
15
0.32199
42
0.29663
7
0.12524
"All results arc for base-ten log concentrations. N - number of sites having observations. The degrees of freedom (df) for "std dev for composites" Is the number of
observations, possibly averages, less the number of areas for which there are observations. The degrees of freedom for "std dev for laboratory" Is the number of
observations that are replicates less the number of sites for which there are replicates. See text for descriptions of the standard deviation.
-------
5-61
per field sample and A is the cost per sample sent to the laboratory. [Using Lagrange
multipliers, minimize (L + S/k)/N subject to NA + NkF = C, where N is the number of
laboratory samples and C is the fixed total cost.] Note that A includes the costs of data entry,
verification, and validation.
In 1992, costs to the BSCP for laboratory analysis, data entry, and validation were about
4.5 times the cost of field sampling. Because field samples were composited, this implies that
A/F > 4.5, and thus (AIF)m > 2.1. Thus, the optimal k exceeds 2.1R. From Tables 5.10a and
5.10ervalues-ef-R-(which- are biased down) are in the^vicinity of 2-3:5 for arsenic, beryllium,
and lead, 4 for thorium-228,0.5-4_5 for total uranium, 0.6-2.6 for uranium-235 (gamma), and
60 for thorium. For these analytes, the optimal k is at least 1, and often greater than 4.
Although it is difficult to quantify the cost of statistical variability, compositing translates to
direct savings to the project
5.11 NAA DATA
The primary purpose of analyzing BSCP samples by NAA was to investigate the
relationship between NAA and corresponding AA/ICP, alpha, beta, and gamma results. The
NAA results serve, secondarily, as background data in their own right The statistical analysis
of the NAA data is the same as for the other methods, but, in addition, the relationship of
NAA and corresponding results through (1) graphics, (2) correlation, and (3) regression is
considered.
Summary statistics for NAA data are given in Table G.l. The relationship between NAA
and corresponding results was investigated graphically using data plots, such as Fig. 5.7 and
Fig. 5.8.
Correlations between NAA and corresponding other BSCP data are not straightforward,
because there can be nondetects in either the NAA or corresponding data. For each
relationship, a correlation statistic was computed that is a simple analog of the Kendall's tau
statistic (Lehmann 1975, p. 316). This statistic, also called the "coefficient of concordance,"
is computed by examining all possible pairs of ordered pairs (x,y) of data. Here x refers to an
NAA result and y to the corresponding result from AA/ICP, alpha. A pair of pairs, (Xj, yx)
and (x^ y^ are said to be concordant if either Xj < x2 and yx < y^ or else Xj > x2 and yx >
y2- They are said to be discordant if either Xj < x2 and y! > y^ or else xl > x2 and y, < y^
(Various modifications have been considered for ties—that is, when either x, = x2 or y1 = y^)
Kendall's tau is the ratio of "score" to "possible," where "score" is the number of concordant-
pairs less the number of discordant pairs, and "possible" is the total number of pairs
compared. Kendall's tau is one in the case of perfect concordance, minus one in the case of
perfect discordance, and otherwise between minus one and one.
Modifying Kendall's tau to accommodate nondetects is straightforward: for certain pairs,
because of either censoring or ties, concordancy or discordancy is indeterminate. Those pairs
are excluded from the total possible considered and the correlation statistic is computed on
the basis of determinate pairs only. These correlation statistics are given in Tables 5.11a and
5.11b.
Unfortunately, computing significance levels for these correlations is not straightforward,
-------
5-62
Table 5.11a. Correlation statistics for radionuclides"
(NAA with alpha or gamma)
Analysis
N
Score
Possible
Corr
Potassium-40
89
2961
3901
0.76
Tborium-232
102
2S(
5100
0.50
Uranium-235
100
\4h-
4462
033
Uranium-238
97
2141
4608
0.46
'Oct text for ddmiiiunrpf "suae" and "potsttjft.*"
Table 5.11b. Correlation statistics for metals"
	 (NAA with AA/ICP)
Analysis
N
Score
Possible
Corr
Aluminum
101
3180
5018
0.63
Antimony
99
-362
554
-0.65
Arsenic
95
2524
4436
0.57
Barium
102
1890
5138
037
Chromium
100
2608
4934
053
Cobalt
102
3643
4817
0.76
Iron
102
3792
5136
0.74
Magnesium
101
2933
4977
059
Manganese
102
3877
5139
0.75
Potassium
95
3461
4425
0.78
Sodium
78
1174
2946
0.40
Vanadium
100
2457
4937
0.50
Zinc
71
1769
2417
0.73
"See teal for definitions of "score" and "possible."
Ideally, the most straigh: rward way to compare NAA and corresponding results would
be by regression of the corresp ending results on the NAA. Again, this process is complicated
by the nondetects: The lognormal-model SAS Lifereg procedure can accommodate censoring
in dependent variables but not in independent variables. Fortunately, most of the NAA
analytes having corresponding results for AA/ICP have either no censoring or very little. In
those cases, regressions are appropriate. Regression results are summarized in Tables 5.12a
and 5.12b.
For example, the intercept and slope for the uranium-235 regression of the log alpha
results on the log NAA results has intercept 1.03 + 0.48 and slope 1.75 + 0.39. In theory
these values should be 0 and 1. By contrast, the intercept and slope for the uranium-238
-------
5-63
Comparison of NAA and AA/ICP Results
Analysis=Potassium
30000
20000
OD
E
3
CO
V
t-
<
<
2
10000
0
*
*
**
*•
*
*
Jfc	* *
* * *
* *
* *
*
**
** .*
* * Jf
**
**
r
N
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
AA/ICP result (mg/kg)
6000
codes: * * * both detects
N N N NAA-nondetect
III AA/ICP-nondetect
+ + + both nondetects
-------
5-64
Comparison of NAA and Gamma Radionuclide Results
Analysis=POT ASSIUM-40
30
0

*
*
**
* *
*
¦ *
* *
*
** v
*v
*
*
**
*

* * *
** *
****
*%
****

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Gamma result (pci/g)
codes: * * * both detects R R R gamma-nondetect
N N N NAA-nondetect + + + both nondetects
-------
5-65
Table 5.12a. Regression statistics for radionulides"
(NAA with alpha or gamma)
Analysis	Intercept Std Err Slope Std Err
Potassium-40
0387
0.057
0.662
0.061
Tborium-232
-0.004
0.016
0.711
0.100
Uranium-235
1.031
0.479
1.754
0391
Uranium-238
-0.152
0.057
1.108
0312
"Intercepts and their standard errors are in picocuries per gram.
Slopes and their standard errors are unitkss.
Table 5.12b. Regression statistics for metals1
	(NAA with AA/ICP)	
Analysis	Intercept Std Err Slope Std Err
Aluminum
3.285
0.146
0.214
0.031
Antimony
-1.459
0.435
-0.928
0.634
Arsenic
0.216
0.078
0.811
0.068
Barium
1372
0.100
0.153
0.038
Chromium
0.226
0.123
0.701
0.070
Cobalt
-0390
0.072
1275
0.067
Iron
0.673
0.213
0.848
0.047
Magnesium
1310
0222
0.486
0.062
Manganese
1399
0.154
0.480
0.060
Potassium
-0353
0.219
0.866
0.055
Sodium
2383
0.034
0.071
0.013
Vanadium
1.454
0.056
0.109
0.030
Zinc
0.041
0.108
0.880
0.053
"Intercepts and their standard errors are in picocuries per gram.
Slopes and Lheir standard eiiuis are uniliess.
5.12	ICP/MS DATA
Analysis of the ICP/MS data parallels the NAA analysis, except that it is for metals only.
Summary statistics of ICP/MS data are presented in Table GJ2. Correlation statistics of
ICP/MS with AA/ICP appear in Table 5.13 and regression statistics in Table 5.14.
5.13	ADDITIONAL REMARKS
Many of the results need further consideration, particularly the large discrepancies
-------
5-66
severely high detection limits for some of the radionuclides. In contrast to the inorganics, the
duplicate and original results for the organics are very close. Perhaps the designation "U" for
nondetect has been applied too conservatively for the organics. In this background study, the
use of unnecessarily high detection limits is not conservative because it tends to obscure how
low background values actually may be.
Statistics presented in this section may be biased upwards (too high) because of the
assignment of validation codes on the basis of detect-nondetect status. Again, because this is
a background study, upward bias is nonconservative.
Because many analytes do differ significantly by EL and by horizon, many that do not
probably would if sample sizes were larger or statistical variability were smaller. In cases
where no significant difference was found, confidence limits for the true differences, or
minimum detectable differences should be considered. In many cases the minimum detectable
differences may themselves be of practical importance. This would indicate a need for further
sampling (or more powerful statistical methods).
Held duplicates can be analyzed to assess small-scale spatial variability. This was not
considered in the BSCP Plan, and has not been pursued here. Some of the BSCP data are
field splits. The splits cannot be used to assess small-scale variability, but they provide a much
better assessment of laboratory error than field duplicates, for the very reason that splits do
not differ because of small-scale spatial differences. As indicated in Sects. 52, and 5.10, the
estimation of laboratory variability is crucial here. In providing an assessment of laboratory
error, field splits also offer a method of validation that depends only on the simple statistical
comparisons of results and not on expensive and time-consuming reviews of paperwork.
Some of the analyses are inherently noisy. This is seen in the wide departure of the
confidence bounds from their corresponding median or percentile estimates. In certain cases
risk arguments may demonstrate that the results are adequate (or more than adequate)
despite the noise. In other cases the noise problem might be approached by pooling results,
for example over formations within groups (as in Table G.l), if such pooling can be justified.
The noise might also be mitigated by some method of statistical analysis that is more
complicated than the lognormal model used here (e.g., a multivariate analysis using vectors
of measurements over horizons). It is likely, however, that in many cases the only viable way
to reduce the noise, which is an unavoidable consequence of the survey's limited sample sizes,
-------
5-67
Table 5.13. Correlation statistics for metals*
	(ICP/MS with AA/ICP)
Analyse
N
Score
Possible
Corr
Aluminum
99
3307
4813
0.69
Arsenic
95
2932
4412
0.66
Barium
99
3928
4840
0.81
Beryllium
99
2871
4011
0.72
Chromium
97
2890
4634
0.62
Cobalt
99
3522
4514
0.78
Copper
99
3672
4676
0.79
Lead
96
3014
4536
0.66
Manganese
99
3892
4840
0.80
Nickel
99
3666
4516
0.81
Selenium
36
79
311
0.25
Thallium
90
135
417
032
Zinc
99
3765
4759
0.79
'See Seta. 5.11 for definitions of "score" and "possible."
Table 5.14. Regression statistics for metals*
	 (ICP/MS with AA/ICP)
Analysis
Intercept
Std Err
Slope
Std Err
Aluminum
0.908
0.179
0.792
0.042
Antimony
0.179
1.260
1.946
2.024
Arsenic
0.295
0.058
0.859
0.057
Barium
0307
0.053
0.842
0.030
Beryllium
0.028
0.013
0.656
0.038
Cadmium
-0.422
0.591
0.496
0.911
Chromium
0.119
0.083
0.911
0.056
Cobalt
-0.074
0.052
1.029
0.049
Copper
0.011
0.042
0.974
0.034
Lead
0.040
0.096
0.945
0.072
Manganese
0.232
0.096
0.920
0.037
Nickel
0.142
0.047
0.901
0.040
Selenium
-0.217
0.068
0340
0205
Thallium
-0.114
0.250
0.891
0.451
Zinc
0.294
0.051
0.880
0.030
Intercepts and their standard errors are in milligrams per kilogram. Slopes and
-------
6-1
6. DATA INTERPRETATION
6.1 SUMMARY
This section fulfills the need for technical evaluation of the project data so as to
maximize usefulness for other Environmental Restoration projects and field investigations.
Chemical compounds, minerals, elements, arid radionucIides~Trf soils can have several
sources. Current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) extraction procedures remove
differing amounts of various soil constituents. The location of the soil in the landscape can
also affect the data. Interpretation of these data, then, must be done very carefully. Please
review the user guidelines in Sect 2.4 for precautions regarding data usage.
Screening of sites on the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) by a hand-held radiation
detector, plus gamma screening and analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) for all
sites, did not reveal any gross contamination. Most of the ORR sites, along with Roane
County and Anderson County sites, had some detects for other organic contaminants,
particularly polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Sampling of A horizons of soils with
analysis by current volatile organic analysis (VOA) and organics analytical techniques can be
used elsewhere on the ORR without restriction as to site properties or soil conditions. The
screening data indicate that any VOC detects in suspected contaminated sites should be taken
as a sign of contamination. Some VOCs (at very low levels) may be due to soil microbial
respiration, but most VOCs reported in this study are suspected to be due to instrument
contamination in the laboratory.
Inorganic compounds in soils present a much more complex situation regarding
interpretation- Some inorganics are definitely inherited from the underlying geologic
formations. Others have both an anthropogenic source from either global fallout or from local
and regional sources and a geologic source. For example, lead and arsenic can have both
geologic and anthropogenic sources, while nearly all mercury can be considered a surface
anthropogenic contaminant because of elevated levels in the A horizon. Several metallic
elements, including Cd, Os, and Ag, were not detected in any BSCP soil samples. The
presence of any of these in the A horizon at higher levels than in the B or C horizon beneath
could be considered an indicator of possible contamination. Some small amounts of these
elements may be inherited from the rock beneath.
Higher concentrations of inorganic compounds or metals in the A horizon than the B or
C horizons or in the on-site than off-site locations are an indicator of anthropogenic
contamination of the ORR soils and false background levels. An exception to this statement
may be biocycled elements that are used by plants and become concentrated in the A horizon.
In general, anthropogenic metals (heavy metals) were not detected in the A horizon, or their
levels were not significantly different than in off-site areas, or their levels were not
significantly higher than in B and C horizons. See Table 6.1a for valid inorganic data to use
for comparison purposes.
Selected metals were analyzed by the current EPA-mandated atomic absorption (AA)
-------
6-2
I CP/mass spectroscopy (I CP/MS). The ICP/MS analytical method exhibited lower instrumental
detection limits than the AA and ICP sweep (AA/ICP). Correlations between ICP/MS and
AA/ICP were fairly consistent for all metals, except for thallium and selenium, suggesting that,
analytical methods did not bias the results as long as the soil sample was extracted by the
same procedure.
The neutron activation analysis (NAA) method is a whole soil analytical technique in
contrast to the AA/ICP and ICP/MS analytical techniques, where an acid extract of the soil
is analyzed.-The levels measured by AA/ICP methods were not different from those from
NAA when the compounds were very acid soluble or were on soil clay or organic matter
exchange sites. NAA levels were higher than AA/ICP when the elements are part of the soil
mineral or were more resistant to dissolution.
Many radionuclides have two primary sources: the underlying geology plus both global
and regional anthropogenic sources. However, a third possible source of certain radionuclides
(^Cm, 3H, "Tc, 137Cs, and ^r) on the ORR cannot be ignored, although part of the tritium
may be from naturally occurring sources. The presence on the ORR of these isotopes above
background can be interpreted as a sign of local contamination. Uranium isotopes can have
a local source as well as a geologic source. Some important radionuclides, such as thorium
isotopes and 40K, have a total geologic source. Concentrations of these local source
radionuclides above background levels should be taken as indications of potential
contamination from local sources. See-Table 6.1b for valid radionuclide data to use for
comparisons-
Several trace and rare earth elements that were analyzed are not important in risk
assessment, but they can be important in geochemistry investigations and in tracing sediments
to their source geologic formation. Cerium, europium, and terbium had higher concentrations
in the Chickamauga Group than in the Conasauga or Knox Group. Several trace elements
were highly depleted in the Knox Group. These included Hf, La, La, and Sc. Titanium and
ytterbium were fairly evenly distributed across all geologic groups.
Some PAHs were, generally uniformly distributed across most sites or else were randomly
distributed throughout all the sampling sites. The presence of PAHs, then, is considered as
background for purposes of data comparison with contaminated sites. Values of PAHs can
be obtained from Sect. 5 for geologic formations of interest. In addition, see Table 6.1c for
valid PAH data to use for comparisons. Some PAHs may have a soil origin, but with the
presence of the Rockwood Coking operation and two TV A coal-fired steam generating power
plants, most PAHs probably are from these sources.
In summary, none of the ORR sites exhibited any indication of disturbance in the past
— 50 years. For this reason, the data presented in this report can be considered "background"
level and used as a basis of comparison with similar areas on the ORR where contamination
is known or suspected. A qualitative assessment of each sampling site is presented in
Sects. 3.9,3.10, and 3.11 for the ORR, Roane County, and Anderson County sampling areas,
-------
6-3
Table 6.1a. Summary statistics for inorganics on the ORR by group
(Estimates and confidence bounds are is milligrams per kilogram.)
Horizon Group	N I D Median UCB95 X95 LTB9595
Aluminum
A
Conasauga
8
0
8
2U00
23500
27800
24800
A
Chickanauga
8
0
8
16500
18100
21400
19200
A
Knox
8
0
8
9430
10300
12200
10900
-B
—Conasauga
8
0
8
32900
36000
42700
38200
B
Chickanauga
8
0
8
32100
35200
41700
37300
B
Knox
8
0
8
17700
19400
23000
20600
C
Conasauga
8
0
8
38500
41500
47800
43600
C
Chickanauga
8
0
8
33800
36500
42000
38300
C
Knox
8
0
8
17700
19200
22000
20100




Antimony



A
Conasauga
8
0
1
0.0846
0.684
0.486
0.158
A
REMAINDER
16
0
0

.
.

B
Conasauga
8
0
4
0.2750
0.582
1.550
0.535
B
REMAINDER
16
0
0

.


C
Conasauga
8
0
4
0.3000
0.541
1.210
0.545
C
Chickanauga
8
0
1
0.1490
0.421
0.601
0.265
C
REMAINDER
8
0
0
•
•
•
•




Arsenic



A
Conasauga
7
0
7
6.21
8.03
12.3
9.03
A
Chickanauga
8
0
8
6.90
8.78
13.6
10.20
A
Knox
8
0
8
16.50
20.90
32.5
24.30
B
Conasauga
7
0
7
7.18
9.20
13.8
10.30
B
Chickanauga
8
0
8
7.23
9.11
13.9
10.50
B
Knox
7
0
7
28.60
36.60
55.1
40.90
C
Conasauga
8
0
7
9.08
13.30
26.5
16.70
C
Chickanauga
8
0
8
6.51
9.50
19.0
11.90
c
Knox
7
0
7
45.00
67.50
131.0
80.90




Barium



A
Conasauga
8
0
8
86.4
104.0
145.0
116.0
A
Chickanauga
8
0
8
78.1
93.8
131.0
105.0
A
Knox
8
0
8
62.0
74.5
104.0
83.5
B
Conasauga
8
0
8
91.3
102.0
126.0
110.0
B
Chickanauga
8
0
8
100.0
113.0
139.0
121.0
B
Knox
8
0
8
37.6
42.2
52.1
45.4
C
Conasauga
8
0
8
93.8
129.0
231.0
157.0
C
Chickanauga
8
0
8
107.0
147.0
264.0
180.0
c
Knox
8
0
8
17.5
24.0
43.0
29.3




Beryllium



A
Conasauga
8
0
8
0.783
0.911
1.200
0.997
A
Chickanauga
8
0
8
0.964
1.120
1.480
1.230
A
Knox
8
0
5
0.437
0.521
0.670
0.550
B
Conasauga
8
0
8
0.854
1.010
1.370
1.120
B
Chickanauga
8
0
8
1.440
1.700
2.310
1.880
B
Knox
8
0
5
0.528
0.644
0.B47
0.679
C
Conasauga
8
0
8
1.090
1.270
1.670
1.390
C
Chickamauga
8
0
8
1.640
1.910
2.520
2.100
C
Knox
8
0
5
0.662
0.792
1.020
-------
6-4
Table 6.1a (continued)
Horizon Group	N I D Median UCB95 X95 LTB9595
Bono
A
Conasauga
7
1
1
8.26
12.90
17.90
11.30
A
Knox
8
1
0
2.12
4.27
4.58
2.45
A
REMAINDER
6
0
0

m

.
B
Conasauga
8
1
3 10.10
19.30
45.70
19.40
B
Knox-
8
0
1
1.80
_5.35
. 80P •
3.45
B
REMINDER
6
0
0

m


C
Conasauga
8
0
4 12.20
21.70
49.20
23.10
c
Knox
8
1
1
2.57
5.64
10.40
4.96
c
REMAINDER
6
0
0
¦
•
•
•




Cadmium



A
REMAINDER
24
0
0




B
REMAINDER
24
0
0
m



C
REMAINDER
24
0
0
•
•
•
•




Calcium




A
Conasauga
s
0
5
983
1330
1930
1370
A
Chickaoauga
8
0
8
1590
2020
3130
2330
A
Knox
8
0
8
473
601
930
693
B
Conasauga
5
0
5
813
1180
1880
1220
B
Chickanauga
8
0
8
1620
2180
3750
2600
B
Knox
8
0
8
388
522
896
623
C
Conasauga
6
0
6
999
1560
2960
1760
C
Chickaaauga
8
0
8
2360
3470
6990
4360
c
Knox
7
0
7
214
322
633
386




Chromium



A
Conasauga
7
0
7
26.0
30.2
38.7
32.3
A
Chickaaauga
8
0
8
33.2
38.2
49.5
41.6
A
Knox
8
1
7
15.0
17.3
22.3
18.8
B
Conasauga
7
0
7
37.3
41.3
48.9
43.3
B
Chickaoauga
8
0
8
34.2
37.6
44.7
39.9
B
Knox
8
0
8
29.5
32.5
38.6
34.4
C
Conasauga
8
0
8
50.0
56.3
69.8
60.6
C
Chickaaauga
8
0
8
31.1
35.0
43.5
37.7
C
Knox
8
0
8
27.9
31.4
39.0
33.8




Cobalt




A
Conasauga
8
0
8
14.50
17.30
24.10
19.'
A
Chickaoauga
8
0
8
19.00
22.70
31.60
25.
A
Knox
8
0
8
9.45
11.30
15.70
12.i
B
Conasauga
8
0
8
10.90
14.90
26.20
17.
B
Chickaoauga
8
0
8
13.10
17.80
31.20
21.
B
Knox
8
1
2
2.03
3.01
4.85
3.
C
Conasauga
8
0
8
13.20
22.80
62.10
31.
C
Chickaaauga
8
0
8
18.10
31.30
85.30
42.
c
Knox
8
0
4
3.38
6.17
15.90
-------
6-5
Table 6.1a (contiased)
Horizon Group	N I D Median UCB95 X95 LTB9595




Copper




A
Conasauga
8
0
8
13.7
16.20
21.80
17.80
A
Chickamauga
8
0
8
13.6
16.00
21.60
17.70
A
Knox
8
1
4
5.0
6.04
7.95
6.42
B
Conasauga
7
0
7
19.8
22.70
28.40
24.10
B
Chiekaowjga_
8
0
8
20.6
23.30
29.40
25.20
B
Knox
8
0
8
17.7
20.00
25.30
21.70
C
Conasauga
8
0
8
26.7
30.80
39.90
33.60
C
Chickaneuga
8
0
8
23.5
27.10
35.10
29.60
C
Knox
8
0
7
26.1
30.20
39.00
32.80




Cyanide




A
Conasauga
7
0
1 0.
.0123
1.020
0.440
0.0395
A
REMAINDER
14
0
0




B
Conasauga
8
0
2 0.
.0519
0.356
0.836
0.1270
B
REMAINDER
U
0
0




C
Conasauga
8
0
2 0.
!o462
0.410
1.080
0.1270
c
REMAINDER
13
0
0

•
•
•




Iron




A
Conasauga
8
0
8
28700
32300
40200
34800
A
Chickaoauga
8
0
8
33400
37600
46800
40500
A
Knox
8
0
8
13000
14700
18300
15800
B
Conasauga
8
0
8
39800
42800
49100
44900
B
Chickiwa^a
8
0
8
51900
55900
64100
58600
B
Knox
8
0
8
33100
35600
40800
37300
C
Conasauga
8
0
8
42300
45400
51500
47400
C
Chickaoauga
8
0
8
53200
57100
64800
59600
c
Knox .
8
0
8
37700
40400
45900
42200




Lead




A
Conasauga
7
0
7
19.1
25.6
41.5
29.2
A
Chickaoauga
7
0
7
33.3
44.6
72.4
50.9
A
Knox
8
0
8
26.2
34.5
57.0
40.8
B
Conasauga
7
0
7
11.8
15.2
23.0
17.0
B
Chickamauga
8
0
8
18.3
23.2
35.6
26.8
B
Knox
8
0
8
13.6
17.3
26.6
20.0
C
Conasauga
8
0
8
18.7
25.4
44.8
30.9
C
Chickaoauga
8
0
8
25.9
35.2
62.0
42.7
C
Knox
8
0
8
26.6
36.2
63.7
43.9




T ithhrm



A
Conasauga
7
0
7
12.90
16.30
23.80
17.80
A
Chickamauga
6
0
6
12.80
16.40
23.60
17.40
A
Knox
8
1
3
3.10
3.96
5.71
4.36
B
Conasauga
8
0
8
22.90
27.60
38.60
30.80
B
Chickaoauga
6
0
6
31.30
38.80
52.70
41.10
B
Knox
8
0
7
7.94
9.65
13.40
10.60
C
Conasauga
8
0
8
25.40
32.60
51.40
37.70
c
Chickaoauga
6
0
6
36.40
48.50
73.50
52.20
c
Knox
8
1
5
6.26
8.20
12.60
-------
6-6
Table 6.1a (continued)
Horizon Group	N I D Median UCB95 X95 LTB9595



Magnesium



A
Conasauga
8
0
8
2390
2780
3670
3060
A
Chietriwauga
8
0
8
1220
1430
1880
1570
A
Knox
8
0
8
413
481
635
529
B
Conasauga.
8
0
8
2990
3400
4320
3690
B
Chickaaauga
8
0
8
2320
2640
3350
2860
B
'Khbx
8"
"0
8
680
775
"983"
840
C
Conisiusi
8
0
8
3840
4510
6070
4990
C
Chick—man
8
0
8
2720
3200
4300
3540
C
Knox
8
0
8
576
677
910
749



Manganese



A
Conasauga
8
0
8
807
1020
1560
1180
A
Chickaaouga
8
0
8
1330
1680
2570
1940
A
Knox
8
0
8
992
1250
1920
1450
B
Conasauga
8
0
8
272
377
685
462
B
Chickaaauga
8
0
8
352
488
888
599
B
Knox
8
0
8
126
174
317
214
C
Conasauga
8
0
8
332
572
1540
802
C
Chickaaauga
8
0
8
500
860
2320
1210
C
Knox
8
0
8
138
237
641
333
Mercury
A
Conasauga
8
0
8
0.2420
0.3120
0.4960
0.3630
A
Chirtri—MQi
8
0
8
0.2810
0.3620
0.5770
0.4220
A
Knox
8
1
6
0.1360
0.1770
0.2800
0.2060
B
Conasauga -
8
0
2
0.1140
0.1370
0.168a
0.1390
B
Chickaaauga
8
0
3
0.0982
0.1160
0.145a
0.1210
B
Knox
8
0
7
0.1050
0.1210
0.1550
0.1280
C
Conasauga -
8
0
1
0.0573
0.0869
0.092S
0.0607
C
Chickaaauga
8
0
6
0.1140
0.1360
0.1850
0.1490
C
Knox
8
0
8
0.2000
0.2360
0.3220
0.2580



Motytxlrmim



A
Knox
8
0
1
1.33
1.94
2.00
1.38
A
REMAINDER
14
0
0
m
m

m
B
Conasauga
8
0
1
1.23
2.02
2.47
1.53
B
Chickaaauga
6
0
2
2.10
3.09
4.21
2.83
B
Knox
8
0
4
2.50
3.34
5.03
3.50
C
Knox
8
1
5
2.93
3.75
5.55
3.87
C
REMAINDER
14
0
0
•
•
•
-




Nictri



A
Conasauga
8
0
8
20.10
23.60
31.7
25.90
A
Chickaaauga
8
0
8
15.20
17.90
23.9
19.60
A
Knox
8
1
3
6.71
8.11
10.6
8.57
B
Conasauga
8
0
8
21.80
25.00
32.1
27.10
B
Chickaaauga
8
0
8
22.10
25.40
32.5
27.50
B
Knox
8
0
5
11.20
13.00
16.5
14.00
C
Conasauga
8
0
8
26.40
31.70
44.1
35.40
C
Chickaaauga
8
0
8
27.00
32.40
45.1
36.20
C
Knox
8
0
7
17.70
21.20
29.5
23.70




Osmium



A
REMAINDER
2
0
0




B
REMAINDER
3
0
0


9

-------
6-7
Table 6.1a (continued)
Horizon Group	N I D Median UCB95 X95 LTB9595
Potassium
A
Conasauga
8
0
8
2600
3040
4030
3320
A
Ch i ckanauga
8
0
8
1620
1890
2500
2060
A
Knox
8
0
4
301
358
465
385
B
Conasauga
8
0
8
3090
3670
5030
4090
B
Chickaoauga
8
0
8
3050
3620
4960
4030
T
Knox
8
"D~
sr
STT"""
" 963
' ' TOO' "
— lUflJ
C
Conasauga
8
0
8
3960
4650
6230
5140
C
Chickaoauga
8
0
8
3060
3600
4820
3970
C
Knox
8
0
8
983
1150
1550
1270
Sriotfiim
A
Conasauga
8
0
3
0.491
0.587
0.733
0.604
A
Chickaoauga
8
0
8
0.751
0.865
1.120
0.932
A
Knox
6
1
5
0.571
0.675
0.853
0.698
B
Conasauga
8
0
3
0.498
0.635
0.863
0.664
B
Chickaoauga
8
0
7
0.747
0.913
1.290
1.000
B
Knox
7
0
6
0.645
0.797
1.120
0.861
C
Conasauga
8
0
3
0.416
0.653
1.190
0.728
C
Chickaoauga
8
0
5
0.508
0.760
1.450
0.894
c
Knox
7
0
6
0.689
1.030
1.970
1.170
Silicon
A
Conasauga
8
0
8
352
413
555
454
A
Chickaoauga
6
0
6
591
712
933
747
A
Knox
5
0
5
558
685
881
695
B
Conasauga
8
0
8
349
411
556
452
B
Chickaoauga
6
0
6
701
849
1120
891
B
Knox
5
0
5
612
755
9 77
766
C
Conasauga
8
0
8
380
449
610
495
C
Chickaoauga
6
0
6
653
793
1050
833
C
Knox
5
0
5
595
736
956
747
Silver
A
REMAINDER
24
0
0
B
REMAINDER
24
0
0
C
REMAINDER
24
0
0
Snrfinm
A
Chickaoauga
8
0
8
409
428
466
439
A
Knox
8
0
7
338
355
386
363
B
Chickaoauga
8
0
8
435
456
495
467
B
Knox
8
0
8
337
353
384
362
C
Chickaoauga
8
0
8
428
451
496
464
C
Knox
8
0
8
344
362
398
372
Stmotium
A
Conasauga
7
0
7
5.780
7.960
13.50
9.090
A
Chickaoauga
6
0
6
9.090
12.900
21.20
14.000
A
Knox
8
0
6
2.840
3.880
6.64
4.590
B
Conasauga
8
0
8
6.440
9.240
17.90
11.300
B
Chickaoauga
6
0
6
11.300
17.100
31.20
19.000
B
Knox
8
0
5
2.190
3.230
6.06
3.890
C
Conasauga
8
0
8
6.830
10.500
22.80
13.000
C
Chickaoauga
6
0
6
12.900
21.200
43.20
23.400
C
Knox
8
0
2
0.331
0.577
1.11
-------
6-8
Table 6.1a (continued)
Horizon Group	N I D Median UCB95 X95 LTB9595
Sulfate
A
Conasauga
7
0
7 36.0
53.2
101.0
63.5
A
Chickaaauga
8
0
8 130.0
187.0
363.0
233.0
A
Knox
8
0
8 68.3
98.2
191.0
123.0
B
Conasauga
8
0
8 90.1
121.0
207.0
145.0
B
Chickaoauga
8
0
8 104.0
140.0
240.0
169.0
B~
" tnftx	
8
0
8 ~*5.5
6i n "
105.0"
"73.4
C
Conasauga
8
0
8 70.3
106.0
227.0
136.0
C
Chickaaauga
8
0
8 40.1
60.7
130.0
77.6
c
Knox
8
1
4 10.9
17.1
35.2
21.2




ThaHhim



A
Conasauga
8
0
1 0.0642
1.350
0.748
0.158
A
REMAINDER
14
0
0


.
B
Conasauga
8
0
3 0.3350
0.480
0.701
0.461
B
Knox
6
0
1 0.2500
0.441
0.523
0.324
B
REMAINDER
8
0
0


.
C
Conasauga
8
0
6 0.4580
0.563
0.804
0.594
C
ICnox
6
1
0 0.2650
0.410
0.466
0.308
C
REMAINDER
8
0
0
-
•
•




Vanadium



A
Conasauga
8
0
8 33.3
37.0
45.1
39.6
A
Chickaaauga
8
0
8 36.6
40.7
49.6
43.6
A
Knox
8
0
8 28.1
31.3
38.1
33.5
B
Conasauga
7
0
7 43.1
47.8
56.7
50.2
B
Chickaaauga
8
0
8 48.2
53.1
63.4
56.4
B
Knox
8
0
8 62.5
68.9
82.2
73.1
C
Conasauga
8
0
8 43.9
48.6
58.3
51.7
C
Chickaaauga
8
0
8 43.9
48.5
58.3
51.7
c
Knox
8
0
8 67.3
74.4
89.3
79.2




Zinc



A
Conasauga
8
0
8 43.8
51.9
70.6
57.6
A
Chickaaauga
8
0
8 45.5
53.8
73.3
59.8
A
Knox
8
0
8 37.1
43.9
59.8
48.8
B
Conasauga
8
0
8 47.9
57.4
80.1
64.3
B
Chickaaauga
8
0
8 64.7
77.6
108.0
86.9
B
Knox
8
0
8 94.5
113.0
158.0
127.0
C
Conasauga
8
0
8 52.4
63.8
91.4
72.0
C
Chickaaauga
8
0
8 73.6
89.7
129.0
101.0
C
Knox
8
0
7 149.0
182.0
261.0
205.0
"N «= number of observations. possibly averages ower replicates at sites; I = Dumber of interval
centered observations (tee tea); D — Dumber of true detects (see text); UCB95 = 95% upper
confidence bound tor nydan; X9S = estimate of 95 th percentile; L.TB9595 = 95% lower confidence
-------
6-9
Table 6.1b. Sammaiy statistics for selected
radionuclides on the ORR by group
(Estimates and confidence bounds are in picocories per gram.)
Horizon Group	N I D Median UCB95 X95 LTB9595



Cesium-137 (Gamma)



A
Conasauga
8
0
8
0.56100
0.6500
0.8480
0.7110
A
Chickanauga
7
0
7
1.12000
1.3100
1.6900
1.4100
A
Knox
8
0
8
0.91700
1.0600
1.3900
1.1600
B
Conasauga
7
0
5
0.01520
0.0448
0.2250
0.0470
B
ICnox
8
0
1
0.00364
0.0239
0.0537
0.0111
B
REMAINDER
7
0
0
.

.

C
Conasauga
7
0
2
0.00078
0.0907
0.8030
0.0077
C
REMAINDER
15
0
0
¦
•
•
•



Curium-247
(Gamma)



A
Conasauga
8
0
2
.00552
.00649
.00716
.00579
A
REMAINDER
15
0
0
.

.
.
B
REMAINDER
3
0
0
.

.
.
C
REMAINDER
3
0
0
•

-
¦



Neptunhnn-237 (Alpha)



A
Conasauga
2
0
2
0.1330
0.1870
0.216
0.1490
A
Chickanauga
7
1
6
0.0931
0.1120
0.151
0.1200
A
ICnox
8
1
6
0.0761
0.0911
0.123
0.0989
B
REMAINDER
1
0
0
•
¦
•
•



Phitonaim-238 (Alpha)



A
Conasauga
8
1
0
0.0138
0.0587
0.0753
0.0426
A
Chickaonuga
7
4
2
0.0288
0.1020
0.1690
0.1120
A
Knox
8
2
4
0.0201
0.0591
0.0979
0.0651
B
Conasauga
2
0
2
0.0853
0.0991
0.1050
0.0838
C
REMAINDER
2
0
0
•
-
•
•


PUitonn im-239/240 (Alpha)


A
Conasauga
8
0
1
0.0138
0.0231
0.0298
0.0182
A
Chickaaauga
7
3
2
0.0288
0.0402
0.0620
0.0408
A
ICnox
8
2
3
0.0201
0.0280
0.0432
0.0286
B
Conasauga
2
0
1
.
.
.
.
C
REMAINDER
2
0
0
•
•
•
•



Pnfassmm-40 (Gamma)



A
Conasauga

8 0
8
15.80
18.10
23.50
19.80
A
Chickaaauga

8 0
8
12.10
14.00
18.00
15.20
A
Knox

8 0
8
3.59
4.13
5.35
4.51
B ¦
Conasauga

6 0
6
17.70
20.30
24.70
21.00
B
Ch i ckaaauga

8 0
8
22.70
25.60
31.70
27.40
B
ICnox

7 0
7
7.91
8.98
11.10
9.50
C
Conasauga

7 0
7
22.60
31.20
53.20
35.90
c
Chickaaauga

7 0
7
21.00
29.00
49.50
33.40
c
Knox

6 0
6
7.99
11.30
18.90
-------
6-10
Table 6.1b (continued)
Horizon Group	N I D Median UCB95 X95 LTB9595
Radniro-226 (Alpfaa)
A
Conasauga
8
0
8
0.763
0.905
1.24
1.01
A
Chickaaauga
8
0
8
1.000
1.190
1.62
1.32
A
Knox
8
1
7
1.030
1.220
1.67
1.36
B
Conasauga
8
0
7
0.8U
1.020
1.50
1.15
B
Chickaaauga
8
0
8
1.010
1.250
1.86
1.43
V"
"Knox ~
8
0
8
1.530"
1.900
z.sr
2.18
C
Conasauga
8
0
8
0.860
1.060
1.53
1.20
C
Chickaaauga
8
0
8
1.190
1.470
2.13
1.67
c
ICnox
8
0
8
1.440
1.770
2.57
2.01



Stroolmn>-90 (Beta)



A
Conasauga
7
0
1
0.391
1.36
1.12
0.548
A
REMAINDER
15
0
0
•
•
•
•



TechneUum-99 (Beta)



A
Conasauga
12
! 0
1
0.961
1.74
2.25
1.46
A
Chickaaauga
12
! 0
5
1.180
1.64
2.77
1.84
A
REMAINDER
11
0
0
-
•
- •
•



Tbonum-228 (Alpha)



A
Conasauga
8
0
8
1.040
1.48
2.81
1.830
A
Chickaaauga
8
0
8
1.210
1.71
3.27
2.120
A
Knox
8
0
7
0.450
0.64
1.22
0.796
B
Conasauga
8
0
8
1.280
1.55
2.19
1.740
B
Chickaaauga
8
0
8
1.510
1.83
2.59
2.060
B
ICnox
8
0
8
1.120
1.35
1.91
1.520
C
Conasauga
8
0
7
0.987
1.44
2.85
1.810
C
Chickaaauga
8
0
8
1.680
2.44
4.84
3.060
C
Knox
8
0
8
1.220
1.78
3.53
2.240



Tbarium-230 (Alpfaa)



A
Conasauga
8
0
8
0.739
0.862
1.14
0.949
A
Chickaaauga
8
0
8
1.050
1.220
1.62
1.350
A
Knox
8
0
8
0.926
1.080
1.43
1.190
B
Conasauga
8
0
8
0.854
1.030
1.47
1.160
B
Chickaaauga
8
0
7
1.060
1.290
1.82
1.440
B
Knox
8
0
8
1.380
1.670
2.37
1.880
C
Conasauga
8
0
8
0.708
0.855
1.21
0.962
C
Chickaaauga
8
0
8
1.160
1.400
1.98
1.580
c
Knox
8
0
8
1.540
1.860
2.63
2.090



Tharhim-232 (Alpha)



A
Conasauga
8
0
8
1.010
1.210
1.66
1.350
A
Chickaaauga
8
0
8
1.170
1.400
1.93
1.560
A
Knox
8
0
8
0.649
0.775
1.07
0.865
B
Conasauga
8
0
8
1.240
1.520
2.21
1.730
B
Chickaaauga
8
0
8
1.560
1.920
2.80
2.180
B
Knox
8
0
8
1.190
1.460
2.13
1.660
C
Conasauga
8
0
8
1.070
1.400
2.27
1.650
C
Chickaaauga
8
0
8
1.540
2.000
3.25
2.360
C
Knox
8
0
8
1.230
1.600
2.61
-------
6-11
Table 6.1b (continued)
Horizon Group	N I D Median UCB9S X95 LTB9595
Tboriun>-234 (Beta)
A
Conasauga
8
0
8
1.520
1.90
2.86
2.080
A
Chickanauga
5
1
0
0.702
1.08
1.31
0.870
A
Knox
7
1
2
0.915
1.21
1.71
1.260
B
Conasauga
8
0
7
0.905
1.30
2.48
1.470
B
Knox
7
1
2
0.995
1.57
2.72
1.640
"B"
tJEKAIUDES '
5 "
0-
&




C
Conasauga
8
0
8
1.110
1.20
1.39
1.230
C
Knox
7
1
0
0.892
1.03
1.12
0.964
c
REMAINDER
5
0
0
•
•
•
•


Tborium-234 (Gamma)



A
Chickamauga
3
0
1
0.909
1.68
1.76
0.893
B
Chickamauga
3
0
1
0.739
1.20
1.24
0.728
c
Chickanauga
3
0
1
1.010
2.27
2.49
0.989


Total Uranium (Alpha)



A
Conasauga
8
0
8
1.230
1.710
3.12
2.090
A
Chickamauga
7
0
7
1.050
1.490
2.67
1.750
A
Knox
7
0
7
2.340
3.330
5.96
3.900
B
Conasauga
2
0
2
0.316
0.972
1.55
0.276
C
Conasauga
2
0
2
0.299
1.650
3.35
0.244



Tritium (Tritium)



A
Conasauga
9
0
5
0.0318
0.0427
0.0697
0.0487
A
Chickanauga
15
3
0
0.0556
0.0779
0.1220
0.0884
A
Knox
9
0
4
0.0165
0.0238
0.0361
0.0232


Uramum-233/234 (Alpha)



A
Conasauga
8
0
8
1.100
1.24
1.54
1.33
A
Chickanauga
8
0
¦ 8
1.110
1.25
1.56
1.35
A
Knox
8
0
8
1.270
1.43
1.77
1.54
B
Conasauga
8
0
8
1.080
1.30
1.83
1.46
B
Chickanauga
8
0
8
1.030
1.24
1.74
1.40
B
Knox
8
0
8
1.520
1.82
2.56
2.05
C
Conasauga
8
0
8
0.862
1.02
1.38
1.13
C
Chickanauga
8
0
8
1.100
1.30
1.76
1.44
C
Knox
8
0
8
1.570
1.85
2.50
2.05


Uranium-235
(Alpha)



A
Conasauga
8
1
6
0.0540
0.0727
0.122
0.0860
A
Chickanauga
8
1
7
0.0736
0.0983
0.167
0.1170
A
Knox
8
1
6
0.0955
0.1280
0.216
0.1520
B
Conasauga
8
1
6
0.0540
0.0979
0.277
0.1360
B
Chickanauga
8
0
8
0.0946
0.1690
0.485
0.2390
B
Knox
8
0
7
0.2220
0.4000
1.140
0.5660
C
Conasauga
8
1
6
0.0392
0.0574
0.112
0.0711
C
Chickanauga
8
0
8
0.0959
0.1390
0.274
0.1740
C
Knox
8
0
7
0.1220
0.1770
0.348
-------
6-12
Table 6.1b (continued)
Horizon Group	N I D Median UCB95 X95 LTB9595
Uranium-235 (Gamma)
A
Conasauga
8
0
8
0.0751
0.0895
0.1230
0.0942
A
REMAINDER
15
0
0




B
Conasauga
7
0
7
0.0517
0.0699
0.1150
0.0723
B
REMAINDER
16
0
0




C
Conasauga
8
0
8
0.0452
0.0567
0.0858
0.0608
~c
Knox
8"
tr
1
0.1100
0.1620
0.2090
0.1490
c
REMAINDER
8
0
0
•
•
•
•


Uranium-236 (Alpha)



A
Conasauga
8
0
1
.009810
0.0197
0.0240
0.01340
A
Chickanauga
8
1
0
.006310
0.0126
0.0154
0.00882
A
ICnox
8
0
1
.009260
0.0182
0.0226
0.01240
B
ConBsaug*
8
0
1
.000586
0.6130
0.1430
0.00445
B
REMAINDER
16
0
0




C
Chickaoauga
8
0
1

.
.
.
C
REMAINDER
16
0
0

•
¦
•


Uramum-238 (Alpha)



A
Conasauga
8
0
8
1.150
1.27
1.52
1.35
A
Chickaaauga
8
0
8
1.140
1.26
1.51
1.34
A
Knox
8
0
8
1.250
1.38
1.65
1.47
B
Conasauga
8
0
8
1.080
1.26
1.66
1.38
B
Chickaaauga
8
0
8
1.150
1.34
1.76
1.47
B
Knox
8
0
8
1.680
1.95
2.57
2.14
C
Conasauga
8
0
8
0.864
1.03
1.44
1.16
C
Chickaaauga
8
0
8
1.140
1.37
1.90
1.53
c
Knox
8
0
8
1.650
1.98
2.75
2.21


Uramum-238 (Gamma)



A
REMAINDER
16
0
0




B
REMAIIOER
16
0
0



.
C
Chickaaauga
8
0
1
0.9
100
43.4
3.7
C
REMAIWJER
8
0
0
.
.
.
-
"N = number of observations. possibly averages over replicates at sites; 1 = number of interval
crntnrcd observations (tee text); D = number of true detects (see text); UC395 95% upper
confidence bound (or median; X95 » estimate of 95th percentile; LTB9595 = 95% lower confidence
bound for 95th percentile; REMAINDER refers to the remaining oteervatiocx—no detects.
6.2 BASIC IDEAS AND CONCEPTS OF INTERPRETING SOILS DATA
The original intent of the BSCP data interpretation was to partition the soil analysis data
according to three sr 
-------
6-13
Table 6.1c Sammaiy statistics by group (or PAHs on the ORR*
(A horizon, noncomposited samples. Phase I Conasanga sites have been deleted.
Estimates and confidence bounds arc in micrograms per kilogram. May be
inappropriate when areas have different median analyte concentrations.)
Analysis
Group
N
I
D
Median
UCB95
X95
LTB9595
Acenaphthene
Chickanauga
4
0
4
1.700
2.560
3.87
2.30
Acenaphthene
Knox
10
0
4
1.210
1.800
2.76
1.70

.Chickaoauga.

_0.
_0„




Acenaphthylene
Knox
17
0
4
11.300
103.000
1000.00
154.00
Anthracene
Chickanauga
15
0
15
0.986
1.400
3.87
2.41
Anthracene
Knox
12
0
10
0.746
1.150
2.93
1.73
Benzo [a] anthracene
Chickanauga
18
0
18
5.160
6.710
15.7
11.20
Benzo laj anthracene
Knox
19
0
19
1.890
2.440
5.76
4.13
Benzo Ca]pyrene
Chickanauga
24
0
24
4.430
5.430
12.0
9.09
Benzo Ca] pyrene
Knox
15
0
15
2.850
3.680
7.70
5.61
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Chickanauga
20
0
20
4.530
5.800
13.7
9.77
Benzo[H fluoranthene
Knox
12
0
10
2.350
3.300
7.15
4.79
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene
Chickanauga
17
0
17
4.350
5.600
12.3
8.8*.
Benzo [9, h, i] perylene
Knox
15
0
15
2.730
3.580
7.75
5.50
Benzo CU fluoranthene
Chickanauga
24
0
24
2.570
3.140
6.84
5.23
Benzo CUfluoranthene
Knox
16
0
16
1.450
1.850
3.86
2.85
Chrysene..
Chickanauga
11
0
8
5.030
7.260
16.2
10.10-
Chrysene-
Knox
12
0
9
3.400
4.880
11.0
6.89
Dibenzo [a, hi anthracene
Chickanauga
6
0
5
0.693
1.190
2.32
i.zsV
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene
Knox
13
0
11
1.030
1.480
3.45
2.11-
Fluoranthene
Chickanauga
19
0
19
5.960
8.080
22.4
15.10
Fluoranthene
Knox
19
0
19
4.670
6.330
17.5
11.80
Fluorene
Chickanauga
9
0
9
1.620
2.500
5.96
3.32"
Fluorenc
Knox
12
0
5
0.555
0.943
2.05
1.12-
Indenotl ,2,3-c,d] pyrene
Chickanauga
23
0
15
10.200
13.400
31.7
22.00-
Indenotl,2,3-c,d]pyrene
Knox
19
0
1
5.650
11.000
17.5
9.86
Naphthalene
Chickanauga
13
0
13
3.570
5.710
19.4
10.20 ¦
Naphthalene
Knox
11
0
6
8.200
15.000
44.5
22.60;.
Phenanthrene
Chickanauga
24
0
24
6.890
8.300
17.2
13.40 -
Phenanthrene
Knox
19
0
19
3.680
4.550
9.21
7.06
Pyrene
Chickanauga
18
0
18
9.800
13.100
33.6
23.10
Pyrene
Knox
19
0
19
4.370
5.790
15.0
10.40
"N = number of observations, possibly averages over replicates at sites; I = Dumber of interval censored observation
(see text); D = number of true detects (see tea); UCB95 = 95% upper confidence bound for median; X95 = estimate of 95th
percentile; LTB9595 <= 95% lower confidence bound for 95th percentile; REMAINDER refers to the remaining-- '
obscrvalKXB—do detects.
&2.1 Soil Extraction Factors That Can Affect the Measured Chemical Content of SoOs
The interpretation of analytical results of data from a soil environment can often be an
exercise in both frustration and uncertainty. The chemical extraction of inorganic soil
components is also fraught with great uncertainties. The pH of unbuffered soil extractants can
change from sample to sample, resulting in the extraction of differing amounts of what is to
be measured. Differing extracting methods and procedures result in differing amounts of what
-------
6-14
components. This report also contains a discussion of a whole soil analysis technique (NAA)
with the results from the current EPA extraction and analytical methods for metals.
The soil system is dynamic in both time and space. Included is a very dynamic biotic
component For example, some inorganic ions are quite immobile, but if transformed into
organic compounds, they can be come very mobile and potentially hazardous. Methyl mercury
is a prime example. Biotic compounds of arsenic and lead behave similarly. Therefore, the
interpretation of results must be based on a knowledge of what goes on at various depths in
a-sett-system-and how the-whole-soil system reacts and interacts. In-this~BSGP~activity,
samples were collected from specific soil horizons rather than from prescribed depths. The
only exceptions were the gamma screening samples. Gamma screening was done primarily to
determine the atmospheric input of137Cs, so the upper 30 cm of the soil profile was sampled
in 5-cm increments.
62.2 Landscape Factors That May Affect the Chemical Content of Soils
Several soil-landscape variables can affect what is measured. Some variables can act
independently, whereas other variables interact in unpredictable ways. One major variable that
can affect results and interpretation of those results is the location of the soil in the
landscape. A soil can be affected by the adjacent soils, especially those soils at higher
elevations. Rainfall can infiltrate or run off from higher soils. Rainfall that has infiltrated soil
at higher elevations can then move laterally below the surface to ausct soils downslope. The
primary objective of BSCP was to sample soils that were (1) geomorphically stable, (2) located
in the highest part of the landform so that there would be minimal effects from the immediate
adjacent soils, (3) not disturbed in the past SO years or more and had a hardwood forest,
(4) not eroded, and (5) formed in residuum. However, reality dictated that some chosen sites
were on side slopes, some had a thin capping of either old colluvium or old alluvium, and
some were located in older loblolly pine plantations or in old-field successional mixed pine
and hardwood forests. The background levels of contaminants in colluvial or floodplain soils
or more recently disturbed soils can either be higher or lower than the background levels
measured in this project but still may be considered to be background for those specific sites.
The data presented in this report represent part of the entire ORR. There are many soils and
several geologic formations that have not yet been sampled.
67-1 Factors That Can Affect the Chemical Contents of A, B, and C Sofl Horizons
Samples were obtained from (1) the A horizon of the soil, (2) the B horizon of the soil,
and (3) the "C" horizon (including either the lower B horizon, a transitional BC or CB
horizon, the C horizon or the upper part of a paralithic Cr horizon.) The A horizon contains
the most organic carbon and also the highest biotic activity. Here, soil fauna can decompose
or transform one compound into another, or inorganic compounds can be transformed into
more mobile organic compounds. Both aerobic and anaerobic respiration can occur in this
surface mineral horizon of the soil.
The B horizon of most soils, commonly known as the upper subsoil, is the soil zone in
which there is a net accumulation of soil clay minerals and iron oxides. Here, soil fauna tend
to degrade organic compounds that have been translocated from the A horizon above,
releasing metal ions from an organic form to an inorganic form. Respiration in this part of
the soil tends to be aerobic on ped surfaces and along root channels and anaerobic within
-------
6-15
degraded and releases any metal ions depends on its rate of movement and time of residence.
Saturated flow will tend to move dissolved organic carbon compounds and other ions rapidly
through larger flow zones so that the soil fauna never come into contact with it Another
process that often occurs in this upper subsoil zone results in the destruction of clay minerals
and the release of both silica and alumina ions and their lateral or downward translocation.
The C horizon occurs at a highly variable depth in the soiL It begins at the upper zone,
where saproiite or saprolitic material with its geologic strike and dip can be recognized or
where podogeaio aoil structure becomes minor: Here, soil processes are minimai,-but there,
is often some biotic component, especially the soil fauna associated with roots and dissolved
organic carbon that move downward along ped surfaces and along fracture and joint surfaces.'
Sofl moisture remains nearly constant, and most soil fauna respiration is anaerobic, except'
along cracks and pores open to the surface. Where C horizons occur close to the surface (less
than SO cm to about 100 cm) as in most Dismal Gap and Nolichucky soils, there is a much -
higher organic component than in the "C" horizon of the ORR Copper Ridge and
Chepul tepee soils that were sampled below a depth of 140 to 160 cm. The C horizon zone
of the soil tends to be the location where there is deposition of ions translocated through the -
horizons above. Here, manganese and other ions with similar chemistry are often found in'
higher zones of concentration although the total manganese content is lower than in the A
horizon above. In this part of the soil, water movement becomes increasingly channelized into
well-defined flow zones. Flow zones in this part of the soil usually have a rather intense-
reduction potential because the oxygen partial pressure is very low. Here, some ions that are
generally quite immobile are transformed into more mobile forms. For example, manganese^ <
oxides are reduced, resulting in greater mobility. The same happens with iron oxides that are
transformed from ferric to ferrous forms and acquire a layer-of oriented hydration watexxopr
hydroxy! groups. Other iocs having similar geochemical properties can also become mobile
in this zone. .
63 BASIC DATA COMPARISONS
63.1 Site and Soil Factors That-Must Be Considered in the Initial Comparison of Results^
When making a comparison with a new site, the best interpretation of results involves
having a set of data from the A, B, and C horizons of a particular site under similar
vegetation to observe trends of those ions in question. For example, contamination via surface-
deposition on a grassy slope should be confined to the surface if ions are immobile because
of the shallow rooting of grasses. In a forest, contamination via surface deposition.isra.
different situation. Here, stem flow can deliver contaminants deeply into the soil through root
flow zones and rapidly into shallow water tables. Tree drip can produce zones where the level
of contamination may be higher. A high degree of spatial variability is normal in a forested
soiL The data from an A horizon at one site should not be compared with the B or C horizon
data from another site. In principle, inorganic and natural radionuclide data from the soils of
one formation should not be used as background data for soils of another formation because,
soils from different geologic formations can have different levels of inherited metals and.
natural radionuclides unless the statistical interpretation.would indicate otherwise. Inorganic;
data from residual soils should not be compared with data from alluvial or colluvial soils,
without making sure that the same standard operating procedures were adhered to and
-------
6-16
63JZ Comparisons Between Methods of Extraction and Analysis
63.2.1 Comparison between AA/ICP and ICF/MS analysis
Sixteen metals were analyzed by using AA/ICP and I CP/MS methods, and the results
were compared. The metals in which the measured concentration was the same between both
methods were Al, Ba, Be, Cr, Co, Cu, Pb, Mn, and Ni (9 out of 16). Antimony concentrations
were below detection limits for both methods, but more detects were observed with AA/ICP.
Cadmium copceateatieflfr-were-eqtiaUy- below-dctectionlimi is fox both methods."Arsenic,
beryllium, and zinc concentrations determined by AA/ICP were larger than those determined
with I CP/MS. Selenium results were scattered, and no difference between the methods can
be observed. These results did not show an advantage in using ICP/MS over AA/ICP.
63 7.7. Comparison between AA/ICP and NAA analysis
Fifteen metals were analyzed by using AA/ICP and NAA methods, and the results were
compared. The metals in which the measured concentration was the same between the
methods were: As, Co, Fe, and Mil The metals for which measured concentrations with NAA
were higher than with AA/ICP were Al, Cr, Mg, K, V, and Zn. Antimony, barium, and silver
were only detected using the NAA method. Mercury was detected using AA/ICP but not the
NAA method. Sodium concentration did not show a relationship between the methods. The
limiting factor in the determination of metal concentrations in soil is not the instrument but
the extraction procedure: The acid extraction procedure for metal determination represents
only a part of the total amount of the metal in the soil structure. Metal concentrations
measured by NAA represents the total element concentration in soQs.
63.2.3 Comparison between electrostatic discharge gamma scanning and contract laboratory
results for radionuclides
The electrostatic discharge gamma scanning technique uses a much larger sample (400
to 900 g) compared to the contract laboratory sample size of 1 g. Problems in comparison are
mainly related to analytical techniques and the time of counting. The contract laboratory uses
a more sensitive analytical technique and detection instruments and a longer counting time.
The electrostatic discharge analytical technique uses a less sensitive analytical instrument and
a shorter counting time for soil samples between depths of 0 and 25 cm. The 25- to 30-cm
depth section uses a longer counting time, and the results from this increment are probably
more accurate than those from the contract laboratory. The primary problem with any
comparisons of data is that the sample sizes are so different and the depths are not
comparable. The electrostatic discharge gamma scanning technique via the methodology in
the BSCP Plan (Energy Systems 1992, Volume 3) can be used anywhere and for all conditions
for sample/site screening purposes based on 137Cs activity levels. This procedure requires that
a standard cross-sectional area be sampled. Obtaining a series of samples to a depth of at
least 30 cm ensures that all ^Cs has been found for upland residual soils. However, cesium
levels for alluvial and colluvial soils can be •nuch different Colluvial soils usually have higher
levels of mCs because of surface and subsurface transport from soils higher in the landscape.
In floodplain and low-terrace landscapes, it will often be necessary to sample deeper, where
modem deposition of sediments has occurred, because the products of airborne deposition
can be buried below a depth of 30 cm. The other possibility is that the 137Cs and other
-------
6-17
The gamma scanning error term must be considered in attaching significance to any data.
The error term for some elements is very low (<10%), whereas the error terms for other
elements, namely and ^U, tend to be large (>50%). Uranium screening data, are
reported but should not be used for risk assessment because the contract laboratory and
Neutron Activation Laboratory used more sensitive analytical methods. The tolerance bounds
or confidence limits for all elements and compounds that were analyzed in this project must
be recognized and incorporated into any kind of data comparison and interpretation.
6.4 VALID DATA COMPARISONS
6.4.1	Volatile Organic Compounds
VOC analysis can be done at any site on the ORR. Some precautions must be considered.
in interpreting results. Certain organic compounds, such as acetone, butanone, and other
laboratory-induced compounds, commonly show up in the results. These are mostly the result
of contamination of the analytical apparatus. The interpretation of other results must be
based on the life of such volatile compounds in am aerobic surface soil environment The data,
presented elsewhere, are only from the A horizon of the soil.
6.4.2	Pesticides, Herbicides, and Pofychlorinated Biphenyis
The analysis for these compounds is done on field moist soil samples. The surface leaf
litter in. a forest soil is removed, and a sample is. immediately collected. For bare or
grass-covered soil, a sample is collected from the upper 5 to 10 cm of the soil. Additional
samples can.be collected at depth to determine the extent of downward migration. If an
upwelling plume is suspected, a sample or samples can be collected at depth to confirm or
reject the- hypothesis. The interpretation of results must be based on the life of such'
compounds in a soil environment. Some compounds have a very long half-life, whereas others
are readily decomposed by the indigenous soil fauna. Most of the compounds that were
analyzed for BSCP have a very long half-life, or the daughter products still have undesirable^
biochemical- properties. Therefore, it is helpful in interpretation if the time when the
suspected contamination occurred is known.
6.43 Inorganics
Inorganics occur as cations and anions, as well as in the mineral fraction. Some cations
are relatively mobile, whereas others are not. Most anions are mobile because there are very
few anion retention sites in soils, the notable exceptions being the organic carbon component
of the surface soil layer (A horizon) and oxides that coat ped surfaces in the subsoil
(B horizon) or fracture faces in the C horizon.
Many cations of metals, such as aluminum and iron, are dominant components of all
mineral soils and are not diagnostic of any contamination. Some metals are inherited from the
underlying geology. If the distribution of these metals.remains the same throughout the.
various sampling depths or increases with depth, they usually have a geologic origin, especially;
if they are not mobile in a soil environment Results must be interpreted carefully so that
anthropogenic contamination can be distinguished from geologically inherited inorganics.
Some metals can be introduced by the use of sampling equipment A comparison of ORR
-------
6-18
higher amounts of Al, Fe, Ma, Si, Sr, and Cu. The scratches and wear on the sampling
stainless steel equipment are a likely source of the added components in the rinse water.
Geologic inherited inorganics must be determined from the particular geologic formation,
because different geologic formations have differing levels of rare earths and heavy metals.
One must also be aware that sedimentation conditions vary within any geologic formation.
Another complicating factor in interpreting results is the past land use of a site. Past
fertilizer and lime applications can result in increased amounts of heavy metals and rare
earth&4&4he surface soil, especially if loci phosphate-was used. The widespread use of certain
fungicides and pesticides, such as copper sulfate or lead arsenate, can also affect
interpretations. Comparisons of inorganic results should be confined to the same geologic
formation or section of that formation. However, the data tend to indicate that the results
from the Dismal Gap and Nolichucky in the Bear Creek Conasauga section should be
applicable to the Melton Creek section of the Conasauga. Likewise, most of the data between
the Bethel Valley section of the Chickamauga and the East Fork (designated at K-25) section
of the Chickamauga are quite similar, but with some departures. Where the statistical analysis
indicates that there are no significant differences, most of the trace metals between soils in
a geologic group would suggest that the applicable BSCP data could be applied as background
values for other similar formations within the group (see Sect 2).
6.4.4 Radionuclides
The presence of certain nuclides, such as ^Cs, "Tc, ^'Cm, 239/240pu, and 3H, is nearly
always the result of airborne deposition, whereas other nuclides could be inherited from the
underlying rock. Uranium isotopes (^U and aU) present special problems in interpretation
because part of these isotopes are inherited from the underlying rock and part are the result
of airborne dust deposition. Therefore, a critical source evaluation is essential before any
comparisons are made. For example, where is the radionuclide located in soil and core
samples, and what is the isotopic ratio of to ^U? If most of the uranium is in the A
horizon and the values are much higher than in the B and C horizons, then the higher
amounts in the A horizon are most likely due to airborne dust deposition, while the values
in the C horizon are most likely that part inherited from the geology. If the isotopic ratio is
off, then there is both a geologic source and an airborne source.
6.5 INTERPRETATION OF DATA BY INDIVIDUAL ELEMENT OR COMPOUND
Detailed , analytical results of the soil chemical analyses for organics, inorganics, and
radionuclides are given in Appendixes C, D, and E, respectively. The analytical procedures
are referenced to the EPA Contract Laboratory Program Statement of Work (EPA 1990a
and b). Additional analytical results were obtaine j from I CP/MS analysis for selected metals
(Appendix I) and from NAA (Appendix H) for most inorganic soil components. The
interpretation and comparison of results for A. 3, and C soil horizons, individual geologic
formations, geologic groups, and locations (Roane County, Anderson County, and the ORR)
were made, with a few exceptions, from Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) data. The two
non-CLP analyses (ICP/MS and NAA) were conducted in order to compare analytical
techniques. The ICP/MS method of analysis was expected to have a lower instrumental
detection limit for most metals. The NAA method is a nondestructive total elemental analysis
-------
6-19
The NAA method provides additional data for analytes such as rare earth elements and
actinides. The actinides include B2Th, ^U, and ^U.
In this section, analytical results are compared and discussed, including differences among
(1) sampling areas, (2) geologic rock groups, (3) individual geologic formations within a group,
(4) sites within formations, and (5) A horizons vs B horizons vs C horizons of soils within
formations. A summary of statistically treated data is presented in Appendix G. There are
three sampling areas—the ORR, Roane County, and Anderson County. However, in part of
(Anderson and Roane). There are three geologic rock groups: Conasauga, Knox, and
Chickamauga. The ORR has samples from all three rock groups, but Roane and Anderson
have samples only from the Conasauga and Knox. There are six geologic formations: Dismal
Gap and Nolichucky from the Conasauga Group; Copper Ridge and Chepultepec from the
Knox Group; and two different sections, Bethel Valley and K-25 (which includes several
formations), from the Chickamauga Group. The ORR is represented by samples from all six-"
formations, but both Roane and Anderson are represented only by samples from the Dismal-
Gap Formation of the Conasauga Group and the Copper Ridge Formation of the Knooc
Group. Twelve sites in each sampling area were sampled from each formation. Several
samples were collected from all A horizons for different analytical procedures, but only B and
C horizons were sampled for the analysis of inorganics and radionuclides. The following is a
summary of the designations used for soil samples from sampling areas, groups, and'
formations.

Numbers
Numbers
Sample Origin Designations
on-site
off-site
Sampling area
1
2
Geologic rock groups
3
2
Geologic formations
6
2
Individual sites
72
48
Soil horizons
216
144
6_5.1 Organic Compounds
Screening analysis for VOCs was negative except for the following sites. Site ROA-8 in
Roane County contained 1,1,1-trichloroethane. Site ORR-31 on the Reservation had
trichlorofluorometbane, but the field duplicate for this site did not contain any contaminants.
Both of these may be due to instrument contamination in the laboratory. The presence of
detectable VOCs for any potentially contaminated ORR site can be taken as a sign of
probable contamination. Some VOCs, in very small amounts, may be due to microbial
respiration.
The analyses of pesticides, herbicides, and PAHs were performed only on surface A
horizon soil samples. There were a very limited number of estimated detects for pesticides.
Two sites had alpha-chlordane (ORR-121 and AND-41), one site had aldrin (AND-33), and
one site had Aroclor 1260 (ROA-43). However, the primary sample did not contain this
compound, but the field duplicate did. One site had Aroclor 1242 (ROA-14), two sites had
-------
6-20
One site (ORR-66) had an estimated detect for 2,4-D. However, this is a remote site. The
estimated result is highly suspect The culprit is most likely instrument contamination.
In the early part of the project (Dismal Gap and Nolichucky sites), PAHs were nearly
all below detection limits, with only a few that were slightly above detection limits with a "J"
qualifier. Later, a change in laboratory procedure or analytical instrument resulted in many
detects as well as many "J" estimates for the Copper Ridge, Chepultepec, and Chickamauga
sites. This later analysis indicated that PAHs were ubiquitous at all sites. Phenanthrene,
pyrene, benzp[a]«nfhr«rr.ue, fluuiantliens;' and benrojfcjfcffifacene were detected afalTof
the Copper Ridge, Chepultepec, and Chickamauga sites and can be presumed to be at all
Dismal Gap and Nolichucky sites as welL Some PAHs were more common in the A horizons
of some soils than in others, and some soils had lower amounts. The ORR Chepultepec sites
had significantly lower amounts of fluorine, benzo[a]anthrene, and phenanthrene than all
other sites. In contrast, the Chickamauga sites at the K-25 Site had significantly higher
amounts of phenanthrene, pyrene, and benzo[a]pyrene than all other sites. The Roane
Copper Ridge sites had significantly lower amounts of benzo[g/zi]perylene,
benzo[fc]fluoranthene, and benzo[6]fluoranthene than all other sites.
The presence of organic compounds can be taken as a sign of probable contamination
on the ORR. However, some organic compounds were detected more often off-site than
on-site, suggesting that the presence of the organic compounds on the ORR is not related
to Department of Energy (DOE) activity. Because of the widespread occurrence of PAHs
both on the ORR and in Anderson and Roane counties, the values given in Appendix C
should be considered as background. On the ORR the distribution of acenapthene,
acenapthylene, benzo[a]anthracene, benzo[a]pyrene, benzo[d]fluoranthene,
benzo[fc]fluoranthene, fluorene, indeno[l,23-af]pyrene, phenanthrene, and pyrene is
significantly related to individual geologic groups. Individual background values from tables
in Sect. 5 for each geologic formation should be used in any comparison. The presence of the
Rockwood coking ovens plus two TV A coal-fired steam generating power plants would most
likely represent major local sources of PAHs near the ORR.
For certain users of this data, grand median values by horizon across all Geologic Groups
have been computed. These are in Table G.8. However, the data must be used with great
caution. Following is a list of organics where there are no significant differences among
groups: anthracene, chrysene, dibenzo[cA]ar -oracene, and indeno{/,2,3-cd/pyrene. The
following list of organics is significantly differen: between the 1% to 10% level: acenaphthene,
benzo[a]pyrene, benzo[6]fluoranthene, benzofe/zi/perylene, fluoranthene, and naphthalene.
All the other organics are significantly different and the data for these in Table G.8 should
not be used, but the data in Sect. 5 should be used instead.
6_5JZ Inorganic Compounds and Metals
Inorganics and metals were analyzed using five analytical techniques. The acid extraction
method, however, causes considerable lab;.: atory variability, and some elements discussed here
are more susceptible to extraction by acid than others, depending on the natural soil pH and
the nature of the compound. Acid extraction data will not be comparable to NAA data, to
total analysis data, or to cation-anion exchangeable data. Some of the data distribution by soil
horizon reflects the translocation of certain constituents, while other data indicate the surface
-------
6-21
origin. Several metals were usually below detection limits, including Cd, Os, and Ag. The
following discussion uses median values determined from statistical analysis.
The primary sources of the following information are Rankama and Sahama (1950);
Page, Miller, and Keeney (1982); and Kabata-Pendias and Pendias (1984).
Aluminum Aluminum is a natural constituent of all inorganic soils. During the
weathering of parent material, aluminum hydroxides of variable charge and composition are-
inherited from the parent material, and only a fraction of the aluminum will be easily mobile
and exchangeable. Acid extraction removes large quantities of aluminum from soils.
Aluminum levels from on- and off-site sampling areas were significantly different in all.
horizons of the Dismal Gap and only for the A horizon of Copper Ridge soils. The aluminum:
levels between geological groups were significantly different, but they were not significantly
different within groups. Aluminum levels of ORR formations were significantly lower in the:
A horizon because the clay content is lower than in the higher clay-enriched subsoil B
horizons and in C horizons. The aluminum content was not significantly different between B
and C horizons with the exception of the ORR Dismal Gap Formation.
Antimony. The abundance of antimony is very low in rocks. Antimony may be highly-
mobile in the environment and is associated with iron hydroxides. The total antimony
concentration in U.S. surface soils ranges between 0.25 and 0.6 mg/kg (Kabata-Pendias and?.
Pendias 1984). Antimony is likely to be a pollutant in an industrial environment
Antimony was detected in less than 15% of the collected samples. Antimony was detected
(A horizon) in one sample of the Anderson County (AND) Dismal Gap Formation and ORR
Nolichucky Formation. Antimony concentration was higher in AND than ORR locations. Not.
enough data were collected to do a statistical analysis for comparisons between sampling areas
and geological groups.
Arsenic. Arsenic is distributed uniformly in major types of rocks. Some arsenic minerals:
and compounds are very soluble in certain weathering environments. Arsenic can occur in the
soil in the following valance states: -3, 0, +3, and +5, and in compounds that have varying
solubility and dissociation constants. These compounds can be translocated within the soil on
fine clay particles. Biologic processes can transform inorganic forms to volatile organic forms,
that are readily taken up by plants. Arsenic mobility is often reduced because it has a very
high affinity for clays, hydroxides, and organic matter. The range in U.S. surface soils of total
arsenic is between <0.1 to 69 mg/kg, with a grand mean of 6.7. Anthropogenic sources of
arsenic are related to industrial activities, such as metal processing or coal-fired power plants,
and as fungicides in agriculture (fruit trees).
Arsenic levels between on- and off-site sampling areas were significantly different only
for the Dismal Gap C horizons and Copper Ridge A and B horizons. Arsenic levels in ORR
soils were significantly different between geological groups but not within groups (except A
and B horizons from the Knox Group). Arsenic levels were not significantly different between
A and B horizons with the exception of ORR Chepultepec and Copper Ridge. The arsenic
content was not significantly different between B and C horizons with the exception of the,
-------
6-22
Arsenic levels on the ORR are not considered to be a contaminant because no difference
was found between A and B horizons nor were levels different between on- and off-site
sampling areas.
Barium. Barium commonly occurs in igneous rock. In geochemical processes, barium is
associated with alkali feldspars and biotite. During weathering, barium is easily precipitated
with sulfates and carbonates. It is strongly sorbed by clays, and in a soil environment is
concentrated in manganese and phosphate concretions and minerals. The mean total barium
concentration in U.&-surface softs ranges from 265 tcr 83S~mgflig. The source of most barium
in soils is from geologic origin.
Barium levels between on- and off-site sampling areas were not significantly different
Barium levels for the ORR were significantly different between geological groups but not
within groups. Barium levels within ORR formations were not significantly different between
A and B horizons with the exception of ORR Chickamauga (Bethel Valley). The barium
content of ORR formations was not significantly different between B and C horizons with the
exception of ORR Chickamauga-Bethel Valley and Copper Ridge.
Beryllium. Beryllium is widely distributed and is likely to be concentrated in acid igneous
rock, argillaceous sediments, and shales. Beryllium is present in soils primarily in oxide-bonded
forms. Beryllium: is closely associated with aluminum, where it can be substituted for
aluminum in the lattice structures of clay minerals. Beryllium is easily bound to organic matter
and accumulates in organic soil horizons and coals. The total beryllium concentration in U.S.
topsoil ranges from <1 to 15 mg/kg. Anthropogenic sources of beryllium are related to rocket
fuels and coal combustion.
Beryllium levels between on- and off-site sampling areas were not significantly different.
Beryllium levels for the ORR were significantly different between geological groups but not
within groups. Beryllium levels in ORR formations were significantly lower in the A horizon
of soils than in the B horizon with the exception of ORR Dismal Gap, Chepultepec, and
Copper Ridge formations. Beryllium content was not significantly different between B and
C horizons, with the exception of the ORR Dismal Gap and Chickamauga-Bethel Valley
formations.
Beryllium levels on the ORR are not considered to be a contaminant because no
difference was found between on- and off-site sampling areas and because the levels were
lower in the A than B horizon.
Boron. Boron is not uniformly distributed, and it is concentrated in acidic igneous rocks
and in the clay fraction of some sedimentary rocks. Its geochemistry is characterized by an
abnormally large variation in the boron content of rocks. Boron is likely to be retained by
illitic clays, sesquioxides, and organic matter. Some boron, from volcanic eruptions, is
deposited on the soil surface and then subjected to biologic uptake or to downward
translocation. Boron is very mobile in soil. The mean total boron level in U.S. surface soils
ranges from 20 to 55 mg/kg.
Boron was detected in only 32% of the collected soil samples. Boron was only detected
in some Dismal Gap and Chepultepec soils. Boron was detected in three sites (A horizon
only) in ROA Dismal Gap Formation and one site in ORR Dismal Gap Formation. The
-------
6-23
enough data were collected to do a statistical analysis for comparisons between sampling areas
and geologic groups.
Cadmium There was no detectable cadmium at any BSCP site.
Calcium. One must keep in mind that an acid extraction for determination of calcium is
of questionable validity. Calcium levels between the on- and off-site sampling areas were not
significantly different in the Dismal Gap and Copper Ridge soils. Calcium levels from the
ORR were significantly different between geological groups but not within groups (except in
the C horizon of both Chickamauga). The calcium levels in ORR formations were- not
significantly different between A and B horizons. Calcium levels were not significantly'
different between B and C horizons with exception of the ORR Chickamauga-Bethel Valley.
Chromium Chromium is associated with ultramafic and mafic rocks, and upon oxidation
and weathering forms complexes with anions and cations. Chromium (3+) resembles iron and
aluminum in ionic size and geochemical properties. After weathering, most of the chromium
is associated with mineral lattice structures or else is sorbed by clays and hydrous oxides. The
grand mean for total chromium content is 54 mg/kg for U.S. topsoils. Anthropogenic sources:
of chromium are industrial waste and municipal sewage sludge. Another source of chromium:
in soils is a fiyash contaminant from coal-powered electric generating plants.
Chromium levels between on- and off-site sampling areas were not significantly different
Chromium levels on the ORR were significantly different between groups but not within-
groups. Chromium levels were significantly lower in A horizons than B horizons for ORR
formations, except for the ORR Chickamauga (Bethel Valley and K-25). Chromium contents -
was not significantly different between B and C horizons, with the exception of the ORR.
Nolichucky Formation.
Chromium levels on the ORR are not considered to be a contaminant because no
difference was found between on- and off-site sampling areas and because the levels were,
lower in the A than B horizon. Chickamauga may be an exception.
Cobalt. A high concentration of cobalt occurs in ultramafic rocks. The concentration in
sedimentary rocks is lower and is associated with clay minerals and organic matter. Cobalt
geochemical behavior is similar to that of iron and manganese. During weathering, cobalt is:
immobilized by iron and manganese oxides and by clay minerals. The cobalt concentration: ini.
soils depends on the parent material. The grand mean for total cobalt is &2 mg/kg in U.S..
topsoiL Cobalt occurs as a contaminant from the fiyash of coal-powered electric generating.,
plants. Roadside soils are often contaminated by cobalt.
Cobalt levels between on- and off-site sampling areas in the Dismal Gap Formation were
not significantly different but were significantly different for the Copper Ridge Formation.
Cobalt levels on the ORR were significantly different between geological groups but not
within groups (except between formations of the Knox Group). Cobalt levels were not
significantly different between A and B horizons for ORR soils. Cobalt content was not
significantly different between B and C horizons, with the exception of the ORR Chepultepee
Formation.
Copper. Copper is abundant in mafic and intermediate igneous rocks and deficient in
-------
6-24
it may also be precipitated as a sulfide, carbonate, or hydroxide. Copper occurs in soils in
Cu+2 and Cu+3 compounds with varying solubilities and dissociation constants. Copper can be
biologically translocated in the soil as well as being translocated downward attached to clay.
minerals. Copper is rather immobile in soil, and it is not accumulated in the soil profile. The
mean levels in the U.S. topsoils for total copper ranged from 6 to 60 mg/kg, depending on
the parent material. Anthropogenic sources of copper in soils are from fertilizers, pesticides,
municipal waste, and industrial emissions.
Copper levels between on- and off-site sampling areas were not significantly different for
the Dismal Gap Formation but were significantly different (B and C horizons) in the Copper
Ridge Formation. Cobalt levels on the ORR were significantly different between groups but
not different within groups (except between formations of the Knox Group). Copper levels
were significantly lower in A than B horizons for ORR formations with the exception of the
ORR Dismal Gap Formation. Copper content was not significantly different between B and
C horizons of ORR formations, with the exception of the ORR Copper Ridge Formation.
Some of the copper reported in this study may have come from the stainless steel
sampling equipment, as it became abraded and worn during sampling of the Copper Ridge
and Chepultepec C horizons. A comparison of the ORR rinse water with the source water
indicated that rinsate copper levels were higher than in the source water.
Cyanide. Cyanide was detected in less than 11% of the sites. Cyanide was detected in a
few A horizons in the Dismal Gap Formation. Cyanide concentration (close to analytical
detection limits) was higher at ROA than at AND or ORR locations. Not enough data were
collected to performed a statistical analysis for comparisons between sampling areas and
geological groups. The presence of higher cyanide levels in any soil would be a sign of
potential contamination.
Iron. Iron is an important component of most well-drained upland soils, and large
amounts are readily extracted by an acid extraction procedure. Extractable iron levels are
usually associated with the clay content Reduced iron (Fe+2) is quite soluble, moving both
laterally and downward with soil water, while Fe+3 is immobile.
Iron levels between on- and off-site sampling areas were not significantly different for
the Dismal Gap Formation, but iron levels in B horizons were significantly different for the
Copper Ridge Formation. Iron levels on the ORR were significantly different between
geological groups but not within groups. Iron levels were significantly lower in A than B
horizons for ORR formations. Iron content was not significantly different between B and C
horizons of all ORR formations with the exception of the ORR Copper Ridge Formation.
Iron levels are always lower in the A horizons of soils because of various soil processes
that result in the translocation of iron compounds from A and E soil horizons to subsoil B
horizons. Acid-extractable iron cannot be considered diagnostic of any soil contamination.
Lead Lead is concentrated in the igneous rocks and in argillaceous sediments. During
weathering, lead forms carbonates and is sorbed by clay minerals, iron oxides, manganese
oxides, and organic matter. Lead replaces K, Ba, Sr, and Ca from sorption sites. The total
mean lead content in the surface of U.S. soils is 20 mg/kg. Anthropogenic sources of lead in
-------
6-25
Lead levels between on- and off-site sampling areas were not significantly different Lead
levels between and within groups on the ORR were not significantly different Lead levels
were not significantly different between A and B horizons with the exception of the ORR
Copper Ridge Formation. Lead content were significantly lower in 6 than in C horizons with
the exception of ORR Dismal Gap and Chickamauga K-25.
Some of the lead data from the ORR Nolichucky Formation appears to have a laboratory
problem. Samples 5064 and 5067 (A and B horizons) have nondetected lead levels, while
sample 5070 from the C horizon has a value above detection and is not estimated. In contrast,
all other ORR Nolichucky A and B horizons have detectable levels of lead. The lack of data
for the A and B horizon results in median values being much lower.
Lithium. Lithium is widely distributed, but it is concentrated in acidic igneous rocks and
sedimentary aluminosilicates. Lithium distribution in soils is controlled more by soil formation
factors than by parent materials. Lithium competes for clay mineral sorption sites with calcium
and magnesium. The grand mean for total lithium concentration is 23 mg/kg for U.S. topsoils.
Lithium levels between on- and off-site sampling areas were not significantly different
for the Dismal Gap Formation but were significantly different in only the A and C horizons -
of the Copper Ridge Formation. Lithium levels on the ORR were not significantly different
between geological groups or within groups (except with formations of the Knox Group).
Lithium levels were significantly lower in A than in B horizons for ORR formations with the
exception of ORR Dismal Gap and Copper Ridge.. Lithium content was not significantly*'
different between B and C horizons with the exception of the ORR Chickamauga Bethel
Valley.
High levels of lithium in the soil surface over levels found in lower B and C horizons
would indicate a possibility of surface contamination.
Magnesium. Sources of magnesium include agricultural lime plus that inherited from
underlying rock. Very high concentrations in A horizons would indicate that a site had been
limed in the past
Magnesium levels between on- and off-site sampling areas were significantly different for
A and B horizons of the Dismal Gap Formation and for all horizons of the Copper Ridge
Formation. Magnesium levels on the ORR were significantly different between and within
geological groups. Magnesium levels were significantly lower in A than in B horizons for
ORR formations with the exception of the ORR Dismal Gap, Chepultepec, and Coppec
Ridge formations. Magnesium content was significantly lower in B than in C horizons with'
the exception of the ORR Chickamauga K-25, Chepultepec, and Copper Ridge formations.
Magnesium levels are higher in C horizons than in A and B horizons. This distribution'
results from the usually net downward movement of this element Some surface A horizons
can have slightly higher levels of both magnesium and calcium; a result of biologic uptakes-
Fast additions of agricultural lime can also result in higher levels of surface magnesium. The
ORR Nolichucky soils have less magnesium than, the ORR Dismal Gap soils, a reflection of
the lower carbonate content of the Nolichucky Formation.
Manganese. Manganese in soils has several valance states, with some compounds having::
-------
6-26
a valance of 4-2, +3, and +4. Most soil manganese occurs in the oxide form (+4), which has
a very low solubility. Manganese along with iron compounds in the soil is involved with
oxidation-reduction processes as either an electron donor or acceptor. Many soils are deficient-
in plant usable manganese. Manganese is of interest in soils because of its association with
other trace and potentially toxic metals.
Manganese levels between on- and off-site sampling areas were significantly different for
the A horizons of the Dismal Gap Formation and the B horizon of the Copper Ridge
Formation. Manganese levels on the ORR were not significantly different between and within
geological groups. Manganese content was significantly lower in B than in A horizons with
the exception of the ORR Nolichucky Formation.
Manganese levels on the ORR are not considered to be a contaminant because no
difference was found between on- and off-site sampling areas.
Mercury. Mercury was detected at some BSCP sites. Mercury was detected in on- and
off-site sampling areas in the A horizon of the Dismal Gap and Copper Ridge formations.
Significantly higher mercury concentrations in the A horizon than in the B and C horizons
were observed for the ORR Dismal Gap Formation and the ORR Chickamauga K-25 sites.
Some of these sites may have been contaminated with mercury.
The presence of mercury in the A horizon of soils can be taken as an indicator of
airborne deposition, especially if none is detected in the B and C horizons. Some mercury,
however, may be inherited from the underlying rock.
Molybdenum. Molybdenum was detected at only 3% of the sites and only in the A
horizon. Molybdenum was detected (A horizon) in one site at the ORR Copper Ridge
Formation, but the concentration was at the analytical detection limit, which makes the data
questionable. Not enough data were collected to perform a statistical analysis for comparisons
between locations and geological groups.
The presence of molybdenum in A horizon samples in greater amounts than in B and
C horizons above detection can probably be taken as a sign that there is probably surface
contamination.
Nickel. Nickel contents are highest in ultramaGc rocks-Sedimentary rocks contain nickel,
with the highest range being for argillaceous rocks and the lowest for sandstone. Nickel
occurs primarily in sulfides and arsenides, and most of it is in ferromagnesian minerals,
replacing iron. Nickel is also associated with carbonates, phosphates, and silicates. Nickel is
easily mobilized during weathering and then is coprecipitated mainly with iron and manganese
oxides. In surface soil horizons, nickel appears to occur mainly in organically bound forms.
Nickel distribution in soil profiles is related either to organic matter or to amorphous oxides
and clay fractions, depending on soil conditions. Nickel status in soils is highly dependent on
the nickel content of the parent material and on soil-forming processes. Total nickel content
in U.S. topsoils ranges from <5 to 200 mg/kg. The highest nickel contents are always in clayey
and loamy soils, in soils over basic and volcanic rocks, and in organic-rich soils. Nickel is
released into the environment from metal processing operations and from the increasing
combustion of coal and oil (automobile exhaust or from oil-burning power plants). The
-------
6-27
Nickel levels between on- and off-site sampling areas were not significantly different.
Nickel levels on the ORR were significantly different between groups (except C horizons) but
not within groups. Nickel levels were significantly lower in A than in B horizons only for the
ORR Chickamauga Bethel Valley. Nickel content was significantly lower in B than in C
horizons with the exception of the ORR Nolichucky, Chickamauga K-25, and Copper Ridge
formations.
The level of nickel is the lowest in the soil surface and highest in the C horizon,
indicating a dominant geologic source. If nickel is highest in the surface horizon, it would be
considered to be associated with contamination.
Osmium. Osmium was not detected at any site. Its presence, in greater amounts in A
than in B or C horizons, could be taken as a sign of contamination.
Potassium. Potassium is an important element in all soils. Its natural occurrence in soils
is of geologic origin. Potassium, being an important plant nutrient that is nearly always
limiting, is added to soils in fertilizer.
Potassium levels between on- and off-site sampling areas were significantly different for
the Dismal Gap Formation, but only the B and C horizons were significantly different in the
Copper Ridge. Potassium levels were significantly different both between and within groups
on the ORR. Potassium levels were significantly lower in A than in B horizons for ORR
formations with the exception of the Dismal Gap and Copper Ridge formations. Potassium
content was not significantly different between B and C horizons with the exception of the
ORR Dismal Gap and Nolichucky formations.
The use of potassium fertilizer in this study cannot be ruled out, but potassium.,
distributions by soil horizon and by location indicate that very little potassium fertilizer was.
ever applied to the sampled sites. ORR Nolichucky soils, having a higher clay mineral content
and also a higher mica content, have quite high potassium levels, especially in the C horizon.
Potassium levels in soils cannot be taken as an indicator of any contamination.
Selenium. Selenium occurs in nearly all materials of the earth's crust In sedimentary
rocks, selenium is associated with the clay fraction, and thus the smallest quantities of
selenium are in sandstone and limestone. Selenite ions (SeOj2-) resulting from oxidation ,
processes are stable and able to migrate until they are adsorbed on mineral or organic
particles. The solubility of selenium in most soils is rather low. Soils heavily amended with
sewage sludge or flyash will have a higher selenium content The grand mean of total,
selenium in. topsoils is 0.4 mg/kg. A considerable input of selenium to the soil surface takes
place through precipitation from volcanic exhalation and industrial emissions, in particular,
the combustion of coals.
Selenium levels between on- and off-site sampling areas were significantly different only
for the A horizon of the Copper Ridge Formation and.were not detected in the ORR Dismal.
Gap Formation. Selenium levels of ORR A and B horizons were significantly different
between groups but were not significantly different within groups. Selenium data are doubtful,
based on the low number of detects.
The presence of selenium in greater amounts in A than in B or C horizons above
-------
6-28
Silicon. Silica is a dominant component of all inorganic soils. However, since the
acid-extractable silica does not represent total silica content, it does not reflect the actual
amount of silica in the soiL
Silicon levels between on- and off-site sampling areas were significantly different for the
Dismal Gap Formation but not for the Copper Ridge Formation. Silicon levels on the ORR
were significantly different between geological groups. Silicon levels were significantly
different for formations within the Chickamauga and the Conasauga Group. Silicon levels
within the. Knox Group were not significantly different Silicon levels were not significantly
different between A and B horizons of ORR formations with the exception of the ORR
Chickamauga K-25. Silicon levels were not significantly different between B and C horizons.
Silver. Silver was not detected at any site. Its presence in greater amounts in A horizon
than in B or C horizons above detection can be considered a probable sign of potential
surface contamination.
Sodium. Sodium was not analyzed in the Dismal Gap and Nolichucky formations. Sodium
levels between the on- and off-site sampling areas for the Copper Ridge Formation were not
significantly different. Sodium levels for the ORR were significantly different between
geological groups but not within the groups. Sodium levels were not significantly different
between A and B horizons or between B and C horizons for ORR formations.
Because sodium ions are so mobile, the presence of sodium, unless in very high amounts
from road salt contamination, cannot be used as a sign of probable contamination.
Strontium. Strontium is likely to be concentrated in intermediate igneous rocks and in
carbonate sediments. Strontium is very often associated with calcium because of its similar
geochemical and biochemical characteristics. Strontium is easily mobilized during weathering,
and it is incorporated in clay minerals and strongly fixed by organic matter. Strontium content
in soil is highly controlled by parent material and climate. Mean contents of strontium for
U.S. topsoils range from 110 to 445 mg/kg. Strontium distribution in soils follows the general
trends of soil biocycling. Anthropogenic sources of strontium are most likely from coal flyash
deposition.
Strontium levels between on- and off-site sampling areas were not significantly different
for A and B horizons of the Dismal Gap and Copper Ridge formations. Strontium was not
detected in the C horizon of the ORR Copper Ridge Formation. Strontium levels on the
ORR were significantly different between and within groups. Strontium levels were not
significantly different between A and B horizons of ORR formations with the exception of
the ORR Chickamauga K-25. Strontium levels were not significantly different between B and
C horizons with the exception of the ORR Chickamauga K-25 and Bethel Valley formations.
Sulfate. Sulfate levels between on- and off-site sampling areas were significantly different
for the Dismal Gap Formation, but sulfate levels for A and B horizons were not significantly
different for the Copper Ridge Formation. Sulfate levels on the ORR were significantly
different between groups but not within groups with the exception of the Conasauga Group.
Sulfate levels were not significantly different between A and B horizons for ORR
formations with the exception of the ORR Nolichucky Formation. Sulfate levels were not
significantly different between B and C horizons with the exception of the ORR Chickamauga
-------
6-29
The most likely source of sulfate anions found in the surface horizons of soils is
deposition from coal- and oil-fired electric power plants. Some sulfate can be inherited from
the underlying geology where pyritic compounds weather. The Dismal Gap Formation, at least
on the ORR, is known to contain pyritic materials.
Thallium. Thallium concentration seems to increase with the increasing acidity of igneous
rocks and with the increasing clay content of sedimentary rocks. The cation Th+ is highly
associated with potassium and boron and also with several other cations and is incorporated
into various minerals, mainly sulfides. During weathering, thallium is readily mobilized and
transported together with alkaline metals. Thallium is most often fixed in situ by clays and by
manganese and iron oxides. Thallium concentration in U.S. surface soils ranges from 0.02 to
2.9 mg/kg. The largest anthropogenic sources of thallium are related to coal combustion, but
also heavy metal smelting and refining processes may release some amounts of thallium into
the environment
Thallium was detected in only 13% of the collected samples. Thallium was detected (A
horizon) at one site of the ROA Dismal Gap Formation and ORR Dismal Gap Formation,
both with similar concentrations and below the analytical detection limit No significant
differences were observed between on- and off-site sampling areas, groups, and formations.
Vanadium This metal is concentrated mainly in mafic rocks and in shales within the
common range of 100 to 250 mg/kg. It usually does not form its own mineral but rather
replaces other metals (Fe, Pt, Al) in crystal structures. Vanadium tends to be associated with
organic matter. Much of the soil vanadium, mainly the vanadyl cation, is mobilized as
complexes with humic acids. In general, vanadium is distributed in soil profiles rather
uniformly, and the variation in vanadium content of the soil is inherited from parent materials.
The average vanadium content of soils is 84 mg/kg for U.S. soils. The industrial processing
of certain mineral ores and burning of coals and oils will increase the deposition of vanadium
in soils. Combustion of fuel oil is an especially serious source of vanadium in soils.
Overall, vanadium levels in A horizons were not significantly different between on- and
off-site sampling areas. Vanadium levels for A, B, and C horizons from on- and off-site
Dismal Gap soils were not significantly different Vanadium levels for the A horizon of the
Copper Ridge Formation were significantly different in on- versus off-site areas. Vanadium
levels on the ORR were significantly different between groups but not within groups with the.
exception of the Knox Group. Vanadium levels were significantly lower in A than in B
horizons for ORR formations with the exception of the ORR Dismal Gap and Chickamauga
Bethel Valley. Vanadium levels were not significantly different between B and C horizons-
with the exception of the ORR Copper Ridge Formation.
Vanadium levels on the ORR are not considered to be a contaminant because no
difference was found between on- and off-site sampling areas and because vanadium levels
were lower in the A than in the B horizon.
Zinc- Zinc occurs chiefly as a sulfide (ZnS) but is also known to substitute for magnesium
in silicates. The solubility of zinc minerals during weathering produces Zn+2, especially in
acidic, oxidizing environments. Also, zinc is easily adsorbed by minerals and organic
components, and thus, in most soil types, its accumulation in the surface horizon is observed.
Mean total zinc content in surface soils of different countries and the U.S. ranges from 17
-------
6-30
and the production of biomass. The anthropogenic sources of zinc are related, first of all, to
the nonfenic metal industry and then to agriculture practices.
Overall, zinc levels in the A horizon were significantly different between on- and off-site
sampling areas. Zinc levels in A, B, and C horizons of on- and off-site Dismal Gap formations
were not significantly different Zinc levels between on- and off-site sampling areas were
significantly different only in the C horizon of Copper Ridge Formation soils. Zinc levels in
B and C horizons on the ORR were significantly different between groups. Zinc levels were
not significantly different between A and B horizons for ORR formations with the exception
of ORR Chepultepec and Copper Ridge. Zinc levels were not significantly different between
B and C horizons with the exception of the ORR Chickamauga Bethel Valley, Chepultepec,
and Copper Ridge formations.
6l53 Summary of Inorganics
For certain users of this data, grand median values by horizon across all geologic groups
have been computed. These are in Table G.8. However, the data must be used with great
caution. Following is a list of inorganics where there are no significant differences among
groups: barium, A horizon; chromium, B horizon; copper, B horizon; molybdenum, A and B
horizon; thallium, A and B horizon; and zinc, A horizon. The following list of inorganics is
significantly different between the 1% to 10% level: cobalt, A horizon; copper, C horizon;
lead, A, B, and C horizon; manganese, A, B, and C horizon; nickel, C horizon; selenium, A
horizon; sodium, C horizon; thallium, C horizon; vanadium, A horizon. All the other
inorganics are significantly different and the data for these in Table G.8 should not be used.
6_5-3.1 Comparisons by horizons
Atmospheric deposition of contaminants will be detected by a significantly higher
concentration in the A horizon compared with the underlying B and C horizons. Another
reason for the accumulation of metals in the A horizon is biocycling (e.g., nutrients deposited
by plants).
The concentration of the following inorganic compounds or metals were significantly
higher in the A than in B horizons: mercury and manganese. Manganese is a plant nutrient
that accumulates in the A horizon. Mercury may be a colt iminant in this area. The A horizon
concentration of all other elements was lower than or similar to the B horizon.
6:532. Comparisons by geologic groups
In general, significant differences in metal concentrations were observed among geologic
groups and not within the groups. The data for those elements can be obtained from
Table 6.1a.
The median concentration of most of the inorganic compounds and metals were not
significantly different between Chickamauga Bethel Valley and K-25 with the exception of:
calcium in the C horizon, mercury in the A horizon, potassium in both B and C horizons, and
silicon in both B and C horizons. The data for these elements can be obtained from Sect 5.
The median concentrations of most of the inorganic compounds and metals in the Dismal
-------
6-31
soils with the exception of mercury in the A horizon; potassium in the C horizon; selenium
in both B and C horizons; silicon in the A, B, and C horizons; and sulfate in both the A and
C horizons. The data for these elements can be obtained from Sect. 5.
The median concentrations of most of the inorganic compounds and metals in the
Copper Ridge and Chepultepec formations can be used as background data for other soils
in the Knox Group, with the exception of arsenic in the A horizon, barium in the C horizon,
lead in the A horizon, lithium in the C horizon, magnesium, in the C horizon, potassium in ¦
budi the A and B huiizuns, selenium in the A horizon, strontium in the C hutizun, and"
vanadium in the C horizon. The data for these elements can be obtained from Sect 5.
6_533 Interpretation by sampling areas
Two formations were used to compare the background levels on the ORR against
surrounding counties. Anderson and Roane counties were sampled following the same
procedures as at the ORR. The Dismal Gap (Conasauga Group) and Copper Ridge (Knox-
Group) formations were sampled.
Inorganic compounds and metals that had concentrations very close to the AA/ICP
detection limits were not compared statistically (Sb, Cd, Os, Ag, and cyanide). Other
extraction methods will be needed to compare those elements. Twenty-four inorganic-
compounds and metals were used to compare between on- and off-site sampling areas.
The following metal concentrations were significantly higher in the ORR Dismal Gap'
Formation thanithe off-site sampling areas: arsenic in the C horizon, mercury in the^A«
horizon, silicon in the C horizon, and sulfate in the C horizon. The following metaK
concentrations were significantly higher in the ORR Copper Ridge than the off-site sampling
areas: arsenic in both A and B horizons and zinc in the C horizon.
6l5.4 Radionuclides
Radionuclides in soils originate from three major sources: (1) those naturally occurring*
in soils and bedrock; (2) those resulting from global fallout after atmospheric bomb tests and-;
nuclear reactor accidents in the former Soviet Union; and (3) those originating from uranium-
enrichment, isotope production, reactor operation, and reprocessing activities. This project-
tried to include all radionuclides that have been or could be detected on any known'
contaminated areas of the ORR.
Radionuclides from global fallout and local sources are expected to be associated mainly
with surface soils (A horizon), and radionuclides from natural sources are expected to beu
present in both surface and subsurface soils (B and C horizons). The following radionuclides*-
including 2aPuv239lQ,0Pu, ^Np, ^r, "Tc, ^^^'Cm, and tritium, were analyzed in all A
horizon soil samples but were not analyzed in all B and C horizon soils. This decision was^
made based on the observed absence of gamma-producing radionuclides, such as I37Cs and'
241 Am from nonnatural sources in B and C horizons.
A total of 34 isotopes was analyzed. In most cases, the majority of radionuclides was not-
detected above the reported detection limit (qualifier UJ), or the analytical results were.
rejected because of serious deficiencies in the ability to analyze the sample and meet quality:
-------
6-32
represent the actual limit of quantification necessary to accurately and precisely measure the
analyte in the samples, but it could be used as an upper bound of background concentration.
On the other hand, analytical results having data validation qualifier "R" are not reported
because the presence or absence of the analyte cannot be verified. Summary statistics for
radionuclides with fewer than 20% detects are presented in Table 5.7 after combining over
sampling areas. The contract laboratory for radionuclide analyses reported l55Eu values as a
detect by gamma spectroscopy, but the data interpretation tMm rejected the data because of
possible interference with the gamma spectra of other naturally occurring radionuclides in
soils. Tlieiefore, statistics for L53Eu were not included in Table 5.7. Summary statistics of ^Eu
expect to be similar to U2Eu or 1S4Eu, because the europium isotopes were in a similar gamma
energy range and were all determined to be nondetects by gamma spectroscopy.
Radionuclides detected (see Table 5.8) are 137Cs; 247Cm; ^Np; 40K; ^Pu and 259/2t0Pu;
226Ra; 228Th, 230Th, 23>Th, and 234Th; and 2a2MU, ^U, and ^U. Uranium-235 and
uranium-238 along with thorium-232 were also determined by the NAA method and have
been substituted for the I CP extraction method. In the following discussion, interpretations
are limited to those radionuclides that were positively identified in most soil samples.
Additional information is presented in Sect. 5 for other radionuclides that were produced
during nuclear material testing, reactor spent fuel reprocessing, and isotope production. Most
of these particular radionuclides were below detection limits. Only those radionuclides with
several detects are discussed below.
Cesium-137. The major source of this radionuclide is global fallout. Analytical results
showed that both Dismal Gap and Nolichucky Formation A horizon soils on the ORR have
a higher concentration than Dismal Gap Formation soils in Anderson and Roane counties.
This is most likely the result of greater off-site soil erosion. In addition to the global fallout
of 137Cs, there is an additional local source contribution to some of the Bethel Valley
Chickamauga soils. This was first noticed from the electrostatic discharge gamma scanning of
the upper 30 cm of individual sites (see Sect 3). The amount of the radionuclide decreased
rapidly with depth in B and C horizons at all sites and sampling areas. The presence of
elevated 137Cs levels in some of the Chickamauga-Bethel Valley section soils is the only
location on the ORR where past operations of Oak Ridge- X-10 facilities may be a
contributing factor for . the higher levels of mCs in these Bethel Valley soils. Recent
additional work, however, immediately east of the HFIR facility located in Melton Valley
tends to indicate another localized source. Any background risk assessment on the ORR for
137Cs should, therefore, use ORR values by geologic formation rather than any overall median
value.
Curium-247. Curium-247 is produced at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) as a
part of isotope production activities. Therefore, some of sediments/soils and wastes contain
curium isotopes. The analyte was positively identified in. only two soil samples from
Nolichucky ORR. The concentrations were below the detection limits for all other soil:
samples. The location of the two samples with detects are too far away from possible sources.
Therefore, the detection limit should be used as a possible maximum background leveL
Neptunium-237. Neptunium-237 is a global fallout and/or decay product of other
actinides. A considerable number of A horizon soil samples had detectable amounts of ^Np.
On-site soils appear to have higher amounts than off-site soils. The Copper Ridge soils in
Roane County had much lower amounts. Nolichucky soils on the ORR appear to have
-------
6-33
small to differentiate local input from global fallout Soil samples from subsurface horizons
were not analyzed Statistical analyses show no significant differences among the formations
and sampling areas.. For their data comparison and assessment, data users should, use
appropriate values from Table 6.1b.
Plutonhnn-238 and -239/240. Plutonium isotopes originate from global fallout and/or
reactor fuel processing. Both isotopes were positively identified in less than 25% of A horizon
samples. The presence of these radionuclides at both on-site and off-site sampling areas and
without any noticeable disliibulkiu Ueud suggests thai liieie is uu additional QRR source
contribution to the global fallout source. However, if the global source is the sole source of
the plutonium isotopes, the activity ratio of ^Pu to 239/340Pu should be similar to the known
ratio, about 0.04, for the northern hemisphere (Perkins and Thomas 1980). The observed
values are at least ten times higher than the known ratio. Furthermore, the frequency of
detects (J qualifier) of ^Pu were about a factor of 2 higher than that of 238/240Pu. Considering
the low frequency of detects, low activities, and the high 238 to 239/240 activity ratios, any
generalization of the available data is difficult to assess.
Although the statistical analyses indicate that the differences among the formations are
significant, data users should be careful in using this plutonium data for their applications:
The ^Pu data could be used as an upper concentration level of background plutonium
concentration for the study area but should not be used as a tool for source determination.
For a better understanding and to answer the source term questions, additional plutonium
data should be'acquired.
PotassnmMQi Potassium-40 is the most abundant naturally occurring isotope in soBs.LIn^
most cases, variability of *°K is related to amounts of micaceous minerals and organic matter-
in the soils. Dismal Gap-and Nolichucky soils have a higher 40K concentration than Copper
Ridge and Chepultepec soils regardless of location. The results reflect the mineralogical-
composition of these soils. Potassium-bearing clay minerals are abundant in the Conasauga-
Group, but potassium-free kaolinite is the major clay mineral in Knox Group soils:
Chickamauga soils had similar 40K levels as Dismal Gap soils. In general, A horizon soil
samples-had lower 40K values than B and C horizon samples. The degree of soil weatherings
also influences both total and radioactive potassium contents in soils. Therefore, data users
should compare their data with equivalent geologic groups and soil horizons. For independent
evaluation of analytical methods, the 40K activities of the soils were calculated from the totaK
nonradioactive potassium (39K) values (NAA results) using the natural abundance of 40K to*-
total potassium (0.01167%). The scatter diagram indicated that the gamma spectroscopy
method has-a reasonably good correlation with the NAA method (Table 63.).
The above generalizations are also supported by statistical analyses. The 40K contents irr~
A horizons of Nolichucky, Chickamauga K-25, and Dismal Gap at Roane County were^
significantly different from B and C horizons. The Chickamauga B horizons also have
significantly different *°K concentrations than C horizons. Furthermore, all formations are
different for 40K. Therefore, data users should try to match equivalent geologic formations
-------
6-34
Tible 62. Ratios of radionuclide concentrations"
Description
N
Mean
Std dcv
Minimum
Maximum
K-40 NAA/K-40 Gamma
122
0.938
0.518
0.038
5.826
Th-228 Alpha/Th-232 Alpha
148
1.024
0.180
0.121
2.000
Tli-232 NAA/Th-232 Alpha
136
1.214
0.746
0321
7.400
Pu-238 Alpha/Pu-239,240 Alpha
8
1.891
1.104
0.677
3.464
U-235 Alpha/U-238 Alpha
107
0.143
0.526
0.025
5.437
U-235 NAA/U-238 NAA
139
0.047
0.010
0.018
0.102
U-238 NAA/U-238 Alpha
120
1.140
0334
0352
2.136
U-233,234 Alpha/U-238 Alpha
136
0.984
0368 -
0.753
5.039
Th-234 Alpha/U-238 Alpha
60
1.418
0.459
0.833
2.754
Total U/Sum U-234,235,238
55
0.695
0.456
0.0333
2.133
"Noodettctt not mriBritd, except for Sum U-234, 235, 238, for which ooe-balf of the U-23S detection limit is used
for U-23S nonrirtrttt. (Contribution of U-Z3S to the sum is negligible, however.)
Radium-226. Radium-226 is a naturally occurring radionuclide in soils and one of the
decay products of aU. Analytical, results show that A horizons from AND Dismal Gap have
significantly higher amounts of 226Ra than in B and C horizons, but this .trend did not hold
for other soils for all other locations. Dismal Gap soils from Anderson County were relatively >
higher in 226Ra levels than other soils, including the ROA Dismal Gap and ORR soils. On
the other hand, ORR Copper Ridge soils had higher ^Ra levels than the AND and ROA
Copper Ridge soils. The median value of the A horizon from AND Copper Ridge soils was
lower than that of other soils because of the presence of one nondetect value in the data set-
Statistical analyses, do. not show noticeable trends or differences in the distribution of
226Ra between horizons except in the Chepultepec on the ORR and the Copper Ridge in
Roane County. There are some significant differences among geologic groups at ORR and
Dismal Gap srfls at different locations. Therefore, the average values for each geologic group
should be appued for environmental risk and contaminated site assessments. See Table 6.1b.
Strontium-9Q. Stronttum-90, like 137Cs, is a man-made fission product Global and local r
fallout would be the major sources in soils. The analytical results showed one detect from the
ORR Dismal Gap and one detect from Copper Ridge soils in Anderson County. The location
of the detect soils and low frequency of the detects suggests that the overall detection limit
should be applied as background level of ®°Sr.
Techoedum-99. Technetium-99 is one of the fission products that is introduced to the
environment by the reprocessing of spent fuel, by the uranium enrichment process, or from
global fallout Technetium-99 is present in the contaminated areas of the three plant sites.
However, repeated sampling and analyses did not show any noticeable elevated background
at the ORR. Technetium-99 was detected from a few on-site samples as well as from off-site
soil samples. The Dismal Gap and Copper Ridge soils from Anderson County have a higher
-------
6-35
There were no significant differences of "Tc concentrations among formations on the
ORR. The results suggest that there was no significant contribution of "Tc from local
sources. Therefore, the background level of "Tc should be estimated from detect values of
both on- and off-sites. See Table 6.1b for appropriate values.
Tborium-228, -230, -232, and -234. Thorium isotopes occur naturally in soils and arc
important for health risk assessment if elevated levels occur in soils. Thorium-232 is a primary
isotope of the thorium series, and the others.are products.of uranium or thorium decay.
Thorium-228 is a decay product of thorium-232. In the AND Dismal Gap soils, the level of--
228Th was relatively higher than in the same Dismal Gap soils of Roane County and the ORR]
The A horizon of soils from the Copper Ridge had fairly low levels compared to all other-
horizons sampled in this project The £ and C horizons of Copper Ridge soils were not i
significantly different from other soils. The median value .from the A horizon in the K-25
Chickamauga was significantly higher than other A horizons. Nolichucky soils also had a*
higher 228Th level than other sites. Thorium-232 had a distribution pattern similar to that of
thorium-228, and their overall concentration ratio was close to 1 (1.024). Thorium-230 and
-234 are decay products of uranium-238. Uranium-238 decays to thorium-234 and then to^
uranium-234. Uranium-234 decays to thorium-230. Therefore, the230!!! and 234Th distributions!
should relate to uranium distribution in soils. Copper Ridge soils had relatively higher 230Th
levels than Dismal Gap soils for both on- and off-site locations. In general, 230Th levels :of1
Copper Ridge soils increased with depth. There was no observable trend between on-site and .
off-site locations.. Thorium-234 data have some inconsistency; that is, a considerable numbexu
of samplefewexe-DOodetects. Therefore, the results were not interpreted because, the resuitsu
should have the same trend as and ^U. Thorium-232 in soils was also analyzed by ther.
NAA method, and the results were compared with the alpha spectroscopy results. A scattart
plot of the results showed a reasonably good correlation between the two methods
(Table 63).
Overall, statistical analysis of ^Th and ^^Th show that A horizons of all ORR soils fironr •
each formation were significantly different from all others; and all of the geologic groups at.
the ORR location were significantly different from all others. Other horizons did not show
such, differences. For 230Th in C horizons^each formation and.geological group at the.ORR
was. significantly different from other formations and groups at the ORR. Data- fore
comparisons must be obtained by horizon and formation in Sect 5.
Tritium^ Although tritium forms naturally in the atmosphere, this source is not usuallyn
a significant one. Tritium has been used in many different projects at ORNL, resulting inrav.
considerable ^amount of discharge to waste steams. Natural rain water contains 100*tou
300 pCi/L (EPA 1991). Tritium was detected in soils of these formations on the ORR,
including Chickamauga-Bethel Valley, Copper Ridge, and Dismal Gap. Chickamauga-BetheL;
Valley soils had significantly higher levels, indicating a local source area near ORNLir
Building 4500. Cesium-137 was also higher in the Chickamauga-Bethel Valley soils, but levels. -
of other radionuclides and inorganic components were not elevated. Off-site soils did not harve
detectable levels of tritium-The cesium and tritium results indicate that some ORR soils were-
contaminated by local sources. Therefore, data users should be careful about using
Chickamauga-Bethel Valley tritium and l37Cs data. For example, if the user wants> the/
background level of tritium, the user should use the maximum detection level calculated from -
-------
6-36
Uranium-233/234, -235, and -238. Uranium was quantified by three different isotopic
analysis methods: alpha spectroscopy for all isotopes, NAA, and gamma spectroscopy for
and »U. Uranium-233 is not a naturally occurring isotope, and uranium-234 is a decay
product of MU. However, alpha spectroscopic analysis could not distinguish the two isotopes,
mU and ^U. Therefore, this report designated these two isotopes as 2a234U, even though
all activity was contributed by ^U. In theory, activity ratios should be unity among ^U, ^U,
and 234Th at equilibrium. Actual ratios of observations were reasonably close (Table 62). If
was not enriched nor depleted, the natural activity ratio of to should be 0.046.
Alpha spectroscopy results had a ratio of 0.143, and the NAA result had a talk) of 0.047. The
scatter plot of NAA vs alpha spectroscopy results showed excellent agreement with the
isotopic ratio 1.214 (Table 62). The results suggest that (1) soils had natural isotopic ratios
for uranium, (2) results analyzed by alpha method were not as good as the results
analyzed by the NAA, and (3) interpretation of uranium isotope distribution can be done as
a group instead of on an individual isotope basis.
Most of the uranium isotope series occurs naturally in soils, but the ORR soils were
expected to have additional inputs from local sources, such as Oak Ridge K-25 Site and Oak
Ridge Y-12 Plant operations. However, the analytical results of background soils do not
confirm such speculation. Uranium data show that A horizon soils have relatively lower levels
than do the B and C horizons. Dismal Gap soils have relatively lower values than soils of
other formations regardless of location. Copper Ridge soils, except the Roane County area,
have higher uranium values than other formation soils. Therefore, the depth of soil, geologic
formation,, and. location are all important factors for uranium distribution. For ORR
Nolichucky soils, uranium data analyzed by alpha spectroscopy were not usable and were
replaced.with NAA data.
General statistical analyses also indicated that 2J3/2J4U and ^U levels in C horizon soils
were significantly different among the formations and groups at the ORR. Data users should
follow the general data user guidelines in Sect 2 and use appropriate values for horizons and
formation-locations in Sect. 5.
Total Uranium.- Total uranium concentration was' determined by pulsed laser
phosphorimetry. The mass-based analytical results (mg/kg) were converted to activity units
(pCi/g) using natural isotopic ratios of uranium (see Sect. 4.53.8). To evaluate the total
uranium data, regression analysis of laser phosphorimetry results with alpha spectroscopy
'esults was conducted. Total uranium activities of the alpha spc ^troscopy were calculated by
umming the individual isotope (233/234U, ^U, and 23®U) activities. Linear regression analysis
shows 2.02-for the intercept, 1.17 for the slope, and 0.16 for the correlation coefficient in a
scatter plot of the sum of the isotopes vs total uranium. These results suggest that the total
uranium data, as determined by the laser phosphorimetry method, may not be as accurate as
determined by the alpha spectroscopy method. With the exception of some of the ffiU data,
the alpha spectroscopy isotopic analysis results showed excellent agreement with NAA results.
Furthermore, the activity ratio of 233nM\J vs ^U analyzed by alpha spectroscopy was in
agreement with the theoretical value. Therefore, even though total uranium data are
presented in the data tables, these data are not recommended to be used as background data.
Waste management and environmental restoration projects including risk assessment activities
need to use isotopic uranium data rather than total uranium data.
Note: Uranium-236 was detected in three soil samples: one from K-25 Chickamauga soils
-------
6-37
Summary of Statistical Analysis
For certain users of this data, grand median values by horizon across all geologic groups
have been computed. These are in Table G.9. However, the data must be used with great
caution. Following is a list of radionuclides where there are no significant differences among
groups: gamma, A, B, and C horizon; ^Np, A horizon; ^Ra, A horizon; 2aTh alpha,
B horizon; total U alpha, A, B, and C horizon; and 233aM\J alpha, A horizon. The following
list of radionuclides is significantly different between 1% to 10% level; mU alpha, A, B, and
C horizon; alpha, A and B horizon; 230Th alpha, A horizon; and za7J*U, B horizon. A11--
the other radionuclides are significantly different and the data for these in Table G.9 should
not be used.
6.6 TRACE ELEMENTS ANALYZED BY NAA
The following trace elements were analyzed by the NAA method: Ce, Eu, Ga, Au, Hfj-
La, Lu, Rb, Sc, Tb, Ti, and Yb. Because these elements, occur in small quantities,,
conventional analytical methods are not sensitive enough to detect them. The NAA method:
can detect small amounts. Most of these elements are not considered to be important in any-
risk analysis, but they can be important in tracing sediments to their source geologic
formation.
Gold, gallmnt, hafnium, rubidium, scandium, and titaniurrrare not part of either thet:
actinide or lanthanirip- series of elements; but they do occur in trace amounts. Elements in the::
actinide series have differing geochemistry than those rare earth elements in the lanthanum?!
series. All of the actinide series have radioactive isotopes. In this project they include Np.TTv
U, Pu, Am, Cm, and Pa. All of these, except cerium, were analyzed; and the results, if there
were any detects, are discussed in Sect 6.43. The analysis for lanthanides included Ce, Eu,
La, Lu, Tb, and Yb.
The lanthaiyriffx have a geochemical behavior that makes them well qualified for
geochemical studies (Brookins 1989). Most lanthanides are large cations with a valance of +3..
The only exceptions are cerium with a valance of +4 and europium with a valance of +2. The:
large ionic radius tends to segregate them from other metal ions. Many lanthanides form
complexes as fluorides, phosphates, and carbonates. Cerium, for example, tends to form
complexes/ with manganese compounds as oxides. Many lanthanides become more
concentrated in shales. Many lanthanides also tend to move quite readily in aqueous solutions.
and become more concentrated in carbonates.
Cerium Cerium is found in significantly lower levels in soils of the Knox Group than irL.
all other groups and in all horizons. Cerium is found in higher levels in soils of the
Chickamauga Group.
Europium. Levels of europium are nearly the same for all A horizons that were sampled,
but europium levels in the B and C horizons of the Knox Group soils were much lower than
for all other groups. Chickamauga B and C horizons had higher levels than all other groups.
Europium tends to become concentrated in shales.
-------
6-38
Gold. Gold was detected only in some of the ORR and Roane Copper Ridge soils and
in some ORR Chepultepec soils (5 of 12 detects).
Hafnium. Hafnium was detected in nearly all samples. Hafnium and titanium are closely
related and should have a similar distribution in soils. The C horizons of Knox Group soils
at all locations had lower levels than ail other groups.
T -anthammr I anthanum was detected in all but one sample. Lanthanum levels were
similuf in all A Iioiujchu and all D and C hoiizum. except thuse uf the Knox Oruup sollsr"
which were significantly different.
T Jitetium Lutetium was detected in nearly all samples. Levels in all A, B, and C horizon
samples were all nearly the same.
Rubidium. Rubidium was detected in only three samples. Two of the three were confined
to the Bethel Valley section of the Chickamauga Group. Rubidium and cesium are nearly
always associated with potassium minerals. Rubidium is more abundant than cesium, but.
cesium was detected in all samples. In the absence of potassium, both cesium and rubidium
are toxic to animals.
Scandium. Scandium was detected in all samples. Scandium has many similarities to other
lanthanides, except for its smaller ionic radius. Scandium occurs only in very small amounts
in carbonate:rocks. All Knox Group soils had lower levek of this element in A, B, and C
horizons than all other soils, which bears this out. The Roane Copper Ridge had the lowest-
levels among soils of the Copper Ridge Formation. TheConasauga and Chickamauga groups-
had very similar levels^.
Terbium. Terbium was detected in nearly all soils except for the C horizons of Copper
Ridge soils. Chickamauga A B, and C horizons had higher levels than all other soils.
Conasauga and Knox soils had similar levels.
Titan hint. Titanium: is a very common element in soils and geomedia and commonly
associated with iron minerals. This element was detected in all soils and was nearly evenly
distributed among the A B, and C horizons.
Ytterbium. Ytterbium was detected in nearly all samples: The lowest levels were in the
Copper Ridge C horizons for off-site locations in Roane and Anderson Counties.
Cerium, europium, and terbium were higher in the A B, and C horizons of the
Chickamauga Group than in all other formations. Cerium, europium, and gallium were lower
in the C horizon of Knox Group soils. Hafnium, lanthanum, lutetium, and scandium were
lower in the Knox Group than in all other groups. Titanium and ytterbium were quite evenly
-------
7-1
7. BACKGROUND RISK EVALUATION
7.1 SUMMARY
The background soil data, collected from A horizon soils of the Dismal Gap (DG),
Nolichucky (NOL), Copper Ridge (CR), Chepultepec (CHE), and Chickamauga (CHI)
formations on the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) and from Anderson (AND) and Roane
(ROA) counties, were evaluated in terms of potential adverse effects to human health. This
background risk evaluation provides a context for the discussion and comparison of risks
associated with site-related contamination and for determining contaminants of potential
concern (COPC) for that site.
Three primary pathways, of exposure were evaluated, for inorganic, organic and
radionuclide anaiytes, which include (1) direct ingestion of soil, (2) dermal contact with soil,
and (3) external exposure to radionuclides in the soiL Background risks for individual anaiytes;
total pathway risk estimates (Le^ the sum of the background risks of all anaiytes within a
pathway), and cumulative risk estimates (Le-, the sum of the total pathway risks) were
determined.
The constituents detected in the uncontaminated background soil samples were evaluated
within the context of EPA-approved guidelines far contaminated soOs in which there are-
three regions-of carcinogenic risk (risk <1.0e-06, no concern; risk between l.Oe-06-aod
l.Oe-04, range of concern; and risk^ > l.Oe-04, unacceptable) and two areas of systemic.
toxicity (hazard'index <1.0, no concern; and hazard-index >1.0, concern). The background^
risks arc reported, in this - manner, but the results are only for comparison with risks
determined for contaminated sites; the results do not pertain to remediation decisions* ¦
In summary, with a few exceptions, the carcinogenic-risk and noncarcinogenic-hazard
indices determined for individual anaiytes (found in the A horizon of the Dismal Gap and
Copper Ridge formations) were similar for the three sampling areas (ORR, Anderson and
Roane counties).'. The cumulative pathway:background risks^Le^- risks- from ingestion o£soib
plus risks from dermal contact with soil plus risks from external exposure to radionuclides in
the soil) for the Dismal Gap Formation are 6.4e-04, 9.4e-04, and 5.8e~04, for ORR, ANDj
and ROA, respectively; the cumulative risks for Copper Ridge are 7.0e-04, 6.4e-04, and
6.4e-04, respectively. The main contributors to the risk for the both the ingestion and dermal
contact pathways are beryllium and all nine detected polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons*
Cesium-137, potassium-40, radium-226, and thorium-228 are the main contributors to risk for
the external exposure pathway.
The total pathway hazard indices for ingestion of soil in the Dismal Gap Formation-are
0.69, 0.55, and 0.76 for ORR, AND and ROA counties, respectively; the pathway hazard
indices for dermal exposure to Dismal Gap soil are 0.10, 0.09, and 0.12, respectively. For the
Copper Ridge Formation, the total pathway hazard indices for ingestion of soil are 1.7T L2,
and 0.77 for ORR, AND, and ROA, respectively; the total pathway hazard indices for dermal
exposure to Copper Ridge soil are 0.10, 0.15, and 0.07, respectively. Arsenic and manganese
are the major contributors to.the hazard indices for the ingestion pathway, and the:main
-------
7-2
These background risk estimates should be considered only in the context of comparison
with site-related risk. The EPA action level for remediation, of l.Oe-04, refers to risks related
to hazardous waste sites. The background risk results themselves are not indicative of concerns
or actions that would be identified with similar potential risks from a contaminate site, and
care should be taken not to misinterpret these results as pertaining directly to remediation
decisions.
m Q .~* wti> nr%TTrrwr/\% r
/-HN iKUliUtuUn
A primary goal of producing a comprehensive data base for naturally occurring
concentrations of soil constituents on the ORR is to support the need (for human health risk
assessment) to differentiate contamination from naturally occurring constituents. The overall
objective of this section is to evaluate the BSCP data relatrverto risk. The human health risk
assessment methodology in this study is based on the RiskAssessment Guidance for Supafund
(RAGS) (EPA 1989c), so that these risk results for exposure to background soil constituents
will be comparable to future site-related risk evaluations. A quantitative analysis of the
inorganic (metals), organic [polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)], and radionuclide
analytes found in undisturbed soil will characterize the unavoidable potential risks to human
health associated with exposure to these naturally occurring constituents.
Specific objectives of this.section are to (1) evaluate, the potential risks from exposure
to constituents inr background, soflsonthcORR in. order .toprovide: a context for the
discussion of risks associated with site-related contamination:jn future risk assessments, (2)
support the-setectioir.of COPC inrfuture site-related risk assessments,, and. (3) provide-a
comparison based on background risk between the soils collected at the three sampling areas
(Anderson and Roane counties and the ORR). Because remedial investigation (RI) activities
will use soil data specific to the ORR to meet background needs, this evaluation focuses
primarily on background risks associated with ORR soils. Accordingly, the results of each step
of the background risk evaluation are presented in full for the ORR soils. In addition, the
same background risk evaluation process has been applied, to the Dismal Gap Formation and
Copper Ridge Formation- soil data: fronr Anderson and: Roane counties; however; only the
total risk and hazard indices are presented for these locations as part of the comparison of
background risks associated with the three sampling areas.
A human health risk ev 'nation of background soils samples from the DG, NOL, CR,
CHE, and CHI formations is presented in this report. The first step involves evaluating the
data from a risfc assessment perspective and identifying those soQ constituents that will be
considered in the assessment This process parallels the selection of COPC at a contaminated
site. Next is an assessment of the exposure potential and the identification of exposure
pathways.^ Subsequently,- exposure is estimated, and the toxicity of the soil constituents is
appraised. The results of the exposure and toxicity assessments are brought together in the
background risk characterization section, which includes a comparison of background risks
among the three sampling areas (ORR, AND and ROA counties) and a more detailed
description of the ORR soils background risk evaluation.
The following sections describe the methodology used in evaluating site analytical data,
physical characteristics, potential pathways, and receptors in quantifying the potential risk to
-------
7-3
73 DATA. EVALUATION
73.1 Data Usability
Many, natural soil constituents also occur as site related contaminants; therefore, the
major use- of background soil characterization information is to support the selection of
COPC at contaminated ORR sites. The COFC are identified early in the risk assessment
process as those contaminants related to site operations for which adverse health effects will
be ^evaluated.. An accurate assessment of the potential risk to human health posed, by
contaminants found at higher concentrations than naturally occurring background
concentrations is. the basis for risk management decisions. Data collected during the site
investigation of specific hazardous waste sites should be compared to the background data in
this report in order to identify COPC In most cases, it is assumed that an analyte found to
be at a greater concentration than the concentration for that constituent in background soil
is related to site activities and is therefore a COPC Guidance from the EPA suggests that
a concentration of two orders of magnitude above the background concentration is indicative
of a COPC (EPA/540/G-90/008, October 1990). The Risk Assessment Council is producing
guidance on the. selection of COPC This guidance will include specific details on the
application of this background soil information to the COPC selection process.
Of secondary importance, is the application and comparison of the background risk
estimates included in this report to contaminated site risk estimates. Future site-specific
investigations-of risk to human health posed by soil contamination at the ORR,. can:be
compared to the background risk associated with each analyte in this section of the BSCP.
In addition, the total soil background risk reported here can be used to discuss site-related
risk in the context of background risk. The risk evaluation of background soils on the ORR
is to provide a context for the discussion of risks associated with site-related contamination
in future risk assessments. To meet this objective, the background constituents detected in
uncontanrinated soils were evaluated by the same methods typically used to assess the
potential risks resulting from exposure to contaminated soiL Similarly, the results of this
background risk evaluation have been discussed within the context of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and liability Act (CERCLA) framework; CERCLA
uses the potential'risks estimated from site-related contamination to-~ determine: if remedial
action is necessary at a waste site. Although reported in this manner, the background risk
results are not indicative of concerns or warrant remedial actions. Care should be taken not
to misinterpret these results to pertain to remediation decisions.
732. General Site-Specific Data Collection Considerations
General guidance for collecting soil samples is given in the Project Plan for the BSCP
on the ORR in Oak-Ridge, Tennessee (Energy Systems 1992). Guidance for soil sampling is
also included in the EPA publication Preparation of Soil Sampling Protocol, Techniques and
Strategies (EPA 1983). Standard procedures were also followed for the collection of samples
(Kimbrough et aL 1988) and the Engineering Support Branch Standard Operation Procedures
and Quality-Assurance Manual (EPA 1991a). Sample site selection and data collection are
-------
7-4
733 General Site-Specific Data Evaluation Considerations
The validated data included in this study consist of organic, inorganic, and radionuclide
analyses of soils from five formations (Dismal Gap, Nolichucky, Copper Ridge, Chepul tepee,
and Chickamauga), three horizons (A, B, and C), and three sampling areas (Roane County,
Anderson County; and the ORR. Note: (i) for the Chepul tepee and Nolichucky formations,
soil samples were taken from the ORR only; (ii) for the Copper Ridge and Dismal Gap
formations, sofl samples'were taken from Anderson County, Roane County and the ORR;
-pml (ii») fin fliiiihMiiiHiijjH Fnmmliim, mil	wr.ii- mkrai finm luin vj-{Lar*tr plarf*-
on the ORR. For-complete statistical analysis of the data, refer to Sect 5. In this risk
evaluation, both background cancer risk and background systemic [hazard index (HI)] effects
posed to a child and an adult in a hypothetical on-site residential scenario will be determined
for the ORR soil samples taken from the A horizon. Comparisons of total risk (child + adult)
and total HI (child1 + adult) for the three sampling areas (Roane and Anderson counties and
the ORR) for the Dismal Gap and Copper Ridge formations will be made.
The analytes detected in horizon A for the ORR, AND and ROA sampling areas will
be divided into six horizon A data sets (Le^ DG, NOL, CR, CHE, CHI-BV, and CHI-K25);
most tables throughout this text (Sect 7) will be separated into parts a through f to
correspond with these five formations (and the two ORR-Chickamauga sampling locations,
La, CHI-K25 and CHI-BV). ORR sofl data are reported as (i) DG-ORR, (ii) NOL-ORR,
(iii) CR-ORR,. (iv) CHE-ORR, (v) CHI-BV, aud (vi) CH1-K25; therefore, although both
CHI-K25 andjCHL-BV soil data are associated with the Oak Ridge Reservation soil, they will
be listed and evaluated separately in this section (Sect 7)~.
In this BSCP. study, soil samples taken from undisturbed locations on the ORR (from the
A horizon of thcDG, NOL, CR, CHE, and CHI formations) best represent the background
constituents fbund on the reservation and, therefore, best represent the background risk
with these analytes.
7^4,Mwilirii	in thr Rarirgmaiwi Pklr Fynlimtirm
The: identification of specific inorganic, organic and radionuclide soil constituents
included in the assessment of background soil risk is based on methodology from Sect 5 of
RAGS (EPA 1989c). The number of constituents that can be quantitatively evaluated in the
risk evaluation is limits by the availability of chemical-specific EPA-approved dose/response
information. In addition, analytes which were not found above detection limits (undetected)
were not induded-in the risk evaluation. The detected constituents considered in the
quantitative wsestsacal of risk and ncracarcinogenie effects from background soil are listed in
Table.-7.1~ Noter(i) beryllium is the only inorganic analyte found in the background soil
camples for which an EPA-approved slope factor is available; (ii) for the Nolichucky
Formation, problems were found in the alpha spectrometry data for uranium-233/234 and
uranium-238, hence; these data have been replaced with neutron activation analysis (NAA)
data (refer to Sects. 4 and 5); (iii) the technetium-99, tritium, and all organic analyte data are
based on noncomposited samples (refer to Sects. 3 and 4); and (iv) no organic constituents
were detected above the analytical detection limits in the Phase I sampling of the DG and
-------
7-5
Table 7.1a. Oak Ridge Reservation background soil analytes evaluated quantitatively
Dismal Gap
Aaalyie
Freqieacy
of
detecboa
Minimi
delected
coaceatntioa
Mitibibw
delected
coBceatntioD
Lower 95%
coafideace
booad oa
mediaa-
Mediae
coacentiatioB
Upper 95%
coafideace
boaad oa
aediaa


Inorganics (mg/kg)



Anemic
4M
5J0E+00
730E+00
4.SSE+00
6J24E+00
7.97E+00
Barian
m
7.72E+01
212E+02
7.63E+01
9.91E+01
1J29E+02
Betyiliu
m
5.S0E-01
220E+00
6J7E-01
7.81E-01
9.57E-01
Boron
1/3
1.64E+01
2.11E+01
829E+00
1-37E+01
227E+01
ChroniaB VI
4/4
1.94E+01
121E+01
208E+01
247E+01
292E+01
Cyamide
1/3
4 4OE-01
4.40E-01
6.01E-02
1J0E-01
2.S2E-01
Mupioe
4M
7.68E+02
Z22E+03
7.2SE+02
9.97E+02
137E+03
Mercury
4/4
230E-01
4.00E-01
270E-01
3.16E-01
3.70E-01
Mercsry (alt*)
M
2.30E-01
4.00E-01
270E-01
3.16E-01
3.70E-01
Nickel
m
I.95E+01
5.67E+01
1.S9E+01
235E+01
291E+01
Nickel (alts)

L95E+01
5.67E+01
LS9E+01
23SE+01
291E+01
Stroatim*
33
6.10E+00
L68E+01
5-51E+00
7.93E+00
1.14E+01
Vnidim
w
Z79E+01
5.40E+01
2S8E+01
3.42E+01
19IE+01
Ziae

4.23E+01
1.08E+02
4.10E+01
5.06E+01
&26E+0]


Radionuclides (pCS/g)



Ceau-137
44
2.10E-02
9.00E-01
2_53E-01
5.98E-01
1.41E+00
Pl*toaiw-239/240
1/4
290E-C2
290E-02
5J0E-03
1.42Er02
3.66E-02
Poosubb-40
44
1.40E+01
220E+01
1-35E+01
1.63E+01
1.98E+01
Radioa-226
44
7.00E-01
X.60E-01
5.41E-01
7J7E-01
L14E+00
Strootiui-90
1/3
1.10E+00
1.10E+00
3.55E-01
7.01E-01
138E+00
Thoriu*-228
4^4
S.00E-01
9.40E-01
5.01E-01
7.13E-01
1.02E+00
Thoriu-230
4/4
3.10E-01
&30E-01
4.72E-01
5.65E-01
6.77E-01
Thorioa-232
4M
4.10E-01
9.70E-01
5.88E-01
6.S3E-01
7.94E-01
Thohin-234
4/4
130E+00
1.90E+00
1.42E+00
1.63E+0C
1.S8E+00
Tritiut*
5/9
3.60EJ32
6.20E-O2
200E-02
298E-02
4.43E-C2
Uraaiiu«-233/234
¦4/4
6.30E-01
1.40E+00
7.76E-01
9J7E-01
1.13E+00
Uruisa-235
4/4
5.69E-02
1.20E-01
6.60E-02
7.92E-02
9.S0E-O2
Unaiua-23£
1/4
200E-02
Z00E-02
930E-03
1.65E-02
29ZE-02
Uruiaa-238
4/4
730E-01
1.70E+00
9.16E-01
1.02E+00
1.15E+00
-------
7-6
Table 7.1b.
Oak Ridge Reservation background soil analytes evaluated quantitatively
Nolichucky
Analyte
Frequency
of
detection
Minimum
detected
coaceatratioa
Mxqbui
delected
concentration
Lower 95%
bound on
medial
Median
concentration
Upper 95%
confidence
bound on
median


Inorganics (mg/fcg)



Antinoay
1/4
4.90E-01
4.90E-01
4.43E-01
4 63E-01
4ASE-01
Aneaic
3/3
5.80E+00
6.40E+00
4.64E+00
6.16E+00
8.18E+00
Barium
4/4
557E+01
1.06E+02
S.81E+01
7.S4E+01
9.78E+01
Beryllium
4/4
7J30E-01
&50E-01
6.41E-01
7.86E-01
9.64E-01
Chromium VI
3B
2.64E+01
2.99E+01
Z30E+01
280E+01
3.40E+01
Miipioe
4/4
4.0SE+02
9J5E+02
4.77E+02
6-53E+02
8.95E+02
Mercury
4/4
1J0E-01
1.90E-01
L58E-01
1.&5E-01
Z17E-01
Mercury (salts)
4/4
1.S0B-01
150E-01
1-58 E-01
1.S5E-01
217E-01
Nickel
4/4
1.S2E+01
200E+01
1-39E+01
1.73E+01
Z14E+01
Nickel (salts)
4/4
U2E+01
2.00E+01
1-39E+01
1.73E+01
Z14E+01
Selenium
3/4
5.6CE41
7.40E-01
4.4SE41
S.65E-01
7.18E-01
Strontium
4/4
120E+00
6.10E+00
3.32E+00
4.55E+00
6.25E+00
Vanadium
4/4
2.94E+01
3-S2E+01
Z83E+01
3.24E+01
3.71E+01
Zinc
4/4
339E+0I
4.07E+01
3.07E+01
3.79E+01
4.6SE+01


Radinnodklcs (pG/g)



Ceaum-137
4/4
1S0E-01
7.10E-01
Z23E-01
S77E-01
1-24E+00
Curium-247
2H
5.30E-03
7.00E-03
4.70E-03
5.50E-03
&30E-Q3
Neptuniua-237
212
7.70E-02
230E-01
932E-02
1J3&01
1.90E-01
Potassium-40
4/4
1.40E+01
1.70E+01
1.25E+01
1.52E+01
1.84E+01
Radium-226
4/4
3.90E-01
1.40E+00
5.09E4J1
7.40E-01
L08E+00
Taimcbtm-9^
1/6
279E+00
Z79E+00
630E-01
1.10E+00
1.91E+00
Thorium-228
4/4
L20E+00
220E+00
1.06E+00
1.51E+00
215E+00
Thoriua-230
4/4
JJ0E-01
1.20E+00
S.06E-01
9.67E-01
1.16E+00
Thorium-232
4/4
L20E+00
ZOOE+OO
1.29E+00
1.49E+00
1.74E+00
Tkoriiim-234
4/4
1JOE+00
1.S0E+00
1.24E+00
1.42E+00
1.64E+00
U ra«ium-233©4i
4M
L04E+00
lilE+00
1.06E+00
1.2SE+00
1.55E+00
Uranium-235
4/4
OZE-C2
9.69E-02
5.94E-02
7.13E-02
&J5E-02
Uranium-23S^
4/4
1.04E+00
1J1E+00
1.15E+00
1.28E+00
1.43E+00
"Data arc based on noocomposiicd samples.
-------
7-7
Table 7.1c. Oak Ridge Reservation background soil analytes evaluated quantitatively
Copper Ridge
Lower 95%	Upper 9596
Frequency Minimum	Mazimua	confidence	confidence
of	detected	detected	bond on	Median	bound oa
Analyte	detection concentranon concentration	median	concentration	mediia
Inorganics (mg/tg)
Aneaic
4/4
1.13E+01
6.71E+01
LS8E+01
Z41E+01
3.07E+01
Buiu
4/4
6J29E+01
7.99E+01
5J3E+01
7.18E+01
9J2E+01
Beryiliaa
3/4
5.10E-O1
5.70E-01
4.12E-01
5.11E-01
634E01
Ckraiu VI
414
1.05E+01
Z39E+01
1J0E+01
1.54E+01
1.S3E+01
Miipiw
4/4
9.40E+02
1.53E+Q3
7JOE+02
1.07E+03
1.46E+03
Mercaiy
4/4
1.40E-01
l.SOE-Ol
134E-01
1-57E41
1.S4E01
Mercaiy (ultt)
4/4
1.40E-01
1.80E-01
L34E-01
1J7E-01
1^4 E-01
MolyUcaot
1/4
1.80E+00
1.80E+00
1.14E+00
1.41E+00
1.75E+00
Nickel
3/4
7.40E+00
8.10E+00
6.03E+00
7.65E+00
9.71E+00
Nickel (ialtt)
3/4
7.40E+00
8.10E+00
6.Q3E+00
7.65E+00
9.71E+00
Sdeaiaa
4/4
5.6QE-01
7.00E-01
5.05 E-01
637E-01
&03E-01
Stroatiu
4/4
Z70E+00
4.10E+00
Z56E+00
3-51E+00
4.81E+00
Vaaadiaa
4/4
Z17E+01
3.11E+01
231E+-01
Z64E+01
1Q3E+01
Ziac
4/4
Z92E+01
4.13E+01
Organics (mg/kg)*
Z83E+01
3.49E+01
432E+01
Aceaipktbeac
3/6
8.00E-01
240E+00
LQSE+00
1.4ZE+00
1.93E+00
Aatkiactae
8/8
4.00E-01
1.46E+01
5.43E-01
S^OErOl
L42E+00
Besxo(*)uthnce»e
12/12
4.00E-01
7.50E+00
1.52E+00
ZOIE+OO
Z67E+00
Bea2»<»)pyre»e
10/10
&.00E-O1
1.13E+01
159E+00
Z66E+00
334E+00
Beazo(b)Cao(aatfceae
8/8
4.00E-01
9.40E+00
L55E+00
Z19E+00
3.11E+00
BemzD(&hj)pei7ie»e
919
4.0QE-01
L01E+01
Z12E+00
Z85E+00
3-82E+00
Beazo(k>Qaocutheae
11/11
4.0QE-01
6.00E+00
1.08E+00
1.40E+00
1.81E+00
Chryieae
9/9
1-20E+00
1.20E+01
ZS4E+00
3.93E+00
5.45E+00
PibrwT(«.li)»Hfciace»e
&S
4.00E-01
3.S0E+00
6.67E-01
1.03E+00
1J9E+00
Flaooatteae
12/12
1-50E+00
Z89E+01
4J5E+00
5.95E+00
S.12E+00
Flacxvae
3/6
4.00E-01
Z20E+00
4J0E41
S.73E-01
1.59E+00
Napktkalcac
3n
730E+00
ZQ3E+01
353E+00
S.05E+00
1.65E+01
Pheaaatkreae
12/12
1.50E+00
1.91E+01
3.06E+00
4.06E+00
539E+00
Pyreac
12/12
4.00E-01
Z63E+01
3.61E+00
5.04E+00
7.02E+00


RarfinmxdkVs (pCS/g)


Cesiua-137
4/4
-------
7-8
Table 7.1c (continued)
Lower 95%	Upper 95%
AjuJyte
Freqneacy
of
detection
detected
concentration
.Vluusom
detected
concentration
confideeee
bound oa
p^iiw
Median
concentration
confidence
bound oa
median
Plutoniu-238
3/4
1.68E-02
298&02
1.41E-02
232E-02
3.S2E-02
Plntoni«-239/240
V3
210E-02
3.97E-02
1J0E-02
279E-02
5.9SE-02
Po
-------
7-9
Table 7.1d (continued)
Analyte
Frequency
of
detection
Miuau
detected
coaceatntioa
detected
concentration
Lower 95%
co&Qdcsct
boond on
mediaa
Median
concentration
Upper 95%
confidence
booad oa
median


Organic* (mg/kg)*



Aceupktheie
1/4
8.00E-01
S.OOE-01
4.70E-01
S.00E-O1
1J6E+00
Aatkneeae
2H
<.OQE-Ol
4.00E-01
1SSBJJI
ZSSErOl
1.ME+00
Beazo(a)uthiaccBC
in
4.00E-01
4.50E+00
L17E+00
1.70E+00
Z46E+00
Beaso
-------
7-10
Table 7.1e. Oak Ridge Reservation background soil analytes evaluated quantitatively
Chickamauga (Bethel Valley)
Aulyte
Frcqacmcy
of
daecboa
Mii>iwt»w
detected
concentration
MlTlMBm
detected
concentration
Lower 95%
coBfideicc
boasd cm
tnrdiia
Mediaa
coaceatraboa
Upper 95%
coafidcBoe
bound OB
mediaa



Inorganics (mg/kg)



Aneaie-
4M-
5.70E+00-
7.0QE+00
4.89E+00
thnoe»e
6/6
150E+00
730E+00
2.88E+00
430E+00
6.42E+00
BeMo(a)pjneme
12/12
9.00E-01
7J0E+00
2.91E+00
3.78E+00
4.92E+00
Beazo(b)aaocaa these
M
210E+00
7.10E+00
3.14E+00
4.45E+OC
630E+00
Beaxo(&U)payieae
5 IS
210E+00
4.70E+00
233E+00
3.46E+00
5.13E+00
Bcazo(k)flaonatWae
12/12
9.00E-01
4.40E+00
1.78E+00
227E+00
291E+00
Chyieae
*15
3.40E+00
S.60E+00
3.17E+00
4.9gE+00
7.S2E+00
Dibcaz(a^)aitknceae
213
4.00E-01
9.00E-01
252E-01
5.97E-01
1.42E+00
Flaonatfceae
8£
L30E+00
L25E+01
3_J8E+00
4.95E+00
726E+0O
Flaoceae
2a
130E+00
5.20E+00
1.22E+00
2.60E+00
5-S4E+00
Iwle>o(l^!3-cd)pyTeae
sni
S-30E+00
5.66E+01
7.77E+00
1.12E+01
1.62E+01
Naphtkaleae
7/7
S.00E-01
250E+01
3.S2E+00
6.21E+00
1.09E+01
Fkauatkirae
12/12
3.50E+00
208E401
4.99E+00
6.63E+00
8.79E+00
Pyre«e
6J6
4 70E+00
1.10E+01
4.90E+00
7.84E+00
-------
7-11
Table 7.1e (continued)
Analyte
Freqnency
of
detection
Miniana
deieoed
concentration
Maximum
detected
concentration
Lower 95%
confidence
bound on
median
Median
conceatntioa
Upper 9556
confidence
bound on
median



Radionuclides (pCS/g)


CesiwB-137
4/4
S.98E-01
2.09E+00
5.7ZE-01
1.35E+00
3.19E+00
Ncpt*ni»*i-237
35
6.7ZE-02
1.41E-01
6.9SE-02
934E-02
I.2SE-01
Plntoaiua-23S
13
L03E-01
1.33E-01
4.24E-02
739E-02
1.29E-01
Pl»to«iun-239a40
1/3
2.89E-02
7.65E-02
L37E-02
3.25E-02
7.72E-02
PoOaiu-40
4/4
1.02E+01
239E+01
1.2SE+01
1.5ZE+01
1.84E+01
Radina-226
4 H
7.47E01
158E+00
7.41E-01
1.0SE+00
1-57E+00
TedietiiB-994
2/6
203E+00
256E+00
7.9SE-01
l^eE-fOO
1.9XE+00
Thorinm-228
4/4
U4E+00
L58E+00
9.04E-01
1J9E+00
1.ME+00
Tfcorina-230
4/4
9.98E-01
1.19E+00
8.82E-01
1.06E+00
1.27E+00
Horiem-232
4/4
1.04E+00
1.S6E+00
1.07E+00
1.2SE+00
1.4SE+00
Tritiaa*
3/12
1.20E-01
SJORfll
7.89E-02
1.13E-01
1.62E-01
Ura*i*»-233/234
4/4
9.17E-01
1.14E+00
83SE411
1.01E+00
LZZE+OO
Unni«®-235
4/4
33XE-02
1.43E-01
6^SE-Q2
9.30E-02
1J2E-01 .
Uiuiu-Z3t
4/4
9.51E-01
1.19E+00
9.50E-01
1.06E+00
1.19E+00"
Data arc bated oo noncomposiitd samples.
Table 7JLL Oak Ridge Reservation background soil analytes evaluated quantitatively
Chickarruwga (K-25)
Analyte
Freqnency
of
detection
Medina
detected
concentration
Mianvm
detected
coscentratioa
Lo~er 95*
confidence
boand os
medial
Median
concentration
Upper 95*
ronfirtmrf
bonnd on
¦edian



Inorganics (mg/kg)



Aneaic
4/4
5.40E+00
9J0E+00
5.96E+00
7.61E+00
9.73E+00
Bariui
4/4
5.10E+01
9.S7E+01
5.91E+01
7.67E+01
9.96E+01
Beryllima
4/4
630E-01
1.40E+00
7.44E-01
9.13E-01
1.12E+00
Chioaiu VI
" 4/4
1.88E+01
4.46E+01
274E+01
32SE+01
3.85E+0I
Mmginae
4/4
1.19E+03
2.35E+03
1 77F+03
1.67E+03
229E+Q3
M crony
4/4
3.00E-01
&.00&-01
4.21E-01
4.94E-01
5.79E-01
M crony (alls)
4/4
3.00Er01
iOOE-Ol
43E-01
4.94E-01
5.79E-01
Nickel
4/4
1.02E+01
2.61E+01
139E+01
1.72E+01
2.13E+01
Nickel (nlB)
4/4
1.02E+01
261E+01
1J9E+01
1.72E+01
213E+01
Sekaiaa
4/4
5.70E-01
1.10E+00
6.Q5E-01
7.63E-01
-------
7-12
Table 7.1f (continued)
Aaalyte
FreqieBcy
of
detect! 00
Median
detected
conceantioB
Muinu
detected
concentration
Lower 95%
confidence
bouid OB
median
Median
concentration
Upper 95%
confidence
boud on
median
Strootiui
4/4
4.70E+00
4.0SE+01
8JOE+00
1.17E+01
1.60E+01
VaaadioM
4/4
232E+01
4J32E+01
320E+01
X66E+01
420E+01
Tiwi'
4/4
335E+01
657E+01
3.73E+01
4.60E+01
5.69E+01



Organic* (mgtkgf



Aceaapktkcae
3a
9.00E-01
240E+00
9.81E-01
133E+00
1S2E+00
Aathnccae
10/10
4.00E-01
240E+00
8.06E-01
L24E+00
1.91E+00
Beaxo(a)utknccac
1202
1.2QE+00
1-57E+01
426E+00
5.65E+00
7.S1E+00
Bemzo(i)pyrae
12/12
1.90E+00
1.14E+01
3.99E+00
5.19E+00
6.75E+00
Beazo(b)flw(aatke»e
1202
1.70E+00
1.27E+01
3.45E+00
4-S8E+00
6.09E+00
Bfio(gJu)peJyfat
1202
210E+00
L11E+01
3.71E+00
4.7XE+00
6.16E+00
Bcazo(k)l]Mca> these
1202
1.00E+00
8.70E+00
Z27E+00
2S1E+00
3.72E+00
Ckiyieme
4/S
4.70E+00
L52E+01
3.52E+00
531E+00
X.01E+00
Dibeiz(a>k)utknccBc
3O
7.00E-01
S.OOE-OI
3.76E-01
7.65E-01
136E+00
Flaonmthese
llOl
130E+00
Z22E+01
4.92E+00
6.82E+00
9.45E+00
Flaonac
7/7
4.00E-01
4.60E+00
9.41 EOl
L41E+00
211E+00
I»
-------
7-13
The risk from exposure to some constituents detected in soil can not be quantified
because there are no current EPA-approved slope factors (SF) or reference doses (RfDs)
available. Therefore, exposure to these constituents can only be evaluated qualitatively
(Table 12); a quantitative assessment of these soil constituents is not performed as part of
this risk evaluation.
'Able 7.2a. Oak Ridge Reservation background soil analytes evaluated qualitatively
Dismal Gap
Lower 95%	Upper 95%
Frequency Minimum Maximum confidence	confidence
of	detected detected bound on Median bound on
Analyte	detection concentration concentration median concentration median


Inorganics (mg/kg)



Aluminum
4/4
1.69E+04
4.43E+04
1.84E+04
2.07E+04
232E+04
Calcium
3/3
9.91E+02
1.86E+03
8.60E+02
1.25E+03
1.81E+03
Chromium
4/4
1.94E+01
3.21E+01
2.08E+01
2.47E+01
192E+01
Cobalt
4/4
1.13E+01
3.67E+01
1.09E+01
1.45E+01
1.93E+01
Copper
4/4
1.24E+01
3.01E+01
1.27E+01
1.61E+01
2.Q5E+01
Iron
4/4
238E+04
4.90E+04
2.53E+04
2.94E+04
3.42E+04
Lead
4/4
1.46E+01
3.54E+01
1.49E+01
2.03E+01
2.77E+01
T ithinm
3/3
1.27E+01
2.70E+01
1.22E+01
1.62E+01
2.14E+01
Magnesium
4/4
2.09E+03
7.43E+03
237E+03
2.S5E+03
3.42E+03
Potassium
4/4
1.89E+03
539E+03
1.89E+03
230E+03
2£0E+03
Silicon
4/4
4.61E+02
6.97E+02
4.60E+02
5.06E+02
5_56E+02
Sulfate
3/3
180E+01
1.63E+02
5.91E+01
8.67E+01
1.27E+02
Thallium
1/4
7.90E-01
7.90E-01
4.90E-02
1.65E-01
5J6E-01


Radionuclides (pCi/g)


Total Uranium
4/4
230E-01
6.50E+00
7.58E-01
131E+00
-------
7-14
Table 7.2b. Oak Ridge Reservation background soD analytes evaluated qualitatively
Nolichucky
Anafyte
Frequency
of
detection
Minimum
detected
concentration
Maximum
concentration
Lower 95%
confidence
bound on
median
Median
concentration
Upper 95%
confidence
bound on
median


Inorganics (mg/kg)



Aluminum
4/4
2.08E+04
2J1E+04
1.97E+04
222E+04
2J0E+04
Calcium
2/2
4.98E+02.
9.52E+02
4.37E+02
6.89E+02
1.08E+03
Chromium
3/3
2.64E+01
259E+01
230E+01
2.80E+01
3.40E+01
Cobalt
4/4
1.11E+01
1.75E+01
1.09E+01
1.44E+01
1.92E+01
Copper
4/4
1.10E+01
127E+01
9.21E+00
1.17E+01
1.49E+01
Iron
4/4
230E+04
3.21E+04
2.40E+04
279E+04
3.24E+04
Lead
3/3
1.53E+01
104E+01
1.22E+01
1.75E+01
2J1E+01
Lithium
4/4
7.60E+00
1.55E+01
8.55E+00
1.09E+01
1.40E+01
Magnesium
4/4
1.73E+03
2.41E+03
1.67E+03
2.Q1E+03
2.41E+03
Potassium
4/4
2.64E+03
3.23E+03
2.42E+03
Z95E+03
3.59E+03
SOicoo
4/4
1.85E+02
3.28E+02
223E+02
2.45E+02
2.69E+02
Sulfate
4/4
1.41E+01
234E+01
134E+01
1.87E+01
2.60E+01


Radionuclides (pO/g)


Total Uranium
4/4
7.50E-01
150E+00
6.63E-01
1.15E+00
-------
7-15
Table 12c. Oak Ridge Reservation background sofl anafytes evaluated qualitatively '
Copper Ridge
Analyte
Frequency
of
detection
Minimum
detected
concentration
Maximum
detected
concentration
Lower 95%
confidence
bound on
median
Median
concentration
Upper 95%
confidence
bound on
median -


Inorganics (mg/fcg)



Aluminum
4/4
9.78E+03
1.16E+04
935E+03
1.05E+O4
1.18E+04
Calcium
4/4
3.98E+02
5-94E+02
3.66E+02
5.05E+02
6.96E+02
Chromium
4/4
1.05E+01
2.39E+01
1.30E+01
1.54E+01
1.83E+01
Cobalt
4/4
5.40E+00
1.91E+01
5.85E+00
7.76E+00
1.03E+01
Copper
3/4
5.40E+00
7.80E+00
4.76E+00
6.25E+00
8.19E+00
Iron
4/4
9.70E+03
1J9E+04
1.03E+04
1JZ0E+O4
139E+04
Lead
4/4
1.82E+01
1.65E+02
2.79E+01
3.82E+01
5.22E+01
Lithium
2/4
2.80E+00
3.10E+00
1.94E+00
2.60E+00
3.48E+00
Magnesium
4/4
4.11E+02
5.17E+02
3.85E+02
4.63E+02
557E+02'
Potassium
4/4
2.74E+02
4.16E+02
3.04E+02
3.70E+02
451E+02
Silicon
1/1
633E+02
633E+02
5.24E+02
633E+02
7.64E+02
Sodium
3/4
3.52E+02
3.79E+02
334E+02
3.57E+02
3J1E+02
Sulfate
4/4
4.42E+01
132E+02
4.53E+01
632E+01
8.82E+01


Organics (mg/kg)



Acenapbthyiene"
4/10
2.84E+01
429E+03
1J9E+01
5.76E+01
2.40E+02


Radionuclides (pCi/g)


Total Uranium
4/4
126E+00
330E+00
1.57E+00
2.71E+00
4.69E+00
-------
7-16
Table IDA. Oak Ridge Reservation background soil analytes evaluated qualitatively
Chepuitepec




Lower 95%

Upper 95%

Frequency
Minimum
Maximum
confidence

confidence

of
detected
detected
bound on
Median
bound on
Anaiyte
detection
concentration
concentration median
concentration
median



Inorganics (mg/kg)


Aluminum
4/4
7.45E+03
1.03E+04
7.51E+03
8.45E+03
9.51E+03
Calcium
4/4
338E+02
6.80E+02
321.4124 443.
3078 611.
432E+03
Chromium
3/4
1.17E+01
3J38E+01
1.23E+01
1.46E+01
1.74E+01
Cobalt
4/4
7.50E+00
1.69E+01
8.67E+00
1.15E+01
1.53E+01
Copper
1/4
4.10E+00
7.80E+00
2i>2E+00
3.92E+00
5.26E+00
Iron
4/4
8.50E+03
3.00E+04
1.22E+04
1.42E+04
1.65E+04
Lead
4/4
1.06E+01
258E+01
1J2E+01
1.80E+01
2.46E+01
Lithium
1/4
4.40E+00
U1E+01
2.96E+00
3.85E+00
4.99E+00
Magnesium
4/4
Z80E+02
5.13E+02
3.07E+02
3.69E+02
4.43E+02
Silicon
4/4
4.83E+02
6.49E+02
4.92E+02
5.41E+02
5.95E+02
Sodium
4/4
256E+02
3-57E+02
3.03E+02
3.23E+02
3.44E+02
Sulfate
4/4
6.05E+01
9.14E+01
528E+01
737E+01
1.03E+02


Radionuclides
(po/g)


Total Uranium
3y3
9.04E-01
5.56E+00
1.02E+00
1.92E+0O
-------
7-17
Table 13a. Oak Ridge Reservation background sofl anafytes evaluated qualitatively
Chickamauga (Bethel Valley)
Anatyte
Frequency
of
detection
Minimum
detected
concentration
Maximum
detected
concentration
Lower 95%
confidence
bound on
median
Median
concentration
Upper 95%
confidence
bound oc
nicdistt. .



Inorganics (mg/kg)



Aluminum
4/4
1.54E+04
1.80E+04
1.47E+04
1.65E+04
1JB6E+04
Calcium
4/4
1.00E+03
3.50E+03
134E+03
1.86E+03
2-56E+03
Chromium
4/4
234E+01
4.47E+01
Z87E+01
3.40E+01
4.02E+01
Cobalt
4/4
1.52E+01
Z21E+01
139E+01
1.85E+01
Z45E+01
Copper
4/4
1.11E+01
Z17E+01
1.28E+01
1.62E+01
Z06E+01
Iron
4/4
3.10E+04
430E+04
3.09E+04
3.60E+04
4.18E+04
Lead
3/3
3.24E+01
4.20E+01
Z49E+01
3.57E+01
5.11E+01
Lithium
V2
1.02E+01
1.26E+01
7.99E+00
1.13E+01
1.60E+01
Magnesium
4/4
1.12E+03
Z20E+03
1.15E+03
138E+03
1.66E+03
Potassium
4/4
1.14E+03
2-22E+03
1.27E+03
1.55E+03
l^E+tO1
Silicon
212
4.71E+02
5.45E+02
4.46E+02
5.10E+02
5-83E+OZ
Sodium
4/4
3.77E+02
4.14E+02
3.68E+02
3.92E+02
4.17E+02
Sulfate
4/4
6.40E+01
1.81E+02
Radionuclides (pQ/g)
6.79E+01
9.47E+01
132E+02
Total Uranium
3/3
2.69E-01
Z02E+00
6.61E-01
1.25E+00
-------
7-18
Table 12L Oak Ridge Reservation background soil analytes evaluated qualitatively
Chickamagua (K-25)
Lower 95%	Upper 95%
Frequency Minimum Maximum confidence	Median confidence
of detected detected bound on	concentration bound oo
Analyte detection concentration concentration median	median
Inorganics (mg/fcg)
Aluminum
4/4
1.28E+04
124E+04
1.47E+04
1.65E+04
1J6E+04
Calcium
4/4
¦ 8.08E+02
354E+03
9.87E+02
136E+03
1.88E+03
Chromium
4/4
1.88E+01
4.46E+01
2.74E+01 -
3.25E+01
3£5E+01
Cobalt
4/4
1.67E+01
236E+01
1.47E+01
1.95E+01
2J9E+01
Copper
4/4
7.80E+00
1J7E+01
&59E+00
1.14E+01
1.45E+01
Iron
4/4
223E+04
4.23E+04
2.66E+04
3.10E+04
3.60E+04
Lead
4/4
1.98E+01
3.94E+01
231E+01
3.16E+01
432E+01
Lithium
4/4
9.10E+00
2.11E+01
1.07E+01
137E+01
1.74E+01
Magnesium
4/4
7.94E+02
139E+03
9.03E+02
1.08E+03
130E+03
Potasium
4/4
1.05E+03
2.32E+03
139E+03
1.69E+03
Z06E+03
Silicon
4/4
5.46E+02
732E+02
5.79E+02
636E+02
6.99E+02
Sodium
4/4
3.78E+02
5.02E+02
4.00E+02
4.26E+02
4.54E+02
Sulfate
4/4
5.70E+01
3.95E+02
1.27E+02
1.78E+02
2.48E+C2



Radkmriirirx (pQ/g)


Total Uranium
4/4
1.60e-01
Z22B+00
533e-01
9.23e-01
-------
7-19
7.4 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
An exposure assessment combines information about site characteristics and constituent
data with the exposure assumptions used by the risk assessor. The objectives of the exposure
assessment are to determine or estimate the magnitude, frequency, and duration of present
and future pathways of potential human exposure to site-contaminants by:
•	characterizing the exposure setting,
•	identifying exposure pathways, and
•	quantifying exposures.
7.4.1	Characterization of Exposure Setting
Characterization of the exposure setting involves identifying the general physical
characteristics of the site (e.g., climate and vegetation) and the characteristics of the
populations on or near the site. This characterization ensures that all potential constituent
migration pathways and potential receptors are evaluated in the risk assessment. Details of
the physical and environmental characteristics of the ORR and Anderson and Roane counties
have already been discussed in Sect. 4 of the Project Plan for the BSCP (Energy Systems
1992).
To estimate human health risk for background soil, the soil sampling areas were selected
from areas with minimal soil erosion and deposition, minimal groundwater discharge,, and
minimal influence of past and present DOE activities (on-site) and agricultural practices
(off-site). A hypothetical on-site resident scenario will be used to determine human health
risk associated with background soils; this scenario uses conservatively based calculations, as
an accepted default scenario by EPA, and is unlikely to underestimate the exposure to
background constituents for individuals residing on or in the vicinity of the ORR.
7.4.2	Identification of Exposure Pathways
The identification of exposure pathways of concern is determined by evaluating all of the
components (source, transport medium, exposure point, potential receptors, and routes of
exposure) necessary to complete the potential exposure pathway. For an exposure pathway
to be considered complete, each of these components must be identified and linked to each
of the other components. Routes of exposure (ingestion, inhalation, dermal absorption, and
external exposure to radiation) and potential receptors are crucial in identifying the validity
of an exposure pathway. For example, an exposure scenario that includes dermal absorption
of subsurface soil contaminants would not be valid for general personnel (industrial)
receptors. However, for excavation workers, dermal absorption of subsurface soil
contaminants could be possible, and such a scenario would be valid.
In this assessment, potential health effects from background soils are considered for the
A horizon surface soil in Roane and Anderson counties and from the ORR. Because soil
samples taken on the ORR are the most representative of the background concentrations on
the reservation, a detailed background risk analysis will use only the ORR soil data, and
general comparisons will be made with the background risk determinations and results for
Anderson and Roane counties. The following discussion evaluates the potential pathways
-------
7-20
A hypothetical residential exposure scenario is used to assess the risk from soil because
it is protective of human health and is typically employed in the evaluation of risk from the
exposure to contamination on the ORR. If we assume that concentrations in the soil are
constant, the potential pathways affecting the on-site resident would include direct exposure
to soil as well as exposure to constituents in the soil transferred to the air. The direct
exposure to soil would involve the ingestion and dermal contact routes of intake, and external
exposure to radionuclides. Because of the uncertainty of modeling the air pathway, only direct
exposure pathways (ingestion, dermal, and external exposure to radionuclides) are addressed
"here.
7.43 Quantification of Exposure
Exposure, in the context of human health risk, is defined as the direct contact of a
person with a chemical or physical agent. To quantify exposure, one must determine exposure
concentrations and calculate chemical intakes for the various exposure pathways identified for
the site. The potential exposure pathways at background soil sampling areas are considered
quantitatively in the following section.
This section foHows the procedure involved in developing the chronic daily intake (CDI)
of a constituent (also termed "intake" or "dose" for external exposure to radionuclides). The
CDI is the amount of a constituent an individual takes into one's body per day via ingestion
or dermal contact. The first consideration in deriving the CDI is the methodology employed
in the development of an exposure concentration, which is the amount of each constituent
in the various media to which receptors are exposed. To calculate the CDI, one evaluates the
exposure concentration in the context of the scenario, exposure pathway, and
constituent-specific exposure variables, such as duration of exposure and intake rate. The
quantification of exposure and calculation of the CDI for the resident are discussed in
Sects. 7.4.3.1 and 7.4.3.2.
7.4J. 1 Derivation of representative exposure concentrations
This section and Sea. 7.4.3.2 address methods used in calculating the exposure
concentrations for the hypothetical on-site residential exposure scenario and pathways
evaluated in this background risk assessment. EPA guidance requires evaluation using the
on-site residential scenario, which is the most conservative. This typically requires
determination of risks associated with adult residents, as well as young children (especially
with respect to dermal contact and ingestion of soil). As a result of the statistical data
evaluation process described in Sect. 5, the set of background soil concentration data used in
this background risk assessment were compiled. The results are summarized in Tables 7.1 and
12. and include the frequency of detection, the minimum and maximum detected
concentrations of each analyte, the lower 95% confidence bound (LCB95), the analyte
median concentration, as well as the upper 95% confidence bound (UCB95) on the median.
The UCB95 is assumed to be representative of the analyte concentration and is used in
the calculations of the CDI, dose, risk and hazard index. This upper confidence bound is used
to ensure that the exposure concentrations are not underestimated. Refer to Sect. 5 for a
complete statistical evaluation of the data and the list of analytes reported as nondetects. The
-------
7-21
7.432. Exposure to residents
The potential exposure pathways associated with the on-site residential land use scenario
are direct ingestion of soil, dermal contact with soil, and external exposure to the
radionuclides in the soil. The representative concentrations (UCB95) of constituents in
sampling area soils in Table 7.1 are the concentrations used to quantify exposures via
soil-related pathways.
Table 73 lists the exposure variables associated with each exposure route considered for
the on-site resident. The variables used in each exposure equation have been derived from
standard intake rates, skin surface areas, and adherence factors (EPA 1991e). It was assumed
that the resident would be exposed to soil constituents for 350 d/year for 30 years. All
pathways were divided into two parts. First, a 6-year exposure duration was evaluated for
young children, which accounts for receptors with high intake rates relative to body weight.
Second, a 24-vear exposure duration was assumed for adults. For example, for the soil
ingestion pathway, a child ingestion rate (200 mg/day) and body weight (15 kg) was assumed
for 6 years, while an adult ingestion rate (100 mg/day) and body weight (70 kg) was assumed
for 24 years.
CDIs, for ingestion and dermal contact, and doses, for radionuclide external exposure,
for the background soil samples are listed in Tables 7.4 and 7.5; these tables are separated
(i.e, tables a through f) by formation. Listed in Table 7.4 are the CDIs (and doses) for
constituents for which a background risk and/or HI could be calculated (i.e., if a SF and/or
RfD were available). This information can be used to re-calculate the background risks for
constituents, if (i) the SF and/or RfD changes in the future, and if (ii) background risk
information is desired using other exposure parameters, i.e., other land use assumptions. In
the cases where toxicity information (SF and/or RfD) is currently not available (Table 7.5),
CDIs (and doses) are given so that when SFs and RfDs become available in the future, a
background risk or HI can be calculated for the constituents present in this BSCP.study.
15 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT
The purpose of any toxicity assessment is to evaluate the potential for constituents to
cause adverse health effects in exposed individuals. This usually consists of an evaluation of
the relationship between the extent of exposure to a particular constituent and the increased
likelihood or severity of adverse health effects as a result of that exposure relative to a
baseline. The toxicity assessment generally involves two steps. The first step comprises
determining whether exposure to an agent can cause an increase in the incidence of a
particular health effect and whether that health effect will occur in humans. The second step
involves characterizing the relationship between the received dose of the constituent and the
incidence of adverse health effects in exposed populations.
The constituent-specific information in Sects. 7.5.1, 7.5.2, and 7.5.3 provides general
information as well as constituent-specific discussion about health effects related to those
constituents of concern evaluated in the risk assessment for the background soil. Carcinogenic
and noncarcinogenic health effects are considered. Data used in this section are from human
-------
7-22
Tabic 13. On-site resident exposure scenario
Variable
Value used
Explanation/source
Residential ingestion scenario
Chronic daily intake (mg/kg per day) = CS x IR x FI x EF x ED
BWxAT
Intake (pCi) = CS x CF x IR x EF x ED
CS = Concentration in
soil
Chemical-specific (mg/kg;
pCi/g)
Concentration is obtained
from the data in Tables 7.1
and 7.2
IR = Ingestion rate
0.0002 kg/day
0.0001 kg/day
Child rate (Sect. 6, RAGS,
EPA 1989c)
Adult rate (Sect 6, RAGS,
EPA 1989c)
CF = Conversion factor 103 g/kg
Necessary to convert to
appropriate units.
FI = Fraction ingested
1 (unitless)
Maximum value used;
equivalent to 100%
,EF = Exposure frequency 350 d/year
OSWER Directive
9285.6-03 (EPA 1991e)
ED = Exposure duration 6 years
24 years
Two-part (child and adult)
residential exposure for a
30-year duration (OSWER
Directive, EPA 1991e)
BW = Body weight
AT = Averaging time
15 kg
70 kg
365 d x ED
Child (OSWER Directive,
EPA 1991e)
Adult (Sect. 6, RAGS, EPA
1989c)
Averaging lime
for noncarcinogens
365 d/year x 70 years
Averaging time
-------
7-23
Tabic 73 (continued)
Variable	Value used	Explanation/source
Residential dermal contact scenario
Chronic daily intake (mg/kg-day) = CS x CF x SA x AF x ABS x EF x ED
BW x AT
CS = Concentration in
soil
CF = Conversion factors
SA = Available surface
area
AF = Adherence factor
ABS = Absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency
ED = Exposure duration
BW = Body weight
AT = Averaging time
Chemical-specific (mg/kg)
10"6 kg/mg and 10" cm2/m:
0.18 nr/event
0.53 nr/evem
1.00 mg/cm:
0.001 (uniiless)
0.01 (unitless)
350 events/year
6 years
24 years
15 kg
70 kg
365 d/year x ED
365 d/year x 70 years
Concentration is obtained
from data in Tables 7.1 and
7.2
Necessary to convert
to appropriate units
50th Percentile surface area
for head, hands, forearms,
and lower legs; for a child
and for an adult,
respectively (Dermal
Exposure Assessment, EPA
1992b).
Adherence factor for soil,--
(EPA Region IV Interim
Guidance)
Equivalent to 0.1%
for inorganics and 1.0% for
oreanics (EPA New Interim,
Region IV, Guidance
2/11/92)
OSWER Directive (EPA
1991e)
Two-pan (child and adult)
residential exposure
for a 30-year duration
(OSWER Directive, EPA
1991e)
Child (OSWER Directive,
EPA 1991e)
Aduli (Sect. 6, RAGS, EPA
1989c)
Averaging time
for noncarcinogens
Averaging time
-------
7-24
Table 13 (continued)
Variable	Value used	Explanation/source
Residential external exposure scenario
Dose (pCi-yr/g) = CS x ED x (1-Se) x Te
CS = Concentration
in soil
Chemical-specific (pCi/g)
ED = Exposure duration 6 years
Se = Gamma shielding
factor (unitless)
Te = Gamma exposure
time factor (unitless)
24 years
0.2
1.0
Concentration is obtained
from the data in Tables 7.1
and 7.2
Two-pan (child and adult)
residential exposure
for a 30-year duration
(OSWER Directive, EPA
1991e)
RAGS-pan B, EPA 1991;
sect. 4.1.2 (default value)
RAGS-part B, EPA 1991;
sect. 4.1.2 (default value,
-------
7-25
Table 7.4a. Chroaic daily intake of ORR background soil by the on-site resident—Dismal Gap"
(for constituents for which a risk and/or hazard index could be calculated)
Analyte
Carcino'genic effects
Ingestion
(mg/kg-day or
pCi)*
Dermal
(mg/kg-day)
External
exposure
(pQ-yr/g)
Noncarrinogenic-effeas
Ingestion Dermal
(mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day)
Tnnrjranirc
"ARenic
Adult
Child


1.1E-05
1.0E-04
5.8E-07
93E-07
Barium
Adult
Child


1.8E-04
1.6E-03
93E-06
1.5E-05
Beryllium
Adult
Child
4.5E-07
1.0E-06
2.4E-08
9.5E-09
13E-06
12E-05
6.9E-08
1.1E-07
Boron
Adult
Child


3.1E-05
2.9E-04
1.6E-06
2.6E-06
Chromium VI
Adult
Child


4.0E-05
3.7E-04
2.1E-06
3.4E-06
Cyanide
Adult
Child


3.9E-07
3.6E-06
2.0E-08
33E-08-:,
Manganese
Adult
Child


1.9E-03
1.7E-02
9.9E-05
1.6E-04.
Mercury
Adult
Child


5.1E-07
4.7E-06
2.7E-08
43E-08
Mercury (salts)
Adult
Child


5.1E-07
4.7E-06
2.7E-08
43E-08
Nickel
Adult
Child


4.0E-05
3.7E-04
2.1E-06
3.4E-06
Nickel (salts)
Adult
Child


4.0E-05
3.7E-04
2.1E-06
3.4E-06
Strontium
Adult
Child


1.6E-05
1.5E-04
83E-07
13E-06
Vanadium
Adult
Child


5.4E-05
5.0E-04
2.8E-06
4.6E-06
Zinc
Adult
Child


S.6E-05
S.OE-04
4.5E-06
-------
7-26
Table 7.4a (continued)



Carcinogenic effects

Noncarcinogenic effects
Analyte

, InfT Dermal
SpCi/y 0f
External
exposure
(pCi-yr/g)
Ingestion Dermal
(mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day)
Cesium-137
Adult
Child
1.2E+03
5.9E+02
Radionuclides
2.7E+01
6.8E+00

Plutonium-239/240 Adult
Child
3.1E+01
UE+01

7.0E-01
1.8E-01

Potassium-40
Adult
Child
1.7E+04
83E+03

3.8E+02
9.5E+01

Radium-226
Adult
Child
9.6E+02
4.8E+02

2.2E+01
5.5E+00

Strontium-90
Adult
Child
1.2E+03
5.8E+02

2.7E+01
6.6E+00

Thonum-228
Adult
Child
8.5E+02
43E+02

2.0E+01
4.9E+00

Thorium-230
Adult
Child
5.7E+02
2.8E+02

1.3E+01
3.3E+00

Thorium-232
Adult
Child
6.7E+02
33E+02

1.5E+01
3.8E+00

Thorium-234
Adult
Child
1.6E+03
7.9E+02

3.6E+01
9.0E+00

Tritium
Adult
Child
3.7E+01
1.9E+01

8JE-01
2.1E-01

Uranium-233/234
Adult
Child
9.5E+02
4.8E+02

12E+01
5.4E+00

Uranium-235
Adult
Child
8.0E+01
4.0E+01

1.8E+00
4.6E-01

Uranium-236
Adult
Child
2.4E+01
1.2E+01

5.6E-01
1.4E-01

Uranium-238
Adult
Child
9.6E+02
4.8E+02

2^E+01
5J5E+00

"The upper 95% confidence bound on the median is used as the representative concentration in all calculations.
-------
7-27
Table 7.4b. Chronic daily intake of ORR background soil by the on-site resident—Nolichucky"
(for constituents for which a risk and/or hazard index could be calculated)

Carcinogenic effects

Noncarcinogenic effects
Analyte
Ingest,on
(mg/kg-dav or „ . ,
pco*
External
exposure
(pCi-vr/e)
Ingestion Dermal
(mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day)
Inorganics
Anumony
Adult
Child


6.6E-07
6.2E-06
35E-08
5.6E-08
Arsenic
Adult
Child


1.1E-05
1.0E-04
5.9E-07
9.5E-07
Barium
Adult
Child


13E-04
13E-03
7.1E-06
1.1E-05
Beryllium
Adult
Child
4.5E-07
1.1E-06
2.4E-0S
9.6E-09
1.3E-06
1.2E-05
7.0E-08
1.1E-07
Chromium VI
Adult
Child


4.7E-05
4.3E-04
2-5E-06
4.0E-06
Manganese
Adult
Child


1.2E-03
1.1E-02
6.5E-Q5
1.0E-04
Mercury
Adult
Child


3.0E-07
2.8E-06
1.6E-08
2.5E-08
Mercury (salts)
Adult
Child


3.0E-07
2.8E-06
1.6E-08
2.5E-08
Nickel
Adult
Child


2.9E-05
2.7E-04
1.6E-06
2.5E-06
Nickel (salts)
Adult
Child


2.9E-05
2.7E-04
1.6E-06
2.5E-06
Selenium
Adult
Child


9.8E-07
9.2E-06
5-2E-08
83E-08
Stronuum
Adult
Child


8.6E-06
8.0E-05
4.5E-07
73E-07
Vanadium
Adult
Child


5.1E-05
4.7E-04
2.7E-06
43E-06
Zinc
Adult
Child


6.4E-05
6.0E-04
3.4E-06
-------
7-28
Table 7.4b (continued)


Carcinogenic effects

Noncarcinogenic effects
Analytc

Ingestion
(mg/kg-day or
pCi)'
Dermal
(mg/kg-day)
External
exposure
(pCi-yr/g)
Ingestion Dermal
(mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day)






Cesium-137
Adult
Child
1.0E+03
5.2E+02

2.4E+01
6.0E+00

Curium-247
Adult
Child
5-5E+00
2.7E+00

1.2E-01
3.1E-02

Neptumum-237
Adult
Child
1.6E+02
8.0E+01

3.6E+00
9.1E-01

Potassium-40
Adult
Child
liE+04
7.7E+03

3.5E+02
8.9E+01

Radium-226
Aduli
Child
9.0E+02
4.5E+02

2.1E+01
5.2E+00

Techneiium-99
Adult
Child
1.6E+03
8.0E+02

3.7E+01
9.2E+00

Thorium-228
Adult
Child
1.8E+03
9.0E+02

4.1E+01
1.0E+01

Thorium-230
Adult
Child
9.7E+02
4.9E+02

2.2E+01
5.6E+00

Thonum-232
Adult
Child
1JE+03
7.3E+02

3.3E+01
S.3E+00

Thorium-234
Adult
Child
1.4E+03
6.9E+02

3.1E+01
7.9E+00

U ranium-233/234
Adult
Child
1JE+03
6JE+02

3.0E+01
7.4E+00

Uramum-235
Adult
Child
7.2E+01
3.6E+01

1.6E+00
4.1E-01

Uranium-238
Adult
Child
1.2E+03
6.0E+02

2.SE+01
6.9E+00

"The upper 95% confidence bound on ihe median is used as the representative concentration in all calculations.
-------
7-29
Table 7.4c. Chronic daily intake of background soil by the on-site resident—Copper Ridge!0
(for constituents for which a risk and/or hazard index could be calculated)

Carcinogenic effects

Noncarcinogenic effects
Analyte
, InfT t*raal
(mg/kg-day or
pQ)t (mg/kg-day)
External
exposure
(pCi-yr/g)
Ingestion Dermal
(mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day)
Inorganics
Arsenic
Adult
Child


4.2E-05
3.9E-04
Z2E-06
3.6E-06
Barium
Adult
Child


13E-04
1.2E-03
6.8E-06
1.1E-05
Beryllium
Adult
Child
3.0E-07
6.9E-07
1.6E-08
63E-09
8.7E-07
8.1E-06
4.6E-08
7.4E-08
Chromium VI
Adult
Child


2J5E-05
23E-04
13E-06
2.1E-06
Manganese
Aduli
Child


2.0E-03
1.9E-02
1.1E-04
1.7E-04
Mercury
Adult
Child


2.5E-07
2.4E-06
13E-08
2.1E-08
Mercury (salts)
Adult
Child


25E-07
2.4E-06
13E-08
2.1E-08
Molybdenum
Adult
Child


2.4E-06
2.2E-05
13E-07
2.0E-07
Nickel
Adult
Child


13E-05
1.2E-04
7.1E-07
1.1E-06
Nickel (salts)
Adult
Child


13E-05
1.2E-04
7.1E-07
1.1E-06
Selenium
Adult
Child


1.1E-06
1.0E-05
5.8E-08
93E-08
Strontium
Adult
Child


6.6E-06
6.2E-05
3.5E-07
5.6E-07
Vanadium
Adult
Child


4.1E-05
3.9E-04
2JZE-06
3.5E-06
Zinc
Adult
Child


5.9E-05
5.5E-04
3.1E-06
-------
7-30
Table 7.4c (continued)


Carcinogenic effects

Noncarcmogenic effects
Analyte

Ingesuon
(mg/kg-day or
pCi)>
Dermal
(mg/kg-day)
External
exposure
(pCi-yr/g)
Ingestion
(mg/kg-day)
Dermal
(mg/kg-day)



Organics



Acenaphthene
Adult
Child



2.6E-06
2.5E-05
1.4E-06
2.2E-06
Anthracene
Adult
Child



2.0E-06
1.8E-05
1.0E-06
1.7E-06
Benzo(a)anthracene
Adult
Child
13E-06
2.9E-06
6.7E-07
2.7E-07



Benzo(a)pyrene
Adult
Child
1.7E-06
3.9E-06
8.8E-07
35E-07



Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Adult
Child
1.5E-06
3.4E-06
7.7E-07
3.1E-07



Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Adult
Child
1.8E-06
4.2E-06
9.5E-07
3.8E-07



Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Adult
Child
8.5E-07
2.0E-06
4.5E-07
l.SE-07



Chryscne
AduH
ChUd
2.6E-06
6.0E-06
1.4E-06
5.4E-07



Dibenz(a,h)antiiracene
Adult
Child
7.5E-07
1.7E-06
4.0E-07
1.6E-07



Fluoranthene
Adult
Child



1.1E-05
1.0E-04
5.9E-06
9.5E-06
Fluorene
Adult
Child



22E-06
2.0E-05
1.2E-06
1.8E-06
Naphthalene
Adult
Child



23E-05
2.1E-04
1.2E-05
1.9E-05
Phenanthrene
Adult
Child
2JE-06
5.9E-06
13E-06
5.4E-07



Pyrene
Adult
Child



9.6E-06
9.0E-05
5.1E-06
-------
7-31
Table 7.4c (continued)

Carcinogenic effects

Noncaranogenic effects
Analyte
Ingestion _
- , Dermal
mg/kg-day or . ...
pCi)0 (mg/kg-day)
External
exposure
(pCi-yr/g)
Ingestion Dermal
(mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day)
Radionuclides
Cesium-iJ7
Adult
Child
1.7E+03
8.4E+02
3.SE+01
9.5E+00
Neptuntum-237
Adult
Child
9.1E+01
4.5E+01
2.1E+00
5.2E-01
Plutonium-238
Adult
Child
3.2E+01
1.6E+01
73E-01
1.8E-01
Plutomum-239/240
Adult
Child
5.0E-r01
2.5E+01
1.1E+00
2.9E-01
Potassium-40
Adult
Child
4.2E-03
2.1E+03
9.5E + 01
2.4E+01
Radium-226
Adult
Child
1.5E+03
7.5E+02
3.4E+01
8.5E+00
Thonum-228
Adult
Child
4.1E+02
2.0E+02
93E+00
23E+00
Thonum-230
Adult
Child
1.1E+03
5.6E+02
2.5E+01
6.4E+00
Thorium-232
Adult
Child
6.6E+02
33E+02
1JE+01
3.8E+00
Thonum-234
Adult
Child
1.5E+03
7.7E+02
3.5E+01
8.8E+00
Tritium
Adult
Child
2.2E+01
1.1E+01
5.1E-01
13E-01
Uranium-233/234
Adult
Child
1.5E+03
7.4E+02
3.4E+01
8.4E+00
Uramum-235
Adult
Child
1.5E+02
7.4E+01
3.4E+00
8.5E-01
Uranium-236
Uranium-238
Adult
Child
Adult
Child
1.5E+01
7.3E+00
1.3E + 03
6.5E+02
3J5E-01
8.3E-02
3.0E+01
7.4E+00
"The upper 95% confidence bound on the medi2n is used as the representative concentration in all calculations.
-------
7-32
Table 7.4d. Chronic daily intake of ORR background soil by ihc on-site resident—ChepultepeC
(for constituents for which a risk and/or hazard index could be calculated)


Carcinogenic effects

Noncarcinogenic effects
Analyte

, Inf s"on Dermal
(mg/kg-day or , . . ,
pCi)* (mg/kg-day)
External
exposure
(pCi-yr/g)
Ingestion
(mg/kg-day)
Dermal
(mg/kg-day)


Inorganics



Arsenic
Adult
Child


2.0E-05
1.8E-04
1.0E-06
1.7E-06
Barium
Adult
Child


9.5E-05
8.9E-04
5.0E-06
8.1E-06
Beryllium
Adult
Child
2.2E-07 1.1E-08
5.0E-07 4.6E-09

6.3E-07
5.9E-06
33E-08
53E-08
Chromium VI
Adult
Child


24E-05
2.2E-04
1.3E-06
2.0E-06
Manganese
Adult
Child


1.7E-03
1.6E-02
9.2E-05
1.5E-04
Mercury
Adult
Child


2.1E-07
2.0E-06
1.1E-08
1.8E-08
Mercury (salts)
Adult
C::ld


2.1H-07
2.0E-06
1.1E-08
1.8E-08
Selenium
Adult
Child


8.6E-C7
8.0E-06
4.5E-08
73E-08
Strontium
Adult
Child


4.6E-06
43E-05
2.4E-07
3.9E-07
Vanadium
Adult
Child


4.7E-05
4.4E-04
2.5E-06
4.0E-06
Zinc
Adult
Child
Organics

6.7E-05
6.2E-04
3JE-06
5.7E-06
Acenaphthene
Adult
ChUd


1.9E-06
1.7E-05
9.9E-07
1.6E-06
Anthracene
Adult
Child


1.4E-06
1.3E-05
7.5E-07
1.2E-06
Benzo(a)anihracene
Adult
Child
1.2E-06 6.1E-07
17E-06 2J5E-07


-------
Tabic 7.4d (continued)


Carcinogenic effects

Noncarcmogenic effects
Analyie

Ingestion
(mgflcg-day or
pay
Dermal
(mg/kg-day)
External
exposure
(pCi-yr/g)
Ingestion
(mg/kg-day)
Dermal
(mg/kg-day)


Orgaiucs (continued)


Benzo(a)pyrene
Adult
Child
23E-06
5.4E-06
1.2E-06
4.9E-07



Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Adult
Child
2.5 E-06
5.8E-06
1.3E-06
53E-07



Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Adult
Child
1.7E-06
4.0E-06
9.2E-07
3.7E-07



Benzo(k)fluoramhene
Adult
Child
1.1E-06
2.5E-06
5.7E-07
2.3E-07



Di benz(a,h)amhracene
Adult
Child
9.5E-07
2.2E-06
5.1E-07
2.0E-07



Fluoranthene
Adult
Child



6.4E-06
5.9E-05
3.4E-06
5.4E-06
Fluorene
Adult
Child



9.9E-07
9.3E-06
53E-07
8.4E-07
Indeno( 1 ,23-cd)pyrene Adult
Child
7.5E-06
1.7E-05
4.0E-06
1.6E-06



Naphthalene
Adult
Child



2.9E-05
2.7E-04
1.6E-05
2JE-05
Phenanthrene
Adult
Child
2.1E-06
4.9E-06
1.1E-06
4.5E-07



Pyrene
Adult
Child

Radionuclides

7.2E-06
6.8E-05
3.8E-06
6.1E-06
Cesium-137
Adult
Child
2.0E+Q3
9.9E + 02

4.5E+01
1.1E+01


Neptunium-237
Adult
Child
7.5E+01
3.7E+01

1.7E+00
43E-01


Plutonium-238
Adult
Child
l.lEi-02
5.5E+01

2.5E+00
63E-01

-------
7-34
Table 7.4d (continued)


Carcinogenic effects
Noncaranogemc effects
Analyte

Ingestion _
, ° . Dermal
(Way)
External
exposure
(pCi-yr/g)
Ingestion Dermal
(mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day)


Radionuclides (continued)

Potassium-40
Adult
Child
3.2E+0T
1.6E+03
7JE+01
1.8E+01

Radium-226
Adult
Child
1.1E+03
53E+02
2.4E+01
6.1E+00

Thonum-228
Adult
Child
7.2E+02
3.6E+02
1.7E+01
4.1E+00

Thonum-230
Adult
Child
7.SE+02
3.9E+02
1.8E+01
4JE+00

Thonum-232
Adult
Child
6.1E+02
3.0E+02
1.4E+01
3.5E+00

Uranium-233/234
Adult
Child
1.1E+03
5.6E+02
2.6E+01
6.4E+00

Uranium-235
Adult
Chad
8.8E+01
4.4E+01
2.0E+00
5.0E-01

Uramum-238
Adult
Child
1.1E+03
53E+02
2.4E+01
6.0E+00

"The upper 95% confidence bound on the median is used as the representative concentration in all calculations.
-------
7-35
Table 7.4e. Chronic daily intake of ORR background soil by the
on-site resident—Chickamauga (Bethel Valley)"
(for constituents for which a risk and/or hazard index could be calculated)


Carcinogenic effects

Noncaranogenic effects
Analyte

, InfT" Dermal
(mg/kg-day or „ . . ,
pCi)4 (mg^cg-day)
External
exposure
(pCi-yr/g)
Ingestion
(mg/kg-day)
Dermal
(mg/lcg-day)


Inorganics



Arsenic
Adult
Child


1.1E-05
1.0E-04
5.8E-07
9.3E-07
Barium
Adult
Child


1.4E-04
13E-03
7.5E-06
1.2E-05
Beryllium
Adult
Child
5.9E-07 3.1E-08
1.4E-06 1.2E-08

1.7E-06
1.6E-05
9.1E-08
UE-07
Chromium VI
Adult
Child


5-5E-05
5.1E-04
2.9E-06
4.7E-06
Manganese
Adult
Child


2.0E-03
1.8E-02
1.0E-04
1.7E-04
Mercury
Adult
Child


2.6E-07
2.4E-06
1.4E-08
2.2E-08
Mercury (salts)
Adult
Child


2.6E-07
2.4E-06
1.4E-08
2J2E-08
Nickel
Adult
Child


23E-05
2.1E-04
1.2E-06
1.9E-06
Nickel (sails)
Adult
Child


23E-05
2.1E-04
12E-06
1.9E-06
Selenium
Adult
Child


13E-06
1.2E-05
6.8E-08
1.1E-07
Strontium
Adult
Child


1.2E-05
1.1E-04
63E-07
1.0E-06
Vanadium
Adult
Child'


5.7E-05
5.4E-04
3.0E-06
4.9E-06
Zinc
Adult
Child


7.6E-05
7.1E-04
4.0E-06
-------
7-36
Table 7_4e (contmoed)


Carcinogenic effects

Noncarcinogenic effects
Analyte

Ingestion
(mg/lcg-day or
pCi f
Dermal
(mg/kg-day)
External
exposure
(pCi-yr/g)
Ingestion
(mg/lcg-day)
Dermal
(mg/kg-day)



Organs



Acenaphtfaene
Adult
Child



8.2E-06
7.6E-05
43E-06
6.9E-06
Anthracene
Adult
Child



1.6E-06
15E-05
83E-07
13E-06
Benzo(a)anthracene
Adult
Child
3.0E-06
7.0E-06
1.6E-06
6.4E-07



Benzo(a)pyrene
Adult
Child
23E-06
5.4E-06
1J2E-06
4.9E-07



Benzo(b)fluorantbene
Adult
Child
3.0E-06
6.9E-06
1.6E-06
63E-07



Benzo(g4y)peryiene
Adult
Child
2.4E-06
5.6E-06
13E-06
5.1E-07



Beazo(k)fiuorantbene
Adult
Child
1.4E-06
3.2E-06
7.2E-07
25E-07



Chrysene
Adult
Child
3.7E-06
8.6E-06
1.9E-06
7.SE-07



Dibenz(a4i)anthracene-
Adult
Child
6.7E-07
1.6E-06
3.5E-07
1.4E-07



Fluoranthenc
Adult
Child



9.9E-06
93E-05
53E-06
8.4E-06
Fluorene
Adult
Child



7.6E-06
7.1E-05
4.0E-06
6.4E-06
Indeno(l,2T3-cd)pyrene
Adult
Child
7.6E-06
1.8E-05
4.0E-06
1.6E-06



Naphthalene
Adult
Child



15E-05
1.4E-04
7.9E-06
13E-05
Phenanthrcne
Adult
Child
4.1E-06
9.6E-06
12E-06
8.8E-07



Pyrene
Adult
Child



1.7E-05
1.6E-04
9.1E-06
-------
7-37
Table 7.4e (continued)
Analyte
Carcinogenic effects
Ingestion
(mg/kg-day or
pCif
_ , External
Dermal
(mg/kg-day)
Noncarcinogenic effects
Ingestion Dermal
(mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day)
Radionuclides
Ccsium-137
Neptunium-237
Plutonium-238
Plutoruum-239/240
Potassium-40
Radium-226
Tecbneuum-99
Adult
Child
Adult
Child
Adult
Child
Adult
Child
Adult
Child
Adult
Child
Adult
Child
2.7E+03
1.3E+03
1.0E+02
5.2E+01
1.1E+02
5.4E+01
6.5E+01
3.2E-r01
1.5E+04
7.7E+03
1.3E+03
6.6E+02
1.7E+03
83E+02
6.1E+01
1.5E+01
2.4E+00
6.0E-01
25E+00
6.2E-01
l_SE+00
3.7E-01
35E+02
S.8E+01
3.0E+01
7.5E+00
3.8E+01
9.5E+00
Thonum-228
Thonum-230
Tborium-232
Triuum
Uramum-233/234
Adult
Child
Adult
Child
Adult
Child
Adult
Child
Adult
Child
1.5E+03
7.7E+02
1.1E + 03
5.3E+02
1.2E+03
6.1E+02
1.4E+02
6.8E + 01
1.0E + 03
5.1E+02
3J5E+01
8.8E+00
2.4E + 01
6.1E+00
2.8E + 01
7.0E+00
3.1E+00
7.8E-01
23E + 01
5.9E+00
Uranium-235
Adult
Child
LIE+ 02
5.5E+01
2.5E + 00
63E-01
Uramum-238
Adult
Child
1.0E+03
5.0E+02
2.3E+01
5.7E+00
"The upper 95% confidence bound on the median is used as the representative concentration in all calculations.
-------
7-38
Table 7.4L Chronic daily intake of ORR background soil by the
on-site resident—Chickamauga (K-25)"
(for constituents for which a risk and/or hazard index could be calculated)
Carcinogenic effects	Noncarcinogenic effects
.	Ingestion Dermal External	Ingestion Dermal
(mg/kg-day) (
-------
7-39
Table 7.4f (continued)
Carcinogenic effects	Noncarcinogenic effects
Ingestion _ , External	T	_
A .	, . j	Dermal	Ingestion Dermal
Analyte	(mg/kg-day or	exposure	6
pCi)* (mg/kg-day) (p£~./g) (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day)
Organics
Acenapnment
Adult
Child
15E^)6
2.3E-05
13EW
2.1E-06
Anthracene
Adult
Child
2.6E-06
2.4E-05
1.4E-06
12E-06
Benzo(a)anthracene Adult 3.5E-06	1.9E-06
Child S.2E-06 7iE-07
Benzo(a)pyrene
Adult
Child
3.2E-06
7.4E-06
1.7E-06
6.7E-07
Benzo(b)fluoranthene Adult	2.9E-06	1.5E-06
Child	6.7E-06	6.1E-07
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Adult	2.9E-06	1.5E-06
Child	6.SE-06	6.1E-07
Benzo(k)fluoranthene Adult	1.7E-06	9.3E-07
Child	4.1E-06	3.7E-07
Chrysene
Adult
Child
3.8E-06
S.8E-06
2.0E-06
8.0E-07
Dibcnz(a,h)anthraccne Adult 73E-07	3.9E-07
Child	1.7E-06	1.6E-07
Fluoranthene
Adult
Child
13E-05
1.2E-04
6.9E-06,
1.1E-05
Fluorene
Adult
Child
2.9E-06
2.7E-05
1.5E-06
2.5E-06
Indeno(l,2T3-cd)pyrene Adult 6.4E-06	3.4E-06
Child	1JE-05	1.4E-06
Naphthalene
Adult
Child
4.7E-06
4.4E-05
2-5E-06
4.0E-06
Phenanthrene
Adult
Child
4JE-06
1.0E-05
2.4E-06
9.5E-07
P>Tene
Adult
Child
2.1E-05	1.1E-05
-------
7-40
Table 7.4f (continued)


Carcinogenic effects

Noncarcinogemc effects
Analyte

Ingestion
(mg/kg-dav or
PCi)*'
Dermal
(mg/kg-day)
External
exposure
(pCi-yr/g)
Ingestion Dermal
(mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day)



Radionuclides


Cesium-137
Adult
Child
12E+03
1.1E+03

4.9E+01
1.2E+01

Neptunium-237
Adult
Child
1.0E+02
5.0E+01

23E+00
5.8E-01

Plutomum-238
Adult
Child
9.7E+01
4.8E+01

2.2E+00
5JE-01

Plutonium-239/240
Adult
Child
4.1E+01
2.0E+01

9.3E-01
2J3E-01

Potassium-40
Adult
Child
9.9E + 03
4.9E+03

23E+02
5.6E+01

Radium-226
Adult
Child
1.1E+03
5.7E+02

2.6E+01
6JE+00

Techneuum-99
Adult
Child
1.4E+03
7.0E+02

3.2E+01
8.0E+00

Thorium-228
Adult
Child
1.4E+03
6.8E+02

3.1E+01
7.7E+00

Thorium-230
Adult
Child
1.0E+03
5.2E+02

2.4E+01
6.0E+00

Thorium-232
Adult
Child
1.1E + 03
5.4E+02

2.5E+01
6.2E+00

Uranium-233/234
Adult
Child
1.2E+03
6.2E+02

2.SE+01
7.1E+00

Uranium-235
Adult
Child
6.9E+01
3JE+01

1.6E+00
4.0E-01

Uranium-238
Adult
Child
1.1E+03
5.7E+02

2.6E+01
6.5E+00

"The upper 95% confidence bound on the median is used as the representative concentration in all calculations.
-------
7-41
Table 7.5a. Chronic daily intake of ORR background soil by ihc on-site resident—Dismal Gap"
(for constituents for which a risk and/or hazard index could not be calculated)
Carcinogenic effects	Noncarcinogenic effects
Ingestion _ , External	T	_
Anafyte	(mg/kg-day or ,	, exposure	*T"0\ DcnMl
pCi)i> (mg/kg-day) (p(^T/g)	(mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day)
Inorganics
Aluminum
Adult
1.1E-02
5.8E-04
3.2E-02
1.7E-03

Child
2JE-02
23E-04
3.0E-01
2.7E-03
Arsenic
Adult
3.7E-06
2.0E-07



Child
8.7E-06
7.9E-08


Barium
Aduli
6.0E-05
3.2E-06



Child
1.4E-04
1.3E-06


Boron
Adult
1.1E-05
5.6E-07



Child
2.5E-05
2.3E-07


Calcium
Adult
8.5E-04
4.5E-05
2.5E-03
13E-04

Child
2.0E-03
l.SE-O.1)
2.3E-02
2.1E-04
Chromium
Adult
I.4E-05
7.3E-07
4.0E-05
2.1E-06

Child
3.2E-05
2.9E-07
3.7E-04
3.4E-06
Chromium VI
Adult
1.4E-05
73E-07



Child
3.2E-05
2.9E-07


Cobalt
Adult
9.1E-06
4.SE-07
2.6E-05
1.4E-06

Child
2.1E-05
1.9E-07
2.5E-04
2J2E-06
Copper
Adult
9.6E-06
5.1E-07
2.8E-05
1.5E-06

Child
2.2E-05
2.0E-07
2.6E-04
2.4E-06
Cyanide
Adult
1.3E-07
7.0E-09



Child
3.1E-07
2.8E-09


Iron
Adult
1.6E-02
SJ5E-04
4.7E-02
2-5E-03

Child
3.7E-02
3.4E-04
4.4E-01
4.0E-03
Lead
Adult
1.3E-05
6.9E-07
3.8E-05
2.0E-06

Child
3.0E-05
ZSE-07
3.5E-04
3.2E-06
Lithium
Adult
1.0E-05
5.3E-07
2.9E-05
1.6E-06

Child
2.4E-05
2.1E-07
2.7E-04
2.5E-06
Magnesium
Adult
1.6E-03
S.5E-05
4.7E-03
2-5E-04

Child
3.7E-03
3.4E-05
4.4E-02
4.0E-04
Manganese
Adult
6.4E-04
3.4E-05



Child
l.SE-03
1.4E-05

-------
7-42
Table 7.5a (cootinned)
Carcinogenic effects	Noncaranogemc effects
Ingestion _	 External	T . _
Analyte (mg/kg^y or , D'™3\ exposure	fla^
pdf (mgAcg-day) (^~r/g)	(mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day)
Inorganics (continued)
"Mercury—~~ -
¦""Adult
Child
1.7E-07
4.1E-07
9.2E-09
3.7E-09



Mercury (salts)
Adult
Child
1.7E-07
4.1E-07
9.2E-09
3.7E-09



Nickel
Adult
Child
1.4E-05
3.2E-05
7.2E-07
2.9E-07



Nickel (salts)
Adult
Child
1.4E-05
3.2E-05
7.2E-07
19E-07



Potassium
Adult
Child
13E-03
3.1E-03
7.0E-05
2.8E-05

3.8E-03
3.6E-02
2.0E-04
33E-04
Silicon
Adult
Child
2.6E-04
6.1E-04
1.4E-05
5.5E-06

7.6E-04
7.1E-03
4.0E-05
6JE-05
Strontium
Adult
Child
5.4E-06
13E-05
2.8E-07
1.3E-07



Sulfate
Adult
Child
6.0E-05
1.4E-04
3.2E-06
13E-06

1.7E-04
1.6E-03
92E-06
1JE-05'
Thallium
Adult
Child
2.6E-07
6.1E-07
1.4E-08
5.5E-09

7.6E-07
7.1E-06
4.0E-08
6JE-08
Vanadium
Adult
Child
1.8E-05
4.3E-05
9.7E-07
3.9E-07



Zinc
Adult
Child
2.9E-05
6.9E-05
1.6E-06
6.2E-07
Radionuclides



Total Uranium
Adult
Child
1.9E+03
9.5E+02

4.4E+01
1.1E+01


"The upper 95% confidence bound on the median is used as the representative concentration in all calculations.
-------
7-43
Table 7.5b. Chronic daily intake of ORR background sofl by the on-site resident—Nolichucky"
(for constituents for which a risk and/or hazard index could not be calculated)
Anaiyte
Carcinoeenic effects
Ingestion
(mg/kg-day or
pCi?
Dermal
(mg/kg-day)
External
exposure
(pCi-yr/g)
Noncarcinogenic effects
Ingestion Dermal
(mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day)
Aluminum
Adult
Child
1.2E-02
2.7E-02
Tnnrganire
6.2E-04
2J5E-04
3.4E-02
3.2E-01
1.8E-03
2.9E-03
Antimony
Adult
Child
2.3E-07
5.3E-07
1.2E-08
4.8E-09
Arsenic
Adult
Child
3.SE-06
9.0E-06
10E-O7
S.2E-08
Barium
Adult
Child
4.6E-05
1.1E-04
2.4E-06
9.8E-07
Calcium
Chromium
Adult
Child
Adult
Child
5.1E-04
1.2E-03
1.6E-05
3.7E-05
2.7E-05
1.1E-05
8.5E-07
3.4E-07
1.5E-03
1.4E-02
4.7E-05
43E-04
7.9E-05
13E-04
2-5E-06
4.0E-06
Chromium VI
Adult
Child
1.6E-05
3.7E-05
8JE-07
3.4E-07
Cobalt
Adult
Child
9.0E-06
2.1E-05
4.8E-07
1.9E-07
2.6E-05
2-5E-04
1.4E-06
2-2E-06
Copper
Aduit
Child
7.0E-06
1.6E-05
3.7E-07
1.5E-07
10E-05
1.9E-04
1.1E-06
1.7E-06
Iron
Adult
Child
1.5E-02
3.6E-02
S.1E-04
3.2E-04
4.4E-02
4.1E-01
2.4E-03
3.8E-03
Lead
Adult
Child
I.2E-05
2.8E-05
6.2E-07
2.5E-07
3.4E-05
3.2E-04
1.8E-06
2.9E-06
Lithium
Adult
Child
6.6E-06
1JE-05
3.5E-07
1.4E-07
1.9E-05
1.8E-04
1.0E-06
1.6E-06
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Adult
Child
Adult
Child
• Adult
Child
1.1E-03
16E-03
4.2E-04
9.8E-04
l.OE-07
2.4E-07
6.0E-O5
2.4E-05
2.2E-05
8.9E-06
5.4E-09
2.2E-09
3.3E-03
3.1E-02
1.8E-04
-------
7-44
Table 7.5b (continued)
Anatyte
Carcinogenic effects
Ingestion
(mg/kg-cav or
pCi)*'
Dermal
(mg/kg-day)
External
exposure
(pCi-yr/g)
Noncarcinogenic effects
Ingestion Dermal
(mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day)
Inorganics (continued)
Mercniy (salts) Adult	1.0E-0.7 5.4E-09
Child	2.4E-07 Z2E-09
Nickel
Adult
Child
1.0E-05
2J3E-05
53E-07
2.1E-07
Nickel (salts)
Adult
Child
1.0E-05
23E-05
5.3E-07
2.1E-07
Potassium
Adult
Child
17E-03
3.9E-03
S.9E-05
3.6E-05
4.9E-03
4.6E-02
2.6E-04
4.2E-04
Selenium
Adult
Child
3.4E-07
7.9E-07
1.8E-08
7.2E-09
Silicon
Adult
Child
13E-04
2.9E-04
6.7E-06
2.7E-06
3.7E-04
3.4E-03
2.0E-05
3.1E-05
Strontium
Adult
Child
2.9E-06
6.8E-06
1.6E-07
6.2E-08
Sulfate
Adult
Child
1.2E-05
2.9E-05
6.5E-07
2.6E-07
3.6E-05
33E-04
1.9E-06
3.0E-06
Vanadium
Adult
Child
1.7E-05
4.1E-05
9.2E-07
3.7E-07
Zinc
Adult
Child
2.2E-05
5.1E-05
1.2E-06
4.7E-07
Radionuclides
Total Uranium
Adult
Child
1.7E+03
83E+02
3.8E+01
9.5E+00
"The upper 95% confidence bound on the median is used as the representative concentration in all calculations.
-------
7-45
Table 15c. Chronic daily intake of ORR background sofl by the on-site resident—Copper Ridge"
(for constituents for which a risk and/or hazard index could not be calculated)


Carcinogenic effects
Noncarcinogenic effects
Analyte

ingestion
(mg/kg-dav or
pCi)*
Dermal
(mg/kg-day)
External
exposure
(pCi-yr/g)
Ingestion
(mg/kg-day)
Dermal
(mg/lcg-day)



Tnnrganir*



Aluminum
Adult
Child
5.6E-03
1.3E-02
2.9E-04
1.2E-04

1.6E-02
1.5E-01
8.6E-04
1.4E-03
Arsenic
Adult
Child
1.4E-05
3.4E-05
7.7E-07
3.1E-07



Barium
Adull
Child
4.4E-05
l.OE-04
2.3E-06
9.3E-07



Calcium
Adult
Child
3.3E-04
7.6E-CW
1.7E-05
6.9E-06

9.5E-04
S.9E-03
5.1E-05
8.1E-05
Chromium
Adult
Child
S.6E-06
2.0E-05
4.5E-07
l.SE-07

2J5E-05
2-3E-04
1JE-06
2.1E-06
Chromium V]
Adult
Child
8.6E-06
2.0E-05
4JE-07
1.8E-07



Cobalt
Adult
Child
4.8E-06
1.1E-05
2.6E-07
1.0E-07

1.4E-05
1.3E-04
7.5E-07
1J2E-06
Copper
Adult
Child
3.8E-06
9.0E-06
2.0E-07
S.2E-0S

1.1E-05
1.0E-04
5.9E-07
9.5E-07
Iron
Adult
Child
6.5E-03
1.5E-02
3.5E-04
1.4E-04

1.9E-02
1.8E-01
1.0E-03
1.6E-03
Lead
Adult
Child
L4E-05
5.7E-05
13E-06
5.2E-07

7.1E-05
6.7E-04
3.8E-06
6.1E-06
Lithium
Adult
Child
1.6E-06
3.8E-06
8.7E-08
3.5E-08

4.SE-06
4.4E-05
ZSE-QTI
4.0E-07
Magnesium
Adult
Child
2.6E-04
6.1E-04
1.4E-05
5.6E-06

7.6E-04
7.1E-03
4.0E-05
6.5E-05
Manganese
Adult
Child
6.9E-04
1.6E-03
3.6E-05
1J5E-05



Mercury
Adult
Child
8.6E-0S
10E-07
4.6E-09
1.8E-09



Mercury (salts)
Adult
Child
S.6E-08
2.0E-07
4.6E-09
1.8E-09


-------
46
Table 7.5c (continued)


Carcinogenic effects
Noncarcinogemc effects
Analyte

Ingesuon
(mg/kg-day or
pCi f
_ . External
Dermal
(mg/kg-day) ^
Ingestion
(mg/kg-day)
Dermal
(mg/kg-day)


Inorganics (continued)


Molybdenum
Adult
Child
8.2E-07
1.9E-06
4.4E-08
1.7E-08


Nickel
Adult
Child
4.6E-06
1.1E-05
2.4E-07
9.7E-08


Nickel (salts)
Adult
Child
4.6E-06
1.1E-05
2.4E-07
9.7E-08


Potassium
Adult
Child
2.1E-04
4.9E-04
1.1E-05
4.5E-06
6.2E-04
5.8E-03
33E-05
5.2E-05
Selenium
Adult
Child
3.8E-07
8.8E-07
2.0E-O8
8.0E-09


Silicon
Adult
Child
3.6E-04
8.4E-04
1.9E-05
7.6E-06
1.0E-03
9.8E-03
5.6E-05
8.9E-05
Sodium
Adult
Child
1.8E-04
4.2E-04
9.5E-06
3.8E-06
5.2E-04
4.9E-03
2.8E-05
4.4E-05
Strontium
Adult
Child
23E-06
53E-06
1.2E-07
4.8E-08


Sulfate
Adult
Child
4.1E-05
9.7E-05
2.2E-06
8.8E-07
1.2E-04
1.1E-03
6.4E-06
1.0E-05
Vanadium
Adult
Child
1.4E-05
33E-05
7.5E-07
3.0E-07


Zinc
Adult
Child
2.0E-05
4.7E-05
1.1E-06
43E-07
Organics


Acenaphthene
Adult
Child
9.1E-07
2.1E-06
4.8E-07
1.9E-07


Accnaphihylene
Adult
Child
1.1E-04
2.6E-04
6.0E-05
2.4E-05
33E-04
3.1E-03
1.7E-04
2.8E-04
Anthracene
Adult
Child
6.7E-07
1.6E-06
3JE-07
1.4E-07

-------
7-47
Table 7.5c (continued)
Analyte

Carcinogenic effects
Noncarcinogenic effects
Inpuon Dmna]
°r (mg/Kg-day)
External
exposure
(pCi-yr/g)
Ingestion
(mg/kg-day)
Dermal
(mg/kg-day)


Organics (continued)



Benzo(a)anthracene
Adult


3.7E-06
1.9E-06

Child


3.4E-05
3.1E-06
Beozo(a)pyrene
Adult


4.9E-06
2.6E-06

Child


4.5E-05
4.1E-06
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Adult


4.3E-06
23E-06

Child


4.0E-05
3.6E-06
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Adult


5.2E-06
18E-06

Child


4.9E-05
4.4E-06
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Adult


2.5E-06
13E-06

Child


Z3E-05
2.1E-06
Chrysene
Adult


7.5E-06
4.0E-06

Child


7.0E-05
63E-06
Dibenz(a4i)anthracene
Adult


2.2E-06
12E-06

Child


2.0E-05
1.9E-06
Fluoranthene
Adult
3.8E-06 2.0E-06




Child
8.9E-06 S.1E-07



Ruorene
Adult
7JE-07 4.0E-07




Child
1.7E-06 1.6E-07



Naphthalene
Adult
7.7E-06 4.1E-06




Child
1.8E-05 1.6E-06



Phenanthrene
Adult


7.4E-06
3.9E-06

Child


6.9E-05
63E-06
Pyrene
Adult
3.3E-06 1.7E-06




Child
7.7E-06 7.0E-07





Radionuclides



Total Uranium
Adult
3.9E+03
9.0E+01



Child
2.0E+03
2JE+01


"The upper 95% confidence bound on the median is used as the representative concentration in all calculations.
-------
7-48
Table 7J>
-------
7-49
Table 7_5d (continued)
Anatyte
Carcinogenic effects
Ineestion ^ ,	External
- , Dermal
(mg/kg-day or	(m^g^ay)	«P«urc
pCi )i	inyicg-uay;	(pCi.yr/g)
Noncaranogenic effects
Ingestion Dermal
(mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day)
Selenium
Silicon
Sodium
Strontium
Sulfate
Vanadium
Zinc
Adult
Child
Adult
Child
Adult
Child
Adult
Child
Adult
Child
Adult
Child
Adult
Child
Inorganics (continued)
2.9E-07
6.9E-07
2.SE-04
6.5E-04
1.6E-04
3.SE-04
1.6E-06
3.6E-06
4.8E-05
1.1E-04
1.6E-05
3.SE-05
2.3E-05
5.3E-05
1.6E-08
6.2E-09
1JE-05
5.9E-06
8.6E-06
3.4E-06
8.3E-08
3.3E-08
2.6E-06
1.0E-06
S.5E-07
3.4E-07
1.2E-06
4.SE-07
8.1E-04
7.6E-03
4.7E-04
4.4E-03
1.4E-04
1.3E-03
4.3E-05
6.9E-05
2.5E-05
4.0E-05
7.5E-06
1J2E-05
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(grh,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Aduli
Child
Adult
Child
Adult
Child
Adult
Child
Adult
Child
Adult
Child
Adult
Child
6.4E-07
1.5E-06
4.9E-07
1.1E-06
Organks
3.4E-07
i .4E-07
2.6E-07
1.0E-07
3.4E-06
3.1E-05
6.8E-06
6.3E-05
7.2E-06
6.7E-05
5.0E-06
4.7E-05
3.1E-06
2.9E-05
1.8E-06
2.9E-06
3.6E-06
5.7E-06
3.8E-06
6.1E-06
2.7E-06
43E-06
1.7E-06
-------
7-50
Table 7 Jd (continued)


Carcinogenic effects

Noncaranogenic effects
Analyte

Ingestion
(mg/kg-day or
par
Dermal
(mg/kg-day)
External
exposure
(pCi-yr/g)
Ingestion
(mg/kg-day)
Dermal
(rog/kg-day)


Organics (continued)



Dibenz(ajh)amhracene-
Adutr ¦
Child



2J8E-06
2.6E-05
1.5E-06
2.4E-06
Fluoranthene
Adult
Child
Z2E-06
5.1E-06
1J2E-06
4.6E-07



Fluor ene
Adult
Child
3.4E-07
8.0E-07
1.8E-07
7.2E-08



Indeno( 1 ,23-cd)pyrcne
Adult
Child



2.2E-05
2.0E-O4
1.2E-05
1.9E-05
Naphthalene
Adult
Child
1.0E-05
2.4E-05
53E-06
2.1E-06



Phcnanthrene
Adult
Child



6.2E-06
5.8E-05
33E-06
53E-06
Pyrcnc
Adult
Child
2.5E-06
5.8E-06
13E-06
5JE-07





Radionuclides



Total Uranium
Adult
Child
3.0E+03
1.5E+03

7.0E+01
1.7E+01


"The upper 95% confidence bound on the median is used as the repi -ntatrve concentration in all calculations.
-------
7-51
Table 7.5e. Chronic daily intake of ORR background soil by the
on-site resident—Chickamauga (Bethel Valley)"
(for constituents for which a risk and/or hazard index could not be calculated)


Carcinogenic effects
Noncarcinogenic effects
Anatyte

Ingestion
(mg/kg-day
or pCi)^
Dermal
(mg/kg-day)
External
exposure
(pCi-yr/g)
Ingestion
[mg/kg-day)
Dermal
(mg/kg-day)



Inorganics'"



Aluminum
Adult
Child
8.7E-03
2.0E-02
4.6E-04
1.9E-04

Z5E-02
2.4E-01
1.4E-03
22E-03
Arsenic
Adult
Child
3.8E-06
8.8E-06
2.0E-07
8.0E-08



Barium
Adult
Child
4.9E-05
1.1E-04
2.6E-06
1.0E-06



Calcium
Adult
Child
1J2E-03
2.SE-03
6.4E-05
2.6E-05

3.5E-03
3.3E-02
1.9E-04
3.0E-04
Chromium
Adult
Child
1.9E-05
4.4E-05
1.0E-06
4.0E-07

5.5E-05
5.1E-04
2.9E-06
4.7E-06
Chromium VI
Adult
Child
1.9E-05
4.4E-05
1.0E-06
4.0E-07



Cobalt
Adult
Child
1.2E-05
2.7E-05
6.1E-07
2.4E-07

3.4E-05
3.1E-04
1.8E-06
2.9E-06
Copper
Adult
Child
9.7E-06
23E-05
5.1E-07
2.1E-07

2.8E-05
2.6E-04
1.5E-06
2.4E-06
Iron
Adult
Child
2.0E-02
4.6E-02
1.0E-03
4.2E-04

5.7E-02
5.3E-01
3.0E-03
4.9E-03
Lead
Adult
Child
2.4E-05
5.6E-05
1.3E-06
5.1E-07

7.0E-05
6.5E-04
3.7E-06
5.9E-06
Lithium
Adult
Child
7.5E-06
1.7E-05
4.0E-07
1.6E-07

2.2E-05
2.0E-04
1.2E-06
1.9E-06
Magnesium
Adult
Child
7.8E-04
1.8E-03
4.1E-05
1.7E-05

23E-03
2.1E-02
12E-04
i.9E-04
Manganese
Aduii
Child
6.8E-04
1.6E-03
3.6E-05
1.4E-05



Mercury
Adult
Child
8.8E-0S
'2.1E-07
4.7E-09
1.9E-09



Mercury (salts)
Adult
Child
8.8E-08
2.1E-07
4.7E-09
1.9E-09


-------
7-52
Table 7.5c (continued)


Carcinogenic effects
Noncaranogenic effects
Anatyte

Ingestion
(mg/kg-day
or pCi)6
~ . External
Dermal
(^g-dav) ^
Ingestion
(mg/kg-day)
Dermal
(mg/kg-day)


Inorganics (continued)


Nicafef
Adult
Child
7.SE-06
1.8E-05
4.2E-07
1.7E-07


Nickel (salts)
Adult
Child
7.SE-06
1.8E-05
4.2E-07
1.7E-07


Potassium
Adult
Child
8.9E-04
2.1E-03
4.7E-05
1.9E-05
2.6E-03
2.4E-02
1.4E-04
2.2E-04
Selenium
Adult
Child
4.4E-07
1.0E-06
2JE-0S
9.3E-09


Silicon
Adult
Child
2.7E-04
6.4E-04
1.5E-05
5.8E-06
8.0E-04
7.5E-03
4.2E-05
6.8E-05
Sodium
Adult
Child
2.0E-04
4.6E-04
1.0E-05
4.2E-06
5.7E-04
53E-03
3.0E-05
4.9E-05
Strontium
Adult
Child
4.1E-06
9JiE-06
22E-07
S.6E-08


Sulfate
Adult
Child
6.2E-05
1.4E-04
3JE-06
1.3E-06
1.8E-04
1.7E-03
9.6E-06
1.5E-05
Vanadium
Adult
Child
2.0E-05
4.6E-05
1.0E-06
4.2E-07


Zinc
Adult
Child
2.6E-05
6.1E-05
1.4E-06
5.5E-07
Organics


Acenaphthene
Adult
Child
2.8E-06
6JE-06
1.5E-06
5.9E-07


Anthracene
Adult
Child
5.4E-07
1JE-06
2.9E-07
1.1E-07


Benzo(a)anthracene
Adult
Child


8.8E-06
8.2E-05
4.7E-06
7.5E-06
Benzo(a)pyrene
Adult
Child


6.7E-06
6.3E-05
3.6E-06
-------
7-53
Tabic 7.5e (continued)


Carcinogenic effects
Noncaranogenic effects
Analyte

Ingestion
(mg/kg-day
or pCi)4
Dermal
(mg/kg-day)
External
exposure
(pCi-yr/g)
Ingestion
(mg/kg-day)
Dermal
(mg/kg-day)


Organics (continued)



3cczo(tr)fliioranTBene*
"Adulr
Child



8-.6E06—
8.1E-05
4.6E-06
7.3E-06
Benzo(g,h4)peryiene
Adult
Child



7.OE-06
6.6E-05
3.7E-06
6.0E-06
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Adult
Child



4.0E-06
3.7E-05
2.1E-06
3.4E-06
Chrysene
Adult
Child



1.1E-05
1.0E-04
5.7E-06
9.1E-06
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Adult
Child



1.9E-06
1.8E-05
1.0E-06
1.6E-06
Fluorantbene
Adult
Child
3.4E-06
8.0E-O6
1.8E-06
7.2E-07



Fluorene
Adult
Child
2.6E-06
6.1E-06
1.4E-06
5.5E-07



Indeno( 1 ^3-cd)pyrcnc
Adult
Child



2.2E-05
Z1E-04
1.2E-05
1.9E-05
Naphthalene
Adult
Child
5.1E-06
1.2E-05
2.7E-06
1.1E-06



Phcnanthrcne
Adult
Child



1.2E-05
1.1E-04
6.4E-06
1.0E-05
Pyrenc
Adult
Child
5.9E-06
1.4E-05
3.1E-06
1J3E-06
Radionuclides



Total Uranium
Adult
Child
2.0E + 03
9.9E+02

4J5E+01
1.1E+01


"The upper 95% confidence bound on the median is used as the representative concentration in all calculations.
-------
7-54
Table 15L Chronic daOy intake of ORR background soil by the
on-site resident—Chickamauga (K-25)"
(for constituents for which a risk and/or hazard index could not be calculated)


Carcinogenic effects
Noncarcinogenic effects
Anafyte

Ingestion
(mg/kg-day
or pCi)4
Dermal
(mg/kg-day)
External
exposure
(pQ-yr/g)
Ingesuon
(mg/kg-day)
Dermal
(mg/kg-day)



Inorganics



Aluminum
Adult
Child
8.7E-03
2.0E-02
4.6E-04
1.9E-04

2_5E-02
2.4E-01
1.4E-03
22E-03
Arsenic
Adult
Child
4.6E-06
1.1E-05
2.4E-07
9.7E-08



Barium
Adult
Child
4.7E-05
1.1E-04
2-5E-06
9.9E-07



Calcium
Adult
Child
8.8E-04
11E-03
4.7E-05
1.9E-05

2.6E-03
2.4E-02
1.4E-04
22E-04
Chromium
Adult
Child
1.8E-05
4.2E-05
9.6E-07
3.8E-07

5.3E-05
4.9E-04
Z8E-06
4.5E-06
Chromium VI
Adult
Child
1.8E-05
4.2E-05
9.6E-07
3.8E-07



Cobalt
Adult
Child
1.2E-05
2.8E-05
6.5E-07
2.6E-07

3.6E-05
3JE-04
1.9E-06
3.0E-06
Copper
Adult
Child
6.8E-06
1.6E-05
3.6E-07
1.4E-07

2.0E-05
1.9E-04
1.1E-06
1.7E-06
Iron
Adult
Child
1.7E-02
3.9E-02
9.0E-04
3.6E-04

4.9E-02
4.6E-01
2.6E-03
4.2E-03
Lead
Adult
Child
2.0E-05
4.7E-05
1.1E-06
43E-07

5.9E-05
5.5E-04
3.1E-06
5.0E-06
Lithium
Adult
Child
8.2E-06
1.9E-05
4.3E-07
1.7E-07

2.4E-05
2.2E-04
13E-06
2.0E-06
Magnesium
Adult
Child
6.1E-04
1.4E-03
3.2E-05
1.3E-05

1.8E-03
1.7E-02
9.5E-05
1.5E-04
Manganese
Adult
Child
1.1E-03
2.5E-03
5.7E-05
2.3 E-05



Mercury
Adult
Child
2.7E-07
63E-07
1.4E-08
5.SE-09



Mercury (salts)
Adult
Child
2.7E-07
63E-07
1.4E-08
5.8E-09


-------



7-55




Table 151 (continued)




Carcinogenic effects
Noncarcinogemc effects
Analyte

Ingestion
(mg/kg-day
or pCi)°
_ External
Dermal
(mg/kg-day)
Ingestion
(mg/kg-day)
Dermal
(mg/kg-day)


Inorganics (continued)


"NiOxT
Adult
Child
1.0E-05
2J3E-05
53E-07
2.IE-07


Nickel (salts)
Adult
Child
1.0E-05
2.3E-05
5.3E-07
2.1E-07


Potassium
Adult
Child
9.7E-04
23E-03
5.1E-05
2.1E-05
2.8E-03
2.6E-02
1.5E-04
2.4E-04
Selenium
Adult
Child
4.5E-07
1.1E-06
2.4E-08
9.6E-09


Silicon
Adult
Child
3.3E-04
7.7E-04
1.7E-05
7.0E-06
9.6E-04
8.9E-03
5.1E-05
8.1E-05
Sodium
Adult
Child
2.1E-04
5.0E-04
1.1E-05
4.5E-06
6.2E4W
5.8E-03
3.3E-Q5
53E-05
Strontium
Adult
Child -
7_5E-06
1.8E-05
4.0E-07
1.6E-07


Sulfate
Adult
Child
1.2E-04
2.7E-04
6.2E-06
2.5E-06
3!4E-04
3.2E-03
1.8E-05
2.9E-05
Vanadium
Adult
Child
10E-05
4.6E-05
1.0E-06
4.2E-07


Zinc
Adult
Child
17E-05
6J2E-05
1.4E-06
5.7E-07
Organics


Acenaphihene
Adult
Child
8.5E-07
2.0E-06
4.5E-07
1.8E-07


Anthracene
Adult
Child
9.0E-07
2.1E-06
4.8E-07
1.9E-07


Benzo(a)anthracene
Adult
Child


1.0E-05
9.6E-05
55E-06
8.7E-06
Benzo(a)pyrene
Adult
Child


9.2E-06
8.6E-05
4.9E-06
-------
7-56
Table 7J>f (continued)


Carcinogenic effects
Noncarcinogenic effects
Analyte

Ingestion
(mg/kg-day
or pCi)"
Dermal
(mg/kg-day)
External
exposure
(pCi-yr/g)
Ingestion
(mg/kg-day)
Dermal
(mg/kg-day)


Organics (cmtinned)


Benzo(b)fluorantfiene
Adult.
Child



83E-06
7.8E-05
4.4E-06
7.1E-06
Benzo(g,h,i)peryiene
Adult
Child



8.4E-06
7.9E-05
4.5E-06
7.2E-06
Beazo(k)fluoranthenc
Adult
Child



5.1E-06
4.8E-05
2.7E-06
43E-06
Chrysene
Adult
Child



1.1E-05
1.0E-04
5.8E-06
93E-06
Dibenz(a£)anthracene
Adult
Child



2.1E-06
2.0E-05
1.1E-06
1.8E-06
Fluoranthene
Adult
Child
4.4E-06
1.0E-05
2.4E-06
9.4E-07



Fluorenc
Adult
Child
9.9E-07
2-3E-06
5J3E-07
2.1E-07



Indeno( 1 A3-cd)pyrcne
Adult
Child



1.9E-05
1.7E-04
9.9E-06
1.6E-05
Naphthalene
Adult
Child
1.6E-06
3.SE-06
8.6E-07
3.4E-07



Pbenanthrene
Adult
Child



13E-05
1JE-04
6.9E-06
1.1E-05
Pyrene
Adult
Child
7.2E-06
1.7E-05
3.8E-06
1JE-06
PartinnnHifW



Total Uranium
Adult
Child
13E+03
6.7E+02

3.1E+01
7."2 +00


"The upper 95% confidence bound on the median is used as the representative concentration m all calculations.
-------
7-57
effects resulting from exposure to the constituents of potential concern. Refer to the
ORNL/HASRD/BEIAS Toxicity Profiles report for further information regarding specific
constituents. Tables 7.6 through 7.9 summarize toxicity information for the constituents. The
health effects described in this section are conservative and may not necessarily represent the
actual health effects incurred by exposure to constituent levels presented in this background
soil evaluation.
7.5.1 Inorganics
7.5.1.1 Antimony
Antimony is a naturally occurring metal that is used in metallurgical processes, paints and
enamels, various textiles, rubber, and fire retardants (antimony trioxide). Antimony is a
common urban air pollutant, occurring at an average concentration of 0.001 jig/m3. Exposure
to the element may occur via inhalation and ingestion of contaminated foods. In addition,
some antimonials, such as potassium antimony tartrate, have been used medicinally, as
parasiticides (BEIAS 1993).
Antimony is only slowly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract. Based on animal data,
gastrointestinal absorption of antimony was estimated to be 2 to 1%. Antimony has been
detected in the blood of occupationally exposed individuals; however, it is uncertain whether
this was caused by pulmonary absorption or ingestion following mucociliary transport from the
upper, respiratory tract Urinary excretion of antimony has been documented for workers
exposed to antimony fumes. Acute poisoning has occurred as a result of accidental or suicidal
ingestion of antimonials with death ensuing within several hours. Symptoms of severe
antimony poisoning include vomiting, diarrhea, collapse, irregular respiration, and
hypothermia. Oral exposure data are inconclusive concerning subchronic and chronic toxicity
of antimony. Occupational inhalation exposure to antimonials may result in respiratory effects,
including pneumoconiosis and chronic bronchitis. Dermal exposure to antimony may cause
dermatitis, although no acute or chronic toxicity information is available. In addition, no
information is available regarding the carcinogenicity of antimony in humans, and no evidence
shows increased cancer incidence as a result of inhalation exposure (BEIAS 1993).
15.12. Arsenic
Arsenic is a metallic, steel-gray, crystalline, brittle, trivalent and pentavalent, solid,
poisonous element. It is commonly used in pesticides. Trivalent compounds are generally more
toxic and more likely to have systemic effects than the less soluble compounds which are more
likely to cause chronic pulmonary effects if inhaled.
Water soluble inorganic arsenic compounds are absorbed through the gastrointestinal
tract and lungs. Symptoms of acute inorganic arsenic poisoning in humans are nausea,
anorexia, vomiting, epigastric and abdominal pain, and diarrhea. In addition, dermatitis, muscle
cramps, cardiac abnormalities, hepatoxicity, bone marrow suppression and hematologic
abnormalities, vascular lesions, and peripheral neuropathy have also been reported. Severe
exposures can result in acute encephalopathy, congestive heart failure, stupor, convulsions,
paralysis, coma, and death. Occupational exposure studies show a clear correlation between
-------
7-58
7.5.13 Barium
Barium is a divalent alkaline-earth metal found only in combination with other elements
in nature. The most important of these combinations are the peroxide, chloride, sulfate,
carbonate, nitrate, and chlorate. The most likely source of barium in the atmosphere is from
industrial emissions. Because of the element's tendency to form salts with limited solubility
in soil and water, it is expected to have a residence time of hundreds of years and is not
expected to be very mobile. Trace amounts of barium have been found in more than 99% of
surface waters and finishecfdrinking water samples (average values of 43 jig/L and 28.6 jig/L,
respectively) across the United States (BEIAS 1993).
The soluble salts of barium are toxic to mammalian systems. They are absorbed rapidly
from the gastrointestinal tract and are deposited in the muscles, lungs, and bone. At low
doses, barium acts as a muscle stimulant and at higher doses affects the nervous system
eventually leading to paralysis. Subchronic and chronic oral or inhalation exposure primarily
affects the cardiovascular system resulting in elevated blood pressure. Subchronic and chronic
inhalation exposure of human populations to barium-containing dust can result in a benign
pneumoconiosis called baritosis, which is a condition often accompanied by an elevated blood
pressure but does not usi>. :y result in a pulmonary function change. Although the effects of
barium on laboratory rais have been documented and include elevated blood pressure,
decreased body weight, birth defects, and increased infant mortality, these effects have r.ot
been substantiated in humans. In addition, barium has not been evaluated by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for evidence of human carcinogenicity
(BEIAS 1993).
7.5.1.4 Beryllium
Pure beryllium is a hard, grayish metal. Beryllium compounds are present in the earth's
crust. It can be found in emissions from coal combustion; in surface water and soil; and in
house dust, food, drinking water, and cigarette smoke. Industry employs beryllium in several
ways, including in brake systems for airplanes, for neutron monochromatization, as window
material for x-ray tubes, and in radiation detectors. Additionally, beryllium compounds are
used in manufacturing ceramics and refractories, chemical reagents, and gas mantle hardeners.
The highest risk for exposure to beryllium occurs among workers employed in beryllium
manufacturing, fabricating, or reclaiming industries. However, people who live near these
industries and who are sensitive to extremely low concentrations of beryllium in the air are
also at risk. In addition, smokers inhale unusually high concentrations of beryllium, depending
on the source of tobacco.
A limited amount of data indicates that the oral toxicity of beryllium is low; however, the
inhaled toxicity of beryllium is well documented. Humans inhaling massive doses of beryllium
compounds may develop acute berylliosis. Additionally, beryllium and its compounds are
presumed to have cancer-causing potential in the human lung when inhaled. The
cancer-causing ability has been investigated in workers exposed to beryllium. The degree of
harm depends on the amount and duration of exposure. Short-term exposure to beryllium may
cause noncarcinogenic health effects, such as acute pneumonitis berylliosis, while long-term
-------
7-59
7-5.1.5 Chromium and Chromium VI
Elemental chromium does not occur in nature but is present in ores—primarily chromite.
Chromium exhibits several oxidation states, but the most prominent of these is Chromium VI
and Chromium III. Chromium VI in the environment is manmade as a result of industrial
emissions; in solution, Chromium VI exists as hydrochromate, chromate, and dichromate ionic
species and reacts over time to form Chromium III. Chromium VI is much more mobile and
toxic than is Chromium III. Chromium is useful in glucose and cholesterol metabolism and
metal occurs via the ingestion of chromium-containing food and water, whereas occupational
exposure occurs via inhalation. Workers are exposed to chromium during its use in the
production of dichromate; the chemical, stainless steel, refractory, and chromium-plating
industries; and the production and use of alloys (ATSDR 1988; BEIAS 1993).
Chromium enters the body through the lungs, gastrointestinal tract, and, to a lesser
extent, the skin. Inhalation is the most important route for occupational exposure. Workers
exposed to chromium have developed nasal irritation, nasal ulcers, perforation of the nasal
septum, and hypersensitivity reactions and "chrome holes" of the skin. Among the general
population, contact dermatitis has been associated with the use of bleaches and detergents.
Inhalation of chromium compounds has been associated with the development of cancer in
workers in the chromate industry. Evidence also suggests an increased risk in developing
nasal, pharyngeal, and gastrointestinal carcinomas. Based on sufficieni evidence reporting that
humans and animals are at risk of developing cancer, Chromium VI has been assigned an
EPA weight-of-evidence classification of A, human carcinogen (BEIAS 1993).
7-5.1.6 Manganese
Manganese makes up about 0.10% of the earth's crust and is the 12th most abundant
element It can exist in oxidation states from -3 td +7, the most common being +4 in the
chemical form of manganese dioxide. The oxides and peroxides are used in industry as
oxidizers, and the metal is used for manufacturing metal alloys to increase hardness and
corrosion resistance. Manganese is an essential trace element in humans, which can elicit a
variety of serious toxic responses upon prolonged exposure to elevated concentrations either
orally or by inhalation. The central nervous system is the primary target (BEIAS 1993).
Initial symptoms of manganese exposure are insomnia, disorientation, anxiety, lethargy,
and memory loss. These symptoms will progress with prolonged exposure and will eventually
include motor disturbances, tremors, and walking difficulties similar to Parkinsonism. Effects
on reproduction (decreased fertility, impotence) have been observed in humans with
inhalation exposure and in animals with oral exposure at the same or similar doses that
initiate the central nervous system effects. Data on possible carcinogenesis following injections
in mice are inconclusive; however, the EPA weight-of-evidence classification is D, not
classifiable as to human carcinogenicity based on no evidence in humans and inconclusive
evidence in animals (BEIAS 1993).
7.5.1.7 Mercury and Mercury Salts
Mercury is a naturally occurring element that may exist in elemental, inorganic, or
-------
7-60
and processes, including pressure sensitive devices (thermometers, barometers), electrical
apparatus (wiring, switches, batteries), paints, pharmaceuticals, and in the production of
various chemicals. The oxidation state and chemical form of mercury are important in
determining its toxicity, with mercurous salts being less toxic than mercuric salts. Organic
materials such as methyl mercury are highly toxic. In the environment, mercury may undergo
transformations among the various oxidation states and chemical forms. Both environmental
and occupational exposure are relevant to mercury and its compounds, although
environmental exposure is unimportant for mercury vapor. Mercury intake from occupational
exposureis~t)f greater significance than that from environmental exposure. Environmental
exposure to mercury may involve dietary intake (i.e., from fish) and possibly from dental
amalgams, the latter being controversial and under dispute (BEIAS 1993).
Ingestion of mercury metal is usually without effect, while ingestion of inorganic salts may
cause severe gastrointestinal irritation, renal failure, and death. Mercury is also known to
induce hypersensitivity reactions such as contact dermatitis and acrodynia (pink disease).
Inhalation of mercury vapor may cause irritation of the respiratory tract, central nervous
system effects characterized by neurobehavioral changes, peripheral nervous system toxicity,
renal toxicity, and death. Toxicity resulting from subchronic and chronic exposure to mercury
and mercury salts usually involves the kidneys and/or the nervous system. No data are
available regarding the carcinogenicity of mercury in humans or animals. The EPA has placed
inorganic mercury in weight-of-evidence classification D, not classifiable as to human
carcinogenicity (BEIAS 1993).
7.5.1.8 Molybdenum
Molybdenum is considered an essential trace element that occurs naturally in various
ores, the most important being molybdenite, which is converted to molybdenum trioxide for
use in ferro- and manganese alloys, chemicals, catalysts, ceramics, and pigments. Metallic
molybdenum is used in electronic parts, induction heating elements, and electrodes (BEIAS
1993).
Data documenting molybdenum toxicity in humans are limited. Mild cases of
molybdenosis may be clinically identifiable only by biochemical changes such as increased uric
acid levels. Excessive intake of molybdenum causes a physiological copper deficiency, and
conversely, in cases of inadequate dietary intak /f copper, molybdenum toxicity may occur
at lower exposure levels. Oral toxicity data ar. inhalation toxicity data for molybdenum
exposure on humans are unavailable, as is information on the oral or inhalation
carcinogenicity of molybdenum compounds in humans (BEIAS 1993).
7.5.1.9 Nickel and Nickel Salts
Nickel is a naturally occurring metal existing in various mineral forms. Nickel may be
found throughout the environment including rivers, lakes, oceans, soil, air, drinking water,
plants, and animals. Soil and sediment are the primary receptacles for nickel but mobilization
may occur depending on physico-chemical characteristics of the soil. Nickel is used in a wide
variety of metallurgical processes such as electroplating and alloy production, as well as in
-------
7-61
element for mammals. As for most metals, the toxicity of nickel is dependent on the route of
exposure and the solubility of the nickel compound (BEIAS 1993).
Pulmonary absorption is the major route of concern for nickel-induced toxicity. Toxic
effects of oral exposure to nickel usually involve the kidneys with some evidence from animal
studies showing a possible development/reproductive toxicity effect. Inhalation exposure to
some nickel compounds will cause toxic effects in the respiratory tract and immune system.
Asthmatic conditions have also been documented for inhalation exposure to nickeL In
addition, sensitivity reactions to nickel are well documented and usually involve contact
dermatitis reactions resulting from contact with items such as cooking utensils, jewelry, coins,
etc., containing nickel. Epidemiologic studies have shown that occupational inhalation
exposure to nickel dust (primarily nickel subsulfide) at refineries has resulted in increased
incidences of pulmonary and nasal cancer (BEIAS 1993).
7.5.1.10 Selenium
Selenium is an essential trace element important in many biochemical and physiological
processes including the biosynthesis of coenzyme Q (a component of mitochondrial electron
transport systems), regulation of ion fluxes across membranes, maintenance of the integrity
of keratins, stimulation of antibody synthesis, and activation of glutathione peroxidase (an
enzyme involved in preventing oxidative damage to cells). Animal studies indicate that
deficiencies in selenium can result in damage to the liver, heart, kidneys, skeletal muscle, and
testes. The primary dietary sources of selenium are seafoods, kidney and liver meats, and
grains and cereals.
In humans, acute oral exposures can result in excessive salivation, garlic odor to the
breath, shallow breathing, diarrhea, pulmonary edema, and death. General signs of chronic
selenosis in humans include loss of hair and nails, clubbing of the fingers, skin lesions, tooth
decay, and nervous system abnormalities attributed to polyneuritis. Human inhalation of
selenium or selenium compounds primarily affects the respiratory system. Dusts of elemental
selenium and selenium dioxide can cause irritation of the skin and mucous membranes of the
nose and- throat, coughing, nosebleed, loss of sense of smell, dyspnea, bronchial spasms,^
bronchitis, and chemical pneumonia. Pertinent data regarding the potential carcinogenicity
of selenium by the inhalation route in humans or animals are not available (BEIAS 1993).
7-5.1-11 Vanadium
Vanadium is a metallic element that occurs in six oxidation states and numerous inorganic;
compounds. The element is used primarily as an alloying agent in steels and nonferrous metals
such as copper, aluminum, and titanium. Vanadium compounds are also used as catalysts and
in chemical, ceramic, or specialty applications. It may also have applications as an intennetallic
compound for superconductor applications. Minor uses include applications as color modifiers,
in mercury-vapor lamps, as driers in paints and varnish, and as corrosion inhibitors in flue-gas
scrubbers (BEIAS 1993).
Vanadium compounds are poorly absorbed through the gastrointestinal system but slightly
more readily absorbed through the lungs. Absorbed vanadium is widely distributed in the
body, but short-term localization occurs primarily in bone, the kidneys, and the liver. In the.
-------
7-62
blood protein (transferrin). The toxicity of vanadium depends on its physico-chemical
state—particularly on its valence state and solubility. In humans, intestinal cramps and diarrhea
may occur following subchronic oral exposures, thereby suggesting that, for subchronic and
chronic oral exposures, the primary targets are the digestive system, kidneys, and blood.
Inhalation exposures to vanadium and vanadium compounds result primarily in adverse effects
to the respiratory system. In studies on workers occupationally exposed to vanadium, the most
common reported symptoms were irritation of the respiratory tract, conjunctivitis, dermatitis,
cough, bronchospasm, pulmonary congestion, and bronchitis. Little evidence suggests that
vanadium or vanadium compounds are carcinogenic; however, few studies have been
conducted on the carcinogenicity of vanadium (BEIAS 1993).
7.5.1.12 Zinc
Zinc is an essential element and is used primarily in galvanized metals and metal alloys.
In addition, various inorganic zinc salts have numerous commercial uses. Zinc oxide is used
in the rubber industry as a vulcanization activator and accelerator and to slow down oxidation,
and also as a reinforcing agent, heat conductor, pigment, UV stabilizer, supplement in animal
feeds and fertilizers, catalyst, chemical intermediate, and mildew inhibitor. Zinc sulfate is used
in rayon manufacture, agriculture, zinc plating, and as a chemical intermediate and mordant
Zinc chloride is used in smoke bombs, in cements for metals, in wood preservatives, in flux
for soldering; in manufacture of parchment paper, artificial silk, and glues; as a mordant in
printing and dye textiles; and as a deodorant, antiseptic, and astringent. Zinc chromate is used
as a pigment in paints, varnishes, and oil colors. In addition, zinc phosphide is used as a
rodenticide, and zinc cyanide is used in electroplating. The toxicity of the latter two
compounds is caused primarily by their anion component (BEIAS 1993).
Gastrointestinal absorption of zinc is variable (20-80%) and depends on the chemical
compound as well as on zinc levels in the body and dietary concentrations of other nutrients.
Zinc is present in all tissues with the highest concentrations in the prostate, kidney, liver,
heart, and pancreas. In humans, acutely toxic oral doses of zinc cause nausea, vomiting,
diarrhea, and abdominal cramps and in some cases gastric bleeding. Gastrointestinal upset has
also been reported in individuals taking dietary zinc supplements for up to 6 weeks. Limited
evidence suggests that the human immune system may be impaired by subchronic exposures.
Chronic oral exposures to zinc have resulted in hypochromic microcytic anemia associated
with hypoceruloplasminemia, hypocupremia, and neutropenia in some individuals. Under
occupational exposure conditions, inhalation of zinc compounds (mainly zinc oxide fumes) can
result in a condition identified as "metal fume fever," which is characterized by nasal passage
irritation, cough, rales, headache, altered taste, fever, weakness, hyperpnea, sweating, pains
in the legs and chest, leukocytosis, reduced lung volume, and decreased diffusing capacity of
carbon monoxide. "Metal fume fever" is an acute and reversible effect that is unlikely to
occur under chronic exposure conditions when zinc air concentrations are less that
S-12 mg/m3. No case studies or epidemiologic evidence has been presented to suggest that
zinc is carcinogenic in humans by the oral or inhalation route (BEIAS 1993).
7.5.2 Radionuclides
Radionuclides are unstable atoms of elements that will emit charged panicles to achieve
a more stable state. These charged particles are termed "alpha and beta radiation" and
-------
7-63
will produce ionization events, or radiation, which may cause living cell tissue damage.
Because the deposition of energy by ionizing radiation is a random process, sufficient energy
may be deposited (in a critical volume) within a cell and result in cell modification or death
(ICRP 1991). In addition, ionizing radiation has sufficient energy that interactions with matter
will produce an ejected electron and a positively charged ion (known as free radicals) that are
highly reactive and may combine with other elements, or compounds within a cell, to produce
toxins or otherwise disrupt the overall chemical balance of the cell (EPA 1991b). These free
radicals can also react with deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), causing genetic damage, cancer
induction, or even cell death.
Radionuclides are characterized by the type and energy level of the radiation emitted.
Radiation emissions fall into two major categories: paniculate (electrons, alpha particles, beta
particles, and protons) or electromagnetic radiation (gamma and x-rays) (ASTDR 1989d).
Therefore, all radionuclides are classified by the EPA as Group A carcinogens based on their
property of emitting ionizing radiation and on the extensive weight of evidence provided by
epidemiological studies of humans with cancers induced by high doses of radiation. Alpha
particles are emitted at a characteristic energy level for differing radionuclides. The alpha
particle has a charge of +2 and a comparably large size. Alpha particles have the ability to
react (and/or ionize) with other molecules, but they have very little penetrating power and
lack the ability to pass through a piece of paper or human skin. However, alpha-emitting
radionuclides are of concern when there is a potential for inhalation or ingestion of the
radionuclide. Alpha panicles are directly ionizing and deposit their energy in dense
concentrations [termed high linear energy transfer (high LET)], resulting in short paths erf
highly localized ionization reactions. The probability of cell damage increases as a result_of
the increase in ionization events occurring in smaller areas; this may also be the reason.for
increased cancer incidence caused by inhalation of radon gas. In addition, the cancer
incidence in smokers may be directly attributed to the naturally occurring alpha emitter,
polonium-210, in common tobacco products (Hammonds and Hoffman 1992).
Beta emissions generally refer to beta negative panicle emissions. Radionuclides with an
excess of neutrons achieve stability by beta decay. Beta radiation, like alpha radiation, is
directly ionizing but, unlike alpha activity, beta panicles deposit their energy along a longer
track length (low-LET), resulting in more space between ionization events (Hammonds and
Hoffman 1992). Beta-emitting radionuclides can cause injury to the skin and superficial body
tissue but are most destructive when inhaled or ingested. Many beta emitters are similar
chemically to naturally occurring essential nutrients and will therefore tend to accumulated
certain specific tissues. For example, strontium-90 is chemically similar to calcium and, as a
result, accumulates in the bones, where it causes continuous exposure. The health effects of
beta particle emissions depend upon the target organ. Those seeking the bones would cause
a prolonged exposure to the bone marrow and affect blood cell formation, possibly resulting
in leukemia, other blood disorders, or bone cancers. Those seeking the liver would result in
liver diseases or cancer, while those seeking the thyroid would cause thyroid and metabolic
disorders. In addition, beta radiation may lead to damage of genetic material (DNA), causing
hereditary defects.
Gamma emissions are the energy that has been released from transformations of the
atomic nucleus. Gamma emitters and x-rays behave similarly but differ in their origin: gamma
emissions originate in nuclear transformations, and x-rays result from changes in the orbiting
-------
7-64
effects. Gamma rays have high penetrating ability in living tissue and are capable of reaching
all internal body organs. Without such sufficient shielding as lead, concrete, or steel, gamma
radiation can penetrate the body from the outside and does not require ingestion or
inhalation to penetrate sensitive organs. Gamma rays are characterized as low-LET radiation,
as is beta radiation; however, the behavior of beta radiation differs from that of gamma
radiation in that beta panicles deposit most of their energy in the medium through which they
pass, while gamma rays often escape the medium because of higher energies, thereby creating
difficulties in determining actual internal exposure. For this reason, direct whole-body
measurements are necessary to detect gamma radiation,"while'urine/fecal analyses are usually
effective in detecting beta radiation (Hammonds and Hoffman 1992).
People receive gamma radiation continuously from naturally occurring radioactive decay
processes going on in the earth's surface, from radiation naturally occurring inside their
bodies, from the atmosphere as fallout from nuclear testing or explosions, and from space or
cosmic sources. Cesium-137 (from nuclear fallout) decays to barium-137, the highest
contributor to fallout-induced gamma radiation (NCRP 1977). Beta radiation from the soil
is a less penetrating form of radiation but has many contributing sources. Potassium-40,
cesium-137, lead-214, and bismuth-214 are among the most common environmental beta
emitters. Tritium is also a beta emitter but contributes little to the soil beta radiation because
of the low energy of its emission and its low concentration in the atmosphere (NCRP 1977).
Alpha radiation is also emitted by the soil but is not measurable more than a few centimeters
from the ground surface. The majority of alpha emissions are attributable to radon-222 and
radon-220. and their decay products (NCRP 1977). This contributes to what is called
background exposure to radiation (ATSDR 1989).
The general health effects of radiation can be divided into stochastic (related to dose)
and nonstochastic (not related to dose) effects. The risk of development of cancer from
exposure to radiation is a stochastic effect. Examples of nonstochastic effects include acute
radiation syndrome and cataract formation, which occur only at high levels of exposures
(Killough and Eckerman 1983).
Radiation can damage cells in different ways. It can cause damage to DNA within the
cell, and the cell either may not be able to recover from this type of damage or may survive
but function abnormally. If an abnormally functioning cell divides and reproduces, a tumor
or mutation in the tissue may develop. The rapidly dividing cells that line the intestines and
stomach and the blood cells in bone marrow are extremely sensitive to this damage. Organ
damage results from the damage caused to the individual cells. This type of damage has been
reported with doses of 10 to 500 rads (0.] to 5.0 gray, in SI units). Acute radiation sickness
is seen only after doses of >50 rads (0.5 gray) which is a dose rate usually achieved only in
a nuclear accident (ATSDR 1989).
When the radiation-damaged cells are reproductive ceils, genetic damage can occur in
the offspring of the person exposed. The developing fetus is especially sensitive to radiation.
The type of malformation that may occur is related to the stage of fetal development and the
cells that are differentiating at the time of exposure. Radiation damage to children exposed
in the womb is related to the dose the pregnant mother receives. Mental retardation is a
-------
7-65
The most widely studied population that has had known exposure to radiation is the
atomic bomb survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. Data indicate an increase in the
rate of leukemia and cancers in this population. However, the rate at which cancer incidence
is significantly affected by low radiation exposures, such as results of exposure to natural
background and industrially contaminated sites, is still undergoing study and is uncertain
(Hammonds and Hoffman 1992). In studies conducted to determine the rate of cancer and
leukemia increase, as well as genetic defects, several radionuclides must be considered. A brief
physical description, an industrial profile, and radiation emission information pertaining to the
primary radionuclides,-which are major contributors to background risk (see Sect. 7.6), are
given in Sects. 7.5.2.1 through 7.5.2.4.
7.5.2.1 Cesium-137
Cesium occurs in nature as cesium-133 in the aluminosilicates, pollucite (a hydrated
silicate of aluminum and cesium) and lepidolite; in the borate, rhodizite; and in other sources
(Budavari et al. 1989, Klaassen et al. 1986). Cesium-137 is one of the artificial isotopes of
cesium and is one of the principal radionuclides present in reactor effluents under normal
operations. Cesium-137 may also be produced in nuclear and thermonuclear explosions,
through which it would be a primary contributor to human exposure through fallout radiation,
assimilation through the food chain, or beta dose to the skin (Budavari et al. 1989,
Klaasen et al. 1986). In addition, cesium-137, along with strontium-90, is one of the most
important fission products that was widely distributed in near-surface soils because .of
historical weapons testing. Measurable concentrations still exist in the soil today, almost
exclusively in the upper 15 cm of soil; these concentrations decrease roughly exponentially
with depth.
Cesium-137 may also have important roles in medical treatments (a teletherapy source
or intercavitaiy or interstitial radiation source in treatment of malignancies) and as an
encapsulated energy source (Budavari et al. 1989, Casarett 1968). Cesium-137 decays to and
reaches radioactive equilibrium with its daughter product, barium-137m(Budavari et al. 1989,
Casarett 1968). Barium-137m is a very short-lived gamma emitter that can contribute to
external gamma exposure (Budavari et al. 1989).
1 SI 1 Potassium-40
Potassium is a silvery white, light, very soft, chemically reactive member of the alkali
metal family. Potassium is used in manufacturing certain types of soap and glass, and
potassium nitrate (saltpeter) is used in matches and explosives. Potassium-40 is a naturally
occurring radioisotope of potassium and is found in the earth's crust in measurable quantities.
It is a major constituent of both igneous and sedimentary rocks, especially granite (>30 pCi/g)
and shale (22 pCi/g), respectively. Potassium-40 has a half-life of 1.3 billion years and is used
in radioactive dating of rocks. In addition, potassium-40 is one of 17 naturally occurring
radioisotopes that decay to stable isotopes.
Potassium-40 is always present in the body; it decays with emission of beta particles and
a gamma ray, but the rate of decay is so relatively slow that it requires a whole body count
to detect The rate is considered slow, but potassium^40 expels more than a million beta
particles per minute in the average adult. Although potassium-40 is present in the body, it is
-------
7-66
(along with other data) can be used to determine the relative proportions of lean and fatty
tissue in the body (Glasstone 1967). The lifetime total cancer risk SF is greater when
potassium-40 is ingested than when it is inhaled. The external exposure is only half as great
as the internal risk of ingestion.
7.5.23 Radium-226
Radium is a naturally occurring radioactive element that exists in several isotopic forms.
"The radium isuiupes are' futnTed~frofrrthe decay" of~uranium ~and~thbrium." Radium-226 is
formed from uranium-238 and uranium-234, and radium-226 has the longest half-life of the
radium isotopes (radium-228, radium-224, and radium-223). In general, the activity
concentration of radium-226 measured in most soils and rocks is comparable to those of
uranium-238 and uranium-234, suggesting that radium does not tend to migrate from either
of its uranium precursors under stable conditions. Radium-226 is primarily an alpha and
gamma emitter.
Radium has been used as a component of luminous paints for clock and instrument dials.
It has also been used in the treatment of cancer, in radiography, and in research. Radium is
released into the environment in coal fly ash and in uranium mining and processing wastes.
The background level of radium in industrial regions in soil is about 8.1 pCi/g. Clays and soil
components generally retard the movement of radium in the environment, but acidic
processing wastes can enhance its movement. Radium may bioaccumulate in plants and
animals, and exposure through the food chain is possible.
Many environmental problems can be directly attributed to the decay products or
daughters of radium. The primary daughters are isotopes of radon—a colorless, odorless,
radioactive gas. Radon gas can infiltrate basements and water systems, resulting in significant
exposure via inhalation pathways.
152.4 Thorium-228
Thorium is a naturally occurring radioactive element commonly found in the earth's crust.
It is also produced from monazite, a by-product of mineral sand mined for titanium and
zirconium. Much of the thorium mined in the United States is exported. Thorium is used for
fuel for nuclear reactors, mantles for camping lanterns, welding electrodes, aerospace alloys,
high temperature materials, special lighting Fixtures, and nuclear weapons. Thorium is also
introduced into the environment from the use of phosphate fertilizers.
Natural thorium is primarily thorium-232, which has a slow decay process. The decay
series for thorium-232 proceeds through radium-228 to thorium-228, ending in lead-208, a
stable isotope. Thorium-228, as do all thorium isotopes,- emits alpha, beta, and/or gamma
radiation on decay. However, the major radiation energies of concern from thorium-228 are
alpha and gamma emissions.
7.53 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PAHs share a remarkable stability and, because of this stability, they have been found
to be quite useful in industry (solvents, lubricants, dyes, etc). Combustion produces a wide
-------
7-67
dioxide and water are the resulting combustion products. However, complete combustion is
rare, hence, combustion results in the production of soot and smoke. Soot and smoke contain
a number of polycyciic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), some of which are highly toxic and
most of which are toxic in large enough doses. Soot from the exhaust of diesel engines
contains small PAHs such as benzene, naphthalene, and phenanthrene and larger PAHs such
as coronene and ovalene. Soot is believed to be an aggregate of large molecules that have
many benzene rings, PAHs included (Aihara 1992).
fbe degiee uf carcinogenicity!]] humans expused to PAHs, diiculy corresponds to the
size of the PAH molecule. Data prove that many PAHs are carcinogenic, as in the case of
benzo(a)pyrene, which is a component in coal tar, soot, and tobacco. Researchers have
proven the damage cigarette smoking can cause to the lungs over prolonged periods, and
tumors have been discovered in occupational workers such as those who fuel coal-fired
furnaces and chimney sweeps (Aihara 1992). However, the acute, chronic and subchronic
effects of PAHs on humans is not well documented, and complete data are unavailable. One
reason for the lack of valuable information regarding the toxic effects of PAHs is the
difficulty in determining the source of such illnesses as lung cancer, liver cancer, skin cancer,
and various other ailments. Studies of aromatic compounds show that aromatic compounds
also exist naturally in space; carbonaceous chondrite meteorites, for example, are known to
contain many kinds of aromatic compounds (Aihara 1973). Therefore, the source of such
ailments as lung or liver cancer is difficult to determine because researchers are unsure how
large an amount of exposure to aromatics an average person will acquire in a lifetime.
However, general ailments such as headaches, dizziness, nausea, and malaise have been
attributed to automobile exhaust inhalation (Aihara 1992).
7.6 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
The purpose of the risk characterization is to integrate and summarize the information
presented in the toxicity and exposure assessments. Potential carcinogenic effects are
characterized by estimating the probability that an individual will develop cancer over a
lifetime from projected intakes (and exposure) and chemical-specific dose-response, data
(i.e., SFs). Potential noncarcinogenic (systemic) effects are characterized by comparing
projected intakes of contaminants to toxicity values (i.e., RfDs). The SFs and RfDs used in
this BSCP study are listed in Tables 7.6 through 7.9. The results of this background risk
analysis for the hypothetical on-site residential exposure scenario (discussed in Sect. 7.4) are
summarized in this section.
Note that the inorganic analytes listed in the tables in this Sect. 7 include chromium VI,
mercury salts, and nickel salts. The analytical laboratory reported detected concentrations fot
the total chromium, mercury, and nickel found. Because (i) the concentrations were reported
in this form (i.e., no distinction between valences and speciation); (ii) the percent
gastrointestinal (%GI) absorption toxicity values are known for chromium VI, mercury salts,
and nickel salts; and (iii) the RfDs are known for mercury and nickel, it was necessary to
assess all types of these analytes, which included the most toxic form of the metals. The RfDs
for mercury and nickel salts were assumed to be the same as those listed for metallic mercury
and nickel. The total pathway hazard indices include oniy one HI value for each pair,
(i.e., chromium and chromium VI, mercury and mercury salts, and nickel and nickel salts); the
-------
7-68
mercury salts, and nickel salts were included in the pathway totals) to ensure that exposure
is not underestimated.
Also note that the GDIs, background risks, and background hazard indices listed in the
tables in Sect 7 are shown with two significant figures. In many cases, SFs, RfDs and/or
intake parameters are given with only one significant figure; therefore, only one significant
figure should be reported for the calculated risks and HI values. However, for clarity and for
comparison (of the calculated values) in this section of the BSCP, two significant figures are
given.—
7.6.1	EPA Guidance—Carcinogens
For carcinogens, risks are estimated as the incremental probability of an individual
developing cancer over a lifetime as a result of exposure to the carcinogen (i.e., the term
"incremental" refers to excess individual lifetime cancer risk). Cancer risk from exposure to
contamination is expressed as excess cancer risk, that is, cancer incurred in addition to
normally, expected rates of cancer development An excess cancer risk of 1.0e-06 indicates
one person in one million is predicted to incur cancer from exposure to this contamination
level, over a 70 year lifetime. Excess cancer risks falling between 1.0e-06 and 1.0e-04 are
within the range of concern, and cancer risks above 1.0e-04 are considered unacceptable by
the EPA (1989c). The excess cancer risk is determined by the application of an SF, which is
a chemical-specific value based on carcinogenic dose-response data. Because the SFs are the
upper 95% confidence limit on the probability of a carcinogenic response, the carcinogenic
risk estimate represents an upper confidence bound estimate. Therefore, there is only a 5%
probability that the actual risk will be higher than the estimate presented, and the actual risk
may well be less than the estimate.
Slope factors used in the evaluation of risk from exposure to constituents in ORR
background soils are listed in Tables 7.6, 7.7 and 7.8. Slope factors are not currently available
for all background constituents, and several constituents are not indicated by epidemiological
studies to be carcinogenic; consequently, these do not have SFs. Furthermore, SFs are not
available for several background constituents because their carcinogenicity has not been
determined. These constituents may contribute to carcinogenic effects from exposure to the
soil, but their effect cannot be quantified at the present time.
7.6.2	HPA Guidance—Noncarcmogens
Noncarcinogenic effects are evaluated by comparing an exposure experienced over a
specified time period (e.g., 30 years) with an RfD derived for a similar exposure period. The
RfDs available for the constituents present in the background soil are given in Tables 7.7
and 7.9. To evaluate the noncarcinogenic effects of exposure to soil, the hazard quotient (the
ratio of the exposure dose to the RfD) is calculated for each constituent. This
noncarcinogenic hazard index (HI) assumes that, below a given level of exposure (i.e., the
RfD), even sensitive populations are unlikely to experience adverse health effects. If the
exposure level (intake) exceeds this threshold [i.e., if intake/RfD exceeds one (1.0)], there
may be concern for potential systemic health effects; the level of concern does not necessarily
increase linearly as the hazard index approaches or exceeds unity. In other words, the HI is
-------
7-69
Table 1JL Toxicity information for carcinogenic potential anafytes of concern
on the Oak Ridge Reservation
Chemical
Oral slope
factor0
EPA ICRP lung
class4 class'
Type of
cancer
Slope factor basis/
slope factor source^


Inorganics (mg/kg-day)"'


Antimony
ND
ND
ND
IRIS/HEAST
Arsenic
ND
A
Skin
Water/IRIS/HEAST
Barium
ND
ND
ND
IRIS/HEAST
Beryllium
OE+OO^
B2
Tumors
Intratracheal/IRIS/

8.6E+01'


HEAST
Boron
ND
ND
ND
IRIS/HEAST
Chromium
ND
ND
ND
ND
Chromium (VI)
ND
A
Tumors
IRIS/HEAST
Cyanide
ND
D
ND
IRIS/HEAST
Manganese (diet)
ND
D
ND
IRIS/HEAST
Mercury
ND
D
ND
IRIS/HEAST
Mercury (salts)
ND
ND
ND
ND
Molybdenum
ND
ND
ND
IRIS/HEAST
Nickel
ND
ND
ND
IRIS/HEAST
Nickel (salts)
ND
ND
ND
ND
Selenium
ND
D
ND
IRIS/HEAST
Strontium
ND
ND
ND
IRIS/HEAST
Vanadium
ND
ND
ND
IRIS/HEAST
Zinc
ND
D
ND
IRIS/HEAST


Radionuclides (pCf)"1


Cesium-137
2^E-11
A D
Various
HEAST
Curium-247
2^E-10
A W
ND
HEAST
Neptunium-237
2.2E-10
A W
ND
HEAST
Plutooium-238
2.2E-10
A Y
ND
HEAST
Plutomum-239/24 coo elusive.
The radionuclide onl dope factors include contributions from daughter products..
4fEPA Weight of Evidence Claraficauon System for Carcinogemcity-used to characterize the exient to which available data
indicate that an agent is a human carcinogen: A - human carcinogen; Bl or B2 = probable carcinogen (Bl indicates that limited
data on humans are available and B2 indicates sufficient evidence in animals and inadequate or no evidence in humans)^
C = possible human carcinogen. D = not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity", £ = evidence of noncaranogenicity for humans,
cLong clearance classification recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection: Y = year, W =
week: D = day; G = gas.
''Based on Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) (EPA 1993a) or Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST)
(Radionuclides • EPA 1992a; Inorganics - EPA 1993b); oral (ingestion) slope factors. The oral SF for beryllium can be found in
IRIS (EPA 1993a).
The absorbed slope factor (S.6E+01) is used for the denaal contact pathway calculations; the absorbed SF = (SF/%GI); the %
gastrointestinal absorpoon (%GI) is 5% for beryllium (Owen 1990).
A*be most coaicrvauve oral slope factor (Pu-239 versus Pu-240) wis used for the Pu-239/240 results presented in the BSCP
study.
-------
7-70
Table 7.7. Toxicity information for poiycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon analytes
of potential concern on the Oak Ridge Reservation
Oral slope	Chronic	Subchronic
factor"	oral RID	oral RfD
Organic Chemical	(mg/kg-d)-1 EPA classi	(mg/kg-d)	(mg/kg-d)
Acenaphthcne
ND
ND
e.OE-O?
kOE-Ol''
Anthracene
ND
D
3.0E-01'
S-OE+OO1*
Benzo(a)anthracene
73E-01
ND
ND
ND
Benzo(a)p)Tene
7.3E+OCf
B2
ND
ND
Benzo(b)fluoranihene
73E-01
ND
ND
ND
Benzo(grl^i)perylene
73E+00
ND
ND
ND
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
7.3E-01
ND
ND
ND
Chrysene
7.3E-02
9.2E-Q2?
ND
ND
ND
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
73E+00
ND
ND
ND
Fluoranthene
ND
D
4.0E-OT
4.0E-01''
Fluorene
ND
D
4.0E-02C
4.0E-Q1''
Indeno(l,23-aJ)pyrene.
73E-01
ND
ND
ND
Naphthalene
ND
D
4.0E-02Tene is 0.1.
lrEPA Weight of Evidence Clarification System for Carcinogenicity is used to characterize the extent to which available
data indicate that an agent is a human carcinogen: A = human carcinogen; B1 or B2 - probable carcinogen (B1 indicates
that limited data on humans are available and B2 indicates sufficient evidence m animals and inadequate or no evidence in
humans); C «= possible human carcinogen; D «¦ not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity; E = evidence of
noncarxnnogeniaty for humans.
IJased on integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) (EPA 1993a).
"Based on Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) (EPA 1993b).
The absorbed SF (9.2E-02) is used for the dermal contact pathway calculations; the absorbed SF = (SF/%GI); the %
-------
7-71
Table 7.8. Toxicity information for external exposure to potential radionuclides
of concern on the Oak Ridge Reservation
Chemical
External exposure
slope factor0-"
ICRP
lung
dass^
Type
of
cancer

Radionuclides (g/pG-yr)


Cesium-137
2.0E-06
D
Various
Curium-247
9.2E-07
W
ND
Neptumum-237
4JE-07
W
ND
Plutonium-238
2.8E-11
Y
ND
Plutonium-239/240^
2.7E-11
Y
ND
Poiassium-40
5.4E-07
D
Various
Radium-226
6.0E-06
W
Various
Stronuum-90
O.OE+OO
D
ND
Tcrbnetium-99
6.0E-13
w
ND
Thonum-228
5.6E-06
Y
Various
Thorium-230
5.4E-11
Y
Various
Thonum-232
2.6E-11
Y
Various
Thonum-234
3.5E-09
Y
Various
Triuum
O.OE+OO
G
ND
Uranium-233/234'
4.2E-11
Y
Various
Uranium-235
2.4E-07
Y
Various
Uranium-236
2.4E-11
Y
ND
Uranium-238
3.6E-OS
Y
Various
ND = No data available or daia inconclusive.
"Based on Heasi Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) (EPA 1992a).
'The radionuclide external exposure slope factors include contributions from daughter products.
cLung clearance classification recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection
(1CRP). Y = yean W = week; D = day; G = gas.
''The most conservative external exposure slope factor (Pu-239 versus Pu-240) was used for the
Pu-239/240 results presented in this BSCP study.
The most conservative external exposure slope factor (U-233 versus U-234) was used for the U-233/234
-------
Tabic 7.9. Toxicity information for inorganic noncartinogenic potential analytcs of concern on the Oak Ridge Reservation
Chemical
Chronic
oral
Rnrb
Subchronic
oral RfDn fc
Confidence
level
%Gl
tibsorp.
%GI
source
Chronic^
oral RfD
absorbed
Subchronic^
oral RfD
absorbed
RfD
basis
(vehicle)
Critical effect
Uncertain f
Modifying 1





Inorganics (mg/kg-day)




Antimony
4.0I2-04"
4.012-04fc
Low
;>15
Friberg
et al 1986
6.0E-05
6.012-05
oral
dehydration, death
UF= 1000;
MF=1*
Arsenic
3.00-04"
3.0H-046
lliijh
>90
ATSDR
3.0f2-04
3.012-04
oral
keratosis,
hyperpigmcnlalion,
tumors
UF= 100;
MF=1
Barium
7.012-02"
7.0I£-02*>
ND
10
Owen 1990
7.01203
7.012-03
oral
(water)
increased blood
pressure,
feloloxicily
t)F=3; MF
Beryllium
5.012-03"
5.0IZ 03b
I.OW
5
ND
2.512-04
2 512-04
inlra-
Irachcal
tumors
1 JI-= 100;
MF= 1
Huron
9.0l;-02°
9.012 02b
ND
ND
-
9 0li 02
9.012 02
oral
testicular lesions,
bronchitis
t JF= 100;
MF= 1
Chromium VI
5.012-03"
2.0L2-02b
Low
10.6
ATSDR
5.312-04
2.012-03
oral
(water)
hepaloloxicily,
nephrotoxicity,
dermatitis, tumors
IJF= 500;
MF= 1
Cyanide
2.00-02"
2.0I2-021'
Medium
40
ATSDR
8.012-03
8.012-03
oral
decreased weight,
IJ F= 1000;








thyroid effdets,
myelin degeneration
MF=I
Mangiincsc
1 41 •01"
1.412-0 lfc
Medium
5
ATSDR
7.0R-03
7.012-03
oial
neural lissue
UF= 1; MF
(diet)







(water)
damage

Mercury
3.0IZ-041'
3.012-04''
ND
ND
—
3.0r--04
3.012-04
oral
kidney effects,
ncurotoxicily
IJ F= 1000;
MF=I
Mercury
3.012-04'
3.0II-04C
ND
<15
Amdur
4.512-05
4.512-05
oral
kidney effects,
UF= 1000;
(salts)




et al 1991



neurotoxicity
-------
Tabic 7.9 (continued)
Chemical
Chronic Subsonic Confidence %GI
R°n"'.fc oral RfDnb
level nbsorp.
%CiI
source
Chronic'' Subchronic'' RfD
oral RfD oral RfD basis
absorbed absorbed (vehicle)
Critical effect
Uncertain fact.;
Modifying fact.
Molybdenum 5.0E-O.Y1	Medium
Nickel
Zinc
2 011-02" 2 0l-:-026 ND
ND
ND
Nickel (sails) 2.01102c 2.0E-02r ND
5
Selenium	5.0H-03" 5 0I--03fc ND	60
Strontium	6 1i-01" 6.0E-01b Medium ND
Inorganics (rag/kg-day)
-	5.0E-03	5.11-03
-	2.0E-02	2 0E-02
Owen 1990 1.0E-03	I.OE-03
Owen 1990 3.0E-03	3.0E-03
6.0E-01	6.01:01
or.il	swelling, gout-like
symptoms
Drill	reduced weight
oral	reduced weight
oral	sclcnosis (clinical)
Vanadium 7.0E-03b 7.0E-03b Low
2.6 EPA 1987c 1.8E-04 1.812-04
3 OE-OI" 3.0E-0I6 Medium 50	Owen 1990 1.5E-01 I.5E-0I
oral
(water)
oral
(water)
oral
argyria, rachitic
changes
ND
hyperactivity,
decreased body
weight, death at
high doses
IJF=3; MF=0
WF=IOO,
MF=3
IJF=I00;
Ml-=3
ND
l)F=2; MF=1
UF= 100;
MF= I
UF= 100;
MF= 1
A'PSDR = Agency for'I'oxic Subslnnccs and Disease Registry, Public I Icallli Services (1987-1990); ND = No data available or data inconclusive; G1 = Oastrointcstinal (%GI = perccnl
gaslroinieslinal absorption); RfD = Reference Dose.
"Based on Inlcgralcd Risk Informallon System (IRIS) (Et'A 1993a).
'"Based on lleallli Effects Assessment Summary Tables (IIEAST) (1993b).
cThc chronic and subchronic RfD for mercury and nickel salts were assigned tlie same RfD value as mercury and nickel mclals.
''The absorbed RfD = (RfD X %GI absorption); the absorbed RfD is used for dermal pathway calculations. RfD absorbed = RfD (i.e, %GI = 100) when the %Gl absorption value
is unknown (ND), and when the %GI is greater than 80.
-------
7-74
7.63 Background Risk and Hazard Index Comparisons Between the ORE. and Anderson and
Roane Counties
Background soil samples were collected from soils of the Dismal Gap and Copper Ridge
formations in Anderson and Roane counties and on the ORR. In addition, soil samples were
collected from the Chickamauga Formation at two different ORR locations only (Bethel
Valley and at the K-25 Plant). For detected analytes for which a SF and/or a RfD are
available, background risk and/or a HI were calculated for each analyte for each of the
sampling areas. The results of these calculations are summarized in Tables 7.10 and 7.11. A
comparison can be made between the calculated human health risk (and/or HI) for each
analyte at the three sampling areas (ORR, AND and ROA). This comparison can be used
to quantitatively and qualitatively assess the similarities and differences in carcinogenic risk
and systemic effects posed by analytes found in background soil on and in the vicinity of
ORR. For the purpose of this comparison only, the total background cancer risk and HI are
used [the risk to a child + the risk to an adult (Table 7.10), and the chronic HI for an
adult + the subchronic HI for a child (Table 7.11)]. Adult- or child-specific risks would vary
in a similar manner.
7.63.1 Background risk comparisons between the ORR and Anderson and Roane counties
From the values shown in Table 7.10, the similarities and differences can be seen
between calculated background risk values for Roane County, Anderson County and the
ORR, for the Dismal Gap Formation (Table 7.10a) and the Copper Ridge Formation
(Table 7.10b). The values shown in Table 7.10c are for comparison of the risk from
background constituents at the two ORR sampling locations (ORR-BV and ORR-K25) of
the Chickamauga Formation.
From Table 7.10a (Dismal Gap Formation), cesium-137, radium-226, thorium-228, and
thorium-234 show slight differences in risks between ORR, AND and ROA. Differences in
risk of at least an order of magnitude for the ingestion of soil exposure pathway can be seen
for these four analytes; take cesium-137 for example, since 3.9e-08 > Z0e-08 (where 5.0e-08
minus l.le-08 = \3.9e-08), 3.9e-08 is greater than two-tenths of 10.0e-08. Beryllium is
evaluated for the dermal exposure to soil pathway (Table 7.10a), and no significant
differences in risks (between ORR, AND and ROA) are seen. For the external exposure to
radionuclides pathway, risks for cesium-137, radium-226, thorium-230 and thorium-232 are
slightly different between ORR, AND and ROA. The cumulative background risk, i.e^ the
sum of the risk from all analytes for all pathways are 6.4e-04, 9.4e-04 and 5.8e-04 for ORR,
AND and ROA, respectively. The cumulative risks for ORR and ROA are very similar, while
the risk for AND is approximately 1.5 times greater than those for ORR and ROA. The risks
from the external exposure to radionuclides pathway are driving the cumulative background
risks to be greater than 1.0e-04 (see Sect. 7.6.1 for EPA guidance summary).
From Table 7.10b (Copper Ridge Formation), beryllium, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene,
cesium-137, plutonium-238, plutodum-239/240, potassium-40, thorium-228, thorium-232,
uranium-235, and uranium-238 show slight differences in risks between ORR, AND and
ROA, for the ingestion of soil pathway. Bcnzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene,
benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h4)perylene, chrysene, and dibenz(a,h)anthracene also show
slight difference* in risks between ORR, AND and ROA, for the dermal exposure to soil
-------
7-75
AND and ROA. For the external exposure to radionuclides pathway, slight differences in risk
can be seen between ORR, AND and ROA for cesium-137, neptunium-237, plutonium-238,
plutonium-239/240, potassium-40, thorium-228, uranium-235, and uranium-238. The .total
pathway risks between ORR, AND and ROA are very similar.
Despite the differences listed above, the cumulative background risks (i.e., the sum of
the risk from all analytes for all pathways) are very similar (7.0e-04,6.4e-04 and 6.4e-04, for
ORR, AND and ROA, respectively). Risks from the ingestion of PAHs in soil and the
external exposure- to radionuclides pathways aic driving the cumulative background risks to
be greater than 1.0e-04.
From Table 7.10c (Chickamauga Formation), slight differences in risks between ORR-BV,
and ORR-K25), can be seen for uranium-235 for the external exposure to radionuclides*
pathway. The risks for both the ingestion of soil pathway (with the exception. of
benzo(a)pyrene) and the dermal exposure to soil pathway (with the exception of
benzo(k)fluoranthene) are very similar for all of the constituents. The cumulative background
risks (Le^ the sum of the risk from all analytes for all pathways) are 1.2e-03 and l.le-03 for -
ORR-BV and ORR-K25, respectively. The risks from the ingestion of PAHs in soil and -
external exposure to radionuclides are driving the cumulative background risks to be greater
than 1.0e-04.
The information in Table 7.10 is illustrated graphically in Figure 7.1. The risk valun-
reported in Table 7.10 were determined using the UGB95 analyte concentrations and areo
representedin the figure by the top line of each point The total cumulative background risks-:
(using the UCB95) for the Nolichucky and Chepultepee formations on the ORR are 7.6©-04»<:
and 7.2e-04, respectively, and are also shown in Fig. 7.1.
These background risk estimates should be considered only in the context of comparison
with site-related risk. The EPA action level of 1.0e-04 refers to risks related to hazardous
waste sites. Therefore, the background risk results are not indicative of concerns or remedial,
actions that would be identified with similar potential risks from a contaminated site.
7.6.3.1.1 Background risk comparisons using cesium-137 gamma screening data
Because of the variation between the cesium-137 concentrations on the ORR and those -:
in Anderson and Roane counties, some uncertainty exists concerning the background risk
results for the cesium-137 data in the risk analysis discussed previously (see Sect. 5 for
statistical analyses). The gamma scan method was used in this project to screen cesium-137 -
levels to find appropriate locations for soil sampling sites; data resulting from this method are
not commonly used for analysis of radionuclides or for evaluating risk. However, because of.
the concern stated previously,. the cesium-137 gamma screening data (0 to 5 cm depth) were
evaluated in terms of background risk and will be discussed below, these screening data were;
addressed statistically in Sect. 5.8 and qualitatively in Sect. 63.
The residential ingestion of soil pathway for the Dismal Gap Formation on the ORR and
in Anderson and Roane counties gives background risks (from the cesium-137 gamma
screening data) of 6.0e-08, 4.6e-08, and 3.8e-08, respectively (compare these values with
those in Table 7.10a, where cesium-137 gamma spectroscopy data for the A horizon was
-------
7-76
cesium-137 gamma screening data) from the residential external exposure pathway for the
ORR, Anderson County, and Roane County are 8.2e-05, 6.3e-05, and 5.2e-05, respectively
(compare with values in Table 7.10a); these risks are within the EPA range of concern-
(i.e., 1.0e-06 through 1.0e-04). For both exposure pathways (ingestion and external exposure),
the risks from cesium-137 (based on gamma screening data) on the ORR are approximately
1.4 times greater than those for Anderson and Roane counties.
If the cesium-137 risk estimates listed above (Le., using gamma screening data) were used
of the cesium-137 gamma spectroscopy data for horizon A, the background cancer risks for
the ORR, Anderson County, and Roane County would be 6.5e-04, 9.9e-04, and 6.0e-04,
respectively. The cumulative risk estimates associated with using the gamma screening data
are very similar to those listed in Table 7.10a, which were determined using the cesium-137
gamma spectroscopy data from the A horizon.
The residential ingestion of soil pathway for the Copper Ridge Formation on the ORR
and in Anderson and Roane counties gives background risks (from the cesium-137 gamma
screening data) of 4.3e-08, 3.1e-08, and 4.1e-08, respectively (compare these values with
those in Table 7.10b, where cesium-137 gamma spectroscopy data for horizon A was used);
these risks are below the EPA range of concern. The background risks (from the cesium-137
gamma screening data) from the residential external exposure pathway for the ORR,
Anderson County, and Roane County are 5.9e-05, 4.3e-05, and 5.6e-05, respectively
(compare.withivaiues in-Table7.10b); these risks are within the-EPA range of concern
(i.e., 1.0e-06 through 1.0e-04). For both exposure pathways (ingestion and external exposure),
the risk from cesium-137 (based on gamma screening data) on the ORR is approximately the
same as that seen in Roane County and approximately 1.4 times greater than that seen in
Anderson County.
If the cesium-137 risk estimates listed above (i.e. using the gamma screening data) were
used in the calculation of total cumulative background cancer risks (i.e., in Table 7.10b)
instead of the cesium-137 gamma spectroscopy data for the A horizon, the background cancer
risks for the ORR, Anderson County, and Roane County would be 4.5e-04, 3.9e-04, and
4.2e-04, respectively. The cumulative risk estimates associated with using the gamma
screening data are slightly lower than those listed in Table 7.10b. which were determined
using the cesium-137 gamma spectroscopy data from the A horiz n.
The residential ingestion of soil pathway for the Chickamaugp. Formation on the ORR,
at the Bethel Valley and K-25 Plant sampling locations, gives background risks (using the
cesium-137 gamma screening data) of 7.1e-08 and 6.3e-08, respectively (compare these values
with those in Table 7.10c, where cesium-137 gamma spectroscopy data for the A horizon was
used). The background risks (estimated using the cesium-137 gamma screening data) from the
residential external exposure pathway for the CHI-BV and CHI-K25 sampling locations, are
-------
7-77
Table 7.10a. Comparative background risk estimates (using UCB95 as concentration)" from
exposure to soil constituents from the Oak Ridge Reservation, Anderson County, and
Roane County—Dismal Gap''
Analyte
Oak Ridge
Reservation
Anderson
Countv
Roane
County
Beryllium
Exposure pathway: residential ingestion of soil
Inorganics
6.4E-06
6.9E-06
5.3E-06
Cesium-137
Neptunium-237
Plutonium-238
Plutonium-239/240
Potassium-40
Radium-226
Strontium-90
Technetium-99
Thorium-228
Thorium-230
Thorium-232
Thorium-234
Tritium
Uranium-233/234
Uranium-235
Uranium-236
Uranium-238
Radionuclides
5.0E-08	1.1E-08
-	3.1E-08
1.1E-08
2.7E-07
1.7E-07
6.3E-08
7.0E-08
1.1E-08
1.2E-08
9.5E-09
3.0E-12
2.3E-08
1.9E-09
5.5E-10
4.0E-08
1.4E-08
3.2E-07
4.0E-07
1.2E-08
1.2E-07
1.8E-08
1.9E-08
6.2E-09
2.3E-08
1.5E-09
3.5E-08
2.5E-08
4.6E-08
1.9E-07
1.8E-07
9.8E-08
1.5E-08
1.7E-08
8.5E-09
2.3E-08
1.9E-09
3.9E-08
Total pathway risk
7.2E-06
7.9E-06
6.0E-06
Beryllium
Total pathway risk
Exposure pathway: residential dermal exposure to soil
Inorganics
2.9E-06	3.1E-06
2.9E-06
3.1E-06
2.4E-06
-------
7-78
Table 7.10a (continued)
Analyte
Oak Ridge
Reservation
Anderson
County
Roane
County
Exposure pathway: residential external exposure to radiation


Radionuclides


Cesium-137
6.8E-05
1.5E-05
3.4E-05
Neptunium-237
—
1.2E-06
—
Plutonium-238
—
—
1.1E-10
Plutonium-239/240
2.4E-11
3.1E-11
—
Potassium-40
2.6E-04
3.0E-04
1.7E-04
Radium-226
1.6E-04
3.8E-04
1.7E-04
Strontium-90
O.OE+OO
—
—
Technetium-99
—
1.1E-10
—
Thorium-228
1.4E-04
2.3E-04
1.9E-04
Thorium-230
8.8E-10
1.4E-09
1.2E-09
Thorium-232
5.0E-10
7.7E-10
6.9E-10
Thorium-234
1.6E-07
1.0E-07
1.4E-07
Tritium
O.OE+OO
—
—
Uranium-233/234
1.1E-09
1.1E-09
1.1E-09
Uranium-235
5.5E-07
4.2E-07
5.3E-07
Uramum-236
1.7E-11
—
—
Uranium-238
9.9E-07
8.6E-07
9.6E-07
Total pathway risk
6.3E-04
9.3E-04
5.7E-04
Total Cumulative Risk1
6.4E-04
9.4E-04
5.8E-04
"UCB95 = Upper 95% confidence bound on ihe median, used as ihe representative analyte concentration.
'Total cancer nsk (risk to an adult plus nsk to a child).
-------
7-79
Table 7.10b. Comparative background risk estimates (using UCB95 as concentration)0 from
exposure to soil constituents from the Oak Ridge Reservation, Anderson County, and
Roane County—Copper Ridge4
Oak Ridge	Anderson	Roane
Reservation	County	County
Exposure pathway: residential ingestion of soil

Inorganics


Beryllium
4.3E-06
6.1E-06
3.8E-06

Organics


Benzo(a)anthracene
3.1E-06
3.3E-06
4.9E-06
Benzo(a)pyrene
4.1E-05
2.6E-05
1.8E-05
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
3.6E-06
4.3E-06
2.8E-06
Benzo(g>h4)perylene
4.4E-05
3.5E-05
2.9E-05
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
2.1E-06
2.1E-06
1.4E-06
Chrysene
6.2E-07
1.3E-06
3.5E-07
Dibenz(a4i)anthracene
1.8E-05
3.6E-05
1.6E-05
Indeno(l,23-cd)pyrene
—
1.5E-05
23E-05
Phenanthrene
6.2E-05
5.5E-05
4.8E-05

Radionuclides


Cesium-137
7.0E-08
5.3E-08
7.9E-08
Neptunium-237
3.0E-08
2.2E-08
1.9E-08
Plutonium-238
1.1E-08
4.2E-08
—
Plutonium-239/240
1.7E-08
—
4.6E-08
Potassium-40
6.9E-08
5.7E-08
4.6E-08
Radium-226
2.7E-07
1.3E-07
2.0E-07
Technetium-99
—
6.3E-09
—
Thorium-228
3.4E-08
8.3E-08
6.1E-08
Thorium-230
2.2E-08
2.1E-08
1.7E-08
Thorium-232
1.2E-08
1.4E-08
9.6E-09
Thorium-234
9.3E-09
—
—
Tritium
1.8E-12
—
—
Uranium-233/234
3.5E-08
2.9E-08
3.0E-08
Uranium-235
3.6E-09
2.1E-09
1.0E-09
Uranium-236
3.3E-10
—
—
Uranium-238
5.4E-08
5.4E-08
33E-08
Total pathway risk
1.8E-04
1.8E-04
-------
7-80
Table 7.10b (continued)
Analyte
Oak Ridge
Anderson
Roane
Reservation
County
County
Exposure pathway: residential dermal exposure to soil


Inorganics


Beryllium
1.9E-06
2.7E-06
1.7E-06

Organics


Benzo(a)anthracene
6.8E-07
7.3E-07
1.1E-06
Benzo(a)pyrene
9.0E-06
5.8E-06
4.0E-06
Benzo(b)Quoranthene
7.9E-07
9.6E-07
6.2E-07
Benzo (g ,h4)perylene
9.7E-06
7.8E-06
6.4E-06
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
4.6E-07
4.6E-07
3.1E-07
Chiysene
1.7E-07
3.7E-07
9.9E-08
Dibenz(aji)anthracene
4.1E-06
8.0E-06
3.7E-06
Indeno( l,23-cd)pyrene
—
3.2E-06
5.2E-06
Phenanthrene
1.4E-05
1.2E-05
1.1E-05
Total pathway risk
4.1E-05
4.2E-05
3.4E-05
Exposure pathway: residential external exposure to radiation


Radionuclides


Cesium-137
9.5E-05
7.2E-05
1.1E-04
Neptunium-237
1.1E-06
8.2E-07
7.0E-07
Plutonium-238
2.6E-11
1.0E-10
—
Plutonium-239/240
3.9E-11
—
1.0E-10
Potassium-40
6.4E-05
5.3E-05
4.3E-05
Radium-226
2.6E-04
1.2E-04
1.9E-04
Technetium-99

5.5E-11

Thorium-228
6.5E-05
1.6E-04
1.2E-04
Thorium-230
1.7E-09
1.7E-09
13E-09
Thorium-232
4.9E-10
5.7E-10
3.9E-10
Thorium-234
1.5E-07
—
—
Tritium
O.OE+OO
—
—
Uranium-233/234
1.8E-09
1.4E-09
1.5E-09
Uranium-235
1.0E-06
6.0E-07
2.9E-07
Uranium-236
l.OE-11
—
—
Uranium-238
1.3E-06
I.3E-06
8.1E-07
Total pathway risk
4.8E-04
4.1E-04
4.6E-04
Total Cumululative Risk''
7.0E-O4
6.4E-04
6.4E-04
"UCB95 = Upper 95% confidence bound on the median, used as the representative analvie concentration.
'Total cancer rak (risk to an aduli plus nsk to a child).
-------
7-81
Table 7.10a Comparative background risk estimates (using UCB95
as concentration)' from exposure to soil constituents from the
Oak Ridge Reservation (Bethel Valley and K-25)—Chickamanga*
Analyte
Bethel
Valley
K-25
Exposure pathway: residential ingestion of soil


Inorganics

Beryllium
8.4E-06
7.5E-06

Organics

Benzo(a)anthracene
7.3E-06
8.6E-06
Benzo(a)pyrene
5.6E-05
7.7E-05
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
7.2E-06
7.0E-06
Benzo(g,h4)perylene
5.9E-05
7.0E-05
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
33E-06
4.3E-06
Ohrysene
8.9E-07
9.2E-07
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
1.6E-05
1.8E-05
Indeno(l,23-cd)pyrene
1.9E-05
1.6E-05
Phenanthrene
1.0E-04
1.1E-04

Radionuclides

Cesium-137
1.1E-07
9.0E-08
Neptunium-237
3.5E-08
3.3E-08
Plutonium-238
3.6E-08
3.2E-08
Plutonium-239/240
2.2E-08
1.4E-08
Potassium-40
2.5E-07
1.6E-07
Radium-226
2.4E-07
2.0E-07
Technetium-99
3.3E-09
2.7E-09
Thorium-228
13E-07
1.1E-07
Thoriura-230
2.1E-08
2.0E-08
Thorium-232
2.2E-08
1.9E-08
Tritium
1.1E-11
—
Uranium-233/234
2.5E-08
3.0E-08
Uranium-235
2.7E-09
1.7E-09
Uramum-238
4.2E-08
4.8E-08
Total pathway risk
2.8E-04
-------
7-S2
Table 7.10c (continued)
Analyte
Bethel
Valley
K-25
Exposure pathway: residential dermal exposure to soil

Inorganics

Beryllium
3.7E-06
3.4E-06

Organics

Benzo(a)anthracene
1.6E-06
1.9E-06
Benzo(a)pyrene
1.3E-05
1.7E-05
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
1.6E-06
1.5E-06
Benzo(gtfa,i)perylene
1.3E-05
1.6E-05
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
7.4E-07
9.5E-07
Chrysene
2.5E-07
2.6E-07
Dibenz(aTh)amhracene
3.6E-06
4.0E-06
Indeno(1^3-cd)pyrene
4.1E-06
3.5E-06
Phenanthrene
2.2E-05
2.4E-05
Total pathway risk
6.4E-05
7.2E-05
Exposure pathway: residential external exposure to radiaxion

Radionuclides

Cesium-137
1.5E-04
1.2E-04
Neptunium-237
1.3E-06
1.2E-06
Plutonium-238
8.7E-11
7.7E-11
Plutonium-239/240
5.0E-11
3.2E-11
Potassiutn-40
2.4E-04
' 1.5E-04
Radium-226
2.3E-04
1.9E-04
Technetium-99
2.9E-11
2.4E-11
Thorium-228
2.5E-04
2.2E-04
Thorium-230
1.6E-09
1.6E-09
Thorium-232
9.1E-10
8.0E-10
Tritium
0.0E+00
—
Uranium-233/234
1.2E-09
1.5E-09
Uraniura-235
7.6E-07
4.7E-07
Uranium-238
1.0E-06
1.2E-06
Total pathway risk
8.7E-04
6.9E-04
Total Cumulative 7 ~Y
1.2E-03
1.1E-03
"UCB95 — Upper 95% confidence bound on the median, used as the representative
anatyle concentration.
'Total cancer risk (risk to an adult plus risk to a child).
-------
w
• mmm
DC
i_
0
O
c
(0
O
T3
C
D
O
cn
o
CO
DQ
10
-5
10 61
Lifetime Risk of Cancer Incidence
from Background Radiation, for U.S.'
EPA flange of Unacceptable Risk
EPA Range of Concern
EPA Range of Acceptably Risk
UCB95
edian
•••• •	- -}.
U.	v % ¦;
¦ f,.y	:«*. c
^0:- ^
-	¦:
¦ - V''	i'.r':1
'	V :>!. ;< r
I" ' '¦»?s '•%¦>~i*? • \ •
•• /y:V^ :-'V
¦ ' i •' ,
¦; i-
DG DG DG CR
ORR AND ROA ORR
CR CR
AND ROA
CHI CHI NL CHE
BV K-25 ORR ORR
Fig. 7.1. Comparison of total background cancer risks calculated from soil samples from the Dismal Gap Forma 1km In Anderson County, Dismal Gap in
Roane County, Dismal Gap on tbe ORR, aw) t{$ NoUchucfcy Ponmtiop oq U» ORR.
-------
7-84
If the cesium-137 risk estimates listed above (i.e. using the gamma screening data) were
used in the calculation of total cumulative background cancer risks (i.e., in Table 7.10c)
instead of the cesium-137 gamma spectroscopy data for the A horizon, the background cancer
risks for the CHI-BV and CHI-K25 would be 8.3e-04 and 6.7e-04, respectively. The
cumulative risk estimates associated with using the gamma screening data are lower than those
listed in Table 7.10b, which were determined using the cesium-137 gamma spectroscopy data
from horizon A.
1.632 Background hazard index comparisons between the ORR and Anderson
and Roane counties
Shown in Table 7.11, are the His estimated for the background constituents found in
Roane and Anderson counties and on the ORR, for the Dismal Gap Formation (Table 7.11a)
and the Copper Ridge Formation (Table 7.11b). The HI estimates shown in Table 7.11c are
for the background constituents found at the two ORR sampling locations (ORR-BV and
ORR-K25) of the Chiclcamauga Formation. Because the systemic effects are only of concern
if the hazard index exceeds a threshold of 1.0 and because the level of concern does not
necessarily increase linearly as the hazard index approaches or exceeds unity (i.e., the HI is
not a percentage or probability), a direct comparison of the His between the sampling areas
is not applicable.
The information listed in Table 7.11a (Dismal Gap Formation) illustrates that the His
for all background constituents are less than 1.0 for ORR, AND, and ROA. From
Table 7.11b (Copper Ridge Formation), the HI for arsenic on the ORR (soil ingestion
pathway) exceeds 1.0; all other background constituent His are less than unity for ORR,
AND and ROA. The information listed in Table 7.11c (Chickamauga Formation), illustrates
that the His for all background constituents are less than 1.0 for ORR-BV and ORR-K25.
In summary, for the Dismal Gap and Chickamauga formations, systemic effects resulting
from ingestion of soil are not a concern for the background constituents concentrations. For
the Copper Ridge Formation, systemic effects resulting for ingestion of background soil
containing arsenic is a concern. For the Dismal Gap; Chickamaugar and Copper Ridge
lithologies, systemic effects resulting from dermal contact with the soil are not a concern to
human health, for the background constituents concentrations; even sensitive populations are
unlikely to experience adverse systemic health effects when exposed to soil constituents at
these background concentrations.
In Sects. 7.63 through 7.6.3.2, comparisons were made between the calculated risks or
HI values (using the UCB95 as the analyte concentration) from background constituents in
soils from the Dismal Gap, Copper Ridge and Chickamauga formations from three sampling
areas (ORR, Roane County, and Anderson County). In summary, with some exceptions noted
above, (i) the background risks (Tables 7.10) determined for individual analytes are quite
similar for the three sampling areas, and (ii) all background His (Table 7.11), with the
exception of the ORR-CR arsenic HI, are less than the systemic effect threshold of 1.0. In
Sect. 7.6.4, carcinogenic and systemic effects will be evaluated quantitatively for soil samples
that best represent the background analytes found on the ORR only (i.e.. the A horizon soil
-------
7-85
Table 7.11a. Comparative background hazard index estimates (using UCB95 as concentration)"
from exposure to soil constituents from the Oak Ridge Reservation,
Anderson County, and Roane County—Dismal Gap*
Oak Ridge	Anderson	Roane
na	Reservation	County	County
Exposure pathway: residential ingestion of soil
Inorganics
Antimony

—
3.3E-02
—
Arsenic

3.8E-01
2.6E-01
3.5E-01
Barium

2.6E-02
2.1E-02
2.3E-02
Beryllium

2.7E-03
2.9E-03
2.2E-03
Boron

3.6E-03
—
6.0E-03
Chromium VI

2.7E-02
3.0E-02
2.9E-02
Cyanide

2.0E-04
1.8E-04
4.1E-04
Manganese

1.4E-01
9.8E-02
2.4E-01
Mercury

1.7E-02
5.6E-03
8.7E-03
Mercury (salts)

1.7E-02
5.6E-03
8.7E-03
Nickel

2.1E-02
1.8E-G2
1.5E-02
Nickel (salts)

2.1E-02
1.8E-02
1.5E-02
Selenium

—
2.7E-03
2.8E-03
Strontium

2.7E-04
2.0E-04
1.6E-04
Vanadium

7.9E-02
7.0E-02
7.5E-02
Zinc

3.0E-03
2.9E-03
2.4E-03
Total pathway hazard index*
6.9E-01
5.5E-01
7.6E-01

Exposure pathway: residential dermal exposure to soil



Inorganics


Antimony

—
2.9E-03
—
Arsenic

5.0E-03
3.5E-03
4.7E-03
Barium

3.5E-03
2.8E-03
3.1E-03
Beryllium

7.2E-04
7.7E-04
6.0E-04
Boron

4.8E-05
—
8.0E-05
Chromium VI

5.7E-03
6.5E-03
-------
7-86
Tabic 7.11a (continued)
Oak Ridge	Anderson	Roane
Reservation	County	County
Exposure pathway: residential dermal exposure to soil (continued)
Inorganics (continued)
Cyanide
6.6E-06
6.0E-06
1.4E-05
Manganese
3.7E-02
2.6E-02
6.4E-02
Mercury
2.3E-04
7.4E-05
1.2E-04
Mercury (salts)
1.6E-03
5.0E-04
7.7E-04
Nickel
2.8E-04
2.4E-04
2.0E-04
Nickel (salts)
5.5E-03
4.9E-03
3.9E-03
Selenium
—
5.9E-05
6.3E-05
Strontium
3.6E-06
2.7E-06
2.1E-06
Vanadium
4.1E-02
3.6E-02
3.9E-02
Zinc
7.9E-05
7.7E-05
6.3E-05
1.2E-01
Total pathway hazard index'	1.0E-01	8.5E-02
'UCB95 = Upper 95% confidence bound on ihe median, used as the representative analyte concentration.
'Total hazard index (HI) (HI chronic for an adult plus HI subchromc for a child).
-------
7-87
Table 7.11b. Comparative background hazard index estimates (using UCB95 as concentration)"
from exposure to sofl constituents from the Oak Ridge Reservation,
Anderson County, and Roane County—Copper Ridge*
Oak Ridge	Anderson	Roane
™	Reservation	County	County
Exposure pathway: residenlial ingestion of soil
Inorganics
Arsenic
1.5E+00
7.3E-01
1.6E-01
Barium
1.9E-02
3.0E-02
1.6E-02
Beryllium
1.8E-03
2.6E-03
1.6E-03
Chromium VI
1.7E-02
2.2E-02
1.4E-02
Manganese
1.5E-01
3.1E-01
1.2E-01
Mercury
8.7E-03
6.1E-03
6.6E-03
Mercury (salts)
8.7E-03
6.1E-03
6.6E-03
Molybdenum
5.0E-03
—
—
Nickel
6.9E-03
7.6E-03
—
Nickel (salts)
6.9E-03
7.6E-03
—
Selenium
2.3E-03
3.7E-03
1.8E-03
Strontium
1.1E-04
1.8E-04
1.2E-04
Vanadium
6.1E-02
8.0E-02
5.3E-02
Zinc
2.0E-03
2.6E-03
2.3E-03

Organics


Acenaphthene
8.5E-05
7.7E-05
6.0E-05
Anthracene
1.3E-05
2.0E-05
2.0E-05
Fluoranthene
5.4E-04
2.9E-04
4.0E-04
Fluorene
1.1E-04
2.7E-04
1.1E-04
Naphthalene
5.8E-03
—
—
Pyrene
6.2E-04
3.9E-04
2.6E-04
Total pathway hazard index"
1.7E+00
1.2E+00
-------
7-88
Table 7.11b (continued)
Analyte
Oak Ridge
Reservation
Anderson
County
Roane
County
Exposure pathway: residential dermal exposure to soil


Inorganics


Arsenic
1.9E-02
9.7E-03
7.4E-03
Barium
2.5E-03
4.1E-03
Z1E-03
Beryllium
4.8E-04
6.9E-04
4.2E-04
Chromium VI
3.6E-03
4.7E-03
2.9E-03
Manganese
3.9E-02
8.3E-02
3.2E-02
Mercury
1.2E-04
8.2E-05
8.8E-05
Mercury (salts)
7.7E-04
5.4E-04
5.8E-04
Molybdenum
6.6E-05
—
—
Nickel
9.2E-05
1.0E-04
—
Nickel (salts)
1.8E-03
2.0E-03
—
Selenium
5.1E-05
8.2E-05
3.9E-05
Strontium
1.5E-06
2.4E-06
1.6E-06
Vanadium
3.2E-02
4.1E-02
2.8E-02
Zinc
5.4E-05
6.9E-05
6.1E-05

Organics


Acenaphthene
2.7E-05
2.4E-05
1.9E-05
Anthracene
4.0E-O6
6JE-06
6.5E-06
Fluoranthene
1.7E-04
9.3E-05
1.3E-04
Fluorene
3.3E-05
8.4E-05
3.5E-05
Naphthalene
7.8E-04
—
—
Pyrene
2.0E-04
1.2E-04
8.3E-05
Total pathway hazard index'
1.0E-01
1.5E-01
7.3E-02
"UCB95 = Upper 95% confidence bound on the median, used as the representative analyte concentration.
'Total hazard index (HI) (HI chronic for an adult plus HI subchronic for a child).
-------
7-89
Table 7.11c Comparative background hazard index estimates (using UCB95 as concentration)'
from exposure to soil constituents from the Oak Ridge Reservation
(Bethel Valley and K-25)—Chickamauga''
. i	Bethel	T.
Aaalyte	Vallcy	K-25
Exposure pathway: residential ingestion of soil
Inorganics
Arsenic
3.8E-01
4.6E-01
Barium
2.1E-02
2.0E-02
Beryllium
3.5E-03
3.2E-03
Chromium VI
3.7E-02
3.5E-02
Manganese
1.5E-01
2.3E-01
Mercury
8.8E-03
2.7E-02
Mercury (salts)
8.8E-03
2.7E-02
Nickel
1.2E-02
1.5E-02
Nickel (salts)
1.2E-02
1.5E-02
Selenium
2.6E-03
2.7E-03
Strontium
2.0E-04
3.8E-04
Vanadium
8.5E-02
8.5E-02
Zinc
2.6E-03
2.7E-03

Organics

Acenaphthene
2.6E-04
8.0E-05
Anthracene
1.0E-05
1.7E-05
Fluoranthene
4.8E-04
6.3E-04
Fluorene
3.7E-04
1.4E-04
Naphthalene
3.9E-03
1.2E-03
Pyrene
1.1E-03
1.3E-03
Total pathway hazard index*
7.0E-01
-------
7-90
Table 7.11c (continued)
* i -	Bethel	v
^	Valley	1025
Exposure pathway: residential dermal exposure to soil
Inorganics
Arsenic
5.0E-03
6.1E-03
Barium
2.8E-03
2.7E-03
Beryllium
9.4E-04
8JE-04
Chromium VI
7.9E-03 ¦
7.5E-03
Manganese
3.9E-02
6.2E-02
Mercury
I.2E-04
3.6E-04
Mercury (salts)
7.9E-04
2.4E-03
Nickel
1.6E-04
2.0E-04
Nickel (salts)
3.2E-03
4.0E-03
Selenium
5.9E-05
6.1E-05
Strontium
2.7E-06
5.0E-O6
Vanadium
4.4E-02
4.4E-02
Zinc
7.0E-05
7.2E-05

Organics

Acenaphthene
8.4E-05
2.5E-05
Anthracene
3.2E-06
5.4E-06
Fluoranthene
1.5E-04
2.0E-04
Fluorene
1.2E-04
4.5E-05
Naphthalene
5.2E-04
1.6E-04
PyTene
3.5E-04
4.3E-04
Total pathway hazard index'
1.0E-01
1.3E-01
"UCB95 = Upper 95% confidence bound on the median, used as the representative inatyte concentration.
'Total hazard index (HI) (HI chrome for an adult plus HI subchronic for a child).
-------
7-91
7.633 Background risk and HI comparisons using the LCB95, median, and
UCB95 analyte concentrations
The following discussion of the range in risk associated with the concentration variability
for background soil constituents applies only to this background soil data set. The results
associated with the background data set do not necessarily represent the actual variability of
constituent concentrations in soils of the DG, NL, CR, CHE and CHI formations. Tables 7.12
through 7.15 assess the variability in the risk and HI estimates for the five sampling areas
(ORR, AND, ROA, ORR-K25 and ORR-BV) with respect to the analyte concentrations
used in this background evaluation. These tables include risk (Tables 7.12 and 7.13) and
hazard indices (Tables 7.14 and 7.15) for three analyte concentrations [i.e., the lower 95%
confidence bound on the median concentration (LCB95), the median concentration, and the
upper 95% confidence bound on the median concentration (UCB95)]. All other tables in
Sect. 7 (excluding Tables 7.12 through 7.15) use the UCB95 as the representative analyte
concentrations.
The differences between the UCB95 and LCB95 total cumulative (the sum of the risks
of all analytes in all pathways) background risk estimates for the ORR, Anderson County, and
Roane County for the Dismal Gap Formation (Table 7.12a) are 3.0e-04, 4.3e-04, and
2.7e-04, respectively. Similar information for the Copper Ridge Formation can be found in.
Table 7.12b. Furthermore, soil data were collected from the Chickamauga, Nolichucky and
Chepultepec formations of the ORR only (AND and ROA county soil samples were not
collected for these two formations); therefore, the LCB95, median and UCB95 risk values^-
for ORR-CHI, ORR-NL and ORR-CHE soils only, are illustrated in Table 7.12c and.
Table 7.13.
This information (Tables 7.12 and 7.13) is also illustrated graphically in Fig. 7.1. The--
cumulative background risks determined using the UCB95 analyte concentrations are
represented by the top line; the risk determined using the median analyte concentrations is
shown as the middle line, and when the LCB95 concentration was used to calculate risk, this
information is represented by the bottom line. Note, that the variability between the three ¦
risk estimates (within each sampling area) is relatively small and, therefore, the overall.totali.
background risk to human health does not significantly change by varying the analyte
concentration in this manner.
The results tabulated in Tables 7.14 and 7.15 show the variability in the hazard indices,
for each sampling area using the three analyte concentrations. Again, the differences (i.e^
variability between sampling locations) in the HI values are quite small. The results of these^-
comparisons (risk and HI) illustrate high confidence in the quantitative validity of this
background soil data set (see Sect. 5). However, it should be understood that these
conclusions may not necessarily apply to the actual variability of constituent concentrations
in soils.
Depending on the application of the background data, either the UCB95 or the LCB95
is more appropriate in terms of human health (refer to Sect. 2.3.4, Data User Guidelines).
The Risk Assessment Council is producing guidance which will include specific details
-------
7-92
Table 7.12a. Comparative background risk estimates from exposure to soil constituents
from the Oak Ridge Reservation, Anderson County, and Roane County—Dismal Gap"
Oak Ridge Reservation risk	Anderson County risk	Roane County risk
Anarytc
LCB95*
Median
UCB95C
LCB95*
Median
UCB95'
LCB954
Median
UCB95C

Exposure pathway: residential
ingestion of soil







Inorganics





Beryllium
43E-06
53E-06
6.4E-06
4.6E-06
5.6E-06
6.9E-06
3.6E-06
4.4E-06
53E-06



Radionuclides





Cesium-137
8.9E-09
2.1E-08
5.0E-O8
1.9E-09
4.5E-09
1.1E-08
4.4E-09
1.0E-08
2.5E-08
Neplumum-237
-
-
-
1.9E-08
2.4E-08
3. IE-08
—
-
-
Plutonium-238
-
-
-
-
—
-
l.SE-08
2.9E-08
4.6E-08
Plutonium-239/240
1.6E-09
4.1E-09
1.1E-08
5.1E-10
2.7E-09
1.4E-08
—
—
—
Potassium-40
1.9E-07
23E-07
2.7E-07
2.2E-07
2.7E-07
3.2E-07
13E-07
1.5E-07
15E-07
Radium-226
8.2E-08
1.2E-07
1.7E-07
1.9E-07
2.7E-07
4.0E-07
8.7E-08
13E-07
1.8E-07
StroDtium-90',
L6E-08
3 -2E-08
63E-08
—
—
—
—
—
-
Tectmeiium-99
-
—
-
15E-09
6.5E-09
1.2E-08
—
—
—
Tborium-228
3.5E-08
4.9E-08
7.0E-08
5.8E-08
83E-08
1.2E-07
4.8E-08
6.8E-08
9.8E-08
Tborium-230
7.7E-09
93E-09
1.1E-08
1-2E-08
1.5E-08
1-8E-08
1.0E-08
1-2E-08
1.5E-08
Thonum-232
8.9E-09
l.OE-08
1.2E-08
1.4E-08
1.6E-08
1.9E-08
1.2E-08
1.4E-08
1.7E-08
Thorium-234
7.2E-09
&JE-09
9JE-09
4.7E-09
5.4E-09
6.2E-09
6.1E-09
7.2E-09
8.5E-09
Tritium
1.4E-12
2.0E-12
3.0E-12
-
—
—
—
—
—
UnnitUD-233/ZM-
1.6E-08
1.9E-08 .
23E-08
l-SE-08-
1.9E-08
23E-08
1.6E-08
1.9E-08
23E-08
Uranium-235
13E-09
1.6E-09
1.9E-09
1.0E-09
1.2E-09
1.5E-09
13E-09
15E-09
1.9E-09
Uranium-236
1.8E-10
3.1E-10
5.5E-10
-
-
-
-
—
—
Uranium-Z38
3.2E-08
3.6E-0S
4.0E-08
,E-08
3.1 E-08
3.5E-08
3.1E-08
3-SE-08
3.9E-08
Total pathway risk
4.7E-06
5.8E-06
7.2E-06
5.1E-06
6.4E-06
7.9E-06
3.9E-06
4.8E-06
6.0E-06
Exposure pathway: residential dermal exposure to soil
Inorganics
Beryllium	1.9E-06 2-3E-06 2.9E-06 2.0E-06 2-5E-06 3.1E-06 1.6E-06 1.9E-06 2.4E-06
-------
7-93
Table 7.12a (continued)
Oak Ridge Reservation risk	Anderson County risk	Roane County risk
Anatyte
LCB95*
Median
UCB95C
LCB95''
Median
UCB95f
LCB95*
Median
UCfi95'

Exposure pathway: residential external exposure to radiation





Radionuclides





Cesium-137
1.2E-05
Z9E-05
6.8E-05
2.6E-06
6.1E-06
1.5E-05
6.0E-06
1.4E-05
3.4E-05
Neptunium-237
-
-
-
7.0E-07
9.0E-07
1.2E-06
-
—
—
Pluionium-238
-
-
-
—
-
-
4.4E-11
7.0E-11
X.1E-10
Pluionium-239/240
3.6E-12
9.2E-12
2.4E-11
1.1E-12
5.9E-12
3.1E-11
-
—
-
Potassium-40
1.7E-04
2.1E-04
2.6E-04
2.1E-04
2JE-04
3.0E-O4
1.2E-04
1.4E-04
1.7E-04
Radium-226
7.8E-05
1.1E-04
1.6E-04
1.8E-04
2.6E-04
3.8E-04
8^E-05
1.2E-04
1.7E-04
Strontium-90
0.0E+00
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
-
-
-
-
—
— ¦
Technetium-99
-
-
-
3.1E-11
5.7E-11
1.1E-10
-
—
-
Thorium-228
6.7E-05
9.6E-05
1.4E-04
1.1E-04
1.6E-04
23E-04
93E-05
13E-04
1.9E-04
Thorium-230
6.1E-10
73E-10
8.8E-10
9.9E-10
1.2E-09
1.4E-09
8.1E-10
9.7E-10
1-2E-0*-
Thorium-232
3.7E-10
43E-10
5.0E-10
5.7E-10
6.6E-10
7.7E-10
5.1E-10
5.9E-10
6.9E-10"'
Thonum-234
1.2E-07
1.4E-07
1.6E-07
7.8E-08
8.9E-08
1.0E-07
1.0E-07
1.2E-07
1.4E-07
Tritium
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
-
-
-
-
-
—
Uranium-233/234
7.8E-10
9.4E-10
1.1E-09
7.7E-10
93E-10
1.1E-09
7.8E-10
9.4E-10
1.1E-09"'
Uramum-235
3.8E-07
4.6E-07
5.5E-07
2.9E-07
3.5E-07
4.2E-C7
3.7E-07
4.4E-07
53E-07
Uranium-236
5.4E-12
9.5E-12
1.7E-11
-
-
-
-
—
—
Uranium-238
7.9E-07
8.9E-07
9.9E-07
6.9E-07
7.7E-07
8.6E-07
7.7E-07
8.6E-07
9.6E-07-
Total Pathway Risk
33E-04
4.5E-04
63E-04
5.0E-O4
6.8E-04
93E-04
3.0E-04
4.1E-04
5.7E-0440'
Total Cumulative Risk'
3 4E-04
4.6E-04
6.4E-04
5.1E-04
6.9E-04
9.4E-04
3.1E-04
4.2E-04
5-8E4M^
"The LCB95, median, and UCB95 analvte concentrations are evaluated in terms of total background risk (risk to an adult •
plus risk to a child).
*LCB95 = Lower 95% confidence bound on the median.
c UCB95 = Upper 95% confidence bound on the median.
-------
7-94
Table 7.12b. Comparative background risk estimates from exposure to soil constituents
from the Oak Ridge Reservation, Anderson Comity, and Roane County—Copper Ridge"
Oak Ridge Reservation risk	Anderson County risk	Roane County risk •
Anaiyte			—	——-
1X895* Median Ua395e 1X695* Median UCB95e LXB95* Median UCB95e
Exposure pathway: residential ingestion of soil




Inorganics





Beryllium
2JSE-06
3.4E-06
43E-06
4.1E-06
5.0E-06
6.1E-06
25E-06
3JE-06
3.8E-06




Organics





Benzo{a)anihraceiie
1.7E-06
23E-06
3.1E-06
1.8E-06
2.4E-06
33E-06
2J3E-06
3.7E-06
4.9E-06
Beazo(a)pyrene
23E-Q5
3.0E-05
4.1E-05
1.5E-05
1.9E-05
2.6E-05
1.1E-05
1.4E-05
l^E-05
Benzo(b)Quoras these
1.8E-06
25E-06
3.6E-06
2.1E-06
3.0E-06
43E-06
1.5E-06
2.0E-06
2SE-06
Beszo(&hj)pciyleDe
2.4E-05
33E-05
4.4E-05
2.0E-05
2.6E-05
3.5E-05
1.7E-05
22E-05
25E-05
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
1.2E-06
1.6E-06
2.1E-06
1.2E-06
1.6E-06
2. IE-06
8.4E-07
1.1E-06
1.4E06
Chrysene
3.2E-07
45E-07
62E-07
1.9E-07
4.9E-07
13E-06
1.7E-07
2.4E-07
ZSESn
Pibenz(»Th)anthraccne
1£E46
1.2E-05
1.8E-05
63E-06
1.5E-05
3.6E-05
73E-06
1.1E-05
1.6E-05
lndeao(1^3-cd)pyrene
—
—
—
7.2E-06
1.0E-05
1.5E-05
9.6E-06
1.5E-05
23E-05
PheoanUireae
3JE-05
4.6E-Q5
&2E-05
3.1E-05
4J.E-05
5.5E-C5
2.7E-05
3.6E-05
4.8E-05



Radionuclides





Cesium-137
L3E-08
3.0E-O8
7.0E-O8
9.4E-09
2.2E-08
53E-08
1.4E-08
3.4E-08
7.9E-08
Neptunium-237
1.8E-08
2-3E-08
3.0E-O8
13E-08
1.7E-08
2.2E-08
1.1E-08
1.5E-08
1.9E-08
Plutonium-238
3^E-09
6.4E-09
1.1E-08
1.4E-08
2.4E-08
4.2E-08
—
—
—
Plutonium-239/240
1SE-09
8.1E-09
1.7E-08
—
—
—
8.7E-09
2.0E-08
4.6E-08
Potassium-40
4.7E-08
5.7E-08
6^E-08
3.9E-08
4.7E-08
5.7E-08
3.1E-08
3.SE-08
4.6E-08
Ridium-226
13E-07
UE-07
2.7E-07
5.9E-08
8.7E-08
13E-07
9.5E-08
1.4E-07
2.0E-07
Trrhnriiunj-99
—
—
—
2.2E-09
3.7E-09
63E-09
—
-
—
Thorium-228
1.6E-08
23E-08
3.4E-08
4.1E-08
5.9E-08
83E-08
3.0E-08
43E-08
6.1E-08
Thorium-230
1.5E-08
1.8E-08
2.2E-08
1.5E-08
1.8E-08
2.1E-08
1.2E-08
1.4E-08
1.7E-08
Thorino-232
&£E-09
L0E-08
1.2E-08
1.0E-08
L2E-08
1.4E-08
7.1E-09
8.2E-09
9.6E-09
Thorium-234
6.7E-09
7.8E-09
93E-09
-
—
—
—
—
-
Tritium
6.6E-13
1.1E-12
1.8E-12
—
—
—
—
—
—
Uranium-233/234
2.4E-08
2.9E-08
3iE-08
2.0E-08
2.4E-08
25E-08
2.1E-08
25E-08
3.0E-08
Uranium-235
1.8E-09
2.5E-09
3.6E-09
1.1E-09
15E-09
2JE-09
5.0E-10
7.1E-10
1.0E-09
Uranium-236
1-2E-10
2.0E-10
33E-10
—
—
—
—
—
-
Uranium-238
4.4E-08
4.9E-08
5.4E-08
43E-08
4.8E-08
5.4E-08
2.6E-08
3.0E-08
33E-08
Total pathway nsk
9.8E-05
13E-04
1.8E-04
8.9E-05
13E-04
1.8E-04
7.9E-05
1.1E-04
1.5E-04
Exposure pathway: residential dermal exposure to soil
Inorganics
Beryllium
-------
7-95
Table 7.12b (continued)
Oak Ridge Reservation risk	Anderson County nsk	Roane County nsk
Anatyte
LCB95*
Median
UCB95C
LCB95*
Median
UCB95C
LCB954
Median
UCB95®

Exposure pathway: residential dermal exposure to soil (continued)






Organics





Benzo(a)anihracene
3.9E-07
5.1E-07
6.8E-07
4.0E-07
5.4E-07
73E-07
6.2E-07
8.2E-07
1.1E-06
Benzo(a)pyrene
5.1E-06
6.8E-06
9.0E-O6
3.2E-06
43E-06
5.8E-06
23E-06
3.1E-06
4.0E-06
Benzo(b)Quoranthene
3.9E-07
5.6E-07
7.9E-07
4.8E-07
6.8E-07
9.6E-07
33E-07
4.6E-07
6.2E-07
Benzo(g,hj)perylene
5.4E-06
7.3E-06
9.7E-06
4.4E-06
5.9E-06
7.8E-06
3.7E-06
4.8E-06
6.4E-06
Bcnzo(k)fluoramhene
18E-07
3.6E-07
4.6E-07
2.6E-07
3.5E-07
4.6E-07
1.9E-07
2.4E-07
3.1E-07
Chrysene
9.1E-08
13E-07
1.7E-07
5.2E-08
1.4E-07
3.7E-07
4.7E-08
6.8E-08
9.9E-08
Dibenz(a,h)anihracene
1.7E-06
2.6E-06
4.1E-06
1.4E-06
33E-06
8.0E-06
1.6E-06
2.4E-06
3.7E-06
Indeno(l ,23-cd)pyrene
-
-
-
1.6E-06
23E-06
3.2E-06
2.1E-06
33E-06
5.2E-06
Phenamhrene
7.8E-06
1.0E-05
1.4E-05
7.0E-O6
92E-06
1.2E-05
6.1E-06
8.1E-06
1.1E-05
Total pathway nsk
2.2E-05
3.0E-05
4.1E-05
2.1E-05
2.9E-05
4.2E-05
1.8E-05
2JE-05
3.4E-05

Exposure pathway: residential external exposure to radiation





Radionuclides





Cesium-137
1.7E-05
4.0E-05
9.5E-05
13E-05
3.0E-05
7.2E-05
1.9E-05
4.6E-05
1.1E-04
Neptunium-237
6.7E-07
8.7E-07
1.1E-06
4.7E-07
6.2E-07
8.2E-07
4.2E-07
5.4E-07
7.0E-07
Plutomum-238
9.5E-12
1.6E-11
2.6E-11
33E-11
S.8E-11
1.0E-10
—
—
—
Plutooium-239/240
8.4E-12
1.8E-11
3.9E-11
—
—
—
1.9E-11
4.5E-11
1.0E-10
Potassium-40
4.4E-05
53E-05
6.4E-05
3.6E-05
4.4E-05
53E-05
2.9E-05
3.6E-05
43E-05
Radium-226
1.2E-04
1.8E-04
2.6E-04
5.7E-05
8.2E-05
1.2E-04
9.0E-05
13E-04
1.9E-04
Technetium-99
—
-
-
1.9E-11
33E-11
5.5E-11
—
—
—
Thorium-228
3.2E-05
4.6E-05
6.5E-05
8.0E-05
1.1E-04
1.6E-04
5.8E-05
83E-05
1.2£4>4
Thorium-230
1-2E-09
14E-09
1.7E-09
1.2E-09
1.4E-09
1.7E-09
93E-10
1.1E-09
13E-09
Tbonum-232
3.6E-10
4.2E-10
4.9E-10
4.2E-10
4.9E-10
5.7E-10
2.9E-10
3.4E-10
35E-10
Thorium-234
1.1E-07
13E-07
liE-07
—
—
—
—
—
—
Tritium
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
—
—
—
—
—
—
Uranium-233/234
1.2E-09
1.5E-09
1.8E-09
9.8E-10
1.2E-09
1.4E-09
1.0E-09
1.2E-09
1SE-Q9
Uranium-235
5.1E-07
7 2E-07
l.OE-06
3.0E-07
43E-07
6.0E-07
14E-07
2.0E-07
Z9E-0T7
Uranium-236
3.8E-12
6.1E-12
1.0E-11
—
-
—
—
—
—
Uranium-238
1.1E-06
1.2E-06
1.3E-06
1.0E-06
1.2E-06
1.3E-06
6.5E-07
7.2E-07
8.1E-07
Total pathway nsk
2OE-04
3.2E-04
4.8E-04
1.9E-04
Z7E-04
4 1E-04
ZOE-04
3.0E-04
4.6E-04
Total Cumulative Risk^
3.4E-04
4 8E-04
7.0E-O4
3.0E-O4
43E-04
6 4E-04
3.0E-04
43E-04
6.4E-04
"The LCB95, median, and UCB95 anaiyie concentrations are evaluated in terras of toLal background risk (risk to an adult
plus nsk to a child).
'"LOW = Lower 95% confidence bound on the median.
CUCB95 = Upper 95% confidence bound on the median.
-------
7-96
Table 7.12c. Comparative background risk estimates from exposure to soil constituents
from the Oak Ridge Reservation (Bethel Valley and K-25)—Chickamauga"
Bethel Valley risk	K-25 risk
Analyte		 	——
LCB95" Median UCB95C LCB95* Median UCB95e
Exposure pathway: residential ingestion of soil
Inorganics
Beryllium
5.6E-06
6.9E-06
8.4E-06
5.0E-06
6.1E-06
7.5E-06


Organics



Beozo(a)anthracene
33E-06
4.9E-06
73E-06
4.9E-06
6.5E-06
8.6E-06
Benzo(a)pyrene
33E-05
43E-05
5.6E-05
4.6E-05
5.9E-05
7.7E-05
Benzo(b)fluorantbene
3.6E-06
5.1E-06
7.2E-06
3.9E-06
53E-06
7.0E-O6
Benzo^rh^perylene
2.7E-05
4.0E-05
5.9E-05
42E-05
5JE-05
7.0E-05
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
2.0E-06
2.6E-06
33E-06
2.6E-06
33E-06
43E-06
Chrysene
3.6E-07
5.7E-07
8.9E-07
4.0E-07
6.1E-07
92E-07
Dibenztaji^thracene
23E-06
6AE-06
1.6E-05
43E-06
8.7E-06
1.8E-05
Iodeao( 1 A5-cd)pyrene
8.9E-06
13E-05
1.9E-05
7.6E-06
1.1E-05
1.6E-05
Phenanthrene
5.7E-05
7.6E-05
1.0E-O4
6.2E-05
82E-05
1.1E-04


Radionuclides



Cesium-137
2.0E-08
4.8E-08
1.1E-07
1.6E-0S
3.8E-08
9.0E-08
Neptunium-237
1.9E-08
2.6E-08
35E-08
2.0E-08
2.6E-08
33E-08
Pluionium-238
1.2E-0S
2.0E-08
3.6E-08
13E-08
2.0E-08
3.2E-08
Plutonium-239/240
4.0E-09
9.4E-09
2-2E-08
3.4E-09
6.9E-09
1.4E-08
Potassium-40
1.7E-07
2.1E-07
Z5E-07
1.1E-07
13E-07
1.6E-07
Radium-226
1.1E-07
1.6E-07
2.4E-07
9.7E-08
1.4E-07
2.0E-07
Technetium-99
13E-09
2.1E-09
33E-09
12E-09
1.8E-09
2.7E-09
Thonum-228
63E-08
8.9E-08
13E-07
5.5E-08
7.8E-08
1.1E-07
Thorium-230
1.4E-08
1. £-08
2.1E-08
1.4E-08
1.7E-0S
2.0E-08
Thorium-232
1.6E-08
1.5E-0S
Z2E-08
1.4E-08
1.7E-08
1.9E-08
Tritium
5.4E-12
7.7E-12
1.1E-11
—
—
—
Uranium-233/234
1.7E-08
2.0E-08
Z5E-08
2.0E-08
L5E-08
3.0E-08
Uranium-235
13E-09
1.9E-09
2.7E-09
83E-10
1.2E-09
1.7E-09
Uramum-238
3.4E-08
3.7E-08
4.2E-0S
3.8E-08
43E-08
4.8E-08
Total pathway risk
1.4E-04
2.0E-O4
2.8E-04
1.8E-04
2.4E-04
3.2E-04
Exposure pathway: residential dermal exposure to soil
Inorganics
Beryllium
2.5E-06 3.1E-06 3.7E-06	22E-Q6 17E-06
-------
7-97
Table 7.12c (continued)
Bethel Valley risk	K-25 risk
Anaiyte				 	-	:
LCB95 Median UCB95C LCB95 Median UCB95C
Exposure pathway: residential dermal exposure to soil (continued)
Organics
Benzo(a)anthracene
73E-07
1.1E-06
1.6E-06
1.1E-06
1.4E-06
1.9E-06
Benzo(a)pyrene
7.4E-06
9.6E-06
1.3E-05
1.0E-05
1.3E-05
1.7E-05
Benzo(b)fluoranrhene
8.0E-07
1.1E-06
1.6E-06
8.8E-07
1.2E-06
1.5E-06
Benzo(gj3j)peryiene
5.9E-06
8.8E-06
13E-05
9.4E-06
1.2E-05
1.6E-05
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
4.5E-07
5.8E-07
7.4E-07
5.8E-07
7.4E-07
9.5E-07
Chrysenc
1.0E-07
1.6E-07
15E-07
1.1E-07
1.7E-07
2.6E-07
Dibenz(a,h)anihracene
6.4E-07
1JE-06
3.6E-06
9.6E-07
1.9E-06
4.0E-O6
lndeno( 1 r23-cd)pyrene
10E-06
2.9E-06
4.1E-06
1.7E-06
2.4E-06
3.5E-06
Phenanthrene
13E-05
1.7E-05
2.2E-05
1.4E-05
1.8E-05
2.4E-05
Total pathway risk
33E-05
4.6E-05
6.4E-05 .
4.1E-05
5.4E-05
7.2E-05
Exposure pathway: residential external exposure to radiation



Radionuclides



Cesium-137
2.7E-05
6JE-05
1.5E-04
2.2E-05
5.2E-05
1.2E-04
Neptunium-237
7.2E-07
9.6E-07
13E-06
7.4E-07
9.6E-07
1.2E-06
Plutonium-238
2.9E-11
5.0E-11
8.7E-11
3.1E-11
4.9E-11
7.7E-11
Plutonium-239/240
8.9E-12
2.1E-11
5.0E-11
7.6E-12
1.6E-11
3.2E-11
Potassium^)
1.6E-04
2.0E-04
2.4E-04
1.0E-04
13E-04
1JE-04
Radium-226
1.1E-04
1.6E-04
23E-04
9.2E-05
13E-04
1.9E-04
Technetium-99
1. IE-11
l.SE-11
Z9E-11
1.1E-11
1.6E-11
2.4E-11
Thorium-228
1.2E-04
1.7E-04
2.5E-04
1.1E-04
1.5E-04
2^E-04
Thorium-230
1.1E-09
1.4E-09
1.6E-09
1.1E-09
1.3E-09
1.6E-09
Thorium-232
6.7E-10 .
7.8E-10
9. IE-10
5.9E-10
6.9E-10
8.0E-10
Tritium
O.OE+OO
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
—
—
—
Uranium-233/234
8.4E-10
1.0E-09
1.2E-09
1.0E-09
1.2E-09
1.5E-09
Uranium-235
3.8E-07
5.4E-07
7.6E-07
2.4E-07
3.4E-07
4.7E-07
Uranium-238
8.2E-07
9.2E-07
1.0E-06
9.4E-07
1.1E-06
1.2E-06
Total pathway risk
4.2E-04
5.9E-04
S.7E-04
3.3E-04
4.7E-04
6.9E-04
Total Cumulative Risk^
6.0E-04
8.4E-04
1.2E-03
5.5E-04
7.6E-04
1.1E-03
* The LCB95, median, and UCB95 analyie concentrauons are evaluated in terms of total background risk
(risk to an adult plus risk to a chiid).
i'LCB95 = Lower 95% confidence bound on the median.
TJCB95 ¦= Upper 95% confidence bound on the median.
-------
7-98
Table 7.13a. Comparative background risk estimates from exposure to soil
constituents from the Oak Ridge Reservation—Nolichucky"
Oak Ridge Reservation risk
Analyte		
LCB95i	Median	UCB95'
Exposure pathway: residential ingestion of soil
Inorganics
Beryllium
4.3E-06
5.3E-06
6.5E-06

Radionuclides


Cesium-137
7.9E-09
1.9E-08
4.4E-08
Curium-247
1.3E-09
1.5E-09
1.8E-09
Neptunium-237
2.6E-08
3.7E-08
5.3E-08
Potassium-40
1.7E-07
2.1E-07
2.6E-07
Radium-226
7.7E-08
1.1E-07
1.6E-07
Technetium-99
1.0E-09
1.8E-09
3.1E-09
Thorium-228
7.3E-08
1.0E-07
1.5E-07
Thorium-230
1.3E-08
1.6E-08
1.9E-08
Thorium-232
1.9E-08
2.3E-08
2.6E-08
Thorium-234
6.2E-09
7.2E-09
8.3E-09
Uranium-233/234
2.1E-08
2.6E-08
3.1E-08
Uranium-235
1.2E-09
1.4E-09
1.7E-09
Uranium-238
4.0E-08
4.5E-08
5.1E-08
Total pathway risk
4.8E-06
5.9E-06
7.3E-06
Exposure pathway: residential dermal exposure to soil


Inorganics


Beryllium
1.9E-06
2.4E-06
2.9E-06
Total pathway risk
1.9E-06
2.4E-06
-------
7-99
	Table 7.13a (continued)	
Oak Ridge Reservation risk
Analyte		
LCB95®	Median	UCB95C
Exposure pathway: residential external exposure to radiation
Radionuclides
Cesium-137
1.1E-05
2.5E-05
6.0E-05
Curium-247
1.0E-07
1.2E-07
1.4E-07
Neptunium-237
9.6E-07
1.4E-06
2.0E-06
Potassium-40
1.6E-04
2.0E-04
2.4E-04
Radium-226
7.3E-05
1.1E-04
1.5E-04
Technetium-99
9.1E-12
1.6E-11
2.8E-11
Thorium-228
1.4E-04
2.0E-04
2.9E-04
Thorium-230
1.0E-09
1.3E-09
1.5E-09
Thorium-232
8.0E-10
9.3E-10
1.1E-09
Thorium-234
1.0E-07
1.2E-07
1.4E-07
Uranium-233/234
1.1E-09
1.3E-09
1.6E-09
Uranium-235
3.4E-07
4.1E-07
4.9E-07
Uraiuum-238
9.9E-07
1.1E-06
1.2E-06
Total pathway risk
3.9E-04
5.3E-04
7.5E-04
Total Cumulative Risk**	4.0E-04	5.4E-04	7.6E-04
"The LCB95, median, and UCB95 anatyie concentrations arc evaluated in terms of total background
nsk (risk lo an adult plus nsk 10 a child).
iLCB95 = Lower 95% confidence bound on the median.
TJCB95 = Upper 95% confidence bound on the median.
-------
7-100
Table 7.13b. Comparative background risk estimates from exposure to soil
constituents from the Oak Ridge Reservation—Chcpultcpcc"
Oak Ridge Reservation risk
Analvte		1	
1X1395*	Median	UCB95e
Exposure pathway: residential ingestion of soil
Inorganics
Beryllium
1.8E-06
2.4E-06
3.1E-06

Organics


Benzo(a)anthracene
1.3E-06
1.9E-06
2.8E-06
Benzo(a)pyrene
2.5E-05
3.8E-05
5.6E-05
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
1.9E-06
3.4E-06
6.0E-06
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
2.1E-05
2.9E-05
4.2E-05
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
1.2E-06
1.8E-06
2.6E-06
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
5.9E-06
1.2E-05
2.3E-05
Indeno( 1 ^3-cd)pyrene
4.4E-06
9.0E-06
1.8E-05
Phenanthrene
2.5E-05
3.6E-05
5.2E-05

Radionuclides


Cesium-137
1.5E-08
3.5E-08
8.3E-08
Neptunium-237
1.4E-08
1.9E-08
2.5E-08
Plutonium-238
1.4E-08
2.2E-08
3.6E-08
Potassium-40
3.6E-08
4.4E-08
5.3E-08
Radium-226
9.0E-08
1.3E-07
1.9E-07
Thorium-228
2.9E-08
4.2E-08
6.0E-08
Thorium-230
1.1E-08
1.3E-08
1JE-08
Thorium-232
8.1E-09
9.4E-09
1.1E-08
Uranium-233/234
1.8E-08
2.2E-08
2.7E-08
Uranium-235
1.0E-09
1.5E-09
2.1E-09
Uranium-238
3.5E-08
4.0E-08
4.4E-08
Total pathway risk
8.7E-05
1.3E-04
11E-04
Exposure pathway: residential dermal exposure to soil
Inorganics
Beryllium
8.0E-07
1.0E-06
-------
7-101
	Table 7.13b (continqed)	
Oak Ridge Reservation risk
Analyte		
LCB95*	Median	UCB95C
Exposure pathway: residential dermal exposure to soil (continued)
Benzo(a)anthracene
3.0E-07
43E-07
63E-07
Benzo(a)pyrene
5.6E-06
8.4E-06
13E-05
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
43E-07
7.6E-07
13E-06
Benzo(g,hj)perylene
4.6E-06
6.5E-06
9.4E-06
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
2.7E-07
4.0E-07
5.8E-07
Dibenz(a4i)anthracene
13E-06
2.6E-06
5.2E-06
Indeno(lr2T3-cd)pyrene
9.9E-07
2.0E-06
4.1E-06
Phenanthrene
5.5E-06
7.9E-06
1.1E-05
Total pathway risk
2.0E-05
3.0E-05
4.7E-05
Exposure pathway: residential external exposure to radiation


Radionuclides


Cesium-137
2.0E-05
4.8E-05
1.1E-04
Neptunium-237
5.2E-07
6.9E-07
9.2E-07
Plutonium-238
33E-11
5.4E-11
8.8E-11
Potassium-40
3.4E-05
4.1E-05
5.0E-05
Radium-226
8.6E-05
13E-04
1.8E-04
Thorium-228
5.7E-05
8.1E-05
1.2E-04
Thoriom-230
8.4E-10
1.0E-09
1.2E-09
Thorium-232
33E-10
3.9E-10
4.5E-10
Uraniiim-233/234
9.2E-10
1.1E-09
13E-09
Uranium-235
2.9E-07
4.2E-07
6.0E-07
Uranium-238
8.7E-07
9.7E-07
1.1E-06
Total pathway risk
2.0E-04
3.0E-04
4.6E-04
Total Cumulative Risk**
3.1E-04
4.6E-04
7.2E-04
"The LCB95, median, and UCB95 analyte concentrations are evaluated in terms of total background risk
(risk to an adult plus risk ic a child).
iLCB95 = Lower 95% confidence bound on the median.
CUCB95 = Upper 95% confidence bound on the median.
-------
7-102
Table 7.14a. Comparative background hazard index estimates from exposure to soil constituents
from the Oak Ridge Reservation, Anderson County, and Roane County—Dismal Gap'
Oak Ridge Reservation HI	Anderson County HI	Roane County HI
Analyie
LCB95*
Median
UCB95C
LCB95"
Median
UCB95C
LCB95i
Median
UCB95e


Exposure pathway: residential ingestion of soil







Inorganics





Antimony
—
—
—
3.0E-02
3.1E-02
33E-02
	
	
	
Arsenic
23E-01
2.9E-01
3.8E-01
1.6E-01
Z1E-01
Z6E-01
2ZE-01
Z8E-01
3.5E-01
Barium
1.5E-02
Z0E-02
Z6E-02
13E-02
1.6E-02
Z1E-02
1.4E-02
1.8E-02
23E-02
Beryllium
1.8E-03
2-2E-03
Z7E-03
1.9E-03
Z4E-03
Z9E-03
1JE-03
1.8E-03
Z2E-03
Boron
13E-03
Z2E-03
3.6E-03
—
—
—
2.8E-03
4.1E-03
6.0E-03
Chromium VI
1.9E-02
23E-02
Z7E-02
Z2E-02
Z6E-02
3.0E-02
Z1E-02
2.5E-02
2SE-02
Cyanide
43E-05
9.2E-05
ZOE-04
J.0E-05
9.5E-05
1.8E-04
1.2E-04
23E-04
4.1E-04
Manganese
7.4E-02
1.0E-01
1.4E-01
5.2E-02
7.2E-02
9.8E-02
13E-01
1.7E-01
Z4E-01
Mercury
13E-02
1.5E-02
1.7E-02
3.6E-03
4.5E-03
5.6E-03
6.1E-03
73E-03
8.7E-03
Mercury (salts)
13E-02
1.5E-02
1.7E-02
3.6E-03
4JE-03
5.6E-03
6.1E-03
73E-03
8.7E-03
Nickel
13E-02
1.7E-02
Z1E-02
1.2E-02
1.5E-02
1.8E-02
9.6E-03
1.2E-02
1.5E-02
Nickel (salts)
13E-02
1.7E-02
Z1E-02
1.2E-02
1.5E-02
1.8E-02
9.6E-03
1.2E-02
1.5E-02
Selenium
—
—
—
1.7E-03
Z1E-03
2.7E-03
1.5E-03
Z0E-03
ZSE-03
Sironuum
13E-04
X.9E-04
Z7E-04
1.1E-04
l.SE-04
ZOE-04
8.5E-05
1.2E-04
1.6E-04
Vanadium
6.0E-02
6.9E-02
7.9E-02
5.4E-02
6.1E-02
7.0E-02
5.7E-02
6.5E-02
7.SE-02
Zinc
1.9E-03
Z4E-03
3.0E-O3
1.9E-03
23E-03
Z9E-03
1.6E-03
1.9E-03
Z4E-03
Total pathway HK
4.3E-01
5.5E-01
6.9E-01
3JE-01
4.4E-01
5.5E-01
4.6E-01
5.9E-01
7.6E-01
Exposure pathway: residential dermal exposure to soil




Inorganics





Antimony
—
—
—
Z7E-03
Z8E-03
Z9E-03
—
—
—
Arsenic
3.1E-03
3.9E-03
5.0E-03
ZlE-03
Z7E-03
3.5E-03
Z9E-03
3.7E-03
4.7E-03
Barium
Z1E-03
Z7E-03
3.5E-03
1.7E-03
Z2E-03
Z8E-03
1.8E-03
Z4E-03
3.1E-03
Beryllium
4.8E-04
5.9E-04
7.2E-04
5.1E-04
63E-04
7.7E-04
4.0E-04
4.9E-04
6.0E-04
Boron
1.7E-05
Z9E-05
4.8E-05
—
—
—
3.7E-05
5.4E-05
8.0E-05
Chromium VI
4.1E-03
4.8E-03
5.7E-03
4.6E-03
5.5E-03
6JE-03
4.5E-03
53E-03
63E-03
Cyanide
1.4E-06
3.1E-06
6.6E-06
1.7E-06
3.2E-06
6.0E-06
4.1E-06
7.5E-06
1.4E-05
Manganese
Z0E-02
Z7E-02
3.7E-02
1.4E-02
1.9E-02
Z6E-02
3.4E-02
4.6E-02
6.4E-02
Mercury
1.7E-04
ZOE-04
23E-04
4.8E-05
6.0E-05
7.4E-05
8.2E-05
9.7E-05
1.2E-04
Mercury (salts)
1.1E-03
13E-03
1.6E-03
3ZE-04
4.0E-04
5.0E-O4
5.4E-04
6.5E-04
7.7E-04
Nickel
1.8E-04
Z2E-04
Z8E-04
1.6E-04
ZOE-04
Z4E-04
13E-04
1.6E-04
ZOE-04
Nickel (salts)
3.6E-03
4.4E-03
5.5E-03
3ZE-03
3.9E-03
4.9E-03
Z6E-03
3.2E-03
3.9E-03
Selenium
—
—
—
3.7E-05
4.7E-05
5.9E-05
33E-05
4.6E-05
63E-05
Sironuum
1.7E-06
Z5E-06
3.6E-06
1.4E-06
1.9E-06
Z7E-06
1.1E-06
1.6E-06
Z1E-06
Vanadium
3.1E-02
3.6E-02
4.1E-02
ZSE-02
3.2E-02
3.6E-02
3.0E-02
3.4E-02
3.9E-02
Zinc
5.2E-05
6.4E-05
7.9E-05
5.1E-05
6.3E-05
7.7E-05
4.1E-05
5.1E-05
63E-05
Total pathway HI^
6.5E-02
8.1E-02
1.0E-01
5.7E-02
6.9E-02
8.5E-02
7.6E-02
9.6E-02
1ZE-01
" The LCB9S, median, and UCB95 analyte concentrations are evaluated in terms of total hazard index (total HI = HI
chronic (or an adult plus HI subchronic for a child).
il_CB95 = Lower 95% confidence bound on the median.
TJCB95 = Upper 95% confidence bound on the median.
-------
7-103
Table 7.14b. Comparative background hazard index estimates from exposure to soil constituents
from the Oak Ridge Reservation, Anderson County, and Roane County—Copper Ridge"
Oak Ridge Reservation HI	Anderson County HI	Roane County HI
Ana (vie
LCB954
Median
UCB95C
LCB954
Median
UCB95C
LCB954
Median
UCB95C


Exposure pathway: residential ingestion of soil







Inorganics





Arsenic
8.9E-01
LIE+00
1JE+00
4.5E-01
5.7E-01
73E-01
3.4E-01
4.4E-01
5.6E-01
Barium
1.1E-02
1JE-02
1.9E-02
1.8E-02
23E-02
3.0E-02
9.5E-03
1.2E-02
1.6E-02
Beryllium
1.2E-03
1.4E-03
1.8E-03
1.7E-03
2.1E-03
2.6E-03
1.1E-03
13E-03
1.6E-03
Chromium VI
1.2E-02
1.4E-02
1.7E-02
1.6E-02
1.8E-02
2.2E-02
9.8E-03
1.2E-02
1.4E-02
Manganese
7.9E-02
1.1E-01
1-5E-01
1.6E-01
23E-01
3.1E-01
63E-02
8.6E-02
1.2E-01
Mercury
63E-03
7.4E-03
8.7E-03
4 4E-03
5.2E-C3
6.1E-03
4.7E-03
5.6E-03
6.6E-03
Mercury (sails)
63E-03
7.4E-03
8.7E-03
4 4E-03
5OE-03
6.1E-03
4.7E-03
5.6E-03
6.6E-03
Molybdenum
3.2E-03
4.0E-03
5.0E-03
—
—
—
—
—
—
Nickel
43E-03
5.4E-03
6.9E-03
4.9E-03
6.1E-
-------
7-104
Table 7.14b (continued)
Oak Ridge Reservation HI	Anderson County HI	Roane County HI
Anatyie
LCB95*
Median
UCB95f
LCB95'
Median
UCB95C
LCB954
Median
UCB95C

Exposure pathway: residential derma:
exposure to soil (continued)






Organic





Aceoaphihene
1.5E-05
2.0E-05
Z7E-05
1.2E-05
1.7E-05
2.4E-05
6.6E-06
1.1E-05
1.9E-05
Anthracene
1.5E-06
ZSE-06
4.0E-06
23E-06
3.8E-06
G3E-06
2.4E-06
4.0E-06
6JE-06
Fluoranihene
9.2E-05
13E-04
1.7E-04
3.9E-05
6.0E-05
93E-QS
6.8E-05
9.2E-05
13E-04
Fluorene
1.0E-05
1.8E-05
33E-05
2JE-05
4.5E-05
8.4E-05
1.1E-05
2.0E-05
3.5E-05
Naphthalene
1.9E-04
3.8E-04
7.8E-04
-
-
—
—
-
—
Pyrene
1.0E-04
1.4E-04
2.0E-O4
6.0E-05
8.6E-05
1.2E-04
4.3E-05
6.0E-05
83E-05
Total pathway Hl^
6.4E-02
8.0E-02
1.0E-01
9.0E-02
1.1E-01
1.5E-01
4.7E-02
5.8E-02
73E-02
*Tbe LCB95. median. and UCB95 anaMe concentration* are evaluated in lerrns of total hazard index (total HI = HI chronic for an adall
plus HI subchroQic for a child).
*LCB95 = Lower 95% confidence bound od the median.
UCB95 c Upper 95% confidence bound on the median.
'The tool pathway hazard index does not include HI values for mercury and nickel incuts.
Table 7.14c. Comparative background hazard index estimates from exposure to soil constituents
from the Oak Ridge Reservation (Bethel Valley and K-25)—Chickamauga"
Bethel Valley HI	K-25 HI
jialyte		-	 	;	~
LCB95 Median UCB95C LCB95i Median UCB95e
Exposure pathway: residential ingestion of soil
Inorganics
Arsenic
23E-01
2.9E-01
3.SE-01
2.8E-01
3.6E-01
4.6E-01
Barium
1.2E-02
1.6E-02
2.1E-02
1.2E-02
1.6E-02
2.0E-02
Beryllium
2.4E-03
2.9E-03
3.5E-03
2.1E-03
2.6E-03
3.2E-03
Chromium VI
2.6E-02
3.1E-02
3.7E-02
2J5E-02
3.0E-02
3.5E-02
Manganese
7.8E-02
1.1E-01
1.5E-01
1.2E-01
1.7E-01
23E-01
Mercury
6.4E-03
7.5E-03
8.8E-03
2.0E-02
2JE-02
Z7E-02
Mercury (salts)
6.4E-03
7.5E-03
8.8E-03
2.0E-02
2JE-02
2.7E-02
Nickel
7.7E-03
9.5E-03
1J2E-02
9.8E-03
1.2E-02
1.5E-02
Nickel (salts)
7.7E-03
9.5E-03
1.2E-02
9.8E-03
1.2E-02
liE-02
Selenium
1.7E-03
2.1E-03
2.6E-03
1.7E-03
22E-03
2.7E-03
Strontium
83E-05
13E-04
2.0E-04
2.0E-04
2.8E-04
3.8E-04
Vanadium
6.5E-02
7.4E-02
8.5E-02
6.5E-02
7.4E-C2
8.5E-02
Zinc
1.7E-03
2.1E-03
2.6E-03
1.8E-03
2.2E-03
-------
7-105
Table 7.14c (continued)	
Bethel Valley HI	K-25 HI
Anatyte
LCB95b
Median
UCB95C
LCB95i
Median
UCB95e
Expos
ure pathway: residential dermal exposure to soil (continued)



Organic;




Aoenaphthenc
9.IE-OS
1-5E-04
2.6E-04
43E^)5
SQErnS
&DE-Q5
Anthracene
3.0E-06
5.5E-06
1.0E-05
7.1E-06
1. IE-OS
1.7E-05
Fluoranthenc
2.2E-04
33E-04
4.8E-04
33E-04
4JE-04
63E-04
Fluorene
8.1E-05
1.7E-04
3.7E-04
6.2E-05
93E-05
1.4E-04
Naphthalene
1.2E-03
2.2E-03
3.9E-03
3.6E-04
6.6E-04
12E-03
Pyrene
4.3E-04
6.9E-04
1.1E-03
6.9E-04
9.7E-04
13E-03
Total pathway HI''
43E-01
5.5E-01
7.0E-01
5.4E-01
6.9E-01
8.9E-01

Exposure pathway: residential dermal
exposure to soil




Inorganics



Arsenic
3.1E-03
3.9E-03
5.0E-03
3.8E-03
4.8E-03
6.1E-03
Barium
1.7E-03
2.2E-03
2.8E-03
1.6E-03
2.1E-03
2.7E-Q3
Beryllium
63E-04
7.7E-04
9.4E-04
5.6E-04
6.9E-04
8.5E-04
Chromium VI
5.6E-03
6.6E-03
7.9E-03
5.4E-03
63E-03
7.5E-Q3
Manganese
2.1E-02
2.8E-02
3.9E-02
33E-02
4.5E-02
6.2E-02
Mercury
S.6E-05
l.OE-04
1.2E-04
2.7E-04
3.1E-04
3.6E-04
Mercury (salts)
5.7E-04
6.7E-04
7.9E-W
l.SE-03
2.1E-03
2.4E-03
Nickel
1.0E-04
1.3E-04
1.6E-04
13E-04
1.6E-04
2.0E-04
Nickel (salts)
2.0E-03
2.5E-03
3.2E-03
2.6E-03
33E-03
4.0E-03
Selenium
3.7E-05
4.7E-05
5.9E-05
3.8E-05
4.8E-05
6.1E-05
Strontium
1.1E-06
1.7E-06
2.7E-06
2.7E-06
3.7E-06
5.0E-06
Vanadium
33E-02
3.8E-02
4.4E-02
3.4E-02
3.8E-02
4.4E-02
Zinc
4.6E-05
5.7E-05
7.0E-05
4.7E-05
5.8E-05
72E-05


Organics




Acenaphthene
2.9E-05
4.9E-05
8.4E-05
1.4E-05
1.9E-05
25E-05
Anthracene
9.5E-07
1.7E-06
3.2E-06
23E-06
3.5E-06
5.4E-06
Fluoranthenc
7.1E-05
l.OE-04
1-5E-04
l.OE-04
1.4E-04
2.0E-04
Fluorene
2.6E-05
5.5E-05
1.2E-04
2.0E-05
3.0E-05
45E-05
Naphthalene
1.7E-04
2.9E-04
5.2E-04
4.8E-05
8.9E-05
1.6E-04
Pyrene
1.4E-04
2.2E-04
3.5E-04
2.2E-04
3.1E-04
43E-04
Total pathway HId
6.8E-02
S.4E-02
1.0E-0I
8.3E-02
1.0E-01
13E-01
The LCB95, median, and UCB95 analyte concentrations arc evaluated in terms of total hazard index (total HI = HI chronic
for an adult plus HI subchronic for a child).
iLCB95 = Lower 95% confidence oound on the median.
cUCB95 = Upper 95% confidence bound on the median.
-------
7-106
Table 7.15a. Comparative background hazard index estimates from exposure
to sofl constituents from the Oak Ridge Reservation—Nolichucky0
Oak Ridge Reservation HI
Analyte
LCB954
Median
UCB95e

Exposure pathway: residential ingestion of soil


Inorganics


Antimony
1.6E-02
1.6E-02
1.7E-02
Arsenic
22E-01
2.9E-01
3.9E-01
Barium
1.2E-02
1.5E-02
2.0E-02
Beryllium
1.8E-03
22E-03
2.7E-03
Chromium VI
2.1E-02
2.6E-02
3.1E-02
Manganese
4.8E-Q2
6.6E-02
9.0E-02
Mercury
7.4E-03
8.7E-03
1.0E-02
Mercury (salts)
7.4E-03
8.7E-03
1.0E-02
Nickel
9.9E-03
1.2E-02
1.5E-02
Nickel (salts)
9.9E-03
1.2E-02
1.5E-02
Selenium
13E-03
1.6E-03
2.0E-03
Strontium
7.8E-05
1.1E-04
1JE-04
Vanadium
5.7E-02
6.6E-02
7.5E-02
Zinc
1.4E-03
1.8E-03
Z2E-Q3,
Total pathway HI*'
3.9E-01
5.1E-01
6.5E-01
Exposure paihway: residential dermal exposure to soil


Inorganics


Antimony
1.4E-03
1.5E-03
1.5E-03
Arsenic
2.9E-03
3.9E-03
5.1E-03
Barium
1.6E-03
2.0E-03
2.6E-03
Beryllium
4.8E-04
5.9E-04
73E-04
Chromium VI
4.5E-03
5.5E-03
6.6E-03
Manganese
13E-02
1.8E-02
2.4E-02
Mercury
9.9E-05
12E-04
1.4E-04
Mercury (salts)
6.6E-04
7.8E-04
9.1E-04
Nickel
13E-04
1.6E-04
2.0E-O4
Nickel (salts)
2.6E-03
33E-03
4.1E-03
Selenium
2.8E-05
3.6E-05
4.5E-05
Strontium
1.0E-06
1.4E-06
2.0E-06
Vanadium
3.0E-02
3.4E-02
3.9E-02
Zinc
3.9E-05
4.8E-05
5.9E-05
Total pathway HI4'
5.7E-02
6.9E-02
8.5E-02
The LCB95. median, and UCB95 analvte concentrations are evaluated in terms of total
hazard index (total HI = HI chronic for an adult plus HI subchromc for a child).
i'LCB9S ¦= Lower 95% confidence bound on the median.
^(3395 = Upper 95% confidence bound on the median.
^The total pathway hazard index does not include HI values for mercury and nickel
-------
7-107
Table 7.15b. Comparative background hazard index estimates from exposure
to soil constituents from the Oak Ridge Reservation—Chepultcpctf
Oak Ridge Reservation HI
An3lylC	LCB956	Median	UCB95C
Exposure pathway: residential ingestion of soil
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Chromium VI
Manganese
Mercury
Mercury (salts)
Selenium
Stronuum
Vanadium
Zinc
Inorganics -
4.2E-01
83E-03
7.5E-04
1.1E-02
6.SE-02
5.1E-03
5.1E-03
8.8E-04
4.0E-05
53E-02
1.5E-03
53E-01
1.1E-02
9.9E-04
13E-02
9.3E-02
6.1E-03
6.1E-03
1.2E-03
5.6E-05
6.1E-02
1.9E-03
6.8E-01
1.4E-02
13E-03
1.6E-02
1.3E-01
7.2E-03
7.2E-03
1.8E-03
7.9E-05
6.9E-02
23E-03
Organics
Acenaphthene
2.1E-05
3.5E-05
6.0E-05
Anthracene
1.4E-06
3.5E-06
9.1E-06
Fluoranthene
1.4E-04
2.0E-04
3.1E-04
Fluorene
1.2E-05
2.4E-05
4.8E-05
Naphthalene
1.5E-03
3.4E-03
7.6E-03
Pyrene
2.0E-04
3.0E-04
4.7E-04
Total pathway HP*
5.7E-01
7.2E-01
93E-01

Exposure pathway: residential dermal exposure to soil


Inorganics


Arsenic
5.6E-03
7.1H-03
9.1E-03
Barium
1.1E-03
1.4E-03
1.9E-03
Beryllium
2.0E-04
2.6E-04
3J5E-04
Chromium VI
2.4E-03
2.9E-03
3.4E-03
Manganese
1.8E-02
2.5E-02
3.4E-02
Mercury
6.9E-05
8.1E-05
9.6E-05
Mercury (salts)
4.6E-04
5.4E-04
6.4E-04
Selenium
1.9E-05
2.8E-05
3.9E-05
Strontium
53E-07
7.4E-07
1.0E-06
Vanadium
2.7E-02
3.1E-02
3.6E-02
Zinc
4.0E-05
5.0E-05
-------
7-108
Table 7.15b (continued)
Oak Ridge Reservation HI
Analyte
LCB95*
Median
UCB95C
Exposure pathway: residential dermal exposure to soil (continued)
Organics
Naphthalene
Pyrene
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
6.6E-06
4.3E-07
4.3E-05
3.9E-06
2.0E-04
6.2E-05
1.1E-05
1.1E-06
6.5E-05
7.7E-06
4.5E-04
9.6E-05
1.9E-05
2.9E-06
9.8E-05
1.5E-05
1.0E-03
1.5E-04
Total pathway HI*'
5.6E-02
6.9E-02
8.7E-02
"The LCB95, median, and UCB95 analyte concentrations arc evaluated in terms of total hazard
index (total HI = HI chronic (or an adult plus HI subchromc for a child).
kLCB95 = Lower 95% confidence bound on the median.
CUCB95 = Upper 95% confidence bound on the median.
''The total pathway hazard index does not include HI values for mercury and nickel metals.
7.6.4 Background Risk Characterization for the ORR
The carcinogenic and systemic health effects are evaluated for elements that have both
a SF and a RfD. Some soil constituents, however, have only one (or neither) of the two
toxicity values. Each constituent detected in the ORR background soil has been included in
the risk or HI calculation, provided it has at least one of the toxicity values. If neither of the
toxicity values are available for a constituent, a quantitative CDI can be calculated
(Table 7.5), but the carcinogenic and systemic effect can only be evaluated qualitatively
(Table 7.2). Such constituents may contribute to carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects
from exposure to the soil, but their effect can not be quantified at the present time. For
constituents that have both a SF and a RfD, both their carcinogenic and systemic health
effects are quantified.
7.6.4.1 Carcinogenic background risk characterization for the ORR
As discussed in Sect. 7.4, an on-site resident would be exposed to background soil
constituents via ingestion of soil, dermal contact with soil, and external exposure to
radionuclides in the soil. Shown in Table 7.16 are (i) the calculated CDIs (and doses), (ii) the
calculated background cancer risk for an adult and a child, (iii) the total background cancer
risk (adult + child), and (iv) the total pathway risks for the constituents found in the ORR
background soils (tables include analytes for which SFs are available).
In general, for beryllium and PAHs (Table 7.16a), the background cancer risk for a child
-------
7-109
and the child's risk is slightly lower than that of an adult for dermal exposure to soiL Note,
beryllium is the only inorganic analyte found on the ORR, horizon A, for which an oral SF
is available. Exposure to beryllium and PAHs via soil ingestion or dermal contact, for the DG,
NOL, CR, CHE, and CHI formations, results in total (adult + child) background cancer risks
between 1.7e-07 and l.le-04; refer to the far right column in Table 7.16a. The total pathway
background cancer risks from exposure to beryllium and PAHs across these two pathways
(ingestion and dermal contact) combined (cumulative background risk) are between 93e-06
and 3.9e-04, depending on the formation. Some of these cumulative background cancer risks
are-within the EPA range of concern (l-.Ge-06-to- 1.0e-O4), and most are even above the
unacceptable range (i.e, risk > 1.0e-04) if these risks were from exposure to contaminated
soils.
Included in Table 7.16b are the adult and child background cancer risk estimates for
ingestion of soil containing radionuclides. In general, the adult resident has a higher cancer
risk from ingestion of the soil than does the child resident The total (adult + child) pathway
background cancer risks for ingestion of soil containing radionuclides are less than 1.0e-06
for the DG, NOL, CR, CHE, and CHI formations. These risk values are less than the lower
limit of the EPA range of concern, which is considered acceptable for exposure to site-related
contaminants.
The adult and child background cancer risk estimates for external exposure to ORR
background soils containing radionuclides are summarized in Table 7.16c. Again, in general,
the adult resident has a greater background cancer risk than the child resident The totaL
pathway background cancer risks (adult + child) for DG, NOL, CR, CHE, and CHI.,
lithologies are greater than 1.0e-04 and fall in the EPA region of unacceptable risk (Le, risk
> 1.0e-04) for exposure to contaminated sites.
The total cumulative exposure (ingestion of beryllium, PAHs and radionuclides, dermal
contact with beryllium and PAHs, and external exposure to radionuclides) background cancer
risks are all greater than 1.0e-04, as shown in Fig. 1. These relatively high total cumulative,
background risk results are predominantly from the background risks associated with the
external exposure to radiation; of second most importance (to the cumulative background risk
estimates) is exposure to these background constituents via ingestion of PAHs. Beryllium
levels at BSCP sites are interpreted to be background.
7.6.4.2 Noncardnogcnic background risk characterization for the ORR
The results of the assessment of systemic toxicity of the background inorganic and
organic constituents indicate, with one exception, that neither the ingestion of nor dermal
contact with these analytes are a concern . Table 7.17 lists the (i) RfDs, (ii) CDIs for a child
and an adult, (iii) background hazard indices for a child and an adult, and (iv) the total (adult
+ child) background hazard indices for systemic toxicants. Background levels of arsenic in the
Copper Ridge Formation give a HI greater than 1.0 (i.e., an EPA unacceptable level) for the
ingestion pathway (refer to Table 7.17a). Even though arsenic levels in ORR Copper Ridge
soils are quite high, these levels are interpreted to be background and not surface
contamination. No constituents are identified as having His greater than 1.0 for the dermal
contact pathway (Table 7.17b). In general (with the exception of some PAHs), the child HI
-------
7-110
Table 7.16a. Background cancer risk estimates from exposure
to Oak Ridge Reservation soil constituents
Inorganics and Organics/lngestion and Dermal Contact
Adult daily Child daily Oral slope Adult	Child	Total
Soil cone." intake	intake	factor'' background background background
(pCi/g) (mgAg-dav) (mg/kg-day) (kg-day/mg) cancer risk cancer risk cancer risk*
DISMAL GAP
Exposure pathway: residential ingestion of soil
Inorganics
Beryllium
0.9572
4.5E-07
1.0E-06 4.3E+00
1.9E-06
4.5E-06
6.4E-06
Total pathway risk



1.9E-06
45E-06
6.4E-06


Exposure pathway: residential dermal exposure to soil





Inorganics



Beryllium
0.9572
2.4E-08
9.5E-09 S.eE+Ol*'
2.0E-06
8.2E-07
2.9E-06
Total pathway risk



2.0E-06
&2E-07
25E-06



NOUCHUCKY





Exposure pathway: residential ingestion of sot!






inorganics



Beryllium
0.9639
4.5E-07
1.1E-06 43E+00
1.9E-06
4.5E-06
6.5E-06
Total pallmy risk



1.9E-06
4.5E-06
6-5E-06


Exposure pathway: residential dermal exposure to soil





Inorganics



Beryllium
0.9639
2.4E-08
9.6E-09 8.6E+014'
2.1E-06
83E-07
2.9E-06
Total pathway risk



2.1E-06
83E-07
2.9B06



COPPER RIDGE





Exposure pathway: residavaal ingestion of sod






Inorganics



Beryllium
0.6337
3.0E-07
6.9E-07 43E+00
13E-06
3.0E-06
43E-06



Organics



Benzo(a)anthracene
2.6741
13E-06
2.9E-06 73E-01
9.2E-07
Z1E-06
3.1E-06
Benzo(a)pyTcae
3.5442
1.7E-06
3.9E-06 73E+00
1.2E-05
Z8E-05
4.1E-05
Benzo(b)Quoraniiiene
3.1076
1.5E-06
3.4E-06 73E-01
1.1E-06
25E-06
3.6E-06
Benzo(g,h,i)pcrylenc
3.8213
1.8E-06
4.2E-06 73E+00
13E-05
3.1E-05
4.4E-05
Benzo(k)fluoranlhene
1.8125
S.5E-07
2.0E-06 73E-01
6.2E-07
1.4E-06
2.1E-06
Chrysene
5.4456
16E-06
6.0E-06 73E-02
1.9E-07
4.4E-07
6.2E-07
Dibenz(a,h)anihracene
1-5924
7.5E-07
1.7E-06 7"~-00
5.5E-06
13E-05
1.8E-05
Phenanthrcnc
53883
2.5E-06
5.9E-06 7.3E-00
1.8E-05
43E-05
6.2E-05
Total pathway risk



53E-05
1.2E-04
-------
7-111
Tabic 7.16a (continued)
Adult daily Child daily Oral slope Adult	Child	Total
.	Soil cone." imake intake	[actor3 background background background
(pCi/g) (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day) (kg-dav/mg) cancer risk cancer risk cancer risk'
COPPER RIDGE (continued)
Exposure pathway: rrvdenaal dermal exposure to soil
Inorganics
Beryilium
0.6337
1.6E-08
63E-09
&6E+01*'
1.4E-06
5.4E-07
1.9E-06-.



Organic*




Benzo(3)anlhracene
Z6741
6.7E-07
2.7E-07
73E-01
4.9E-07
1.9E-07
6.8E-0?
Benzo(a)pyrene
33442
8.8E-07
33E-07
7.3E+00
6.4E-06
2.6E-06
9.0E-06
Benzo(b)fluoranthcnc
3.1076
7.7E-07
3.1E-07
73E-01
5.6E-07
23E-07
7.9E-07 •
Benzo(g4i,i)perylene
3.S213
9JE-07
3.8E-C7
73E+00
6.9E-06
2.8E-06
9.7E-06
Benzo(k)fluoranlhene
1.8125
4.5E-07
1.8E-07
73E-01
33E-07
13E-07
4.6E-07
Chrysene
5.4456
1.4E-06
5.4E-07
9.2E-02fi'
1.2E-07
5.0E-08
1.7E-07
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
13924
4.0E-07
1.6E-07
7.3E+00
2.9E-06
1.2E-06
4.1E-06
Phenanthrcne
53883
1.3E-06
5.4E-07
73E+00
9.8E-06
3.9E-06
1.4E-05
Total pathway risk




2.9E-05
1.2E-05
4.1E-Q5



CHEPULTEPEC





Exposure pathway: residential ingestion of soil






Inorganics




Beryllium
0.4597
2.2E-07
5.0E-07
43E+00
93E-07
2.2E-06
3.1E-0&'



Organic*




Benzo(a)anihraceae
2.4615
1.2E-06
2.7E-06
73E-01
8.4E-07
2.0E-06
ZSE-06
Benzo(a)pyrene
4.9345
2-3E-06
5.4E-06
73E+00
1.7E-05
3.9E-05
5.6E-05
Benzo(b)fluoianihene
52192
' 2-5E-06
5.8E-06
73E-01
1.8E-06
4.2E-06
6.0E-06
Benzo(g,hj)peiylene
3.6832
1.7E-06
4.0E-06
73E+00
13E-05
2.9E-05
4.2E-05-
Benzo(k)Quoramhene
22941
1.1E-06
23E-06
73E-01
7.9E-07
1.8E-06
2.6E-06
Dibenz(2,h)anthracene
2.0312
93E-07
2.2E-06
73E+00
7.0E-06
1.6E-05
23E-05
lndcno(lrZ3-cd)p>Tcne
15.9171
73E-06
1.7E-05
73E-01
53E-06
13E-05
l.SE-05
Phenanthrene
43165
2.1E-06
4.9E-06
73E+00
1-5E-05
3.6E-05
52E-05
Total pathway risk




6.2E-05
1.4E-04
2.1E-04'


Exposure pathway: rrvdmrinl dermal exposure to soil





loorgania



Beryllium
0.4597
1.1E-08
4.6E-09
8.6E + 014'
9.8E-07
3.9E-07
1.4E-06



Organic*




Benzo(a)anihracene
2.4615
6 1E-07
2.5 E-07
73E-01
43E-07
1.8E-07
63E-07
Benzo(a)pyrene
4.9345
1.2E-06
4.9E-07
73E+00
9.0E-06
3.6E-06
-------
7-112
Table 7.16a (continued)
Aduli daily Child daily Oral slope Adult	Child	Total
Soil cone." intake intake factor* background background background
(pCi/g) (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day) (kg-day/mg) cancer risk cancer risk cancer nsf
CHEPULTEPEC (coo tiD tied)
Exposure pathway: residential dermal exposure to soil (continued)
Organic; (continued)
5enzo(b)fluora o these
5.2792
13E-06
S3 E-07
73E-01
9.6E-07
3.8E-07
1.3E-06
Benzo(g,h,i)peryiene
3.6832
9.2E-07
3.7E-07
7.3E+00
6.7E-06
2.7E-06
9.4E-06
Benzo(k)fluoranihene
2^941
5.7E-07
23E-07
73E-01
4.2E-07
1.7E-07
5.8E-07
Dibenz(a,fa)anihracene
2.0312
5.1E-07
2.0E-07
73E+00
3.7E-06
1JE-06
5.2E-06
Indeno(li3-cd)pyrene
15.9171
4.0E-06
1.6E-06
73E-01
2.9E-06
1.2E-06
4.1E-06
Phenanthrene
4.5165
1.1E-06
4JE-07
73E+00
8.2E-06
33E-06
1.1E-05
Total pathway nsk




33E-0S
13E-0S
4.7E-05


CHICKAMAUGA (BETHEL VALLEY)





Exposure pathway: residential ingestion of soil






Inorganics




Beryllium
1.2480
5.9E-07
1.4E-06
43E+00
2.5E-06
5.9E-06
8.4E-06



Organics




Benzo(a)anihracene
6.4199
3.0E-06
7.0E-O6
73E-01
2J2E-06
5.1E-06
73E-06
Benzo(a)pyrene
4.9220
23E-06
5.4E-06
73E+00
1.7E-05
3.9E-05
5.6E-05
Benzo(b)(luoramhenc
6.2993
3.0E-06
6.9E-06
73E-01
2.2E-06
5.0E-O6
7.2E-06
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
5.1307
2.4E-06
5.6E-06
73E+00
1.8E-05
4.1E-05
5.9E-05
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
2.9069
1.4E-06
3.2E-06
7.3E-01
1.0E-06
23E-06
33E-06
Chrysene
73215
3.7E-06
8.6E-06
73E-02
2.7E-07
63E-07
8.9E-07
Dibenz(a.h)anthracene
1.4178
6.7E-07
1.6E-06
73E+00
4.9E-06
1.1E-05
1.6E-05
lndeno( 123-cd) pyrene
16.2448
7.6E-06
1.8E-05
73E-01
5.6E-06
13E-05
1.9E-05
Phenanthrene
8.7940
4.1E-06
9.6E-06
73E+00
3.0E-05
7.0E-05
1.0E-04
Total pathway risk




83E-05
1.9&-04
2SE-04


Exposure pathway: residential dermal exposure to soil





Inorganics




Beryllium
1.2480
3. IE-OS
1.2E-08
s.eE+oi*'
Z7E-06
1.1E-06
3.7E-06



Organics




Benzo(a)anlhracene
6.4199
1.6E-06
6.4E-07
73E-01
1.2E-06
4.7E-07
1.6E-06
Benzo(a)pyrene
4.9220
1.2E-06
4.9E-07
73E+00
8.9E-06
3.6E-06
13E-05
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
6.2993
1.6E-06
63E-07
7.3E-01
1.1E-06
4.6E-07
1.6E-06
Benzo(g,h.i)perylene
5.1307
1.3E-06
5.1 E-07
73E+00
9.3E-06
3.7E-06
13E-05
Benzo(k)fluoranihene
2.9069
7.2E-07
2.9E-07
7.3E-01
5.3E-07
2.1E-07
7.4E-07
Chrysene
7.8215
1.9E-06
7.8E-07
9.2E-02*'
1.8E-07
72E-08
2JE-07
Dibenz(a.h)anihracenc
1.4178
3-5E-07
1.4E-07
73E+00
2.6E-06
1.0E-06
3.6E-06
lndeno(l,23-cd)pyrene
16.2448
4.0E-06
1.6E-06
73E-01
3.0E-06
1.2E-06
4.1E-OS
Phenanthrene
8.7940
2.2E-06
8.8E-07
73E+00
1.6E-05
6.4E-06
2.2E-05
Total pathway risk




4.5E-05
1.8E-05
-------
7-113
Table 7.16a (continued)
Adult daily Child daily Oral slope Adult	Child	Total
Analvu	Soil cone." intake	intake	factor4 background background background
(pCi/g) (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day) (kg-day/mg) cancer nsk cancer risk cancer risk'
CH1CKAMAUGA (K-2S)
Exposure pathway: raidauial ingestion of soil
Beryllium
1.1188
53E-07
1-2E-06
43E+00
23E-06
53E-06
7.5E-06



Organic:




Bm7o(a)anthracene
7.5107
3.5E-06
8.2E-06
73E-01
2.6E-06
6.0E-06
8.6E-06
Benzo(a)pyrene
6.7506
3.2E-06
7.4E-06
73E+00
23E-05
5.4E-05
7.7B-05
Benzo(b)fluoran these
6.0862
2.9E-06
6.7E-06
73E-01
2.1E-06
4.9E-06
7.0E-06
Ben2o(g^4)perykane
6.1621
2.9E-06
6.8E-06
73E+00
2.1E-05
4.9E-05
7.0E-05
Benzo(k)Quoranthene
3.7231
1.7E-06
4.1E-06
73E-01
13E-06
3.0E-06
43E-06
Chrysene
8.0071
33E-06
8.8E-06
73E-02
2.7E-07
6.4E-07
97&07
Dibaxz(aji)anthiaccne
1.5579
73E-07
1.7E-06
73E+00
53E-06
1.2E-05
1.8E-0S
Indeno(l,23-cd)pyrene
13.5674
6.4E-06
1.5E-05
73E-01
4.7E-06
1.1E-05
1.6E-05
Phrnanthrene
9.5013
4.5E-06
l.OE-05
73E+00
33E-05
7.6E-05
1.1E-04
Total pathway risk




9-5E-QS
Z2E-04

Exposure pathway: residential dermal exposure to soil
Isajmia
Beryllium
1.1188
2.8E-08
1.1E-08
8.6E+01^
Z4E-06
9.6E-07
3.4E-06—



Organic*




Benzo(a)anthracene
7.5107
1.9E-06
7.5E-07
73E-01
1.4E-06
5.5E-07
15E-06-
Benzo(a)fyreae
6.7506
1.7E-06
6.7E-07
73E+00
13E-05
4.9E-06
1.7E-GS:.
Beoro(b)fluami these
6.0862
1-5E-06
6.1E-07
73E-01
1.1E-06
4.4E-07
1SEM,-.
Benzo(fchti)peiyleiie-
6.1621
1JE-06
6.1E-07
73E+00
1.1E-05
45E-06

Beszo(k)Quano these
3.7231
93E-07
3.7E-07
73E-01
63E-07
2.7E-07
93&41,
Chrysene
8.0071
2.0E-06
8.0E-07
9.2E-02*'
1.8E-07
73E-08
Z6E-GJ
Dibenz(a4i)*nthracene
1.5579
3.9E-07
1.6E-07
73E+00
23E-06
1.1E-06
4-0&46.
lndeso(l,23-cd)pyrene
13.5674
3.4E-06
1.4E-06
73E-01
23E-06
9.9E-07

Phesanthrese
9.5013
2.4E-06
9.5E-07
73E+00
1.7E-05
6.9E-06
2.4E4B-'
Total palbwsy rak




5.2E-05
2.1E-05
IJBrOS"
The upper 95% confidence bound on the median is used as the representative concentration.
4Sources: Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST). Refer
to Table 7.7 for sources of organic (PAH) SFs.
The nsk (or a child plus the nsk (or an adult.
''For dermal exposure to soils, the absorbed oral slope factor was used; the absorbed oral SFs for beryllium and for chrysene
are 8.6E+01 kg-day/mg and 92c-02 kg-day/mg, respectively.
'Owen (1990) reports a %G1 efficiency of 0.001 for inorganics and 0.01 for orgamcs. However, based on other unpublished
-------
7-114
Table 7.16b. Background cancer risk estimates from exposure
to Oak Ridge Reservation soil constituents
Radionuclides/Ingestion
Soil cone." Adult intake Child intake Oral slope Adult	Child	Total
AM'V"1	(pCi/g)	dose	dose	factor^ background background background
(pCi)	(pCi) (1/pCi) cancer risk cancer risk cancer risk''
DISMAL GAP
Cesium-137
1.4130
1.2E+03
5.9E+02
23E-11
33E-08
1.7E-08
5.0E-08
Plutonium-239/240
0.0366
3.1E+01
1.5E+01
23E-10
7.1E-09
3.5E-09
1.1E-08
Potassium-40
19.8411
1.7E+04
83E+03
1.1E-11
1.8E-07
9.2E-08
Z7E-07
Radium-226
1.1437
9.6E+02
4.8E+02
1.2E-10
1.2E-07
5.8E-08
1.7E-07
Strontium-90
13808
1.2E+03
5.8E+02
3.6E-11
4.2E-08
Z1E-08
63E-08
Thorium-228
1.0163
8.5E+02
43E+02
5JE-11
4.7E-08
23E-08
7.0E-08
Thorium-230
0.6774
5.7E+02
2.8E+02
13E-11
7.4E-09
3.7E-09
1.1E-08
Thorium-232
0.7940
6.7E+02
33E+02
1.2E-11
8.0E-09
4.0E-09
1J2E-08
Thorium-234
13829
1.6E+03
7.9E+02
4.0E-12
63E-09
3.2E-09
95E-09
Tritium
0.0443
3.7E+01
1.9E+01
5.4E-14
2.0E-12
1.0E-12
3.0E-12
Uranium-233/234
1.1327
9.5E+02
4.8E+02
1.6E-11
1-5E-08
7.6E-09
23E-08
Uranium-235
0.0950
8.0E+01
4.0E+01
1.6E-11
13E-09
6.4E-10
1.9E-09
Uranium-236
0.0292
2.4E+01
1.2E+01
1-5E-11
3.7E-10
1.8E-10
5.5E-10
Uranium-238
1.1459
9.6E+02
4.8E+02
2J5E-11
2.7E-08
13E-08
4.0E-08
Total pathway risk




4.9E-07
25E-07
7.4E-07



NOLICHUCKY






Radionuclides




Cesium-137
1.2444
1.0E+03
5.2E+02
23E-11
Z9E-08
1.5E-08
4.4E-08
Cunum-247
0.0065
5.5E+00
2.7E+00
2^E-10
1.2E-09
6.0E-10
1.8E-09
Neptumum-237
0.1900
1.6E+02
8.0E+01
Z2E-10
3JE-08
1.8E-08
53E-08
Potassium-40
18.4437
1-5E+04
7.7E+03
1.1E-11
1.7E-07
8.5E-08
26E-07
Radium-226
1.0763
9.0E+02
4.5E+02
1.2E-10
1.1E-07
5.4E-08
1.6E-07
Technetium-99
1.9148
1.6E+03
8.0E+02
13E-12
2.1E-09
1.0E-O9
3.1E-09
Tbarium-228
2.1491
1.8E+03
9.0E+02
5.5E-11
9.9E-08
5.0E-08
1.5E-07
Thorium-230
1.1584
9.7E+02
4.9E+02
13E-11
13E-08
63E-09
1SE-08
Thorium-232
1.7374
1JE+03
73E+02
1.2E-11
1.8E-08
8.8E-09
2.6E-08
Thorium-234
1.6385
1.4E+03
6.9E+02
4.0E-12
5.5E-09
2.8E-09
83E-09
Uramum-233/234
1.5507
13E+03
6.5E+02
1.6E-11
2.1E-08
1.0E-08
3.1E-08
Uranium-235
0.0855
7.2E+01
3.6E+01
1.6E-11
1.1E-09
5.7E-10
1.7E-09
Uranium-238
1.4349
1.2E+03
6.0E+02
2.8E-11
3.4E-08
1.7E-08
5.1E-08
ToUl pathway risk




5.4E-07
2.7E-07
8.1E-07



COPPER RIDGE






Radionuclides




Cesium-137
1.9887
1.7E + 03
8.4E+02
2.8E-11
4.7E-08
23E-08
7.0E-08
Neptumum-237
0.1082
9.1E+01
4.SE+01
2.2E-10
2.0E-08
1.0E-O8
3.0E-08
Pluiowum-238
0.0382
3.2E+01
1.6E+01
2.2E-10
7.1E-09
3.5E-09
1.1E-08
Plulomum-239/240
0.0598
5.0E+01
2.5E+01
23E-10
1.2E-08
5.8E-09
1.7E-08
Potassium-40
4.9722
4.2E+03
2.1E+03
1.1E-11
4.6E-08
23E-08
6.9E-08
Radium-226
1.7758
1.5E+03
7.5E+02
1.2E-10
1.8E-07
9.0E-08
2.7E-07
Thorium-228
0.4836
4.1E+02
2.0E+02
5.5E-11
2.2E-08
1.1E-08
3.4E-08
Thonum-230
13274
1.1E+03
5.6E+02
13E-11
1.4E-08
7.2E-09
-------
7-115
Table 7.16b (continued)
c , _ c Adult intake	Child intake Oral slope Adult	Child	Total
soil conc.	.T ¦
Anatyie dose	dose	factor"	background	background	background
(pCi)	(pCi)	(1/pCi)	cancer nsk	cancer risk	cancer nsk^
COPPER RIDGE
Radionuclides
Thorium-232
0.7887
6.6E+02
33E+02
1.2E-11
8.0E-09
4.0E-09
1J2E-08
ThoriunS-234
1.8380
1.5E+03
7.7E+02
4.0E-12
6.2E-09
3.1E-09
93E-09
Trilium
0.0264
2.2E+01
1.1E+01
5.4E-14
1.2E-12
6.0E-13
1.8E-12
Uranium-233/234
1.7521
1-5E+03
7.4E+02
1.6E-11
2.4E-08
1.2E-08
3.5E-08
Uranium-235
0.1769
1.5E+02
7.4E+01
1.6E-11
2.4E-09
1.2E-09
3.6E-09
Uranium-236
0.0174
1.5E+01
73E+00
1.5E-11
2.2E-10
1.1E-10
33E-10
Uramum-238
1.5437
1.3E+03
65E+02
Z8E-11
3.6E-08
1.8E-08
5.4E-08
Total patlnay risk




4.2E-07
2.1E-07
6.4E-07



CHEPULTEPEC






Radionuclides




Cesium-137
23584
2.0E+03
9.9E+02
2.8E-11
5.5E-08
2.8E-08
83E-08
Nepiumum-237
0.0891
7.5E+01
3.7E+01
Z2E-10
1.6E-08
8.2E-09
Z5E-Q8
Plutonium-238
0.1305
1.1E+02
55E+01
2.2E-10
2.4E-08
1-2E-08
3.6E-08
Polassium-40
33195
3.2E+03
1.6E+03
1.1E-11
3.5E-08
1.8E-08
53E-08"'
Radium-226
17660
1.1E+03
53E+02
1.2E-10
13E-07
6.4E-08
1.9E-07
Thonum-228
0.8629
7.2E+02
3.6E+02
5-5E-11
4.0E-08
2.0E-08
6.0E-08
Thorium-230
0.9274
7.8E+02
3.9E+02
13E-11
1.0E-08
5.1E-09
1.5E-08
Thorium-232
0.7224
6.1E+02
3.0E+02
1.2E-11
7.3E-09
3.6E-09
1.1E-08
Uranium-233/234
13351
1.1E+03
5.6E+02
1.6E-11
1.8E-08
9.0E-09
2.7E-08
Uranium-235
0.1042
8.8E+01
4.4E + 01
1.6E-11
1.4E-09
7.0E-10
2.1E-09
Uramum-238
1.2559
1.1E+03
53E + 02
2.8E-11
3.0E-08
1.5E-08
4.4E-08
ToUl palbwxy nsk




3.7E-07
1.8E-07
ssejti


OOCKAMAUGA (BETHEL VALLEY)





Radionuclides




Cesjum-137
3.1908
2.7E + 03
13E+03
23E-11
7.5E-08
3.8E-08
1.1E-07
Neptumum-237
0.1249
1.0E + 02
5.2E+01
2.2E-10
2.3E-08
1.2E-08
3.5E-08
Plutonium-238
0.1289
1.1E+02
5.4E+01
Z2E-10
24E-08
1.2E-08
3.6E-08
Plutonium-239/240
0.0772
6.5E+01
3.2E + 01
23E-10
1.5E-08
7JE-09
2.2E-08
Potassium-40
183899
1.5E+04
7.7E+03
1.1E-11
1.7E-07
8.5E-08
2.5E-07
Radium-226
1.5669
13E+03
6.6E+02
1.2E-10
1.6E-07
7.9E-08
2.4E-07
Techneuum-99
1.9843
1.7E + 03
8.3E+02
13E-12
2.2E-09
1.1E-09
33E-09
Thorium-228
1.8359
1.5E+03
7.7E + 02
5.5E-11
8.5E-08
4.2E-08
13E-07
Thonum-230
1.2672
1.1E+03
5.3E+02
13E-11
1.4E-08
6.9E-09
2.1E-08
Thonum-232
1.4514
1.2E+03
6.1E+02
1.2E-11
1.5E-08
73E-09
2.2E-08
Triuum
0.1616
1.4E+02
6.8E+01
5.4E-14
73E-12
3.7E-12
1.1E-11
Uramum-233/234
1.2233
1.0E+03
5.1E+02
1.6E-11
1.6E-08
8.2E-09
2-5E-08
Uranium-235
0.1315
1.1E + 02
5.5E + 01
1.6E-11
1.8E-09
8.8E-10
2.7E-09
Uramum-238
1.1879
1.0E+03
5.0E+02
2.8E-11
28E-08
1.4E-08
4.2E-08
Total pathway risk




63E-07
3.1E-07
-------
7-116
	Tabic 7.16b (continued)
Soil cone." Adult intake Child intake Oral slope Adult	Child	Total
Ana|yle	(pCi/g)	dose	dose factor6* background badeground background
(pG)	(pCi) (1/pCi) cancer nsk cancer nsk cancer nsk^
CHICKAMAUGA (K-25)
Radionuclides
Cesium-137
2^633
2.2E+03
1.1E+03
2^E-11
6.0E-08
3.0E-08
9.0E-08
Neptunium-237
0.1199
1.0E+02
5.0&+01
23E-10
22E-08
1.1E-08
33E-08
Plutonjum-238
0.1149
9.7E+01
4.8E+01
23E-10
2.1E-08
1.1E-08
32E-08
Plutomum-239/240
0.0487
4.1E+01
2.0E+01
23E-10
9.4E-09
4.7E-09
1.4E-08
Potassium-40
11.7684
9.9E+03
4.9E+03
1.1E-11
1.1E-07
5.4E-08
1.6E-07
Radium-226
13535
1.1E+03
5.7E+02
13E-10
1.4E-07
6.8E-08
2.0E-07
Tectmeiium-99
1.6665
1.4E+03
7.0E+02
13E-12
1.8E-09
9.1E-10
Z7E-09
Thorium-228
1.6072
1.4E+03
6.8E+02
5.5E-11
7.4E-08
3.7E-08
1.1E-07
Thonum-230
1.2438
1.0E+03
5.2E+02
13E-11
1.4E-08
6.8E-09
2.0E-08
Thorium-232
12877
1.1E+03
5.4E+02
1.2E-11
13E-08
6.5E-09
1.9E-08
Uranium-233/234
1.4726
1J2E+03
6.2E+02
1.6E-11
ZOE-08
9.9E-09
3.0E-08
Uraniiim-235
0.0824
6.9E+01
3.5E+01
1.6E-11
1.1E-09
5.5E-10
1.7E-09
Uranium-238
13596
1.1E+03
5.7E+02
2.8E-11
3.2E-08
1.6E-08
4.8E-08
Total pathway nsk




5.1E-07
2.6EAP
7.7E-07
The upper 95% confidence bound on the median is used as the representative concern ration.
'Source Health	Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST).
The radionuclide slope factors indude contributions from daughter products.
-------
7-117
Table 7.16c. Background cancer risk estimates from exposure
to Oak Ridge Reservation sofl constituents
Radionuclides/Externa! Exposure
Analyte
SoU
cone."
0>Ci/g)
Adult
intake
dose
(pCi-yr/g)
Child
intake
dose
(pCi-yr/g)
External
Exposure
slope
factor*1-'
(g/pCi-yr)
Adult	Child	Total
background background background
cancer risk cancer risk cancer nsl^
DISMAL GAP.
Radionuclides
Cesium-137
1.4130
2.7E+01
6.8E+00
2.0E-06
5.4E-05
1.4E-05
6.8E-05
Plutonium-239/240
0.0366
7.0E-01
1.8E-01
2.7E-11
1.9E-11
4.7E-12
2.4E-1L
Potassium-40
19.8411
3.8E+02
9.5E+01
5.4E-07
2.1E-04
5.1E-05
2.6E-04
Radium-226
1.1437
2^E+01
SSE+00
6.0E-06
13E-04
33E-05
1.6E-04.1
Strootium-90
13808
2.7E+01
6.6E+00
O.OE+OO
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+0C
Thorium-228
1.0163
2.0E+01
4.9E+00
5.6E-06
1.1E-04
2.7E-05
1.4E-04
Tboiium-230
0.6774
13E+01
33E+00
5.4E-11
7.0E-10
1AE-10
&8E-10:
Thorium-232
0.7940
1.5E+01
33E+00
2.6E-11
4.0E-10
9.9E-11
5.0E-1O*
Thorium-234
1.8829
3.6E+01
9.0E+00
3.5E-09
13E-07
3-2E-08
1.6E-07
Tritium
0.0443
8.5E-01
2.1E-01
O.OE+OO
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
O.OE+0(
Uranjum-233/234
1.1327
2JE+01
5.4E+00
4.2E-11
9.1E-10
23E-10
1.1E-09
Uranium-235
0.0950
1.8E+00
4.6E-01
Z4E-07
4.4E-07
1.1E-07
5SE-OT
Uranium-236
0.0292
5.6E-01
1.4E-01
Z4E-11
13E-11
3.4E-12
1.7E-11
Uranium-238
1.1459
22E+01
5.5E+00
3.6E-08
7.9E-07
2.0E-07
9.9E-07
Total palhway rid:




5.0E-04
13E-04
63E-04
NOUCHUCKY
Radiaoudidcs
Cesium-137
1.2444
2.4E+01
6.0E+00
2.0E-06
4.8E-05
1.2E-05
6.0E-O5
Curium-247
0.0065
1.2E-01
3.1E-02
9J2E-07
1.1E-07
2.9E-08
1.4E-07
Nepiunium-237
0.1900
3.6E+00
9.1E-01
43E-07
1.6E-06
3.9E-07
2.0E-06
Potassium-40
18.4437
3.5E+02
8.9E+01
5.4E-07
1.9E-04
4.8E-05
2.4E-04
Radium-226
1.0763
2.1E+01
5.2E+00
6.0E-06
1.2E-04
3.1E-05
1.5E-04
Tedmetium-99
15148
3.7E+01
9.2E+00
6.0E-13
12E-11
5.5E-12
2SE-11"
Thorium-228
2.1491
4.1E+01
1.0E+01
5.6E-06
23E-04
5.8E-05
2.9E-04
Tborium-230
1.1584
22E+01
5.6E+00
5.4E-11
1.2E-09
3.0E-10
1JE-09
Thonum-232
1.7374
33E+01
83E+00
2.6E-11
8.7E-10
2^E-10
l.lE-Oft
Thonum-234
1.6285
3.1E+01
7.9E+00
3.5E-09
1.1E-07
2.8E-08
1.4E-07
Uranium-233/234
1.5507
3.0E+01
7.4E+00
4.2E-11
13E-09
3.1E-10
1.6E-09
Uranium-235
0.0855
1.6E+00
4.1E-01
2.4E-07
3.9E-07
9.SE-08
4.9E-07
Uranium-238
1.4349
2.8E+01
6.9E+00
3.6E-08
9.9E-07
2JE-07
1.2E-06
Total pathway mi




6.0E-04
1.5E-04
75E-04
Cesium-137	15887	3.8E+01
Nepiunium-237	0.1082	2.1E+00
Plutomum-238	0.0382	73E-01
Pluiomum-239/240	0.0598	1.1E+00
COPPER RIDGE
Radionuclides
9.5E+00 2.0E-06	7.6E-05	1.9E-05	9.5E-05
S.2E-01 43E-07	8.9E-07	2^E-07	1.1E-06-
1.8E-01 23E-11	2.1E-11	5.1E-12 2.6E-11 ¦
-------
7-118
Table 7.16c (continued)
Anatyie
Soil
cone.11
CpCi/g)
Adull
intake
dose
(pG-vr/g)
Child
intake
dose
(pCi-yr/g)
Externa I
Exposure
slope
factor^
(g/pCi-yr)
Adull	Child	Total
background background background
cancer nsk cancer nsk cancer nslc^
COPPER RIDGE (cootiaocd)
Radionuclides (cooiinued)
Potassium-40
4.9722
9.5E-r01
2.4E+01
5.4E-07
5.2E-05
13E-05
6.4E-05
Radium-226
1.7758
3.4E+01
8.SE+00
6.0E-06
2.0E-04
5.1E-05
2.6E-04
Thorium-228
0.4836
93E+00
2.3E+00
5.6E-06
5.2E-05
13E-05
65E-05
Tborium-230
13274
2JE+01
6.4E+00
5.4E-11
1.4E-09
3.4 E-10
1.7E-09
Thoriuni-232
0.7887
1.5E+01
3.8E+00
2.6E-11
3.9E-10
9.8E-11
4.9E-10
Thorium-234
1.8380
3JE+01
8.8E+00
3.5E-09
1.2E-07
3.1E-08
1JE-07
Tritium
0.0264
5.1E-01
1.3E-01
O.OE+OO
0.0E+00
O.OE+OO
0.0E+00
Uramum-233/234
1.7521
3.4E + 01
8.4E+00
4.2E-11
1.4E-09
3.5E-10
1.8E-09
Uranium-235
0.1769
3.4E+00
8.5E-01
2.4E-07
8.1E-07
2.0E-07
1.0E-06
Uramum-236
0.0174
33E-0J
8.3E-02
2.4E-11
8.0E-12
2.0E-12
1.0E-11
Uranium-238
1.5437
3.0E+01
7.4E+00
3.6E-08
1.1E-06
27E-07
13E-06
Toul pathway risk




19E-04
9.7E-05
4.8E-04



CHEPULTEPEC










Cesium-137
23584
4.5E+01
1.1E+01
2.0E-06
9.1E-05
23E-05
1.1E-04
Neptunium-237
0.0891
1.7E + 00
4.3E-01
43E-07
7.4E-07
1.8E-07
9.2E-07
Plutoniutn-235
0.1305
25E+00
6.3E-01
2-8E-I1
7.0E-11
I.8E-I1
8.8E-11
Potassium-40
3.8195
73E+01
1.8E+01
S.4E-07
4.0E-O5
9.9E-06
5.0E-05
Radium-226
1.2660
2.4E+01
6.1E+00
6.0E-06
1.5E-04
3.6E-05
1.8E-04
Thonum-228
0.8629
1.7E+01
4.1E+00
5.6E-06
93E-05
23E-05
1.2E-04
Thorium-230
0.9274
1.8E+01
4.5E+00
5.4E-11
9.6E-10
2.4E-10
1.2E-09
Thonum-232
0.7224
1.4E+01
3.5E+00
2.6E-11
3.6E-10
9.0E-11
4iE-10
Uraiuum-233/234
13351
26E+01
6.4E+00
4.2E-11
1.1E-09
2.7E-10
13E-09
Uranium-235
0.1042
2.0E+00
5.0E-01
2.4E-07
4.8E-07
1.2E-07
6.0E-07
Uranium-238
1.2559
2.4E+01
6.0E+00
3.6E-08
8.7E-07
22E-07
1.1E-06
Total pathway risk




3-7E-04
93E-05
4.6E-04


CH1CKAMAUGA (BETHEL VALLEY)






Radionuclides



Cesium-137
3.1908
6.1E+01
1.5E+01
2.0E-06
1.2E-04
3.1E-05
1.5E-04
Neptumum-237
0.1249
2.4E+00
6.0E-01
4.3E-07
1.0E-06
2 6E-07
13E-06
Plutomum-238
0.1289
2.5E + 00
6.2E-01
2.8E-11
6.9E-11
1.7E-11
8.7E-11
Plutonium-239/240
0.0772
1JE+00
3.7E-01
2.7E-11
4.0E-11
1.0E-11
5.0E-11
Poiassjum-40
183899
3.5E-r02
S.8E + 01
5.4E-07
1.9E-04
4.8E-05
2.4E-04
Radium-226
13669
3.0E+01
7.5E+00
6.0E-06
1.8E-04
4.5E-05
23E-04
Technetium-99
1.9843
3.8E-01
9.5E+00
6.0E-13
23E-11
5.7E-12
2.9E-11
Thonum-228
13359
3.5E+01
8.8E+00
5.6E-06
2.0E-04
4.9E-05
2-SE-04
Thonum-230
1.2672
24E + 01
6.1E+00
5.4E-11
13E-09
33E-10
-------
7-119
Table 7.16c (continued)
Soil
AnaJyte	cone."
(pCi/g)


CHICKAMAUGA (BETHEL VAT J FY) (continued)




Radiooudides (continued)



Thorium-232
1.4514
2.8E+01
7.0E+00
2.6E-11
7.2E-10
1.8E-10
9.1E-10
Tritium
0.1616
3.1E+00
7.8E-01
0.0E+00
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
O.OE+OO
Uranium-233/234
12233
23E+01
5.9E+00
4.2E-11
9.9E-10
23E-10
1.2E-09
Uranium-235
0.1315
2-5E+00
63E-01
2.4E-07
6.1E-07
1.5E-07
7.6E-07
Uranium-238
1.1879
23E+01
5.7E+00
3.6E-08
8.2E-07
2.1E-07
1.0E-O6
Total pathway risk




6.9&04
1.7E-04
8.7E-04


CHICKAMAUGA (K-25)






Radiooudides



Cesium-137
2J633
4.9E+01
1.2E+01
2.0E-O6
9.8E-05
2^E-05
1.2E-04
Neptunium-237
0.1199
23E+00
5.8E-01
43E-07
9.9E-07
2iE-07
13E-06
Pluionium-23S
0.1149
23E+00
5JE-01
2.8E-11
6.2E-11
1.5E-11
7.7E-11
Plutonium-239/240
0.0487
93E-01
23E-01
Z7E-11
ZSE-U
63E-12
3J2E-11
Potassium-40
11.7684
23E+02
5.6E+01
5.4E-07
1.2E-04
3.1E-05
1.5E-04
Rjdium-226
13535
2.6E+01
6.5E+00
6.0E-06
1.6E-04
3.9E-05
1.9E-04
Technetium-99
1.6665
3.2E+01
8.0E+00
6.0E-13
1.9E-11
4.8E-12
2.4E-11
Thonum-228
1.6072
3.1E+01
7.7E+00
5.6E-06
1.7E-04
43E-05
2-2E-04
Thorium-230
1.2438
2.4E+01
6.0E+00
5.4E-11
13E-09
33E-10
1.6E-09
Thorium-232
1.2827
2iE+01
6.2E+O0
2.6E-11
6.4E-10
1.6E-10
8.0E-10
Uranium-233/234
1.4726
2.8E+01
7.1E+00
4.2E-11
13E-09
3.0E-10
1.5E-09
Uranium-235
0.0824
1.6E+00
4.0E-01
2.4E-07
3.8E-07
9.5E-08
4.7E-07
Uranium-238
13596
2.6E+01
6-5E+00
3.6E-08
9.4E-07
23E-07
13E-06
Total pathway risk




5.5E-04
1.4E-04
6i)E-04
"The upper 95% confidence bound on the median is used as the representative concentration.
'Source: Health Fffrm Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST).
The radionuclide slope factors include contributions from daughter products.
''The risk for a child plus the risk for an adult.
Adult
intake
dose
(pCi-yr/g)
Child
intake
dose
(pCi-yr/g)
External
Exposure
slope
factor^
(g/pCi-yr)
Adult	Child	Total
background background background
-------
7-120
Table 7.17a. Background hazard index estimates for residents exposed
to Oak Ridge Reservation soil constituents
Ingestion
Soil	Adult	Child	Chronic Subchronic Adult Child
Analyie	Cone."	daily	daily oral Rny> oral RfD* HI	HI
(mg/kg) intake	intake (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day) chronic subchronic
(mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day)
DISMAL GAP
Inorganics
Arsenic
75709
1.1E-05
1.0E-04
3.0E-04
3.0E-04
3.6E-02
3.4E-01
33E-01
Barium
12&S841
1.8E-04
1.6E-03
7.0E-02
7.0E-02
Z5E-03
Z3E-02
Z6E-02
Beryllium
05572
13E-06
12E-05
5.0E-03
5.0E-03
Z6E-04
Z4E-03
Z7E-03
Boron
22.6907
3.1E-05
2.9E-04
9.0E-02
9.0E-02
3_5E-04
3.2E-03
3.6E-03
Chromium VI
292046
4.0E-05
3.7E-04
5.0E-03
ZOE-02
8.0E-03
1.9E-02
Z7E-02
Cyanide
02815
3.9E-07
3.6E-06
ZOE-02
ZOE-02
1.9E-05
1.8E-04
Z0E-O4
Manganese
13653139
1.9E-03
1.7E-02
1.4E-01
1.4E-01
13E-02
12E-01
1.4E-01
Mercury
03703
5.1E-07
4.7E-06
3.0E-04
3.0E-04
1.7E-03
1.6E-02
1.7E-02
Mercury (sails)
03703
5.1E-07
4.7E-06
3.0E-04
3.0E-04
1.7E-03
1.6E-02
1.7E-02
Nickel
29.1185
4.0E-05
3.7E-04
Z0E-02
2.0E-02
2.0E-03
1.9E-02
Z1E-02
Nickel (salts)
29.1185
4.0E-05
3.7E-04
ZOE-02
Z0E-02
ZOE-03
1.9E-02
Z1E-02
Strontium
11.4312
1.6E-05
1.5E-04
6.0E-01
6.0E-01
Z6E-05
Z4E-04
Z7E-04
Vanadium
39.1295
5.4E-05
5.0E-O4
7.0E-03
7.0E-03
7.7E-03
7.1E-02
7.9E-02
Zinc
6Z6069
8.6E-05
8.0E-04
3.0E-01
3.0E-01
Z9E-04
Z7E-03
3.0E-O3
Total paihmy HI-





73E-02
62E-01
63&4H



NOUCHUCKY







Inorganics




Antimony
0.4848
6.6E-07
62H-06
4.0E-O4
4.0E-04
1.7E-03
1.5E-02
1.7E-02
Arsenic
8.1750
1.1E-05
1.0E-04
3.0E-04
3.0E-04
3.7E-02
3JE-01
3.9E-01
Barium
97.8229
13E-04
13E-03
7.0E-02
7.0E-02
1.9E-03
1.8E-02
ZOE-02
Beryllium
05639
13E-06
1.2E-05
5.0E-03
5.0E-03
Z6E-04
Z5E-03
Z7E-03
Chromium VI
34.0056
4.7E-05
43E-04
5.0E-03
2.0E-02
93E-03
.Z2E-02
3.1E-02
Manganese
894.8327
12E-03
1.1E-02
1.4E-01
1.4E-01
8.8E-03
82E-02
9.0E-02
Mercury
0-2168
3.0E-07
Z8E-06
3.0E-04
3.0E-04
9.9E-04
92E-03
1.0E-O2
Mercury (salts)
0.2168
3.0E-07
Z8E-06
3.0E-04
3.0E-04
9.9E-04
92E-03
1.0E-02
Nickel
21.4359
Z9E-05
2.7E-04
ZOE-02
Z0E-02
1JE-03
1.4E-02
L5E-02
Nickel (salts)
21.4359
Z9E-05
Z7E-04
2.0E-02
ZOE-02
1.5E-03
1.4E-02
1.5E-02
Selenium
0.7175
9.8E-07
92E-06
5.0E-03
5.0E-03
Z0E-O4
1.8E-03
ZOE-03
Strontium
62450
8.6E-06
8.0E-05
6.0E-01
6.0E-01
1.4E-05
13E-04
1.5E-04
Vanadium
37.1249
5.1E-05
4.7E-04
7.0E-03
7.0E-03
73E-03
6.8E-02
7.5E-02
Zinc
46.8386
6.4E-05
6.0E-O4
3.0E-01
3.0E-01
Z1E-04
ZOE-03
Z2E-03
Total pathway HT*





6.9E-02
5.8E-01
6.5E-01



COPPER RIDGE







Inorganics




Arsenic
30.7476
4.2E-05
3.9E-04
3.0E-04
3.0E-O4
1.4E-01
13E+00
1.5E+0C
3 an am
93.1747
13E-04
1.2E-03
7.0E-02
7.0E-02
1.8E-03
1.7E-02
1.9E-02
Beryllium
0.6337
8.7E-07
S.1E-06
5.0E-03
5.0E-03
1.7E-04
1.6E-03
-------
7-121
Table 7.17a (continued)
Analyie
Soil
Cone."
(nig/kg)
Adult
daily
intake
(mg/kg-day)
Child
daily
intake
(mg/kg-day)
Chronic
oral RfD*
(mg/kg-day)
Subchronic
oral RfD*
(mg/kg-day)
Adult
HI
chronic
Child
HI
subchronic
Total
HP



COPPER RIDGE (continued)






Inorganics (continued)




Chromium VI
18.2675
2.5E-05
23E-04
5.0E-03
2.0E-02
5.0E-03
1.2E-02
1.7E-02
Manganese
14623296
Z0E-03
1.9E-02
1.4E-01
1.4E-01
1.4E-02
13E-01
1.5E4J1
Mercury
0.1838
2.5E-07
2.4E-06
3.0E-O4
3.0E-04
8.4E-04
7.8E-03
8.7E-03;
Mercury (salts)
0.1838
2-5E-07
2.4E-06
3.0E-O4
3.0E-04
8.4E-04
1&E-Q3
8.7E-0i:
Molybdenum
1.7521
2.4E-06
2.2E-05
5.0E-03
5.0E-03
4£E-04
4JE-03
5.0E-031
Nickel
9.7111
13E-05
1.2E-04
2.0E-O2
Z0E-02
6.7E-04
6.2E-03
6.9E-03
Nickel (salts)
9.7111
13E-05
1.2E-04
2.0E-02
2.0E-02
6.7E-04
6.2E-03
6.9E-03.
Selenium
0.8030
1.1E-06
1.0E-05
5.0E-03
5.0E-03
2.2E-04
2.1E-03
23E-Q3
Stronuum
4.8134
6.6E-06
6.2E-05
6.0E-01
6.0E-01
1.1E-05
1.0E-O4
1.1E-04
Vanadium
302755
4.1E-05
3.9E-04
7.0E-03
7.0E-03
5.9E-03
5.5E-02
6.1E-0Z
Zinc
43.1845
5.9E-05
5.5E-04
3.0E-O1
3.0E-01
2.0E-04
1.8E-03
zoE-oa



Organic:




Accnaphlhene
1.9298
2.6E-06
2.5E-05
6.0E-02
6.0E-01
4.4E-05
4.1E-05
8.5E-OS
Anthracene
1.4248
2.0E-06
1.8E-05
3.0E-01
3.0E+00
6.5E-06
6.1E-06
13E-05
Fluoranihene
8.1229
1.1E-05
1.0E-O4
4.0E-02
4.0E-01
2J5E-04
2.6E-04
5.4B04
Fluorene
1.5879
Z2E-06
10E-05
4.0E-02
4.0E-01
5.4E-05
5.1E-05
1.1E-04
Naphthalene
16.4747
23E-05
2.1E-04
4.0E-O2
4.0E-02
5.6E-04
53E-03
5-8E43>
Pyrene
7.0241
9.6E-06
9.0E-05
3.0E-O2
3.0E-01
3.2E-04
3.0E-04

Total pathway Hi'





1.7E-01
l.fiE+00
1.7E-H#



CHEPUL.TEPEC







Inorganics




Arsenic
143884
2.0E-05
1.8E-04
3.0E-O4
3.0E-04
6.6E-02
6.1E-01
6.8E-01
Barium
693497
9.5E-05
8.9E-04
7.0E-02
7.0E-02
1.4E-03
13E-02
1.4E-02
Beryllium
0.4597
63E-07
5.9E-06
5.0E-03
5.0E-03
13E-04
1.2E-03
13E-03
Chromium VI
173758
2.4E-05
2-2E-04
5.0E-03
2.0E-02
4.8E-03
1.1E-02
1.6E-02
Manganese
1260.9155
1.7E-03
1.6E-02
1.4E-01
1.4E-01
1.2E-02
1.2E-01
13E-01
Mercury
0.1529
2.1E-07
2.0E-06
3.0E-O4
3.0E-04
7.0E-04
6JE-03
7.2E-03
Mercury (salts)
0.1529
Z1E-07
2.0E-O6
3.0E-04
3.0E-04
7.0E-O4
6.5E-03
7.2E-03
Selenium
0.6251
8.6E-07
8.0E-06
5.0E-03
5.0E-03
1.7E-04
1.6E-03
1.8E-03
Strontium
33288
4.6E-06
43E-05
6.0E-01
6.0E-01
7.6E-06
7.1E-05
7.9E-05
Vanadium
343269
4.7E-05
4.4E-04
7.0E-03
7.0E-03
6.7E-03
63E-02
6.9E-02
Zinc
48.6197
6.7E-05
6.2E-04
3.0E-O1
3.0E-01
2.2E-04
2.1E-03
23E-03
Organic
Arena ph thene
13632
1.9E-06
1.7E-05
6.0E-02
6 0E-O1
3.1E-05
2.9E-05
jl
6.0E-05
Anthracene
1.0351
1.4E-06
1.3E-05
3.0E-01
3.0E+00
4.7E-06
4.4E-06
9.1E-06
Fluoranihene
4.6443
6 4E-06
5.9E-05
4.0E-02
4.0E-01
1.6E-04
1.5E-04
3.1E-04
Fluorene
0.7257
9.9E-07
93E-06
4.0E-O2
4.0E-01
2JE-05
23E-05
43E-05
Naphthalene
21.4872
2.9E-05
2.7E-04
4.0E-02
4.0E-02
7 4E-04
6.9E-03
7.6E-03
Pyrene
5.2811
7.2E-06
6.8E-05
3.0E-02
3.0E-01
2.4E-04
23E-04
4.7E-04
Total pathway Hl^





93E-02
83E-01
-------
7-122
Table 7.17a (continued)

Soil
Aduli
Child
Chronic
Subchronic
Adult
Child
Total
HIC
Anatvie
Cone."
daily
daily
oral RfD*
oral RID4
HI
HI

(mg/kg)
intake
intake
(mg/kg-day)
(njg/kg-dav)
chronic
subchronic


(mg/kg-day)
(mg/kg-day)



CHICKAMAUGA (BETHEL VALLEY)
Inorganics
Arsenic
1.9861
1.1E-05
1.0E-O4
3.0E-04
3.0E-04
3.6E-02
3.4E-01
3.8E-01
Barium
1033015
1.4E-04
13E-03
7.0E-02
7.0E-02
2.0E-03
1.9E-02
2.1E-02
Beryllium
1.2480
1.7E-06
1.6E-05
5.0E-03
5.0E-03
3.4E-04
3.2E-03
3JE-03
Chromium VI
40.2327
5JE-C5
5.1E-04
5.0E-03
2.0E-02
1.1E-02
2.6E-02
3.7E-02
Manganese
144Z6173
2.0E-03
1.8E-02
1.4E-01
1.4E-01
1.4E-02
13E-01
1.5E-01
Mercury
0.187S
2.6E-07
2.4E-06
3.0E-04
3.0E-04
8.6E-04
8.0E-O3
8.8E-03
Mercury (salts)
0.1875
2.6E-07
2.4E-06
3.0E-04
3.0E-04
8.6E-04
8.0E-03
8.8E-03
Nickel
16.6791
23E-05
2.1E-04
2.0E-02
2.0E-02
1.1E-03
1.1E-02
1-2E-02
Nickri (salts)
16.6791
23E-05
2.1E-04
2.0E-02
2.0E-02
1.1E-03
1.1E-02
1.2E-02
Selenium
0.9313
13E-06
1.2E-05
5.0E-03
5.0E-03
2.6E-04
2.4E-03
2.6E-03
Strontium
8.6393
1.2E-05
1.1E-04
6.0E-01
6.0E-01
2.0E-05
1.8E-04
2.0E-04
Vanadium
41.8663
5.7E-05
5.4E-04
7.0E-03
7.0E-03
8.2E-03
7.6E-02
8.5E-02
Zinc
55.5213
7.6E-05
7.1E-04
3.0E-01
3.0E-01
2JE-04
2.4E-03
2.6E-03



Organic*




Aceaapbthene
5.9641
8.2E-06
7.6E-05
6.0E-02
6.0E-01
1.4E-04
13E-04
2.6E-04
Anthracene
1.1459
1.6E-06
1.5E-05
3.0E-01
3.0E+00
5.2E-06
4.9E-06
1.0E-05
Fluoranthene
7.2574
9.9E-06
93E-05
4.0E-02
4.0E-01
2-5E-04
23E-04
4.8E-04
Fluorene
55428
7.6E-06
7.1E-05
4.0E-02
4.0E-01
1.9E-04
1.8E-04
3.7E-04
Naphthalene
10.9247
1.5E-05
1.4E-04
4.0E-02
4.0E-02
3.7E-04
3.5E-03
3.9E-03
Pyrene
12.5474
1.7E-05
1.6E-04
3.0E-02
3.0E-01
5.7E-04
53E-04
1.1E-03
Total pathway HI-





7.6E-02
6JE-01
7.0&O1



CHICKAMAUGA (K-25)







lnofganics




Arsenic
9.7282
13E-05
1.2E 4
3.0E-04
3.0E-04
4.4E-02
4.1E-01
4.6E-01
Barium
99.5861
1.4E-04
13i 3
7.0E-02
7.0E-02
1.9E-03
1.8E-02
ZOE-02
Beryllium
1.1188
1.5E-06
1.4E :
5.0E-03
5.0E-03
3.1E-04
2.9E-03
3.2E-03
Chromium VI
38.5109
53E-05
4.9E-04
5.0E-03
2.0E-02
1.1E-02
2JE-02
3.5E-02
Manganese
2288.0077
3.1E-03
2.9E-02
1.4E-01
1.4E-01
2.2E-02
2.1E-01
23E-01
Mercury
0.5786
7.9E-07
7.4E-06
3.0E-04
3.0E-04
2.6E-03
2-5E-02
Z7E-02
Mercury (salts)
05786
7 9E-07
7 4E-06
3.0E-04
3.0E-O4
16E-03
2.5E-02
Z7E-02
Nickel
213423
2.9E-05
2.7E-04
2.0E-02
2.0E-02
1JE-03
1.4E-02
1.5E-02
Nickel (salts)
213423
Z9E-05
2.7E-04
2.0E-02
2.0E-02
1.5E-03
1.4E-02
1.5E-02
Selenium
0.9617
13E-06
1.2E-05
5.0E-03
5.0E-O3
2.6E-04
2JE-03
Z7E-03
Strontium
16.0042
2.2E-05
2.0E-04
6.0E-01
6.0E-01
3.7E-05
3.4E-04
3.8E-04
Vanadium
41.9685
5.7E-05
5.4E-04
7 0E-O3
7.0E-03
8.2E-03
7.7E-02
8.5E-02
Zinc
56.9209
7.8E-05
73E-04
3.0E-01
3.0E-01
2.6E-04
2.4E-03
-------
7-123
Table 7.17a (continued)
Anatvie
Soil
Cone."
(mg/kg)
Aduli
daily
intake
(rng/kg-day)
Child
daily
intake
(mg/kg-day)
Chronic
oral RfD4
(mg/kg-day)
Subchronic
oral RfD4
(mg/kg-day)
Adult
HI
chronic
Child
HI
subchronic
Total
HP


d-nOCAMAUGA (K-25) (continued)






Organics




Acenaphthene
1.S152
2.5E-06
23E-05
6.0E-02
6.0E-01
4.1E-05
3.9E-05
8.0E-05
Anthracene
1.9096
2.6E-06
2.4E-05
3.0E-01
3.0E+00
8.7E-06
8.1E-06
1.7E-05
Fluorantheae
9.4479
13E-05
1.2E-04
4.0E-02
4.0E-01
3.2E-04
3.0E-04
63E-04
Fluorene
2.1145
2.9E-06
2.7E-05
4.0E-02
4.0E-01
7.2E-05
6.8E-05
1.4E-04
Naphthalene
3.4591
4.7E-06
4.4E-05
4.0E-02
4.0E-02
1.2E-04
1.1E-03
\2E~oa ¦
Pyrene
15.2652
2.1E-05
2.0E-O4
3.0E-02
3.0E-01
7.0E-O4
6.5E-04
13E-03-
Total pathway HT^





9.4E-02
7.9E-01
&.9E-01
"The upper 95% confidence bound on the median is used as ihe representative concentration.
''Source: Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and Health Efleas Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST).
"Total HI = Adult HI chronic plus child HI subchronic.
-------
7-124
Table 7.17b. Background hazard index estimates for residents exposed to
Oak Ridge Reservation soil constituents
Dermal Contact
Anatvte
Soil Ad"11
Cone.' ^'ly
(mg/kg) intake
(mg/kg-day)
Child
daily
intake
(mg/kg-day)
Chronic
oral RfD*,c
absorbed
(mg/kg-day)
Subchromc
oral RfDAx
absorbed
(mg/kg-day)
Adult
HI
chronic
Child
HI
subchromc
Total
HP*
DISMAL GAP
Inorganics""
Arsenic
7.9709
5.8E-07
93E-07
3.0E-04
3.0E-04
1.9E-03
3.1E-03
5.0E-03
Banum
128-5841
93E-06
1.5E-05
7.0E-03
7.0E-03
13E-03
2.1E-03
3.5E-03
Beryllium
05572
6.9E-08
1.1E-07
2-5E-04
2.5E-04
2.8E-04
4.5E-04
72E-04
Boron
22.6907
1.6E-06
2.6E-06
9.0E-02
9.0E-02
1.8E-05
Z9E-05
4.8E-05
Chromium VI
29.2046
2.1E-06
3.4E-06
5.3E-04
Z0E-03
4.0E-03
1.7E-03
5.7E-03
Cyanide
0.2815
ZOE-08
33E-08
8.0E-03
8.0E-03
2.6E-06
4.1E-06
6.6E-06
Manganese 13653139
9.9E-05
1.6E-04
7.0E-03
7.0E-03
1.4E-02
23E-02
3.7E-02
Mercury
03703
2.7E-08
43E-08
3.0E-O4
3.0E-04
9.0E-05
1.4E-04
23E-04
Mercury (salts)
03703 '
2.7E-08
4.3E-08
4JE-05
4JE-05
6.0E-04
9.6E-04
1.6E-03
Nickel
29.1185
2.1E-06
3.4E-06
2.0E-02
2.0E-02
1.1E-04
1.7E-04
2^E-04
Nickel (salts)
29.1185
2.1E-06
3.4E-06
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
2.1E-03
3.4E-03
5.5E-03
StroDiium
11.4312
83E-07
13E-06
6.0E-01
6.0E-01
1.4E-06
2.2E-06
3.6E-06
Vanadium
39.1295
2^E-06
4.6E-06
1.8E-04
1.8E-04
1.6E-02
2-5E-02
4 1E-02
Zinc
62.6069
4.5E-06
73E-06
UE-01
1-5E-01
3.0E-05
4.9E-05
7.9E-05
Total pathway HT





4.0E-02
6.0E-02
1.0E-01



NOUCHUOCY







Inorganics




Anumony
0.4848
3.5E-08
5.6E-08
6.0E-05
6.0E-05
5.9E-04
9.4E-04
1.5E-03
Arsenic
8.1750
5.9E-07
9.5E-07
3.0E-O4
3.0E-04
2.0E-03
3.2E-03
5.1E-03
Barium
97.8229
7.1E-06
1.1E-05
7.0E-03
7.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.6E-03
2.6E-03
Beryllium
0.9639
7.0E-08
1.1E-07
2-5E-04
15E-04
2.8E-04
4.5E-04
73E-04
Chromium VI
34.0056
2^E-06
4.0E-06
53E-04
2.0E-O3
4.7E-03
2.0E-03
6.6E-03
Manganese
894.8327
6.5E-05
l.OE-04
7.0E-03
7.0E-O3
93E-03
1.5E-02
2.4E-02
Mercury
0.2168
1.6E-08
2-5 E-08
3.0E-O4
3.0E-04
5.2E-05
8.4E-05
1.4E-04
Mercury (salts)
0.2168
1.6E-08
2-5E-08
4JE-05
4.5E-05
3.5E-04
5.6E-04
9.1E-04
Nickel
21.4359
1.6E-06
2JE-06
2.0E-02
2.0E-02
7.8E-05
1.2E-04
2.0E-O4
Nic el (salts)
21.4359
1.6E-06
2-5E-06
l.OE-03
1.0E-03
1.6E-03
2.5E-03
4.1E-03
Selenium
0.7175
5.2E-08
83E-0S
3.0E-03
3.0E-03
1.7E-05
2.8E-05
4.5E-05
Strontium
6.2450
4JE-07
73E-07
6.0E-01
6.0E-01
7.6E-07
1J2E-06
2.0E-06
Vanadium
37.1249
2.7E-06
43E-06
1.8E-04
1.8E-04
1.5E-02
2.4E-02
3.9E-02
Zinc
46.8386
3.4E-06
5.4E-06
1.5E-01
1.5E-0I
2.3E-05
3.6E-05
5.9E-05
Total pathway HT





3-5E-02
S.0E-02
8-5E-02



COPPER RIDGE







Inorganics




Arsenic
30.7476
2^E-06
3.6E-06
3.0E-04
3.0E-04
7.4E-03
1.2E-02
1.9E-02
Banum
93.1747
6.8E-06
1.1E-05
7.0E-03
7.0E-03
9.7E-04
1.5E-03
2.5E-03
Beryllium
0.6337
4.6E-08
7.4E-0S
2.5E-04
15E-04
1.8E-04
2.9E-04
-------
7-125
	Table 7.17b (continned)	
Soi] Adult	Child	Chronic	Subchronic Adult Child
Anatyte Cone." daity	daily	oral RfD"'c	oral RfD4' HI	HI
(mg/kg) intake	intake	absorbed absorbed chronic subchronic
	(mg/kg-day)	(mg/kg-day)	(mg/kg-day)	(mg/kg-day)	
COPPER RIDGE (continued)
Inorganics (continued)
Chromium VI
18-2675
13E-06
2.1E-06
53E-04
2.0E-03 -
25E-03
1.1E-03
3.6E-03
Manganese
14623296
1.1E-04
1.7E-04
7.0E-03
7.0E-03
1.5E-02
2.4E-02
3.9E-02
Mercury
0.1838
13E-08
21E-08
3.0E-04
3.0E-04
4.4E-05
7.1E-05
1.2E-04
Mercury (salts)
0.1838
13E-08
21E-08
4.5E-05
4.5E-05
3.0E-O4
4.8E-04
7.7E-04
Molybdenum
1.7521
13E-07
20E-07
5.0E-03
5.0E-03
25E-05
4.1E-05
6.6E-05
Nickel
9.7111
7.1E-07
1.1E-06
20E-02
20E-02
3-5E-05
5.6E-05
9.2E-05
Niclcd (salts)
9.7111
7.1E-07
1.1E-06
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
7.1E-04
1.1E-03
13E-03
Selenium
0.8030
5.8E-08
93E-08
3.0E-03
3.0E-03
1.9E-05
3.1E-05
5.1E-05
Strontium
4.8134
35E-07
5.6E-07
6.0E-01
6.0E-01
5.8E-07
93E-07
1.5E-06
Vanadium
30.2755
2-2E-06
3.5E-06
1.8E-04
1.8E-04
1.2E-02
2.0E-02
3.2E-02
Zinc
43.1845
3.1E-06
5.0E-06
1.5E-01
1.5E-01
21E-05
33E-05
5.4E-05



Organics




Acenaphthene
15298
1.4E-06
2.ZE-06
6.0E-02
6.0E-01
23E-05
3.7E-06
2.7E-05
Anthracene
1.4248
1.0E-06
1.7E-06
3.0E-01
3.0E+00
3.4E-06
5.5E-07
4.0E-06
Fluoramheae
8J229
5.9E-06
9.5E-06
4.0E-02
4.0E-01
1-5E-04
2.4E-05
1.7E-04.
Fluorene
13879
12E-06
13E-06
4.0E-02
4.0E-01
29E-05
4.6E-06
33E-05
Naphthalene
16.4747
12E-05
1.9E-05
4.0E-O2
4.0E-02
3.0E-04
4AE-04
7.8E-04
Pyrene
7.0241
5.1E-06
82E-06
3.0E-O2
3.0E-01
1.7E-04
2.7E-05
2.0E-04
Total pathway HT




4.0E-02
6.1E-02
1.0E-01



CHEPULTEPEC







Inorganics




Arsenic
143884
1.0E-06
1.7E-06
3.0E-O4
3.0E-04
3-SE-03
5.6E-03
9.1E-03
Barium
693497
5.0E-O6
aiE-06
7.0E-03
7.0E-03
7.2E-04
1.2E-03
1.9E-03
Beryllium
0.4597
33E-08
53E-08
25E-04
2.SE-04
13E-04
2.1E-04
3JE-04
Chromium VI
173758
13E-06
20E-06
53E-04
2.0E-03
2.4E-03
1.0E-03
3.4E-03
Manganese
12609155
92E-05
1.5E-04
7.0E-03
7.0E-03
13E-02
2.1E-02
3.4E-02
Mercury
0.1529
1.1E-08
1.8E-08
3.0E-O4
3.0E-O4
3.7E-05
5.9E-05
9.6E-05
Mercury (salts)
0.1529
1.1E-08
1.8E-08
4.5E-05
4_5E-05
2.5E-04
4.0E-04
6.4E-04
Selenium
0.6251
4.5E-08
7.3E-08
3.0E-03
3.0E-03
1.5E-05
2.4E-05
3.9E-05
Strontium
33288
24E-07
3.9E-07
6.0E-O1
6.0E-01
4.0E-07
6.5E-07
1.0E-06
Vanadium
343269
ZSE-06
4.0E-06
1.8E-04
1.8E-04
1.4E-02
22E-02
3.6E-02
Zinc
48.6197
35E-06
5.7E-06
1-5E-01
1.5E-01
2.4E-05
33E-05
6.1E-05
Acenaphthene
13632
9.9E-07
1.6E-06
Organics
6.0E-02
6.0E-01
1.6E-05
2.6E-06
1.9E-05
Anthracene
1.0351
75E-07
12E-06
3.0E-01
3.0E+00
ZSE-06
4.0E-O7
2.9E-06
Fluoranthene
4.6443
3.4E-06
5.4E-06
4.0E-02
4.0E-01
8.4E-05
1.4E-05
9.8E-05
-------
7-126
	Table 7.17b (continued)
Soil Adult	Child	Chronic	Subcnronic	Aduli	Child
Analyie Cone."	daily	oral RfD*-c	oral RID*1	HI	HI
(mg/kg) intake	intake	absorbed	absorbed	chronic	subchronic
(mg/kg-day)	(mg/kg-dav)	(mg/kg-dav)	(mg/kg-day)
CHEPULTEPEC (continued)
Organics (cootinucd)
Fluoiene ¦
0.72S7
53E-07
8.4E-07
4.0E-02
4.0E-01"
' 13E35
2.1E^06"
13E-05
Naphthalene
21.4872
1.6E-05
23E-05
4.0E-02
4.0E-02
3.9E-04
63E-04
1.0E-03
Pyrene
5.2811
3.8E-06
6.1E-06
3.0E-02
3.0E-01
13E-04
Z0E-05
13E-04
Total pathway HT





33E-02
5.2E-02
8.7E-0


CHICKAMAUGA (BETHEL VALLEY)






Inorganics




Arsenic
73867
5.8E-07
93E-07
3.0E-04
3.0E-04
1.9E-03
3.1E-03
5.OE-03
Barium
1033075
73E-06
1.2E-05
7.0E-03
7.0E-03
1.1E-03
1.7E-03
2£E-03
Beryllium
1.2480
9.1E-08
13E-07
23E-04
23E-04
3.6E-04
5.8E-04
9.4E-04
Chromium VI
40.2327
2.9E-06
4.7E-06
5.3E-04
2.0E-03
53E-03
23E-03
7.9E-03
Manganese 1442.6173
1.0E-04
1.7E-04
7.0E-03
7.0E-03
13E-02
2.4E-02
3.9E-02
Mercury
0.1875
1.4E-08
2.2E-08
3.0E-04
3.0E-O4
43E-05
73E-05
13E-04
Mercury (salts)
0.1875
1.4E-08
2-2E-08
43E-05
43E-05
3.0E-04
4.8E-04
7.9E-04
Nickel
16.6791
1.2E-06
1.9E-06
2.0E-02
2.0E-O2
6.1E-05
9.7E-05
1.6E-04
Nickel (salts)
16^791
1.2E-06
1.9E-06
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.2E-03
1.9E-03
33E-03
Selenium
05313
6.8E-08
1.1E-07
3.0E-03
3.0E-03
23E-05
3.6E-05
5.9E-05
Strontium
8.6393
63E-07
1.0E-06
6.0E-01
6.0E-01
l.OE-06
1.7E-06
2.7E-06
Vanadium
41.8663
3.0E-06
4.9E-06
1.8E-04
1.8E-04
1.7E-02
2.7E-02
4.4E-02
Zinc
553213
4.0E-06
63E-06
13E-01
13E-01
2.7E-05
43E-05
7.0E-05




Organics




Acenaphthene
5.9641
43E-06
6.9E-06
6.0E-02
6.0E-01
7.2E-05
1.2E-05
8.4E-05
Anthracene
1.1459
83E-07
13E-06
3.0E-01
3.0E+00
2.8E-06
4.4E-07
3J2E-06
Fluarantheae
7.2574
53E-06
8.4E-06
4.0E-02
4.0E-01
13E-04
2.1E-05
13E-04
Fluorene
53428
4.0E-06
6.4E-06
4.0E-02
4.0E-01
1.0E-O4
1.6E-05
1.2E-04
Naphthalene
105247
7.9E-06
13E-05
4.0E-02
4.0E-02
2.0E-04
33E-04
52E-04
Pyrene
123474
9.1E-06
13E-05
3.0E-02
3.0E-O1
3.0E-O4
4.9E-05
33E-04
Total milmjy HT





43E-02
63E-02
1.0E-01



CHICKAMAUGA (K-25)







Inorganics




Arsenic
9.7282
7.1E-07
1.1E-06
3.0E-04
3.0E-O4
2.4E-03
33E-03
6.1E-03
Banum
993861
72E-06
1.2E-05
7 OE-03
7.0E-03
1.OE-03
1.7E-03
2.7E-03
Beryllium
1.1188
8.1E-08
13E-07
23E-04
23E-04
33E-04
5.2E-04
83E-04
Chromium VI
383109
2£E-06
4.5E-06
53E-04
2.0E-03
S3F 03
23E-03
73E-03
Manganese 2288.0077
1.7E-04
2.7E-04
7.0E-03
7.0E-O3
2.4E-02
3.8E-02
6.2E-02
Mercury
03786
4.2E-0S
6.7E-08
3.0E-04
3.0E-04
1.4E-04
2^E-04
3.6E-04
Total
-------
7-127
Table 7.17b (continued)
Analyte
Soil
Cooc."
(mg/fcg)
Adult
daily
intake
(mg/kg-day)
Child
daily
intake
(mg/kg-day)
Chronic
oral RfD**
absorbed
(mg/kg-day)
Subchronic
oral RfD4-®
absorbed
(mg/kg-day)
Adult
HI
chronic
Child
HI
subchronic
Total
HI*


CHICXAMAUGA (K-2S) (cootioaed)






Inuigiiiiit (rnrtiiiurd)




Merany (salts)
0.5786
4.2E-08
6.7E-08
4.5E-05
4.5E-05
93E-04
L5E-03
2.4E-03
Nickel
213423
UE-06
2.5E-06
2.0E-02
2.0E-02
7.7E-05
1.2E-04
ZOE-04
Nickel (salts)
213423
1JE-06
2.5E-06
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
1.5E-03
2-5E-03
4.0E-03
Selenium
0.9617
7.0E-08
1.1E-07
3.0E-03
3.0E-03
23E-0S
3.7E-05
6.1E-05
Strontium
16.0042
1.2E-06
1.9E-06
6.0E-01
6.0E-01
1.9E-06
3.1E-06
5.0E-06
Vanadium
41.9685
3.0E-06
4.9E-06
l.SE-04
1.8E-04
1.7E-02
2.7E-02
4.4E-02
Zinc
56-9209
4.1E-06
6.6E-06
1.5E-01
1.5E-01
2SE-05
4.4E-05
7ZE4S



Organic*




Acenaphthene
1.8152
1.3E-06
2.1E-06
6.0E-02
6.0E-01
2-2E-05
3.5E-06
2-5E-Q5
Anthracene
15096
1.4E-06
2.2E-06
3.0E-01
3.0E+00
4.6E-06
7.4E-07
5.4E-06
Fluorambeoe
9.4479
6-9E-06
1.1E-Q5
4.0E-O2
4.0E-01
1.7E-04
2.7E-05
2.0E-O4
Fluorene
2J.145
1.5E-06
2-5E-06
4.0E-02
4.0E-01
3J3E-05
62E-06
4.5E-OS
Naphthalene
3.4591
25E-06
4.0E-06
4.0E-02
4.0E-02
63E-05
1.0E-04
1.6E-04
Pyrene
15-2652
LIE-OS
l^E-05
3i>E-02
3.0E-01
3.7E-04
5.9E-05
43E-64
Total patk«y HT





5.3E-C2
7JS-Q2
u&or
The upper 93% confidence bound on the median is used as the representative concentration.
* Source: Intrgratrri Ride Information System (IRIS) and Health Fffrrtt Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST).
'The absorbed RID is equal to the oral RfD z % GI (percent gastrointestinal); the absorbed oral RID is used in the dermal
pathway n testations of hazard index (refer to Table 7.7 for organic RfDs and Table 13 or inorganic RfDs). For the orgaaio,
with the errrptioci of dnyseoe, the absorbed oral RfDs and the oral RfDs are equivalent (L-C-, %CI = 100).
^Total HI ¦= Adult HI chronic plus child HI subdunooic.
The total pathway hazard indcc does sot indude meiuuy and nickel metals.
dermal contact with soil pathways. The total (adult plus child) cumulative pathway (ingestion
plus dermal) background His for DG, NOL, CR, CHE, CHI-BV, and CHI-K25 are 0.79,0.74,
1.8,1.0,0.8 and 1.0, respectively. According to EPA guidance for site contamination, for those
formations where His are above the EPA threshold of 1.0., there is a concern for human
health from systemic effects from these natural background constituents.
7.6.43 Summary of the background risk and hazard index characterization for the ORR
In summary, the total pathway risk estimates for the carcinogens found in background
soil samples taken on the ORR are: (1) between 6.4e-06 and 3.2e~04 for ingestion of
inorganics and organics; (2) between 2-9e-06 and 7.2e-05 for dermal contact with inorganics
and organics; (3) less than 1.0e-06 for ingestion of radionuclides; and (4) greater than 1.0e-04
for external exposure to radionuclides. The main contributors to the risk for the ingestion and
dermal exposure pathways are PAHs. Cesium-137, potassium-40, radium-226, and thorium 228
-------
7-128
not natural, because they are widespread they are considered to be background. The
radioactive isotopes, with the exception of cesium-137 in the CHI-BV, are all considered
background. Several CHI-BV sites had received cesium-137 from local sources. Cesium-137
values from CHI-BV are not all at background levels.
The hazard indices estimated for ingestion of inorganics and organics in background soil
and for dermal contact with the background soil are below the EPA guideline of 1.0 (with the
exception of the arsenic HI for CR); therefore, these pathways pose no expected adverse
effects to human health. The total pathway His (ingestion plus dermal) for CR, CHE, and
CHI-K25 formation samples are slightly above this threshold of 1.0. Arsenic and manganese
are the major contributors to the HI for the ingestion pathway; and the main contributors to
the HI for the dermal exposure pathway are arsenic, chromium IV, manganese, and vanadium.
Note that the risks associated with background soils on the ORR were estimated to provide
a frame of reference for interpreting the magnitude and relative importance of risks evaluated
at hazardous waste sites on the ORR. Therefore, risks from background soil samples are
found to be within or above the EPA region of concern; however, these risks do not indicate
concerns or remedial actions that would be identified with similar potential risks from a
contaminated site.
7.7 UNCERTAINTIES AND ASSUMPTIONS
Risk assessment as a scientific activity is subject to uncertainty (Table 7.18). The
methodology used in this background risk evaluation follows EPA guidelines. The risk
evaluation in this report is subject to uncertainty pertaining to sampling and analysis, exposure
estimation, and taxicological data.-
The major assumptions used in risk assessment are (1) that contaminant concentrations
detected and reported by the analytical laboratory are representative of true analyte
concentrations in soils (Le., the analyte concentration remains constant over the sampling and
analysis time period); (2) that the intake rates and exposure parameters are representative
of actual potentially exposed populations; and (3) that all contaminant exposure and intake
are from the site-related exposure media (i.e., no other sources contribute to the receptor's
health risk). Even if these assumptions are true, other areas of uncertainty may apply. The
toxicological data (SFs and RfDs) are frequently updated and revised, which can lead to over-
or underestimation of risks. These values are often extrapolations from animals to humans,
which also induces uncertainties in toxicity values. In addition, as mentioned earlier, in the
analytical analyses for metals (total metal only) risks may be overestimated because the metals
that are present are conservatively assumed to be in their most toxic forms. Furthermore, not
all of the background chemicals reported in Table 7.2 currently have toxicity values; this can
lead to an underestimation of total risk because quantitative analysis of such chemicals is
currently not possible.
In addition, current analytical methods are limited in their ability to achieve detection
limits that are appropriate for use in risk assessment. The risk of increased incidence of
cancer from exposure to low-level radiation is estimated by application of a risk factor to
either the radiation dose or the radionuclide intake. Regardless of the type of risk factor used,
the same basic uncertainties remain. These uncertainties are related to the model used for
-------
Table 7.18. General uncertainty factors In risk assessment
Uncertainly Factor
Effect of Uncertainty
Comment
Use of cancer slope factors
May overestimate risks
Slopes are upper 93lh percent confidence limits derived from the linearized model;
considered unlikely to underestimate true risk
Risks/doses williin an exposure route assumed to
be additive
May over- or underestimate risks
Docs not account for synergism or antagonism
Toxicity values derived primarily (rum animal
studies
May over- or underestimate risks
Extrapolation from animal to humans may induce ciror due to differences in
pharmacokinetics, target organs, and population variability
Toxicity values derived primnnly from high (loses;
most exposures arc at low doses
May over- or underestimate risks
Assumes linearity at low doses; lends to have conservative cxposuic assumptions
Toxicity values
May over- 01 undeicslimatc risks
Not all values represent the same dcgicc of certainty; all arc subject to change as
new evidence becomes available
Effect of absorption
May over- or undcrcslimalc risks
The assumption that absoiption is equivalent across species is implicit in the
derivation of the critical toxicity values; absorption may actually vary with species
and age
tiffed of applying critical toxicity values to soil
exposures
May overestimate nsks
Assumes bioavailability of contaminants sorbed onto soils is the same as detected
in lab studies; contaminants detected in studies may be more bioavailnblc
Exposures assumed constant over time
May over- or undcrcsliinale risks
Docs not account for cnvimnmcnlnl fate, transport, or transfer that may alter
concentration
Mclal analysis for total metals only
May overestimate risks
Did not distinguish between valences or speclation; assumed the metal was picscnt
In Its most toxic form
Not all chemicals at the site have toxicity values
May underestimate risks
Tliesc chemicals are not addicsscd quantitatively
Exposure assumptions
May over- or underestimate risks
Assumptions regarding media intake, population characteristics, and exposure
-------
7-130
determining risk of radiation exposure is the linear nonthreshold model which assumes there
is some increased risk for any increment of radiation exposure with no threshold below which
effects are not seen. This is the most conservative model for evaluating radiation risk; it uses
data from high-dose radiation exposures (such as from the survivors of the atomic bomb) and
extrapolates risk from these high exposures to the low-level environment or occupational dose
range. The current EPA-recommended radiation risk factors are based on the 1980 National
Academy of Sciences Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation Committee (BEER HI) report
The BEJR HI recommendations were increased slightly by EPA to reflect recent information
on the health-effects of exposure-te ionizing-radiatkHL ln early4990, the-NatkmatAcademy-
of Sciences published the results of the most recent studies of the health effects of ionizing
radiation, the BEER V report, which increases the estimates of cancer risk by a factor of 3 to
5 over the BEER HI report These increases are based primarily on a reevaluation of the
doses received by the atomic bomb victims.
7.8 PERSPECTIVE
In order to put the results from the BSCP risk evaluation into perspective, one should
consider the probability of an individual's developing cancer from unavoidable exposure to
naturally occurring background radiation in general In the Background Information Document
for the Environmental Impact Statement for NESHAPS Radionuclides (EPA 1989d), EPA
evaluated risks from exposure to average nationwide levels of background radiation. The risk
of fatal cancer "for the U.S. population exposed to low-LET radiation over a lifetime
(70.7 years) was estimated to be 2.4c—03, which accounts for approximately IJ5% of U.S.
cancer deaths. Hie average lifetime cancer risk for high-LET radiation exposure is estimated
to be 6_5e-03 and accounts for approximately 4% of all U.S. cancer deaths. The total risk
of fatal cancer because of background radiation was approximately 8.9e—03. From EPA's risk
factors for low-LET radiation, the ratio of cancer incidence to fatal cancers was determined
to be 1.6. Therefore, the lifetime risk of cancer incidence in the general population is
approximately 1.4e—02 (see Fig. 7.1), which is approximately 100 times greater than the upper
bound (l.Oe—04) of EPA's range of concern and above the levels registered in the vicinity
of the ORR in this: study.
To understand the background risk information presented in this report, it is important
to discern between adverse health effects resulting from unavoidable versus avoidable
exposure. The risk of cancer presented in the previous discussion, approximately 1.4e-02, is
the result of the unavoidable exposure to natural radiation sources; that is, a risk that we are
all subject to because we live on the surface of the planet Earth. The majority of the risks
modeled from the exposure to background soil constituents discussed in this section are a
subset of the unavoidable risk associated with exposure to natural radiation sources. The EPA
has determined that risk from exposure to hazardous waste sites are avoidable sources of
exposure. The risk resulting from exposure to such sources is referred to as incremental or
excess cancer risk because it is a cancer risk in addition to that which is unavoidable.
Therefore, to be protective of human health, the le—04 threshold for excess cancer risk was
selected to aid risk managers in the evaluation of preventable risks associated with CERCLA
sites.
It should be clear that an essential objective for all RIs is to differentiate between risks
-------
7-131
clarify, if unavoidable background risks from exposure to soil on the ORR (6e—04) are not
separated from risks resulting from exposure to site contamination, the risk will always be in
the EPA's unacceptable range. The information presented in this document should be used
to make this differentiation and ensure that risk management decisions are based on excess
-------
8-1
8. ASSESSMENT OF OVERALL DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES
s
8.1 SUMMARY
Background Soil Characterization Project (BSCP) activities established both field and
laboratory data quality objectives at the project planning stage. The BSCP Plan (Energy
Systems 1992, Volume 3) discusses training, audits and surveillances, and data management,
as well as the establishment of precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, and
comparability (PARCC) parameters for evaluating field and analytical data.
Training of field sampling crews reduced possible variability related to personnel changes.
Sampling procedures were designed to effectively reduce the possibility of cross-contamination
throughout sampling activities. Audits and surveillances contributed to improving procedures
and practices. Data management activities ensured the organization, consistency, traceabilitv,
integrity, and security of the data sets generated.
Representative sampling sites were selected by evaluating soil morphology and vegetation
and by testing and screening for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and radioactive fallout
activity. Overall quality of site selection is satisfactory, but several off-site (AND and ROA)
locations had either excess loss of surface soils due to erosion, or more than 50 cm of the
upper soil was composed of colluvium or alluvium, such that they could not be considered
representative of residual soils. Soil erosion is one of the contributing factors to lower-than-
average b7Cs values of off-site locations in comparison to ORR sites. Several off-sites were
considered to be colluvial soils rather than residual soils and were not considered to be
representative. Except for trip blanks, laboratory source waters were used only for washing
sampling equipment. Therefore, quality of deionized water was a minor issue.
Analytical data quality was determined by analyzing (1) laboratory blanks to assess
contamination levels in the analytical process; (2) laboratory control- samples to assess
analytical method bias, precision, and comparability; (3) matrix spikes to assess bias of the
method for the matrix, as well as precision of the method when performed in duplicate; and
(4) duplicates to assess precision of the sampling process and/or the analytical methods.
During the laboratory review process and the independent validation process, the data
were evaluated and qualified as discussed in Sects. 4.3 and 4.4, respectively. The majority of
the data were usable. Among the organics, however, polvnuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)
data were only 75% usable. Among the radionuclides. 70% of ^Np and 43% of 2wCm were
usable (see Table 8.3). The reasons of rejection are discussed in Sect. 8.5.9.2. Lists of sample
numbers belonging to each sample delivery group and sample numbers relating to sites,
horizons, formations, and analyses are presented in Appendixes F and G, respectively.
8-2 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this section is to present and assess the results of field sampling and
analytical laboratory quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) activities of the BSCP.
These QA/QC results are presented to illustrate that the data collected are of sufficient
-------
8-2
of QAMS-005/80 (EPA 1980a), ASME NQA-1 (ASME 1989), and the Environmental
Restoration Division Quality Assurance Program P]an (ES/ER/TM-4/R1). The QA objectives
were defined in the BSCP Plan (Energy Systems 1992, Volume 3).
83 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR FIELD MEASUREMENT DATA
The field QA/QC objectives for BSCP data are as follows:
1.	Data generated would withstand scientific scrutiny.
2.	Data would be gathered using appropriate procedures for site selection. Geld sampling,
chain of custody, laboratory analyses, and data reporting.
3.	Data could be used elsewhere on the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) for comparison of
similar residuum soils or fill from soils from the same geologic formation.
The specific QA objective for all data collected was, therefore, to obtain precise and
accurate measurements consistent with the intended use of the data and within the limitations
of the relatively few samples, pius errors introduced or inherent in the sampling and analytical
procedures used.
These objectives were met through the development and implementation of (1) a QA
oversight program of audits and surveillances, (2) standard operating procedures accompanied
by a personnel training program, (3) field sampling QC requirements, and (4) data and
records management systems.
8.4 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR LABORATORY MEASUREMENT DATA
The laboratory QA/QC objectives for BSCP data are as follows:
1.	Laboratory data generated would withstand scientific scrutiny and be subject to data
validation procedures.
2.	Data would be generated using appropriate procedures for chain of custody, laboratory
analyses, and data reporting.
3.	Data would be complete and of known ~recision and accuracy and will be technically
defensible and legally admissible.
These objectives were met through the development of a detailed Analytical Statement
of Work to ensure that the laboratories involved understood the requirements of the
analytical QC program. Also, the laboratories were to follow approved U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) procedures for their chemical analyses and HASL-300 (AEC 1972)
for radiochemical analyses to ensure that the data generated were from widely accepted
methods. Finally, these objectives were met through an extensive data validation process,
-------
8-3
8.5 ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES
8-5.1 Audits and Surveillances
Audits and surveillances were performed by personnel of the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) Oak Ridge Operations Office; Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.; and others who
reviewed and evaluated the adequacy of Geld and laboratory performance and ascertained
whether QA/QC as specified in the BSCP Plan (Energy Systems 1992, Volume 3) was
adequately and uniformly implemented.- Results- of these" audits" and surveillances were
documented and reported to project management
The following field surveillances were conducted for field quality control:
June 12, 1992
February 25, 1993
February 25, 1993
Energy Systems Surveillance Report JS-BSCP-92-01.
DOE Oak Ridge Report EQA-92-12-10.
Energy Systems QA Report JS-BSCP-93-01, Phase I Field Data
Validation.
September 15, 1992: Energy Systems Surveillance Report JS-BSCP-92-02, Phase II
Field Sampling Activities.
June 4, 1993: Energy Systems QA Report JS-BSCP-93-02, Phase II Field
Data Validation.
Corrective actions were initiated after the reports were received.
The following analytical laboratory surveillances were conducted for analytical QC:
September 2, 1992:
October 22-23, 1992:
October 27, 1992:
April 26, 1993:
March 1, 1993:
June 29, 1993:
Environmental Restoration Surveillance Report 92ERTI-9,
Data Validation Methods.
Environmental Restoration Surveillance Report 92ERTI-10,
Data Validation Status.
Environmental Restoration Surveillance Report 92ERTI-11,
Surveillance of Lockheed Analytical Services Laboratory in
Las Vegas, Nevada.
Environmental Restoration Surveillance Report 93-BSCP-L1,
Surveillance of Ecotek LSI in Atlanta, Georgia.
Environmental Restoration Surveillance Report 93-BSCP-l,
Surveillance of BSCP Project and QA Records.
Environmental Restoration Surveillance Report 93-BSCP-3,
Surveillance of BSCP Phase II Data Report Subelement
Milestones Date Fulfillment.
-------
8-4
8_5.2 Data Quality Indicators for Field Measurement Data
Both qualitative and quantitative criteria are used as indicators for the overall quality of
the field data. In determining whether the data are usable, especially in the decision process,
the integrity and authenticity of the data must be evaluated, and the analytical uncertainty
must be known. Field indicators generally used to qualitatively assess the data quality are
representativeness, comparability, completeness, sensitivity, and whether the data are
reasonable in terms of soil morphology, conceptual models of soil genesis, general soil forming
processes, and site location criteria specific for each site.
Analysis of field duplicates provided an assessment of the small-scale natural variability
of soil samples. Soil Preparation Laboratory (SPL) splits of composited samples provided for
some assessment of analytical laboratory variability, the variability introduced by the SPL
compositing method, and also natural soil variability. Other quantitative measures of field
quality control included proper sample preservation, use of field and source water blanks,
equipment rinsates, and suitable precleaned containers.
8*5.3 Data Quality Indicators for Analytical Laboratory Measurement and SoQ Preparation
Laboratory Data
Five qualitative and quantitative parameters are used as data quality indicators. The
review of data according to these parameters and the validation of the field and analytical
program are used to determine the usability of the data generated. The data quality indicators
to be used are precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, and completeness.
Precision and accuracy are quantitative characteristics, whereas representativeness,
comparability, and completeness are qualitative characteristics for evaluating the field and
analytical performance.
8*53.1 Precision
Precision is the measure of the reproducibility of measurements under a given set of
conditions. It is a quantitative measure of the variability of a group of measurements
compared to their average values. Precision is usually stated in terms of standard deviation(s)
and relative percent difference (RPD). The overall precision of measurement data is a
mixture of field sampling and laboratory analytical factors. A: ^al precision is much easier
to control and quantify than sampling precision. The historical data available to assess method
performance depend on the samples received in the laboratory, while sampling precision is
unique to each site. Sampling precision was determined by collecting and analyzing field
duplicate samples. The results from these measurements provide data on the overall
measurement Analytical precision was determined by the measurement of laboratory
replicates. The measurement of the sampling precision is determined by subtracting the
analytical precision from the overall measurement precision.
8.5.3-2 Accuracy
Accuracy is a measure of the bias in a measurement system. It is difficult to measure for
the entire data collection activity. Sources of error are the sampling process. Geld
-------
8-5
techniques. Sampling accuracy can be assessed by evaluating tbe results of field blanks, while
the analytical accuracy can be assessed through the use of matrix spike and laboratory control
samples.
8J533 Representativeness
Representativeness is a qualitative parameter that is most concerned with the proper
design of the sampling program. It is an expression of how accurately and precisely the data
represent a characteristic of a population, the parameter variability at a sampling point, or an
environmental condition. Representativeness was addressed in this project by using screening
methods for VOCs and radionuclides to determine the acceptability of sampling sites with
respect to project objectives.
8.53.4	Completeness
Completeness is defined as the percentage of measurements made that are judged to be
valid measurements. The completeness goal of a project is satisfied if a sufficient amount of
valid data is generated for its intended use. The completeness of the project is assessed by
determining the number of measurements judged to be valid from the data validation and
evaluation process. For an overview of the completeness of this project, see Table 8.3.
8.53.5	Comparability
Comparability is a qualitative parameter expressing the confidence with which one data
set can be compared against another data set The sample data should be comparable with
other measurement data for similar samples and sample conditions. Comparability is assessed
by determining whether the standard techniques (field and analytical) stated in the plan are
used and that the analytical results are reported in the appropriate units. Data sets can only
be compared with confidence when the precision and accuracy are known.
&Jj.4 Training of Field and Soil Preparation Laboratory Personnel
The BSCP training program included actual training in BSCP procedures. Training was
completed as required in the appropriate standard operating procedure (SOP), and training
records were maintained by the appropriate coordinator for the BSCP. Generally, the extent
of field/laboratory training was commensurate with the scope, complexity, and nature of the
activity, along with the educational experience and proficiency of the person being trained.
QC measures for field locations, including selection of sampling locations, field data
recording, and sample collection, were implemented to meet project objectives. Sampling sites
on the ORR were the responsibility of the ORR sampling team leader, while sites in
Anderson and Roane counties were the responsibility of The University of Tennessee,
Knoxville (UTK) sampling team leader. Discussion of each site is presented in Sect. 3 and
Appendix A. Methods for field activities, including record keeping, sample identification,
-------
8-6
8_5_5 Field Data and Records Management
Field data management activities ensured the organization, consistency, traceability,
integrity, and security of the data sets generated to enable the project to meet its objectives.
A unique identification code was assigned to each sample to ensure internal consistency and
compatibility. Sufficient information was recorded at each sampling site to ensure that data
were traceable to the sampling task: the location, sample identification, sample depth, and
sampling date. The chain-of-custody form listed the laboratory destination.
Records generated by the program that are required (1) to provide a complete and
accurate history of sample collection, analysis, and data reporting; (2) to document conduct
of project business; and (3) to support any future legal or administrative actions that may be
taken are retained in the project files. Similarly, records that furnish documentation or
evidence of quality (e.g, project plans and results of QA oversight activities) were designated
QA records and added to the project files.
Records identified in sampling and analysis activities included project plans and approvals,
field and laboratory notebooks, chain-of-custody forms, request-for-analysis forms, and
instrument listings for gamma screening spectroscopy.
All field activities followed standard record keeping and chain-of-custody procedures.
These included recording site-specific information in bound notebooks, with routine reviews
of the notebooks. Notebooks for ORR activities were divided into field notebooks, in which
all field activities were recorded, and lab notebooks, where all laboratory activities were
recorded. Sample custody was established by the sampling team upon collection, through the
use of standard chain-of-custody forms, and maintained throughout sample processing and
delivery to the shipper for transport to the analytical service laboratories. Project field
QA/QC procedures included field duplicates, composited splits, equipment-cleaning rinse
water samples, and VOC trip water blanks. Specific field QC activities are discussed in Sect 3.
8_5.6 Field Quality Program
8.5.6.1 Selection of sampling sites
Representative sampling sites were selected that had not been disturbed by recent
activities that resulted in surface soil disturbance. These activities included ORR facility
activities since 1942 and off-site activities, such as farming operations or recreational uses.
A brief discussion of each site is presented in Sect 3. Most sites met the minimum
qualifications specified in Sect 3. Most of the Anderson County and Roane County sites had
a more varied land use history for the past 50 years than the ORR sites. Some of the
off-Reservation sites were still being used for cattle pasture. This showed up in the gamma
scanning results, which had a much wider range in variability, an indication of either erosion
or sedimentation. The ORR sites were, for the most part, abandoned 50 years ago, although
logging has occurred on some ORR sites. This lack of land surface disturbing activity resulted
in less variability. Several Anderson and Roane County Copper Ridge sites had soils with a
colluvial capping that was more than 50 cm thick. These particular soils were not considered
to be wholly representative of residual soils but were very representative of the associated
-------
8-7
Any sign of recent (in the past 40 to 50 years) land disturbance, the presence of
man-made organic compounds, or the presence of radionuclides above global fallout levels
immediately resulted in a site being rejected. Potential sites were initially chosen on the basis
of the lack of any recent land disturbance, which, for most sites, was the presence of old-field
successional forest. Nearly all of the sites had been cultivated and severely eroded before
being abandoned or planted in pines on the ORR or allowed to revert back to forest on
private lands. Some ORR sites were located in woods that had never been totally cleared and
placed into agriculture.
8_5.(x2 Collection of samples
Representative samples were collected and transferred to temporary refrigerator storage
in the SPL (Room 375, Bldg. 1505 at ESD), to the Y-12 Plant Analytical Laboratory, or to
the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Shipping Department for transfer to off-site
analytical laboratories.
All VOC, organic, and tritium soil samples from A horizons were preserved on ice
immediately or within 15 min after being sampled. Samples collected for compositing usually
were not preserved until after they had been partially dried, sieved, mixed, and put into
suitable bottles. From that time, composited samples were preserved within 4° of 4°C
Observations made during routine sampling and SPL activities indicated that an ice chest and
the refrigerator could generally maintain a temperature within 4° of 4° C. If a large number
of warm samples was placed into the ice chest or in a refrigerator at once, the temperature
might exceed 8°C for a short time. Temperatures were checked with a maximum/minimum
thermometer. Diligent efforts were made to ensure that representative samples were
collected. On the ORR, the designated sampling team leader sampled all of the sites except
for one absence between April 20 and 23, 1992. All ofF-ORR sites were sampled by, or
activities were monitored by, the UTK sampling team leader.
&_5.63 Handling of samples
Efforts were made to prevent cross-contamination at any site and between sites and to
maintain a complete chain of custody and detailed records of all field and laboratory
compositing activities.
All pit digging equipment was thoroughly cleaned before going from one site to another.
All of the SPL-cleaned stainless steel sampling equipment to be used at one site was given
a Geld rinse at the truck, rewrapped in aluminum foil, and carried to the site. One piece of
sampling equipment was used for each soil horizon and then placed into a container for used
equipment. All dirty equipment was cleaned, rinsed, and wrapped in aluminum foil in the SPL
after the day's sampling had been done. The date of cleaning was documented in the BSCP
laboratory book- Site and sample descriptions were first recorded in the field log book, from
which a unique sample number was assigned. From the field log book, all container labels
were filled out and then placed on the sample jar. Field chain-of-custody forms were also
filled out from the field log book. Laboratory chain-of-custody forms were filled out in the
SPL for samples to be sent to analytical laboratories. Field log books were used to record all
Geld activities. All activities that were done in the SPL were recorded in BSCP laboratory
notebooks. The UT sampling crews used only one log book to record both field and SPL
-------
8-8
Field and SPL quality levels ranged from DQ Level II to DQ Level IV. In practice,
however, DQ Level IV was adhered to throughout all field sampling activities, including
screening samples for VOCs, where samples were placed into precleaned glass containers.
SPL work with Environmental Sciences Division (ESD) composite soil samples was done
under DQ Level IV documentation requirements.
Field sampling procedures are listed in Sects. 6.6.13 to 6.6.1.9 in the BSCP Plan (Energy
Systems 1992, Volume 3). The following discussion covers the objectives and methods
followed in collecting samples. Before going to the field, all stainless steel sampling equipment
was thoroughly washed in the SPL with soap and water, followed by a prescribed number of
distilled water rinses. After the final rinse, the wet equipment was immediately wrapped with
one or more thicknesses of aluminum foil. The sampling equipment was taken to the field in
the back of a pickup truck. At or near the site, the sampling equipment was unwrapped and
given a field rinse; it was then immediately rewrapped until it was used. The analysis of source
water and field rinse water indicated that the cleaning of sampling equipment did not
contribute to any cross-contamination. Some sites were located a considerable distance from
the closest point of access. Here the rinsing was done at the truck, and the field-rinsed
equipment was wrapped in aluminum foil. Dlaced into a backpack, and carried to the site. A
small pit was dug with a steel shovel deep enough to place the sample jar below the soil
horizon to be sampled. A sampling tool was unwrapped and used to remove soil from the pit
face directly into the jar. At no time were fingers used to place a soil sample into a
precleaned glass sample container. Soil pushed by the sampling tool beyond the mouth of the
jar was discarded. Placing soil into the ESD gamma poly containers was the only exception
to this rule. Placing the entire volume of soil into the gamma poly container required that the
soil be packed into the lower restricted space either with the fingers or with a freshly cut stick
of a convenient diameter. After each soil horizon was sampled, a new sample tool was used
to collect samples from the next soil horizon. All used stainless steel sampling tools were
returned to the laboratory for standard cleaning, rinsing, and aluminum foil wrapping.
Stainless steel sampling equipment was not given an acid rinse because of potential pitting
and etching problems, nor was it given a solvent rinse since it would have been necessary to
do this in a radiation-contaminated hood. Shovels used to open and fill pits were thoroughly
cleaned between sites to prevent any cross-contamination. In addition, soil removed from pits
was placed outside the 3- by 3-m sample area. Data obtained from Geld duplicates,
composited splits, and field rinse water indicated that no cross-contamination was evident
Each sample was given its own identification number in the field. This number and the
description of each sample were first recorded in the field log book. From the field log book,
sample container labels were filled out and placed on each glass jar after the jar was filled.
Each sample logged into the field log book was then transcribed onto a field chain-of-custody
form, which was signed by all personnel involved in the sampling operation. The ORR was
initially assigned numbers starting with 1000 and ending with 1999; however, the number of
samples exceeded the assigned numbers. The sample after number 1999 was given the number
4000. ORR samples continued to use 4000 series numbers until the field work was completed.
ESD SPL operations consisted of refrigerating soil samples, compositing operations,
preparing laboratory chain-of-custody forms, packing samples into ice chests, and taking them
to shipping. Later in the project, preparation of laboratory chain-of-custody forms, new
container labels, packing, and shipping were done by personnel from the Measurement,
Applications, and Development Group Analytical Projects Office (MAD/APO) according to
-------
8-9
The compositing operation resulted in the destruction of individual site samples obtained
from a given horizon and the creation of new composited samples. All of these activities were
recorded in the ESD or UTX soils laboratory log book. New sample numbers were first
recorded in the laboratory log book and then transcribed onto container labels and the
appropriate chain-of-custody form.
A limited number of field variances [Sect. 6.6.1.9 of the BSCP Plan (Energy Systems
1992)] were needed. These variances were only required in the sampling of Chickamauga
sites; One field variance described the partitioning of Chickamauga sites between the Bethel
Valley section of the Chickamauga and the K-25 Site section of the Chickamauga. Another
field variance described a different grouping of sites for sample compositing purposes. Instead
of a random grouping of sites, the Bethel Valley Chickamauga sites were cluster composited
because the ESD gamma screening indicated the presence of a local source of 137Cs. A
decision was made to determine whether other metals, organics, and radionuclides were
associated with the 137Cs distribution. All other sampling and compositing of ORR and off-site
areas were accomplished by standard procedures.
8.5.7 Field Data Validation
As part of the QA/QC effort to satisfy the data quality objectives of this project,
validation of the field data is vital to ensure that the field data set is complete with respect
to procedure ESP-500, ES/ESH/INT-14, as specified in the project plan. A validation
worksheet listing the ESP-500 elements was prepared for each site sampled, and the elements
were checked off as they were found. The results of the validation effort revealed that project
field records are essentially complete but were distributed among several sources, so a general
index of records (and record contents) was needed. This activity identified a lack of complete
records on sample preservation and a lack of landowner contact information for sites off the
ORR. These areas were addressed by project staff.
Field data validation was easier during the later part of this project for several reasons.
In particular, sampling and record-keeping procedures benefitted from earlier surveillances.
A major improvement was the adoption of BSCP-SOP-Ol, Rev. 1, approximately half-way
through the project. The standardization of project procedures streamlined the way data could
be reported in the field notebooks without loss of information. Such standardization obviated
the need to spell out methodology, preservatives, etc., unless unusual conditions caused or
demanded a departure from standard operating procedures.
8_5.8 Assessment of Field Quality Control Methods and Procedures
Samples and data collected to evaluate QC for field and laboratory activities were
outlined in ES/ER/TM-26/R1 (Energy Systems 1992). The frequency and types of QC samples
collected were predetermined in the sampling plan based primarily on cost limitations. The
specific QA objectives for all data were to obtain reproducible, precise, and accurate
measurements consistent with the intended use of the data and within the limitations of the
number of samples, sampling methodology, and analytical procedures used. For this report,
field QC includes actions ranging from site selection to sample receipt by the shipper. This
includes, but is not limited to. sample collection, custody, processing, preservation, prevention
of cross-contamination, and field record keeping. Each of these actions is discussed herein as
-------
8-10
Site and sample representativeness is an assessment of how well environmental conditions
are represented by the sites sampled and whether contamination of samples occurred between
collection and analysis. Representativeness is evaluated relative to field activities through,
review of site selection rationale, frequency of sampling individual sites, and selection of
analytical parameters to be characterized.
Comparability for field activities is the confidence with which data collected at different
times from the same site may be compared. Objectives for comparability between samples are
met by (1) narrowly defined sampling methodologies, (2) site surveillance and use of standard
sampling devices and monitoring devices, (3) training of personnel, and (4) documentation
of sampling locations.
Cross-contamination is a possible problem during field sampling and composite sample
preparation. To minimizf. such a possibility, this project practiced the following procedures:
(1)	Each sample container was precleaned and had a certified rinsate water analysis.
(2)	Sampling equipment was used only once before being cleaned and then rinsed on-site
before sampling. (3) Contact with distilled rinse water and stainless steel was a possible source
of contamination, but the possible influence on data quality was negligible (see water analysis
results). (4) The soil sampling procedure was designed to effectively reduce possible
cross-contamination among samples from different horizons within a soil profile.
(5) Laboratory analytical procedures were developed to ensure no cross-contamination among
the soil samples.
&5.&1 Sofl
All samples were collected in accordance with the BSCP Plan (Energy Systems 1992,
Volume 3) regarding sample collection procedures, sampling devices, sample container
compatibility, preservation, custody, and preanalytical SPL processing. Soil variability was
evaluated through the collection of field duplicates.
The major purpose for obtaining field duplicates was to assess small-scale soil variability.
Held duplicate samples for volatile organic analysis (VOA) and organic analysis were sampled
in two corners of the sampling square, or about 3 m apart. If the primary sample, for example,
contained a VOC and the field duplicate did not, then the primary sample with the VOC was
rejected. Held duplicate samples for compositing purposes were collected from different faces
of the soil pit, or from opposite ends of the primary sampling face, or a distance between 100
and 120 cm. Data from composited sample splits allowed for an initial look at SPL variability
in compositing and at whether the analytical laboratory made a serious error. At least one
notable laboratory error was found when comparing primary and duplicate data for the A
horizon (ORR 5028 and 5037), where the problem occurred, and the B and C horizons
(ORR 5031,5034,5040,5043), which had very comparable values. A laboratory reference soil
was also used to assess analytical laboratory variability. One soil reference sample was
submitted near the start of the project, and another was submitted at the close of the project.
Comparison of the results indicates that there were no important departures in the data
(more than two orders of magnitude difference).
8_5iL2 Water
Water QC samples were treated identically to soil samples in terms of sample
-------
8-11
difference in handling was strict adherence to preservation, which involved refrigeration,
acidification, or other prescribed methods. Results from water QC samples were not used to
adjust the results obtained for primary or duplicate soil samples. Water QC samples included
VOC trip water blanks, rinse water collected from field sampling equipment, and source water
used to rinse sampling equipment in the laboratory and in the Geld.
Trip blank. A sealed container of organic-free source water was used to identify
contamination contributed to VOA soil samples during transport from the field to the Y-12
Plant Analytical Laboratory. Trip blanks were transported to and from the field and preserved
in the same manner as primary soil samples. Information from trip blanks can be relevant to
the interpretation of VOCs in soil samples and in VOC field rinsates.
Rinse water. Field rinse water is obtained by rinsing sample collection tools after arriving
as close as possible to the sampling site. Analysis and comparison of the rinsate with the
source water determined whether the cleaning procedures were adequate to avoid carry-over
of contamination from one site to another and whether the sampling equipment had been
thoroughly cleaned in the SPL.
Comparison results from all rinse water samples from field and laboratory equipment
cleaning operations with source water are presented in Tables 8.1 and 82. Sample
identification numbers and analytes for which there were no differences are not presented.
All of these values, except for strontium in the rinse water, are either below detection
limits or are estimates. The rest of the data are nearly the same for both Geld and laboratory
samples of source water. The data generally indicate that (1) the laboratory detection limits
varied from day to day (Note: if Geld blanks were available, they would be expected to exhibit
the same variability) and (2) the ORR Geld rinse water was removing ions from the stainless
steel Geld sampling equipment. The comparison of the ORR source and metals Geld rinses
indicates that the rinse water had increased amounts of Fe, Mn, and Al. The increase in
silicon is probably from water storage in 1-gal glass jugs carried to the Geld. Because of
detection limit changes and other problems, there were no detects or estimated values for
PAHs in the Phase I source water and rinsate samples, but there were several in the Phase II
source water and rinsate samples. Again, a review of these data indicates problems with
laboratory analytical equipment, including instrument contamination.
No tritium or "Tc was detected in any of the Geld rinses or source water samples.
Europium-155 and potassium-40 were detected in the radionuclides' ORR rinse water but
were not detected in the ORR source water. However, the high values shown are not
reasonable, and the data should not be considered valid. No pesticides or herbicides were
detected in the ORR source water or Geld rinse water samples. Some trip blanks and Geld
rinse water samples for the ORR VOC analysis were estimated to contain (J qualifier)
acetone and 2-butanone. In addition, four VOA trip blank water samples contained
trichloroethene along with one VOA Geld rinse sample. Trichloroethene was not detected in
any soil sample. This compound is highly suspected to be the result of instrument
contamination. In conclusion, comparisons of rinse water with source water do not indicate
any sampling contamination problems; rather, most of the listed differences are the result of
laboratory contamination or problems with instrument calibration and/or lower limits of
-------
8-12
Most of the values are either below detection limits or are estimates. The rest of the data
are the same and are not listed. Of interest is that some numbers are higher in the source
water than in the rinse water. This is most likely because of instrument variability and
sensitivity from day to day.
Table 8.1. Comparison of rinse water and source water for metals on the ORR
[Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) method; units are micrograms per liter]
Element
linsate
Phase I
source
Phase II
source
Nol-DG1
linsate
CRb
rinsate
CHc
linsate
Chick.d
nnsate
A1
18.0 U<
19.0 W
54.6 B
60.5 B
83.0 B
114 B
Cr

10 U

115 U
5.2 B
10 U
Cu
3.7 B
9.0 U
7.9 B
5.0 U
9^ B
9.0
Fe
5.0 U
30.8 B
65.5 B
60.5 B
83.0 B
19.0 B
Mn
1.0 U
1.4 B
3.7 B
15U
1.0 U
1.0 U
Sr
1.4 B
1.0 U
5.1
US u
1.0 u
1.0 U
Si

102-0

558.0
298.0
150.0
Sulfate

1000.0 U

4000.0
1000.0 U
1000.0 U
Zn
6.1 B
7.0 U
11.6 B
14.2 B
9.1 B
7.0 U
mRa
D*
D
9.85
D
D
D
<°K
D
D
9.7
D
D
1040.0
Compound
Phase II
source
CR
rinse
CH
rinse
Chi-BV*
rinse
Chic. K-251 rinse
Benzofc]-
anthrene
0.01 U
0.02
0.05 U
o.oi r
0.08 U
Benzo[a]pyrene
0.01 U
0.02
0.05 U
0.05 U


Fluoranthene
0.02

0.05 U
0.01 J


Benzo[g/u|-
perylene
0.01 U
0.03
0.05 U
0.05 U


Phenanthrene
0.01 U
0.02 U
0.03 J
0.01 J

0.01 U
'Nol-DG = Nolicfauciy-DismaJ Gap.
bCR = Copper Ridge.
°CH = Chepultepec.
d Chick. = Chicfcamauga.
U = non detect.
= estimated.
= Identifies all compounds indicated at a secondary dilution factor.
^Chi-BV = Chickamauga—Bethel Valley.
'Chic. K-25 = Chickamauga—K-25.
•J = estimated.
-------
8-13
The source water for Anderson County herbicides or pesticides analyses did not contain
any detects, but the Roane source water and field rinsate samples did, but in very small
amounts. Indeed, from looking at the data above, one cannot be certain that there are any
PAHs at all in these water samples.
Table &2. Comparison of source water and rinse water
for Anderson and Roane counties
(Units are micrograms per liter)

Anderson County
Roane County
Element
Source
Rinse
Source
Rinse
A1
72.0 Ua
72.0 U
261.0
88.5 B*
B
170.0
209.0
24.0 U
24.0 U
Cu
7.0 U
7.0 U
78.5
9.0 U
Fe
61.0 U
61.0 U
20Z0
107.0
Mn
S.O U
8.0 U
3.6 B
12 B
Pb
1.8 B
1.8 B
2.0 U
2.0 U
Si
419.0
398.0
423.0
665.0
Zn
6.0 B
5.4 B
58.5
19.4 B
Acenapthylene
Ac
A
0.18 3d
0.04 J
Benzo[a]-
anthrene
A
A
0.01 U
0.01 J
Napthalene
A
A
0.01 J
0.02 J
Phenanthrene
A
A
0.01 J
0.01 U
Aldrin
0.05 U
0.05 U
0.064 P*'
0.063 P
°U = nondeteo.
fcB = estimated.
CA = PAHs were not analyzed in the Anderson source water or field rinse water samples.
dJ = estimated.
T = used for pesticide/aroclor target analytes when there is >25% difference for detected
concentrations between the two gas chromatograph columns. The lower of the two is reported
and flagged.
The Anderson County rinse water for radionuclide analysis contained 40K, but Roane
County rinse water for radionuclides did not contain any detects for tritium. Neither the
Anderson nor Roane source water samples contained any radiation detects.
Some of the Roane County trip blanks and rinse water samples for VOC analysis
contained estimated J detects for acetone and 2-butanone. These are considered to be due
to instrument contamination. Of note was the presence of carbon disulfide and
1,2-dichloropropane in the following VOC trip blanks: ROA (3042,3043), (3068, 3069), and
(3095, 3096). Each of these is a pair. The accompanying VOC soil samples for each trip blank
pair were all resampled because of contamination from sealing the bottle lid with a particular
-------
8-14
discontinued upon discovery of the problem. Chloroform was detected (14 /ig/L) in sample
2024. This is a trip blank and is most likely laboratory contamination because no associated
soil samples contained this compound.
8_5.9 Analytical Data Quality Assessment
The laboratory QC pre am was designed to ensure that all data generated and reported
are scientifically valid, coLatent with accepted methods, and of known accuracy. All
inorganics and organics-were analyzed by Lockheed Analytical Services Laboratory (Las
Vegas, Nevada), while all radiological samples were analyzed by EcoTek, LSI (Atlanta,
Georgia). The laboratories analyzed the following QC samples:
•	Laboratory blanks to assess the contamination levels in the analytical process.
•	Laboratory control samples to assess method bias, precision, and comparability.
•	Matrix spikes to assess the bias of the method for the matrix, as well as the precision of
the method when performed in duplicate.
•	Duplicates to assess the precision of the sampling process and/or the analytical methods.
&5.9.1 Data validation
Section 4.4 of this document details the data validation program followed for the BSCP.
The criteria for the BSCP were prepared specific to the methods defined for this project. The
results of the data validation with respect to the methods used for this project are provided
in Sect 4.4. This section will detail the results of the data validation with respect to formation
and will provide an overall assessment of the data. Two sets of data qualifiers were used for
this project During the laboratory review process, the data were qualified by the laboratory
generating the data. These qualifiers are defined in Sect 4.3 of this document The data were
also qualified during the data validation process. These qualifiers are defined in Sect. 4.4 of
this document
Qualification of the data. A total of 94 data packages was provided by the laboratories.
There were 18 inorganic, 17 pesticide/polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), 11 chlorinated
herbicide, 18 polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon, and 30 radiological data packages. This
section will provide an overall summary of the QC problems found during the data validation
process. The distribution of usable data by method is presented in Table 8.3. A compilation
of sample delivery group (SDG) numbers to sample numbers can be found in Appendix F.
Pesticides/PCBs. A total of 17 data packages was provided for pesticide/PCB analysis. The
data were found to be 99% usable; only one sample was qualified unusable (R). The QC
problems found during the data validation that qualified the data J or UJ (Table 4.1) were
•	that two SDGs were extracted outside of holding times,
•	there were problems observed in the gas chromatograph/electron capture detector
(GC/ECD) instrument performance, and
•	there were calibration concerns, and surrogate recoveries were outside QC limits.
Chlorinated herbicides. A total of 11 data packages was provided by the laboratory for
chlorinated herbicide analysis. The data were found to be 88% usable. Eighteen samples were
analyzed for Dalapon and six samples of the other reported herbicides, which were rejected
-------
8-15
exceeded by two times the limit Some data were qualified J or UJ because of calibration
problems and surrogate recoveries that were outside of QC limits.
Potynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. There were 18 data packages provided by the
laboratory for polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon analysis. PAH data were found to be 75%
usable. The QC problems found during the data validation process that rejected the data were
•	very poor surrogate recoveries,
•	laboratory control sample (LCS) and matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD)
recoveries outside QC limits, and
•	surrogate coelution problems.
Table S3. Distribution of data usability
Analysis type
Method
% Usable
Radiochemical
Gamma"
100

Isotopic thorium
100

Isotopic uranium
100

Total uranium
100

Isotopic neptunium
70

Isotopic plutonium
96

Strontium-90
100

Technetium-99
100

Tritium
93

Curium-244
43
Organic
Pesiicides/PCBs
99

Chlorinated herbicides
88

PAHs
75
Inorganic
Metals
95

Cyanide
92

Sulfate
92

I CP/MS metals4
100

NAA metalsc
87
"Europium-155 was qualified unusable (148 samples) because the laboratory
rmsidentified the energy line.
^CP/MS = inductively coupled plasma/mass spectroscopy.
TslAA = neutron activation analysis.
In addition to the rejected data, the data were also qualified J/UJ and JN/UJN/RN
(Table 4.1). The data were qualified J/UJ because of missed holding times (one SDG),
coelution problems, calibration problems, laboratory blank contamination (two SDGs),
surrogate recoveries, and LCS recoveries outside QC limits. The data were qualified
JN/UJN/RN because of problems with the laboratory's method of identifying peaks within the
-------
8-16
Inorganics. Eighteen data packages were provided by the laboratory for the analysis of
inorganic analytes. The data were found to be 95% usable for the metals, 92% usable for
cyanide and sulfate, 100% usable for ICP/MS metals, and 87% usable for NAA. The rejected
metals data were for osmium, resulting from predigestion recoveries being outside QC limits.
The lead data were rejected because the samples were diluted, but the dilution was not taken
into consideration when recalculating the dry concentration. The potassium results in some
of the data were qualified unusable because the interference check sample was outside the
criteria. The data also had some analytes qualified as J or UJ. The reasons for this
qualification were
•	there were calibration problems,
•	the cyanide middle standard or initial calibration verification (ICV) was not properly,
distilled,
•	the cyanide holding time was exceeded,
•	there was laboratory blank contamination,
•	duplicate percent RPD was outside criteria,
•	MS and analytical spike recoveries were outside QC limits.
Six data packages for NAA were submitted by the laboratory. The NAA analytes that
were rejected were Cd, Sm, Se, W, and Zn. These were rejected because of calibration
concerns and MS and LCS recoveries outside QC criteria. The data also had some analytes
qualified as J or UJ. The reasons for this qualification were
•	continuing calibration outside criteria,
•	MS and LCS outside criteria,
•	laboratory blank contamination.
Radiochemical analyses. A total of 30 data packages was submitted by the laboratory. The
usability of the radiochemical data generated for this project was broken down by method
and/or isotope. The data for all of the gamma-emitting isotopes were 100% usable with the
exception of 155Eu, which was qualified unusable because of the laboratory misidentifying the
15SEu line. The data for ^Sr, "Tc, isotopic thorium, isotopic uranium, and total uranium were
found to be 100% usable. The remaining isotopes had percent usability values ranging from
43 to 96%. Isotopic neptunium was found to be 30% unusable because of calibration
problems and an inability to assess the chemical separation. The isotopic plutonium was found
to have 4% of the data unusable because of calibration problems and the inability to assess
the chemicx separation. Seven percent of the tritium data were found to be unusable because
of poor matrix spike recoveries and the laboratory reporting points outside of the quench
curve. The ^Cm results were found to be only 43% usable because the laboratory did not
recover the tracer from spike and duplicate samples in some of the samples.
The other isotopes may have been qualified as J or UJ for various reasons. Some of the
reasons for this qualification were
•	blank spike and matrix spike recoveries outside QC limits,
•	inability to determine chemical separation specificity,
•	no daily instrument performance check,
-------
8-17
•	laboratory performance or method accuracy could not be determined,
•	inability to assess activity, error, or minimum detectable activities in samples.
8Jj_9.2 Analytical Data Gaps
The occurrences of rejected analytical data for organics, inorganics, and radionuclides are
tabulated in Appendix H. Most rejects are in PAHs and radionuclides. The rejected PAHs
include a variety of compounds (as discussed in Sect. 4), whereas five inorganic analytes
(cyanide, Pb, Os, K, and sulfate) were affected. Rejection of radionuclides can be ascribed
to ^Np, isotopic plutonium, 3He, and ^Cm.
In addition to data qualified unusable because of quality control concerns, there were
problems with samples not being analyzed as well as other laboratory problems. Five PAH
samples did not get analyzed because of a laboratory oversight The inorganic and gamma
analyte lists from the laboratories were not always consistent, thus creating holes in the data
set for some of the analytes. Finally, the radiochemical laboratory misidentified the 15SEu, so
all of those data were qualified unusable.
&6 LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The BSCP as implemented worked extremely well in the field. The following are
presented as particular examples of this.
•	Site selection based on matching soil taxonomy with geologic formations in potentially
contaminated areas.
•	Statistical methods applied for scoping and design of the field sampling program.
•	Application of a random site selection process within geologic formations.
•	Utilization of a randomized technique for the grouping of sites within a formation into
threes for sample compositing purposes.
The following represent project successes associated with analytical results from this
project;
•	Prequalification of commercial analytical laboratories and competitive final selection.
•	Basing final analyte lists on risk assessment requirements.
•	Developing NAA laboratory procedures in-house to provide supporting data for
inorganics.
•	Developing data validation procedures geared toward providing real-time feedback to the
laboratories.
•	Developing computerized data validation procedures applicable across Environmental
Restoration projects.
"Lessons Learned" from this project indicating what could work better in future projects
can be grouped into the following areas.
The major area requiring more emphasis and improvement in a future project of this type
is the area of interactive coordination and real-time feedback between the respective project
technical and analytical coordinators and the laboratories well before data are officially
-------
8-18
requirement is to facilitate early detection and correction of data anomalies and
inconsistencies that may be the result of variable interpretation of standard EPA procedures
by laboratories or idiosyncrasies of analytical instrumentation calibration or the
operation/interpretation of automated system outputs.
The most advantageous approach would be to utilize a phased approach to data
collection in the field in future projects of this nature. It is suggested that a two-week to one-
month cessation in sample collection be established to allow sufficient time for interaction
with the laboratory to resolve data concerns and issues.
Other areas requiring improvement include the following:
•	Need more planning up front to meet evolving QA/QC requirements and data quality
objective process needs.
•	Do not assume that CLP-qualified laboratories will meet your project-specific
requirements, even with EPA stancard analytical methods.
•	Conduct project-specific preaudits
—	Conduct extensive, detailed, on-site reviews of the laboratory's operating procedures
and QA implementation procedures.
—	Provide project-specific performance evaluation samples to evaluate laboratory
performance and data deliverables.
In negotiations with commercial analytical laboratories supporting future projects, it is
recommended that provisions be made to
•	Conduct preaudit surveillances including facilities, instrumentation, procedures, training,
and record keeping with laboratory management and staff members.
•	Revise commercial laboratory statements of work, as appropriate, to include required
detail beyond CLP.
The following additional specifics are offered for future work in this area:
1.	Laboratory data need to be made available as early as possible to the field sampling team
for the following reasons:
•	Correlation/connection of sites to specific data packages.
•	Determination if data are reasonable and related. A, B, and C horizon data for
residual soils should always be related.
2.	Application of the concept of cluster compositing would allow for nore detailed field
interpretation of composited results and could be used to generate additional statistics.
Random compositing as used herein does not ailow for such detailed field
interpretations.
Most of the composited data for metals and radionuclides cannot be partitioned into
sources of origin because of naturally occurring and local anthropogenic sources. Cluster
compositing would allow for trends to be observed and whether any of the ORR facilities
-------
8-19
3.	Procedure ESP-500 should be altered to fit the needs and requirements of a follow-on
project Field sampling crews in this project tried to adapt existing Clinch River chain-of-
custody (COC) forms. New COC forms specific to the BSCP were developed for this
reason. An entirely new form for composited samples had to be developed also.
4.	For statistical purposes, data flagged as U or UJ should not be used without due regard
for the qualifiers.
5.	If certain temperature preservative standards are to be strictly adhered to, then the
equipment to do this must be in place before work is started. This comment refers to the
4°C criterion listed as a common sample preservative technique. Using refrigerators and
"blue" icepacks to keep samples cold results in an actual measured temperature range
-------
9-1
9. REFERENCES
AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission). 1972. Health and Safety Laboratory Procedures
Manual. HASL-300. New York.
Aihara, Jun-ichi. 1992. "Why Aromatic Compounds are Stable." Scientific American. New
York. March.
Amdur, M. O., Doull, J., and Klassan, C. D. (eds.). 1991. Casarett and Doull's: Toxicology,
The Basic Science of Poisons. 4th ed. Pergamon Press. New York.
ANSI/ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). 1980. Soil Investigation and
Sampling by Auger Borings. ANSI ASTM D 1452-80. Philadelphia.
ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers). 1989. Quality Assurance Program
Requirements for Nuclear Facilities. ANSI/ASME NQA-1. New York.
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 1988. Toodcological Profile for
Chromium. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
Atlanta.
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 1989. Draft Toxicological Profile
for Plutonium. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health
Service. Atlanta.
BETAS (Biomedical and Environmental Information Analysis Section). 1993. Toxicity Profiles
for Contaminants of Concern on the Oak Ridge Reservation. ES/ER/TM-77. Oak
Ridge, Tennessee.
Brookins, D. G. 1989. "Aqueous Geochemistry of Rare Earth Elements," in Geochemistry
amd Minerology of Rare Earth Elements. B. R. Lipin and G. A McKay (eds.).
Mineralogical Society of America. Washington, D.C.
Budavari, S., M. J. O'Neill, A. Smith, P. E. Heckelman, ed. 1989. The Merck Index: An
Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs, and Biologicals, 11th ed. Merck and Co., Inc.
Rahway, New Jersey.
Casarett, A. P. 1968. Radiation Biology. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1993. Annual Report on the Background Soil
Characterization Project on the Oak Ridge Reservation, Oak Ridge, Tennessee—Results
of Phase I Investigation. DOE/OR701-1136, ES/ER/TM-43. Environmental Restoration
Division, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Eckerman, K. E. and M. W. Young. 1980. A Method for Calculating Residual Radioactivity
Levels Following Decommissioning. INTEGRATED-0707. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory
-------
9-2
Energy Systems (Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.). 1992. Project Plan for the Background
Soil Characterization Project on the Oak Ridge Reservation, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
ES/ER/TM-26/R1. Environmental Restoration Division. Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Energy Systems (Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.). 1993. Obtaining Access to Data in
OREIS. ER Division Procedure ER/C-P2702, Rev. 0. Environmental Restoration
Division. Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
EPA (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1980. Samplers and Sampling Procedures for
Hazardous Waste Streams. EPA/600/2-80/018. Washington, D.C.
EPA (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1980a. Interim Guidelines and Specifications
for Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans. QAMS-005/80. Office of Monitoring
Systems and Quality Assurance, Office of Research and Development Washington,
D.C.
EPA (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1982. An Exposure and Risk Assessment for
benzo(a)pyrene and otherpoharomadc hydrocarbons. Office of Water Regulations and
Standards (OWRS). Vol. I-III., October 1982. Washington, D.C.
EPA (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1983. Preparation of Soil Sampling Protocol
Techniques, and Strategies. PB83-206979. University of Nevada-Las Vegas. Las Vegas.
EPA (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1987a. A Compendium of Superfund Field
Operations Methods. EPA/540/P-87/001. Washington, D.C.
EPA (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1987b. Data Quality Objectives for Remedial
Response Activities. EPA/540/G-87/003. Washington, D.C
EPA (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1987c. Health Assessment Document for
Vanadium and Compounds. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office. ECAO-CINN-H108. Cincinnati.
EPA (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1989a. RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI)
Guidance. PB89-200299, (EPA530/SW-89-031). Waste Management Division, Office
of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.
EPA TJ. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1989b. Federal Register (54 FR 48184).
Washington, D.C.
EPA (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1989c. Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). EPA/540/1-89/002.
Washington, D.C.
EPA (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1989d. Risk Assessments Methodology;
Environmental Impact Statement. NESHAPS (National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants) for Radionuclides. Background Information Document.
-------
9-3
EPA (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1990. Guidance for Data Useability in Risk
Assessment. Interim Final, EPA/540/G-90/008, Directive 9285.7-05, Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington, D.C.
EPA (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1990a. Contract Laboratory Program
Statement of Work for Organics. Las Vegas.
EPA (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1990b. Contract Laboratory Program
Statement of Work for Inorganics. Las Vegas.
EPA (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991a. Engineering Support Branch Standard
Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual. Region IV. Athens, Georgia.
EPA (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991b. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste. SW-846, 3rd Edition. Washington, D.C
EPA (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991c. Laboratory Data Validation Functional
Guidelines for Evaluating Organic Analyses. Hazardous Site Control Division. Latest
Edition. Alexandria, Virginia.
EPA (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991d.Laboratory Data Validation Functional
Guidelines for Evaluating Inorganic Analyses. Hazardous Site Control Division. Latest
Edition. Alexandria, Virginia.
EPA (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991e. Human Health Evaluation Manual,
Supplement Guidance. "Standard Default Exposure Factors." OSWER Directive
9285.6-03. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, D.C
EPA (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1992a. Health Effects Assessment Summary
Tables. OERR 9200.6-3303(92-8). Office of Research and Development and Office
of Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington, D.C
EPA (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1992b. Dermal Exposure Assessment
Principles and Applications. Interim report EPA/600/8-91/01 IB. Washington, D.C.
EPA (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1993a. Integrated Risk Information System
Database. Office of Research and Development Washington, D.C
EPA (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1993b. Health Effects Assessment Summary
Tables. Office of Research and Development and Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response. OHEA ECAO-CIN-909. March 1993. Washington, D.C.
Friberg, L., Nordberg, G., and Vouk, V. (eds.) 1986. Handbook on the Toxicology of Metals.
2nd. ed. Elsevier Science Publishers. Amsterdam.
Glasstone, S. 1967. Sourcebook on Atomic Energy. Division of Technical Information, U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission. D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., New York.
Hammonds, J. A, and F. O. Hoffman. 1992. Toxicity Profiles for Radionuclides. SENES Oak
-------
9-4
ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection). 1991.1990 Recommendations
of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication No. 60.
Pergamon Press, Inc. New York.
Kabata-Pendias, A., and H. Pendias. 1984. Trace Elements in Soils and Plants. CRC Press.
Boca Raton, Florida.
Killough, G. G., and K. F. Eckerman. 1983. "Internal Dosimetry." In Radiological Assessment,
NUREG/CR-3332, ORNL-5966, pp. 7-1-7-98. Eds. J. E. Till and H. R. Meyer.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington. D.C.
Kimbrough, C. W., L. W. Long, and L. W. McMahon (eds.). 1988. Environmental Surveillance
Procedures Quality Control Program. ESH/Sub/87-21706/1. Martin Marietta Energy
Systems, Inc., Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Klaassen, C. D., M. O. Amdur. J. Doull, eds. 1986. Casarett and Doull's Toxicology: The
Basic Science of Poisons. 3rd ed. Macmillan Publishing Co. New York.
Lawless. J. F. 1982. Statistical Models and Methods for Lifetime Data. John Wiley &. Sons,
New York.
Lehmann, E. I. 1975. Nonparametrics: Statistical Methods Based on Ranks. John Wiley &
Sons. New York.
NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection). 1977. Environmental Radiation
Measurements. NCRP Report No. 50. Washington, D.C.
Owen. B. A. 1990. "Literature-Derived Absorption Coefficients for 39 Chemicals via Oral and
Inhalation Routes of Exposure." Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Volume 11.
San Diego.
Owens, D. B. 1962. Handbook of Statistical Tables. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. Reading,
Massachusetts.
Page, A L, R. H. Miller and D. R. Keeney (eds). 1982. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2
—Chemical and Microbiological Properties. Agronomy Monograph No. 9, Part 2, 2nd
ed. American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America. Madison,
Wisconsin.
Perkins. W. R., and C. W. Thomas. 1980. "Worldwide Fallout," in Transurancic Elements in
the Environment. W. C. Hanson (ed.). Technical Information Center/TJ. S.
Department of Energy. Washington, D.C.
Rankama, K. and T. G. Sahama. 1950. Geochemistry. The University of Chicago Press.
Chicago.
Rupp, G. L. and R. R. Jones. 1991. Characterizing Heterogeneous Wastes: Methods and
Recommendations. EPA 800/R-92/033. Harry Reid Center for Environmental Studies.
-------
9-5
SAS. 1990. SAS/STAT Users Guide, Volume 2, GLM-Varcomp. SAS Institute, Inc.
Cary, North Carolina.
Sax, N. I. and R. J. Lewis, Sr. 1987. Hazardous Chemicals Desk Reference. Van Nostrand
Reinhold Co., Inc. New York.
Searle, S. R 1971. Linear Models. John Wiley &. Sons. New York.
Sehmel, G. A. 1984. Deposition and Resuspension in Atmospheric Science and Power
Production. DOE/TIC-27601. Edited by D. R Anderson. Technical Information
Center Office of Scientific and Technical Information. U. S. Department of Energy.
Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Seiler, H. G., H. Sigel, and A. Sigel. 1988. Handbook on Toxicity of Inorganic Compounds.
Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York.
-------
DOE/OR/Ol-l 175/V1
ES/ER/TM-84/V1
DISTRIBUTION
1.
F. P. Baxter
20.
C W. McGinn
2.
D. T. Bell
21.
S. A. Meacham
3.
H. L. Boston
22.
B. J. Montgomery (PGDP)
4.
V. J. Brumback
23.
M. J. Norris
5.
J. F. Campbell (PORTS)
24.
B. D. Nourse
6.
R. B. Cook
25-26.
P. T. Owen
7.
T. O. Early
27.
R. L. Schmoyer
8.
C W. Francis
28.
S. H. Stow
9.
P. L. Goddard
29.
R. R. Turner
10.
T. L. Hatmaker
30-32.
D. R. Watkins
11.
L. A. Hook
33.
P. S. Wood
12.
R. H. Ketelle
34.
Central Research Library
13.
C W. Kimbrough
35-37.
ESD Library
14.
B. L. Kimmel
38.
Laboratory Records Department
15.
A. J. Kuhaida
39.
ORNL Patent Section
16.
S. Y. Lee
40-42.
Central ER Doc. Mgmt. Center
19.
D. M. Matteo
43-44;
ORNL ER Doc. Mgmt. Center
45.	Office of Assistant Manager for Energy Research and Development, DOE Oak Ridge
Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-8600
46.	J. T. Amnions, Department of Plant and Soil Science, University of Tennessee, Knoxville,
TN 37916
47.	G. W. Bodenstein, DOE Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, Oak Ridge, TN
37831-8541
48.	D. M. Carden, DOE Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, Oak Ridge, TN
37831-8541
49.	R. N. Faivolden, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo,
Ontario N21 3G1 Canada
50.	M. S. Ferre, DOE Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, Oak Ridge, TN
37831-8541
51.	C S. Gist, DOE Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-8541
52.	D. A. Lietzke, Lietzke Soil Services, Route No. 3, Box 607, Rutledge, TN 37861
53.	W. N. Lingle, DOE Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, Oak Ridge, TN
37831-8541
54.	S. P. Riddle, DOE Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, Oak Ridge, TN
37831-8541
55.	R. C Sleeman, DOE Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, Oak Ridge, TN
37831-8541
56.	J. T. Sweeney, DOE Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, Oak Ridge, TN
37831-8541
-------