Publication 9285.7-47
December 2001
Risk Assessment Guidance
for Superfund:
Volume I
Human Health Evaluation Manual
(Part D, Standardized Planning,
Reporting, and Review of Superfund
Risk Assessments)
Final
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
NOTICE
This document provides guidance to EPA Regions concerning how the Agency intends to exercise
its discretion in implementing one aspect of the CERCLA remedy selection process. The guidance is
designed to implement national policy on these issues.
Some of the statutory provisions described in this document contain legally binding requirements.
However, this document does not substitute for those provisions or regulations, nor is it a regulation itself.
Thus, it cannot impose legally-binding requirements on EPA, States, or the regulated community, and may
not apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances. Any decisions regarding a particular remedy
selection decision will be made based on the statute and regulations, and EPA decisionmakers retain the
discretion to adopt approaches on a case-by-case basis that differ from this guidance where appropriate.
Interested parties are free to raise questions and objections about the substance of this guidance and
the appropriateness of the application of this guidance to a particular situation, and the Agency welcomes
public input on the document at any time. EPA may change this guidance in the future.
December 2001
-------
CONTENTS
Page
NOTICE ii
CONTENTS iii
EXHIBITS vi
DEFINITIONS vii
ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS xii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xiv
PREFACE xv
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 OVERVIEW OF PART D 1-1
1.1.1 Background 1-1
1.1.2 Final Guidance Changes 1-1
1.1.3 Elements of Part D Approach 1-3
1.2 APPLICABILITY OF PART D APPROACH 1-4
1.3 PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS RESULTING FROM
PART D APPROACH 1-4
1.4 ORGANIZATION OF DOCUMENT 1-6
1.5 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 1-6
2.0 RISK CONSIDERATIONS DURING PROJECT SCOPING 2-1
2.1 PLANNING 2-1
2.2 WORKPLAN DEVELOPMENT 2-2
2.2.1 RI/FS Workplan/Baseline Risk Assessment Workplan 2-2
2.2.2 SAP and QAPP 2-3
3.0 RISK ASSESSMENT DATA NEEDS AND TASKS DURING
THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION 3-1
3.1 INTERIM DELIVERABLES 3-1
iii December 2001
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
3.1.1 Planning Tables, Worksheets, and Supporting Information 3-2
3.1.2 Assessment of Confidence and Uncertainty 3-13
3.1.3 Probabilistic Analysis Information 3-13
3.2 DRAFT BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT 3-13
3.3 FINAL BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT 3-14
3.4 INFORMATION TRANSFER TO SUPERFUND RISK DATA COLLECTION .... 3-14
4.0 RISK EVALUATIONS DURING THE FEASIBILITY STUDY 4-1
4.1 INTRODUCTION 4-1
4.1.1 Remedial Action Objectives 4-1
4.1.2 Remediation Goals 4-1
4.1.3 Preliminary Remediation Goals 4-3
4.2 DEVELOP REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES 4-3
4.3 DEVELOP REMEDIATION GOALS 4-3
4.3.1 Identify Values Considered as Preliminary Remediation Goals 4-3
4.3.2 Select Preliminary Remediation Goals 4-4
4.4 SUMMARIZE RISKS AND HAZARDS ASSOCIATED
WITH PRELIMINARY REMEDIATION GOALS 4-4
4.5 EVALUATE REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND
ALTERNATIVES FOR RISK CONSIDERATIONS 4-4
4.5.1 Identification and Screening of Technologies
and Alternatives 4-5
4.5.2 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives 4-5
5.0 RISK EVALUATIONS AFTER THE FEASIBILITY STUDY 5-1
5.1 RISK EVALUATION FOR THE PROPOSED PLAN 5-1
5.2 RISK EVALUATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE RECORD
OF DECISION 5-1
5.2.1 Baseline Risk Summary in the Record of Decision 5-1
iv December 2001
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
5.2.2 Risks Associated with Cleanup Levels in the Record of Decision 5-2
5.3 RISK EVALUATION DURING REMEDIAL DESIGN AND
REMEDIAL ACTION
. 5-2
5.4 RISK EVALUATION ASSOCIATED WITH
EXPLANATIONS OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
(ESDs) AND AMENDED RODs
5.5 RISK EVALUATION DURING
FIVE-YEAR REVIEWS 5-2
REFERENCES R-l
APPENDIX A PLANNING TABLES
APPENDIX B INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETION OF THE PLANNING TABLES
APPENDIX C PLANNING WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX D EXAMPLE SCENARIOS
December 2001
-------
EXHIBITS
Exhibit Page
1 -1 RELATIONSHIP OF THE HUMAN HEALTH EVALUATION
TO THE CERCLA PROCESS 1-2
1-2 GUIDELINES FOR PART D APPLICABILITY 1-5
1-3 ROLE OF RISK ASSESSOR IN THE CERCLA REMEDIAL PROCESS 1-7
3-1 INTERIM DELIVERABLES FOR EACH SITE 3-15
3-2 STANDARDIZED RISK ASSESSMENT REPORTING 3-18
3-3 SUMMARY OF FINAL RAGS PART D CHANGES 3-20
3-4 RAGS PART D INFORMATION SOURCES FOR ROD RISK GUIDANCE
HIGHLIGHTS 3-22
4-1 EXAMPLE TABLES TO STANDARDIZE REPORTING OF
FEASIBILITY STUDY RISK EVALUATIONS 4-6
vi December 2001
-------
DEFINITIONS
These definitions are provided for purposes of this guidance and are intended to be
consistent with existing Agency guidance and regualtions.
Term
Definition
Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
Conceptual Site Model
Deterministic Analysis
EPA Risk Assessor
Exposure Medium
As defined in the NCP, "Applicable" requirements are those
clean-up standards of control, and other substantive
environmental protection requirements, criteria, or limitations
promulgated under federal or state law that specifically address
a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action,
location, or other circumstance at a Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) site. "Relevant and appropriate" requirements are
those clean-up standards which, while not "applicable" at a
CERCLA site, address problems or situations sufficiently
similar to those encountered at the CERCLA site that their use
is well-suited to the particular site. ARARs can be action-
specific, location-specific, or chemical-specific.
A "model" of a site developed at scoping using readily
available information. Used to identify all potential or
suspected sources of contamination, types and concentrations
of contaminants detected at the site, potentially contaminated
media, and potential exposure pathways, including receptors.
This model is also known as "conceptual evaluation model."
Calculation and expression of health risks as single numerical
values or "single point" estimates of risk. In risk assessments,
the uncertainty and variability are discussed in a qualitative
manner.
The risk assessor responsible for reviewing the risk assessment
on behalf of EPA. The individual may be an EPA employee or
contractor, a State employee, or some other party, as
appropriate for an individual site.
The contaminated environmental medium to which an
individual may be exposed. Includes the transfer of
contaminants from one medium to another.
vn
December 2001
-------
DEFINITIONS (Continued)
Term
Definition
Exposure Pathway
Exposure Point
Exposure Point Concentration
Exposure Route
Interim Deliverables
Medium
The course a chemical or radionuclide takes from the source to
the exposed individual. An exposure pathway analysis links
the sources, locations, and types of environmental releases with
population locations and activity patterns to determine the
significant pathways of human exposure. Within the Planning
Tables, an Exposure Pathway is defined as each unique
combination of Scenario Timeframe, Medium, Exposure
Medium, Exposure Point, Receptor Population, Receptor Age,
and Exposure Route.
An exact location of potential contact between a person and a
chemical or radionuclide within an Exposure Medium.
The value, based on either a statistical derivation of measured
data or modeled data, that represents an estimate of the
chemical or radionuclide concentration available from a
particular Medium or route of exposure.
The way a chemical or radionuclide comes in contact with a
person (e.g., by ingestion, inhalation, dermal contact).
A series of Planning Tables, Worksheets, and Supporting
Information, identified in the Workplan for each site, that
should be developed by the risk assessment author, and
evaluated by the EPA risk assessor, prior to development of the
Draft Baseline Risk Assessment Report. After review and
revision, as necessary, these documents should be included in
the Baseline Risk Assessment Report. The Planning Tables
should be prepared for each site to achieve standardization in
risk assessment reporting. The Worksheets and Supporting
Information should also be prepared to further improve
transparency, clarity, consistency, and reasonableness of risk
assessments.
The environmental substance (e.g, air, water, soil) that is a
potential source of contaminants in the Exposure Medium.
(The Medium will sometimes equal the Exposure Medium.)
Usually the Medium is targeted for possible remediation.
Vlll
December 2001
-------
DEFINITIONS (Continued)
Term
Definition
Preliminary Remediation Goals
(PRGs)
Probabilistic Analysis
Risk Assessment Author
Receptor Age
Receptor Population
Scenario Timeframe
Generally, initial cleanup goals that (1) are protective of human
health and the environment and (2) comply with ARARs.
Pursuant to the NCP, they are developed early in the remedy
selection process based on readily available information and
should be modified to reflect results of the baseline risk
assessment. They also should be used during analysis of
remedial alternatives in the remedial investigation/feasibility
study (RI/FS). Remedial goals, selected as part of the risk
management decision, normally replace PRGs in the Record of
Decision.
Calculation and expression of health risks using multiple risk
descriptors to provide the likelihood of various risk levels.
Probabilistic risk results approximate a full range of possible
outcomes and the likelihood of each, which often are presented
as a frequency distribution graph, thus allowing uncertainty or
variability to be expressed quantitatively.
The risk assessor responsible for preparing the risk assessment.
This individual may be an EPA employee or contractor, a State
employee, a PRP employee or contractor, or some other party,
as appropriate for an individual site.
The description of the exposed individual as defined by the
EPA Region or dictated by the site.
The exposed individual relative to the Exposure Pathway
considered.
The time period (current and/or future) being considered for the
Exposure Pathway.
IX
December 2001
-------
DEFINITIONS (Continued)
Term
Definition
Planning Tables
Planning Tools
Supporting Information
One of the Planning Tools under the RAGS Part D approach.
The Planning Tables have been developed to clearly and
consistently document important parameters, data, calculations,
and conclusions from all stages of human health risk
assessment development. Electronic templates for the Planning
Tables have been developed in Lotus® and Excel® for ease of
use by risk assessors. For each site-specific risk assessment,
the Planning Tables, related Worksheets, and Supporting
Information should first be prepared as Interim Deliverables for
EPA risk assessor review, and should later be included in the
Draft and Final Baseline Risk Assessment Reports. The
Planning Tables may be found in Appendix A. Use of the
Planning Tables will standardize the reporting of human health
risk assessments. The Planning Table formats should not be
altered (i.e., columns shouldnotbe added, deleted, or changed);
however, rows and footnotes may be added as appropriate.
Standardization of the Tables is needed to achieve Superfund
program-wide reporting consistency.
A basic element of the RAGS Part D approach. The Planning
Tools have been developed to standardize the planning,
reporting, and review of Superfund risk assessments. The three
Planning Tools contained in the Part D approach include the
Technical Approach for Risk Assessment (TARA), the
Planning Tables, and Instructions for the Planning Tables.
Information submissions that substantiate or summarize
detailed data analysis, calculations, or mode ling and associated
parameters and assumptions. Examples of recommended
Supporting Information include: derivations of background
values, exposure point concentrations, modeled intakes, and
chemical-specific parameters. Supporting Information should
be provided as Interim Deliverables for EPA risk assessor
review prior to the development of the Draft Baseline Risk
Assessment Report.
December 2001
-------
DEFINITIONS (Continued)
Term
Definition
Technical Approach
for Risk Assessment
(TARA)
Worksheets
One of the Planning Tools under the RAGS Part D approach.
The TARA is a road map for incorporating continuous
involvement of the EPA risk assessor throughout the CERCLA
remedial process. Risk-related activities, beginning with
scoping and problem formulation, extending through collection
and analysis of risk-related data, and supporting risk
management decision making and remedial design/remedial
action issues are addressed. The TARA should be customized
for each site and the requirements identified should be included
in project workplans so that risk assessment requirements and
approaches are clearly defined. The TARA Schedule
Worksheet may be found in Appendix C with the other
worksheets. Chapters 2 through 5 of Part D present the TARA.
Formats for documenting assumptions, input parameters, and
conclusions regarding complex risk assessment issues. Data
Useability, TARA Schedule, Lead, Dermal, Radiation Dose
Assessment, and ROD Risk Worksheets are found in Appendix
C and should be developed as Interim Deliverables for all risk
assessments, as applicable.
XI
December 2001
-------
ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym/
Abbreviation
Definition
ARARs
BRAC
CERCLA
COPCs
CSF
CT
CWA
DQOs
EPA
EPC
BSD
FS
FY
GAO
HEAST
HI
HQ
IEUBK
IRIS
MCLs
NCEA
NCP
NPL
non-TCL
OSWER
PAHs
PCBs
PQLs
PRGs
PRP
QA/QC
QAPP
RAGS
RAGS/HHEM
RAOs
RfC
RfD
RI/FS
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Base Realignment and Closure
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and
Liability Act
Chemicals of Potential Concern
Cancer Slope Factor
Central Tendency
Clean Water Act
Data Quality Objectives
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Exposure Point Concentration
Explanation of Significant Differences
Feasibility Study
Fiscal Year
General Accounting Office
Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
Hazard Index
Hazard Quotient
Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model
Integrated Risk Information System
Maximum Contaminant Levels
National Center for Environmental Assessment
National Contingency Plan
National Priorities List
non-Target Compound List
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Procedure Quantitation Limits
Preliminary Remediation Goals
Potentially Responsible Party
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I —
Human Health Evaluation Manual
Remedial Action Objectives
Reference Concentration
Reference Dose
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
xn
December 2001
-------
ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)
Acronym/
Abbreviation Definition
RI Remedial Investigation
RME Reasonable Maximum Exposure
ROD Record of Decision
RPM Remedial Project Manager
SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
TARA Technical Approach for Risk Assessment
UCL Upper Confidence Level
URF Unit Risk Factor
UTL Upper Tolerance Limit
xiii December 2001
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This manual was developed by EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. A large number
of EPA regional technical staff participated in the Workgroup that developed the final RAGS Part D approach
presented in this manual.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation provided technical assistance to EPA in the development of this
guidance, under contract No. 68-W5-0022.
RAGS PART D WORKGROUP
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY AND REMEDIAL RESPONSE:
Headquarters: David Bennett
Headquarters: Elizabeth Hofmann
Headquarters: James Konz
Headquarters: Karen Martin
EPA REGIONAL CONTACTS:
Region 1:
Region 2:
Region 3:
Region 4:
Region 5:
Region 6:
Region 7:
Region 8:
Region 9:
Region 10:
Sarah Levinson
Marian Olsen
Jennifer Hubbard
Glenn Adams
Andrew Podowski
Ghassan Khoury
Judy Facey
Jim Luey
Stan Smucker
Dana Davoli
xiv
December 2001
-------
PREFACE
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I — Human Health Evaluation Manual
(RAGS/HHEM) Part D is the fourth part in the five-part series of guidance manuals on Superfund human
health risk assessment. Part A addresses the baseline risk assessment; Part B addresses the development of
risk-based preliminary remediation goals; Part C addresses the human health risk evaluations of remedial
alternatives; and Part E addresses dermal exposure. Part D provides guidance on risk assessment planning,
reporting, and review throughout the CERCLA remedial process, from scoping through remedy selection and
completion and periodic review of the remedial action. Thus, Part D strives for effective and efficient
implementation of Superfund risk assessment practice described in Parts A, B, C, and E, and in supplemental
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) directives and other Agency risk assessment
guidance. The potential users of Part D are persons involved in the risk evaluation, remedy selection, and
implementation process, including risk assessors, risk assessment reviewers, remedial project managers, and
other decisionmakers.
Released in January 1998 as interim guidance, RAGS Part D Revision 0 underwent field testing and
evaluation for a 3-year period. This Final guidance considers the comments received from users of the
Revision 0 guidance and provides Planning Table format changes as appropriate.
Generally, changes were made to improve useability, transparency, clarity, and/or consistency with
other risk guidance (e.g., RAGS Part E dermal guidance [U.S. EPA, 2001], adult lead exposures technical
fact sheet [U.S. EPA, 1996d], and Record of Decision guidance [U.S. EPA, 1999a]). These changes may also
increase the efficiency of the risk assessor by decreasing the number of versions of each Planning Tables
associated with certain sites.
In addition to Planning Table format changes, the Final guidance provides planning formats to
document radionuclide and lead risk evaluations, neither of which was addressed in the Revision 0 guidance.
The Final guidance also provides more robust and diverse examples than were included in Revision 0. These
examples address comments and questions received from users of the Revision 0 guidance and are provided
as suggested approaches to address complex situations. In all cases, the EPA regional risk assessor should
be consulted to discuss the appropriate approach for a site.
This guidance does not discuss standardization of ecological risk assessments. EPA will provide
planning tables for ecological evaluation under separate cover. This guidance does not discuss the risk
management decisions that are necessary at a CERCLA site (e.g., selection of final remediation goals).
Upon issuance, RAGS Part D Final will be effective for all new CERCLA risk assessments. Consult
the EPA risk assessor for applicability of the final guidance to ongoing risk assessments and non-CERCLA
risk assessments. Any updates to this guidance will be posted at the RAGS Part D website at
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/risk/ragsd/index.htm.
Comments addressing usefulness, changes, and additional areas where guidance is needed
should be addressed to the RAGS Part D website or to:
Senior Process Manager for Risk (RAGS Part D)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (5202G)
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20460
xv December 2001
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This guidance has been developed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to assist
remedial projectmanagers (RPMs), risk assessors,
site engineers, and others in conducting risk
assessment planning, reporting, and review at
Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) sites.
This guidance could also be a useful tool for
quantitative risk assessment for non-National
Priorities List (Non-NPL), Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC), and Brownfields sites.
This guidance is the fourth part (Part D) in the
five-part series Risk Assessment Guidance for
Super fund: Volume I—Human Health Evaluation
Maraa/(RAGS/HHEM)(U.S.EPA, 1989c). Part
A of this guidance addresses how to conduct a
site-specific baseline risk assessment: the
information in Part A is important background for
PartD. Part B provides guidance for calculating
risk-based concentrations that may be used, along
with applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) and other information, to
develop preliminary remediation goals (PRGs)
during project scoping. PRGs (and final
remediation levels set in the Record of Decision
[ROD]) can be used throughout the analyses in
Part C to assist in evaluating the human health
risks of remedial alternatives. Part E provides
guidance for evaluation of dermal exposure. Part
D complements the guidance provided in Parts A,
B, C, and E and presents recommended
approaches to standardize risk assessment
planning, reporting, and review. Part D guidance
spans the CERCLA remedial process from project
scoping to periodic review of the implemented
remedial action. Exhibit 1-1 illustrates the major
correspondence of RAGS/HHEM activities with
the steps in the CERCLA remedial process.
The remainder of this chapter:
presents an overview of Part D, including the
background and elements of the Part D
approach
• describes the applicability of Part D
presents the organization of the remainder of
this document
describes where to find additional information
regarding Part D.
1.1 OVERVIEW OF PART D
1.1.1 BACKGROUND
The March 21, 1995, memorandum on Risk
Characterization Policy and Guidance from former
EPA Administrator Browner directed
improvement in the transparency, clarity,
consistency, and reasonableness of risk
assessments at EPA. EPA, over the years, has
identified opportunities for improvement in
presentation of Superfund risk assessments.
Furthermore, the General Accounting Office
(GAO), members of Congress, and others have
called for betterment of Superfund risk
assessments. The October 1995 Superfund
Administrative Reform #6A directed EPA to:
Establish National Criteria to Plan, Report, and
Review Superfund Risk Assessments. EPA has
developed an approach to respond to these
challenges, which is presented in RAGS Part D.
1.1.2 GUIDANCE CHANGES
Released in January 1998 as interim guidance,
RAGS Part D Revision 0 underwent field testing
and evaluation for a 3-year period. This Final
guidance incorporates changes based on the
comments received from users of the Revision 0
guidance and provides recommended Planning
Table format changes as appropriate.
Generally, changes were made to improve
useability, transparency, clarity, or consistency
with other risk guidance (e.g., RAGS Part E
dermal guidance [U.S. EPA, 2001] and ROD
guidance [U.S. EPA, 1999a]). These changes may
also increase the efficiency of the risk assessor by
decreasing the number of versions of each
Planning Table associated with certain sites.
1-1
December 2001
-------
1-1
RELATIONSHIP OF THE HEALTH EVALUATION TO THE CERCLA
m
Cfl
y
§
_
S
W
i
W—k
W
K
*^
.j
U
£—«
W
U
~c e3 >
.2£ I
^_^ J*^ » „•!
JB i >
o > J?
Q£od
J .
5 ~s 3 c
"C3 50 "O O
fl^ *,»«( ^ • »*^
P « a t>
«^ qjl |_< ™
osl os!
j V
t3
"O c *o .2
E p g "5
^ — (3 Q
o **
CO
i
G
— o t1
.g-JB 3 >,
•* fa
C
it j,
M
S
*s,
o
o
C/3
^^
»- -^
U
^•rt
^
i — -j
2
o
^
•
-
p
VJ/F
j
•^
s
^
o
^•r
— 1
{•Bj
"*"8^
H— v ^j
M d
J 1
1
f— Q rt
0/ K
flu S1^
D, g
_ ™^ £-1
||
Q *5>
• ' »H
OH
t/5
,^
CS
C
M
5*
""^
"s
r i C)
W r-
?-~ flj
S^
<-*,
(X 0
c
o
•*— i
£3
S^
i5
^
(*5
5
pc
,§
*?
(D
a
a
so
.S
o
Q &
hf)
<|^ S^
Cu -g
C
1
OJ
N
1
i3
c
12
C/]
1
H<
gg ^
"^f^ ^
p$
g
qj
Q
I™~™™™™~~*
1-2
December 2001
-------
In addition to Planning Table format changes,
the Final guidance provides standard formats to
document radionuclide and lead risk evaluations,
neither of which was addressed in the Revision 0
guidance. This final guidance also provides more
robust and diverse examples than were included in
Revision 0. These examples address comments
and questions received from users of the Revision
0 guidance and are provided as suggested
approaches to address complex situations. In all
cases, the EPA risk assessor and the RPM (when
appropriate) should be consulted to discuss the
appropriate approach for a site. Revisions
associated with each Planning Table may be found
in Exhibit 3-3.
1.1.3 ELEMENTS OF PART D APPROACH
The Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
(RAGS) Part D approach consists of three basic
elements: Use of Planning Tools, Continuous
Involvement of EPA Risk Assessors, and
Information Transfer to aNational Superfund Risk
Data Repository. Brief descriptions of the three
components follow:
• Use of Planning Tools - The Planning Tools
developed by the EPA RAGS Part D
Workgroup and refined through regional
review include a Technical Approach for Risk
Assessment or TARA, Planning Tables, and
Instructions for the Planning Tables.
~ The Technical Approach for Risk
Assessment (TARA) is a road map for
incorporating continuous involvement of
the EPA risk assessor throughout the
CERCLA remedial process for a
particular site. Risk-related activities,
beginning with scoping and problem
formulation, extending through collection
and analysis of risk-related data, and
supporting risk management decision
making and remedial design/remedial
action issues are addressed.
Chapters 2 through 5 of this guidance
document present the TARA in the four
CERCLA remedial process phases:
During Scoping, During the Remedial
Investigation, During the Feasibility
Study, and After the Feasibility Study. It
is recommended that the elements
identified in the TARA in Chapters 2
through 5 be customized for each site-
specific human health risk assessment, as
appropriate. These elements should be
included in project workplans to better
define that risk assessment and facilitate
more standardized planning. A planning
worksheet that can be used to summarize
the TARA for a particular site (the
TARA Schedule Worksheet) is found in
Appendix C.
~ The Planning Tables have been developed
to more clearly and consistently document
important parameters, data, calculations,
and conclusions from all stages of human
health risk assessment development.
Electronic templates for the Planning
Tables have been developed in Lotus®
and Excel® for ease of use by risk
assessors. For site-specific risk
assessments, the Planning Tables, related
Worksheets, and Supporting Information
should first be prepared as Interim
Deliverables for EPA risk assessor
review, and should later be included in
the Draft and Final Baseline Risk
Assessment Reports. The Planning
Tables, both a blank set and a fully
completed example set, may be found in
Appendix A. Additional example
scenarios and selected Planning Tables
are provided in Appendix D. Use of the
Planning Tables will help standardize the
reporting of human health risk
assessments and improve communication
with stakeholders.
~ Instructions for the Planning Tables have
been prepared corresponding to each row
and column on each Planning Table.
Definitions of each field are supplied in
the Glossary and example data or
selections for individual data fields are
provided. The Instructions should be
used to complete and/or review Planning
Tables for each site-specific human health
risk assessment, where appropriate. The
Instructions may be found in Appendix B.
Continuous Involvement of EPA Risk
Assessors - The EPA risk assessor is a critical
1-3
December 2001
-------
participant in the CERCLA remedial process
for any site, from scoping through completion
and periodic review of the remedial action.
EPA risk assessors support reasonable and
consistent risk analysis and risk-based
decision making. Early and continuous
involvement by the EPA risk assessors should
include scoping, workplan review, and
customization of the TARA for each site to
identify all risk-related requirements. The
EPA risk assessors should review Interim
Deliverables and identify corrections needed
prior to preparation of the Draft and Final
Baseline Risk Assessment Reports.
Participation of the EPA risk assessors in all
other phases of the CERCLA remedial process
will help ensure human health risk issues are
appropriately incorporated in the remedy
selection and implementation processes.
• Information Transfer to a Superfund Risk
Data Collection - Summary-level site-specific
risk information should be contained in a
Superfund Risk Data Repository to provide
information access and evaluation capabilities
to EPA staff.
1.2 APPLICABILITY OF PART D
APPROACH
The approach contained in RAGS Part D is
strongly recommended for all CERCLA human
health risk assessments.
Exhibit 1-2 provides guidelines regarding
RAGS Part D applicability as a function of site
lead and site type, so that site-specific
applicability may be defined by each region.
A brief discussion of the process
improvements associated with each RAGS Part D
element follows:
• Use of Planning Tools - Planning Tools
facilitate planning with TARA, reporting with
Planning Table formats, and reviewing with
Interim Deliverables. The Planning Tools are
designed to provide more consistent content
and clarity of data, parameters, and
assumptions. Transparency for the public and
others to understand the risk assessment
should be improved by the Planning Tables,
and review is facilitated because the basis for
conclusions should be more clear. Because
Interim Deliverables are integral parts of the
baseline risk assessment, their early review
and resolution by EPA risk assessors should
minimize rework and may reduce project
schedules and budgets, while improving
consistency.
• Continuous Involvement of EPA Risk
Assessor - Involvement of the EPA risk
assessor throughout the CERCLA remedial
process should result in holistic consideration
of risk issues during scoping and helps ensure
that appropriate and adequate data are
collected. Planning for special evaluations
can also be conducted efficiently at project
inception rather than at a later point with
associated schedule delays and additional
costs. Ongoing review of Interim
Deliverables by the EPA risk assessor should
provide direction regarding reasonable
assumptions and should eliminate rework
requirements, particularly for those
deliverables that build on previous analyses
(e.g., the Baseline Risk Assessment Report).
1.3 PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS
RESULTING FROM PART D
APPROACH
The RAGS Part D approach provides
advantages over previous practices in the
Superfund program at both the site level and the
overall Superfund program level.
1-4
December 2001
-------
Exhibit 1-2 goes here
1-5 December 2001
-------
At later stages of the project (e.g., after the
feasibility study), continuous involvement of
the EPA risk assessor promotes
reasonableness and consistency in risk
management decision-making by clearly
providing risk managers with the information
they need. Preparation of draft ROD risk
information as an interim deliverable in the
format specified in Guide to Preparing
Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of
Decision, and Other Remedy Selection
Decision Documents (U.S. EPA, 1999a) will
further support risk managers' efficiency. The
ROD Risk Worksheets found in Appendix C
match the ROD guidance formats.
• Information Transfer to Superfund Risk
Data Collection - Submission of the
electronic Planning Tables and Worksheets to
the Superfund Risk Data Collection fulfills the
review objectives of Superfund
Administrative Reform #6A. Use of the
information by EPA risk assessors will help
improve consistency in future risk
assessments.
1.4 ORGANIZATION OF
DOCUMENT
The remainder of this guidance is organized
into four additional chapters, references, and four
appendices as follows:
Chapter 2: Risk Considerations During Proj ect
Scoping;
• Chapter 3: Risk Assessment Data Needs and
Tasks During the Remedial Investigation;
• Chapter 4 Risk Evaluations During the
Feasibility Study;
• Chapter 5: Risk Evaluations After the
Feasibility Study;
• References
Planning Tables
Appendix C: Worksheets
• Appendix D: Example Scenarios.
In addition, other useful information has been
presented in highlight boxes placed throughout the
document.
Exhibit 1-3 depicts the continuous
involvement of the EPA risk assessor during
scoping, during the remedial investigation, and
during and after the feasibility study. The various
activities the risk assessor conducts are listed, as
well as the Part D chapter that addresses that
phase.
1.5 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
This guidance will be updated periodically in
response to user comments and suggestions and to
address new human health risk assessment
guidance as appropriate.
The Part D guidance and corresponding
information may be accessed electronically on the
RAGS Part D website, at
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/risk/
ragsd/index.htm . Updates to Part D will also
appear on the website along with an index of the
current version of each Chapter or Appendix.
Questions or comments regarding Part D
usage for a particular risk assessment should be
directed to your EPA risk assessor. General Part
D questions or comments should be directed to
the RAGS Part D website. Questions or
comments received through the website will be
considered and a response will be developed and
forwarded via telephone or email as appropriate.
Frequently asked questions will be assembled and
displayed on the website with corresponding
responses to provide Part D user support.
Appendix A: Planning Tables
Appendix B: Instructions for Completion of
1-6
December 2001
-------
EXHIBIT 1-3
ROLE OF RISK ASSESSOR IN THE CERCLA REMEDIAL PROCESS
CERCLA REMEDIAL PROCESS
CONTINUOUS INVOLVEMENT OF EPA RISK ASSESSOR
CRAGS Part D - Chapter 1)
During Scoping
» Planning
» W oik pi an
( RAGS D - Chapter 2)
During Remedial Investigation
» Interim Deliver ables
- Planning Tables
- Worksheets
- Supporting Information
- Confidence and Uncertainty
- Probabilistic Anafys's
» D raft Baseline R isk Assessment Report
* Final Baseline Risk Assessment Report
» Information Transfer to Superfund Risk
D ata Collection
» R eoord of Decision (ROD) Risk
Worksheets
[ RAGS D - Chapter 3)
During Feasibility study
* R eme dia I Action O bj ectives
» R eme dia I Action Goals
» R isks.rt-1 azards of P reli rnina ry
Remediation Goals
(PRGs)
* Risks of Remedial Technologies
and Alternatives
( RABs 0 - Chapter 4)
After Feasibility Study
•'• Remediation Goals
Proposed Plan
--- R OD
Explanations of Significant
Differences (ESDs)
Remedial Design.'R erne dial
Action (RD>RA
Amended RODs
: Five- Year Renews
( RAGS D Chapter 5)
1-7
December 2001
-------
1-8 December 2001
-------
CHAPTER 2
RISK CONSIDERATIONS
DURING PROJECT SCOPING
The project scoping stage of the remedial
investigation (RI) and baseline risk assessment is
critical to the success of a Superfund project. The
EPA risk assessor should be involved in the
project scoping discussions and meetings to help
ensure that the planning and workplan
development tasks incorporate risk assessment
data needs and achieve appropriate standardization
in risk assessment planning.
2.1 PLANNING
The following planning activities should be
performed at the beginning of the project. These
activities should involve the EPA RPM and EPA
risk assessor, as decisionmakers, and the risk
assessment author and other resources tasked with
preparing the Remedial Investigation Report, to
support planning. The following pertinent
information should be incorporated, as
appropriate, into the Remedial Investigation
Report or Site Characterization Report and the
Baseline Risk Assessment Report:
• Provide site background information, site
maps, sample location map; discuss historical
site activity and chronology of land use.
• Discuss historical data and data useability,
previous studies and actions, and an overview
of the nature and extent of contamination.
• Discuss the purpose of the investigation.
Prepare the preliminary site conceptual model
which clearly identifies all known or
potential sources of contamination (soil,
groundwater, surface water, leachate, air,
etc.), release mechanisms, and receptor routes
and identifies all potential exposure pathways
(including secondary pathways) and the media
and receptors associated with each.
• Discuss PRGs and ARARs for the site.
WHEN PREPARING THE SITE
CONCEPTUAL MODEL, CONSIDER THE
FOLLOWING:
Sensitive populations, including but not limited
to the elderly, pregnant or nursing women,
infants and children, and people suffering from
chronic illnesses
People exposed to particularly high levels of
contaminants
Circumstances where a disadvantaged
population is exposed to hazardous materials
(i.e., Environmental Justice situations)
Significant contamination sources
Potential contaminant release mechanisms (e.g.,
volatilization, fugitive dust emission, surface
runoff/overland flow, leaching to groundwater,
tracking by humans/animals, soil gas
generation, biodegradation and radioactive
decay)
Contaminant transport pathways such as direct
air transport downwind, diffusion in surface
water, surface water flow, groundwater flow,
soil gas migration, and biomagnification in the
food chain
Cross media transfer effects, such as
volatilization to air, wet deposition, dry
deposition, groundwater discharge to surface
water, groundwater recharge from surface
water, andbioaccumulationby aquatic species.
discussions with stakeholders concerning land
Discuss involvement by the risk assessor in
2-1
December 2001
-------
use, groundwater use, and exposure pathways
and variables. If possible, the risk assessor
should also visit the site.
Identify interim deliverables for the risk
assessment.
development of the baseline risk assessment are
sometimes presented in a separate Risk Assessment
Workplan or incorporated into the RI/FS Workplan.
INTERIM DELIVERABLES SHOULD
INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
Planning Tables 0 through 10
Worksheets on Data Useability, TARA
Schedule, Dermal, Radiation Dose Assessment,
and Lead (as applicable)
Supporting Information (Section 3.1.1)
Assessment of Confidence and Uncertainty
(Section 3.1.2) and Probabilistic Analysis
information, as applicable (Section 3.1.3).
• Identify Draft and Final deliverables for the risk
assessment. Draft and Final deliverables
include the Draft and Final Baseline Risk
Assessment Reports, which also incorporate the
Interim Deliverables.
• Prepare a preliminary version of Planning Table
1.
During proj ect scoping, the EPA RPM and EPA
risk assessor may also meet to discuss the
potential usefulness of including a Probabilistic
Analysis (Monte Carlo) in the RI and the need
for a separate Workplan. This preliminary
discussion should address whether funds need to
be allocated to carry out a Probabilistic
Analysis. This decision should be revisited
throughout Workplan development and the risk
assessment process.
2.2 WORKPLAN DEVELOPMENT
Tasks to be conducted during the remedial
investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) should be
identified and documented in several workplans.
These usually include the RI/FS Workplan, a
Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP), and a Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). Tasks related to
WHEN EVALUATING WHETHER TO
CONDUCT PROBABILISTIC ANALYSIS,
CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:
Extent of site remediation
Potential costs of remediation
Degree of uncertainty associated with the
exposure information available for each portion
of the site conceptual model
Risk assessment needs should be considered
not only in tasks related to development of the
baseline risk assessment but also in tasks related to
sampling and analysis (i.e., those in the SAP and
the QAPP) in the RI and tasks needing risk
assessment input in the feasibility study(e.g.,
development of remedial goals and estimates of
potential risk from remediation options).
2.2.1 RI/FS WORKPL AN/BASELINE
RISK ASSESSMENT WORKPLAN
The RI/FS Workplan should summarize site
background, the current and potential problems
posed by site contaminants, and the objectives and
scope of the RI/FS. It also should include a
description of the tasks to be performed and the
information and work products that should be
produced from each task. Deliverables for specific
tasks should be included. Tasks and deliverables
for the baseline risk assessment may be included as
a part of the RI/FS Workplan or in a separate Risk
Assessment Workplan.
Within these Workplans, it should be clear that
risk assessment needs are being considered in the
RI/FS objectives. The site-specific objectives and
scope of the risk assessment should be included in
the Workplan.
This includes information to complete the baseline
risk assessment in the RI as well as information for
2-2
December 2001
-------
the FS, such as that used to develop risk-based
preliminary remedial goals (e.g., PRGs), and to
assess risks from remediation (e.g., incineration).
These Workplans should also reference the
methods (e.g., National guidance such as
RAGS/HHEM [U.S. EPA, 1989c]; RAGS
Probabilistic Guidance [U.S. EPA, 1997e andg and
200Id.]), used to prepare the Interim, Draft, and
Final risk assessment deliverables and define the
schedule for submission. These deliverables are
described in more detail in Chapter 3. Deliverables
related to development of risk-based remedial goals
and assessment of risk from remediation should also
be included in the Workplan (see Chapter 4).
The EPA risk assessor and EPA RPM may
revisit the question of the potential value added by
using Probabilistic Analyses in the risk assessment.
If these analyses are to be used, the issues
concerning the time, expense, and possible benefit
associated with the collection of additional exposure
information or sampling data should be considered
to identify those exposure parameters with the
greatest uncertainty, where collection of additional
data and/or information may be warranted. A
separate Probabilistic Analysis Workplan identifying
associated deliverables should be prepared and
approved by the EPA RPM and risk assessor.
2.2.2 SAP AND QAPP
Sampling and analysis activities undertaken
during the RI should provide adequate data to
evaluate all appropriate exposure pathways.
Therefore, risk assessors should be involved in the
development of the data quality objectives (DQOs)
for sampling and analysis and in selecting the types
of sampling and analyses that will be done. The
DQOs should address the qualitative and
quantitative nature of the sampling data in terms of
relative quality and intent for use, to ensure that the
data collected will be appropriate for the intended
objectives. Note that the data quality evaluation
should be recorded in the Data Useability Worksheet
in Appendix C.
Sampling. The SAP should discuss how the
types, numbers, and locations of samples to be
collected will be adequate to evaluate each exposure
pathway (both current and future) and medium.
The SAP should be accompanied by detailed
sampling maps showing the location and type of
samples (e.g., grab, composite, or duplicate). It is
important to consider how sample results will be
used to estimate exposure point concentrations.
Background samples should be collected from
appropriate areas (e.g., areas proximate to the site,
free of potential contamination by site chemicals
and similar to the site in topography, geology,
meteorology, and other characteristics).
If models will be used to evaluate exposure
pathways and estimate exposure point
concentrations, these models should be identified in
the Workplan. Site-specific data collection needed
for these models should also be discussed.
WHEN DEVELOPING THE SAP, CONSIDER
THE FOLLOWING:
How will data from multiple groundwater wells
collected over time be used to calculate
exposure?
At what depths will soil samples be taken and
how will they be combined to describe
exposures for different scenarios (e.g.,
industrial versus residential) or to characterize
hotspots?
What type of sampling design (e.g., random
versus purposive) will be used?
Are SAPs adequate to distinguish site
contaminationfrombackground contamination
for each medium and for organic and inorganic
parameters?
Analysis. Development of the DQOs for
analysis should not be limited to concern for the
precision, accuracy, representativeness,
completeness, and comparability of the data.
DQOs that are important for risk assessment should
consider: types of laboratory analyses used,
sensitivity of detection limits of the analytical
techniques (especially for non-Target Compound
List [non-TCL] chemicals and non-standard
matrices), resulting data quality, and the
employment of adequate quality assurance/quality
2-3
December 2001
-------
control (QA/QC) measures.
In some cases, risk assessment data needs may
be best supported by additional chemicals, different
analytical methods, and/or lower detection limits
than are being used for the RI. Based upon the
values of the risk-based PRGs calculated during
scoping, detection limits may need to be lower than
those obtained by the standard Superfund methods.
The adequacy of detection limits for conducting the
baseline risk assessment and for comparing to PRGs
should be evaluated in the Workplan (QAPP). For
example, a table listing expected contaminants and
comparing the method detection limit or quantitation
limit for each compound with the
Analytical data should be evaluated and
reviewed in accordance with the criteria to evaluate
data (e.g., the National Functional Guidelines).
Also refer to your regional Agency office for
guidance on data validation and/or other chemical-
specific guidance, as applicable.
The Workplan should also discuss how split
samples, duplicates, blanks (trip, field, and
laboratory), and qualified and rejected data can be
used in assessing site risks. The Workplan should
describe the analysis for each medium and how the
types of analyses were selected based on site
history.
appropriate risk-based goal for that chemical could
be presented. This information along with issues of
cost and other data uses should affect the methods
and detection limits finally selected.
2-4
December 2001
-------
CHAPTER 3
RISK ASSESSMENT
DATA AND TASKS
DURING THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
Project Management Guidelines. Remedial
project managers should establish the schedule of
submission for the deliverables for the RI Reports
and Baseline Risk Assessment Reports. The
schedule may vary from site to site, as appropriate.
Interested parties (States, Commonwealths, tribes
and other stakeholders) may be involved in the
scheduling and review process, as appropriate.
Refer to your regional office for guidance
regarding the order of the deliverables. These
deliverables should also be defined in the
Workplan.
General RI Guidelines. Generally, RI
guidance should be followed in performing the
remedial investigation. The following items are of
particular importance to risk assessments. If the
risk assessment is being prepared as a stand-alone
document, the following items should be included.
If, instead, the risk assessment is a section of the
RI Report, the items which follow should be
addressed in the RI Report and clearly referenced
in the Baseline Risk Assessment Report.
• Present a general map of the site depicting
boundaries and surface topography, which
illustrates site features, such as fences, ponds,
structures, as well as geographical
relationships between potential receptors and
the site.
• Discuss historical site activity.
Discuss chronology of land use (specify
agriculture, industry, recreation, waste
deposition, and residential development at the
site).
Present an overview of the nature and extent
of contamination, including when samples
were collected and the kinds of contaminants
and media potentially contaminated.
• Describe the analytical and data validation
methods used.
• If modeling was used to estimate exposure
point concentrations, documentthe parameters
related to soil/sediment, hydrogeology,
hydrology, and meteorology either in the risk
assessment or the RI Report.
Risk Assessment Guidelines. The risk
assessment should be conducted in accordance
with all appropriate guidance and policies.
Consult with your EPA risk assessor regarding the
most appropriate guidance.
Interim Deliverables should be prepared as
described in Section 3.1.1 and should ultimately
be incorporated into the Baseline Risk Assessment
Report. The Interim Deliverables prepared by the
risk assessment author should be reviewed by the
EPA risk assessor prior to submission of the
Baseline Risk Assessment Report. Hazard
identification and exposure parameters, among
others, may require discussion, refinement, and
revision. Review and modification of Interim
Deliverables should greatly reduce the Baseline
Risk Assessment Report preparation and review
time. Discussions of the three categories of risk
assessment deliverables (Interim Deliverables,
Draft Baseline Risk Assessment Report, and Final
Baseline Risk Assessment Report) follow.
3.1 INTERIM DELIVERABLES
This section presents an outline of the
Planning Tables, Worksheets, and Supporting
Recommended Information that should be
prepared as Interim Deliverables for each site.
The Workplan discussed in Section 2.2.1 should
also describe the Planning Tables, Worksheets,
and Supporting Recommended Information for a
particular site. Exhibit 3-1 presents a list of
recommended Interim Deliverables. Use of these
deliverables for each site should improve
standardization in risk assessment reporting and
3-1
December 2001
-------
should improve the transparency, clarity, and
consistency of risk assessments.
3.1.1 PLANNING TABLES,
WORKSHEETS, AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION
More standardized reporting of Superfund
human health risk assessments can be achieved
through the preparation of Planning Tables,
Worksheets, and Supporting Information. These
documents should be prepared as Interim
Deliverables and reviewed by the EPA risk
assessor prior to preparation of the Baseline Risk
Assessment Report. After review and revision, as
necessary, these documents should be included in
the Baseline Risk Assessment Report.
This section describes the Planning Table
formats that should be used in EPA CERCLA risk
assessments. The Planning Table formats
normally should not be altered (i.e., columns
should not be added, deleted, or changed);
however, rows and footnotes should be added as
appropriate. Standardization of the Tables should
help to achieve Superfund program-wide reporting
consistency. Note that multiple versions of some
Planning Tables may be used to address different
Media, different Exposure Pathways, or different
Exposures (i.e., reasonable maximum exposure
[RME] versus central tendency [CT]). Exhibit 3-2
summarizes the relationship between five
traditional risk assessment activities and the
corresponding Planning Tables that should help
standardize risk assessment reporting. The five
risk assessment activities follow:
Data collection
• Data evaluation
Exposure assessment
• Toxicity assessment
Risk characterization.
Copies of the blank Planning Tables are
provided in both Lotus® and Excel® spreadsheet
formats associated with the Part D guidance.
Blank Planning Table templates and completed
examples of typical Planning Tables are provided
in Appendix A. Detailed Instructions for the
completion of the Planning Tables are provided in
Appendix B. Additional example scenarios and
selected Planning Tables are provided in
Appendix D.
In addition to the Planning Tables, six
Planning Worksheets are provided in Appendix C.
These include Worksheets for Data Useability,
TARA Schedule, Dermal, Radiation Dose
Assessment, Lead, and ROD Risk. Use of the
Worksheets is strongly encouraged to improve
transparency, clarity, and consistency.
The Planning Tables and Worksheets
document the majority of the data and
assumptions used to evaluate risk, as well as the
risks and hazards calculated. In most cases, other
data and rationale can be used to support the
information presented in the Planning Tables.
This additional Supporting Information should
also be provided to the EPA risk assessor as an
Interim Deliverable and later incorporated in the
Baseline Risk Assessment Report.
Refer to Exhibit 3-3 for a brief summary of
the Revision 1 improvements to the Planning
Tables and Worksheets as compared to Revision
0. Descriptions of the RAGS Part D Revision 1
Planning Tables, Worksheets, and Supporting
Information follow:
Planning TABLE 0: Site Risk Assessment
Identification Information. The purposes of
Planning Table 0 are:
• To uniquely identify the risk assessment
To identify the relevant contacts for the risk
assessment.
The information documented in Planning
Table 0 should include:
• Site Information
• Contact information
• Risk assessment document information.
The data elements that should be presented in
Planning Table 0 are listed in the Planning Table
0 highlight box.
3-2
December 2001
-------
KEY DATA ELEMENTS IN
PLANNING TABLE 0
Regions should provide the following information:
Site Name/OU, Region, EPA ID Number, State,
Status, Federal Facility (Y/N), EPA Project
Manager, EPA Risk Assessor, Prepared by,
Prepared for, Document Title, Document Date,
Probabilistic Risk Assessment (Y/N), and
Comments.
Regions should perform the following steps
associated with the preparation of Planning Table
0:
1. Provide the identification information for the
risk assessment.
2. Include Planning Table 0 with the other
Planning Tables, Worksheets, and Supporting
Information to facilitate tracking of the
relevant contacts.
TARA SCHEDULE WORKSHEET. The
TARA Schedule of Risk-Related Activities
Worksheet (TARA Schedule Worksheet) is the
first Worksheet that should be developed for each
risk assessment to document the applicability,
responsibility, and schedule for each risk-related
activity. As the first interim deliverable, the
Worksheet documents the plan for a particular
site, identifying which Planning Tables,
Worksheets, and Supporting Information should
be provided as interim deliverables for EPA risk
assessor review, and when they are expected to be
available. The TARA Schedule Worksheet should
be prepared in consultation with the EPA risk
assessor assigned to the site.
Regions should perform the following steps
associated with the preparation of the TARA
Schedule Worksheet:
1. Complete the TARA Schedule Worksheet
prior to initiation of any other Planning
Tables, Worksheets, or Supporting
Information.
2. Obtain EPA risk assessor consensus
regarding which interim deliverables should
be submitted and the schedules for each.
The recommended blank TARA Schedule
Worksheet may be found in Appendix C. An
example TARA Schedule Worksheet accompanies
the Dean Company example in Appendix A.
PLANNING TABLE 1: Selection of
Exposure Pathways. The purposes of Planning
Table 1 are:
To assist in project planning
• To accompany the site conceptual model
To present possible Receptors, Exposure
Routes, and Exposure Pathways
To present the rationale for selection or
exclusion of each Exposure Pathway
• To communicate risk information to interested
parties outside EPA
• To establish a framework for the generation of
subsequent Planning Tables. All subsequent
tables should be built from the information
contained in Planning Table 1.
The information that should be documented in
Planning Table 1 includes:
• Exposure Pathways that were examined and
excluded from analysis
• Exposure Pathways that are expected to be
qualitatively or quantitatively evaluated in the
risk assessment.
The data elements that should be presented in
Planning Table 1 are listed in the Planning Table
1 highlight box.
KEY DATA ELEMENTS IN
PLANNING TABLE 1
Regions should provide the following information:
Scenario Timeframe, Medium, Exposure Medium,
Exposure Point, Receptor Population, Receptor
Age, Exposure Route, Type of Analysis, Rationale
for Selection or Exclusion of Exposure Pathway.
3-3
December 2001
-------
Region should perform the following steps
associated with the preparation of Planning Table
1:
1. Refine site conceptual model which identifies
all potential sources of contamination, all
potential Exposure Pathways, the Medium
associated with each, and the potentially
exposed populations (Receptors).
2. Select realistic Exposure Pathways for
detailed analyses.
3. Include rationale for exclusion of potential
Exposure Pathways.
4. Modify Planning Table 1, where
appropriate.
5. Planning Table 1 should later be
incorporated in the Baseline Risk Assessment
Report.
DATA USEABILITY WORKSHEET.
Data quality is an important component of the risk
assessment and the evaluation of data quality
should be documented. A recommended Data
Useability Worksheet is included to address this
need.
The Regional EPA risk assessor and the EPA
document Guidance for Data Useability in Risk
Assessment (Part A, U.S. EPA 1990a), should be
consulted before completing the Data Useability
Worksheet to define the appropriate level of detail
to be reflected in the comment fields in the
Worksheet. This Worksheet should be prepared
as soon as all data validation reports have been
completed for each medium. A medium-specific
Data Useability Worksheet should be completed
only after the project team (i.e., lead chemist, lead
hydrogeologist, risk assessor, etc.) has collectively
discussed the data useability criteria. The
Worksheet should be used to record and identify
the impact of data quality issues as they relate to
data useability. For example, deviations from
approved site Workplans which occurred during
sample collection, laboratory analysis, or data
review should be assessed. Also, the Worksheet
preparer should refer to the Superfund regional
office for guidance on data validation when
preparing the Worksheet.
Regions should perform the following steps
associated with the preparation of the Data
Useability Worksheet:
1. Complete the Data Useability Worksheet for
each Medium prior to screening of chemicals
of potential concern (COPCs).
2. Incorporate the Data Useability Worksheet
in the Baseline Risk Assessment Report.
A recommended blank Data Useability
Worksheet may be found in Appendix C. An
example Data Useability Worksheet accompanies
the Dean Company example in Appendix A.
PLANNING TABLE 2: Occurrence,
Distribution, and Selection of COPCs. The
purposes of Planning Table 2 are:
• To provide information useful for data
evaluation of chemicals and radionuclides
detected
To provide adequate information so the
user/reviewer gets a sense of the chemicals
and radionuclides detected at the site and the
potential magnitude of the potential problems
at the site
• To provide chemical screening data and
rationale for selection of COPCs.
The information documented in Planning
Table 2 should include:
• Statistical information about chemicals and
radionuclides detected in each Medium
• The detection limits of chemicals and
radionuclides analyzed
• The toxicity screening values for COPC
selection
• The chemicals and radionuclides selected and
deleted as COPCs.
The data elements presented in Planning
Table 2 are listed in the Planning Table 2
highlight box.
Regions should perform the following steps
3-4
December 2001
-------
associated with the preparation of Planning Table
2. Refer to the regional office for guidance when
performing these steps.
KEY DATA ELEMENTS IN
PLANNING TABLE 2
For each unique combination of Scenario
Timeframe, Medium, and Exposure Medium,
Regions should provide the following information:
Exposure Point, CAS Number, Chemical, Minimum
Concentration (Qualifier), Maximum Concentration
(Qualifier), Units, Location of Maximum
Concentration, Detection Frequency, Range of
Detection Limits, Concentration Used for
Screening, Background Value, Screening Toxicity
Value (N/C), Potential ARAR/TBC Value, Potential
ARAR/TBC Source, COPC Flag (Y/N), and
Rationale for Selection or Deletion.
1. Discuss selection criteria for COPCs;
including toxicity screening values, frequency
of detection, and background comparison, as
appropriate.
2. Perform screening; select COPCs that will be
carried into the risk assessment (include
comparison to regulatory standards and
criteria where appropriate).
3. Submit Supporting Information to
substantiate the available Background
Value shown for each chemical in Planning
Table 2 and to enable verification of those
values by EPA. The format of the summary
should be determined by each region. The
Supporting Information should provide
relevant information for each chemical used to
determine the background concentration,
including (but not limited to) average,
maximum, hypothesis testing of equality of
the mean, and other information that may be
required to fully describe the background
selection process.
4. Incorporate the Background Supporting
Information in the Baseline Risk Assessment
Report.
5. Complete Planning Table 2 for each
combination of Scenario Timeframe, Medium,
and Exposure Medium.
6. Incorporate Planning Table 2 in the
Baseline Risk Assessment Report.
PLANNING TABLE 3: Exposure Point
Concentration Summary. The purposes of
Planning Table 3 are:
To provide the EPCs for measured and
modeled values
To provide statistical information on the
derivation of the EPCs.
The information documented in Planning
Table 3 should include:
Statistical information which was used to
calculate the EPCs for chemicals and
radionuclides detected in each Medium
• EPCs (RME and/or CT)
The statistics which were used to make the
determinations as well as the rationale for the
selection of the statistics for each chemical or
radionuclide (i.e., discuss statistical derivation
of measured data or approach for modeled
data).
The data elements presented in Planning
Table 3 are listed in the Planning Table 3
highlight box.
KEY DATA ELEMENTS IN
PLANNING TABLE 3
For each unique combination of Scenario
Timeframe, Medium, and Exposure Medium,
Regions should provide the following information:
Exposure Point, Chemical of Potential Concern,
Units, Arithmetic Mean, 95% upper confidence
level (UCL), Maximum Concentration (Qualifier),
EPC Value, EPC Units, EPC Statistic, and EPC
Rationale.
3-5
December 2001
-------
Region should perform the following steps
associated with the preparation of Planning Table
3.
1. Discuss how samples will be grouped (e.g.,
how hot spots in soil will be considered; how
groundwater data will be combined; how
temporal and chemical phases will be
addressed; how upgradient, downgradient,
and cross gradient samples will be addressed).
2. Discuss approach to determine how data are
distributed (e.g., normal, log-normal).
3. Discuss evaluation of lead, total chromium
and any other special chemicals.
4. Submit Supporting Information to
document the EPC summary presented in
Planning Table 3 and to enable verification
of those values by EPA. The format of the
summary should be determined by each
region. The Supporting Information should
discuss EPCs statistically derived from
measured data, including identification of the
samples used in each calculation, results of
distribution testing (Wilk-Shapiro,
D'Agostino), mean (transformed if
appropriate), maximum (transformed if
appropriate), Planning deviation (transformed
if appropriate), t- or H-statistic, 95% UCL
(including non-parametric methods, where
applicable), and other protocols as required.
The Supporting Information should also
present information for EPCs, including
derivation of modeled values, assumptions
and values used, statistical derivation of
measured values and associated calculations,
and other protocols as required.
5. Incorporate the EPC Supporting
Information in the Baseline Risk Assessment
Report.
6. Complete Planning Table 3 for each
combination of Scenario Timeframe, Medium,
Exposure Medium, and Exposure Point.
Create separate sets of Planning Table 3 for
RME and CT, when appropriate.
7. Incorporate Planning Table 3 in the Baseline
Risk Assessment Report.
Planning TABLE 4: Values Used for Daily
Intake Calculations. The purposes of Planning
Table 4 are:
To provide the exposure parameters used for
intake calculations for each Exposure Pathway
(Scenario Timeframe, Medium, Exposure
Medium, Exposure Point, Receptor
Population, Receptor Age, and Exposure
Route)
To provide the intake equations or models
used for each Exposure Route/Pathway.
The information documented in Planning
Table 4 should include:
Values used for each intake equation for each
Exposure Pathway and the reference/rationale
for each
• Intake equation or model used to calculate the
intake for each Exposure Pathway.
The data elements presented in Planning
Table 4 are listed in the Planning Table 4
highlight box.
KEY DATA ELEMENTS IN
PLANNING TABLE 4
For each unique combination of Scenario
Timeframe, Medium, and Exposure Medium,
Regions should provide the following information:
Exposure Route, Receptor Population, Receptor
Age, Exposure Point, Parameter Code, Parameter
(Definition, Value, and Units), Rationale/Reference,
and Intake Equation/Model Name.
Regions should perform the following steps
associated with the preparation of Planning Table
4.
1. Provide references for all exposure
3-6
December 2001
-------
parameters.
2. Submit Supporting Information to
summarize the Modeled Intake
Methodology and Parameters used to
calculate modeled intake values and to
enable verification of those values by EPA.
The Supporting Information should be limited
to summary level information. The format of
the summary should be structured to
accommodate the variability and complexity
associated with different models.
3. Incorporate the Modeled Intake Supporting
Information in the Baseline Risk Assessment
Report.
4. Submit Supporting Information on
Chemical-Specific Parameters, which apply
to all Planning Tables to be completed for the
risk assessment and to enable verification of
those values by EPA. The summary should
identify and display chemical parameters and
constants that are used to calculate risks and
hazards, but are not included on Planning
Tables. The format of the summary should
be determined by each region. The values and
constants that are used to calculate risk and
hazards, including molecular weight, vapor
pressure, Koc, Kow, dermal permeability
constant, Henry's Law constant, and other
information that the reader would find useful
for understanding the risk assessment
discussion should be included.
5. Incorporate the Chemical-Specific
Parameter Supporting Information
summary into the Baseline Risk Assessment
Report.
6. Complete Planning Table 4 for each
combination of Scenario Timeframe, Medium,
and Exposure Medium. Create separate sets of
Planning Table 4 for RME and CT, where
appropriate.
7. Incorporate Planning Table 4 into the
Baseline Risk Assessment Report.
DERMAL WORKSHEET. The
recommended Dermal Worksheet presents
intermediate variables for calculating absorbed
dose per event DA (event). A version of this
Worksheet should be developed for each medium
for which the dermal exposure route will be
quantitatively assessed. Available data should be
provided for each COPC under evaluation.
Regions should perform the following steps
associated with preparation of the Dermal
Worksheet:
1. Complete the Dermal Worksheet prior to
calculation of risks and hazards.
2. Provide interim deliverables to the EPA risk
assessor, as appropriate.
3. Incorporate the Dermal Worksheet in the
Baseline Risk Assessment Report.
A recommended blank Dermal Worksheet may be
found in Appendix C. An example Dermal
Worksheet accompanies the Dean Company
example in Appendix A.
PLANNING TABLES 5 AND 6: Non-
Cancer and Cancer Toxicity Data. The
purposes of Planning Tables 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3
are:
• To provide information on reference doses
(RfDs), reference concentrations (RfCs),
Target organs, and adjustment factors for
chemicals
• To provide oral to dermal adjustment factors
To provide RfC to RfD adjustment factors
• To verify references for non-cancer toxicity
data
• To provide non-cancer toxicity information
for "special-case" chemicals.
3-7
December 2001
-------
KEY DATA ELEMENTS IN
PLANNING TABLE 5.1
Region should provide the following information:
Chemical of Potential Concern,
Chronic/Subchronic, Oral
RfD Value and Units, Oral Absorption Efficiency
for Dermal, Absorbed RfD for Dermal Value and
Units, Primary Target Organ(s), Combined
Uncertainty/Modify ing Factors, Source(s) RfD:
Target Organ(s), and Dates of RfD: Target
Organ(s).
The information documented in Planning
Tables 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 should include:
• The RfDs for each of the COPCs, as well as
modifying factors and reference concentration
(RfC) to RfD adjustments
• The organ effects of each of the COPCs
References for RfCs and organ effects.
The data elements presented in Planning
Tables 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 are listed in the Planning
Tables 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 highlight boxes.
KEY DATA ELEMENTS IN
PLANNING TABLE 5.2
Regions should provide the following information:
Chemical of Potential Concern,
Chronic/Subchronic, Inhalation RfC Value and
Units, Extrapolated RfD Value and Units, Primary
Target Organ(s), Combined Uncertainty/Modifying
Factors, Source(s) of RfC: Target Organ(s), and
Date(s) of RfC: Target Organ(s).
KEY DATA ELEMENTS IN
PLANNING TABLE 5.3
Regions should provide the following information:
Chemical of Potential Concern,
Chronic/Subchronic, Parameter Name, Value, and
Units), Primary Target Organ(s), Combined
Uncertainty/Modifying Factors, Source(s) of
Parameter: Target Organ(s), and Date(s) of
The purposes of Planning Tables 6.1, 6.2,
6.3, and 6.4 are:
To provide the oral, dermal, and inhalation
cancer toxicity information (values and
sources of information) for chemicals and
radionuclides of potential concern
To provide the methodology and adjustment
factors used to convert oral cancer toxicity
values to dermal toxicity values and to convert
inhalation unit risks to inhalation cancer slope
factors
• To provide weight of evidence/cancer
guideline descriptions for each chemical and
radionuclide of potential concern
• To provide cancer toxicity information for
"special case" chemicals.
The information documented in Planning
Tables 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 should include:
Oral, dermal, and inhalation toxicity values
for chemicals and radionuclides of potential
concern
Weight of evidence/cancer guidelines
descriptions for chemicals of potential
concern
3-8
December 2001
-------
The source/reference for each toxicity value.
The data elements presented in Planning
Tables 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 are listed in the
Planning Tables 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 highlight
box.
KEY DATA ELEMENTS IN
PLANNING TABLE 6.1
Regions should provide the following information:
Chemical of Potential Concern, Oral Cancer Slope
Factor Value and Units, Oral Absorption Efficiency
for Dermal, Absorbed Cancer Slope Factor for
Dermal Value and Units, Weight of
Evidence/Cancer Guideline Description, Source(s)
andDate(s)ofOralCSF.
KEY DATA ELEMENTS IN
PLANNING TABLE 6.2
Regions should provide the following information:
Chemical of Potential Concern, Unit Risk Value and
Units, Inhalation Cancer Slope Factor Value and
Units, Weight of Evidence/Cancer Guideline
Description, Source(s) and Date(s) of Unit Risk:
Inhalation CSF.
KEY DATA ELEMENTS IN
PLANNING TABLE 6.3
Regions should p rovide the following information:
Chemical of Potential Concern, Parameter (Name,
Value, and Units), Source(s), and Dates(s).
KEY DATA ELEMENTS IN
PLANNING TABLE 6.4
Regions should provide the following
information: Chemical of Potential Concern,
Cancer Slope Factor Value and Units, Source(s),
and Dates(s).
Regions should perform the following steps
associated with the preparation of Planning
Tables 5 and 6.
1. Refer to the end of Section 3.1.1 for Lead
Worksheets.
2. Ensure that chronic and subchronic toxicity
values are applied correctly based on the
duration of exposure. Provide rationale for
selection of surrogate toxicity values not in
IRIS or HEAST, or provided by NCEA.
(EPA may require additional review.)
3. Submit Supporting Information regarding
Toxicity Data for Special Case Chemicals
(i.e., those chemicals with cancer risks and
non-cancer hazards calculated using methods
or toxicity parameters different from those
presented on Planning Tables 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, or
6.2). The Supporting Information should be
be used to enable verification of those values
by EPA. Examples may include selection of
potency factors for poly chlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), use of relative potencies for
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
and chlorinated dioxins and furans, and
valence species assumptions for metals.
Consult the EPA risk assessor regarding the
use of these tables.
4. Incorporate the Special Case Chemicals
Supporting Information in the Baseline Risk
Assessment Report.
5. Complete Planning Tables 5 and 6 for the
exposure routes and chemicals under
evaluation.
Planning Table 5.1: Non-Cancer
Toxicity Data - Oral/Dermal
Planning Table 5.2: Non-Cancer
Toxicity Data - Inhalation
Planning Table 5.3: Non-Cancer
Toxicity Data - Special Case Chemicals
Planning Table 6.1: Cancer Toxicity
Data - Oral/Dermal
Planning Table 6.2: Cancer Toxicity
Data - Inhalation
Planning Table 6.3: Cancer Toxicity
Data - Special Case Chemicals
Planning Table 6.4: Cancer Toxicity
Data -External (Radiation).
6. Incorporate Planning Tables 5 and 6 in the
Baseline Risk Assessment Report.
PLANNING TABLE 7: Calculation of
3-9
December 2001
-------
Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer
Hazards. The purposes of Planning Table 7 are:
To provide a summary of the variables used to
calculate chemical cancer risks and non-
cancer hazards
• To show the EPC and intake used in the non-
cancer hazard and cancer risk calculations
• To present the result of the calculation for
each Exposure Route/Pathway for each COPC
• To provide the total hazard index and cancer
risks for all Exposure Routes/Pathways for the
Scenario Timeframe and Receptor presented
in this table.
The information documented in Planning
Table 7 should include:
• The non-cancer hazard quotient (HQ) and
cancer risk value for each COPC for each
Exposure Route/Pathway
The values used for EPC, non-cancer intake,
cancer intake, reference doses and
concentrations, and cancer slope factors for
each COPC for each Exposure Route.
The data elements presented in Planning
Table 7 are listed in the Planning Table 7
highlight box.
KEY DATA ELEMENTS IN
PLANNING TABLE 7
For each unique combination of Scenario
Timeframe, Receptor Population, and Receptor
Age, Regions should provide the following
information: Medium, Exposure Medium, Exposure
Point, Exposure Route, Chemical of Potential
Concern, EPC Value and Units, Cancer Risk
Calculations (Intake/Exposure Concentration Value
and Units, CSF/Unit Risk Value and Units, and
Cancer Risk), and Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
(Intake/Exposure Concentration Value and Units,
RfD/RfC Value and Units, and Hazard Quotient).
Regions should perform the following steps
associated with the preparation of Planning Table
7.
1. Address non-cancer hazards and cancer risks
including the calculations and supporting
information by Exposure Route.
2. Include RME and CT results in separate
tables. Ensure that risks and hazards from
multiple chemicals are combined
appropriately across Pathways that affect the
same individual or population subgroup, for
all site-related chemicals.
3. Discuss definitions of Planning Tables
Planning Table 7.n.RME: Calculation
of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-
Cancer Hazards (RME)
Planning Table 7.n.CT: Calculation of
Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer
Hazards (CT)
4. If it is preferred to segregate cancer and non-
cancer evaluations, see the blank Planning
Tables 7.a.l and 7.b.l shown in Appendix A
as well as Example Scenario 7 in Appendix D.
5. Submit Supporting Information that
summarizes the approach used to perform
Special Chemical Risk and Hazard
Calculations and to enable verification of
those values by EPA. This summary should
address the calculation of non-cancer hazards
and cancer risks for chemicals that do not use
RfD or cancer slope factor (CSF) values,
respectively. The format of the summary
should be determined by each region.
6. Incorporate the Special Chemical Risk and
Hazard Calculations Supporting
Information in the Baseline Risk Assessment
Report.
7. Complete Planning Table 7 for each
combination of Scenario Timeframe, Receptor
Population, and Receptor Age.
8. Incorporate Planning Table 7 in the Baseline
Risk Assessment Report.
PLANNING TABLE 8: Calculation of
Radiation Cancer Risks.
The purposes of Planning Table 8 are:
3-10
December 2001
-------
To provide a summary of the variables used to
calculate radiation cancer risks
To show the EPC used in the radiation cancer
risk calculations
To show, based on the documented risk
calculation approach, the intake and cancer
slope factors
• To present the result of the calculation for
each Exposure Route/Pathway for each COPC
• To provide the radiation cancer risks for all
Exposure Routes/Pathways for the Scenario
Timeframe and Receptor presented in this
table.
The information documented in Planning
Table 8 should include:
• The approach for calculating the radiation
cancer risk for each COPC for each Exposure
Route/Pathway
The values used for EPC, intake, and cancer
slope factor for each COPC for each Exposure
Route
• The Cancer risk value for each COPC for each
Exposure Route/Pathway
• Total cancer risk values by Exposure Route,
Exposure Point, and across all media for the
Scenario Timeframe and Receptor presented
in this table.
KEY DATA ELEMENTS IN
PLANNING TABLE 8
For each unique combination of Scenario
Timeframe, Receptor Population, and Receptor
Age, Regions should provide the following
information: Medium, Exposure Medium, Exposure
Point, Exposure Route, Radionuclide of Potential
Concern, EPC Value and Units, Risk Calculation
Approach, and Cancer Risk Calculations
(Intake/Activity Value and Units, CSF Value and
Units, and Cancer Risk).
The data elements presented in Planning
Table 8 are listed in the Planning Table 8
highlight box.
Regions should perform the following steps
associated with the preparation of Planning Table
8.
1. Address radiation cancer risks including
the calculations and supporting
information by Exposure Route.
2. Include RME and CT results in separate
tables. Ensure that risks from multiple
radionuclides are combined appropriately
across pathways that affect the same
individual or population subgroup, for all
site-related radionuclides.
3. Discuss definitions of Planning Tables
Planning Table S.n.RME: Calculation of
Cancer Radiation Risks (RME)
Planning Table S.n.CT: Calculation of
Cancer Radiation Risks (CT)
4. Complete Planning Table 8 for each
combination of Scenario Timeframe,
Receptor Population, and Receptor Age.
5. Incorporate Planning Table 8 in the
Baseline Risk Assessment Report.
RADIATION DOSE ASSESSMENT
WORKSHEET. The recommended Radiation
Dose Assessment Worksheet has been provided to
document alternate radionuclide cancer risk
calculations, performed using a dose approach
rather than the standard CERCLA risk calculation
method.
The Regions should perform the following
steps associated with preparation of the Radiation
Dose Assessment Worksheet, if applicable to the
risk assessment:
1. Complete the Radiation Dose
Assessment Worksheet for each
Receptor.
2. Provide interim deliverables to the EPA
risk assessor, as appropriate.
3-11
December 2001
-------
3. Incorporate the Radiation Dose Assessment
Worksheet in the Baseline Risk Assessment
Report.
A recommended blank Radiation Dose
Assessment Worksheet may be found in Appendix
C. An example Radiation Dose Assessment
Worksheet is presented in Appendix D, Example
Scenario 11.
PLANNING TABLE 9: Summary of
Receptor Risk and Hazards for COPCs.
The purpose of Planning Table 9 is:
• To provide a summary of cancer risks and
non-cancer hazards for each Receptor, by
Medium, Exposure Medium, Exposure Route,
and Exposure Point.
The information documented in Planning
Table 9 should include:
• The cancer risk and non-cancer hazard to each
Receptor for each COPC by Exposure Route
and Exposure Point
The total cancer risk and non-cancer hazard
for each Exposure Point, Exposure Medium
and Medium across all Exposure Routes
• The total cancer risk and non-cancer hazard
for a Receptor across all media
• The primary target organs for non-
carcinogenic hazard effects.
The data elements presented in Planning
Table 9 are listed in the Planning Table 9
highlight box.
Regions should perform the following steps
associated with the preparation of Planning Table
9.
1. Address non-cancer hazards and cancer risks
including the calculations and supporting
information by Exposure Route.
2. Include RME and CT results. Ensure that
risks and hazards from multiple chemicals are
combined appropriately across Pathways that
affect the same individual or population subgroup,
KEY DATA ELEMENTS IN
PLANNING TABLE 9
For each unique combination of Scenario
Timeframe, Receptor Population, and Receptor
Age, Regions should provide the following
information: Medium, Exposure Medium, Exposure
Point, Chemical of Potential Concern, Carcinogenic
Risk (Ingestion, Inhalation, Dermal, External
(Radiation) and Exposure Routes Total), and Non-
Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient (Primary Target
Organ(s), Ingestion, Inhalation, Dermal, and
Exposure Routes Total).
for all site-related chemicals.
3. Discuss definitions of Planning Tables
Planning Table 9.n.RME: Summary of
Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs
(RME)
Planning Table 9.n.CT: Summary of
Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs (CT)
4. Complete Planning Table 9 for each
combination of Scenario Timeframe, Receptor
Population, and Receptor Age.
5. Incorporate Planning Table 9 in the Baseline
Risk Assessment Report.
PLANNING TABLE 10: Risk Summary. The
purpose of Planning Table 10 is:
• To provide a summary of cancer risks and
non-cancer hazards for each Receptor, by
Medium, Exposure Medium, Exposure Route,
and Exposure Point, that may trigger the need
for remedial action.
The information documented in Planning
Table 10 should include:
The cancer risk and non-cancer hazard to each
Receptor for each chemical or radionuclide by
Exposure Route and Exposure Point for risk
drivers
The total cancer risk and non-cancer hazard
for each Exposure Point, Exposure Medium,
and Medium across all Exposure Routes for
3-12
December 2001
-------
risk drivers
• The total cancer risk and non-cancer hazard
for a Receptor across all media for risk drivers
• The primary target organs for non-
carcinogenic hazard effects for risk drivers.
The data elements presented in Planning
Table 10 are listed in the Planning Table 10
highlight box.
KEY DATA ELEMENTS IN
PLANNING TABLE 10
For each unique combination of Scenario
Timeframe, Receptor Population, and Receptor
Age, Regions should provide the following
information: Medium, Exposure Medium,
Exposure Point, Chemical, Carcinogenic Risk
(Ingestion, Inhalation, Dermal, External
(Radiation) and Exposure Routes Total), and Non-
Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient (Primary Target
Organ(s), Ingestion, Inhalation, Dermal, and
Exposure Routes Total).
Regions should perform the following steps
associated with the preparation of Planning Table
10.
1. Address non-cancer hazards and cancer risks
including the calculations and supporting
information by Exposure Route.
2. Include RME and CT results. Ensure that
risks and hazards from multiple chemicals are
combined appropriately across Pathways that
affect the same individual or population
subgroup, for all site-related chemicals.
3. Discuss definitions of Planning Tables
Planning Table lO.n.RME: Risk
Summary (RME)
Planning Table lO.n.CT: Risk
Summary (CT)
5. Incorporate Planning Table 10 in the
Baseline Risk Assessment Report.
LEAD WORKSHEETS. Two recommended
Lead Worksheets have been provided to document
lead risk evaluations performed for young children
and adult receptors at a site.
Regions should perform the following steps
associated with the preparation of Lead
Worksheets:
1. Complete the Lead Worksheets for Child
and Adult. Also attach the appropriate graphs
and results from the Integrated Exposure
Uptake Biokinetic Model (IEUBK) model (if
used) to the Child Worksheet. Also attach
results from the adult lead spreadsheet to the
Adult Worksheet.
2. The Lead Worksheets should later be
incorporated in the Baseline Risk Assessment
Report.
Blank recommended Lead Worksheets may be
found in Appendix C. Example Lead Worksheets
are presented in Appendix D Example Scenario
10.
3.1.2 ASSESSMENT OF CONFIDENCE
AND UNCERTAINTY
Uncertainty assessment is important in risk
assessment. Although the risk assessment should
indicate sources of variability and uncertainty
throughout the process, it will generally be
appropriate to include a separate section of the
Baseline Risk Assessment Report that also focuses
on the uncertainties associated with data
evaluation, toxicity assessment, exposure assess-
ment, and risk characterization, as well as overall
uncertainty of the final risk numbers. The region
may choose to defer presentation of this specific
section to the Draft Baseline Risk Assessment
Report.
Complete Planning Table 10 for each
combination of Scenario Timeframe, Receptor
Population, and Receptor Age.
Regions should perform the following steps
associated with the Assessment of Confidence
and Uncertainty:
3-13
December 2001
-------
1. Summarize the Assessment of Confidence
and Uncertainty.
2. Incorporate the Assessment of Confidence
and Uncertainty in the Baseline Risk
Assessment Report.
3.1.3 PROBABILISTIC ANALYSIS
INFORMATION
Based upon the results from a deterministic
risk characterization calculation (Planning Table
7) a decision should be made if a Probabilistic
Analysis will be performed to calculate cancer
risks and non-cancer hazards in accordance with
Agency policy.
Regions should perform the following steps
associated with the Probabilistic Analysis:
1. Summarize the Probabilistic Analysis (if
performed) in a non-standard format.
(Planning formats have not been developed to
document probalistic analysis.) Refer to
probabilistic analysis guidance (U.S. EPA
1997e, 1997g and 200Id) to determine the
information to be documented.
2. Incorporate the Probabilistic Analysis
summary in the Baseline Risk Assessment
Report.
3.2 DRAFT BASELINE RISK
ASSESSMENT REPORT
Regions should Submit the Draft Baseline
Risk Assessment Report after the completion and
acceptance of the Interim Deliverables described
above. EPA guidance should be consulted in
preparing the Draft Baseline Risk Assessment
Report. EPA anticipates that this report
preparation will be greatly expedited, since it
should incorporate the following Interim
Deliverables:
Supporting Information
• The Assessment of Confidence and
Uncertainty
• Probabilistic Analysis information (if
applicable).
However, the report should not consist exclusively
of the Interim Deliverables, because additional
narrative should be necessary for a clear and
comprehensible Baseline Risk Assessment Report.
For example, information such as definition of
hazard indices and cancer slope factors,
toxicological profiles for COPCs, and other
information indicated by risk assessment guidance
should be incorporated.
Every risk assessment should contain a Risk
Characterization appropriate to the assessment.
Risk assessments submitted to the Agency or
performed by the Agency should incorporate any
current Agency guidance applicable on Risk
Characterization (e.g., RAGS/HHEM, EPA 1989c;
Memorandum from Carol Browner on Risk
Characterization, EPA 1995b).
3.3 FINAL BASELINE RISK
ASSESSMENT REPORT
Regions should submit the Final Baseline
Risk Assessment Report as a revision of the
draft, incorporating review comments as necessary
and appropriate.
Regions should Prepare Draft ROD Risk
Worksheet (ROD Risk Highlights) as directed
by the EPA RPM and EPA risk assessor, upon
completion of the Final Baseline Risk Assessment
Report. Refer to the ROD guidance (U.S. EPA,
1999a) for human health risk data needs. The
draft ROD Risk Worksheets present the Exposure
Pathways and Chemicals that help justify the need
for remedial action. Regions should prepare these
recommended Worksheets when the Final
Planning Tables 0 through 10
Worksheets on Data Useability, Dermal,
Radiation Dose Assessments, and Lead, as
applicable
Baseline Risk Assessment Report is completed, in
order to facilitate the EPA risk manager's
preparation of the ROD at a later date.
Exhibit 3-4 identifies the RAGS Part D
3-14
December 2001
-------
information sources (Planning Table and column) 3.4 INFORMATION TRANSFER
for ROD Risk Worksheets (Highlights) 6-15, 6- TQ SIJPERFUND RISK DATA
16A, 6-16B, 6-18A, and 6-18B. Blank templates rT»T T Fr'TTOlV
for the five ROD Risk Worksheets (Highlights) CUl^ILC 11U1>
may be found in Appendix C
Upon the completion of the Final Baseline
Risk Assessment Report, provide the Lotus®
or Excel® version of the Planning Tables and
Worksheets to the EPA risk assessor, who
should submit them to the EPA Headquarters
Risk Information Manager responsible for the
Superfund Risk Data Collection.
3-15 December 2001
-------
3-16 December 2001
-------
3-17 December 2001
-------
3-18 December 2001
-------
3-19 December 2001
-------
3-20 December 2001
-------
3-21 December 2001
-------
3-22 December 2001
-------
EXHIBIT 3-4
RAGS PART D INFORMATION SOURCES
FOR ROD RISK GUIDANCE HIGHLIGHTS
ROD RISK
HIGHLIGHT
Highlight
6-15
PURPOSE
OF ROD
RISK
HIGHLIGHT
Summary of
Chemicals of
Concern and
Medium-
Specific
Exposure Point
Concentrations
ROD FIELDS
Scenario Timeframe
Medium
Exposure Medium
Exposure Point
Chemical of
Concern
Concentration
Detected - Min
Concentration
Detected - Max
Units
Frequency of
Detection
Exposure Point
Concentration
Exposure Point
Concentration Units
Statistical Measure
ASSOCIATED
RAGS D TABLE
Planning Tables 2 & 3
Planning Tables 2 & 3
Planning Tables 2 & 3
Planning Tables 2 & 3
Significant Chemicals
from Planning Table 2
(site specific definition)
Planning Table 2
Planning Table 2
Planning Table 2
Planning Table 2
Planning Table 3
Planning Table 3
Planning Table 3
ASSOCIATED
RAGS D FIELDS
Scenario Timeframe
Medium
Exposure Medium
Exposure Point
Chemical
Minimum
Concentration
Maximum
Concentration
Units
Detection Frequency
Exposure Point
Concentration Value
Exposure Point
Concentration Units
Exposure Point
Concentration Statistic
Notes:
-A version of ROD Highlight 6-15 is to be prepared for each combination of Scenario Timeframe, Medium, and
Exposure Medium with "significant routes of exposure". The definition of "significant" will be site specific.
-Only Exposure Points with "Significant Routes of Exposure" are to be included.
3-23
December 2001
-------
EXHIBIT 3-4
RAGS PART D INFORMATION SOURCES
FOR ROD RISK GUIDANCE HIGHLIGHTS (continued)
ROD RISK
HIGHLIGHT
Highlight
6-16A
PURPOSE
OF ROD
RISK
HIGHLIGHT
Cancer Toxicity
Data Summary
ROD FIELDS
Pathway: Ingestion,
Dermal
Chemical of
Concern
Oral Cancer Slope
Factor
Dermal Cancer
Slope Factor
Slope Factor Units
Weight of
Evidence/
Cancer Guideline
Description
Source
Date
Pathway: Inhalation
Chemical of
Concern
Unit Risk
Units
ASSOCIATED
RAGS D TABLE
Planning Table 6.1
(Cancer Toxicity Data-
Oral/Dermal)
Chemicals of Concern
from Planning Table
6.1 (site specific
definition)
Planning Table 6.1
Planning Table 6.1
Planning Table 6. 1
Planning Table 6.1
Planning Table 6.1
Planning Table 6.1
Planning Table 6.2
(Cancer Toxicity Data -
Inhalation)
Chemicals of Concern
from Planning Table
6.2 (site specific
definition)
Planning Table 6.2
Planning Table 6.2
ASSOCIATED
RAGS D FIELDS
Chemical of Potential
Concern
Oral Cancer Slope
Factor
Absorbed Cancer
Slope Factor for
Dermal Value
Oral Cancer Slope
Factor Units and
Absorbed Cancer
Slope Factor for
Dermal Units
Weight of
Evidence/Cancer
Guideline Description
Oral CSF Source(s)
Oral CSF Date(s)
Chemical of Potential
Concern
Unit Risk Value
Unit Risk Units
3-24
December 2001
-------
EXHIBIT 3-4
RAGS PART D INFORMATION SOURCES
FOR ROD RISK GUIDANCE HIGHLIGHTS (continued)
ROD RISK
HIGHLIGHT
Highlight 6-16A
(continued)
PURPOSE
OF ROD
RISK
HIGHLIGHT
Cancer Toxicity
Data Summary
(continued)
ROD FIELDS
Inhalation Cancer
Slope Factor
Units
Weight of
Evidence/ Cancer
Guideline
Description
Source
Date
Pathway: External
(Radiation)
COC
Cancer Slope or
Conversion Factor
Exposure Route
Units
Weight of
Evidence/ Cancer
Guideline
Description
Source
Date
ASSOCIATED
RAGS D TABLE
Planning Table 6.2
Planning Table 6.2
Planning Table 6.2
Planning Table 6.2
Planning Table 6.2
Planning Table 6.4
(Cancer Toxicity Data -
Radiation)
Chemicals of Concern
from Planning Table
6.4 (site specific
definition)
Planning Table 6.4
Planning Table 1
Planning Table 6.4
Not Available
Planning Table 6.4
Planning Table 6.4
ASSOCIATED
RAGS D FIELDS
Inhalation Cancer
Slope Factor Value
Inhalation Cancer
Slope Factor Units
Weight of
Evidence/Cancer
Guideline Description
Unit Risk : Inhalation
CSF Source(s)
Unit Risk : Inhalation
CSF Date(s)
Chemical of Potential
Concern
Cancer Slope Factor
Value
Exposure Route
Cancer Slope Factor
Units
Not Available
Source(s)
Date(s)
Note:
-A version of ROD Highlight 6-16A is to be prepared for the Chemicals of Concern. This definition will be site
specific.
3-25
December 2001
-------
EXHIBIT 3-4
RAGS PART D INFORMATION SOURCES
FOR ROD RISK GUIDANCE HIGHLIGHTS (continued)
ROD RISK
HIGHLIGHT
Highlight
6-16B
PURPOSE
OF ROD
RISK
HIGHLIGHT
Non-Cancer
Toxicity Data
Summary
ROD FIELDS
Pathway: Ingestion,
Dermal
Chemical of
Concern
Chronic/
Subchronic
Oral RfD Value
Oral RfD Units
Dermal RfD
Dermal RfD Units
Primary Target
Organ
Combined
Uncertainty/
Modifying Factors
Sources of
RfD :Target Organ
Dates of RfD :Target
Organ
Pathway: Inhalation
Chemical of
Concern
ASSOCIATED
RAGS D TABLE
Planning Table 5.1
(Non-Cancer Toxicity
Data - Oral/Dermal)
Chemicals of Concern
from Planning Table
5.1 (site specific
definition)
Planning Table 5.1
Planning Table 5.1
Planning Table 5.1
Planning Table 5.1
Planning Table 5.1
Planning Table 5.1
Planning Table 5.1
Planning Table 5.1
Planning Table 5.1
Planning Table 5.2
(Non-Cancer Toxicity
Data - Inhalation)
Chemicals of Concern
from Planning Table
5.2 (site specific
definition)
ASSOCIATED
RAGS D FIELDS
Chemical of Potential
Concern
Chronic/Subchronic
Oral RfD Value
Oral RfD Units
Absorbed RfD for
Dermal Value
Absorbed RfD for
Dermal Units
Primary Target
Organ(s)
Combined
Uncertainty/
Modifying Factors
RfD: Target Organ(s)
Source(s)
RfD:TargetOrgan(s)
Date(s)
Chemical of Potential
Concern
3-26
December 2001
-------
EXHIBIT 3-4
RAGS PART D INFORMATION SOURCES
FOR ROD RISK GUIDANCE HIGHLIGHTS (continued)
ROD RISK
HIGHLIGHT
Highlight
6-16B
(continued)
PURPOSE
OF ROD
RISK
HIGHLIGHT
Non-Cancer
Toxicity Data
Summary
(continued)
ROD FIELDS
Chronic/
Subchronic
Inhalation RfC
Inhalation RfC
Units
Inhalation RfD
Inhalation RfD
Units
Primary Target
Organ
Combined
Uncertainty/
Modifying Factors
Sources of
RfCRfD: Target
Organ
Dates
ASSOCIATED
RAGS D TABLE
Planning Table 5.2
Planning Table 5.2
Planning Table 5.2
Planning Table 5.2
Planning Table 5.2
Planning Table 5.2
Planning Table 5.2
Planning Table 5.2
Planning Table 5.2
ASSOCIATED
RAGS D FIELDS
Chronic/ Subchronic
Inhalation RfC Value
Inhalation RfC Units
Extrapolated RfD
Value
Extrapolated RfD
Units
Primary Target
Organ(s)
Combined
Uncertainty/
Modifying Factors
RfC:Target Organ(s)
Source(s)
RfC:Target Organ(s)
Date(s)
Notes:
-A version of ROD Highlight 6-16B is to be prepared for the Chemicals of Concern. This definition will be site
specific.
3-27
December 2001
-------
EXHIBIT 3-4
RAGS PART D INFORMATION SOURCES
FOR ROD RISK GUIDANCE HIGHLIGHTS (continued)
ROD RISK
HIGHLIGHT
Highlight
6-18A
PURPOSE
OF ROD
RISK
HIGHLIGHT
Risk
Characterization
Summary -
Carcinogens
ROD FIELDS
Scenario Timeframe
Receptor Population
Receptor Age
Medium
Exposure Medium
Exposure Point
Chemical of
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk-
Ingestion
Carcinogenic Risk-
Inhalation
Carcinogenic Risk-
Dermal
Carcinogenic
Risk-External
(Radiation)
Carcinogenic Risk
Exposure Routes
Total
Medium Risk Total
Total Risk
ASSOCIATED
RAGS D TABLE
Planning Table 9 or 10
Planning Table 9 or 10
Planning Table 9 or 10
Planning Table 9 or 10
Planning Table 9 or 10
Planning Table 9 or 10
Chemicals of Concern
from Planning Table 9
or 10 (site specific
definition)
Planning Table 9 or 10
Planning Table 9 or 10
Planning Table 9 or 10
Planning Table 9 or 10
Planning Table 9 or 10
Planning Table 9 or 10
Planning Table 9 or 10
ASSOCIATED
RAGS D FIELDS
Scenario Timeframe
Receptor Population
Receptor Age
Medium
Exposure Medium
Exposure Point
Chemical
Carcinogenic
Risk-Ingestion
Carcinogenic
Risk-Inhalation
Carcinogenic
Risk-Dermal
Carcinogenic
Risk-External
(Radiation)
Carcinogenic Risk -
Exposure Routes Total
Medium Total (Risk)
Receptor Risk Total
Notes:
-A version of Highlight 6-18A is to be prepared for each Receptor (combination of Scenario Timeframe, Receptor
Population, and Receptor Age) with "Significant Exposure". The definition of "Significant Exposure" will be site
specific.
3-28
December 2001
-------
EXHIBIT 3-4
RAGS PART D INFORMATION SOURCES
FOR ROD RISK GUIDANCE HIGHLIGHTS (continued)
ROD RISK
HIGHLIGHT
Highlight
6-18B
PURPOSE
OF ROD
RISK
HIGHLIGHT
Risk
Characterization
Summary -
Non-
Carcinogens
ROD FIELDS
Scenario Timeframe
Receptor Population
Receptor Age
Medium
Exposure Medium
Exposure Point
Chemical of
Concern
Primary Target
Organ
Non-Carcinogenic
Hazard Quotient -
Ingestion
Non-Carcinogenic
Hazard Quotient -
Inhalation
Non-Carcinogenic
Hazard Quotient -
Dermal
Non-Carcinogenic
Hazard Quotient -
Exposure Routes
Total
ASSOCIATED
RAGS D TABLE
Planning Table 9 or 10
Planning Table 9 or 10
Planning Table 9 or 10
Planning Table 9 or 10
Planning Table 9 or 10
Planning Table 9 or 10
Chemicals of Concern
from Planning Table 9
or 10 (site specific
definition)
Planning Table 9 or 10
Planning Table 9 or 10
Planning Table 9 or 10
Planning Table 9 or 10
Planning Table 9 or 10
ASSOCIATED
RAGS D FIELDS
Scenario Timeframe
Receptor Population
Receptor Age
Medium
Exposure Medium
Exposure Point
Chemical
Non-Carcinogenic
Hazard Quotient -
Primary Target
Organ(s)
Non-Carcinogenic
Hazard Quotient -
Ingestion
Non-Carcinogenic
Hazard Quotient -
Inhalation
Non-Carcinogenic
Hazard Quotient -
Dermal
Non-Carcinogenic
Hazard Quotient -
Exposuse Routes
Total
3-29
December 2001
-------
EXHIBIT 3-4
RAGS PART D INFORMATION SOURCES
FOR ROD RISK GUIDANCE HIGHLIGHTS (continued)
ROD RISK
HIGHLIGHT
PURPOSE
OF ROD
RISK
HIGHLIGHT
ROD FIELDS
ASSOCIATED
RAGS D TABLE
ASSOCIATED
RAGS D FIELDS
Highlight 6-18B
(continued)
Risk
Characterization
Summary -
Non-
Carcinogens
(continued)
Medium Hazard
Index Total
Planning Table 9 or 10
Medium Total
(Hazard)
Receptor Hazard
Index
Planning Table 9 or 10
Receptor HI Total
Organ Hazard Index
Planning Table 9 or 10
Total Organ HI
Across All Media
Notes:
-A version of Highlight 6-18B is to be prepared for each Receptor (combination of Scenario Timeframe, Receptor
Population, and Receptor Age) with "Significant Exposure". The definition of "Significant Exposure" will be site
specific.
3-30
December 2001
-------
CHAPTER 4
RISK EVALUATIONS
DURING THE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Continuous involvement of the EPA risk
assessor during the FS has numerous the benefits
including: 1) supporting the development of
remedial action objectives (RAOs) and PRGs, 2)
identifying risks and hazards associated with
PRGS, and 3) supporting comparison of risks
associated with various remedial alternatives. For
these reasons, EPA risk assessor involvement in
FS preparation and review is strongly encouraged.
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the FS generally is to evaluate
waste management remedial alternatives. The
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP) (U.S. EPA, 1990c)
provides that a detailed analysis should be
performed. The NCP indicates that for screening
of remedial alternatives, the long-term and short-
term aspects of three criteria - effectiveness,
implementability, and cost - should be used to
guide the development and screening of remedial
alternatives. Consideration of effectiveness
involves evaluating the long-term and short-term
human health risks. Long-term risks associated
with a remedial alternative are those risks that will
remain after the remedy is complete; short-term
risks associated with a remedial alternative are
generally those risks that occur during
implementation of the remedial alternative.
Evaluating long-term risks ideally includes an
assessment of the risks associated with treatment
of residuals and untreated wastes for a treatment-
based remedy, or an evaluation of the remedy's
ability to provide protectiveness over time for a
containment-based remedy. For short-term human
health risks associated with a remedial alternative,
a risk assessor may need to evaluate the risks that
occur during implementation of the remedial
alternative (e.g., risks associated with emissions
from an onsite air stripper). Because some
remedies may take many years to complete, some
"short-term" risks may actually occur over a
period of many years. Populations that may be
exposed to chemicals during remedy
implementation include people who live and work
in the vicinity of the site.
The NCP also provides that RAOs and
remediation goals should be developed. These
serve as objectives and goals that can be used to
identify and assess remedial alternatives at
Superfund sites. The remainder of this chapter
discusses RAOs and remediation goals. As also
discussed in the NCP, final remediation goals are
generally not determined until a final remedy for
the site is selected in the ROD (see Chapter 5).
4.1.1 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
As discussed in the NCP, RAOs should
describe, in general terms, what a remedial action
should accomplish in order to be protective of
human health and the environment. RAOs are
typically narrative statements that specify the
contaminants and environmental media of
concern, the potential exposure pathways to be
addressed by remedial actions, the exposed
populations and environmental receptors to be
protected, and the acceptable contaminant
concentrations or concentration ranges
(remediation goals) in each environmental
medium.
4.1.2 REMEDIATION GOALS
Remediation goals are normally a subset of the
RAOs. They generally provide the acceptable
contaminant concentrations in each medium for
remedial actions to meet.
As explained in the preamble to the final NCP
that remediation goals are generally based on
ARARs unless ARARs are not available or are not
protective. ARARs do not always exist for all
4-1
December 2001
-------
SELECTION OF REMEDIATION GOALS
The NCP [U.S. EPA, 1990c; Section
300.430(e) (2)(I)] states that the selection of
remediation goals should consider the following:
"...remediation goals shall establish acceptable
exposure levels that are protective of human
health and the environment and shall be
developed considering the following...
ARARs under Federal environmental or State
environmental or facility siting laws, if
available, and the following factors:
1. For systemic toxicants, acceptable
exposure levels shall represent
concentration levels to which the human
population, including sensitive subgroups,
may be exposed without adverse effect
during a lifetime or part of a lifetime,
incorporating an adequate margin of
safety;
2. For known or suspected carcinogens,
acceptable exposure levels are generally
concentration levels that represent an
excess upper bound lifetime cancer risk to
an individual of between 10"4 and 10"6 us-
ing information on the relationship
between dose and response. The 10"6 risk
level shall be used as the point of
departure for determining remediation
goals for alternatives when ARARs are not
available or are not sufficiently protective
because of the presence of multiple
contaminants at a site or multiple
pathways of exposure;
3. Factors related to technical limitations
such as detection/quantification limits for
contaminants;
4. Factors related to uncertainty; and
5. Other pertinent information."
chemicals and all environmental media.
Therefore, according to the NCP, there are two
major sources for determining the acceptable
exposure levels used for developing remediation
goals: a) concentrations found in Federal and State
ARARs and, if these are not available or not
protective, (b) risk-based concentrations that are
determined to be protective of human health and
the environment. These risk-based concentrations
should be calculated using, at a minimum, the
criteria sited in numbers 1 and 2 in the
Remediation Goals highlight box. Other factors
mentioned in the highlight box [i.e., limits of
detection (number 3), uncertainty (number 4), and
background concentration levels (number 5)] also
should be considered.
Risk-based concentrations may need to be
developed even if ARARs are available to ensure
that these ARARs are protective of human health
and the environment.
ARAR-Based Remediation Goals. Potential
chemical-specific ARARs include concentration
limits set by Federal environmental regulations
such as Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)
established under the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA), ambient water quality criteria
established under the Clean Water Act (CWA),
and State regulations (e.g., State drinking water
laws). Action-specific and location-specific
ARARs must also be complied with or waived
according to the NCP.
Risk-Based Remediation Goals. In general,
remediation goals based on risk-based calculations
should be determined using cancer or non-cancer
toxicity values with specific exposure
assumptions. For chemicals with carcinogenic
effects, the NCP has described the development of
remediation goals, as a practical matter, as a two-
step process [U.S. EPA, 1990c, Section
300.430(e)(2)(I)(D)]. A concentration equivalent
to a lifetime cancer risk of 10~6is first established
as a point of departure. Then, other factors are
taken into account to determine where within the
acceptable range the remediation goals for a given
contaminant at a specific site should be
established.
The NCP discusses a generally acceptable
risk range of 10'4 to 10'6. EPA has further
clarified the extent of the acceptable risk range by
stating that the upper boundary generally is not a
discrete line at IxlO"4. Risks slightly greater than
1x10 "4 may be considered to be acceptable (i.e.,
protective) if justified based on site-specific
conditions, including any uncertainties about the
nature and extent of contamination and associated
4-2
December 2001
-------
risks. [See Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment in
SuperfundRemedy Selection Decisions (U.S. EPA,
1991d)].
For non-cancer effects, the NCP states that an
acceptable exposure level should be defined. (See
"Selection of Remediation Goals" highlight box in
this section.) According to EPA guidance,
generally if the Hazard Index (HI) (Intake/RfD) is
above 1 (i.e., the site exposure is estimated to be
above the RfD) there may be a concern for
potential non-cancer effects [see Role of the
Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfimd Remedy
Selection Decisions (U.S. EPA, 199 Id)].
Therefore, in calculating remediation goals at a
site to protect for non-cancer effects, remediation
goals are generally set at a Hazard Index at or
below 1.
4.1.3 PRELIMINARY REMEDIATION
GOALS
PRGs for a site are usually established as early
in the RI/FS process as possible during project
scoping (see Chapter 2). These initial PRGs can
then be modified as necessary during the FS,
based on site-specific information from the
baseline risk assessment. The PRGs should then
be used to establish the goals to be met by the
remedial alternatives in the FS. The PRGs also
should guide the development of the Proposed
Plan for remedial action and the selection of
remediation levels in the Record of Decision.
During the FS, both risk-based and ARAR-based
PRGs should be considered. (See Section 4.1.2
for more discussion on ARAR-based PRGs).
Risk-based PRGs (non-ARARs) may be
modified within the acceptable risk range during
the remedy selection process based on a balancing
of the major trade-offs among the alternatives as
well as the public and Agency comments on the
Proposed Plan (RAGS Part B, U.S. EPA, 1991a).
Such balancing among alternatives and con-
sideration of community and State acceptance
should establish the specific level of protection
the remedy will achieve (i.e., the final remediation
levels).
The dialogue begun during Scoping between
the EPA risk assessor and the EPA RPM should
continue during the FS and beyond to ensure that
risk assessment information is used appropriately
in the risk management decision process.
The primary guidance on development of the
FS is available in "Guidance for Conducting
Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies
Under CERCLA (U.S. EPA, 1988). RAGS PartB
(U.S. EPA, 1991a) also presents guidance for the
role of risk assessment in the FS. Consult the
EPA RPM for guidance.
4.2 DEVELOP REMEDIAL
ACTION OBJECTIVES
The risk assessor should be involved in the
preparation or review of the following:
A narrative description of the Medium,
Exposure Point and Exposure Routes, and
chemicals and radionuclides that will be the
focus of the remedial action
• A narrative identifying the remedial action
objectives for prevention of exposure and
restoration, where appropriate of each
contaminated Medium (e.g., restoring
groundwater to a potable water source)
A format such as Example Table 1 in Exhibit
4-1 may be a useful approach to present these data
for each Medium.
4.3 DEVELOP REMEDIATION
GOALS
The risk assessor should be involved in the
preparation or review of a short narrative or tables
which provide the goals of the remediation. First,
all values considered as PRGs should be
identified. Then the PRGs selected for each
chemical to be used in the FS should be presented.
4.3.1 IDENTIFY VALUES CONSIDERED
AS PRELIMINARY REMEDIATION
GOALS
The risk assessor should be involved in the
following activities:
• Identify which chemicals and/or radionuclides
will have PRGs developed.
Identify ARAR-based PRGs and associated
4-3
December 2001
-------
risks/hazards.
• If ARAR-based PRGs are not protective,
risk-based PRGs using EPA methods should
be calculated.
• Identify other values to consider as PRGs
[e.g., background, detection limits, Procedure
Quantitation Limits (PQLs)].
A format such as Example Table 2 in Exhibit
4-1 may be a useful approach to present these
values, for each Medium and Receptor Population
combination.
4.3.2 SELECT PRELIMINARY
REMEDIATION GOALS
The risk assessor should be involved in the
following activities:
• Select PRG(s) for each chemical from among
the values considered (e.g., risk-based for
cancer and non-cancer, ARAR-based, other),
modifying values as appropriate. Note that
the PRG should be ARAR-based unless there
is no ARAR available or the ARAR is not
protective.
Provide the rationale for the selected PRG.
Include the source of the value.
A format such as Example Table 3 in Exhibit
4-1 may be a useful approach to present these
values for each Medium and Receptor Population
combination.
4.4 SUMMARIZE RISKS AND
HAZARDS ASSOCIATED
WITH PRELIMINARY
REMEDIATION GOALS
The risk assessor should be involved in the
preparation or review of a short narrative or tables
which summarize the risks and hazards associated
with the PRGs. The risk assessor should be
involved in the following activities:
Identify the chemical and/or radionuclide of
concern, maximum concentration, PRG, basis
of PRG, and calculated risks and hazards
associated with the PRG for each Medium and
Receptor Population.
Summarize the total risk and total hazard
among all chemicals for each Medium and
Receptor Population combination.
A format such as Example Table 3 in Exhibit
4-1 may be a useful approach to present these
values for each Medium and Receptor Population
combination.
4.5 EVALUATE REMEDIAL
TECHNOLOGIES AND
ALTERNATIVES FOR RISK
CONSIDERATIONS
The risk assessor may provide input in the
process of evaluating remedial technologies and
alternatives for risk considerations beginning in
the development and screening stage of the FS and
extending into the detailed analysis stage. The
major goal for the risk evaluation during these
steps is to provide the FS team and the EPA RPM
with specific long-term and short-term human
health risk information to consider when
identifying and screening technologies and
alternatives and performing detailed analysis of
alternatives.
Generally, the long-term human health risks
associated with a remedial technology or
alternative are those risks that are expected to
remain after the remedy is complete (i.e., residual
risks). The risk issues to be considered may
include an assessment of the risks associated with
treatment residuals, untreated wastes, or contained
wastes.
Generally, the short-term human health risks
associated with a remedial technology or
alternative are those risks that are expected to
occur during implementation of the technology or
alternative, which may occur over a period of
years. Populations to be considered include
people who live and work in the vicinity of the
site and workers involved in site remediation.
4.5.1 IDENTIFICATION AND
4-4
December 2001
-------
SCREENING OF TECHNOLOGIES
AND ALTERNATIVES
The risk assessor may contribute to the
identification and screening of technologies and
alternatives and focus on evaluating associated
short-term and long-term human health risks to
ensure that they meet RAOs and PRGs. The goal
of the risk assessor is to assist in identifying, and
eliminating from further consideration,
technologies and/or alternatives with clearly
unacceptable risks. This evaluation is typically
qualitative, based on simplifying assumptions and
professional judgment rather than detailed
analysis. The risk assessor's evaluation should be
associated with the consideration of effectiveness,
one of the NCP's three screening criteria.
(Implementability and cost are the other two
criteria evaluated at this screening stage, but they
do not typically involve risk assessor
participation.)
4.5.2 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF
ALTERNATIVES
The overall objective of the risk assessor's
role in the detailed analysis of alternatives is to
support the preparation and evaluation of the risk
information needed for RPMs to select a remedial
alternative for a site. See the highlight box for the
NCP's nine remedial alternatives. The risk
assessor should contribute to the analysis of at
least three of the nine criteria specified by the
NCP:
• Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment
• Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
• Short-term Effectiveness.
The detailed analysis of short-term and long-
term risks may be qualitative or quantitative
depending on the "perceived risk" associated with
the alternative based on both professional
judgment and community concerns. The risk
analysis should follow the same general steps as
the baseline risk assessment; however, the steps
will typically not be conducted in the same level
of detail for the FS.
NCP CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and
Environment
2. Compliance with ARARs
3. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
4. Reductions in Toxicity, Mobility, and
Volume Through Treatment
5. Short-term Effectiveness
6. Implementability
7. Cost
8. State Acceptance
9. Community Acceptance.
The detailed analysis of short-term risks
should include the following components for each
alternative:
Evaluate short-term exposure
• Evaluate short-term toxicity
Characterize short-term risks to the
community (including people who live or
work on or near the site)
• Characterize short-term risks to remediation
workers (a qualitative assessment may be
appropriate if the risks to remediation workers
are addressed adequately in the site-specific
Health and Safety Plan).
The detailed analysis of long-term risks
includes the following components for each
alternative.
• Evaluate residual risk
Evaluate protectiveness over time.
4-5
December 2001
-------
CHAPTER 5
RISK EVALUATIONS
AFTER THE FEASIBILITY STUDY
After completion of the FS, EPA risk assessor
involvement in risk evaluations should support the
EPA RPM in ensuring that the remedy is
protective. While these risk evaluations may not
always require a significant level of quantitation,
continuous involvement of EPA risk assessors is
important! to ensure consistency in risk evaluation
and risk communication. Post-FS activities
benefitting from EPA risk assessor involvement
typically include the Proposed Plan, the Record of
Decision (ROD), the Remedial Design/Remedial
Action, and Five-Year Reviews.
5.1 RISK EVALUATION FOR THE
PROPOSED PLAN
The Proposed Plan should include sufficient
risk assessment information to support the basis
for the proposed remedial action. EPA risk
assessor support is recommended during the
preparation of the Proposed Plan to ensure the
consistency of risk information with the Baseline
Risk Assessment Report and the FS Report. The
level of detail in the Proposed Plan should be
appropriate to the needs of the public. Additional
EPA risk assessor support at this time may be
qualitative or quantitative, typically focusing on
refinement of previous analyses, based on newly
developed information.
5.2 RISK EVALUATION
ASSOCIATED WITH THE
RECORD OF DECISION
EPA risk assessor involvement in preparation
of the risk evaluation in the ROD is strongly
recommended. A summary of the relevant
information from the Baseline Risk Assessment
Report should be presented in a mixture of text
format and table format. In addition, the risks
(short-term and residual) associated with each
alternative should be discussed.
5.2.1 BASELINE RISK SUMMARY
THE RECORD OF DECISION
IN
To support the preparation of the Record of
Decision, the EPA risk assessor should prepare or
review a summary of the Baseline Risk
Assessment Report which supports the basis for
the remedial action. The primary focus should be
on those exposure pathways and chemicals of
concern found to pose actual or potential threats to
human health or the environment. Chemicals
included in the risk assessment but determined not
to contribute significantly to an unacceptable risk
need not be included in the Risk Characterization
Summary in the ROD (e.g., chemicals with risk
levels less than IxlO"6 or HQ less than 0.1) unless
they are needed to justify a No Action ROD.
Refer to Interim Final Guidance on Preparing
Superfund Decision Documents (U.S. EPA,
1989b) and Guide to Preparing Superfund
Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other
Remedy Selection Decision Documents (U.S. EPA,
1999a) for a recommended format for
summarizing human health risk assessment
information in the ROD.
Other risk information may also be included in
the ROD depending upon the level of detail
preferred. Information related to values used for
intake calculations and non-cancer and cancer
toxicity data and exposure point concentrations are
summarized on Planning Tables 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8,
which could be placed in appendices to the ROD.
Section 3.3 provides recommended ROD Risk
Worksheets that correspond to ROD guidance
highlights 6-15, 6-16A, 6-16B, 6-18A and 6.18B.
Preparation of these recommended
Worksheets previously, as interim deliverables
(see Section 3.3), is strongly recommended
5-1
December 2001
-------
because it should greatly facilitates risk evaluation
in the ROD. If these recommended Worksheets
were not previously prepared, refer to Exhibit 3-4
for RAGS Part D Planning Table sources for this
information.
5.2.2 RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH
CLEANUP LEVELS IN THE
RECORD OF DECISION
The ROD (except for no-action RODs) should
describe how remedial alternatives will reduce
risks by achieving cleanup levels through
treatment or by eliminating exposures through
engineering controls for the contaminated media.
In addition, the risk assessor should
prepare/review the following information related
to the selected alternative:
Document short-term risks that may occur
during remedy implementation
• Document risks that may remain after
completion of the remedy (including residual
risk from untreated waste remaining at the
site)
Evaluate the need for five-year reviews.
Refer to the ROD guidance (U.S. EPA, 1999a) for
suggestions regarding presentation of risks
associated with cleanup levels in the ROD.
5.3 RISK EVALUATION DURING
REMEDIAL DESIGN AND
REMEDIAL ACTION
The EPA risk assessor's role during remedial
design and remedial action may be qualitative or
quantitative depending on the site and phase of the
project. During the remedial design, short-term
and long-term risks may be assessed through
refinement of previous analyses and identification
of the need for engineering controls or other
measures to mitigate risk.
During the remedial action, the EPA risk
assessor is more likely to provide quantitative risk
evaluation support. Short-term risk evaluation
may address impacts to remediation workers and
neighboring communities.
Long-term risk evaluations typically focus on the
following:
Whether cleanup levels specified in the ROD
have been attained
Whether residual risk after completion of the
remedy ensures protectiveness.
5.4 RISK EVALUATION
ASSOCIATED WITH
EXPLANATIONS OF
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
(ESDs) AND AMENDED RODs
This may occur when conditions relevant to a
site change following the signing of a ROD. It is
sometimes necessary to prepare an ESD or
amended ROD. Examples of conditions causing
this situation may include, but are not limited to,
the following:
• Toxicity values change
• Additional technology performance
information becomes available
• ARARs change (e.g., Land Disposal
Restrictions).
EPA risk assessor involvement with RPM
evaluations of ESDs and Amended RODs should
focuses on evaluating: whether cleanup levels are
still protective when considering new ARARs;
new parameters for risk and hazard calculations;
new technology information; and, other new
information. Any new information and revised
risk evaluations should be thoroughly
documented.
5.5 RISK EVALUATION DURING
FIVE-YEAR REVIEWS
CERCLA provides for reviews of certain
remedies at least every five years to assure that
human health and the environment are being
protected by the remedial alternative implemented.
EPA risk assessor involvement with RPM
evaluations during Five-Year Reviews are
generally quantitative and should focus on the
following three goals:
Confirm that the remedy remains protective
(including any engineering or institutional
controls)
5-2
December 2001
-------
Evaluate whether cleanup levels are still
protective by considering new ARARs, new
parameters for risk and hazard calculations,
and other new information
Evaluate whether cleanup has reduced risks to
levels no longer requiring restricted site use
and five-year reviews (U.S. EPA, 2001b).
5-3
December 2001
-------
REFERENCES
U.S. EPA. 1986. "Risk Assessment Guidelines for Mutagenicity Risk Assessment." 51 Federal
Register, Page 34006, September 24, 1986.
U.S. EPA. 1988. Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under
CERCLA, Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC.
EPA/540/G-89/004. OSWERDirective 9355.3-01.
U.S. EPA. 1989a. Exposure Factors Handbook. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
EPA/600/8-89/043.
U.S. EPA. 1989b. Interim Final Guidance on Preparing SuperfundDecision Documents. Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9355.3-02.
U.S. EPA. 1989c. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAG'&y. Volume I - Human Health
Evaluation Manual (HHEM) (Part A, Baseline Risk Assessment). Interim Final. Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. EPA/540/1-89/002. NTIS PB90-155581.
U.S. EPA. 1990a. Guidance for Data Useability in Risk Assessment (Part A), Final. Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9285.7-09A. PB92-963356.
U.S. EPA. 1990b. Guidance for Data Useability in Risk Assessment (Part B), Final. Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9285.7-09B. PB92-963362.
U.S. EPA. 1990c. "National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan." 40 CFR 300.
U.S. EPA. 1991a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS): Volume I - Human Health
Evaluation Manual (HHEM) (Part B, Development of Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation Goals).
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. EPA/540/R-92/003. OSWER Directive
9285.7-01B. NTISPB92-963333.
U.S. EPA. 1991b. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) Volume I: Human Health
Evaluation Manual (HHEM) (Part C, Risk Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives). Interim. Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. EPA/540/R-92/004. OSWER Directive 9285.7-
01C. NTIS PB92-963334.
U.S. EPA. 1991c. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS): Volume I - Human Health
Evaluation Manual Supplemental Guidance: "Standard Default Exposure Factors. " Interim Final.
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03.
U.S. EPA. 1991d. Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfund Remedy Selection Decisions.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9355.0-30.
U.S. EPA. 1992a. Data Quality Objectives Process for Superfund, Interim Final Guidance. Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9355.9-01. EPA/540/R-
93/071.
R-l December 2001
-------
REFERENCES* (Continued)
U.S. EPA. 1992b. Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications. Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. EPA/600/8-91/01 IB.
U.S. EPA. 1992c. Human Health Evaluation Manual: Supplemental Guidance: Interim Dermal Risk
Assessment Guidance. OSWER Directive 9285.7-10.
U.S. EPA. 1992d. Final Guidance on Data Useability in Risk Assessment (Part A). Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9285.7-09A.
U.S. EPA. 1992e. Final Guidance on Data Useability in Risk Assessment (Part B). Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9285.7-09B.
U.S. EPA. 1992f Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calculating the Concentration Term. Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9285.7-081.
U.S. EPA. 1993a. Guidance for Conducting Non-Time Critical Removal Actions Under CERCLA.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. EPA/540/R-93/057.
U.S. EPA. 1993b. Provisional Guidance for Quantitative Risk Assessment ofPolycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-93/C89.
U.S. EPA. 1993c. Revised Interim Soil Lead Guidance for CERCLA Sites andRCRA Corrective Action
Facilities. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive
9355.4-12.
U.S. EPA. 1995a. EPA Risk Characterization Program. Memorandum from Administrator Carol
Browner. Office of the Administrator, Washington, DC. March 21, 1995.
U.S. EPA. 1995b. Memorandum from Carol Browner on Risk Characterization. Office of the
Administrator, Washington, DC. February 22, 1995.
U.S. EPA. 1995c. Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document. Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. EPA 540/R-95/126.
U.S. EPA. 1996a. Exposure Factors Handbook - SAB Review Document. Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1996b. Final Soil Screening Guidance, May 17, 1996. Soil Screening Guidance User's
Guide. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. EPA 540/R-96/018.
U.S. EPA. 1996c. PCBs: Cancer Dose-Response Assessment and Application to Environmental
Mixtures. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. EPA/600/P-96/001A.
U.S. EPA. 1996d. Recommendations of the Technical Review Workgroup for Lead for an Interim
Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult Exposures to Lead in Soil. Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1997a. EPA Guidance for Data Assessment. Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-96/084.
R-2 December 2001
-------
REFERENCES* (Continued)
U.S. EPA. 1997b. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume 1. Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa.
U.S. EPA. 1997c. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume 2. Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC. EPA/600/P-95/002Fb.
U.S. EPA. 1997d. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume 3. Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC. EPA/600/P-95/002Fc.
U.S. EPA. 1997e. Guiding Principles for Monte Carlo Analysis. Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC. EPA/63O/R-97/001.
U.S. EPA. 1997f Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST), Annual FY1997. Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. EPA/540/R-97/036.
U.S. EPA. 1997g. Policy for Use of Probabilistic Analysis in Risk Assessment. Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC. EPA/63 O/R-97/001.
U.S. EPA. 1997h. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) DataBase. Office of Research and
Development/National Center for Environmental Assessment. Also see
www.epa.gov/.iris/prototype/index.htm.
U.S. EPA. 1999a. Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other
Remedy Selection Decision Documents. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.
EPA/540/R-98/031.
U.S. EPA. 2001a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS): Volume I - Human Health
Evaluation Manual (HHEM) (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) Interim
Review Draft - For Public Comment. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.
EPA/540/R-99/005. OSWERDirective 9285.7-02EP.
U.S. EPA. 2001b. Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance. Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P.
U.S. EPA. 2001c. Guidance for Characterizing Background Chemicals in Soil at Superfund Sites.
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9285.7-41.
U.S. EPA. 2001d. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume III - Part A, Process for
Conducting Probabilistic Risk Assessments. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington,
DC. OSWER Directive 9285.7-45.
* This Reference Section is designed to not only give bibliographic information for documents referred to in the
RAGS Part D text, but also to be a source of bibliographic information for documents that are relevant to risk
assessment in general.
R-3 December 2001
-------
APPENDIX A
PLANNING TABLES
-Blank Planning Tables
-Example Planning Tables
December 2001
-------
Blank Planning Tables
The Planning Table formats may not be altered (i.e.,
columns may be added, deleted, or changed, and rows and
footnotes may be added) as appropriate to reflect site-
specific conditions.
December 2001
-------
Example Worksheets
December 2001
-------
Example Planning Tables
December 2001
-------
APPENDIX B
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETION OF
THE PLANNING TABLES
- Instructions
-Glossary
December 2001
-------
Glossary
December 2001
-------
Instructions
December 2001
-------
APPENDIX C
PLANNING WORKSHEETS
- Data Useability Worksheet
- TARA Schedule Worksheet
- Dermal Worksheet
- Radiation Dose Assessment Worksheet
- Lead Worksheets
- ROD Risk Worksheets
December 2001
-------
BLANK PLANNING WORKSHEETS
-Data Useability Worksheet
-TARA Schedule Worksheet
-Dermal Worksheet
-Radiation Dose Assessment Worksheet
-Lead Worksheets
-ROD Risk Worksheets
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE PLANNING WORKSHEETS
-Data Useability Worksheet
-TARA Schedule Worksheet
-Dermal Worksheet
-Radiation Dose Assessment Worksheet
(not included)
-Lead Worksheets
-ROD Risk Worksheets
(not included)
December 2001
-------
APPENDIX D
EXAMPLE SCENARIOS
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 0
SITE RISK ASSESSMENT IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION
PURPOSE OF THE TABLE:
• To uniquely identify the risk assessment
• To identify the relevant contacts for the risk assessment.
INFORMATION DOCUMENTED:
• Site information
• Contact information
• Risk assessment document information.
TABLE
NUMBERING INSTRUCTIONS:
• Complete one copy of this table for each risk assessment or
Set of Planning Tables.
• Number it Table 0.
HOW TO COMPLETE/INTERPRET THE TABLE
Rowl-
Site Name/OU
Definition:
• The name of the site or operable unit (OU) to which this risk
assessment applies.
Instructions:
• Enter the name of the site or operable unit.
Row 2-
Region
Definition:
• The EPA Region in which the site is located.
Instructions:
• Enter the EPA Region in which the site is located.
Row 3-
EPA ID Number
Definition:
• The EPA number assigned to identify the site.
BO-1
December 2001
-------
Instructions:
• Enter the EPA ID Number. The ID can be found either in the
site files or in the CERCLIS database.
BO-2
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 0
SITE RISK ASSESSMENT IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION (continued)
Row
4 - State
Definition:
• The state in which the site is located.
Instructions:
• Enter the state or commonwealth in which the site is located.
Row
5 - Status
Definition:
• The current status of the site.
Instructions:
• Enter the site status.
Row
6 - Federal Facility (Y/N):
Definition:
• A flag indicating whether or not the site is a Federal Facility.
Instructions:
• Enter 'Y' if the site is a Federal Facility; enter 'N' otherwise.
Row
Y
N
7 - EPA Project Manager
Definition:
• The EPA manager responsible for all activity concerning the site.
Instructions:
• Enter the EPA manager responsible for the site.
Row
8 - EPA Risk Assessor
Definition:
• The risk assessor at EPA responsible for this risk assessment.
Instructions:
• Enter the name of the EPA risk assessor responsible for this risk
assessment.
Row
9 - Prepared by (Organization):
Definition:
• The name of the organization that prepared this risk assessment.
Instructions:
• Enter the name of the organization that prepared this risk
assessment.
BO-3
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 0
SITE RISK ASSESSMENT IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION (continued)
Row 10 - Prepared for (Organization):
Definition:
• The name of the organization for whom this risk assessment was
prepared.
Instructions:
• Enter the name of the organization for whom this risk assessment
was prepared
Row 11 - Document Title
Definition:
• The title of this risk assessment document.
Instructions:
• Enter the title of this risk assessment document.
Row 12 - Document Date
Definition:
• The date this risk assessment document was completed or
approved.
Instructions:
• Record the date the document was completed or approved in the
MM/DD/YYYY format.
Row 13 - Probabilistic Risk Assessment (Y/N):
Definition:
• A flag indicating whether or not a probabilistic risk assessment
was done for this risk assessment.
Instructions:
• Enter 'Y' if a probabilistic risk assessment was done; enter 'N'
otherwise.
Y
N
Row 14 - Comments
Definition:
• Any additional information provided about the risk assessment.
Instructions:
• Enter any additional information about the risk assessment.
BO-4
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 1
SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
PURPOSE OF THE TABLE:
• To assist in project planning
• To accompany the site conceptual model
• To present possible Receptors, Exposure Routes, and Exposure
Pathways
• To present the rationale for selection or exclusion of each
Exposure Pathway
• To communicate risk information to interested parties outside
EPA
• To establish a framework for the generation of subsequent
Planning Tables. All subsequent tables should be built from the
information contained in Table 1.
INFORMATION DOCUMENTED:
• Exposure Pathways that were examined and excluded from
analysis
• Exposure Pathways that will be qualitatively and quantitatively
evaluated in the risk assessment.
TABLE NUMBERING INSTRUCTIONS
• Complete one copy of this table for each risk assessment.
Consult the EPA risk assessor to determine if the risk assessment
applies to an entire site, a single operable unit, or some other
division of the site.
• Number it Table 1.
• The table should show each Exposure Pathway considered.
In the Planning Tables, an Exposure
Pathway is defined as each unique
combination of Scenario Timeframe,
Medium, Exposure Medium,
Exposure Point, Receptor
Population, Receptor Age, and
Exposure Route.
HOW TO COMPLETE/INTERPRET THE TABLE
Column 1 - Scenario Timeframe
Definition:
• The time period (current and/or future) being considered for the
Exposure Pathway.
Instructions:
• Choose from the picklist to the right. If two Exposure Pathways
are identical, Current/Future can be used to describe a future and
a current pathway.
Current
Future
Current/Future
Not Documented
Column 2 - Medium
Definition:
• The substance (e.g., air, water, soil) that is a potential source of
contaminants in the Exposure Medium. (The Medium will
sometimes = the Exposure Medium.) Usually, the Medium is that
targeted for possible remediation.
Bl-1
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 1
SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS (continued)
Instructions:
• Choose from the picklist to the right.
Groundwater
Leachate
Sediment
Sludge
Soil
Surface Water
Debris
Liquid Waste
Solid Waste
Air
Surface Soil
Subsurface Soil
Other
Column 3 - Exposure Medium
Definition:
• The contaminated environmental medium to which an individual
may be exposed. This includes the transfer of contaminants from
one Medium to another.
For example:
1) Contaminants in Groundwater (the Medium) remain in
Groundwater (the Exposure Medium) and are available for
exposure to receptors.
2) Contaminants in Groundwater (the Medium) may be transferred to
Air (the Exposure Medium) and are available for exposure to
receptors.
3) Contaminants in Sediment (the Medium) may be transferred to Fish
Tissue (the Exposure Medium) and are available for exposure to
receptors.
Instructions:
• Choose from the picklist to the right.
Note: In the case of two media transferring contamination to the same Exposure
Medium, two separate Exposure Pathways should be included in Table 1. See
Example Scenario No. 5.
Groundwater
Leachate
Sediment
Sludge
Soil
Surface Water
Debris
Liquid Waste
Solid Waste
Air
Plant Tissue
Animal Tissue
Fish Tissue
Spring Water
Surface Soil
Subsurface Soil
Particulates
Vapors
Other
Bl-2
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 1
SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS (continued)
Column 4 - Exposure Point
Definition:
• An exact location of potential contact between a person and a
chemical or radionuclide within an Exposure Medium.
For example:
1) Contaminants are in Groundwater (the Medium and the Exposure
Medium) and exposure to Aquifer 1 - Tap Water (the
Exposure Point) is evaluated.
2 Contaminants in Groundwater (the Medium) may be transferred to Air (the
Exposure Medium) and exposure to Aquifer 1 - Water Vapors at
Showerhead (the Exposure Point) is evaluated.
3) Contaminants in Sediment (the Medium) may be transferred to Fish
Tissue (the Exposure Medium) and Trout from Dean's Creek (the
Exposure Point) is evaluated.
Instructions:
• Describe the Exposure Point as text in the table. Multiple
Exposure Points may be recorded in the same cell/row if all other
aspects of their Exposure Pathways (Scenario Timeframe,
Medium, Exposure Medium, Receptor Population, Receptor Age,
and Exposure Route) are the same. See Example Scenario No. 1.
Column 5 - Receptor Population
Definition:
• The exposed individual relative to the Exposure Pathway
considered.
For example, a resident (Receptor
Population) who drinks contaminated
groundwater.
Instructions:
• Choose from the picklist to the right.
Note: If there are multiple Trespassers/Visitors of different ages, the use Receptor Age (see
Column 6) to distinguish between the different receptors. For example, use
Trespasser/Visitor with Adolescent (or Child) to indicate youthful trespassers, and
Trespasser/Visitor with Adult for adult visitors.
Resident
Industrial Worker
Commercial Worker
Construction Worker
Other Worker
Golfer
Jogger
Fisher
Hunter
Fisher/Hunter
Swimmer
Other Recreational Person
Child at School/Daycare/
Playground
Trespasser/Visitor
Farmer
Gardener
Gatherer
Other
Bl-3
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 1
SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS (continued)
Column 6 - Receptor Age
Definition:
• The description of the exposed individual as defined by the EPA
Region or dictated by the site.
For example, an adult (Receptor Age) resident (Receptor Population) who drinks
contaminated groundwater.
Instructions:
• Choose from the picklist to the right.
Child
Adult
Adolescents (teens)
Pre-Adolescents
Not Documented
Child/Adult
Geriatric
Sensitive
Other
Infant
Toddler
Pregnant
Column 7 - Exposure Route
Definition:
• The way a chemical or radionuclide comes in contact with a
person (e.g., by ingestion, inhalation, dermal contact).
Instructions:
• Choose from the picklist to the right.
Inhalation
Ingestion
Combined (Inhalation and
Ingestion)
Dermal
Not Documented
External (Radiation)
Column 8 - Type of Analysis
Definition:
• The level of evaluation (quantitative or qualitative) to be
performed for the Exposure Pathway based on site-specific
analysis.
Instructions:
• Choose from the picklist to the right.
Note: Present pathways that were not further analyzed (Type of Analysis = None)
along with the rationale for their exclusion to document that the pathway was
considered.
Quant (Quantitative)
Qual (Qualitative)
None
Bl-4
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 1
SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS (continued)
Column 9 - Rationale for Selection or Exclusion of Exposure Pathway
Definition:
• The reason the Exposure Pathway was selected or not selected
for quantitative or qualitative analysis.
Instructions:
• Document the reason for selecting or excluding an Exposure
Pathway for analysis. Provide a narrative rationale for each
Exposure Pathway.
Consult the EPA risk assessor for the
rationale codes.
Bl-5
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 2
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
PURPOSE OF THE TABLE:
• To provide information useful for data evaluation of chemicals
and radionuclides detected
• To provide adequate information so the user/reviewer gets a
sense of the chemicals and radionuclides detected at the site and
the potential magnitude of the potential problems at the site
• To provide chemical screening data and rationale for selection of
COPCs.
INFORMATION DOCUMENTED:
• Statistical information about chemicals and radionuclides detected
in each Medium
• The detection limits of chemicals and radionuclides analyzed
• The screening toxicity values for COPC selection
• The chemicals and radionuclides selected or deleted as COPCs.
TABLE NUMBERING AND SUMMARY BOX INSTRUCTIONS:
• Complete one copy of Table 2 for each unique combination of the
following three fields that will be quantitatively evaluated in the
risk assessment: Scenario Timeframe, Medium, and Exposure
Medium.
• Enter each combination of these three fields in the Summary Box
in the upper left corner of the table.
• Number each table uniquely, beginning with 2.1 and ending with
2.n, where "n" represents the total number of combinations of the
three key fields.
It is possible that some Planning
Tables may contain the same data
associated with different descriptions
in the Summary Box in the upper left
Separate tables may be necessary to
ensure transparency in data
presentation for each Exposure
Pathway. Replication of information
is readily accomplished using
spreadsheet software.
Consult the EPA risk assessor for
alternatives (e.g., footnotes) to
preparing multiple tables with the
same data.
HOW TO COMPLETE/INTERPRET THE TABLE
SUMMARY BOX IN UPPER LEFT CORNER
Row 1 - Scenario Timeframe
Definition:
• The time period (current and/or future) being considered for the
exposure pathway.
Instructions:
• Choose from the picklist to the right.
Current
Future
Current/Future
Not Documented
B2-1
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 2
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN (continued)
Row 2 - Medium
Definition:
• The substance (e.g., air, water, soil) that is a potential source of
contaminants in the Exposure Medium. (The Medium will
sometimes = the Exposure Medium.) Usually, the Medium is that
targeted for possible remediation.
Instructions:
• Choose from the picklist to the right.
Groundwater
Leachate
Sediment
Sludge
Soil
Surface Water
Debris
Liquid Waste
Solid Waste
Air
Surface Soil
Subsurface Soil
Other
Row 3 - Exposure Medium
Definition:
• The contaminated environmental medium to which an individual
may be exposed. Includes the transfer of contaminants from one
medium to another.
For example:
Contaminants in Groundwater (the Medium) remain in
Groundwater (the Exposure Medium) and are available for
exposure to receptors.
Contaminants in Groundwater (the Medium) may be transferred to
Air (the Exposure Medium) and are available for exposure to
receptors.
Contaminants in Sediment (the Medium) may be transferred to Fish
Tissue (the Exposure Medium) and are available for exposure to
receptors.
B2-2
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 2
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN (continued)
Instructions:
• Choose from the picklist to the right.
Groundwater
Leachate
Sediment
Sludge
Soil
Surface Water
Debris
Liquid Waste
Solid Waste
Air
Plant Tissue
Animal Tissue
Fish Tissue
Spring Water
Surface Soil
Subsurface Soil
Particulates
Vapors
Other
BODY OF THE TABLE
Column 1 - Exposure Point
Definition:
• An exact location of potential contact between a person and a
chemical or radionuclide within an exposure medium.
For example:
1) Contaminants are in Groundwater (the Medium and the Exposure
Medium) and exposure to Aquifer 1 - Tap Water (the Exposure
Point) is evaluated.
2) Contaminants in Groundwater (the Medium) may be transferred to
Air (the Exposure Medium) and exposure to Aquifer 1 - Water
Vapors at Showerhead (the Exposure Point) is evaluated.
3) Contaminants in Sediment (the Medium) may be transferred to Fish
Tissue (the Exposure Medium) and Trout from Dean's Creek (the
Exposure Point) is evaluated.
Instructions:
• Provide the information as text in the table.
Column 2 - CAS Number
Definition:
• The Chemical Abstract Registry Number, a unique standardized
number which is assigned to chemicals and radionuclide s.
Exposure Points should be defined
the same way as was done in
Planning Table 1.
B2-3
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 2
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN (continued)
Instructions:
• Provide the CAS Number for each chemical detected in the
samples for the Medium.
Note: If the CAS number is not available, be sure to enter the Chemical Name in
Column 3 and consult the EPA risk assessor.
Include dashes in the CAS number.
CAS numbers can be arranged in the
order that the risk assessor prefers.
Column 3 - Chemical
Definition:
• The name of the compound detected in samples for the Medium.
Instructions:
• Provide the names of the chemicals which were detected in the
sample for the Medium.
Chemicals can be grouped in the
order that the risk assessor prefers.
Class descriptions (e.g., PAHs, VOCs,
inorganics) can be included as a row
before a group of chemicals.
Column 4 - Minimum Concentration (Qualifier)
Definition:
• Minimum Concentration - The lowest detected concentration of
the chemical or radionuclide in the medium.
• Qualifier - The alpha-numeric code assigned to the concentration
value by the analytical chemist during data validation for the
Minimum Concentration value.
Instructions:
• Enter the minimum detected concentration for the medium. If
there is a detected minimum, enter that as the Minimum
Concentration. If the concentration is not detected, enter 'ND'
as the Minimum and Maximum Concentrations and record the
detection limits in the Range of Detection Limits column.
• Enter the qualifier associated with the minimum concentration for
each chemical or radionuclide in parentheses () after the
Minimum Concentration value. Multiple qualifiers should be
separated by commas.
• Provide the definition of each qualifier in the table footnotes.
Column 5 - Maximum Concentration (Qualifier)
B2-4
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 2
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN (continued)
Definition:
• Maximum Concentration - The highest detected concentration of
the chemical or radionuclide in the Medium at the current
Exposure Point which is above the sample quantitation limit.
• Qualifier - The alpha-numeric code assigned to the concentration
value by the analytical chemist during data validation for the
Maximum Concentration value.
Instructions:
• Enter the maximum detected concentration for the medium.
• Enter the qualifier associated with the Maximum Concentration
for each chemical or radionuclide.
• Provide the definition of each qualifier in the table footnotes.
B2-5
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 2
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN (continued)
Column
6 - Units
Definition:
• The concentration units for each chemical or radionuclide
detected.
Instructions:
• Enter the concentration units for each chemical or radionuclide.
Units may vary among matrices/media.
Column
Consult with the EPA risk assessor to
determine if there is a preference
regarding the units used for different
matrices (e.g., mg/kgfor soil, * g/L
for groundwater). Choices include:
mg/l ' g/l ng/l
pg/l % ppm
ppb ppt g/kg
mg/kg ' g/kg ng/kg
* g/g mg/m1 • g/m1
fibers/I fibers/m3 fibers/kg
Ibs/day * g/100cm2 mg/cm2
• Rem/hr Rem/yr pCi/g
pCi/kg pCi/m3 pCi/l
pCi/m2/sec Other
Not Documented
7 - Location of Maximum Concentration
Definition:
• The sample number that identifies the location where the
highest concentration sample was taken.
Instructions:
• Enter the sample identifier which corresponds to the location
where the sample was taken.
Column
8 - Detection Frequency
Definition:
• The number of times the chemical or radionuclide was
detected versus the number of times it was analyzed,
expressed as the "fraction" X/Y.
Instructions:
• Indicate the number of times the chemical or radionuclide
was detected versus the number of times it was analyzed as
the "fraction" X/Y.
Column
For example, 5/9 indicates that a
chemical was detected in 5 out of 9
samples.
Consult the EPA risk assessor for an
explanation of how Detection
Frequency should be interpreted and
applied.
9 - Range of Detection Limits
B2-6
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 2
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN (continued)
Definition:
• The lowest and highest detection limits.
Instructions:
• Enter the lowest and highest detection limit for the chemical
or radionuclide in the medium separated by a dash (-).
Consult with the EPA risk assessor if detection limits are not
reported
Column
Consult the EPA risk assessor for
definitions of detection limits.
10 - Concentration Used for Screening
Definition:
• The detected concentration which was used to compare to
the screening value.
Instructions:
• Enter a concentration for each chemical being evaluated for
the Medium.
• Use a footnote to specify the source(s) of the Concentration
Used for Screening.
Column
Consult the EPA risk assessor when
determining this value. For example,
maximum or average.
11 - Background Value
Definition:
• The background value for the chemical or radionuclide in that
Medium as defined by guidance.
If a "t-test" or other test which requires backup information is required, this
supporting information is should be provided separately.
Instructions:
• Enter the numerical value in the column.
• Specify the source(s)/derivation of the Background Value in
table footnotes. For example, literature value, data from a
nearby site, statistical tool.
Column
Consult the EPA risk assessor for how
background values are determined
and whether and how background
values are considered for COPC
screening.
12 - Screening Toxicity Value (N/C)
Definition:
• The screening level used to compare detected concentrations
of chemicals and radionuclides. Screening Toxicity Values
are usually risk-based media concentrations (e.g., RBCs,
SSLs, PRGs).
B2-7
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 2
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN (continued)
Instructions:
• Enter the Screening Toxicity Value.
• Also indicate, with (N) or (C) whether the value is based on
non-cancer or cancer effects, respectively.
• To enter both the cancer and non-cancer screening toxicity
values, either (1) record both in the same cell separated by a
"/" (e.g., 15C/3.8N), or record one value in Column 12 and
one in Column 13.
• Use a footnote to provide a reference/explanation for the
source of the screening values used.
Consult the EPA risk assessor for the
source of the screening value and for
guidance on comparing the screening
value to detected concentrations.
Column 13 - Potential ARAR/TBC Value
Definition:
• Potential applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARAR) and to be considered (TBC) values.
Instructions:
• If multiple values exist, then enter the most conservative
ARAR or TBC value.
For example, MCL values, soil
cleanup level values, or other values
to be considered.
Consult the EPA risk assessor
regarding the requirements for this
column.
Column 14 - Potential ARAR/TBC Source
Definition:
• The type or source of the ARAR/TBC value entered into the
previous column.
Instructions:
• Enter the type or source of ARAR/TBC value which
corresponds to the value in the previous column.
For example, MCL or SMCL.
Column 15 - COPC Flag (Y/N)
Definition:
• A code which identifies whether the chemical or radionuclide
has been selected as a chemical of potential concern.
Instructions:
• Enter "Y" or "N" to indicate whether the chemical has been
retained as a COPC.
Y
N
B2-8
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 2
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN (continued)
Column 16 - Rationale for Selection or Deletion
Definition:
• The reason that the chemical or radionuclide was selected or
not selected for quantitative or qualitative analysis.
Consult the EPA risk assessor for the
rationale codes.
Instructions:
• Enter the rationale codes for selection/deletion of chemicals
of potential concern. Separate multiple codes with commas.
• Define the codes for the "Rationale for Selection or Deletion"
column in a footnote on this table.
The example data table provides
rationale codes for example purposes
only.
B2-9
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 3
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
PURPOSE OF THE TABLE:
• To provide the Exposure Point Concentrations (EPCs) for
measured and modeled values
• To provide statistical information on the derivation of the EPCs.
INFORMATION DOCUMENTED:
• Statistical information which was used to calculate the EPCs for
chemicals and radionuclides detected in each Medium
• Exposure Point Concentrations (RME and/or CT)
• The statistics which were used to make the determinations as
well as the rationale for the selection of the statistics for each
chemical or radionuclide (i.e., discuss statistical derivation of
measured data or approach for modeled data).
TABLE NUMBERING AND SUMMARY BOX INSTRUCTIONS:
• Follow the instructions below to create separate sets of Table 3
for RME and CT when appropriate.
• Complete one copy of Table 3 for each unique combination of the
following three fields that will be quantitatively evaluated:
Scenario Timeframe, Medium, and Exposure Medium.
• Enter each combination of these three fields in the Summary Box
in the upper left corner of the table.
• Number each table uniquely, beginning with 3.1 and ending with
3.n, where "n" represents the total number of combinations of the
three key fields. Add the extension .RME or .CT to the table
number to indicate reasonable maximum exposure or central
tendency.
• Add the line "Reasonable Maximum Exposure" or "Central
Tendency" to the table title.
It is possible that some tables may
contain the same data associated
with different descriptions in the
Summary Box in the upper left
Separate tables may be necessary to
ensure transparency in data
presentation for each Exposure
Pathway. Replication of
information is readily accomplished
using spreadsheet software.
Consult the EPA risk assessor for
alternatives (e.g., footnotes) to
preparing multiple tables with the
same data.
B3-1
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 3
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION SUMMARY (continued)
GENERAL NOTES/INSTRUCTIONS FOR THIS TABLE:
• Attach supporting documentation regarding how the EPC was
calculated.
• Attach an example calculation so the methodology used to
develop EPCs is clear to a reviewer.
• Attach supporting information regarding how the concentration
term was selected.
• Consult the EPA risk assessor concerning use of decimals or
scientific notation for data.
• For certain media, all columns will not be completed.
This information should be of
sufficient detail that a reviewer can
check and verify the calculations
which were performed and obtain
the same results as listed in this
table.
It is possible that the 95% UCL may
not need to be calculated, for
example, if only one data point is
being considered,
As another example, in some
regions, the arithmetic average of
concentrations measured from the
center of the plume is used as the
RME. In this case, the 95% UCL
column does not need to be
completed.
B3-2
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 3
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION SUMMARY (continued)
HOW TO COMPLETE/INTERPRET THE TABLE
SUMMARY BOX IN UPPER LEFT CORNER
Row 1 - Scenario Timeframe
Definition:
• The time period (current and/or future) being considered for the
exposure pathway.
Instructions:
• Choose from the picklist to the right.
Current
Future
Current/Future
Not Documented
Row 2 - Medium
Definition:
• The substance (e.g., air, water, soil) that is a potential source of
contaminants in the Exposure Medium. (The Medium will
sometimes = the Exposure Medium.) Usually, the Medium is that
targeted for possible remediation.
Instructions:
• Choose from the picklist to the right.
Groundwater
Leachate
Sediment
Sludge
Soil
Surface Water
Debris
Other
Liquid Waste
Solid Waste
Air
Surface Soil
Subsurface Soil
B3-3
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 3
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION SUMMARY (continued)
Row 3 - Exposure Medium
Definition:
• The contaminated environmental medium to which an individual
may be exposed. Includes the transfer of contaminants from one
medium to another.
For example:
1) Contaminants in Groundwater (the Medium) remain in Groundwater (the
Exposure Medium) and are available for exposure to receptors.
2) Contaminants in Groundwater (the Medium) may be transferred to Air (the
Exposure Medium) and are available for exposure to receptors.
3) Contaminants in Sediment (the Medium) may be transferred to Fish Tissue
(the Exposure Medium) and are available for exposure to receptors.
Instructions:
• Choose from the picklist to the right.
Groundwater
Leachate
Sediment
Sludge
Soil
Surface Water
Debris
Other
Liquid Waste
Solid Waste
Air
Plant Tissue
Animal Tissue
Fish Tissue
Spring Water
Surface Soil
Subsurface Soil
Particulates
Vapors
B3-4
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 3
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION SUMMARY (continued)
BODY OF THE TABLE
Column 1 - Exposure Point
Definition:
• An exact location of potential contact between a person and a
chemical or radionuclide within an Exposure Medium.
For example:
1) Contaminants are in Groundwater (the Medium and the Exposure Medium)
and exposure to Aquifer 1 - Tap Water (the Exposure Point) is evaluated,
2) Contaminants in Groundwater (the Medium) may be transferred to Air (the
Exposure Medium) and exposure to Aquifer 1 - Water Vapors at Showerhead
(the Exposure Point) is evaluated.
3) Contaminants in Sediment (the Medium) may be transferred to Fish Tissue
(the Exposure Medium) and Trout from Dean's Creek (the Exposure Point) is
evaluated.
Instructions:
• Provide the information as text in the table.
Exposure Point should be defined
the same way as was done in
Planning Table 1.
Column 2 - Chemical of Potential Concern
Definition:
• A chemical or radionuclide that is potentially site-related, with
data of sufficient quality, that has been retained for quantitative
analysis as a result of the screening documented in Table 2.
Instructions:
• Enter the names of the chemicals which were selected as
COPCs from Table 2.
Chemicals can be grouped in the
order that the risk assessor prefers.
Class descriptions (e.g., PAHs,
VOCs, inorganics) can be included
as a row before a group of
chemicals.
Column 3 - Units
Definition:
• The concentration units for each chemical and radionuclide
detected.
B3-5
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 3
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION SUMMARY (continued)
Instructions:
• Enter units for each chemical and radionuclide. Units may vary
among matrices/media.
Consult with the EPA risk assessor
to determine if there is a preference
regarding the units used for different
matrices (e.g., mg/kgfor soil, * g/L
for groundwater). Choices include:
mg/l
PS/I
ppb
mg/kg
•s/s
fibers/1
Ibs/day
• Rem/hr
pCi/kg
pCi/m2/sec
•g/l
%
ppt
"g/kg
mg/m3
fibers/m3
• g/100cm2
Rem/yr
pCi/m3
Other
ng/l
ppm
g/kg
ng/kg
•g/m3
fibers/kg
mg/cm2
PCi/g
pCi/l
Not Documented
Column 4 - Arithmetic Mean
Definition:
• The arithmetic average of detected concentrations. This is
the sum of the data divided by the number of data points.
Instructions:
• Enter the arithmetic average of detected concentrations.
For duplicate samples, multiple
rounds of sampling, and other data
evaluation questions, consult the
EPA risk assessor.
Column 5 - 95% UCL (Distribution)
Definition:
• The statistic for the 95% Upper Confidence Limit on the
arithmetic mean, and the type of distribution.
Consult National guidance
(Supplemental Guidance to RAGS:
Calculating the Concentration
Term, OSWERDirective: 9285.7-
081, May 1992 or most recent
updates) and the EPA risk assessor
for calculating this term.
Instructions:
Enter the 95% UCL for each COPC.
Indicate the distribution of the 95% UCL with (N) or (T)
after the value as follows: N is Normal, T is Transformed
(lognormal), NP is Nonparametric, 0 is Other. Define the
codes describing the type of distribution in a footnote.
• Specify any assumptions made in calculating the term in
footnotes on this table.
• Supporting information should be provided in the risk
assessment.
For example, for non-detects, J/2 the
sample quantitation limit is
sometimes used as a proxy
concentration. For duplicate sample
results, the average value is
sometimes used in the calculation.
B3-6
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 3
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION SUMMARY (continued)
Column 6 - Maximum Concentration (Qualifier)
Definition:
• Maximum Concentration - The highest detected
concentration of the chemical or radionuclide in the
Medium at the current Exposure Point which is above the
sample quantitation limit.
• Maximum Qualifier - The alpha-numeric code assigned to
the concentration value by the analytical chemist during
data validation for the maximum concentration value.
Instructions:
• Enter the maximum concentration value.
• Enter the qualifier associated with the maximum
concentration.
Provide the definitions of each
qualifier in the table footnotes or in
supporting information.
Column 7 - Exposure Point Concentration Value
Definition:
• The EPC, based on either a statistical derivation of
measured data or modeled data, that represents an estimate
of the chemical or radionuclide concentration available
from a particular Medium or route of exposure. This EPC
value will be used to quantify potential cancer risks and
non-cancer hazards.
For example,
the EPC value may be statistically derived by calculating the 95% VCL of
measured groundwater contaminant concentrations from multiple
residential wells. Alternatively, the EPC value may be selected as a single
measured value, if one data point is used to calculate the risk for each
residential well individually. In some cases, the EPC value may be a
modeled value (e.g., ifupgradient groundwater contaminant concentrations
are used to model groundwater concentrations, a downgradient exposure
point, or if sediment concentrations are used to model fish tissue
concentrations)
Instructions:
• Enter the value in the column.
• When using modeled data, enter the Exposure Point,
COPC, EPC Value, and EPC Rationale, and include a
reference to the location of backup information that show
how the data were modeled in the risk assessment
document.
The EPC Value may be calculated,
measured, or modeled.
Consult the EPA risk assessor
concerning how to determine this
value.
Column 8 - Exposure Point Concentration Units
B3-7
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 3
EXPOSURE POINT
CONCENTRATION SUMMARY (continued)
Definition:
• The units of the data being used to calculate the EPC.
Instructions:
• Enter the units for the data being used to calculate the
EPC.
Consult the EPA risk assessor for
preferences for different media (e.g.,
ug/Lfor groundwater; mg/kgfor
soil).
Column 9 - Exposure Point Concentration Statistic
Definition:
• The statistic selected to represent the EPC Value based on
the distribution of the data, number of data points, etc., and
consultation with the EPA risk assessor.
Instructions:
• Enter the statistic used by choosing from the picklist to the
right.
• Define the codes used for the EPC Statistic column in table
footnotes. If the statistic used is not on the picklist, enter
an abbreviation in Column 9 and provide a description of
the statistic in the footnotes of the table.
Often, this is 95% VCL of the log-
transformed data.
Max (Maximum)
95% VCL - N (95% VCL of
Normal Data)
95% VCL- T (95% VCL of
Log-transformed Data)
95% VCL - NP (Mean of
Nonparametric Data)
Mean - N (Mean of Normal Data)
Mean - T (Mean of Log-
transformed Data)
Mean - NP (Mean of
Nonparametric Data)
Column 10 - Exposure Point Concentration Rationale
Definition:
• The reason the cited statistic was used to represent the
EPC.
Instructions:
• Enter the rationale for the selection. Footnotes can be
used.
B3-8
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 4
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
PURPOSE OF THE TABLE:
• To provide the exposure parameters used for intake calculations
for each Exposure Pathway (Scenario Timeframe, Medium,
Exposure Medium, Exposure Point, Receptor Population,
Receptor Age, and Exposure Route)
• To provide the intake equations or models used for each
Exposure Route/Pathway.
INFORMATION DOCUMENTED:
• Values used for each intake equation for each Exposure Pathway
and the reference/rationale for each
• Intake equation or model used to calculate the intake for each
Exposure Pathway.
TABLE NUMBERING AND SUMMARY BOX INSTRUCTIONS:
• Follow the instructions below to create separate sets of Table 4
for RME and CT where appropriate.
• Complete one copy of Table 4 for each unique combination of the
following three fields that will be quantitatively evaluated:
Scenario Timeframe, Medium, and Exposure Medium.
• Enter each combination of these three fields in the Summary Box
in the upper left corner of the table.
• Number each table uniquely, beginning with 4.1 and ending with
4.n, where "n" represents the total number of combinations of the
three key fields.
• Add the line "Reasonable Maximum Exposure" or "Central
Tendency" to the table title. Add the extension .RME or .CT to
the table number to the line indicate reasonable maximum
exposure or central tendency.
Information regarding intake
calculations is specific to an
Exposure Pathway. Thus, the
Summary Box contains the first
three identifiers used to specify an
exposure pathway: Scenario
Timeframe, Medium, and Exposure
Medium,
It is possible that some tables may
contain the same data associated
with different descriptions in the
Summary Box in the upper left
corner.
Separate tables may be necessary to
ensure transparency in data
presentation for each Exposure
Pathway. Replication of
information is readily accomplished
using spreadsheet software.
Consult the EPA risk assessor for
alternatives (e.g., footnotes) to
preparing multiple tables with the
same data.
HOW TO COMPLETE/INTERPRET THE TABLE
SUMMARY BOX IN UPPER LEFT CORNER
Row 1 - Scenario Timeframe
Definition:
• The time period (current and/or future) being considered for the
Exposure Pathway.
B4-1
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 4
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS (continued)
Instructions:
• Choose from the picklist to the right.
Current
Future
Curren t/Future
Not Documented
B4-2
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 4
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS (continued)
Row 2 - Medium
Definition:
• The substance (e.g., air, water, soil) that is a potential source of
contaminants in the Exposure Medium. (The Medium will
sometimes = the Exposure Medium.) Usually, the Medium is that
targeted for possible remediation.
Instructions:
• Choose from the picklist to the right.
Groundwater
Leachate
Sediment
Sludge
Soil
Surface Water
Debris
Other
Liquid Waste
Solid Waste
Air
Surface Soil
Subsurface Soil
Row 3 - Exposure Medium
Definition:
• The contaminated environmental medium to which an individual
may be exposed. Includes the transfer of contaminants from one
Medium to another.
For example:
1) Contaminants in Groundwater (the Medium) remain in Groundwater (the
Exposure Medium) and are available for exposure to receptors.
2) Contaminants in Groundwater (the Medium) may be transferred to Air (the
Exposure Medium) and are available for exposure to receptors.
3) Contaminants in Sediment (the Medium) may be transferred to Fish Tissue
(the Exposure Medium) and are available for exposure to receptors.
B4-3
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 4
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS (continued)
Instructions:
• Choose from the picklist to the right.
Groundwater
Leachate
Sediment
Sludge
Soil
Surface Water
Debris
Other
Liquid Waste
Solid Waste
Air
Plant Tissue
Animal Tissue
Fish Tissue
Spring Water
Surface Soil
Subsurface Soil
Particulates
Vapors
B4-4
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 4
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS (continued)
BODY OF THE TABLE
Column 1 - Exposure Route
Definition:
• The way a chemical or radionuclide comes in contact with a
person (e.g., by ingestion, inhalation, dermal contact).
Instructions:
• Choose from the picklist to the right.
Inhalation
Ingestion
Combined (i.e., Inhalation and
Ingestion)
Dermal
Not Documented
External (Radiation)
Column 2 - Receptor Population
Definition:
• The exposed individual relative to the Exposure Pathway
considered.
Instructions:
• Choose from the picklist to the right.
For example, a resident (Receptor
Population) who drinks
contaminated groundwater.
Resident
Industrial Worker
Commercial Worker
Construction Worker
Other Worker
Golfer
Jogger
Fisher
Hunter
Fisher/Hunter
Swimmer
Other Recreational Person
Child at School/Daycare/
Playground
Trespasser/Visitor
Farmer
Gardener
Gatherer
Other
Column 3 - Receptor Age
Definition:
• The description of the exposed individual as defined by the EPA
Region or dictated by the site.
For example, a resident (Receptor
Population) who drinks
contaminated groundwater.
B4-5
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 4
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS (continued)
Instructions:
• Choose from the picklist to the right.
Child
Adult
Adolescents (teens)
Pre-Adolescents
Not Documented
Child/Adult
Geriatric
Sensitive
Other
Infant
Toddler
Pregnant
Column 4 - Exposure Point
Definition:
• An exact location of potential contact between a person and a
chemical or radionuclide within an Exposure Medium.
For example:
1) Contaminants are in Groundwater (the Medium and the Exposure
Medium) and exposure to Aquifer 1 - Tap Water (the Exposure Point) is
evaluated.
2) Contaminants in Groundwater (the Medium) may be transferred to Air (the
Exposure Medium) and exposure to Aquifer 1 - Water Vapors at
Showerhead (the Exposure Point) is evaluated.
3) Contaminants in Sediment (the Medium) may be transferred to Fish Tissue
(the Exposure Medium) and Trout in Dean's Creek (the Exposure Point) is
evaluated.
Instructions:
• Provide the information as text in the table. Multiple Exposure
Points may be recorded in the same cell/row in this table if all
other aspects of their Exposure Pathways (Scenario Timeframe,
Medium, Exposure Medium, Exposure Route, Receptor
Population and Receptor Age) are the same.
Exposure Points should be defined
the same way ad was done in
Planning Table 1.
Column 5 - Parameter Code
Definition:
• The code used for parameters (exposure factors) in the intake
equation.
B4-6
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 4
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS (continued)
Instructions:
• Enter the appropriate code for the intake parameter from the
picklist below.
• Develop additional intake parameter codes as necessary; be sure
that additional codes are unique and defined in this table.
Parameter
Code Parameter Definition Units
CS Chemical Concentration in Soil mg/kg
CW Chemical Concentration in Water ug/l
IR-W Ingestion Rate of Water liters/day
EF Exposure Frequency days/year
ED Exposure Duration years
CF1 Conversion Factor 1 mg/ug
BW Body Weight kg
AT-C Averaging Tune (Cancer) days
AT-N Averaging Time (Non-Cancer) days
KP Permeability Constant (Dermal for Liquids) cm/hr
ET Exposure Time hr/day
CF2 Conversion Factor 2 l/cm3
SA Skin Surface Area Available for Contact cm2
IN Inhalation Rate m'/hr
IR-SM Ingestion Rate (Swimming) l/hr
IR-S Ingestion Rate of Soil mg/day
DABS Dermal Absorption Factor (Solid) -
SSAF Soil to Skin Adherence Factor mg/cm2/event
IR-F Ingestion Rate of Food kg/meal
EF-F Exposure Frequency (Food) meals/year
Column 6 - Parameter Definition
Definition:
• The name of the exposure factor (e.g., ingestion rate, body
weight) used in the intake equation corresponding to the
parameter entered in Column 5..
Instructions:
• Enter the parameter definition, consistent with the picklist defined
under the Parameter Code column.
• Develop additional intake parameter definitions as necessary.
Do not provide detailed information
regarding parameter modeled
intakes in this table. This
information should be provided
separately. Column 10 of this table
should list the name of the model or
the equation used with a footnote
referencing supporting information
regarding modeled intake
development.
Do not provide detailed parameter
information regarding modeled
intakes in this table. This
information should be provided
separately. (See instructions for
Column 5).
Column 7 - Value
Definition:
• The numeric value of the parameter recorded in Column 6 used
for the intake calculation.
B4-7
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 4
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS (continued)
Instructions:
• Enter the values used for intake calculations.
• For the CS and CW (chemical concentrations in soil and water,
respectively) parameters, refer to Table 3.n or supporting
documentation, as appropriate.
Consult the EPA risk assessor for
intake parameter values
appropriate for each Exposure
Pathway.
B4-8
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 4
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS (CONTINUED)
Column 8 - Units
Definition:
• The units for the parameter code used in the intake equation.
Instructions:
• Enter the units for each parameter code consistent with the
picklist defined under Column 5.
• Develop additional intake parameter units as necessary.
Column 9 - Rationale/Reference
Definition:
• The reason and reference for the parameter value used.
Instructions:
• Enter the rationale and reference for the value.
• If the value used is inconsistent with guidance values,
provide a detailed explanation of the rationale and a
complete reference for the value used.
Column 10 - Intake Equation/Model Name
Definition:
• The calculation, equation, or model used for intake
estimates for each Exposure Route.
Instructions:
• Enter the intake calculation, equation, and/or model name.
• Include a footnote providing a reference to the section of
the risk assessment where information regarding modeled
intake development is presented.
Consult with the EPA risk assessor
to determine if there is a preference
regarding the units used for different
matrices (e.g., mg/kg for soil, * g/L
for groundwater). Choices include:
mg/l ' g/l ng/l
pg/l % ppm
ppb ppt g/kg
mg/kg ' g/kg ng/kg
• g/g mg/m3 * g/m3
fibers/I fibers/m3 fibers/kg
Ibs/day * g/l 00cm2 mg/cm2
• Rem/hr Rem/yr pCi/g
pCi/kg pCi/m3 pCi/l
pCi/m2/sec Other
Not Documented
This rationale may be based upon
guidance or consultation with the
EPA risk assessor.
Provide sufficient detail that the
reviewer can easily substantiate the
value.
For modeled intakes, the table
should list the name of the model or
the equation used.
B4-9
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 5.1
NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA - ORAL/DERMAL
PURPOSE OF THE TABLE:
• To provide information on RfDs, target organs, and adjustment
factors for chemicals
• To provide oral to dermal adjustment factors
• To verify references for non-cancer toxicity data.
INFORMATION DOCUMENTED:
• The RfDs for each of the COPCs, as well as modifying factors
and oral to dermal adjustments
• The organ effects of each of the COPCs
• References for RfDs and organ effects.
TABLE NUMBERING INSTRUCTIONS:
• Complete one copy of this table only.
• Number it Table 5.1.
• The table should contain a row for each COPC considered.
GENERAL NOTES/INSTRUCTIONS FOR THIS TABLE:
• Table 5.1 does not replace the toxicological profiles for the
individual chemicals that will be presented in the risk assessment.
Surrogate toxicity values can also be
entered in this table and indicated in
the Source(s) column or with a
footnote.
If chronic and subchronic effects are
listed for the same COPC, two rows
will be required.
It may be necessary to refer to RAGS,
the risk assessment technical
approach, and the EPA risk assessor
to complete the table.
HOW TO COMPLETE/INTERPRET THE TABLE
Column 1 - Chemical of Potential Concern
Definition:
• Chemicals that are potentially site-related, with data of sufficient
quality, that have been retained for quantitative analysis as a
result of the screening documented in Table 2.
Instructions:
• Enter the names of the chemicals that were selected as COPCs
from Table 2.
Chemicals can be grouped in the
order that the risk assessor prefers.
Class descriptions (e.g., PAHs, VOCs,
inorganics) can be included as a row
before a group of chemicals.
Column 2 - Chronic/Subchronic
Definition:
• Identifies whether the RfD for a particular chemical is for chronic
(long-term) and/or subchronic (short-term) exposure.
B5.1-1
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 5.1
NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA - ORAL/DERMAL (continued)
Instructions:
• Enter either "Chronic" or "Subchronic" in the field. Both values
may be available for an individual COPC.
• Subchronic values may not be available or necessary for an
individual COPC. If that is the case, enter only "Chronic" in
Column 2.
Chronic
Subchronic
Column 3 - Oral RfD Value
Definition:
• The oral RfD value for each of the COPCs.
Instructions:
• Enter the value for the chronic and/or Subchronic oral RfD (as
appropriate).
Column 4 - Oral RfD Units
Definition:
The oral RfD units for each COPC.
Instructions:
• Enter units for each oral RfD value as necessary.
Consult the EPA risk assessor to
determine if there is a preference
regarding the units to be used.
Column 5 - Oral Absorption Efficiency Value for Dermal
Definition:
• The adjustment factor used to convert oral RfD values to dermal
RfD values. This value is an oral absorption factor.
Instructions:
• Enter the adjustment factor in this column.
• Use a footnote to indicate the source of the Oral Absorption
Efficiency for Dermal. Also, specify the section of the risk
assessment text where the derivation of the Oral Absorption
Efficiency for Dermal can be found.
Column 6 - Absorbed RfD for Dermal Value
Definition:
• The adjusted RfD for each COPC detected that is derived from
the oral RfD.
B5.1-2
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 5.1
NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA - ORAL/DERMAL (continued)
Instructions:
• Enter the value that was derived from the adjustment factor in
Column 5.
• In a footnote on this table, reference the section of the risk
assessment text where the derivation of the Absorbed RfDs for
Dermal can be found.
Derivations of the Absorbed RfD for
Dermal should be performed in as
directed by the EPA risk assessor.
Column 7 - Absorbed RfD for Dermal Units
Definition:
• The units associated with the Absorbed RfD for Dermal value for
each COPC.
Instructions:
• Enter units for each Absorbed RfD for Dermal value as
necessary.
Consult the EPA risk assessor to
determine if there is a preference
regarding the units to be used.
Column 8 - Primary Target Organ(s)
Definition:
• The organ(s) most affected (i.e., experiences critical effects) by
chronic or subchronic exposure to the specific COPC, and upon
which the RfD is based.
Instructions:
• Enter the name of the most affected organ or organ system in the
column. If the critical effect (the one on which the RfD is based)
involves multiple target organs, they should be shown, separated
by a V. ' Target organs that are affected at higher doses should
not be shown.
Column 9 - Combined Uncertainty/Modifying Factors
Definition:
• The factors applied to the critical effect level to account for areas
of uncertainty inherent in extrapolation from available data.
Instructions:
• Enter number obtained from IRIS, HEAST, or other source.
Refer to IRIS, HEAST, or other
source for these values. Examples of
uncertainty to be addressed include:
- variations in the general population
- intersped.es variability between
humans and animals
- use of subchronic data for chronic
evaluation
- extrapolation from LOAELs to
NOAELs.
Refer to IRIS, HEAST, or other
source for these values.
B5.1-3
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 5.1
NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA - ORAL/DERMAL (continued)
Column 10 - RfD: Target Organ(s) Source(s)
Definition:
• The source of the RfD and target organ information.
Instructions:
• Enter the source of the RfD and target organ information. Use a
colon to delineate multiple sources if the sources of information
are different for RfD and target organ.
IRIS
HEAST
NCSA
OTHER
Column 11 - RfD: Target Organ(s) Dates (MM/DD/YYYY)
Definition:
• The date of the source that was consulted for the RfD and target
organ information in MM/DD/YYYY format.
The MM/DD/YYYYformat refers to
month/day/year.
Instructions:
Enter the date, in MM/DD/YYYY format, for both RfD and
target organ information. Use a colon to delineate multiple dates
if the dates of information are different for RfD and target organ.
• For IRIS references, provide the date IRIS was searched.
• For HEAST references, provide the date of the HEAST reference.
• For NCEA references, provide the date of the information provided by
NCSA.
For example, the MM/DD/YYYY
version of the date March 30, 1995 is
03/30/1995.
B5.1-4
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 5.2
NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA - INHALATION
PURPOSE OF THE TABLE:
• To provide information on RfCs, RfDs, target organs, and
adjustment factors for chemicals
• To provide RfC to RfD adjustment factors
• To verify references for non-cancer toxicity data.
INFORMATION DOCUMENTED:
• The RfDs for each of the COPCs, as well as modifying factors
and RfC to RfD adjustments
• The primary target organ effects of each of the COPCs
• References for RfCs and organ effects.
Surrogate toxicity values can also
be entered in this table and
indicated in the Source(s) column
or with a footnote.
TABLE NUMBERING INSTRUCTIONS:
• Complete one copy of this table only.
• Number it Table 5.2.
• The table should contain a row for each COPC considered.
If chronic and subchronic effects are
listed for the same COPC, two rows
will be required.
GENERAL NOTES/INSTRUCTIONS FOR THIS TABLE:
• Table 5.2 does not replace the toxicological profiles for the
individual chemicals that will be presented in the risk assessment.
It may be necessary to refer to
RAGS, the risk assessment technical
approach, and EPA Regional
guidance to complete the table.
HOW TO COMPLETE/INTERPRET THE TABLE:
Column 1 - Chemical of Potential Concern
Definition:
• Chemicals that are potentially site-related, with data of sufficient
quality, that have been retained for quantitative analysis as a
result of the screening documented in Table 2.
Instructions:
• Enter the names of the chemicals that were selected as COPCs
from Table 2.
Chemicals can be grouped in the
order that the risk assessor prefers.
Class descriptions can be included
as a row before a group of
chemicals.
Column 2 - Chronic/Subchronic
Definition:
• Identifies whether the RfC or RfD for a particular chemical is for
chronic (long-term) and/or subchronic (short-term) exposure.
Instructions:
• Enter either "Chronic" or "Subchronic" in the field. Both values
may be available for an individual chemical.
• "Subchronic" values may not be available or necessary for an
individual COPC. If that is the case, enter "Chronic" in Column
2.
Chronic
Subchronic
B5.2-1
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 5.2
NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA - INHALATION (continued)
Column 3 - Inhalation RfC Value
Definition:
The RfC value for each of the COPCs.
Instructions:
• Enter the value for the chronic and/or subchronic oral RfC (as
appropriate).
Column 4 - Inhalation RfC Units
Definition:
• The RfC units for each chemical detected.
Instructions:
• Enter units for each RfC as necessary.
Consult the EPA risk assessor to
determine if there is a preference
regarding the units to be used.
Column 5 - Extrapolated RfD Value
Definition:
• The inhalation RfD for each COPC that is derived from the RfC
value if an RfD is used to calculate risk instead of the RfC.
Instructions:
• Enter the derived RfD factor in this column.
• In a footnote on this table, reference the section of the risk
assessment text where the derivation of the adjusted RfDs can be
found.
The derivation of the RfD from an
RfC should be performed as directed
by the EPA risk assessor.
The equation to derive the RfD from
the RfC is to be included as a
footnote in the table.
Column 6 - Extrapolated RfD Units
Definition:
The Extrapolated RfD units for each COPC.
Instructions:
• Enter units for each Extrapolated RfD value as necessary.
Consult the EPA risk assessor to
determine if there is a preference
regarding the units to be used.
Column 7 - Primary Target Organ(s)
Definition:
• The organ that is most affected (i.e., experiences critical effects)
by chronic or subchronic exposure to the specific COPC, and
upon which the RfD/RfC is based.
B5.2-2
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 5.2
NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA - INHALATION (continued)
Instructions:
• Enter the name of the most affected organ or organ system in the
column.
• If the critical effect (the one on which the RfD/RfC is based)
involves multiple target organs, they should all be shown,
separated by V. ' Target organs affected at higher doses should
not be shown.
Column 8 - Combined Uncertainty/Modifying Factors
Definition:
• The factors applied to the critical effect level to account for areas
of uncertainty inherent in extrapolation from available data.
Instructions:
• Enter number obtained from IRIS, HEAST, or other source.
Refer to IRIS, HEAST, or other
source for these values. Examples
of uncertainty to be addressed
include:
- variations in the general
population
- interspecies variability between
humans and animals
- use ofsubchronic data for chronic
evaluation
- extrapolation from LOAELs to
NOAELs.
Refer to IRIS, HEAST, or other
source for these values.
Column 9 - RfC: Target Organ(s) Source(s)
Definition:
• The sources of the RfC and target organ information.
Instructions:
• Enter the sources of the RfC and target organ information. Use
a colon to delineate between multiple information sources if the
sources of information are different for RfC and target organ.
IRIS
HEAST
NCSA
OTHER
Column 10 - RfC: Target Organ(s) Date(s) (MM/DD/YYYY)
Definition:
• The dates of the documents that were consulted for the RfC and
target organ information in MM/DD/YYYY format.
The MM/DD/YYYY format refers to
month/ day/year.
B5.2-3
December 2001
-------
Instructions:
Enter the dates, in MM/DD/YYYY format, for RfC and target
organ information. Use a colon to delineate between multiple
dates if the dates of information are different for RfC and target
organ.
• For IRIS references, provide the date IRIS was searched.
• For HEAST references, provide the date of the HEAST reference.
• For NCEA references, provide the date of the information provided by NCEA.
For example, the MM/DD/YYYY
version of the date March 30, 1995
is 03/30/1995.
B5.2-4
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 5.3
NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA - SPECIAL CASE CHEMICALS
PURPOSE OF THE TABLE:
• To provide information on toxicity values, target organs, and
adjustment factors for unusual chemicals or circumstances or
surrogate chemicals that are not covered by Tables 5.1 or 5.2.
Table 5.3 is not required if there are not such chemicals or
circumstances.
• To verify references for non-cancer toxicity data.
INFORMATION DOCUMENTED:
• The toxicity values for each of the COPCs, as well as modifying
factors
• The organ effects of each of the COPCs
• References for toxicity values and organ effects.
TABLE NUMBERING INSTRUCTIONS:
• Complete one copy of this table only.
• Number it Table 5.3.
• The table should contain a row for each COPC considered.
GENERAL NOTES/INSTRUCTIONS FOR THIS TABLE:
• Table 5.3 does not replace the toxicological profiles for the
individual chemicals that will be presented in the risk assessment.
For example, a toxicity factor
derived specifically for an individual
risk assessment should be
documented in Table 5.3.
If chronic and subchronic effects are
listed for the same COPC, two rows
will be required.
Refer to RAGS, the risk assessment
technical approach, and the EPA
risk assessor to complete the table.
HOW TO COMPLETE/INTERPRET THE TABLE
Column 1 - Chemical of Potential Concern
Definition:
• Chemicals that are potentially site-related, with data of sufficient
quality, that have been retained for quantitative analysis as a
result of the screening documented in Table 2.
Instructions:
• Enter the names of the chemicals that were selected as COPCs
from Table 2.
Chemicals can be grouped in the
order that the risk assessor prefers.
Class descriptions (e.g., PAHs,
VOCs, inorganics) can be included
as a row before a group of
chemicals.
Column 2 - Chronic/Subchronic
Definition:
• Identifies whether the toxicity value for a particular chemical is
for chronic (long-term) and/or subchronic (short-term) exposure.
B5.3-1
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 5.3
NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA -SPECIAL CASE CHEMICALS (continued)
Instructions:
• Enter either "Chronic" or "Subchronic" in the field. Both values
may be available for an individual COPC.
• "Subchronic" values may not be available or necessary for an
individual chemical. If that is the case, enter only "Chronic" in
the column.
Chronic
Subchronic
Column 3 - Parameter Name
Definition:
• The name of parameter/toxicity factor being recorded for each
COPC.
Instructions:
• Enter the name of parameter/toxicity factor.
Toxicity factors derived specifically
for an individual risk assessment
should be recorded here.
Column 4 - Parameter Value
Definition:
• The toxicity parameter value for each COPC.
Instructions:
• Enter the value for the chronic and/or Subchronic toxicity values
(as appropriate).
Column 5 - Parameter Units
Definition:
• The units associated with the toxicity value for each COPC.
Instructions:
• Enter units for each reference as necessary.
Consult the EPA risk assessor to
determine if there is a preference
regarding the units to be used.
Column 6 - Primary Target Organ(s)
Definition:
• The organ(s) most affected (i.e., experiences critical effects) by
chronic or Subchronic exposure to the specific COPC, and upon
which the RfD is based.
Instructions:
• Enter the name of the most affected organ or organ system in the
column. If the critical effect (the one that the RfD is based on)
involves multiple target organs, they should all be shown,
separated by a V. ' Target organs affected at higher doses should
not be shown.
B5.3-2
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 5.3
NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA -SPECIAL CASE CHEMICALS (continued)
Column 7 - Combined Uncertainty/Modifying Factors
Definition:
• The factors applied to the critical effect level to account for areas
of uncertainty inherent in extrapolation from available data.
Instructions:
• Enter number obtained from IRIS, HEAST, or other source.
Refer to IRIS, HEAST, or other
source for these values. Examples
of uncertainty to be addressed
include:
- variations in the general
population
- intersped.es variability between
humans and animals
- use of sub chronic data for chronic
evaluation
- extrapolation from LOAELs to
NOAELs.
Refer to IRIS, HEAST, or other
source for these values.
Column 8 - Parameter: Target Organ(s) Sources
Definition:
• The sources of the toxicity and target organ information.
Instructions:
• Enter the sources of the toxicity and target organ information.
Use a colon to delineate multiple sources if the sources of
information for toxicity and target organ are different.
IRIS
HEAST
NCEA
OTHER
Column 9 - Parameter: Target Organ(s) Date(s) (MM/DD/YYYY)
Definition:
• The dates of the sources that were consulted for the toxicity
information and the target organ information in MM/DD/YYYY
format.
Instructions:
• Enter the dates, in MM/DD/YYYY format, for the toxicity and
target organ information. Use a colon to delineate between
multiple dates if the sources of information are different for
toxicity and target organ.
• For IRIS references, provide the date IRIS was searched.
• For HEAST references, provide the date of the HEAST reference.
• For NCEA references, provide the date of the information provided by NCEA.
The MM/DD/YYYY format refers to
month/ day/year.
For example, the MM/DD/YYYY
version of the date March 30, 1995
is 03/30/1995.
B5.3-3
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 6.1
CANCER TOXICITY DATA - ORAL/DERMAL
PURPOSE OF THE TABLE:
• To provide the oral and dermal cancer toxicity information
(values and sources of information) for chemicals of potential
concern
• To provide the methodology and adjustment factors used to
convert oral cancer toxicity values to dermal toxicity values
• To provide weight of evidence/cancer guideline descriptions for
each chemical of potential concern.
INFORMATION DOCUMENTED:
• Oral and dermal toxicity values for chemicals of potential concern
• Weight of evidence/cancer guidelines descriptions for chemicals
of potential concern
• The source/reference for each toxicity value.
GENERAL NOTES/INSTRUCTIONS FOR THIS TABLE:
• Table 6.1 does not replace toxicological profiles for the individual
chemicals that will be presented in the risk assessment.
Surrogate toxicity values can also
be entered in this table and
indicated in the 'Source(s) ' column
or with a footnote.
It may be necessary to refer to
RAGS, the risk assessment technical
approach, and the EPA risk
assessor to complete the table.
HOW TO COMPLETE/INTERPRET THE TABLE
Column 1 - Chemical of Potential Concern
Definition:
• Chemicals that are potentially site-related, with data of sufficient
quality, that have been retained for quantitative analysis as a
result of the screening documented in Table 2.
Instructions:
• Enter the names of the chemicals that were selected as COPCs
from Table 2.
Chemicals may be grouped in the
order that the risk assessor chooses.
Class descriptions can be included
as a row before a group of
chemicals.
Column 2 - Oral Cancer Slope Factor Value
Definition:
• Cancer slope factor for ingestion.
Instructions:
• Enter the oral cancer slope factor value for each of the COPCs.
Refer to IRIS and HEAST. If
toxicity information is not available,
contact EPA's National Center for
Environmental Assessment (NCSA)
office.
B6.1-1
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 6.1
CANCER TOXICITY DATA - ORAL/DERMAL (continued)
Column 3 - Oral Cancer Slope Factor Units
Definition:
• Units for the cancer slope factor for ingestion.
Instructions:
• Enter units for each oral cancer slope factor.
Consult the EPA risk assessor to
determine if there is a preference
regarding the units to be used.
Column 4 - Oral Absorption Efficiency for Dermal
Definition:
• The absorbed factor used to convert the oral RfD values to
dermal RfD values.
Instructions:
• Enter the oral to dermal adjustment factor.
• Use a footnote to indicate the source of the Oral Absorption
Efficiency for dermal.
Column 5 - Absorbed Cancer Slope Factor for Dermal Value
Definition:
• The absorbed dermal cancer slope factor for each chemical of
potential concern which typically is derived from the oral cancer
slope factor.
Instructions:
• Enter the derived dermal cancer slope factor.
• Use a footnote to specify the section of the risk assessment text
where the derivation of the Absorbed Cancer Slope Factor for
Dermal can be found.
Derivation of the dermal cancer
slope factor should be performed in
consultation with the EPA risk
assessor.
Column 6 - Absorbed Cancer Slope Factor for Dermal Units
Definition:
• The units associated with each Absorbed Cancer Slope Factor
for Dermal.
Instructions:
• Enter the units for the Absorbed Cancer Slope Factors for
Dermal.
Typically (mg/kg-day)'1. Consult
with the EPA risk assessor to
determine if there is a preference
regarding the units to be used.
Column 7 - Weight of Evidence/Cancer Guideline Description
B6.1-2
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 6.1
CANCER TOXICITY DATA - ORAL/DERMAL (continued)
Definition:
• An EPA classification system for characterizing the extent to
which the available data indicate that an agent is a human
carcinogen.
Instructions:
• Provide the weight of evidence or cancer guideline description.
• Choose from the categories to the right.
Weight of Evidence:
A - Human carcinogen
Bl - Probable human carcinogen -
indicates that limited human data
are available.
B2 - Probable human carcinogen -
indicates sufficient evidence in
animals and inadequate or no
evidence in humans.
C - Possible human carcinogen
D - Not classifiable as a human
carcinogen
E - Evidence ofnoncarcinogenicity
Cancer Guideline Description:
Known/Likely
Cannot be Determined
Not Likely
Column 8 - Oral CSF Source(s)
Definition:
• A reference for the oral cancer slope factor.
Instructions:
• Enter the reference for the toxicity information.
For example:
IRIS
HEAST
NCSA
Column 9 -Oral CSF Date(s) (MM/DD/YYYY)
Definition:
• The date of the document that was consulted for the cancer
toxicity data in MM/DD/YYYY format.
Instructions:
Enter the date in MM/DD/YYYY format.
• For IRIS references, provide the date IRIS was searched.
• For HEAST references, provide the date of the HEAST reference.
• For NCSA references, provide the date of the information provided by
NCSA.
The MM/DD/YYYY format refers to
month/ day/year.
For example, the MM/DD/YYYY
version of the date March 30, 1995
is 03/30/1995.
6.1-3
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 6.2
CANCER TOXICITY DATA - INHALATION
PURPOSE OF THE TABLE:
• To provide the inhalation cancer toxicity information (values and
sources of information) for chemicals of potential concern
• To provide the methodology and adjustment factors used to
convert inhalation unit risks to inhalation cancer slope factors
• To provide weight of evidence/cancer guideline descriptions for
each chemical of potential concern.
INFORMATION DOCUMENTED:
• Inhalation toxicity values for chemicals of potential concern
• Weight of evidence/cancer guidelines descriptions for chemicals
of potential concern
• The source/reference for each toxicity value.
GENERAL NOTES/INSTRUCTIONS FOR THIS TABLE:
• Table 6.2 does not replace toxicological profiles for the individual
chemicals that will be presented in the risk assessment.
Surrogate toxicity values can also
be entered in this table and
indicated in the 'Source(s) ' column
or with a footnote.
It may be necessary to refer to
RAGS, the risk assessment technical
approach, and the EPA risk
assessor to complete the table.
HOW TO COMPLETE/INTERPRET THE TABLE
Column 1 - Chemical of Potential Concern
Definition:
• Chemicals that are potentially site-related, with data of sufficient
quality, that have been retained for quantitative analysis as a
result of the screening documented in Table 2.
Instructions:
• Enter the names of the chemicals that were selected as COPCs
from Table 2.
Chemicals may be grouped in the
order that the risk assessor chooses.
Class descriptions (e.g., PAHs,
VOCs, inorganics) can be included
as a row before a group of
chemicals.
Column 2 - Unit Risk Value
Definition:
• Toxicity values for carcinogenic effects expressed in terms of
risk per unit concentration of the substance in the medium where
human contact occurs. Cancer slope factors can be calculated
from unit risk values.
Instructions:
• Enter the inhalation unit risk value
Refer to IRIS and HEAST; if
toxicity information is not available,
contact EPA's National Center for
Environmental Assessment (NCEA)
office.
B6.2-1
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 6.2
CANCER TOXICITY DATA - INHALATION (continued)
Column 3 - Unit Risk Units
Definition:
• The units used for the unit risk for each chemical detected.
Instructions:
• Enter the units for the unit risk values.
Consult the EPA risk assessor to
determine if there is a preference
regarding the units to be used.
Column 4 - Inhalation Cancer Slope Factor Value
Definition:
• A plausible upper-bound estimate of the probability of a response
per unit intake of a chemical over a lifetime.
Instructions:
• Enter the Inhalation Cancer Slope Factor if Cancer Slope Factors
were used to calculate risk instead of Inhalation Unit Risks.
Usually the cancer slope factor is
the upper 95th % confidence limit
of the dose-response curve for
inhalation.
Column 5 - Inhalation Cancer Slope Factor Units
Definition:
• The units used for the Inhalation Cancer Slope Factor for each
chemical detected.
Instructions:
• Enter the units for the Inhalation Cancer Slope Factors.
Consult EPA risk assessor to
determine if there is a preference
regarding the units to be used.
Column 6 - Weight of Evidence/Cancer Guideline Description
Definition:
• An EPA classification system for characterizing the extent to
which the available data indicate that an agent is a human
carcinogen.
B6.2-2
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 6.2
CANCER TOXICITY DATA - INHALATION (continued)
Instructions:
• Provide the weight of evidence or cancer guideline description.
• Choose from the categories to the right.
Weight of Evidence:
A - Human carcinogen
Bl - Probable human carcinogen -
indicates that limited human data
are available.
B2 - Probable human carcinogen -
indicates sufficient evidence in
animals and inadequate or no
evidence in humans.
C - Possible human carcinogen
D - Not classifiable as a human
carcinogen
E - Evidence of noncarcinogenicity
Cancer Guideline Description:
Known/Likely
Cannot be Determined
Not Likely
B6.2-3
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 6.2
CANCER TOXICITY DATA - INHALATION (continued)
Column 7 - Unit Risk: Inhalation Cancer Slope Factor Source(s)
Definition:
• A reference for the Unit Risk and Inhalation Cancer Slope Factor
values.
Instructions:
• Enter the reference(s) for Unit Risk and Inhalation Cancer Slope
Factor values. Use a colon to delineate multiple sources.
IRIS
HEAST
NCSA
Column 8 - Unit Risk: Inhalation Cancer Slope Factor Date(s) (MM/DD/YYYY)
Definition:
• The date of the document that was consulted for the cancer
toxicity data in MM/DD/YYYY format.
The MM/DD/YYYY format refers to
month/day/year.
Instructions:
Enter the date in MM/DD/YYYY format. Use a colon to
delineate between multiple dates, if multiple sources of
information were used.
• For IRIS references, provide the date IRIS was searched.
• For HEAST references, provide the date of the HEAST reference.
• For NCEA references, provide the date of the information provided by NCEA.
For example, the MM/DD/YYYY
version of the date March 30, 1995
is 03/30/1995.
B6.2-4
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 6.3
CANCER TOXICITY DATA - SPECIAL CASE CHEMICALS
PURPOSE OF THE TABLE:
• To provide cancer toxicity information for unusual chemicals,
surrogate chemicals or circumstances that are not covered by
Tables 6.1 or 6.2. Table 6.3 (or non-standard tables) can also be
used to accommodate threshold carcinogens, if applicable. Table
6.3 is not required if there are no such chemicals or
circumstances.
INFORMATION DOCUMENTED:
• Cancer toxicity information (values and units) for special case
chemicals
• The date and source of the toxicity information.
TABLE NUMBERING INSTRUCTIONS:
• Complete one copy of this table only.
• Number it 6. 3.
• The table should contain a row for each COPC considered.
GENERAL NOTES/INSTRUCTIONS FOR THIS TABLE:
• Table 6.3 does not replace toxicological profiles for the individual
chemicals that will be presented in the risk assessment.
For example, a toxicity factor
derived specifically for an
individual risk assessment should
be documented in Table 6.3.
It may be necessary to refer to
RAGS, the risk assessment
technical approach, and consult
the EPA risk assessor to complete
the table.
HOW TO COMPLETE/INTERPRET THE TABLE
Column 1 - Chemical of Potential Concern
Definition:
• Chemicals that are potentially site-related, with data of sufficient
quality, that have been retained for quantitative analysis as a
result of the screening documented in Table 2.
Instructions:
• Enter the names of the chemicals that were selected as COPCs
from Table 2.
Chemicals may be grouped in the
order that the risk assessor
chooses. Class descriptions can be
included as a row before a group
of chemicals.
Column 2 - Parameter Name
Definition:
• The name of the toxicity parameter being recorded.
Instructions:
• Enter the names of the toxicity parameter being recorded.
B6.3-1
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 6.3
CANCER TOXICITY DATA - SPECIAL CASE CHEMICALS (continued)
Column 3 - Parameter Value
Definition:
• The toxicity value for each listed parameter for each
potential concern.
chemical of
Instructions:
• Enter the toxicity value for each chemical of potential concern.
Refer to IRIS, HEAST,
source for these valued.
or other
Column 4 - Parameter Units
Definition:
• The units associated with the toxicity value.
Instructions:
• Enter the toxicity units.
Typically (mg/kg-day)-'
Consult the EPA risk assessor to
determine if there is a preference
regarding the units to be used.
Column 5 -Source(s)
Definition:
• A reference for the cancer toxicity information.
Instructions:
• Enter the reference for toxicity information. Use a colon to
delineate multiple sources.
IRIS
HEAST
NCEA
OTHER
Column 6 - Date(s) (MM/DD/YYYY)
Definition:
• The date of the document that was consulted for the
toxicity data in the MM/DD/YYYY format.
cancer
Instructions:
• Enter the date in MM/DD/YYYY format. Use a comma to
delineate between multiple dates, if multiple sources of
information were used.
• For IRIS references, provide the date IRIS was searched.
• For HEAST references, provide the date of the HEAST reference.
• For NCEA references, provide the date of the information provided by NCEA.
The MM/DD/YYYY format refers
to month/day/year.
For example, the MM/DD/YYYY
version of the date March 30,
1995 is 03/30/1995.
B6.3-2
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 6.4
CANCER TOXICITY DATA - EXTERNAL (RADIATION)
PURPOSE OF THE TABLE:
• To provide cancer toxicity information for radionuclides.
INFORMATION DOCUMENTED:
• Cancer toxicity information (values and units) for radionuclides.
• The source and date of the toxicity information.
GENERAL NOTES/INSTRUCTIONS FOR THIS TABLE:
• Table 6.4 does not replace toxicological profiles for the individual
radionuclides that will be presented in the risk assessment.
It may be necessary to refer to
RAGS, the risk assessment technical
approach, and the EPA risk
assessor to complete the table.
HOW TO COMPLETE/INTERPRET THE TABLE
Column 1 - Chemical of Potential Concern
Definition:
• Radionuclides that are potentially site-related, with data of
sufficient quality, that have been retained for quantitative analysis
as a result of the screening documented in Table 2.
Instructions:
• Enter the names of the radionuclides that were selected as
COPCs from Table 2.
Radionuclides may be grouped in
the order that the risk assessor
chooses.
Column 2 - Cancer Slope Factor Value
Definition:
• A Cancer Slope Factor is an age-averaged lifetime excess cancer
incidence rate per unit intake (or unit exposure for external
exposure pathways) and is used to convert the intake to a cancer
risk. Ingestion and inhalation slope factors are central estimates
in a linear model of the age-averaged, lifetime attributable
radiation cancer incidence (fatal and nonfatal cancer) risk per
unity of activity inhaled or ingested, expressed as risk/picocurie
(pCi). External exposure slope factors are central estimates of
the lifetime attributable radiation cancer incidence risk for each
year of exposure to external radiation from photon-emitting
radionuclides distributed uniformly in a thick layer of soil, and are
expressed as risk/yr per pCi/gram of soil.
Instructions:
• Enter the value of the cancer slope factor for each COPC.
Column 3 - Cancer Slope Factor Units
Definition:
• The units associated with the Cancer Slope Factor value.
B6.4-1
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 6.4
CANCER TOXICITY DATA - EXTERNAL (RADIATION) (continued)
Instructions:
• Enter the units for the Cancer Slope Factor value.
Consult the EPA risk assessor to
determine if there is a preference
regarding the units to be used.
Column 4 -Source(s)
Definition:
• A reference for the cancer slope or conversion factor value.
Instructions:
• Enter the reference(s) for the cancer slope or conversion factor
value. Use a colon to delineate multiple sources.
For example:
IRIS
HEAST
NCEA
OTHER
Column 5 - Date(s) (MM/DD/YYYY)
Definition:
• The date of the document that was consulted for the cancer slope
or conversion factor value in the MM/DD/YYYY format.
Instructions:
Enter the date in MM/DD/YYYY format. Use a colon to
delineate between multiple dates, if multiple sources of
information were used.
For IRIS references, provide the date IRIS was searched.
For HEAST references, provide the date of the HEAST reference.
For NCEA references, provide the date of the information provided by NCEA.
The MM/DD/YYYY format refers to
month/day/year.
For example, the MM/DD/YYYY
version of the date March 30, 1995
is 03/30/1995.
B6.4-2
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 7
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
PURPOSE OF THE TABLE:
• To provide a summary of the variables used to calculate chemical
cancer risks and non-cancer hazards
• To show the EPC and intake used in the non-cancer hazard and
cancer risk calculations
• To present the result of the calculation for each Exposure
Route/Pathway for each COPC
• To provide the total hazard index and cancer risk for all Exposure
Routes/Pathways for the Scenario Timeframe and Receptor
presented in this table.
INFORMATION DOCUMENTED:
• The non-cancer hazard quotient and unit risk for each COPC for
each Exposure Route/Pathway
• The values used for EPC, cancer and non-cancer intakes,
reference doses, and reference concentrations.
An alternate presentation is also
available with cancer information
shown on Table 7a and non-cancer
information shown on Table 7b.
TABLE NUMBERING AND SUMMARY BOX INSTRUCTIONS:
• Complete one copy of Table 7 for each unique combination of the
following three fields that will be quantitatively evaluated
(Scenario Timeframe, Receptor Population, and Receptor Age).
• Enter each combination of these three fields in the Summary Box
in the upper left corner of the table.
Note: Each combination of the three key fields and the first four columns should be
found as a row in Table 1.
• Number each table uniquely, beginning with 7.1 and ending with
7.n where "n" represents the total number of combinations of the
six key fields.
• Different tables should be prepared to address RME and CT non-
cancer hazard calculations when appropriate.
Tables 7.1 .RME through 7.n.RME should be completed for RME
non-cancer and cancer hazard calculations when appropriate.
• Tables 7.1.CT through 7.n.CT should be completed for CT non-
cancer and cancer hazard calculations.
It is possible that some tables may
contain some of the same data
associated with different descriptions
in the Summary Box in the upper
left corner.
Separate tables may be necessary to
ensure transparency in data
presentation for each Exposure
Pathway. Replication of
information is readily accomplished
using spreadsheet software.
Consult the EPA rise assessor for
alternatives (e.g., footnotes) to
preparing multiple tables with the
same data.
B7-1
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 7
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND
NON-CANCER HAZARDS (continued)
TABLE NUMBERING AND SUMMARY BOX INSTRUCTIONS
(continued):
• An optional approach is to report cancer and non-cancer values
on separate tables as follows:
Number non-cancer tables 7.1A.RME - 7.nA.RME or
7.1A.CT - 7.nA.CT, where "n" represents the total number
of combinations of the three key fields.
Number cancer tables 7. lB.RME-7.nB RME or 7.1B.CT-
7.nB.CT, where "n" represents the total number of
combinations of the three key fields.
The first seven columns remain the same for both non-
cancer or cancer tables. Columns 8-12 contain either the
Cancer Risk Calculations data or the Non-Cancer Hazard
Calculations data.
See the blank Planning Tables for an illustration of how
Table 7 data can be separated as described above.
When reporting cancer and non-
cancer values on separate tables,
use the column names to identify
instructions for completing each
column, as the column number will
differ after Column 7.
GENERAL NOTES/INSTRUCTIONS FOR THIS TABLE:
All table entries, with the exception of Intake, Non-Cancer
Hazard and Cancer Risk are presented on tables preceding Table
7.
With the exception of modeled intakes, the intake value is the
result of calculations performed using parameters and equations
presented in Table 4 and concentrations presented in Table 3.
The Total Non-Cancer Hazard is to be summed for each
Exposure Route and Exposure Point in the Exposure Route Total
and Exposure Point Total rows. The total Non-Cancer Hazard
for all Exposure Pathways for a given Receptor is to be
presented as the Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Media at
the bottom of the table. This value represents the non-cancer
hazard of the various exposure routes/pathways combined.
The total Cancer Risk is to be summed for each Exposure Route
and Exposure Point in the Exposure Route Total and Exposure
Point Total rows. The Total Cancer Risk for all Exposure
Pathways for a given Receptor is to be presented as the Total of
Receptor Risks Across All Media at the end of the table. This
value represents the cancer risk of the various Exposure
Routes/Pathways combined to a given receptor.
B7-2
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 7
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND
NON-CANCER HAZARDS (continued)
HOW TO COMPLETE/INTERPRET THE TABLE
SUMMARY BOX IN UPPER LEFT CORNER
Row 1 - Scenario Timeframe
Definition:
• The time period (current and/or future) being considered for the
Exposure Pathway.
Instructions:
• Choose from the picklist to the right.
Row 2 - Receptor Population
Definition:
• The exposed individual relative to the Exposure Pathway
considered.
Instructions:
• Choose from the picklist to the right.
Row 3 - Receptor Age
Definition:
• The description of the exposed individual, as defined by the EPA
Region or dictated by the site.
Current
Future
Current/Future
Not Documented
For example, a resident (Receptor
Population) who drinks
contaminated groundwater.
Resident
Industrial Worker
Commercial Worker
Construction Worker
Other Worker
Golfer
Jogger
Fisher
Hunter
Fisher/Hunter
Swimmer
Other Recreational Person
Child at School/Daycare/
Playground
Trespasser/Visitor
Farmer
Gardener
Gatherer
Other
For example, an adult (Receptor
Age) resident (Receptor Population)
who drinks contaminated
groundwater.
B7-3
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 7
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND
NON-CANCER HAZARDS (continued)
Instructions:
• Choose from the picklist to the right.
Child
Adult
Adolescents (teens)
Pre-Adolescents
Not Documented
Child/Adult
Geriatric
Sensitive
Other
Infant
Toddler
Pregnant
BODY OF THE TABLE
Column 1 - Medium
Definition:
• The substance (e.g., air, water, soil) that is a potential source of
contaminants in the Exposure Medium. (The Medium will
sometimes equal the Exposure Medium.) Usually, the Medium is
that targeted for possible remediation.
Instructions:
• Choose from the picklist to the right.
Groundwater
Leachate
Sediment
Sludge
Soil
Surface Water
Debris
Liquid Waste
Solid Waste
Air
Surface Soil
Subsurface Soil
Other
Column 2 - Exposure Medium
Definition:
• The contaminated environmental medium to which an individual
may be exposed. Includes the transfer of contaminants from one
medium to another.
For example:
1)
2)
3)
Contaminants in Groundwater (the Medium) remain in Groundwater (the
Exposure Medium) and are available for exposure to receptors.
Contaminants in Groundwater (the Medium) may be transferred to Air (the
Exposure Medium) and are available for exposure to receptors.
Contaminants in Sediment (the Medium) may be transferred to Fish Tissue
(the Exposure Medium) and are available for exposure to receptors.
B7-4
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 7
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND
NON-CANCER HAZARDS (continued)
Instructions:
• Choose from the picklist to the right.
Groundwater
Leachate
Sediment
Sludge
Soil
Surface Water
Debris
Liquid Waste
Solid Waste
Air
Plant Tissue
Animal Tissue
Fish Tissue
Spring Water
Surface Soil
Subsurface Soil
Particulates
Vapors
Other
Column 3 - Exposure Point
Definition:
• An exact location of potential contact between a person and a
chemical or radionuclide within an Exposure Medium.
For example:
1) Contaminants are in Groundwater (the Medium and the Exposure
Medium) and exposure to Aquifer 1 - Tap Water (the Exposure Point) is
evaluated.
2) Contaminants in Groundwater (the Medium) may be transferred to Air (the
Exposure Medium) and exposure to Aquifer 1 - Water Vapors at
Showerhead (the Exposure Point) is evaluated.
3) Contaminants in Sediment (the Medium) may be transferred to Fish Tissue
(the Exposure Medium) and Trout from Dean's Creek (the Exposure
Point) is evaluated.
Instructions:
• Provide the information as text in the Table.
Exposure Point should be defined in
the same way as was done in
Planning Table 1.
Column 4 - Exposure Route
Definition:
• The way a chemical or radionuclide comes in contact with a
person (e.g., by ingestion, inhalation, dermal contact).
B7-5
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 7
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND
NON-CANCER HAZARDS (continued)
Instructions:
• Enter the Exposure Route considered from the picklist to the
right.
Inhalation
Ingestion
Combined (i.e., Inhalation and
Ingestion)
Dermal
Not Documented
External (Radiation)
B7-6
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 7
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND
NON-CANCER HAZARDS (continued)
Column 5 - Chemical of Potential Concern
Definition:
• Chemicals that are potentially site-related, with data of sufficient
quality, that have been retained for quantitative analysis as a
result of the screening documented in Table 2.
Instructions:
• Enter the COPCs selected from the COPC screening.
Table 2 documents COPC
screening.
Column 6 - EPC Value
Definition:
• The EPC, based on either a statistical derivation of measured
data or modeled data, that represents an estimate of the chemical
or radionuclide concentration.
The EPC value may be statistically derived by calculating the 95% VCL of
measured groundwater contaminant concentrations from multiple residential wells.
Alternatively, the EPC value may be selected as a single measured value, if one
data point is used to calculate the risk for each residential well individually. In
some cases, the EPC value may be a modeled value (e.g., ifupgradient
groundwater contaminant concentrations are used to model groundwater
concentration at a downgradient exposure point, or if sediment concentrations are
used to model fish tissue concentrations).
Instructions:
• Enter the EPC value for each COPC. This value should be in
Table 3.
• If an EPC other than the one found in Table 3 is used, indicate it
with a footnote and include a reference to supporting information
that will show how the data were modeled in the risk assessment.
The EPC Value may be calculated,
measured, or modeled.
Table 3 documents EPC
calculations for RME and CT.
Column 7 - EPC Units
Definition:
• The units associated with the EPC value.
Instructions:
• Enter the units for EPC values.
Consult the EPA risk assessor for
unit preferences.
Column 8 - Cancer Risk Calculations - Intake/Exposure Concentration Value (Also Column 8 on Table
7a)
B7-7
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 7
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND
NON-CANCER HAZARDS (continued)
Definition:
• Intake is a measure of exposure expressed as the mass of a
substance in contact with the exchange boundary per unit body
weight per unit time (e.g. mg chemical/kg body weight/day).
Instructions:
• Enter the result of the intake calculations/modeling or the
exposure concentration performed for each COPC and Exposure
Route.
Refers to the intake/exposure
concentration results using the
parameters and equations,
calculations and/or models
presented in Table 4.
The intake equations, calculations,
and/or models are documented in
Table 4.
Column 9 - Cancer Risk Calculations - Intake/Exposure Concentration Units (Also Column 9 on Table
7a)
Definition:
• The units for intake or exposure concentration for each COPC
and Exposure Route.
Instructions:
• Enter the units from the intake calculation or exposure
concentration for each COPC which corresponds to each
Exposure Route.
Column 10 - Cancer Risk Calculations - CSF/Unit Risk Value (Also Column 10 on Table 7a)
Definition:
• The slope factor is used to estimate an upper-bound probability of
an individual developing cancer as a result of a lifetime of
exposure to a particular level of potential carcinogen.
• Unit Risk is a toxicity value for carcinogenic effects expressed in
terms of risk per unit concentration of the substance in the
medium where human contact occurs. These measures can be
calculated from cancer slope factors.
Instructions:
• Enter the cancer slope factor or unit risk for each COPC which
corresponds to each exposure route.
The slope factors and unit risk
values for each COPC are presented
in Tables 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3.
Column 11 - Cancer Risk Calculations - CSF/Unit Risk Units (Also Column 11 on Table 7a)
Definition:
• The units for the cancer slope factor or unit risk.
Instructions:
• Enter the cancer slope factor or unit risk units for each COPC for
each Exposure Route.
Column 12 - Cancer Risk Calculations - Cancer Risk (Also Column 12 on Table 7a)
B7-8
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 7
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND
NON-CANCER HAZARDS (continued)
Definition:
• The result of the cancer risk calculation for each COPC for each
Exposure Route and Exposure Pathway.
Instructions:
• Enter the cancer risk calculation for each COPC.
• Sum the cancer risk results for each Exposure Route in the
Exposure Route Total row.
• Sum the cancer risk calculation results for each Exposure Point in
the Exposure Route Total row.
• Sum the total cancer risk results for all Exposure Pathways in the
Total of Receptor Risks Across all Media row.
The sum of all Exposure Routes
represents the total cancer risk for
all Exposure Routes/ Pathways.
Column 13 - Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations - Intake/Exposure Concentration Value (Also Column 8
on Table 7b)
Definition:
• Intake is a measure of exposure expressed as the mass of a
substance in contact with the exchange boundary per unit body
weight per unit time.
Instructions:
• Enter the result of the intake calculations/modeling performed for
each COPC and Exposure Route.
Refers to the intake/exposure
concentration results using the
parameters and
equations/calculations and/or
models presented in Table 4.
The intake equations, calculations,
and/or models are documented in
Table 4.
Column 14 - Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations - Intake/Exposure Concentration Units (Also Column 9
on Table 7b)
Definition:
• The units for intake for each COPC and Exposure Route.
Instructions:
• Enter the units from the intake calculation for each COPC which
corresponds to each Exposure Route.
Column 15 - Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations - RfD/RfC Value (Also Column 10 on Table 7b)
Definition:
• RfD is the toxicity value for evaluating non-cancer effects
resulting from exposures.
• RfC is the toxicity value for inhalation.
B7-9
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 7
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND
NON-CANCER HAZARDS (continued)
Instructions:
Enter the RfD or RfC value.
• For RfD, enter the reference dose for each COPC which
corresponds to each exposure route.
• Enter Oral RfD values for ingestion.
• Enter Adjusted Dermal RfD values for dermal.
• Enter Adjusted Inhalation RfD/RfC values for inhalation.
The reference doses (RfD/RfC) for
each COPC are presented in Table
5.
B7-10
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 7
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND
NON-CANCER HAZARDS (continued)
Column 16 - Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations - RfD/RfC Units (Also Column 11 on Table 7b)
Definition:
• The units associated with the reference dose or reference
concentration.
RfDs are typically reported in
mg/kg-day, a dose term, RfCs in
mg/m3.
Instructions:
• Enter the units for reference dose or reference concentration for
each COPC for each exposure route.
• RfC is typically reported as a concentration in air (mg/m3) which
can be converted to an inhaled dose (mg/kg-day).
Column 17 - Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations - Hazard Quotient (Also Column 12 on Table 7b)
Definition:
• The ratio of a single substance exposure level, over a specified
time period, to a reference dose for that substance, derived from
a similar exposure period.
Instructions:
• Enter the result of the hazard quotient calculation for each
COPC.
• Sum the hazard quotient for each Exposure Route in the
Exposure Route Total row.
• Sum the hazard quotient for each Exposure Point in the Exposure
Route Total row.
• Sum the hazard quotients for all Exposure Pathways in the Total
of Receptor Hazards across all Media row.
The Hazard Index represents the
total non-cancer hazard for all
exposure routes/pathways presented
in this table.
B7-11
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 8
CALCULATION OF RADIATION CANCER RISKS
PURPOSE OF THE TABLE:
• To provide a summary of the variables and approaches used to
calculate radiation cancer risks
• To show the EPC used in the radiation cancer risk calculations
• To document the radiation risk calculation approach used to
calculate radiation cancer risks
• To show, based on the documented risk calculation approach, the
intake and cancer slope factors
• To present the result of the calculation for each Exposure
Route/Pathway for each COPC
• To provide the total radiation cancer risks for each Exposure
Route/Pathway for the Scenario Timeframe, and Receptor
presented in this table
• To provide the total radiation cancer risks for each Exposure
Point for the Scenario Timeframe and Receptor in this table
• To provide the total radiation cancer risks across all media for the
Scenario Timeframe and Receptor in this table
Radiation can be evaluated two
ways: 1) Calculate cancer risks.
The evaluation method used needs
to be documented in the Planning
Tables 2) Compare radiation
doses to standards (i.e., EPA
NESHAPS or MCLs or DOE/NRC
cleanup standards).
Table 8 is used to show the
variables and results when using the
first method. The Dose Assessment
Worksheet can be used to calculate
doses which can be compared to
radiological dose standards.
INFORMATION DOCUMENTED:
• The approach for calculating the radiation cancer risk for each
COPC for each Exposure Route/Pathway
• The values used for EPC, intake and cancer slope factor for each
COPC for each Exposure Route
• The cancer risk value for each COPC for each Exposure
Route/Pathway
• Total cancer risk values by Exposure Route, Exposure Point, and
across all media for the Scenario Timeframe and Receptor
presented in this table
TABLE NUMBERING AND SUMMARY BOX INSTRUCTIONS:
• Complete one copy of Table 8 for each unique combination of the
following three fields that will be quantitatively evaluated
(Scenario Timeframe, Receptor Population, and Receptor Age).
• Enter each combination of these three fields in the Summary Box
in the upper left corner of the table.
• Number each table uniquely, beginning with 8.1 and ending with
8.n where "n" represents the total number of combinations of the
three key fields.
Table 8.1 .RME through S.n.RME should be completed for RME
cancer risk calculations.
It is possible that some tables may
contain the same data associated
with different descriptions in the
Summary Box in the upper left
corner.
Separate tables may be necessary to
ensure transparency in data
presentation. Replication of
information is readily accomplished
using spreadsheet software.
Consult the EPA risk assessor for
alternatives (e.g., footnotes) to
preparing multiple tables with the
same data.
B8-1
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 8
CALCULATION OF RADIATION CANCER RISKS (continued)
GENERAL NOTES/INSTRUCTIONS FOR THIS TABLE:
• All table entries, with the exception of risk calculation approach,
intake, and cancer risk are presented on tables preceding Table 8.
• With the exception of modeled intakes, the intake value is the
result of calculations performed using parameters and equations
presented in Table 4 and concentrations presented in Table 3.
• The total cancer risk for each Exposure Route is to be summed
and indicated in the Exposure Route Total row. This value
represents the cancer risk of the various Exposure Routes across
each Exposure Pathway designated in the table.
• The total cancer risk for Each Exposure Point is to be summed
and presented in the row labeled Exposure Point Total.
• The total cancer risk for all media is to be summed and presented
in the box labeled "Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media".
This value represents the total radiation cancer risk to the
receptor for the timeframe designated in the table.
HOW TO COMPLETE/INTERPRET THE TABLE
SUMMARY BOX IN UPPER LEFT CORNER
Row 1 - Scenario Timeframe
Definition:
• The time period (current and/or future) being considered for the
exposure pathway.
Instructions:
• Choose from the picklist to the right.
Current
Future
Current/Future
Not Documented
Row 2 - Receptor Population
Definition:
• The exposed individual relative to the Exposure Pathway
considered.
For example, a resident (receptor
population) who drinks
contaminated groundwater.
B8-2
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 8
CALCULATION OF RADIATION CANCER RISKS (continued)
Instructions:
• Choose from the picklist to the right.
Resident
Industrial Worker
Commercial Worker
Construction Worker
Other Worker
Golfer
Jogger
Fisher
Hunter
Fisher/Hunter
Swimmer
Other Recreational Person
Child at School/Daycare/
Playground
Trespasser/Visitor
Farmer
Gardener
Gatherer
Other
Row 3 - Receptor Age
Definition:
• The description of the exposed individual, as defined by the EPA
Region or dictated by the site.
Instructions:
• Choose from the picklist to the right.
For example, an adult (Receptor
Age) resident (Receptor Population)
who drinks contaminated
groundwater.
Child
Adult
Adolescents (teens)
Pre-Adolescents
Not Documented
Child/Adult
Geriatric
Sensitive
Infant
Toddler
Pregnant
Other
BODY OF THE TABLE
Column 1 - Medium
Definition:
• The substance (e.g., air, water, soil) that is a potential source of
contaminants in the Exposure Medium. (The Medium will
sometimes equal the Exposure Medium.) Usually, the Medium is
that targeted for possible remediation.
B8-3
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 8
CALCULATION OF RADIATION CANCER RISKS (continued)
Instructions:
• Choose from the picklist to the right.
Groundwater
Leachate
Sediment
Sludge
Soil
Surface Water
Debris
Liquid Waste
Solid Waste
Air
Surface Soil
Subsurface Soil
Other
Column 2 - Exposure Medium
Definition:
• The contaminated environmental medium to which an individual
may be exposed. Includes the transfer of contaminants from one
Medium to another.
For example:
1) Contaminants in Groundwater (the Medium) remain in Groundwater (the
Exposure Medium) and are available for exposure to receptors.
2) Contaminants in Groundwater (the Medium) may be transferred to Air (the
Exposure Medium) and are available for exposure to receptors.
3) Contaminants in Sediment (the Medium) may be transferred to Fish Tissue
(the Exposure Medium) and are available for exposure to receptors.
Instructions:
Choose from the picklist to the right.
Groundwater
Leachate
Sediment
Sludge
Soil
Surface Water
Debris
Liquid Waste
Solid Waste
Air
Plant Tissue
Animal Tissue
Fish Tissue
Spring Water
Surface Soil
Subsurface Soil
Particulates
Vapors
Other
B8-4
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 8
CALCULATION OF RADIATION CANCER RISKS (continued)
Column 3 - Exposure Point
Definition:
• An exact location of potential contact between a person and a
chemical or radionuclide within an Exposure Medium.
For example:
1) Contaminants are in Groundwater (the Medium and the Exposure
Medium) and exposure to Aquifer 1 - Tap Water (the Exposure Point) is
evaluated.
2) Contaminants in Groundwater (the Medium) may be transferred to Air (the
Exposure Medium) and exposure to Aquifer 1 - Water Vapors at
Showerhead (the Exposure Point) is evaluated.
3) Contaminants in Sediment (the Medium) may be transferred to Fish Tissue
(the Exposure Medium) and Trout from Dean's Creek (the Exposure
Point) is evaluated.
Instructions:
• Provide the information as text in the Table.
Exposure Point should be defined in
the same way as was done in
Planning Table 1.
Column 4 - Exposure Route
Definition:
• The way a chemical or radionuclide comes in contact with a
person (e.g., by ingestion, inhalation, dermal contact).
Instructions:
• Enter the Exposure Route considered from the picklist to the
right.
Inhalation
Ingestion
Combined (i.e., Inhalation and
Ingestion)
Dermal
Not Documented
External (Radiation)
Column 5 - Radionuclide of Potential Concern
Definition:
• Radionuclides that are potentially site-related, with data of
sufficient quality, that have been retained for quantitative analysis
as a result of the screening documented in Table 2.
Instructions:
• Enter the radionuclides of potential concern selected from the
COPC screening.
Table 2 documents COPC
screening.
Column 6 - EPC Value
B8-5
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 8
CALCULATION OF RADIATION CANCER RISKS (continued)
Definition:
• The EPC, based on either a statistical derivation of measured
data or modeled data, that represents an estimate of the chemical
or radionuclide concentration available from a particular Medium
or route of exposure.
Instructions:
Enter the EPC value for each COPC.
• If an EPC other than from Table 3 is used, indicate it with a
footnote that includes a reference to supporting information that
will show how the data were modeled in the risk assessment.
The EPC value may be developed
from a statistical derivation of
measured data or from modeled
data. Typically, the EPC units are
expressed as activity per mass such
as pCi/gram.
Table 3 documents EPC
calculations.
Column 7 - EPC Units
Definition:
• The units associated with the EPC value.
Instructions:
• Enter the units for the EPC values.
The units may vary depending on
the medium.
Column 8 - Risk Calculation Approach
Definition:
• The approach used for calculating radiation cancer risks.
Instructions:
• Enter the radiation risk calculation approach used for each
COPC.
Consult the EPA risk assessor or
National guidance for the
appropriate risk calculation
approach. US EPA RAGS Part A
and RESRAD are examples of risk
calculation approaches.
Column 9 - Cancer Risk Calculations - Intake/Activity Value
Definition:
• Intake is a measure of exposure expressed in units of activity
such as pCi.
Instructions:
• Enter the result of the intake calculations/modeling performed.
Refers to the intake using the
parameters and
equations/calculations, and/or
models presented in Table 4.
The intake calculations and/or
models are documented in Table 4.
Column 10 - Cancer Risk Calculations - Intake/Activity Units
Definition:
• The units for intake/activity for each COPC and Exposure Route.
B8-6
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 8
CALCULATION OF RADIATION CANCER RISKS (continued)
Instructions:
• Enter the units for the intake/activity for each COPC which
corresponds to each Exposure Route.
B8-7
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 8
CALCULATION OF RADIATION CANCER RISKS (continued)
Column 11 - Cancer Risk Calculations - CSF Value
Definitions:
• A cancer slope factor (CSF) is an age-averaged lifetime excess
cancer incidence rate per unit intake (or unit exposure for
external exposure pathways). Ingestion and inhalation slope
factors are central estimates in a linear model of the age-
averaged, lifetime attributable radiation cancer incidence (fatal
and nonfatal cancer) risk per unity of activity inhaled or ingested,
expressed as risk/picocurie (pCi). External exposure slope
factors are central estimates of the lifetime attributable radiation
cancer incidence risk for each year of exposure to external
radiation from photon-emitting radio nuclides distributed uniformly
in a thick layer of soil, and are expressed as risk/yr per pCi/gram
of soil.
Slope factors presented in Table 6.4
for each radionuclide are the same
as those presented here.
Instructions:
• Enter the CSF for each COPC which corresponds to each
Exposure Route.
The cancer slope factors for each
COPC are presented in Table 6.4.
Column 12 - Cancer Risk Calculations - CSF Units
Definition:
• The units associated with the cancer slope factor value.
Instructions:
• Enter the cancer slope factor units for each COPC for each
Exposure Route.
Consult the EPA risk assessor to
determine if there is a preference
regarding the units to be used.
Column 13 - Cancer Risk Calculations - Cancer Risk
Definition:
• The result of the cancer risk calculation for each COPC for each
exposure route and pathway. Cancer risk is the incremental
probability of an individual's developing cancer over a lifetime as
a result of exposure to a potential carcinogen.
Instructions:
• Enter the cancer risk calculation for each COPC.
• Sum the cancer risk results for each Exposure Route in the
Exposure Route Total row.
• Sum the cancer risk results for each Exposure Point in the
Exposure Point Total row.
• Sum the total radiation cancer risk results for all media in the
bottom right-hand corner box labeled "Total of Receptor Risks
Across All Media".
The sum of all Exposure Routes
represents the total cancer risk for
an Exposure Pathway.
The sum of all Exposure Pathways
represent the total cancer risk for a
medium.
The sum of all media represents the
"Total of Receptor Risks Across All
Media".
B8-8
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 9
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
PURPOSE OF THE TABLE:
• To provide a summary of cancer risks and non-cancer hazards
for each Receptor by Medium, Exposure Medium, Exposure
Route, and Exposure Point
Table 9 presents cancer risk and
non-cancer hazard information for
all COPCs and media/exposure
points quantitatively evaluated.
INFORMATION DOCUMENTED:
• The cancer risk and non-cancer hazard to each Receptor for
each COPC by Exposure Route and Exposure Point
• The total cancer risk and non-cancer hazard for each Exposure
Point, Exposure Medium, and Medium
• The total cancer risks and non-cancer hazards for a Receptor
across all media
• The primary target organs for non-carcinogenic hazard effects.
TABLE NUMBERING AND SUMMARY BOX INSTRUCTIONS:
• Complete one copy of Table 9 for each unique combination of the
following three fields that will be quantitatively evaluated
(Scenario Timeframe, Receptor Population, and Receptor Age).
• Enter each combination of these three fields in the Summary Box
in the upper left corner of the table.
• Number each table uniquely beginning with 9.1 and ending with
9.n where "n" represents the total number of combinations of the
three key fields.
• Different tables should be prepared to address RME and CT Risk
and Hazard summaries.
• Tables 9.1. RME through 9.n. RME should be completed for
RME Risk and Hazard summaries.
• Table 9.1.CT through 9.n.CT should be completed for CT Risk
and Hazard Summaries.
It is possible that some tables may
contain the same data associated
with different descriptions in the
Summary Box in the upper left
Separate tables may be necessary to
ensure transparency in data
presentation. Replication of
information is readily accomplished
using spreadsheet software.
Consult the EPA risk assessor for
alternatives (e.g., footnotes) to
preparing multiple tables with the
same data.
GENERAL NOTES/INSTRUCTIONS FOR THIS TABLE:
Cancer risk and non-cancer hazard information for all COPCs
and media/Exposure Points quantitatively evaluated is to be
presented in Table 9.
All table entries are presented on Tables preceding Table 9.
Documentation of the non-cancer hazard and carcinogenic risk
values for chemicals was presented on Table 7.
Documentation of the carcinogenic risk values for radionuclides
was presented on Table 8.
Total cancer risks and non-cancer hazards associated with each
Receptor are to be presented for each Exposure Point, Exposure
Medium, and Medium and across all media and all Exposure
Routes.
B9-1
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 9
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs (continued)
HOW TO COMPLETE/INTERPRET THE TABLE
SUMMARY BOX IN UPPER LEFT CORNER
Row 1 - Scenario Timeframe
Definition:
• The time period (current and/or future) being considered for the
exposure pathway.
Instructions:
• Choose from the picklist to the right.
Row 2 - Receptor Population
Definition:
• The exposed individual relative to the Exposure Pathway
considered.
Instructions:
• Choose from the picklist to the right.
Row 3 - Receptor Age
Definition:
• The description of the exposed individual, as defined by the
Region or dictated by the site.
Current
Future
Current/Future
Not Documented
For example, a resident (receptor
population) who drinks
contaminated groundwater.
Resident
Industrial Worker
Commercial Worker
Construction Worker
Other Worker
Golfer
Jogger
Fisher
Hunter
Fisher/Hunter
Swimmer
Other Recreational Person
Child at School/Daycare/
Playground
Trespasser/Visitor
Gatherer
Farmer
Gardener
Other
For example, an adult (Receptor
Age) resident (Receptor Population)
who
drinks contaminated groundwater.
B9-2
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 9
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs (continued)
Instructions:
• Choose from the picklist to the right.
Child
Adult
Adolescents (teens)
Pre-Adolescents
Not Documented
Child/Adult
Geriatric
Sensitive
Other
Infant
Toddler
Pregnant
BODY OF THE TABLE
Column 1 - Medium
Definition:
• The substance (e.g., air, water, soil) that is a potential source of
contaminants in the Exposure Medium. (The Medium will
sometimes equal the Exposure Medium.) Usually, the Medium is
that targeted for possible remediation.
Instructions:
• Choose from the picklist to the right.
For each Medium,
• The last entry in this column should be "Medium Total." In this
row, the total risk/Hi from each Medium (for all chemicals,
Exposure Routes, Exposure Points, and Exposure Media) for the
current Receptor is entered in the Exposure Routes Total
Column.
Groundwater
Leachate
Sediment
Sludge
Soil
Surface Water
Debris
Other
Liquid Waste
Solid Waste
Air
Surface Soil
Subsurface Soil
Column 2 - Exposure Medium
Definition:
• The contaminated environmental medium to which an
individual may be exposed. Includes the transfer of
contaminants from one medium to another.
For example:
1) Contaminants in Groundwater (the Medium) remain in Groundwater (the
Exposure Medium) and are available for exposure to receptors.
2) Contaminants in Groundwater (the Medium) may be transferred to Air (the
Exposure Medium) and are available for exposure to receptors.
3) Contaminants in Sediment (the Medium) may be transferred to Fish Tissue
(the Exposure Medium) and are available for exposure to receptors.
B9-3
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 9
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs (continued)
Instructions:
• Choose from the picklist to the right.
• For each Exposure Medium, the last entry in this column should
be "Exposure Medium Total." This refers to the total risk/Hi
from each Exposure Medium (for all chemicals, Exposure Routes
and Exposure Points) for the current Receptor. These totals are
recorded in the Carcinogenic and Non-Carcinogenic Exposure
Routes Total Columns.
Groundwater
Leachate
Sediment
Sludge
Soil
Surface Water
Debris
Other
Liquid Waste
Solid Waste
Air
Plant Tissue
Animal Tissue
Fish Tissue
Spring Water
Surface Soil
Subsurface Soil
Particulates
Vapors
B9-4
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 9
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs (continued)
Column 3 - Exposure Point
Definition:
• An exact location of potential contact between a person and a
chemical within an Exposure Medium.
For example:
1) Contaminants are in Groundwater (the Medium and the Exposure
Medium) and exposure to Aquifer 1 - Tap Water (the Exposure Point) is
evaluated.
2) Contaminants in Groundwater (the Medium) may be transferred to Air (the
Exposure Medium) and exposure to Aquifer 1 - Water Vapors at
Showerhead (the Exposure Point) is evaluated.
3) Contaminants in Sediment (the Medium) may be transferred to Fish Tissue
(the Exposure Medium) and Trout from Dean's Creek (the Exposure
Point) is evaluated.
Instructions:
• Provide the information as text in the Table.
• For each Exposure Point, the last entry in this column should be
"Exposure Point Total." This refers to the total risk/Hi (for all
chemicals and Exposure Routes) for the current Receptor.
These totals are recorded in the Carcinogenic and Non-
Carcinogenic Exposure Routes Total columns.
Exposure Point should be defined in
the same way as was done in
Planning Table 1.
Column 4 - Chemical of Potential Concern
Definition:
• The COPCs quantitatively considered in the risk characterization.
Instructions:
• Enter the COPCs from previous tables.
• Enter the term "Chemical Total" at the end of the list of chemicals
for each Exposure Point. Use this row to record total risk/Hi
values from all chemicals at each Exposure Point.
• Enter the term "Radionuclide Total" at the end of the list of
radionuclides for each Exposure Point. Use this row to record
total risk/Hi values from all radionucides for each Exposure
Point.
Columns 5, 6, 7, and 8 - Carcinogenic Risk - Ingestion, Inhalation, Dermal and External (Radiation)
Definition:
• The cancer risk value calculated by Receptor for each COPC for
each Exposure Route for each Exposure Point.
The value at the bottom of each
column presents the total cancer
risk by Exposure Route for each
Exposure Point.
B9-5
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 9
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs (continued)
Instructions:
• Enter the cancer risk value calculated by Receptor for each
Exposure Route for each Exposure Point.
• Enter the cancer risk totals for each Exposure Route in the rows
labeled "Chemical Total" and "Radionuclide Total."
Column 9 - Carcinogenic Risk - Exposure Routes Total
Definition:
• The total cancer risk for each COPC across all Exposure Routes
at each Exposure Point.
Instructions:
• Enter the sum of the cancer risks across Exposure Routes for
each COPC.
• Enter the sum of the cancer risks in this column for each
Exposure Point in the "Exposure Point Total" row.
• Enter the total cancer risk for each Exposure Medium and
individual Medium in the "Exposure Medium TotaF'and "Medium
Total" rows.
• For each Receptor, enter the total cancer risks across all Media
and all Exposure Routes as "Receptor Risk Total."
Consult the EPA risk assessor to
determine the appropriate summing
of risks.
Column 10 - Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient - Primary Target Organ
Definition:
• The primary effect reported as a primary target organ effect in
IRIS, HEAST, or other source.
Instructions:
• Enter the primary target organ effect as reported in IRIS,
HEAST, or other source.
Consult the EPA risk assessor to
determine if multiple effects should
be provided.
Columns 11, 12, and 13 - Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient - Ingestion, Inhalation, Dermal
Definition:
• The non-cancer hazard calculated by Receptor for each COPC
for each Exposure Route for each Exposure Point.
Instructions:
• Enter the non-cancer hazard value calculated by Receptor for
each COPC for each Exposure Route for each Exposure Point.
• Enter the non-cancer hazard totals for each Exposure Route in
the rows labeled "Chemical Total" and "Radionuclide Total."
The value at the bottom of each
column presents the non-cancer
hazard by exposure route for each
exposure point, for all effects
considered together.
Consult the EPA risk assessor for
summing hazard quotients.
B9-6
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 9
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs (continued)
Column 14 - Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient - Exposure Routes Total
Definition:
• The total non-cancer hazard calculated for each COPC across
all Exposure Routes at each Exposure Point.
The Totals in each column present
the total non-cancer hazards by
Exposure Routes for each Exposure
Point. The values beneath the table
under this column present hazard
quotients for target organs.
Instructions:
• Enter the sum of non-cancer hazards across the three Exposure
Routes in each Exposure Route column.
• Enter the sum of the non-cancer hazards across Exposure Routes
for each COPC and primary target organ.
• Enter the sum of the non-cancer hazards in this column for each
Exposure Point in the "Exposure Point Total" row.
• Enter the total hazard index for each Exposure Medium and
Medium in the "Exposure Medium Total" and "Medium Total"
rows.
• Enter the total hazard index across all media and all Exposure
Routes as "Receptor HI Total."
• Enter the total hazard index for primary target organs.
• Sum the hazard quotient target organ effects by target organ and
enter into the appropriate boxes.
Consult the EPA risk assessor for
specific instructions in summing
hazard quotients.
B9-7
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 10
RISK SUMMARY
PURPOSE OF THE TABLE:
• To provide a summary for each Receptor by Medium, Exposure
Route, and Exposure Point of cancer risks and non-cancer
hazards that trigger the need for remedial action.
• The Risk Assessor may consult the Remedial Project Manager
and other members of the project team to determine what levels
of risk may be actionable at the site and what should be included
in Table 10. The risks shown on Table 10 should be based upon
the Remedial Project Manager's recommendation. If all risks are
below actionable levels, determine with the Remedial Project
Manager which chemicals should be shown to document the
suitability of a No Action decision.
Table 10 presents cancer risk and
non-cancer hazard information for
those COPCs and media/exposure
points that the Remedial Project
Manager determines trigger the need
for remedial action (the risk drivers).
INFORMATION DOCUMENTED:
• The cancer risk and non-cancer hazard to each Receptor for
each chemical by Exposure Route and Exposure Point for risk
drivers
• The cancer risk and non-cancer hazard for each Exposure Point,
Exposure Medium, and Medium across all Exposure Routes for
risk drivers
• The total cancer risks and non-cancer hazards for a Receptor
across all media for risk drivers
• The primary target organs for non-carcinogenic hazard effects
for risk drivers.
For the purpose of these instructions,
those COPCs determined to trigger
the need for cleanup are simply
referred to as "Chemicals."
TABLE NUMBERING AND SUMMARY BOX INSTRUCTIONS:
• Complete one copy of Table 10 for each unique combination of
the following three fields that will be quantitatively evaluated
(Scenario Timeframe, Receptor Population, and Receptor Age).
• Enter each combination of these three fields in the Summary Box
in the upper left corner of the table.
• Number each table uniquely beginning with 10.1 and ending with
lO.n where "n" represents the total number of combinations of
the three key fields.
• Different tables should be prepared to address RME and CT Risk
and Hazard summaries.
Tables 10.1. RME through lO.n. RME should be completed for
RME Risk and Hazard summaries.
• Table 10.1 CT through lO.n.CT should be completed for CT Risk
and Hazard Summaries.
It is possible that some tables may
contain the same data associated
with different descriptions in the
Summary Box in the upper left
Separate tables may be necessary to
ensure transparency in data
presentation. Replication of
information is readily accomplished
using spreadsheet software.
Consult the EPA risk assessor for
alternatives (e.g., footnotes) to
preparing multiple tables with the
same information.
B10-1
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 10
RISK SUMMARY (continued)
GENERAL NOTES/INSTRUCTIONS FOR THIS TABLE
• Cancer risk and non-cancer hazard information for only those
COPCs and media/exposure points that trigger the need for
remedial action (the risk drivers) is to be presented in Table 10.
• All table entries are presented on Tables preceding Table 10.
• Documentation of the non-cancer hazard and cancer risk values
for chemicals was presented on Table 7.
• Documentation of the carcinogenic risk values for radionuclides
was presented on Table 8.
• Total cancer risks and non-cancer hazards associated with each
Receptor are to be presented for each Exposure Point, Exposure
Medium, Medium across all media and all Exposure Routes.
HOW TO COMPLETE/INTERPRET THE TABLE
SUMMARY BOX IN UPPER LEFT CORNER
Row 1 - Scenario Timeframe
Definition:
• The time period (current and/or future) being considered for the
Exposure Pathway.
Instructions:
• Choose from the picklist to the right.
Current
Future
Current/Future
Not Documented
Row 2 - Receptor Population
Definition:
• The exposed individual relative to the Exposure Pathway
considered.
For example, a resident (receptor
population) who drinks
contaminated groundwater.
B10-2
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 10
RISK SUMMARY (continued)
Instructions:
• Choose from the picklist to the right.
Resident
Industrial Worker
Commercial Worker
Construction Worker
Other Worker
Golfer
Jogger
Fisher
Hunter
Fisher/Hunter
Swimmer
Other Recreational Person
Child at School/Daycare/Playground
Trespasser/Visitor
Farmer
Gatherer
Gardener
Other
B10-3
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 10
RISK SUMMARY (continued)
Row 3 - Receptor Age
Definition:
• The description of the exposed individual, as defined by the
Region or dictated by the site.
Instructions:
• Choose from the picklist to the right.
For example, an adult (Receptor
Age) resident (Receptor Population)
who drinks contaminated
groundwater.
Child
Adult
Adolescents (teens)
Pre-Adolescents
Not Documented
Child/Adult
Geriatric
Sensitive
Other
Infant
Toddler
Pregnant
BODY OF THE TABLE
Column 1 - Medium
Definition:
• The substance (e.g., air, water, soil) that is a potential source of
contaminants in the Exposure Medium. (The Medium will
sometimes equal the Exposure Medium.) Usually, the Medium is
that targeted for possible remediation.
Instructions:
• Choose from the picklist to the right.
• For each Medium, the last entry in this column should be
"Medium Total." This refers to the total risk/Hi for each
Medium (for all chemicals, Exposure Routes, Exposure Points,
and Exposure Media) for the current Receptor. These totals are
recorded in th Carcinogenic and Non-Carcinogenic Exposure
Routes Total columns.
Enter only the Media that have risks
or hazards exceeding target levels.
Groundwater
Leachate
Sediment
Sludge
Soil
Surface Water
Debris
Other
Liquid Waste
Solid Waste
Air
Surface Soil
Subsurface Soil
Column 2 - Exposure Medium
B10-4
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 10
RISK SUMMARY (continued)
Definition:
• The contaminated environmental medium to which an individual
may be exposed. Includes the transfer of contaminants from one
medium to another.
For example:
1) Contaminants in Groundwater (the Medium) remain in Groundwater (the
Exposure Medium) and are available for exposure to receptors.
2) Contaminants in Groundwater (the Medium) may be transferred to Air (the
Exposure Medium) and are available for exposure to receptors.
3) Contaminants in Sediment (the Medium) may be transferred to Fish Tissue
(the Exposure Medium) and are available for exposure to receptors.
Enter only the Exposure Media that
have risks or hazards exceeding
target levels.
Instructions:
Choose from the picklist to the right.
• For each Exposure Medium, the last entry in this coluymn should
be "Exposure Medium Total." This refers to the total risk/Hi
from each Exposure Medium (for all chemicals, Exposure Routes,
and Exposure Points) for the current Receptor. These totals are
recorded in the Carcinogenic and Non-Carcinogenic Exposure
Routes Total columns.
Groundwater
Leachate
Sediment
Sludge, Soil
Surface Water
Debris
Other
Liquid Waste
Solid Waste
Air
Vapors
Plant Tissue
Animal Tissue
Fish Tissue
Surface Soil
Subsurface Soil
Particuhites
Spring Water
Column 3 - Exposure Point
Definition:
• An exact location of potential contact between a person and a
chemical within an Exposure Medium.
For example:
1) Contaminants are in Groundwater (the Medium and the Exposure
Medium) and exposure to Aquifer 1 - Tap Water (the Exposure Point) is
evaluated.
2) Contaminants in Groundwater (the Medium) may be transferred to Air (the
Exposure Medium) and exposure to Aquifer 1 - Water Vapors at
Showerhead (the Exposure Point) is evaluated.
3) Contaminants in Sediment (the Medium) may be transferred to Fish Tissue
(the Exposure Medium) and Trout in Dean's Creek (the Exposure Point) is
evaluated.
Enter only the Exposure Points that
have risks or hazards exceeding
target levels.
B10-5
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 10
RISK SUMMARY (continued)
Instructions:
• Provide the information as text in the Table.
• For each Exposure Point, the last entry in this column should be
"Exposure Point Total." This refers to the total risk/Hi from
each Exposure Point (for all chemicals, Exposure Routes, and
Exposure Points) for the current Receptor. These totals are
recorded in the Carcinogenic and Non-Carcinogenic Exposure
Routes Total Columns.
Exposure Point should be defined in
the same way as was done in the
Planning Table 1.
Column 4 - Chemical
Definition:
• The COPCs quantitatively considered in the risk characterization.
Instructions:
• Enter the COPCs from previous tables that exceed target levels.
• Enter the term "Chemical Total" at the end of the list of chemicals
for each Exposure Point.
• Enter the term "Radionuclide Total" at the end of the list of
radionuclides.
Enter only the chemicals that have
risks exceeding target levels.
Columns 5, 6, 7 and 8 - Carcinogenic Risk - Ingestion, Inhalation, Dermal, and External (Radiation)
Definition:
• The cancer risk value calculated by Receptor for each chemical
for each Exposure Route for each Exposure Point.
Instructions:
• Enter the cancer risk value calculated by Receptor for each
chemical for each Exposure Route for each Exposure Point that
exceeds target levels.
• Enter the cancer risk totals for each Exposure Route in the last
row.
Enter only the risks that exceed
target levels.
The value at the bottom of each
column presents the cancer risk from
all chemicals by Exposure Route for
each Exposure Point.
Column 9 - Carcinogenic Risk - Exposure Routes Total
Definition:
• The total cancer risk for each chemical across all Exposure
Routes at each Exposure Point.
B10-6
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 10
RISK SUMMARY (continued)
Instructions:
• Enter the sum of the cancer risks across Exposure Routes for
each chemical.
• Enter the sum of the cancer risks in this column for each
Exposure Point in the "Exposure Point Total" row.
• Enter the total cancer risk for each Exposure Medium and
Medium in the "Exposure Medium Total" and "Medium Total"
rows.
• Enter the total cancer risk across all Media and all Exposure
Routes as "Receptor Risk Total".
Column 10 - Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient - Primary Target Organ
Definition:
• The primary effect reported as a primary target organ effect in
IRIS, HEAST, or other source.
Instructions:
• Enter the primary target organ effect as reported in IRIS,
HEAST, or other source. This target organ should also appear in
Table 5.
Consult the EPA risk assessor to
determine if multiple effects should
be provided.
B10-7
December 2001
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLE 10
RISK SUMMARY (continued)
Columns 11, 12, and 13 - Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient - Ingestion, Inhalation, Dermal
Definition:
• The non-cancer hazard calculated by Receptor for each
Chemical for each Exposure Route for each Exposure Point.
Enter only the hazards that exceed
target levels.
The value at the bottom of each
column presents the non-cancer
hazard by Exposure Route for each
Exposure Point, for all effects
considered together.
Instructions:
• Enter the non-cancer hazard value calculated by Receptor for
each chemical for each Exposure Route for each Exposure Point
that exceeds target levels.
• Enter the non-cancer hazard totals for each Exposure Route in
the last row, corresponding to the term "Chemical Total" in
Column 9.
Consult the EPA risk assessor for
summing hazard quotients.
Column 14 - Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient - Exposure Routes Total
Definition:
• The total non-cancer hazard calculated for each chemical across
all Exposure Routes at each Exposure Point.
The totals in each column present the
total non-cancer hazards across all
Exposure Routes for each Exposure
Point.
The values at the bottom of this
column present hazard quotients for
target organs.
Instructions:
• Enter the sum of non-cancer hazards across the three Exposure
Routes in Columns 11, 12, and 13.
• Enter the sum of the non-cancer hazards across Exposure Routes
for each chemical and primary target organ.
• Enter the sum of the non-cancer hazards in this column for each
Exposure Point, Exposure Medium, and Medium in the "Exposure
Point Total," "Exposure Medium Total," and "Medium Total"
rows, respectively.
• Enter the total hazard index across all Media and all Exposure
Routes as "Receptor HI Total."
• Enter the total hazard index for primary target organs.
• Sum the hazard quotient target organ effects across all media by
target organ and enter into the appropriate boxes below the table.
Consult the EPA risk assessor for
specific instructions in summing
hazard quotients.
B10-8
December 2001
-------
TABLE 0
SITE RISK ASSESSMENT IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION
The Dean Company
Site Name/OU: The Dean Company
Region:
EPA ID Number: PAD123456789
State: PA
Status: Fund Lead Remedial Investigation
Federal Facility (Y/N): N
EPA Project Manager: John Smith
EPA Risk Assessor: Jane Doe
Prepared by (Organization): Eris Consulting Engineers
Prepared for (Organization): EPA
Document Title: Human Health Risk Assessment for the Dean Company Site
Document Date: Augusts, 2001
Probabilistic Risk Assessment (Y/N): N
Comments: This site is contaminated with volatile organic compounds, pesticides, and metals. Lead evaluation was conducted.
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 1
SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Site Name
Scenario
Timeframe
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Receptor
Population
Receptor
Exposure
Route
Type of
Analysis
Rationale for Selection or Exclusion
of Exposure Pathv\ay
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 2.1
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION, AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Groundwater
Exposure
Point
Aquifer 1 - Tap Water
CAS
Number
117817
67663
75150
76448
108883
7429905
7440393
7440417
7439921
7439965
7440020
Chemical
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Carbon Disulfide
Heptachlor
Toluene
Aluminum
Barium
Beryllium
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Minimum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
2J
0.6 J
0.3 J
2J
0.1 J
134J
65 J
0.2 K
6J
1900
0.9 J
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
5J
9
4.5
33 J
0.2 J
1340
489
1.5 K
35 J
12500
1.5J
Units
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
Location
of Maximum
Concentration
GW3D
GW3D
GW3D
GW4D
GW3D
GW3D
GWID
GW2D
GW3D
GWID
GW4D
Detection
Frequency
4/12
3/12
3/12
6/12
3/12
2/12
6/12
3/12
4/12
6/12
3/12
Range of
Detection
Limits
3-4
1 -1
1 -1
0.01 - 0.01
1-1
29 - 38.2
0.2-1
0.1 -1
0.1-1
0.3-1
0.9-7
Concentration
Used for
Screening (1)
5
9
4.5
33
0.2
1340
489
1.5
35
12500
1.5
Background
Value (2)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Screening
Toxicity Value (3)
(NIC)
4.8 C
0.063 C
100 N
0.01 5 C
75 N
3700 N
260 N
7.3 N
15
73 N
73 N
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Value
6
100
NA
0.4
1000
50 - 200
2000
4
15
50
NA
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
MCL
MCL
NA
MCL
MCL
SMCL
MCL
MCL
MCL
SMCL
NA
COPC
Flag
(Y/N)
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Rationale for
Selection or
Deletion (4)
ASL
ASL
BSL
ASL
BSL
BSL
ASL
BSL
ASL
ASL
BSL
(1) Maximum concentration used for screening.
(2) To date, no background study has been completed.
(3) All compounds were screened against the Risk-Based Concentration (RBC) Table, U.S. EPA Region II
May8, 2001 for tap water (cancer benchmark = 1E-06; HQ = 0.1). Lead was screened against the
action level of 15 ug/l.
(4) Rationale Codes:
Selection Reason: Above Screening Level (ASL)
Deletion Reason: Below Screening Level (BSL)
Definitions: NA = Not Applicable
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level
SMCL = Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
J = Estimated Value
K = Estimated Value - Biased High
C = Carcinogen
N = Noncarcinogen
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 2.2
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION, AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Air
Exposure
Point
Water Vapors from
Showerhead
CAS
Number
117817
67663
75150
76448
108883
7429905
7440393
7440417
7439921
7439965
7440020
Chemical
Bis(2-ethylhexyrjphthalate
Chloroform
Carbon Disulfide
Heptachlor
Toluene
Aluminum
Barium
Beryllium
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Minimum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
2J
0.6 J
0.3 J
2J
0.1 J
134 J
65 J
0.2 K
6J
1900
0.9 J
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
5J
9
4.5
33J
0.2 J
1340
489
1.5K
35J
12500
1.5J
Units
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
Location
of Maximum
Concentration
GW3D
GW3D
GW3D
GW4D
GW3D
GW3D
GWID
GW2D
GW3D
GWID
GW4D
Detection
Frequency
4/12
3/12
3/12
6/12
3/12
2/12
6/12
3/12
4/12
6/12
3/12
Range of
Detection
Limits
3-4
1 -1
1 -1
0.01 - 0.01
1 -1
29 - 38.2
0.2-1
0.1-1
0.1-1
0.3-1
0.9-7
Concentration
Used for
Screening (1)
5
9
4.5
33
0.2
1340
489
1.5
35
12500
1.5
Background
Value (2)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Screening
Toxicity Value (3)
(NIC)
4.8 C
0.063 C
100 N
0.01 5 C
75 N
3700 N
260 N
7.3 N
15
73 N
73 N
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Value
6
100
NA
0.4
1000
50 - 200
2000
4
15
50
NA
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
MCL
MCL
NA
MCL
MCL
SMCL
MCL
MCL
MCL
SMCL
NA
COPC
Flag
(YIN)
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Rationale for
Selection or
Deletion (4)
ASL
ASL
BSL
ASL
BSL
BSL
ASL
BSL
ASL
ASL
BSL
(1) Maximum concentration used for screening.
(2) To date, no background study has been completed.
(3) All compounds were screened against the Risk-Based Concentration (RBC) Table, U.S. EPA Region II
May8, 2001 for tap water (cancer benchmark = 1E-06; HQ = 0.1). Lead was screened against the
action level of 15 ug/l.
(4) Rationale Codes:
Selection Reason: Above Screening Level (ASL)
Deletion Reason: Below Screen ing Level (BSL)
Definitions: NA = Not Applicable
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level
SMCL = Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
J = Estimated Value
K = Estimated Value - Biased High
C = Carcinogen
N = Noncarcinogen
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 2.3
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION, AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Soil
Exposure
Point
Soil at Site 1
Soil at Site 2
CAS
Number
11096825
56553
50328
75150
72548
72559
50293
108883
7429905
7440417
7439921
7439965
7782492
67641
56553
50328
75150
72559
50293
84662
7440417
7440484
7440508
7439896
7782492
Chemical
Aroclor-1260
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Carbon Disulfide
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Toluene
Aluminum
Beryllium
Lead
Manganese
Selenium
Acetone
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Carbon Disulfide
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Di ethyl phthalate
Beryllium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Selenium
Minimum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
15 J
120 J
48 J
2 J
1 J
0.44 J
0.69 J
1 J
1960
0.1 J
56 J
5.9
0.53 J
9 J
48 J
47 J
2 J
0.14 J
0.11 J
30 J
0.08 J
0.31 J
0.9 J
371
0.49 J
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
110 J
230 J
70 J
33
4200
7200 J
290000 J
2 J
21700
13.4
750 J
688
1
170
100 J
60 J
17 J
4700 J
3100 J
170 J
1.5 J
36
6470
120000
1.6 J
Units
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
ma/ka
Location
of Maximum
Concentration
SS03
SS03
SS03
SB07
SS09
SS09
SB08
SS08
SB07
SS06
SS03
SS03
SS02
SB01
SS26
SS26
SB07
SS35
SS32
SS12
SB07
SB02
SS01
SS01
SS23
Detection
Frequency
6/29
16/29
17/29
4/29
22/29
28/29
29/29
2/29
29/29
23/29
16/29
29/29
9/29
16/40
31 /40
29/40
13/40
28/40
27/40
10/40
34/40
28/40
26/40
24/40
12/40
Range of
Detection
Limits
33 - 300
330 - 700
30-70
10-16
3.3-1900
2.2-700
3.3-700
10-16
6.3-11
0.02-0.21
10-16
0.05-0.5
0.43-0.75
10-22
340 - 700
34-70
10-22
3.3-600
3.3-600
340-3400
0.02-0.36
0.08-2.9
0.17-2.2
2.7-13.5
0.4-1.1
Concentration
Used for
Screening (1)
110
230
70
33
4200
7200
290000
2
21700
13.4
750
688
1
170
100
60
17
4700
3100
170
1.5
36
6470
120000
1.6
Background
Value (2)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Screening
Toxicity Value (3)
(NIC)
320 C
870 C
87 C
780000 N
2700 C
1900C
1900C
1600000 N
7800 N
16 N
400
160 N
39 N
780000 N
870 C
87 C
780000 N
1900C
1900C
6300000 N
16 N
160 N
310 N
2300 N
39 N
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Value
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
COPC
Flag
(Y/N)
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
Rationale for
Selection or
Deletion (4)
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
ASL
ASL
ASL
BSL
ASL
BSL
ASL
ASL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
ASL
ASL
BSL
BSL
BSL
ASL
ASL
BSL
(1) Maximum concentration used for screening.
(2) To date, no background study has been completed.
(3) All compounds were screened against the Risk-Based Concentration (RBC) Table, U.S. EPA Region III,
May 8, 2001 for residential soil (cancer benchmark = 1E-06; HO = 0.1). Lead was screened against the
U.S. EPA screening value of 400 mg/kg.
(4) Rationale Codes:
Selection Reason: Above Screening Level (ASL)
Deletion Reason: Below Screening Level (BSL)
Definitions: NA = Not Applicable
J = Estimated Value
C = Carcinogen
N = Noncarcinogen
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 3.1.RME
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Point
Aquifer 1 - Tap Water
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Heptachlor
Barium
Lead
Manganese
Units
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
Arithmetic
Mean
4
1.9
27
224
21
6052
95% UCL
(Distribution)
5.5 (T)
14.9 (T)
30 0")
2835 (T)
32 (D
33449 (T)
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
5 J
9
33 J
489
35 J
12500
Exposure Point Concentration
Value
5
9
30
489
32
12500
Units
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
Statistic
Max
Max
95% UCL - T
Max
95% UCL - T
Max
Rationale
W-Test (1)
W-Test (1 )
W - Test (2)
W-Test (1)
W - Test (2)
W-Test (1)
Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Transformed Data (95% UCL - T)
(1) 95% UCL exceeds maximum detected concentration. Therefore, maximum concentration used for EPC.
(2) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are log-normally distributed.
T = Transformed
J = Estimated Value
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 3.2.RME
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Air
Exposure Point
Water Vapors from
Showerhead
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Heptachlor
Units
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
Arithmetic
Mean
4
1.9
27
95% UCL
(Distribution)
5.5 (T)
14.9 (T)
30 0")
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
5 J
9
33 J
Exposure Point Concentration
Value
5
9
30
Units
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
Statistic
Max
Max
95% UCL - T
Rationale
W-Test (1)
W-Test (1 )
W - Test (2)
Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Transformed Data (95% UCL - T)
(1) 95% UCL exceeds maximum detected concentration. Therefore, maximum concentration used for EPC.
(2) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are log-normally distributed.
T = Transformed
J = Estimated Value
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 3.3.RME
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Soil
Exposure Point
Soil at Site 1
Soil at Site 2
Chemical of
Potential Concern
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aluminum
Lead
Manganese
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Copper
Iron
Units
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Arithmetic
Mean
239
596
11007
7450
210
116
230
183
173
19518
95% UCL
(Distribution)
452 (T)
6793 (T)
28619 (N)
9964 (T)
345 (T)
201 (T)
496
322 (T)
245 (T)
32230 (T)
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
4200
7200 J
290000 J
21700
750 J
688
4700 J
3100 J
6470
120000
Exposure Point Concentration
Value
452
6793
28619
9964
345
201
496
322
245
32230
Units
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Statistic
95 % UCL -T
95% UCL - T
95% UCL - N
95% UCL - T
95% UCL - T
95% UCL - T
95 % UCL - T
95% UCL - T
95% UCL - T
95% UCL - T
Rationale
W - Test (2)
W - Test (2)
W-Test (1)
W - Test (2)
W - Test (2)
W - Test (2)
W - Test (2)
W - Test (2)
W - Test (2)
W - Test (2)
Statistics: 95% UCL of Normal Data (95% UCL - N); 95% UCL of Transformed Data (95% UCL - T)
(1) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are normally distributed.
(2) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are log-normally distributed.
N = Normal
T = Transformed
J = Estimated Value
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE4.1.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Dermal
Receptor Population
Resident
Resident
Receptor Age
Adult
Child
Adult
Exposure Point
Aquifer 1 - Tap Water
Aquifer 1 - Tap Water
Aquifer 1 - Tap Water
Parameter
Code
CW
IR-W
EF
ED
BW
AT-C
AT-N
CW
IR-W
EF
ED
BW
AT-C
AT-N
CW
FA
Kp
SA
tau-event
t-event
B
EV
EF
ED
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in Water
Ingestion Rate of Water
Exposure frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Cancer
Averaging Time- Non-Cancer
Chemical Concentration in Water
Ingestion Rate of Water
Exposure frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Cancer
Averaging Time- Non-Cancer
Chemical Concentration in Water
Fraction Absorbed Water
Permeability Constant
Skin Surface Area
Lag time per event
Event Duration
Ratio of permeability coefficient of a
compound through the stratum
corneum relative to its permeability
coefficient across the viable
epidermis
Event Frequency
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Value
See Table 3.1
2
350
24
70
25,550
8,760
See Table 3.1
1
350
6
15
25,550
2,190
See Table 3.1
Chemical Specific
Chemical Specific
18,000
Chemical Specific
0.58
Chemical Specific
1
350
24
Units
mg/l
I/day
days/year
years
kg
days
days
mg/l
I/day
days/year
years
kg
days
days
mg/l
cm/hr
cm2
hours/event
hours/event
events/day
days/year
years
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 3.1
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1989a
EPA, 1989a
See Table 3.1
EPA, 1989b
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1989a
EPA, 1989a
See Table 3.1
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA. 1991
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg/day) =
CWx IR-Wx EFx EDx 1/BWx 1/AT
CDI (mg/kg/day) =
CWx IR-Wx EFx EDx 1/BWx 1/AT
Dermally Absorbed Dose (DAD) (mg/kg-day) =
DA-event X EVx ED X EF X SAx 1/BWx 1/AT
where for organic compounds,
Absorbed Dose per Event (DA-event) (mg/cm2-event) =
2 FA x Kp x CW x CF x SQRT{(6 x tau-event x t-event)/pi)
or
DA-event = FA x Kp x CW x {(t-event/(1 + B)) +
2 x tau-event x ( (1 + (3 x B) + (3 x B x B))/(1 + B)2)}
and where for inorganic compounds,
DA-event = Kp x CWx CF x t-event
Page 1 of 2
-------
TABLE4.1.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Route
Dermal (contimued)
Receptor Population
Resident (continued
Receptor Age
Adult (continued)
Child
Exposure Point
Aquifer 1 - Tap Water
Aquifer 1 - Tap Water
Parameter
Code
CF
BW
AT-C
AT-N
CW
FA
Kp
SA
tau-event
t-event
B
EV
EF
ED
CF
BW
AT-C
AT-N
Parameter Definition
Volumetric Conversion Factor for Water
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Cancer
Averaging Time- Non-Cancer
Chemical Concentration in Water
Fraction Absorbed Water
Permeability Constant
Skin Surface Area
Lag time per event
Event Duration
Ratio of permeability coefficient of a
compound through the stratum
corneum relative to its permeability
coefficient across the viable
epidermis
Event Frequency
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Volumetric Conversion Factor for Water
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Cancer
Averaging Time- Non-Cancer
Value
0.001
70
25,550
8,760
See Table 3.1
Chemical Specific
Chemical Specific
6,600
Chemical Specific
1
Chemical Specific
1
350
6
0.001
15
25,550
2.190
Units
l/cm3
kg
days
days
mg/l
cm/hr
cm2
hours/event
hours/event
events/day
days/year
years
l/cm3
kg
days
davs
Rationale/
Reference
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
See Table 3.1
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA. 2001
Intake Equation/
Model Name
DAD (mg/kg-day) =
DA-event X EVx ED X EF X SAx 1/BWx 1/AT
where for organic compounds,
DA-event (mg/cm2-event) =
2 FA x Kp x CW x CF x SQRT{(6 x tau-event x t-event)/pi)
or
DA-event = FA x Kp x CW x {(t-event/(1 + B)) +
2 x tau-event x ( (1 + (3 x B) + (3 x B x B))/(1 + B)2)}
and where for inorganic compounds,
DA-event = Kp x CWx CF x t-event
EPA1989a: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A. OERR EPA/540/1-89/002.
EPA 1989b: Exposure Factors Handbook, July 1989, EPA/600/8-89/043.
EPA 1991: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual - Supplemental Guidance, Standard Default Exposure Factors. Interim Final. OSWER 9285.6-03.
EPA 1992: Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications. EPA/600/8-91/011B.
EPA 1997: Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume 1. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa.
EPA 2001: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) Interim.
Page 2 of 2
-------
TABLE 4.2.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Air
Exposure Route
Inhalation (1)
Receptor Population
Resident
Receptor Age
Adult
Exposure Point
Water Vapors from
Showerhead
Parameter
Code
(1)
Parameter Definition
(1)
Value
0)
Units
0)
Rationale/
Reference
(1)
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Foster and Chrostowski Model
(1) Refer to the Risk Assessment text for details on the modeled intake methodology and parameters used to calculate modeled intake values for the Foster and Chrostowski Shower Model.
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE4.3.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Soil
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Receptor Population
Resident
Receptor Age
Adult
Child
Exposure Point
Soil at Site 1
Soil at Site 2
Soil at Site 1
Parameter
HnHp
CS
IR-S
Fl
EF
ED
CF1
BW
AT-C
AT-N
CS
IR-S
Fl
EF
ED
CF1
BW
AT-C
AT-N
CS
IR-S
Fl
EF
ED
CF1
BW
AT-C
AT-N
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Ingestion Rate of Soil
Fraction Ingested
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Cancer
Averaging Time - Non-Cancer
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Ingestion Rate of Soil
Fraction Ingested
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Cancer
Averaging Time - Non-Cancer
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Ingestion Rate of Soil
Fraction Ingested
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Cancer
Averaging Time - Non-Cancer
Value
See Table 3.3
100
1
350
24
1E-06
70
25,550
8,760
See Table 3.3
100
1
350
24
1E-06
70
25,550
8,760
See Table 3.3
200
1
350
6
1E-06
15
25,550
2.190
Units
mg/kg
mg/day
days/year
years
kg/mg
kg
days
days
mg/kg
mg/day
days/year
years
kg/mg
kg
days
days
mg/kg
mg/day
days/year
years
kg/mg
kg
days
davs
Rationale/
Rpfprpnrp
See Table 3.3
EPA, 1991
Professional Judgment
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1989
EPA, 1989
See Table 3.3
EPA, 1991
Professional Judgment
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1989
EPA, 1989
See Table 3.3
EPA, 1991
Professional Judgment
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1989
EPA. 1989
Intake Equation/
MnHpl Namp
Chronic Daily Intake (GDI) (mg/kg-day) =
CSxIRxFlxEFxEDxCFI X1/BWX1/AT
GDI (mg/kg-day) =
CSxIRxFlxEFxEDxCFI X1/BWX1/AT
GDI (mg/kg-day) =
CSxIRxFlxEFxEDxCFI X1/BWX1/AT
Page 1 of 4
-------
TABLE4.3.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Soil
Exposure Route
Ingestion (continued)
Dermal
Receptor Population
Resident (continued)
Resident
Receptor Age
Child (continued)
Adult
Exposure Point
Soil at Site 2
Soil at Site 1
Parameter
HnHp
CS
IR-S
Fl
EF
ED
CF1
BW
AT-C
AT-N
CS
CF
SA
AF
ABS-d
EV
EF
ED
BW
AT-C
AT-N
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Ingestion Rate of Soil
Fraction Ingested
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Cancer
Averaging Time - Non-Cancer
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Conversion Factor
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor
Dermal Absorption Factor
Event Frequency
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Cancer
Averaqinq Time - Non-Cancer
Value
See Table 3.3
200
1
350
6
1E-06
15
25,550
2,190
See Table 3.3
1E-06
5,700
0.07
chemical-specific
1
350
24
70
25,550
8.760
Units
mg/kg
mg/day
days/year
years
kg/mg
kg
days
days
mg/kg
kg/mg
cm2
mg/cm2-event
unitless
events/day
days/year
years
kg
days
days
Rationale/
Rpfprpnrp
See Table 3.3
EPA, 1991
Professional Judgment
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1989
EPA, 1989
See Table 3.3
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 1991
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA. 2001
Intake Equation/
MnHpl Namp
GDI (mg/kg-day) =
CSxIRxFlxEFxEDxCFI X1/BWX1/AT
Dermal Absorbed Dose (DAD) (mg/kg-day) =
DA-event X EF X ED X EVx SAX 1/BWx 1/AT
where
Absorbed Dose per Event (DA-event) (mg/cm2-event) =
CS X CF X AF X ABS-d
Page 2 of 4
-------
TABLE4.3.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Soil
Exposure Route
Dermal (continued)
Receptor Population
Resident (continued)
Receptor Age
Adult (continued)
Child
Exposure Point
Soil at Site 2
Soil at Site 1
Parameter
HnHp
CS
CF
SA
AF
ABS-d
EV
EF
ED
BW
AT-C
AT-N
CS
CF
SA
AF
ABS-d
EV
EF
ED
BW
AT-C
AT-N
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Conversion Factor
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor
Dermal Absorption Factor
Event Frequency
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Cancer
Averaging Time - Non-Cancer
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Conversion Factor
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor
Dermal Absorption Factor
Event Frequency
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Cancer
Averaging Time - Non-Cancer
Value
See Table 3.3
1E-06
5,700
0.07
chemical-specific
1
350
24
70
25,550
8,760
See Table 3.3
1E-06
2,800
0.2
chemical-specific
1
350
6
15
25,550
2,190
Units
mg/kg
kg/mg
cm2
mg/cm2-event
unitless
events/day
days/year
years
kg
days
days
mg/kg
kg/mg
cm2
mg/cm2-event
unitless
events/day
days/year
years
kg
days
days
Rationale/
Rpfprpnrp
See Table 3.3
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 1991
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
See Table 3.3
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
Intake Equation/
MnHpl Namp
DAD (mg/kg-day) =
DA-event X EF X ED X EVx SAX 1/BWx 1/AT
where
DA-event (mg/cm2-event) =
CS X CF X AF X ABS-d
DAD (mg/kg-day) =
DA-event X EF X ED X EVx SAX 1/BWx 1/AT
where
DA-event (mg/cm2-event) =
CS X CF X AF X ABS-d
Page 3 of 4
-------
TABLE4.3.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Soil
Exposure Route
Dermal (continued)
Receptor Population
Resident (continued)
Receptor Age
Child (continued)
Exposure Point
Soil at Site 2
Parameter
HnHp
CS
CF
SA
AF
ABS-d
EV
EF
ED
BW
AT-C
AT-N
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Conversion Factor
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor
Dermal Absorption Factor
Event Frequency
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Cancer
Averaging Time - Non-Cancer
Value
See Table 3.3
1E-06
2,800
0.2
chemical-specific
1
350
6
15
25,550
2,190
Units
mg/kg
kg/mg
cm2
mg/cm2-event
unitless
events/day
days/year
years
kg
days
days
Rationale/
Rpfprpnrp
See Table 3.3
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
Intake Equation/
MnHpl Mamp
DAD (mg/kg-day) =
DA-event X EF X ED X EVx SAX 1/BWx 1/AT
where
DA-event (mg/cm2-event) =
CS X CF X AF X ABS-d
EPA 1989: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A. OERR EPA/540/1-89/002.
EPA 1991: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual - Supplemental Guidance, Standard Default Exposure Factors. Interim Final. OSWER 9285.6-03.
EPA 1995: Assessing Dermal Exposure from Soil, Technical Guidance Manual, Region III, EPA/903-K-95-003.
EPA 1997: Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume 1. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa.
EPA 2001: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) Interim.
Page 4 of 4
-------
TABLE 5.1
NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA - ORAL/DERMAL
The Dean Company
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDT
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Chloroform
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Aluminum
Barium
Barium
Copper
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese (nonfood)
Chronic/
Subchronic
NA
NA
Chronic
Subchronic
Chronic
Subchronic
Chronic
Subchronic
Chronic
Subchronic
Chronic
Chronic
Subchronic
Chronic
Subchronic
Chronic
NA
Chronic
Oral RfD
Value
NA
NA
5.0E-004
5.0E-004
2.0E-02
2.0E-02
1.0E-02
1.0E-02
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
1.0E+00
7.0E-02
7.0E-02
3.7E-02
3.7E-02
3.0E-01
NA
2.0E-02
Units
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
mg/kg/day
Oral Absoprtion
Efficiency for Dermal (1)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.07
0.07
1
1
1
NA
0.04
Absorbed RfD for Dermal (2)
Value
NA
NA
5.0E-004
5.0E-004
2.0E-02
2.0E-02
1.0E-02
1.0E-02
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
1.0E+00
4.9E-03
4.9E-03
3.7E-02
3.7E-02
3.0E-01
NA
8.0E-04
Units
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
mg/kg/day
Primary
Target
Organ(s)
NA
NA
Lwer
Lwer
Lwer
Lwer
Lwer
Lwer
Lwer
Lwer
Central Nervous System
Heart
Heart
Gastrointestinal
Gastrointestinal
Gastrointestinal
NA
Central Nervous System
Combined
Uncertainty/Modifying
Factors
NA
NA
100
100
1000
1000
1000
1000
300
300
100
3
3
NA
NA
1
NA
1
RfD:TargetOrgan(s)
Source(s)
NA
NA
IRIS
HEAST
IRIS
HEAST
IRIS
HEAST
IRIS
HEAST
NCEA
IRIS
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
NCEA
NA
IRIS
Date(s)
(MM/DDATYY)
NA
NA
06/21/2001
07/01/1997
06/21/2001
07/01/1997
06/21/2001
07/01/1997
06/21/2001
07/01/1997
06/21/2001
02/02/2001
07/01/1997
07/01/1997
07/01/1997
06/21/2001
NA
06/21/2001
(1) Source: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health
Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) Interim.
Section 4.2 and Exhibit 4-1.
(2) See Risk Assessment text for the derivation of the "Absorbed RfD for Dermal".
Definitions: NA = Not Available
IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System
HEAST = Health Effects Assessment Summary Table, July 1997
NCEA = National Center for Environmental Assessment
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 5.2
NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- INHALATION
The Dean Company
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Chloroform
Heptachlor
Aluminum
Barium
Barium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese (nonfood)
Chronic/
Subchronic
NA
NA
NA
NA
Chronic
Subchronic
NA
Chronic
Chronic
Subchronic
NA
NA
NA
Chronic
Inhalation RfC
Value
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.0E-04
3.0E-03
NA
5.0E-03
5.0E-04
5.0E-03
NA
NA
NA
5.0E-05
Units
NA
NA
NA
NA
mg/m3
mg/m3
NA
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
NA
NA
NA
mg/m3
Extrapolated RfD (1)
Value
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.6E-05
8.6E-4
NA
1.4E-03
1.4E-04
1.4E-03
NA
NA
NA
1.4E-05
Units
NA
NA
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
Primary
Target
Organ(s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Nasal
Nasal
NA
Central Nervous System
Fetus
Fetus
NA
NA
NA
Central Nervous System
Combined
Uncertainty/Modifying
Factors
NA
NA
NA
NA
1000
100
NA
300
1000
100
NA
NA
NA
1000
RfC : Target Organ(s)
Source(s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NCEA
NCEA
NA
NCEA
HEAST
HEAST
NA
NA
NA
IRIS
Date(s)
(MM/DD/YYYY)
NA
NA
NA
NA
06/21/2001
06/21/2001
NA
06/21/2001
07/01/1997
07/01/1997
NA
NA
NA
06/21/2001
(1) See Risk Assessment text for the derivation of the "Extrapolated RfD".
Definitions: NA = Not Available
IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System
HEAST = Health Effects Assessment Summary Table, July 1997
NCEA = National Center for Environmental Assessment
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 5.3
NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- SPECIAL CASE CHEMICALS
The Dean Company
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Chronic/
Subchronic
Parameter
Name
Value
N
Units
ot Ap
Primary Target
Organ(s)
plicable
Combined
Uncertainty/Modifying
Factors
ParameterTarget Organ(s)
Source(s)
Date(s)
(MM/DD/YYYY)
There are no special case chemicals in this risk assessment. As a result, the table is blank.
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 6.1
CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- ORAL/DERMAL
The Dean Company
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Heptachlor
Aluminum
Barium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese (nonfood)
Oral Cancer Slope Factor
Value
2.4E-01
3.4E-01
3.4E-001
1.4E-02
6.1E-03
4.5E+00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Units
1/mg/kg/day
1/mg/kg/day
1/mg/kg/day
1/mg/kg/day
1/mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Oral Absorption
Efficiency for Dermal (1)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.07
1
1
NA
0.04
Absorbed Cancer Slope Factor
for Dermal (2)
Value
2.4E-01
3.4E-01
3.4E-001
1.4E-02
6.1E-03
4.5E+00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Units
1/mg/kg/day
1/mg/kg/day
1/mg/kg/day
1/mg/kg/day
1/mg/kg/day
1/mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Weight of Evidence/
Cancer Guideline
Description
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Oral CSF
Source(s)
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Date(s)
(MM/DD/YYYY)
06/21/2001
06/21/2001
06/21/2001
06/21/2001
06/21/2001
06/21/2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(1) Source: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health
Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) Interim.
Section 4.2 and Exhibit 4-1.
(2) See Risk Assessment text for the derivation of the "Absorbed Cancer Slope Factor for Dermal".
Definitions: NA = Not Available
IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System
B2 = Probable Human Carcinogen - indicates sufficient evidence
in animals and inadequate or no evidence in humans
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 6.2
CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- INHALATION
The Dean Company
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
4,4'-DDD
4,4-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Heptachlor
Aluminum
Barium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese (nonfood)
Thallium
Unit Risk
Value
NA
NA
9.7E-005
NA
2.3E-05
1.3E-03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Units
NA
NA
1/ug/m3
NA
1/ug/m3
1/ug/m3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Inhalation Cancer Slope Factor
Value
NA
NA
3.4E-001
NA
8.1E-02
4.5E+00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Units
NA
NA
1/mg/kg/day
NA
1/mg/kg/day
1/mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Weight of Evidence/
Cancer Guideline
Description
NA
NA
B2
NA
B2
B2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Unit Risk : Inhalation CSF
Source(s)
NA
NA
IRIS
NA
IRIS
IRIS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Date(s)
(MM/DD/YYYY)
NA
NA
06/21/2001
NA
06/21/2001
06/21/2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Definitions: NA = Not Available
IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System
B2 = Probable Human Carcinogen - indicates sufficient evidence
in animals and inadequate or no evidence in humans
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 6.3
CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- SPECIAL CASE CHEMICALS
The Dean Company
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Parameters
Name
Value
Not Applic<
Units
able
Source(s)
Date(s)
(MM/DD/YYYY)
There are no special case chemicals in this risk assessment. As a result, this table is blank.
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 6.4
CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- EXTERNAL (RADIATION)
The Dean Company
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Cancer Slope Factor
Value
No
Units
t Applical:
Source(s)
)le
Date(s)
(MM/DD/YYYY)
There are no radionuclides in this risk assessment. As a result, this table is blank.
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 7.1.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Groundwater
Exposure Medium
Groundwater
Exposure Medium Total
Air
Exposure Point
Aquifer 1 - Tap \Afeter
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Exp. Route Total
Dermal
Exp. Route Total
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Heptachlor
Barium
Lead (1)
Manganese
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Heptachlor
Lead (1)
EPC
Value
0.005
0.009
0.03
0.439
12.5
0.005
0.009
0.03
0.489
12.5
Units
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
\Afeter Vapors from
Showerhead
Exposure Point Total
Inhalation
Exp. Route Total
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Heptachlor
0.005
0.009
0.03
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
Exposure Medium Total
Groundwater Total
Soil
Soil
Soil at Site 1
Exposure Point Total
Ingestion
Exp. Route Total
Dermal
Exp. Route Total
4,4-DDD
4, 4'- DDE
4,4'- DDT
Aluminum
Lead (1)
Manganese
0.452
6.8
28.6
9964
201
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
4,4-DDD
4, 4'- DDE
4,4'- DDT
Aluminum
Lead (1)
Manganese
0.452
6.8
28.6
9964
201
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Value
4.7E-05
8.5E-05
2.8E-04
4.6E-03
1 .2E-01
7.2E-05
1 7E-04
1 .3E-04
NA
NA
Units
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
CSF/Unit Risk
Value
1.4E-02
6.1E-03
4.5E-00
NA
NA
1 .4E-02
6.1E-03
4.5E-00
NA
NA
Units
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
NA
NA
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
NA
NA
2.3E-06
1 .3E-04
2.6E-04
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
8.1E-02
4.5E-00
NA
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
2.1 E-07
3.2E-06
1 .3E-05
4.7E-03
9.5E-05
NA
NA
1 .6E-06
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
2.4E-01
3.4E-01
3.4E-01
NA
NA
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.4E-01
NA
NA
NA
NA
1 /mg/kg/day
NA
NA
Cancer Risk
7E-07
5E-07
1E-03
NA
NA
1E-03
1E-06
1E-06
6E-04
NA
NA
6E-04
2E-03
2E-03
NA
1E-05
1E-03
1E-03
1E-03
1E-03
3E-03
5E-08
1E-06
5E-06
NA
NA
6E-06
NA
NA
5E-07
NA
NA
5E-07
7E-06
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Value
1.4E-04
2.5E-04
8.1E-04
1.3E-02
3.4E-01
Units
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
2.1E-04
4.9E-04
3.9E-04
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
RfD/RfC
Value
2.0E-02
1 .OE-02
5.0E-04
7.0E-02
2.0E-02
2.2E-02
1 .OE-02
5.0E-04
NA
NA
Units
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
3.6E-06
3.9E-04
7.7E-04
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
8.6E-05
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
NA
6.2E-07
9.3E-06
3.9E-05
1.4E-02
2.8E-04
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
4.7E-06
NA
NA
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.0E-04
1 .OE+00
1 .4E-01
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
5.0E-04
NA
NA
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
Hazard Quotient
0.007
0.03
2
0.2
17
19
0.01
0.05
0.8
NA
NA
0.9
20
20
NA
5
NA
5
5
5
25
NA
NA
0.08
0.01
0.002
0.09
NA
NA
0.009
NA
NA
0.009
0.1
Page 1 of 2
-------
TABLE 7.1.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Soil (continued)
Soil Total
Exposure Medium
Soil (continued)
Exposure Medium Total
Exposure Point
Soil at Site 2
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Exp. Route Total
Dermal
Exp. Route Total
Chemical of
Potential Concern
4, 4'- DDE
4,4'- DDT
Copper
Iron
4, 4'- DDE
4,4'- DDT
Copper
EPC
Value
0.496
0.322
245
32230
0.496
0.322
245
32230
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Value
2.3E-07
1 .5E-07
1 .2E-04
1.5E-02
NA
1 .8E-08
NA
NA
Units
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
CSF/Unit Risk
Value
3.4E-01
3.4E-01
NA
NA
NA
3.4E-01
NA
NA
Units
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
1 /mg/kg/day
NA
NA
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media
Cancer Risk
8E-08
5E-08
NA
NA
1E-07
NA
6E-09
NA
NA
6E-09
1E-07
7E-06
7E-06
3E-03
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Value
6.8E-07
4.4E-07
3.4E-04
4.4E-02
NA
5.3E-08
NA
NA
Units
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
RfD/RfC
Value
NA
5.0E-04
3.7E-02
3.0E-01
NA
5.0E-04
NA
NA
Units
NA
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Media
Hazard Quotient
NA
0.0009
0.009
0.1
0.1
NA
0.0001
NA
NA
0.0001
0.1
0.2
0.2
25
(1) Lead is evaluated for the resident using the IEUBK model. See Risk Assessment text for discussion of results and appendix for the lead modeling run results.
Page 2 of 2
-------
TABLE 7.2.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
RecertorAoe: Child
Medium
Uroundwater
Groundwater Total
Soil
Exposure Medium
Uroundwater
Exposure Point
Aquifer 1 - 1 ap Water
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Exp. Route Total
Dermal
Exp. Route Total
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Heptachlor
Barium
Lead (1)
Manganese
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Heptachlor
Barium
Lead (1)
Manganese
EPC
Value
U.UUb
0.009
0.03
0.489
12.5
0.005
0.009
0.03
0.489
12.5
Units
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
Exposure Medium Total
Soil
Soil at Site 1
txposure Point I otal
Ingestion
Exp. Route Total
Dermal
Exp. Route Total
4,4-DDD
4, 4'- DDE
4,4'- DDT
Aluminum
Lead (1)
Manganese
0.452
6.8
28.6
9964
201
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
4,4-DDD
4, 4'- DDE
4,4'- DDT
Aluminum
Lead (1)
Manganese
UAt.2
6.8
28.6
9964
201
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Z/t-Ub
4.9E-05
1.6E-04
2.7E-03
6.8E-02
3.1E-05
7.2E-05
5.7E-05
NA
NA
Units
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
CSF/Unit Risk
6.1E-03
4.5E-00
NA
NA
1 .4E-02
6.1E-03
4.5E-00
NA
NA
Units
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
NA
NA
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
NA
NA
5.0E-07
7.4E-06
3.1E-05
1.1E-02
2.2E-04
NA
NA
2.6E-06
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
2.4E-01
3.4E-01
3.4E-01
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.4E-01
NA
NA
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
NA
1 /mg/kg/day
NA
NA
Cancer Risk
4tU/
3E-07
7E-04
NA
NA
7E-04
4E-07
4E-07
3E-04
NA
NA
3E-04
1E-03
1E-03
1E-03
1E-07
3E-06
1E-05
NA
NA
1E-05
NA
NA
9E-07
NA
NA
9E-07
1E-05
Non-Cancer Hazard Ca culations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
5.8E-04
1.9E-03
3.1E-02
8.0E-01
3.6E-04
8.4E-04
6.7E-04
NA
NA
Units
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
RfD/RfC
1 .OE-02
5.0E-04
7.0E-02
2.0E-02
2.2E-02
1 .OE-02
5.0E-04
NA
NA
Units
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
5.8E-06
8.7E-05
3.7E-04
1 .3E-01
2.6E-03
NA
NA
3.1E-05
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.0E-04
1 .OE-00
1.4E-01
NA
NA
5.0E-04
NA
MA
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
Hazard Quotient
U.U2
0.06
4
0.4
40
44
0.02
0.08
1
NA
NA
1
45
45
45
NA
NA
0.7
0.1
0.02
0.8
NA
NA
0.06
NA
NA
0.06
0.9
Page 1 of 2
-------
TABLE 7.2.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
RecertorAoe: Child
Medium
Soil (continued)
Soil Total
Exposure Medium
Soil (continued)
Exposure Medium Total
Exposure Point
Soil at Site 2
txposure Point 1 otal
Exposure Route
Ingestion
txp. Koute lotal
Dermal
Exp. Route Total
Chemical of
Potential Concern
4,4'- DDE
4,4'- DDT
Copper
Iron
4, 4'- DDE
4,4'- DDT
Copper
Iron
EPC
Value
0.496
0.322
245
32230
0.496
0.322
245
32230
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Value
5.4E-07
3.5E-07
2.7E-04
3.5E-02
NA
3.0E-08
NA
NA
Units
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
CSF/Unit Risk
Value
3.4E-01
3.4E-01
NA
NA
NA
3.4E-04
NA
NA
Units
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
1 /mg/kg/day
NA
NA
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media
Cancer Risk
2E-07
1E-07
NA
NA
btU/
NA
1E-08
NA
NA
1E-08
3E-07
1E-05
1E-05
1E-03
Non-Cancer Hazard Ca culations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Value
6.3E-06
4.1E-06
3.1E-03
4.1E-01
NA
3.5E-007
NA
NA
Units
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
RfD/RfC
Value
NA
5.0E-04
3.7E-02
3.0E-01
NA
5.0E-004
NA
NA
Units
NA
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Media
Hazard Quotient
NA
0.008
0.08
1
1
NA
0.0007
NA
NA
0.0007
1
2
2
47
(1) Lead is evaluated for the resident using the IEUBK model. See Risk Assessment text for discussion of results and appendix for the lead modeling run results.
Page 2 of 2
-------
TABLE 8.1.RME
CALCULATION OF RADIATION CANCER RISKS
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe:
Receptor Population:
Receptor Age:
Medium
Exposure Medium
Exposure Point
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Route
Exp. Route Total
Exp. Route Total
Exp. Route Total
Exp. Route Total
Exp. Route Total
Radonuclide of Potential Concern
Not Appli
EPC
Value
Units
:able
Risk Calculation
Approach
Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/Activity
Value
Units
CSF
Value
Units
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media
Cancer Risk
There are no radonuclides in this risk assessment. As a result this table is blank.
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 9.1.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Groundwater
Exposure
Medium
Groundwater
Exposure
Point
Aquifer 1 - Tap Water
Exposure Point Total
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Heptachlor
Barium
Lead (1)
Manganese
Chemical Total
Radionudide Total
Exposure Medium Total
Air
Water Vapors from
Showerhead
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Heptachlor
Barium
Lead (1)
Manganese
Chemical Total
Radionudide Total
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Medium Total
Groundwater Total
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
7E-07
5E-07
1E-03
1E-03
Inhalation
Dermal
1E-06
1E-06
6E-04
6E-04
External
(Radiation)
1E-05
1E-03
1E-03
Exposure
Routes Total
2E-06
2E-06
2E-03
2E-03
2E-03
2E-03
1E-05
1E-03
1E-03
1E-03
1E-03
3E-03
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ(s)
Lwer
Lwer
Lwer
Heart
Central Nervous System
Ingestion
0.007
0.03
2
0.2
17
19
Inhalation
Dermal
0.01
0.05
0.8
0.9
Lwer
5
5
Exposure
Routes Total
0.02
0.08
3
0.2
17
20
20
20
5
5
5
5
25
Page 1 of 3
-------
TABLE 9.1.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Soil
Exposure
Medium
Soil
Exposure
Point
Soil at Site 1
Exposure Point Total
Soil at Site 2
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aluminum
Lead (1)
Manganese
Chemical Total
Radionudide Total
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Copper
Iron
Chemical Total
Radionudide Total
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Medium Total
Soil Total
Receptor Total
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
5E-08
1E-06
5E-06
6E-06
8E-08
5E-08
1E-07
Inhalation
Dermal
5E-07
5E-07
6E-09
6E-09
External
(Radiation)
Exposure
Routes Total
5E-08
1E-06
6E-06
7E-06
7E-06
8E-08
6E-08
1E-07
1E-07
7E-06
7E-06
3E-03
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ(s)
Lwer
Central Nervous System
Central Nervous System
Lwer
Gastrointestinal
Gastrointestinal
Ingestion
0.08
0.01
0.002
0.09
0.0009
0.009
0.1
0.1
Inhalation
Dermal
0.009
0.009
0.0001
0.0001
Exposure
Routes Total
0.09
0.01
0.002
0.1
0.1
0.001
0.009
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
26
Total Risk Across All Media =1
3E-03
Total Hazard Across All Media
Total Liver HI Across All Media =
I • I
Page 2 of 3
-------
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
TABLE 9.1.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion Inhalation Dermal
External
(Radiation)
Exposure
Routes Total
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary Ingestion
Target Organ(s)
Inhalation
Dermal
(1) Lead is evaluated for the resident using the lEUBKmodel. See Rsk Assessment text for discussion of results and appendix for the lead modleing run results. Total Central Nervous System HI Across All Media =
Exposure
Routes Total
17
Page 3 of 3
-------
TABLE 9.2.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Medium
Groundwater
Exposure
Medium
Groundwater
Exposure
Point
Aquifer 1 - Tap Water
Exposure Point Total
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Heptachlor
Barium
Lead (1)
Manganese
Chemical Total
Radionudide Total
Exposure Medium Total
Groundwater Total
Soil
Soil
Soil at Site 1
Exposure Point Total
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aluminum
Lead (1)
Manganese
Chemical Total
Radionudide Total
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
4E-07
3E-07
7E-04
7E-04
Inhalation
Dermal
4E-07
4E-07
3E-04
3E-04
External
(Radiation)
1E-07
3E-06
1E-05
1E-05
9E-07
9E-07
Exposure
Routes Total
8E-07
7E-07
1E-03
1E-03
1E-03
1E-03
1E-03
1E-07
3E-06
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ(s)
Lwer
Lwer
Lwer
Heart
Central Nervous System
Ingestion
0.02
0.06
4
0.4
40
44
Inhalation
Dermal
0.02
0.08
1
1
Lwer
Central Nervous System
Central Nervous System
0.7
0.1
0.02
0.8
0.06
0.06
Exposure
Routes Total
0.04
0.1
5
0.4
40
45
45
45
45
0.8
0.1
0.02
0.9
0.9
Page 1 of 2
-------
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
TABLE 9.2.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Medium
Soil (continued)
Exposure
Medium
Soil (continued)
Exposure
Point
Soil at Site 2
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Copper
Iron
Chemical Total
Radionudide Total
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Medium Total
Soil Total
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
2E-07
1E-07
3E-07
Inhalation
Dermal
1E-08
1E-08
External
(Radiation)
Receptor Total
Exposure
Routes Total
2E-07
1E-07
3E-07
3E-07
1E-05
1E-05
1E-03
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ(s)
Lwer
Gastrointestinal
Gastrointestinal
Ingestion
0.008
0.08
1
1
Inhalation
Dermal
0.0007
0.0007
Exposure
Routes Total
0.008
0.08
1
1
1
2
2
47
Total Risk Across All Media =1
1E-03
Total Hazard Across All Media
Total Liver HI Across All Media =
Total Central Nervous System HI Across All Media =
Total Gastrointestinal HI Across All Media =
Page 2 of 2
-------
TABLE 10.1.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Groundwater
Exposure
Medium
Groundwater
Exposure
Point
Aquifer 1 - Tap Water
Exposure Point Total
Chemical
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Heptachlor
Manganese
Chemical Total
Exposure Medium Total
Air
Water Vapors from
Showerhead
Exposure Point Total
Chloroform
Heptachlor
Chemical Total
Exposure Medium Total
Groundwater Total
Soil
Soil
Soil at Site 1
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Chemical Total
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Medium Total
Soil Total
Receptor Total
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
7E-07
5E-07
1E-03
1E-03
Inhalation
Dermal
1E-06
1E-06
6E-04
6E-04
External
(Radiation)
1E-05
1E-03
1E-03
1E-06
5E-06
6E-06
5E-07
5E-07
Total Risk Across All Media
Exposure
Routes Total
2E-06
2E-06
2E-03
2E-03
2E-03
2E-03
1E-05
1E-03
1E-03
1E-03
1E-03
3E-03
1E-06
6E-06
7E-06
7E-06
7E-06
7E-06
3E-03
3E-03
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ(s)
Lwer
Lwer
Lwer
Central Nervous System
Ingestion
0.007
0.03
2
17
19
Inhalation
Dermal
0.01
0.05
0.8
0.8
Lwer
5
5
Total Hazard Across All Media
Exposure
Routes Total
0.02
0.08
3
17
20
20
20
5
5
5
5
25
25
25
The information in this example table is for illustration only. The site screening threshold was determined by the RPM.
Total Liver HI Across All Media =
Total Central Nervous System HI Across All Media =
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.2. RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Medium
Groundwater
Exposure
Medium
Groundwater
Exposure
Point
Aquifer 1 - Tap Water
Chemical
Heptachlor
Manganese
Chemical Total
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Medium Total
Groundwater Total
Soil
Soil Total
Soil
Soil at Site 1
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Chemical Total
Exposure Point Total
Soil at Site 2
Exposure Point Total
Iron
Chemical Total
Exposure Medium Total
Receptor Total
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
7E-04
7E-04
Inhalation
Dermal
3E-04
3E-04
External
(Radiation)
3E-06
1E-05
1E-05
9E-07
9E-07
Total Risk Across All Media
Exposure
Routes Total
1E-03
1E-03
1E-03
1E-03
1E-03
3E-06
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
1E-03
1E-03
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ(s)
Lwer
Central Nervous System
Ingestion
4
40
44
Inhalation
Dermal
1
1
Gastrointestinal
1
1
Total Hazard Across All Media
Exposure
Routes Total
5
40
45
45
45
45
1
1
1
1
1
46
46
The information in this example table is for illustration only. The site screening threshold was determined by the RPM.
Total Liver HI Across All Media =
Total Central Nervous System HI Across All Media =
Total Gastrointestinal HI Across All Media =
Page 1 of 1
-------
DATA USEABILITY WORKSHEET
The Dean Company
Medium: Groundwater
Activity
Comment
Field Sampling
Discuss sampling problems and field conditions that
affect data useability.
Groundwater samples were collected from 12
monitoring wells located onsite. There were no
apparent problems reported from the field collection
program that could affect data useability.
Are samples representative of receptor exposure for
this medium (e.g. sample depth, grab vs composite,
filtered vs unfiltered, low flow, etc.)?
Groundwater samples submitted for organic and
inorganic analyses were non-filtered samples collected
using low flow purging and sampling techniques.
These samples are representative of receptor exposure.
Assess the effect of field QC results on data useability.
A few of the metals in the samples were qualified "B"
due to the presence of the metals in blank samples.
Summarize the effect of field sampling issues on the
risk assessment, if applicable.
There are no field sampling issues that should affect
the risk assessment.
Analytical Techniques
Were the analytical methods appropriate for
quantitative risk assessment?
Yes. Groundwater samples were analyzed for organic
compounds according to Contract Laboratory Program
(CLP) Statement of Work (SOW) for Organic Analysis,
Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration, OLM04.2.
Inorganic groundwater samples were analyzed
according to CLP SOW for Inorganic Analysis, Multi-
Media, Multi-Concentration, ILM04.1.
Were detection limits adequate?
Yes. The method detection and quantitation limit were
less than the associated risk-based concentration
(RBC) values, except for chloroform and thallium. For
these two compounds, no available methods can
achieve the RBC as a quantitation limit. For all non-
detected chemicals in groundwater, the method
detection and quantitation limits were less than the
associated RBC values. Recommend no changes to
the data set.
Summarize the effect of analytical technique issues on
the risk assessment, if applicable.
There are no analytical technique issues that should
affect the risk assessment.
Iof4
December 2001
-------
DATA USEABILITY WORKSHEET (cont.)
The Dean Company
Medium: Groundwater
Activity
Comment
Data Quality Objectives
Precision - How were duplicates handled?
Accuracy - How were split samples handled?
Representativeness - Indicate any problems associated
with data representativeness (e.g., trip blank or rinsate
blank contamination, chain of custody problems, etc.).
Completeness - Indicate any problems associated with
data completeness (e.g., incorrect sample analysis,
incomplete sample records, problems with field
procedures, etc.).
Comparability - Indicate any problems associated with
data comparability.
Were the DQOs specified in the QAPP satisfied?
Summarize the effect of DQO issues on the risk
assessment, if applicable.
Relative percent differences (RPDs) were calculated for
one pair of duplicate samples. The RPDs were less
than the EPA-approved RPD of 20%. The highest
concentration of a compound detected in the samples
was used in the risk assessment.
Split samples were not collected.
Analytes qualified with a "B" due to blank
contamination will be considered as non-detects
during the risk assessment.
No problems were associated with data completeness.
No problems have been associated with data
comparability.
Yes, the DQOs identified in the Sampling and Analysis
Plan were satisfied.
There are no DQO issues that should affect the risk
assessment.
2 of 4
December 2001
-------
DATA USEABILITY WORKSHEET (cont.)
The Dean Company
Medium: Groundwater
Activity
Comment
Data Validation and Interpretation
What are the data validation requirements?
What method or guidance was used to validate the
data?
Was the data validation method consistent with
guidance? Discuss any discrepancies.
Were all data qualifiers defined? Discuss those which
were not.
Which qualifiers represent useable data?
Which qualifiers represent unuseable data?
How are tentatively identified compounds handled?
For organic samples, validators were required to check
the following items: holding times, instrument
performance checks, initial and continuing calibrations,
blanks, system monitoring compounds, matrix
spike/matrix spike duplicates, regional QA/QC, internal
standards, target compound identification, contract
required quantitation limits, tentatively identified
compounds, system performance, and overall
assessment of data. For inorganic samples, validators
were required to check holding times, calibration,
blanks, interference checks, laboratory control
samples, duplicate samples, matrix spike samples,
furnace atomic absorption QC, ICP Serial Dilution,
sample result verification, field duplicates, and perform
an overall assessment of the data.
Region III modifications to "Laboratory Data
Validation Functional Guidelines for Validating Organic
(and Inorganic) Analyses", USEPA 9/94 (and 4/93).
Yes. The data validation method was consistent with
regional guidance.
Yes. All data qualifiers were defined.
B, J, L, U, UJ, and UL
R
Only TICs that were determined not to be laboratory or
field artifacts were reported. All TICs were reported
with an "N" and/or a "J" qualifier. "N" qualified data
indicates that the analyte is tentatively identified. "J"
qualified data indicates that the analyte is present but
reported value is estimated. TICs will be evaluated
qualitatively in the risk assessment.
3 of 4
December 2001
-------
DATA USEABILITY WORKSHEET (cont.)
The Dean Company
Medium: Groundwater
Activity
Summarize the effecl
interpretation issues
applicable.
of data validation and
on the risk assessment, if
Additional notes:
Comment
Unusable data qualified with an "R" will not be used in
the risk assessment. All other data, both qualified and
unqualified, will be used in the risk assessment.
None.
4 of 4
December 2001
-------
DATA USEABILITY WORKSHEET
The Dean Company
Medium: Soil
Activity
Comment
Field Sampling
Discuss sampling problems and field conditions that
affect data useability.
There were no apparent problems that could affect data
useability.
Are samples representative of receptor exposure for
this medium (e.g. sample depth, grab vs composite,
filtered vs unfiltered, low flow, etc.)?
Yes. Soil samples are representative of receptor
exposure for this medium.
Assess the effect of field QC results on data useability.
Overall, the trip, field, and rinsate blanks were generally
non-detect for VOCs and SVOCs with the exception of
low levels of commonly reported laboratory
contaminants. Several of the metals in the samples
were qualified "B" due to the presence of the metals in
blank samples.
Summarize the effect of field sampling issues on the
risk assessment, if applicable.
There are no field sampling issues that should affect
the risk assessment.
Analytical Techniques
Were the analytical methods appropriate for
quantitative risk assessment?
Yes. Samples were analyzed for organic compounds
according to Contract Laboratory Program (CLP)
Statement of Work (SOW) for Organic Analysis, Multi-
Media, Multi-Concentration, OLM04.2. Inorganic soil
samples were analyzed according to CLP SOW for
Inorganic Analysis, Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration,
ILM04.1.
Were detection limits adequate?
Yes. The method detection and quantitation limit were
less than the associated risk-based concentration
(RBC) values.
Summarize the effect of analytical technique issues on
the risk assessment, if applicable.
There are no analytical technique issues that should
affect the risk assessment.
Iof4
December 2001
-------
DATA USEABILITY WORKSHEET (cont.)
The Dean Company
Medium: Soil
Activity
Comment
Data Quality Objectives
Precision - How were duplicates handled?
Accuracy - How were split samples handled?
Representativeness - Indicate any problems associated
with data representativeness (e.g., trip blank or rinsate
blank contamination, chain of custody problems, etc.).
Completeness - Indicate any problems associated with
data completeness (e.g., incorrect sample analysis,
incomplete sample records, problems with field
procedures, etc.).
Comparability - Indicate any problems associated with
data comparability.
Were the DQOs specified in the QAPP satisfied?
Summarize the effect of DQO issues on the risk
assessment, if applicable.
Relative percent differences (RPDs) were calculated for
one pair of duplicate samples. The RPDs were less
than the EPA-approved RPD of 35%. The highest
concentration of a compound detected in the samples
was used in the risk assessment.
Split samples were not collected.
Analytes qualified with a "B" due to blank
contamination will be considered as non-detects
during the risk assessment.
No problems were associated with data completeness.
No problems have been associated with data
comparability.
Yes, the DQOs identified in the Sampling and Analysis
Plan were satisfied.
There are no DQO issues that should affect the risk
assessment.
2 of 4
December 2001
-------
DATA USEABILITY WORKSHEET (cont.)
The Dean Company
Medium: Soil
Activity
Comment
Data Validation and Interpretation
What are the data validation requirements?
What method or guidance was used to validate the
data?
Was the data validation method consistent with
guidance? Discuss any discrepancies.
Were all data qualifiers defined? Discuss those which
were not.
Which qualifiers represent useable data?
Which qualifiers represent unuseable data?
How are tentatively identified compounds handled?
For organic samples, validators were required to check
the following items: holding times, instrument
performance checks, initial and continuing calibrations,
blanks, system monitoring compounds, matrix
spike/matrix spike duplicates, regional QA/QC, internal
standards, target compound identification, contract
required quantitation limits, tentatively identified
compounds, system performance, and overall
assessment of data. For inorganic samples, validators
were required to check holding times, calibration,
blanks, interference checks, laboratory control
samples, duplicate samples, matrix spike samples,
furnace atomic absorption QC, ICP serial dilution,
sample result verification, field duplicates, and perform
an overall assessment of the data.
Region III modifications to "Laboratory Data
Validation Functional Guidelines for Validating Organic
(and Inorganic) Analyses", USEPA 9/94 (and 4/93).
Yes. The data validation method was consistent with
regional guidance.
Yes. All data qualifiers were defined.
B, J, K, L, U, UJ, and UL
R
Only TICs that were determined not to be laboratory or
field artifacts were reported. All TICs were reported
with an "N" and/or a "J" qualifier. "N" qualified data
indicates that the analyte is tentatively identified. "J"
qualified data indicates that the analyte is present but
the reported value is estimated. TICs will be evaluated
qualitatively in the risk assessment.
3 of 4
December 2001
-------
DATA USEABILITY WORKSHEET (cont.)
The Dean Company
Medium: Soil
Activity
Summarize the effecl
interpretation issues
applicable.
of data validation and
on the risk assessment, if
Additional notes:
Comment
Unusable data qualified with an "R" will not be used in
the risk assessment. All other data, both qualified and
unqualified, will be used in the risk assessment.
None.
4 of 4
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE TECHNICAL APPROACH TO RISK ASSESSMENT (TARA)
SCHEDULE WORKSHEET
The Dean Company
Activity - RAGS Part D Reference^
PROJECT SCOPING
Preliminary site conceptual model - Section 2.1
Site visit - Sec 2.1
Scoping meeting -Sec 2.1
PRGs and ARARs (initial discussion) - Sec 2.1
Identification of deliverables - Sec 2.1
Planning Table 1 (preliminary version) - Sec 2.1
Probabilistic Analysis (preliminary consideration) - Sec 2.1
RI/FS Workplan (consideration of risk assessment objectives) - Sec 2.2
Baseline Risk Assessment Workplan (consideration of risk assessment
objectives) - Sec 2.2
Probabilistic Analysis (additional consideration and Workplan as appropriate)
-Sec 2. 2.1
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
Planning Table 0 - Sec. 3.1.1
TARA Schedule Worksheet - Sec. 3.1.1 and Appendix C
Planning Table 1 - Sec 3.1.1
Data Useability Worksheet -Sec 3.1.1 and Appendix C
Supporting information for background value for Planning Table 2 - Sec 3.1.1
Planning Table 2 - Sec 3.1.1
Supporting information for EPC for Planning Table 3 - Sec 3.1.1
Planning Table 3 -Sec 3.1.1
Comments'2'
November 30, 2000
November 4, 2000
November 2, 2000
November 2, 2000
November 30, 2000
November 30, 2000
November 30, 2000
November 30, 2000
November 30, 2000
November 30, 2000
August 30, 2001
August 30, 2001
August 30, 2001
August 30, 2001
August 30, 2001
August 30, 2001
August 30, 2001
August 30, 2001
Notes:
'Add other activities as appropriate for the site.
2Use this column to identify the applicability, schedule, and responsibility for each activity. Activities that are not
required for a particular site can be noted as NA (not applicable). It is recommended that the responsibility and schedule
for both the preparation and review of each activity be noted.
Iof3 December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE TECHNICAL APPROACH TO RISK ASSESSMENT (TARA)
SCHEDULE WORKSHEET
The Dean Company
Activity - RAGS Part D Reference^
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION (continued)
Supporting information on modeled intake methodology and parameters for
Planning Table 4 - Sec 3.1.1
Supporting information on chemical-specific parameters for Planning Table 4 -
Sec 3.1.1
Dermal Worksheet - Sec 3.1.1 and Appendix C
Planning Table 4 - Sec 3.1.1
Supporting information on toxicity data for special case chemicals on Planning
Tables 5/6 -Sec 3 JJ
Planning Table 5 - Sec 3.1.1
Planning Table 6 - Sec 3.1. 1
Supporting information on special chemical risk and hazard calculations for
Planning Tables 7/8 - Sec 3.1.1
Planning Table 7 - Sec 3.1. 1
Planning Table 8 - Sec. 3.1.1
Radiation Dose Assessment Worksheet - Sec 3.1.1 and Appendix C
Planning Table 9 - Sec 3.1.1
Planning Table 10 - Sec 3. 1. 1
Lead Worksheets - Sec 3.1.1 and Appendix C
Assessment of Confidence and Uncertainty - Sec 3.1.2
Summary of Probabilistic Analysis - Sec 3.1.3
Draft Baseline Risk Assessment - Sec 3.2
Final Baseline Risk Assessment - Sec 3.3
Comments'2'
August 30, 2001
August 30, 2001
August 30, 2001
August 30, 2001
August 30, 2001
August 30, 2001
August 30, 2001
October 2 1,2001
October 2 1,2001
October 2 1,2001
October 2 1,2001
October 2 1,2001
October 2 1,2001
October 2 1,2001
October 2 1,2001
October 2 1,2001
October 2 1,2001
January 15,2001
Notes:
'Add other activities as appropriate for the site.
2Use this column to identify the applicability, schedule, and responsibility for each activity. Activities that are not
required for a particular site can be noted as NA (not applicable). It is recommended that the responsibility and schedule
for both the preparation and review of each activity be noted.
2 of 3 December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE TECHNICAL APPROACH TO RISK ASSESSMENT (TARA)
SCHEDULE WORKSHEET
The Dean Company
Activity - RAGS Part D Reference^
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION (continued)
Draft ROD Risk Worksheets - Sec 3.3 and Appendix C
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Remedial Action Objectives - Sec 4.2
Remediation Goals - Sec 4.2
Risks and hazards associated with PRGs - Sec 4.4
Risk considerations of remedial technologies and alternatives - Sec 4.5
AFTER THE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Risk evaluation for the Proposed Plan - Sec 5. 1
Documentation of risks in the Record of Decision - Sec 5.2
Revise ROD Risk Worksheets - Sec 5.2 and Appendix C
Risk evaluation during remedial design and remedial action - Sec 5. 3
Risk evaluation associated with explanations of significant differences - Sec
5.4
Risk evaluations during five-year review - Sec 5.5
Public meeting participation
Comments'2'
January 15,2001
January 15,2001
January 15,2001
January 15,2001
January 15,2001
To be determined
To be determined
To be determined
To be determined
To be determined
To be determined
To be determined
Notes:
'Add other activities as appropriate for the site.
2Use this column to identify the applicability, schedule, and responsibility for each activity. Activities that are not
required for a particular site can be noted as NA (not applicable). It is recommended that the responsibility and schedule
for both the preparation and review of each activity be noted.
3 of 3 December 2001
-------
Dermal Worksheet
Intermediate Variables for Calculating DA(event)
The Dean Company
Chemical of
Potential Concern
phthalate
Chloroform
Heptachlor
Barium *
Manganese *
Thallium *
4,4'-DDD *
4,4'-DDE *
4,4-DDT
Aluminum *
Copper *
Iron *
Manganese *
Thallium *
Medium
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Dermal Absorption
Fraction (soil)
0.03
--
FA
Value
0.8
1
0.8
No data
--
Kp
Value
2.50E-002
1 .50E-001
8.70E-003
No data
--
Units
cm/hour
cm/hour
cm/hour
No data
--
T(event)
Value
0.58
0.58
0.58
No data
--
Units
hour/event
hour/event
hour/event
No data
--
Tau
Value
16.27
0.49
12.99
No data
--
Units
hour
hour
hour
No data
--
T*
Value
39.05
1.18
31.16
No data
--
Units
hour
hour
hour
No data
--
B
Value
0.2
0
0.1
No data
--
FA = Fraction Absorbed Water
Kp = Dermal Permeability Coefficient of
Compound in Water
T(event) = Event Duration
Tau = Lag Time
T* = Time to Reach Steady-State
B = Dimensionless Ratio of the Permeability Coefficient of a Compound Through
the Stratum Corneum Relative to its Permeability Coefficient Across the Viable
Epidermis
* = Dermal assessment not recommended based on RAGS Part E, Appendix B-3 screening table.
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
TABLE X (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name:
Receptor: (Age Months) Exposure to Media as Described
1. Lead Screening Questions
Medium
Soil
Water
Lead Concentration
Used in Model Run
Value
Units
mg/kg
ug/L
Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
For Model Run
Average Detected Value
Average Detected Value
Lead Screening
Concentration
Value
400
15
Units
mg/kg
ug/L
Basis for Lead Screening
Level
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
What lead model (version and date) was used?
Where are the input values located in the risk
assessment report?
What range of media concentrations were used for the
model?
What statistics were used to represent the exposure
concentration terms and where are the data on
concentrations in the risk assessment that support use of
these statistics?
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If
not sieved, provide rationale.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Where are the output values located in the risk
assessment report?
Was the model run using default values only?
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale
for the values located in the risk assessment report?
Response for Residential Lead Model
Located in Appendix
Data are Located in Appendix
Mesh size um
Located in Appendix X
Default is 30%
Detault values tor / age groups are 85, 135, 135,
100, 090, and 85 mg/day
Located in Appendix X
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Input value of (units) in results in YYY% of
above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. Geometric mean
blood lead = ZZZ ug/dL. Lhis exceeds the blood lead goal as
described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of
children exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.
Comment/PRG 1
Based on site conditions, a PRO
of X (units) is indicated for
.
1. Attach the IEUBK text output file and graph upon which the PRO was based as an appendix. For additional
information, see www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/lead
December 2001
-------
TABLE Y (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Example Site, Slag Pile 2
Receptor: Adult Worker, Exposure to Media as Described
1. Lead Screening Questions
Medium
Soil
Lead Concentration
used in Model Run
Value
2000
Units
mg/kg
Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
For Model Run
Average Detected
Value
Lead Screening
Concentration
Value
750
Units
mg/kg
Basis for Lead Screening Level
Recommended Soil Screening Level
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide rationale for
model selected.
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
What statistics were used to represent the exposure concentration terms
and where are the data on concentrations in the risk assessment that
support use of these statistics?
What was the point of exposure and location?
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended range of
1.8-2.1 , provide rationale in Appendix .
What baseline blood lead concentration (PbB0) value was used? If this is
outside the default range of 1 .7 to 2.2 provide rationale in Appendix .
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
Was the default BKSF used (0.4 ug/dL per ug/day) used?
Was the default absorption fraction (AF; 0.12) used?
Was the default soil ingestion rate (IR; 50 mg/day) used?
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed above,
where are the rationale for the values located in the risk assessment report?
Response
EPA Interim Adult Lead Model (1996)
n/a
Located in Appendix 5
Mean soil concentration. Data are Located in
Appendix 2
OU 3 Slag pile area
Located in Appendix 5
1.8
2.0
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Located in Appendix 5
3. Final Result
Medium
Soil
Result
2000 ppm lead in soil results in >5% ot receptors above a blood lead level
of 10 ug/d and geometric mean blood lead =11.6 ug/dL. Lhis exceeds the
blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more
than 5% of children (fetuses of exposed women) exceeding 10 ug/dL
blood lead.
Comment/RBRG 1
1500 ppm
1. Attach the ALM spreadsheet output file upon which the Risk Based Remediation Goal (RBRG) was based and description
of rationale for parameters used. For additional information, see www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/lead
December 2001
-------
APPENDIX D
EXAMPLE SCENARIOS
1. Duplicate Exposure Information for Different Exposure Points
2. Modeled Inhalation from Showering
3. Measured Data and Subsequent Ingestion
4. Modeled Data and Subsequent Ingestion
5. Modeled Data
6. Multiple Source Exposures
7. Possible Summing Options on Planning Tables 9 and 10
8. Child/Adult Lifetime Cancer Risk
9. Transfer of Contaminants Through Multiple Media
10. Lead Data Example
11. Radiation Data Example
December 2001
-------
Example Scenario No. 1
Duplicate Exposure Information for Different Exposure Points
(with Planning Tables 1 and 4)
Scenario Description: Data are available for several exposure points that are to be evaluated separately
in the risk assessment. In this risk assessment, data will be evaluated separately for ingestion and
dermal contact from three different slag piles (Slag Piles 1, 2, and 3) for the same scenario timeframe,
medium, and exposure medium.
Planning Table Issues Associated with this Scenario:
The primary issue with this scenario is whether or how to show the exposure points on Planning Tables
1 and 4. Note that the exposure parameter values used for daily intake calculations are identical for
each individual pathway, i.e. the values presented on Planning Table 4 are the same for all exposure
points for each type of exposure route.
1. How will Planning Table 1 show the three separate exposure points?
Planning Table 1 will need to show the three separate exposure points since each data
set will be evaluated separately in the risk assessment. Planning Table 1 needs to show:
Medium: Solid Waste
Exposure Medium: Solid Waste
Exposure Point: Slag Pile 1
Medium: Solid Waste
Exposure Medium: Solid Waste
Exposure Point: Slag Pile 2
Medium: Solid Waste
Exposure Medium: Solid Waste
Exposure Point: Slag Pile 3
2. Do the values used for daily intake calculations need to be shown three separate times on Planning
Table 4 for each exposure point even though the values and intake equations are identical?
There are two options that can be followed:
Option 1: Complete Planning Table 4 according to the RAGS Part D instructions. For
this example, Planning Table 4 would have three sets of identical values and intake
equations, one for each exposure point.
Option 2: Complete Planning Table 4 using only one set of values and intake equations
and indicate on the table that these values are identical for all three different exposure
points. This can be accomplished by including "Slag Piles 1, 2, and 3" in the Exposure
Page 1 - 1 December 2001
-------
Example Scenario No. 1 (continued)
Duplicate Exposure Information for Different Exposure Points
(with Planning Tables 1 and 4)
Point column and footnoting that these values and intake equations are the same for all
three exposure points.
Option 1 is provided in the Example Tables in Appendix A. Option 2, consisting of a revised
example Planning Table 4, is illustrated in the accompanying table.
Page 1-2 December 2001
-------
Example Scenario No. 2
Modeled Inhalation from Showering (with Planning Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7)
Scenario Description: Individuals may be exposed to chemicals of potential concern in air by inhalation
of chemicals through showering. The inhalation pathway is modeled using an EPA-accepted inhalation
model. For this example scenario, a model accepted by EPA regions, such as the Foster and
Chrostowski Shower Model, is used to evaluate future adult resident inhalation exposure to
groundwater. See Example Scenario 4 for illustrations of how to present modeled data.
Planning Table Issues Associated with this Scenario:
1. How will use of an inhalation model affect Planning Table 1?
Planning Table 1 can accommodate this easily. Planning Table 1 can be completed to
include an exposure medium (e.g., Water Vapors at Shower head) and include the
inhalation exposure route for all applicable scenarios. For this scenario example,
Planning Table 1 would include a row that would describe this inhalation exposure
pathway.
2. What data will be included in Planning Table 2 — modeled air concentrations or measured
groundwater concentrations?
In this example, Planning Table 2 will show measured groundwater concentrations. The
data will be screened against tap water screening values.
3. What data will be included in Planning Table 3?
In this example, Planning Table 3 will show measured groundwater statistics.
4. How will the inhalation model parameters be shown on Planning Table 4?
For this example, the upper left hand corner Summary Box and the exposure route,
receptor population, receptor age, and exposure point fields should be completed.
However, exposure parameters and intake equations do not need to be entered into the
table if there are space limitations. In the exposure route column, enter "Inhalation"
with a footnote. Include the footnote explanation beneath the table that describes the
model to be used and the section of the risk assessment text where information regarding
modeled intake development can be found. Supporting information that summarizes the
modeled intake methodology and parameters used to calculate modeled intake values
should be included in the Baseline Risk Assessment Report as an attachment. Non-
standard tables may also be used to display modeled information. Refer to the Risk
Assessment text for details on the modeled intake methodology, the parameters used to
calculate modeled intake values, and the modeled air concentrations predicted by the
model.
Page2-l December 2001
-------
Example Scenario No. 2
Modeled Inhalation from Showering (with Planning Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7)
5. How are the modeled results displayed on Planning Table 7?
For this example, EPC values are calculated using measured groundwater data. They
can be found on Planning Table 3. Intake/Exposure concentration values are values
that are generated using the inhalation model. These values need to be included on this
table. The risks and hazards will be calculated using the "Intake /Exposure
concentration values " based on modeling and appropriate toxicity information.
Page 2 - 2 December 2001
-------
Example Scenario No. 3
Measured Data and Subsequent Ingestion (Planning Tables 1,2 and 3)
Scenario Description: Measured fish tissue data are available for evaluation in the risk assessment. The
data are available for a specific species: trout. The measured data will be used in the risk assessment to
determine the potential for adverse effects from ingestion offish. This scenario is based upon fish tissue
to show how to include measured data in the tables, but it can be applied to other exposure media.
Planning Table Issues Associated with this Scenario:
1. How will Planning Table 1 show fish tissue exposure?
In this situation, it is assumed that the source of exposure for the fish was the sediment,
Planning Table 1 will need to show a specific exposure point for the trout as follows:
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Fish Tissue
Exposure Point: Trout
2. What data will be included in Planning Table 2 - measured fish tissue data or sediment data?
Planning Table 2 will show measured trout analytical data. The data will be screened
against fish tissue screening values.
3. What data will be included in Planning Table 3?
Planning Table 3 will show measured fish tissue statistics for the trout.
Page3-l December 2001
-------
Example Scenario No. 4
Modeled Data and Subsequent Ingestion (Planning Tables 1 and 2)
Scenario Description: Modeled fish tissue data are available for evaluation in the risk assessment based
on concentrations of contaminants in the sediment. The modeled data will be used in the risk
assessment to determine the potential for adverse effects from ingestion of the fish. This scenario is
based upon fish tissue to show how to include modeled data in the tables, but it can be applied to other
exposure media.
Planning Table Issues Associated with this Scenario:
The primary issue with this scenario is what data to show on Planning Table 2 and subsequent tables
(modeled fish tissue or measured sediment data). There are two options for data presentation.
Option 1 (Modeled Fish Tissue Concentrations): The modeled fish tissue concentrations could
appear on Planning Table 2 in the Concentration Used for Screening column. These modeled
concentrations would be screened against fish tissue screening values. The methodology used
to develop the modeled concentrations should be referenced on the tables. This option should
be used when screening on fish tissue concentrations.
Option 2 (Measured Sediment Concentrations): Measured sediment concentrations could be
presented on Planning Table 2. The measured concentrations are the values used as input in
the model to determine predicted fish tissue concentrations. The modeling methodology could
be discussed in the text and referenced on Planning Table 4. The model results would be used
for intake calculations in Planning Table 7. This option should be used when screening on
sediment concentrations.
1. How will Planning Table 1 show fish tissue exposure?
Assuming the source of exposure for the fish is sediment, Planning Table 1 will need to
show a specific exposure point for the fish as follows:
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Fish Tissue
Exposure Point: Trout
2. What data will be included in Planning Table 2 - measured sediment data or modeled fish tissue
data?
See discussion of options, above, and footnotes on Planning Table 2.
Page4-l December 2001
-------
Example Scenario No. 5
Modeled Data (Planning Table 1)
Scenario Description: The risk assessment uses data that have been modeled to evaluate potential risks.
The modeling results are for spatial changes, temporal changes, and transfer between media.
Planning Table Issues Associated with this Scenario:
The issue associated with this scenario is how to identify and evaluate each different modeled data set.
In this temporal change example, groundwater data have been modeled to represent concentrations in
future years (1 year, 2 years, and 5 years in the future). This evaluation can be accommodated by
assigning a separate exposure point to each future year.
1. How will Planning Table 1 be completed?
Planning Table 1 could show temporal changes using the exposure point column, as
shown on the accompanying table.
PageS-1 December2001
-------
Example Scenario No. 6
Multiple Source Exposures (Planning Table 1)
Scenario Description: The risk assessment is evaluating the ingestion offish tissue affected by both
contaminated surface water and sediment.
Planning Table Issues Associated with this Scenario:
1. How will the medium, exposure medium, and exposure point be represented in Planning Table 1 for
fish tissue?
The exposure point for fish tissue ingestion can be presented in two different ways, as
described in the options below:
Option 1
Medium: Surface Water/Sediment
Exposure Medium: Fish Tissue
Exposure Point: Trout - contaminant uptake from surface water and sediment
This option should be used if screening will be performed against measured or modeled
fish tissue data.
Option 2
Medium: Surface Water
Exposure Medium: Fish Tissue
Exposure Point: Trout - contaminant uptake from surface water
AND
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Fish Tissue
Exposure Point: Trout - contaminant uptake from sediment
This option should be used if screening will be performed against measured surface water
or sediment data.
Page6-l December 2001
-------
Example Scenario No. 7
Possible Summing Options (Planning Tables 9 and 10)
Scenario Description: The risk assessment is evaluating several different exposure points for a particular
set of media and exposure media. The EPA risk assessor for the site may allow the risk assessor to use
abridged versions of Planning Tables 9 and 10 which do not require the same level of summation as the
version of Planning Tables 9 and 10 shown in Appendix A.
Planning Table Issues Associated with this Scenario:
1. How will the risk data be summed on Planning Tables 9 and 10 for medium, exposure medium,
exposure point, and receptor (combination of scenario timeframe, receptor population, and receptor
age)?
The summing of risk for these exposure pathway elements can be presented in two
different ways, as described in the options below. The EPA risk assessor will determine
the type of summing that is appropriate for a particular site.
Option 1
Summing will occur in the standard fashion at four levels: medium, exposure medium,
exposure point, and receptor.
Option 1 is shown in the accompanying tables and in Appendix A
Option 2
Summing will occur at fewer levels only: e.g., for exposure point and receptor only.
Consult the EPA risk assessor to determine the appropriate procedure to follow.
Option 2 is shown in the accompanying tables.
Page7-l December 2001
-------
Example Scenario No. 8
Child/Adult Lifetime Cancer Risk (Planning Tables 1, 4, 7, 9)
Scenario Description: For this risk assessment the lifetime risk will be evaluated. Lifetime risk evaluates
the combined risk from childhood through adulthood.
Planning Table Issues Associated with this Scenario:
In some regions, lifetime cancer risks are calculated by adding child and adult risk estimates together.
In other regions, age-adjusted exposure factors are used to calculate lifetime cancer risk.
1. How should lifetime cancer risk be presented on Planning Table 1?
For the "receptor age" column, choose from the picklist and enter "Adult", "Child",
and "Child/Adult"
2. How should the other Planning Tables be completed?
Two options are presented:
Option 1-Child/Adult calculated through summing cancer risks for separate Child and Adult
receptors
Planning Tables 1, 4, and 7 would have separate Child and Adult receptor ages.
Planning Table 1 would also show a Child/Adult receptor to indicate that the
Child/Adult analyses will be performed. Planning Table 4s would be developed for
Child and Adult receptors with appropriate exposure factor values. A Planning Table
4 would also be shown for the Child/Adult receptor with no exposure factor values
provided. Instead, a note would indicate that Child/Adult cancer risks will be
calculated based upon the sum of Child cancer risk and Adult cancer risk.
Planning Table 7s and 9s would then be developed for three receptor ages: Child,
Adult, and Child/Adult (a version of Planning Tables 7 and 9 combining the Child and
the Adult cancer risk data into a single Child/Adult table with a note that the data on the
table was derived from summing the Child and Adult data).
Option 2-Child/Adult calculated using age-adjusted exposure factors
As in Option 1, Planning Tables 1, 4, and 7 in Option 2 would show separate Child
and Adult receptor ages as well as the Child/Adult receptor age. For the Option 2
Planning Table 4, the Child/Adult receptor age would be shown with age-adjusted
exposure factor values. For the Option 2 Planning Tables 7 and 9, the Child/Adult
cancer risks would be calculated using age-adjusted exposure factor values.
PageS-1 December2001
-------
Example Scenario No. 9
Transfer of Contaminants Through Multiple Media (Planning Table 1)
Scenario Description: The risk assessment evaluates the potential adverse effects from contaminants in
soil that is taken up by plants and then taken up by an animal that is then ingested by human receptors.
Planning Table Issues Associated with this Scenario:
1. How can Planning Table 1 accommodate this three-way transfer?
Planning Table 1 can accommodate this scenario as follows:
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Animal Tissue
Exposure Point: Beef from cattle grazing in field
This example scenario assumes that only the first and last media are of interest and no
evaluation is needed for intermediate media. Consult with the EPA Risk Assessor to determine if
screening is to be conducted on intermediate media (e.g., in an exposure scenario in which a
contaminant moves from soil to plant tissue to animal tissue, whether an evaluation should be
conducted for the intermediate plant tissue step).
Page9-l December 2001
-------
Example Scenario No. 10
Lead Data Example (Lead Worksheets)
Scenario Description: Lead is present in site soil and the child and adult lead models were used to
evaluate blood lead levels. The standard tables do not accommodate lead model results.
Planning Table Issues Associated with this Scenario:
1. Since there are no standard tables that accommodate lead, how should lead results be presented?
The Lead Worksheets should be completed to demonstrate the evaluation performed and
the results of analysis.
Examples of completed Lead Worksheets follow.
Page 10-1 December 2001
-------
Example Scenario No. 11
Radiation Data Example
Scenario Description: The site has radiological and chemical waste associated with it and radiological
and chemical analyses were performed as part of the investigation. Potential adverse health effects will
be evaluated in the risk assessment.
Planning Table Issues Associated with this Scenario:
Since radiological risk assessment uses different methodologies and terminologies than chemical risk
assessment, how can the radiological risk assessment data be shown in the Planning Tables?
Planning Table 6.4 (Cancer Toxicity Data - External (Radiation)) and Planning Table 8
(Calculation of Radiation Cancer Risks) were developed by the Workgroup. The
carcinogenic risk sections of Planning Tables 9 and 10 were expanded to include an
External (Radiation) column. The following radiological risk example includes these
Planning Tables.
Note: Many of the Example Planning Tables (i.e., those Example Planning Tables that do not
specifically address radionuclides) provided for this Example Scenario are identical to those from
Appendix A.
Page 11-1 December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 1
TABLE 1
SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
The Dean Company
Scenario
Timeframe
Future
Medium
Solid Waste
Exposure
Medium
Solid Waste
Exposure
Point
Slag Pile 1
Slag Pile 2
Slag Pile 3
Receptor
Population
Receptor Population
Receptor Population
Receptor Population
Receptor
Age
Age1
Age1
Age1
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Dermal
Ingestion
Dermal
Ingestion
Dermal
Type of
Analysis
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Rationale for Selection or Exclusion
of Exposure Pathv\ay
Rationale
Rationale
Rationale
Rationale
Rationale
Rationale
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 1
Option 2
TABLE4.1.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Solid Waste
Exposure Medium: Solid Waste
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Dermal
Receptor Population
Receptor Population
Receptor Population
Receptor Age
Age 1
Age 1
Exposure Point
Slag Piles 1, 2, 3(1)
Slag Piles 1, 2, 3(1)
Parameter
Code
CS
IR
Fl
EF
ED
CF1
BW
AT-C
AT-N
CS
CF1
SA
AF
ABS-d
EV
EF
ED
BW
AT-C
AT-N
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in Slag
Ingestion Rate of Slag
Fraction Ingested
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Cancer
Averaging Time - Non-Cancer
Chemical Concentration in Slag
Conversion Factor
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor
Absorption Factor
Event Frequency
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Cancer
Averaqinq Time - Non-Cancer
Value
See Table 3.1
100
1
350
24
1E-06
70
25,550
8,760
See Table 3.1
1E-06
5,700
0.19
chemical-specific
1
350
24
70
25,550
8.760
Units
mg/kg
mg/day
days/year
years
kg/mg
kg
days
days
mg/kg
kg/mg
cm2
mg/cm2-event
unitless
events/day
days/year
years
kg
days
days
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 3.1
EPA, 1991
Professional Judgment
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1989
EPA, 1989
See Table 3.1
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 1991
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA. 2001
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Chronic Daily Intake (GDI) (mg/kg-day) =
CSxIRxFlxEFxEDxCFI X1/BWX1/AT
Dermal Absorbed Dose (DAD) (mg/kg-day) =
DA-event X EF X ED X EV X SA X 1/BW X 1/AT
where
Absorbed Dose per Event (DA-event) (mg/cm2-event) =
CSxCFIxAFx ABS-d
(1) Parameters for Slag Piles 2 and 3 are identical to Slag Pile 1, and are therefore not repeated.
EPA 1989: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A. OERR EPA/540/1-89/002.
EPA 1991: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual - Supplemental Guidance, Standard Default Exposure Factors. Interim Final. OSWER 9285.6-03.
EPA 1995: Assessing Dermal Exposure from Soil, Technical Guidance Manual, Region III, EPA/903-K-95-003.
EPA 1997: Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume 1. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa.
EPA 2001: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) Interim.
NA = Not Available
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 2
TABLE 1
SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
The Dean Company
Scenario
Timeframe
Future
Medium
Groundwater
Exposure
Medium
Groundwater
Air
Exposure
Point
Aquifer 1 - Tap Water
Water Vapors at
Showerhead
Receptor
Population
Resident
Resident
Receptor
Age
Adult
Child
Adult
Child
Exposure
Route
Dermal
Ingestion
Dermal
Ingestion
Inhalation
Inhalation
Type of
Analysis
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
None
Rationale for Selection or Exclusion
of Exposure Pathway
Future onsite residents may rely on domestic wells drawing from Aquifer 1.
Future onsite residents may rely on domestic wells drawing from Aquifer 1.
Future onsite residents may rely on domestic wells drawing from Aquifer 1.
Future onsite residents may rely on domestic wells drawing from Aquifer 1.
Future onsite residents may rely on domestic wells drawing from Aquifer 1.
Children are assumed not to shower.
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 2
TABLE 2.2
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION, AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Air
Exposure
Point
V\foter Vapors
at
Showerhead
CAS
Number
117817
67663
75150
76448
108883
Chemical
Bis(2-ethylhexyrjphthalate
Chloroform
Carbon Disulfide
Heptachlor
Toluene
Minimum (1)
Concentration
(Qualifier)
2J
0.6 J
0.3 J
2J
0.1 J
Maximum (1)
Concentration
(Qualifier)
5J
9
4.5
33J
0.2 J
Units
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
Location
of Maximum
Concentration
GW3D
GW3D
GW3D
GW4D
GW3D
Detection
Frequency
4/12
3/12
3/12
6/12
3/12
Range of
Detection
Limits
7-11
1-1
1 -1
0.05 - 0.05
1-1
Concentration
Used for
Screening (2)
5
9
4.5
33
0.2
Background
Value (3)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Screening
Toxicity Value (4)
(NIC)
4.8 C
0.063 C
100 N
0.01 5 C
75 N
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Value
6
100
NA
0.4
1000
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
MCL
MCL
NA
MCL
MCL
COPC
Flag
(Y/N)
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Rationale for
Selection or
Deletion (5)
ASL
ASL
BSL
ASL
BSL
(1) Measured groundwater concentrations.
(2) Maximum concentration used for screening.
(3) To date, no background study has been completed.
(4) All compounds are screened against the Risk-Based Concentration (RBC) Table, U.S. EPA Region III,
October 5, 2000 for tap water (cancer benchmark = 1E-06; HQ = 0.1).
(5) Rationale Codes:
Selection Reason: Above Screening Level (ASL)
Deletion Reason: Below Screen ing Level (BSL)
Definitions: NA = Not Applicable
COPC = Chemical of Potential Concern
ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/To Be Considered
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level
J = Estimated Value
C = Carcinogen
N = Noncarcinogen
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 2
TABLE 3.2.RME
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Air
Exposure Point
Water Vapors at
Showerhead
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Heptachlor
Units
ug/l
ug/l
uq/l
Arithmetic
Mean
4
1.9
27
95% UCL
(N/T)
5.5 T
14.9 T
SOT
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
5 J
9
33 J
Exposure Point Concentration
Value
5
9
30
Units
ug/l
ug/l
uq/l
Statistic
Max
Max
95% UCL - T
Rationale
W-Test (1)
W-Test (1)
W - Test (2)
Note: Measured groundwater concentrations used to calculate EPC values.
Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Transformed Data (95% UCL - T)
(1) 95% UCL exceeds maximum detected concentration. Therefore, maximum concentration used for EPC.
(2) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are lognormally transformed.
N = Normal
T = Transformed
J = Estimated Value
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 2
TABLE 4.2.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Air
Exposure Route
Inhalation (1)
Receptor Population
Resident
Receptor Age
Adult
Exposure Point
Water Vapors at
Showerhead
Parameter
Code
(1)
Parameter Definition
(1)
Value
0)
Units
0)
Rationale/
Reference
(1)
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Foster and Chrostowski Model
(1) Refer to the Risk Assessment text for details on the modeled intake methodology, the parameters used to calculate modeled intake values, and the modeled air concentrations predicted by the
Foster and Chrostowski Shower Model.
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 2
TABLE7.1.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Groundwater
Exposure Medium
Groundwater
Air
Exposure Point
Aquifer 1 - Tap Water
Exposure Point Total
Water Vapors at
Showerhead
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Exp. Route Total
Dermal
Exp. Route Total
Inhalation
Exp. Route Total
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Heptachlor
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Heptachlor
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Heptachlor
EPC
Value
0.005
0.009
0.03
0.005
0.009
0.03
0.005
0.009
0.03
Units
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l (1)
mg/l(1)
mg/l(1)
Cancer Risk Calculat ons
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Value
4.7E-005
8.5E-005
2.8E-004
3.9E-006
1.9E-006
7.6E-006
2.3E-006
1.3E-004
2.6E-004
Units
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
CSF/Unit Risk
Value
1.4E-002
6.1E-003
4.5E+000
2.5E-002
6.1E-003
9.0E+000
NA
8.1E-002
4.5E+000
Units
1/mg/kg/day
1/mg/kg/day
1/mg/kg/day
1/mg/kg/day
1/mg/kg/day
1/mg/kg/day
NA
1/mg/kg/day
1/mg/kg/day
Cancer Risk
7E-007
5E-007
1 E-003
1E-003
1E-007
1E-008
7E-005
7E-005
1 E-003
NA
1E-005
1 E-003
|| 1E-003
| 1E-003
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media II 2E-003
Non-Cancer Hazard Ca
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Value
1.4E-004
2.5E-004
8.1E-004
1.1E-005
5.5E-006
2.2E-005
3.6E-006
3.9E-004
7.7E-004
Units
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
culations
RfD/RfC
Value
2.0E-002
1.0E-002
5.0E-004
1.1E-002
1.0E-002
2.5E-004
NA
8.6E-005
NA
Units
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
mg/kg/day
NA
Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Media
Hazard Quotient
0.007
0.03
2
2
0.001
0.0006
0.09
0.09
2
NA
5
NA
5
5
7
(1) EPC values are shown as measured groundwater values and are found on Table 3.2.RME.
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 3
TABLE 1
SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
The Dean Company
Scenario
Timeframe
Future
Medium
Sediment
Exposure
Medium
Sediment
Fish Tissue
Exposure
Point
Pondl
Trout
Receptor
Population
Receptor Population
Receptor Population
Receptor
Age
Age1
Age 2
Age1
Age 2
Exposure
Route
Route 1
Route 2
Route 1
Route 2
Route 1
Route 1
Type of
Analysis
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Rationale for Selection or Exclusion
of Exposure Pathv\ay
Rationale
Rationale
Rationale
Rationale
Rationale
Rationale
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 3
TABLE 2.1
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION, AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Fish Tissue
Exposure
Point
Trout
CAS
Number
11096825
7439921
1746016
Chemical
Arochlor 1260
Lead
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin
Minimum (1)
Concentration
(Qualifier)
0.0002 J
0.004 J
0.00000001 J
Maximum (1)
Concentration
(Qualifier)
0.005 J
0.007 J
0.00000005 J
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Location
of Maximum
Concentration
Trout - 1
Trout - 3
Trout - 1
Detection
Frequency
3/10
5/10
4/10
Range of
Detection
Limits
0.0001 - 0.0001
0.001 -0.001
0.00000001 - 0.00000001
Concentration
Used for
Screening (1)
0.005
0.007
0.00000005
Background
Value (2)
NA
NA
NA
Screening
Toxicity Value (3)
(NAD)
0.001 6 C
NA
0.000000021 C
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Value
NA
NA
NA
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
NA
NA
NA
COPC
Flag
(Y/N)
Y
Y
Y
Ration ale for
Selection or
Deletion (4)
ASL
NTX
ASL
(1) Measured fish tissue concentrations. Maximum measured fish tissue concentrations used for screening.
(2) Background values are not available.
(3) All compounds were screened against the Risk-Based Concentration (RBC) Table, U.S. EPA Region III,
May 8, 2001 for fish tissue (cancer benchmark = 1E-06; HO = 0.1).
(4) Rationale Codes:
Selection Reason: Above Screening Level (ASL)
No Toxicity Infomation (NTX)
NA= Not Applicable
COPC = Chemical of Potential Concern
ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/To Be Considered
J = Estimated Value
C = Carcinogen
N = Noncarcinogen
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 3
TABLE 3.1.RME
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Fish Tissue
Exposure Point
Trout
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Arochlor 1260
Lead
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Arithmetic
Mean
0.003
0.005
0.00000002
95% UCL
(N/T)
0.0035 (T)
0.0063 (T)
0.000000047 (T)
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
0.005 J
0.007 J
0.00000005 J
Exposure Point Concentration
Value
0.0035
0.0063
0.000000047
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Statistic
95% UCL - T
95% UCL - T
95% UCL -T
Rationale
W-Test (1)
W-Test (1)
W-Test (1)
Statistics: 95% UCL of Transformed Data (95% UCL - T)
(1) Shapiro-Wilk WTest indicates data are log-normally distributed.
Note: Measured fish tissue concentrations used to calculate EPC values.
N = Normal
T = Transformed
J = Estimated Value
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 4
TABLE 1
SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
The Dean Company
Scenario
Timeframe
Timeframe
Medium
Sediment
Exposure
Medium
Fish Tissue
Exposure
Point
Trout
Receptor
Population
Population 1
Population 2
Receptor
Age
Age1
Age 2
Age1
Age 2
Exposure
Route
Route 1
Route 1
Route 1
Route 1
Type of
Analysis
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Rationale for Selection or Exclusion
of Exposure Pathv\ay
Rationale
Rationale
Rationale
Rationale
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 4
Option 1
TABLE 2.1
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION, AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Fish Tissue
Exposure
Point
CAS
Number
7439921
1746016
Chemical
Lead
2, 3, 7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin
Minimum
Concentration (1)
(Qualifier)
210 J
0.000001 J
Maximum
Concentration (1)
(Qualifier)
500 J
0.00005 J
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Location
of Maximum
Concentration
SD03
SD01
Detection
Frequency
5/10
4/10
Range of
Detection
Limits
10-16
0.000001 - 0.000001
Concentration
Used for
Screening (2)
0.007
0.00000005
Background
Value (3)
NA
NA
Screening
Toxicity Value (4)
(N/C)
NA
0.000000021 (C)
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Value
NA
NA
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
NA
NA
COPC
Flag
(Y/N)
Y
Y
Rationale for
Selection or
Deletion (5)
ASL
NTX
ASL
(1) Measured sediment concentrations.
(2) Concentrations used for screening are fish tissue values derived from the X model. Refer to the risk assessment text for details on the model methodology.
(3) To date, no background study has been completed.
(4) All compounds were screened against the Risk-Based Concentration (RBC) Table, U.S. EPA Region III,
May 8, 2001 for fish tissue (cancer benchmark = 1E-06; HQ = 0.1).
(5) Rationale Codes:
Selection Reason: Above Screening Level (ASL)
No Toxicity Infomation (NTX)
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 4
Option 2
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Fish Tissut
TABLE 2.1
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION, AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
The Dean Company
Exposure
Point
Trout
CAS
Number
11096825
7439921
1746016
Chemical
Arochlor 1260
Lead
2, 3, 7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin
Minimum
Concentration (1)
(Qualifier)
0.6 J
210 J
0.000001 J
Maximum
Concentration (1)
(Qualifier)
5.5 J
500 J
0.00005 J
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Location
of Maximum
Concentration
SD01
SD03
SD01
Detection
Frequency
3/10
5/10
4/10
Range of
Detection
Limits
0.1 - 0.2
10- 16
0.000001 - 0.000001
Concentration
Used for
Screening (1)
5.5
500
0.00005
Background
Value (2)
NA
NA
NA
Screening
Toxicity Value (3)
(N/C)
3.2 (C)
400
0.000043 (C)
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Value
NA
NA
NA
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
NA
NA
NA
COPC
Flag
(Y/N)
Y
Y
Rationale for
Selection or
Deletion (4)
ASL
ASL
ASL
(1) Measured sediment concentrations are shown and maximum concentrations are used for screening. These data will be used as input in
the X model to predict fish tissue concentrations. Refer to the risk assessment text for details on the model methodology.
(2) To date, no background study has been completed.
(3) All compounds were screened against the Risk-Based Concentration (RBC) Table, U.S. EPA Region III,
May8, 2001 for 10 times the residential soil value (cancer benchmark = 10 x 1E-06; HQ = 10x0.1). Lead was screened against the
U.S. EPA screening value of 400 mg/kg.
(4) Rationale Codes:
Selection Reason: Above Screening Level (ASL)
NA = Not Applicable
COPC = Chemical of Potential Concern
ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/To Be Considered
J = Estimated Value
C = Carcinogen
N = Noncardnogen
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 5
TABLE 1
SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Site Name
Scenario
Timeframe
Future
Medium
Groundwater
Exposure
Medium
Groundwater
Exposure
Point
Groundwater- Modeled 1
year into the future
Groundwater - Modeled 2
Years into the Future
Groundwater - Modeled 5
Years into the Future
Receptor
Population
Resident
Resident
Resident
Receptor
Age
Adult
Adult
Adult
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Dermal
Ingestion
Dermal
Ingestion
Dermal
Type of
Analysis
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Rationale for Selection or Exclusion
of Exposure Pathway
Rationale
Rationale
Rationale
Rationale
Rationale
Rationale
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 6
OPTION 1
TABLE 1
SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
The Dean Company
Scenario
Timeframe
Future
Medium
Surface Water/Sediment
Exposure
Medium
Fish Tissue
Exposure
Point
Trout-Contaminant Uptake
from Surface Water and
Sediment
Receptor
Population
Receptor Population
Receptor
Age
Age1
Age 2
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Ingestion
Type of
Analysis
Quant
Quant
Rationale for Selection or Exclusion
of Exposure Pathv\ay
Rationale
Rationale
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 6
OPTION 2
TABLE 1
SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
The Dean Company
Scenario
Timeframe
Future
Medium
Surface Water
Sediment
Exposure
Medium
Fish Tissue
Fish Tissue
Exposure
Point
Trout-Contaminant Uptake
from Surface Water
Trout-Contaminant Uptake
from Sediment
Receptor
Population
Receptor Population
Receptor Population
Receptor
Age
Age1
Age 2
Age1
Age 2
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Ingestion
Ingestion
Ingestion
Type of
Analysis
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Rationale for Selection or Exclusion
of Exposure Pathv\ay
Rationale
Rationale
Rationale
Rationale
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 7
Option 1
TABLE9.1.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Groundwater
Exposure
Medium
Groundwater
Exposure
Point
Aquifer 1 - Tap Water
Exposure Point Total
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Bis(2-ethylhexyrjphthalate
Chloroform
Chemical Total
Rad ion uclide Total
Exposure Medium Total
Air
Water Vapors from
Showerhead
Bis(2-ethylhexyrjphthalate
Chloroform
Chemical Total
Rad ion uclide Total
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Medium Total
Groundwater Total
Carcinogen c Risk
Ingestion
7E-07
5E-07
1E-06
Inhalation
Dermal
1E-07
1E-08
1E-07
External
(Radiation)
3E-08
1E-05
1E-05
Exposure
Routes Total
8E-07
5E-07
1E-06
1E-06
1E-06
3E-08
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ(s)
Liver
Liver
Ingestion
0.007
0.03
0.03
Inhalation
Dermal
0.001
0.0006
0.002
Liver
5
5
Exposure
Routes Total
0.008
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.04
5
5
5
5
5
Page 1 of 2
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 7
Option 1
TABLE9.1.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Soil
Soil Total
Exposure
Medium
Soil
Exposure
Point
Soil at Site 1
Exposure Point Total
Soil at Site 2
Exposure Point Total
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Chemical Total
Rad ion uclide Total
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Chemical Total
Rad ion uclide Total
Exposure Medium Total
Receptor Total
Carcinogen c Risk
Ingestion
1E-06
5E-06
6E-06
8E-08
5E-08
1E-07
Inhalation
Dermal
1E-06
5E-006
6E-06
8E-08
5E-08
1E-07
External
(Radiation)
Exposure
Routes Total
2E-06
1E-005
1E-05
1E-05
2E-07
1E-07
3E-07
3E-07
1E-05
1E-05
2E-05
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ(s)
Liver
Liver
Ingestion
0.08
0.08
0.0009
0.0009
Inhalation
Dermal
0.08
0.08
0.0009
0.0009
Exposure
Routes Total
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
5
Total Risk Across All Media
Total Hazard Across All Media
Total Liver HI Across All Media =
Page 2 of 2
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 7
Option 2
TABLE9.1.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Groundwater
Soil
Exposure
Medium
Groundwater
Air
Soil
Exposure
Point
Aquifer 1 - Tap Water
Exposure Point Total
Water Vapors from
Showerhead
Exposure Point Total
Soil at Site 1
Exposure Point Total
Soil at Site 2
Exposure Point Total
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Chemical Total
Radionuclide Total
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Chemical Total
Radionuclide Total
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Chemical Total
Radionuclide Total
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Chemical Total
Radionuclide Total
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
7E-07
5E-07
1E-06
Inhalation
--
Dermal
1E-07
1E-08
1E-07
External
(Radiation)
--
--
--
3E-08
1E-05
1E-05
--
--
--
-.
1E-06
5E-06
6E-06
8E-08
5E-08
1E-07
1E-06
5E-006
6E-06
--
8E-08
5E-08
1E-07
--
Exposure
Routes Total
8E-07
5E-07
1E-06
1E-06
3E-08
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
2E-06
1E-005
1E-05
1E-05
2E-07
1E-07
3E-07
3E-07
Non-Carcinogen c Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ(s)
Liver
Liver
Liver
Liver
Liver
Ingestion
0.007
0.03
0.03
Inhalation
--
Dermal
0.001
0.0006
0.002
0.08
0.08
0.0009
0.0009
5
5
--
--
--
0.08
0.08
0.0009
0.0009
Exposure
Routes Total
0.008
0.03
0.04
0.04
5
5
5
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.002
0.002
0.002
Total Risk Across All Media
Total Hazard Across All Media = II
Total Liver HI Across All Media =
II a 1
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 7
Option 1
TABLE 10.1.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Groundwater
Exposure
Medium
Air
Exposure
Point
Water Vapors from
Showerhead
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Chloroform
Chemical Total
Radionudide Total
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Medium Total
Groundwater Total
Soil
Soil
Soil at Site 1
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Chemical Total
Radionudide Total
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Medium Total
Soil Total
Receptor Total
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
Inhalation
1E-05
1E-05
Dermal
External
(Radiation)
1E-06
5E-06
6E-06
1E-06
5E-06
6E-06
Exposure
Routes Total
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
2E-06
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
2E-05
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ(s)
Lwer
Ingestion
Inhalation
5
5
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
5
5
5
5
5
5
Total Risk Across All Media
2E-05
Total Hazard Across All Media
Cancer risks presented are those greater than 1E-06; Non-cancer risks presented are those greater than 1.
Total Liver HI Across All Media =
II—s—i
II—s—i
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 7
Option 2
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
TABLE 10.1.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Medium
Groundwater
Soil
Exposure
Medium
Air
Soil
Exposure
Point
Water Vapors from
Showerhead
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Chloroform
Chemical Total
Radionuclide Total
Exposure Point Total
Soil at Site 1
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Chemical Total
Radionuclide Total
Exposure Point Total
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
1E-06
5E-06
6E-06
Inhalation
1E-05
1E-05
Dermal
External
(Radiation)
1E-06
5E-006
6E-06
Exposure
Routes Total
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
2E-06
1E-005
1E-05
1E-05
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ(s)
Liver
Ingestion
Inhalation
5
5
Dermal
--
--
Exposure
Routes Total
5
5
5
Total Risk Across All Media
Total Hazard Across All Media =
Cancer risks presented are those greater than 1E-06; Non-cancer risks presented are those greater than 1.
Total Liver HI Across All Media =
II—s—U
II—s—U
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 8
Option 1
TABLE 1
SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
The Dean Company
Scenario
Timeframe
Future
Medium
Soil
Exposure
Medium
Soil
Exposure
Point
Soil at Site 1
Receptor
Population
Resident
Receptor
Age
Adult
Child
Child/Adult
Exposure
Route
Dermal
Ingestion
Dermal
Ingestion
Dermal
Ingestion
Type of
Analysis
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Rationale for Selection or Exclusion
of Exposure Pathway
Future onsite residents may come into contact with soil.
Future onsite residents may ingest soil.
Future onsite residents may come into contact with soil.
Future onsite residents may ingest soil.
Future onsite residents may come into contact with soil.
Future onsite residents may ingest soil.
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 8
Option 2
TABLE 1
SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
The Dean Company
Scenario
Timeframe
Future
Medium
Soil
Exposure
Medium
Soil
Exposure
Point
Soil at Site 1
Receptor
Population
Resident
Receptor
Age
Adult
Child
Child/Adult
Exposure
Route
Dermal
Ingestion
Dermal
Ingestion
Dermal
Ingestion
Type of
Analysis
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Rationale for Selection or Exclusion
of Exposure Pathway
Future onsite residents may come into contact with soil.
Future onsite residents may ingest soil.
Future onsite residents may come into contact with soil.
Future onsite residents may ingest soil.
Future onsite residents may come into contact with soil.
Future onsite residents may ingest soil.
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 8
Option 1
TABLE4.1.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Soil
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Receptor Population
Resident
Receptor Age
Adult
Child
Child/Adult
Exposure Point
Soil at Site 1
Soil at Site 1
Soil at Site 1
Parameter
Code
CS
IR
Fl
EF
ED
CF1
BW
AT-C
AT-N
CS
IR
Fl
EF
ED
CF1
BW
AT-C
AT-N
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Ingestion Rate of Soil
Fraction Ingested
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Cancer
Averaging Time - Non-Cancer
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Ingestion Rate of Soil
Fraction Ingested
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Cancer
Averaging Time - Non-Cancer
Value
See Table 3.3
100
1
350
24
1E-06
70
25,550
8,760
See Table 3.3
200
1
350
6
1E-06
15
25,550
2,190
Units
mg/kg
mg/day
days/year
years
kg/mg
kg
days
days
mg/kg
mg/day
days/year
years
kg/mg
kg
days
days
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 3.3
EPA, 1991
Professional Judgment
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1989
EPA, 1989
See Table 3.3
EPA, 1991
Professional Judgment
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1989
EPA, 1989
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Chronic Daily Intake (GDI) (mg/kg-day) =
CSxIRxFlxEFxEDxCFI X1/BWX1/AT
GDI (mg/kg-day) =
CSxIRxFlxEFxEDxCFI X1/BWX1/AT
Child/Adult cancer risks will be calculated as the sum of
the Child cancer risk and the Adult cancer risk.
Page 1 of 2
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 8
Option 1
TABLE4.1.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Soil
Exposure Route
Dermal
Receptor Population
Resident
Receptor Age
Adult
Child
Child/Adult
Exposure Point
Soil at Site 1
Soil at Site 1
Soil at Site 1
Parameter
Code
CS
CF1
SA
AF
AB
EF
ED
BW
AT-C
AT-N
CS
CF1
SA
AF
AB
EF
ED
BW
AT-C
AT-N
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Conversion Factor
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor
Absorption Factor
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Cancer
Averaging Time - Non-Cancer
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Conversion Factor
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor
Absorption Factor
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Cancer
Averaging Time - Non-Cancer
Value
See Table 3.3
1E-06
5,000
0.19
chemical-specific
350
24
70
25,550
8,760
See Table 3.3
1E-06
3,600
0.11
chemical-specific
350
6
15
25,550
2,190
Units
mg/kg
kg/mg
cm 2
mg/cm2
unitless
days/year
years
kg
days
days
mg/kg
kg/mg
cm 2
mg/cm2
unitless
days/year
years
kg
days
days
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 3.3
EPA, 1997
EPA, 1997
EPA, 1995
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1989
EPA, 1989
See Table 3.3
EPA, 1997
EPA, 1997
EPA, 1995
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1989
EPA, 1989
Intake Equation/
Model Name
GDI (mg/kg-day) =
CS X CF1 X SA X AF X AB X EF X ED X 1/BW X 1/AT
GDI (mg/kg-day) =
CS X CF1 X SA X AF X AB X EF X ED X 1/BW X 1/AT
Child/Adult cancer risks will be calculated as the sum of
the Child cancer risk and the Adult cancer risk.
EPA 1989: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A. OERR EPA/540/1-89/002.
EPA 1991: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual - Supplemental Guidance, Standard Default Exposure Factors. Interim Final. OSWER 9285.6-03.
EPA 1995: Assessing Dermal Exposure from Soil, Technical Guidance Manual, Region III, EPA/903-K-95-003.
EPA 1997: Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume 1. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa.
Page 2 of 2
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 8
Option 2
TABLE4.1.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Soil
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Receptor Population
Resident
Receptor Age
Adult
Child
Child/Adult
Exposure Point
Soil at Site 1
Soil at Site 1
Soil at Site 1
Parameter
Code
CS
IR
Fl
EF
ED
CF1
BW
AT-C
AT-N
CS
IR
Fl
EF
ED
CF1
BW
AT-C
AT-N
CS
IF
BW-C
BW-A
IR-C
IR-A
ED-C
ED-TOT
CF
Fl
EF
AT-C
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Ingestion Rate of Soil
Fraction Ingested
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Cancer
Averaging Time - Non-Cancer
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Ingestion Rate of Soil
Fraction Ingested
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Cancer
Averaging Time - Non-Cancer
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Ingestion Factor
Body Weight, Child
Body Weight, Adult
Ingestion Rate, Child
Ingestion Rate, Adult
Exposure Duration, Child
Exposure Duration, Total
Conversion Factor
Fraction Ingested
Exposure Frequency
Averaging Time - Cancer
Value
See Table 3.3
100
1
350
24
1.0E-06
70
25,550
8,760
See Table 3.3
200
1
350
6
1.0E-06
15
25,550
2,190
See Table 3.3
114
15
70
200
100
6
30
1.0E-06
1
350
25,550
Units
mg/kg
mg/day
days/year
years
kg/mg
kg
days
days
mg/kg
mg/day
days/year
years
kg/mg
kg
days
days
mg/kg
mg-year/kg-day
kg
kg
mg/day
mg/day
years
years
kg/mg
unitless
days/year
days
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 3.3
EPA, 1991
Professional Judgment
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1989
EPA, 1989
See Table 3.3
EPA, 1991
Professional Judgment
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1989
EPA, 1989
See Table 3.3
EPA 1 991 b
EPA, 1991a
EPA, 1991a
EPA, 1991a
EPA, 1991a
EPA, 1991a
EPA, 1991a
Professional Judgment
EPA, 1991a
EPA, 1989
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =
CSxIRxFlxEFxEDxCFI X1/BWX1/AT
CDI (mg/kg-day) =
CSxIRxFlxEFxEDxCFI X1/BWX1/AT
CDI (mg/kg/day) =
CSxlFxCFxFlxEFx1/AT
where
IF = (ED-C X IR-C / BW-C) + (ED-TOT - ED-C) X
(IR-A /BW-A)
Page 1 of 3
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 8
Option 2
TABLE4.1.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Soil
Exposure Route
Dermal
Receptor Population
Resident
Receptor Age
Adult
Child
Exposure Point
Soil at Site 1
Soil at Site 1
Parameter
Code
CS
CF1
SA
AF
AB
EF
ED
BW
AT-C
AT-N
CS
CF1
SA
AF
AB
EF
ED
BW
AT-C
AT-N
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Conversion Factor
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor
Absorption Factor
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Cancer
Averaging Time - Non-Cancer
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Conversion Factor
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor
Absorption Factor
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Cancer
Averaging Time - Non-Cancer
Value
See Table 3.3
1.0E-06
5,000
0.19
chemical-specific
350
24
70
25,550
8,760
See Table 3.3
1.0E-06
3,600
0.11
chemical-specific
350
6
15
25,550
2,190
Units
mg/kg
kg/mg
cm2
mg/cm2
unitless
days/year
years
kg
days
days
mg/kg
kg/mg
cm2
mg/cm2
unitless
days/year
years
kg
days
days
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 3.3
EPA, 1997
EPA, 1997
EPA, 1995
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1989
EPA, 1989
See Table 3.3
EPA, 1997
EPA, 1997
EPA, 1995
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1989
EPA, 1989
Intake Equation/
Model Name
GDI (mg/kg-day) =
CSxCF1xSAxAFxABxEFxEDx1/BWx1/AT
GDI (mg/kg-day) =
CSxCF1xSAxAFxABxEFxEDx1/BWx1/AT
Page 2 of 3
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 8
Option 2
TABLE4.1.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Soil
Exposure Route
Dermal (continued)
Receptor Population
Resident (continued)
Receptor Age
Child/Adult
Exposure Point
Soil at Site 1
Parameter
Code
CS
DF
BW-C
BW-A
SA-C
SA-A
ED-C
ED-TOT
AF
EF
AB
CF1
AT-C
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Dermal Factor
Body Weight, Child
Body Weight, Adult
Surface Area, Child
Surface Area, Adult
Exposure Duration, Child
Exposure Duration, Total
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor
Exposure Frequency
Absorption Factor
Conversion Factor
Averaging Time - Cancer
Value
See Table 3.3
3,154
15
70
3,600
5,000
6
30
0.15
350
chemical-specific
1.0E-06
25,550
Units
mg/kg
cm2-year/kg-day
kg
kg
cm2
cm2
years
years
mg/cm2
days/year
unitless
kg/mg
days
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 3.3
EPA 1 991 b
EPA, 1991a
EPA, 1991a
EPA, 1997
EPA, 1997
EPA, 1991a
EPA, 1991a
Professional Judgment
EPA 1991 a
EPA, 1995
EPA, 1989
Intake Equation/
Model Name
GDI (mg/kg-day) =
CS X CF1 X DF X AF X AB X EF X 1/AT
where
DF = (ED-C X SA-C / BW-C) + (ED-TOT - ED-C) X
(SA-A / BW-A)
EPA 1989: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A. OERR EPA/540/1-89/002. EPA 1997: Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume 1. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa.
EPA 1991 a: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual - Supplemental Guidance, Standard Default Exposure Factors. Interim Final. OSWER 9285.6-03.
EPA 1991b: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part B: Development of Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation Goals. OSWER Directive 9285.7-01B EPA 1995: Assessing Dermal Exposure from Soil, Technical Guidance Manual, Region III, EPA/903-K-95-003.
PageS of 3
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 8
Option 1
TABLE 7.1.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
lario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
irfnr Af*v AHnlt
Medium
Soil
Soil Total
Exposure Medium
Soil
Exposure Point
Soil at Site 1
Exposure Route
Ingest ion
Exp. Route Total |
Dermal
Exp. Route Total I
Chemical of
Potential Concern
4,4'- ODD
4, 4'- DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aluminum
Manganese
Thallium
4,4'- ODD
4, 4'- DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aluminum
Manganese
Thallium
EPC
Value
0.452
6.8
28.6
9964
201
1.2
0.452
6.8
28.6
9964
201
1.2
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Exposure Point Total
Expsoure Medium Total
Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
WalllQ
2.1E-07
3.2E-06
1.3E-005
4.7E-003
9.5E-005
5.6E-007
2.0E-007
3.0E-06
1 .3E-005
4.5E-004
9.0E-006
5.3E-008
I Inite
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
CSF/Unit Risk
WalllQ
2.4E-01
3.4E-01
3.4E-01
NA
NA
NA
2.7E-01
3.8E-01
3.8E-01
NA
NA
NA
I Inite
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media
Cancer Risk
5E-08
1E-06
5E-06
NA
NA
NA
6E-06
5E-08
1E-06
5E-06
NA
NA
NA
6E-06
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
WalllQ
6.2E-07
9.3E-06
3.9E-05
1.4E-02
2.8E-04
1 .6E-06
5.9E-07
8.8E-06
3.7E-005
1.3E-003
2.6E-005
1 .5E-007
I Inite
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
RfD/RfC
WalllQ
NA
NA
5.0E-04
1.0E+00
1 .4E-01
NA
NA
NA
4.5E-004
2.7E-001
7.0E-03
NA
I Inite
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Media
Hazard Quotient
NA
NA
0.08
0.01
0.002
NA
0.09
NA
NA
0.08
0.005
0.004
NA
0.09
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 8
Option 1
TABLE 7.2.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
lario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Ace: Child
Medium
Soil
Medium
Exposure Medium
sal
Exposure Point
son at site 1
Exposure Route
Ingest ion
Chemical of
Potential Concern
4,4'- ODD
4,4'- DDE
4,4-DDT
Aluminum
Manganese
1 1 Thallium
1 Exp. Route Total II
1 Dermal U,4'-DDD
| 4,4'-DDE
4,4-DDT
Aluminum
Manganese
1 1 Thallium
II Exp. Route Total II
Exposure Point Total
EPC
Value
U.4b^
6.8
28.6
9964
201
1.2
0.452
6.8
28.6
9964
201
1.2
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Exposure Medium Total
Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Value
b.Ut-U/
7.4E-06
3.1E-005
1.1E-002
2.2E-004
1 .3E-006
9.8E-08
1.5E-06
6.2E-006
2.2E-004
4.4E-006
2.6E-008
Units
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
CSF/Unit Risk
Value
Z4t-U1
3.4E-01
3.4E-01
NA
NA
NA
2.7E-01
3.8E-01
3.8E-01
NA
NA
NA
Units
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media
Cancer Risk
itu/
3E-06
1E-05
NA
NA
NA
1E-05
3E-08
6E-07
2E-06
NA
NA
NA
3E-06
IRHC;
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Value
b.bt-Ub
8.7E-05
3.7E-004
1 .3E-001
2.6E-003
1 .5E-005
1.1E-06
1.7E-05
7.2E-005
2.5E-003
5.1E-005
3.0E-007
Units
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
RfD/RfC
Value
NA
NA
5.0E-04
1.0E+00
1.4E-01
NA
NA
NA
4.5E-004
2.7E-001
7.0E-003
NA
Units
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Media
Hazard Quotient
NA
NA
0.7
0.1
0.02
NA
0.8
NA
NA
0.2
0.009
0.007
NA
0.2
1
1
1
1
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 8
Option 1
TABLE 7.3.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: ChilaYAdult
Medium
Soil
Medium
Exposure Medium
Soil
Exposure Point
Soil at Site 1
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Exp. Route Total
Dermal
Exp. Route Total
Chemical of
Potential Concern
4,4'- ODD
4,4'-DDE
4,4-DDT
Aluminum
Manganese
Thallium
4,4'- ODD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aluminum
Manganese
Thallium
EPC
Value
0.452
6.8
28.6
9964
201
1.2
0.452
6.8
28.6
9964
201
1.2
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Medium Total
Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Value
7.1 E-07
1 .1 E-05
4.4E-05
1 .6E-02
3.2E-05
1.9E-06
3.0E-07
4.5E-06
1.9E-05
6.7E-04
1 .3E-05
7.9E-08
Units
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
CSF/Unit Risk
Value
2.4E-01
3.4E-01
3.4E-01
NA
NA
NA
2.7E-01
3.8E-01
3.8E-01
NA
NA
NA
Units
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
Tota of Receotor Risks Across All Media
Cancer Risk
2E-07
4E-06
2E-05
NA
NA
NA
2E-05
8E-08
2E-06
7E-06
NA
NA
NA
9E-06
3E-05
3E-05
3E-05
3E-05
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Value
Units
RfD/RfC
Value
Units
Total of Receotor Hazards Across All Media
Hazard Quotient
Note: Child/Aduft cancer risk was calculated as the sum of the Child cancer risk (Table 7.2.RME) and the Adult cancer risk (Table 7.1 .RME).
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 8
Option 2
TABLE 7.1.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Soil
Soil Total
Exposure Medium
Soil
Exposure Point
Soil at Site 1
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Exp. Route Total
Dermal
Chemical of
Potential Concern
4, 4'- ODD
4,4'- DDE
4,4- DDT
Aluminum
Manganese
Thallium
4, 4'- ODD
4,4'- DDE
4,4'- DDT
Aluminum
Manganese
Thallium
Exp. Route Total II
Exposure Point Total
EPC
Value
0.452
6.8
28.6
9964
201
1.2
0.452
6.8
28.6
9964
201
1.2
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Exposure Medium Total
Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Value
2.1E-07
3.2E-06
1.3E-005
4.7E-003
9.5E-005
5.6E-007
2.0E-007
3.0E-06
1.3E-005
4.5E-004
9.0E-006
5.3E-008
Units
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
CSF/Unit Risk
Value
2.4E-01
3.4E-01
3.4E-01
NA
NA
NA
2.7E-01
3.8E-01
3.8E-01
NA
NA
NA
Units
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media
Cancer Risk
5E-08
1E-06
5E-06
NA
NA
NA
6E-06
bt-Ub
1E-06
5E-06
NA
NA
NA
6E-06
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Value
6.2E-07
9.3E-06
3.9E-05
1 .4E-02
2.8E-04
1 .6E-06
5.9E-07
8.8E-06
3.7E-005
1 .3E-003
2.6E-005
1 .5E-007
Units
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
RfD/RfC
Value
NA
NA
5.0E-04
1.0E+00
1.4E-01
NA
NA
NA
4.5E-004
2.7E-001
7.0E-03
NA
Units
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Media
Hazard Quotient
NA
NA
0.08
0.01
0.002
NA
0.09
NA
NA
0.08
0.005
0.004
NA
0.09
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 8
Option 2
TABLE 7.2.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Medium
Soil
Soil Total
Exposure Medium
Soil
Exposure Point
Soil at Site 1
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Exp. Route Total
Dermal
Chemical of
Potential Concern
4, 4'- ODD
4,4'- DDE
4,4- DDT
Aluminum
Manganese
Thallium
4, 4'- ODD
4,4'- DDE
4,4'- DDT
Aluminum
Manganese
Thallium
Exp. Route Total II
Exposure Point Total
EPC
Value
0.452
6.8
28.6
9964
201
1.2
0.452
6.8
28.6
9964
201
1.2
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Exposure Medium Total
Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Value
5.0E-07
7.4E-06
3.1E-005
1 .1 E-002
2.2E-004
1 .3E-006
9.8E-08
1.5E-06
6.2E-006
2.2E-004
4.4E-006
2.6E-008
Units
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
CSF/Unit Risk
Value
2.4E-01
3.4E-01
3.4E-01
NA
NA
NA
2.7E-01
3.8E-01
3.8E-01
NA
NA
NA
Units
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media
Cancer Risk
1E-07
3E-06
1E-05
NA
NA
NA
1E-05
bt-UB
6E-07
2E-06
NA
NA
NA
3E-06
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Value
5.8E-06
8.7E-05
3.7E-004
1 .3E-001
2.6E-003
1 .5E-005
1. It-US
1.7E-05
7.2E-005
2.5E-003
5.1E-005
3.0E-007
Units
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
RfD/RfC
Value
NA
NA
5.0E-04
1.0E+00
1.4E-01
NA
NA
NA
4.5E-004
2.7E-001
7.0E-003
NA
Units
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Media
Hazard Quotient
NA
NA
0.7
0.1
0.02
NA
0.8
NA
NA
0.2
0.009
0.007
NA
0.2
1
1
1
1
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 8
Option 1
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
TABLE 9.1.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Medium
Soil
Exposure
Medium
Soil
Exposure
Point
Soil at Site 1
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aluminum
Manganese
Thallium
Chemical Total
Radionudide Total
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Medium Total
Soil Total
Receptor Total
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
5E-08
1E-06
5E-06
6E-06
Inhalation
Dermal
5E-08
1E-06
5E-06
6E-06
External
(Radiation)
Exposure
Routes Total
1E-07
2E-06
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ(s)
Lwer
Central Nervous System
Central Nervous System
Ingestion
0.08
0.01
0.002
0.09
Inhalation
--
--
--
Dermal
--
--
0.08
0.005
0.004
0.09
Exposure
Routes Total
0.2
0.02
0.006
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Total Risk Across All Media
1E-05
Total Hazard Across All Media
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 8
Option 2
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
TABLE 9.1.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Medium
Soil
Exposure
Medium
Soil
Exposure
Point
Soil at Site 1
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aluminum
Manganese
Thallium
Chemical Total
Radionuclide Total
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Medium Total
Soil Total
Receptor Total
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
5E-08
1E-06
5E-06
6E-06
Inhalation
Dermal
5E-08
1E-06
5E-06
6E-06
External
(Radiation)
Exposure
Routes Total
1E-07
2E-06
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ(s)
Lwer
Central Nervous System
Central Nervous System
Ingestion
0.08
0.01
0.002
0.09
Inhalation
--
--
--
Dermal
--
--
0.08
0.005
0.004
0.09
Exposure
Routes Total
0.2
0.02
0.006
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Total Risk Across All Media
1E-05
Total Hazard Across All Media
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 8
Option 1
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
TABLE 9.2.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Medium
Soil
Exposure
Medium
Soil
Exposure
Point
Soil at Site 1
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aluminum
Manganese
Thallium
Chemical Total
Radionudide Total
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Medium Total
Soil Total
Receptor Total
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
1E-07
3E-06
1E-05
1E-05
Inhalation
Dermal
3E-08
6E-07
2E-06
3E-06
External
(Radiation)
Exposure
Routes Total
1E-07
3E-06
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ(s)
Lwer
Central Nervous System
Central Nervous System
Ingestion
0.7
0.1
0.02
0.8
Inhalation
--
--
--
Dermal
--
--
0.2
0.009
0.007
0.2
Exposure
Routes Total
0.9
0.1
0.03
1
1
1
1
1
Total Risk Across All Media
1E-05
Total Hazard Across All Media
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 8
Option 2
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
TABLE 9.2.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Medium
Soil
Exposure
Medium
Soil
Exposure
Point
Soil at Site 1
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aluminum
Manganese
Thallium
Chemical Total
Radionuclide Total
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Medium Total
Soil Total
Receptor Total
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
1E-07
3E-06
1E-05
1E-05
Inhalation
Dermal
3E-08
6E-07
2E-06
3E-06
External
(Radiation)
Exposure
Routes Total
1E-07
3E-06
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
1E-05
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ(s)
Lwer
Central Nervous System
Central Nervous System
Ingestion
0.7
0.1
0.02
0.8
Inhalation
--
--
--
Dermal
--
--
0.2
0.009
0.007
0.2
Exposure
Routes Total
0.9
0.1
0.03
1
1
1
1
1
Total Risk Across All Media
1E-05
Total Hazard Across All Media
I 1 I
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child/Adult
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 8
Option 1
TABLE 9.3.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Medium
Soil
Exposure
Medium
Soil
Exposure
Point
Soil at Site 1
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aluminum
Manganese
Thallium
Chemical Total
Radionuclide Total
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Medium Total
Soil Total
Receptor Total
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
2E-07
4E-06
2E-05
2E-05
Inhalation
Dermal
8E-08
2E-06
7E-06
9E-06
External
(Radiation)
Exposure
Routes Total
3E-07
6E-06
3E-05
3E-05
3E-05
3E-05
3E-05
3E-05
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ(s)
Ingestion
Inhalation
--
--
--
Dermal
--
--
--
Exposure
Routes Total
Total Risk Across All Media
Note: This table represents the residential lifetime cancer risk and was derived by combining the adult residential risks and the child residential risks.
3E-05
Total Hazard Across All Media
I I
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child/Adult
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 8
Option 2
TABLE 9.3.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Medium
Soil
Exposure
Medium
Soil
Exposure
Point
Soil at Site 1
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aluminum
Manganese
Thallium
Chemical Total
Radionuclide Total
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Medium Total
Soil Total
Receptor Total
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
2E-07
4E-06
2E-05
2E-05
Inhalation
Dermal
8E-08
2E-06
7E-06
9E-06
External
(Radiation)
Exposure
Routes Total
3E-07
6E-06
3E-05
3E-05
3E-05
3E-05
3E-05
3E-05
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ(s)
Ingestion
Inhalation
--
--
--
Dermal
--
--
--
Exposure
Routes Total
Total Risk Across All Media
3E-05
Total Hazard Across All Media
I I
Note: Child/Adult cancer risk was calculated using age-adjusted exposure factor values.
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 9
TABLE 1
SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
The Dean Company
Scenario
Timeframe
Timeframe
Medium
Soil
Exposure
Medium
Animal Tissue (1)
Exposure
Point
Beef from cattle grazing in
field
Receptor
Population
Population 1
Population 2
Receptor
Age
Age 1
Age 2
Age1
Age 2
Exposure
Route
Route 1
Route 1
Route 1
Route 1
Type of
Analysis
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Rationale for Selection or Exclusion
of Exposure Pathway
Rationale
Rationale
Rationale
Rationale
(1) Modeled via plant uptake from soil and beef cattle ingestion of plants. See Appendix x for full details of modeling.
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
TABLE Y (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Example Site, Slag Pile 2
Receptor: Adult Worker, Exposure to Media as Described
1. Lead Screening Questions
Medium
Soil
Lead Concentration
used in Model Run
Value
2000
Units
mg/kg
Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
For Model Run
Average Detected
Value
Lead Screening
Concentration
Value
750
Units
mg/kg
Basis for Lead Screening Level
Recommended Soil Screening Level
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide rationale for
model selected.
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
What statistics were used to represent the exposure concentration terms
and where are the data on concentrations in the risk assessment that
support use of these statistics?
What was the point of exposure and location?
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended range of
1.8-2.1 , provide rationale in Appendix .
What baseline blood lead concentration (PbB0) value was used? If this is
outside the default range of 1 .7 to 2.2 provide rationale in Appendix .
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
Was the default BKSF used (0.4 ug/dL per ug/day) used?
Was the default absorption fraction (AF; 0.12) used?
Was the default soil ingestion rate (IR; 50 mg/day) used?
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed above,
where are the rationale for the values located in the risk assessment report?
Response
EPA Interim Adult Lead Model (1996)
n/a
Located in Appendix 5
Mean soil concentration. Data are Located in
Appendix 2
OU 3 Slag pile area
Located in Appendix 5
1.8
2.0
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Located in Appendix 5
3. Final Result
Medium
Soil
Result
2000 ppm lead in soil results in >5% ot receptors above a blood lead level
of 10 ug/d and geometric mean blood lead =11.6 ug/dL. Lhis exceeds the
blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more
than 5% of children (fetuses of exposed women) exceeding 10 ug/dL
blood lead.
Comment/RBRG 1
1500 ppm
1. Attach the ALM spreadsheet output file upon which the Risk Based Remediation Goal (RBRG) was based and description
of rationale for parameters used. For additional information, see www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/lead
December 2001
-------
TABLE X (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Site Name: Example Site, Neighborhood 2
Receptor: Future Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months) Exposure to Media as Described
1. Lead Screening Questions
Medium
Soil
Water
Lead Concentration used in
Model Run
Value
1000
4
Units
mg/kg
ug/L
Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run
Average Detected
Value
Average Detected
Value
Lead Screening
Concentration
Value
400
15
Units
mg/kg
ug/L
Basis for Lead Screening Level
Recommended Soil Screening Level
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
What lead model (version and date) was used?
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
What statistics were used to represent the exposure concentration
terms and where are the data on concentrations in the risk
assessment that support use of these statistics?
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not
sieved, provide rationale.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report?
Was the model run using default values only?
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report?
Response for Residential Lead Model
IEUBK version 0.99d, 1994
Located in Appendix 3
Refer to sampling data table 2
Mean value of backyard and side yard. Data presented in
Appendix 3.
Yes
Yes, 250 urn
Residential yard in Neighborhood 2: back yard and side yard
composite.
Located in Appendix 3
Yes, except for soil and dust concentration data.
Yes. Default is 30%
Yes. Default values for 7 age groups are 85, 135, 135, 100, 090,
and 85 mg/day
Located in Appendix 3
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG 1
Soil
Input value of 1000 ppm in soil (and MSA derived dust of
710 ppm) results in 42.7% of children 0-84 months above a
blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. Geometric mean blood lead =
9.5 ug/dL. Lhis exceeds the blood lead goal as described in
the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of children
exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.
Based on site conditions, a PRO of 354
ppm in soil is indicated. Lhis PRO is
typically rounded to 400 ppm.
1. Attach the IEUBK text output file and graph upon which the PRG was based as an appendix. For additional
information, see www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/lead
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 11
TABLE 1
SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
The Dean Company
Scenario
Timeframe
Future
Medium
Groundwater
Soil
Exposure
Medium
Groundwater
Air
Soil
Exposure
Point
Aquifer 1-Tap Water
Water Vapors from
Showerhead
Soil at Site 1
Receptor
Population
Resident
Resident
Resident
Receptor
Age
Adult
Child
Adult
Child
Adult
Child
Exposure
Route
Dermal
Ingestion
Dermal
Ingestion
Inhalation
Inhalation
Dermal
Ingestion
External (Radiation)
Dermal
Ingestion
External (Radiation)
Type of
Analysis
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
None
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Quant
Rationale for Selection or Exclusion
of Exposure Pathway
Future onsite residents may rely on domestic wells drawing from Aquifer 1.
Future onsite residents may rely on domestic wells drawing from Aquifer 1.
Future onsite residents may rely on domestic wells drawing from Aquifer 1.
Future onsite residents may rely on domestic wells drawing from Aquifer 1.
Future onsite residents may rely on domestic wells drawing from Aquifer 1.
Children are assumed not to shower.
Future onsite residents may come into contact with soil.
Future onsite residents may ingest soil.
Future onsite residents may come into contact with soil.
Future onsite residents may come into contact with soil.
Future onsite residents may ingest soil.
Future onsite residents may come into contact with soil.
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 11
TABLE 2.1
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION, AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Groundwater
Exposure
Point
Aquifer 1 -
Tap Water
CAS
Number
117817
67663
75150
76448
108883
7429905
7440393
7440417
7439921
7439965
7440020
7440611
7440611
13982-63-3
Chemical
Bis(2-ethylhexyrj phthalate
Chloroform
Carbon Disulfide
Heptachlor
Toluene
Aluminum
Barium
Beryllium
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Uranium
Uranium 238
Radium 226
Minimum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
2J
0.6 J
0.3 J
2J
0.1 J
134 J
65 J
0.2 K
6J
1900
0.9 J
50
0.23
0.2
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
5J
9
4.5
33 J
0.2 J
1340
489
1.5 K
35 J
12500
1.5J
500
80
11
Units
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
pCi/l
pCi/l
Location
of Maximum
Concentration
GW3D
GW3D
GW3D
GW4D
GW3D
GW3D
GW1D
GW2D
GW3D
GW1D
GW4D
GW1D
GW1D
GW1D
Detection
Frequency
4/12
3/12
3/12
6/12
3/12
2/12
6/12
3/12
4/12
6/12
3/12
12/12
12/12
12/12
Range of
Detection
Limits
3-4
1-1
1 -1
0.01 - 0.01
1-1
29 - 38.2
0.2-1
0.1 -1
0.1-1
0.3-1
0.9-7
1-2
NA
NA
Concentration
Used for
Screening (1)
5
9
4.5
33
0.2
1340
489
1.5
35
12500
1.5
500
NA
NA
Background
Value (2)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Screening
Toxicity Value (3)
(N/C)
4.8 C
0.063 C
100 N
0.01 5 C
75 N
3700 N
260 N
7.3 N
15
73 N
73 N
11 N
NA
NA
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Value
6
100
NA
0.4
1000
50 - 200
2000
4
15
50
NA
NA
NA
5
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
MCL
MCL
NA
MCL
MCL
SMCL
MCL
MCL
MCL
SMCL
NA
NA
NA
MCL
COPC
Flag
(Y/N)
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Rationale for
Selection or
Deletion (4)
ASL
ASL
BSL
ASL
BSL
BSL
ASL
BSL
ASL
ASL
BSL
ASL
DET
DET
(1) Maximum concentration used for screening chemicals. No screening was conducted for radionuclides;
all radionuclides detected are selected as COPCs.
(2) To date, no background study has been completed.
(3) All compounds were screened against the Risk-Based Concentration (RBC) Table, U.S. EPA Region III,
May 8, 2001 for tap water (cancer benchmark = 1E-06; HQ = 0.1). Lead was screened against the
action level of 15 ug/l.
(4) Rationale Codes:
Selection Reason: Above Screening Level (ASL)
Detected at Site (DET)
Deletion Reason: Below Screening Level (BSL)
Definitions: NA= Not Applicable
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level
SMCL = Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
J = Estimated Value
K= Estimated Value - Biased High
C = Carcinogen
N = Noncarcinogen
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 11
TABLE 2.2
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION, AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Air
Exposure
Point
Water Vapors
from SHowerhead
CAS
Number
117817
67663
75150
76448
108883
7429905
7440393
7440417
7439921
7439965
7440020
7440611
7440611
13982-63-3
Chemical
Bis(2-ethylhexyrjphthalate
Chloroform
Carbon Disulfide
Heptachlor
Toluene
Aluminum
Barium
Beryllium
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Uranium
Uranium 238
Radium 226
Minimum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
2J
0.6 J
0.3 J
2J
0.1 J
134 J
65 J
0.2 K
6J
1900
0.9 J
50
0.23
0.2
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
5J
9
4.5
33J
0.2 J
1340
489
1.5K
35J
12500
1.5J
500
80
11
Units
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
pCi/l
pCi/l
Location
of Maximum
Concentration
GW3D
GW3D
GW3D
GW4D
GW3D
GW3D
GW1D
GW2D
GW3D
GW1D
GW4D
GW1D
GW1D
GW1D
Detection
Frequency
4/12
3/12
3/12
6/12
3/12
2/12
6/12
3/12
4/12
6/12
3/12
12/12
12/12
12/12
Range of
Detection
Limits
3-4
1 -1
1 -1
0.01 - 0.01
1 -1
29 - 38.2
0.2-1
0.1-1
0.1-1
0.3-1
0.9-7
1 -2
NA
NA
Concentration
Used for
Screening (1)
5
9
4.5
33
0.2
1340
489
1.5
35
12500
1.5
500
NA
NA
Background
Value (2)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Screening
Toxicity Value (3)
(NIC)
4.8 C
0.063 C
100 N
0.01 5 C
75 N
3700 N
260 N
7.3 N
15
73 N
73 N
11 N
NA
NA
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Value
6
100
NA
0.4
1000
50 - 200
2000
4
15
50
NA
NA
NA
5
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
MCL
MCL
NA
MCL
MCL
SMCL
MCL
MCL
MCL
SMCL
NA
NA
NA
MCL
COPC
Flag
(Y/N)
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Rationale for
Selection or
Deletion (4)
ASL
ASL
BSL
ASL
BSL
BSL
ASL
BSL
ASL
ASL
BSL
ASL
DET
DET
(1) Maximum concentration used for screening chemicals. No screening was conducted for radionuclides;
all radionuclides detected are selected as COPCs.
(2) To date, no background study has been completed.
(3) All compounds were screened against the Risk-Based Concentration (RBC) Table, U.S. EPA Region III,
May8, 2001 for tap water (cancer benchmark = 1E-06; HQ = 0.1). Lead was screened against the
action level of 15 ug/l.
(4) Rationale Codes:
Selection Reason: Above Screening Level (ASL)
Detected at Site (DET)
Deletion Reason: Below Screen ing Level (BSL)
Definitions: NA = Not Applicable
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level
SMCL = Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
J = Estimated Value
K = Estimated Value - Biased High
C = Carcinogen
N = Noncarcinogen
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 11
TABLE 2.3
OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION, AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Soil
Exposure
Point
Soil at Site 1
CAS
Number
11096825
56553
50328
75150
72548
72559
50293
108883
7429905
7440417
7439921
7439965
7782492
7440611
7440611
13982-63-3
Chemical
Aroclor-1260
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Carbon Disulfide
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Toluene
Aluminum
Beryllium
Lead
Manganese
Selenium
Uranium
Uranium 238
Radium 226
Minimum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
15J
120 J
48 J
2J
1 J
0.44 J
0.69 J
1 J
1960
0.1 J
56 J
5.9
0.53 J
50
0.3
0.36
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
110J
230 J
70 J
33
4200
7200 J
290000 J
2J
21700
13.4
750 J
688
1
700
110
41
Units
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
pCi/g
pCi/g
Location
of Maximum
Concentration
SS03
SS03
SS03
SB07
SS09
SS09
SB08
SS08
SB07
SS06
SS03
SS03
SS02
SS03
SS03
SS02
Detection
Frequency
6/29
16/29
17/29
4/29
22/29
28/29
29/29
2/29
29/29
23/29
16/29
29/29
9/29
17/29
29/29
29/29
Range of
Detection
Limits
33 - 300
330 - 700
30-70
10-16
3.3-1900
2.2 - 700
3.3 - 700
10-16
6.3-11
0.02 - 0.21
10-16
0.05 - 0.5
0.43 - 0.75
1 -2
0.2-0.3
0.2-0.3
Concentration
Used for
Screening (1)
110
230
70
33
4200
7200
290000
2
21700
13.4
750
688
1
700
NA
NA
Background
Value (2)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Screening
Toxicity Value (3)
(NIC)
320 C
870 C
87 C
780000 N
2700 C
1900C
1900C
1 600000 N
7800 N
16N
400
160 N
39 N
610 N
NA
NA
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Value
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
CO PC
Flag
(YIN)
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Rationale for
Selection or
Deletion (4)
BSL
BSL
BSL
BSL
ASL
ASL
ASL
BSL
ASL
BSL
ASL
ASL
BSL
ASL
DET
DET
(1) Maximum concentration used for screening chemicals. No screening was conducted for radionuclides;
all radionuclides detected are selected as COPCs.
(2) To date, no background study has been completed.
(3) All compounds were screened against the Risk-Based Concentration (RBC) Table, U.S. EPA Region III,
May 8, 2001 for residential soil (cancer benchmark = 1E-06; HQ = 0.1). Lead was screened against the
U.S. EPA screening value of 400 mg/kg.
(4) Rationale Codes:
Selection Reason: Above Screening Level (ASL)
Detected at Site (DET)
Deletion Reason: Below Screening Level (BSL)
Definitions: NA = Not Applicable
J = Estimated Value
C = Carcinogen
N = Noncarcinogen
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 11
TABLE 3.1.RME
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Point
Aquifer 1 - Tap Water
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Heptachlor
Barium
Lead
Manganese
Uranium
Uranium 238
Radium 226
Units
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
pCi/l
pCi/l
Arithmetic
Mean
4
1.9
27
224
21
6052
62
3.2
3.5
95% UCL
(N/T)
5.5 (T)
14.9 (T)
30 0")
2835 (T)
32 (D
33449 (T)
375 (T)
8.3 (T)
4(T)
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
5 J
9
33 J
489
35 J
12500
500
80
11
Exposure Point Concentration
Value
5
9
30
489
32
12500
375
8.3
4
Units
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
pCi/l
pCi/l
Statistic
Max
Max
95% UCL - T
Max
95% UCL - T
Max
95% UCL - T
95% UCL - T
95% UCL - T
Rationale
W-Test (1 )
W-Test (1 )
W - Test (2)
W-Test (1)
W - Test (2)
W-Test (1)
W - Test (2)
W - Test (2)
W - Test (2)
Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Transformed Data (95% UCL - T)
(1) 95% UCL exceeds maximum detected concentration. Therefore, maximum concentration used for EPC.
(2) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are lognormally transformed.
T = Transformed
J = Estimated Value
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 11
TABLE 3.2.RME
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Air
Exposure Point
Water Vapors from
Showerhead
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Heptachlor
Units
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
Arithmetic
Mean
4
1.9
27
95% UCL
(Distribution)
5.5 (T)
14.9 0")
30 (T)
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
5 J
9
33 J
Exposure Point Concentration
Value
5
9
30
Units
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
Statistic
Max
Max
95% UCL - T
Rationale
W-Test (1)
W-Test (1)
W - Test (2)
Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Transformed Data (95% UCL - T)
(1) 95% UCL exceeds maximum detected concentration. Therefore, maximum concentration used for EPC.
(2) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are log-normally distributed.
T = Transformed
J = Estimated Value
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 11
TABLE 3.3.RME
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Soil
Exposure Point
Soil at Site 1
Chemical of
Potential Concern
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aluminum
Lead
Manganese
Uranium
Uranium 238
Radium 226
Units
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
pCi/g
pCi/g
Arithmetic
Mean
239
596
11007
7450
210
116
125
2.5
3.1
95% UCL
(N/T)
452 (T)
6793 (T)
28619 (N)
9964 (T)
345 (T)
201 (T)
675 (T)
3.4 (T)
3.9 (T)
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
4200
7200 J
290000 J
21700
750 J
688
700
110
41
Exposure Point Concentration
Value
452
6793
28619
9964
345
201
675
3.4
3.9
Units
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
pCi/g
pCi/g
Statistic
95 % UCL -T
95% UCL - T
95% UCL - N
95% UCL - T
95% UCL - T
95% UCL - T
95% UCL - T
95% UCL - T
95 % UCL - T
Rationale
W - Test (2)
W - Test (2)
W-Test (1)
W - Test (2)
W - Test (2)
W - Test (2)
W - Test (2)
W - Test (2)
W- Test (2)
Statistics: 95% UCL of Normal Data (95% UCL - N); 95% UCL of Transformed Data (95% UCL - T)
(1) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are normally distributed.
(2) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are lognormally transformed.
N = Normal
T = Transformed
J = Estimated Value
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 11
TABLE4.1.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
icenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Receptor Population
Resident
Receptor Age
Adult
Child
Exposure Point
Aquifer 1 - Tap Water
Aquifer 1 - Tap Water
Parameter
Code
CW
IR-W
EF
ED
BW
AT-C
AT-N
CWR
IR-W
EF
ED
CW
IR-W
EF
ED
BW
AT-C
AT-N
CWR
IR-W
EF
ED
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in Water
Ingestion Rate of Water
Exposure frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Cancer
Averaging Time - Non-Cancer
Radionuclide Concentration in Water
Ingestion Rate of Water
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Chemical Concentration in Water
Ingestion Rate of Water
Exposure frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Cancer
Averaging Time - Non-Cancer
Radionuclide Concentration in Water
Ingestion Rate of Water
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Value
See Table 3.1
2
350
24
70
25,550
8,760
See Table 3.1
2
350
24
See Table 3.1
1
350
6
15
25,550
2,190
See Table 3.1
1
350
6
Units
mg/l
I/day
days/year
years
kg
days
days
pCi/l
I/day
days/year
years
mg/l
I/day
days/year
years
kg
days
days
pCi/l
I/day
days/year
vears
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 3.1
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1989a
EPA, 1989a
See Table 3.1
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
See Table 3.1
EPA, 1989b
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1989a
EPA, 1989a
See Table 3.1
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA. 1991
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Chronic Daily Intake (GDI) (mg/kg/day) =
CWx IR-Wx EF X EDx 1/BWx 1/AT
Intake (pCi) = CWR x IR x EF x ED
CDI (mg/kg/day) =
CWx IR-Wx EF x EDx 1/BWx 1/AT
Intake (pCi) = CWR x IR x EF x ED
Page 1 of 3
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 11
TABLE4.1.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
icenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Route
Dermal
Receptor Population
Resident
Receptor Age
Adult
Exposure Point
Aquifer 1 - Tap Water
Parameter
Code
CW
FA
Kp
SA
tau-event
t-event
B
EV
EF
ED
CF
BW
AT-C
AT-N
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in Water
Fraction Absorbed Water
Permeability Constant
Skin Surface Area
Lag time per event
Event Duration
Ratio of permeability coefficient of a
compound through the stratum
corneum relative to its permeability
coefficient across the viable
epidermis
Event Frequency
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Volumetric Conversion Factor for Water
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Cancer
Averaaina Time - Non-Cancer
Value
See Table 3.1
Chemical Specific
Chemical Specific
18,000
Chemical Specific
0.58
Chemical Specific
1
350
24
0.001
70
25,550
8.760
Units
mg/l
cm/hr
cm2
hours/event
hours/event
events/day
days/year
years
I/cm 3
kg
days
davs
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 3.1
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 1991
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA. 2001
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Dermally Absorbed Dose (DAD) (mg/kg-day) =
DA-event X EV X ED X EF X SA X 1/BW X 1/AT
where for organic compounds,
Absorbed Dose per Event (DA-event) (mg/cm2-event) =
2 FA x Kp x CW x CF x SQRT{(6 x tau-event x t-event)/pi)
or
DA-event = FA x Kp x CW x {(t-event/(1 + B)) +
2 x tau-event x ( (1 + (3 x B) + (3 x B x B))/(1 + B)2)}
and where for inorganic compounds,
DA-event = Kp x CWx CF x t-event
Page 2 of 3
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 11
TABLE4.1.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
icenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Route
Dermal (continued)
Receptor Population
Resident (continued)
Receptor Age
Child
Exposure Point
Aquifer 1 - Tap Water
Parameter
Code
CW
FA
Kp
SA
tau-event
t-event
B
EV
EF
ED
CF
BW
AT-C
AT-N
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in Water
Fraction Absorbed Water
Permeability Constant
Skin Surface Area
Lag time per event
Event Duration
Ratio of permeability coefficient of a
compound through the stratum
corneum relative to its permeability
coefficient across the viable
epidermis
Event Frequency
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Volumetric Conversion Factor for Water
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Cancer
Averaaina Time - Non-Cancer
Value
See Table 3.1
Chemical Specific
Chemical Specific
6,600
Chemical Specific
1
Chemical Specific
1
350
6
0.001
15
25,550
2.190
Units
mg/l
cm/hr
cm2
hours/event
hours/event
events/day
days/year
years
I/cm 3
kg
days
days
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 3.1
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA. 2001
Intake Equation/
Model Name
DAD (mg/kg-day) =
DA-event x EV x ED x EF x SA x 1/BW x 1/AT
where for organic compounds,
DA-event (mg/cm2-event) =
2 FA x Kp x CW x CF x SQRT{(6 x tau-event x t-event)/pi}
or
DA-event = FA x Kp x CW x {(t-event/(1 + B)) +
2 x tau-event x ( (1 + (3 x B) + (3 x B x B))/(1 + B)2)}
and where for inorganic compounds,
DA-event = Kp x CWx CF x t-event
EPA1989a: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A. OERR EPA/540/1-89/002.
EPA 1989b: Exposure Factors Handbook, July 1989, EPA/600/8-89/043.
EPA 1991: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual - Supplemental Guidance, Standard Default Exposure Factors. Interim Final. OSWER 9285.6-03.
EPA 1992: Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications. EPA/600/8-91/011B.
EPA 1997: Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume 1. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa.
EPA 2001: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) Interim.
Page 3 of 3
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 11
TABLE 4.2.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Groundwater
Exposure Medium: Air
Exposure Route
Inhalation (1)
Receptor Population
Resident
Receptor Age
Adult
Exposure Point
Water Vapors from
Showerhead
Parameter
Code
(1)
Parameter Definition
(1)
Value
0)
Units
0)
Rationale/
Reference
(1)
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Foster and Chrostowski Model
(1) Refer to the Risk Assessment text for details on the modeled intake methodology and parameters used to calculate modeled intake values for the Foster and Chrostowski Shower Model.
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAM RLE SCENARIO 11
TABLE 4.3.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Soil
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Receptor Population
Resident
Receptor Age
Adult
Child
Exposure Point
Soil at Site 1
Soil at Site 1
Parameter
Code
CS
IR-S
Fl
EF
ED
CF1
BW
AT-C
AT-N
CSR
IR-S
EF
ED
CF1
CS
IR-S
Fl
EF
ED
CF1
BW
AT-C
AT-N
Parameter Definition
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Ingestion Rate of Soil
Fraction Ingested
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Cancer
Averaging Time - Non-Cancer
Radionuclide Concentration in Soil
Ingestion Rate of Soil
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Ingestion Rate of Soil
Fraction Ingested
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Cancer
Averaging Time - Non-Cancer
Value
See Table 3.3
100
1
350
24
1E-06
70
25,550
8,760
See Table 3.3
100
350
24
1.00E-03
See Table 3.3
200
1
350
6
1E-06
15
25,550
2.190
Units
mg/kg
mg/day
days/year
years
kg/mg
kg
days
days
pCi/g
mg/day
days/year
years
g/mg
mg/kg
mg/day
days/year
years
kg/mg
kg
days
davs
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 3.3
EPA, 1991
Professional Judgment
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1989
EPA, 1989
See Table 3.3
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
See Table 3.3
EPA, 1991
Professional Judgment
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1989
EPA. 1989
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Chronic Daily Intake (GDI) (mg/kg-day) =
CSxIRxFIx EFx ED X CF1 X 1/BWx 1/AT
Intake (pCi) = CSR X IR X CF X EF X ED
GDI (mg/kg-day) =
CSxIRxFIx EFx ED X CF1 X 1/BWx 1/AT
Page 1 of 3
December 2001
-------
EXAM RLE SCENARIO 11
TABLE 4.3.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Soil
Exposure Route
Ingestion (continued)
Dermal
Receptor Population
Resident (continued)
Resident
Receptor Age
Child (continued)
Adult
Child
Exposure Point
Soil at Site 1 (continued)
Soil at Site 1
Soil at Site 1
Parameter
Code
CSR
IR-S
EF
ED
CF1
CS
CF
SA
AF
ABS-d
EV
EF
ED
BW
AT-C
AT-N
CS
CF
SA
AF
ABS-d
EV
EF
ED
BW
AT-C
AT-N
Parameter Definition
Radionuclide Concentration in Soil
Ingestion Rate of Soil
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Conversion Factor
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor
Dermal Absorption Factor
Event Frequency
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Cancer
Averaging Time - Non-Cancer
Chemical Concentration in Soil
Conversion Factor
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor
Dermal Absorption Factor
Event Frequency
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Cancer
Averaqinq Time - Non-Cancer
Value
See Table 3.3
200
350
6
1.00E-03
See Table 3.3
1E-06
5,700
0.07
chemical- specific
1
350
24
70
25,550
8,760
See Table 3.3
1E-06
2,800
0.2
chemical- specific
1
350
6
15
25,550
2.190
Units
pCi/g
mg/day
days/year
years
g/mg
mg/kg
kg/mg
cm2
mg/cm2-event
unitless
events/day
days/year
years
kg
days
days
mg/kg
kg/mg
cm2
mg/cm2-event
unitless
events/day
days/year
years
kg
days
days
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 3.3
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
See Table 3.3
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 1991
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
See Table 3.3
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA, 2001
EPA. 2001
Intake Equation/
Model Name
Intake (pCi) = CSR X IR X CF X EF X ED
Dermal Absorbed Dose (DAD) (mg/kg-day) =
DA-event X EF X ED X EV X SA X 1/BW X 1/AT
where
Absorbed Dose per Event (DA-event) (mg/cm2-event) =
CS X CF X AF X ABS-d
DAD (mg/kg-day) =
DA-event X EF X ED X EV X SA X 1/BW X 1/AT
where
DA-event (mg/cm2-event) =
CS X CF X AF X ABS-d
Page 2 of 3
December 2001
-------
EXAM RLE SCENARIO 11
TABLE 4.3.RME
VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Soil
Exposure Route
External (Radiation)
Receptor Population
Resident
Receptor Age
Adult
Child
Exposure Point
Soil at Site 1
Soil at Site 1
Parameter
Code
CSR
ET
EF
Fi
Fo
GSFi
GSFo
ED
CF
CSR
ET
EF
Fi
Fo
GSFi
GSFo
ED
CF
Parameter Definition
Radionuclide Concentration in Soil
Exposure Time
Exposure Frequency
Time Fraction Indoors
Time Fraction Outdoors
Gamma Shielding Factor Indoors
Gamma Shielding Factor Outdoors
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor
Radionuclide Concentration in Soil
Exposure Time
Exposure Frequency
Time Fraction Indoors
Time Fraction Outdoors
Gamma Shielding Factor Indoors
Gamma Shielding Factor Outdoors
Exposure Duration
Conversion Factor
Value
See Table 3.3
17
350
0.75
0.25
0.8
1
24
0.000114
See Table 3.3
17
350
0.875
0.125
0.8
1
6
0.000114
Units
pCi/g
hrs/day
days/year
years
years/hr
pCi/g
hrs/day
days/year
years
vears/hr
Rationale/
Reference
See Table 3.3
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
See Table 3.3
EPA, 1991
EPA, 1991
Intake Equation/
Model Name
External Exposure (pCi-year/g) =
CSR x ET x EF x {(Fi x GSFi) + (Fo x GSFo)] x ED x CF
External Exposure (pCi-year/g) =
CSR x ET x EF x {(Fi x GSFi) + (Fo x GSFo)] x ED x CF
EPA 1989: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A. OERR EPA/540/1-89/002.
EPA 1991: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual - Supplemental Guidance, Standard Default Exposure Factors. Interim Final. OSWER 9285.6-03.
EPA 1995: Assessing Dermal Exposure from Soil, Technical Guidance Manual, Region III, EPA/903-K-95-003.
EPA 1997: Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume 1. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa.
EPA 2001: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) Interim.
NA = Not Available
Page 3 of 3
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 11
TABLE 5.1
NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- ORAL/DERMAL
The Dean Company
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDT
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Chloroform
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Aluminum
Barium
Barium
Copper
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese (nonfood)
Uranium
Chronic/
Subchronic
NA
NA
Chronic
Subchronic
Chronic
Subchronic
Chronic
Subchronic
Chronic
Subchronic
Chronic
Chronic
Subchronic
Chronic
Subchronic
Chronic
NA
Chronic
Chronic
Oral RfD
Value
NA
NA
5.0E-004
5.0E-004
2.0E-02
2.0E-02
1.0E-02
1.0E-02
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
1.0E+00
7.0E-02
7.0E-02
3.7E-02
3.7E-02
3.0E-01
NA
2.0E-02
3.0E-03
Units
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
Oral Absoprtion
Efficiency for Dermal (1)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.07
0.07
1
1
1
NA
0.04
1
Absorbed RfD for Dermal (2)
Value
NA
NA
5.0E-004
5.0E-004
2.0E-02
2.0E-02
1.0E-02
1.0E-02
5.0E-04
5.0E-04
1.0E+00
4.9E-03
4.9E-03
3.7E-02
3.7E-02
3.0E-01
NA
8.0E-04
3E-003
Units
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
Primary
Target
Organ(s)
NA
NA
Lwer
Lwer
Lwer
Lwer
Lwer
Lwer
Lwer
Lwer
Central Nervous System
Heart
Heart
Gastrointestinal
Gastrointestinal
Gastrointestinal
NA
Central Nervous System
Kidney
Combined
Uncertainty/Modifying
Factors
NA
NA
100
100
1000
1000
1000
1000
300
300
100
3
3
NA
NA
1
NA
1
1000
RfDTarget Organ(s)
Source(s)
NA
NA
IRIS
HE AST
IRIS
HE AST
IRIS
HE AST
IRIS
HE AST
NCEA
IRIS
HE AST
HE AST
HE AST
NCEA
NA
IRIS
IRIS
Date(s)
(MM/DDATYY)
NA
NA
06/21/2001
07/01/1997
06/21/2001
07/01/1997
06/21/2001
07/01/1997
06/21/2001
07/01/1997
06/21/2001
02/02/2001
07/01/1997
07/01/1997
07/01/1997
06/21/2001
NA
06/21/2001
06/21/2001
(1) Source: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health
Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) Interim.
Section 4.2 and Exhibit 4-1.
(2) See Risk Assessment text for the derivation of the "Absorbed RfD for Dermal".
NA = Not Available
IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System
HEAST = Health Effects Assessment Summary Table, July 1997
NCEA = National Center for Environmental Assessment
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 11
TABLE 5.2
NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- INHALATION
The Dean Company
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Chloroform
Heptachlor
Aluminum
Barium
Barium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese (nonfood)
Uranium
Chronic/
Subchronic
NA
NA
NA
NA
Chronic
Subchronic
NA
Chronic
Chronic
Subchronic
NA
NA
NA
Chronic
NA
Inhalation RfC
Value
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.0E-04
3.0E-03
NA
5.0E-03
5.0E-04
5.0E-03
NA
NA
NA
5.0E-05
NA
Units
NA
NA
NA
NA
mg/m3
mg/m3
NA
mg/m3
mg/m3
mg/m3
NA
NA
NA
mg/m3
NA
Extrapolated RfD (1)
Value
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.6E-05
8.6E-4
NA
1.4E-03
1.4E-04
1.4E-03
NA
NA
NA
1.4E-05
NA
Units
NA
NA
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
NA
Primary
Target
Organ(s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Nasal
Nasal
NA
Central Nervous System
Fetus
Fetus
NA
NA
NA
Central Nervous System
NA
Combined
Uncertainty/Modifying
Factors
NA
NA
NA
NA
1000
100
NA
300
1000
100
NA
NA
NA
1000
NA
RfC : Target Organ
Source(s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NCEA
NCEA
NA
NCEA
HEAST
HEAST
NA
NA
NA
IRIS
NA
Date(s)
(MM/DD/YYYY)
NA
NA
NA
NA
06/21/2001
06/21/2001
NA
06/21/2001
07/01/1997
07/01/1997
NA
NA
NA
06/21/2001
NA
(1) See Risk Assessment text for the derivation of the "Extrapolated RfD".
Definitions: NA = Not Available
IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System
HEAST = Health Effects Assessment Summary Table, July 1997
NCEA = National Center for Environmental Assessment
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 11
TABLE 0
SITE RISK ASSESSMENT IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION
The Dean Company
Site Name/OU: The Dean Company
Region:
EPA ID Number: PAD999999999
State: PA
Status: Fund Lead Remedial Investigation
Federal Facility (Y/N): N
EPA Project Manager: John Smith
EPA Risk Assessor: Jane Doe
Document Author: Mary Smith-Johnson
Document Title: Human Health Risk Assessment for the Dean Company Site
Document Date: Augusts, 2001
Comments: This site is contaminated with both chemical and radioactive compounds.
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 11
TABLE 5.3
NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- SPECIAL CASE CHEMICALS
The Dean Company
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Chronic/
Subchronic
Parameter
Name
Value
N«
Units
rtAp
Primary Target
Organ(s)
plicabk
Combined
Uncertainty/Modifying
Factors
i
*
ParameterTarget Organ(s)
Source(s)
Date(s)
(MM/DD/YYYY)
There are no special case chemicals in this risk assessment. As a result, the table is blank.
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 11
TABLE 6.1
CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- ORAL/DERMAL
The Dean Company
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Heptachlor
Aluminum
Barium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese (nonfood)
Uranium
Oral Cancer Slope Factor
Value
2.4E-01
3.4E-01
3.4E-001
1.4E-02
6.1E-03
4.5E+00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Units
1/mg/kg/day
1/mg/kg/day
1/mg/kg/day
1/mg/kg/day
1/mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Oral Absorption
Efficiency for Dermal (1)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.07
1
1
NA
0.04
NA
Absorbed Cancer Slope Factor
for Dermal (2)
Value
2.4E-01
3.4E-01
3.4E-001
1.4E-02
6.1E-03
4.5E+00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Units
1/mg/kg/day
1/mg/kg/day
1/mg/kg/day
1/mg/kg/day
1/mg/kg/day
1/mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Weight of Evidence/
Cancer Guideline
Description
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Oral CSF
Source(s)
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Date(s)
(MM/DD/YYYY)
06/21/2001
06/21/2001
06/21/2001
06/21/2001
06/21/2001
06/21/2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(1) Source: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health
Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) Interim.
Section 4.2 and Exhibit 4-1.
(2) See Risk Assessment text for the derivation of the "Absorbed Cancer Slope Factor for Dermal".
Definitions: NA = Not Available
IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System
B2 = Probable Human Carcinogen - indicates sufficient evidence
in animals and inadequate or no evidence in humans
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 11
TABLE 6.3
CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- SPECIAL CASE CHEMICALS
The Dean Company
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Parameters
Name
Value
Not Applicj
Units
able
Source(s)
Date(s)
(MM/DD/YYYY)
There are no special case chemicals in this risk assessment. As a result, this table is blank.
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 11
TABLE 6.2
CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- INHALATION
The Dean Company
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
4,4'-DDD
4,4-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Heptachlor
Aluminum
Barium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese (nonfood)
Uranium
Unit Risk
Value
NA
NA
9.7E-005
NA
2.3E-05
1.3E-03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Units
NA
NA
1/ug/m3
NA
1/ug/m3
1/ug/m3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Inhalation Cancer Slope Factor
Value
NA
NA
3.4E-001
NA
8.1E-02
4.5E+00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Units
NA
NA
1/mg/kg/day
NA
1/mg/kg/day
1/mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Weight of Evidence/
Cancer Guideline
Description
NA
NA
B2
NA
B2
B2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Unit Risk : Inhalation CSF
Source(s)
NA
NA
IRIS
NA
IRIS
IRIS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Date(s)
(MM/DD/YYYY)
NA
NA
06/21/2001
NA
06/21/2001
06/21/2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Definitions: NA = Not Available
IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System
B2 = Probable Human Carcinogen - indicates sufficient evidence
in animals and inadequate or no evidence in humans
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 11
TABLE 6.4
CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- EXTERNAL (RADIATION)
The Dean Company
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Uranium 238
Radium 226
Cancer Slope Factor
Value
6.2E-011
5.3E-008
3.0E-010
6.7E-006
Units
Risk/pCi
Risk/year per pCi/g soil
Risk/pCi
Risk/year per pCi/g soil
Source(s)
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
Date(s)
(MM/DD/YYYY)
07/01/1997
07/01/1997
07/01/1997
07/01/1997
HEAST = Health Effects Assessment Summary Table, July 1997
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 11
TABLE 7.1.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
ReceotorAae: Adult
Medium
Groundwater
Groundwater Total
Exposure Medium
Groundwater
Exposure Medium Total
Air
Exposure Point
Aquifer 1 - Tap Water
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Exp. Route Total
Dermal
Exp. Route Total
Chemical of
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Heptachlor
Barium
Lead (1)
Manganese
Uranium
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Heptachlor
Barium
Lead (1)
Manganese
Uranium
EPC
Value
0.005
0.009
0.03
0.489
12.5
0.375
0.005
0.009
0.03
0.489
12.5
0.375
Units
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
Water Vapors from
Showerhead
Exposure Point Total
Inhalation
Exp. Route Total
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Heptachlor
0.005
0.009
0.03
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
Exposure Medium Total
Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Value
4.7E-005
8.5E-005
2.8E-004
4.6E-003
1.2E-001
3.8E-05
7.2E-005
1.7E-004
1.3E-004
NA
NA
NA
Units
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
CSF/Unit Risk
Value
1 .4E-002
6.1E-003
4.5E+000
NA
NA
NA
1 .4E-002
6.1E-003
4.5E-HDOO
NA
NA
NA
Units
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
2.3E-006
1.3E-004
2.6E-004
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
8.1E-002
4.5E-HDOO
NA
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
Cancer Risk
7E-007
5E-007
1E-003
NA
NA
NA
1E-003
It-UUb
1E-006
6E-004
NA
NA
NA
6E-004
2E-003
2E-003
NA
1E-005
1E-003
1E-003
1E-003
1E-003
3E-003
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Value
1 .4E-004
2.5E-004
8.1E-004
1.3E-002
3.4E-001
1 .OE-02
2.1E-004
4.9E-004
3.9E-004
NA
NA
NA
Units
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
RfD/RfC
Value
2.0E-002
1 .OE-002
5.0E-004
7.0E-002
2.0E-002
3.0E-03
2.2E-002
1 .OE-002
5.0E-004
NA
NA
NA
Units
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
3.6E-006
3.9E-004
7.7E-004
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
8.6E-005
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
NA
Hazard Quotient
0.007
0.03
2
0.2
17
3
22
U.U1
0.05
0.8
NA
NA
NA
0.9
23
23
NA
5
NA
5
5
5
28
Page 1 of 2
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 11
TABLE 7.1.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Soil
Soil Total
Exposure Medium
Soil
Exposure Medium Total
Exposure Point
Soil at Site 1
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Exp. Route Total
Dermal
Exp. Route Total
Chemical of
4,4'- ODD
4,4'- DDE
4,4'- DDT
Aluminum
Lead (1)
Manganese
Uranium
EPC
Value
0.452
6.8
28.6
9964
201
675
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
4, 4'- ODD
4,4'- DDE
4,4'- DDT
Aluminum
Lead (1)
Manganese
Uranium
U.4b^
6.8
28.6
9964
201
675
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Value
2.1 E-07
3.2E-06
1 .3E-005
4.7E-003
9.5E-005
3.2E-004
Units
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
CSF/Unit Risk
Value
2.4E-01
3.4E-001
3.4E-001
NA
NA
NA
Units
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.6E-006
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.4E-001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1 /mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media
Cancer Risk
5E-08
1E-06
5E-06
NA
NA
NA
6E-06
NA
NA
5E-007
NA
NA
NA
5E-07
7E-006
7E-006
7E-006
3E-003
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Value
6.2E-07
9.3E-06
3.9E-05
1.4E-02
2.8E-04
9.2E-04
Units
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
RfD/RfC
Value
NA
NA
5.0E-04
1.0E+00
1 .4E-01
3.0E-03
Units
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
4.7E-06
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.0E-04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Media
Hazard Quotient
NA
NA
0.08
0.01
0.002
0.3
0.4
NA
NA
0.009
NA
NA
NA
0.009
0.4
0.4
0.4
28
/aluated for the resident using the IEUBK model. See Risk Assessment text for discussion of results and appendix for the lead modeling run results.
Page 2 of 2
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 11
TABLE 7.2.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Medium
Uroundwater
Groundwater Total
Soil
Exposure Medium
Uroundwater
Exposure Medium Total
Exposure Point
Aquifer 1 - 1 ap Water
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Exp. Route Total
Dermal
Exp. Route Total
Chemical of
Potential Concern
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Heptachlor
Barium
Lead (1)
Manganese
Uranium
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Heptachlor
Barium
Lead (1)
Manganese
Uranium
EPC
Value
U.UUb
0.009
0.03
0.489
12.5
0.005
0.009
0.03
0.489
12.5
Units
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
Soil
Soil at Site 1
Ingestion
Exp. Route Total
4,4'- ODD
4,4'- DDE
4,4- DDT
Aluminum
Lead (1)
Manganese
Uranium
0.452
6.8
28.6
9964
201
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Value
Z/t-UUb
4.9E-005
1.6E-004
2.7E-003
6.8E-002
2.1E-003
3.1E-005
7.2E-005
5.7E-005
NA
NA
NA
Units
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
CSF/Unit Risk
Value
1.4t-UU>
6.1E-003
4.5E+000
NA
NA
NA
1 .4E-002
6.1E-003
4.5E-HDOO
NA
NA
NA
Units
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
5.0E-07
7.4E-06
3.1E-005
1.1E-002
2.2E-004
7.4E-004
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
2.4E-01
3.4E-001
3.4E-001
NA
NA
NA
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
1 /mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
Cancer Risk
4t-UU/
3E-007
7E-004
NA
NA
NA
7E-004
4E-007
4E-007
3E-004
NA
NA
NA
3E-004
1E-003
1E-003
1E-003
1E-07
3E-06
1E-005
NA
NA
NA
1E-005
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
Value
b.^t-UU4
5.8E-004
1.9E-003
3.1E-002
8.0E-001
2.4E-002
3.6E-004
8.4E-004
6.7E-004
NA
NA
NA
Units
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
RfD/RfC
Value
ZUt-UU2
1 .OE-002
5.0E-004
7.0E-002
2.0E-002
3.0E-003
2.2E-002
1. OE-002
5.0E-004
NA
NA
NA
Units
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
5.8E-06
8.7E-05
3.7E-004
1 .3E-001
2.6E-003
8.6E-003
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
5.0E-04
1.0E+00
1 .4E-01
3.0E-003
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
mg/kg/day
Hazard Quotient
U.U2
0.06
4
0.4
40
8
52
0.02
0.08
1
NA
NA
NA
1
1
53
53
NA
NA
0.7
0.1
0.02
3
4
Page 1 of 2
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 11
TABLE 7.2.RME
CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Medium
Soil (continued)
Exposure Medium
Soil (continued)
Exposure Point
Soil at Site 1 (continued)
txposure Point lotal
Exposure Route
Dermal
Exp. Route Total
Chemical of
Potential Concern
4, 4'- ODD
4,4'- DDE
4,4- DDT
Aluminum
Lead (1)
Manganese
Uranium
EPC
Value
0.452
6.8
28.6
9964
201
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Exposure Medium Total
Soil Total
Cancer Risk Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
NA
NA
2.6E-006
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
CSF/Unit Risk
NA
NA
3.4E-001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1 /mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media
Cancer Risk
NA
NA
9E-007
NA
NA
NA
9E-07
1E-005
1E-005
1E-005
1E-03
Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Intake/Exposure Concentration
NA
NA
3.1E-005
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
RfD/RfC
NA
NA
5.0E-004
NA
MA
NA
NA
NA
mg/kg/day
NA
NA
NA
Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Media
Hazard Quotient
NA
NA
0.06
NA
NA
NA
0.06
4
4
4
57
(1) Lead is evaluated for the resident using the IEUBK model. See Risk Assessment text for discussion of results and appendb< for the lead modeling run results.
Page 2 of 2
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 11
TABLE 8.2
CALCULATION OF RADIATION CANCER RISKS
The Smith Company
icenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Medium
Groundwater
Exposure Medium
Groundwater
[(Exposure Medium Total
Exposure Point
Aquifer 1 - Tap Water
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Exp. Route Total
Radionuclide of Potential Concern
Uranium 238
Radium 226
EPC
Value
8.3E+000
4.0E+000
Units
pCi/l
pCi/l
Groundwater Total
Soil
Soil
[(Exposure Medium Tola
Soil at Site 1
Ingestion
Exp. Route Total
External (Radiation)
Exp. Route Total
Uranium 238
Radium 226
Uranium 238
Radium 226
3.4E+000
3.9E+000
3.4E+000
3.9E+000
pCi/g
pCi/g
pCi/g
pCi/g
Exposure Point Total
Soil Total
Risk Calculation
Approach
USEPA RAGS
USEPA RAGS
Cancer Risk Calcu
Intake/External Dose
Value
1.7E+004
8.4E+003
Units
pCi
pCi
ations
CSF/Conversion Factor
Value
6.2E-011
3.0E-010
Units
Risk/pCi
Risk/pCi
USEPA RAGS
USEPA RAGS
USEPA RAGS
USEPA RAGS
1.4E+003
1.6E+003
1.1E+001
1.3E+001
pCi
pCi
pCi-yr/g
pCi-yr/g
6.2E-011
3.0E-010
5.3E-008
6.7E-006
Risk/pCi
Risk/pCi
Risk/yr per pCi/
g soil
Risk/yr per pCi/
g soil
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media =
Cancer Risk
1E-006
3E-006
4E-006
4E-006
4E-006
4E-006
9E-008
5E-007
6E-007
6E-007
9E-005
9E-005
9E-005
9E-005
9E-005
9E-005
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXAM RLE SCENARIO 11
RADIATION DOSE ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Groundwater
Soil
Exposure Medium
Groundwater
Soil
Exposure Point
Aquifer 1 - Tap Water
Exposure Point Total
Soil at Site 1
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Route
Ingestion
Exp. Route Total
Ingestion
Exp. Route Total
External (Radiation)
Exp. Route Total
Radionuclide of
Potential Concern
Uranium 238
Radium 226
Uranium 238
Radium 226
Uranium 238
Radium 226
EPC
Value
8.3E+000
4.0E+000
3.4E+000
3.9E+000
3.4E+000
3.9E+000
Units
pCi/l
pCi/l
pCi/g
pCi/g
pCi/g
pCi/g
Dose
Approach
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Internal/External Dose
Value
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Units
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Standard for
Comparison(l)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Conversion Factor
Value
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Units
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Source
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Risk
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA= Not Applicable
Total of Receptor Dose Across All Media H
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media
Page 1
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 11
TABLE 9.1.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Groundwater
Exposure
Medium
Groundwater
Exposure
Point
Aquifer 1 - Tap Water
Exoosure Point Total
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Heptachlor
Barium
Lead (1)
Manganese
Uranium
Chemical Total
Uranium 238
Radium 226
Radionudide Total
Exposure Medium Total
Air
Water Vapors from
Showerhead
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Heptachlor
Barium
Lead (1)
Manganese
Uranium
Chemical Total
Radionudide Total
Exoosure Point Total
Exoosure Medium Total
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
7E-07
5E-07
1E-03
1E-03
9E-06
2E-05
3E-05
Inhalation
Dermal
1E-06
1E-06
6E-04
6E-04
External
(Radiation)
1E-05
1E-03
1E-03
Exposure
Routes Total
2E-06
2E-06
2E-03
2E-03
9E-06
2E-05
3E-05
2E-03
2E-03
1E-05
1E-03
1E-03
1E-03
1E-03
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Taraet Oraanfs)
Lwer
Lwer
Lwer
Heart
Central Nervous System
Kidneys
Ingestion
0.007
0.03
2
0.2
17
3
22
Inhalation
Dermal
0.01
0.05
0.8
0.9
Lwer
5
5
Exposure
Routes Total
0.02
0.08
3
0.2
17
3
23
23
23
5
5
5
5
Page 1 of 3
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 11
TABLE 9.1.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Groundwater Total
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion Inhalation Dermal External
(Radiation!
Exposure
Routes Total
3E-03
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Taraet Oraanfsl
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
28
Page 2 of 3
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 11
TABLE 9.1.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Soil
Exposure
Medium
Soil
Exposure
Point
Soil at Site 1
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aluminum
Lead (1)
Manganese
Uranium
Chemical Total
Uranium 238
Radium 226
Radionudide Total
Exoosure Point Total
Exoosure Medium Total
Soil Total
Receptor Total
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
5E-08
1E-06
5E-06
6E-06
2E-07
1E-006
1E-06
Inhalation
Dermal
5E-07
5E-07
External
(Radiation)
2E-06
4E-04
4E-04
Exposure
Routes Total
5E-08
1E-06
6E-06
7E-06
2E-06
4E-04
4E-04
4E-04
4E-04
4E-04
3E-03
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Taraet Oraanfs)
Lwer
Central Nervous System
Central Nervous System
Kidney
Ingestion
0.08
0.01
0.002
03
0.4
Inhalation
Dermal
0.009
0.009
Exposure
Routes Total
0.09
0.01
0.002
03
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
28
Total Risk Across All Media
3E-03
(1) Lead is evaluated for the resident using the lEUBKmodel. See Risk Assessment text for discussion of results
and appendix for the lead modeling run results.
Total Hazard Across All Media
Total Liver HI Across All Media =
Total Kidney HI Across All Media =
Total Central Nervous System HI Across All Media =
Page 3 of 3
December 2001
-------
EXAM RLE SCENARIO 11
TABLE 9.2.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
icenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Medium
Groundwater
Groundwater Tot
Exposure
Medium
Groundwater
Exposure
Point
Aquifer 1 - Tap Water
Exposure Point Total
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Heptachlor
Barium
Lead(1)
Manganese
Uranium
Chemical Total
Uranium 238
Radium 226
Radionuclide Total
Exposure Medium Total
a
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
4E-07
3E-07
7E-04
7E-04
1E-06
3E-06
4E-06
Inhalation
Dermal
4E-07
4E-07
3E-04
3E-04
External
(Radiation)
Exposure
Routes Total
8E-07
7E-07
1E-03
1E-03
1E-06
3E-06
4E-06
1E-03
1E-03
1E-03
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ(s)
Liver
Liver
Liver
Heart
Central Nervous System
Kidney
Ingestion
0.02
0.06
4
0.4
40
8
52
Inhalation
Dermal
0.02
0.08
1
1
Exposure
Routes Total
0.04
0.1
5
0.4
40
8
53
53
53
53
Page 1 of 2
December 2001
-------
EXAM RLE SCENARIO 11
TABLE 9.2.RME
SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
icenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Medium
Soil
Soil Total
Exposure
Medium
Soil
Exposure
Point
Soil at Site 1
Exposure Point Total
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aluminum
Lead(1)
Manganese
Uranium
Chemical Total
Uranium 238
Radium 226
Radionuclide Total
Exposure Medium Total
Receptor Total
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
1E-07
3E-06
1E-05
1E-05
9E-08
5E-07
6E-07
Inhalation
Dermal
9E-07
9E-07
External
(Radiation)
6E-07
9E-05
9E-05
Exposure
Routes Total
1E-07
3E-06
1E-05
1E-05
7E-07
9E-05
9E-05
1E-04
1E-04
1E-04
1E-03
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Target Organ(s)
Liver
Central Nervous System
Central Nervous System
Kidney
Ingestion
0.7
0.1
0.02
3
4
Inhalation
Dermal
0.06
0.06
Exposure
Routes Total
0.8
0.1
0.02
3
4
4
4
4
57
Total Risk Across All Media
Total Hazard Across All Media
(1) Lead is evaluated for the resident using the IEUBK model. See Risk Assessment text for discussion of results
and appendix for the lead modeling run results.
Total Liver HI Across All Media =
Total Kidney HI Across All Media =
Total Central Nervous System HI Across All Media =
Page 2 of 2
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 11
TABLE 10.1.RME
RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Groundwater
Exposure
Medium
Groundwater
Exposure
Point
Aquifer 1 - Tap Water
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloroform
Heptachlor
Manganese
Uranium
Chemical Total
Uranium 238
Radium 226
Radionudide Total
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Medium Total
Air
Water Vapors from
Showerhead
Exoosure Point Total
Chloroform
Heptachlor
Chemical Total
Radionudide Total
Exoosure Medium Total
Groundwater Tota
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
7E-07
5E-07
1E-03
1E-03
9E-06
2E-05
3E-05
Inhalation
Dermal
1E-06
1E-06
6E-04
6E-04
External
(Radiation)
1E-05
1E-03
1E-03
Exposure
Routes Total
2E-06
2E-06
2E-03
2E-03
9E-06
2E-05
3E-05
2E-03
2E-03
1E-05
1E-03
1E-03
1E-03
1E-03
3E-03
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Taraet Oraanfs)
Lwer
Central Nervous System
Kidney
Ingestion
2
17
3
22
Inhalation
Dermal
0.8
0.8
Lwer
5
5
Exposure
Routes Total
3
17
3
23
23
23
5
5
5
5
28
Page 1 of 2
December 2001
-------
EXAMPLE SCENARIO 11
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
TABLE 10.1.RME
RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
Medium
Soil
Exposure
Medium
Soil
Exposure
Point
Soil at Site 1
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Chemical Total
Uranium 238
Radium 226
Radionudide Total
Exoosure Point Total
Exoosure Medium Total
Soil Total
Receptor Total
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
1E-06
5E-06
6E-06
2E-07
1E-006
1E-06
Inhalation
Dermal
5E-007
5E-07
External
2E-06
4E-04
4E-04
Exposure
1E-06
6E-06
7E-06
2E-06
4E-04
4E-04
4E-04
4E-04
4E-04
3E-03
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
28
Total Risk Across All Media
Cancer risks presented are those greater than 1E-06; Non-cancer risks presented are those greater than 1.
Total Hazard Across All Media
Total Liver HI Across All Media =
Total Kidney HI Across All Media =
Total Central Nervous System HI Across All Media =
Page 2 of 2
December 2001
-------
EXAM RLE SCENARIO 11
TABLE 10.2.RME
RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
The Dean Company
icenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Medium
Groundwater
iroundwater Tola
Soil
Soil Total
Exposure
Medium
Groundwater
Exposure
Point
Aquifer 1 - Tap Water
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Heptachlor
Manganese
Uranium
Chemical Total
Uranium 238
Radium 226
Radionuclide Total
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Medium Total
Soil
Soil at Site 1
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Uranium
Chemical Total
Radium 226
Radionuclide Total
Exposure Point Total
Exposure Medium Total
Receptor Total
Carcinogenic Risk
Ingestion
7E-04
7E-04
1E-06
3E-06
4E-06
Inhalation
--
..
Dermal
3E-04
3E-04
--
--
External
(Radiation)
3E-006
1E-05
1E-05
5E-07
6E-07
--
9E-07
9E-07
9E-05
9E-05
Exposure
Routes Total
1E-03
1E-03
1E-06
3E-06
4E-06
1E-03
1E-03
1E-03
3E-06
1E-05
1E-05
9E-05
9E-05
1E-04
1E-04
1E-04
1E-03
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Primary
Taraet Oraan(s)
Liver
Central Nervous System
Kidney
Ingestion
4
40
8
52
Inhalation
;;
Dermal
1
1
Kidney
3
3
--
--
Exposure
Routes Total
5
40
8
53
53
53
53
3
3
3
3
3
56
Total Risk Across All Media
Total Hazard Across All Media
Cancer risks presented are those greater than 1E-06; Non-cancer risks presented are those greater than 1.
Total Liver HI Across All Media =
Total Kidney HI Across All Media =
Total Central Nervous System HI Across All Media =
Page 1 of 1
December 2001
-------
EXHIBIT 1- 2
GUIDELINES FOR PART D APPLICABILITY
SITE LEAD
Fund Lead
Federal Facility Lead
PRP Lead
State Lead
PART D APPLICABLE
/
/
/
/
SITE TYPE1
Remedial:
Scoping, RI/FS, Risk Assessment, Proposed Plan, ROD,
RD/RA, Presumptive Remedy
Post-Remedial:
BSD, Amended ROD,
Five-Year Review
Removal:
Non-time Critical, Time-Critical, Streamlined
SACM3
RCRA Corrective Action4
/
/
2
/
2
Notes:
1 The RAGS Part D Workgroup also suggests that RAGS Part D could be a useful tool for quantitative risk assessment for non-NPL, BRAC, and
Brownfields sites and encourages its use.
2 RAGS Part D use is encouraged as appropriate.
3 Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model.
4 As described in the September 1996 EPA memorandum on Coordination Between Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Corrective Action and Closure andCERCLA Site Activities, EPA is "...committed to the principle of parity between the RCRA corrective
action and CERCLA programs...".
1-5
December 2001
-------
EXHIBIT 3-1
INTERIM DELIVERABLES FOR EACH SITE
Interim Deliverable
Scope of Deliverable
INTERIM DELIVERABLES ASSOCIATED WITH PLANNING TABLE 0
TARA Schedule Worksheet
Planning Table 0 - Site Risk Assessment
Identification Information
One Worksheet for each Risk Assessment.
One Planning Table for each Risk Assessment.
INTERIM DELIVERABLES ASSOCIATED WITH PLANNING TABLE 1
Planning Table 1 - Selection of Exposure Pathways
One Planning Table for each Risk Assessment.
INTERIM DELIVERABLES ASSOCIATED WITH PLANNING TABLE 2
Data Useability Worksheet
Supporting Information on Background Values
Planning Table 2 - Occurrence, Distribution, and
Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs)
One Worksheet for each Medium.
Information for all Chemicals listed in Planning Table
2.
One Planning Table for each unique combination of
Scenario Timeframe, Medium, and Exposure Medium.
INTERIM DELIVERABLES ASSOCIATED WITH PLANNING TABLE 3
Supporting Information on EPCs
Planning Table 3 - Exposure Point Concentration
(EPC) Summary
Information for all EPCs presented in Planning Table
3.
One Planning Table for each unique combination of
Scenario Timeframe, Medium, and Exposure Medium.
INTERIM DELIVERABLES ASSOCIATED WITH PLANNING TABLE 4
Supporting Information on Modeled Intake
Methodology and Parameters
Supporting Information on Chemical-Specific
Parameters
Dermal Worksheet
Planning Table 4 - Values Used for Daily Intake
Calculations
Information for all Modeled Intake calculations that are
not presented in Planning Table 4.
Information for all Chemical-Specific Parameters used.
Information for calculation of DA(event).
One Planning Table for each unique combination of
Scenario Timeframe, Medium, and Exposure Medium.
INTERIM DELIVERABLES ASSOCIATED WITH PLANNING TABLES 5 AND 6
Supporting Information on Toxicity Data for
Special Case Chemicals
Planning Table 5 - Non-Cancer Toxicity Data
Information for each Special Case Chemical.
Three Planning Tables - 5. 1 for Oral/Dermal, 5.2 for
Inhalation, and 5.3 for Special Case Chemicals.
3-16
December 2001
-------
EXHIBIT 3-1
INTERIM DELIVERABLES FOR EACH SITE (continued)
Interim Deliverable
Planning Table 6 - Cancer Toxicity Data
Scope of Deliverable
Four Planning Tables -6.1 for Oral/Dermal, 6.2 for
Inhalation, 6.3 for Special Case Chemicals, and 6.4 for
External (Radiation).
INTERIM DELIVERABLES ASSOCIATED WITH PLANNING TABLES 7 AND 8
Supporting Information on Special Chemical Risk
and Hazard Calculations
Planning Table 7 - Calculation of Chemical Cancer
Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards
Radiation Dose Assessment Worksheet
Planning Table 8 - Calculation of Radiation Cancer
Risks
Information for each Special Case Chemical.
One Planning Table for each unique combination of
Scenario Timeframe, Receptor Population, and
Receptor Age, for RME and for CT.
One Worksheet for each unique combination of
Scenario Timeframe, Receptor Population, and
Receptor Age (as appropriate).
One Planning Table for each unique combination of
Scenario Timeframe, Receptor Population and
Receptor Age.
INTERIM DELIVERABLES ASSOCIATED WITH PLANNING TABLES 9 AND 10
Planning Table 9 - Summary of Receptor Risks and
Hazards for COPCs
Planning Table 10 - Risk Summary
One Planning Table for each unique combination of
Scenario Timeframe, Receptor Population, and
Receptor Age, for RME and CT.
One Planning Table for each unique combination of
Scenario Timeframe, Receptor Population, and
Receptor Age, for RME and CT.
INTERIM DELIVERABLES ASSOCIATED WITH LEAD
Lead Worksheets (if applicable)
Separate Worksheets for Residential and Non-
Residential Scenarios for each unique combination of
Scenario Timeframe, Receptor Population, and
Receptor Age.
INTERIM DELIVERABLES ASSOCIATED WITH UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Confidence and Uncertainty
One Assessment for each Risk Assessment.
INTERIM DELIVERABLES ASSOCIATED WITH PROBABILISTIC ANALYSIS
Summary of Probabilistic Analysis (if applicable)
One Summary for each Risk Assessment.
3-17
December 2001
-------
EXHIBIT 3-1
INTERIM DELIVERABLES FOR EACH SITE (continued)
Interim Deliverable
Scope of Deliverable
INTERIM DELIVERABLES ASSOCIATED WITH THE ROD
ROD Risk Worksheets
As appropriate to document (in draft form) the need for
remedial action.
Notes:
1. Each Interim Deliverable should be reviewed and verified by EPA prior to submission of the Draft Baseline Risk Assessment Report.
2. Each Interim Deliverable should later be incorporated in the Draft and Final Baseline Risk Assessment Reports.
3. The Interim Deliverables are needed for each risk assessment to achieve standardization in risk assessment reporting.
3-18 December 2001
-------
EXHIBIT 3-2
STANDARDIZED RISK ASSESSMENT REPORTING
Risk Assessment Activity
Corresponding Planning Table/Worksheet
Data Collection
Provide identification information for the risk
assessment
Plan the risk assessment review process
Develop a conceptual site model
Gather and report appropriate data
Planning Table 0 - Site Risk Assessment Identification
Information
TARA Schedule Worksheet
Planning Table 1 - Selection of Exposure Pathways
Planning Table 2 - Occurrence, Distribution, and
Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern
Data Evaluation
Evaluate detection frequency, background data, and
site data
Identify chemicals of potential concern and provide
rationale for selection and deletion
Data Useability Worksheet
Planning Table 2 - Occurrence, Distribution, and
Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern
Planning Table 2 - Occurrence, Distribution, and
Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern
Exposure Assessment
Characterize physical setting, identify potential
pathways and exposed population
Identify exposure assumptions
Estimate exposure point concentrations
Estimate exposure intakes
Planning Table 1 - Selection of Exposure Pathways
Planning Table 4 - Values Used for Daily Intake
Calculations
Dermal Worksheet
Planning Table 3 - Exposure Point Concentration
Summary
Planning Table 7 - Calculation of Chemical Cancer
Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards
Planning Table 8 - Calculation of Radiation Cancer
Risks
Toxicity Assessment
Determine toxicity values for carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic effects and provide source information
Planning Table 5 - Non-Cancer Toxicity Data
Planning Table 6 - Cancer Toxicity Data
3-19
December 2001
-------
EXHIBIT 3-2
STANDARDIZED RISK ASSESSMENT REPORTING (continued)
Risk Assessment Activity
Corresponding Planning Table/Worksheet
Risk Characterization
Quantify cancer and non-cancer risk by pathway
Combine risks by media for different receptors
Summarize risk drivers for different receptors
Prepare draft risk documentation for ROD
Planning Table 7 - Calculation of Chemical Cancer
Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards
Planning Table 8 - Calculation of Radiation Cancer
Risks
Radiation Dose Assessment Worksheet
Planning Table 9 - Summary of Receptor Risks and
Hazards for COPCs
Planning Table 10 - Risk Summary
ROD Risk Worksheets
3-20
December 2001
-------
EXHIBIT 3-3
SUMMARY OF RAGS PART D
REVISION 1 CHANGES
PLANNING TABLE/WORKSHEET
REVISION 1 CHANGES
Planning Table 0
This is a new Planning Table.
TARA Schedule Worksheet
This is a new Worksheet.
Planning Table 1
Revision 1 does not include the On-Site/Off-Site field from
Revision 0.
Data Useability Worksheet
The Revision 1 Worksheet is the same as the Revision 0
Worksheet.
Planning Table 2
Exposure Point was moved from the last row of the Summary
Box (Revision 0) to the first column of the table (Revision 1).
This may reduce the number of versions of Planning Table 2
needed for some sites. The Qualifier information for Minimum
and Maximum Concentrations has been moved to the
corresponding Concentration fields.
Planning Table 3
In Revision 1, separate versions of this table should be prepared
for RME and CT. Exposure Point was moved from the last row
of the Summary Box (Revision 0) to the first column of the
table (Revision 1). This may reduce the number of versions of
Planning Table 3 needed for some sites. The Qualifier
information has been moved to the corresponding Maximum
Concentration field.
Planning Table 4
In Revision 1, separate versions of this table should be prepared
for RME and CT. Receptor Population, Receptor Age, and
Exposure Point were moved from the Summary Box (Revision
0) to columns in Revision 1. This may reduce the number of
versions of Planning Table 4 needed for some sites.
Planning Tables 5.1,5.2, and 5.3
The Revision 1 Planning Tables are essentially the same as
Revision 0. Some column headings have been slightly
reworded, but the data needs are the same.
Planning Table 6.1,6.2,6.3, and 6.4
The Revision 1 Planning Tables 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 are essentially
the same as Revision 0. Some column headings have been
slightly reworded, but the data needs are the same. Revision 1
Planning Table 6.4 for radionuclides was not included in
Revision 0.
3-21
December 2001
-------
EXHIBIT 3-3
SUMMARY OF RAGS PART D
REVISION 1 CHANGES (continued)
PLANNING TABLE/WORKSHEET
Planning Table 7
Planning Table 8
Radiation Dose Assessment Worksheet
Planning Tables 9 and 10
Lead Worksheets
ROD Risk Worksheets (ROD Risk
Highlights)
REVISION 1 CHANGES
Medium, Exposure Medium, and Exposure Point were moved
from the Summary Box (Revision 0) to columns in the table
(Revision 1). This may reduce the number of versions of
Planning Table 7 needed for some sites. Planning Table 7,
which previously contained only non-cancer information
(Revision 0), now presents cancer and non-cancer information
for chemicals.
Planning Table 8 (Revision 1) focuses exclusively on the
calculation of radiation cancer risks. Planning Table 8
(Revision 0) focused on cancer risk calculations for all
chemicals. Medium, Exposure Medium, and Exposure Point
were moved from the Summary Box (Revision 0) to columns in
the table (Revision 1). This may reduce the number of versions
of Planning Table 8 needed for some sites. Medium EPC and
Route EPC information (Revision 0) was replaced by EPC
information (Revision 1).
This is a new Worksheet.
A column for Exposure Route External (Radiation) has been
added to the cancer calculations in Revision 1. The second
COPC (Planning Table 9) or Chemical (Planning Table 10)
column from Revision 0 has been deleted in Revision 1.
Accommodations have been made for summing risks and
hazards at the Exposure Point, Exposure Medium, Medium, and
Receptor Levels.
These are new Worksheets.
These are new Worksheets that copy the ROD Guidance (U.S.
EPA, 1999a) Risk Highlights.
3-22
December 2001
-------
EXHIBIT 4-1
EXAMPLE TABLES TO STANDARDIZE
REPORTING OF FS RISK EVALUATIONS
Example Table 1
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Medium:
Exposure Point
Chemical
Exposure Route
Receptor Population
Remedial Action
Objectives
Example Table 2
VALUES CONSIDERED AS PRGs
Medium:
Receptor Population:
Chemical
Most
Restrictive
ARAR
Most
Restrictive
ARAR
Source
Risk/Hazard
at ARAR
Risk-Based
PRO
Cancer*
Risk-Based
PRO
Non-Cancer*
Other
Value**
Other
Value**
Source
* Provide the associated risk and hazard levels in the footnotes.
"(e.g., detection limits, background)
Example Table 3
RISKS AND HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH PRGs
Medium:
Receptor Population:
Chemical
Site
Concentration
PRO
Basis for
PRO*
Totals
Risk at PRO:
Cancer
Hazard at PRO: Non-
Cancer
Target Endpoint
*TBC (Federal ARARs, State ARARs), Risk-based.
Background Concentrations, method detection limits
4-6
December 2001
------- |