NOTICE OF PDF ATTACHMENT

This PDF file contains an attachment.

Attachments may be the source file of the PDF or a related file (e.g., forms, spreadsheets, etc).

The attachment pane should be open just to the left of this text showing and linking to the
attachment(s).

Double click on the file name to open the attachment.

The attachment pane (paperclip icon) should be displayed or available if the PDF opened in either:

Internet Explorer (IE) browser, Adobe Reader, or Adobe Acrobat.

For other browsers, consult the browser’s help for viewing PDF Attachments.

Alternatively, download the PDF to your computer and open in Adobe Acrobat or Adobe Reader.

*11-175137*
11-175137
 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.

ii 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2

5.5 RISK EVALUATION DURING

FIVE-YEAR REVIEWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R-1

APPENDIX A PLANNING TABLES

APPENDIX B INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETION OF THE PLANNING TABLES

APPENDIX C PLANNING WORKSHEETS

APPENDIX D EXAMPLE SCENARIOS

v 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 As defined in the NCP, “Applicable” requirements are those
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) 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.
Conceptual Site Model 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.”
Deterministic Analysis 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.
EPA Risk Assessor 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.
Exposure Medium The contaminated environmental medium to which an
individual may be exposed. Includes the transfer of
contaminants from one medium to another.

vii December 2001

 DEFINITIONS (Continued)
_____________________________________________________________

Term Definition
____________________________________________________________________________________

Exposure Pathway 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.
Exposure Point An exact location of potential contact between a person and a
chemical or radionuclide within an Exposure Medium.
Exposure Point Concentration 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.
Exposure Route The way a chemical or radionuclide comes in contact with a
person (e.g., by ingestion, inhalation, dermal contact).
Interim Deliverables 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.
Medium 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.

viii December 2001

 DEFINITIONS (Continued)
_____________________________________________________________

Term Definition
____________________________________________________________________________________

Preliminary Remediation Goals Generally, initial cleanup goals that (1) are protective of human
(PRGs) 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.
Probabilistic Analysis 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.
Risk Assessment Author 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.
Receptor Age The description of the exposed individual as defined by the
EPA Region or dictated by the site.
Receptor Population The exposed individual relative to the Exposure Pathway
considered.
Scenario Timeframe The time period (current and/or future) being considered for the
Exposure Pathway.

ix December 2001
 DEFINITIONS (Continued)
_____________________________________________________________

Term Definition
____________________________________________________________________________________

Planning Tables 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 should not be 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.
Planning Tools 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.
Supporting Information Information submissions that substantiate or summarize
detailed data analysis, calculations, or modeling 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.

x December 2001
 DEFINITIONS (Continued)
_____________________________________________________________

Term Definition
____________________________________________________________________________________

Technical Approach One of the Planning Tools under the RAGS Part D approach.
for Risk Assessment The TARA is a road map for incorporating continuous
(TARA) 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.
Worksheets 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 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

BRAC Base Realignment and Closure
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and
Liability Act
COPCs Chemicals of Potential Concern
CSF Cancer Slope Factor
CT Central Tendency
CWA Clean Water Act
DQOs Data Quality Objectives
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPC Exposure Point Concentration
ESD Explanation of Significant Differences
FS Feasibility Study
FY Fiscal Year
GAO General Accounting Office
HEAST Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
HI Hazard Index
HQ Hazard Quotient
IEUBK Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
MCLs Maximum Contaminant Levels
NCEA National Center for Environmental Assessment
NCP National Contingency Plan
NPL National Priorities List
non-TCL non-Target Compound List
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PAHs Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PQLs Procedure Quantitation Limits
PRGs Preliminary Remediation Goals
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
RAGS Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
RAGS/HHEM Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I --
Human Health Evaluation Manual
RAOs Remedial Action Objectives
RfC Reference Concentration
RfD Reference Dose
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study

xii 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: Sarah Levinson

Region 2: Marian Olsen
Region 3: Jennifer Hubbard
Region 4: Glenn Adams
Region 5: Andrew Podowski
Region 6: Ghassan Khoury
Region 7: Judy Facey
Region 8: Jim Luey
Region 9: Stan Smucker
Region 10: 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. this document

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to assist • describes where to find additional information
remedial project managers (RPMs), risk assessors, regarding Part D.
site engineers, and others in conducting risk
assessment planning, reporting, and review at 1.1 OVERVIEW OF PART D
Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) sites. 1.1.1 BACKGROUND
This guidance could also be a useful tool for
quantitative risk assessment for non-National The March 21, 1995, memorandum on Risk
Priorities List (Non-NPL), Base Realignment and Characterization Policy and Guidance from former
Closure (BRAC), and Brownfields sites. EPA Administrator Browner directed
improvement in the transparency, clarity,
This guidance is the fourth part (Part D) in the consistency, and reasonableness of risk
five-part series Risk Assessment Guidance for assessments at EPA. EPA, over the years, has
Superfund: Volume I -- Human Health Evaluation identified opportunities for improvement in
Manual (RAGS/HHEM) (U.S. EPA, 1989c). Part presentation of Superfund risk assessments.
A of this guidance addresses how to conduct a Furthermore, the General Accounting Office
site-specific baseline risk assessment: the (GAO), members of Congress, and others have
information in Part A is important background for called for betterment of Superfund risk
Part D. Part B provides guidance for calculating assessments. The October 1995 Superfund
risk-based concentrations that may be used, along Administrative Reform #6A directed EPA to:
with applicable or relevant and appropriate Establish National Criteria to Plan, Report, and
requirements (ARARs) and other information, to Review Superfund Risk Assessments. EPA has
develop preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) developed an approach to respond to these
during project scoping. PRGs (and final challenges, which is presented in RAGS Part D.
remediation levels set in the Record of Decision
[ROD]) can be used throughout the analyses in 1.1.2 GUIDANCE CHANGES
Part C to assist in evaluating the human health
risks of remedial alternatives. Part E provides Released in January 1998 as interim guidance,
guidance for evaluation of dermal exposure. Part RAGS Part D Revision 0 underwent field testing
D complements the guidance provided in Parts A, and evaluation for a 3-year period. This Final
B, C, and E and presents recommended guidance incorporates changes based on the
approaches to standardize risk assessment comments received from users of the Revision 0
planning, reporting, and review. Part D guidance guidance and provides recommended Planning
spans the CERCLA remedial process from project Table format changes as appropriate.
scoping to periodic review of the implemented
remedial action. Exhibit 1-1 illustrates the major Generally, changes were made to improve
correspondence of RAGS/HHEM activities with useability, transparency, clarity, or consistency
the steps in the CERCLA remedial process. with other risk guidance (e.g., RAGS Part E
dermal guidance [U.S. EPA, 2001] and ROD
The remainder of this chapter: guidance [U.S. EPA, 1999a]). These changes may
• presents an overview of Part D, including the
background and elements of the Part D also increase the efficiency of the risk assessor by
approach decreasing the number of versions of each
• describes the applicability of Part D Planning Table associated with certain sites.
• presents the organization of the remainder of

1-1 December 2001

1-2 December 2001
 is recommended that the elements
In addition to Planning Table format changes, identified in the TARA in Chapters 2
the Final guidance provides standard formats to through 5 be customized for each site-
document radionuclide and lead risk evaluations, specific human health risk assessment, as
neither of which was addressed in the Revision 0 appropriate. These elements should be
guidance. This final guidance also provides more included in project workplans to better
robust and diverse examples than were included in define that risk assessment and facilitate
Revision 0. These examples address comments more standardized planning. A planning
and questions received from users of the Revision worksheet that can be used to summarize
0 guidance and are provided as suggested the TARA for a particular site (the
approaches to address complex situations. In all TARA Schedule Worksheet) is found in
cases, the EPA risk assessor and the RPM (when Appendix C.
appropriate) should be consulted to discuss the
appropriate approach for a site. Revisions -- The Planning Tables have been developed
associated with each Planning Table may be found to more clearly and consistently document
in Exhibit 3-3. important parameters, data, calculations,
and conclusions from all stages of human
1.1.3 ELEMENTS OF PART D APPROACH health risk assessment development.
Electronic templates for the Planning
The Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Tables have been developed in Lotus®
(RAGS) Part D approach consists of three basic and Excel® for ease of use by risk
elements: Use of Planning Tools, Continuous assessors. For site-specific risk
Involvement of EPA Risk Assessors, and assessments, the Planning Tables, related
Information Transfer to a National Superfund Risk Worksheets, and Supporting Information
Data Repository. Brief descriptions of the three should first be prepared as Interim
components follow: Deliverables for EPA risk assessor
review, and should later be included in
• Use of Planning Tools - The Planning Tools the Draft and Final Baseline Risk
developed by the EPA RAGS Part D Assessment Reports. The Planning
Workgroup and refined through regional Tables, both a blank set and a fully
review include a Technical Approach for Risk completed example set, may be found in
Assessment or TARA, Planning Tables, and Appendix A. Additional example
Instructions for the Planning Tables. scenarios and selected Planning Tables
are provided in Appendix D. Use of the
-- The Technical Approach for Risk Planning Tables will help standardize the
Assessment (TARA) is a road map for reporting of human health risk
incorporating continuous involvement of assessments and improve communication
the EPA risk assessor throughout the with stakeholders.
CERCLA remedial process for a
particular site. Risk-related activities, -- Instructions for the Planning Tables have
beginning with scoping and problem been prepared corresponding to each row
formulation, extending through collection and column on each Planning Table.
and analysis of risk-related data, and Definitions of each field are supplied in
supporting risk management decision the Glossary and example data or
making and remedial design/remedial selections for individual data fields are
action issues are addressed. provided. The Instructions should be
used to complete and/or review Planning
Chapters 2 through 5 of this guidance Tables for each site-specific human health
document present the TARA in the four risk assessment, where appropriate. The
CERCLA remedial process phases: Instructions may be found in Appendix B.
During Scoping, During the Remedial
Investigation, During the Feasibility • Continuous Involvement of EPA Risk
Study, and After the Feasibility Study. It Assessors - The EPA risk assessor is a critical

1-3 December 2001

 participant in the CERCLA remedial process A brief discussion of the process
for any site, from scoping through completion improvements associated with each RAGS Part D
and periodic review of the remedial action. element follows:
EPA risk assessors support reasonable and
consistent risk analysis and risk-based • Use of Planning Tools - Planning Tools
decision making. Early and continuous facilitate planning with TARA, reporting with
involvement by the EPA risk assessors should Planning Table formats, and reviewing with
include scoping, workplan review, and Interim Deliverables. The Planning Tools are
customization of the TARA for each site to designed to provide more consistent content
identify all risk-related requirements. The and clarity of data, parameters, and
EPA risk assessors should review Interim assumptions. Transparency for the public and
Deliverables and identify corrections needed others to understand the risk assessment
prior to preparation of the Draft and Final should be improved by the Planning Tables,
Baseline Risk Assessment Reports. and review is facilitated because the basis for
Participation of the EPA risk assessors in all conclusions should be more clear. Because
other phases of the CERCLA remedial process Interim Deliverables are integral parts of the
will help ensure human health risk issues are baseline risk assessment, their early review
appropriately incorporated in the remedy and resolution by EPA risk assessors should
selection and implementation processes. minimize rework and may reduce project
schedules and budgets, while improving
• Information Transfer to a Superfund Risk consistency.
Data Collection - Summary-level site-specific
risk information should be contained in a • Continuous Involvement of EPA Risk
Superfund Risk Data Repository to provide Assessor - Involvement of the EPA risk
information access and evaluation capabilities assessor throughout the CERCLA remedial
to EPA staff. process should result in holistic consideration
of risk issues during scoping and helps ensure
1.2 APPLICABILITY OF PART D that appropriate and adequate data are
APPROACH collected. Planning for special evaluations
can also be conducted efficiently at project
inception rather than at a later point with
The approach contained in RAGS Part D is
associated schedule delays and additional
strongly recommended for all CERCLA human
costs. Ongoing review of Interim
health risk assessments.
Deliverables by the EPA risk assessor should
provide direction regarding reasonable
Exhibit 1-2 provides guidelines regarding
assumptions and should eliminate rework
RAGS Part D applicability as a function of site
requirements, particularly for those
lead and site type, so that site-specific
deliverables that build on previous analyses
applicability may be defined by each region.
(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
GUIDELINES FOR PART D APPLICABILITY

SITE LEAD PART D APPLICABLE

Fund Lead T
Federal Facility Lead T
PRP Lead T
State Lead T
SITE TYPE1
Remedial: T
Scoping, RI/FS, Risk Assessment, Proposed Plan, ROD,
RD/RA, Presumptive Remedy

Post-Remedial: T
ESD, Amended ROD,
Five-Year Review

Removal: --2
Non-time Critical, Time-Critical, Streamlined

SACM3 T
RCRA Corrective Action4 --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 and CERCLA Site Activities, EPA is “...committed to the principle of parity between the RCRA corrective
action and CERCLA programs...”.

1-5 December 2001

 At later stages of the project (e.g., after the Planning Tables
feasibility study), continuous involvement of • Appendix C: Worksheets
the EPA risk assessor promotes • Appendix D: Example Scenarios.
reasonableness and consistency in risk
management decision-making by clearly In addition, other useful information has been
providing risk managers with the information presented in highlight boxes placed throughout the
they need. Preparation of draft ROD risk document.
information as an interim deliverable in the
format specified in Guide to Preparing Exhibit 1-3 depicts the continuous
Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of involvement of the EPA risk assessor during
Decision, and Other Remedy Selection scoping, during the remedial investigation, and
Decision Documents (U.S. EPA, 1999a) will during and after the feasibility study. The various
further support risk managers’ efficiency. The activities the risk assessor conducts are listed, as
ROD Risk Worksheets found in Appendix C well as the Part D chapter that addresses that
match the ROD guidance formats. phase.

• Information Transfer to Superfund Risk 1.5 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Data Collection - Submission of the
electronic Planning Tables and Worksheets to This guidance will be updated periodically in
the Superfund Risk Data Collection fulfills the response to user comments and suggestions and to
review objectives of Superfund address new human health risk assessment
Administrative Reform #6A. Use of the guidance as appropriate.
information by EPA risk assessors will help
improve consistency in future risk The Part D guidance and corresponding
assessments. information may be accessed electronically on the
RAGS Part D website, at
1.4 ORGANIZATION OF http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/risk/
DOCUMENT ragsd/index.htm . Updates to Part D will also
appear on the website along with an index of the
The remainder of this guidance is organized current version of each Chapter or Appendix.
into four additional chapters, references, and four
appendices as follows: Questions or comments regarding Part D
usage for a particular risk assessment should be
• Chapter 2: Risk Considerations During Project directed to your EPA risk assessor. General Part
Scoping; D questions or comments should be directed to
• Chapter 3: Risk Assessment Data Needs and the RAGS Part D website. Questions or
Tasks During the Remedial Investigation; comments received through the website will be
• Chapter 4 Risk Evaluations During the considered and a response will be developed and
Feasibility Study; forwarded via telephone or email as appropriate.
• Chapter 5: Risk Evaluations After the Frequently asked questions will be assembled and
Feasibility Study; displayed on the website with corresponding
• References 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

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 WHEN PREPARING THE SITE
critical to the success of a Superfund project. The CONCEPTUAL MODEL, CONSIDER THE
EPA risk assessor should be involved in the FOLLOWING:
project scoping discussions and meetings to help
ensure that the planning and workplan - Sensitive populations, including but not limited
development tasks incorporate risk assessment to the elderly, pregnant or nursing women,
infants and children, and people suffering from
data needs and achieve appropriate standardization
chronic illnesses
in risk assessment planning.
- People exposed to particularly high levels of
2.1 PLANNING contaminants

The following planning activities should be - Circumstances where a disadvantaged

performed at the beginning of the project. These population is exposed to hazardous materials
activities should involve the EPA RPM and EPA (i.e., Environmental Justice situations)
risk assessor, as decisionmakers, and the risk
- Significant contamination sources
assessment author and other resources tasked with
preparing the Remedial Investigation Report, to - Potential contaminant release mechanisms (e.g.,
support planning. The following pertinent volatilization, fugitive dust emission, surface
information should be incorporated, as runoff/overland flow, leaching to groundwater,
appropriate, into the Remedial Investigation tracking by humans/animals, soil gas
Report or Site Characterization Report and the generation, biodegradation and radioactive
Baseline Risk Assessment Report: decay)

• Provide site background information, site - Contaminant transport pathways such as direct
maps, sample location map; discuss historical air transport downwind, diffusion in surface
site activity and chronology of land use. water, surface water flow, groundwater flow,
soil gas migration, and biomagnification in the
• Discuss historical data and data useability, food chain
previous studies and actions, and an overview
of the nature and extent of contamination. - Cross media transfer effects, such as
• Discuss the purpose of the investigation. volatilization to air, wet deposition, dry
• Prepare the preliminary site conceptual model deposition, groundwater discharge to surface
which clearly identifies all known or water, groundwater recharge from surface
potential sources of contamination (soil, water, and bioaccumulation by aquatic species.
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. discussions with stakeholders concerning land
• Discuss PRGs and ARARs for the site.

• Discuss involvement by the risk assessor in

2-1 December 2001

 use, groundwater use, and exposure pathways development of the baseline risk assessment are
and variables. If possible, the risk assessor sometimes presented in a separate Risk Assessment
should also visit the site. Workplan or incorporated into the RI/FS Workplan.

• Identify interim deliverables for the risk

assessment. WHEN EVALUATING WHETHER TO
CONDUCT PROBABILISTIC ANALYSIS,
CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:

INTERIM DELIVERABLES SHOULD - Extent of site remediation

INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
- Potential costs of remediation
- Planning Tables 0 through 10
- Degree of uncertainty associated with the
- Worksheets on Data Useability, TARA exposure information available for each portion
Schedule, Dermal, Radiation Dose Assessment, of the site conceptual model
and Lead (as applicable)

- Supporting Information (Section 3.1.1)

- Assessment of Confidence and Uncertainty Risk assessment needs should be considered

(Section 3.1.2) and Probabilistic Analysis not only in tasks related to development of the
information, as applicable (Section 3.1.3). 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.,
• Identify Draft and Final deliverables for the risk development of remedial goals and estimates of
assessment. Draft and Final deliverables potential risk from remediation options).
include the Draft and Final Baseline Risk
Assessment Reports, which also incorporate the 2.2.1 RI/FS WORKPLAN/BASELINE
Interim Deliverables. RISK ASSESSMENT WORKPLAN
• Prepare a preliminary version of Planning Table
1. The RI/FS Workplan should summarize site
• During project scoping, the EPA RPM and EPA background, the current and potential problems
risk assessor may also meet to discuss the posed by site contaminants, and the objectives and
potential usefulness of including a Probabilistic scope of the RI/FS. It also should include a
Analysis (Monte Carlo) in the RI and the need description of the tasks to be performed and the
for a separate Workplan. This preliminary information and work products that should be
discussion should address whether funds need to produced from each task. Deliverables for specific
be allocated to carry out a Probabilistic tasks should be included. Tasks and deliverables
Analysis. This decision should be revisited for the baseline risk assessment may be included as
throughout Workplan development and the risk a part of the RI/FS Workplan or in a separate Risk
assessment process. Assessment Workplan.

2.2 WORKPLAN DEVELOPMENT Within these Workplans, it should be clear that

risk assessment needs are being considered in the
Tasks to be conducted during the remedial RI/FS objectives. The site-specific objectives and
investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) should be scope of the risk assessment should be included in
identified and documented in several workplans. the Workplan.
These usually include the RI/FS Workplan, a
Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP), and a Quality This includes information to complete the baseline
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). Tasks related to risk assessment in the RI as well as information for

2-2 December 2001

the FS, such as that used to develop risk-based pathway (both current and future) and medium.
preliminary remedial goals (e.g., PRGs), and to The SAP should be accompanied by detailed
assess risks from remediation (e.g., incineration). sampling maps showing the location and type of
samples (e.g., grab, composite, or duplicate). It is
These Workplans should also reference the important to consider how sample results will be
methods (e.g., National guidance such as used to estimate exposure point concentrations.
RAGS/HHEM [U.S. EPA, 1989c]; RAGS Background samples should be collected from
Probabilistic Guidance [U.S. EPA, 1997e and g and appropriate areas (e.g., areas proximate to the site,
2001d.]), used to prepare the Interim, Draft, and free of potential contamination by site chemicals
Final risk assessment deliverables and define the and similar to the site in topography, geology,
schedule for submission. These deliverables are meteorology, and other characteristics).
described in more detail in Chapter 3. Deliverables
related to development of risk-based remedial goals If models will be used to evaluate exposure
and assessment of risk from remediation should also pathways and estimate exposure point
be included in the Workplan (see Chapter 4). concentrations, these models should be identified in
the Workplan. Site-specific data collection needed
The EPA risk assessor and EPA RPM may for these models should also be discussed.
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 WHEN DEVELOPING THE SAP, CONSIDER
concerning the time, expense, and possible benefit THE FOLLOWING:
associated with the collection of additional exposure
- How will data from multiple groundwater wells
information or sampling data should be considered
collected over time be used to calculate
to identify those exposure parameters with the exposure?
greatest uncertainty, where collection of additional
data and/or information may be warranted. A - At what depths will soil samples be taken and
separate Probabilistic Analysis Workplan identifying how will they be combined to describe
associated deliverables should be prepared and exposures for different scenarios (e.g.,
approved by the EPA RPM and risk assessor. industrial versus residential) or to characterize
hotspots?
2.2.2 SAP AND QAPP
- What type of sampling design (e.g., random
versus purposive) will be used?
Sampling and analysis activities undertaken
during the RI should provide adequate data to - Are SAPs adequate to distinguish site
evaluate all appropriate exposure pathways. contamination from background contamination
Therefore, risk assessors should be involved in the for each medium and for organic and inorganic
development of the data quality objectives (DQOs) parameters?
for sampling and analysis and in selecting the types
of sampling and analyses that will be done. The
DQOs should address the qualitative and Analysis. Development of the DQOs for
quantitative nature of the sampling data in terms of analysis should not be limited to concern for the
relative quality and intent for use, to ensure that the precision, accuracy, representativeness,
data collected will be appropriate for the intended completeness, and comparability of the data.
objectives. Note that the data quality evaluation DQOs that are important for risk assessment should
should be recorded in the Data Useability Worksheet consider: types of laboratory analyses used,
in Appendix C. sensitivity of detection limits of the analytical
techniques (especially for non-Target Compound
Sampling. The SAP should discuss how the List [non-TCL] chemicals and non-standard
types, numbers, and locations of samples to be matrices), resulting data quality, and the
collected will be adequate to evaluate each exposure employment of adequate quality assurance/quality

2-3 December 2001

control (QA/QC) measures. Analytical data should be evaluated and
reviewed in accordance with the criteria to evaluate
In some cases, risk assessment data needs may data (e.g., the National Functional Guidelines).
be best supported by additional chemicals, different Also refer to your regional Agency office for
analytical methods, and/or lower detection limits guidance on data validation and/or other chemical-
than are being used for the RI. Based upon the specific guidance, as applicable.
values of the risk-based PRGs calculated during
scoping, detection limits may need to be lower than The Workplan should also discuss how split
those obtained by the standard Superfund methods. samples, duplicates, blanks (trip, field, and
The adequacy of detection limits for conducting the laboratory), and qualified and rejected data can be
baseline risk assessment and for comparing to PRGs used in assessing site risks. The Workplan should
should be evaluated in the Workplan (QAPP). For describe the analysis for each medium and how the
example, a table listing expected contaminants and types of analyses were selected based on site
comparing the method detection limit or quantitation history.
limit for each compound with the

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 • If modeling was used to estimate exposure

project managers should establish the schedule of point concentrations, document the parameters
submission for the deliverables for the RI Reports related to soil/sediment, hydrogeology,
and Baseline Risk Assessment Reports. The hydrology, and meteorology either in the risk
schedule may vary from site to site, as appropriate. assessment or the RI Report.
Interested parties (States, Commonwealths, tribes
and other stakeholders) may be involved in the Risk Assessment Guidelines. The risk
scheduling and review process, as appropriate. assessment should be conducted in accordance
Refer to your regional office for guidance with all appropriate guidance and policies.
regarding the order of the deliverables. These Consult with your EPA risk assessor regarding the
deliverables should also be defined in the most appropriate guidance.
Workplan.
Interim Deliverables should be prepared as
General RI Guidelines. Generally, RI described in Section 3.1.1 and should ultimately
guidance should be followed in performing the be incorporated into the Baseline Risk Assessment
remedial investigation. The following items are of Report. The Interim Deliverables prepared by the
particular importance to risk assessments. If the risk assessment author should be reviewed by the
risk assessment is being prepared as a stand-alone EPA risk assessor prior to submission of the
document, the following items should be included. Baseline Risk Assessment Report. Hazard
If, instead, the risk assessment is a section of the identification and exposure parameters, among
RI Report, the items which follow should be others, may require discussion, refinement, and
addressed in the RI Report and clearly referenced revision. Review and modification of Interim
in the Baseline Risk Assessment Report. Deliverables should greatly reduce the Baseline
Risk Assessment Report preparation and review
• Present a general map of the site depicting time. Discussions of the three categories of risk
boundaries and surface topography, which assessment deliverables (Interim Deliverables,
illustrates site features, such as fences, ponds, Draft Baseline Risk Assessment Report, and Final
structures, as well as geographical Baseline Risk Assessment Report) follow.
relationships between potential receptors and
the site. 3.1 INTERIM DELIVERABLES
• Discuss historical site activity.
• Discuss chronology of land use (specify This section presents an outline of the
agriculture, industry, recreation, waste Planning Tables, Worksheets, and Supporting
deposition, and residential development at the Recommended Information that should be
site). prepared as Interim Deliverables for each site.
• Present an overview of the nature and extent The Workplan discussed in Section 2.2.1 should
of contamination, including when samples also describe the Planning Tables, Worksheets,
were collected and the kinds of contaminants and Supporting Recommended Information for a
and media potentially contaminated. particular site. Exhibit 3-1 presents a list of
recommended Interim Deliverables. Use of these
• Describe the analytical and data validation deliverables for each site should improve
methods used. standardization in risk assessment reporting and

3-1 December 2001

should improve the transparency, clarity, and Appendix B. Additional example scenarios and
consistency of risk assessments. selected Planning Tables are provided in
Appendix D.
3.1.1 PLANNING TABLES,
WORKSHEETS, AND SUPPORTING In addition to the Planning Tables, six
INFORMATION Planning Worksheets are provided in Appendix C.
These include Worksheets for Data Useability,
More standardized reporting of Superfund TARA Schedule, Dermal, Radiation Dose
human health risk assessments can be achieved Assessment, Lead, and ROD Risk. Use of the
through the preparation of Planning Tables, Worksheets is strongly encouraged to improve
Worksheets, and Supporting Information. These transparency, clarity, and consistency.
documents should be prepared as Interim
Deliverables and reviewed by the EPA risk The Planning Tables and Worksheets
assessor prior to preparation of the Baseline Risk document the majority of the data and
Assessment Report. After review and revision, as assumptions used to evaluate risk, as well as the
necessary, these documents should be included in risks and hazards calculated. In most cases, other
the Baseline Risk Assessment Report. data and rationale can be used to support the
information presented in the Planning Tables.
This section describes the Planning Table This additional Supporting Information should
formats that should be used in EPA CERCLA risk also be provided to the EPA risk assessor as an
assessments. The Planning Table formats Interim Deliverable and later incorporated in the
normally should not be altered (i.e., columns Baseline Risk Assessment Report.
should not be added, deleted, or changed);
however, rows and footnotes should be added as Refer to Exhibit 3-3 for a brief summary of
appropriate. Standardization of the Tables should the Revision 1 improvements to the Planning
help to achieve Superfund program-wide reporting Tables and Worksheets as compared to Revision
consistency. Note that multiple versions of some 0. Descriptions of the RAGS Part D Revision 1
Planning Tables may be used to address different Planning Tables, Worksheets, and Supporting
Media, different Exposure Pathways, or different Information follow:
Exposures (i.e., reasonable maximum exposure
[RME] versus central tendency [CT]). Exhibit 3-2 Planning TABLE 0: Site Risk Assessment
summarizes the relationship between five Identification Information. The purposes of
traditional risk assessment activities and the Planning Table 0 are:
corresponding Planning Tables that should help
standardize risk assessment reporting. The five • To uniquely identify the risk assessment
risk assessment activities follow: • To identify the relevant contacts for the risk
assessment.
• Data collection
• Data evaluation The information documented in Planning
• Exposure assessment Table 0 should include:
• Toxicity assessment
• Risk characterization. • Site Information
• Contact information
Copies of the blank Planning Tables are • Risk assessment document information.
provided in both Lotus® and Excel® spreadsheet
formats associated with the Part D guidance.
Blank Planning Table templates and completed The data elements that should be presented in
examples of typical Planning Tables are provided Planning Table 0 are listed in the Planning Table
in Appendix A. Detailed Instructions for the 0 highlight box.
completion of the Planning Tables are provided in

3-2 December 2001

 2. Obtain EPA risk assessor consensus
KEY DATA ELEMENTS IN regarding which interim deliverables should
PLANNING TABLE 0 be submitted and the schedules for each.

Regions should provide the following information: The recommended blank TARA Schedule
Site Name/OU, Region, EPA ID Number, State, Worksheet may be found in Appendix C. An
Status, Federal Facility (Y/N), EPA Project
example TARA Schedule Worksheet accompanies
Manager, EPA Risk Assessor, Prepared by,
Prepared for, Document Title, Document Date, the Dean Company example in Appendix A.
Probabilistic Risk Assessment (Y/N), and
Comments. PLANNING TABLE 1: Selection of
Exposure Pathways. The purposes of Planning
Table 1 are:

Regions should perform the following steps • To assist in project planning

associated with the preparation of Planning Table • To accompany the site conceptual model
0: • To present possible Receptors, Exposure
Routes, and Exposure Pathways
1. Provide the identification information for the • To present the rationale for selection or
risk assessment. exclusion of each Exposure Pathway
• To communicate risk information to interested
2. Include Planning Table 0 with the other parties outside EPA
Planning Tables, Worksheets, and Supporting • To establish a framework for the generation of
Information to facilitate tracking of the subsequent Planning Tables. All subsequent
relevant contacts. tables should be built from the information
contained in Planning Table 1.
TARA SCHEDULE WORKSHEET. The
TARA Schedule of Risk-Related Activities The information that should be documented in
Worksheet (TARA Schedule Worksheet) is the Planning Table 1 includes:
first Worksheet that should be developed for each
risk assessment to document the applicability, • Exposure Pathways that were examined and
responsibility, and schedule for each risk-related excluded from analysis
activity. As the first interim deliverable, the • Exposure Pathways that are expected to be
Worksheet documents the plan for a particular qualitatively or quantitatively evaluated in the
site, identifying which Planning Tables, risk assessment.
Worksheets, and Supporting Information should
be provided as interim deliverables for EPA risk The data elements that should be presented in
assessor review, and when they are expected to be Planning Table 1 are listed in the Planning Table
available. The TARA Schedule Worksheet should 1 highlight box.
be prepared in consultation with the EPA risk
assessor assigned to the site.
KEY DATA ELEMENTS IN
Regions should perform the following steps PLANNING TABLE 1
associated with the preparation of the TARA
Schedule Worksheet: Regions should provide the following information:
Scenario Timeframe, Medium, Exposure Medium,
1. Complete the TARA Schedule Worksheet Exposure Point, Receptor Population, Receptor
prior to initiation of any other Planning Age, Exposure Route, Type of Analysis, Rationale
Tables, Worksheets, or Supporting for Selection or Exclusion of Exposure Pathway.
Information.

3-3 December 2001

 Region should perform the following steps preparing the Worksheet.
associated with the preparation of Planning Table
1: Regions should perform the following steps
associated with the preparation of the Data
1. Refine site conceptual model which identifies Useability Worksheet:
all potential sources of contamination, all
potential Exposure Pathways, the Medium 1. Complete the Data Useability Worksheet for
associated with each, and the potentially each Medium prior to screening of chemicals
exposed populations (Receptors). of potential concern (COPCs).

2. Select realistic Exposure Pathways for 2. Incorporate the Data Useability Worksheet
detailed analyses. in the Baseline Risk Assessment Report.

3. Include rationale for exclusion of potential A recommended blank Data Useability

Exposure Pathways. Worksheet may be found in Appendix C. An
example Data Useability Worksheet accompanies
4. Modify Planning Table 1, where the Dean Company example in Appendix A.
appropriate .

5. Planning Table 1 should later be PLANNING TABLE 2: Occurrence,

incorporated in the Baseline Risk Assessment Distribution, and Selection of COPCs. The
Report. purposes of Planning Table 2 are:

DATA USEABILITY WORKSHEET. • To provide information useful for data

Data quality is an important component of the risk evaluation of chemicals and radionuclides
assessment and the evaluation of data quality detected
should be documented. A recommended Data • To provide adequate information so the
Useability Worksheet is included to address this user/reviewer gets a sense of the chemicals
need. and radionuclides detected at the site and the
potential magnitude of the potential problems
The Regional EPA risk assessor and the EPA at the site
document Guidance for Data Useability in Risk • To provide chemical screening data and
Assessment (Part A, U.S. EPA 1990a), should be rationale for selection of COPCs.
consulted before completing the Data Useability
Worksheet to define the appropriate level of detail The information documented in Planning
to be reflected in the comment fields in the Table 2 should include:
Worksheet. This Worksheet should be prepared
as soon as all data validation reports have been • Statistical information about chemicals and
completed for each medium. A medium-specific radionuclides detected in each Medium
Data Useability Worksheet should be completed • The detection limits of chemicals and
only after the project team (i.e., lead chemist, lead radionuclides analyzed
hydrogeologist, risk assessor, etc.) has collectively • The toxicity screening values for COPC
discussed the data useability criteria. The selection
Worksheet should be used to record and identify • The chemicals and radionuclides selected and
the impact of data quality issues as they relate to deleted as COPCs.
data useability. For example, deviations from
approved site Workplans which occurred during The data elements presented in Planning
sample collection, laboratory analysis, or data Table 2 are listed in the Planning Table 2
review should be assessed. Also, the Worksheet highlight box.
preparer should refer to the Superfund regional
office for guidance on data validation when 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 5. Complete Planning Table 2 for each
performing these steps. combination of Scenario Timeframe, Medium,
and Exposure Medium.

6. Incorporate Planning Table 2 in the

Baseline Risk Assessment Report.
KEY DATA ELEMENTS IN
PLANNING TABLE 2 PLANNING TABLE 3: Exposure Point
Concentration Summary. The purposes of
For each unique combination of Scenario Planning Table 3 are:
Timeframe, Medium, and Exposure Medium,
Regions should provide the following information: • To provide the EPCs for measured and
Exposure Point, CAS Number, Chemical, Minimum
modeled values
Concentration (Qualifier), Maximum Concentration
(Qualifier), Units, Location of Maximum
• To provide statistical information on the
Concentration, Detection Frequency, Range of derivation of the EPCs.
Detection Limits, Concentration Used for
Screening, Background Value, Screening Toxicity The information documented in Planning
Value (N/C), Potential ARAR/TBC Value, Potential Table 3 should include:
ARAR/TBC Source, COPC Flag (Y/N), and
Rationale for Selection or Deletion. • Statistical information which was used to
calculate the EPCs for chemicals and
radionuclides detected in each Medium
• EPCs (RME and/or CT)
1. Discuss selection criteria for COPCs; • The statistics which were used to make the
including toxicity screening values, frequency determinations as well as the rationale for the
of detection, and background comparison, as selection of the statistics for each chemical or
appropriate. radionuclide (i.e., discuss statistical derivation
of measured data or approach for modeled
2. Perform screening; select COPCs that will be data).
carried into the risk assessment (include
comparison to regulatory standards and The data elements presented in Planning
criteria where appropriate). Table 3 are listed in the Planning Table 3
highlight box.
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 KEY DATA ELEMENTS IN
should be determined by each region. The PLANNING TABLE 3
Supporting Information should provide
relevant information for each chemical used to For each unique combination of Scenario
Timeframe, Medium, and Exposure Medium,
determine the background concentration,
Regions should provide the following information:
including (but not limited to) average, Exposure Point, Chemical of Potential Concern,
maximum, hypothesis testing of equality of Units, Arithmetic Mean, 95% upper confidence
the mean, and other information that may be level (UCL), Maximum Concentration (Qualifier),
required to fully describe the background EPC Value, EPC Units, EPC Statistic, and EPC
selection process. Rationale.

4. Incorporate the Background Supporting

Information in the Baseline Risk Assessment
Report.

3-5 December 2001

 Region should perform the following steps Risk Assessment Report.
associated with the preparation of Planning Table
3. Planning TABLE 4: Values Used for Daily
Intake Calculations. The purposes of Planning
1. Discuss how samples will be grouped (e.g., Table 4 are:
how hot spots in soil will be considered; how
groundwater data will be combined; how • To provide the exposure parameters used for
temporal and chemical phases will be intake calculations for each Exposure Pathway
addressed; how upgradient, downgradient, (Scenario Timeframe, Medium, Exposure
and cross gradient samples will be addressed). Medium, Exposure Point, Receptor
Population, Receptor Age, and Exposure
2. Discuss approach to determine how data are Route)
distributed (e.g., normal, log-normal). • To provide the intake equations or models
used for each Exposure Route/Pathway.
3. Discuss evaluation of lead, total chromium
and any other special chemicals. The information documented in Planning
Table 4 should include:
4. Submit Supporting Information to
document the EPC summary presented in • Values used for each intake equation for each
Planning Table 3 and to enable verification Exposure Pathway and the reference/rationale
of those values by EPA. The format of the for each
summary should be determined by each • Intake equation or model used to calculate the
region. The Supporting Information should intake for each Exposure Pathway.
discuss EPCs statistically derived from
measured data, including identification of the The data elements presented in Planning
samples used in each calculation, results of Table 4 are listed in the Planning Table 4
distribution testing (Wilk-Shapiro, highlight box.
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 KEY DATA ELEMENTS IN
PLANNING TABLE 4
applicable), and other protocols as required.
The Supporting Information should also For each unique combination of Scenario
present information for EPCs, including Timeframe, Medium, and Exposure Medium,
derivation of modeled values, assumptions Regions should provide the following information:
and values used, statistical derivation of Exposure Route, Receptor Population, Receptor
measured values and associated calculations, Age, Exposure Point, Parameter Code, Parameter
and other protocols as required. (Definition, Value, and Units), Rationale/Reference,
and Intake Equation/Model Name.
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. Regions should perform the following steps
Create separate sets of Planning Table 3 for associated with the preparation of Planning Table
RME and CT, when appropriate. 4.

7. Incorporate Planning Table 3 in the Baseline 1. Provide references for all exposure

3-6 December 2001

 parameters. DERMAL WORKSHEET. The
recommended Dermal Worksheet presents
2. Submit Supporting Information to intermediate variables for calculating absorbed
summarize the Modeled Intake dose per event DA (event). A version of this
Methodology and Parameters used to Worksheet should be developed for each medium
calculate modeled intake values and to for which the dermal exposure route will be
enable verification of those values by EPA. quantitatively assessed. Available data should be
The Supporting Information should be limited provided for each COPC under evaluation.
to summary level information. The format of
the summary should be structured to Regions should perform the following steps
accommodate the variability and complexity associated with preparation of the Dermal
associated with different models. Worksheet:

3. Incorporate the Modeled Intake Supporting 1. Complete the Dermal Worksheet prior to
Information in the Baseline Risk Assessment calculation of risks and hazards.
Report.
2. Provide interim deliverables to the EPA risk
4. Submit Supporting Information on assessor, as appropriate.
Chemical-Specific Parameters, which apply
to all Planning Tables to be completed for the 3. Incorporate the Dermal Worksheet in the
risk assessment and to enable verification of Baseline Risk Assessment Report.
those values by EPA. The summary should
identify and display chemical parameters and A recommended blank Dermal Worksheet may be
constants that are used to calculate risks and found in Appendix C. An example Dermal
hazards, but are not included on Planning Worksheet accompanies the Dean Company
Tables. The format of the summary should example in Appendix A.
be determined by each region. The values and
constants that are used to calculate risk and PLANNING TABLES 5 AND 6: Non-
hazards, including molecular weight, vapor Cancer and Cancer Toxicity Data. The
pressure, Koc, Kow, dermal permeability purposes of Planning Tables 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3
constant, Henry’s Law constant, and other are:
information that the reader would find useful
for understanding the risk assessment • To provide information on reference doses
discussion should be included. (RfDs), reference concentrations (RfCs),
Target organs, and adjustment factors for
5. Incorporate the Chemical-Specific chemicals
Parameter Supporting Information • To provide oral to dermal adjustment factors
summary into the Baseline Risk Assessment • To provide RfC to RfD adjustment factors
Report. • To verify references for non-cancer toxicity
data
6. Complete Planning Table 4 for each • To provide non-cancer toxicity information
combination of Scenario Timeframe, Medium, for “special-case” chemicals.
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.

3-7 December 2001

 KEY DATA ELEMENTS IN
PLANNING TABLE 5.2
KEY DATA ELEMENTS IN
PLANNING TABLE 5.1 Regions should provide the following information:
Chemical of Potential Concern,
Region should provide the following information: Chronic/Subchronic, Inhalation RfC Value and
Chemical of Potential Concern, Units, Extrapolated RfD Value and Units, Primary
Chronic/Subchronic, Oral Target Organ(s), Combined Uncertainty/Modifying
RfD Value and Units, Oral Absorption Efficiency Factors, Source(s) of RfC: Target Organ(s), and
for Dermal, Absorbed RfD for Dermal Value and Date(s) of RfC: Target Organ(s).
Units, Primary Target Organ(s), Combined
Uncertainty/Modifying Factors, Source(s) RfD: KEY DATA ELEMENTS IN
Target Organ(s), and Dates of RfD: Target PLANNING TABLE 5.3
Organ(s).
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
The information documented in Planning Parameter: Target Organ(s), and Date(s) of
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 The purposes of Planning Tables 6.1, 6.2,
(RfC) to RfD adjustments 6.3, and 6.4 are:
• The organ effects of each of the COPCs
• References for RfCs and organ effects. • To provide the oral, dermal, and inhalation
cancer toxicity information (values and
The data elements presented in Planning sources of information) for chemicals and
Tables 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 are listed in the Planning radionuclides of potential concern
Tables 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 highlight boxes. • 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. 2. Ensure that chronic and subchronic toxicity
values are applied correctly based on the
The data elements presented in Planning duration of exposure. Provide rationale for
Tables 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 are listed in the selection of surrogate toxicity values not in
Planning Tables 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 highlight IRIS or HEAST, or provided by NCEA.
box. (EPA may require additional review.)

3. Submit Supporting Information regarding

Toxicity Data for Special Case Chemicals
KEY DATA ELEMENTS IN (i.e., those chemicals with cancer risks and
PLANNING TABLE 6.1 non-cancer hazards calculated using methods
or toxicity parameters different from those
Regions should provide the following information:
presented on Planning Tables 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, or
Chemical of Potential Concern, Oral Cancer Slope
Factor Value and Units, Oral Absorption Efficiency 6.2). The Supporting Information should be
for Dermal, Absorbed Cancer Slope Factor for be used to enable verification of those values
Dermal Value and Units, Weight of by EPA. Examples may include selection of
Evidence/Cancer Guideline Description, Source(s) potency factors for polychlorinated biphenyls
and Date(s) of Oral CSF. (PCBs), use of relative potencies for
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
KEY DATA ELEMENTS IN and chlorinated dioxins and furans, and
PLANNING TABLE 6.2 valence species assumptions for metals.
Consult the EPA risk assessor regarding the
Regions should provide the following information:
use of these tables.
Chemical of Potential Concern, Unit Risk Value and
Units, Inhalation Cancer Slope Factor Value and
Units, Weight of Evidence/Cancer Guideline 4. Incorporate the Special Case Chemicals
Description, Source(s) and Date(s) of Unit Risk: Supporting Information in the Baseline Risk
Inhalation CSF. Assessment Report.

KEY DATA ELEMENTS IN 5. Complete Planning Tables 5 and 6 for the

PLANNING TABLE 6.3 exposure routes and chemicals under
evaluation.
Regions should p rovide the following information:
Planning Table 5.1: Non-Cancer
Chemical of Potential Concern, Parameter (Name,
Value, and Units), Source(s), and Dates(s).
Toxicity Data - Oral/Dermal
Planning Table 5.2: Non-Cancer
KEY DATA ELEMENTS IN
Toxicity Data - Inhalation
PLANNING TABLE 6.4 Planning Table 5.3: Non-Cancer
Toxicity Data - Special Case Chemicals
Regions should provide the following Planning Table 6.1: Cancer Toxicity
information: Chemical of Potential Concern, Data - Oral/Dermal
Cancer Slope Factor Value and Units, Source(s), Planning Table 6.2: Cancer Toxicity
and Dates(s). Data - Inhalation
Planning Table 6.3: Cancer Toxicity
Data - Special Case Chemicals
Planning Table 6.4: Cancer Toxicity
Regions should perform the following steps Data -External (Radiation).
associated with the preparation of Planning
Tables 5 and 6. 6. Incorporate Planning Tables 5 and 6 in the
Baseline Risk Assessment Report.
1. Refer to the end of Section 3.1.1 for Lead
Worksheets.
PLANNING TABLE 7: Calculation of

3-9 December 2001

Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer 1. Address non-cancer hazards and cancer risks
Hazards. The purposes of Planning Table 7 are: including the calculations and supporting
information by Exposure Route.

• To provide a summary of the variables used to 2. Include RME and CT results in separate
calculate chemical cancer risks and non- tables. Ensure that risks and hazards from
cancer hazards multiple chemicals are combined
• To show the EPC and intake used in the non- appropriately across Pathways that affect the
cancer hazard and cancer risk calculations same individual or population subgroup, for
• To present the result of the calculation for all site-related chemicals.
each Exposure Route/Pathway for each COPC
• To provide the total hazard index and cancer 3. Discuss definitions of Planning Tables
risks for all Exposure Routes/Pathways for the Planning Table 7.n.RME: Calculation
Scenario Timeframe and Receptor presented of Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-
in this table. Cancer Hazards (RME)
Planning Table 7.n.CT: Calculation of
The information documented in Planning Chemical Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer
Table 7 should include: Hazards (CT)

• The non-cancer hazard quotient (HQ) and 4. If it is preferred to segregate cancer and non-
cancer risk value for each COPC for each cancer evaluations, see the blank Planning
Exposure Route/Pathway Tables 7.a.1 and 7.b.1 shown in Appendix A
• The values used for EPC, non-cancer intake, as well as Example Scenario 7 in Appendix D.
cancer intake, reference doses and
concentrations, and cancer slope factors for 5. Submit Supporting Information that
each COPC for each Exposure Route. summarizes the approach used to perform
Special Chemical Risk and Hazard
The data elements presented in Planning Calculations and to enable verification of
Table 7 are listed in the Planning Table 7 those values by EPA. This summary should
highlight box. address the calculation of non-cancer hazards
and cancer risks for chemicals that do not use
KEY DATA ELEMENTS IN RfD or cancer slope factor (CSF) values,
PLANNING TABLE 7 respectively. The format of the summary
should be determined by each region.
For each unique combination of Scenario
Timeframe, Receptor Population, and Receptor 6. Incorporate the Special Chemical Risk and
Age, Regions should provide the following Hazard Calculations Supporting
information: Medium, Exposure Medium, Exposure
Information in the Baseline Risk Assessment
Point, Exposure Route, Chemical of Potential
Concern, EPC Value and Units, Cancer Risk Report.
Calculations (Intake/Exposure Concentration Value
and Units, CSF/Unit Risk Value and Units, and 7. Complete Planning Table 7 for each
Cancer Risk), and Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations combination of Scenario Timeframe, Receptor
(Intake/Exposure Concentration Value and Units, Population, and Receptor Age.
RfD/RfC Value and Units, and Hazard Quotient).
8. Incorporate Planning Table 7 in the Baseline
Risk Assessment Report.

Regions should perform the following steps PLANNING TABLE 8: Calculation of

associated with the preparation of Planning Table Radiation Cancer Risks.
7. The purposes of Planning Table 8 are:

3-10 December 2001

• To provide a summary of the variables used to
calculate radiation cancer risks 1. Address radiation cancer risks including
• To show the EPC used in the radiation cancer the calculations and supporting
risk calculations information by Exposure Route.
• To show, based on the documented risk
calculation approach, the intake and cancer 2. Include RME and CT results in separate
slope factors tables. Ensure that risks from multiple
• To present the result of the calculation for radionuclides are combined appropriately
each Exposure Route/Pathway for each COPC across pathways that affect the same
• To provide the radiation cancer risks for all individual or population subgroup, for all
Exposure Routes/Pathways for the Scenario site-related radionuclides.
Timeframe and Receptor presented in this
table. 3. Discuss definitions of Planning Tables
Planning Table 8.n.RME: Calculation of
The information documented in Planning Cancer Radiation Risks (RME)
Table 8 should include: Planning Table 8.n.CT: Calculation of
Cancer Radiation Risks (CT)
• The approach for calculating the radiation
cancer risk for each COPC for each Exposure 4. Complete Planning Table 8 for each
Route/Pathway combination of Scenario Timeframe,
• The values used for EPC, intake, and cancer Receptor Population, and Receptor Age.
slope factor for each COPC for each Exposure
Route 5. Incorporate Planning Table 8 in the
• The Cancer risk value for each COPC for each Baseline Risk Assessment Report.
Exposure Route/Pathway
• Total cancer risk values by Exposure Route, RADIATION DOSE ASSESSMENT
Exposure Point, and across all media for the WORKSHEET. The recommended Radiation
Scenario Timeframe and Receptor presented Dose Assessment Worksheet has been provided to
in this table. document alternate radionuclide cancer risk

calculations, performed using a dose approach

KEY DATA ELEMENTS IN rather than the standard CERCLA risk calculation
PLANNING TABLE 8 method.

For each unique combination of Scenario The Regions should perform the following
Timeframe, Receptor Population, and Receptor steps associated with preparation of the Radiation
Age, Regions should provide the following Dose Assessment Worksheet, if applicable to the
information: Medium, Exposure Medium, Exposure risk assessment:
Point, Exposure Route, Radionuclide of Potential
Concern, EPC Value and Units, Risk Calculation
Approach, and Cancer Risk Calculations
1. Complete the Radiation Dose
(Intake/Activity Value and Units, CSF Value and Assessment Worksheet for each
Units, and Cancer Risk). Receptor.

2. Provide interim deliverables to the EPA

risk assessor, as appropriate.
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.

3-11 December 2001

3. Incorporate the Radiation Dose Assessment
Worksheet in the Baseline Risk Assessment KEY DATA ELEMENTS IN
Report. PLANNING TABLE 9

A recommended blank Radiation Dose For each unique combination of Scenario

Assessment Worksheet may be found in Appendix Timeframe, Receptor Population, and Receptor
C. An example Radiation Dose Assessment Age, Regions should provide the following
information: Medium, Exposure Medium, Exposure
Worksheet is presented in Appendix D, Example
Point, Chemical of Potential Concern, Carcinogenic
Scenario 11. Risk (Ingestion, Inhalation, Dermal, External
(Radiation) and Exposure Routes Total), and Non-
PLANNING TABLE 9: Summary of Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient (Primary Target
Receptor Risk and Hazards for COPCs. Organ(s), Ingestion, Inhalation, Dermal, and
Exposure Routes Total).
The purpose of Planning Table 9 is:

• To provide a summary of cancer risks and

non-cancer hazards for each Receptor, by for all site-related chemicals.
Medium, Exposure Medium, Exposure Route,
and Exposure Point. 3. Discuss definitions of Planning Tables
Planning Table 9.n.RME: Summary of
The information documented in Planning Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs
Table 9 should include: (RME)
Planning Table 9.n.CT: Summary of
• The cancer risk and non-cancer hazard to each Receptor Risks and Hazards for COPCs (CT)
Receptor for each COPC by Exposure Route
and Exposure Point 4. Complete Planning Table 9 for each
• The total cancer risk and non-cancer hazard combination of Scenario Timeframe, Receptor
for each Exposure Point, Exposure Medium Population, and Receptor Age.
and Medium across all Exposure Routes
• The total cancer risk and non-cancer hazard 5. Incorporate Planning Table 9 in the Baseline
for a Receptor across all media Risk Assessment Report.
• The primary target organs for non-
carcinogenic hazard effects. PLANNING TABLE 10: Risk Summary. The
purpose of Planning Table 10 is:
The data elements presented in Planning
Table 9 are listed in the Planning Table 9 • To provide a summary of cancer risks and
highlight box. non-cancer hazards for each Receptor, by
Medium, Exposure Medium, Exposure Route,
Regions should perform the following steps and Exposure Point, that may trigger the need
associated with the preparation of Planning Table for remedial action.
9.
The information documented in Planning
1. Address non-cancer hazards and cancer risks Table 10 should include:
including the calculations and supporting
information by Exposure Route. • The cancer risk and non-cancer hazard to each
Receptor for each chemical or radionuclide by
2. Include RME and CT results. Ensure that Exposure Route and Exposure Point for risk
risks and hazards from multiple chemicals are drivers
combined appropriately across Pathways that • The total cancer risk and non-cancer hazard
for each Exposure Point, Exposure Medium,
affect the same individual or population subgroup, and Medium across all Exposure Routes for

3-12 December 2001

 risk drivers 5. Incorporate Planning Table 10 in the
• The total cancer risk and non-cancer hazard Baseline Risk Assessment Report.
for a Receptor across all media for risk drivers
• The primary target organs for non- LEAD WORKSHEETS. Two recommended
carcinogenic hazard effects for risk drivers. Lead Worksheets have been provided to document
lead risk evaluations performed for young children
The data elements presented in Planning and adult receptors at a site.
Table 10 are listed in the Planning Table 10
highlight box. Regions should perform the following steps
associated with the preparation of Lead
Worksheets:
KEY DATA ELEMENTS IN
PLANNING TABLE 10 1. Complete the Lead Worksheets for Child
and Adult. Also attach the appropriate graphs
For each unique combination of Scenario and results from the Integrated Exposure
Timeframe, Receptor Population, and Receptor Uptake Biokinetic Model (IEUBK) model (if
Age, Regions should provide the following used) to the Child Worksheet. Also attach
information: Medium, Exposure Medium, results from the adult lead spreadsheet to the
Exposure Point, Chemical, Carcinogenic Risk Adult Worksheet.
(Ingestion, Inhalation, Dermal, External
(Radiation) and Exposure Routes Total), and Non-
Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient (Primary Target 2. The Lead Worksheets should later be
Organ(s), Ingestion, Inhalation, Dermal, and incorporated in the Baseline Risk Assessment
Exposure Routes Total). Report.

Blank recommended Lead Worksheets may be

found in Appendix C. Example Lead Worksheets
Regions should perform the following steps are presented in Appendix D Example Scenario
associated with the preparation of Planning Table 10.
10.
3.1.2 ASSESSMENT OF CONFIDENCE
1. Address non-cancer hazards and cancer risks AND UNCERTAINTY
including the calculations and supporting
information by Exposure Route. Uncertainty assessment is important in risk
assessment. Although the risk assessment should
2. Include RME and CT results. Ensure that indicate sources of variability and uncertainty
risks and hazards from multiple chemicals are throughout the process, it will generally be
combined appropriately across Pathways that appropriate to include a separate section of the
affect the same individual or population Baseline Risk Assessment Report that also focuses
subgroup, for all site-related chemicals. on the uncertainties associated with data
evaluation, toxicity assessment, exposure assess­
3. Discuss definitions of Planning Tables ment, and risk characterization, as well as overall
Planning Table 10.n.RME: Risk uncertainty of the final risk numbers. The region
Summary (RME) may choose to defer presentation of this specific
Planning Table 10.n.CT: Risk section to the Draft Baseline Risk Assessment
Summary (CT) Report.

4. Complete Planning Table 10 for each Regions should perform the following steps
combination of Scenario Timeframe, Receptor associated with the Assessment of Confidence
Population, and Receptor Age. and Uncertainty:

3-13 December 2001

1. Summarize the Assessment of Confidence • Supporting Information
and Uncertainty. • The Assessment of Confidence and
Uncertainty
2. Incorporate the Assessment of Confidence • Probabilistic Analysis information (if
and Uncertainty in the Baseline Risk applicable).
Assessment Report.
However, the report should not consist exclusively
3.1.3 PROBABILISTIC ANALYSIS of the Interim Deliverables, because additional
INFORMATION narrative should be necessary for a clear and
comprehensible Baseline Risk Assessment Report.
Based upon the results from a deterministic For example, information such as definition of
risk characterization calculation (Planning Table hazard indices and cancer slope factors,
7) a decision should be made if a Probabilistic toxicological profiles for COPCs, and other
Analysis will be performed to calculate cancer information indicated by risk assessment guidance
risks and non-cancer hazards in accordance with should be incorporated.
Agency policy.
Every risk assessment should contain a Risk
Regions should perform the following steps Characterization appropriate to the assessment.
associated with the Probabilistic Analysis: Risk assessments submitted to the Agency or
performed by the Agency should incorporate any
1. Summarize the Probabilistic Analysis (if current Agency guidance applicable on Risk
performed) in a non-standard format. Characterization (e.g., RAGS/HHEM, EPA 1989c;
(Planning formats have not been developed to Memorandum from Carol Browner on Risk
document probalistic analysis.) Refer to Characterization, EPA 1995b).
probabilistic analysis guidance (U.S. EPA
1997e, 1997g and 2001d) to determine the 3.3 FINAL BASELINE RISK
information to be documented. ASSESSMENT REPORT
2. Incorporate the Probabilistic Analysis Regions should submit the Final Baseline
summary in the Baseline Risk Assessment Risk Assessment Report as a revision of the
Report. draft, incorporating review comments as necessary
and appropriate.
3.2 DRAFT BASELINE RISK
ASSESSMENT REPORT Regions should Prepare Draft ROD Risk
Worksheet (ROD Risk Highlights) as directed
Regions should Submit the Draft Baseline by the EPA RPM and EPA risk assessor, upon
Risk Assessment Report after the completion and completion of the Final Baseline Risk Assessment
acceptance of the Interim Deliverables described Report. Refer to the ROD guidance (U.S. EPA,
above. EPA guidance should be consulted in 1999a) for human health risk data needs. The
preparing the Draft Baseline Risk Assessment draft ROD Risk Worksheets present the Exposure
Report. EPA anticipates that this report Pathways and Chemicals that help justify the need
preparation will be greatly expedited, since it for remedial action. Regions should prepare these
should incorporate the following Interim recommended Worksheets when the Final
Deliverables:

Baseline Risk Assessment Report is completed, in

• Planning Tables 0 through 10 order to facilitate the EPA risk manager’s
• Worksheets on Data Useability, Dermal, preparation of the ROD at a later date.
Radiation Dose Assessments, and Lead, as
applicable 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- TO SUPERFUND RISK DATA
16A, 6-16B, 6-18A, and 6-18B. Blank templates
for the five ROD Risk Worksheets (Highlights)
COLLECTION
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

 EXHIBIT 3-1

INTERIM DELIVERABLES FOR EACH SITE

Interim Deliverable Scope of Deliverable

INTERIM DELIVERABLES ASSOCIATED WITH PLANNING TABLE 0

TARA Schedule Worksheet One Worksheet for each Risk Assessment.

Planning Table 0 - Site Risk Assessment One Planning Table for each Risk Assessment.
Identification Information

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 One Worksheet for each Medium.

Supporting Information on Background Values Information for all Chemicals listed in Planning Table
2.

Planning Table 2 - Occurrence, Distribution, and One Planning Table for each unique combination of
Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs) Scenario Timeframe, Medium, and Exposure Medium.

INTERIM DELIVERABLES ASSOCIATED WITH PLANNING TABLE 3

Supporting Information on EPCs Information for all EPCs presented in Planning Table
3.

Planning Table 3 - Exposure Point Concentration One Planning Table for each unique combination of
(EPC) Summary Scenario Timeframe, Medium, and Exposure Medium.

INTERIM DELIVERABLES ASSOCIATED WITH PLANNING TABLE 4

Supporting Information on Modeled Intake Information for all Modeled Intake calculations that are
Methodology and Parameters not presented in Planning Table 4.

Supporting Information on Chemical-Specific Information for all Chemical-Specific Parameters used.

Parameters

Dermal Worksheet Information for calculation of DA(event).

Planning Table 4 - Values Used for Daily Intake One Planning Table for each unique combination of
Calculations Scenario Timeframe, Medium, and Exposure Medium.

INTERIM DELIVERABLES ASSOCIATED WITH PLANNING TABLES 5 AND 6

Supporting Information on Toxicity Data for Information for each Special Case Chemical.
Special Case Chemicals

Planning Table 5 - Non-Cancer Toxicity Data 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 Scope of Deliverable

Planning Table 6 - Cancer Toxicity Data 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 Information for each Special Case Chemical.
and Hazard Calculations

Planning Table 7 - Calculation of Chemical Cancer One Planning Table for each unique combination of
Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards Scenario Timeframe, Receptor Population, and
Receptor Age, for RME and for CT.

Radiation Dose Assessment Worksheet One Worksheet for each unique combination of
Scenario Timeframe, Receptor Population, and
Receptor Age (as appropriate).

Planning Table 8 - Calculation of Radiation Cancer One Planning Table for each unique combination of
Risks Scenario Timeframe, Receptor Population and
Receptor Age.

INTERIM DELIVERABLES ASSOCIATED WITH PLANNING TABLES 9 AND 10

Planning Table 9 - Summary of Receptor Risks and One Planning Table for each unique combination of
Hazards for COPCs Scenario Timeframe, Receptor Population, and
Receptor Age, for RME and CT.

Planning Table 10 - Risk Summary 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 Planning Table 0 - Site Risk Assessment Identification
assessment Information

Plan the risk assessment review process TARA Schedule Worksheet

Develop a conceptual site model Planning Table 1 - Selection of Exposure Pathways

Gather and report appropriate data Planning Table 2 - Occurrence, Distribution, and
Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern

Data Evaluation

Evaluate detection frequency, background data, and Data Useability Worksheet

site data
Planning Table 2 - Occurrence, Distribution, and
Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern

Identify chemicals of potential concern and provide Planning Table 2 - Occurrence, Distribution, and
rationale for selection and deletion Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern

Exposure Assessment

Characterize physical setting, identify potential Planning Table 1 - Selection of Exposure Pathways
pathways and exposed population

Identify exposure assumptions Planning Table 4 - Values Used for Daily Intake
Calculations

Dermal Worksheet

Estimate exposure point concentrations Planning Table 3 - Exposure Point Concentration

Summary

Estimate exposure intakes 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- Planning Table 5 - Non-Cancer Toxicity Data
carcinogenic effects and provide source information
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 Planning Table 7 - Calculation of Chemical Cancer
Risks and Non-Cancer Hazards

Planning Table 8 - Calculation of Radiation Cancer

Risks

Radiation Dose Assessment Worksheet

Combine risks by media for different receptors Planning Table 9 - Summary of Receptor Risks and
Hazards for COPCs

Summarize risk drivers for different receptors Planning Table 10 - Risk Summary

Prepare draft risk documentation for ROD 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 REVISION 1 CHANGES

Planning Table 7 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 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).

Radiation Dose Assessment Worksheet This is a new Worksheet.

Planning Tables 9 and 10 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.

Lead Worksheets These are new Worksheets.

ROD Risk Worksheets (ROD Risk These are new Worksheets that copy the ROD Guidance (U.S.
Highlights) EPA, 1999a) Risk Highlights.

3-22 December 2001

 EXHIBIT 3-4

RAGS PART D INFORMATION SOURCES

FOR ROD RISK GUIDANCE HIGHLIGHTS

ROD RISK PURPOSE ROD FIELDS ASSOCIATED ASSOCIATED

HIGHLIGHT OF ROD RAGS D TABLE RAGS D FIELDS
RISK
HIGHLIGHT
Highlight Summary of Scenario Timeframe Planning Tables 2 & 3 Scenario Timeframe
6-15 Chemicals of
Concern and Medium Planning Tables 2 & 3 Medium
Medium-
Exposure Medium Planning Tables 2 & 3 Exposure Medium
Specific
Exposure Point Exposure Point Planning Tables 2 & 3 Exposure Point
Concentrations
Chemical of Significant Chemicals Chemical
Concern from Planning Table 2
(site specific definition)

Concentration Planning Table 2 Minimum

Detected - Min Concentration

Concentration Planning Table 2 Maximum

Detected - Max Concentration

Units Planning Table 2 Units

Frequency of Planning Table 2 Detection Frequency

Detection

Exposure Point Planning Table 3 Exposure Point

Concentration Concentration Value

Exposure Point Planning Table 3 Exposure Point

Concentration Units Concentration Units

Statistical Measure Planning Table 3 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 PURPOSE ROD FIELDS ASSOCIATED ASSOCIATED

HIGHLIGHT OF ROD RAGS D TABLE RAGS D FIELDS
RISK
HIGHLIGHT
Highlight Cancer Toxicity Pathway: Ingestion, Planning Table 6.1
6-16A Data Summary Dermal (Cancer Toxicity Data-
Oral/Dermal)

Chemical of Chemicals of Concern Chemical of Potential

Concern from Planning Table Concern
6.1 (site specific
definition)

Oral Cancer Slope Planning Table 6.1 Oral Cancer Slope

Factor Factor

Dermal Cancer Planning Table 6.1 Absorbed Cancer

Slope Factor Slope Factor for
Dermal Value

Slope Factor Units Planning Table 6.1 Oral Cancer Slope

Factor Units and
Absorbed Cancer
Slope Factor for
Dermal Units

Weight of Planning Table 6.1 Weight of

Evidence/ Evidence/Cancer
Cancer Guideline Guideline Description
Description

Source Planning Table 6.1 Oral CSF Source(s)

Date Planning Table 6.1 Oral CSF Date(s)

Pathway: Inhalation Planning Table 6.2

(Cancer Toxicity Data -
Inhalation)

Chemical of Chemicals of Concern Chemical of Potential

Concern from Planning Table Concern
6.2 (site specific
definition)

Unit Risk Planning Table 6.2 Unit Risk Value

Units Planning Table 6.2 Unit Risk Units

3-24 December 2001

 EXHIBIT 3-4

RAGS PART D INFORMATION SOURCES

FOR ROD RISK GUIDANCE HIGHLIGHTS (continued)

ROD RISK PURPOSE ROD FIELDS ASSOCIATED ASSOCIATED

HIGHLIGHT OF ROD RAGS D TABLE RAGS D FIELDS
RISK
HIGHLIGHT
Highlight 6-16A Cancer Toxicity Inhalation Cancer Planning Table 6.2 Inhalation Cancer
(continued) Data Summary Slope Factor Slope Factor Value
(continued)
Units Planning Table 6.2 Inhalation Cancer
Slope Factor Units

Weight of Planning Table 6.2 Weight of

Evidence/ Cancer Evidence/Cancer
Guideline Guideline Description
Description

Source Planning Table 6.2 Unit Risk : Inhalation

CSF Source(s)

Date Planning Table 6.2 Unit Risk : Inhalation

CSF Date(s)

Pathway: External Planning Table 6.4

(Radiation) (Cancer Toxicity Data -
Radiation)

COC Chemicals of Concern Chemical of Potential

from Planning Table Concern
6.4 (site specific
definition)

Cancer Slope or Planning Table 6.4 Cancer Slope Factor

Conversion Factor Value

Exposure Route Planning Table 1 Exposure Route

Units Planning Table 6.4 Cancer Slope Factor

Units

Weight of Not Available Not Available

Evidence/ Cancer
Guideline
Description

Source Planning Table 6.4 Source(s)

Date Planning Table 6.4 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 PURPOSE ROD FIELDS ASSOCIATED ASSOCIATED

HIGHLIGHT OF ROD RAGS D TABLE RAGS D FIELDS
RISK
HIGHLIGHT
Highlight Non-Cancer Pathway: Ingestion, Planning Table 5.1
6-16B Toxicity Data Dermal (Non-Cancer Toxicity
Summary Data - Oral/Dermal)

Chemical of Chemicals of Concern Chemical of Potential

Concern from Planning Table Concern
5.1 (site specific
definition)

Chronic/ Planning Table 5.1 Chronic/Subchronic

Subchronic

Oral RfD Value Planning Table 5.1 Oral RfD Value

Oral RfD Units Planning Table 5.1 Oral RfD Units

Dermal RfD Planning Table 5.1 Absorbed RfD for

Dermal Value

Dermal RfD Units Planning Table 5.1 Absorbed RfD for

Dermal Units

Primary Target Planning Table 5.1 Primary Target

Organ Organ(s)

Combined Planning Table 5.1 Combined

Uncertainty/ Uncertainty/
Modifying Factors Modifying Factors

Sources of Planning Table 5.1 RfD:Target Organ(s)

RfD:Target Organ Source(s)

Dates of RfD:Target Planning Table 5.1 RfD:Target Organ(s)

Organ Date(s)

Pathway: Inhalation Planning Table 5.2

(Non-Cancer Toxicity
Data - Inhalation)

Chemical of Chemicals of Concern Chemical of Potential

Concern from Planning Table Concern
5.2 (site specific
definition)

3-26 December 2001

 EXHIBIT 3-4

RAGS PART D INFORMATION SOURCES

FOR ROD RISK GUIDANCE HIGHLIGHTS (continued)

ROD RISK PURPOSE ROD FIELDS ASSOCIATED ASSOCIATED

HIGHLIGHT OF ROD RAGS D TABLE RAGS D FIELDS
RISK
HIGHLIGHT
Highlight Non-Cancer Chronic/ Planning Table 5.2 Chronic/ Subchronic
6-16B Toxicity Data Subchronic
(continued) Summary
(continued) Inhalation RfC Planning Table 5.2 Inhalation RfC Value

Inhalation RfC Planning Table 5.2 Inhalation RfC Units

Units

Inhalation RfD Planning Table 5.2 Extrapolated RfD

Value

Inhalation RfD Planning Table 5.2 Extrapolated RfD

Units Units

Primary Target Planning Table 5.2 Primary Target

Organ Organ(s)

Combined Planning Table 5.2 Combined

Uncertainty/ Uncertainty/
Modifying Factors Modifying Factors

Sources of Planning Table 5.2 RfC:Target Organ(s)

RfC:RfD: Target Source(s)
Organ

Dates Planning Table 5.2 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 PURPOSE ROD FIELDS ASSOCIATED ASSOCIATED

HIGHLIGHT OF ROD RAGS D TABLE RAGS D FIELDS
RISK
HIGHLIGHT
Highlight Risk Scenario Timeframe Planning Table 9 or 10 Scenario Timeframe
6-18A Characterization
Summary - Receptor Population Planning Table 9 or 10 Receptor Population
Carcinogens
Receptor Age Planning Table 9 or 10 Receptor Age

Medium Planning Table 9 or 10 Medium

Exposure Medium Planning Table 9 or 10 Exposure Medium

Exposure Point Planning Table 9 or 10 Exposure Point

Chemical of Chemicals of Concern Chemical

Concern from Planning Table 9
or 10 (site specific
definition)

Carcinogenic Risk– Planning Table 9 or 10 Carcinogenic

Ingestion Risk–Ingestion

Carcinogenic Risk– Planning Table 9 or 10 Carcinogenic

Inhalation Risk–Inhalation

Carcinogenic Risk– Planning Table 9 or 10 Carcinogenic

Dermal Risk–Dermal

Carcinogenic Planning Table 9 or 10 Carcinogenic

Risk–External Risk–External
(Radiation) (Radiation)

Carcinogenic Risk Planning Table 9 or 10 Carcinogenic Risk -

Exposure Routes Exposure Routes Total
Total

Medium Risk Total Planning Table 9 or 10 Medium Total (Risk)

Total Risk Planning Table 9 or 10 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 PURPOSE ROD FIELDS ASSOCIATED ASSOCIATED

HIGHLIGHT OF ROD RAGS D TABLE RAGS D FIELDS
RISK
HIGHLIGHT
Highlight Risk Scenario Timeframe Planning Table 9 or 10 Scenario Timeframe
6-18B Characterization
Summary - Receptor Population Planning Table 9 or 10 Receptor Population
Non-
Receptor Age Planning Table 9 or 10 Receptor Age
Carcinogens
Medium Planning Table 9 or 10 Medium

Exposure Medium Planning Table 9 or 10 Exposure Medium

Exposure Point Planning Table 9 or 10 Exposure Point

Chemical of Chemicals of Concern Chemical

Concern from Planning Table 9
or 10 (site specific
definition)

Primary Target Planning Table 9 or 10 Non-Carcinogenic

Organ Hazard Quotient -
Primary Target
Organ(s)

Non-Carcinogenic Planning Table 9 or 10 Non-Carcinogenic

Hazard Quotient - Hazard Quotient -
Ingestion Ingestion

Non-Carcinogenic Planning Table 9 or 10 Non-Carcinogenic

Hazard Quotient - Hazard Quotient -
Inhalation Inhalation

Non-Carcinogenic Planning Table 9 or 10 Non-Carcinogenic

Hazard Quotient - Hazard Quotient -
Dermal Dermal

Non-Carcinogenic Planning Table 9 or 10 Non-Carcinogenic

Hazard Quotient - Hazard Quotient -
Exposure Routes Exposuse Routes
Total Total

3-29 December 2001

 EXHIBIT 3-4

RAGS PART D INFORMATION SOURCES

FOR ROD RISK GUIDANCE HIGHLIGHTS (continued)

ROD RISK PURPOSE ROD FIELDS ASSOCIATED ASSOCIATED

HIGHLIGHT OF ROD RAGS D TABLE RAGS D FIELDS
RISK
HIGHLIGHT
Highlight 6-18B Risk Medium Hazard Planning Table 9 or 10 Medium Total
(continued) Characterization Index Total (Hazard)
Summary -
Non- Receptor Hazard Planning Table 9 or 10 Receptor HI Total
Carcinogens Index
(continued)
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 period of many years. Populations that may be
assessor during the FS has numerous the benefits exposed to chemicals during remedy
including: 1) supporting the development of implementation include people who live and work
remedial action objectives (RAOs) and PRGs, 2) in the vicinity of the site.
identifying risks and hazards associated with
PRGS, and 3) supporting comparison of risks The NCP also provides that RAOs and
associated with various remedial alternatives. For remediation goals should be developed. These
these reasons, EPA risk assessor involvement in serve as objectives and goals that can be used to
FS preparation and review is strongly encouraged. identify and assess remedial alternatives at
Superfund sites. The remainder of this chapter
4.1 INTRODUCTION discusses RAOs and remediation goals. As also
discussed in the NCP, final remediation goals are
The purpose of the FS generally is to evaluate generally not determined until a final remedy for
waste management remedial alternatives. The the site is selected in the ROD (see Chapter 5).
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP) (U.S. EPA, 1990c) 4.1.1 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
provides that a detailed analysis should be
performed. The NCP indicates that for screening As discussed in the NCP, RAOs should
of remedial alternatives, the long-term and short- describe, in general terms, what a remedial action
term aspects of three criteria - effectiveness, should accomplish in order to be protective of
implementability, and cost - should be used to human health and the environment. RAOs are
guide the development and screening of remedial typically narrative statements that specify the
alternatives. Consideration of effectiveness contaminants and environmental media of
involves evaluating the long-term and short-term concern, the potential exposure pathways to be
human health risks. Long-term risks associated addressed by remedial actions, the exposed
with a remedial alternative are those risks that will populations and environmental receptors to be
remain after the remedy is complete; short-term protected, and the acceptable contaminant
risks associated with a remedial alternative are concentrations or concentration ranges
generally those risks that occur during (remediation goals) in each environmental
implementation of the remedial alternative. medium.

Evaluating long-term risks ideally includes an 4.1.2 REMEDIATION GOALS

assessment of the risks associated with treatment
of residuals and untreated wastes for a treatment- Remediation goals are normally a subset of the
based remedy, or an evaluation of the remedy’s RAOs. They generally provide the acceptable
ability to provide protectiveness over time for a contaminant concentrations in each medium for
containment-based remedy. For short-term human remedial actions to meet.
health risks associated with a remedial alternative,
a risk assessor may need to evaluate the risks that As explained in the preamble to the final NCP
occur during implementation of the remedial that remediation goals are generally based on
alternative (e.g., risks associated with emissions ARARs unless ARARs are not available or are not
from an onsite air stripper). Because some protective. ARARs do not always exist for all
remedies may take many years to complete, some
“short-term” risks may actually occur over a

4-1 December 2001

 protective, (b) risk-based concentrations that are
SELECTION OF REMEDIATION GOALS determined to be protective of human health and
the environment. These risk-based concentrations
The NCP [U.S. EPA, 1990c; Section should be calculated using, at a minimum, the
300.430(e) (2)(I)] states that the selection of criteria sited in numbers 1 and 2 in the
remediation goals should consider the following: Remediation Goals highlight box. Other factors
mentioned in the highlight box [i.e., limits of
“...remediation goals shall establish acceptable
detection (number 3), uncertainty (number 4), and
exposure levels that are protective of human
health and the environment and shall be
background concentration levels (number 5)] also
developed considering the following... should be considered.

ARARs under Federal environmental or State Risk-based concentrations may need to be

environmental or facility siting laws, if developed even if ARARs are available to ensure
available, and the following factors: that these ARARs are protective of human health
and the environment.
1. For systemic toxicants, acceptable
exposure levels shall represent ARAR-Based Remediation Goals. Potential
concentration levels to which the human
chemical-specific ARARs include concentration
population, including sensitive subgroups,
may be exposed without adverse effect
limits set by Federal environmental regulations
during a lifetime or part of a lifetime, such as Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)
incorporating an adequate margin of established under the Safe Drinking Water Act
safety; (SDWA), ambient water quality criteria
established under the Clean Water Act (CWA),
2. For known or suspected carcinogens, and State regulations (e.g., State drinking water
acceptable exposure levels are generally laws). Action-specific and location-specific
concentration levels that represent an ARARs must also be complied with or waived
excess upper bound lifetime cancer risk to according to the NCP.
an individual of between 10-4 and 10-6 us-
ing information on the relationship
between dose and response. The 10-6 risk
Risk-Based Remediation Goals. In general,
level shall be used as the point of remediation goals based on risk-based calculations
departure for determining remediation should be determined using cancer or non-cancer
goals for alternatives when ARARs are not toxicity values with specific exposure
available or are not sufficiently protective assumptions. For chemicals with carcinogenic
because of the presence of multiple effects, the NCP has described the development of
contaminants at a site or multiple remediation goals, as a practical matter, as a two-
pathways of exposure; step process [U.S. EPA, 1990c, Section
300.430(e)(2)(I)(D)]. A concentration equivalent
3. Factors related to technical limitations
to a lifetime cancer risk of 10-6 is first established
such as detection/quantification limits for
contaminants;
as a point of departure. Then, other factors are
taken into account to determine where within the
4. Factors related to uncertainty; and acceptable range the remediation goals for a given
contaminant at a specific site should be
5. Other pertinent information.” established.

The NCP discusses a generally acceptable

risk range of 10-4 to 10-6. EPA has further
chemicals and all environmental media. clarified the extent of the acceptable risk range by
stating that the upper boundary generally is not a
Therefore, according to the NCP, there are two discrete line at 1x10-4. Risks slightly greater than
major sources for determining the acceptable 1x10 -4 may be considered to be acceptable (i.e.,
exposure levels used for developing remediation protective) if justified based on site-specific
goals: a) concentrations found in Federal and State conditions, including any uncertainties about the
ARARs and, if these are not available or not nature and extent of contamination and associated

4-2 December 2001

risks. [See Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment in in the risk management decision process.
Superfund Remedy Selection Decisions (U.S. EPA,
1991d)]. The primary guidance on development of the
FS is available in “Guidance for Conducting
For non-cancer effects, the NCP states that an Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies
acceptable exposure level should be defined. (See Under CERCLA (U.S. EPA, 1988). RAGS Part B
“Selection of Remediation Goals” highlight box in (U.S. EPA, 1991a) also presents guidance for the
this section.) According to EPA guidance, role of risk assessment in the FS. Consult the
generally if the Hazard Index (HI) (Intake/RfD) is EPA RPM for guidance.
above 1 (i.e., the site exposure is estimated to be
above the RfD) there may be a concern for 4.2 DEVELOP REMEDIAL
potential non-cancer effects [see Role of the ACTION OBJECTIVES
Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfund Remedy
Selection Decisions (U.S. EPA, 1991d)]. The risk assessor should be involved in the
Therefore, in calculating remediation goals at a preparation or review of the following:
site to protect for non-cancer effects, remediation
goals are generally set at a Hazard Index at or • A narrative description of the Medium,
below 1. Exposure Point and Exposure Routes, and
chemicals and radionuclides that will be the
4.1.3 PRELIMINARY REMEDIATION focus of the remedial action
GOALS
• A narrative identifying the remedial action
PRGs for a site are usually established as early objectives for prevention of exposure and
in the RI/FS process as possible during project restoration, where appropriate of each
scoping (see Chapter 2). These initial PRGs can contaminated Medium (e.g., restoring
then be modified as necessary during the FS, groundwater to a potable water source)
based on site-specific information from the
baseline risk assessment. The PRGs should then A format such as Example Table 1 in Exhibit
be used to establish the goals to be met by the 4-1 may be a useful approach to present these data
remedial alternatives in the FS. The PRGs also for each Medium.
should guide the development of the Proposed
Plan for remedial action and the selection of
remediation levels in the Record of Decision.
4.3 DEVELOP REMEDIATION
During the FS, both risk-based and ARAR-based GOALS
PRGs should be considered. (See Section 4.1.2
for more discussion on ARAR-based PRGs). The risk assessor should be involved in the
preparation or review of a short narrative or tables
Risk-based PRGs (non-ARARs) may be which provide the goals of the remediation. First,
modified within the acceptable risk range during all values considered as PRGs should be
the remedy selection process based on a balancing identified. Then the PRGs selected for each
of the major trade-offs among the alternatives as chemical to be used in the FS should be presented.
well as the public and Agency comments on the
Proposed Plan (RAGS Part B, U.S. EPA, 1991a).
Such balancing among alternatives and con- 4.3.1 IDENTIFY VALUES CONSIDERED
sideration of community and State acceptance AS PRELIMINARY REMEDIATION
should establish the specific level of protection GOALS
the remedy will achieve (i.e., the final remediation
levels). The risk assessor should be involved in the
following activities:
The dialogue begun during Scoping between • Identify which chemicals and/or radionuclides
the EPA risk assessor and the EPA RPM should will have PRGs developed.
continue during the FS and beyond to ensure that
risk assessment information is used appropriately • Identify ARAR-based PRGs and associated

4-3 December 2001

 risks/hazards. concern, maximum concentration, PRG, basis
of PRG, and calculated risks and hazards
• If ARAR-based PRGs are not protective, associated with the PRG for each Medium and
risk-based PRGs using EPA methods should Receptor Population.
be calculated.
• Summarize the total risk and total hazard
• Identify other values to consider as PRGs among all chemicals for each Medium and
[e.g., background, detection limits, Procedure Receptor Population combination.
Quantitation Limits (PQLs)].
A format such as Example Table 3 in Exhibit
A format such as Example Table 2 in Exhibit 4-1 may be a useful approach to present these
4-1 may be a useful approach to present these values for each Medium and Receptor Population
values, for each Medium and Receptor Population combination.
combination.
4.5 EVALUATE REMEDIAL
4.3.2 SELECT PRELIMINARY TECHNOLOGIES AND
REMEDIATION GOALS
ALTERNATIVES FOR RISK
The risk assessor should be involved in the CONSIDERATIONS
following activities:
The risk assessor may provide input in the
• Select PRG(s) for each chemical from among process of evaluating remedial technologies and
the values considered (e.g., risk-based for alternatives for risk considerations beginning in
cancer and non-cancer, ARAR-based, other), the development and screening stage of the FS and
modifying values as appropriate. Note that extending into the detailed analysis stage. The
the PRG should be ARAR-based unless there major goal for the risk evaluation during these
is no ARAR available or the ARAR is not steps is to provide the FS team and the EPA RPM
protective. with specific long-term and short-term human
health risk information to consider when
• Provide the rationale for the selected PRG. identifying and screening technologies and
Include the source of the value. alternatives and performing detailed analysis of
alternatives.
A format such as Example Table 3 in Exhibit
4-1 may be a useful approach to present these Generally, the long-term human health risks
values for each Medium and Receptor Population associated with a remedial technology or
combination. 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
4.4 SUMMARIZE RISKS AND treatment residuals, untreated wastes, or contained
wastes.
HAZARDS ASSOCIATED
WITH PRELIMINARY Generally, the short-term human health risks
REMEDIATION GOALS associated with a remedial technology or
alternative are those risks that are expected to
The risk assessor should be involved in the occur during implementation of the technology or
preparation or review of a short narrative or tables alternative, which may occur over a period of
which summarize the risks and hazards associated years. Populations to be considered include
with the PRGs. The risk assessor should be people who live and work in the vicinity of the
involved in the following activities: site and workers involved in site remediation.

• Identify the chemical and/or radionuclide of 4.5.1 IDENTIFICATION AND

4-4 December 2001

 SCREENING OF TECHNOLOGIES
AND ALTERNATIVES NCP CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
The risk assessor may contribute to the
identification and screening of technologies and
alternatives and focus on evaluating associated 1. Overall Protection of Human Health and
short-term and long-term human health risks to Environment
ensure that they meet RAOs and PRGs. The goal
of the risk assessor is to assist in identifying, and 2. Compliance with ARARs
eliminating from further consideration,
3. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
technologies and/or alternatives with clearly
unacceptable risks. This evaluation is typically 4. Reductions in Toxicity, Mobility, and
qualitative, based on simplifying assumptions and Volume Through Treatment
professional judgment rather than detailed
analysis. The risk assessor’s evaluation should be 5. Short-term Effectiveness
associated with the consideration of effectiveness,
one of the NCP’s three screening criteria. 6. Implementability
(Implementability and cost are the other two
criteria evaluated at this screening stage, but they 7. Cost
do not typically involve risk assessor
8. State Acceptance
participation.)
9. Community Acceptance.
4.5.2 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF
ALTERNATIVES

The overall objective of the risk assessor’s The detailed analysis of short-term risks
role in the detailed analysis of alternatives is to should include the following components for each
support the preparation and evaluation of the risk alternative:
information needed for RPMs to select a remedial
alternative for a site. See the highlight box for the • Evaluate short-term exposure
NCP’s nine remedial alternatives. The risk • Evaluate short-term toxicity
assessor should contribute to the analysis of at • Characterize short-term risks to the
least three of the nine criteria specified by the community (including people who live or
NCP: work on or near the site)
• Characterize short-term risks to remediation
• Overall Protection of Human Health and the workers (a qualitative assessment may be
Environment appropriate if the risks to remediation workers
• Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence are addressed adequately in the site-specific
• Short-term Effectiveness. Health and Safety Plan).

The detailed analysis of short-term and long- The detailed analysis of long-term risks
term risks may be qualitative or quantitative includes the following components for each
depending on the “perceived risk” associated with alternative.
the alternative based on both professional
judgment and community concerns. The risk • Evaluate residual risk
analysis should follow the same general steps as • Evaluate protectiveness over time.
the baseline risk assessment; however, the steps

will typically not be conducted in the same level

of detail for the FS.

4-5 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 Most Risk/Hazard Risk-Based Risk-Based Other Other

Restrictive Restrictive at ARAR PRG PRG Value** Value**
ARAR ARAR Cancer* Non-Cancer* Source
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 PRG Basis for Risk at PRG: Hazard at PRG: Non- Target Endpoint
Concentration PRG* Cancer Cancer

Totals

*TBC (Federal ARARs, State ARARs), Risk-based.

Background Concentrations, method detection limits

4-6 December 2001

 CHAPTER 5

RISK EVALUATIONS
AFTER THE FEASIBILITY STUDY

After completion of the FS, EPA risk assessor alternative should be discussed.
involvement in risk evaluations should support the
EPA RPM in ensuring that the remedy is 5.2.1 BASELINE RISK SUMMARY IN
protective. While these risk evaluations may not THE RECORD OF DECISION
always require a significant level of quantitation,
continuous involvement of EPA risk assessors is To support the preparation of the Record of
importantl to ensure consistency in risk evaluation Decision, the EPA risk assessor should prepare or
and risk communication. Post-FS activities review a summary of the Baseline Risk
benefitting from EPA risk assessor involvement Assessment Report which supports the basis for
typically include the Proposed Plan, the Record of the remedial action. The primary focus should be
Decision (ROD), the Remedial Design/Remedial on those exposure pathways and chemicals of
Action, and Five-Year Reviews. concern found to pose actual or potential threats to
human health or the environment. Chemicals
5.1 RISK EVALUATION FOR THE included in the risk assessment but determined not
PROPOSED PLAN to contribute significantly to an unacceptable risk
need not be included in the Risk Characterization
The Proposed Plan should include sufficient Summary in the ROD (e.g., chemicals with risk
risk assessment information to support the basis levels less than 1x10-6 or HQ less than 0.1) unless
for the proposed remedial action. EPA risk they are needed to justify a No Action ROD.
assessor support is recommended during the
preparation of the Proposed Plan to ensure the Refer to Interim Final Guidance on Preparing
consistency of risk information with the Baseline Superfund Decision Documents (U.S. EPA,
Risk Assessment Report and the FS Report. The 1989b) and Guide to Preparing Superfund
level of detail in the Proposed Plan should be Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other
appropriate to the needs of the public. Additional Remedy Selection Decision Documents (U.S. EPA,
EPA risk assessor support at this time may be 1999a) for a recommended format for
qualitative or quantitative, typically focusing on summarizing human health risk assessment
refinement of previous analyses, based on newly information in the ROD.
developed information.
Other risk information may also be included in
the ROD depending upon the level of detail
5.2 RISK EVALUATION preferred. Information related to values used for
ASSOCIATED WITH THE intake calculations and non-cancer and cancer
RECORD OF DECISION toxicity data and exposure point concentrations are
summarized on Planning Tables 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8,
EPA risk assessor involvement in preparation which could be placed in appendices to the ROD.
of the risk evaluation in the ROD is strongly Section 3.3 provides recommended ROD Risk
recommended. A summary of the relevant Worksheets that correspond to ROD guidance
information from the Baseline Risk Assessment highlights 6-15, 6-16A, 6-16B, 6-18A and 6.18B.
Report should be presented in a mixture of text Preparation of these recommended
format and table format. In addition, the risks
Worksheets previously, as interim deliverables
(short-term and residual) associated with each (see Section 3.3), is strongly recommended

5-1 December 2001

because it should greatly facilitates risk evaluation following:
in the ROD. If these recommended Worksheets
were not previously prepared, refer to Exhibit 3-4 • Whether cleanup levels specified in the ROD
for RAGS Part D Planning Table sources for this have been attained
information. • Whether residual risk after completion of the
remedy ensures protectiveness.
5.2.2 RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH
CLEANUP LEVELS IN THE 5.4 RISK EVALUATION
RECORD OF DECISION ASSOCIATED WITH
EXPLANATIONS OF
The ROD (except for no-action RODs) should
describe how remedial alternatives will reduce
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
risks by achieving cleanup levels through (ESDs) AND AMENDED RODs
treatment or by eliminating exposures through
engineering controls for the contaminated media. 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
In addition, the risk assessor should
amended ROD. Examples of conditions causing
prepare/review the following information related
this situation may include, but are not limited to,
to the selected alternative:
the following:
• Document short-term risks that may occur
C Toxicity values change
during remedy implementation
C Additional technology performance
• Document risks that may remain after
information becomes available
completion of the remedy (including residual
C ARARs change (e.g., Land Disposal
risk from untreated waste remaining at the
Restrictions).
site)
• Evaluate the need for five-year reviews.
EPA risk assessor involvement with RPM
evaluations of ESDs and Amended RODs should
Refer to the ROD guidance (U.S. EPA, 1999a) for
focuses on evaluating: whether cleanup levels are
suggestions regarding presentation of risks
still protective when considering new ARARs;
associated with cleanup levels in the ROD.
new parameters for risk and hazard calculations;
new technology information; and, other new
5.3 RISK EVALUATION DURING information. Any new information and revised
REMEDIAL DESIGN AND risk evaluations should be thoroughly
REMEDIAL ACTION documented.

The EPA risk assessor’s role during remedial 5.5 RISK EVALUATION DURING
design and remedial action may be qualitative or FIVE-YEAR REVIEWS
quantitative depending on the site and phase of the
project. During the remedial design, short-term CERCLA provides for reviews of certain
and long-term risks may be assessed through remedies at least every five years to assure that
refinement of previous analyses and identification human health and the environment are being
of the need for engineering controls or other protected by the remedial alternative implemented.
measures to mitigate risk. EPA risk assessor involvement with RPM
evaluations during Five-Year Reviews are
During the remedial action, the EPA risk generally quantitative and should focus on the
assessor is more likely to provide quantitative risk following three goals:
evaluation support. Short-term risk evaluation
may address impacts to remediation workers and • Confirm that the remedy remains protective
neighboring communities. (including any engineering or institutional
Long-term risk evaluations typically focus on the controls)

5-2 December 2001

• Evaluate whether cleanup levels are still • Evaluate whether cleanup has reduced risks to
protective by considering new ARARs, new levels no longer requiring restricted site use
parameters for risk and hazard calculations, and five-year reviews (U.S. EPA, 2001b).
and other new information

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. OSWER Directive 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 Superfund Decision Documents. Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9355.3-02.

U.S. EPA. 1989c. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS): 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. NTIS PB92-963333.

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-1 December 2001

 REFERENCES* (Continued)

U.S. EPA. 1992b. Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications. Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. EPA/600/8-91/011B.

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 of Polycyclic 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 and RCRA 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/630/R-97/001.

U.S. EPA. 1997f. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST), Annual FY 1997. 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/630/R-97/001.

U.S. EPA. 1997h. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Data Base. 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. OSWER Directive 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
Instructions

December 2001
Glossary

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
 TABLE 0
SITE RISK ASSESSMENT IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION
The Dean Company

Site Name/OU: The Dean Company

Region: III
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: August 8, 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 Medium Exposure Exposure Receptor Receptor Exposure Type of Rationale for Selection or Exclusion
Timeframe Medium Point Population Age Route Analysis of Exposure Pathway

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 CAS Chemical Minimum Maximum Units Location Detection Range of Concentration Background Screening Potential Potential COPC Rationale for

Point Number Concentration Concentration of Maximum Frequency Detection Used for Value (2) Toxicity Value (3) ARAR/TBC ARAR/TBC Flag Selection or

(Qualifier) (Qualifier) Concentration Limits Screening (1) (N/C) Value Source (Y/N) Deletion (4)

Aquifer 1 - Tap Water 117817 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 2J 5J ug/l GW3D 4 / 12 3-4 5 NA 4.8 C 6 MCL Y ASL

67663 Chloroform 0.6 J 9 ug/l GW3D 3 / 12 1-1 9 NA 0.063 C 100 MCL Y ASL
4.5
75150 Carbon Disulfide 0.3 J 4.5 ug/l GW3D 3 / 12 1-1 NA 100 N NA NA N BSL
33
76448 Heptachlor 2J 33 J ug/l GW4D 6 / 12 0.01 - 0.01 NA 0.015 C 0.4 MCL Y ASL
0.2
108883 Toluene 0.1 J 0.2 J ug/l GW3D 3 / 12 1-1 NA 75 N 1000 MCL N BSL
1340
7429905 Aluminum 134 J 1340 ug/l GW3D 2 / 12 29 - 38.2 NA 3700 N 50 - 200 SMCL N BSL
489
7440393 Barium 65 J 489 ug/l GW1D 6 / 12 0.2 - 1 NA 260 N 2000 MCL Y ASL
1.5
7440417 Beryllium 0.2 K 1.5 K ug/l GW2D 3 / 12 0.1 - 1 NA 7.3 N 4 MCL N BSL
35
7439921 Lead 6J 35 J ug/l GW3D 4 / 12 0.1 - 1 NA 15 15 MCL Y ASL
12500
7439965 Manganese 1900 12500 ug/l GW1D 6 / 12 0.3 - 1 NA 73 N 50 SMCL Y ASL
1.5
7440020 Nickel 0.9 J 1.5 J ug/l GW4D 3 / 12 0.9 - 7 NA 73 N NA NA N BSL

(1) Maximum concentration used for screening. Definitions: NA = Not Applicable

(2) To date, no background study has been completed. MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level
(3) All compounds were screened against the Risk-Based Concentration (RBC) Table, U.S. EPA Region III, SMCL = Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
May 8, 2001 for tap water (cancer benchmark = 1E-06; HQ = 0.1). Lead was screened against the J = Estimated Value
action level of 15 ug/l. K = Estimated Value - Biased High
(4) Rationale Codes: C = Carcinogen
Selection Reason: Above Screening Level (ASL) N = Noncarcinogen
Deletion Reason: Below Screening Level (BSL)

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 CAS Chemical Minimum Maximum Units Location Detection Range of Concentration Background Screening Potential Potential COPC Rationale for

Point Number Concentration Concentration of Maximum Frequency Detection Used for Value (2) Toxicity Value (3) ARAR/TBC ARAR/TBC Flag Selection or

(Qualifier) (Qualifier) Concentration Limits Screening (1) (N/C) Value Source (Y/N) Deletion (4)

Water Vapors from

Showerhead 117817 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 2J 5J ug/l GW3D 4 / 12 3-4 5 NA 4.8 C 6 MCL Y ASL

67663 Chloroform 0.6 J 9 ug/l GW3D 3 / 12 1-1 9 NA 0.063 C 100 MCL Y ASL
4.5
75150 Carbon Disulfide 0.3 J 4.5 ug/l GW3D 3 / 12 1-1 NA 100 N NA NA N BSL
33
76448 Heptachlor 2J 33 J ug/l GW4D 6 / 12 0.01 - 0.01 NA 0.015 C 0.4 MCL Y ASL
0.2
108883 Toluene 0.1 J 0.2 J ug/l GW3D 3 / 12 1-1 NA 75 N 1000 MCL N BSL
1340
7429905 Aluminum 134 J 1340 ug/l GW3D 2 / 12 29 - 38.2 NA 3700 N 50 - 200 SMCL N BSL
489
7440393 Barium 65 J 489 ug/l GW1D 6 / 12 0.2 - 1 NA 260 N 2000 MCL Y ASL
1.5
7440417 Beryllium 0.2 K 1.5 K ug/l GW2D 3 / 12 0.1 - 1 NA 7.3 N 4 MCL N BSL
35
7439921 Lead 6J 35 J ug/l GW3D 4 / 12 0.1 - 1 NA 15 15 MCL Y ASL
12500
7439965 Manganese 1900 12500 ug/l GW1D 6 / 12 0.3 - 1 NA 73 N 50 SMCL Y ASL
1.5
7440020 Nickel 0.9 J 1.5 J ug/l GW4D 3 / 12 0.9 - 7 NA 73 N NA NA N BSL

(1) Maximum concentration used for screening. Definitions: NA = Not Applicable

(2) To date, no background study has been completed. MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level
(3) All compounds were screened against the Risk-Based Concentration (RBC) Table, U.S. EPA Region III, SMCL = Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
May 8, 2001 for tap water (cancer benchmark = 1E-06; HQ = 0.1). Lead was screened against the J = Estimated Value
action level of 15 ug/l. K = Estimated Value - Biased High
(4) Rationale Codes: C = Carcinogen
Selection Reason: Above Screening Level (ASL) N = Noncarcinogen
Deletion Reason: Below Screening Level (BSL)

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 CAS Chemical Minimum Maximum Units Location Detection Range of Concentration Background Screening Potential Potential COPC Rationale for

Point Number Concentration Concentration of Maximum Frequency Detection Used for Value (2) Toxicity Value (3) ARAR/TBC ARAR/TBC Flag Selection or

(Qualifier) (Qualifier) Concentration Limits Screening (1) (N/C) Value Source (Y/N) Deletion (4)

Soil at Site 1 11096825 Aroclor-1260 15 J 110 J ug/kg SS03 6 / 29 33 - 300 110 NA 320 C NA NA N BSL

56553 Benzo(a)anthracene 120 J 230 J ug/kg SS03 16 / 29 330 - 700 230 NA 870 C NA NA N BSL

50328 Benzo(a)pyrene 48 J 70 J ug/kg SS03 17 / 29 30 - 70 70 NA 87 C NA NA N BSL

75150 Carbon Disulfide 2J 33 ug/kg SB07 4 / 29 10 - 16 33 NA 780000 N NA NA N BSL

72548 4,4'-DDD 1J 4200 ug/kg SS09 22 / 29 3.3 - 1900 4200 NA 2700 C NA NA Y ASL

72559 4,4'-DDE 0.44 J 7200 J ug/kg SS09 28 / 29 2.2 - 700 7200 NA 1900 C NA NA Y ASL

50293 4,4'-DDT 0.69 J 290000 J ug/kg SB08 29 / 29 3.3 - 700 290000 NA 1900 C NA NA Y ASL

108883 Toluene 1J 2J ug/kg SS08 2 / 29 10 - 16 2 NA 1600000 N NA NA N BSL

7429905 Aluminum 1960 21700 mg/kg SB07 29 / 29 6.3 - 11 21700 NA 7800 N NA NA Y ASL

7440417 Beryllium 0.1 J 13.4 mg/kg SS06 23 / 29 0.02 - 0.21 13.4 NA 16 N NA NA N BSL

7439921 Lead 56 J 750 J mg/kg SS03 16 / 29 10 - 16 750 NA 400 NA NA Y ASL

7439965 Manganese 5.9 688 mg/kg SS03 29 / 29 0.05 - 0.5 688 NA 160 N NA NA Y ASL

7782492 Selenium 0.53 J 1 mg/kg SS02 9 / 29 0.43 - 0.75 1 NA 39 N NA NA N BSL

Soil at Site 2 67641 Acetone 9J 170 ug/kg SB01 16 / 40 10 - 22 170 NA 780000 N NA NA N BSL

56553 Benzo(a)anthracene 48 J 100 J ug/kg SS26 31 / 40 340 - 700 100 NA 870 C NA NA N BSL

50328 Benzo(a)pyrene 47 J 60 J ug/kg SS26 29 / 40 34 - 70 60 NA 87 C NA NA N BSL

75150 Carbon Disulfide 2J 17 J ug/kg SB07 13 / 40 10 - 22 17 NA 780000 N NA NA N BSL

72559 4,4'-DDE 0.14 J 4700 J ug/kg SS35 28 / 40 3.3 - 600 4700 NA 1900 C NA NA Y ASL

50293 4,4'-DDT 0.11 J 3100 J ug/kg SS32 27 / 40 3.3 - 600 3100 NA 1900 C NA NA Y ASL

84662 Diethylphthalate 30 J 170 J ug/kg SS12 10 / 40 340 - 3400 170 NA 6300000 N NA NA N BSL

7440417 Beryllium 0.08 J 1.5 J mg/kg SB07 34 / 40 0.02 - 0.36 1.5 NA 16 N NA NA N BSL

7440484 Cobalt 0.31 J 36 mg/kg SB02 28 / 40 0.08 - 2.9 36 NA 160 N NA NA N BSL

7440508 Copper 0.9 J 6470 mg/kg SS01 26 / 40 0.17 - 2.2 6470 NA 310 N NA NA Y ASL

7439896 Iron 371 120000 mg/kg SS01 24 / 40 2.7 - 13.5 120000 NA 2300 N NA NA Y ASL

7782492 Selenium 0.49 J 1.6 J mg/kg SS23 12 / 40 0.4 - 1.1 1.6 NA 39 N NA NA N BSL

(1) Maximum concentration used for screening. Definitions: NA = Not Applicable

(2) To date, no background study has been completed. J = Estimated Value
(3) All compounds were screened against the Risk-Based Concentration (RBC) Table, U.S. EPA Region III, C = Carcinogen
May 8, 2001 for residential soil (cancer benchmark = 1E-06; HQ = 0.1). Lead was screened against the N = Noncarcinogen
U.S. EPA screening value of 400 mg/kg.
(4) Rationale Codes:
Selection Reason: Above Screening Level (ASL)
Deletion Reason: Below Screening Level (BSL)

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

Maximum
Exposure Point Concentration
Exposure Point Chemical of Units Arithmetic 95% UCL Concentration

Potential Concern Mean (Distribution) (Qualifier) Value Units Statistic Rationale

Aquifer 1 - Tap Water Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate ug/l 4 5.5 (T) 5J 5 ug/l Max W-Test (1)

Chloroform ug/l 1.9 14.9 (T) 9 9 ug/l Max W-Test (1)

Heptachlor ug/l 27 30 (T) 33 J 30 ug/l 95% UCL - T W - Test (2)

Barium ug/l 224 2835 (T) 489 489 ug/l Max W-Test (1)

Lead ug/l 21 32 (T) 35 J 32 ug/l 95% UCL - T W - Test (2)

Manganese ug/l 6052 33449 (T) 12500 12500 ug/l Max W-Test (1)

Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Transformed Data (95% UCL - T) T = Transformed

(1) 95% UCL exceeds maximum detected concentration. Therefore, maximum concentration used for EPC. J = Estimated Value

(2) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are log-normally distributed.

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

Maximum
Exposure Point Concentration
Exposure Point Chemical of Units Arithmetic 95% UCL Concentration

Potential Concern Mean (Distribution) (Qualifier) Value Units Statistic Rationale

Water Vapors from Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate ug/l 4 5.5 (T) 5J 5 ug/l Max W-Test (1)

Showerhead Chloroform ug/l 1.9 14.9 (T) 9 9 ug/l Max W-Test (1)

Heptachlor ug/l 27 30 (T) 33 J 30 ug/l 95% UCL - T W - Test (2)

Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Transformed Data (95% UCL - T) T = Transformed

(1) 95% UCL exceeds maximum detected concentration. Therefore, maximum concentration used for EPC. J = Estimated Value
(2) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are log-normally distributed.

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

Maximum
Exposure Point Concentration
Exposure Point Chemical of Units Arithmetic 95% UCL Concentration

Potential Concern Mean (Distribution) (Qualifier) Value Units Statistic Rationale

Soil at Site 1 4,4'-DDD ug/kg 239 452 (T) 4200 452 ug/kg 95 % UCL -T W - Test (2)

4,4'-DDE ug/kg 596 6793 (T) 7200 J 6793 ug/kg 95% UCL - T W - Test (2)

4,4'-DDT ug/kg 11007 28619 (N) 290000 J 28619 ug/kg 95% UCL - N W - Test (1)

Aluminum mg/kg 7450 9964 (T) 21700 9964 mg/kg 95% UCL - T W - Test (2)

Lead mg/kg 210 345 (T) 750 J 345 mg/kg 95% UCL - T W - Test (2)

Manganese mg/kg 116 201 (T) 688 201 mg/kg 95% UCL - T W - Test (2)

Soil at Site 2 4,4'-DDE ug/kg 230 496 4700 J 496 ug/kg 95 % UCL - T W - Test (2)

4,4'-DDT ug/kg 183 322 (T) 3100 J 322 ug/kg 95% UCL - T W - Test (2)

Copper mg/kg 173 245 (T) 6470 245 mg/kg 95% UCL - T W - Test (2)

Iron mg/kg 19518 32230 (T) 120000 32230 mg/kg 95% UCL - T W - Test (2)

Statistics: 95% UCL of Normal Data (95% UCL - N); 95% UCL of Transformed Data (95% UCL - T) N = Normal

(1) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are normally distributed. T = Transformed

(2) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are log-normally distributed. J = Estimated Value

Page 1 of 1
 TABLE 4.1.RME

VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS

REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

The Dean Company

Scenario Timeframe: Future

Medium: Groundwater

Exposure Medium: Groundwater

Exposure Route Receptor Population Receptor Age Exposure Point Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units Rationale/ Intake Equation/

Code Reference Model Name

Ingestion Resident Adult Aquifer 1 - Tap Water CW Chemical Concentration in Water See Table 3.1 mg/l See Table 3.1 Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg/day) =
IR-W Ingestion Rate of Water CW x IR-W x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT
2 l/day EPA, 1991
EF Exposure frequency
350 days/year EPA, 1991
ED Exposure Duration
24 years EPA, 1991
BW Body Weight
70 kg EPA, 1991
AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer
25,550 days EPA, 1989a
AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer
8,760 days EPA, 1989a

Child Aquifer 1 - Tap Water CW Chemical Concentration in Water See Table 3.1 mg/l See Table 3.1 CDI (mg/kg/day) =
IR-W Ingestion Rate of Water CW x IR-W x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT
1 l/day EPA, 1989b
EF Exposure frequency
350 days/year EPA, 1991
ED Exposure Duration
6 years EPA, 1991
BW Body Weight
15 kg EPA, 1991
AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer
25,550 days EPA, 1989a
AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer
2,190 days EPA, 1989a

Dermal Resident Adult Aquifer 1 - Tap Water CW Chemical Concentration in Water See Table 3.1 mg/l See Table 3.1 Dermally Absorbed Dose (DAD) (mg/kg-day) =

FA Fraction Absorbed Water Chemical Specific -- EPA, 2001 DA-event x EV x ED x EF x SA x 1/BW x 1/AT
Kp Permeability Constant Chemical Specific cm/hr EPA, 2001 where for organic compounds,
SA Skin Surface Area 18,000 cm2 EPA, 2001 Absorbed Dose per Event (DA-event) (mg/cm2-event) =
tau-event Lag time per event Chemical Specific hours/event EPA, 2001 2 FA x Kp x CW x CF x SQRT{(6 x tau-event x t-event)/pi}

t-event Event Duration 0.58 hours/event EPA, 2001 or

B Ratio of permeability coefficient of a Chemical Specific -- EPA, 2001 DA-event = FA x Kp x CW x {(t-event/(1 + B)) +
compound through the stratum 2 x tau-event x ( (1 + (3 x B) + (3 x B x B))/(1 + B)2)}
corneum relative to its permeability and where for inorganic compounds,
coefficient across the viable DA-event = Kp x CW x CF x t-event

epidermis

EV Event Frequency 1 events/day EPA, 2001

EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 2001

ED Exposure Duration 24 years EPA, 1991

Page 1 of 2
 TABLE 4.1.RME

VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS

REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

The Dean Company

Scenario Timeframe: Future

Medium: Groundwater

Exposure Medium: Groundwater

Exposure Route Receptor Population Receptor Age Exposure Point Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units Rationale/ Intake Equation/

Code Reference Model Name

Dermal (contimued) Resident (continued Adult (continued) Aquifer 1 - Tap Water CF Volumetric Conversion Factor for Water 0.001 l/cm3 --

BW Body Weight 70 kg EPA, 2001

AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25,550 days EPA, 2001

AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer 8,760 days EPA, 2001

Child Aquifer 1 - Tap Water CW Chemical Concentration in Water See Table 3.1 mg/l See Table 3.1 DAD (mg/kg-day) =

FA Fraction Absorbed Water Chemical Specific -- EPA, 2001 DA-event x EV x ED x EF x SA x 1/BW x 1/AT
Kp Permeability Constant Chemical Specific cm/hr EPA, 2001 where for organic compounds,
SA Skin Surface Area 6,600 cm2 EPA, 2001 DA-event (mg/cm2-event) =
tau-event Lag time per event Chemical Specific hours/event EPA, 2001 2 FA x Kp x CW x CF x SQRT{(6 x tau-event x t-event)/pi}
t-event Event Duration 1 hours/event EPA, 2001 or
B Ratio of permeability coefficient of a Chemical Specific -- EPA, 2001 DA-event = FA x Kp x CW x {(t-event/(1 + B)) +

compound through the stratum 2 x tau-event x ( (1 + (3 x B) + (3 x B x B))/(1 + B)2)}

corneum relative to its permeability and where for inorganic compounds,

coefficient across the viable DA-event = Kp x CW x CF x t-event

epidermis
EV Event Frequency 1 events/day EPA, 2001
EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 2001
ED Exposure Duration 6 years EPA, 2001

CF Volumetric Conversion Factor for Water 0.001 l/cm3 --

BW Body Weight 15 kg EPA, 2001

AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25,550 days EPA, 2001

AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer 2,190 days EPA, 2001

EPA 1989a: 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 Receptor Population Receptor Age Exposure Point Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units Rationale/ Intake Equation/

Code Reference Model Name

Inhalation (1) Resident Adult Water Vapors from (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Foster and Chrostowski Model
Showerhead

(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
 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 Receptor Population Receptor Age Exposure Point Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units Rationale/ Intake Equation/

Code Reference Model Name

Ingestion Resident Adult Soil at Site 1 CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.3 mg/kg See Table 3.3 Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =

IR-S Ingestion Rate of Soil 100 mg/day EPA, 1991 CS x IR x FI x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x 1/AT

FI Fraction Ingested 1 -- Professional Judgment

EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 1991

ED Exposure Duration 24 years EPA, 1991

CF1 Conversion Factor 1E-06 kg/mg --

BW Body Weight 70 kg EPA, 1991

AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25,550 days EPA, 1989

AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer 8,760 days EPA, 1989

Soil at Site 2 CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.3 mg/kg See Table 3.3 CDI (mg/kg-day) =

IR-S Ingestion Rate of Soil 100 mg/day EPA, 1991 CS x IR x FI x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x 1/AT

FI Fraction Ingested 1 -- Professional Judgment

EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 1991

ED Exposure Duration 24 years EPA, 1991

CF1 Conversion Factor 1E-06 kg/mg --

BW Body Weight 70 kg EPA, 1991

AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25,550 days EPA, 1989

AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer 8,760 days EPA, 1989

Child Soil at Site 1 CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.3 mg/kg See Table 3.3 CDI (mg/kg-day) =

IR-S Ingestion Rate of Soil 200 mg/day EPA, 1991 CS x IR x FI x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x 1/AT

FI Fraction Ingested 1 -- Professional Judgment

EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 1991

ED Exposure Duration 6 years EPA, 1991

CF1 Conversion Factor 1E-06 kg/mg --

BW Body Weight 15 kg EPA, 1991

AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25,550 days EPA, 1989

AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer 2,190 days EPA, 1989

Page 1 of 4
 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 Receptor Population Receptor Age Exposure Point Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units Rationale/ Intake Equation/

Code Reference Model Name

Ingestion (continued) Resident (continued) Child (continued) Soil at Site 2 CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.3 mg/kg See Table 3.3 CDI (mg/kg-day) =

IR-S Ingestion Rate of Soil 200 mg/day EPA, 1991 CS x IR x FI x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x 1/AT

FI Fraction Ingested 1 -- Professional Judgment

EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 1991

ED Exposure Duration 6 years EPA, 1991

CF1 Conversion Factor 1E-06 kg/mg --

BW Body Weight 15 kg EPA, 1991

AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25,550 days EPA, 1989

AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer 2,190 days EPA, 1989

Dermal Resident Adult Soil at Site 1 CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.3 mg/kg See Table 3.3 Dermal Absorbed Dose (DAD) (mg/kg-day) =
CF Conversion Factor 1E-06 kg/mg -- DA-event x EF x ED x EV x SA X 1/BW x 1/AT
SA Skin Surface Area Available for Contact 5,700 cm2 EPA, 2001 where
AF Soil to Skin Adherence Factor 0.07 mg/cm2-event EPA, 2001 Absorbed Dose per Event (DA-event) (mg/cm2-event) =
ABS-d Dermal Absorption Factor chemical-specific unitless EPA, 2001 CS x CF x AF x ABS-d
EV Event Frequency 1 events/day EPA, 2001
EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 2001

ED Exposure Duration 24 years EPA, 1991

BW Body Weight 70 kg EPA, 2001
AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25,550 days EPA, 2001
AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer 8,760 days EPA, 2001

Page 2 of 4
 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 Receptor Population Receptor Age Exposure Point Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units Rationale/ Intake Equation/

Code Reference Model Name

Dermal (continued) Resident (continued) Adult (continued) Soil at Site 2 CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.3 mg/kg See Table 3.3 DAD (mg/kg-day) =

CF Conversion Factor 1E-06 kg/mg -- DA-event x EF x ED x EV x SA X 1/BW x 1/AT

SA Skin Surface Area Available for Contact 5,700 cm2 EPA, 2001 where
AF Soil to Skin Adherence Factor 0.07 mg/cm2-event EPA, 2001 DA-event (mg/cm2-event) =
ABS-d Dermal Absorption Factor chemical-specific unitless EPA, 2001 CS x CF x AF x ABS-d
EV Event Frequency 1 events/day EPA, 2001

EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 2001

ED Exposure Duration 24 years EPA, 1991

BW Body Weight 70 kg EPA, 2001

AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25,550 days EPA, 2001

AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer 8,760 days EPA, 2001
Child Soil at Site 1 CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.3 mg/kg See Table 3.3 DAD (mg/kg-day) =

CF Conversion Factor 1E-06 kg/mg -- DA-event x EF x ED x EV x SA X 1/BW x 1/AT

SA Skin Surface Area Available for Contact 2,800 cm2 EPA, 2001 where
AF Soil to Skin Adherence Factor 0.2 mg/cm2-event EPA, 2001 DA-event (mg/cm2-event) =
ABS-d Dermal Absorption Factor chemical-specific unitless EPA, 2001 CS x CF x AF x ABS-d
EV Event Frequency 1 events/day EPA, 2001

EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 2001

ED Exposure Duration 6 years EPA, 2001

BW Body Weight 15 kg EPA, 2001

AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25,550 days EPA, 2001

AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer 2,190 days EPA, 2001

Page 3 of 4
 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 Receptor Population Receptor Age Exposure Point Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units Rationale/ Intake Equation/

Code Reference Model Name

Dermal (continued) Resident (continued) Child (continued) Soil at Site 2 CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.3 mg/kg See Table 3.3 DAD (mg/kg-day) =

CF Conversion Factor 1E-06 kg/mg -- DA-event x EF x ED x EV x SA X 1/BW x 1/AT

SA Skin Surface Area Available for Contact 2,800 cm2 EPA, 2001 where
AF Soil to Skin Adherence Factor 0.2 mg/cm2-event EPA, 2001 DA-event (mg/cm2-event) =
ABS-d Dermal Absorption Factor chemical-specific unitless EPA, 2001 CS x CF x AF x ABS-d
EV Event Frequency 1 events/day EPA, 2001

EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 2001

ED Exposure Duration 6 years EPA, 2001

BW Body Weight 15 kg EPA, 2001

AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25,550 days EPA, 2001

AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer 2,190 days EPA, 2001

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 Chronic/ Oral RfD Oral Absoprtion Absorbed RfD for Dermal (2) Primary Combined RfD:Target Organ(s)

of Potential Subchronic Efficiency for Dermal (1) Target Uncertainty/Modifying

Concern Value Units Value Units Organ(s) Factors Source(s) Date(s)

(MM/DD/YYYY)

4,4'-DDD NA NA NA 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA

4,4'-DDE NA NA NA 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA

4,4'-DDT Chronic 5.0E-004 mg/kg/day 1 5.0E-004 mg/kg/day Liver 100 IRIS 06/21/2001

4,4'-DDT Subchronic 5.0E-004 mg/kg/day 1 5.0E-004 mg/kg/day Liver 100 HEAST 07/01/1997

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Chronic 2.0E-02 mg/kg/day 1 2.0E-02 mg/kg/day Liver 1000 IRIS 06/21/2001

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Subchronic 2.0E-02 mg/kg/day 1 2.0E-02 mg/kg/day Liver 1000 HEAST 07/01/1997

Chloroform Chronic 1.0E-02 mg/kg/day 1 1.0E-02 mg/kg/day Liver 1000 IRIS 06/21/2001

Chloroform Subchronic 1.0E-02 mg/kg/day 1 1.0E-02 mg/kg/day Liver 1000 HEAST 07/01/1997

Heptachlor Chronic 5.0E-04 mg/kg/day 1 5.0E-04 mg/kg/day Liver 300 IRIS 06/21/2001

Heptachlor Subchronic 5.0E-04 mg/kg/day 1 5.0E-04 mg/kg/day Liver 300 HEAST 07/01/1997

Aluminum Chronic 1.0E+00 mg/kg/day 1 1.0E+00 mg/kg/day Central Nervous System 100 NCEA 06/21/2001
Barium Chronic 7.0E-02 mg/kg/day 0.07 4.9E-03 mg/kg/day Heart 3 IRIS 02/02/2001

Barium Subchronic 7.0E-02 mg/kg/day 0.07 4.9E-03 mg/kg/day Heart 3 HEAST 07/01/1997

Copper Chronic 3.7E-02 mg/kg/day 1 3.7E-02 mg/kg/day Gastrointestinal NA HEAST 07/01/1997

Copper Subchronic 3.7E-02 mg/kg/day 1 3.7E-02 mg/kg/day Gastrointestinal NA HEAST 07/01/1997

Iron Chronic 3.0E-01 mg/kg/day 1 3.0E-01 mg/kg/day Gastrointestinal 1 NCEA 06/21/2001

Lead NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Manganese (nonfood) Chronic 2.0E-02 mg/kg/day 0.04 8.0E-04 mg/kg/day Central Nervous System 1 IRIS 06/21/2001

(1) Source: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Definitions: NA = Not Available

Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) Interim. IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System

Section 4.2 and Exhibit 4-1. HEAST = Health Effects Assessment Summary Table, July 1997

(2) See Risk Assessment text for the derivation of the "Absorbed RfD for Dermal". NCEA = National Center for Environmental Assessment

Page 1 of 1
 TABLE 5.2

NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- INHALATION

The Dean Company

Chemical Chronic/ Inhalation RfC Extrapolated RfD (1) Primary Combined RfC : Target Organ(s)

of Potential Subchronic Target Uncertainty/Modifying

Concern Value Units Value Units Organ(s) Factors Source(s) Date(s)

(MM/DD/YYYY)

4,4'-DDD NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

4,4'-DDE NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

4,4'-DDT NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Chloroform Chronic 3.0E-04 mg/m3 8.6E-05 mg/kg/day Nasal 1000 NCEA 06/21/2001
Chloroform Subchronic 3.0E-03 mg/m3 8.6E-4 mg/kg/day Nasal 100 NCEA 06/21/2001
Heptachlor NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Aluminum Chronic 5.0E-03 mg/m3 1.4E-03 mg/kg/day Central Nervous System 300 NCEA 06/21/2001
Barium Chronic 5.0E-04 mg/m3 1.4E-04 mg/kg/day Fetus 1000 HEAST 07/01/1997
Barium Subchronic 5.0E-03 mg/m3 1.4E-03 mg/kg/day Fetus 100 HEAST 07/01/1997
Copper NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Iron NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Lead NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Manganese (nonfood) Chronic 5.0E-05 mg/m3 1.4E-05 mg/kg/day Central Nervous System 1000 IRIS 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 Chronic/ Parameter Primary Target Combined Parameter:Target Organ(s)

of Potential Subchronic Organ(s) Uncertainty/Modifying

Concern Name Value Units Factors Source(s) Date(s)

(MM/DD/YYYY)

Not Applicable

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 Oral Cancer Slope Factor Oral Absorption Absorbed Cancer Slope Factor Weight of Evidence/ Oral CSF

of Potential Efficiency for Dermal (1) for Dermal (2) Cancer Guideline

Concern Value Units Value Units Description Source(s) Date(s)

(MM/DD/YYYY)

4,4'-DDD 2.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day 1 2.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day B2 IRIS 06/21/2001

4,4'-DDE 3.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day 1 3.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day B2 IRIS 06/21/2001

4,4'-DDT 3.4E-001 1/mg/kg/day 1 3.4E-001 1/mg/kg/day B2 IRIS 06/21/2001

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 1.4E-02 1/mg/kg/day 1 1.4E-02 1/mg/kg/day B2 IRIS 06/21/2001
Chloroform 6.1E-03 1/mg/kg/day 1 6.1E-03 1/mg/kg/day B2 IRIS 06/21/2001
Heptachlor 4.5E+00 1/mg/kg/day 1 4.5E+00 1/mg/kg/day B2 IRIS 06/21/2001
Aluminum NA NA 1 NA NA NA NA NA
Barium NA NA 0.07 NA NA NA NA NA
Copper NA NA 1 NA NA NA NA NA
Iron NA NA 1 NA NA NA NA NA
Lead NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Manganese (nonfood) NA NA 0.04 NA NA NA NA NA

(1) Source: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Definitions: NA = Not Available

Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) Interim. IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System

Section 4.2 and Exhibit 4-1. B2 = Probable Human Carcinogen - indicates sufficient evidence

(2) See Risk Assessment text for the derivation of the "Absorbed Cancer Slope Factor for Dermal". in animals and inadequate or no evidence in humans

Page 1 of 1
 TABLE 6.2

CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- INHALATION

The Dean Company

Chemical Unit Risk Inhalation Cancer Slope Factor Weight of Evidence/ Unit Risk : Inhalation CSF

of Potential Cancer Guideline

Concern Value Units Value Units Description Source(s) Date(s)

(MM/DD/YYYY)

4,4'-DDD NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

4,4-DDE NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

4,4'-DDT 9.7E-005 1/ug/m3 3.4E-001 1/mg/kg/day B2 IRIS 06/21/2001

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Chloroform 2.3E-05 1/ug/m3 8.1E-02 1/mg/kg/day B2 IRIS 06/21/2001
Heptachlor 1.3E-03 1/ug/m3 4.5E+00 1/mg/kg/day B2 IRIS 06/21/2001
Aluminum NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Barium NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Copper NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Iron NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Lead NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Manganese (nonfood) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Thallium 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 Parameters Source(s) Date(s)

of Potential (MM/DD/YYYY)

Concern Name Value Units

Not Applicable

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 Cancer Slope Factor Source(s) Date(s)

of Potential (MM/DD/YYYY)

Concern Value Units

Not Applicable

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 Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Chemical of EPC Cancer Risk Calculations Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Potential Concern Value Units Intake/Exposure Concentration CSF/Unit Risk Intake/Exposure Concentration RfD/RfC
Cancer Risk Hazard Quotient

Value Units Value Units Value Units Value Units

Groundwater Groundwater Aquifer 1 - Tap Water Ingestion 0.005 mg/l 4.7E-05 mg/kg/day 1.4E-02 1/mg/kg/day 7E-07 1.4E-04 mg/kg/day 2.0E-02 mg/kg/day 0.007
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
0.009 mg/l 8.5E-05 mg/kg/day 6.1E-03 1/mg/kg/day 5E-07 2.5E-04 mg/kg/day 1.0E-02 mg/kg/day 0.03
Chloroform
0.03 mg/l 2.8E-04 mg/kg/day 4.5E-00 1/mg/kg/day 1E-03 8.1E-04 mg/kg/day 5.0E-04 mg/kg/day 2
Heptachlor
0.489 mg/l 4.6E-03 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 1.3E-02 mg/kg/day 7.0E-02 mg/kg/day 0.2
Barium

Lead (1) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
12.5 mg/l 1.2E-01 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 3.4E-01 mg/kg/day 2.0E-02 mg/kg/day 17
Manganese
Exp. Route Total 1E-03 19

Dermal Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.005 mg/l 7.2E-05 mg/kg/day 1.4E-02 1/mg/kg/day 1E-06 2.1E-04 mg/kg/day 2.2E-02 mg/kg/day 0.01

Chloroform 0.009 mg/l 1.7E-04 mg/kg/day 6.1E-03 1/mg/kg/day 1E-06 4.9E-04 mg/kg/day 1.0E-02 mg/kg/day 0.05

Heptachlor 0.03 mg/l 1.3E-04 mg/kg/day 4.5E-00 1/mg/kg/day 6E-04 3.9E-04 mg/kg/day 5.0E-04 mg/kg/day 0.8

Barium 0.489 mg/l NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Lead (1)

Manganese 12.5 mg/l NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Exp. Route Total 6E-04 0.9

Exposure Point Total 2E-03 20

Exposure Medium Total 2E-03 20

Air Water Vapors from Inhalation 0.005 mg/l 2.3E-06 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 3.6E-06 mg/kg/day NA NA NA
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Showerhead 0.009 mg/l 1.3E-04 mg/kg/day 8.1E-02 1/mg/kg/day 1E-05 3.9E-04 mg/kg/day 8.6E-05 mg/kg/day 5
Chloroform
0.03 mg/l 2.6E-04 mg/kg/day 4.5E-00 1/mg/kg/day 1E-03 7.7E-04 mg/kg/day NA NA NA
Heptachlor
Exp. Route Total 1E-03 5

Exposure Point Total 1E-03 5

Exposure Medium Total 1E-03 5

Groundwater Total 3E-03 25

Soil Soil Soil at Site 1 Ingestion 0.452 mg/kg 2.1E-07 mg/kg/day 2.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day 5E-08 6.2E-07 mg/kg/day NA NA NA
4,4'-DDD
6.8 mg/kg 3.2E-06 mg/kg/day 3.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day 1E-06 9.3E-06 mg/kg/day NA NA NA
4,4'-DDE
28.6 mg/kg 1.3E-05 mg/kg/day 3.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day 5E-06 3.9E-05 mg/kg/day 5.0E-04 mg/kg/day 0.08
4,4'-DDT
9964 mg/kg 4.7E-03 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 1.4E-02 mg/kg/day 1.0E+00 mg/kg/day 0.01
Aluminum
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Lead (1)
201 mg/kg 9.5E-05 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 2.8E-04 mg/kg/day 1.4E-01 mg/kg/day 0.002
Manganese
Exp. Route Total 6E-06 0.09

Dermal 4,4'-DDD 0.452 mg/kg NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

4,4'-DDE 6.8 mg/kg NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

4,4'-DDT 28.6 mg/kg 1.6E-06 mg/kg/day 3.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day 5E-07 4.7E-06 mg/kg/day 5.0E-04 mg/kg/day 0.009

Aluminum 9964 mg/kg NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Lead (1)
Manganese 201 mg/kg NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Exp. Route Total 5E-07 0.009

Exposure Point Total 7E-06 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 Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Chemical of EPC Cancer Risk Calculations Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Potential Concern Value Units Intake/Exposure Concentration CSF/Unit Risk Intake/Exposure Concentration RfD/RfC
Cancer Risk Hazard Quotient

Value Units Value Units Value Units Value Units

Soil (continued) Soil (continued) Soil at Site 2 Ingestion 0.496 mg/kg 2.3E-07 mg/kg/day 3.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day 8E-08 6.8E-07 mg/kg/day NA NA NA
4,4'-DDE
0.322 mg/kg 1.5E-07 mg/kg/day 3.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day 5E-08 4.4E-07 mg/kg/day 5.0E-04 mg/kg/day 0.0009
4,4'-DDT
245 mg/kg 1.2E-04 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 3.4E-04 mg/kg/day 3.7E-02 mg/kg/day 0.009
Copper
32230 mg/kg 1.5E-02 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 4.4E-02 mg/kg/day 3.0E-01 mg/kg/day 0.1
Iron
Exp. Route Total 1E-07 0.1

Dermal 4,4'-DDE 0.496 mg/kg NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

4,4'-DDT 0.322 mg/kg 1.8E-08 mg/kg/day 3.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day 6E-09 5.3E-08 mg/kg/day 5.0E-04 mg/kg/day 0.0001

Copper 245 mg/kg NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Iron 32230 mg/kg NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Exp. Route Total 6E-09 0.0001

Exposure Point Total 1E-07 0.1

Exposure Medium Total 7E-06 0.2
Soil Total 7E-06 0.2

Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media 3E-03 Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Media 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

Receptor Age: Child

Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Chemical of EPC Cancer Risk Calculations Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Potential Concern Value Units Intake/Exposure Concentration CSF/Unit Risk Intake/Exposure Concentration RfD/RfC
Cancer Risk Hazard Quotient

Value Units Value Units Value Units Value Units

Groundwater Groundwater Aquifer 1 - Tap Water Ingestion Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.005 mg/l 2.7E-05 mg/kg/day 1.4E-02 1/mg/kg/day 4E-07 3.2E-04 mg/kg/day 2.0E-02 mg/kg/day 0.02

Chloroform 0.009 mg/l 4.9E-05 mg/kg/day 6.1E-03 1/mg/kg/day 3E-07 5.8E-04 mg/kg/day 1.0E-02 mg/kg/day 0.06

Heptachlor 0.03 mg/l 1.6E-04 mg/kg/day 4.5E-00 1/mg/kg/day 7E-04 1.9E-03 mg/kg/day 5.0E-04 mg/kg/day 4

Barium 0.489 mg/l 2.7E-03 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 3.1E-02 mg/kg/day 7.0E-02 mg/kg/day 0.4

Lead (1) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Manganese 12.5 mg/l 6.8E-02 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 8.0E-01 mg/kg/day 2.0E-02 mg/kg/day 40

Exp. Route Total 7E-04 44

Dermal Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.005 mg/l 3.1E-05 mg/kg/day 1.4E-02 1/mg/kg/day 4E-07 3.6E-04 mg/kg/day 2.2E-02 mg/kg/day 0.02

Chloroform 0.009 mg/l 7.2E-05 mg/kg/day 6.1E-03 1/mg/kg/day 4E-07 8.4E-04 mg/kg/day 1.0E-02 mg/kg/day 0.08
Heptachlor 0.03 mg/l 5.7E-05 mg/kg/day 4.5E-00 1/mg/kg/day 3E-04 6.7E-04 mg/kg/day 5.0E-04 mg/kg/day 1

Barium 0.489 mg/l NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Lead (1) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Manganese 12.5 mg/l NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Exp. Route Total 3E-04 1

Exposure Point Total 1E-03 45

Exposure Medium Total 1E-03 45

Groundwater Total 1E-03 45

Soil Soil Soil at Site 1 Ingestion 4,4'-DDD 0.452 mg/kg 5.0E-07 mg/kg/day 2.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day 1E-07 5.8E-06 mg/kg/day NA NA NA

4,4'-DDE 6.8 mg/kg 7.4E-06 mg/kg/day 3.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day 3E-06 8.7E-05 mg/kg/day NA NA NA

4,4'-DDT 28.6 mg/kg 3.1E-05 mg/kg/day 3.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day 1E-05 3.7E-04 mg/kg/day 5.0E-04 mg/kg/day 0.7

Aluminum 9964 mg/kg 1.1E-02 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 1.3E-01 mg/kg/day 1.0E-00 mg/kg/day 0.1

Lead (1) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Manganese 201 mg/kg 2.2E-04 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 2.6E-03 mg/kg/day 1.4E-01 mg/kg/day 0.02
Exp. Route Total 1E-05 0.8
Dermal 4,4'-DDD 0.452 mg/kg NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

4,4'-DDE 6.8 mg/kg NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

4,4'-DDT 28.6 mg/kg 2.6E-06 mg/kg/day 3.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day 9E-07 3.1E-05 mg/kg/day 5.0E-04 mg/kg/day 0.06

Aluminum 9964 mg/kg NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Lead (1) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Manganese 201 mg/kg NA NA NA NA NA NA NA MA NA NA

Exp. Route Total 9E-07 0.06

Exposure Point Total 1E-05 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

Receptor Age: Child

Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Chemical of EPC Cancer Risk Calculations Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Potential Concern Value Units Intake/Exposure Concentration CSF/Unit Risk Intake/Exposure Concentration RfD/RfC
Cancer Risk Hazard Quotient

Value Units Value Units Value Units Value Units

Soil (continued) Soil (continued) Soil at Site 2 Ingestion 4,4'-DDE 0.496 mg/kg 5.4E-07 mg/kg/day 3.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day 2E-07 6.3E-06 mg/kg/day NA NA NA

4,4'-DDT 0.322 mg/kg 3.5E-07 mg/kg/day 3.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day 1E-07 4.1E-06 mg/kg/day 5.0E-04 mg/kg/day 0.008

Copper 245 mg/kg 2.7E-04 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 3.1E-03 mg/kg/day 3.7E-02 mg/kg/day 0.08

Iron 32230 mg/kg 3.5E-02 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 4.1E-01 mg/kg/day 3.0E-01 mg/kg/day 1

Exp. Route Total 3E-07 1
Dermal 4,4'-DDE 0.496 mg/kg NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

4,4'-DDT 0.322 mg/kg 3.0E-08 mg/kg/day 3.4E-04 1/mg/kg/day 1E-08 3.5E-007 mg/kg/day 5.0E-004 mg/kg/day 0.0007

Copper 245 mg/kg NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Iron 32230 mg/kg NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Exp. Route Total 1E-08 0.0007
Exposure Point Total 3E-07 1
Exposure Medium Total 1E-05 2
Soil Total 1E-05 2
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media 1E-03 Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Media 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 Route Radionuclide of Potential Concern EPC Risk Calculation Cancer Risk Calculations
Approach
Value Units Intake/Activity CSF Cancer Risk

Value Units Value Units

Exp. Route Total

Exp. Route Total

Exposure Point Total

Not Applicable
Exp. Route Total

Exposure Point Total

Exp. Route Total

Exp. Route Total

Exposure Point Total

Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media

There are no radionuclides 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 Exposure Exposure Chemical Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Medium Point of Potential

Concern Ingestion Inhalation Dermal External Exposure Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure

(Radiation) Routes Total Target Organ(s) Routes Total

Groundwater Groundwater Aquifer 1 - Tap Water Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 7E-07 -- 1E-06 -- 2E-06 Liver 0.007 -- 0.01 0.02

Chloroform 5E-07 -- 1E-06 -- 2E-06 Liver 0.03 -- 0.05 0.08

Heptachlor 1E-03 -- 6E-04 -- 2E-03 Liver 2 -- 0.8 3

Barium -- -- -- -- -- Heart 0.2 -- -- 0.2

Lead (1) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Manganese -- -- -- -- -- Central Nervous System 17 -- -- 17

Chemical Total 1E-03 -- 6E-04 -- 2E-03 19 -- 0.9 20

Radionuclide Total

Exposure Point Total 2E-03 20

Exposure Medium Total 2E-03 20

Air Water Vapors from Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Showerhead Chloroform -- 1E-05 -- -- 1E-05 Liver -- 5 -- 5

Heptachlor -- 1E-03 -- -- 1E-03 -- -- -- -- --

Barium -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Lead (1) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Manganese -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Chemical Total -- 1E-03 -- -- 1E-03 -- 5 -- 5

Radionuclide Total

Exposure Point Total 1E-03 5

Exposure Medium Total 1E-03 5

Groundwater Total 3E-03 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 Exposure Exposure Chemical Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Medium Point of Potential

Concern Ingestion Inhalation Dermal External Exposure Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure

(Radiation) Routes Total Target Organ(s) Routes Total

Soil Soil Soil at Site 1 4,4'-DDD 5E-08 -- -- -- 5E-08 -- -- -- -- --

4,4'-DDE 1E-06 -- -- -- 1E-06 -- -- -- -- --

4,4'-DDT 5E-06 -- 5E-07 -- 6E-06 Liver 0.08 -- 0.009 0.09

Aluminum -- -- -- -- -- Central Nervous System 0.01 -- -- 0.01

Lead (1) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Manganese -- -- -- -- -- Central Nervous System 0.002 -- -- 0.002

Chemical Total 6E-06 -- 5E-07 -- 7E-06 0.09 -- 0.009 0.1

Radionuclide Total

Exposure Point Total 7E-06 0.1

Soil at Site 2 4,4'-DDE 8E-08 -- -- -- 8E-08 -- -- -- -- --

4,4'-DDT 5E-08 -- 6E-09 -- 6E-08 Liver 0.0009 -- 0.0001 0.001

Copper -- -- -- -- -- Gastrointestinal 0.009 -- -- 0.009

Iron -- -- -- -- -- Gastrointestinal 0.1 -- -- 0.1

Chemical Total 1E-07 -- 6E-09 -- 1E-07 0.1 -- 0.0001 0.1

Radionuclide Total

Exposure Point Total 1E-07 0.1

Exposure Medium Total 7E-06 0.2

Soil Total 7E-06 0.2

Receptor Total 3E-03 26

Total Risk Across All Media = 3E-03 Total Hazard Across All Media 26

Total Liver HI Across All Media = 8

Page 2 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 Exposure Exposure Chemical Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Medium Point of Potential

Concern Ingestion Inhalation Dermal External Exposure Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure

(Radiation) Routes Total Target Organ(s) Routes Total

(1) Lead is evaluated for the resident using the IEUBK model. See Risk Assessment text for discussion of results and appendix for the lead modleing run results. Total Central Nervous System HI Across All Media = 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 Exposure Exposure Chemical Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Medium Point of Potential

Concern Ingestion Inhalation Dermal External Exposure Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure

(Radiation) Routes Total Target Organ(s) Routes Total

Groundwater Groundwater Aquifer 1 - Tap Water Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 4E-07 -- 4E-07 -- 8E-07 Liver 0.02 -- 0.02 0.04

Chloroform 3E-07 -- 4E-07 -- 7E-07 Liver 0.06 -- 0.08 0.1

Heptachlor 7E-04 -- 3E-04 -- 1E-03 Liver 4 -- 1 5

Barium -- -- -- -- -- Heart 0.4 -- -- 0.4

Lead (1) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Manganese -- -- -- -- -- Central Nervous System 40 -- -- 40

Chemical Total 7E-04 -- 3E-04 -- 1E-03 44 -- 1 45

Radionuclide Total

Exposure Point Total 1E-03 45

Exposure Medium Total 1E-03 45

Groundwater Total 1E-03 45

Soil Soil Soil at Site 1 4,4'-DDD 1E-07 -- -- -- 1E-07 -- -- -- -- --

4,4'-DDE 3E-06 -- -- -- 3E-06 -- -- -- -- --

4,4'-DDT 1E-05 -- 9E-07 -- 1E-05 Liver 0.7 -- 0.06 0.8

Aluminum -- -- -- -- -- Central Nervous System 0.1 -- -- 0.1

Lead (1) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Manganese -- -- -- -- -- Central Nervous System 0.02 -- -- 0.02

Chemical Total 1E-05 -- 9E-07 -- 1E-05 0.8 -- 0.06 0.9

Radionuclide Total

Exposure Point Total 1E-05 0.9

Page 1 of 2
 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 Exposure Exposure Chemical Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Medium Point of Potential

Concern Ingestion Inhalation Dermal External Exposure Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure

(Radiation) Routes Total Target Organ(s) Routes Total

Soil (continued) Soil (continued) Soil at Site 2 4,4'-DDE 2E-07 -- -- -- 2E-07 -- -- -- -- --

4,4'-DDT 1E-07 -- 1E-08 -- 1E-07 Liver 0.008 -- 0.0007 0.008

Copper -- -- -- -- -- Gastrointestinal 0.08 -- -- 0.08

Iron -- -- -- -- -- Gastrointestinal 1 -- -- 1

Chemical Total 3E-07 -- 1E-08 -- 3E-07 1 -- 0.0007 1

Radionuclide Total

Exposure Point Total 3E-07 1

Exposure Medium Total 1E-05 2

Soil Total 1E-05 2

Receptor Total 1E-03 47

Total Risk Across All Media = 1E-03 Total Hazard Across All Media 47

Total Liver HI Across All Media = 6

Total Central Nervous System HI Across All Media = 40

Total Gastrointestinal HI Across All Media = 1

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 Exposure Exposure Chemical Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Medium Point

Ingestion Inhalation Dermal External Exposure Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure

(Radiation) Routes Total Target Organ(s) Routes Total

Groundwater Groundwater Aquifer 1 - Tap Water Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 7E-07 -- 1E-06 -- 2E-06 Liver 0.007 -- 0.01 0.02

Chloroform 5E-07 -- 1E-06 -- 2E-06 Liver 0.03 -- 0.05 0.08

Heptachlor 1E-03 -- 6E-04 -- 2E-03 Liver 2 -- 0.8 3

Manganese -- -- -- -- -- Central Nervous System 17 -- -- 17

Chemical Total 1E-03 -- 6E-04 -- 2E-03 19 -- 0.8 20

Exposure Point Total 2E-03 20

Exposure Medium Total 2E-03 20

Air Water Vapors from Chloroform -- 1E-05 -- -- 1E-05 Liver -- 5 -- 5

Showerhead Heptachlor -- 1E-03 -- -- 1E-03 -- -- -- -- --

Chemical Total -- 1E-03 -- -- 1E-03 -- 5 -- 5

Exposure Point Total 1E-03 5

Exposure Medium Total 1E-03 5

Groundwater Total 3E-03 25

Soil Soil Soil at Site 1 4,4'-DDE 1E-06 -- -- -- 1E-06 -- -- -- -- --

4,4'-DDT 5E-06 -- 5E-07 -- 6E-06 -- -- -- -- --

Chemical Total 6E-06 -- 5E-07 -- 7E-06 -- -- -- --

Exposure Point Total 7E-06 --

Exposure Medium Total 7E-06 --

Soil Total 7E-06 --

Receptor Total 3E-03 25

Total Risk Across All Media 3E-03 Total Hazard Across All Media 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 = 8

Total Central Nervous System HI Across All Media = 17

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 Exposure Exposure Chemical Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Medium Point

Ingestion Inhalation Dermal External Exposure Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure

(Radiation) Routes Total Target Organ(s) Routes Total

Groundwater Groundwater Aquifer 1 - Tap Water Heptachlor 7E-04 -- 3E-04 -- 1E-03 Liver 4 -- 1 5

Manganese -- -- -- -- -- Central Nervous System 40 -- -- 40

Chemical Total 7E-04 -- 3E-04 -- 1E-03 44 -- 1 45

Exposure Point Total 1E-03 45

Exposure Medium Total 1E-03 45

Groundwater Total 1E-03 45

Soil Soil Soil at Site 1 4,4'-DDE 3E-06 -- -- -- 3E-06 -- -- -- -- --

4,4'-DDT 1E-05 -- 9E-07 -- 1E-05 -- -- -- -- --

Chemical Total 1E-05 -- 9E-07 -- 1E-05 -- -- -- --

Exposure Point Total 1E-05

Soil at Site 2 Iron -- -- -- -- -- Gastrointestinal 1 -- -- 1

Chemical Total -- -- -- -- -- 1 -- -- 1

Exposure Point Total -- 1

Exposure Medium Total 1E-05 1

Soil Total 1E-05 1

Receptor Total 1E-03 46

Total Risk Across All Media 1E-03 Total Hazard Across All Media 46

Total Liver HI Across All Media = 5

The information in this example table is for illustration only. The site screening threshold was determined by the RPM. Total Central Nervous System HI Across All Media = 40

Total Gastrointestinal HI Across All Media = 1

Page 1 of 1
 DATA USEABILITY WORKSHEET
The Dean Company
Medium: Groundwater

Activity Comment
Field Sampling
Discuss sampling problems and field conditions that Groundwater samples were collected from 12
affect data useability. 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 Groundwater samples submitted for organic and
this medium (e.g. sample depth, grab vs composite, inorganic analyses were non-filtered samples collected
filtered vs unfiltered, low flow, etc.)? 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 There are no field sampling issues that should affect
risk assessment, if applicable. the risk assessment.

Analytical Techniques
Were the analytical methods appropriate for Yes. Groundwater samples were analyzed for organic
quantitative risk assessment? 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 There are no analytical technique issues that should
the risk assessment, if applicable. affect the risk assessment.

1 of 4 December 2001
 DATA USEABILITY WORKSHEET (cont.)
The Dean Company
Medium: Groundwater

Activity Comment
Data Quality Objectives
Precision - How were duplicates handled? 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.

Accuracy - How were split samples handled? Split samples were not collected.

Representativeness - Indicate any problems associated Analytes qualified with a “B” due to blank
with data representativeness (e.g., trip blank or rinsate contamination will be considered as non-detects
blank contamination, chain of custody problems, etc.). during the risk assessment.

Completeness - Indicate any problems associated with No problems were associated with data completeness.
data completeness (e.g., incorrect sample analysis,
incomplete sample records, problems with field
procedures, etc.).

Comparability - Indicate any problems associated with No problems have been associated with data
data comparability. comparability.

Were the DQOs specified in the QAPP satisfied? Yes, the DQOs identified in the Sampling and Analysis
Plan were satisfied.

Summarize the effect of DQO issues on the risk There are no DQO issues that should affect the risk
assessment, if applicable. 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? 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.

What method or guidance was used to validate the Region III modifications to “Laboratory Data
data? Validation Functional Guidelines for Validating Organic
(and Inorganic) Analyses”, USEPA 9/94 (and 4/93).

Was the data validation method consistent with Yes. The data validation method was consistent with
guidance? Discuss any discrepancies. regional guidance.

Were all data qualifiers defined? Discuss those which Yes. All data qualifiers were defined.
were not.

Which qualifiers represent useable data? B, J, L, U, UJ, and UL

Which qualifiers represent unuseable data? R

How are tentatively identified compounds handled? 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 Comment
Summarize the effect of data validation and Unusable data qualified with an “R” will not be used in
interpretation issues on the risk assessment, if the risk assessment. All other data, both qualified and
applicable. unqualified, will be used in the risk assessment.

Additional notes: 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 There were no apparent problems that could affect data
affect data useability. useability.

Are samples representative of receptor exposure for Yes. Soil samples are representative of receptor
this medium (e.g. sample depth, grab vs composite, exposure for this medium.
filtered vs unfiltered, low flow, etc.)?

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 There are no field sampling issues that should affect
risk assessment, if applicable. the risk assessment.

Analytical Techniques
Were the analytical methods appropriate for Yes. Samples were analyzed for organic compounds
quantitative risk assessment? 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 There are no analytical technique issues that should
the risk assessment, if applicable. affect the risk assessment.

1 of 4 December 2001
 DATA USEABILITY WORKSHEET (cont.)
The Dean Company
Medium: Soil

Activity Comment
Data Quality Objectives
Precision - How were duplicates handled? 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.

Accuracy - How were split samples handled? Split samples were not collected.

Representativeness - Indicate any problems associated Analytes qualified with a “B” due to blank
with data representativeness (e.g., trip blank or rinsate contamination will be considered as non-detects
blank contamination, chain of custody problems, etc.). during the risk assessment.

Completeness - Indicate any problems associated with No problems were associated with data completeness.
data completeness (e.g., incorrect sample analysis,
incomplete sample records, problems with field
procedures, etc.).

Comparability - Indicate any problems associated with No problems have been associated with data
data comparability. comparability.

Were the DQOs specified in the QAPP satisfied? Yes, the DQOs identified in the Sampling and Analysis
Plan were satisfied.

Summarize the effect of DQO issues on the risk There are no DQO issues that should affect the risk
assessment, if applicable. 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? 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.

What method or guidance was used to validate the Region III modifications to “Laboratory Data
data? Validation Functional Guidelines for Validating Organic
(and Inorganic) Analyses”, USEPA 9/94 (and 4/93).

Was the data validation method consistent with Yes. The data validation method was consistent with
guidance? Discuss any discrepancies. regional guidance.

Were all data qualifiers defined? Discuss those which Yes. All data qualifiers were defined.
were not.

Which qualifiers represent useable data? B, J, K, L, U, UJ, and UL

Which qualifiers represent unuseable data? R

How are tentatively identified compounds handled? 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 Comment
Summarize the effect of data validation and Unusable data qualified with an “R” will not be used in
interpretation issues on the risk assessment, if the risk assessment. All other data, both qualified and
applicable. unqualified, will be used in the risk assessment.

Additional notes: None.

4 of 4 December 2001
 EXAMPLE TECHNICAL APPROACH TO RISK ASSESSMENT (TARA)
SCHEDULE WORKSHEET

The Dean Company

Activity - RAGS Part D Reference(1) Comments (2)

PROJECT SCOPING

Preliminary site conceptual model - Section 2.1 November 30, 2000

Site visit - Sec 2.1 November 4, 2000

Scoping meeting - Sec 2.1 November 2, 2000

PRGs and ARARs (initial discussion) - Sec 2.1 November 2, 2000

Identification of deliverables - Sec 2.1 November 30, 2000

Planning Table 1 (preliminary version) - Sec 2.1 November 30, 2000

Probabilistic Analysis (preliminary consideration) - Sec 2.1 November 30, 2000

RI/FS Workplan (consideration of risk assessment objectives) - Sec 2.2 November 30, 2000

Baseline Risk Assessment Workplan (consideration of risk assessment November 30, 2000
objectives) - Sec 2.2

Probabilistic Analysis (additional consideration and Workplan as appropriate) November 30, 2000
- Sec 2.2.1

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

Planning Table 0 - Sec. 3.1.1 August 30, 2001

TARA Schedule Worksheet - Sec. 3.1.1 and Appendix C August 30, 2001

Planning Table 1 - Sec 3.1.1 August 30, 2001

Data Useability Worksheet - Sec 3.1.1 and Appendix C August 30, 2001

Supporting information for background value for Planning Table 2 - Sec 3.1.1 August 30, 2001

Planning Table 2 - Sec 3.1.1 August 30, 2001

Supporting information for EPC for Planning Table 3 - Sec 3.1.1 August 30, 2001

Planning Table 3 -Sec 3.1.1 August 30, 2001

Notes:
1
Add other activities as appropriate for the site.
2
Use 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.
1 of 3 December 2001
 EXAMPLE TECHNICAL APPROACH TO RISK ASSESSMENT (TARA)
SCHEDULE WORKSHEET

The Dean Company

Activity - RAGS Part D Reference(1) Comments (2)

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION (continued)

Supporting information on modeled intake methodology and parameters for August 30, 2001
Planning Table 4 - Sec 3.1.1

Supporting information on chemical-specific parameters for Planning Table 4 - August 30, 2001
Sec 3.1.1

Dermal Worksheet - Sec 3.1.1 and Appendix C August 30, 2001

Planning Table 4 - Sec 3.1.1 August 30, 2001

Supporting information on toxicity data for special case chemicals on Planning August 30, 2001
Tables 5/6 - Sec 3.1.1

Planning Table 5 - Sec 3.1.1 August 30, 2001

Planning Table 6 - Sec 3.1.1 August 30, 2001

Supporting information on special chemical risk and hazard calculations for October 21, 2001
Planning Tables 7/8 - Sec 3.1.1

Planning Table 7 - Sec 3.1.1 October 21, 2001

Planning Table 8 - Sec. 3.1.1 October 21, 2001

Radiation Dose Assessment Worksheet - Sec 3.1.1 and Appendix C October 21, 2001

Planning Table 9 - Sec 3.1.1 October 21, 2001

Planning Table 10 - Sec 3.1.1 October 21, 2001

Lead Worksheets - Sec 3.1.1 and Appendix C October 21, 2001

Assessment of Confidence and Uncertainty - Sec 3.1.2 October 21, 2001

Summary of Probabilistic Analysis - Sec 3.1.3 October 21, 2001

Draft Baseline Risk Assessment - Sec 3.2 October 21, 2001

Final Baseline Risk Assessment - Sec 3.3 January 15, 2001

Notes:
1
Add other activities as appropriate for the site.
2
Use 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(1) Comments (2)

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION (continued)

Draft ROD Risk Worksheets - Sec 3.3 and Appendix C January 15, 2001

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Remedial Action Objectives - Sec 4.2 January 15, 2001

Remediation Goals - Sec 4.2 January 15, 2001

Risks and hazards associated with PRGs - Sec 4.4 January 15, 2001

Risk considerations of remedial technologies and alternatives - Sec 4.5 January 15, 2001

AFTER THE FEASIBILITY STUDY

Risk evaluation for the Proposed Plan - Sec 5.1 To be determined

Documentation of risks in the Record of Decision - Sec 5.2 To be determined

Revise ROD Risk Worksheets - Sec 5.2 and Appendix C To be determined

Risk evaluation during remedial design and remedial action - Sec 5.3 To be determined

Risk evaluation associated with explanations of significant differences - Sec To be determined

5.4

Risk evaluations during five-year review - Sec 5.5 To be determined

Public meeting participation To be determined

Notes:
1
Add other activities as appropriate for the site.
2
Use 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 Medium Dermal Absorption FA Kp T(event) Tau T* B

Potential Concern Fraction (soil) Value Value Units Value Units Value Units Value Units Value
phthalate Groundwater - - 0.8 2.50E-002 cm/hour 0.58 hour/event 16.27 hour 39.05 hour 0.2
Chloroform Groundwater - - 1 1.50E-001 cm/hour 0.58 hour/event 0.49 hour 1.18 hour 0
Heptachlor Groundwater - - 0.8 8.70E-003 cm/hour 0.58 hour/event 12.99 hour 31.16 hour 0.1
Barium * Groundwater - - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Manganese * Groundwater - - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Thallium * Groundwater -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
4,4'-DDD * Soil -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
4,4'-DDE * Soil -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
4,4-DDT Soil 0.03 No data No data No data No data No data No data No data No data No data No data
Aluminum * Soil -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Copper * Soil -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Iron * Soil -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Manganese * Soil -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Thallium * Soil -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

FA = Fraction Absorbed Water T(event) = Event Duration T* = Time to Reach Steady-State

Kp = Dermal Permeability Coefficient of Tau = Lag Time B = Dimensionless Ratio of the Permeability Coefficient of a Compound Through
Compound in Water 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: <SITE and OU>
Receptor: <Receptor> (Age <X> Months) Exposure to Media as Described

1. Lead Screening Questions

Lead Concentration Basis for Lead Lead Screening
Used in Model Run Concentration Basis for Lead Screening
Medium Concentration Used Level
Value Units For Model Run Value Units
Recommended Soil Screening
Soil <X> mg/kg Average Detected Value 400 mg/kg Level
Recommended Drinking Water
Water <X> ug/L Average Detected Value 15 ug/L Action Level

2. Lead Model Questions

Question Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date) was used? <model> <version and date>

Where are the input values located in the risk Located in Appendix <X> <IEUBKwin OUTPUT>
assessment report?

What range of media concentrations were used for the <Refer to sampling data table>
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 <Statistic used> Data are Located in Appendix <X>
these statistics?
<Yes/No>
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?

Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If <Yes/No> Mesh size <X> um
not sieved, provide rationale.
<describe>
What was the point of exposure/location?
Where are the output values located in the risk
assessment report? Located in Appendix X <IEUBKwin OUTPUT>

<Yes/No>
Was the model run using default values only?
<Yes/No> Default is 30%
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
<Yes/No> Default values for 7 age groups are 85, 135, 135,
Was the default soil ingestion rate used? 100, 090, and 85 mg/day
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale
for the values located in the risk assessment report? Located in Appendix X <IEUBKwin OUTPUT>

3. Final Result
1
Medium Result Comment/PRG
<MEDIUM> Input value of <X> (units) in <MEDIUM> results in YYY% of Based on site conditions, a PRG
<receptor> above a blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. Geometric mean of X (units) is indicated for
blood lead = ZZZ ug/dL. This exceeds the blood lead goal as <MEDIUM>.
described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of
children exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.

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
 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

Lead Concentration Basis for Lead Lead Screening
Medium used in Model Run Concentration Used Concentration Basis for Lead Screening Level
Value Units For Model Run Value Units
Average Detected
Soil 2000 mg/kg Value 750 mg/kg Recommended Soil Screening Level

2. Lead Model Questions

Question Response
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version EPA Interim Adult Lead Model (1996)

If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide rationale for n/a
model selected.
Located in Appendix 5
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 Mean soil concentration. Data are Located in
support use of these statistics? Appendix 2

OU 3 Slag pile area

What was the point of exposure and location?
Located in Appendix 5
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 <Y>. 1.8

What baseline blood lead concentration (PbB0) value was used? If this is 2.0
outside the default range of 1.7 to 2.2 provide rationale in Appendix <Y>.
Yes
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
Yes
Was the default BKSF used (0.4 ug/dL per ug/day) used?
Yes
Was the default absorption fraction (AF; 0.12) used?
Yes
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? Located in Appendix 5

3. Final Result
1
Medium Result Comment/RBRG
2000 ppm lead in soil results in >5% of receptors above a blood lead level
of 10 ug/d and geometric mean blood lead = 11.6 ug/dL. This exceeds the
Soil blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more 1500 ppm
than 5% of children (fetuses of exposed women) exceeding 10 ug/dL
blood lead.

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 Showerhead) 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.

Page 2 - 1 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 of fish. 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.

Page 3 - 1 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.

Page 4 - 1 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.

Page 5 - 1 December 2001

 Example Scenario No. 6
Multiple Source Exposures (Planning Table 1)

Scenario Description: The risk assessment is evaluating the ingestion of fish 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.

Page 6 - 1 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.

Page 7 - 1 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.

Page 8 - 1 December 2001

 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).

Page 9 - 1 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 Medium Exposure Exposure Receptor Receptor Exposure Type of Rationale for Selection or Exclusion

Timeframe Medium Point Population Age Route Analysis of Exposure Pathway

Future Solid Waste Solid Waste Slag Pile 1 Receptor Population Age 1 Ingestion Quant Rationale

Dermal Quant Rationale

Slag Pile 2 Receptor Population Age 1 Ingestion Quant Rationale

Dermal Quant Rationale

Slag Pile 3 Receptor Population Age 1 Ingestion Quant Rationale

Dermal Quant Rationale

Page 1 of 1 December 2001

 EXAMPLE SCENARIO 1
Option 2

TABLE 4.1.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 Receptor Population Receptor Age Exposure Point Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units Rationale/ Intake Equation/

Code Reference Model Name

Ingestion Receptor Population Age 1 Slag Piles 1, 2, 3 (1) CS Chemical Concentration in Slag See Table 3.1 mg/kg See Table 3.1 Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =

IR Ingestion Rate of Slag 100 mg/day EPA, 1991 CS x IR x FI x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x 1/AT

FI Fraction Ingested 1 -- Professional Judgment

EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 1991

ED Exposure Duration 24 years EPA, 1991

CF1 Conversion Factor 1E-06 kg/mg --

BW Body Weight 70 kg EPA, 1991

AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25,550 days EPA, 1989

AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer 8,760 days EPA, 1989

Dermal Receptor Population Age 1 Slag Piles 1, 2, 3 (1) CS Chemical Concentration in Slag See Table 3.1 mg/kg See Table 3.1 Dermal Absorbed Dose (DAD) (mg/kg-day) =

CF1 Conversion Factor 1E-06 kg/mg -- DA-event x EF x ED x EV x SA X 1/BW x 1/AT

SA Skin Surface Area Available for Contact 5,700 cm2 EPA, 2001 where
AF Soil to Skin Adherence Factor 0.19 mg/cm2-event EPA, 2001 Absorbed Dose per Event (DA-event) (mg/cm2-event) =
ABS-d Absorption Factor chemical-specific unitless EPA, 2001 CS x CF1 x AF x ABS-d
EV Event Frequency 1 events/day EPA, 2001
EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 2001

ED Exposure Duration 24 years EPA, 1991

BW Body Weight 70 kg EPA, 2001

AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25,550 days EPA, 2001

AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer 8,760 days EPA, 2001

(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 Medium Exposure Exposure Receptor Receptor Exposure Type of Rationale for Selection or Exclusion

Timeframe Medium Point Population Age Route Analysis of Exposure Pathway

Future Groundwater Groundwater Aquifer 1 - Tap Water Resident Adult Dermal Quant Future onsite residents may rely on domestic wells drawing from Aquifer 1.
Ingestion Quant Future onsite residents may rely on domestic wells drawing from Aquifer 1.

Child Dermal Quant Future onsite residents may rely on domestic wells drawing from Aquifer 1.

Ingestion Quant Future onsite residents may rely on domestic wells drawing from Aquifer 1.

Air Water Vapors at Resident Adult Inhalation Quant Future onsite residents may rely on domestic wells drawing from Aquifer 1.

Showerhead Child Inhalation None 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 CAS Chemical Minimum (1) Maximum (1) Units Location Detection Range of Concentration Background Screening Potential Potential COPC Rationale for

Point Number Concentration Concentration of Maximum Frequency Detection Used for Value (3) Toxicity Value (4) ARAR/TBC ARAR/TBC Flag Selection or

(Qualifier) (Qualifier) Concentration Limits Screening (2) (N/C) Value Source (Y/N) Deletion (5)

Water Vapors 117817 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 2J 5J ug/l GW3D 4 / 12 7 - 11 5 NA 4.8 C 6 MCL Y ASL

at 67663 Chloroform 0.6 J 9 ug/l GW3D 3 / 12 1-1 9 NA 0.063 C 100 MCL Y ASL
4.5
Showerhead 75150 Carbon Disulfide 0.3 J 4.5 ug/l GW3D 3 / 12 1-1 NA 100 N NA NA N BSL
33
76448 Heptachlor 2J 33 J ug/l GW4D 6 / 12 0.05 - 0.05 NA 0.015 C 0.4 MCL Y ASL
0.2
108883 Toluene 0.1 J 0.2 J ug/l GW3D 3 / 12 1-1 NA 75 N 1000 MCL N BSL

(1) Measured groundwater concentrations.

(2) Maximum concentration used for screening. Definitions: NA = Not Applicable

(3) To date, no background study has been completed. COPC = Chemical of Potential Concern

(4) All compounds are screened against the Risk-Based Concentration (RBC) Table, U.S. EPA Region III, ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/To Be Considered

October 5, 2000 for tap water (cancer benchmark = 1E-06; HQ = 0.1). MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level

(5) Rationale Codes: J = Estimated Value

Selection Reason: Above Screening Level (ASL) C = Carcinogen

Deletion Reason: Below Screening Level (BSL) 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

Maximum
Exposure Point Concentration
Exposure Point Chemical of Units Arithmetic 95% UCL Concentration

Potential Concern Mean (N/T) (Qualifier) Value Units Statistic Rationale

Water Vapors at Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate ug/l 4 5.5 T 5J 5 ug/l Max W-Test (1)

Showerhead Chloroform ug/l 1.9 14.9 T 9 9 ug/l Max W-Test (1)

Heptachlor ug/l 27 30 T 33 J 30 ug/l 95% UCL - T W - Test (2)

Note: Measured groundwater concentrations used to calculate EPC values. N = Normal

Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Transformed Data (95% UCL - T) T = Transformed

(1) 95% UCL exceeds maximum detected concentration. Therefore, maximum concentration used for EPC. J = Estimated Value
(2) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are lognormally transformed.

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 Receptor Population Receptor Age Exposure Point Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units Rationale/ Intake Equation/

Code Reference Model Name

Inhalation (1) Resident Adult Water Vapors at (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Foster and Chrostowski Model
Showerhead

(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

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 Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Chemical of EPC Cancer Risk Calculations Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Potential Concern Value Units Intake/Exposure Concentration CSF/Unit Risk Intake/Exposure Concentration RfD/RfC
Cancer Risk Hazard Quotient

Value Units Value Units Value Units Value Units

Groundwater Groundwater Aquifer 1 - Tap Water Ingestion Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.005 mg/l 4.7E-005 mg/kg/day 1.4E-002 1/mg/kg/day 7E-007 1.4E-004 mg/kg/day 2.0E-002 mg/kg/day 0.007

Chloroform 0.009 mg/l 8.5E-005 mg/kg/day 6.1E-003 1/mg/kg/day 5E-007 2.5E-004 mg/kg/day 1.0E-002 mg/kg/day 0.03

Heptachlor 0.03 mg/l 2.8E-004 mg/kg/day 4.5E+000 1/mg/kg/day 1E-003 8.1E-004 mg/kg/day 5.0E-004 mg/kg/day 2
Exp. Route Total 1E-003 2

Dermal Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.005 mg/l 3.9E-006 mg/kg/day 2.5E-002 1/mg/kg/day 1E-007 1.1E-005 mg/kg/day 1.1E-002 mg/kg/day 0.001

Chloroform 0.009 mg/l 1.9E-006 mg/kg/day 6.1E-003 1/mg/kg/day 1E-008 5.5E-006 mg/kg/day 1.0E-002 mg/kg/day 0.0006

Heptachlor 0.03 mg/l 7.6E-006 mg/kg/day 9.0E+000 1/mg/kg/day 7E-005 2.2E-005 mg/kg/day 2.5E-004 mg/kg/day 0.09
Exp. Route Total 7E-005 0.09

Exposure Point Total 1E-003 2

Air Water Vapors at Inhalation Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.005 mg/l (1) 2.3E-006 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 3.6E-006 mg/kg/day NA NA NA
Showerhead Chloroform 0.009 mg/l (1) 1.3E-004 mg/kg/day 8.1E-002 1/mg/kg/day 1E-005 3.9E-004 mg/kg/day 8.6E-005 mg/kg/day 5

Heptachlor 0.03 mg/l (1) 2.6E-004 mg/kg/day 4.5E+000 1/mg/kg/day 1E-003 7.7E-004 mg/kg/day NA NA NA
Exp. Route Total 1E-003 5
Exposure Point Total 1E-003 5

Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media 2E-003 Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Media 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 Medium Exposure Exposure Receptor Receptor Exposure Type of Rationale for Selection or Exclusion

Timeframe Medium Point Population Age Route Analysis of Exposure Pathway

Future Sediment Sediment Pond 1 Receptor Population Age 1 Route 1 Quant Rationale
Route 2 Quant Rationale

Age 2 Route 1 Quant Rationale

Route 2 Quant Rationale

Fish Tissue Trout Receptor Population Age 1 Route 1 Quant Rationale

Age 2 Route 1 Quant 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 CAS Chemical Minimum (1) Maximum (1) Units Location Detection Range of Concentration Background Screening Potential Potential COPC Rationale for

Point Number Concentration Concentration of Maximum Frequency Detection Used for Value (2) Toxicity Value (3) ARAR/TBC ARAR/TBC Flag Selection or

(Qualifier) (Qualifier) Concentration Limits Screening (1) (N/C) Value Source (Y/N) Deletion (4)

Trout 11096825 Arochlor 1260 0.0002 J 0.005 J mg/kg Trout - 1 3 / 10 0.0001 - 0.0001 0.005 NA 0.0016 C NA NA Y ASL

7439921 Lead 0.004 J 0.007 J mg/kg Trout - 3 5 / 10 0.001 - 0.001 0.007 NA NA NA NA Y NTX
1746016 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin 0.00000001 J 0.00000005 J mg/kg Trout - 1 4 / 10 0.00000001 - 0.00000001 0.00000005 NA 0.000000021 C NA NA Y ASL

(1) Measured fish tissue concentrations. Maximum measured fish tissue concentrations used for screening. Definitions: NA = Not Applicable

(2) Background values are not available. COPC = Chemical of Potential Concern
(3) All compounds were screened against the Risk-Based Concentration (RBC) Table, U.S. EPA Region III, ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/To Be Considered
May 8, 2001 for fish tissue (cancer benchmark = 1E-06; HQ = 0.1). J = Estimated Value
(4) Rationale Codes: C = Carcinogen
Selection Reason: Above Screening Level (ASL) N = Noncarcinogen
No Toxicity Infomation (NTX)

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

Maximum
Exposure Point Concentration
Exposure Point Chemical of Units Arithmetic 95% UCL Concentration

Potential Concern Mean (N/T) (Qualifier) Value Units Statistic Rationale

Trout Arochlor 1260 mg/kg 0.003 0.0035 (T) 0.005 J 0.0035 mg/kg 95% UCL - T W - Test (1)
Lead mg/kg 0.005 0.0063 (T) 0.007 J 0.0063 mg/kg 95% UCL - T W - Test (1)
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin mg/kg 0.00000002 0.000000047 (T) 0.00000005 J 0.000000047 mg/kg 95% UCL -T W - Test (1)

Statistics: 95% UCL of Transformed Data (95% UCL - T) N = Normal

(1) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are log-normally distributed. T = Transformed

Note: Measured fish tissue concentrations used to calculate EPC values. J = Estimated Value

Page 1 of 1 December 2001

 EXAMPLE SCENARIO 4

TABLE 1
SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
The Dean Company

Scenario Medium Exposure Exposure Receptor Receptor Exposure Type of Rationale for Selection or Exclusion

Timeframe Medium Point Population Age Route Analysis of Exposure Pathway

Timeframe Sediment Fish Tissue Trout Population 1 Age 1 Route 1 Quant Rationale
Age 2 Route 1 Quant Rationale

Population 2 Age 1 Route 1 Quant Rationale

Age 2 Route 1 Quant 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 CAS Chemical Minimum Maximum Units Location Detection Range of Concentration Background Screening Potential Potential COPC Rationale for

Point Number Concentration (1) Concentration (1) of Maximum Frequency Detection Used for Value (3) Toxicity Value (4) ARAR/TBC ARAR/TBC Flag Selection or

(Qualifier) (Qualifier) Concentration Limits Screening (2) (N/C) Value Source (Y/N) Deletion (5)

Trout 11096825 Arochlor 1260 0.6 J 5.5 J mg/kg SD01 3 / 10 0.1 - 0.2 0.005 NA 0.0016 (C) NA NA Y ASL

7439921 Lead 210 J 500 J mg/kg SD03 5 / 10 10 - 16 0.007 NA NA NA NA Y NTX

1746016 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin 0.000001 J 0.00005 J mg/kg SD01 4 / 10 0.000001 - 0.000001 0.00000005 NA 0.000000021 (C) NA NA Y 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

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 CAS Chemical Minimum Maximum Units Location Detection Range of Concentration Background Screening Potential Potential COPC Rationale for

Point Number Concentration (1) Concentration (1) of Maximum Frequency Detection Used for Value (2) Toxicity Value (3) ARAR/TBC ARAR/TBC Flag Selection or

(Qualifier) (Qualifier) Concentration Limits Screening (1) (N/C) Value Source (Y/N) Deletion (4)

Trout 11096825 Arochlor 1260 0.6 J 5.5 J mg/kg SD01 3 / 10 0.1 - 0.2 5.5 NA 3.2 (C) NA NA Y ASL

7439921 Lead 210 J 500 J mg/kg SD03 5 / 10 10 - 16 500 NA 400 NA NA Y ASL

1746016 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin 0.000001 J 0.00005 J mg/kg SD01 4 / 10 0.000001 - 0.000001 0.00005 NA 0.000043 (C) NA NA Y ASL

(1) Measured sediment concentrations are shown and maximum concentrations are used for screening. These data will be used as input in Definitions: NA = Not Applicable
the X model to predict fish tissue concentrations. Refer to the risk assessment text for details on the model methodology. COPC = Chemical of Potential Concern
(2) To date, no background study has been completed. ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/To Be Considered
(3) All compounds were screened against the Risk-Based Concentration (RBC) Table, U.S. EPA Region III, J = Estimated Value
May 8, 2001 for 10 times the residential soil value (cancer benchmark = 10 x 1E-06; HQ = 10 x 0.1). Lead was screened against the C = Carcinogen
U.S. EPA screening value of 400 mg/kg. N = Noncarcinogen
(4) Rationale Codes:
Selection Reason: Above Screening Level (ASL)

Page 1 of 1 December 2001

 EXAMPLE SCENARIO 5

TABLE 1

SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

Site Name

Scenario Medium Exposure Exposure Receptor Receptor Exposure Type of Rationale for Selection or Exclusion
Timeframe Medium Point Population Age Route Analysis of Exposure Pathway

Groundwater - Modeled 1
Future Groundwater Groundwater Resident Adult Ingestion Quant Rationale
year into the future
Dermal Quant Rationale
Groundwater - Modeled 2
Adult Ingestion Quant Rationale
Years into the Future Resident
Dermal Quant Rationale

Groundwater - Modeled 5
Adult Ingestion Quant Rationale
Years into the Future Resident
Dermal Quant Rationale

Page 1 of 1 December 2001

 EXAMPLE SCENARIO 6
OPTION 1
TABLE 1
SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
The Dean Company

Scenario Medium Exposure Exposure Receptor Receptor Exposure Type of Rationale for Selection or Exclusion

Timeframe Medium Point Population Age Route Analysis of Exposure Pathway

Trout--Contaminant Uptake
Future Surface Water/Sediment Fish Tissue from Surface Water and Receptor Population Age 1 Ingestion Quant Rationale
Sediment

Age 2 Ingestion Quant Rationale

EXAMPLE SCENARIO 6
OPTION 2
TABLE 1

SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

The Dean Company

Scenario Medium Exposure Exposure Receptor Receptor Exposure Type of Rationale for Selection or Exclusion

Timeframe Medium Point Population Age Route Analysis of Exposure Pathway

Trout--Contaminant Uptake
Future Surface Water Fish Tissue Receptor Population Age 1 Ingestion Quant Rationale
from Surface Water

Age 2 Ingestion Quant Rationale

Trout--Contaminant Uptake
Sediment Fish Tissue Receptor Population Age 1 Ingestion Quant Rationale
from Sediment

Age 2 Ingestion Quant Rationale

Page 1 of 1 December 2001

 EXAMPLE SCENARIO 7
Option 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 Exposure Exposure Chemical Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Medium Point of Potential

Concern Ingestion Inhalation Dermal External Exposure Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure

(Radiation) Routes Total Target Organ(s) Routes Total

Groundwater Groundwater Aquifer 1 - Tap Water Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 7E-07 -- 1E-07 -- 8E-07 Liver 0.007 -- 0.001 0.008

Chloroform 5E-07 -- 1E-08 -- 5E-07 Liver 0.03 -- 0.0006 0.03

Chemical Total 1E-06 -- 1E-07 -- 1E-06 0.03 -- 0.002 0.04

Radionuclide Total

Exposure Point Total 1E-06 0.04

Exposure Medium Total 1E-06 0.04

Air Water Vapors from Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate -- 3E-08 -- -- 3E-08 -- -- -- -- --

Showerhead Chloroform -- 1E-05 -- -- 1E-05 Liver -- 5 -- 5

Chemical Total -- 1E-05 -- -- 1E-05 -- 5 -- 5

Radionuclide Total

Exposure Point Total 1E-05 5

Exposure Medium Total 1E-05 5

Groundwater Total 1E-05 5

Page 1 of 2 December 2001

 EXAMPLE SCENARIO 7
Option 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 Exposure Exposure Chemical Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Medium Point of Potential

Concern Ingestion Inhalation Dermal External Exposure Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure

(Radiation) Routes Total Target Organ(s) Routes Total

Soil Soil Soil at Site 1 4,4'-DDE 1E-06 -- 1E-06 -- 2E-06 -- -- -- -- --

4,4'-DDT 5E-06 -- 5E-006 -- 1E-005 Liver 0.08 -- 0.08 0.2

Chemical Total 6E-06 -- 6E-06 -- 1E-05 0.08 0.08 0.2

Radionuclide Total

Exposure Point Total 1E-05 0.2

Soil at Site 2 4,4'-DDE 8E-08 -- 8E-08 -- 2E-07 -- -- -- -- --

4,4'-DDT 5E-08 -- 5E-08 -- 1E-07 Liver 0.0009 -- 0.0009 0.002

Chemical Total 1E-07 -- 1E-07 -- 3E-07 0.0009 0.0009 0.002

Radionuclide Total

Exposure Point Total 3E-07 0.002

Exposure Medium Total 1E-05 0.002

Soil Total 1E-05 0.002

Receptor Total 2E-05 5

Total Risk Across All Media 2E-05 Total Hazard Across All Media 5

Total Liver HI Across All Media = 5

Page 2 of 2 December 2001

 EXAMPLE SCENARIO 7
Option 2

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 Exposure Chemical Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Medium Point of Potential

Concern Ingestion Inhalation Dermal External Exposure Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure

(Radiation) Routes Total Target Organ(s) Routes Total

Groundwater Groundwater Aquifer 1 - Tap Water Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 7E-07 -- 1E-07 -- 8E-07 Liver 0.007 -- 0.001 0.008

Chloroform 5E-07 -- 1E-08 -- 5E-07 Liver 0.03 -- 0.0006 0.03

Chemical Total 1E-06 -- 1E-07 -- 1E-06 0.03 -- 0.002 0.04

Radionuclide Total

Exposure Point Total 1E-06 0.04

Air Water Vapors from Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate -- 3E-08 -- -- 3E-08 -- -- -- -- --

Showerhead Chloroform -- 1E-05 -- -- 1E-05 Liver -- 5 -- 5

Chemical Total -- 1E-05 -- -- 1E-05 -- 5 -- 5

Radionuclide Total

Exposure Point Total 1E-05 5

Soil Soil Soil at Site 1 4,4'-DDE 1E-06 -- 1E-06 -- 2E-06 -- -- -- -- --

4,4'-DDT 5E-06 -- 5E-006 -- 1E-005 Liver 0.08 -- 0.08 0.2

Chemical Total 6E-06 -- 6E-06 -- 1E-05 0.08 0.08 0.2

Radionuclide Total

Exposure Point Total 1E-05 0.2

Soil at Site 2 4,4'-DDE 8E-08 -- 8E-08 -- 2E-07 -- -- -- -- --

4,4'-DDT 5E-08 -- 5E-08 -- 1E-07 Liver 0.0009 -- 0.0009 0.002

Chemical Total 1E-07 -- 1E-07 -- 3E-07 0.0009 0.0009 0.002

Radionuclide Total

Exposure Point Total 3E-07 0.002

Total Risk Across All Media 2E-05 Total Hazard Across All Media = 5

Total Liver HI Across All Media = 5

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 Exposure Exposure Chemical Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Medium Point of Potential

Concern Ingestion Inhalation Dermal External Exposure Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure

(Radiation) Routes Total Target Organ(s) Routes Total

Water Vapors from
Groundwater Air Chloroform -- 1E-05 -- -- 1E-05 Liver -- 5 -- 5
Showerhead

Chemical Total -- 1E-05 -- -- 1E-05 -- 5 -- 5

Radionuclide Total

Exposure Point Total 1E-05 5

Exposure Medium Total 1E-05 5

Groundwater Total 1E-05 5

Soil Soil Soil at Site 1 4,4'-DDE 1E-06 -- 1E-06 -- 2E-06 -- -- -- -- --

4,4'-DDT 5E-06 -- 5E-06 -- 1E-05 -- -- -- -- --

Chemical Total 6E-06 -- 6E-06 -- 1E-05 -- -- --

Radionuclide Total

Exposure Point Total 1E-05 --

Exposure Medium Total 1E-05 --

Soil Total 1E-05 --

Receptor Total 2E-05 5

Total Risk Across All Media 2E-05 Total Hazard Across All Media 5

Cancer risks presented are those greater than 1E-06; Non-cancer risks presented are those greater than 1.

Total Liver HI Across All Media = 5

Page 1 of 1 December 2001

 EXAMPLE SCENARIO 7
Option 2

TABLE 10.1.RME

RISK SUMMARY

REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

The Dean Company

Scenario Timeframe: Future

Receptor Population: Resident

Receptor Age: Adult

Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Medium Point of Potential

Concern Ingestion Inhalation Dermal External Exposure Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure

(Radiation) Routes Total Target Organ(s) Routes Total

Water Vapors from
Groundwater Air Chloroform -- 1E-05 -- -- 1E-05 Liver -- 5 -- 5
Showerhead

Chemical Total -- 1E-05 -- -- 1E-05 -- 5 -- 5

Radionuclide Total

Exposure Point Total 1E-05 5

Soil Soil Soil at Site 1 4,4'-DDE 1E-06 -- 1E-06 -- 2E-06 -- -- -- -- --

4,4'-DDT 5E-06 -- 5E-006 -- 1E-005 -- -- -- -- --

Chemical Total 6E-06 -- 6E-06 -- 1E-05 -- -- --

Radionuclide Total

Exposure Point Total 1E-05 --

Total Risk Across All Media 2E-05 Total Hazard Across All Media = 5

Cancer risks presented are those greater than 1E-06; Non-cancer risks presented are those greater than 1.

Total Liver HI Across All Media = 5

Page 1 of 1 December 2001

 EXAMPLE SCENARIO 8
Option 1

TABLE 1

SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

The Dean Company

Scenario Medium Exposure Exposure Receptor Receptor Exposure Type of Rationale for Selection or Exclusion

Timeframe Medium Point Population Age Route Analysis of Exposure Pathway

Future Soil Soil Soil at Site 1 Resident Adult Dermal Quant Future onsite residents may come into contact with soil.

Ingestion Quant Future onsite residents may ingest soil.

Child Dermal Quant Future onsite residents may come into contact with soil.

Ingestion Quant Future onsite residents may ingest soil.

Child/Adult Dermal Quant Future onsite residents may come into contact with soil.

Ingestion Quant Future onsite residents may ingest soil.

EXAMPLE SCENARIO 8
Option 2

TABLE 1

SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

The Dean Company

Scenario Medium Exposure Exposure Receptor Receptor Exposure Type of Rationale for Selection or Exclusion

Timeframe Medium Point Population Age Route Analysis of Exposure Pathway

Future Soil Soil Soil at Site 1 Resident Adult Dermal Quant Future onsite residents may come into contact with soil.

Ingestion Quant Future onsite residents may ingest soil.

Child Dermal Quant Future onsite residents may come into contact with soil.

Ingestion Quant Future onsite residents may ingest soil.

Child/Adult Dermal Quant Future onsite residents may come into contact with soil.

Ingestion Quant Future onsite residents may ingest soil.

Page 1 of 1 December 2001

 EXAMPLE SCENARIO 8
Option 1

TABLE 4.1.RME

VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS

REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

The Dean Company

Scenario Timeframe: Future

Medium: Soil

Exposure Medium: Soil

Exposure Route Receptor Population Receptor Age Exposure Point Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units Rationale/ Intake Equation/

Code Reference Model Name

Ingestion Resident Adult Soil at Site 1 CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.3 mg/kg See Table 3.3 Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =

IR Ingestion Rate of Soil 100 mg/day EPA, 1991 CS x IR x FI x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x 1/AT

FI Fraction Ingested 1 -- Professional Judgment

EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 1991

ED Exposure Duration 24 years EPA, 1991

CF1 Conversion Factor 1E-06 kg/mg --

BW Body Weight 70 kg EPA, 1991

AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25,550 days EPA, 1989

AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer 8,760 days EPA, 1989

Child Soil at Site 1 CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.3 mg/kg See Table 3.3 CDI (mg/kg-day) =

IR Ingestion Rate of Soil 200 mg/day EPA, 1991 CS x IR x FI x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x 1/AT

FI Fraction Ingested 1 -- Professional Judgment

EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 1991

ED Exposure Duration 6 years EPA, 1991

CF1 Conversion Factor 1E-06 kg/mg --

BW Body Weight 15 kg EPA, 1991

AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25,550 days EPA, 1989

AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer 2,190 days EPA, 1989

Child/Adult cancer risks will be calculated as the sum of
Child/Adult Soil at Site 1 -- -- -- -- -- the Child cancer risk and the Adult cancer risk.

Page 1 of 2 December 2001

 EXAMPLE SCENARIO 8
Option 1

TABLE 4.1.RME

VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS

REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

The Dean Company

Scenario Timeframe: Future

Medium: Soil

Exposure Medium: Soil

Exposure Route Receptor Population Receptor Age Exposure Point Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units Rationale/ Intake Equation/

Code Reference Model Name

Dermal Resident Adult Soil at Site 1 CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.3 mg/kg See Table 3.3 CDI (mg/kg-day) =

CF1 Conversion Factor 1E-06 kg/mg -- CS x CF1 x SA x AF x AB x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT

SA Skin Surface Area Available for Contact 5,000 cm2 EPA, 1997

AF Soil to Skin Adherence Factor 0.19 mg/cm2 EPA, 1997

AB Absorption Factor chemical-specific unitless EPA, 1995

EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 1991

ED Exposure Duration 24 years EPA, 1991

BW Body Weight 70 kg EPA, 1991

AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25,550 days EPA, 1989

AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer 8,760 days EPA, 1989

Child Soil at Site 1 CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.3 mg/kg See Table 3.3 CDI (mg/kg-day) =

CF1 Conversion Factor 1E-06 kg/mg -- CS x CF1 x SA x AF x AB x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT

SA Skin Surface Area Available for Contact 3,600 cm2 EPA, 1997

AF Soil to Skin Adherence Factor 0.11 mg/cm2 EPA, 1997

AB Absorption Factor chemical-specific unitless EPA, 1995

EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 1991

ED Exposure Duration 6 years EPA, 1991

BW Body Weight 15 kg EPA, 1991

AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25,550 days EPA, 1989

AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer 2,190 days EPA, 1989

Child/Adult cancer risks will be calculated as the sum of
Child/Adult Soil at Site 1 -- -- -- -- -- 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
TABLE 4.1.RME

VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS

REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

The Dean Company

Scenario Timeframe: Future

Medium: Soil

Exposure Medium: Soil

Exposure Route Receptor Population Receptor Age Exposure Point Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units Rationale/ Intake Equation/

Code Reference Model Name

Ingestion Resident Adult Soil at Site 1 CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.3 mg/kg See Table 3.3 Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =
IR Ingestion Rate of Soil 100 mg/day EPA, 1991 CS x IR x FI x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x 1/AT
FI Fraction Ingested 1 -- Professional Judgment
EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 1991
ED Exposure Duration 24 years EPA, 1991
CF1 Conversion Factor 1.0E-06 kg/mg --
BW Body Weight 70 kg EPA, 1991
AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25,550 days EPA, 1989
AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer 8,760 days EPA, 1989
Child Soil at Site 1 CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.3 mg/kg See Table 3.3 CDI (mg/kg-day) =
IR Ingestion Rate of Soil 200 mg/day EPA, 1991 CS x IR x FI x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x 1/AT
FI Fraction Ingested 1 -- Professional Judgment
EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 1991
ED Exposure Duration 6 years EPA, 1991
CF1 Conversion Factor 1.0E-06 kg/mg --
BW Body Weight 15 kg EPA, 1991
AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25,550 days EPA, 1989
AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer 2,190 days EPA, 1989
Child/Adult Soil at Site 1 CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.3 mg/kg See Table 3.3 CDI (mg/kg/day) =
IF Ingestion Factor 114 mg-year/kg-day EPA 1991b CS x IF x CF x FI x EF x 1/AT
BW-C Body Weight, Child 15 kg EPA, 1991a where
BW-A Body Weight, Adult 70 kg EPA, 1991a IF = (ED-C x IR-C / BW-C) + (ED-TOT - ED-C) x
IR-C Ingestion Rate, Child 200 mg/day EPA, 1991a (IR-A / BW-A)
IR-A Ingestion Rate, Adult 100 mg/day EPA, 1991a
ED-C Exposure Duration, Child 6 years EPA, 1991a
ED-TOT Exposure Duration, Total 30 years EPA, 1991a
CF Conversion Factor 1.0E-06 kg/mg --
FI Fraction Ingested 1 unitless Professional Judgment
EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 1991a
AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25,550 days EPA, 1989

Page 1 of 3 December 2001

 EXAMPLE SCENARIO 8
Option 2
TABLE 4.1.RME

VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS

REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

The Dean Company

Scenario Timeframe: Future

Medium: Soil

Exposure Medium: Soil

Exposure Route Receptor Population Receptor Age Exposure Point Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units Rationale/ Intake Equation/

Code Reference Model Name

Dermal Resident Adult Soil at Site 1 CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.3 mg/kg See Table 3.3 CDI (mg/kg-day) =
CF1 Conversion Factor 1.0E-06 kg/mg -- CS x CF1 x SA x AF x AB x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT
SA Skin Surface Area Available for Contact 5,000 cm2 EPA, 1997
AF Soil to Skin Adherence Factor 0.19 mg/cm2 EPA, 1997
AB Absorption Factor chemical-specific unitless EPA, 1995
EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 1991
ED Exposure Duration 24 years EPA, 1991
BW Body Weight 70 kg EPA, 1991
AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25,550 days EPA, 1989
AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer 8,760 days EPA, 1989
Child Soil at Site 1 CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.3 mg/kg See Table 3.3 CDI (mg/kg-day) =
CF1 Conversion Factor 1.0E-06 kg/mg -- CS x CF1 x SA x AF x AB x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT
SA Skin Surface Area Available for Contact 3,600 cm2 EPA, 1997
AF Soil to Skin Adherence Factor 0.11 mg/cm2 EPA, 1997
AB Absorption Factor chemical-specific unitless EPA, 1995
EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 1991
ED Exposure Duration 6 years EPA, 1991
BW Body Weight 15 kg EPA, 1991
AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25,550 days EPA, 1989
AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer 2,190 days EPA, 1989

Page 2 of 3 December 2001

 EXAMPLE SCENARIO 8
Option 2
TABLE 4.1.RME

VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS

REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

The Dean Company

Scenario Timeframe: Future

Medium: Soil

Exposure Medium: Soil

Exposure Route Receptor Population Receptor Age Exposure Point Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units Rationale/ Intake Equation/

Code Reference Model Name

Dermal (continued) Resident (continued) Child/Adult Soil at Site 1 CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.3 mg/kg See Table 3.3 CDI (mg/kg-day) =
DF Dermal Factor 3,154 cm2-year/kg-day EPA 1991b CS x CF1 x DF x AF x AB x EF x 1/AT
BW-C Body Weight, Child 15 kg EPA, 1991a where
BW-A Body Weight, Adult 70 kg EPA, 1991a DF = (ED-C x SA-C / BW-C) + (ED-TOT - ED-C) x
SA-C Surface Area, Child 3,600 cm2 EPA, 1997 (SA-A / BW-A)
SA-A Surface Area, Adult 5,000 cm2 EPA, 1997
ED-C Exposure Duration, Child 6 years EPA, 1991a
ED-TOT Exposure Duration, Total 30 years EPA, 1991a
AF Soil to Skin Adherence Factor 0.15 mg/cm2 Professional Judgment
EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA 1991a
AB Absorption Factor chemical-specific unitless EPA, 1995
CF1 Conversion Factor 1.0E-06 kg/mg --
AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25,550 days EPA, 1989

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 1991a: 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.

Page 3 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

Scenario Timeframe: Future

Receptor Population: Resident

Receptor Age: Adult

Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Chemical of EPC Cancer Risk Calculations Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Potential Concern Value Units Intake/Exposure Concentration CSF/Unit Risk Intake/Exposure Concentration RfD/RfC
Cancer Risk Hazard Quotient

Value Units Value Units Value Units Value Units

Soil Soil Soil at Site 1 Ingestion 0.452 mg/kg 2.1E-07 mg/kg/day 2.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day 5E-08 6.2E-07 mg/kg/day NA NA NA
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE 6.8 mg/kg 3.2E-06 mg/kg/day 3.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day 1E-06 9.3E-06 mg/kg/day NA NA NA

28.6 mg/kg 1.3E-005 mg/kg/day 3.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day 5E-06 3.9E-05 mg/kg/day 5.0E-04 mg/kg/day 0.08
4,4'-DDT
9964 mg/kg 4.7E-003 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 1.4E-02 mg/kg/day 1.0E+00 mg/kg/day 0.01
Aluminum
201 mg/kg 9.5E-005 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 2.8E-04 mg/kg/day 1.4E-01 mg/kg/day 0.002
Manganese
1.2 mg/kg 5.6E-007 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 1.6E-06 mg/kg/day NA NA NA
Thallium
Exp. Route Total 6E-06 0.09

Dermal 0.452 mg/kg 2.0E-007 mg/kg/day 2.7E-01 1/mg/kg/day 5E-08 5.9E-07 mg/kg/day NA NA NA
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE 6.8 mg/kg 3.0E-06 mg/kg/day 3.8E-01 1/mg/kg/day 1E-06 8.8E-06 mg/kg/day NA NA NA
28.6 mg/kg 1.3E-005 mg/kg/day 3.8E-01 1/mg/kg/day 5E-06 3.7E-005 mg/kg/day 4.5E-004 mg/kg/day 0.08
4,4'-DDT
9964 mg/kg 4.5E-004 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 1.3E-003 mg/kg/day 2.7E-001 mg/kg/day 0.005
Aluminum
201 mg/kg 9.0E-006 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 2.6E-005 mg/kg/day 7.0E-03 mg/kg/day 0.004
Manganese
1.2 mg/kg 5.3E-008 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 1.5E-007 mg/kg/day NA NA NA
Thallium
Exp. Route Total 6E-06 0.09

Exposure Point Total 1E-05 0.2

Expsoure Medium Total 1E-05 0.2
Soil Total 1E-05 0.2

Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media 1E-05 Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Media 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

Scenario Timeframe: Future

Receptor Population: Resident

Receptor Age: Child

Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Chemical of EPC Cancer Risk Calculations Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Potential Concern Value Units Intake/Exposure Concentration CSF/Unit Risk Intake/Exposure Concentration RfD/RfC
Cancer Risk Hazard Quotient

Value Units Value Units Value Units Value Units

Soil Soil Soil at Site 1 Ingestion 4,4'-DDD 0.452 mg/kg 5.0E-07 mg/kg/day 2.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day 1E-07 5.8E-06 mg/kg/day NA NA NA

4,4'-DDE 6.8 mg/kg 7.4E-06 mg/kg/day 3.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day 3E-06 8.7E-05 mg/kg/day NA NA NA

4,4'-DDT 28.6 mg/kg 3.1E-005 mg/kg/day 3.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day 1E-05 3.7E-004 mg/kg/day 5.0E-04 mg/kg/day 0.7

Aluminum 9964 mg/kg 1.1E-002 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 1.3E-001 mg/kg/day 1.0E+00 mg/kg/day 0.1

Manganese 201 mg/kg 2.2E-004 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 2.6E-003 mg/kg/day 1.4E-01 mg/kg/day 0.02

Thallium 1.2 mg/kg 1.3E-006 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 1.5E-005 mg/kg/day NA NA NA

Exp. Route Total 1E-05 0.8

Dermal 4,4'-DDD 0.452 mg/kg 9.8E-08 mg/kg/day 2.7E-01 1/mg/kg/day 3E-08 1.1E-06 mg/kg/day NA NA NA

4,4'-DDE 6.8 mg/kg 1.5E-06 mg/kg/day 3.8E-01 1/mg/kg/day 6E-07 1.7E-05 mg/kg/day NA NA NA

4,4'-DDT 28.6 mg/kg 6.2E-006 mg/kg/day 3.8E-01 1/mg/kg/day 2E-06 7.2E-005 mg/kg/day 4.5E-004 mg/kg/day 0.2

Aluminum 9964 mg/kg 2.2E-004 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 2.5E-003 mg/kg/day 2.7E-001 mg/kg/day 0.009

Manganese 201 mg/kg 4.4E-006 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 5.1E-005 mg/kg/day 7.0E-003 mg/kg/day 0.007

Thallium 1.2 mg/kg 2.6E-008 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 3.0E-007 mg/kg/day NA NA NA

Exp. Route Total 3E-06 0.2

Exposure Point Total 1E-05 1

Exposure Medium Total 1E-05 1
Medium 1E-05 1
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media 1E-05 Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Media 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: Child/Adult

Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Chemical of EPC Cancer Risk Calculations Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Potential Concern Value Units Intake/Exposure Concentration CSF/Unit Risk Intake/Exposure Concentration RfD/RfC
Cancer Risk Hazard Quotient

Value Units Value Units Value Units Value Units

Soil Soil Soil at Site 1 Ingestion 4,4'-DDD 0.452 mg/kg 7.1E-07 mg/kg/day 2.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day 2E-07 -- -- -- -- --

4,4'-DDE 6.8 mg/kg 1.1E-05 mg/kg/day 3.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day 4E-06 -- -- -- -- --

4,4'-DDT 28.6 mg/kg 4.4E-05 mg/kg/day 3.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day 2E-05 -- -- -- -- --

Aluminum 9964 mg/kg 1.6E-02 mg/kg/day NA NA NA -- -- -- -- --

Manganese 201 mg/kg 3.2E-05 mg/kg/day NA NA NA -- -- -- -- --

Thallium 1.2 mg/kg 1.9E-06 mg/kg/day NA NA NA -- -- -- -- --

Exp. Route Total 2E-05 --

Dermal 4,4'-DDD 0.452 mg/kg 3.0E-07 mg/kg/day 2.7E-01 1/mg/kg/day 8E-08 -- -- -- -- --

4,4'-DDE 6.8 mg/kg 4.5E-06 mg/kg/day 3.8E-01 1/mg/kg/day 2E-06 -- -- -- -- --

4,4'-DDT 28.6 mg/kg 1.9E-05 mg/kg/day 3.8E-01 1/mg/kg/day 7E-06 -- -- -- -- --

Aluminum 9964 mg/kg 6.7E-04 mg/kg/day NA NA NA -- -- -- -- --

Manganese 201 mg/kg 1.3E-05 mg/kg/day NA NA NA -- -- -- -- --

Thallium 1.2 mg/kg 7.9E-08 mg/kg/day NA NA NA -- -- -- -- --

Exp. Route Total 9E-06 -- -- -- -- --

Exposure Point Total --

3E-05
Exposure Medium Total --
3E-05
Medium 3E-05 --
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media 3E-05 Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Media --
Note: Child/Adult 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 Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Chemical of EPC Cancer Risk Calculations Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Potential Concern Value Units Intake/Exposure Concentration CSF/Unit Risk Intake/Exposure Concentration RfD/RfC
Cancer Risk Hazard Quotient

Value Units Value Units Value Units Value Units

Soil Soil Soil at Site 1 Ingestion 4,4'-DDD 0.452 mg/kg 2.1E-07 mg/kg/day 2.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day 5E-08 6.2E-07 mg/kg/day NA NA NA

4,4'-DDE 6.8 mg/kg 3.2E-06 mg/kg/day 3.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day 1E-06 9.3E-06 mg/kg/day NA NA NA

4,4'-DDT 28.6 mg/kg 1.3E-005 mg/kg/day 3.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day 5E-06 3.9E-05 mg/kg/day 5.0E-04 mg/kg/day 0.08

Aluminum 9964 mg/kg 4.7E-003 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 1.4E-02 mg/kg/day 1.0E+00 mg/kg/day 0.01

Manganese 201 mg/kg 9.5E-005 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 2.8E-04 mg/kg/day 1.4E-01 mg/kg/day 0.002

Thallium 1.2 mg/kg 5.6E-007 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 1.6E-06 mg/kg/day NA NA NA

Exp. Route Total 6E-06 0.09

Dermal 4,4'-DDD 0.452 mg/kg 2.0E-007 mg/kg/day 2.7E-01 1/mg/kg/day 5E-08 5.9E-07 mg/kg/day NA NA NA

4,4'-DDE 6.8 mg/kg 3.0E-06 mg/kg/day 3.8E-01 1/mg/kg/day 1E-06 8.8E-06 mg/kg/day NA NA NA

4,4'-DDT 28.6 mg/kg 1.3E-005 mg/kg/day 3.8E-01 1/mg/kg/day 5E-06 3.7E-005 mg/kg/day 4.5E-004 mg/kg/day 0.08

Aluminum 9964 mg/kg 4.5E-004 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 1.3E-003 mg/kg/day 2.7E-001 mg/kg/day 0.005

Manganese 201 mg/kg 9.0E-006 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 2.6E-005 mg/kg/day 7.0E-03 mg/kg/day 0.004

Thallium 1.2 mg/kg 5.3E-008 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 1.5E-007 mg/kg/day NA NA NA

Exp. Route Total 6E-06 0.09

Exposure Point Total 1E-05 0.2

Exposure Medium Total 1E-05 0.2
Soil Total 1E-05 0.2
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media 1E-05 Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Media 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 Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Chemical of EPC Cancer Risk Calculations Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Potential Concern Value Units Intake/Exposure Concentration CSF/Unit Risk Intake/Exposure Concentration RfD/RfC
Cancer Risk Hazard Quotient

Value Units Value Units Value Units Value Units

Soil Soil Soil at Site 1 Ingestion 4,4'-DDD 0.452 mg/kg 5.0E-07 mg/kg/day 2.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day 1E-07 5.8E-06 mg/kg/day NA NA NA

4,4'-DDE 6.8 mg/kg 7.4E-06 mg/kg/day 3.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day 3E-06 8.7E-05 mg/kg/day NA NA NA

4,4'-DDT 28.6 mg/kg 3.1E-005 mg/kg/day 3.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day 1E-05 3.7E-004 mg/kg/day 5.0E-04 mg/kg/day 0.7

Aluminum 9964 mg/kg 1.1E-002 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 1.3E-001 mg/kg/day 1.0E+00 mg/kg/day 0.1

Manganese 201 mg/kg 2.2E-004 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 2.6E-003 mg/kg/day 1.4E-01 mg/kg/day 0.02

Thallium 1.2 mg/kg 1.3E-006 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 1.5E-005 mg/kg/day NA NA NA

Exp. Route Total 1E-05 0.8

Dermal 4,4'-DDD 0.452 mg/kg 9.8E-08 mg/kg/day 2.7E-01 1/mg/kg/day 3E-08 1.1E-06 mg/kg/day NA NA NA

4,4'-DDE 6.8 mg/kg 1.5E-06 mg/kg/day 3.8E-01 1/mg/kg/day 6E-07 1.7E-05 mg/kg/day NA NA NA

4,4'-DDT 28.6 mg/kg 6.2E-006 mg/kg/day 3.8E-01 1/mg/kg/day 2E-06 7.2E-005 mg/kg/day 4.5E-004 mg/kg/day 0.2

Aluminum 9964 mg/kg 2.2E-004 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 2.5E-003 mg/kg/day 2.7E-001 mg/kg/day 0.009

Manganese 201 mg/kg 4.4E-006 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 5.1E-005 mg/kg/day 7.0E-003 mg/kg/day 0.007

Thallium 1.2 mg/kg 2.6E-008 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 3.0E-007 mg/kg/day NA NA NA

Exp. Route Total 3E-06 0.2

Exposure Point Total 1E-05 1

Exposure Medium Total 1E-05 1
Soil Total 1E-05 1
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media 1E-05 Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Media 1

Page 1 of 1 December 2001

 EXAMPLE SCENARIO 8
Option 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 Exposure Exposure Chemical Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Medium Point of Potential

Concern Ingestion Inhalation Dermal External Exposure Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure

(Radiation) Routes Total Target Organ(s) Routes Total

Soil Soil Soil at Site 1 4,4'-DDD 5E-08 -- 5E-08 -- 1E-07 -- -- -- -- --

4,4'-DDE 1E-06 -- 1E-06 -- 2E-06 -- -- -- -- --

4,4'-DDT 5E-06 -- 5E-06 -- 1E-05 Liver 0.08 -- 0.08 0.2

Aluminum -- -- -- -- -- Central Nervous System 0.01 -- 0.005 0.02

Manganese -- -- -- -- -- Central Nervous System 0.002 -- 0.004 0.006

Thallium -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Chemical Total 6E-06 -- 6E-06 -- 1E-05 0.09 -- 0.09 0.2

Radionuclide Total

Exposure Point Total 1E-05 0.2

Exposure Medium Total 1E-05 0.2

Soil Total 1E-05 0.2

Receptor Total 1E-05 0.2

Total Risk Across All Media 1E-05 Total Hazard Across All Media 0.2

Page 1 of 1 December 2001

 EXAMPLE SCENARIO 8
Option 2

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 Exposure Chemical Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Medium Point of Potential

Concern Ingestion Inhalation Dermal External Exposure Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure

(Radiation) Routes Total Target Organ(s) Routes Total

Soil Soil Soil at Site 1 4,4'-DDD 5E-08 -- 5E-08 -- 1E-07 -- -- -- -- --

4,4'-DDE 1E-06 -- 1E-06 -- 2E-06 -- -- -- -- --

4,4'-DDT 5E-06 -- 5E-06 -- 1E-05 Liver 0.08 -- 0.08 0.2

Aluminum -- -- -- -- -- Central Nervous System 0.01 -- 0.005 0.02

Manganese -- -- -- -- -- Central Nervous System 0.002 -- 0.004 0.006

Thallium -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Chemical Total 6E-06 -- 6E-06 -- 1E-05 0.09 -- 0.09 0.2

Radionuclide Total

Exposure Point Total 1E-05 0.2

Exposure Medium Total 1E-05 0.2

Soil Total 1E-05 0.2

Receptor Total 1E-05 0.2

Total Risk Across All Media 1E-05 Total Hazard Across All Media 0.2

Page 1 of 1 December 2001

 EXAMPLE SCENARIO 8
Option 1

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 Exposure Exposure Chemical Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Medium Point of Potential

Concern Ingestion Inhalation Dermal External Exposure Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure

(Radiation) Routes Total Target Organ(s) Routes Total

Soil Soil Soil at Site 1 4,4'-DDD 1E-07 -- 3E-08 -- 1E-07 -- -- -- -- --

4,4'-DDE 3E-06 -- 6E-07 -- 3E-06 -- -- -- -- --

4,4'-DDT 1E-05 -- 2E-06 -- 1E-05 Liver 0.7 -- 0.2 0.9

Aluminum -- -- -- -- -- Central Nervous System 0.1 -- 0.009 0.1

Manganese -- -- -- -- -- Central Nervous System 0.02 -- 0.007 0.03

Thallium -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Chemical Total 1E-05 -- 3E-06 -- 1E-05 0.8 -- 0.2 1

Radionuclide Total

Exposure Point Total 1E-05 1

Exposure Medium Total 1E-05 1

Soil Total 1E-05 1

Receptor Total 1E-05 1

Total Risk Across All Media 1E-05 Total Hazard Across All Media 1

Page 1 of 1 December 2001

 EXAMPLE SCENARIO 8
Option 2

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 Exposure Exposure Chemical Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Medium Point of Potential

Concern Ingestion Inhalation Dermal External Exposure Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure

(Radiation) Routes Total Target Organ(s) Routes Total

Soil Soil Soil at Site 1 4,4'-DDD 1E-07 -- 3E-08 -- 1E-07 -- -- -- -- --

4,4'-DDE 3E-06 -- 6E-07 -- 3E-06 -- -- -- -- --

4,4'-DDT 1E-05 -- 2E-06 -- 1E-05 Liver 0.7 -- 0.2 0.9

Aluminum -- -- -- -- -- Central Nervous System 0.1 -- 0.009 0.1

Manganese -- -- -- -- -- Central Nervous System 0.02 -- 0.007 0.03

Thallium -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Chemical Total 1E-05 -- 3E-06 -- 1E-05 0.8 -- 0.2 1

Radionuclide Total

Exposure Point Total 1E-05 1

Exposure Medium Total 1E-05 1

Soil Total 1E-05 1

Receptor Total 1E-05 1

Total Risk Across All Media 1E-05 Total Hazard Across All Media 1

Page 1 of 1 December 2001

 EXAMPLE SCENARIO 8
Option 1

TABLE 9.3.RME

SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs

REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

The Dean Company

Scenario Timeframe: Future

Receptor Population: Resident

Receptor Age: Child/Adult

Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Medium Point of Potential

Concern Ingestion Inhalation Dermal External Exposure Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure

(Radiation) Routes Total Target Organ(s) Routes Total

Soil Soil Soil at Site 1 4,4'-DDD 2E-07 -- 8E-08 -- 3E-07 -- -- -- -- --

4,4'-DDE 4E-06 -- 2E-06 -- 6E-06 -- -- -- -- --

4,4'-DDT 2E-05 -- 7E-06 -- 3E-05 -- -- -- -- --

Aluminum -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Manganese -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Thallium -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Chemical Total 2E-05 -- 9E-06 -- 3E-05 -- -- -- --

Radionuclide Total

Exposure Point Total 3E-05 --

Exposure Medium Total 3E-05 --

Soil Total 3E-05 --

Receptor Total 3E-05 --

Total Risk Across All Media 3E-05 Total Hazard 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.

Page 1 of 1 December 2001

 EXAMPLE SCENARIO 8
Option 2

TABLE 9.3.RME

SUMMARY OF RECEPTOR RISKS AND HAZARDS FOR COPCs

REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

The Dean Company

Scenario Timeframe: Future

Receptor Population: Resident

Receptor Age: Child/Adult

Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Medium Point of Potential

Concern Ingestion Inhalation Dermal External Exposure Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure

(Radiation) Routes Total Target Organ(s) Routes Total

Soil Soil Soil at Site 1 4,4'-DDD 2E-07 -- 8E-08 -- 3E-07 -- -- -- -- --

4,4'-DDE 4E-06 -- 2E-06 -- 6E-06 -- -- -- -- --

4,4'-DDT 2E-05 -- 7E-06 -- 3E-05 -- -- -- -- --

Aluminum -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Manganese -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Thallium -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Chemical Total 2E-05 -- 9E-06 -- 3E-05 -- -- -- --

Radionuclide Total

Exposure Point Total 3E-05 --

Exposure Medium Total 3E-05 --

Soil Total 3E-05 --

Receptor Total 3E-05 --

Total Risk Across All Media 3E-05 Total Hazard Across All Media --

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 Medium Exposure Exposure Receptor Receptor Exposure Type of Rationale for Selection or Exclusion

Timeframe Medium Point Population Age Route Analysis of Exposure Pathway

Beef from cattle grazing in

Timeframe Soil Animal Tissue (1) field Population 1 Age 1 Route 1 Quant Rationale

Age 2 Route 1 Quant Rationale

Population 2 Age 1 Route 1 Quant Rationale

Age 2 Route 1 Quant 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

Lead Concentration Basis for Lead Lead Screening
Medium used in Model Run Concentration Used Concentration Basis for Lead Screening Level
Value Units For Model Run Value Units
Average Detected
Soil 2000 mg/kg Value 750 mg/kg Recommended Soil Screening Level

2. Lead Model Questions

Question Response
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version EPA Interim Adult Lead Model (1996)

If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide rationale for n/a
model selected.
Located in Appendix 5
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 Mean soil concentration. Data are Located in
support use of these statistics? Appendix 2

OU 3 Slag pile area

What was the point of exposure and location?
Located in Appendix 5
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 <Y>. 1.8

What baseline blood lead concentration (PbB0) value was used? If this is 2.0
outside the default range of 1.7 to 2.2 provide rationale in Appendix <Y>.
Yes
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
Yes
Was the default BKSF used (0.4 ug/dL per ug/day) used?
Yes
Was the default absorption fraction (AF; 0.12) used?
Yes
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? Located in Appendix 5

3. Final Result
1
Medium Result Comment/RBRG
2000 ppm lead in soil results in >5% of receptors above a blood lead level
of 10 ug/d and geometric mean blood lead = 11.6 ug/dL. This exceeds the
Soil blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more 1500 ppm
than 5% of children (fetuses of exposed women) exceeding 10 ug/dL
blood lead.

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

Lead Concentration used in Basis for Lead Lead Screening
Medium Model Run Concentration Used Concentration Basis for Lead Screening Level
Value Units for Model Run Value Units
Average Detected
Soil 1000 mg/kg Value 400 mg/kg Recommended Soil Screening Level

Average Detected Recommended Drinking Water

Water 4 ug/L Value 15 ug/L Action Level

2. Lead Model Questions

Question Response for Residential Lead Model

What lead model (version and date) was used? IEUBK version 0.99d, 1994

Located in Appendix 3
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Refer to sampling data table 2
What range of media concentrations were used for the model?
What statistics were used to represent the exposure concentration Mean value of backyard and side yard. Data presented in
terms and where are the data on concentrations in the risk Appendix 3.
assessment that support use of these statistics?
Yes
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?

Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was used? If not Yes, 250 um
sieved, provide rationale.
Residential yard in Neighborhood 2: back yard and side yard
What was the point of exposure/location? composite.
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment
report? Located in Appendix 3

Yes, except for soil and dust concentration data.

Was the model run using default values only?
Yes. Default is 30%
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes. Default values for 7 age groups are 85, 135, 135, 100, 090,
Was the default soil ingestion rate used? and 85 mg/day
If non-default values were used, where are the rationale for the
values located in the risk assessment report? 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 Based on site conditions, a PRG of 354
710 ppm) results in 42.7% of children 0-84 months above a ppm in soil is indicated. This PRG is
blood lead level of 10 ug/dL. Geometric mean blood lead = typically rounded to 400 ppm.
9.5 ug/dL. This 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.

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 Medium Exposure Exposure Receptor Receptor Exposure Type of Rationale for Selection or Exclusion

Timeframe Medium Point Population Age Route Analysis of Exposure Pathway

Future Groundwater Groundwater Aquifer 1--Tap Water Resident Adult Dermal Quant Future onsite residents may rely on domestic wells drawing from Aquifer 1.

Ingestion Quant Future onsite residents may rely on domestic wells drawing from Aquifer 1.
Child Dermal Quant Future onsite residents may rely on domestic wells drawing from Aquifer 1.

Ingestion Quant Future onsite residents may rely on domestic wells drawing from Aquifer 1.

Air Water Vapors from Resident Adult Inhalation Quant Future onsite residents may rely on domestic wells drawing from Aquifer 1.

Showerhead Child Inhalation None Children are assumed not to shower.

Soil Soil Soil at Site 1 Resident Adult Dermal Quant Future onsite residents may come into contact with soil.

Ingestion Quant Future onsite residents may ingest soil.

External (Radiation) Quant Future onsite residents may come into contact with soil.

Child Dermal Quant Future onsite residents may come into contact with soil.

Ingestion Quant Future onsite residents may ingest soil.

External (Radiation) Quant 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 CAS Chemical Minimum Maximum Units Location Detection Range of Concentration Background Screening Potential Potential COPC Rationale for

Point Number Concentration Concentration of Maximum Frequency Detection Used for Value (2) Toxicity Value (3) ARAR/TBC ARAR/TBC Flag Selection or

(Qualifier) (Qualifier) Concentration Limits Screening (1) (N/C) Value Source (Y/N) Deletion (4)

Aquifer 1 - 117817 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 2J 5J ug/l GW3D 4 / 12 3-4 5 NA 4.8 C 6 MCL Y ASL

Tap Water 67663 Chloroform 0.6 J 9 ug/l GW3D 3 / 12 1-1 9 NA 0.063 C 100 MCL Y ASL

75150 Carbon Disulfide 0.3 J 4.5 ug/l GW3D 3 / 12 1-1 4.5 NA 100 N NA NA N BSL

76448 Heptachlor 2J 33 J ug/l GW4D 6 / 12 0.01 - 0.01 33 NA 0.015 C 0.4 MCL Y ASL

108883 Toluene 0.1 J 0.2 J ug/l GW3D 3 / 12 1-1 0.2 NA 75 N 1000 MCL N BSL

7429905 Aluminum 134 J 1340 ug/l GW3D 2 / 12 29 - 38.2 1340 NA 3700 N 50 - 200 SMCL N BSL

7440393 Barium 65 J 489 ug/l GW1D 6 / 12 0.2 - 1 489 NA 260 N 2000 MCL Y ASL

7440417 Beryllium 0.2 K 1.5 K ug/l GW2D 3 / 12 0.1 - 1 1.5 NA 7.3 N 4 MCL N BSL

7439921 Lead 6J 35 J ug/l GW3D 4 / 12 0.1 - 1 35 NA 15 15 MCL Y ASL

7439965 Manganese 1900 12500 ug/l GW1D 6 / 12 0.3 - 1 12500 NA 73 N 50 SMCL Y ASL

7440020 Nickel 0.9 J 1.5 J ug/l GW4D 3 / 12 0.9 - 7 1.5 NA 73 N NA NA N BSL

7440611 Uranium 50 500 ug/l GW1D 12 / 12 1-2 500 NA 11 N NA NA Y ASL

7440611 Uranium 238 0.23 80 pCi/l GW1D 12 / 12 NA NA NA NA NA NA Y DET

13982-63-3 Radium 226 0.2 11 pCi/l GW1D 12 / 12 NA NA NA NA 5 MCL Y DET

(1) Maximum concentration used for screening chemicals. No screening was conducted for radionuclides; Definitions: NA = Not Applicable

all radionuclides detected are selected as COPCs. MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level

(2) To date, no background study has been completed. SMCL = Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level

(3) All compounds were screened against the Risk-Based Concentration (RBC) Table, U.S. EPA Region III, J = Estimated Value

May 8, 2001 for tap water (cancer benchmark = 1E-06; HQ = 0.1). Lead was screened against the K = Estimated Value - Biased High

action level of 15 ug/l. C = Carcinogen

(4) Rationale Codes: N = Noncarcinogen

Selection Reason: Above Screening Level (ASL)

Detected at Site (DET)

Deletion Reason: Below Screening Level (BSL)

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 CAS Chemical Minimum Maximum Units Location Detection Range of Concentration Background Screening Potential Potential COPC Rationale for

Point Number Concentration Concentration of Maximum Frequency Detection Used for Value (2) Toxicity Value (3) ARAR/TBC ARAR/TBC Flag Selection or

(Qualifier) (Qualifier) Concentration Limits Screening (1) (N/C) Value Source (Y/N) Deletion (4)

Water Vapors 117817 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 2J 5J ug/l GW3D 4 / 12 3-4 5 NA 4.8 C 6 MCL Y ASL

from SHowerhead 67663 Chloroform 0.6 J 9 ug/l GW3D 3 / 12 1-1 9 NA 0.063 C 100 MCL Y ASL

75150 Carbon Disulfide 0.3 J 4.5 ug/l GW3D 3 / 12 1-1 4.5 NA 100 N NA NA N BSL

76448 Heptachlor 2J 33 J ug/l GW4D 6 / 12 0.01 - 0.01 33 NA 0.015 C 0.4 MCL Y ASL

108883 Toluene 0.1 J 0.2 J ug/l GW3D 3 / 12 1-1 0.2 NA 75 N 1000 MCL N BSL

7429905 Aluminum 134 J 1340 ug/l GW3D 2 / 12 29 - 38.2 1340 NA 3700 N 50 - 200 SMCL N BSL

7440393 Barium 65 J 489 ug/l GW1D 6 / 12 0.2 - 1 489 NA 260 N 2000 MCL Y ASL

7440417 Beryllium 0.2 K 1.5 K ug/l GW2D 3 / 12 0.1 - 1 1.5 NA 7.3 N 4 MCL N BSL

7439921 Lead 6J 35 J ug/l GW3D 4 / 12 0.1 - 1 35 NA 15 15 MCL Y ASL

7439965 Manganese 1900 12500 ug/l GW1D 6 / 12 0.3 - 1 12500 NA 73 N 50 SMCL Y ASL

7440020 Nickel 0.9 J 1.5 J ug/l GW4D 3 / 12 0.9 - 7 1.5 NA 73 N NA NA N BSL

7440611 Uranium 50 500 ug/l GW1D 12 / 12 1-2 500 NA 11 N NA NA Y ASL

7440611 Uranium 238 0.23 80 pCi/l GW1D 12 / 12 NA NA NA NA NA NA Y DET

13982-63-3 Radium 226 0.2 11 pCi/l GW1D 12 / 12 NA NA NA NA 5 MCL Y DET

(1) Maximum concentration used for screening chemicals. No screening was conducted for radionuclides; Definitions: NA = Not Applicable

all radionuclides detected are selected as COPCs. MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level

(2) To date, no background study has been completed. SMCL = Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level

(3) All compounds were screened against the Risk-Based Concentration (RBC) Table, U.S. EPA Region III, J = Estimated Value

May 8, 2001 for tap water (cancer benchmark = 1E-06; HQ = 0.1). Lead was screened against the K = Estimated Value - Biased High

action level of 15 ug/l. C = Carcinogen

(4) Rationale Codes: N = Noncarcinogen

Selection Reason: Above Screening Level (ASL)

Detected at Site (DET)

Deletion Reason: Below Screening Level (BSL)

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 CAS Chemical Minimum Maximum Units Location Detection Range of Concentration Background Screening Potential Potential COPC Rationale for

Point Number Concentration Concentration of Maximum Frequency Detection Used for Value (2) Toxicity Value (3) ARAR/TBC ARAR/TBC Flag Selection or

(Qualifier) (Qualifier) Concentration Limits Screening (1) (N/C) Value Source (Y/N) Deletion (4)

Soil at Site 1 11096825 Aroclor-1260 15 J 110 J ug/kg SS03 6 / 29 33 - 300 110 NA 320 C NA NA N BSL

56553 Benzo(a)anthracene 120 J 230 J ug/kg SS03 16 / 29 330 - 700 230 NA 870 C NA NA N BSL

50328 Benzo(a)pyrene 48 J 70 J ug/kg SS03 17 / 29 30 - 70 70 NA 87 C NA NA N BSL

75150 Carbon Disulfide 2J 33 ug/kg SB07 4 / 29 10 - 16 33 NA 780000 N NA NA N BSL

72548 4,4'-DDD 1J 4200 ug/kg SS09 22 / 29 3.3 - 1900 4200 NA 2700 C NA NA Y ASL

72559 4,4'-DDE 0.44 J 7200 J ug/kg SS09 28 / 29 2.2 - 700 7200 NA 1900 C NA NA Y ASL

50293 4,4'-DDT 0.69 J 290000 J ug/kg SB08 29 / 29 3.3 - 700 290000 NA 1900 C NA NA Y ASL

108883 Toluene 1J 2J ug/kg SS08 2 / 29 10 - 16 2 NA 1600000 N NA NA N BSL

7429905 Aluminum 1960 21700 mg/kg SB07 29 / 29 6.3 - 11 21700 NA 7800 N NA NA Y ASL

7440417 Beryllium 0.1 J 13.4 mg/kg SS06 23 / 29 0.02 - 0.21 13.4 NA 16 N NA NA N BSL

7439921 Lead 56 J 750 J mg/kg SS03 16 / 29 10 - 16 750 NA 400 NA NA Y ASL

7439965 Manganese 5.9 688 mg/kg SS03 29 / 29 0.05 - 0.5 688 NA 160 N NA NA Y ASL

7782492 Selenium 0.53 J 1 mg/kg SS02 9 / 29 0.43 - 0.75 1 NA 39 N NA NA N BSL

7440611 Uranium 50 700 mg/kg SS03 17 / 29 1-2 700 NA 610 N NA NA Y ASL

7440611 Uranium 238 0.3 110 pCi/g SS03 29 / 29 0.2 - 0.3 NA NA NA NA NA Y DET

13982-63-3 Radium 226 0.36 41 pCi/g SS02 29 / 29 0.2 - 0.3 NA NA NA NA NA Y DET

(1) Maximum concentration used for screening chemicals. No screening was conducted for radionuclides; Definitions: NA = Not Applicable

all radionuclides detected are selected as COPCs. J = Estimated Value

(2) To date, no background study has been completed. C = Carcinogen

(3) All compounds were screened against the Risk-Based Concentration (RBC) Table, U.S. EPA Region III, N = Noncarcinogen

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)

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

Maximum
Exposure Point Concentration
Exposure Point Chemical of Units Arithmetic 95% UCL Concentration

Potential Concern Mean (N/T) (Qualifier) Value Units Statistic Rationale

Aquifer 1 - Tap Water Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate ug/l 4 5.5 (T) 5J 5 ug/l Max W-Test (1)

Chloroform ug/l 1.9 14.9 (T) 9 9 ug/l Max W-Test (1)

Heptachlor ug/l 27 30 (T) 33 J 30 ug/l 95% UCL - T W - Test (2)

Barium ug/l 224 2835 (T) 489 489 ug/l Max W-Test (1)

Lead ug/l 21 32 (T) 35 J 32 ug/l 95% UCL - T W - Test (2)

Manganese ug/l 6052 33449 (T) 12500 12500 ug/l Max W-Test (1)

Uranium ug/l 62 375 (T) 500 375 ug/l 95% UCL - T W - Test (2)

Uranium 238 pCi/l 3.2 8.3 (T) 80 8.3 pCi/l 95% UCL - T W - Test (2)

Radium 226 pCi/l 3.5 4 (T) 11 4 pCi/l 95% UCL - T W - Test (2)

Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Transformed Data (95% UCL - T) T = Transformed

(1) 95% UCL exceeds maximum detected concentration. Therefore, maximum concentration used for EPC. J = Estimated Value

(2) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are lognormally transformed.

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

Maximum
Exposure Point Concentration
Exposure Point Chemical of Units Arithmetic 95% UCL Concentration

Potential Concern Mean (Distribution) (Qualifier) Value Units Statistic Rationale

Water Vapors from Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate ug/l 4 5.5 (T) 5J 5 ug/l Max W-Test (1)

Showerhead Chloroform ug/l 1.9 14.9 (T) 9 9 ug/l Max W-Test (1)

Heptachlor ug/l 27 30 (T) 33 J 30 ug/l 95% UCL - T W - Test (2)

Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Transformed Data (95% UCL - T) T = Transformed
(1) 95% UCL exceeds maximum detected concentration. Therefore, maximum concentration used for EPC. J = Estimated Value
(2) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are log-normally distributed.

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

Maximum
Exposure Point Concentration
Exposure Point Chemical of Units Arithmetic 95% UCL Concentration

Potential Concern Mean (N/T) (Qualifier) Value Units Statistic Rationale

Soil at Site 1 4,4'-DDD ug/kg 239 452 (T) 4200 452 ug/kg 95 % UCL -T W - Test (2)

4,4'-DDE ug/kg 596 6793 (T) 7200 J 6793 ug/kg 95% UCL - T W - Test (2)

4,4'-DDT ug/kg 11007 28619 (N) 290000 J 28619 ug/kg 95% UCL - N W - Test (1)

Aluminum mg/kg 7450 9964 (T) 21700 9964 mg/kg 95% UCL - T W - Test (2)

Lead mg/kg 210 345 (T) 750 J 345 mg/kg 95% UCL - T W - Test (2)

Manganese mg/kg 116 201 (T) 688 201 mg/kg 95% UCL - T W - Test (2)

Uranium mg/kg 125 675 (T) 700 675 mg/kg 95% UCL - T W - Test (2)

Uranium 238 pCi/g 2.5 3.4 (T) 110 3.4 pCi/g 95% UCL - T W - Test (2)

Radium 226 pCi/g 3.1 3.9 (T) 41 3.9 pCi/g 95 % UCL - T W- Test (2)

Statistics: 95% UCL of Normal Data (95% UCL - N); 95% UCL of Transformed Data (95% UCL - T) N = Normal

(1) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are normally distributed. T = Transformed

(2) Shapiro-Wilk W Test indicates data are lognormally transformed. J = Estimated Value

Page 1 of 1 December 2001

 EXAMPLE SCENARIO 11

TABLE 4.1.RME

VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS

REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

The Dean Company

Scenario Timeframe: Future

Medium: Groundwater

Exposure Medium: Groundwater

Exposure Route Receptor Population Receptor Age Exposure Point Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units Rationale/ Intake Equation/

Code Reference Model Name

Ingestion Resident Adult Aquifer 1 - Tap Water CW Chemical Concentration in Water See Table 3.1 mg/l See Table 3.1 Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg/day) =
IR-W Ingestion Rate of Water CW x IR-W x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT
2 l/day EPA, 1991
EF Exposure frequency
350 days/year EPA, 1991
ED Exposure Duration
24 years EPA, 1991
BW Body Weight
70 kg EPA, 1991
AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer
25,550 days EPA, 1989a
AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer
8,760 days EPA, 1989a
CWR Radionuclide Concentration in Water
See Table 3.1 pCi/l See Table 3.1 Intake (pCi) = CWR x IR x EF x ED
IR-W Ingestion Rate of Water
2 l/day EPA, 1991
EF Exposure Frequency
350 days/year EPA, 1991
ED Exposure Duration
24 years EPA, 1991

Child Aquifer 1 - Tap Water CW Chemical Concentration in Water See Table 3.1 mg/l See Table 3.1 CDI (mg/kg/day) =
IR-W Ingestion Rate of Water CW x IR-W x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT
1 l/day EPA, 1989b
EF Exposure frequency
350 days/year EPA, 1991
ED Exposure Duration
6 years EPA, 1991
BW Body Weight
15 kg EPA, 1991
AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer
25,550 days EPA, 1989a
AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer
2,190 days EPA, 1989a
CWR Radionuclide Concentration in Water
See Table 3.1 pCi/l See Table 3.1 Intake (pCi) = CWR x IR x EF x ED
IR-W Ingestion Rate of Water
1 l/day EPA, 1991
EF Exposure Frequency
350 days/year EPA, 1991
ED Exposure Duration
6 years EPA, 1991

Page 1 of 3 December 2001

 EXAMPLE SCENARIO 11

TABLE 4.1.RME

VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS

REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

The Dean Company

Scenario Timeframe: Future

Medium: Groundwater

Exposure Medium: Groundwater

Exposure Route Receptor Population Receptor Age Exposure Point Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units Rationale/ Intake Equation/

Code Reference Model Name

Dermal Resident Adult Aquifer 1 - Tap Water CW Chemical Concentration in Water See Table 3.1 mg/l See Table 3.1 Dermally Absorbed Dose (DAD) (mg/kg-day) =

FA Fraction Absorbed Water Chemical Specific -- EPA, 2001 DA-event x EV x ED x EF x SA x 1/BW x 1/AT
Kp Permeability Constant Chemical Specific cm/hr EPA, 2001 where for organic compounds,
SA Skin Surface Area 18,000 cm2 EPA, 2001 Absorbed Dose per Event (DA-event) (mg/cm2-event) =
tau-event Lag time per event Chemical Specific hours/event EPA, 2001 2 FA x Kp x CW x CF x SQRT{(6 x tau-event x t-event)/pi}

t-event Event Duration 0.58 hours/event EPA, 2001 or

B Ratio of permeability coefficient of a Chemical Specific -- EPA, 2001 DA-event = FA x Kp x CW x {(t-event/(1 + B)) +
compound through the stratum 2 x tau-event x ( (1 + (3 x B) + (3 x B x B))/(1 + B)2)}
corneum relative to its permeability and where for inorganic compounds,
coefficient across the viable DA-event = Kp x CW x CF x t-event

epidermis

EV Event Frequency 1 events/day EPA, 2001

EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 2001

ED Exposure Duration 24 years EPA, 1991

CF Volumetric Conversion Factor for Water 0.001 l/cm3 --

BW Body Weight 70 kg EPA, 2001

AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25,550 days EPA, 2001

AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer 8,760 days EPA, 2001

Page 2 of 3 December 2001

 EXAMPLE SCENARIO 11

TABLE 4.1.RME

VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS

REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

The Dean Company

Scenario Timeframe: Future

Medium: Groundwater

Exposure Medium: Groundwater

Exposure Route Receptor Population Receptor Age Exposure Point Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units Rationale/ Intake Equation/

Code Reference Model Name

Dermal (continued) Resident (continued) Child Aquifer 1 - Tap Water CW Chemical Concentration in Water See Table 3.1 mg/l See Table 3.1 DAD (mg/kg-day) =

FA Fraction Absorbed Water Chemical Specific -- EPA, 2001 DA-event x EV x ED x EF x SA x 1/BW x 1/AT
Kp Permeability Constant Chemical Specific cm/hr EPA, 2001 where for organic compounds,
SA Skin Surface Area 6,600 cm2 EPA, 2001 DA-event (mg/cm2-event) =
tau-event Lag time per event Chemical Specific hours/event EPA, 2001 2 FA x Kp x CW x CF x SQRT{(6 x tau-event x t-event)/pi}
t-event Event Duration 1 hours/event EPA, 2001 or
B Ratio of permeability coefficient of a Chemical Specific -- EPA, 2001 DA-event = FA x Kp x CW x {(t-event/(1 + B)) +

compound through the stratum 2 x tau-event x ( (1 + (3 x B) + (3 x B x B))/(1 + B)2)}

corneum relative to its permeability and where for inorganic compounds,

coefficient across the viable DA-event = Kp x CW x CF x t-event

epidermis
EV Event Frequency 1 events/day EPA, 2001
EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 2001
ED Exposure Duration 6 years EPA, 2001

CF Volumetric Conversion Factor for Water 0.001 l/cm3 --

BW Body Weight 15 kg EPA, 2001

AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25,550 days EPA, 2001

AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer 2,190 days EPA, 2001

EPA 1989a: 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 Receptor Population Receptor Age Exposure Point Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units Rationale/ Intake Equation/

Code Reference Model Name

Inhalation (1) Resident Adult Water Vapors from (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Foster and Chrostowski Model
Showerhead

(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

 EXAMPLE 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 Receptor Population Receptor Age Exposure Point Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units Rationale/ Intake Equation/

Code Reference Model Name

Ingestion Resident Adult Soil at Site 1 CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.3 mg/kg See Table 3.3 Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =

IR-S Ingestion Rate of Soil 100 mg/day EPA, 1991 CS x IR x FI x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x 1/AT

FI Fraction Ingested 1 -- Professional Judgment

EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 1991

ED Exposure Duration 24 years EPA, 1991

CF1 Conversion Factor 1E-06 kg/mg --

BW Body Weight 70 kg EPA, 1991

AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25,550 days EPA, 1989

AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer 8,760 days EPA, 1989

CSR Radionuclide Concentration in Soil See Table 3.3 pCi/g See Table 3.3 Intake (pCi) = CSR x IR x CF x EF X ED

IR-S Ingestion Rate of Soil 100 mg/day EPA, 1991

EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 1991

ED Exposure Duration 24 years EPA, 1991

CF1 Conversion Factor 1.00E-03 g/mg --

Child Soil at Site 1 CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.3 mg/kg See Table 3.3 CDI (mg/kg-day) =

IR-S Ingestion Rate of Soil 200 mg/day EPA, 1991 CS x IR x FI x EF x ED x CF1 x 1/BW x 1/AT

FI Fraction Ingested 1 -- Professional Judgment

EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 1991

ED Exposure Duration 6 years EPA, 1991

CF1 Conversion Factor 1E-06 kg/mg --

BW Body Weight 15 kg EPA, 1991

AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25,550 days EPA, 1989

AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer 2,190 days EPA, 1989

Page 1 of 3 December 2001

 EXAMPLE 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 Receptor Population Receptor Age Exposure Point Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units Rationale/ Intake Equation/

Code Reference Model Name

Ingestion (continued) Resident (continued) Child (continued) Soil at Site 1 (continued) CSR Radionuclide Concentration in Soil See Table 3.3 pCi/g See Table 3.3 Intake (pCi) = CSR x IR x CF x EF X ED

IR-S Ingestion Rate of Soil 200 mg/day EPA, 1991

EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 1991

ED Exposure Duration 6 years EPA, 1991

CF1 Conversion Factor 1.00E-03 g/mg --

Dermal Resident Adult Soil at Site 1 CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.3 mg/kg See Table 3.3 Dermal Absorbed Dose (DAD) (mg/kg-day) =
CF Conversion Factor 1E-06 kg/mg -- DA-event x EF x ED x EV x SA X 1/BW x 1/AT
SA Skin Surface Area Available for Contact 5,700 cm2 EPA, 2001 where
AF Soil to Skin Adherence Factor 0.07 mg/cm2-event EPA, 2001 Absorbed Dose per Event (DA-event) (mg/cm2-event) =
ABS-d Dermal Absorption Factor chemical-specific unitless EPA, 2001 CS x CF x AF x ABS-d
EV Event Frequency 1 events/day EPA, 2001
EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 2001

ED Exposure Duration 24 years EPA, 1991

BW Body Weight 70 kg EPA, 2001
AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25,550 days EPA, 2001
AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer 8,760 days EPA, 2001
Child Soil at Site 1 CS Chemical Concentration in Soil See Table 3.3 mg/kg See Table 3.3 DAD (mg/kg-day) =

CF Conversion Factor 1E-06 kg/mg -- DA-event x EF x ED x EV x SA X 1/BW x 1/AT

SA Skin Surface Area Available for Contact 2,800 cm2 EPA, 2001 where
AF Soil to Skin Adherence Factor 0.2 mg/cm2-event EPA, 2001 DA-event (mg/cm2-event) =
ABS-d Dermal Absorption Factor chemical-specific unitless EPA, 2001 CS x CF x AF x ABS-d
EV Event Frequency 1 events/day EPA, 2001

EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 2001

ED Exposure Duration 6 years EPA, 2001

BW Body Weight 15 kg EPA, 2001

AT-C Averaging Time - Cancer 25,550 days EPA, 2001

AT-N Averaging Time - Non-Cancer 2,190 days EPA, 2001

Page 2 of 3 December 2001

 EXAMPLE 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 Receptor Population Receptor Age Exposure Point Parameter Parameter Definition Value Units Rationale/ Intake Equation/

Code Reference Model Name

External (Radiation) Resident Adult Soil at Site 1 CSR Radionuclide Concentration in Soil See Table 3.3 pCi/g See Table 3.3 External Exposure (pCi-year/g) =
ET Exposure Time 17 hrs/day CSR x ET x EF x {(Fi x GSFi) + (Fo x GSFo)] x ED x CF
EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 1991
Fi Time Fraction Indoors 0.75 --
Fo Time Fraction Outdoors 0.25 --
GSFi Gamma Shielding Factor Indoors 0.8 --
GSFo Gamma Shielding Factor Outdoors 1 --
ED Exposure Duration 24 years EPA, 1991
CF Conversion Factor 0.000114 years/hr --
Child Soil at Site 1 CSR Radionuclide Concentration in Soil See Table 3.3 pCi/g See Table 3.3 External Exposure (pCi-year/g) =
ET Exposure Time 17 hrs/day CSR x ET x EF x {(Fi x GSFi) + (Fo x GSFo)] x ED x CF
EF Exposure Frequency 350 days/year EPA, 1991
Fi Time Fraction Indoors 0.875 --
Fo Time Fraction Outdoors 0.125 --
GSFi Gamma Shielding Factor Indoors 0.8 --
GSFo Gamma Shielding Factor Outdoors 1 --
ED Exposure Duration 6 years EPA, 1991
CF Conversion Factor 0.000114 years/hr --

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 Chronic/ Oral RfD Oral Absoprtion Absorbed RfD for Dermal (2) Primary Combined RfD:Target Organ(s)

of Potential Subchronic Efficiency for Dermal (1) Target Uncertainty/Modifying

Concern Value Units Value Units Organ(s) Factors Source(s) Date(s)

(MM/DD/YYYY)

4,4'-DDD NA NA NA 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA

4,4'-DDE NA NA NA 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA

4,4'-DDT Chronic 5.0E-004 mg/kg/day 1 5.0E-004 mg/kg/day Liver 100 IRIS 06/21/2001

4,4'-DDT Subchronic 5.0E-004 mg/kg/day 1 5.0E-004 mg/kg/day Liver 100 HEAST 07/01/1997
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Chronic 2.0E-02 mg/kg/day 1 2.0E-02 mg/kg/day Liver 1000 IRIS 06/21/2001

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Subchronic 2.0E-02 mg/kg/day 1 2.0E-02 mg/kg/day Liver 1000 HEAST 07/01/1997
Chloroform Chronic 1.0E-02 mg/kg/day 1 1.0E-02 mg/kg/day Liver 1000 IRIS 06/21/2001
Chloroform Subchronic 1.0E-02 mg/kg/day 1 1.0E-02 mg/kg/day Liver 1000 HEAST 07/01/1997

Heptachlor Chronic 5.0E-04 mg/kg/day 1 5.0E-04 mg/kg/day Liver 300 IRIS 06/21/2001
Heptachlor Subchronic 5.0E-04 mg/kg/day 1 5.0E-04 mg/kg/day Liver 300 HEAST 07/01/1997
Aluminum Chronic 1.0E+00 mg/kg/day 1 1.0E+00 mg/kg/day Central Nervous System 100 NCEA 06/21/2001
Barium Chronic 7.0E-02 mg/kg/day 0.07 4.9E-03 mg/kg/day Heart 3 IRIS 02/02/2001

Barium Subchronic 7.0E-02 mg/kg/day 0.07 4.9E-03 mg/kg/day Heart 3 HEAST 07/01/1997
Copper Chronic 3.7E-02 mg/kg/day 1 3.7E-02 mg/kg/day Gastrointestinal NA HEAST 07/01/1997
Copper Subchronic 3.7E-02 mg/kg/day 1 3.7E-02 mg/kg/day Gastrointestinal NA HEAST 07/01/1997

Iron Chronic 3.0E-01 mg/kg/day 1 3.0E-01 mg/kg/day Gastrointestinal 1 NCEA 06/21/2001

Lead NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Manganese (nonfood) Chronic 2.0E-02 mg/kg/day 0.04 8.0E-04 mg/kg/day Central Nervous System 1 IRIS 06/21/2001

Uranium Chronic 3.0E-03 mg/kg/day 1 3E-003 mg/kg/day Kidney 1000 IRIS 06/21/2001

(1) Source: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Definitions: NA = Not Available

Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) Interim. IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System

Section 4.2 and Exhibit 4-1. HEAST = Health Effects Assessment Summary Table, July 1997

(2) See Risk Assessment text for the derivation of the "Absorbed RfD for Dermal". 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 Chronic/ Inhalation RfC Extrapolated RfD (1) Primary Combined RfC : Target Organ

of Potential Subchronic Target Uncertainty/Modifying

Concern Value Units Value Units Organ(s) Factors Source(s) Date(s)

(MM/DD/YYYY)

4,4'-DDD NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

4,4'-DDE NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

4,4'-DDT NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Chloroform Chronic 3.0E-04 mg/m3 8.6E-05 mg/kg/day Nasal 1000 NCEA 06/21/2001
Chloroform Subchronic 3.0E-03 mg/m3 8.6E-4 mg/kg/day Nasal 100 NCEA 06/21/2001
Heptachlor NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Aluminum Chronic 5.0E-03 mg/m3 1.4E-03 mg/kg/day Central Nervous System 300 NCEA 06/21/2001
Barium Chronic 5.0E-04 mg/m3 1.4E-04 mg/kg/day Fetus 1000 HEAST 07/01/1997
Barium Subchronic 5.0E-03 mg/m3 1.4E-03 mg/kg/day Fetus 100 HEAST 07/01/1997
Copper NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Iron NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Lead NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Manganese (nonfood) Chronic 5.0E-05 mg/m3 1.4E-05 mg/kg/day Central Nervous System 1000 IRIS 06/21/2001
Uranium NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 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: III

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: August 8, 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 Chronic/ Parameter Primary Target Combined Parameter:Target Organ(s)

of Potential Subchronic Organ(s) Uncertainty/Modifying

Concern Name Value Units Factors Source(s) Date(s)

(MM/DD/YYYY)

Not Applicable

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 Oral Cancer Slope Factor Oral Absorption Absorbed Cancer Slope Factor Weight of Evidence/ Oral CSF

of Potential Efficiency for Dermal (1) for Dermal (2) Cancer Guideline

Concern Value Units Value Units Description Source(s) Date(s)

(MM/DD/YYYY)

4,4'-DDD 2.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day 1 2.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day B2 IRIS 06/21/2001

4,4'-DDE 3.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day 1 3.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day B2 IRIS 06/21/2001

4,4'-DDT 3.4E-001 1/mg/kg/day 1 3.4E-001 1/mg/kg/day B2 IRIS 06/21/2001

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 1.4E-02 1/mg/kg/day 1 1.4E-02 1/mg/kg/day B2 IRIS 06/21/2001
Chloroform 6.1E-03 1/mg/kg/day 1 6.1E-03 1/mg/kg/day B2 IRIS 06/21/2001
Heptachlor 4.5E+00 1/mg/kg/day 1 4.5E+00 1/mg/kg/day B2 IRIS 06/21/2001
Aluminum NA NA 1 NA NA NA NA NA
Barium NA NA 0.07 NA NA NA NA NA
Copper NA NA 1 NA NA NA NA NA
Iron NA NA 1 NA NA NA NA NA
Lead NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Manganese (nonfood) NA NA 0.04 NA NA NA NA NA
Uranium NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

(1) Source: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume 1: Human Health Definitions: NA = Not Available

Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) Interim. IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System

Section 4.2 and Exhibit 4-1. B2 = Probable Human Carcinogen - indicates sufficient evidence

(2) See Risk Assessment text for the derivation of the "Absorbed Cancer Slope Factor for Dermal". 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 Parameters Source(s) Date(s)

of Potential (MM/DD/YYYY)

Concern Name Value Units

Not Applicable

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 Unit Risk Inhalation Cancer Slope Factor Weight of Evidence/ Unit Risk : Inhalation CSF

of Potential Cancer Guideline

Concern Value Units Value Units Description Source(s) Date(s)

(MM/DD/YYYY)

4,4'-DDD NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

4,4-DDE NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

4,4'-DDT 9.7E-005 1/ug/m3 3.4E-001 1/mg/kg/day B2 IRIS 06/21/2001

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Chloroform 2.3E-05 1/ug/m3 8.1E-02 1/mg/kg/day B2 IRIS 06/21/2001
Heptachlor 1.3E-03 1/ug/m3 4.5E+00 1/mg/kg/day B2 IRIS 06/21/2001
Aluminum NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Barium NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Copper NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Iron NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Lead NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Manganese (nonfood) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Uranium 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 Cancer Slope Factor Source(s) Date(s)

of Potential (MM/DD/YYYY)

Concern Value Units

Uranium 238 6.2E-011 Risk/pCi HEAST 07/01/1997

5.3E-008 Risk/year per pCi/g soil HEAST 07/01/1997

Radium 226 3.0E-010 Risk/pCi HEAST 07/01/1997

6.7E-006 Risk/year per pCi/g soil HEAST 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

Receptor Age: Adult

Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Chemical of EPC Cancer Risk Calculations Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Potential Concern Value Units Intake/Exposure Concentration CSF/Unit Risk Intake/Exposure Concentration RfD/RfC
Cancer Risk Hazard Quotient

Value Units Value Units Value Units Value Units

Groundwater Groundwater Aquifer 1 - Tap Water Ingestion 0.005 mg/l 4.7E-005 mg/kg/day 1.4E-002 1/mg/kg/day 7E-007 1.4E-004 mg/kg/day 2.0E-002 mg/kg/day 0.007
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
0.009 mg/l 8.5E-005 mg/kg/day 6.1E-003 1/mg/kg/day 5E-007 2.5E-004 mg/kg/day 1.0E-002 mg/kg/day 0.03
Chloroform
0.03 mg/l 2.8E-004 mg/kg/day 4.5E+000 1/mg/kg/day 1E-003 8.1E-004 mg/kg/day 5.0E-004 mg/kg/day 2
Heptachlor
0.489 mg/l 4.6E-003 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 1.3E-002 mg/kg/day 7.0E-002 mg/kg/day 0.2
Barium
Lead (1) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

12.5 mg/l 1.2E-001 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 3.4E-001 mg/kg/day 2.0E-002 mg/kg/day 17

Manganese
Uranium 0.375 mg/l 3.8E-05 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 1.0E-02 mg/kg/day 3.0E-03 mg/kg/day 3
Exp. Route Total 1E-003 22
Dermal Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.005 mg/l 7.2E-005 mg/kg/day 1.4E-002 1/mg/kg/day 1E-006 2.1E-004 mg/kg/day 2.2E-002 mg/kg/day 0.01
Chloroform 0.009 mg/l 1.7E-004 mg/kg/day 6.1E-003 1/mg/kg/day 1E-006 4.9E-004 mg/kg/day 1.0E-002 mg/kg/day 0.05

Heptachlor 0.03 mg/l 1.3E-004 mg/kg/day 4.5E+000 1/mg/kg/day 6E-004 3.9E-004 mg/kg/day 5.0E-004 mg/kg/day 0.8

Barium 0.489 mg/l NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Lead (1)
Manganese 12.5 mg/l NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Uranium 0.375 mg/l NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Exp. Route Total 6E-004 0.9

Exposure Point Total 2E-003 23

Exposure Medium Total 2E-003 23

Air Water Vapors from Inhalation 0.005 mg/l 2.3E-006 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 3.6E-006 mg/kg/day NA NA NA
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Showerhead 0.009 mg/l 1.3E-004 mg/kg/day 8.1E-002 1/mg/kg/day 1E-005 3.9E-004 mg/kg/day 8.6E-005 mg/kg/day 5
Chloroform
0.03 mg/l 2.6E-004 mg/kg/day 4.5E+000 1/mg/kg/day 1E-003 7.7E-004 mg/kg/day NA NA NA
Heptachlor
Exp. Route Total 1E-003 5

Exposure Point Total 1E-003 5

Exposure Medium Total 1E-003 5

Groundwater Total 3E-003 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 Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Chemical of EPC Cancer Risk Calculations Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Potential Concern Value Units Intake/Exposure Concentration CSF/Unit Risk Intake/Exposure Concentration RfD/RfC
Cancer Risk Hazard Quotient

Value Units Value Units Value Units Value Units

Soil Soil Soil at Site 1 Ingestion 0.452 mg/kg 2.1E-07 mg/kg/day 2.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day 5E-08 6.2E-07 mg/kg/day NA NA NA
4,4'-DDD
6.8 mg/kg 3.2E-06 mg/kg/day 3.4E-001 1/mg/kg/day 1E-06 9.3E-06 mg/kg/day NA NA NA
4,4'-DDE
28.6 mg/kg 1.3E-005 mg/kg/day 3.4E-001 1/mg/kg/day 5E-06 3.9E-05 mg/kg/day 5.0E-04 mg/kg/day 0.08
4,4'-DDT
9964 mg/kg 4.7E-003 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 1.4E-02 mg/kg/day 1.0E+00 mg/kg/day 0.01
Aluminum

Lead (1) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
201 mg/kg 9.5E-005 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 2.8E-04 mg/kg/day 1.4E-01 mg/kg/day 0.002
Manganese
Uranium 675 mg/kg 3.2E-004 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 9.2E-04 mg/kg/day 3.0E-03 mg/kg/day 0.3
Exp. Route Total 6E-06 0.4
Dermal 4,4'-DDD 0.452 mg/kg NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

4,4'-DDE 6.8 mg/kg NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

4,4'-DDT 28.6 mg/kg 1.6E-006 mg/kg/day 3.4E-001 1/mg/kg/day 5E-007 4.7E-06 mg/kg/day 5.0E-04 mg/kg/day 0.009

Aluminum 9964 mg/kg NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Lead (1)
Manganese 201 mg/kg NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Uranium 675 mg/kg NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Exp. Route Total 5E-07 0.009

Exposure Point Total 7E-006 0.4

Exposure Medium Total 7E-006 0.4
Soil Total 7E-006 0.4

Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media 3E-003 Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Media 28

(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 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 Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Chemical of EPC Cancer Risk Calculations Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Potential Concern Value Units Intake/Exposure Concentration CSF/Unit Risk Intake/Exposure Concentration RfD/RfC
Cancer Risk Hazard Quotient

Value Units Value Units Value Units Value Units

Groundwater Groundwater Aquifer 1 - Tap Water Ingestion Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.005 mg/l 2.7E-005 mg/kg/day 1.4E-002 1/mg/kg/day 4E-007 3.2E-004 mg/kg/day 2.0E-002 mg/kg/day 0.02

Chloroform 0.009 mg/l 4.9E-005 mg/kg/day 6.1E-003 1/mg/kg/day 3E-007 5.8E-004 mg/kg/day 1.0E-002 mg/kg/day 0.06

Heptachlor 0.03 mg/l 1.6E-004 mg/kg/day 4.5E+000 1/mg/kg/day 7E-004 1.9E-003 mg/kg/day 5.0E-004 mg/kg/day 4

Barium 0.489 mg/l 2.7E-003 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 3.1E-002 mg/kg/day 7.0E-002 mg/kg/day 0.4

Lead (1) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Manganese 12.5 mg/l 6.8E-002 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 8.0E-001 mg/kg/day 2.0E-002 mg/kg/day 40

Uranium mg/l 2.1E-003 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 2.4E-002 mg/kg/day 3.0E-003 mg/kg/day 8

Exp. Route Total 7E-004 52

Dermal Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.005 mg/l 3.1E-005 mg/kg/day 1.4E-002 1/mg/kg/day 4E-007 3.6E-004 mg/kg/day 2.2E-002 mg/kg/day 0.02

Chloroform 0.009 mg/l 7.2E-005 mg/kg/day 6.1E-003 1/mg/kg/day 4E-007 8.4E-004 mg/kg/day 1.0E-002 mg/kg/day 0.08

Heptachlor 0.03 mg/l 5.7E-005 mg/kg/day 4.5E+000 1/mg/kg/day 3E-004 6.7E-004 mg/kg/day 5.0E-004 mg/kg/day 1

Barium 0.489 mg/l NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Lead (1) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Manganese 12.5 mg/l NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Uranium mg/l NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Exp. Route Total 3E-004 1

Exposure Point Total 1E-003 1

Exposure Medium Total 1E-003 53

Groundwater Total 1E-003 53

Soil Soil Soil at Site 1 Ingestion 4,4'-DDD 0.452 mg/kg 5.0E-07 mg/kg/day 2.4E-01 1/mg/kg/day 1E-07 5.8E-06 mg/kg/day NA NA NA

4,4'-DDE 6.8 mg/kg 7.4E-06 mg/kg/day 3.4E-001 1/mg/kg/day 3E-06 8.7E-05 mg/kg/day NA NA NA

4,4'-DDT 28.6 mg/kg 3.1E-005 mg/kg/day 3.4E-001 1/mg/kg/day 1E-005 3.7E-004 mg/kg/day 5.0E-04 mg/kg/day 0.7

Aluminum 9964 mg/kg 1.1E-002 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 1.3E-001 mg/kg/day 1.0E+00 mg/kg/day 0.1

Lead (1) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Manganese 201 mg/kg 2.2E-004 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 2.6E-003 mg/kg/day 1.4E-01 mg/kg/day 0.02

Uranium mg/kg 7.4E-004 mg/kg/day NA NA NA 8.6E-003 mg/kg/day 3.0E-003 mg/kg/day 3

Exp. Route Total 1E-005 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 Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Chemical of EPC Cancer Risk Calculations Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Potential Concern Value Units Intake/Exposure Concentration CSF/Unit Risk Intake/Exposure Concentration RfD/RfC
Cancer Risk Hazard Quotient
Soil (continued) Soil (continued) Soil at Site 1 (continued) Dermal 4,4'-DDD 0.452 mg/kg NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

4,4'-DDE 6.8 mg/kg NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

4,4'-DDT 28.6 mg/kg 2.6E-006 mg/kg/day 3.4E-001 1/mg/kg/day 9E-007 3.1E-005 mg/kg/day 5.0E-004 mg/kg/day 0.06

Aluminum 9964 mg/kg NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Lead (1) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Manganese 201 mg/kg NA NA NA NA NA NA NA MA NA NA

Uranium mg/kg NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Exp. Route Total 9E-07 0.06

Exposure Point Total 1E-005 4
Exposure Medium Total 1E-005 4
Soil Total 1E-005 4
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media 1E-03 Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Media 57
(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 December 2001

 EXAMPLE SCENARIO 11

TABLE 8.2

CALCULATION OF RADIATION CANCER RISKS

The Smith Company

Scenario Timeframe: Future

Receptor Population: Resident

Receptor Age: Child

Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Radionuclide of Potential Concern EPC Risk Calculation Cancer Risk Calculations
Value Units Approach Intake/External Dose CSF/Conversion Factor Cancer Risk

Value Units Value Units

Groundwater Groundwater Aquifer 1 - Tap Water Ingestion Uranium 238 8.3E+000 pCi/l USEPA RAGS 1.7E+004 pCi 6.2E-011 Risk/pCi 1E-006

Radium 226 4.0E+000 pCi/l USEPA RAGS 8.4E+003 pCi 3.0E-010 Risk/pCi 3E-006

Exp. Route Total 4E-006

Exposure Point Total 4E-006

Exposure Medium Total 4E-006

Groundwater Total 4E-006
Soil Soil Soil at Site 1 Ingestion Uranium 238 3.4E+000 pCi/g USEPA RAGS 1.4E+003 pCi 6.2E-011 Risk/pCi 9E-008

Radium 226 3.9E+000 pCi/g USEPA RAGS 1.6E+003 pCi 3.0E-010 Risk/pCi 5E-007

Exp. Route Total 6E-007

Risk/yr per pCi/
External (Radiation) Uranium 238 3.4E+000 pCi/g USEPA RAGS 1.1E+001 pCi-yr/g 5.3E-008 g soil 6E-007
Risk/yr per pCi/
Radium 226 3.9E+000 pCi/g USEPA RAGS 1.3E+001 pCi-yr/g 6.7E-006 g soil 9E-005

Exp. Route Total 9E-005

Exposure Point Total 9E-005

Exposure Medium Total 9E-005
Soil Total 9E-005

Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media = 9E-005

Page 1 of 1 December 2001

 EXAMPLE SCENARIO 11

RADIATION DOSE ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

The Dean Company

Scenario Timeframe: Future

Receptor Population: Resident

Receptor Age: Adult

Medium Exposure Medium Exposure Point Exposure Route Radionuclide of EPC Dose Internal/External Dose Standard for Conversion Factor Risk
Potential Concern Value Units Approach Value Units Comparison(1) Value Units Source

Groundwater Groundwater Aquifer 1 -- Tap Water Ingestion Uranium 238 8.3E+000 pCi/l NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Radium 226 4.0E+000 pCi/l NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Exp. Route Total NA NA NA
Exposure Point Total NA NA NA
Soil Soil Soil at Site 1 Ingestion Uranium 238 3.4E+000 pCi/g NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Radium 226 3.9E+000 pCi/g NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Exp. Route Total

External (Radiation) Uranium 238 3.4E+000 pCi/g NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Radium 226 3.9E+000 pCi/g NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Exp. Route Total NA NA NA
Exposure Point Total NA NA NA

NA = Not Applicable Total of Receptor Dose Across All Media NA NA Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media NA

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 Exposure Exposure Chemical Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Medium Point of Potential

Concern Ingestion Inhalation Dermal External Exposure Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure

(Radiation) Routes Total Target Organ(s) Routes Total

Groundwater Groundwater Aquifer 1 - Tap Water Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 7E-07 -- 1E-06 -- 2E-06 Liver 0.007 -- 0.01 0.02

Chloroform 5E-07 -- 1E-06 -- 2E-06 Liver 0.03 -- 0.05 0.08

Heptachlor 1E-03 -- 6E-04 -- 2E-03 Liver 2 -- 0.8 3

Barium -- -- -- -- -- Heart 0.2 -- -- 0.2

Lead (1) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Manganese -- -- -- -- -- Central Nervous System 17 -- -- 17

Uranium -- -- -- -- -- Kidneys 3 -- -- 3

Chemical Total 1E-03 -- 6E-04 -- 2E-03 22 -- 0.9 23

Uranium 238 9E-06 -- -- -- 9E-06

Radium 226 2E-05 -- -- -- 2E-05

--
Radionuclide Total 3E-05 -- -- 3E-05

Exposure Point Total 2E-03 23

Exposure Medium Total 2E-03 23

Air Water Vapors from Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Showerhead Chloroform -- 1E-05 -- -- 1E-05 Liver -- 5 -- 5

Heptachlor -- 1E-03 -- -- 1E-03 -- -- -- -- --

Barium -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Lead (1) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Manganese -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Uranium -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Chemical Total -- 1E-03 -- -- 1E-03 -- 5 -- 5

Radionuclide Total

Exposure Point Total 1E-03 5

Exposure Medium Total 1E-03 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 Exposure Chemical Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Medium Point of Potential

Concern Ingestion Inhalation Dermal External Exposure Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure

(Radiation) Routes Total Target Organ(s) Routes Total

Groundwater Total 3E-03 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 Exposure Exposure Chemical Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Medium Point of Potential

Concern Ingestion Inhalation Dermal External Exposure Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure

(Radiation) Routes Total Target Organ(s) Routes Total

Soil Soil Soil at Site 1 4,4'-DDD 5E-08 -- -- -- 5E-08 -- -- -- -- --

4,4'-DDE 1E-06 -- -- -- 1E-06 -- -- -- -- --

4,4'-DDT 5E-06 -- 5E-07 -- 6E-06 Liver 0.08 -- 0.009 0.09

Aluminum -- -- -- -- -- Central Nervous System 0.01 -- -- 0.01

Lead (1) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Manganese -- -- -- -- -- Central Nervous System 0.002 -- -- 0.002

Uranium -- -- -- -- -- Kidney 0.3 -- -- 0.3

Chemical Total 6E-06 -- 5E-07 -- 7E-06 0.4 -- 0.009 0.4

Uranium 238 2E-07 -- -- 2E-06 2E-06

Radium 226 1E-006 -- -- 4E-04 4E-04

Radionuclide Total 1E-06 4E-04 4E-04

Exposure Point Total 4E-04 0.4

Exposure Medium Total 4E-04 0.4

Soil Total 4E-04 0.4

Receptor Total 3E-03 28

Total Risk Across All Media 3E-03 Total Hazard Across All Media 28

(1) Lead is evaluated for the resident using the IEUBK model. See Risk Assessment text for discussion of results Total Liver HI Across All Media = 8

and appendix for the lead modeling run results. Total Kidney HI Across All Media = 3

Total Central Nervous System HI Across All Media = 17

Page 3 of 3 December 2001

 EXAMPLE SCENARIO 11

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 Exposure Exposure Chemical Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Medium Point of Potential

Concern Ingestion Inhalation Dermal External Exposure Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure
(Radiation) Routes Total Target Organ(s) Routes Total

Groundwater Groundwater Aquifer 1 - Tap Water Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 4E-07 -- 4E-07 -- 8E-07 Liver 0.02 -- 0.02 0.04

Chloroform 3E-07 -- 4E-07 -- 7E-07 Liver 0.06 -- 0.08 0.1

Heptachlor 7E-04 -- 3E-04 -- 1E-03 Liver 4 -- 1 5

Barium -- -- -- -- -- Heart 0.4 -- -- 0.4

Lead (1) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Manganese -- -- -- -- -- Central Nervous System 40 -- -- 40

Uranium -- -- -- -- -- Kidney 8 -- -- 8

Chemical Total 7E-04 -- 3E-04 -- 1E-03 52 -- 1 53

Uranium 238 1E-06 -- -- -- 1E-06

Radium 226 3E-06 -- -- -- 3E-06

Radionuclide Total 4E-06 -- -- -- 4E-06

Exposure Point Total 1E-03 53

Exposure Medium Total 1E-03 53

Groundwater Total 1E-03 53

Page 1 of 2 December 2001

 EXAMPLE SCENARIO 11

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 Exposure Exposure Chemical Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Medium Point of Potential

Concern Ingestion Inhalation Dermal External Exposure Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure
(Radiation) Routes Total Target Organ(s) Routes Total

Soil Soil Soil at Site 1 4,4'-DDD 1E-07 -- -- -- 1E-07 -- -- -- -- --

4,4'-DDE 3E-06 -- -- -- 3E-06 -- -- -- -- --

4,4'-DDT 1E-05 -- 9E-07 -- 1E-05 Liver 0.7 -- 0.06 0.8

Aluminum -- -- -- -- -- Central Nervous System 0.1 -- -- 0.1

Lead (1) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Manganese -- -- -- -- -- Central Nervous System 0.02 -- -- 0.02

Uranium -- -- -- -- -- Kidney 3 -- -- 3

Chemical Total 1E-05 -- 9E-07 -- 1E-05 4 -- 0.06 4

Uranium 238 9E-08 -- -- 6E-07 7E-07

Radium 226 5E-07 -- -- 9E-05 9E-05

Radionuclide Total 6E-07 -- -- 9E-05 9E-05

Exposure Point Total 1E-04 4

Exposure Medium Total 1E-04 4

Soil Total 1E-04 4

Receptor Total 1E-03 57

Total Risk Across All Media 1E-03 Total Hazard Across All Media 57

(1) Lead is evaluated for the resident using the IEUBK model. See Risk Assessment text for discussion of results Total Liver HI Across All Media = 6

and appendix for the lead modeling run results. Total Kidney HI Across All Media = 11

Total Central Nervous System HI Across All Media = 40

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 Exposure Exposure Chemical Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Medium Point of Potential

Concern Ingestion Inhalation Dermal External Exposure Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure

(Radiation) Routes Total Target Organ(s) Routes Total

Groundwater Groundwater Aquifer 1 - Tap Water Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 7E-07 -- 1E-06 -- 2E-06 -- -- -- -- --

Chloroform 5E-07 -- 1E-06 -- 2E-06 -- -- -- -- --

Heptachlor 1E-03 -- 6E-04 -- 2E-03 Liver 2 -- 0.8 3

Manganese -- -- -- -- -- Central Nervous System 17 -- -- 17

Uranium -- -- -- -- -- Kidney 3 -- -- 3

Chemical Total 1E-03 -- 6E-04 -- 2E-03 22 -- 0.8 23

Uranium 238 9E-06 -- -- -- 9E-06 -- -- -- -- --

Radium 226 2E-05 -- -- -- 2E-05 -- -- -- -- --

--
Radionuclide Total 3E-05 -- -- 3E-05

Exposure Point Total 2E-03 23

Exposure Medium Total 2E-03 23

Water Vapors from
Air Chloroform -- 1E-05 -- -- 1E-05 Liver -- 5 -- 5
Showerhead

Heptachlor -- 1E-03 -- -- 1E-03 -- -- -- -- --

Chemical Total -- 1E-03 -- -- 1E-03 -- 5 -- 5

Radionuclide Total

Exposure Point Total 1E-03 5

Exposure Medium Total 1E-03 5

Groundwater Total 3E-03 28

Page 1 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 Exposure Exposure Chemical Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Medium Point of Potential

Concern Ingestion Inhalation Dermal External Exposure Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure

Soil Soil Soil at Site 1 4,4'-DDE 1E-06 -- '- - -- 1E-06 -- -- -- -- --

4,4'-DDT 5E-06 -- 5E-007 -- 6E-06 -- -- -- -- --

Chemical Total 6E-06 -- 5E-07 -- 7E-06 -- -- -- --

Uranium 238 2E-07 -- -- 2E-06 2E-06 -- -- -- -- --

Radium 226 1E-006 -- -- 4E-04 4E-04 -- -- -- -- --

Radionuclide Total 1E-06 4E-04 4E-04

Exposure Point Total 4E-04 --

Exposure Medium Total 4E-04 --

Soil Total 4E-04 --

Receptor Total 3E-03 28

Total Risk Across All Media 3E-03 Total Hazard Across All Media 28

Total Liver HI Across All Media = 8

Total Kidney HI Across All Media = 3

Cancer risks presented are those greater than 1E-06; Non-cancer risks presented are those greater than 1. Total Central Nervous System HI Across All Media = 17

Page 2 of 2 December 2001

 EXAMPLE SCENARIO 11

TABLE 10.2.RME
RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

The Dean Company
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident

Receptor Age: Child

Medium Exposure Exposure Chemical Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient

Medium Point of Potential

Concern Ingestion Inhalation Dermal External Exposure Primary Ingestion Inhalation Dermal Exposure
(Radiation) Routes Total Target Organ(s) Routes Total

Groundwater Groundwater Aquifer 1 - Tap Water Heptachlor 7E-04 -- 3E-04 -- 1E-03 Liver 4 -- 1 5

Manganese -- -- -- -- -- Central Nervous System 40 -- -- 40

Uranium -- -- -- -- -- Kidney 8 -- -- 8

Chemical Total 7E-04 -- 3E-04 -- 1E-03 52 -- 1 53

Uranium 238 1E-06 -- -- -- 1E-06

Radium 226 3E-06 -- -- -- 3E-06

Radionuclide Total 4E-06 -- -- -- 4E-06

Exposure Point Total 1E-03 53

Exposure Medium Total 1E-03 53

Groundwater Total 1E-03 53

Soil Soil Soil at Site 1 4,4'-DDE 3E-006 -- -- -- 3E-06 -- -- -- -- --

4,4'-DDT 1E-05 -- 9E-07 -- 1E-05 -- -- -- -- --
Uranium -- -- -- -- -- Kidney 3 -- -- 3

Chemical Total 1E-05 -- 9E-07 -- 1E-05 3 -- -- 3

Radium 226 5E-07 -- -- 9E-05 9E-05

Radionuclide Total 6E-07 -- -- 9E-05 9E-05

Exposure Point Total 1E-04 3

Exposure Medium Total 1E-04 3

Soil Total 1E-04 3

Receptor Total 1E-03 56

Total Risk Across All Media 1E-03 Total Hazard Across All Media 56

Total Liver HI Across All Media = 5

Total Kidney HI Across All Media = 11

Cancer risks presented are those greater than 1E-06; Non-cancer risks presented are those greater than 1. Total Central Nervous System HI Across All Media = 40

Page 1 of 1 December 2001