Stp1158-Eb 31101 PDF

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Nov 28 06:28:03 EST 2019
Downloaded/printed by
University of Michigan (University of Michigan) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
STP 1158
Superfund Risk Assessment in

Soil Contamination Studies
Keith B. Hoddinott, editor
ASTM Publication Code Number (PCN)

04-011580-38
ASTM
1916 Race Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Superfund risk assessment in soil contamination studies / Keith B.

Hoddinott, editor.
(STP; 1158)
Papers presented at the symposium held in New Orleans, LA on 30-31
Jan., 1991.
"ASTM publication code number (PCN) 04-011580- ."
Includes bibliographical references and indexes.
ISBN 0-8031-1445-1
1. Hazardous wastes--Risk assessment--Congresses. 2. Hazardous
wastes--Health aspects--Congresses. 3. Soil pollution--Congresses.
4. Hazardous waste sites--United States--Evaluation--Case studies--
Congresses. I. Hoddinott, Keith B., 1956- I1. Series: ASTM
special technical publication; 1158.
TD1050.R57S87 1993
363.73'962--dc20 92-39698
CIP
Copyright 9 1992 AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS, Philadelphia, PA. All
rights reserved. This material may not be reproduced or copied, in whole or in part, in any printed,
mechanical, electronic, film, or other distribution and storage media, without the written consent of
the publisher.
Photocopy Rights
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of
specific clients, is granted by the AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS for users
registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) Transactional Reporting Service, provided
that the base fee of $2.50 per copy, plus $0.50 per page is paid directly to CCC, 27 Congress St.,
Salem, MA 01970; (508) 744-3350. For those organizations that have been granted a photocopy
license by CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged. The fee code for users of the
Transactional Reporting Service is 0-8031-1445-1/92 $2.50 + .50.
Peer Review Policy
Each paper published in this volume was evaluated by three peer reviewers. The authors
addressed all of the reviewers' comments to the satisfaction of both the technical editor(s) and the
ASTM Committee on Publications.
The quality of the papers in this publication reflects not only the obvious efforts of the authors and
the technical editor(s), but also the work of these peer reviewers. The ASTM Committee on
Publications acknowledges with appreciation their dedication and contribution to time and effort on
behalf of ASTM.
Printed in Fredricksburg,VA
December
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Nov 28 06:28:03 EST 2019 1992
Foreword
This publication, Superfund Risk Assessment in Soil Contamination Studies, contains pa-
pers presented at the symposium of the same name, held in New Orleans, LA on 30-31
Jan., 1991. The symposium was sponsored by ASTM Committee D-18 on Soil and Rock
and its Subcommittees D18.06 on Physico-Chemical Properties of Soil, D18.14 on Geo-
technics of Waste Management, and in cooperation with the U.S. Army Environmental
Hygiene Agency. Keith B. Hoddinott of the U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency
presided as symposium co-chairman and is the editor of the resulting publication.
Contents
Introduction--K. B. HODDINO17F vii
SITE C H A R A C T E R I Z A T I O N
A Guide for Site and Soil Description in Hazardous Waste Site Characterization--
R. E. C A M E R O N
Field Screening Procedures Applied to Soils for use in Risk A s s e s s m e n t s - -

J. R. C L A R K S O N , E. A . P E U L E R , C. A . M E N Z I E , D. T. C R O T W E L L ,
T. V. B O R D E N A V E , M. C. M E T C A L F , A N D D. H. P A H L 18
Impact of the Distribution of Soil Contamination Date on Human Health Risk

A s s e s s m e n t n s . J. L A S Z E W S K I A N D S. G . L E H R K E 32
Identification and Evaluation of Chemicals of Concern in a Baseline Risk

A s s e s s m e u t n R . A . S T R E E T E R , B. M O L H O L T , A N D C. J A M P O 50
A User-Friendly, Contaminant Transport Software Package for the Preliminary

Assessment of Soil and Groundwater Contamination: A n Overview of
TETrans--D. L. CORWIN 65
Selection of Indicator Chemicals at Hazardous Waste Sites--P. s. HOVATrER AND

R. E. GIBSON 81
FATE AND TRANSPORT
Biological and Chemical Test Methods for Evaluating the Need for and Efficacy of
Remediation of Soils: A Preliminary S t r a t e g y - - c . A. MENZIE, D. MORGAN,
D. F. UNITES, A N D D. E. B U R M A S T E R 95
Fate and Transport of Hazardous Waste Constituents and Assessment of

Environmental Risk from Hydrocarbon Contaminated SoilsmR. F. SOBER AND
D. P A U L 113
TOXICITY, EXPOSURES, AND RECEPTORS
Contribution of Childhood Ingestion of Contaminated Soil to Lifetime Carcinogenic

Risk: Guidance for Inclusion in Risk AssessmentmE. J. HIXSON,
R. E. J E N N I N G S , A N D S. A . SMITH 129
Inhalation of Volatile Chemicals from Residential use of Contaminated W a t e r - -
S. A. SMITH, R. JOSEPH, AND J. R. BECK 138
A Comparison of the Integrated Uptake Biokinetic Model to Traditional Risk

Assessment Approached for Environmental L e a d - - v . c. CHROSTOWSKIAND
J. A. WHEELER 151
Toxicity Assessment of Hazardous Waste at a Federal F a d l i t y - - R . H. ROSS AND

P.-Y. LU 167
The Effects of " H o t Spots" and Upper Confidence Limits in Estimating Exposure
Concentrations in Soils--E. A. C. CROUCH, M. B. G. PILKINGTON,
AND S. G. ZEMBA 175
RISK CHARACTERIZATION/CAsE STUDIES
Utilization of Uptake Biokinetic (UBK) Lead Model to Assess Risk in

Contaminated S i t e s - - n . CHOUDHURY, W. B. PEIRANO, A. MARCUS, R. ELIAS,
S. GRIFFIN, AND C. T. DeROSA 193
A PC-Executable Program for Risk Characterization Evaluations of Environmental

Pollutants--M. J. SMALL 205
Assessment of Health Risk from Wastes in Three Surface I m p o u n d m e n t s m

a. A. MOORE 217
Estimating Risk at a Superfund Site Contaminated with Radiological and Chemical

WastesmA. TEMESHY, J. M. LIEDLE, L. M. SIMS, AND C. R. EFIRD 231
Risk Evaluation of Lead in Soil and Groundwater at the H. Brown Superfund Site
in Walker, Michiganms. D. MEADOWS, S. M. TURNBLOM, T. W. HAHNE,
AND T. J. PRENDIVILLE 245
Risk Assessment and Contaminated Sites--G. M. ELLIOT]? 260
Reducing the Number of Chemicals of Potential Concern: Four Case Studiesm

D. R. HUFF AND L. A. TESCH 277
A Strategy for Ecological Risk Assessments for Superfund: Biological Methods for
Evaluating Soil Contamination--G. LINDER, C. C A L L A H A N , AND G. PASCOE 288
ESTABLISHING CLEANUP LEVELS
Probabilistic Techniques for Backcalculating Soil Cleanup Targets--l<. J. LLOYD,

K. M. THOMPSON, AND D. E. BURMASTER 309
S u m m a r y ~ K . B. HODDINOTT 329
Author Index 333
Subject Index
335
INTRODUCTION
C h e m i c a l s in our e n v i r o n m e n t have b e c o m e common place

in t o d a y ' s world. As little as fifteen y e a r s ago,
d i s p o s a l of m u n i c i p a l and h a z a r d o u s w a s t e s f o l l o w e d the
s i m p l e rule, "Out of sight, out of mind." Only when
i n d i s c r i m i n a t e d u m p i n g of w a s t e s was linked to human
h e a l t h did the g e n e r a l p u b l i c and the g o v e r n m e n t r e a l i z e
some of the d e t r i m e n t a l e f f e c t s of these w a s t e h a n d l i n g
procedures.
Now, waste d i s p o s a l and h a n d l i n g has b e c o m e v e r y

s o p h i s t i c a t e d and is highly regulated. However, the past
p r a c t i c e s have left the w o r l d w i t h the p r o b l e m of c l e a n i n g
up for "past sins." At present, there are t h o u s a n d s of
c o n t a m i n a t e d sites in the c o n t i n e n t a l U n i t e d States alone.
U n d e r the rules of the E n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o n A g e n c y
(EPA), each site has to be s t u d i e d to d e t e r m i n e w h a t
e x t e n t the area is affected, the amounts of c h e m i c a l s
humans and the e c o l o g y are b e i n g e x p o s e d to, and w h a t type
of r e m e d i a t i o n is necessary, if any. Part of this p r o c e s s
i n v o l v e s c a l c u l a t i n g w h a t h e a l t h risks exist from the site
if no r e m e d i a t i o n is performed. This c a l c u l a t i o n is
r e f e r r e d to as the b a s e l i n e r i s k assessment. The
n u m e r i c a l value a s s o c i a t e d w i t h this a s s e s s m e n t forms the
basis of d e t e r m i n i n g the e x t e n t of any a c t i o n r e q u i r e d to
clean up the site.
The p u r p o s e of this s y m p o s i u m on risk a s s e s s m e n t was

to collate the c u r r e n t m o d i f i c a t i o n s of the EPAs basic
risk a s s e s s m e n t m e t h o d o l o g y in a series of s y m p o s i a and
technical publications. We h o p e this type of s y m p o s i u m
will serve both r e s e a r c h and p r a c t i c a l needs.
To p r o d u c e this Special T e c h n i c a l P u b l i c a t i o n (STP),

two p r o - a c t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n s c o m b i n e d their talents and
resources. The A m e r i c a n S o c i e t y of T e s t i n g and M a t e r i a l s
(ASTM), t h r o u g h its C o m m i t t e e D-18 on Soil and Rock, and
the U n i t e d States A r m y E n v i r o n m e n t a l H y g i e n e A g e n c y
c o s p o n s o r e d the first of a series of s y m p o s i a on this type
of risk assessment.
The e v a l u a t i o n of these risks should follow the EPAs

b o o k l e t entitled, "Risk A s s e s s m e n t G u i d a n c e for S u p e r f u n d
(RAGS)." This b o o k l e t o u t l i n e s the general process of
risk a s s e s s m e n t w h i c h this STP has adopted to o r g a n i z e the
paper topics. However, this STP does not p r e t e n d to be an
i n s t r u c t i o n a l d e v i s e for the basic EPA method. While
b e g i n n e r s can b e n e f i t g r e a t l y from the papers p r e s e n t e d
here, this c o l l e c t i o n finds its best use in the hands of
the e x p e r i e n c e d risk assessor. The papers c o n t a i n e d in
t h i s STP p r e s e n t m o d i f i c a t i o n s of the basic EPA
m e t h o d o l o g y w h i c h have been a c c e p t a b l e to r e g u l a t o r s at
s p e c i f i c sites. This s h o u l d not be c o n s t r u e d to m e a n that
Downloaded/printed by vii
viii INTRODUCTION
these methods will be acceptable at all sites, in all

situations, or to all regulators. Rather, it is a state-
of-the-art laundry list of methods which may be helpful
for complex issues at your site.
Papers in this STP were selected from the symposium

submittals based upon pertinency, originality, and
technical quality. All undergo peer review and most were
extensively revised between presentation and publication.
In this STP, papers were selected in the following
categories:
9 site Characterization
9 Fate and Transport
9 Toxicity, Exposures, and Receptors
9 Risk Characterization~Case Studies
Establishing Cleanup Levels
In addition to the authors of the individual papers,

any success of this publication reflects the contributions
of many people. The Symposium Committee worked diligently
in soliciting abstract submittals, in selecting promising
presentations, and in chairing the sessions.
The continued support of this symposium by the

officers of ASTM Committee D-18 on Soil and Rock also was
vital, since time from a more than full committee meeting
schedule needed to be allocated for this endeavor.
Critical to maintaining the technical quality of this

STP was the diligent work of the reviewers of the
technical papers. At least three reviewers were obtained
for each paper to help ensure that the work reported was
accurate, reproducible, and meaningful.
Considerable staff support was also required for the

completion of this effort. The help of the Symposium
Committee, the D-18 officers, the paper reviewers, and the
ASTM staff is most appreciated. We trust that the papers
in this STP, which the contributors labored hard to
develop, will aid the efforts of the Environmental
professional towards the reliable prediction and
quantification of risk.
Keith Hoddinott
U.S. Army Environmental
Hygiene Agency
Symposium Co-Chair
Site Characterization
Roy E. Cameron I
A GUIDE FOR SITE AND SOIL DESCRIPTION IN HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE

CHARACTERIZATION
REFERENCE: Cameron, R. E., "A Guide for Site and Soil Description
in Hazardous Waste Site Characterization," Sunerfund Risk Assessment
~n Soil Contamination Studies. ASTM STP 1158. Keith B. Hoddinott,
Editor, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1992.
ABSTRACT: A guide has been prepared to assist field personnel to

identify, describe, sample, and interpret site and soil characteristics
of hazardous waste sites where metal contamination is suspected or
known. It is directed to on-scene coordinators, project managers, work
teams, and others who may need to apply the basic principles of soil
science without formal training. It meets the need of the united States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for standard procedures,
guidelines, or protocols that address soil and site contamination with
metal and metalloid species. Thirty-five "knowledge frames" are provided
for commonly encountered site and soil characteristics, each of which
contains specific guidance for the description of a parameter. The
format of the knowledge frames is compatible with the Environmental
Sample Expert system (ESES) software under development by Lockheed
Engineering & sciences Company for EPA EMSL-LV. The guide is also
designed for use with an accompanying field pocket guide, which provides
methods for site and soil description and analysis.
KEYWORDS: Hazardous wastes, site characterization, soil parameters,

metals, expert system, knowledge frames
A guide (or knowledge book) has been developed to provide field

personnel with information to identify, describe, and interpret site and
soil characteristics of hazardous waste sites where contamination with
metals and metalloids is suspected or known. [!] It is intended to
assist on-scene coordinators, project managers, work teams and others
who may need to apply the basic principles of soil science and on-site
environmental description, but who lack formal training in these
sciences. The guide is further designed to meet the need of the u.s.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for standard procedures,
guidelines, or protocols that address site and soil contamination in
association or interfacing with the natural or undisturbed environment.
The guide presents new approaches to site and soil description and
classification that emphasize the questions and problems directed toward
metals and metalloids contamination at hazardous waste sites. The
approach of the guide, which uses expert system type knowledge frames to
describe site and soil characteristics, may not be familiar to many soil
isenior Staff Scientist, Lockheed Engineering & sciences Company,

Environmental Programs office, Las Vegas, NV 89119
Downloaded/printed by 3
Copyright 9 1992 by ASTM International www.astm.org
4 SUPERFUND RISK ASSESSMENT
scientists and e n v i r o n m e n t a l scientists. However, p r o c e d u r e s for site

and soil d e s c r i p t i o n s d e v e l o p e d by the U.S. D e p a r t m e n t of Agriculture,
soil C o n s e r v a t i o n Service (SCS), and the U.S. E n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o n
Agency, and others have b e e n i n c o r p o r a t e d into the guide, or m o d i f i e d
where applicable.
Site c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n is r e l a t e d to geographical, hydrogeological,
landscape and c l i m a t e / w e a t h e r conditions. Soil c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are those
parameters w h i c h can be d e s c r i b e d or m e a s u r e d by field or laboratory
o b s e r v a t i o n s or analyses. P a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n is given to
17 metals, m e t a l l o i d s and cyanide, and their distribution, behavior and
t o x i c i t y in the soil and p l a n t environment.
The o r g a n i z a t i o n and content of the guide is as follows:
9 General considerations for c o l l e c t i n g and u s i n g site and
soil c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n data.
9 D e t a i l e d knowledge frames d e s c r i b i n g site and soil
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and c o n d i t i o n s likely to be e n c o u n t e r e d in
the field.
9 A citation of references for both knowledge frames and
methods.
9 A glossary of more than 900 general definitions for site and
soil c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s and c o n t a m i n a t i o n terms.
9 supplemental information on sources of site c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n
data; a soil d e s c r i p t i o n form; a summary of m e t h o d s for
d e t e r m i n a t i o n of site and soil parameters in c o n j u n c t i o n
w i t h a Pocket Field Guide [2].
Users of the guide should be aware that the k n o w l e d g e frames are
also the basis for the site and soil c o m p o n e n t s of the E n v i r o n m e n t a l
Sampling E x p e r t Systems (ESES) [3]. The ESES is under d e v e l o p m e n t by
the E P A E n v i r o n m e n t a l M o n i t o r i n g Systems L a b o r a t o r y - Las Vegas (EMSL-
LV) t h r o u g h the E M S L - L V prime contractor, L o c k h e e d E n g i n e e r i n g &
sciences C o m p a n y (LESC). The format of the knowledge frames is d e s i g n e d
p r i n c i p a l l y for use w i t h ESES. The frames provide a logical and
c o n s i s t e n t reference for those who i n t e n d to use the guide. Because
users of the guide are likely to be e v e n t u a l users of ESES, the
knowledge frame format is designed to enhance c o n s i s t e n c y among the
related documents.
SITE AND SOIL KNOWLEDGE FRAMES
T h i r t y - f i v e site and soil k n o w l e d g e frames have b e e n d e v e l o p e d for

use in the field to c h a r a c t e r i z e h a z a r d o u s waste sites and to identify
and d e s c r i b e soils [!]; an appendix includes methods d e s c r i b e d in the
Field P o c k e t Guide [2]. The 35 k n o w l e d g e frames are not meant to be
all-inclusive. They describe m a i n l y surface c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s through the
depth of the soil pedon, and therefore, the most active p a r t of the
vadose zone, but not the ground water or ground water table. The entire
guide is m e a n t to be an e v o l v i n g document, and will be e x p a n d e d and
m o d i f i e d b a s e d upon future r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s to include additional frames.
The knowledge frames are p r e s e n t e d in ESES format in order to
m a i n t a i n c o n t i n u i t y b e t w e e n ESES d o c u m e n t a t i o n and derivatives such as
the guide. While the c o n t e n t and t e r m i n o l o g y of the frames may be
familiar to some trained and experience personnel, some m o d i f i c a t i o n s or
s i m p l i f i c a t i o n s have been made to a c c o m m o d a t e u n t r a i n e d or i n e x p e r i e n c e d
personnel.
The d e l i m i t a t i o n of parameters for a given k n o w l e d g e frame is
intended to provide the u s e r with a means to pose inquiries and p r o v i d e
c a t e g o r i z e d answers about those p a r a m e t e r s at a d e s i g n a t e d site.
Therefore, interpretative information is also provided.
CAMERON ON A GUIDE FOR SITE AND SOIL DESCRIPTION 5
Each knowledge frame requires a value judgment based upon the

observable or measurable information or data obtained for the particular
site or soils under investigation. This formatted approach may be
unfamiliar to the user. It will aid the investigator in describing and
interpreting the particular site or soils.
Each knowledge frame consists of the following information in
formatted style:
9 An OBJECT/ATTRIBUTE line that indicates the particular
characteristic, property or parameter to be identified or
described (e.g., clay minerals, nature of soil pollutants,
slope, texture, pH).
9 A DEFINITION of the overall characteristic, property or
parameter.
9 A list of VALUES for the characteristic; that is, the
conditions that may be assigned (e.g., high, moderate, low;
prominent, distinct, faint).
9 CATEGORY and PROPERTIES assignments that are necessary to
the operation of ESES but are not of concern in the field.
(Site background, the setting for each site, is designated
for all categories.)
9 INPUT FACTS are information collected and provided by the
users of this guidance (e.g., soil compaction). Originally,
the document structure was set up for integration in a
computerized system. Input facts would be entered in the
computer by the users. Likewise, output facts are the data
and information that the computer program will produce from
processing of the user input values (e.g., recommended
sampling tool).
9 REFERENCES, keyed to a references cited section at the end
of the document. References also include methods for a
particular parameter listed in the appendix.
The following site knowledge frames are presented in the guide:
Nature of Heavy Metal Soil Pollutants
climate and Weather
slope
Surface Erosion and Erodibility
Surface Pollution situations
Surface Runoff
Vegetation
wind Speed and Direction
An example of a site knowledge frame is presented here in complete
format for the Object/Attribute of Site/Climate and Weather. Values are
divided only spatially into humid, temperate and dry in accordance with
the definitions. Value conditions further detail the effect of climate
and weather on the site and their effects on various site and soil
properties, and on sampling. Reference is also made to particular
methods of measurement, which are summarized in the appendix [!] and
further detailed in the Field Pocket Guide [2].
OBJECT/ATTRIBUTE: SITE/CLIMATE AND W E A T H E R
DEFINITION: climate: the average course or c o n d i t i o n of the

w e a t h e r for the site and r e g i o n over a p e r i o d of
years as e x h i b i t e d by temperature, p r e c i p i t a t i o n
(meteoric), and wind. Weather: the state of the
atmosphere at the site a n d r e g i o n d u r i n g the time
of study w i t h respect to heat or cold, wetness or
dryness, c a l m or storms, clearness or cloudiness,
and b a r o m e t r i c pressure.
VALUES: HUMID
TEMPERATE
DRY
CATEGORY: SITE B A C K G R O U N D
PROPERTIES: INPUT FACT
REFERENCES: Koeppe and Delong, 1958

National climate Data Center, 1983
shaw, 1967
Stephens and stewart, 1964
T h o r n t h w a i t e and Mather, 1957
T r e w a r t h a and Horn, 1980
U S D A soil C o n s e r v a t i o n Service, 1970, pp. 27 - 28
VALUE: Humid
DEFINITION: A general category for a climatic regime that is

u s u a l l y hot or w a r m and not dry for more than a 2-
month period, w e a t h e r u s u a l l y rainy.
CONDITIONS: climate and w e a t h e r - r e l a t e d m e a s u r e m e n t s for a site

are i m p o r t a n t in r e g a r d to soil and plant
development, weathering, fate, t r a n s p o r t and
d e p o s i t i o n of contaminants, effects on field
instruments (their o p e r a t i o n and measurements), and
sampling. W e a t h e r and/or m e t e o r o l o g i c a l
m e a s u r e m e n t s related to the site include cloud
cover - its nature, e x t e n t and duration and as it
affects solar radiation, a b s o r p t i v i t y and
reflectivity, temperature, p r e c i p i t a t i o n
(meteoric), barometric pressure, h u m i d i t y (relative
humidity), dewpoint, w i n d d i r e c t i o n and velocity.
A d d i t i o n a l site measurements, which can be used to
c h a r a c t e r i z e the site can include e v a p o r a t i o n rate
and its r e l a t i o n s h i p to diffusion, v o l a t i l i z a t i o n
and e v a p o r a t i o n of w a t e r or liquid chemicals and
c o n t a m i n a n t solutes from the soil surface,
e v a p o t r a n s p i r a t i o n and net thermal exchange, which
are soil-plant (and animal) - m i c r o c l i m a t i c
relationships. Also see knowledge frames for wind
d i r e c t i o n and velocity, temperature, temperature
regimes and vegetation, m a c r o and mesofauna.
(continuation)
climate, interacting with parent materials and

vegetation, a principal factor in soil development,
formation and resultant properties (e.g., high
organic matter, leaching, and high acidity).
Usually, there is a resultant dense vegetation of
trees and shrubs or grasses at constant
temperatures and increased moisture; both plant
growth with resultant organic matter, and clay
content generally will increase. At constant
moisture, the clay content usually increases along
with plant growth. Soil sampling is difficult
because of vegetation, either because of surface
growth or roots, surface litter, or organic matter,
except in cleared areas and where soil structure
has been altered or destroyed by disturbance, e.g.,
crust formation, puddling, compaction, truncation,
etc. sampling also may be difficult if soil is wet
and very cohesive. Removal of vegetation increases
soil temperature, evaporation and net thermal
exchange and reduces plant- available soil
moisture, especially in the tropics. Potential for
soil erosion also is increased. Much of water and
chemical contamination will percolate through the
soil with considerable leaching of soluble minerals
and mobile metal ions.
VALUE: Temperate
DEFINITION: A climate regime common in middle latitudes,

affected by either ocean or continents, westerly
winds and rain in all seasons, or winter snow.
CONDITIONS: climate is still an important factor in soil
formation, although forests may be less dense and
extensive grasslands may be present. Soils are
less leached than are those in humid regions; they
exhibit less (but still significant) organic matter
and moderate percolation. A moderate amount of
water and contaminant chemicals are subject to
leaching and percolation through the soil. Weather
may vary seasonally and diurnally., check with
local weather station before sampling for
temperature, wind, and precipitation (rain).
8 SUPERFUNDRISK ASSESSMENT
VALUE: Dry
DEFINITION: A dry climatic regime not dependent on temperature,

where a deficiency of precipitation is the dominant
climatic characteristic.
CONDITIONS: Arid, semi-arid, and desert "types" of soils are

found. The boundary separating hot from cold dry
climates is the isotherm of 8 months with a
temperature of 10 ~ (50 ~ or above. There may be
a short moist season, meager rainfall during most
of the summer, or the region may be constantly dry.
climate has less effect in soil formation than

other factors; parent material and minerals are
predominant factors. Most of the retained water or
contaminant chemicals are held by the soil
minerals. There is very little or no leaching;
soils are generally alkaline. Trees, shrubs, and
grasses are sparse or scattered except in favorable
habitats, with xeric varieties, or non-existent in
extreme dryness or where removed through human or
animal activities. Erosion and rapid runoff are
noticeable. Transport of surface contaminant
chemicals is largely dependent on sudden downpours
and on management practices. Check with local
weather station in case inclement weather is
expected at time of sampling. Sampling also may be
difficult if soil is too impenetrable, extremely
dry and tight or contains hardpans and various
inclusions.
Note: For this publication, the above references are listed as [4]
through [10].
soil knowledge frames follow the same format as for the site
knowledge frames. As indicated in some frames, the soil features can be
directly obtained in the field, e.g., a description of the horizons of
the soil profile, color, porosity, or soil odors. However, for other
soil characteristics, more detailed information/data is needed, and
while some parameters may be obtained both in the field or laboratory
(e.g., soil moisture), others (e.g., cation exchange capacity, texture
and microbiota) require that a prescribed sample be taken in the field
and returned to the laboratory for analysis. Knowledge frames for
sampling purposes, including sampling techniques, methods and apparatus
are included separately in ESES. Additionally, for a particular
knowledge frame, methods and measurements are given or referred to in
the Field Pocket Guide [~]. Soil measurements or methods pertinent to
ground-water remediation at hazardous waste sites also are useful for a
particular knowledge frame [11].
The number of soil knowledge frames, as well as for the site
knowledge frames, are not meant to be inclusive, and will be expended
and modified as needed, not only for surface characterization and the
depth of the distinguishable soil pedon, but also to depth of bedrock,
water table and aquifer. The list of soil knowledge frames presently
included in the guide is as follows:
CAMERON ON A GUIDE FOR SITE AND SOIL DESCRIPTION
Bulk Density Mesofauna and Macrofauna

cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) Microbiota
Clay Minerals Moisture (Water) Conditions
color Odor
Compaction Organic Matter and Litter
Consistency Porosity
Corrosivity Reaction (pH)
Electrical conductivity Redox Potential (Eh)
Fertility Potential Roots
Horizons Structure Grades
Hydraulic Conductivity Surface Features
- Saturated Temperature
- Unsaturated Temperature Regimes
Infiltration and Penetration Texture Classes
The soil knowledge frame for temperature regimes is presented

here as an example. Values are divided into pergelic, cryic, frigid-
isofrigid, mesic-isomesic, thermic-isothermic, and hyperthermic-
isohyperthermic as determined by the long-term pattern of soil
temperature fluctuations in a soil.
OBJECT/ATTRIBUTE: SOIL/TEMPERATURE REGIMES
DEFINITION: The pattern of soil temperature fluctuations in a

soil, characterized by temperature distribution with
respect to depth, time, and season for a given soil at
a given location.
VALUES: PERGELIC
CRYIC
FRIGID-ISOFRIGID
MESIC-ISOMESIC
THERMIC-ISOTHERMIC
HYPERTHERMIC-ISOHYPERTHERMIC
CATEGORY: SITE BACKGROUND
PROPERTIES: INPUT FACT
REFERENCES: Fuchs, 1986

Hadas, 1979
Smith, Newhall and Robinson, 1960
soil science Society of America, 1987
USDA Forest Service, 1961, pp. 126-128
(Soil conservation maps are available for most
temperature regimes in the United States.)
VALUE: Pergelic
DEFINITION: A soil temperature regime (thermal distribution) that

has mean annual soil temperatures of < 0 ~ to a
specified depth of soil, i.e., 50 cm. Permafrost is
present.
(continuation)
CONDITIONS: Knowledge and information of temperature regimes is

useful in predicting both soil and contaminant
behavior. Contaminant behavior, adsorption,
desorption, and mobility will depend considerably on
the temperature (and associated moisture) regime. Also
refer to knowledge frames for climate and weather,
vegetation, moisture conditions, horizons, organic
matter and litter, and temperature.
A cold environment soil which compare with site and

soil development and characteristics for polar
climate, low tundra-type vegetation, and low
temperature dependent chemical, biotic, and
microbiotic activity and processes. Permanently frozen
material underlies the solum (upper part of soil
profile). Upper boundary of the permafrost is
coincident with the lower limit of seasonal thaw. The
climate-driven soil heat flux is primarily active
during the short summer and under conditions of low
incidence of solar radiation, dense soil vegetative
cover, and moisture. Biodegradation and movement of
contamination are impeded by low temperature and the
permafrost barrier. Penetration of contamination
below the surface is limited, contamination flow is
primarily surficial.
VALUE: cryic
DEFINITION: A soil temperature regime (thermal distribution) that

has mean annual soil temperatures of > 0 ~ but < 8
~ > 5 ~ difference between mean summer and mean
winter soil temperatures at 50 cm, and cold summer
temperatures.
CONDITIONS: A soil temperature regime found in latitudes, bounding

or grading into polar regimes, and at lower latitudes
and higher elevations indicative of alpine soils and
(Hudsonian) ecosystems. Compare with climate,
vegetation, and soil characteristics typical for this
region, soil dynamics, including microbial processes,
are less restricted by soil temperatures and heat
fluxes. Diurnal and annual periods of heat flux have
a greater amplitude and exert their influences to a
greater depth than in pergelic soil temperature
regimes. Evaporation and melting generally precede at
a more rapid rate and for a greater period then for
pergelic soils. Freezing and thawing of soils may
promote development of macro pores, thereby enhancing
the movement of water and chemical contamination into
the soil profile, spread of contamination is less
restricted than for soils with pergelic temperatures
regimes; subsurface penetration of contamination is
limited.
VALUE: Frigid-Isofrigid
DEFINITION: A frigid soil temperature regime (thermal

distribution) has mean annual soil temperatures of >
0~ but < 8~ > 5~ difference between mean summer
and mean winter soil temperatures at 50 cm below the
surface, and warm summer temperatures. Isofrigid is
the sa~e except the summer and winter temperatures
differ by < 5~
CONDITIONS: A soil temperature regime found in northern temperate

latitudes or at high elevations and developed under
favorable conditions of climate, vegetation, microbial
activity and processes, topography and other soil
forming factors, surface layers of soil may be able
to acquire an appreciable amount of moisture from the
atmosphere by condensation when the temperature of the
air-dry soil is lower than that of the air; the
reverse also may occur, soil moisture will have a
more pronounced effect on soil temperature than
pergelic or cryic soils by variations in specific
heat, conductance, surface evaporation, and
percolation. Lower temperatures will be found in
poorly drained soils than in well-drained areas, soil
moisture is a more important factor in relating soil
temperature than in pergelic or cryic soil temperature
regimes. Extent and movement of contaminants, and
biodegradation processes are increased because of more
favorable site and soil temperature-moisture
relations.
VALUE: Mesic-Isomesic
DEFINITION: A mesic soil temperature regime (thermal distribution)

has mean annual soil temperatures of 8 ~ or more, but
< 15 ~ and > 5 ~ difference between mean summer and
mean winter soil temperatures at 50 cm below the
surface. Isomesic is the same except the summer and
winter temperatures differ by < 5 ~
CONDITIONS: A soil temperature regime found in southern temperate

latitudes, and with moderating influences of climate,
vegetation, and soil-forming factors. This soil
temperature regime is indicative of more moderate
temperatures and with accompanying accelerated
processes than for a frigid soil temperature regime.
opportunities for the spread and movement of
contaminants are more likely unless soil conditions
(e.g., poor structure, pans or discontinuities) impede
movement.
VALUE: Thermic-Isothermic
DEFINITION: A thermic soil temperature regime (thermal

distribution) has mean annual soil temperatures of 15
~ or more but < 22 ~ and > 5 ~ difference between
mean summer and mean winter temperatures at 50 cm
below the surface. Isothermic is the same except the
summer and winter temperatures differ by < 5 ~
CONDITIONS: These regimes include some thermogenic soils, with

properties that have been influenced primarily by high
temperatures as a soil-forming factor. They are
developed in subtropical and equatorial regions and
compare with climate, vegetation, and soil
characteristics for these regions, with moisture
available and other favorable site and soil
characteristics, movement of contaminants can be
rapid.
VALUE: Hyperthermic-Isohyperthermic
DEFINITION: A hyperthermic soil temperature regime (thermal

distribution) has mean annual soil temperatures of 22
~ or more and > 5 ~ difference between mean summer
and mean winter soil temperature at 50 cm below the
surface. Isohyperthermic is the same except the
summer and winter temperatures differ by < 5 ~
CONDITIONS: These regimes are predominately thermogenic soils,

with properties that have been influenced primarily by
high temperatures, unmoderated by extensive periods of
moisture, as a soil-forming factor. They are present
in arid and hot desert regions and in subtropical or
tropical regions and compare with climate, sparsity of
vegetation, and soil characteristics for these
regions, unless sufficient moisture becomes
available, spread of contaminants is restricted by
soil characteristics, and vertical flow is impeded
unless soil texture is loose and structure is
favorable for movement of contaminants.
Biodegradation is rapid under favorable circumstances
(e.g., nature of contaminant, energy nutrient supply).
Note: For this publication, the above references are listed as [12]
through [16].
COLLECTION AND USE OF SITE AND SOIL CHARACTERIZATION DATA
Introductory and additional information is presented in the guide

[!] pertaining to site and soil characterization data which are
important components in developing a sampling plan for a particular
hazardous waste site. It is important to consider and synthesize data
from all available sources in developing site and soil descriptiDns.
These sources include reference documents, site background reviews,
field reconnaissance, actual sampling activities, and cooperating

scientists in such fields as soil science, geology, hydrogeology,
agriculture, chemistry, climatology, botany, zoology, ecology,
photointerpretation, geographic information systems, statistics, quality
assurance, and numerous engineering disciplines (e.g., agricultural,
civil, and mechanical).
Regardless of the sources or methods of data collection, all
elements of the site and soil characterization process must be designed
and executed in a manner appropriate to the intended use of the data.
Thus, experienced and inexperienced field personnel alike should
concentrate on identifying and asking the questions that will provide
qualitative and quantitative data appropriate to solving the problems of
interest at a particular hazardous waste site. Discussions on these
subjects are given to aid the reader in identifying the questions and
issues of concern in performing the site background review, and in
describing the site and the soils present [!]- These sections include
not only general commentary about site and soil descriptions but also
for hazardous waste action and the intended use of data.
i. Description for Hazardous Waste Projects
The emphasis on soil characterization can vary considerably,

depending on the Data Quality objectives (DQOS) for the particular
hazardous waste project. For site characterization, attention usually
focuses on the soil properties that are most useful in characterizing
the soil-contamination system. In site characterization, leaching
potential and attenuation of contaminants may be the major concerns;
therefore, soil slope, surface damage, the extent of highly contaminated
soils, and the practicality of using particular field contaminant
instrumentation may be the most important considerations in the soil and
site description process [17]. As an adjunct to ground-water
monitoring, on the other hand, emphasis may be on describing soil
properties that help establish the amount of contamination sorbed on
aquifer solids that may contribute to ground-water contamination [18].
For this purpose, it is important to collect detailed information such
as soil particle distribution (texture), bulk density, organic matter
content, cohesiveness, moisture content, color, and odor, and to take a
number of readings with field monitoring equipment on designated
parameters. In addition, physical factors such as temperature,
available oxygen, and light penetration should be measured to provide an
interpretive basis for conditions that can radically alter the rate of
chemical reaction and of associated microbial activity.
In contrast to the requirements for site characterization, the
DQOs for remedial response activities can emphasize the collection of
data on a different set of soil parameters. These data would include
soil "type", pH, cation exchange capacity, and physical measurements of
hydraulic conductivity, hydraulic head, permeability, penetration rates,
porosity, particle distribution, and bulk density. Additional
observations might include a description of soil depth, hardness,
stratification, discoloration, and surface depressions [19]. These soil
properties may be determined at any site regardless of the nature of the
contaminant. For metals, the vertical contaminant distribution is
expected to be limited. Depending on soil conditions, many metals may
be strongly sorbed. However, each metal, its particular species and soil
conditions should be considered in regard to metal mobility because many
metals are relatively immobile and their downward migration is usually
limited. Potential toxicity can be strongly related to mobility and
solubility.
when the project constitutes an emergency response, basic soils

data are needed not only for the soil itself, but also for erosion, type
of surface runoff, and slope characteristics. Of particular importance
are soil texture, structure, consistency, infiltration and permeability,
cations and anions, and exchange capacity for clay minerals and organic
matter [20].
2. Intended Use of Data
The intended use of the data may help focus consideration of site
characterization, health and safety, risk assessment, evaluation of
alternatives, engineering design of alternatives, monitoring during
remedial action, identification of potentially responsible parties
(PRP), or possible use of the data in litigation. Each type of use may
necessitate sampling of soil for the required remedial investigation and
remedial response activities.
The quality, quantity, and level of detail for collected data and
information will vary and are largely contingent on their intended use.
Each site has a unique history, and the amount and quality of data
available will vary. These factors must be considered in establishing
and working toward the project DQOs. Data quality, quantity, and
intended use will impact site-specific decisions, the needs of data
users, and the requirements for further sampling and analysis.
DQOs should be based on data-use categories. Specific site
investigations may require data for one or more purposes, but as a rule,
methods for collecting and analyzing data should be designed to satisfy
project DQOs at a level appropriate for remedial response
activities.[21] They include the following: site characterization;
health and safety; risk assessment; evaluation of alternatives;
engineering design of alternatives; monitoring during remedial action;
PRP determination; and litigation. These categories are further
described in the guide [!]-
After the data-use categories pertinent to a project have been
determined, their order of priority should be established according to
the greatest demand for use of the data. Thus, the highest priority is
usually the data use that requires the highest level of confidence and
agree with the lowest level of data uncertainty. The limits of
uncertainty will drive the selection of project analytical and sampling
approaches, including those for soils.
Once priorities for intended data use have been established, the
types of data that need to be developed are identified and soil
parameters selected, subsequently, data quality needs are defined and
soil sampling and analysis options are evaluated. These data types can
then be categorized to form a decision matrix to meet the specifications
of the data type needed for each intended data use.
The integration of site and soils data collection methods, DQO
selection, and data uses involves many complex decisions. Mason [22]
provides useful flow charts and decision trees for site and soil
characterization. EPA [19 and 20] offers guidance on the development
and application of DQOs. The knowledge frames of the guide are intended
to aid the decision process by providing a uniform basis for identifying
site and soil characteristics in the field.
CONCLUSION
Expert systems have many limitations and must be used properly.

There are many factors to consider when collecting samples, and the
contribution of human experts, such as soil scientists, ecologists and
environmental scientists, waste remediation managers, and others is

always vital. The use of an expert system helps anticipate or prevent
many of the problems that can be encountered before actual field
sampling is undertaken and to familiarize personnel with needed site
characteristics and soil parameters. Also, the system can complement
expert advice by identifying items that might otherwise be overlooked.
Identified requirements can then be included in the sampling plan for
the project. It is realized that expert systems at this stage of
development cannot substitute for human experts, but they do have a
place in the planning process in their role as automated trainers and
consultants.
The guide presented here for site and soil characterization of
hazardous waste sites is expected to evolve as it is used by project
managers, coordinators, field investigators and others. The document can
be expanded to include additional site contaminants such as inorganics
and organics, including volatile organic compounds (VOCs). It can also
be expanded to include ground-water contamination, such as by pesticides
[23] and the entire vadose zone.
A future module of ESES will be developed as a sampling advisor
for surface and ground water. Experience gained from the development of
prototype expert systems will include the use of environmental experts
for the next phases of the overall development of the ESES.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author acknowledges Kenneth W. Brown (Environmental Monitoring

Systems Laboratory-Las Vegas, Exposure Assessment Research Division) for
his support of the initial expert system prototypes; J. Jeffrey van Ee,
(EMSL-LV, Ecosystem Monitoring Program) for his subsequent support of
this work, and the ESES team, Kelly R. York, Ramon Olivero, and Larry
Woods (Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company, Las Vegas, Nevada).
NOTICE
Although the research described in this article has been funded

wholly or in part by the United states Environmental Protection Agency
through contract number 68-c0-0049 to Lockheed Engineering & Sciences
company, it has not been subjected to Agency review and therefore does
not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency and no official
endorsement should be inferred. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
REFERENCES
[!] Cameron, R.E., 1991, "Guide to Site and Soil Description for
Hazardous Waste Site Characterization, vol. 1, Metals."
EPA/600/14-91/029. U.S. Environmental System Laboratory, Las
Vegas, NV.
[2] Boulding, J.R., 1991, "Description and Sampling of Contaminated

Soils: A Field Pocket Guide." EPA/625/12-91/002. ORD
Publications, us EPA/CERI, cincinnati, OH.
[_3] Olivero, R.A., Cameron, R.E., Cabble, K.J., Homsher, M.T.,

Stapanian, M.A., and Brown, K.W., 1988, "Environmental Field
Sampling Expert system - Development of a soil Sampling Advisor,"
Proceedinqs, First International STmposium on Field Screeninq
Methods for Hazardous Waste Site Investiqation, Las Vegas, NV, pp.
325-339.
[4] Koeppe, C.E., and Delong, G.C., 1958, Weather and climate.
McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., NY.
[5] National climatic Data Center (NCDC), 1983, "Selective Guide to

climatic Data Sources. Keys to Meteorological Records."
Documentation Number 4.11. NCDC, Asheville, NC.
[6] shaw, R.H., 1967, Ground Level climatology. AAAS Publication No.
86, American Association for the Advancement of Science,
Washington, DC.
[Z] Stephens, J.C., and Stewart, E.H., 1964, "A Comparison of

Procedures for Computing Evaporation and Evapotranspiration."
Agricultural Research Service, Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
[8] Thornthwaite, c.w., and Mather, J.R., 1957, "Instructions and

Tables for Computer Potential Evapotranspiration and Water
Balance." Publications in climatology, Vol. 10, No. 3, Drexel
Institute of Technology, Laboratory of climatology, Centerton, NJ.
[9] Trewartha, G.T., and Horn L.H., 1980, An Introduction to Climate,

5th Edition. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, NY.
[i0] USDA soil Conservation Service, 1970, "Soils in the soil

Conservation Service." U.S. Department of Agriculture, Portland,
OR, pp. 27-28.
[Ii] Breckenridge, R.P., williams, J.R., and Keck, J.F., 1991,

"Characterizing soils for Hazardous Waste Site Assessments." U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Ground-water Issue, office of
solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA/600/8-91/008,
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV, and
Superfund Technology Support Center for Ground-Water Fate and
Transport, Robert S. Kerr, Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada,
OK.
[i_!] Fuchs, M., "Heat Flux" in Klute, A., ed., 1986, Methods of Soil
Analysis, Part 1, Physical and Mineralogical Methods, 2nd Edition.
American Soc. Agronomy, Madison, WI, pp 957-967.
[ 1_.33] Hadas, A., 1979, "Thermal Regimes" i__nnFairbridge, R.W., and Finkl,
Jr., C.W., eds., The Encyclopedia of Soil Science, Part 1.
Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc., Stroudsburg, PA, pp 552-557.
[14] smith, G.D., Newhall, F., and Robinson, L.H., 1960, "Soil-
Temperature Regimes - Their characterization and Predictability."
SCS-TP-144. USDA Soil Conservation Service, washington, DC.
[15] Soil Science Society of America, 1987, "Glossary of soil science

Terms." Soil Science society of America, Madison, WI.
[!6] USDA Forest Service, 1961, Handbook of soil. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, U.S. Government Printing office,
Washington, DC, pp 126-128.
[17] U.S. EPA, 1986, "Guidance Document for cleanup of Surface
Impoundment sites," OSWER Directive 9380.0-6, office of solid

WaSte and Emergency Response, washington, PC.
[le] U.S. EPA, 1983, "Characterization of Hazardous Waste Sites, A

Methods Manual: vol II. Available Sampling Methods," EPA-600/4-
83/040, Washington, DC.
[19] U.S. EPA, 1987, "Data Quality objectives for Remedial Response
Activities. Example Scenario: RI/FS Activities at a Site with
Contaminated Soils and Ground Water." EPA-540/G-87/004,
Washington, DC.
[2o] Mason, S.J., 1983, "Soils Data Collection in Support of Emergency

Response Activities. " U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV, Sects.
A-C.
[21] U.S. EPA, 1987, "Data Quality objectives for Remedial Response
Activities. Development Process." EPA-54/G-87/003, Washington, DC.
[2--2] Mason, B.J., 1983, "Preparation of Soil Sampling Protocol:

Techniques and strategies. " U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV, Sects.
A-C.
[23] Cameron, R.E., olivero, R.A., cabble, K.J., Carlsen, C., Teubner,
M.D., Bottrell, D.W., and Homsher, M.T., In Press, 1991, "An
Expert system Approach for Selection of Sampling Methods for
Ground-Water Contamination at Hazardous sites." Proceedinqs of
chemistr 7 for Protection of the Environment, Lublin, Poland,
September 4-8, 1989.
J. Ruddie Clarkson, I Elizabeth A. Peuler, i Charles A. Menzie, 2
Dana T. Crotwell, ~ Thomas V. Bordenave, 3 Margaret C. Metcalf, ~ and
Dean H. Pahl 3
F I E L D S C R E E N I N G P R O C E D U R E S A P P L I E D T O S O I L S F O R U S E IN R I S K A S S E S S M E N T S
REFERENCE: Clarkston, J. R., Peuler, E. A., Menzie, C. A., Crotwell,

D. T., Bordenave, T. V., Metcalf, M. C., and Pahl, D. H., "Field
Screening Procedures Applied to Soils for Use in Risk Assessment,"
Suverfund Risk Assessment in Soil Contamination Studien, ASTM STP 11D8,
Keith B. Hoddinott, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, 1992.
ABSTRACT: Potential for human and environmental exposure to

contamination at waste sites throughout the country continues on the
forefront of primary environmental concerns of the 1990's. The
evaluation of the risks posed by these waste sites generally requires
the development of an extensive data base utilizing information derived
from the chemical analysis of large numbers of environmental samples.
Rapid field analytical procedures through which soil samples can be
initially screened for the presence of significant levels of categories
of pollutants is discussed. The screening procedures used were applied
to soil samples collected at an abandoned refinery site. These
screening procedures were selected to approximate the presence of
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, phenols,
and seven metals con~nonly associated with asphalt and petroleum refinery
operations. The purpose of this paper is to discuss these soil
screening procedures, their application in a case study and the
usefulness of resultant data in risk assessment.
KEYWORDS: field screening procedures, soil sampling, risk assessment,

soil database management, metals, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs)
iNational Coordinator of Risk Assessment Services and Environmental

Scientist, respectively, James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc.,
3501 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 300, Metairie, LA 70002
2President, Menzie 9 Cura Associates, Inc., 1 Courthouse Lane, Unit 2,

Chelmsford, MA 01824.
3Associate Environmental Scientist, Associate Computer Engineer,

Associate Environmental Scientist, and Supervising Engineer, respectively,
James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc., 3501 N. Causeway Blvd.,
Suite 300, Metairie, LA 70002.
CLARKSON ET AL. ON FIELD SCREENING PROCEDURES 19
INTRODUCTION
Potential for human and environmental exposure to contamination at

waste sites throughout the country continues on the forefront of
primary environmental concerns of the 1990s. The evaluation of the
risk posed by these waste sites generally requires the development of
an extensive data base utilizing information derived from the chemical
analysis of large numbers of environmental samples. Rapid field
analytical procedures through which soil samples can be initially
screened for the presence of significant levels of categories of
pollutants is a potentially useful tool, which can enhance data
management efficiency. The purpose of this paper is to discuss these
soil screening procedures, their application in a case study and the
usefulness of resultant data in risk assessment.
Site Investiqation History
Extensive risk assessment services were provided in support of the

investigation of a 1,000 acre former refinery site. A mid-project
qualitative and semi-quantitative risk assessment was performed to
determine the appropriateness and completeness of available data as
well as the identification of outstanding risk assessment data needs.
Following completion of site investigation activities, data for

over 3,000 groundwater, surface water, soil, sediment, air, and aquatic
organism samples were used to determine qualitative and quantitative
risks to human health and wildlife. Present and potential future land
usage required the development of an extensive array of human health
exposure scenarios including residential, light commercial, and
recreational u s e including undeveloped wetlands. Recreational
scenarios included hunting, fishing, and off-road vehicle usage.
Through the project, extensive risk communication support was

provided which included the preparation for, and participation in,
several non-technical meetings with the local community and several
technical meetings with state and local governments.
S A M P L E S C R E E N I N G TESTS
General Approach
A sample screening strategy was explored and modified to allow

timely and cost-effective characterization of the exp@nsive and complex
former refinery site. The exploration and modification of screening
strategies were accbmplished during multiple phases of investigation at
this site. Specifically, screening procedures useful in approximating
the following categories of pollutants were emphasized: heavy metals,
volatile organics, base/neutral extractable organics, and acid
extractable organics. The following summarizes the application and
development of sample screening procedures at a large former refinery
site in southern Louisiana.
Application
Two screening procedures, one which approximated cumulative

concentrations of a total of 7 metals commonly associated with refinery
operations (zinc, cobalt, cadmium, mercury, nickel, silver, and lead)
and the other, a lead-specific procedure, were also used. These
screening tests involved the use of a colorimetric dithizone procedure.
Volatile organic compounds were identified using a headspace screening
procedure. The detection of photoionizable compounds volatilizing into
sample jar headspace provided an indication of the presence of volatile
organics. Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in soil were identified
using an ultraviolet-hexane screening procedure in which fluorescence
provided an indication of the presence of PAHs [I]. This method is
best suited for PAHs which generate a greater fluorescent response;
generally, the greater the number of benzene rings comprising the PAH,
the greater the fluorescent response. A colorimetric test was used to
approximate concentrations of phenols in soil samples [~]. Table 1
summarizes the relationship between the field screening tests and the
corresponding laboratory analyses for which positive samples would be
submitted.
TABLE 1--Correlation of Laboratory Analyses

with Field Screeninq Tests.
Contaminant Field Screening Laboratory

Type Test Analysis
Metals Dithizone - Multi Metals Metal Analysis by

Dithizone - Lead Specific atomic absorption
Volatile PID Field or VOAs a by GC/MS

Organics Headspace Procedure (EPA Methods 624, 8240)
Semivolatile
Organics (BNAs)
PAHs b UV Fluorescence Base/Neutrals by

GC/MS c (EPA Methods
625, 8270)
Total Phenols Colorimetric Phenolic Acid Extractables

Determination Test (by EPA Methods
625, 8270)
aVOA=Volatile Organic Analyte

bPAH=Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon
cGC/MS=Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
Development
The exploration and assessment of viable screening procedures as

applied to all matrices and waste types expected to exist on the site
was included in several distinct work phases performed as part of the
site investigation. EPA's Data Quality Ojectives Guidance was reviewed
in the development of these screening procedures [~]. A Preliminary
Sampling Program (PSP) was initially performed to assess the potential
usefulness of several screening procedures. The PSP assessment of
screening procedures was accomplished by requesting determinative GC/MS
and AA confirmatory analyses for both positive and negative screening
samples. The primary and secondary thrusts of these assessments were
to identify screening procedures for which there would be I) zero or
minimal unconfirmed negative screening results, and 2) minimal or
acceptable unconfirmed positive screening results. The screening tests
explored were of three general types based upon associated analytical
sophistication. The most rudimentary screens were applied at the
sampling location, screening procedures of intermediate sophistication
were applied at an onsite field laboratory, and the most sophisticated
screening procedures were applied at an offsite analytical laboratory.
In light of the PSP findings regarding sample screening, the sample
screening strategy was modified for future work efforts to include a
single level of on-site field laboratory screening. Briefly, the most
rudimentary screening procedures were unreliable and the most
sophisticated offsite laboratory screening procedures were no more
reliable and more costly than the field laboratory screening procedures
retained for future site investigation efforts.
Phase 1 Application
Field laboratory procedures surviving the development process were

applied to all samples collected during the subsequent Phase 1 field
effort. All samples screening positive and 10 percent of samples
screening negative were sent on for determinative GC/MS or AA analysis.
Ten percent of samples screening negative using the field laboratory
procedures were sent on for further analysis so that the viability of
these screening tests as demonstrated during the PSP would continue to
be assured. Results for these samples confirmed the reliability of the
screening procedures with the exception of possible matrix interference
difficulties with the metals screening procedure when applied to canal
sediments.
Phase 2 Application
During the subsequent and final site investigation effort, the

screening strategy employed in Phase 1 was again used with the
following minor modifications. As done in Phase i, all soil and waste
samples were screened in the field laboratory, and all positively
screening and 10 percent of negatively screening samples were sent on
for determinative analyses. However, due to a significant incidence
(>10%) of false negatives for canal sediment samples screened during
Phase I, the limited number of canal samples collected during Phase 2
were not screened; these samples were sent directly to contract
laboratories for determinative analyses. Also, water samples were not
s c r e e n e d due to risk a s s e s s m e n t requirements for d e t e c t i o n limits b e l o w

s c r e e n i n g t h r e s h o l d levels.
F i g u r e 1 p r e s e n t s a c o n c e p t u a l d i a g r a m of the basic Phase 2 analytical

approach. Soils and wastes were field s c r e e n e d to select appropriate
samples for more d e t e r m i n a t i v e analyses using the same test methods as
in Phase i.
BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE

SITE CHARACTERIZATION S~E CHARACTERIZATION SITE CHARACTEREAT~N
SAMPLES SAMPLES SAMPLES
Groundwater, Soil
Surtacewater, and Soil and Waste All Matrices
Canal Sediments Waste
Apply only those screening

procedures corresponding to
analytical requirements in
Apply all screening Appendix D.
procedures. (For example,samplesfroman area
previouslycharacterizedas impacted
by melalsconlaminationwouldbe
subjected only to the metals
screeningprocedure).
All samples screening

90% of samples positive and 10% of
screening negative. samples screening
negative.
LABORATORY ~Z
F I G . 1 -- P h a s e 2 A n a l y t i c a l A p p r o a c h
Screeninq Tests
All samples collected were submitted to the on-site field laboratory

where the five field laboratory screening tests described below were
performed to target contaminated samples. These five screening
procedures were first applied during the initial exploration of
screening procedures during the PSP work effort and retained throughout
due to consistent reliability. Samples which screened positive were
forwarded to an independent laboratory for the appropriate
determinative GC/MS or AA analyses. Additionally, approximately I0
percent of all samples screening negative for the various screening
procedures were sent on for determinative analyses as quality control
negative verification samples.
The field screening tests and their respective analytical categories

are as follows:
A dithizone-based colorimetric procedure to approximate sum

concentrations of seven of the 14 heavy metals which have been
found to be potential constituents of petroleum refinery wastes
(lead, zinc, cadmium, mercury, nickel, cobalt, and silver).
A dithizone-based colorimetric procedure to approximate lead

contamination. Results of this and the preceding screening
procedure were used to indicate the possible necessity for
priority pollutant metals analysis.
A photoionization detector (PID) headspace procedure to

approximate volatile organic contamination used to indicate the
possible necessity for VOA analysis.
An ultra-violet (UV) fluorescence test to detect the presence

or absence of fluorescent PAH compounds used to indicate the
possible necessity for BNAE analysis.
A colorimetric phenolic determination test to detect the

presence of total phenolic compounds used to indicate the
possible necessity for AE analysis.
Quality Control Neqative Verification Results
A summary of the reliability of the field laboratory screening

procedures is presented in Table 2. As indicated, the field laboratory
screening procedures were highly successful in meeting technical
reliability. Particular details of interest relating to each of the
screening procedures are discussed in the remainder of this paper.
TABLE 2--Field Screeninq Reliability Summary.
# of
Contaminant Negative # of
Screening Group Recognition Verification False %
Procedure Targeted Threshold a Samples Negatives Reliability ~
(mg/kg)
Multi Priority
Metals ?ollutant
Dithizone Metals 500 108 12 89
Lead
Specific
Dithizone Lead 200 108 12 89
PID
Headspace VOA 10 94 0 100
PAH Base/
UV Neutral
Fluorescence Extractables i0 96 5 95
Acid
Phenols Extractables I0 258 14 95
a The Recognition Threshold is the concentration above which a given

analyte or class of analytes which can be consistently recognized as
positive by a specific screening test as demonstrated by the analysis
of negatively screening samples.
b Percent Reliability = 1 - (number of negative confirmation samples

for which determinative GC/MS or AA analytical
data indicated contaminant levels above the
recognition threshold divided by the number of
negative confirmation samples), expressed as
percentage.
Dithizone screeninq tests--Both of the dithizone screening

procedures were used to indicate the presence of metal(s) contamination
in solid samples. Samples subjected to the lead-specific procedure
were compared to four differently colored daily standards representing
lead concentrations of 0, i00, 200, and 500 mg/kg. Samples subjected
to the multi-metals procedure were compared to four differently colored
daily standards representing cumulative cadmium, cobalt, lead, mercury,
nickel, silver, and zinc concentrations of 0, 250, 500, and i000 mg/kg.
Screened samples were observed for the presence or absence of color
changes. Color changes corresponding to the appropriate daily

standards, as well as any other color changes observed, were noted.
The reliability of these procedures in indicating the absence of
metals contamination has been well demonstrated as evidenced in
Table 2. Review of the determinative AA lead results and the summed AA
results for the six priority pollutant metals detectable using the
multimetals screening procedure indicated the low number of negative
verification samples for which metals were reported above the
established recognition thresholds. Of 108 negative confirmation
samples for which determinative priority pollutant metals analyses were
requested, only twelve samples were indicated to have lead and
cumulative metals concentrations above recognition threshold levels.
These twelve samples are waste samples. Possible causes for the
exceedance of metals screening test recognition thresholds for these
waste samples include: falsely negative results due to compounds in
the samples interfering with the color development process; or, marked
differences between the subsamples screened in the field laboratory and
the subsamples analyzed at the contracted analytical laboratory.
PID headspace--The PID headspace test was used to indicate the

presence of photoionizable volatile organic contaminants. For all
samples collected, one field laboratory jar was to be only half-filled
with solid sample. These jars were covered with foil , and then
tightly capped so that compounds volatilizing into the jar headspace
above the sample would be trapped and available for screening. The
samples were preserved under cool conditions until they could be
screened. Prior to screening, the sample-containing jars were placed
upon a field laboratory benchtop and allowed to warm to ambient
temperature, usually approximately 2 hours. PID headspace screening
results were obtained by placing a PID probe near the sample jar,
uncapping the jar, and rapidly inserting the probe through the foil
into the jar headspace, the cumulative amount of photoionization
detected by the PID was recorded as mg/kg meter units. It is important
to note that this screening procedure reflects a concentration of
volatile organics in the sample jar headspace and not in the sample.
However, the qualitative usefulness of this screening procedure in
indicating the absence of volatile organic contamination is well
evidenced by the absence of contamination levels above 10 mg/kg in
GC/MS reports for all PID negative confirmation samples as indicated in
Table 2. This is indicated in Table 2 as I00 percent reliability for
the PID headspace screening procedure.
UV fluorescence test--The UV fluorescence test was used to

indicate the presence of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in
solid samples. One-tenth gram solid samples diluted in hexane were
placed under a fixed wavelength ultra-violet light. The presence or
absence of fluorescence was recorded. AS indicated in Table 2, of 96
negative confirmation samples for which GC/MS BNAE analyses were
requested, only four soil samples were indicated to have cumulative PAH
concentrations above the 10 mg/kg recognition threshold. For these
five samples, laboratory analyzed aliquots were reported to contain
18.0, 10.5, 107.0, 28.9, 13.3 mg/kg total PAH. The usefulness of the
UV fluorescence screening procedure remains intact in spite of these
aberrant findings as presented in Table 2 by the high percent

reliability indicated for this screening test.
Total phenols test--The total phenols screening test was used to

indicate the presence of phenolic compounds in soil, waste, and
groundwater samples. Limited areas within the former refinery site
were expected to be impacted by phenol contamination; however, the
total phenols test was prudently applied to nearly all samples
collected. Samples subjected to this screening test were compared to
four differently colored daily standards representing phenol
concentrations of 0, 2.0, 10.0, and 20.0 mg/kg in waste and soil
samples. Screened samples were observed for the presence or absence of
color changes. Color changes corresponding to the appropriate daily
standards, as well as any other color changes, were recorded. The
qualitative usefulness of this screening procedure for indicating the
absence of acid extractable phenolic compounds has been well
demonstrated as evidenced in Table 2. Of 258 negative confirmation
samples for which determinative GC/MS AE analyses were requested, only
fourteen samples were indicated to have phenolic compounds above the
recognition threshold level.
DISCUSSION
An evaluation was performed of the threshold screening levels and

the method in which they were applied at the former refinery site. The
focus of this evaluation was on the use of these data for risk
assessment. The results are summarized below.
UV Hexane and Phenols
A few phthalate compounds were identified in the negative

confirmation samples. Where these compounds were present in the
negative confirmation samples, they were typically observed at the
levels of 1 mg/kg or less. Based on previous experience, such levels
are not considered to be significant from a risk assessment
perspective. Low levels of Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs)
were observed in the analyses of the negative confirmation samples for
base neutral compounds. In general, the organic TICs were less than 1
mg/kg or in the low mg/kg range. Higher levels of TICs were generally
associated with the presence of sulfur.
Samples that screened negative using the Phenols Screen

(threshold level of 10 mg/kg) did not exhibit the presence of priority
pollutant phenols (including cresols) in samples sent on for full
chemical analyses. Elevated levels of phenolic TICs were observed in a
few of the samples.
In review, the threshold screening levels used for base neutral

and acid extractable compounds in soils, wastes, and canal sediments
provided useful tools for screening samples for full chemical analyses.
It is important to note that 10 percent of the negative samples were
still sent on for full chemical analysis, thus providing data on these
samples.
PID H e a d s p a c e
The m e a s u r e d levels of VOCs in the negative c o n f i r m a t i o n samples

were g e n e r a l l y at or less than 1 mg/kg. The chemicals that were
p r e s e n t included m o s t l y TICs and a few l a b o r a t o r y contaminants. With
r e g a r d to BTEX compounds, the following observations can be m a d e about
the n e g a t i v e c o n f i r m a t i o n samples sent on for full analyses:
No benzene was d e t e c t e d (benzene is the only known human

carcinogen in the B T E X group);
Low levels of toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (<0.i mg/kg)

were o c c a s i o n a l l y observed.
C h e m i c a l s o b s e r v e d in the soil and wastes samples that screened

n e g a t i v e for VOCs also i n c l u d e d low levels (generally less than 1
mg/kg) of the following: acetone, m e t h y l e n e chloride,
tetrachloroethene and styrene. Methylene chloride and acetone are
solvents which are b e l i e v e d to be laboratory contaminants.
Based on the results f r o m "negative" samples, the use of the

p r e s e n t s c r e e n i n g t h r e s h o l d levels for VOCs c o u p l e d with a negative
c o n f i r m a t i o n p r o g r a m (I0 percent of negative samples analyzed) is
judged to p r o v i d e an adequate approach for a s s e s s i n g levels of VOCs in
soils, wastes and sediments.
M e t a l s - - T h e t h r e s h o l d screening level for metals of 250 mg/kg

total metal was evaluated, as was the s c r e e n i n g level specific for
lead (200 mg/kg). The results of this e v a l u a t i o n are as follows:
The screening level for lead failed in several instances for

canal sediment samples. These failures are b e l i e v e d to be due
to a m a t r i x effect of the metal in the sediments. The
s c r e e n i n g m e t h o d a p p e a r e d to be e f f e c t i v e for lead in soils
and wastes. Negative samples were t y p i c a l l y less than the
s c r e e n i n g level of 200 mg/kg.
The screening level for total metals appeared to be effective

for the site based on consideration of the typical b a c k g r o u n d
levels of the metals. Concerns that, at a s c r e e n i n g level of
200 mg/kg, e l e v a t e d levels of metals that t y p i c a l l y occur at
low levels (for example, c a d m i u m and mercury) could be m i s s e d
were evaluated. A review of the negative c o n f b r m a t i o n data
indicates that this d i d not occur (i.e., e l e v a t e d levels of
m e r c u r y or c a d m i u m are not found in soils at this site and are
not a u t o c o r r e l a t e d with other metals). Thus, the m e t h o d
appears to work for soils and wastes at this site. When
c o m b i n e d with the fact that i0 percent of the n e g a t i v e samples
are s u b m i t t e d for complete analysis, it was c o n c l u d e d that
data g e n e r a t e d through use of the e x i s t i n g m e t h o d is adequate
for risk assessment purposes.
Based on the above observations with r e g a r d to metals levels and

the application of screening t h r e s h o l d levels, the f o l l o w i n g
recommendations were made following analysis of Phase 1 information and

followed in Phase 2 sampling:
Screening threshold levels were not to be applied for canal

sediments due to possible matrix interference;
Screening threshold levels were applicable to soils and wastes

contingent upon continued confirmatory analysis of 10 percent
of the negative samples;
Special attention was to be given to the presence of mercury

and cadmium in the negative samples to ensure that there were
no areas where these metals may be elevated even though total
metals continue to be less than the screening criteria of
200 mg/kg.
In summary, the field screening tests were highly reliable as

indicators of the absence of metal, VOA, and BNAE contamination in soil
and waste samples.
I N C O R P O R A T I O N O F S C R E E N I N G D A T A IN T H E R I S K A S S E S S M E N T
The compilation of the input file for estimates of concentrations

for site chemicasls in the quantitative risk assessment process
required that several data management decisions be made [~].
Highlighted in this portion of the text are the following issues:
data arrangement
statistics - means, ranges, and upper bound values
approach for assigned values - screened negatives and non-

detects
These data management and evaluation issues are critical to the

development of the risk assessment database. These steps, as well as
the data reduction process, are significant in that they can contribute
to the nature of the final database and ultimately influence risk
calculations.
Data Arranqement
The input file was arranged by selected compound for each matrix
or aggregates of matrices and by geographic subregion of the site.
Depth of sampling was also considered, especially for site-specific
exposure scenarios. For example, surface soil data would be of
importance for recreational exposure scenarios; whereas, deep soil
greater than 2 feet in depth would be of importance in remediation and
construction type scenarios.
Statistics
The following statistics were derived for each compound:

arithmetic mean - average of measured values and assigned
values for the screened negative and non-detect sampling
results.
upper bound - the average of the upper twenty-five percent of

values (measured and assigned). This value was determined to
provide a conservative estimate of exposure concentrations and
thus an upper bound value.
range - the minimum and maximum values for the sampling

analytical results (measured values).
Assiqned Values
The inclusion of analytical data for site sampling points that

screened negative and for those that were below quantifiable limits
(non-detects) required additional data management decisions. Also
discussed in the following text is the rationale used in the assignmnet
of positive, nonzero numbers for these sampling points which allowed
use of this information in estimates of concentrations at points of
exposure in the risk assesment database.
Assiqned values for samples screened neqative and not analyzed--

Data for samples screened negative and not analyzed (10 percent of
negatively screened sample) were ranked for each compound. The 75th
percentile was the highest value among the negatively screened samples
used as a conservative but reasonable assigned value for samples
screened negative and not analyzed. For all organic analytes in all
matrices, the 75th percentile value was below quantitation limits
(BQL); therefore, the assigned values used for data points BQL were
also used for organic data points screened negative (see next paragraph
for a description of the derivation of BQL assigned values).
Assiqned values for data points "below quantitation limits"--

Detection limits reported for data points for which analytical results
were BQL were reviewed. In accordance with the EPA method of including
one-half of detection limits as values for obtaining potential
exposure, one-half of a representative BQL value that exceeded the
majority of BQL values but excluded obvious outliers were used as
assigned values. Thus, non-detected concentrations were assumed to be
present at one-half the reported detection limit (assuming that the
compound had been detected at least once in a matrix). These assigned
values were determined separately for each matrix. Approximately
10 percent of Phase 1 and all of Phase 2 inorganic detection limits
reported for non-detect data points were reviewed. The mid-point of
the range of detection limits was used as the assigned value. These
assigned values were determined separately for each matrix.
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, the reliability of the field screening tests is high when

used as indicators of metals, VOA, and BNAE contamination in soil and
waste samples. This high reliability rating is contingent upon
confirmatory analysis of negative samples and attention to mercury and
cadmium in negative samples. Screening threshold levels were not
reliable for canal sedimenmt samples due to possible matrix
interference.
This screened negative data can be incorporated into risk assessment

databases with limited manipulation. For sampling results below
screening threshold values, an assignment of a positive, non-zero
number can be accomplished. Thus, purposive sampling at waste sites
can be cost effective and reliable for use in risk assessment
evaluations.
The reduction of analytical burden and associated costs through

decreased sample numbers are obvious advantages in projects requiring
the characterization of geographically large sites. It should be noted
that the reduction in analytical burden allowed considerable savings in
schedule and effort which cascaded through several investigation tasks.
For example, delays in delivery of data from the offsite laboratory,
incorporation of these detailed results in the database, reduced time
associated with quality asssurance review of data , and reduced
potential for operating ineffeciencies associated with the processing
of sample data.
Potential difficulties include the proper handling of screening

data in the risk assessment process and the limitations inherent in the
analytical techniques. For example, screening recognition thresholds
may be too high with regard to public health and ecological
significance. Furthermore, matrix interference may reduce the
applicability of sceening procedures in some matrices. For example,
naturally occurring compounds or compounds not targeted for analysis at
a site (e.g., non-priority pollutant chemicals) can mask the chemical
response which indicates the presence of compounds targeted for
analysis at the site. Therefore, the accuracy of screening procedures
in reliably indicating the presence of compounds of concern at a site
must be investigated for each site and site matrix. In conclusion, the
use of screening procedures in hazardous waste site assessments and the
integration of this dat~ with risk assessment methodology represents a
useful innovation in evaluating potential human health and
environmental risk.
REFERENCES
Ill Franson, M. H., Standard Methods For Examination of Water and

Wastewater, American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C.,
1981.
[~] Pucknat, A. W., Health Impacts of Polynuclear Aromatic

Hydrocarbons, Noyes Data Corporation, New Jersey, 1981.
c!] United States Environmental Protection Agency, Data Quality

Objectives for Remedial Response Activities {Development Process).
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C., March
1987.
[!] United States Environmental Protection Agency, Guidance for DATA

Useability in Risk Assessment. Interim Final Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C., October 1990.
Steven J. L a s z e w s k i I and S t e p h e n G. L e h r k e 2
IMPACT OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF SOIL C O N T A M I N A T I O N DATA ON

HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
REFERENCE: Laszewski, S. J., and Lehrke, S. G., "Impact of

the Distribution of Soil Contamination Data on Human Health
Risk Assessment," SuDerfund Risk Assessment in Soil
Contamination Studies. ASTM STP 1158. Keith B. Hoddinott,
Editor, American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, 1992.
ABSTRACT: A n e x t e n s i v e r e m e d i a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n c o n d u c t e d at
the s i t e of a f o r m e r a u t o m o b i l e a s s e m b l y p l a n t d e t e c t e d h i g h
soil levels of h e a v y m e t a l s and p o l y c y c l i c a r o m a t i c
hydrocarbons (PAHs). F u t u r e site p l a n s i n c l u d e d r e s i d e n t i a l
d e v e l o p m e n t and r e t a i l - s t o r e facilities. P r i o r to site
d e v e l o p m e n t , a h u m a n h e a l t h r i s k a s s e s s m e n t w a s p e r f o r m e d to
assess the p o t e n t i a l for h e a l t h h a z a r d s to f u t u r e r e s i d e n t s
of the site. A k e y input v a r i a b l e into t h e soil e x p o s u r e
e q u a t i o n s for r i s k a s s e s s m e n t is the c h e m i c a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n
term. R i s k a s s e s s m e n t g u i d e l i n e s r e c o m m e n d c a l c u l a t i o n of
t h i s t e r m t h r o u g h use of u p p e r 95 p e r c e n t c o n f i d e n c e limits
on the m e a n of t h e soil c o n c e n t r a t i o n . Assuming a normal
d a t a d i s t r i b u t i o n w i t h r e s u l t i n g a r i t h m e t i c m e a n s and
c o n f i d e n c e limits m i g h t not p r o d u c e the m o s t a p p r o p r i a t e and
d e f e n s i b l e r i s k assessment. S e l e c t i o n by d e f a u l t of a
l o g n o r m a l d i s t r i b u t i o n w i t h c a l c u l a t i o n of g e o m e t r i c m e a n s
and u p p e r c o n f i d e n c e limits b a s e d p r i m a r i l y on the p o o r fit
to t h e n o r m a l d i s t r i b u t i o n , a m e t h o d f r e q u e n t l y employed, is
also n o t e n t i r e l y defensible. Instead, n o r m a l and lognormal
p r o b a b i l i t y p l o t s and a p r o b a b i l i t y p l o t c o r r e l a t i o n
c o e f f i c i e n t t e s t s t a t i s t i c w e r e u s e d h e r e for s e l e c t i o n of
the d a t a d i s t r i b u t i o n . The final risk e x p r e s s i o n d e v e l o p e d
at t h i s site u s i n g the m e t h o d p r e s e n t e d h e r e gives a m o r e
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e h a z a r d index and c a n c e r r i s k e s t i m a t e t h a n
e i t h e r of the c o n v e n t i o n a l methods.
i Environmental Toxicologist, Foth & V a n Dyke, Green Bay,

WI 54307
2 Environmental Statistician, Foth & Van Dyke, Green Bay,

WI 54307
Copyright9 1992 by ASTM International www.astm.org
LASZEWSKIAND LEHRKE ON HUMAN HEATH RISK ASSESSMENT 33
KEYWORDS: soil c o n t a m i n a t i o n , exposure calculations,

n o r m a l i t y of data, p r o b a b i l i t y plots, h u m a n h e a l t h risk
assessment
INTRODUCTION
A h u m a n h e a l t h r i s k a s s e s s m e n t w a s c o n d u c t e d at a l o c a t i o n
u s e d for t h e p a s t i00 y e a r s as an i n d u s t r i a l site; for the
p a s t 30 y e a r s the site h o u s e d an a u t o m o b i l e a s s e m b l y plant.
F u t u r e land use p l a n s at the site c a l l e d for r e s i d e n t i a l and
retail-store development. A n initial soil i n v e s t i g a t i o n
u s i n g s t a n d a r d i z e d p r o c e d u r e s u n c o v e r e d t h e p r e s e n c e of
several h e a v y m e t a l s and p o l y c y c l i c a r o m a t i c h y d r o c a r b o n s
(PAHs) in c o n c e n t r a t i o n s above b a c k g r o u n d levels (ATSDR 1990
and S h a c k l e t t e and B o e r n g e n 1984). Since f u t u r e p l a n s w o u l d
r e s u l t in m u c h g r e a t e r h u m a n c o n t a c t w i t h t h e o n - s i t e
environmental contamination, a soil risk a s s e s s m e n t was
v i e w e d as a c r u c i a l step to e v a l u a t e if, and to w h a t extent,
r e m e d i a l a c t i o n m a y be r e q u i r e d at this site.
S e l e c t i o n of the soil c o n c e n t r a t i o n t e r m for u s e in the soil

e x p o s u r e e q u a t i o n s for risk a s s e s s m e n t can h a v e a
s i g n i f i c a n t impact on the r i s k e x p r e s s i o n at a site. Often
the soil d a t a are a r b i t r a r i l y a s s u m e d to f o l l o w a c e r t a i n
d i s t r i b u t i o n a l form. The m e a n s and c o n f i d e n c e limits are
t h e n g e n e r a t e d b a s e d on that d i s t r i b u t i o n a l f o r m
( S p l i t s t o n e 1991). The two m o s t f r e q u e n t l y a s s u m e d
d i s t r i b u t i o n s are t h o s e of a n o r m a l and l o g n o r m a l data set.
W h i l e e n v i r o n m e n t a l d a t a sets are f r e q u e n t l y s h o w n to be
lognormally distributed, l o g n o r m a l s t a t i s t i c s and s u b s e q u e n t
r i s k a s s e s s m e n t c a l c u l a t i o n s m a y d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from
r i s k a s s e s s m e n t s g e n e r a t e d from an a s s u m e d n o r m a l
d i s t r i b u t i o n (Gilbert 1987). T h e d e c i s i o n to a s s u m e a
s p e c i f i c d i s t r i b u t i o n is an i m p o r t a n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n in the
d e v e l o p m e n t of the r i s k assessment.
T h i s p a p e r p r e s e n t s a r a t i o n a l e for the s e l e c t i o n of a v a l i d
soil c o n c e n t r a t i o n t e r m for use in the r i s k assessment. The
impact the s e l e c t e d c o n c e n t r a t i o n t e r m h a s on the r i s k
a s s e s s m e n t is e v a l u a t e d t h r o u g h c o m p a r i s o n of site r i s k
d e t e r m i n e d t h r o u g h t h r e e d i f f e r e n t d i s t r i b u t i o n a l scenarios:
i. a s s u m i n g normal d i s t r i b u t i o n for all data; 2. a s s u m i n g
l o g n o r m a l d i s t r i b u t i o n for all data; and 3. r i s k
c a l c u l a t i o n s t h r o u g h s e l e c t i o n of the d i s t r i b u t i o n b a s e d on
the t e s t s of g o o d n e s s of fit. W h e r e possible, s t a n d a r d or
g e n e r i c input terms other t h a n the soil c o n c e n t r a t i o n t e r m
w e r e u s e d in the r i s k a s s e s s m e n t c a l c u l a t i o n s . Though
s e l e c t i o n of d i f f e r e n t input v a l u e s m a y c h a n g e the final
r i s k expression, the intent was to focus on t h e soil
c o n c e n t r a t i o n t e r m a n d its a f f e c t on the r i s k expression.
INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES
Sample Collection
A total of 117 soil borings was performed at this former

industrial site. These soil borings were made using four
and one-quarter-inch I.D. hollow-stem augers. Soil samples
were collected using either two-inch or three-inch I.D.
split spoon samples. The soil samples were generally
divided into surface samples (less than six feet in depth)
and subsurface samples (greater than six feet in depth).
Sample borings extended as far down as 32 feet, though the
general depth of vertical sampling was 12 feet. Composite
samples were generated from the defined soil borings
(usually a two-foot interval), placed on ice (4~ and sent
to the laboratory. Chain-of-custody protocol was maintained
for all samples.
Sample collection activities took place over the course of

one year through four separate investigations. The soil
data described here consist of a compilation of all four
investigations or phases and are limited to the surface soil
samples.
Analytical Parameters
Following an initial phase of sample collection where soils

were analyzed for a wide array of inorganic and organic
compounds, the remainder of the study focused on the
analysis of cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel, zinc, and PAH
concentrations in site soils. Sixteen individual PAHs were
assayed at the site (Table i). A large environmental data
base, consisting of values for over 55 samples for each of
the above parameters was generated at the site.
TABLE 1
PAHS a Detected in Site Investigation
- naphthalene
- acenaphthylene
- acenaphthene
- fluorene
- phenanthrene
- anthracene
- fluoranthene
- pyrene
- benzo[~,h,l]perylene
- benzo[a]anthracene b
- chrysene b
- benzo[b]fluoranthene b
- benzo[k]fluoranthene b
- benzo[a]pyrene b
- indeno[l,2,3-cd]pyrene b
- dibenzo[a,h]anthracene b
aThe 16 P A H s a r e r e f e r r e d to c o l l e c t i v e l y as t o t a l PAHs
(tPAHs).
bSeven c a r c i n o g e n i c PAHs (cPAH).
D A T A A N A L Y S I S
Test for N o r m a l i t y
T h e m o s t p o p u l a r w a y to c h a r a c t e r i z e a s i t e w i t h r e g a r d to
t h e c o n t a m i n a n t c o n c e n t r a t i o n is to e s t i m a t e an a r i t h m e t i c
m e a n c o n c e n t r a t i o n and s o m e d e g r e e of v a r i a t i o n a s s o c i a t e d
w i t h t h e mean. United States Environmental Protection
A g e n c y (U.S. EPA) r i s k a s s e s s m e n t g u i d a n c e r e c o m m e n d s
c a l c u l a t i n g t h e u p p e r 95 p e r c e n t c o n f i d e n c e l i m i t on the
a r i t h m e t i c soil m e a n (U.S. EPA 1989). T h i s p r o c e d u r e is
b a s e d on t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t the d a t a fit a G a u s s i a n or
normal distribution. However, as is o f t e n the case, the
soil c h e m i c a l d a t a set c o n t a i n s a large n u m b e r of v a l u e s for
s a m p l e s w i t h low c o n t a m i n a n t c o n c e n t r a t i o n s and o n l y a few
v a l u e s for s a m p l e s w i t h h i g h soil c o n c e n t r a t i o n s . A
h i s t o g r a m c o n s t r u c t e d f r o m this t y p e of d a t a d i s t r i b u t i o n
r e v e a l s a g e n e r a l s k e w to the r i g h t (or a long r i g h t tail).
T h i s r i g h t s k e w is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of l o g n o r m a l l y d i s t r i b u t e d
data.
T h o u g h t h e U.S. E P A r i s k a s s e s s m e n t m a n u a l m e n t i o n s the
i m p o r t a n c e of t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of the d a t a set, no
d i s c u s s i o n or r e f e r e n c e is p r o v i d e d for a m e t h o d to j u s t i f y
a lognormal distribution and subsequent use of geometric

means and confidence limits.
Examination of the soil data set from this site indicated

that for some contaminants, the underlying distribution may
not be normal. As a general rule, the arithmetic mean is
probably not the best estimator of the mean when the
coefficient of variation exceeds 1.2 (Koch and Link, 1980).
A large coefficient of variation may also be an indication
of skewed data. If the underlying distribution of the data
is in fact lognormal, the arithmetic mean will be strongly
influenced by the long right tail of the distribution. The
geometric mean (antilog of mean of log transformed data)
will be influenced by the long right tail to a much lesser
degree. However, since the adoption of the lognormal
distribution can lead to lower estimates of the soil
chemical concentration term compared to a normal
distribution and, therefore, a lower site risk expression,
the ultimate selection of the lognormal distribution must be
defensible.
Probability plotting can be an effective way to determine if

the site data fit either a lognormal or a normal
distribution (Gilbert 1990). Filliben (1975) introduced the
use of a probability plot correlation coefficient test
statistic (r) which can be used to test both normal and
lognormal distributional hypotheses. The correlation
coefficient is a direct measure of linearity between two
variables. Under the hypothesis of normality, the
correlation coefficient is computed directly from a normal
probability plot and compared to a percentage point (or
critical level) of the test statistic. The hypothesis of
normality is rejected if the calculated correlation
coefficient falls below the desired percentage point. Under
the hypothesis of lognormality, the same procedure is
applied to the logarithms of the data.
In his analysis, Filliben (1975) compared the test statistic

r to several other tests for normality, including the widely
used Shapiro and Wilk W statistic. The analysis showed that
the r statistic compared favorably in power with longer-
tailed and skewed distributions. In addition, the r
statistic benefits from being easily computed and easy to
understand.
Site Data Distributions
Normal and lognormal probability plots were developed for

the contaminant soil data set (Figure I). Logarithmic
transformation of the data generated a more linear
probability plot for some of the contaminants. The
correlation coefficient was tested against the null
hypothesis of normality. The log-transformed data were also
LASZEWSKI AND LEHRKE ON HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT 37
3 3"
X x
Ill
2" X 2"
1' 1,
O' "~ o.
-,J Pb
-1,
R - 0.72 -2, R . 0.99
1 n -89
n~8g
-3 -3
" lo;o 20;0 3000
Soil Lead (n-~/l~) In Solt Lead (n~'~)
2- 2.
1 I
== =-
>
,s 0
] 0 Zn x
-1 -I-
Zn
R.0.78
-2 -2" R-O.~
x
n - 55
9 9 j -3
-3
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 2 3 4 $ 6 7 $
SOR~nc (rng~g) In Soa ~nc (mg~)
Figure i. Normal (left-hand diagrams) and lognormal (right-hand diagrams)

probability plots for soil lead, zinc, cadmium, chromium, nickel, cPAHs,
and tPAHs.
x 2,
1, 1
"~ o "= o
-1, -1,
Cd
I
R - 0.7"7 -2.
r=-71
-3
,'o 2; 3; 40 -1 0 1 2 3
SO~]Cadmium ( n ' ~ g ) In Sog Cadmium (rng/lcg)
x
x 2-
z
x
1 I-
_==
o 84 0-
-1- -I.
Cr
-2 - R . O.S4
n.71
-2'
/
~
.
x
. . . . .
R - 0.98
n.:l .
-3
,o so " a'o ~oo 0 I 2 3 4
Soil Chromium ( r n g ~ ) In Soa Chromium ( r n g ~ )
3"
x
2' 2-
1 1
o o
-1, -1
-2- x= R - 0.95 .2 84
rl.55
-3
-3 1'o ='o 3'o ,~ 50 -1
Soil Nidml (mg/~J In Soil N ~ ' ~ ( m g ~ )
Figure I (Continued)
"3
1
o
X
X
_==
|o
3f
2
-1 -1
cPAH cPAH
-2" R-O.~ -2]= R - 0.g2
-3]= . . . . . . . n..,88 .
~'o ,;o ~;o 2oo I 2 3 4 5
Soil cPAH (m~lcg) In Soil cPAH (rr,~g)
~
3
x
2'
1 1.
i
o
-1
io
tP~ tPAH
-2- R - 0.84 -2- R - 0.91
n.88 n.88
-3 -3
0 ,;0 2;o 3;0 ,;o 500
SOil tP/~l ( m i ~ ) In Soil tPAH (m;~g}
Figure 1 (Continued)
tested against the hypothesis of normality, testing, in

effect, whether the data were lognormally distributed. The
correlation coefficient calculated for all the contaminants
was tested at a critical level of 0.05 (Table 2).
Since soil concentrations of chromium, lead, and zinc were

shown to be lognormally distributed, the geometric mean,
with its corresponding confidence limit, was the most
appropriate estimator for on-site soil concentrations of
these three contaminants (Table 3). None of the data for
the other contaminants (cadmium, nickel, and PAHs) showed
significance at the five percent critical level in the test
for either normality or lognormality. However, large
numbers of samples were analyzed for each of these
contaminants (greater than 50 data points). The central
limit theorem of statistics states that the mean of a large
sample will be approximately normally distributed (Ryan,
1989). Therefore, confidence limits based on the normal
distribution were calculated for cadmium, nickel, and PAHs
(Table 3).
TABLE 2
P r o b a b i l i t y Plot Test f o r N o r m a l i t y
Normal Lognormal
5% 5%
Correlation Correlation
Constituent Critical Critical
Coefficient Coefficient
Level Level
Cadmium 0.774 0.982 0.980 0.982 (0.978) a
Chromium 0.845 0.982 0.984 0.982
Nickel 0.947 0.978 0.973 0.978 (0.967) b
Lead 0.723 0.985 0.986 0.985
Zinc 0.780 0.978 0.987 0.978
tPAH ~ 0.641 0.985 0.912 0.985
cPAH d 0.681 0.985 0.917 0.985
a S i g n i f i e a n t at 2.5%.
b S i g n i f i c a n t at 1.0%.
~ = total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
dcPAH = c a r c i n o g e n i c polycyclic a r o m a t i c h y d r o c a r b o n s .
TABLE 3
T-
S t a t i s t i c a [ Resutts of Site Soil Data OO
N
m
Data D i s t r i b u t i o n
Z
NormaL Lognormet 0
r-
Constituent n Mean" 95X C.L. b C.V. c Meand c.v. 95~ C.L. m
I
Cadmium 71 4.2 5.4 1.4 2.2 1.5 2.7
m
Chromium 71 16.1 18.7 0.8 12.2 0.8 14.3
0
Nicker 55 14.5 16.6 0.7 11.0 0.7 13.6 z
T
Lead 89 215.8 283.5 1.8 81.8 0.3 105.1 C
Zinc 55 478.5 645.5 1.6 181.3 0.3 254.0

Z
tPAH 88 40.0 52.6 1.8 22.2 0.3 25.5 T
m
cPAH 88 17.6 22.3 1.5 10.0 0.4 12.1 r'-
--t
-1-
Art vatues in mg/kg.
aArithmetic mean.
bUpper 95 percent confidence Limit on the mean.
CCoefficient o f v a r i a t i o n . m
ffJ
dGeocnetricmean.
m
Z
.-I
J~
SOIL RISK ASSESSMENT
Calculation of R i s k Estimate
F o l l o w i n g U.S. EPA g u i d e l i n e s (1989), one of the p r i m a r y

o b j e c t i v e s of this r i s k a s s e s s m e n t was to q u a n t i f y the
c h e m i c a l e x p o s u r e a future r e s i d e n t of the site m i g h t
encounte~from c o n t a c t w i t h the soil. The quantified
e x p o s u r e e s t i m a t e s w e r e t h e n c o m p a r e d to e i t h e r s t a n d a r d or
d e r i v e d t o x i c i t y c o n s t a n t s to d e t e r m i n e the p o t e n t i a l for
o n - s i t e e x p o s u r e to cause c a r c i n o g e n i c and n o n c a r c i n o g e n i c
a d v e r s e h e a l t h effects.
T h r o u g h the u s e of e x p o s u r e scenarios, c h e m i c a l intake

e q u a t i o n s w e r e d e v e l o p e d for the site for i n a d v e r t e n t soil
i n g e s t i o n and d e r m a l u p t a k e of site soil c o n t a m i n a n t s .
CS x IR x CF x EF x El)
Soil Ingestion (rng/kg/day) = (1)
BW x AT
C S x ,.%4 x A F x C F x E F x E l ) x ABS.
D e r m a l Uptake (mglkglday) = (2)
BW x AT
S t a n d a r d soil e x p o s u r e v a r i a b l e s w e r e u s e d in the c h e m i c a l
intake e q u a t i o n s (Table 4). The c h r o n i c d a i l y intake (CDI)
in m g / k g / d a y w a s c a l c u l a t e d for each c h e m i c a l - o f - c o n c e r n
u s i n g t h e intake e q u a t i o n s and v a r i a b l e s a n d the s e l e c t e d
soil c h e m i c a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n term.
TABLE 4
Selected Chemical Intake Variables
Variable Input Value a

Chemical Concentration in Soil Dependent on Data
(cs) Distribution
Ingestion Rate Soil (IR) I00 mg/day
Conversion Factor (CF) 10 .6 kg/mg
Exposure Frequency (EF) 350 days/year
Exposure Duration (ED) 30 years
Skin Surface Area Available 4,900 cm 2
(SA)
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor 1.45 mg/cm 2
Absorption Factor (ABS)
Soil Matrix Effect 15% Available
Dermal Absorption 10% Metals, 25%
Organics
Body Weight (BW) 70 kg
Averaging Time (AT) 10,950 Days
aU.S. EPA 1990 and Hawley 1985.
For noncarcinogenic toxic effects, CDIs were divided by

U.S. EPA reference dose values (RfDs) to arrive at hazard
quotients and an overall hazard index (Table 5). If a
hazard index approaches or exceeds 1.0 the site has the
potential to elicit noncarcinogenic adverse health effects
to site users, assuming the same exposure scenarios.
Carcinogenic risk estimates were developed by multiplying
U.S. EPA slope factors by the CDI value (Table 5).
TABLE 5
4~
J~
Noncarcinogenic and Carcinogenic Risk Estimates
Constituent Mean' Derma{ CD! Ingestion COX Total COZ RfDb Hazard Quotient GO
E:
"13
Cac~nium 4,2 6.3x10"6 5 . 9 x l 0-e 1.2xl 0.5 O. 0001 0.122 m
"11
"11
Chromium 12,2 1.8x10-s 1.7x10"5 3 . 5 x i 0 -s 1.0 0,000 C
Z
Lean 81.8 1.2x10~ 1 .lx10 ~ 2.4x104 0.0014 0.169 [3
3O
Nickel 14.5 2.2x10-s 2.0x105 4.2x105 0.02 0.002
Zinc 181.3 2.7x104 2.5x10~ 5.3x104 0.2 0,003 >

GO
tPAHs 22,2 8 . 0 x 1 0 "5 3. lx10 -5 1. lx10 ~ 0.035 0.003 Go
rll
Go
95~, C.L. ~ 0.30 (Hazard Index) o3
Cadmium 5.4 8.1x10-8 7.6x10-6 1.6x10"6 0.0001 0.157 rn

z
Chromium 14.3 2. lx10 "5 2.0x10-s 4. lx10 -5 1.0 0.000
Lead 105.1 1.6x10"4 1.5x10~ 3.0x10~ 0.0014 0.218
Nickel 16.6 2.5x10s 2.3x10-5 4.8x10s 0.02 0,002
Zinc 254,0 3.8x10~ 3.6x104 7.4x10~ 0,2 0.004
tPAHs 22,3 8.0XI0 s 3. Ix10 5 i . lx10 ~ 0,035 0.00]
0.38 (Hazard Index)
Nean Dermal, CDI I n g e s t i o n CDI Total COl Slope Factor "~ Cancer Risk
cPAHs 17.6 2.8x10-s 1.0xlO-s 3.9x10-6 11.5 4.4x10~
955~ C. L 9
cPAHs 22.3 3 . 6 x l 0.5 1.3x I0 -s 4.9x10.5 11,5 5.6x104
' Rean from appropriate data d i s t r i b u t i o n (mg/kg).
Reference dose RfD (U.S. EPA 1991). Since lead b i o k i n e t i c uptake model not a v a i l a b l e , lead 0.001/* (U.S. EPA 1986) value used; m a j o r i t y of tPAHs
o n - s i t e had RfDs of 0.03 or 0.04.
= Upper 95 percent confidence ( f m i t from appropriate data d i s t r i b u t i o n .
d Assume a l l s i t e cPAHs equal in cancer potency t o benzo(a)pyrone.

Discussion and Comparison of Risk Expressions
The aggregate site risk (hazard index) derived from either

the mean or the 95 percent confidence limit (Table 5)
represents only the risk calculated with the most
appropriate soil concentration term, as defined in this
paper. In addition to the risk expression calculated with
the chosen soil concentration term, CDI values were also
calculated substituting the soil term with a term generated
with all site data fitting solely a normal distribution or a
lognormal distribution. Hazard index values, representing
the noncarcinogenic risk expression, could then be compared
for the three data distribution scenarios (Figure 2).
Though the hazard index calculated using the noncarcinogenic

risk expression is higher with the normal distribution
assumption and lower with the lognormal (geometric)
distribution assumption (as is often the case) under all
three scenarios, each hazard index is below the critical
value of 1.0. Therefore, at this site the use of any of the
three distribution assumptions would not have changed the
final site hazard characterization. However, it must be
emphasized that the results presented here are unique to
this data set. At other sites with different data sets the
results from the three distribution assumptions are
significantly different (unpublished data).
Cancer risk estimates were generated similarly under all

three data distribution assumptions (Table 6). Again a
significant difference does not exist among the various
calculated risks, i.e., estimates are similar and all
estimates are greater than 1.0xl04. However, the difference
in the final risk expression using the various distribution
assumptions will be site-dependent.
Figure 2. Noncaroinogenic hazard index values for a. mean assuming

all data normally distributed, b. upper 95 percent confidence limit
assuming all data normally distributed, c. mean assuming all data
lognormally distributed, d. upper 95 percent confidence limit assuming
all data lognormally distributed, e. mean using test of goodness of
fit and f. upper 95 percent confidence limit using test of goodness of
fit me=hod.
TABLE 6
Carcinogenic Risk Comparison
Data Distribution Estimated Cancer Risk"

Arithmetic Mean 4.4xi04
Arithmetic Upper 95% 5.7xi0 ~
Confidence Limit
Geometric Mean 2.5xi04
Geometric Upper 95% C o n f i d e n c e 3.0x10 ~
Limit
Selected Mean b 4.4xi04
Selected Upper 95% C o n f i d e n c e 5.6xi0 ~
Limit b
a From on-site carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

c o n c e n t r a t i o n (cPAH).
b R e f e r s to m e a n c o n c e n t r a t i o n d e t e r m i n e d t h r o u g h
s t a t i s t i c a l m e t h o d o l o g y p r e s e n t e d in this paper.
SUMMARY
C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of h u m a n h e a l t h h a z a r d s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h any
c o n t a m i n a t e d site is a v e r y d i f f i c u l t and c o m p l e x
undertaking. H u m a n h e a l t h risk a s s e s s m e n t s are v a l u a b l e for
site c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n , p r o v i d i n g the input terms for the
r i s k a s s e s s m e n t are c h o s e n t h r o u g h some r i g o r o u s l y a p p l i e d
criteria. In this p a p e r we i n t r o d u c e d F i l l i b e n ' s (1975)
p r o b a b i l i t y p l o t c o r r e l a t i o n test s t a t i s t i c for u s e in
s e l e c t i n g the soil c o n c e n t r a t i o n t e r m for risk assessment.
Site d a t a w e r e t e s t e d for g o o d n e s s of fit to e i t h e r a normal
or a l o g n o r m a l d i s t r i b u t i o n and t h e n the c a l c u l a t e d m e a n s
and u p p e r 95 p e r c e n t c o n f i d e n c e limits w e r e u s e d in soil
e x p o s u r e equations.
In c o m p a r i s o n to s e l e c t i o n of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of this
site's d a t a t h r o u g h some a r b i t r a r y assumption, the m e t h o d
u s e d h e r e did not s i g n i f i c a n t l y c h a n g e the o v e r a l l site r i s k
expression. However, at other sites, w i t h their own unique
d a t a sets, s e l e c t i o n of d i f f e r e n t u n d e r l y i n g d a t a
d i s t r i b u t i o n s w i t h s u b s e q u e n t c a l c u l a t i o n of m e a n s and upper
c o n f i d e n c e limits w i l l h a v e a m a j o r a f f e c t on the final site
r i s k expression.
C u r r e n t t h i n k i n g seems to suggest t h a t in e x p o s u r e
assessment, the a r i t h m e t i c m e a n and c o n f i d e n c e limit are the
o n l y a p p r o p r i a t e terms. However, t h i s r e a s o n i n g has not
been supported by epidemiologic data which actually

correlates exposure with human uptake of contaminants. It
seems quite probable the geometric mean, or perhaps some
other test statistics may turn out to be the best indicator
of human intake of soil contaminants. Adopting the
probability plot test method demonstrated here will help to
ensure the credibility of the human health risk assessment
while at the same time incorporating a little more science
into the entire process.
REFERENCES
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

(ATSDR), 1990, Draft Toxicoloqical Profile for Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons. U.S. Public Health Service.
Filliben, J.J., 1975, "The Probability Plot Correlation

Coefficient Test for Normality", Technometrics, Vol. 17,
No. i, pp. 111-117.
Hawley, J.K., 1985, "Assessment of Health Risk from

Exposure to Contaminated Soil, Risk Anal., Vol. 5, No. 4,
pp. 289-302.
Koch, G.S., and Link, R . F . , 1980, Statistical Analyses

of Geological Data, Vols. I, II, Dover, New York.
Gilbert, R.O., 1987, Statistical Methods for

Environmental Pollution Monitorinq, Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York.
Ryan, T.P., 1989, Statistical Methods for Quality

Improvement, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1989.
Shacklette, H.T., and Boerngen, J.G., 1984, Element

Concentrations in Soil and Other Surficial Materials of the
Conterminous United States, U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 1270, Washington, D.C.
Splitstone, D.E., 1991, How Clean is Clean ...

Statistically?, Pollution Enqineering, pp. 90-96.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986, Superfund

Public Health Evaluation Manual, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, Washington, D.C., EPA/540/I-86/060.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989, Risk

Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, Washington, D.C., EPA/540/I-89/002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990, Exposure

Factors Handbook, Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment, Washington, D.C., EPA/600/8-89/043.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991, Health

Effects Assessment Summary Tables, Office of Research and
Development, Washington, D.C., NTIS PB91-921199.
R o b i n A . S t r e e t e r I, Bruce M o l h o l t I, C h r i s t i n e Jampo I
IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF CHEMICALS OF CONCERN IN A

BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT
REFERF/~CE: Streeter, R. A., Molholt, B., and Jampo, C.,

" I d e n t i f i c a t i o n a n d E v a l u a t i o n of C h e m i c a l s of C o n c e r n in a
B a s e l i n e R i s k A s s e s s m e n t " S u p e r f u n d R i s k A s s e s s m e n t in Soil
C o n t a m i n a t i o n Studies, A S T M STP 1158, K e i t h B. Hoddinott, Ed.,
A m e r i c a n S o c i e t y for T e s t i n g and Materials, Philadelphia, 1992.
ABSTRACT: U n d e r current U S E P A p r o t o c o l for the conduct of S u p e r f u n d

risk assessments, the b a s e l i n e risk a s s e s s m e n t is r e q u i r e d to include
all c h e m i c a l s w h i c h are of p o t e n t i a l concern at a site. The
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of these c h e m i c a l s is b a s e d p r i m a r i l y on their t o x i c i t y
and on the c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in which they are detected. O t h e r factors
w h i c h m a y be c o n s i d e r e d in the s e l e c t i o n p r o c e s s include: frequency
of detection; p r e s e n c e of a chemical above a s p e c i f i e d standard;
p r e s e n c e of a chemical above its normal b a c k g r o u n d concentration;
p r e s e n c e of the chemical in m o r e than one medium; e n v i r o n m e n t a l
m o b i l i t y and p e r s i s t e n c e of a chemical; and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of
c h e m i c a l s w h i c h are s p e c i f i c a l l y site related vs. those which are
p r e s e n t as a result of natural causes or other a n t h r o p o g e n i c activity.
A l s o among the c o n s i d e r a t i o n s in the selection p r o c e s s is the
e v a l u a t i o n of t e n t a t i v e l y i d e n t i f i e d compounds (TICs) and d e g r a d a t i o n
p r o d u c t s of c h e m i c a l s known to be present at a site. This paper uses
a b a s e l i n e risk a s s e s s m e n t r e c e n t l y p e r f o r m e d for a S u p e r f u n d site to
i l l u s t r a t e the s e l e c t i o n process.
KEYWORDS: risk assessment, b a s e l i n e risk assessment, c h e m i c a l s of

concern, data evaluation, Superfund, dioxins, p o l y n u c l e a r aromatic
h y d r o c a r b o n s (PAHs)
The first task in p e r f o r m i n g a Risk A s s e s s m e n t (RA) involves the

i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of chemicals of p o t e n t i a l concern. The RA can then
1 Project Manager, Program Director, and Project Scientist,

respectively, E n v i r o n m e n t a l R e s o u r c e s Management, Inc., 855 S p r i n g d a l e
Drive, Exton, PA 19341.
Downloaded/printed by 5O
STREETER ET AL. ON CHEMICALS OF CONCERN 51
f O C U S on these c h e m i c a l s in the c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of p o t e n t i a l risks

a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a site. In the s e l e c t i o n process, the intent is to
i d e n t i f y s l t e - r e l a t e d c h e m i c a l s that:
9 are the most toxic, persistent, and mobile,

9 are the most prevalent, and
9 p r o v i d e a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e analysis of the p o t e n t i a l risks.
C u r r e n t risk a s s e s s m e n t g u i d a n c e e m p h a s i z e s the a p p l i c a t i o n of
p r o f e s s i o n a l judgment in the s e l e c t i o n of c h e m i c a l s of concern.
C o n s i d e r a b l e q u a n t i t i e s of data are f r e q u e n t l y a v a i l a b l e to
c h a r a c t e r i z e a site, and care is r e q u i r e d in i d e n t i f y i n g those
c h e m i c a l s w h i c h may p r e s e n t a p o t e n t i a l risk under b a s e l i n e
conditions.
This p a p e r d e s c r i b e s the m e t h o d o l o g y e m p l o y e d to select the chemicals

of c o n c e r n in a b a s e l i n e risk a s s e s s m e n t recently c o m p l e t e d for a
S u p e r f u n d site. In this assessment, the results of the remedial
i n v e s t i g a t i o n c o n s t i t u t e d a large data base upon w h i c h to d e v e l o p the
risk assessment. B e c a u s e of the number of chemicals detected, the
s e l e c t i o n of the c h e m i c a l s of concern was an involved and important
procedure. A t o x i c i t y s c o r i n g a p p r o a c h was d e v e l o p e d by w h i c h to rank
chemicals. Those c h e m i c a l s c o n t r i b u t i n g s i g n i f i c a n t l y to the risk
w e r e then e v a l u a t e d a c c o r d i n g to the factors d i s c u s s e d above.
T e n t a t i v e l y i d e n t i f i e d c o m p o u n d s and p o t e n t i a l d e g r a d a t i o n products of
the c h e m i c a l s of c o n c e r n were also e v a l u a t e d to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r
s i g n i f i c a n t risk may be a s s o c i a t e d with their presence. In a p p l y i n g
this approach, a m a n a g e a b l e and cogent chemical data set was
i d e n t i f i e d for i n c o r p o r a t i o n into the q u a n t i t a t i v e risk assessment.
Its use e n s u r e d that the baseline risk a s s e s s m e n t f o c u s e d on the
a p p r o p r i a t e chemicals for e v a l u a t i o n of site risks, and that the
c o n c l u s i o n s of the risk a s s e s s m e n t c o u l d be u t i l i z e d in the
F e a s i b i l i t y Study to d e f i n e a p p r o p r i a t e remedial o b j e c t i v e s for the
Site.
The p r i m a r y c o n s i d e r a t i o n in s e l e c t i n g the chemicals to be e v a l u a t e d

in this e x a m p l e RA was the relative t o x i c i t y of each of the d e t e c t e d
compounds. C o n s i s t e n t w i t h current risk a s s e s s m e n t g u i d a n c e [i], the
goal of the s e l e c t i o n p r o c e s s was to i d e n t i f y the c h e m i c a l s that were
r e s p o n s i b l e for 99 p e r c e n t of the risk at the Site. The s e l e c t i o n of
c h e m i c a l s was b a s e d on the analytical results of s a m p l i n g p e r f o r m e d
d u r i n g the Remedial I n v e s t i g a t i o n (RI) and a c o n c u r r e n t residential
s a m p l i n g program.
The f o l l o w i n g tasks were u n d e r t a k e n as part of the ~ e l e c t i o n process:
i. Data summaries were p r e p a r e d for each m e d i u m sampled;

2. A t o x i c i t y score was d e v e l o p e d for each chemical p o s i t i v e l y
d e t e c t e d in each medium;
3. The c h e m i c a l s were ranked a c c o r d i n g to their r e s p e c t i v e toxicity
scores;
4. S e c o n d a r y factors a f f e c t i n g a c h e m i c a l ' s s e l e c t i o n were evaluated;
5. The t o x i c o l o g y of TICs was evaluated; and
6. C h e m i c a l s of c o n c e r n were s e l e c t e d for analysis in the RA.
Each of these steps is d e s c r i b e d in the following subsections.
PREPARATION OF DATA SUMMARIES
Data sun~naries w e r e p r e p a r e d for each m e d i u m sampled. These m e d i a

included:
g r o u n d w a t e r from r e s i d e n t i a l wells,
o n - s i t e soils,
g r o u n d w a t e r f r o m on-site m o n i t o r i n g wells,
surface water, and
sediments.
F o l l o w i n g the c o l l e c t i o n and a n a l y s i s of the samples, the a n a l y t i c a l

results r e c e i v e d a q u a l i t y a s s u r a n c e validation. B e c a u s e of the
rigorous p r o t o c o l f o l l o w e d in the collection, analysis, and
validation, the data d e v e l o p e d d u r i n g these i n v e s t i g a t i o n s were all
c o n s i d e r e d to be a p p r o p r i a t e for initial c o n s i d e r a t i o n in the RA.
The data summaries i n c l u d e d only the chemicals that were p o s i t i v e l y

d e t e c t e d in one or m o r e of the samples in a given medium. Chemicals
that were d e t e c t e d in both sample blanks and in actual samples at
s i m i l a r c o n c e n t r a t i o n s were o m i t t e d from the data summaries. That is,
w h e r e the c o n c e n t r a t i o n in the soil sample was less than ten times the
c o n c e n t r a t i o n f o u n d in the sample blank, the r e p o r t e d c o n c e n t r a t i o n
was c o n s i d e r e d to be invalid, and the c o n s t i t u e n t was e x c l u d e d from
c o n s i d e r a t i o n in the risk assessment. This a p p r o a c h is c o n s i s t e n t
w i t h U S E P A p r o t o c o l s for e v a l u a t i o n of a n a l y t i c a l data to be u s e d in
risk a s s e s s m e n t s [l, 2]. These c o n s t i t u e n t s i n c l u d e d common l a b o r a t o r y
c o n t a m i n a n t s such as acetone and m e t h y l e n e chloride.
It s h o u l d be n o t e d that the s e l e c t i o n of the c h e m i c a l s of c o n c e r n was

b a s e d on data c o l l e c t e d in the RI u n d e r t a k e n by the P o t e n t i a l l y
R e s p o n s i b l e Parties. Data from split samples c o l l e c t e d and a n a l y z e d
by U S E P A were evaluated, but were not i n c l u d e d in the risk a s s e s s m e n t
c a l c u l a t i o n s b e c a u s e these data were i n t e n d e d for q u a l i t y a s s u r a n c e
p u r p o s e s only, to v a l i d a t e the s a m p l i n g c o n d u c t e d in the RI.
I n c l u s i o n of the split sample data w o u l d have b i a s e d the results to
those s a m p l i n g l o c a t i o n s where split samples were collected. It was
n o t e d that the results of the split sampling were g e n e r a l l y c o n s i s t e n t
w i t h the RI data.
For each medium, a brief d i s c u s s i o n follows which d e s c r i b e s the

p r i n c i p a l c o n t a m i n a n t s detected. A l t h o u g h this p a p e r will focus on
the chemical s e l e c t i o n for soils, it is important to u n d e r s t a n d the
c h e m i c a l s found in each m e d i u m in order to more e f f e c t i v e l y select the
c h e m i c a l s of c o n c e r n for the overall risk assessment. For this
reason, a brief d i s c u s s i o n of each of the media is presented. It
s h o u l d be n o t e d that, while c h e m i c a l s are s e l e c t e d s e p a r a t e l y for each
medium, an overall list of c h e m i c a l s of concern s h o u l d be d e v e l o p e d
for the risk assessment. D e t e c t i o n s of any of these chemicals are
then u s e d in the risk assessment calculations, r e g a r d l e s s of w h e t h e r
that chemical was s p e c i f i c a l l y s e l e c t e d for a g i v e n medium, thus
e n s u r i n g that the risks from m u l t i - m e d i a e x p o s u r e s are a c c u r a t e l y
assessed.
Off-site Ground Water/Resldential Wells
One of the p r i m a r y concerns at this Site was the p o t e n t i a l impact of

the Site on r e s i d e n t i a l wells in the vicinity. T r i c h l o r o e t h e n e (TCE)
and other v o l a t i l e organic c h e m i c a l s (VOCs) had b e e n r e p o r t e d in
several home wells near the Site. All residents who may have b e e n
a f f e c t e d by the Site had been p r o v i d e d with an a l t e r n a t e w a t e r supply
or an in-home w a t e r treatment system, and, thus, there was no known
r e s i d e n t i a l use of g r o u n d water in the v i c i n i t y of the Site. However,
for the p u r p o s e s of the b a s e l i n e RA, it was i m p o r t a n t to d i f f e r e n t i a t e
b e t w e e n the h y p o t h e t i c a l future uses of on-site g r o u n d w a t e r and
c u r r e n t use of o f f - s i t e g r o u n d water, since c e r t a i n n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l
e x p o s u r e s to o f f - s i t e g r o u n d w a t e r could still occur under c u r r e n t
conditions. Thus, these media (i.e., on-site g r o u n d water and off-
site g r o u n d water) were c o n s i d e r e d s e p a r a t e l y in the data analysis.
The r e s i d e n t i a l s a m p l i n g p r o g r a m for off-site g r o u n d water i n c l u d e d

b o t h r e s i d e n t i a l wells and springs. TCE was the most f r e q u e n t l y
d e t e c t e d compound. P e r c h l o r o e t h e n e (PCE) and c h l o r o f o r m had also been
c o n s i s t e n t l y d e t e c t e d in some wells.
On-Site Soils
Of the 27 soil b o r i n g samples c o l l e c t e d from o n - s i t e soils, only 5

w e r e taken f r o m the shallowest depth interval (0 - 0.6 m). These
s h a l l o w samples are the most critical to the b a s e l i n e RA since they
r e p r e s e n t the c o n c e n t r a t i o n s that human receptors w o u l d be likely to
e n c o u n t e r d u r i n g c o n d i t i o n s of no action at the Site. The c h e m i c a l s
most f r e q u e n t l y d e t e c t e d in the five shallow soil b o r i n g samples were
TCE, c h l o r i n a t e d benzenes, p o l y n u c l e a r aromatic h y d r o c a r b o n s (PAHs),
v a r i o u s p h t h a l a t e compounds, and 4,4'-DDE. Inorganic constituents
were all d e t e c t e d at c o n c e n t r a t i o n s that were w i t h i n the normal ranges
for soils in the e a s t e r n U n i t e d States [~]. However, b e c a u s e the RI
p e r f o r m e d for this site f o c u s e d on organic constituents, no data were
c o l l e c t e d to a c c u r a t e l y c h a r a c t e r i z e the range of i n o r g a n i c
c o n s t i t u e n t c o n c e n t r a t i o n s found in b a c k g r o u n d soils. This l i m i t a t i o n
is d i s c u s s e d f u r t h e r in the C o n c l u s i o n s section.
D i o x i n s a m p l i n g r e v e a l e d trace levels of d i o x i n and furan c o m p o u n d s at

c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of less than 25 p g / k g T C D D - e q u i v a l e n t s . The
o c t a c h l o r i n a t e d d i b e n z o d i o x i n was the most p r e v a l e n t c o n g e n e r and
p r e s e n t in o n - s i t e soils at less than off-site b a c k g r o u n d
concentrations.
V a d o s e zone s a m p l i n g i n d i c a t e d that, in some borings, c o n t a m i n a n t s

have m i g r a t e d to significant depths. AS in the s h a l l o w e r soil b o r i n g
samples, PAHs were among the d o m i n a n t chemicals detected. The GC
f i n g e r p r i n t analyses i n d i c a t e d that the unknown compounds were
p r i m a r i l y composed of w e a t h e r e d p e t r o l e u m products.
Ground Water/On-site M o n i t o r i n a Wells
G r o u n d w a t e r at the Site is p r i m a r i l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d by low

c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of TCE. High c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of TCE and several semi-
v o l a t i l e o r g a n i c chemicals (SVOCs) were d e t e c t e d in only one well
cluster. The SVOCs i n c l u d e d PAHs and phenolic compounds.
Surface Water
NO v o l a t i l e or s e m i v o l a t i l e o r g a n i c chemicals were d e t e c t e d in the

s u r f a c e w a t e r samples c o l l e c t e d d u r i n g the RI. I n o r g a n i c analyses
p e r f o r m e d as part of the RI did not reveal the p r e s e n c e of any site-
r e l a t e d c o n t a m i n a t i o n and the RI report c o n c l u d e d that there was no
i n d i c a t i o n that c o n t a m i n a n t s a s s o c i a t e d with the Site had a f f e c t e d the
s t r e a m d r a i n a g e n e t w o r k adjacent to the Site. It a p p e a r e d as if
s t e a d y - s t a t e c o n d i t i o n s had o c c u r r e d r e g a r d i n g future off-site
migration. Therefore, exposures a s s o c i a t e d w i t h surface water w e r e
not c o n s i d e r e d f u r t h e r in the RA.
Sediments
C h l o r o f o r m and t o l u e n e were d e t e c t e d in several sediment samples at

low c o n c e n t r a t i o n s (less than i0 ~g/kg). In addition, bis (2-
ethylhexyl) p h t h a l a t e and three PAH compounds were detected, also at
low c o n c e n t r a t i o n s (less than I00 ~g/kg). C o n c e n t r a t i o n s of the
f r e q u e n t l y d e t e c t e d inorganic c o n s t i t u e n t s were g e n e r a l l y at or n e a r
b a c k g r o u n d levels. Again, the RI report c o n c l u d e d that there was no
i n d i c a t i o n that c o n t a m i n a n t s a s s o c i a t e d with the Site had a f f e c t e d the
s t r e a m d r a i n a g e n e t w o r k adjacent to the Site, and e x p o s u r e s a s s o c i a t e d
with s e d i m e n t s were not c o n s i d e r e d further in the RA.
It was n o t e d that, in their split samples, U S E P A d e t e c t e d the

f o l l o w i n g compounds in a single sample: 4,4'-DDE at 29 ~g/kg, 4-
m e t h y l p h e n o l at 85 ~g/kg, f l u o r a n t h e n e at 56 ~g/kg, and bis(2-
e t h y l h e x y l ) p h t h a l a t e at 79 ~g/kg. The p r e s e n c e of these c o n s t i t u e n t s
was not c o n f i r m e d in the c o r r e s p o n d i n g sample c o l l e c t e d as part of the
RI. C o n s i s t e n t with the h a n d l i n g of the split data in the RI Report,
these data were not i n t e g r a t e d with the data u s e d in the RA, in an
e f f o r t to ensure the v a l i d i t y and c o n s i s t e n c y of the data base on
w h i c h the a s s e s s m e n t was founded. However, it was not felt that these
data w o u l d have a l t e r e d the s e l e c t i o n of the c h e m i c a l s of concern even
if t h e y had been included, b e c a u s e of the low c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in w h i c h
the c h e m i c a l s were reported. Also, it was n o t e d that these chemicals
may have a wide v a r i e t y of sources and were not u n i q u e l y
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of this Site.
DEVELOPMENT OF TOXICITY SCORES/CHEMICAL RANKING
For e a c h m e d i u m c o n s i d e r e d in the b a s e l i n e RA (off-site g r o u n d water,

s h a l l o w soils, and on-site g r o u n d water), a t o x i c i t y s c o r i n g a p p r o a c h
was u s e d to i d e n t i f y the chemicals that represent 99 p e r c e n t of the
risk a s s o c i a t e d with p o t e n t i a l exposure. This i n v o l v e d the
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a p p r o p r i a t e indices of t o x i c i t y for each chemical
p o s i t i v e l y d e t e c t e d in a medium. The p r i m a r y source for these indices
was U S E P A ' s I n t e g r a t e d Risk I n f o r m a t i o n System (IRIS). Where indices
were not a v a i l a b l e in IRIS, the H e a l t h Effects A s s e s s m e n t Summary
Tables (HEAST) were consulted. For chemicals where no t o x i c i t y
i n f o r m a t i o n was a v a i l a b l e from these sources, a review was p e r f o r m e d
to i d e n t i f y a p p r o p r i a t e indices, b a s e d on s t r u c t u r e a c t i v i t y
r e l a t i o n s h i p s or s u p p l e m e n t a l t o x i c i t y studies. For some c h e m i c a l s
(for example, aluminum) there were i n s u f f i c i e n t data for p e r f o r m i n g
q u a n t i t a t i v e risk a s s e s s m e n t s at the time this work was performed.
For o t h e r c h e m i c a l s (for example, lead), there were i n t e r i m r e g u l a t o r y
m o r a t o r i a on their i n c o r p o r a t i o n into q u a n t i t a t i v e risk assessmens

(With r e g a r d to lead, it was r e c o g n i z e d the other m e t h o d s w e r e
available, such as the U S E P A L e a d U p t a k e / B i o k i n e t i c Model, for
a s s e s s i n g the p o t e n t i a l risks a s s o c i a t e d w i t h specific e x p o s u r e
conditions). Such chemicals were n e c e s s a r i l y e x c l u d e d f r o m the
s c o r i n g process. However, these l i m i t a t i o n s were a d d r e s s e d in the
u n c e r t a i n t i e s s u r r o u n d i n g the s e l e c t i o n of the c h e m i c a l s of concern.
The t o x i c i t y i n d i c e s were s u m m a r i z e d for the c h e m i c a l s r e p o r t e d in

e a c h medium, t o g e t h e r with the average and m a x i m u m c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of
the c h e m i c a l s detected. T o x i c i t y scores (TS) were c a l c u l a t e d for each
chemical, a c c o r d i n g to the f o l l o w i n g formulas Ill:
For carcinogens:
TS = C o n c e n t r a t i o n x carcinogenic potency factor (CPF)
For n o n c a r c i n o g e n s :
TS = C o n c e n t r a t i o n / R e f e r e n c e Dose (RfD)
This m e t h o d of c a l c u l a t i o n is c o n s i s t e n t with the m e t h o d s u s e d to

c h a r a c t e r i z e p o t e n t i a l risks [i]. T w o s c o r e s were c a l c u l a t e d for each
constituent, one b a s e d on the m a x i m u m c o n c e n t r a t i o n and one b a s e d on
the average concentration.
A f t e r the t o x i c i t y scores had been d e v e l o p e d for each chemical, the

c h e m i c a l s in each m e d i u m were ranked a c c o r d i n g to their e s t i m a t e d
toxicity. C a r c i n o g e n s and n o n c a r c i n o g e n s were r a n k e d separately. In
e a c h ranking, the chemicals r e p r e s e n t i n g less than 1 p e r c e n t and less
than 5 p e r c e n t of the risk score were identified.
R a n k i n g s were a l s o d o n e s e p a r a t e l y for the scores c a l c u l a t e d using

m a x i m u m c o n c e n t r a t i o n s and the scores c a l c u l a t e d using a v e r a g e
concentrations. The two sets of scores were compared, and the same
c o n s t i t u e n t s in each set were found to c o n t r i b u t e most s i g n i f i c a n t l y
to the total scores, and, hence, to the total p o t e n t i a l risk.
This a p p r o a c h is g e n e r a l l y c o n s i s t e n t with the m e t h o d s u g g e s t e d by

U S E P A [l], with the f o l l o w i n g notes:
Separate scores were c a l c u l a t e d for c a r c i n o g e n s and

n o n c a r c i n o g e n s , thus p e r m i t t i n g more d e t a i l e d e v a l u a t i o n of b o t h
c a r c i n o g e n i c and n o n c a r c i n o g e n i c risks; this a p p r o a c h avoids any
bias t o w a r d s e l e c t i o n of n o n c a r c i n o g e n i c c o n s t i t u e n t s w h e n can
occur w h e n both c a r c i n o g e n i c and n o n c a r c i n o g e n i c c h e m i c a l s are
r a n k e d together;
T o x i c i t y scores were c a l c u l a t e d using b o t h m a x i m u m and average

concentrations, and the chemical rankings were compared; this
a s s u r e d that any c o n s t i t u e n t s which were found p e r s i s t e n t l y , even
at r e l a t i v e l y low concentrations, w o u l d be given a p p r o p r i a t e
c o n s i d e r a t i o n and w o u l d not be o m i t t e d in favor of a c o n s t i t u e n t
w i t h s i m i l a r t o x i c i t y that was found i n f r e q u e n t l y but at a higher
concentration; and
U t i l i z i n g the t o x i c i t y s c o r i n g approach as an initial screen

p r o v i d e d a way of d e v e l o p i n g a more m a n a g e a b l e data set, while
still h e l p i n g to e n s u r e that c o n s t i t u e n t s were not i n a p p r o p r i a t e l y

e x c l u d e d f r o m the q u a n t i t a t i v e risk assessment.
A toxic e q u i v a l e n c y p r o c e d u r e was used to d e v e l o p c o n c e n t r a t i o n s for

two groups of compounds: d i o x i n s / f u r a n s and PAHs. In this procedure,
toxic e q u i v a l e n c y factors are a p p l i e d to each chemical m e m b e r of the
group to e s t i m a t e its e q u i v a l e n t c o n c e n t r a t i o n as a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e
chemical of that group. For dioxins/furans, the c o n c e n t r a t i o n of each
c o n g e n e r is r e p r e s e n t e d as a c o n c e n t r a t i o n of 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) [~]; for PAHs, the
c o n c e n t r a t i o n of each of the c a r c i n o g e n i c PAH c o m p o u n d s is r e p r e s e n t e d
as a c o n c e n t r a t i o n that is t o x i c o l o g i c a l l y e q u i v a l e n t to
b e n z o ( a ) p y r e n e [~]. The sum of the e q u i v a l e n t c o n c e n t r a t i o n s was u s e d
in d e v e l o p i n g the t o x i c i t y score for each group of chemicals.
EVALUATION OF OTHER FACTORS
B e c a u s e of the number of c h e m i c a l s present in each medium, other

factors were also c o n s i d e r e d prior to the final s e l e c t i o n of chemicals
of concern. These factors included:
f r e q u e n c y of detection,
c o m p a r i s o n of c o n c e n t r a t i o n to other criteria, i n c l u d i n g normal
c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in soil and MCLs in g r o u n d water, and
p r e s e n c e in only one medium.
Table 1 s u m m a r i z e s the results of these c o m p a r i s o n s for soils.
DEGRADATION PRODUCTS
In some cases, organic c h e m i c a l s can be d e g r a d e d in the e n v i r o n m e n t to

m o r e toxic products. For example, under a n a e r o b i c conditions, TCE, a
Class B2 Carcinogen, may d e g r a d e to vinyl chloride (monochloroethene),
a Class A carcinogen. Chief among the r e q u i s i t e c o n d i t i o n s for
d e g r a d a t i o n of TCE to vinyl chloride is the p r e s e n c e of m e t h a n o g e n i c
bacteria. The c o n d i t i o n s and waste m a t e r i a l s found at the Site did
not indicate that the p r e s e n c e of these b a c t e r i a was l i k e l y (lack of
methane, lack of a d e q u a t e h y d r o c a r b o n source for the support of
b a c t e r i a l growth); hence, the d e g r a d a t i o n of TCE was not b e l i e v e d to
be of concern. This a s s u m p t i o n was s u p p o r t e d by the m o n i t o r i n g data
for soils and g r o u n d water which i n d i c a t e d that vinyl c h l o r i d e was not
p r e s e n t in q u a n t i f i a b l e concentrations.
ANALYSIS OF TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
A l s o prior to the final s e l e c t i o n of the c h e m i c a l s of concern, a

review was m a d e of the t e n t a t i v e l y i d e n t i f i e d cnmpounds (TICs) and
c o m p o u n d classes r e p o r t e d for samples from each medium. The
a n a l y t i c a l data i n d i c a t e d that the TICs were c o m p o s e d p r i m a r i l y of
u n k n o w n hydrocarbons; these were b e l i e v e d to be w e a t h e r e d h y d r o c a r b o n
products, b a s e d on the results of subsequent GC f i n g e r p r i n t analyses.
No TICs were s e l e c t e d for i n c l u s i o n in the RA because, after being
s c r u t i n i z e d for p o t e n t i a l a d v e r s e human h e a l t h effects, none of the
TICs a p p e a r e d to possess a high toxicity. Hence, this risk a s s e s s m e n t
TABLE i
Justification for ChemLical D a t a Set S e l e c t i o n (Soils)
L e s s Than 5% Low Detection Within Normal Essential P r e s e n t In Only
C c ~ d * of Total R i s k Fre~uenc~ R a n g e ** Nutrient One M e d i u m
acenaphthene Y(<5%) 2 /5 NA NA Y
acenaphthylene Y(<I%) 2 /5 NA NA Y
anthracene Y(<I%) 4 /5 NA NA Y
benzene Y(<I%) Y(I /4) NA NA N
benzo(a)pyrene equivalent N N A NA NA Y
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Y(<5%) 4 /5 NA NA N
butylbenzylphthalate Y(<I%) 3 /5 NA NA Y
chlorobenzene Y(<I%) 3 /5 NA NA N
--I
chlorofo]~n. Y(<I%) Y(I /5) NA NA N
rrl
4-chloro-3-methylphenol Y(<I%) Y(I /5) NA NA N m
4,4'-DDE N 4 /5 NA NA Y
-I
m
di-n-butylphthalate Y(<I%) 2 /5 NA NA Y
dl-n-octylphthalate Y(<I%) 3 /5 NA NA Y m
-I
dlbenzofuran Y(<I%) 2 /5 NA NA Y
1,2-dichlorobenzene Y(<I%) Y(I /5 NA NA N .t-
1,4-dlchlorobenzene Y(<I%) Y(I /5) NA NA N
O
1,2-dichloroethane Y(<I%) Y(I /5) NA NA N Z
1,2-dlchloroethene (total) Y(<I%) Y(I /5) NA NA N 0
2,4-r Y(<5%) Y(I /5) NA NA N -r
m
1,2-dichloropropane Y(<I%) Y(I /5) NA NA N
ethylbenzene Y(<I%) 2 /5 NA NA N
fluozlulthene Y(<5%) 4 /5 NA NA Y r-
fluorene Y(<5%) 2 /5 NA NA Y Go
heptachlor epoxide Y(<5%) Y(I /5) NA NA Y 0
-rl
2-m~thylnaphthalene Y(<5%) 3 /5 NA NA N
0
0
Notes: Z
Y - Yes; N - No 0
m
N A - NOt Applicable, since a p p r o p r i a t e toxicity data were not a v a i l a b l e for c a l c u l a t i o n of toxicity score
* - Co~pounds in b o l d have been s e l e c t e d as chemicals of concern. z
** - Reference [2].
On
TABLE 1, continued (~
Justification for Chaai~Atl Data Sat Selection (Soils) C0
Less Than 5% Low Detection Within Normal Essential Present In Only
0")
C(~mound * of Total Risk Fre~uen~ R a n g e ** Nutrient One M~dlum C
"0
m
4-methyl-2-pentanone Y(<I%) Y(I /5) NA NA N
"rl
n-nltrosodiphenylamine Y(<I%) Y(I /5) NA NA Y C
naphthalene Y(<5%) 3 /5 NA NA N Z
0
phenanthrene Y(<5%) 4 /5 NA NA Y
=0
phenol Y(<I%) 2 /5 NA NA N
O9
styrene Y(<I%) Y(I /5) NA NA N ~K
tetraohloroethene Y(<I%) 2 /5 NA NA N >
toluene Y(<I%) Y(I /5) NA NA N GO
GO
total x y l e n e s Y(<I%) Y(I /5) NA NA N m
O9
1,2,4-trichloro~)enzene N 4 /5 NA NA Y GO
l,l,l-trichloroethane Y(<I%) Y(I /5) NA NA N
rT1
triahloroethene N 4 /5 NA NA N Z
--I
aluminum NA 5 /5 Y N N
arsenic N 5 /5 Y N N
~ari~m N 5 /5 Y N N
calcium NA Y(I /i) Y Y N
chza~i~m~ N 5 /5 Y N N
copper NA 2 /2 Y Y N
iron NA 5 /5 Y Y N
lead NA 5 /5 Y N N
magnesium NA 2 /2 Y Y N
manganese Y(<I%) 5 /5 Y N N
mercury Y(<I%) Y(I /5) Y N Y
nickel Y(<I%) 3 /5 Y N Y
silver Y(<I%) Y(I /5) Y N Y
vanactium Y(<5%) 5 /5 Y N Y
zinc Y(<I%) 5 /5 Y N N
cyanide Y(<I%) Y(I /5) NA N Y
Notes:
Y - Yes; N - N o
NA - Not Applicable, since a p p r o p r i a t e t o x i c i t y d a t a w e r e not a v a i l a b l e for c a l c u l a t i o n of t o x i c i t y s c o r e
* - C o m p o u n d s in b o l d h a v e b e e n s e l e c t e d as c h e m i c a l s of concern.
"* - R e f e r e n c e [2].
was l i m i t e d to those a c c u r a t e l y i d e n t i f i e d compounds for w h i c h

t o x i c i t y i n d i c e s were a v a i l a b l e from routine sources.
FINAL SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF CONCERN
Table 2 s u m m a r i z e s the c h e m i c a l s s e l e c t e d as b e i n g of c o n c e r n in the

RA; these c o n s t i t u e n t s were then c a r r i e d t h r o u g h the q u a n t i t a t i v e risk
assessment. The basis for final s e l e c t i o n of c h e m i c a l s in each m e d i u m
is d i s c u s s e d in the f o l l o w i n g sections.
TABLE 2
Chemicals of Concern
MetalA ~ PAHs Other Oraanies
Arsenic BCEE* Acenaphthene 4,4'-DDE

Barium Chlorobenzene Anthracene 2,4-Dichlorophenol
Beryllium Chloroform Benzo(a)pyrene** Heptachlor epoxide
Chromium TCE Fluoranthene 1,2,4-Trichloro-
Manganese PCE Fluorene benzene
Vanadium Naphthalene Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
Zinc 2-Methylnaphthalene phthalate
Phenanthrene
*Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
**And toxic e q u i v a l e n t s
Off-site Ground Water/Residential Wells
All c h e m i c a l s c o n t r i b u t i n g m o r e than 1 p e r c e n t to the risk score were

s e l e c t e d for i n c l u s i o n in the RA, with the e x c e p t i o n of c i s - and
trans-l,3-dichloropropene and b r o m o d i c h l o r o m e t h a n e . A l t h o u g h the two
d i c h l o r o p r o p e n e isomers were responsible for the largest p o r t i o n of
the risk score a c c o r d i n g to the scoring procedure, they were o m i t t e d
f r o m the analysis for the f o l l o w i n g reasons:
their v e r y low f r e q u e n c y of d e t e c t i o n (i out of 177 samples for

each), and
t h e i r p r e s e n c e in only one medium.
Bromodlchloromethane was omitted f o r the same reasons.
There is no e v i d e n c e that these chemicals are r e l a t e d to Site

contamination, nor are they thought to be d e g r a d a t i o n ' p r o d u c t s of any
Site contaminants. In fact, it is likely that the p r e s e n c e of
d i c h l o r o p r o p e n e in the single sample r e f l e c t e d an o f f - s i t e source or
o c c u r r e d as a result of sample contamination.
On-Site Soils
AS shown in Table i, all c o n s t i t u e n t s c o n t r i b u t i n g to m o r e than 1

p e r c e n t of the total risk were s e l e c t e d for i n c l u s i o n in the risk
assessment. In addition, m a n g a n e s e a n d zinc w e r e s e l e c t e d f r o m the
i n o r g a n i c s b e c a u s e these c o n s t i t u e n t s were found in all soil samples
as well as in other media. Anthracene, a PAH, was s e l e c t e d in order
to m a k e the e v a l u a t i o n of p e t r o l e u m h y d r o c a r b o n s as c o m p l e t e as
possible. Finally, chloroform, PCE, and c h l o r o b e n z e n e were s e l e c t e d
b e c a u s e these c o m p o u n d s were c o n s i s t e n t l y found in all m e d i a and were
r e s p o n s i b l e for large portions of the total risk in these m e d i a (i.e.,
o f f - s i t e and o n - s i t e g r o u n d water).
Risk a s s e s s m e n t s for p o l y c h l o r i n a t e d d i b e n z o d i o x i n s and lead in on-

site soils were not c o n d u c t e d for the f o l l o w i n g reasons. The U S E P A
has s u g g e s t e d s i t e - s p e c i f i c action g u i d e l i n e s for soils which are
c o n t a m i n a t e d by p o l y c h l o r i n a t e d d i b e n z o d i o x i n s (PCDDs) and
d i b e n z o f u r a n s (PCDFs). These g u i d e l i n e s were e x p r e s s e d for
t e t r a c h l o r i n a t e d d i b e n z o d i o x i n (TCDD) in r e s i d e n t i a l soils and i n c l u d e
1 p p b for Times Beach, MO, and 5 ppb for Newark, NJ. In this R i s k
A s s e s s m e n t Report, all PCDDs and PCDFs were c o n v e r t e d to 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 - T C D D
e q u i v a l e n t s u t i l i z i n g the i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o n v e r s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s
a d o p t e d by U S E P A in 1988 [~]. N o n e of the soil samples are
c o n t a m i n a t e d w i t h T C D D - e q u i v a l e n t s a m o u n t i n g to m o r e than 1/40th of
the m o s t stringent U S E P A g u i d e l i n e s and, hence, by this c r i t e r i o n are
not subject to f u r t h e r r e T u l a t o r y scrutiny. Therefore,
p o l y c h l o r i n a t e d d i b e n z o d i o x i n s or d i b e n z o f u r a n s were not i n c l u d e d in
the list of c h e m i c a l s of c o n c e r n at the Site.
W i t h r e g a r d to lead, it should be n o t e d that, at the time the RA was

p e r f o r m e d (early 1990), lead could not be e v a l u a t e d for p o t e n t i a l
h e a l t h risks using the s t a n d a r d risk a s s e s s m e n t p r o c e d u r e s d e s c r i b e d
in U S E P A ' s Risk A s s e s s m e n t G u i d a n c e for SuDerfund [i]. For this
reason, l e a d was not c a r r i e d t h r o u g h the q u a n t i t a t i v e p o r t i o n of the
RA. A l t h o u g h it was clear that lead has p r o f o u n d a d v e r s e h e a l t h
e f f e c t s upon d e v e l o p i n g central nervous and h e m a t o p o i e t i c systems in
p r e s c h o o l children, at the time the RA was p e r f o r m e d the U S E P A was
r e v i s i n g its t o x i c i t y indices for lead. In addition, although U S E P A
c o n s i d e r s lead a Class B2 carcinogen, no c a r c i n o g e n i c p o t e n c y factors
had b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d from which to c a l c u l a t e p o t e n t i a l risk. In the
interim, until r e f e r e n c e doses were available, a c t i o n levels for soil
were to be c o n s i d e r e d within the range of 500-1000 m g / k g [~], and, in
this RA, e v a l u a t i o n of lead was l i m i t e d to a c o m p a r i s o n of r e p o r t e d
levels with these a c t i o n levels. It should be n o t e d that, b e c a u s e of
the high degree of t o x i c i t y a s s o c i a t e d with e x p o s u r e to lead and
b e c a u s e of the p o t e n t i a l c a r c i n o g e n i c impacts r e l a t e d to this metal,
U S E P A was a c t i v e l y r e c o n s i d e r i n g the p r o t e c t i v e n e s s of this
r e m e d i a t i o n level.
Ground Water/On-site Monitoring W~lls
All c h e m i c a l s r e s p o n s i b l e for g r e a t e r than one p e r c e n t of the risk

score were i n c l u d e d in the RA with the e x c e p t i o n of 4 - m e t h y l - 2 -
p e n t a n o n e and 2-chlorophenol. 4 - M e t h y l - 2 - p e n t a n o n e was o m i t t e d
b e c a u s e it c o n t r i b u t e d to only s l i g h t l y more than one percent of the
risk score while 2 - c h l o r o p h e n c l was o m i t t e d b e c a u s e of its low
f r e q u e n c y of d e t e c t i o n and its p r e s e n c e in only one medium. Again,
several c o m p o u n d s (for example, c h l o r o b e n z e n e and DEHP) were i n c l u d e d
even t h o u g h they only c o n t r i b u t e d less than one p e r c e n t of the risk
score b e c a u s e of their presence in more than one medium.
UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SELECTION
Several sources of u n c e r t a i n t y were a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the s e l e c t i o n of

c h e m i c a l s e v a l u a t e d in the RA. These u n c e r t a i n t i e s were c o n s i d e r e d in
r e l a t i o n to two g e n e r a l categories: uncertainties connected with
t o x i c i t y data u s e d in the s e l e c t i o n process, and u n c e r t a i n t i e s
a s s o c i a t e d with the sampling data. These sources of u n c e r t a i n t y
relate d i r e c t l y to the basis on w h i c h the c h e m i c a l s were selected.
M o r e generally, these u n c e r t a i n t i e s also have i m p l i c a t i o n s for the
results of the b a s e l i n e RA. These u n c e r t a i n t i e s and their impact on
the s e l e c t i o n p r o c e s s are d i s c u s s e d below.
T o x i c i t y Data
M a n y factors affect the v a l i d i t y and accuracy of the t o x i c i t y data

u s e d to select the chemicals of concern. A m o n g t h e m are:
9 sources of the t o x i c i t y data,

9 e x t r a p o l a t i o n of animal t o x i c i t y data to human exposures, and
9 a p p l i c a t i o n of safety and u n c e r t a i n t y factors to the d e v e l o p m e n t
of t o x i c i t y indices.
In general, these sources of u n c e r t a i n t y serve to y i e l d e s t i m a t e s of

t o x i c i t y that are conservative; that is, the actual t o x i c i t y of a
chemical is likely to be less than the value i n d i c a t e d by its t o x i c i t y
index and its t o x i c i t y score. However, b e c a u s e the d e v e l o p m e n t of
t o x i c i t y indices is usually p e r f o r m e d i n d e p e n d e n t l y for each chemical,
the c o m p a r i s o n of t o x i c i t y indices and t o x i c i t y scores for a set of
c h e m i c a l s may result in an e r r o n e o u s ranking. For example, if
d i f f e r e n t safety factors are a p p l i e d in the d e v e l o p m e n t of reference
doses for two chemicals, it may be d i f f i c u l t to d i s t i n g u i s h w h i c h
chemical is a c t u a l l y more toxic at a given concentration.
S a m D l i n a Data
The other m a j o r source of u n c e r t a i n t y in the s e l e c t i o n of c h e m i c a l s of

c o n c e r n is the a n a l y t i c a l data upon which the s e l e c t i o n is based. In
this RA, this l i m i t a t i o n was e s p e c i a l l y critical for the soil data,
where only five s h a l l o w samples were collected. (These shallow soil
samples are the m o s t a p p r o p r i a t e for c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the p o t e n t i a l
risks a s s o c i a t e d w i t h exposure in a b a s e l i n e RA.) This l i m i t a t i o n was
mitigated, to some extent, by a review of the a n a l y t i c a l data for the
d e e p e r soil samples c o l l e c t e d as part of the RI. These data i n d i c a t e d
that s i m i l a r chemicals, d e t e c t e d at similar f r e q u e n c i e s and in similar
concentrations, were reported in both shallow and deep samples. This
r e l a t i o n s h i p i n c r e a s e d the c o n f i d e n c e that no c o n s t i t u e n t s found in
s h a l l o w samples h a d been i n a p p r o p r i a t e l y e x c l u d e d from the b a s e l i n e
RA.
An a d d i t i o n a l source of u n c e r t a i n t y concerns the m e t h o d u s e d to

i d e n t i f y w h i c h soil samples were analyzed. B e c a u s e VOCs were
a n t i c i p a t e d to be the p r i m a r y chemicals of concern, the RI Scope of
W o r k r e q u i r e d the c o l l e c t i o n of a soil sample in each b o r i n g f r o m the
depth interval w i t h the m a x i m u m OVA (organic v a p o r analyzer) h e a d s p a c e
reading. This m e a n t that samples with m a x i m u m v o l a t i l e c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
were chosen for analysis, while samples with lower c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of
v o l a t i l e s were not analyzed. Hence, the a n a l y s i s of chemical
c o n c e n t r a t i o n s was not b a s e d on a r a n d o m set of samples, but on a

sample set w h i c h was s k e w e d t o w a r d h i g h e r levels of VOCs. It is not
known w h e t h e r the c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of VOCs and other
c o n s t i t u e n t s was p o s i t i v e or negative, or w h e t h e r there was no
relationship. This i n t r o d u c e d a source of u n c e r t a i n t y into the
s e l e c t i o n process. For example, a specific SVOC c o m p o u n d may have
b e e n f o u n d i n f r e q u e n t l y in a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h VOCs in soils, but was a
common c o n t a m i n a n t in areas of soil not a f f e c t e d by V O C contamination.
Such a c o n s t i t u e n t may have been i n a p p r o p r i a t e l y o m i t t e d from the
b a s e l i n e RA, b a s e d on the low r e p o r t e d f r e q u e n c y of detection. This
source of u n c e r t a i n t y was not e x p e c t e d to be significant b e c a u s e
i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g h i s t o r i c a l o p e r a t i o n s at the Site s u g g e s t e d that
the p r i m a r y wastes were c o m p o s e d of VOCs.
S i m i l a r u n c e r t a i n t y also exists with r e g a r d to the a n a l y t i c a l data

c o l l e c t e d for the r e s i d e n t i a l wells. B e c a u s e the m a j o r i t y of the
a n a l y s e s of off-site g r o u n d water were p e r f o r m e d for V O C c o n s t i t u e n t s
only, the RA was n e c e s s a r i l y c o n s t r a i n e d in the c h e m i c a l s which it
c o n s i d e r e d for this medium. A l t h o u g h the l i m i t e d data a v a i l a b l e d i d
not suggest that s e m i v o l a t i l e compounds were present in significant
c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in r e s i d e n t i a l wells, the lack of data c h a r a c t e r i z i n g
SVOC c o n s t i t u e n t s in off-site g r o u n d water represents a n o t h e r source
of u n c e r t a i n t y r e l a t e d to the selection of chemicals to be i n c l u d e d in
the KA.
CONCLUSIONS
As i l l u s t r a t e d by this case study, care is r e q u i r e d in i d e n t i f y i n g the

s i t e - r e l a t e d c h e m i c a l s which may present a p o t e n t i a l risk under
b a s e l i n e conditions. This p a p e r s u m m a r i z e s an e x a m p l e risk a s s e s s m e n t
in w h i c h there were over 50 c o n s t i t u e n t s r e p o r t e d in soil and g r o u n d
w a t e r samples. M a n y of these c o n s t i t u e n t s were found i n f r e q u e n t l y or
at v e r y low concentrations. In order to d e v e l o p a m a n a g e a b l e and
cogent list of chemicals of concern, a d e t a i l e d s e l e c t i o n process was
implemented. This p r o c e s s g e n e r a l l y f o l l o w e d g u i d e l i n e s s u g g e s t e d by
U S E P A for s e l e c t i o n of chemicals of c o n c e r n in a b a s e l i n e RA [i].
However, it differs in several respects:
A t o x i c i t y s c o r i n g p r o c e s s was used as the initial screen in

e s t a b l i s h i n g the p o t e n t i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n to total risk r e p r e s e n t e d
by each constituent, and in d e v e l o p i n g a more m a n a g e a b l e chemical
data set on which to base the RA;
B o t h m a x i m u m and average chemical c o n c e n t r a t i o n s were use~ to

d e v e l o p t o x i c i t y scores and to rank the chemicals a c c o r d i n g to
t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n to potential s i t e - r e l a t e d risk; and
Carcinogenic and n o n c a r c i n o g e n i c constituents were e v a l u a t e d

separately.
F r o m this discussion, the f o l l o w i n g o b s e r v a t i o n s may be made:
D e v e l o p m e n t of a complete list of c h e m i c a l s of c o n c e r n for

d e v e l o p m e n t of a b a s e l i n e RA requires careful e v a l u a t i o n of
c h e m i c a l s r e p o r t e d in all media, in order that m u l t i - m e d i a
e x p o s u r e s are p r o p e r l y evaluated;
A l t h o u g h not an issue in this e x a m p l e RA, d e g r a d a t i o n products a n d

TICs may also represent chemicals of concern, and e v a l u a t i o n of
these is an important step in the selection process; and
E s s e n t i a l to all steps of the RA process is a d i s c u s s i o n of the

u n c e r t a i n t i e s surrounding the enterprise, in order to place the
results of the work in their p r o p e r context.
One final comment can be m a d e regarding the importance of using

a p p r o p r i a t e b a c k g r o u n d data to support the selection of inorganic
c o n t a m i n a n t s of concern. Because of the m a t e r i a l s known to be h a n d l e d
and d i s p o s e d at this Site, the i n v e s t i g a t i o n focused on VOCs, and
there was no d e t a i l e d c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of b a c k g r o u n d soil quality.
Thus, there were no data which could be used to d e v e l o p a valid
statistical analysis of the ranges of inorganic c o n s t i t u e n t s e x p e c t e d
to be found in on-site soils. In the absence of such an analysis, the
i n o r g a n i c constituents were carried t h r o u g h the t o x i c i t y scoring
process, a n d inorganics found to contribute s i g n i f i c a n t l y to the
overall p o t e n t i a l risk were included in the RA, regardless of w h e t h e r
they were found at b a c k g r o u n d levels or not. It should be e m p h a s i z e d
that this is not the p r e f e r r e d approach, and that adequate
c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n and statistical analysis of b a c k g r o u n d soil quality
is of p a r a m o u n t importance in many site investigations. E s p e c i a l l y in
soils, where the h e t e r o g e n e o u s nature of the m e d i u m can cause
significant v a r i a b i l i t y in constituent concentrations, v a l i d
b a c k g r o u n d data are vital to the d e v e l o p m e n t of a sound and m e a n i n g f u l
risk assessment.
REFERENCES
[i] USEPA. Risk Assessment Guidance for SuDerfund. Volume i. Human

Health Evaluation Manual (EPA/540/I-89/002). office of Emergency
and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C., 1989.
[2] USEPA. Laboratory Data Validation Functional Guidelines for

Evaluatin~ Oruanics Analysis. Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, Washington, D.C., 1988.
C3] Shacklette, H.T. and Boerngen, J.G. Element Concentrations in

Soils and Other SurfiGial Materials of the Conterminous United
States, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1270, United
States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1984.
[4] USEPA. Interim Procedures for Estimatin~ Risks Associated with

Exposures to Mixtures Qf r Dibenzo-p-dioxins and
Dibenzofurans (EPA/625/3-89/016). Washington, D.C., 1989.
[5] Clement Associates, Inc. Comparative Potency Approach for

Estimatin~ Cancer Risk Associated with Exposure to Mixtures of
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons/Interim Final Report. Prepared
by ICF-Clement Associates, Fairfax, VA, April 1988.
[6] USEPA. Memorandum from H.L. Longest, II and B. Diamond to

Directors, Waste Management Division, regarding Interim Guidance
on Establishing Soil Lead Cleanup Levels at Superfund Sites, OSWER
Directive #9355.4-02, September 7, 1989.
Dennis L. Corwin 1
A User-Friendly, Contaminant Transport Software Package for

the Preliminary Assessment of Soil a n d G r o u n d w a t e r
Contamination: An Overview of T E T r a n s
REFERENCE: Corwin, D. L., "A User-Friendly, Contaminant Transport

Software Package for the Preliminary Assessment of Soil and
Groundwater Contamination: An Overview of TETrans," Superfund
Risk Assessment in Soil Contamination Studies. ASTM STP I158,
Keith B. Hoddinott, Editor, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, 1992.
ABSTRACT: An overview of the work by Corwin and coworkers (Corwin

1991, 1992; Corwin and Waggoner 1991a, 1991b; Corwin et al. 1991, 1992)
is presented for the contaminant transport software package TETrans.
The overview discusses past published work as well as unpublished data.
Included in the overview is a discussion of the reasons for TETrans'
development, verification of its predictive capability, sensitiviity
analysis, its ability to model preferential flow, its strengths and
limitations, and potential future modifications.
TETrans (acronym for ~race ~lement Transport), is a one-
dimensional, functional model of solute transport through the vadose
zone under transient-state conditions introduced by Corwin and Waggoner
(1991a, 1991b). The complete TETrans software package consists of an
interactive tutorial, user's guide and applications software. Both IBM-
compatible and Apple Macintosh versions are available. TETrans is
specifically designed around the philosophy of user-friendliness both in
its operation and in the readily-available input parameters required for
its operation. These features are meant to enhance TETrans' utility as
a real-world application software tool for simulating the movement of
nonvolatile organic and inorganic pollutants through soil and into the
groundwater.
TETrans utilizes a mass-balance approach to determine solute
concentration distributions in the soil over time and solute-loading to
the groundwater. Several modeling options are available for simulating
such transport-influencing factors as plant water uptake, hydraulic
bypass and adsorption. In the Macintosh version, TETrans makes full use
of the Macintosh interface to enhance the user-friendliness of the
model. All functions are available from menu bars, pull-down menus, and
dialog boxes; and simulation results are displayed in text and graphics
(both two- and three-dimensional) windows.
i/ Soil Scientist, U. S. Salinity Laboratory, USDA-ARS, 4500 Glenwood

Drive, Riverside, CA 92501.
TETrans differs from other transport models in the straightforward

manner in which it handles the exacerbating problem of preferential flow
or bypass. TETrans accounts for hydraulic bypass through a single
hydraulic parameter, termed the mobility coefficient (Corwin and
Waggoner 1991a, 1991b; Corwin et al. 1991). The mobility coefficient, 7,
is the fraction of soil water within a soil layer which is subject to
piston displacement. The mobility coefficient reflects the deviation of
water flow from strict piston displacement. The mobility coefficient is
determined from simple chemical analysis of chloride in the soil
solution through the soil profile following the application of a plug of
chloride in the irrigation water.
A comparison of predicted soil solution boron concentrations using
both TETrans and the Hanks' et al. (1980) solute transport model to
measured concentrations shows an improved ability of TETrans to simulate
the movement of boron, particularly near the soil surface where
preferential flow through cracks created from wetting and drying is a
factor (Corwin 1992). The simulated results for both transport models
were similar below 0.30 m.
Keywords: miscible displacement, piston flow, transient-state flow,

vadose zone, unsaturated flow, contaminant transport.
Awareness of and concern for the protection of the nation's

groundwater supplies have grown over the last two decades. A variety of
industrial wastes and of chemicals used for agricultural purposes
including fertilizers and pesticides (such as insecticides, herbicides,
fungicides, etc.) are of concern to the degradation of groundwater
quality. In irrigated areas, particularly in the arid southwestern
United States, salts from irrigated water are concentrated by
evapotranspiration and can be leached to pollute underlying groundwater.
Under certain geological conditions, the leaching of boron and other
trace elements (i.e., selenium, molybdenum and arsenic) can occur from
the rootzone and vadose zone into the groundwater.
Not more than 15 to 20 years ago, it was generally believed that
pesticides and other organic chemicals would not move to underlying
groundwater, except where there were coarse soils, soils which cracked,
shallow groundwater tables, high applications of pesticides or
accidental spills. In the mid-1970's, increasing numbers of cases of
the detection of pesticides in groundwater under normal application
rates were reported as more wells were tested and more sensitive
analytical equipment was used (Bouwer 1987; Hallberg 1986; Younos and
Weigmann 1988).
It is well-know that the ingestion of pesticide residue has been
associated with various health problems. These health problems include
cancer, nervous system disorders, sterility in males and birth defects.
The growing concern over acute and chronic health affects resulting from
contaminants in drinking water has brought the degradation of
groundwater to the forefront of public attention. Currently, the public
mood concerning toxic organic and inorganic chemicals in drinking water
is one of fear compounded by frustration and mistrust (Bouwer 1990).
The public fears the long-term health affects of drinking water
containing low-levels of toxic chemicals. They are frustrated because
they perceive that government officials are not correcting the problem
of contamination. Finally, the public mistrusts government officials
CORWIN ON TETrans CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT SOF'I3NARE 67
and experts as indicated by the public's tendency to listen to non-

professionals such as celebrities.
Because of the publicls fears, there is tremendous pressure on
elected officials to take action. In turn, elected officials are
pressuring the scientific community and environmental regulatory agency
officials to provide them with the tools and information to make the
necessary legislative actions to protect the public health without
deleteriously affecting the profitability of chemical-related
businesses. The ability to model the migration of pollutants through
the vadose zone is an essential tool in combating the degradation of our
groundwater.
Currently, there is a need for simple, user-friendly models that
simulate solute movement through the vadose zone by leaching. The
renewed interest in more simplified approaches to modeling (such as
functional models) is based upon two limitations which are inherent in
theoretically rigorous mechanistic models of transport. First, most
mechanistic models of solute transport are parameter intensive. In
other words, the input parameters needed for most mechanistic models are
generally well beyond the manpower and budgetary capacity of most real-
world users. Second, spatial variability limits the accuracy of
mechanistic approaches when applied to field conditions. Another less
significant limitation is for mechanistic models which calculate water
and solute movement using numerical techniques (e.g., LEACHM). These
models are generally computationally intensive and for this reason are
not usually practical for implementation by users who do not have the
resources to purchase the necessary computer equipment. From a field-
scale standpoint, it is incompatible for a transport model to be
mechanistically sophisticated when the parameters (e.g., hydraulic
conductivity, dispersion-diffusion coefficients, adsorption
coefficients) essential to describing the individual processes involved
in transport are significantly variable over short distances.
Stochastic transport models are not a viable alternative for field
applications because the data essential to their development is too
labor and cost intensive to be practical.
TETrans is a one-dimensional, functional model of solute transport
developed by Corwin and Waggoner (1991a, 1991b). TETrans was developed
around the philosophy of user-friendliness both in its operation and in
its input parameter requirements, and was designed to meet a real-world
application need as a preliminary assessment tool for simulating the
transport of non-volatile chemicals through the vadose zone. It is the
object of this paper to present an overview of several publications
regarding TETrans (Corwin 1991, 1992; Corwin and Waggoner 1991a, 1991b;
Corwin et al. 1991, 1992). A sununary is presented describing the
reasons for TETrans' development, its simulation capabilities, its
sensitivity to changes in input parameters, its ability to handle
preferential flow, its strengths and limitations, and potential future
modifications.
THEORY
A detailed outline of the theoretical model development of TETrans

is presented by Corwin and Waggoner (1991a) and Corwin et al. (1991).
Basically, TETrans is a capacity model that defines nonvolatile, solute
transport as a sequence of events or processes: (i) infiltration and
drainage to field capacity, (ii) instantaneous chemical equilibration
for reactive solutes, (iii) water uptake by the plant root resulting
from transpiration and evaporative losses from the soil surface, and
(iv) instantaneous chemical reequilibration. Each process is assumed to

occur in sequence as opposed to the collection of simultaneous processes
which actually occur in nature. Furthermore, each sequence of events or
processes occurs within each depth increment of a finite collection of
discrete depth increments.
As a capacity-based model, TETrans is driven by the amounts of
rainfall (or irrigation) and evapotranspiration (ET), and only considers
time indirectly by using the time from one precipitation (or irrigation)
event to another. From a knowledge of water inputs and losses, and of
soil-solute chemical interactions, TETrans predicts the average
concentration movement of reactive or nonreactive solutes through the
vadose zone. In addition, TETrans can account for the phenomenon of
preferential flow or bypass which can significantly influence the rapid
movement of contaminants from the soil surface to the groundwater.
BYPass Considerations
The convective-dispersive process has been extensively researched

in the past (see Bear 1972). Until recently, it was considered to be
sufficiently understood even under field conditions. Most often, the
deviations of measured solute concentrations in soils from predicted
concentrations were attributed to chemical processes rather than to the
modeling of bulk flow. Today, the effects of macropores on the
preferential flow of water and solutes in soils are well-documented
(Beven and Germann 1982; White 1985c). Following the recognition of the
magnitude of the spatial variability of soil hydraulic properties
(Biggar and Nielsen 1976) and of macroscopic transport (Bouma 1981;
Germann and Beven 1981), and the results of tracer and dye studies
(Quisenberry and Phillips 1976; Addiscott et al. 1978; Parlange et al.
1988; Richard and Stennhuis 1988; Andreini and Steenhuis 1989), the
conceptual view of solute transport in the upper portion of the vadose
zone (i.e., rootzone) changed to take into account the spatial
distribution of flow velocities. In the rootzone, water and solutes are
now understood to flow through the soil with spatially varying
velocities.
Several management and research level computer models are
currently in use for field applications: GLEAMS (Leonard et al. 1986),
PRZM (Carsel et al. 1985), CMIS (Nofziger and Hornsby 1986), LEACHM
(Wagenet and Hutson 1986) and MOUSE (Steenhuis et al. 1987). Although
the models describe the bulk movement of chemicals reasonably well, they
fail to predict the more subtle spatial and temporal variations of
solute concentrations observed by Ritter et al. (1987), Brinsfield et
al. (1987) and Richard and Steenhuis (1988). This failure occurs
because the models calculate an average path of migration (Parlange et
al. 1988) and do not consider preferential flow paths through which the
solute can quickly bypass portions of the soil.
Preferential flow paths are a major consideration in simulating
the movement of solutes through the vadose zone (Beven and Germann
1982). Particularly in aggregated soil or soil high in clay, bypass
flow paths through macropores and cracks have a definite effect on the
flow of solutes. As a consequence, there is a need for transport models
that simulate the effect of naturally occurring hydraulic
heterogeneities on solute transport. One approach has been to
distinguish mobile and ir~nobile water phases as proposed by van
Genuchten and Wierenga (1976), Addiscott (1977) and Barry et al. (1983).
In this approach it is only the mobile phase that is miscibly displaced
by incoming precipitation or irrigation water. The immobile phase is
bypassed. A variation of the mobile-immobile water approach was
CORWlN ON TETrans CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT SOFTWARE 69
p r o p o s e d by Skopp et al. (1981) in w h i c h stagnant w a t e r is slowly

mobile.
Few transient-state, functional transport m o d e l s have dealt with
the p r o b l e m of bypass (Addiscott 1977 and 1981; van Or~nen 1985), which,
in c e r t a i n soils, can have a very p r o f o u n d effect upon the m o v e m e n t and
d i s t r i b u t i o n of a solute. Addiscott (1977, 1981) u s e d m o b i l e - i m m o b i l e
phases to account for bypass, but was unable to simulate field results
well. v a n Ommen (1985) dealt with bypass by assuming that a f r a c t i o ~ of
the a p p l i e d i r r i g a t i o n or p r e c i p i t a t i o n water flowed directly to the
g r o u n d w a t e r through cracks and/or macropores, whereas the remainder
f l o w e d t h r o u g h the soil matrix. Bypass flow in f l u x - b a s e d t r a n s p o r t
m o d e l s (i.e., m e c h a n i s t i c models) is d i s t i n g u i s h e d by differences in
p o r e - w a t e r v e l o c i t y from one point to the next. In contrast, bypass
flow in c a p a c i t y - b a s e d models, such as a simple m a s s - b a l a n c e approach
(e.g., TETrans), can be a p p r o x i m a t e d by the vertical v a r i a t i o n f r o m one
soil layer to the next in the q u a n t i t y of the resident p o r e - w a t e r which
is not i n v o l v e d in p i s t o n - t y p e d i s p l a c e m e n t f o l l o w i n g an i r r i g a t i o n or
p r e c i p i t a t i o n event. The quantity, or more specifically, the fraction
of the total resident soil solution which is not m i s c i b l y d i s p l a c e d by
i n c o m i n g i r r i g a t i o n or p r e c i p i t a t i o n water is subject to bypass.
In order to address the p r o b l e m p o s e d by bypass in the most
simplistic manner, a single term, the mobility coefficient, which
accounts for the effects of bypass due to the p r e s e n c e of immobile water
and p r e f e r e n t i a l flow through large pores and cracks is used in TETrans
(see C o r w i n 1991; Corwin and W a g g o n e r 1991a; and C o r w i n et al. 1991 for
the t h e o r e t i c a l development of bypass in TETrans). The m o b i l i t y
c o e f f i c i e n t is d e f i n e d as the fraction of the resident soil water which
is subject to displacement. In contrast to the model of van Ommen
(1985), TETrans assumes that a fraction of the i n c o m i n g water e n t e r i n g
each depth increment is subject to bypass rather than b y p a s s i n g the
complete soil p r o f i l e to enter the groundwater. Bypass occurs in
TETrans from one layer to the next and not for the entire soil profile.
Furthermore, previous models have u s e d a fixed water content for the
inunobile phase, whereas TETrans defines the immobile phase as a fraction
of the current residual water content just prior to an irrigation or
precipitation. This difference in the definition of the immobile phase
allows for the d i s p l a c e m e n t of water and solutes at all water contents
above a m i n i m u m water content (i.e., w i l t i n g point w a t e r content);
consequently, even light irrigations or p r e c i p i t a t i o n s will result in a
d i s p l a c e m e n t of solutes. This allows for the m o d e l i n g of light
i r r i g a t i o n s or low intensity rainfalls over e x t e n d e d time periods with
subsequent d o w n w a r d movement of solute.
By its d e f i n i t i o n the m o b i l i t y coefficient will also account for
d i s p e r s i o n and d i f f u s i o n in addition to bypass. However, the
s i g n i f i c a n c e of d i s p e r s i o n and d i f f u s i o n will vary b a s e d upon the
c o n d i t i o n s present. For example, in most w e l l - d r a i n e d soils which are
r e g u l a r l y irrigated, the water flow velocities are high enough to lessen
the s i g n i f i c a n c e of diffusion as a factor. D i s p e r s i o n is also less of a
factor if water flow velocities are m o r e u n i f o r m and the flow paths are
less tortuous as in w e l l - d r a i n e d soils.
REASON FOR DEVELOPING TETrans
TETrans was d e v e l o p e d to meet two application needs. The first

n e e d was for a p r e l i m i n a r y assessment tool for s i m u l a t i n g the movement
of n o n v o l a t i l e solutes under t r a n s i e n t - s t a t e conditions. This w o u l d
meet the needs of agriculture, industry and regulatory agencies. The
n e e d for a practical, u s e r - f r i e n d l y model for s i m u l a t i n g solute movement

by l e a c h i n g stems from the l i m i t e d resources and tools that state and
federal r e g u l a t o r y agencies, and private c o n s u l t i n g firms have at their
disposal to address the p u b l i c ' s concern over p r o t e c t i n g g r o u n d w a t e r
supplies t h r e a t e n e d by the movement of chemicals t h r o u g h the soil. The
s e c o n d a p p l i c a t i o n need was as an educational tool for studying the
i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p of the p h y s i c o c h e m i c a l p r o c e s s e s i n v o l v e d in the
m o v e m e n t of a nonreactive or reactive solute through the v a d o s e zone.
As an e d u c a t i o n a l tool, TETrans' u s e r - f r i e n d l y I/O (i.e., input/output)
i n t e r f a c e reduces the c o m p l e x i t i e s of input a n d output f o u n d in most
t r a n s p o r t m o d e l s to interactive menu screens and d i a l o g boxes. The
user's time is spent more in the analysis of output than in learning how
to operate the software. As a functional model, TETrans incorporates
s i m p l i f i e d treatments of solute and water flow with no c l a i m to
fundamentality; consequently, the effects of d i s p e r s i o n - d i f f u s i o n and
p r e f e r e n t i a l flow are l u m p e d together. In addition, no r e g a r d is given
to the kinetics or hysteresis of a d s o r p t i o n - d e s o r p t i o n reactions.
Nonetheless, the basic i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n water movement,
evapotranspiration, and the e q u i l i b r i u m - c h e m i s t r y p r o c e s s e s of
a d s o r p t i o n can be studied.
In a recent paper by Shoemaker et al. (1990) the authors o u t l i n e d
two sets of criteria which must be s a t i s f i e d to qualify a simulation
model as an "ideal" model. A c c o r d i n g to the authors, "To describe
[agricultural] impacts on g r o u n d water in a general sense . . . an
'ideal' model w o u l d n e c e s s a r i l y be comprehensive, yet not so unwieldly
as to require countless input data or c o m p u t i n g time". In essence, a
model must first be manageable, and secondly, the model must reflect the
"real world" condition.
To fulfill the criteria of manageability, the model s h o u l d be (i)
i n e x p e n s i v e to operate (preferably on a microcomputer), (ii) should be
w e l l - d o c u m e n t e d and easy to operate, (iii) s h o u l d require only data that
can be d e r i v e d from readily-available sources without e x p e n s i v e data
c o l l e c t i o n costs, and (iv) s h o u l d output data in a useful format
(Shoemaker et al. 1990). TETrans operates on the lowest cost Apple
M a c i n t o s h (i.e., MacPlus) and IBM-compatible microcomputer. Because
TETrans uses a m a s s - b a l a n c e approach, it offers the speed of an
analytical solution, yet it has the v e r s a t i l i t y of a n u m e r i c a l approach
g e n e r a l l y without significant loss of accuracy. The p a r a m e t e r s which
TETrans requires as input are capacity parameters (i.e., amount of water
applied, amount of ET, field capacity water content, w i l t i n g point water
content, etc.) which tend to be more readily available than the
p a r a m e t e r s n e e d e d in most m e c h a n i s t i c models (i.e., h y d r a u l i c
c o n d u c t i v i t y - m a t r i c p o t e n t i a l relations, w a t e r content - m a t r i c
p o t e n t i a l relations, d i s p e r s i o n - diffusion coefficients). To add to
TETrans' utility, a u s e r - f r i e n d l y I/O interface (Macintosh v e r s i o n only)
w h i c h uses Apple M a c i n t o s h s t a n d a r d pulldown menus a n ~ d i a l o g boxes has
been provided. The I/O i n t e r f a c e enables the user to spend
s u b s t a n t i a l l y less time in l e a r n i n g how to operate the model. The I/O
interface also allows the user to output the simulation results in
g r a p h i c f o r m i n c l u d i n g two- a n d t h r e e - d i m e n s i o n a l graphs. Both versions
of TETrans include a user's guide which d o c u m e n t s the software.
I n c l u d e d in the d o c u m e n t a t i o n is a discussion of the theory,
application, and operation of TETrans, as well as a section on
t r o u b l e s h o o t i n g and a F O R T R A N source code l i s t i n g of the transport model
subroutine.
The criteria of a c c u r a t e l y simulating the o n e - d i m e n s i o n a l movement
of c o n t a m i n a n t s through the vadose zone requires (i) the i n c o r p o r a t i o n
of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of meteorology, soil and geology; (ii) the portrayal
CORWlN ON TETrans CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT SOF'I3NARE 71
of the relevant transport processes (i.e., evaporation, transpiration,

chemical behavior, water flow and degradation); (iii) the prediction of
the movement of relevant pollutants; and (iv) the characterization of
spatial and temporal variability (Shoemaker et al. 1990). There is an
opposing goal between practical application and realistic prediction.
In research applications, accuracy of prediction is emphasized over the
cost of data collection. However, in real-world applications a
reasonable level of accuracy is desirable, but an overriding
consideration is the data collection and model implementation cost.
Generally, costs of implementation define what "reasonable level of
accuracy" means. In TETrans, the selection of a functional, mass-
balance approach to portray the interaction of the different transport
processes was predicated on the need to address the dilemma of
reconciling practicality with realism and falling more on the side of
practicality. A functional, mass-balance approach uses capacity
parameters and less difficult-to-obtain hydraulic parameters such as
field capacity and wilting point water content as opposed to needing
complex hydraulic conductivity - matric potential relations and matric
potential - water content relations. The decision to favor practicality
over simulation accuracy in the development of TETrans limits its
application to the preliminary assessment of contaminant movement
through the vadose zone. Because TETrans is a layer-equilibrium model
it accounts for vertical variability by allowing for variation in input
parameters for each layer of soil. The mobility coefficient is the only
parameter which can be specified as both temporally and spatially (i.e.,
vertical direction only) variable.
EXPERIMENTAL METHOD
A description of the experiment used to validate TETrans is given

in Corwin et al. (1991, 1992). Basically, the experiment was a solute
transport study using weighing soil lysimeter columns. The columns were
made of PVC and stood 1.52 m tall with a radius of 0.227 m. The columns
were filled with Arlington loam soil (Haplic Durixeralf). Soil
extractors, time domain reflectometry probes (TDR) and tensiometers were
installed horizontally along the side of each soil column at depths of
0.075, 0.225, 0.375, 0.525 and 0.675 m. A free-flow drain was installed
at the bottom of each column. The study monitored the movement of
chloride and boron through the rootzone under a combination of
irrigation water qualities, irrigation management strategies and crops
(see Corwin et al. 1991, 1992 for further experimental details).
The water flow (including bypass) and the plant water uptake of
TETrans were validated by a comparison of predicted and measured
concentration distributions of chloride in the soil solution. The
ability of TETrans to simulate the movement of a reactive solute was
validated by a comparison of predicted and measured concentrations of
boron in the soil solution. Soil solution extracts were taken at every
depth following each irrigation. The solution samples were taken when a
given depth reached field capacity as measured with TDR.
The data needed as input into TETrans includes: initial solute
concentration at each depth; inital water content of the soil at each
depth; dates and amounts of irrigation (or precipitation) water applied;
total evapotranspiration lost between irrigations or precipitations;
horizonation of the soil with the associated bulk density, water content
at field capacity, and water content at the wilting point for each
horizon depth increment; solute concentration of each irrigation (or
precipitation) water applied; and date of planting, days to maturity,
date of harvest, m a x i m u m depth of root penetration, and plant root

d i s t r i b u t i o n of each crop.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In order for a model to gain c r e d i b l i t y it must be v a l i d a t e d

against m e a s u r e d data. The acceptance criteria for the v a l i d a t i o n of a
model d e p e n d s to a large extent upon the user (Hern et al. 1986).
V a l i d a t i o n of TETrans for a single scenario is presented. However,
caution s h o u l d be taken b e c a u s e v a l i d a t i o n for a single scenario s h o u l d
not be c o n s t r u e d as a v a l i d a t i o n for all applications. Furthermore, the
s e n s i t i v i t y of a model to changes in the input p a r a m e t e r s is n e c e s s a r y
to show where the greatest potential for error may occur; consequently,
an o v e r v i e w of a sensitivity analysis o r i g i n a l l y p r e s e n t e d by C o r w i n et
al. (1992) is discussed.
Validation of TETrans
TETrans has been v a l i d a t e d with the simulation of the transport of

a c o n s e r v a t i v e ion, chloride, (Corwin and W a g g o n e r 1991a; Corwin et al.
1991) and a reactive solute, boron, (Corwin et al. 1992). The
simulation of a n o n r e a c t i v e solute v a l i d a t e d the ability of TETrans to
model w a t e r flow. The simulation of a reactive solute is more a
v a l i d a t i o n of the c h e m i s t r y model (Langmuir adsorption model) within
TETrans.
C o r w i n and W a g g o n e r (1991a) and C o r w i n et al. (1991) obtained
e x c e l l e n t simulation results for chloride over a ll00-day study p e r i o d
assuming a constant m o b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t of 0.5, and a spatially and
t e m p o r a l l y v a r i a b l e m o b i l i t y coefficient, respectively. Figure 1 shows
additional original data which d e m o n s t r a t e the level of agreement
b e t w e e n s i m u l a t e d and m e a s u r e d c o n c e n t r a t i o n s for chloride in the soil
solution at three different depth increments. Once again, the
simulation of the movement of chloride through a soil l y s i m e t e r column
is e x c e l l e n t for all three depth increments shown in F i g u r e I.
The a b i l i t y of TETrans to simulate the transport of a reactive
solute was p r e v i o u s l y v a l i d a t e d by a comparison to m e a s u r e d boron
c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in the soil solution at field capacity (Corwin et al.,
1992). A d d i t i o n a l v a l i d a t i o n data for boron simulations is p r e s e n t e d in
Figure 2. Figure 2 shows a comparison of s i m u l a t e d results to both
m e a s u r e d b o r o n concentrations and to s i m u l a t e d boron c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
using the m e c h a n i s t i c model d e v e l o p e d by Hanks et al. (1980). Both
TETrans and the Hanks et al. (1980) transport model are able to simulate
the m e a s u r e d data reasonably well. However, TETrans is m u c h better in
s i m u l a t i n g the movement of boron near the soil surface (see Fig. 2a)
because the m o b i l i t y coefficient is able to account for bypass. The
Hanks' et al. (1980) model does not account for bypass. Corwin et al.
(1992) conclude that the inability of TETrans to model the movement of
boron more a c c u r a t e l y is p r o b a b l y due to the inability of the Langmuir
adsorption i s o t h e r m model w i t h i n TETrans to simulate the c o m p l i c a t e d
a d s o r p t i o n c h e m i s t r y of boron. Both TETrans and the Hanks' et al.
(1980) transport model use the Langmuir adsorption i s o t h e r m model to
simulate the adsorption of boron. The additional original data shown in
Figure 2 for both TETrans and the Hanks' et al. (1980) model appears to
r e a f f i r m the c o n c l u s i o n of Corwin et al. (1992) that the current level
of d e v e l o p m e n t of a s i m p l i f i e d chemical e q u i l i b r i u m model of adsorption-
d e s o r p t i o n such as the Langmuir a d s o r p t i o n model is inadequate to
simulate the complex chemical behavior of boron in a t r a n s i e n t - s t a t e
CORWIN ON TETrans CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT SOFTWARE 73
soil system. Presumeably, the complex effects of pH, ionic strength,

exchangeable ions, wetting and drying, clay mineralogy and hystersis
upon boron adsorption which are not accounted for in the Langmuir
adsorption model are the primary reason for both transport models'
diminished accuracy in simulating boron transport.
L Y S I M E T E R 10
50
40 (a)O-O.15m ~ mm
3O
i :: o
80 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
[ (b) 0 , ~ - 0.4~-'mm - - -- - B - - ~ ]
"-- 0
t
200
| I
400
9 --I
600 800
I l
1000
,t'- t
1200
I
1400
100 r . . . . .
~.~ I.(c) 0.60- 0.75 m
80 I- [] Measured ]'~ .
~ 40 .
20
0 i ,i i I i I , I , I l
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
T i m e (days)
Figure i. A comparison of measured chloride concentrations and

predicted concentrations (meq CI- = 35.46 mg Cl-/L)
assuming a mobility coefficient (7) of 0.5 for the
depth increments: (a) 0-0.15, (b) 0.30-0.45 m and (c)
0.60-0.75 m.
LYSIMETER 6
10 ~ (a) 0 - 0.15 m I=~_ i~l~mm ,I' .~
~ 4
g 2 ]. rI
0 ! "
ir eversible adsorp, above x/m=5.5 rng/kg
,l . 9 - I , , 9 0 , I . . . . . 1
0.30-0.45m
(')~
g
10
m
m 0 . . . !. . . . . .
20 0 500 1000 1500
I (c) 0.60- 0.75 m 1
"~ [ m Measured B (mo/L)
t
[ -e-- TETrans B (n'~/L) =,.
O; 500 1000 1500

Time (days)
Figure 2. A c o m p a r i s o n of p r e d i c t e d (assuming i r r e v e r s i b l e
adsorption occurs when the a d s o r b e d phase boron
c o n c e n t r a t i o n reaches 5.5 mg/kg) soil solution boron
concentrations for TETrans (solid line with diamonds)
and for the Hanks' et al. (1980) model (solid line),
and m e a s u r e d boron concentrations (squares) at field
capacity for three depth increments: (a) 0-0.15 m,
(b) 0.30-0.45 m and (c) 0.60-0.75 m.
Sensitivitv Analysis
In order to further evaluate the practicality and accuracy of

TETrans' ability to simulate the movement and distribution of a solute
in the soil profile, it is necessary to know the degree to which the
simulated solute concentration distribution is affected by errors made
in estimating the input parameter values. This information is essential
in determining which parameters must be known accurately and which
parameters can be estimated without significantly influencing the
simulated output.
Corwin (1992) studied the sensitivity of the simulated output of
TETrans to changes in its input parameters. Using ranges of input
parameter values commonly found under natural conditions for boron and
chloride, the sensitivity analysis was performed (Corwin 1992). The
specific options selected included the Langmuir adsorption model for
boron adsorption and a linear plant water uptake model. Corwin (1992)
determined that the simulated output of TETrans for a reactive solute
(i.e., boron) is most sensitive to the plant water uptake distribution,
the maximum root penetration depth, and the mobility coefficient;
moderately sensitive to parameters influencing adsorption (i.e.,
Langmuir adsorption coefficients) and to the layer thickness; and least
sensitive to the bulk density, the field capacity water content and the
minimum water content. The mobility coefficient, maximum root
penetration depth and plant water uptake distribution are significant
parameters regardless if the solute is reactive or nonreactive (Corwin
1992). Layer thickness and field capacity water content are
particularly significant to the simulation of water flow or the
transport of a nonreactive solute, but are less significant for reactive
solute transport simulations (Corwin 1992).
Temporal and Spatial Variation in Hvdraulic Bypass
Corwin (1991) used the mobility coefficient within TETrans to

determine temporal and vertical spatial variations in bypass occurring
over an ll00-day study period within a soil lysimeter column.
Temporally and spatially (vertical direction only) variable mobility
coefficients were determined by an optimization fit of simulated
chloride distributions to measured chloride distribution data taken over
the ll00-day study period (Corwin 1991). The calculated temporal and
spatial variation in the mobility coefficient indicated the general
water flow behavior through preferential flow paths. The depth-averaged
mobility coefficients for the entire 1100 days of the study were 0.406 •
0.135, 0.470 ~ 0.134, 0.554 ~ 0.120, 0.520 • 0.117 and 0.540 • 0.106 for
depths of 0-0.15 m, 0.15-0.30 m, 0.30-0.45 m, 0.45-0.60 m and 0.60-0.75
m, respectively (Corwin 1991). Because the mobility coefficient, 7, is
defined as the fraction of the total resident soil solution in a layer
of soll which is miscibly displaced by incoming irrigation or
precipitation water (or 1 - y represents the fraction of soil water that
is bypassed), then the greatest bypass occurred in the top two depth
increments and then leveled off for the bottom depths. The gradual
decrease in the standard deviation with increased depth shows less
temporal variation in the mobility coefficient at the lower depths.
Corwin (1991) postulates that seasonal changes in evaporation and
transpiration are influencing crack formation at the soil surface.
Temporal changes in 7 showed a seasonal cycle with greater bypass
occurring in summer and less in winter (Corwin 1991).
Strenaths and Limitations
The fact that TETrans was d e v e l o p e d as a r e a l - w o r l d application

tool where l i m i t e d k n o w l e d g e of s o p h i s t i c a t e d transport i n f o r m a t i o n is
available results in inherent strengths and w e a k n e s s e s in the model.
TETrans' strengths include:
I. s p e c i f i c a l l y d e s i g n e d to address r e a l - w o r l d
problems of contaminant transport,
2. d e s i g n e d to use input parameters w h i c h are readily
available,
3. uses capacity input p a r a m e t e r s w h i c h are less
spatially variable than rate parameters,
4. very efficient c o m p u t a t i o n a l speed,
5. and u s e r - f r i e n d l y I/O interface.
In contrast, the w e a k n e s s e s of TETrans include:
I. does not account for vapor phase flow,

2. current version does not account for degradation,
3. does not account for lateral or u p w a r d water flow,
4. does not f u n d a m e n t a l l y describe d i s p e r s i o n or
diffusion,
5. does not have the ability to account for spatially
v a r y i n g soil p r o p e r t i e s in the horizontal plane,
6. requires a knowledge of the amount of ET between
i r r i g a t i o n or p r e c i p i t a t i o n events,
7. and calculates c o n c e n t r a t i o n d i s t r i b u t i o n s which
are average concentrations for each depth
increment.
Future M o d i f i c a t i o n s ~Q TETrans
The current v e r s i o n of TETrans (Macintosh version 1.6 and IBM-

C o m p a t i b l e v e r s i o n 1.5) does not account for,
I. the d e g r a d a t i o n of organic c o n t a m i n a n t s
2. vapor phase flow
3. the effect of salinity upon root water uptake
distributions
4. the diffusion of a solute b e t w e e n m o b i l e - immobile
water phases
5. the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of ET from m e t e o r o l o g i c a l data
6. salt chemistry reactions i n c l u d i n g precipitation,
d i s s o l u t i o n and exchange reactions
7. the u p w a r d m o v e m e n t of solutes
8. and the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s of nitrogen, ammonia
v o l a t i l i z a t i o n and plant n i t r o g e n uptake.
The next v e r s i o n of TETrans (version 2.0) will include each of the above
p r o c e s s e s as well as additions to the I/O interface to enhance the user-
friendliness.
SUMMARY
A user-friendly, software package (referred to as TETrans) is

discussed. The software package simu'lates the vertical, one-dimensional
movement of nonvolatile organic and inorganic contaminants through the

vadose zone under transient-state conditions. A validation of TETrans
by comparison to measured concentrations of both reactive (i.e., boron)
and nonreactive solutes (i.e., chloride) shows excellent agreement with
chloride and a reasonable agreement with boron. TETrans provides a
means of handling the problem of preferential flow in a simplistic
manner. Only a single parameter, the mobility coefficient, determined
from easy and low-cost chloride analyses is used. The ability to
simplistically account for preferential flow significantly adds to the
practicality of TETrans as a real-world application tool.
REFERENCES
Addiscott, T. M., 1977, "A Simple Computer Model for Leaching in

Structured Soils," Journal of Soil Science, Vol. 28, pp. 554-563.
Addiscott, T. M., 1981, "Leaching of Nitrate in Structured Soils,"

Simulation of the Nitroaen Behavior of Soil-Plant Systems,
(M. J. Frissel and J. A. van Veen, eds.), PUDOC, Wageningen, The
Netherlands, pp. 245-253.
Addiscott, T. M., Rose, D. A~, and Bolton, J., 1978, "Chloride

Leaching in the Rothamstad Drain Gauges: Influences of Rainfall
Pattern and Soil Structures," Journal of Soil Science~ Vol. 29,
pp. 305-314.
Andreini, M., and Steenhuis, T. S., 1990, "Preferential Paths of

Flow Under Conservation and Conservation Tillage," Geoderma,
Vol. 46, pp. 85-102.
Barry, D. A., Parlange, J.-Y., Saffinga, P. G., and Rose, C. W., 1983,
"Theory of Solute Movement in Soils from the Method of
Characteristics," Irriaation Science~ Vol. 4, pp. 277-287.
Bear, J., 1972, Dynamics of Fluid in Porous Media, Elsevier, New

York, NY, 764 pp.
Beven, K., and Germann, P., 1982, "Macropores and Water Flow in
Soils," Water Resources Research, VOI. 18, NO. 5, pp. 1311-1325.
Biggar, J. W., and Nielsen, D. R., 1976, "Spatial Variability of

the Leaching Characteristics of a Field Soil," Water Resources
Research~ VOI. 12, pp. 78-84.
Bouma, J., 1981, "Soil Morphology and Preferential Flow Along

Macropores," Aaricultural Water Management, Vol. 3, pp. 235-250.
Bouwer, H., 1987, "Effect of Irrigated Agriculture on Groundwater

Quality," Journal of Irriuation and Drainage, Division of the
American Society of Civil Engrineers, Vol. 113, No. I, pp. 4-15.
Bouwer, H., 1990, "Agricultural Chemicals and Ground Water Quality

- Issues and Challenges," Ground Water Monitorina Review, winter
issue.
Brinsfield, R. B., Staver, K. W., a n d M a g e t t e , W. L., 1987, "Impact of

Tillage Practices on Pesticide Leaching in Coastal Plain Soils,"
Proceedinas, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Paper No.
87-2631, St. Joseph, MI.
Carsel, R. F., Mulkey, L. A., Lorber, M. N., and Baskin, L. B., 1985,
"The Pesticide Rootzone Model (PRZM): A Procedure for Evaluating
Pesticide Leaching Threat to Groundwater," Ecoloaical Modeling,
Vol. 30, pp. 49-69.
Corwin, D. L., 1991, "Spatial and Temporal Estimates of Hydraulic

Bypass in Soil Using Chloride Distributions," ~ o c e e d i n q s of the
National Svmposium on Preferential Flow, ASAE, Chicago, IL (Dec.
16-17, 1991).
Corwin, D. L., 1992, "Sensitivity Analysis of a Simple Layer-Equilibrium

Model for the One-Dimensional Leaching of Solutes," Journal of
Environmental Ouality, (submitted).
Corwin, D. L., and Waggoner, B. L., 1991a, "TETrans: A User-Friendly

Functional Model of Solute Transport," Water SGience TechnolocqJ,
Vol. 24, NO. 6, pp. 57-65.
Corwin, D. L. and B. L. Waggoner. 1991b.

Transport MQdelin~ SQftware U@er's Guide (IBM and Macintosh
versions). USDA-ARS, U. S. Salinity Laboratory. Publications
#121 and #123.
Corwin, D. L., Waggoner, B. L., and Rhoades, J. D., 1991, "A Functional
Model of Solute Transport that Accounts for Bypass," Journal of
Environmental Ouality: Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 647-658.
Corwin, D. L., Waggoner, B. L., and Rhoades, J. D., 1992,

"Simulating the Movement of a Reactive Solute Through a Soil
Lysimeter Column Using a Functional Transport Model," Journal of
Environmental Science & Health, (In Press).
Germann, P. F., and Beven, K., 1981, "Water Flow in Soil Macropores. I.
An Experimental Approach," Journal of Soil Science, Vol. 32, pp.
1-13.
Hanks, R. J., Tillotscn, W. R., Robbins, C. W., and Wagenet, R. J.,

1980, "Soil Water, Solute and Plant Growth Simulation," Bulletin
502, Utah Agricultural Experiment Station, pp. 1-53.
Hallberg, G. R., 1986, "Overview of Agricultural Chemicals in

Groundwater," Proceedinas of the Conference on Agricultural
ImPacts on Groundwater, National Water Well Association, ASA,
CSSA, and SSSA, Omaha, Neb., pp. 1-63.
Hern, S. C., Melancon, S. M., and Pollard, J. E., 1986, "Generic Steps
in the Field Validation of Vadose Zone Fate and Transport Models,"
Vadose Zone Modelina of Oraanic P o l l u ~ n t s v Lewis Publishers,
Inc., Chelsea, MI, pp. 61-80.
Leonard, R. A., Knisel, W. G., and Still, D. A., 1986, "Groundwater

Loading Effects of Agricultural Management Systems," Proceedings,
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Paper No. 86-2551, St.

Joseph, MI.
Nofziger, D. L., and Hornsby, A. G., 1986, "A Microcomputer Based

Management Tool for Chemical Movement," Applied Aaricultural
Research, Vol. i, pp. 50-56.
Parlange, J.-Y., Steenhuis, T. S., Glass, R. J., Richard, T. L.,

Picketing, N. B., Waltman, W. J.,Bailey, N. 0., Andreini, M. S.,
and Throop, J. A., 1988, "The Flow of Pesticide Through
Preferential Paths in Soil," New York Food & Life Science
Ouarterlv, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N. Y., Vol. 18, No. 1 & 2, pp.
20-23
Quisenberry, V. L., and Phillips, R. E., 1976, "Percolation of Simulated

Rainfall Under Field Conditions," Soil Science Society of America
Journal, Vol. 40, pp. 484-489.
Richard, T. L., and Steenhuis, T. S.~ 1988, "Tile Drain Sampling of

Preferential Flow on a Field Scale," Journal of Contaminant
~ , Vol. 3, pp. 307-325.
Ritter, W. F., Chirnside, A. E. M., and Scarborough, R. W., 1987,

"Pesticide Leaching in a Coastal Plain Soil," Proceedings,
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Paper No. 87-2630, St.
Joseph, MI.
Shoemaker, L. L., Magette, W. L., and Shirmohar~nadi, A., 1990,

"Modeling Management Practice Effects on Pesticide Movement to
Ground Water," Ground Water Monitorina Review, winter issue, pp.
109-115.
Skopp, J., Gardner, W. R., and Tyler, E. J., 1981, "Solute Movement
in Structured Soils: Two-Region Model with Small Interaction,"
Soil Science Society of America Journal~ Vol. 45, pp. 837-842.
Steenhuis, T. S., Pacenka, S., and Porter, K. S., 1987, "MOUSE: A

Management Model for Evaluating Ground Water Contamination from
Diffuse Surface Sources Aided by Computer Graphics," Applied
Aaricultural Research, Vol. 2, pp. 277-289.
van Genuchten, M. Th., and Wierenga, P. J., 1976, "Mass Transfer in

Sorbing Porous Media. I. Analytical Solutions," Soll Scienc@
Society of America Journal, Vol. 40, pp. 473-480.
van Ommen, H. C., 1985a, "Systems Approach to an Unsaturated-Saturated

Groundwater Quality Model, Including Adsorption, Decomposition and
Bypass," Aaricultural Water Management, Vol. 10, pp. 193-203.
Wagenet, R. J., and Hutson, J. G., 1986, "Predicting the Fate of

Nonvolatile Pesticides in the Unsaturated Zone," Journal of
Environmental Ouality, Vol. 15, pp. 315-322.
White, R. E., 1985c, "The Influence of Macropores on the Transport

of Dissolved and Suspended Matter Through Soil,"
Soil Science, (B. A. Stewart, ed.), Springer, Berlin, Vol. 3, pp.
95-121.
Younos, T. M., and Weigmann, D. L., 1988, "Pesticides: A Continuing

Dilera~na," Journal of the Water P o l l u t i o n Control Federation, VOI.
60, pp. 1199-1205.
Patricia S. Hovatter I and Robert E. Gibson 2
M_L~'.R~IOM O F I N D I C A T O R CHEMICALS AT HASARDOUS WASTB SITES
REFERENCE: Hovatter, P. S., and Gibson, R. E., "Selection

of Indicator Chemicals at Hazardous Waste Sites," SuDerfund
Risk Assessment in Soil Contamination Studies. ASTM STP 1158.
9JSSTRJLCTI The cleanup of hazardous waste sites in the United

States is an environmental issue of great concern. The baseline
risk assessment, as developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, is conducted to assist in the development of remedial
alternatives for cleanup. The first step in this assessment
involves the selection of chemicals of concern, those chemicals
posing the greatest potential public health risk at the site. This
paper presents an approach to the selection process that
incorporates a computerized program to perform the routine
calculations for a concentration-toxlcity screening procedure with
additlonal s~lection parameters, Including frequency of occurrence,
comparison to background levels, site-relatedness, and environmental
persistence and mobility. This approach to the selection of
chemicals of concern streamlines the baseline risk assessment to
address only those chemicals posing the greatest risk.
KBYWORDS| Risk Assessment, Chemicals of Concern, Superfund
The release of toxic chemicals into the environment has become

an issue of great concern in the United States, as well as on the
global scale. Currently, 1 188 hazardous waste sites have been
identified in the United States and placed on the National
Priorities List (NPL}. An additional 23 sites have been proposed
[i]- Sites are placed on the NPL based on the potential risk to
public health and the environment from the uncontrolled releases of
hazardous substances at a site. The Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 was
passed by Congress and signed into law on December 11, 1980 (Public
Law 96-510). This act was intended to provide for "liability,
I Chemical Hazard Evaluation and Communication Group, Biomedical

and Environmental Information Analysis Section, Health and Safety
Research Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
37831-6050.
2Energy Systems Training Development, Martin Marietta Energy

Systems, 701 Scarboro Road, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830.
compensation, cleanup, and emergency response for hazardous sub-

stances released into the environment and the cleanup of inactive
waste disposal sites." CERCLA was reauthorized in 1986 by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), adopted on
October 17, 1986 (Public Law 99-499). These environmental laws re-
quire that the remedial actions selected for cleanup of a hazardous
waste site be protective of human health and the environment.
To aid in this effort, the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency has developed the Superfund human health evaluation process,
which is conducted during the Remedial Investigatlon/Feasibillty
Study phase of cleanup. It is composed of three phases~ 1) the
baseline risk assessment, 2) the refinement of preliminary remedla-
tion goals, and 3) remedial alternatives risk evaluation. The
process is fully described in the U.S. EPA Risk Assessment Guidance
for Superfund, Volume Is Human Health Evaluation Manual (RAGS) [~].
The first step in the baseline risk assessment at Superfund sites is
data collection and evaluation, which involves the selection of
chemicals of potential concern ("indicator chemicals"). This
procedure identifies the chemicals that pose the greatest potential
public health risk at a site and is based on site historlcal
information and monitoring data; chemical toxicity information in
the form of toxicity factors developed by U.S. EPA; and environ-
mental persistence, mobility, and bioaccumulation of the chemicals.
Chemlcal-specific applicable or relevant and appropriate

requirements (ARARs) or "to be considered" (TBC} guidance values are
subsequently selected to set protective cleanup levels for the
chemicals of concern in the designated media or else to indicate a
safe level of discharge that may be incorporated when considering a
specific remedial activity. ARARs are legally applicable standards,
criteria, or limitations promulgated under any federal or state
environmental or facility siting law, such as maximum contaminant
levels (MCLs) promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
INITIAL COMPUTERI|BD SELECTION PROCEDURE FOR CHEMICALS OF CONCERN
The U.S. EPA RAGS [~] presents several options for the
selection of chemicals of potential concern at Superfund sites. It
is typical for between 80 and 100 chemlcals to be detected in the
environmental media at a site and including all of these chemicals
in a risk assessment would be quite cumbersome and could skew the
results. This paper describes a selection procedure used for the
U.S. Army NPL sites that incorporates several of the options
presented in RAGS in order to streamline the baseline risk
assessment process by addressing only those chemicals that are
posing the most significant health risks at a site.
Initially, a concentratlon-toxicity screening procedure is

used to obtain a ranking of the relative risk for each detected
chemical in a specific medium. Carcinogens and noncarcinogens are
ranked separately and each media, groundwater, surface water, soil,
and sediment, is assessed separately. A mlcrocomputer-based spread-
sheet was developed to automate the routine features of the
procedure. The CASIC (Computer Assisted Selection of Indicator
Chemicals) program was written in Lotus-123 and uses two
spreadsheets. The first spreadsheet (SITEDTA2.wkl) is involved with
the input data used in the risk calculatlons, the monitoring data
and toxicity values. The second spreadsheet (WS345C.wkl} actually
HOVATTER AND GIBSON ON SELECTION OF INDICATOR CHEMICALS 83
performs the calculations. Fig. 1 shows t h e s e q u e n c e o f o p e r a t i o n s

perforn~dbyC~SlC.
Complete historical monitoring data for groundwater, surface
w a t e r , s o i l , and s e d i m e n t a t e a c h s i t e i s u s e d . F o r t h e U . S . Army
sites, all monitoring data from the Installation Restoration Data
Management S y s t e m a r e q u a l i t y a s s u r a n c e / q u a l i t y control validated
before being used in the selection process [ ~ ] . Monitoring data
sets are organized by waste site and media (groundwater, soil,
surface water, or sediment} and are then transmitted to a local
database via TELNET or other communlcatlon8 method. For each
chemical, high and low concentrations by media are extracted from
the data sets. These concentrations are the program input data. An
arithmetic or geometric mean may also be entered as a representative
concentration.
The first spreadsheet, SITEDTA2.wkl, is linked to a list of

chemicals and associated toxicity values. The most current toxicity
factors for each chemical, reference doses (RfDs} for noncarcinogens
or carcinogen slope factors (SFs) for carcinogens, are obtained from
the U.S. EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS} [4] and/or
the U.S. EPA Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) [~].
The user may mark chemicals of interest (those chemicals detected in
any media at the site} in this master list and the program generates
skeleton worksheets for this site-specific list. The user may then
enter observed concentrations for each media (as mg/L for
groundwater and surface water and as mg/kg for soll and sediment}
into the skeleton worksheet8. The completed worksheets, presenting
the range of detected concentrations for each chemical in each media
and the associated toxicity values, may then be printed by the
Lotus-123 program. Figs. 2 and 3 show typical worksheet printouts.
Information is also provided on these worksheete concerning the K~,
the organic carbon partition coefficient. The program can sort the
chemicals from highest to lowest K ~ to provide the user with
information concerning the soil migration potential of each
chemical.
The second Lotus spreadsheet, WS345C.WK1, uses data columns

imported from the SITEDTA2.wkl file as input. Calculations are then
performed by the Lotus program using the chemical concentrations and
their toxicity values to obtain the relative risk of each carcinogen
or noncarcinogen within each media. The risk factor is calculated
as the product of the maximtu~ detected concentration and a toxicity
factor, which is the inverse of the RfD for noncarcinogens or the SF
for carcinogens. The total risk factor for each medium is
determined as the sum of the individual risk factors for each
chemical detected in the medium. Subsequently, the relative risk
for each chemical is the ratio of the individual chemical risk
factor to the total risk factor in that medium. The CASIC program
offers several options for presenting the results of these
calculations. Worksheets can be printed from the WS345C.wk1 file.
The relative risk factors can be printed separately for each media
from highest to lowest ranking carcinogen or noncarcinogen as in
Fig. 4. As you can see in Fig. 4, vinyl chloride presented 91.4% of
the risk from carcinogens in groundwater at this site.
Alternatively, the worksheets can be printed with the chemicals in
alphabetical order for comparison of carcinogens or noncarcinogens
across media as in Fig. 5. As you can see in Fig. 5, arsenic
presented a health risk in all media and would, consequently, be
considered a chemical of concern at this site. It ranked first and
O0
CHEMICAL LIST DIS-

LOTUS-123 GEN-
PLAYED FROM IRIS/ C
ENVIRONMENTAL ERATES SKELETON "13
HEAST DATABASE, m
MONITORING DATA WORKSHEETS
USER MARKS CHEMI- '-t-i
FROM WASTE SITE W-la, Wolb, W-It C
CALS OF I N T E ~ z
U
Go
CO
171
Go
Co
PROGRAM CALCU- USER ENTERS
LATES RISK FACTORS HIGH, LOW AND ITI
LOTUS-123 PRINTS Z
AND RELATIVE RISK REPRESENTATIVE --I
WORKSHEETS
FOR POTENTIAL CONCENTRATIONS
Wl-a,b,c, and W-2
CARCINOGENS AND FOR EACH CHEM-
NON-CARCINOGENS ICAL BY MEDIA
LOTUS-123 PRINTS
WORKSHEETS W-5
LOTUS-123 PRINTS
PROGRAM SORTS AND WORKSHEETS W-3 AND W-6 - SHOWING
RANKS CHEMICAI~ BY AND W-4 SHOWING CHEMICALS
THEIR RELATIVE RISK RELATIVE RISK BY RANKED BY THEIR
MEDIA RELATIVE RISK
FIG l.-Flowdutrt for CASIC program

CHEMNAME SITEs lak C/N/B KOC Ground Water (mg/1) S u r f a c e W a t e r (mg/l)
Low High Low High
I
Acenaphthene * 4.60E+03 O
Acetone N 2.20E+00 0.0093 0.2100 >
Anthracene * 1.40E+04
A n t i m o n y and c o m p o u n d s N 0.0034 0.0772 0.0049 0.0708 m
--
A r s e n i c and c o m p o u n d s B 0.0027 0.3600 0.0027 0.1100
B a r i u m and compounds N 0.0435 1.4500 0.1330 1.3400 >
Benzene C 8.30E+01 0.0008 0.0855 0.0015 0.0025 z
o
Benzoic acid N 0.0200 0.2600
Benzo[a]pyrene * 5.50E+06
Benzo[b]fluoranthene * 5.50E+05
Benzo[k]fluoranthene * 5.50E+05 O
Benz[a]anthracene * 1.38E+06 z
B e r y l l i u m and c o m p o u n d s B 0.0001 0.0446 0.0040 0.0022 O
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) z
p h t h a l a t e (DEHP) B 0.0110 18.0000 0.0200 0.0604
Boron N 0.0418 0.0927
Bromodichloromethane B 6.10E+01 0.0050 m
Butylbenzyl phthalate N 0.0100 0.0620 O
C a d m i u m and c o m p o u n d s B 0.0041 0.1300
Carbon disulfide N 5.40E+01 0.0130 0.0530 Z
Carbon tetrachlorlde B 1.10E+02 0.0011 0.0050 O
Chloroethane * 0.0050 0.0400 0.0900
Chloroform B 3.10E+OI 0.0043 0.1100
C h r o m i u m III and c o m p o u n d s N 0.0045 3.8000 0.0200 0.0385
C h r o m i u m VI and c o m p o u n d s B 0.0045 3.8000 0.0200 0.0385
Chrysene * 2.00E+05 0.0660
C o p p e r and c o m p o u n d s * 0.0020 1.2000 0.0049 0.5000 O
Cyanides N 0.0400
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene * 3.30E+06 O
Dibromochloromethane N 8.40E+01 0.0050 I
m
Dichlorobenzene,l,2- N 1.70E+03 0.0100 0.0410
>
FIG. 2--Horksheet W-In Scoring for Indicator Chemical selection: Eoc values and concentrations in
Mater.
C = Carcinogen; N = Noncarcinogen; B = Both
CO
CD
O~
CHEMNAME SITEz lak C/N/B KOC Soil (mg/kg) Sediment (mg/kg)
Low High Low High
c-
"0
Acenaphthene * 4.60E+03 0.6500 0.5700 rn
-n
Acetone N 2.20E+00 -rl
Anthracene * 1.40E+04 0.7800 9.3800 C
A n t i m o n y and c o m p o u n d s N 58.6000 140.0000 Z
0
A r s e n i c and c o m p o u n d s B 2.4500 180.0000 6.7300 47.1000
:~0
B a r i u m and c o m p o u n d s N 3.9500 9840.0000 386.0000 954.0000
Benzene C 8.30E+01
Benzoic acid N >
Benzo[a]pyrene * 5.50E+06 0.3600 2.4800 0")
Oo
Benzo[b]fluoranthene * 5.50E+05 0.6680 Ill
Benzo[k]fluoranthene * 5.50E+05 0.6780 2.7100 Co
Or)
Benz[a]anthracene * 1.38E+06 0.7690 22.7000
B e r y l l i u m and c o m p o u n d s B 0.2650 0.6060 0.2730 0.7450 Ill
Z
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl}phthalate (DEPH} B -I
Boron N
Bromodlchloromethane B 6.10E+01
Butylbenzyl p h t h a l a t e N
c a d m i u m and c o m p o u n d s B 1.1700 170.0000 1.9000 33.0000
Carbon disulfide N 5.40E+01
Carbon tetrachloride B 1.10E+02
Chloroethane *
Chloroform B 3.1OE+01
C h r o m i u m III and c o m p o u n d s N 8.6400 2500.0000 10.9000 1000.0000
C h r o m i u m VI and c o m p o u n d s B 8.6400 2500.0000 10.9000 1000.0000
Chrysene * 2.00E+05 0.7660 16.5000
C o p p e r and compounds * 7.5200 14000.0000 7.8600 790.0000
Cyanides N 0.3070 6.5100
Dibenzo[a,h]anthraoene * 3.30E+06 0.4560
Dibromoohloromethane N 8.40E+01
Dichlorobenzene, l,2- N 1.70E+03
Dichlorobenzene, l,4- * 1.70E+03
Dichloroethane, l,1- B 3.00E+01
Dichloroethane,l,2- (EDC} C 1.40E+OI
FIO. 3--Worksheet W-lb Scoring for Indicator Chuical selectionz Zoc v a l u e s and concentrations in
8oiI and 8ed~nt.
C = Carcinogen; N = Noncarcinogen; B = B o t h
CHEMNAME SITE: lak GND_H20 RR
Vinyl chloride 3.89e+01 9.14e-01

Dichloroethylene, 1,1- 2.23e+00 5.24e-02
Arsenic and compounds 6.30e-01 1.48e-02
Trichloroethylene 2.64e-01 6.21e-03
B/s(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) 2.52e-01 5.93e-03
Beryllium and compounds 1.92e-01 4.51e-03
Tetrachloroethylene 4.08e-02 9.60e-04
Dichloroethane, 1,1- 1.69e-02 3.98e-04
Trichloroethane, 1,1,2- 9.12e-03 2.15e-04
Benzene 2.48e-03 5.83e-05
Dichloromethane 2.18e-03 5.12e-05
Dichloroethane, 1,2- (EDC) 1.71e-03 4.02e-05
Tctrachloroethane, 1,1,2.2- 1.20e-03 2.82e-05
Chloroform 6.71e-04 1.58e-05
Carbon tetrachloride 6.50e-04 1.53e-05
Dinitrotoluene, 2,6- 5.44e-04 1.28e-05
Dinitrotoluene, 2,4- 4.08e-04 9.60e-06
Tribromomethane (bromoform) 1.58e-04 3.72e-06
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 6.86e-05 1.61e-06
Bromodichloromethane * * 0.00 0.00
Nickel and compounds NA 0.00 0.00
Cadmium and compounds NA 0.00 0.00
Chromium VI and compounds NA 0.00 0.00
TOTAL RISK FACTOR 4.25e+01 1.00e+00
FIG. 4--Worksheet W-3 Risk factors and relative risk for groundwater - Carcinogen group.
"*" Indicates no data. "lqA" Indicates no tmk:/ty value.
OO
OO
GO
C
-(3
m
:D
-M
GND H20 SURH20 SOIL SEDIM
c
CHEMNAME SITE: lak RR RANK RR RANK RR RANK RR RANK Z
A r s e n i c and c o m p o u n d s 1.48E-02 3 7.68E-01 1 3.28E-01 2 9.32E-01 1

Benzene 5.83E-05 10 2.89E-04 10" 0.00E+O0 * O.OOE+O0 >
GO
B e r y l l i u m and c o m p o u n d s 4.51E-03 6 3.77E-02 4 2.71E-03 4 3.62E-02 2 GO
I"1'I
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl}
p h t h a l a t e (DEHP) 5.93E-03 5 3.37E-03 5* 0.00E+00 *0.00E+00
Bromodichloromethane *0.OOE+O0 2.59E-03 6* O.OOE+O0 *O.00E+O0 m
z
C a d m i u m and c o m p o u n d s NA NA* NA NA NA NA NA NA
Carbon tetrachloride 1.53E-05 15" O.OOE+00 *O.00E+00 *O.00E+O0
Chloroform 1.58E-05 14" 0.00E+00 *0.00E+00 *0.OOE+O0
C h r o m i u m VI and c o m p o u n d s NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Dichloroethane, 1,1- 3.98E-04 8 1.45E-01 2* 0.OOE+O0 *O.OOE+O0
Dichloroethane, 1,2- (EDC) 4.02E-05 12" O.OOE+00 *O.OOE+O0 *0.00E+O0
Dichloroethylene, 1,1- 5.24E-02 2* 0.00E+00 *O.OOE+O0 *0.OOE+O0
Dichloromethane 5.12E-05 11 2.39E-03 7 *0.00E+O0 *O.OOE+00
Dinitrotoluene, 2,4- 9.60E-06 17 3.80E-02 3 6.58E-01 1 3.23E-02 3
Dinltrotoluene, 2,6- 1.28E-05 16" 0.OOE+00 1.13E-02 3* 0.00E+O0
Nickel and c o m p o u n d s NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
FIG. 5--Norksheet W-5 R a n k & r e l a t i v e risk by media - CarcLnogen group.
"*" Indicates no data. "NA" Indicates no t o x i c i t y value.
HOVA'rTER AND GIBSON ON SELECTION OF INDICATOR CHEMICALS 89
second among carcinogens in surface water and sediment (76.8% and

93.2% of the risk, respectively} and second and third among
carcinogens in soil and groundwater (32.8~ and 1.5% of the risk,
respectively).
The program is very user-frlendly. It is menu-driven and a

user needs only a minimum knowledge of the Lotus-123 software.
Fig. 6 presents the menu options for each Lotus spreadsheet. Each
menu item is selected in order and the program performs the
appropriate function.
FZNALSELBCTXGNOFCHImliZC]4LE OF CONCERN
The t o p r a n k i n g c a r c i n o g e n s a n d n o n c a r c i n o g e n s i n t h e
concentration-toxicity s c r e e n i n g p r o c e d u r e f r o m C~SIC, a l o n g w i t h
any detected chemicals for which toxicity values are currently un-
available, are subsequently analyzed to establish a list of the
chemicals posing the most significant health risks at a site. Final
selection of chemicals of potential concern is based on evidence of
human carcinogenlty; frequency of occurrence in environmental media;
@xceedance of MCLs, proposed MCLs, or other health-based guidance
values; potential toxicity based on relative risk ranking in CASIC;
exceedance of background levels; and environmental persistence and
mobility.
An understanding of the history of the site is essential for

determining the slte-relatedness of detected chemicals. For
instance, most of the Army NPL sites are ammunition plants with the
primary mission of manufacturing and storing trinitrotoluene and RDX
munitions, consequently resulting in soil contamination of
nitroaromaticz, heavy metals, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons.
Leaching of these chemicals from the soll to the groundwater usually
results in contamination of this media as well with the added
potential for off-slte migration to private drinking water supplies.
Any carcinogen (e.g. benzene, arsenic, vinyl chlorlde) that is

in U.S. EPA Welght-of-Evldence Group A, a known human carcinogen
based on epidemlologlcal data, should automatically be selected as a
chemical of concern. Any chemical that is detected at a maximum
concentration that exceeds a health-based standard promulgated under
another environmental regulation (e.g. Water Quality Criteria under
the Clean Water Act) should be selected as e chemical of concern.
In addition, any site-related chemical that has migrated off-site
should be carried through the risk assessment as a chemical of
concern. Chemicals that are detected frequently across all
environmental media or that are detected at toxic concentrations in
one media should be selected as chemicals of concern. Conversely,
chemicals that are detected infrequently and/or in only one media
and at concentrations that are not considered toxic to human health
or the environment can be eliminated from the risk assessment. In
addition, chemicals that are essential human nutrients and occur at
background concentrations or mlightly above background can be
eliminated from the risk assessment.
The final set of chemicals of concern can then be carried

through the baseline risk assessment to determine the hazard
associated with the site. Subsequently, remedlal alternatlvee can
be developed and selected to cleanup these chemicals of concern in
the c o n t a m l n a t e d m e d l a at the site.
] O
MENU FOR SITEDTA2.WKI M E N U F O R WS345C.WKI

O~
C
IIII -0
m
H E W SITE -n
SITE -n
C
Place new site name on Lotus spreadsheet G i v e site name to Lotus spreadsheet Z
0
IMPORT IMPORT
Bring IRIS/HEAST chemical list into Lotus Bring data columns from Sitedta2.wkl
s p r e a d s h e e t (ready to m a r k chemicals} Program G~
O~
rn
REDUCE CALCULATE
Reduce llst to m a r k e d chemicals P e r f o r m risk factor and relative risk m

calculations z
COPY NEW ~ASK
C o p y m a r k e d chemicals into W-la, W-lb, Sort and rank by relative risk
W - l c (ready to enter concentrations}
M A K E WS2 PC PRINT
Create spreadsheet W-2 GO to Print M e n u for PC chemical group
PRINT NC PRINT
GO to Print Menu GO to Print M e n u for NC chemical group
FILE SAVE FILESAVE
Save Lotus spreadsheet (includes Save Lotus spreadsheet (includes W-3,

W-la, b, c and W-2) W-4, W-5, W-6)
OUIT OUIT
Exit the menu. Exit the menu
FIG. 6--Nonu selections fo~ each sprladshiIt in the CI~XC p r o g r a n .

RBFI~.BNCB8
[I] Federal Register, "National Priorities List for Uncontrolled

Hazardous Waste Sites," Vol. 56, No. 145, Monday, July 29, 1991, pp
35840-35846, United States Environmental Protection Agency.
[~] U.S. EPA, Risk Assessment Guidance for SuDerfund. Vol. 1.

Human Health Evaluation Manual, EPA/540/1-89/002, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
Washington, D.C., 1989.
[~] USATHAMA, "Installation Restoration Quality Assurance
Program," U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency, 1990.
[i] U.S. EPA, "Integrated Risk Information System,"
EPA/600/8/86/O32a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Health and Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, OH., 1989.
[i] U.S. EPA, "Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables, Annual,

Fu OERR 9200.6-303-(91-1), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C.,
1991.
Fate and Transport
Charles A. Menzie I. Dave Morgan 2, Dennis F. Unites 3, and
David E. Burmaster ~
B I O L O G I C A L A N D C H E M I C A L T E S T M E T H O D S F O R E V A L U A T I N G THE N E E D
F O R A N D E F F I C A C Y OF R E M E D I A T I O N OF SOILS: A P R E L I M I N A R Y
STRATEGY
REFERENCE: Menzie, C. A., Morgan, D., unites, D. F.,

and Burmaster, D. E., "Biological and C h e m i c a l Test
M e t h o d s for E v a l u a t i n g t h e N e e d for a n d E f f i c a c y of
R e m e d i a t i o n of Soils: A P r e l i m i n a r y Strategy"
Superfund Risk Assessment in Soil Contamination
~ , ASTM 1158, Keith B. Hoddinott, Ed., American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1992.
ABSTRACT: This paper describes the first step in the

development of a strategy that uses various test methods
(e.g., extraction procedures, bioassays) to provide
information that can be used to evaluate directly the risks
associated with contaminants in Soils or to supplement risk
assessments. The objective of the strategy is to provide a
means of reducing the uncertainty associated with risk
assessments by providing site-specific biological and
chemical test data where assumptions concerning the
bioavailability or toxicity of mixtures are currently being
made. A preliminary "strawman" strategy is presented in
which tests are organized into tiers of increasing test
complexity and cost. A number of the test methods are in
common use as part of various regulatory programs while
others are still in the developmental or research stage.
KEMWORDS: soil remediation, ecological risk, human health

risk, plant bioassay, animal bioassay, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, PAH, desorption tests
i. Menzie-Cura & Associates, Chelmsford, MA 01824

2. Remediation Technologies, Pittsburgh, PA 15238
3. Atlantic Environmental, Colchester, CT 06415
4. Alceon Corporation, Cambridge, MA 02238
Decisions regarding the need for and efficacy of

remediation of contaminated soils often depend on
information concerning the human health or ecological risks
posed by the site. In many cases, numerical clean-up
criteria or action levels have been published or are derived
by backcalculating using the risk assessment assumptions
made in the baseline risk assessment [i]. These are useful
for sites where the nature of the contaminants is well known
and remediation can be implemented in a cost effective
manner. However, there are limitations on the use and/or
interpretation of such numbers which can result in clean-up
programs that are either overly protective for the land use
or not protective enough. The most commonly recognized
limitations of published or calculated numerical values are:
the approach typically takes into account

individual chemicals or only a few chemicals;
synergistic or antagonistic interactions
among the chemicals are often ignored;
the approach is limited to those chemicals

that were measured at the site; chemicals
that are not measured either because they
were not part of the study, because of
analytical difficulties (e.g., matrix
effects), or because they are metabolic break
down products of parent compounds are
typically not included in the assessment or
in development of target levels;
matrix effects which may limit the

bioavailability of chemicals in soils or
sediments are usually not considered;
examples of such matrix effects include the
binding of organic compounds within the soil
or waste matrix and the binding of metals as
sulfide compounds;
the methods typically rely upon literature

values for toxicity of individual chemicals
(either to humans or environmental receptors)
rather than site or waste specific measures
of toxicity.
The uncertainties associated with evaluating risks at a site

can be reduced if site-specific data are obtained from
direct measures of the bioavailability and toxicity of the
chemicals in the media at the site before and/or after
remediation.
This paper outlines a preliminary "strawman" strategy
for selecting methods that can provide direct measures of
chemical bioavailability and toxicity on a site-specific
basis. This is the first step in an ongoing program to
develop a strategy. Over the next few years additional work
MENZIE ET AL. ON BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL TEST METHODS 97
will be carried out on specific test methods. Thus, the

tests and strategy are not being presented as a recommended
approach at this time.
The methods are organized around a series of questions

that are typically raised when evaluating conditions at a
site with regard to risks to human health or environmental
receptors:
To what extent could chemicals in soils

contaminate groundwater or surface water as a
result of desorption or release from the soil
or sediment matrix?
To what extent will chemicals in soils
volatilize to the atmosphere and become a
source of exposure via that media?
Will chemicals in soils at a site be
bioaccumulated and transferred through food
webs?
Do the soils exhibit toxicity using standard
short-term toxicity tests?
What is the bioavailability and/or toxicity
of chemicals in soils that may adhere to the
skin of people?
What is the bioavailability of chemicals in
soils that may be incidentally ingested by
people?
Are the soils toxic to soil invertebrates?
Are the soils toxic to plants?
Preliminary S t r a t e T /
Selection of appropriate tests depends on a number of
factors including the questions they are intended to help
answer, the value of the data in helping reach decisions,
the acceptance of the test, and cost. Selection of tests
and implementation of a testing program should be carried
out by individuals familiar with the strengths and
limitations of the test methods and with knowledge
concerning the interpretation of results. In some cases a
critical question may be answered with a single test while
in other cases, a battery of tests may be appropriate. As a
preliminary "strawman" strategy, we have identified a
limited number of tests and have organized these into three
tiers of increasing complexity. We view the tests as part
of an overall weight of evidence approach. In some cases a
few simple tests may suffice while in others more rigorous
and comprehensive testing may be needed to reach a
sufficient weight of evidence concerning the bioavailability
or toxicity of chemicals within the soil matrix.
Tier I. Initial Assessment and Screenina Methods
The following methods are examples of what could be

considered as part of an initial assessment of potential
bioavailability of chemicals in soils and potential for
toxicity:
measurement of site-specific partition

or desorption coefficients
earthworm bioassay
plant toxicity test
microtox solid phase test
Measurement o f s i t e - s p e c i f i c partition coefficients:

The following methods are available for evaluating the
potential for chemicals leaching from soils to groundwater:
soil desorption studies using washes with water, lysimeter
studies, Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)
Test, and direct groundwater observations.
We believe measurement of site-specific partition
coefficients is especially helpful for judging the potential
for leaching of contaminants to groundwater as well as the
bioavailability of the compounds. Partitioning is described
by the following equilibrium relationship:
Cw = Cs/Kp
where
CW = aqueous concentration (mg/L),

Cs = soil concentration (mg/Kg), and
Kp = soil to water partitioning coefficient [(mg/Kg)/
(mg/L)].
In most risk assessments the partitioning coefficient

is estimated rather than measured. With non-polar organic
compounds, for example, the soil to water partitioning
coefficient is often approximated by the following equation
[2]:
Kp = foc 9 Koc
where
foc = fraction of organic carbon in soil (Kg~OC/Kg) and

Koc = organic carbon to water partitioning coefficient
[ (mg/Kg-OC) / (mg/L) ].
For many soils, this expression does not accurately

reflect the partitioning behavior that will occur [2]. We
have been involved in performing desorption tests with soils
contaminated with hydrocarbons [2] and have found that
measured site-specific partitioning coefficients will often
be greater than those given by the relationship foc 9 Koc.
Figure 1 shows that measured values of Kp for aromatic
hydrocarbons were substantially higher than values estimated
Partition coefficient
I0000
I000
m
z
NI
m
m
100
0
z
5r'-
10 0
r-
Z
D
3en Tol Eth Xyl Nap Ace Acn Flu 9he Ant FIo T
~,romatie Organic Compound

r-"
-I
m
Measured Kp Calculated Kp
--t
rn
-i-
Figure 1. Comparison of measured and predicted (Foc 9 Koc) Kp values for Soil I from O
a Manufactured Gas Plant Site. Compounds include, Benzene, (Ben);
l"oluene, (To1); Ethylbenzene, (Eth); Xylene, (Xyl); Naphthalene, (Nap);
Acenaphthylene, (Ace); Acenaphtene, (Acn); Fluorene, (Flu); Phenanthrene,
~D
(Phe); Anthracene, (An0; Fluoranthene, (Flo). t,D
using the relationship foc 9 Koc for a soil from a

manufactured gas plant (MGP) site. This indicates that the
aromatic hydrocarbon chemicals have less potential to leach
from this soil to groundwater than the foc 9 Koc
relationship implies. Similar results have consistently
been obtained for other soils contaminated with coal tar
wastes [2]. This same issue of leaching potential is
critical to evaluating soils after treatment by a
remediation process. For example, the soil discussed above
was subjected to treatment in a laboratory scale slurry
water biological reactor. Total PAHs in soil were reduced
from 1800 mg/kg to 250 mg/kg, a reduction of 86% [2].
Nonetheless, levels of PAHS were still well above detection
limits. However, the aqueous concentrations measured in the
reactor at the beginning and end of the experiment indicated
that the residual PAHs are not as susceptible to leaching as
the PAHs initially present. They were bound strongly to the
matrix and were comparatively recalcitrant. The
bioavailability of these residual PAH compounds appeared to
be very low inasmuch as they were resistant to further
biodegradation in the reactors.
Earthworm Bioassays: Earthworm Bioassay(s) can include
laboratory and/or in-field methods. The methods can be used
for assessment of soil toxicity as well as potential
bioaccumulation of contaminants. It is presumed that if the
contaminants are available to earthworms they could be
available to other animal species.
Standard EPA and/or OECD laboratory methods have been
developed for Eisinia foetida and Lumbricus terrestris.
These procedures are commonly used to evaluate the toxicity
of soils containing complex mixtures of chemicals as well as
the toxicity of specific compounds. In-field bioassays with
worms offer some advantages over those that may be performed
in the laboratory [3]. A procedure has been proposed as a
standard guide for an on-site earthworm test for acute
toxicity and potential ecological impact. At present it is
part of an ASTM Standards process. The in-field procedure
is based on Lumbricus terrestris and has been used
successfully at several sites. The method can be used to
examine mortality, behavioral effects, histopathology, and
accumulation of contaminants. Worms exposed in the field
can also be analyzed for body burdens or used in subsequent
laboratory studies to examine sublethal effects (e.g.,
immune system depression) which have been found to be useful
measures as discussed later in this paper. In-field
bioassay tests with earthworms have provided useful
information on the spatial distribution of toxic soils at
some sites as well as the potential that contaminants can
bioaccumulate in invertebrates. In one case [3], the
bioassays were used to map the toxicity of surface soils and
revealed the importance of subtle drainage areas through the
site for the transport of contaminated soils (Figure 2).
Plant toxicity tests: These procedures should be
considered when phytotoxicity of soils is suspected due to
m
z
N
m
--d
FSSW River -
4- t-
918 ." @ 9
O
z
919 t~
9 o o o, 9 +914
o
I--
@ O O '. 9 O o
9 t18 0 0 t 0 o
I--
@ O
KEY: TOXICITY RANKINGS ~ O 9 ~o ~
@@ ' 9 o >
~
z
7 - DAY TEST DATA o
9 4 Most Toxic o
-1-
o3 m
e2 B M - 1 4 o. Clay Cap >
l--
Ol
o 0 Least Toxic m
+ Reference Points
I m
i-
o
t3
Figure 2.
Spatial pattern of soil toxicity to the earthworm Lumbricus terrestris at the
Baird and McGuire Superfund Site using an in-field method.
..A
the nature of the contaminants or observations of stressed

vegetation. In some cases field observations will provide a
simple indication if the soils are toxic to native plants.
There are a number of methods available for assessing plant
toxicity [4]. Current emphasis is on growth of the plant
after seed germination. Data generated from these studies
can be used to identify locations of soils that are
phytotoxic. For example, in Figure 3 we use data from
sirois [5] to illustrate the spatial distribution of soils
exhibiting toxicity to plant growth at Rocky Mountain
Arsenal.
Microtox solid phase test: This simple test provides a
measure of the presence of chemicals that possess toxicity
to a photobacterium and offers an inexpensive screening
method to compare contaminated soils to reference soils and
treated materials to untreated materials. This simple test
provides a relative measure of toxicity. Microbics
Corporation has developed a method for soil testing in which
the bacterium is applied directly to the soil in a slurry,
and then extracted back into an assay solution. This method
is now commercially available and 5-10 laboratories
currently perform the initial independent testing. To date,
the test has been applied successfully to contaminated
sediments (P. Ross, personal communication). However, an
experience base involving application to soils is needed.
Tier 2 Tests: Screening Tests that Provide Information on

Possible Sublethal Effects or Which M a y b e Related to
Endpoints of Direct Human Concern
The methods suggested in Tier i will provide insights

into the potential toxicity of soils. However, in some
cases it may be desirable to use test methods with endpoints
for specific sublethal effects or which are typically
considered in assessing risks to humans. Examples of these
tests include:
Ames assay
Toxicity tests with mammalian cell cultures
Extraction with simulated digestive fluids or skin
Immunotoxicity test with earthworm
While these tests provide some insight into toxicity,

interpretation of tests of extracts of soil samples is not
straightforward. Research into the efficiency and
reproducibility of different extraction methods for various
contaminants is limited.
Ames assay: This test has been used to evaluate soils
and waste residuals and provides a potential measure of
mutagenicity and how this may change as a result of
treatment [6,7]. However, the method should not be viewed as
definitive because many natural and anthropogenic materials
yield a positive response via the Ames assay. One
N o r t h - S o u t h Coordinates (feet)
6500
0 [] 9 9
6000- D
Toxicity Scale
5500- ~r
[] 0 [] 111
Z
5000- [] [] 0 N
RI
9 0 0 0 111
4500- --I
[]
4000
[] 0 9 0 0
Z
3500- O0
l 9 l 0
[] 9 l r-
3000 0
G)
2500
[] 9 0 0
r'-
0 [] []
2000 Z
0 [] I 0
1500 0
[] [] 9 9 [] [] -r
m
1000 [] [] 9 0 0
I I I I, I I I I I I I r-
5OO .-I
111
50O 1000 1500 2 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 5 0 0 09
.--I
East-West Coordinates (feet) m

-I
T
Based on data of Slrole (1990) 0
0
O~
Figure 3. Spatial pattern of soil toxicity to plant emergence and growth at Rocky
Mountain Arsenal Section 36 based on laboratory bioassays.
O
difficulty in applying the method is that soils must first

be extracted with a solvent. This extraction procedure may
not reflect the actual bioavailability of compounds in the
soil.
Toxicity studies with mammalian cells and tissues:
There are a variety of tests that have potential for use in
characterizing the toxicity or bioavailability of chemicals
in soils. The experience base for applying these tests at
hazardous waste sites is limited and additional research and
development is needed in order to include these as part of a
battery of tests.
Soil and water samples have been tested for
genotoxicity using mammalian cell cultures, such as Chinese
hamster ovary (CHO) cells [8,9]. Mammalian cell cultures
have been used to test for developmental toxicity and
neurotoxicity of contaminated soil undergoing bioremediation
[9]. Clonetics Corporation [10], the vendors of an in vitro
test for dermal toxicity (Neutral Red Bioassay), have also
applied their assay to environmentally relevant matrices.
The experience base for applying these tests to soils at
hazardous waste sites is extremely limited.
Methods are being developed for directly testing the
toxicity of environmental mixtures using cultures of
mammalian tissues. Many of these methods utilize rapid, low
cost in vitro assays. The new tissue culture tests have the
potential to be used to test for endpoints such as dermal
toxicity, liver and kidney toxicity, and perhaps
neurotoxicity and developmental effects.
A number of methods are available for assessing
toxicity to human skin. In addition, some of these methods
can be used to determine the bioavailability of chemicals
from wet soil matrices. However, in most cases, the methods
appear to have been used with aqueous solutions. Thus,
routine testing with extracts from soils would not be a
problem. The ability to apply wet soil to test skin and to
determine absorption and/or toxicity has not been
demonstrated but based on conversations with individuals
involved with the development of these tools this should be
possible. Two companies, MarrowTech, Inc. (La Jolla, CA)
and Organogenesis (Cambridge, MA) have developed three
dimensional human skin culture systems that can be used for
in vitro toxicity testing. Several endpoints can be used
for toxicity testing. These systems may also be useful for
the evaluation of dermal absorption, and the examination of
the bioavailability of biodegradation products.
Extraction of soils with simulated digestive fluids or
skin: There has been some preliminary research regarding the
use of simulated digestive fluids for extracting
contaminants from soils. The purpose of such tests is to
measure the biologically available fraction of the
contaminants in soils following ingestion. We evaluated the
bioavailability of PAH in two soils using simulated gastric
juice and intestinal fluid. This test consisted of mixing
soil and simulated gastric juice in polypropylene centrifuge
MENZlE ET AL. ON BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL TEST METHODS 105
tubes, allowing the mixture to equilibrate, then separating

the simulated gastric juice as the supernatant after
centrifuging. Simulated intestinal fluid was then added to
the soil, mixed and re-equilibrated, centrifuged, and the
simulated intestinal fluid was drawn off. Initial soil
samples, final soil samples, simulated gastric juice and
simulated intestinal fluid were submitted for PAH analysis.
Results of these preliminary tests are shown in Figure 4 for
three of the PAH compounds.
The test indicated that between 4 and 60% of the PAH
was desorbed from the soil depending on compound and soil.
We believe there are some methodological problems with these
initial tests related to variability in the measurements of
soil concentrations, the use of centrifugation in the
protocol, and ability to represent the human gut in a "test
tube". A more realistic laboratory protocol would
incorporate an absorbent to remove the chemicals as they are
released into the simulated gastric juice and intestinal
fluid; this would mimic uptake through the gut. A possible
absorbent could be provided by tenax beads which have been
used for soil-water release experiments with contaminated
soils [ii]. In addition, the use of a readily separable
lipid component, such as octanol, would simulate the
presence of lipid components in the simulated digestive
fluid.
Immunotoxir test with earthworms: This test may be
used to provide information on bioavailability, potential
sublethal effects on soil biota, and potential effects on
mammals. Depending on the acceptance of this test, it may
be useful as a bridge between Tier 1 and Tier 2 and could be
coupled with the standard earthworm test. If results of
this test are negative, then there may not be a need to
pursue mammalian cell cultures.
Fitzpatrick et al. [12] and Chen et al. [13] report on
procedures for evaluating immunotoxicity using earthworms.
While the methods provide information on effects on
earthworms, the researchers in this area also hope to be
able to use them as a means for assessing potential for
toxic effects on mammals including humans. The researchers
involved in the immunoassay work with earthworms note that
in addition to being sensitive and having certain immune
functions analogous to those in mammals, earthworms possess
other advantages for studying immunotoxicity of pollutants.
Their large surface area to volume ratio and feeding
behavior facilitates uptake and tissue distribution of
chemicals. Tissues are easily separated, prepared and
extracted. The immunoactive celomic leucocytes can be
obtained without harm to individual earthworms.
Earthworm coelomic leucocytes have sufficient ability
to reduce nitroblue tetrazolium dye (NBT) for potential use
as a surrogate biomarker to assess non-specific
immunotoxicity of pollutants [14]. The method was used
successfully with refuse-derived fuel fly ash and soils from
a hazardous waste site contaminated by chlorinated
SOIL C SOIL E
DESORBED
U
100
"11
C
Z
0
B0 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... m
m
m
m
m
8 0 ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
5.7.....................155........................
rrl
z
-t
40 ....................................................3.8..
0
BENZO(AIANTHRACENE )IBENZO(A,H)ANTH RACENE MAPHTHALENE
Figure 4. Percent desorption of PAH compounds from two soils extracted sequentially
with simulated gastric juice and intestinal fluid.
pesticides (Figure 5). In the former case the application

the method showed effects associated with the presence of
metals in the fly ash. These effects were eliminated after
the fly ash was acid-washed to remove metals. In the latter
the response was directly related to areas considered to
have different levels of contamination based on measurements
of pesticides in soils.
Tier 3 Tests: Assessinq Effects on Hiqher Trophic Levels

Using Direct Studies of Mammals or Birds
Direct Field Observations: Animals or plants located in

and around contaminated soils can be collected for direct
observation. Analyses could include measurements of tissue
levels or metabolites as indicators of exposure as well as
examination of specific biomarkers.
Short-term Feeding Study; Short-term feeding studies
with rats or mice could be used to evaluate the
bioavailability of potential toxic contaminants and tissue-
level exposure. Short-term (15 day) feeding studies with
B6C3F1 mice have been used to examine the bioavailability
and response to coal tar components in the diet [14].
Measurement endpoints include urinary extraction of PAH
metabolites and DNA binding of coal tar components (Figure
6). The method is continuing to be evaluated and applied to
coal tar materials. There is interest in applying the
method to contaminated soils. Ultimately, it is anticipated
that the test will provide not only a basis for assessing
degrees of exposure but also to provide a basis for
assessing health risks.
Conclusions and N e x t S t e p s
The tests described above are used to illustrate the

first step in a preliminary strategy. This approach is
undergoing review and we hope to develop a technically
defensible strategy for evaluation over the next few years.
Ultimately, selection of tests will depend on the need for
specific information as well as the cost of the test in
comparison to the alternative costs of arriving at clean-up
levels and implementing different degrees of remediation.
The short-list of tests presented here could be supplemented
with additional or alternative tests to answer specific
questions. Frequently, the selection of tests will depend
on the familiarity of the investigator and the degree of
confidence that individuals will place on each individual
test. We feel that the three tiers presented above capture
some of this but recognize that there will be many
legitimate technical biases in selecting individual or
suites of tests. In such cases, results should be
considered useful for providing composite pictures of
conditions.
Mean NBT Reduotion (% Control) O0
100
GO
C
"0
m
~3
80 c
Z
C3
~o
(/)
>
60 co
m
rj )
of)
m
Z
40 --I
20
0
Intermediate High
Low
Level of Contamination
Source: Goven et al. (1990)
Figure 5. Immuotoxicity assay (NBT Dye reduction) of the earthworm
terrestris exposed in-situ for 48 hrs to soil from a Supcrfund site.
ADDUCT LEVELS (pmol / mg DNA)
I
:).8
m
z
N
m
:).6 -I
F
0
z
0.4
0
0
0
:).2 r-
z
o
o
-1-
1.0 m
:).1 0.2 0.5
% COAL TAR IN DIET r-
--I
m
f/I
--I
/ Lung ~ Forestomach
m
---I
-1-
~dapted from Weyand et al. (in press) 0
Figure 6. DNA adduct levels in mice ingesting coal tar sample c.

ik
o
to
Several possible test procedures are in the

developmental stages. The Microtox solid phase test
(included in Tier i) is recently available but has not been
applied to a wide variety of conditions. The short-term
feeding study (included in Tier 3) has been conducted with
coal tars but has not yet been applied to contaminated soil
conditions. Some developmental work will be needed to
develop a protocol for use of this method in evaluating
soil.
Consideration needs to be given to the interpretation
of results within a risk and site management context. We
currently view the protocol as a weight of evidence approach
linked to specific risk-based questions. We envision that
experimental designs should include test and reference soils
from common geographic areas as well as standard test soils.
In additioD~ we think the test methods will be helpful for
comparing conditions prior to and following soil treatment.
These comparisons are relative in nature. Ultimately,
meaningful progress on the development and implementation of
test protocols can only come from a collaborative effort
between federal and state agencies and industry.
REFERENCE8
[i] Menzie, C.A. and Burmaster, D.E., Overview of soil

clean-up levels and risk-based decision making,
HazMat 88 Conference, June 14-16, 1988, Atlantic
City, NJ, Tower Conference Management Co., Glen
Ellyn, IL.
[2] Cushey, M. and Morgan, D, Biological Treatment of

Soils Containing Manufactured Gas Plant Residues.
Gas Research Institute, 8600 West Bryn Mawr Ave.,
Chicago, IL, 60631, 1990.
[3] Callahan, C.A., Menzie, C.A., Burmaster, D.E.,

Wilborn, D.C., and Ernst, T., On-site methods for
assessing chemical impact on the soil environment
using earthworms: a case study at the Baird and
McGuire Superfund Site, Holbrook, MA, Env. Tox.
and Chem. i0, 1991, pp 817-826.
[4] Kaputska, L.A., and Reporter, M. Evaluating

exposure and ecological effects with terrestrial
plants, Proceedings of a workshop for the U.S. EPA
Exposure Assessment Group, 28 August 1991, US EPA
Region i0, Seattle Washington.
[5] Sirois, D.L., Survey of Rocky Mountain Arsenal for

phytotoxic substances, Plants for Toxicity
Assessment, ASTM STP 1091, W. Wang, J.W. Gorsuch,
and W.R. Lower, Eds., American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, 1990, pp. 188-197.
[6] Jones, K.C. and Peace, E.A., The Ames mutagenicity

assay applied to a range of soils, Chemosphere,
18, 1990, pp. 1657-1664.
[7] Donnelly, K.C., Brown, K.W., Anderson, C.S., and

Thomas, J.C., Bacterial mutagenicity and acute toxicity
of solvent and aqueous extracts of soil samples from an
abandoned chemical manufacturing site. Env. Tox. and
Chem., i0, 1991, pp. 1123-1131.
[8] Wilcox, P. and Williamson, S., Mutagenic activity

of concentrated drinking water samples, Environ.
Health Perspect. 69, 1986, pp.141-149.
[9] Irvin, T. R., Application of Cell Culture Systems

to Monitor Chemical Toxicity During
Biodegradation. Paper presented at 7th Annual
Hazardous Materials Management Conference
International, Atlantic City, NJ, June 13-15,
1989.
[i0] Clonetics Corporation, Ongoing Validation of

Clonetics' Keratinocyte Neutral Red Bioassay,
Cellular Communications 1(6), 1989, San Diego,
CA.
[ii] Pignatello, J.J., Slowly reversible sorption of
aliphatic halocarbons in soils. I. Formation of
residual fractions, Env. Tox. and Chem., 9, 1990,
pp. 1107-1115.
[12] Fitzpatrick, L.C., Goven, A.J., Venables, B.J.,

Rodriguez-Grau, J., and Cooper, E.L., Earthworm
immunoassays for evaluating biological effects of
exposure to hazardous materials. In: In-Situ
Evaluations of Biological Hazards of Environmental
Polluta[Its (Sandhu et al., eds.). Plenum Press,
New York. 1990.
[13] Chen, S.C., Fitzpatrick, L.C., Goven, A.J.,

Venables, B.J., and Cooper, E.L., Nitroblue
tetrazolium dye reduction by earthworm Lumbricus
terrestris coelomocytes: an enzyme assay for non-
specific immunotoxicity of xenobiotics, in press.
[14] Weya~d, E.H., Wu, Y, Patel, S., Taylor, B.B. and

Mauro, D.M., Urinary excretion and DNA binding of
coal tar components in B6C3FI mice following
ingestion, Chemical Research in Toxicology, in
press.
Ronald F. Sober I, Dibyendu Paul 2
FATE AND TRANSPORT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE CONSTITUENTS AND ASSESSMENT OF

ENVIRONMENTAL RISK FROM HYDROCARBON CONTAMINATED SOILS
REFERENCE: Sober, R. F., and Dibyendu, P., "Fate and Transport of

Hazardous Waste Constituents and Assessment of Environmental Risk From
Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soils" Superfund Risk Assessment in Soil
Contamination Studi@s, ASTM STp 1158, Keith B. Hoddinott, Ed., .~Lmerican
A~STRACTs Predicting the fate and transport of hazardous constituents

from hydrocarbon contaminated soils is an integral part of assessing
constituent migration potential and exposure risks. This paper
highlights a systematic methodology that was adopted for evaluating
health risks associated with releases of hazardous air contaminants
from a land treatment unit in the southwest. Included are procedures
for estimating releases of constituents using mathematical models,
site environmental and operating data, and literature references.
Release estimates provided input to atmospheric dispersion models
which translated releases to predicted ambient constituent
concentrations. These concentrations were then compared with health-
based standards to assess environmental exposure risk. Release
estimates were prepared for both long-term and short-term emissions to
address chronic and acute effects thus ensuring a comprehensive
assessment of health and environmental risk. Since there are normally
no point sources associated with contaminated soils, only fugitive
particulates were considered.
KKYWORDS: Superfund, hazardous, LTU, Chemdat6, ISC, fugitive

emissions, health-based standards, exposure, risk assessment
Since the Superfund program began in 1980, hazardous waste sites

have surfaced as one of the major environmental concerns in the United
States. Currently, EPA has logged more than 32,000 hazardous waste
sites of which more than 1,200 sites have been included in the
National Priorities List (NPL) and targeted for cleanup under the
Superfund program (EPA, 1990). Contaminants in the NPL sites are
known to spread into drinking water supplies, release into the air as
Ipresident, RFS Consulting, Inc., 10830 E. 45th Pl., Suite 202,

Tulsa,2Oklahoma 74146.
-Environmental Engineer, RFS Consulting, Inc., 10830 E. 45th
PI., Suite 202, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74146.
toxic vapors, and threaten human health. Table 1 lists chemicals

commonly found at NPL sites and identifies sources of contamination
along with potential health risks. As inferred from Table i,
hydrocarbons are a principal class of contaminants in hazardous waste
sites.
TABLE 1--Chemicals at NPL Sites and Associated Impacts
Chemical Sources of Potential

Contaminants Contamination Health Risks
Heavy Metals Common by-products Tumors, liver and/or

of electroplating, kidney damage,
batteries, paints hemorrhages, and
pigments, smelting respiratory cancer,
brain and neurological
damage, bone damage,
learning disabilities
Volatile Solvents, degreasing Cancers, impairment of

organic agents, gasoline octane nervous system,
Chemicals enhancers, oils, paints, sleepiness, headaches,
(VOCs) varnishes, dry-cleaning, kidney or liver damage,
chemical manufacture leukemia
Pesticides Commercial production, Accumulation in food

and agricultural and chain, nausea, nervous
Herbicides industrial applications disorders, cancer
Polychlori- Electric transformers, Stored in fatty

nated insulators, coolants, tissues, liver
biphenyls adhesives damage, cancer
(PCBs)
(EPA, 1990)
REGULATORY
The management of hazardous constituents has been the focus of

numerous environmental regulations, namely, the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) and subsequent amendments addressing the
treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes; the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) requiring reporting of
Extremely Hazardous Substances (EHS); the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) has established
Reportable Quantities (RQ) for hazardous substances; and the new Clean
Air Act, which will regulate a long list of Hazardous Air Pollutants
(HAPs) in addition to the chemicals currently regulated under the
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS).
There are also different provisions on the scope and applicability of
the rules and regulations governing "hazardous" materials. It is thus
easy to appreciate that hazardous constituents are controlled through
a complex legislative process. An understanding of the environmental
regulations that apply to a particular site and their correct
interpretation are therefore necessary prerequisites.
SOBER AND PAUL ON HAZARDOUS WASTE CONSTITUENTS 115
SITE CHARACTERIZATION
An exposure assessment begins with site characterization, since

environmental factors influence both the rates of releases and the
potential for exposure (EPA, 1989a). Past management practices,
description and location of the unit, and meteorological data, along
with topography, soil type and properties, and groundwater hydrology
are some examples of information needed for adequate characterization
of a site.
The land treatment unit (LTU) that was evaluated in this study
occupied a total area of 28.7 ha in an industrial setting with a
continental climate. Seasonal temperatures, precipitation,
evaporation, and relative humidity were obtained from the National
Weather Service (NWS). Also obtained were wind speeds and directions
for the location. These are important parameters that significantly
influence the release of air contaminants from a facility. Since air
emissions are of interest, groundwater information was not considered.
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
Materials disposed in the LTU typically include both hazardous

and nonhazardous constituents. Wastes containing hazardous
constituents can generally be characterized through review of past
operating records, laboratory analyses, engineering evaluation, and/or
literature information. Since the method and frequency of waste
application can influence air releases, these items should also be
included.
Because the study involved an active LTU, data for all wastes
were obtained from laboratory analyses of samples representative of
the material applied, sampling procedures conforming with EPA test
methods were used to obtain representative samples of the material.
Depending on characteristics, wastes were transported to the site in a
dump truck, dumpster, vacuum truck, or container truck equipped with a
sludge conveyor. Wastes were deposited on-site, spread if necessary,
and incorporated by tilling. Although several hydrocarbons were
detected in the wastes applied, only those constituents identified as
hazardous by RCRA (40 CFR Part 261, Appendix IX) were included in this
evaluation. Hydrocarbon constituents included benz(a)anthracene,
benzene, benzo(b) fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, fluoranthene,
naphthalene, and toluene. Physical and chemical properties of the
wastes and hazardous constituents were obtained from laboratory
analyses and literature information.
FATE ANDTRANSPORT MODELING
Mathematical models were used in establishing air phase release

rates for hazardous constituents found on-site. EPA's Chemdat6 model
was used for estimating the fraction of volatile and semi-volatile
organic constituents released to the air phase. Releases of
hydrocarbons associated with inhalable particulates were predicted
using a variety of estimating techniques, including modified soil loss
equations. Release rates were calculated based on output from these
models. The calculated release rates were used as input to EPA's
regulatory Industrial Source Complex (ISC) model to predict ambient
concentrations. Where possible the modeled concentrations were
compared with monitoring data. In using these models, quality control
and overall accuracy were ensured by input verification, sensitivity
analysis, and model validation. Assumptions were documented and
justified. W h e r e applicable, the l i m i t a t i o n s of the m o d e l w e r e

presented.
EE~ction of O r o a n i c E m i s s i o n s
E P A ' s C h e m d a t 6 land t r e a t m e n t m o d e l was u s e d to p r e d i c t releases

of h y d r o c a r b o n s from the LTU. The C h e m d a t 6 m o d e l can a l s o be u s e d to
c a l c u l a t e r e l e a s e s from other sources in S u p e r f u n d sites such as
d i s p o s a l i m p o u n d m e n t s a n d c l o s e d l a n d f i l l s (EPA, 1989b).
The m a s s of the v o l a t i l e constituent in the oil p h a s e was first

c a l c u l a t e d as:
M i = Moi I (C i * 10 -6 ) (i)
where
M. = m a s s of the c o n s t i t u e n t in the oil, g,

1
Moi I = m a s s of oil applied, g, a n d
C. = c o n c e n t r a t i o n of c o n s t i t u e n t in the oil, ~g/g.

1
The m a s s of each c o n s t i t u e n t r e l e a s e d in the air p h a s e was c a l c u l a t e d
by m u l t i p l y i n g the f r a c t i o n emitted, as p r e d i c t e d by the Chemdat6
model, by the m a s s of the c o n s t i t u e n t in the oil phase, as c a l c u l a t e d
by e q u a t i o n (i). The long term e m i s s i o n r a t e was c a l c u l a t e d as:
e = M T O T / ((287 000 m2) (I year)) (2)
= M T O T / 9.07 * 1012 g/m2-s
where
M = sum of the mass e m i t t e d d u r i n g e a c h m o n t h of the

entire ~r, g
28.7 ha = 287 000 m 2 is the total a r e a of the L T U
1 Kg = 1 000 g = 109 ~g.
To d e t e r m i n e the m a x i m u m s h o r t - t e r m e m i s s i o n rate, the m a s s e m i t t e d

for e a c h m o n t h was calculated, and the g r e a t e s t v a l u e w a s s e l e c t e d as
M . The e m i s s i o n rate was then c a l c u l a t e d as:
max
e = M m a x / ( (287 000 m 2) (t)) g/m2-s (3)
where s
M = m a x i m u m e m i s s i o n s for a month, g,
max
t = the c a l c u l a t i o n time,s.
T a b l e 2 shows w a s t e and soil d a t a input to the model.

C o n s t i t u e n t d a t a u s e d in the model i n c l u d e d the v a p o r pressure, the
air d i f f u s i o n coefficient, and the b i o l o g i c a l decay rate. Also used
in the m o d e l are p a r a m e t e r s r e l a t e d to the b i o l o g i c a l d e c a y rate s u c h
as the d e g r a d a t i o n rate constant a n d the time c o n s t a n t for b i o l o g i c a l
decay. T h e s e d a t a w e r e o b t a i n e d from C h e m d a t 6 d a t a b a s e a n d
l i t e r a t u r e references.
For m o d e l validation, e m i s s i o n rates w e r e m e a s u r e d in the field

u s i n g f l u x chambers and air emission monitoring d a t a for the LTU.
D a t a o b t a i n e d from the f l u x c h a m b e r study w e r e input into the C h e m d a t 6
model, u s i n g the same field c o n d i t i o n s as t h o s e e x i s t i n g at the time
of the study. Emission rates predicted by Chemdat6 were slightly

higher than those actually measured. Hence, validity of the Chemdat6
model for this application was confirmed and results could be
considered conservative. Results of the sensitivity tests for
Chemdat6 show little sensitivity of air emissions to reasonable
variability in molecular weight and temperature for the constituents
evaluated.
TABLE 2--InPut for Chemdat6
Oil Loading Rate, kg/m3 11.1
Tilling Depth, m 0.305
Total Soil Porosity, dimensionless 0.484
Air-filled Soil Porosity, dimensionless 0.351
Molecular Weight of Oil, kg/l 000 mol 280
Monthly Mean Temperature OK 276-301
Particulate emissions
Only inh_~lable particulates (PMI0), those particles of sizes <i0

~ m (i ~Lm = i0 - m) in diameter , were ~onsidered. The activities at
the LTU include waste application, waste spreading, waste
incorporation, wind erosion, and track-out from vehicles.
Mathematical models used to estimate particulate emissions were

based on methodologies used by the U. S. EPA and others in determining
particulate losses from disturbed and exposed soils. In general, the
models are formulated as empirical expressions that relate variations
in emission factors (e) to differences in the physical properties (p)
of the material being disturbed and the mechanical energy (m)
responsible for the generation of particulates, according to the form
(EPA, 1989c):
a b
e = K p m (4)
As empirical models, emission factors have adjustable coefficients (K,

a, b) that reflect relationships determined from actual fugitive dust
source testing. However, much of the testing relates to mining
activities and studies of desert soils.
Hazardous constituents associated with particulates may be

present as either discrete solid particles or sorbed with soil or
other surface aggregate materials. To evaluate the migration of
hazardous constituents from the LTU, actual constituent concentrations
in the active LTU areas were used along with the particulate estimates
to calculate constituent release rates in accordance with the general
model form (EPA, 1989c):
n
R = Z aj e. A. (5)
j=l 3 3
where
R = e m i s s i o n r a t e of c o n t a m i n a t e d airborne
p a r t i c u l a t e , mass/time,
a. = f r a c t i o n of c o n t a m i n a n t in p a r t i c u l a t e emissions
3 for the jth operation,
e. = e m i s s i o n factor, m a s s / s o u r c e extent, and

3
A. = s o u r c e extent, source d e p e n d e n t units.
3
For this study, a. i n c l u d e d time units to g e n e r a t e a m a s s / t i m e
e m i s s i o n rate. ]
D u r i n g w a s t e application, spreading, a n d tilling, e q u i p m e n t t r a v e l i n g

on the a c t i v e s u r f a c e of the LTU can p o t e n t i a l l y c a u s e s u s p e n s i o n or
r e s u s p e n s i o n of p a r t i c u l a t e s , g e n e r a t i n g fugitive dust emissions. To
e s t i m a t e e m i s s i o n s for w a s t e application, the f o l l o w i n g e q u a t i o n (EPA,
1985) was used:
e = k 5.9(s/12) (S/30) ( W / 3 ) 0 " 7 ( w / 4 ) 0 " 5 ( 3 6 5 - P ) / 3 6 5 (6)
where
e = PMI0, i b / v e h i c l e m i l e t r a v e l e d or VMT,
1 Ib = 0.4536 Kg,
1 mile = 1.6093 * 103 m,
k = 0.36 for ~I0 ~un p a r t i c l e size, d i m e n s i o n l e s s ,

s = Silt c o n t e n t of surface soils, %
(Assumed 74% b a s e d on past analyses),
S = V e h i c l e speed, m i l e s / h o u r
(Assumed 5 m i l e s / h o u r ) ,
W = M e a n v e h i c l e / e q u i p m e n t weight, tons
(From k n o w n weights, a s s u m e d full w h e n e n t e r i n g and
empty w h e n leaving),
w = M e a n n u m b e r of w h e e l s on equipment, d i m e n s i o n l e s s
(From k n o w n data, a s s u m e d i0 tires for b u l l d o z e r s ) , and
P = N u m b e r of days w i t h Z 0.01 in. of p r e c i p i t a t i o n , days

(90 days from annual p r e c i p i t a t i o n data).
S o u r c e extent is the n u m b e r of v e h i c l e s or e q u i p m e n t m i l e s t r a v e l e d
(VMT) over the s u r f a c e of the LTU. T h e n u m b e r of m i l e s t r a v e l e d was
c a l c u l a t e d b a s e d on w a s t e quantities, e x p r e s s e d as w a s t e loads, the
n u m b e r of w a s t e a p p l i c a t i o n s to the a c t i v e LTU areas, the total a r e a
to be tilled, length of p o s s i b l e travel on strips a n d plots, and plot
dimensions.
W a s t e s p r e a d i n g at the L T U i n c l u d e d the u s e of a b u l l d o z e r or t r a c t o r
e q u i p p e d w i t h a b l a d e to e v e n l y ,spread the w a s t e over the open plots.
The f o l l o w i n g e q u a t i o n (EPA, 1989C) was used:
e = 1.0 (S)I'5/M 1"4 (0.75) (7)

P
where
ep = PMI0 e m i s s i o n rate, Ib/h,
S = Silt content of surface material, %

(74% as p r e v i o u s l y mentioned), and
M = M o i s t u r e content of surface material, %

(10% from past analyses).
F o r this e q u a t i o n the source extent was the n u m b e r of h o u r s equipment

operates d u r i n g w a s t e spreading.
w a s t e s are i n c o r p o r a t e d in the LTU soils t h r o u g h the u s e of a

r o t o t i l l e r p u l l e d by a tractor. The f o l l o w i n g m a t h e m a t i c a l equation
for the t i l l i n g of a g r i c u l t u r a l land (EPA, 1988) was u s e d in
e s t i m a t i n g emissions from w a s t e incorporation:
0.6
e = k(4.80) (S) (8)
where
e = PMI0 emission rate, ib/acre,
1 a c r e = 4.0469 * 103 m 2,
k = 0.21 for PM._ p a r t i c l e size, dimensionless, and

S silt c o n t e n ~ U i n surface soils, %
(74% as m e n t i o n e d previously).
Source extent is the total number of acres t i l l e d by equipment.
W i n d e r o s i o n is the a c t i o n of w i n d forces on e x p o s e d surfaces such as

the a c t i v e areas of the LTU. The e q u a t i o n u s e d to e s t i m a t e
p a r t i c u l a t e emissions from w i n d erosion is a s i m p l i f i e d v e r s i o n of the
w i n d e r o s i o n e q u a t i o n d e v e l o p e d by the U.S. D e p a r t m e n t of A g r i c u l t u r e
to p r e d i c t topsoil losses from a g r i c u l t u r a l fields a n d is referenced
for u s e in e v a l u a t i n g EPA S u p e r f u n d sites. The e q u a t i o n is d e s c r i b e d
as follows (EPA, 1988):
e = k a I K C L' V' (9)
where
e = PMI0 losses, tons/acre/year,
k = 0.5, e s t i m a t e d fraction of total s u s p e n d e d

p a r t i c u l a t e w h i c h is PMI0, dimensionless,
a = 0.025, p o r t i o n of w i n d e r o s i o n losses that

w o u l d be m e a s u r e d as s u s p e n d e d particulate,
I = Soil e r o d ~ b i l i t y index, tons/acre/year,
K = Surface roughness factor, dimensionless,
C = Climatic factor, dimensionless,
L'= U n s h e l t e r e d field w i d t h factor, dimensionless, and
V'= Vegetation cover factor, dimensionless.)
For w i n d erosion, the source extent is the n u m b e r of acres w h e r e

surface soils are e x p o s e d to w i n d erosion. The v a l u e for the soil
e r o d i b i l i t y index is b_a~ed on the p e r c e n t of dry a g g r e g a t e s in the
soil g r e a t e r >8.4 * 10 m, or w h i c h do not pass t h r o u g h a No. 20
sieve (EPA, 1988). Sieve analyses of s u r f a c e soils from the site
s h o w e d 73% of the dry a g g r e g a t e was r e t a i n e d by a No. 20 sieve, w h i c h
c o r r e s p o n d s to an e r o d i b i l i t y index of I = I0. T h e s u r f a c e roughness
factor K is b a s e d on a r e l a t i o n s h i p to the height of ridges, h,
c r e a t e d d u r i n g tillage (plowing and disking) of a g r i c u l t u r a l soils and
the spacing b e t w e e n ridges, w. K is c a l c u l a t e d as follows (EPA,
1988):
K = h2 / w (I0)
K factors p r e s e n t e d in literature range from 1.0 for b a r e flat

surfaces to 0.5, w h i c h is the o p t i m u m ridge height to w i d t h
relationship. The climatic factor, C, is d e s c r i b e d by the
m a t h e m a t i c a l e x p r e s s i o n (EPA, 1988):
C = 0.345 W3/(pE) 2 (ii)
where
W = prevailing w i n d speed, m i l e s per hour, and
PE = p r e c i p i t a t i o n - e v a p o r a t i o n index,
dimensionless
In the study area, isopleths for C r a n g e d from 10 to 15; however, to

r e m a i n conservative, a v a l u e of C=15 w a s u s e d in calculations. The
u n s h e l t e r e d field w i d t h factor, L', is a function of the m a x i m u m
u n s h e l t e r e d d i s t a n c e across a field in the d i r e c t i o n of the p r e v a i l i n g
wind, L, a n d the p r o d u c t of I a n d K. B e c a u s e the w i n d e r o s i o n
e q u a t i o n was d e s i g n e d for agricultural use, the v e g e t a t i v e cover
factor, V', is b a s e d on cover on a g r i c u l t u r a l fields d u r i n g periods
other than p r i m a r y crop seasons. B e c a u s e no crop is g r o w n on the
a c t i v e surface of the LTU, and the entire active s u r f a c e is tilled
throughout the year, the most c o n s e r v a t i v e a s s u m p t i o n is v e g e t a t i v e
residue, V, equals zero, w h i c h corresponds to V' = 1.0 (independent of
IKCL') (EPA, 1974).
As e q u i p m e n t leaves the LTU areas, the p o t e n t i a l exists for hazardous

c o n s t i t u e n t s c o n t a i n e d in soils from the active areas to be carried
from the site on the equipment. E s t i m a t e s of p a r t i c u l a t e loading
a t t r i b u t a b l e to track-out of m u d and dirt from u n p a v e d areas w e r e
p r e p a r e d u s i n g the e q u a t i o n as p r e s e n t e d below. The e q u a t i o n is
a p p l i c a b l e for c o n s t r u c t i o n and industrial sites w h e r e the number of
vehicles entering or leaving on a daily basis is less t h a n or equal to
25, w h i c h is the case at the LTU (EPA, 1988).
e = 5.5 g / v e h i c l e (12)
where
e = unit increase of PMI0 e m i s s i o n in g/vehicle.
The source extent for track-out is the n u m b e r of v e h i c l e s leaving the

site.
Table 3 provides a summary of p a r t i c u l a t e e m i s s i o n s for the

d i f f e r e n t site activities. As observed from Table 3, w i n d erosion was
by far the most significant m e c h a n i s m involved in the releases of
p a r t i c u l a t e s from the LTU. Among the other site activities, w a s t e
incorporation was the next greatest contributor to particulate

emissions. However for preliminary evaluation of similar sites,
emissions may be limited to wind erosion only in initial screening.
The long-term emission rate, calculated for modeling purposes,

was determined by converting the total pounds emitted to grams and
dividing by the total ~TU area and the number of seconds in a year, to
arrive at units of g/m--s. Procedures to estimate short-term
particulate emissions as a result of wind erosion are greatly limited.
A seemingly reasonable approach to estimating short-term emission
included using erosive wind energy distribution values obtained from
the National Agronomy Manual (NAM, 1988) and some conservative
assumptions. The short-term worst case emission estimate was derived
by multiplying the annual wind erosion emission estimate by 0.14,
representing 14% or the, highest percentage of the annual erosive wind
energy occurring in a n given month during the year for the location,
and assuming that this fraction of the annual emission occurred over
the short-term, 24-hour period. The short-term emission rate, for
modeling, was calculated in the same manner as described above for the
long-term emission rate, except that the number of seconds in a 24-
hour period was used instead of a year. Constituent emission rates
were calculated using the short-term and long-term particulate
emission rates and the concentration of semi-volatile and inorganic
hazardous constituents in the surface soils of the LTU active areas.
Emission rate estimates were validated using the results from

long-term and short-term dispersion modeling and field measurements of
PMIn particulates. The long-term eml~siongrates estimated from
m o ~ t o r i n ~ results averaged 1.5 x l0 g/m--s as compared to
2.2 x I0-- g/m -s predicted by the models, thus indicating closeness
of monitored and modeled data. However, short-term emissions differ
between the monitoring and modeled values. This is attributed to the
over prediction by the short-term model due to conservative
assumptions. Overall this comparison indicated that the modeling of
emission rates, dispersion modeling, or a combination of the two,
results in overprediction of concentrations which may occur at the
boundary of the LTU.
TABLE 3--Summarv of Particulate Emissions. ibs
site activity Long-term Short-term

(I Year) (24-Hour)
Waste activity 1 727 Negligible
Waste Spreading 1 958 Negligible
Waste Incorporation 4 561 147
Wind Erosion 39 212 5 490
Track-out 35 Negligible
Sensitivity tests were performed on each model by varying each

input variable which may change due to site or operating conditions.
Models showed sensitivity primarily to soil properties (% moisture, %
silt), source extent, and surface configurations. Sensitive
p a r a m e t e r s such as soil m o i s t u r e and s o u r c e extent can be c o n t r o l l e d

on site to a d e s i r e d level.
Atmo~eric TransDor~
The Industrial Source C o m p l e x Model w a s u s e d to e s t i m a t e ambient

c o n c e n t r a t i o n s by c o n s i d e r i n g a t m o s p h e r i c t r a n s p o r t a n d d i f f u s i o n
p r o c e s s e s a n d the effects on emissions from the land t r e a t m e n t unit.
T h e ISC model is a s o p h i s t i c a t e d a t m o s p h e r i c d i s p e r s i o n m o d e l w h i c h
c a l c u l a t e s a m b i e n t p o l l u t a n t c o n c e n t r a t i o n s b a s e d on e m i s s i o n s from a
stack, volume, or area source, and site m e t e o r o l o g i c a l d a t a (EPA,
1987). For a r e a sources, such as the LTU, e s t i m a t e s can be m a d e at
the unit b o u n d a r y of the source. In ~ s t i m a t i n g c o n c e n t r a t i o n s w i t h
ISC, a n o m i n a l e m i s s i o n rate of 1 g / m -s w a s u s e d as m o d e l i n g input
for each a r e a source to give c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in units of g / m - at all
r e c e p t o r locations. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s w e r e then a d j u s t e d by the true
e m i s s i o n rate. The equation, C~ = E.(C /E ), relates the nominal
e m i s s i o n rate E and the r e s u l t i n g c ~ n c ~ n t ~ a t i o n C w i t h the
constituent e m i s s i o n rate E. and the true c o n c e n t r a t i o n C. of that
constituent at a given r e c e p t o r location, i
The constituent c o n c e n t r a t i o n was a l s o a d j u s t e d by a factor

w h i c h accounts for the change of w i n d speed as a function of height.
The e q u a t i o n d e s c r i b i n g this r e l a t i o n s h i p is g i v e n as
U = U 1 (h/zl)P (13)
where
U = Windspeed at height h, m/s,
U1 = Windspeed at m e a s u r e m e n t height, m/s,
h = Receptor height, m,
zI = Measurement height, m, a n d
P = W i n d p r o f i l e exponent, 0.215,
dimensionless.
The a v e r a g e v a l u e of the w i n d p r o f i l e exponent P over all Pasquill

stability c a t e g o r i e s A-F is 0.215. The m e t e o r o l o g i c a l STAR data u s e d
is based on w i n d s p e e d m e a s u r e m e n t s taken at a height of ten (10)
meters. The m o d e l i n g receptor heights w e r e set at 1.5 meters, the
a v e r a g e i n h a l a t i o n height. S u b s t i t u t i n g these values into the above
equation,
0.215
U/U 1 = (1.5/10.0) = 0.7 (14)
C o n s t i t u e n t c o n c e n t r a t i o n in air is i n v e r s e l y p r o p o r t i o n a l to the
windspeed, a n d was therefore m u l t i p l i e d by an a d j u s t m e n t factor F =
1.0/0.7 = 1.4. w
In addition, the c o n c e n t r a t i o n was m u l t i p l i e d by a c o n v e r s i o n factor

of 10- ~ g / g 3 t o g i v e a c o n c e n t r a t i o n in units of m i c r o g r a m s per cubic
m e t e r (~g/m-) b a s e d on an e m i s s i o n rate in units of g/m~-s.
Summarizing, the final e q u a t i o n for c o n s t i t u e n t concentration in air

is given by:
C i = ei(Cn/En) (Fw) (I06) ~ g / m 3 (15)
Constituent concentration in air was calculated for the maximum

estimated concentration at a specific receptor location for volatile
and semi-volatile organics and for inhalable particulates.
Input required by the ISC model includes program control

parameters, meteorological data, source data, and receptor data.
Program control parameters specify printing and default options.
Meteorological data consist of an average annual STAR summary, average
ambient temperatures, and mixing layer heights.
A S S E S S M E N T OF H E A L T H R I S K S
Health risk assessment comprises four distinct stages: (i)

characterizing the source and potential contaminants of concern; (2)
developing toxicity information on the contaminants; (3) developing
exposure scenarios (including migration and exposure pathways, and
potential receptors) and estimating dose; and (4) estimating the
excess cancer risk due to exposure to the site contaminants.
An exposure pathway consists of four necessary elements: (I) a

source and mechanism of chemical release to the environment, (2) an
environmental transport medium for the released chemical, (3) a point
of potential contact with humans, and/or flora or fauna, and (4) an
exposure route. Exposure may occur through inhalation, ingestion, or
dermal contact. The potential media for exposure during normal
operation of a typical land treatment unit are air, soil, surface
water, and ground water. The inhalation pathway is the focus of this
paper. Certain volatile organic hazardous constituents migrate to the
air phase due to their high vapor pressure. Particulate emissions,
primarily from wind erosion, provide a transport pathway for hazardous
constituents contained in the particulates.
Once the exposure pathways are identified, a criterion for

assessing impacts on health and environment is necessary. Health-
based standards are therefore needed to ensure that the operation of
the facility does not pose adverse effects. Exposure can lead to
chronic and acute effects. Accordingly, health-based standards for
both long-term and s h o r t - t e r m w e r e considered.
L o n g - t e r m h e a l t h - b a s e d criteria for organic hazardous

constituents were mainly obtained from EPA's Characterization and
Assessment Division (CAD). When data for a specific constituent were
unavailable from CAD, 'the Carcinogen Assessment Group (CAG) was
consulted. The Code of Federal Regulations was used when none of the
above sources could provide necessary data. For air inhalation, a 20
m per day intake by a 70 kg adult/70-year exposure period was
assumed. Calculations were performed using the following equations:
Carcinoaens
C. = RSD x W/I (16)

l
where
C. = the criterion concentration for the constituent of

1 interest,
RSD = the risk-specific dose for a constituent,
W = the assumed weight of the exposed individual, and
I = the intake amount for a g i v e n time p e r i o d as d e f i n e d

in the p r e c e d i n g p a r a g r a p h .
~_oncarqlnoaens
C. = R f D x W/I (17)
1
where
C. = the c r i t e r i o n concentration for the c o n s t i t u e n t of

1 interest,
R f D = the r e f e r e n c e dose for a constituent,
W = the a s s u m e d weight of the e x p o s e d individual, and
I = the intake amount for a g i v e n time period.
S h o r t - t e r m c r i t e r i a are b a s e d on 8-hour T i m e W e i g h t e d A v e r a g e
(TWA) a n d 1 5 - m i n u t e e x p o s u r e s S h o r t - T e r m E x p o s u r e L i m i t (STEL).
T a b l e 4 p r e s e n t s arunualized a n d s h o r t - t e r m air c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of
the v o l a t i l e and s e m i - v o l a t i l e o r g a n i c c o n s t i t u e n t s a n d the
c o r r e s p o n d i n g h e a l t h - b a s e d standards. The c o m p a r i s o n shows that none
of the h a z a r d o u s c o n s t i t u e n t s are r e l e a s e d from the f a c i l i t y above
s h o r t - t e r m and l o n g - t e r m h e a l t h - b a s e d standards. It m a y t h e r e f o r e be
c o n c l u d e d that the L T U does not p o s e c h r o n i c or a c u t e h e a l t h impacts.
The above a p p r o a c h r e p r e s e n t s a s c r e e n i n g p r o c e d u r e for use in

p r e l i m i n a r y e v a l u a t i o n of the p o t e n t i a l for risks a s s o c i a t e d w i t h site
releases. D e p e n d i n g on the site s p e c i f i c conditions, such as
c o n s t i t u e n t s present, m i g r a t i o n potential, and s u r r o u n d i n g land use, a
m o r e r e f i n e d risk a s s e s s m e n t may be necessary. S h o u l d the site
c o n t a i n carcinogens, a c a r c i n o g e n i c r i s k a s s e s s m e n t e v a l u a t i n g
r e s i d e n t i a l and e m p l o y m e n t risk and excess c a n c e r b u r d e n m a y be
n e c e s s a r y to fully u n d e r s t a n d the e x p o s u r e risk.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOR~ENDATIONS
A s s e s s m e n t of h e a l t h risks a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the r e l e a s e s of air

c o n t a m i n a n t s from sites c o n t a i n i n g h a z a r d o u s w a s t e s is a c o m p l e x
process. A l t h o u g h l i t e r a t u r e i n f o r m a t i o n and E P A p u b l i c a t i o n s p r o v i d e
insight to address this issue, t h e r e is n e e d for a
c o m p r e h e n s i v e m e t h o d o l o g y that will a c c o u n t for the v a r i a b i l i t i e s of a

p a r t i c u l a r site. This p a p e r p r o v i d e s an a p p r o a c h for p r e l i m i n a r y
a s s e s s m e n t of impacts due to r e l e a s e s of i n h a l a b l e c o n s t i t u e n t s into
the air. A m o r e c o m p r e h e n s i v e a s s e s s m e n t p r o g r a m w i l l include other
e x p o s u r e p a t h w a y s as w e l l as s e c o n d a r y p a t h w a y s such as dry d e p o s i t i o n
of c o n t a m i n a t e d p a r t i c u l a t e s .
The m o d e l s u s e d in e s t i m a t i n g e m i s s i o n s from the L T U are w i d e l y u s e d

by g o v e r n m e n t agencies, such as E P A a n d the Soil C o n s e r v a t i o n Service,
as w e l l as industry. T h e s e m o d e l s h a v e b e e n d e v e l o p e d over m a n y years
of r e s e a r c h in e v a l u a t i o n of e m i s s i o n s a n d control of soil loss a n d
s h o u l d be of s u i t a b l e a c c u r a c y for the p u r p o s e in this assessment.
T A B L E 4--Assessment of Health Risks
Constituent AmbientConcenb'al~ns Health-basec~l~tandard (1;

Annual 15-Mill. 8-Ho~ Annu~d
Ann STELe" TWA"3"
pg/rn mg/m mg~n pg#n rng/m mg/m-
Benz(a)anthraoene 1.3"10~ 7.8"10.44 1.1"10~ 1.0"10[.~ . . . . . .

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.5*I0 2 8.7"10 1.0"10 1 3.0"10 1
Benzene 8.8"10 2 2.9 -3 4"0.10"4 1.2"I0~4 116"10 312 -I
Benzo{s)pyrene 2"1~ 4 1"2"10-3 1.4"10.~ 3.0"10.4 ... 2,0.10.1
Chwsene 2.0"10~ 1.2"10.4 1.7"10.4 3.0.10.1 ... 2.0"10
Fluoranthene 1.3"10 2 7"3"10-4 1,0"10 5 2"0"103
Naph~lalene 1.3"10"1 3.9"10 5.4"10" 1.0"103 715"102 510.102
Toluene 2.0"10" 6.7 ... 2.0"10 5.6"10 3.7"10
(1)ACGIH, 1990-1991
Emissions of particulates from soil contaminated sites with

large exposed surface areas are mainly attributed to wind erosion. By
focusing attention on securing site data to support preliminary
estimates for wind erosion, considerable effort required to assemble
the information needed to estimate emissions from less significant
sources may be saved. Depending on the preliminary findings, a more
refined evaluation may be considered necessary.
Fate and transport models assume steady state continuous release

of air contaminants, whereas the emission sources in a typical
Superfund site may be highly variable or intermittent, depending on
site activities and wind conditions. The models used to estimate
emissions are essentially simplified estimation procedures which do
not take into account the full range of variables that may affect
contaminant releases. None of the models used consider the mitigative
effect of oils, solvents or other aqueous phase wastes which have
historically been recognized as dust control measures. However, until
such time as more refined techniques become available, the methodology
described in this paper provides a reasonably good basis for
preliminary evaluation.
The models used for predicting release of particulates generally

assume that particulates behave in a predictable manner following
relationships developed through studies based largely on the mining
industry. The variables used in the models are assumed to be adequate
to describe site specific conditions and provide estimates of
particulate emissions which may be reasonably expected to occur. The
models also assume that constituents of interest exist in equal
proportions among all particle sizes, with the PMI0 particle size
being of primary interest.
The Chemdat6 model has undergone several revisions since it was

used for this study. The updated version of the model, Chemdat7
should be used for future work.
The health-based criteria established in this document are

acceptable to EPA. However, one should be wary about the changes in
the criteria as more toxicological information on certain constituents
become available that may induce changes in the health-based
standards. Also the 70-year exposure period (BNA, 1991) previously
used as a basis for calculating long-term health-based criteria has
been recently changed to a 30-year exposure period (BNA, 1991). This
will yield health-based standards that are less stringent than the
ones used in this evaluation. The evaluation of cancer risks may be
required where environment regulations are very stringent.
Detailed validation of the long-term dispersion model indicated

overprediction of concentration estimates by as much as a factor of 2.
The comparisons are t h e r e f o r e c o n s i d e r e d to be highly conservative.
RZFERENCES s
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH),

1990-1991, Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and
Physical AGents and BioloGical Exposure Indices, pp. 11-38.
The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (BNA), May 31, 1991, Environment
Reporter Current Developments, Vol. 22, No. 5, pp. 258.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, March 1988, National AGronomy Manual

(NAM), Soil Conservation Service, 190-V-NAM.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 1974, Development Q~

Emission Factors for FuGitive Dust Sources, EPA-450/3-74-037,
pp. 154-162.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 1985, Compilation o~

Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Vol.l: Stationary Point and Ar~a
Sources, AP-42, pp. 11.2.1-1.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December 1987, Industrial Sourge

Complex (ISC} Dispersion Model User's Guide, EPA-450/4-88-002b,
pp. 1-4.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 1988, Control of open

Fuaitive Dust Sources, EPA-450/3-88-008, pp. 7-1, 7-2, 7-4, 7-9,
5-26.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 1989a, RCRA Facility

InvestiGation Guidance Manual, EPA-530/SW-89-031, pp. 12-36.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, November 1989b, Hazardous W a ~

Treatment. Storaae. and DisPosal Facilities - Air Emission
Models, EPA-450/3-87-026, pp. i-i.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 1989c, Hazardous W a s ~

Treatment. Storaue. and Disnosal Facilities - FuGitive
Particulate Matter Air Emissions Guidance Document, EPA-450/3-
89-019, pp. 1-4, 1-5, 6-6.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 199.0, S ~ R F U N D . -

Focusinu on the Nation at Larqe, EPA-540/8-90/O09, pp. 2-12.
Toxicity, Exposures, and Receptors
E. Jane Hixson, l Ralph E. Jennings, l and Sandra A. Smith l
CONTRIBUTION OF CHILDHOOD INGBSTION OF CONTAMINATED SOIL TO LIFETIME

CARCINOGENIC RISK: GUIDANCE FOR INCLUSION IN RISK ASSESSMENT.
REFERENCE: Hixson, E. J., Jennings, R. E., and Smith, S. A.,

"Contribution of Childhood Ingestion of Contaminated Soil to
Lifetime Carcinogenic Risk: Guidance for Inclusion in Risk
Assessment," Sunerfund Risk Assessment in Soil Contamination
Studies. ASTM STP 1158. Keith B. Hoddinott, Editor, American
S o c i e t y for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1992.
ABSTRACTz Risk assessment guidance usually addresses carcinogenic
effects for adults but not for children, because carcinogenic effects
are presumed to require a lifetime to occur. However, because
children may ingest significantly larger quantities of soil than
adults, exposure to carcinogenic chemicals in soil may present higher
risk to children than to adults. Using standard exposure
assumptions, tables were constructed for screening soil
concentrations to evaluate the level of carcinogenic risk resulting
from ingestion of soil by children. Allowable concentrations of
chemicals in soil were determined for selected chemicals for both
children and adults. The results indicated that soil concentrations
that are protective for adults for the soil ingestion pathway may not
be sufficiently protective for children; concentrations protective
for children may be lower than those for adults by a factor of 3 to
7.
KEYWORDSs risk assessment, soil ingestion, carcinogenic risk,

childhood intake, adult intake
EPA guidance for risk assessments for the Superfund program

(USEPA, 1989a) presents e detailed protocol for assessing risk which
follows the general paradigm first established by the National
Academy of Sciences (1983). This detailed protocol incorporates
multiple conservative assumptions into all phases of the assessment,
but particularly in the exposure and toxicity assessments. EPA
addresses potential noncarcinogenic effects in children separately
from adults, because there are substantial differences between the
two in parameters such as body weight, inhalation volume, and
activity patterns. In contrast, assessment of carcinogenic risks is
usually performed for adults but not for children. The rationale is
that the differences that are so important for noncarcinogenic
effects become negligible when exposure is averaged over a 70-year
tSenior Staff Scientist, Scientist, and Senior Scientist,

respectively, Environmental Analysis Department, Radian Corporation,
P.O. Box 201088, Austin, TX 78720-1088
lifetime. This approach may be appropriate for most of the exposure

pathways, but our experience has shown that the risks due to
ingestion of contaminated soil may be underestimated due to higher
intakes estimated in childhood years.
Children (partlcularly toddlers} may ingest a substantial

amount of soll during play, even in the absence of pathological
states such as pica. Estimates of daily soil intake range from
approximately 50 mg per day to as high as 1000 mg per day (USEPA,
1989b). Superfund guidance recommends use of 200 mg soil per day for
children ages 1 through 6. Using the 50 a percentile body weight for
a child 1 to 2 years old (11.5 kg) results in a daily sol1 intake of
17 mg soil/kg body weight. In contrast, the adult daily soil intake
Is 1.4 mg soil/kg body welght (100 mg soil ingestion per day, 70 kg
adult body weight). Thus, a child's daily soil intake can be more
than 10 times higher than that of an adult.
Current scientlflc opinion holds that carcinogenic effects

require a lifetime to manifest themselves. Therefore, Superfund
guidance requires that exposure to carcinogens be averaged over 70
years even when it occurs over a few years. The 50 ~ percentile time
spent living at a single residence is 9 years. Thus, when
calculating the intake of carcinogens as a result of living near a
contaminated site, the exposure occurring during the 9 years is
averaged over 70 years. If five of those years represent ages 1 to
6, the total intake of contaminants due to ingestion of soil will be
much higher than that occurring when all 9 years represent adult
ages. Based on calculations of intake for each year of childhood
separately, we have established the "worst-case" contribution of soll
ingestion during childhood for a 9-year residence time (assuming the
child moves to the site at age 1).
The importance of the soil ingestion pathway to the overall

risks i8 related to the potency of the contaminant as a carcinogen.
If the carcinogen has a very small slope factor, even worst-case
ingestion intake will result in risks that are within the acceptable
range. For these contaminants it may not be necessary to calculate
risks separately for children. We have established the range of the
cancer slope factors below which worst-case soil ingestion results in
risks that are less than 104 , 10 ~, and 10 ~. This range permits
screening the contaminants for a particular site to llmlt calculation
of the soil ingestion pathway to contaminants for which it is
important.
The ranges are calculated based on worst-case assumptions of

soll ingestion. As such, they represent upper-bound estimates of
risk associated with a given contaminant concentration. The primary
purpose of these screening ranges is to serve as an indicator of
whether a more rigorous examination of the exposure assumptions used
(such as exposure frequency or site access) is appropriate.
ESTIMATED INT~/~E O F C H E M I C A L S FROM INGESTION OF CONTRMINATED SOIL
The equation used for estimating intake of chemicals by

incidental ingestion of contaminated soils (USEPA, 1989a) is
presented belowz
Adult Intake:
Intake (mg/kg/day) = CS x IR x CF x F I x EF x ED (i)

B W x AT
HIXSON ET AL. ON CHILDHOOD INGESTION OF CONTAMINATED SOIL 131
where
CS m Chemical concentration in soil, mg/kg;
IR = Adult soil i n g e s t i o n rate, ms/day;
CF = Conversion factor, 104 ks/ms;
FI = F r a c t i o n ingested from the c o n t a m i n a t e d source,

unitless;
EF = Exposure frequency, days/year;
ED = Exposure duration, years;
BW = Body weight, ks; and
AT = Averaging time, days.
The e q u a t i o n for c h i l d h o o d intake differs from that for adult

intake b e c a u s e of the substantial changes in soil i n g e s t i o n rate and
b o d y w e i g h t d u r i n g childhood:
CS x CF x F I x EF x ~ ( I R i x ED i /BW i) (2)
Intake (ms~ks~day) = AT
where
I~ = age-dependent child soil ingestion rate, ms/day,
EDI = age-dependent child exposure duration, years, and
BW i = age-dependent child body weight, kg.
I n t a k e for c h i l d h o o d exposure is d e t e r m i n e d i n c r e m e n t a l l y by
s u b s t i t u t i n g the appropriate values for I~, ED i, and BW i into the
equation.
V a l u e s u s e d for FI, EF and AT are fixed for purposes of this

assessment. FI, the fraction ingested from the c o n t a m i n a t e d source
i8 assumed to be 1.0 in a w o r s t - c a s e scenario. That is, it is
a s s u m e d that all of the soil ingested comes from the c o n t a m i n a t e d
area, and is not "diluted" w i t h u n c o n t a m i n a t e d soil. The e x p o s u r e
frequency, EF, is assumed to be 365 days/year. The a v e r a g i n g time,
AT, i8 assumed to be 25,550 days (365 days/year times 70 years}.
Thls a v e r a g i n g t i m e reflects the 70-year lifetime over w h i c h
e x p o s u r e s to carcinogens are to be averaged.
The s e l e c t i o n of values for the r e m a i n i n g v a r i a b l e s in this

e q u a t i o n is d i s c u s s e d b e l o w for two scenarios: (1) c o n t r i b u t i o n of
c h i l d h o o d i n g e s t i o n of c o n t a m i n a t e d soil to lifetime c a r c i n o g e n i c
r l s k (hereafter r e f e r r e d to as "childhood contribution"}, and (2)
lifetime c a r c i n o g e n i c risk w i t h o u t childhood c o n t r i b u t i o n (hereafter
r e f e r r e d to as "adult intake"}. The varlable v a l u e s selected for
this analysis represent w o r s t - c a s e assumptions of exposure. This
e x p o s u r e p a t h w a y utilizes three age-dependent variables: (1) soil
i n g e s t i o n rate, (2} body weight, and (3) e x p o s u r e duration. The age-
d e p e n d e n t variables, and their summation to d e t e r m i n e total exposure,
are d i s c u s s e d below.
Childhood Contribution
Determination of the childhood contribution requires selection

of appropriate values for each of the three age-dependent variables.
Inaestion Rate--EPA specifies a soil and dust ingestion rate of

200 mg/day for children aged i through 6 (USEPA, 1989b), for a total
of five years of exposure at this ingestion rate (Table i). For age
groups older than 6 years, a soil and dust ingestion rate of 100
mg/day is specified. No ingestion rate is presented by EPA for age 0
to i, so the exposure scenario begins at age i. These factors are
intended to account for ingestion of both indoor dust and outdoor
soil, and are believed to represent upper-bound values for soil and
dust ingestion.
Body Weiqht--Age-specific body weights are used to estimate

more closely the mg/kg intake as a child grows. Average body weights
for three-year age intervals are presented in Table i for children
ages 0 to 18.
Exposure Duration--The exposure duration is broken into

discrete intervals to correspond to the length of time a child is at
a given body weight and ingestion rate (Table i).
The ingestion rate for each three-year interval is summed to

represent the total ingestion rate per unit body weight for 9-year,
30-year, and 70-year exposure periods. The 9-year exposure period
was selected to represent the national median - 50 m percentile time
living at one residence; the 30-year exposure period represented the
national upper-bound, 95 m percentile time living at one residence
(USEPA, 1989a). These exposure periods begin at age one, the
earliest age at which soil ingestion is assumed to occur, to
represent the worst-case exposure during the entire lifetime. Thus,
the 9-year exposure period incorporates ingestion rate, exposure
duration, and body weight for ages one to i0; the 30-year exposure
period incorporates the values for age one through 31.
Adult Intake
This exposure scenario assumes an adult moves to a contaminated

site and resides there for 9- or 30-year intervals. Variable values
are presented in Table i, and represent worst-case exposure
assumptions.
In the adult case, the ingestion rate and body weight remain
fixed at I00 mg/day and 70 kg, respectively. The exposure duration
is either 9 years or 30 years, the national median or upper bound
time at one residence.
CONTAMINANT SCREENING RANGES
The allowable concentration of a carcinogenic chemical in soil

is derived based on the total acceptable risk. Assuming that all the
exposure occurs by way of the soil ingestion pathway, the total
intake associated with a given level of risk is determined from the
following equation:
CaIcinogenic Risk = Intake x Slope Factor (3)
TABLE 1--Combination of a a e - d e p e n d e n t variables.
Ingestion Exposure Body

Age Rate, Duration, Weight, Intake
Range mg/soil/day years kg Factor
(years) (I~) (EDI) (B~) (days "I x 104)
0 to <3 200 2" 11.5 0.48

3 to <6 200 3 17.4 0.47
6 to <9 133 b 3 25 0.22
9 to <12 100 3 36 0.11
12 to <15 100 3 50.6 0.08
15 to<18 100 3 61.2 0.07
18 to 31 ~ 100 13 70 0.25
18 to 71 d 100 52 70 1.02
~ o soil i n g e s t i o n for age 0 to 1.

~ e p r e s e n t s 200 m g / d a y for 1 year for age 6, 100 m g / d a y for 2 years
for ages 7-8 (see I n g e s t i o n Rate section).
~Represents 3 0 - y e a r e x p o s u r e b e g i n n i n g at age 1.
~ e p r e s e n t s 70-year lifetime exposure b e g i n n i n g at age 1.
The slope factor is a value d e t e r m i n e d by E P A for c e r t a i n

c a r c i n o g e n i c chemicals, and represents the upper b o u n d e s t i m a t e of
the slope of t h e tumor d o s e - r e s p o n s e curve d e t e r m i n e d t h r o u g h the use
of m a t h e m a t i c a l e x t r a p o l a t i o n models (USEPA, 1991). The slope factor
is d e t e r m i n e d independent of age-specific exposure assumptions.
M e d i a - s p e c i f i c unit risk estimates, however, are d e t e r m i n e d using
adult e x p o s u r e assumptions; these e s t i m a t e s w o u l d be d i f f e r e n t using
e x p o s u r e a s s u m p t i o n s a p p r o p r i a t e for children. As shown in equation
(1), Intake is a function of the c o n c e n t r a t i o n of chemical in soil,
CS, and other e x p o s u r e - r e l a t e d variables. The values from e q u a t i o n
(1) and Table 1 can be substituted for v a r i a b l e s other t h a n CS. This
s u b s t i t u t i o n of values and r e a r r a n g e m e n t of e q u a t i o n (1) results in
an e x p r e s s i o n of Intake as CS times a constant, w h i c h we have d e f i n e d
as the Intake Factor, w i t h units of day'l:
Intake (mg/kg/day) = CS x IR x CF x F I x EF x ED (4)

B W x AT
or:
Intake = CS x Intake Factol
Intake Factors are p r e s e n t e d in Table i. Based on the three-

year e x p o s u r e d u r a t i o n intervals, the Intake Factor (and t h e r e f o r e
the Intake) is highest d u r i n g early c h i l d h o o d and d e c l i n e s steadily
to adulthood.
Substituting into E q u a t i o n (3) and solving for CS, we have:
CS = C a r c i n o g e n i c Risk (6)
Intake Factol x Slope Factor
Thus, we can d e t e r m i n e the c o n c e n t r a t i o n of a chemical in soil

a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a selected level of r i s k by s u b s t i t u t i n g into
E q u a t i o n (6) the a p p r o p r i a t e slope factor and the Intake Factor
a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the d e s i r e d age range.
D e v e l o p m e n t of contaminant s c r e e n i n g ranges r e q u i r e s relating

t w o variables: the slope factor and t h e soil concentration. Our
p r i m a r y goal was to c o n s t r u c t tables that w o u l d allow t h e e v a l u a ~ o r
to screen soil analysis results for c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of c o n t a m i n a n t s
8 u f f l c i e n t l y high to r e q u i r e a full a s s e s s m e n t of the soil ingestion
pathway. To a c c o m p l i s h this, we d e t e r m i n e d the m a x i m u m slope factor
that w o u l d result in a s p e c i f i e d risk level using e q u a t i o n (6) and
v a r i o u s soil contaminant concentrations.
T a b l e 2 p r e s e n t s these maximum slope factors for c h i l d h o o d

c o n t r i b u t i o n d u r i n g the 9 - y e a r e x p o s u r e d u r a t i o n for a r a n g e of soil
c o n t a m i n a n t concentrations. For ease of c o m p a r i s o n to analytical
results, t h e soil c o n c e n t r a t i o n ranges are p r e s e n t e d in p p m

(equivalent to mg/kg}. For a given soll c o n c e n t r a t i o n of a
p a r t i c u l a r contaminant, if the slope factor for that contaminant is
less t h a n the value shown, t h e risk from c h i l d h o o d c o n t r i b u t i o n will
be less t h a n the rlsk level in the table. For example, a contaminant
present in soil at 1 p p m must have a slope factor less t h a n 0.83 to
result in lifetime risk le88 than 1 x 10 . Table 3 p r e s e n t s the same
i n f o r m a t i o n for the 30-year exposure period.
TABLE'2--Maximum contaminant 81oDe factors f(mu/ku-dav~l]

for a 9-year e x p o s u r e period.
Contaminant Concentration in Soil (p~m)

R i s k Level 0.001 0.01 0.1 1.0 10 100
1 x 104 830 83 8.3 0.83 0.08 0.008
1 x 10 ~ 8300 830 83 8.3 0.83 0.08
1 x 104 83,000 8300 830 83 8.3 0.83
TABLE 3--Maximum contaminant slope factors f(mu/ku-dav)'l|

for a 30-year e x p o s u r e period.
Contaminant Concentration in Soil (ppm)

R i s k Level 0.001 0.01 0.1 1.0 i0 100
1 x 104 590 59 5.9 0.59 0.06 0.006
1 x 10 ~ 5900 590 59 5.9 0.59 0.06
1 x 104 59,000 5900 590 59 5.9 0.59
The t a b l e s can a18o be used in the "reverse" direction. That

i8, for a contaminant w i t h a slope factor of 8.3, the c o n c e n t r a t i o n
in soil must be less than 0.1 ppm to result in lifetime cancer risk
of 1 x 104 u s i n g the 9-year exposure duration. Similarly, a
c o n t a m i n a n t w i t h slope factor of 59 must be present in soil at less
t h a n 1 p p m to result in lifetime cancer risk of 1 x 104 for the 30-

y e a r e x p o s u r e period.
T h e s c r e e n i n g levels p r e s e n t e d in Tables 2 and 3 are for single

contaminants. Multiple contaminants m u s t be c o n s i d e r e d a d d i t i v e l y to
a s s e s s t h e total p a t h w a y risk.
EBTIMATRDALLOWpRT.R CONCENTRATIONS OF SELECTED CARCINOGENS
A s e c o n d a r y goal of this a s s e s s m e n t was to contrast the soil

c o n c e n t r a t i o n s r e s u l t i n g in specific levels of risk for c a r c i n o g e n i c
c h e m i c a l s w i t h a range of slope factors. Table 4 p r e s e n t s the
a c c e p t a b l e soll c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of a risk level of 1 x 104 for
s e l e c t e d c a r c i n o g e n c h e m i c a l s with slope factors r a n g i n g from 7.5 x
10 .~ (methylene chloride) to 17 (aldrin}. The table illustrates these
a c c e p t a b l e soil c o n c e n t r a t i o n s for b o t h the 9-year and 30-year
e x p o s u r e duration. Table 5 presents t h e ~cceptable soil
c o n c e n t r a t i o n s for a r i s k level of 1 x 10 , and T a b l e 6 presents
t h o s e for a risk level of 1 x 104 .
The most important o b s e r v a t i o n from these t a b l e s is the fact

that a l l o w a b l e soil c o n c e n t r a t i o n s for adult intake are a p p r o x i m a t e l y
seven t i m e s h i g h e r than those for c h i l d h o o d c o n t r i b u t i o n for the 9-
year e x p o s u r e duration. This indicates that soil c o n c e n t r a t i o n s must
be a p p r o x i m a t e l y 7-fold smaller t h a n those that indicate acceptable
adult c a r c i n o g e n i c risk to be s u f f i c i e n t l y p r o t e c t i v e of children.
For t h e 30-year exposure duration, a l l o w a b l e soil c o n c e n t r a t i o n s for
adults are a p p r o x i m a t e l y three times higher than t h o s e for children.
In other words, for 30-year exposure scenarios the soil
c o n c e n t r a t i o n s must be o n e - t h i r d the levels that result in a c c e p t a b l e
c a r c i n o g e n i c risk for adults to be s u f f i c i e n t l y p r o t e c t i v e for
children.
For all chemicals, the a c c e p t a b l e soil c o n c e n t r a t i o n for the 9-

y e a r e x p o s u r e d u r a t i o n is a p p r o x i m a t e l y o n e - t h i r d h i g h e r than that
for t h e 30-year exposure duration for c h i l d h o o d contribution. This
indicates that, if a child moves to a c o n t a m i n a t e d area by age 1, the
d i f f e r e n c e in the total risk b e t w e e n a r e s i d e n c e time of 9 years and
30 years is fairly small. In contrast, allowable c o n c e n t r a t i o n s for
adults are over three times higher for the 9-year d u r a t i o n compared
to 30 years. This indicates that r e s i d e n c e time is a m o r e important
factor for adults t h a n for children.
TABLE 4--Soil concentrations for 10 ~ risk.

Allowable Soil Concentration, ppm
Childhood Adult
Slope Factor
Chemical (mg/kg-day) "l 9-year" 30-year 9-year 30-year
Acrylamide 4.5 0.18 0.13 1.3 0.38

Aldrin 17 0.05 0.03 0.33 0.10
Carbon tetrachloride 0.13 6.4 4.6 44 13
Methylene chloride 0.0075 111 79 757 227
Tetrachloroethene 0.051 16 12 111 33
Trichloroethene 0.011 75 54 516 155
~xposure duration
TABLE 5--Soil concentrations for 10 .5 risk.
Allowable Soil Concentratlonr ppm

Childhood Adult
Slope F a c t o r
Chemical (mg/kg-day) "l 9-year" 30-year 9-year 30-year
Acrylamide 4.5 1.8 1.3 13 3.8

Aldrin 17 0.49 0.35 3.3 1.0
Carbon tetrachloride 0.13 64 46 437 131
Methylene chloride 0.0075 1 110 791 7 570 2 270
Tetrachloroethene 0.051 163 116 1 110 334
Trichloroethene 0.011 754 540 5 160 1 550
~xposure duration
TABLE 6--Soil concentrations for 104 risk.
Allowable Soil Concentration, ppm

Childhood Adult
Slope Factor
Chemical (mg/kg-day) "i 9-year" 30-year 9-year 30-year
Acrylamide 4.5 1.8 13 126 38

Aldrin 17 4.9 3.5 33 10
Carbon tetrachloride 0.13 638 457 4 370 1 310
Methylene chloride 0.0075 ii 100 7 910 75 700 22 700
Tetrachloroethene 0.051 1 630 1 160 11 100 3 340
Trichloroethene 0.011 7 540 5 400 51 600 15 500
~xposure duration
CONCLUSIONS
The c o n t a m i n a n t s c r e e n i n g ranges will be a useful tool for the

r i s k e v a l u a t o r in initially a s s e s s i n g the need for d e t a i l e d
e v a l u a t i o n of the e s t i m a t e d carcinogenic risk r e s u l t i n g from
c h i l d h o o d i n g e s t i o n of soil. The screening tables m a y also be useful
for c o m p a r i s o n of risks for b a c k - c a l c u l a t i o n of clean-up criteria.
The d e v e l o p m e n t of a l l o w a b l e soil c o n c e n t r a t i o n s for s e l e c t e d
c a r c i n o g e n i c c h e m i c a l s illustrated the fact that c h i l d h o o d ingestion
of soil can be an important contributor to lifetime excess cancer
risk, and that soil c o n c e n t r a t i o n s that are p r o t e c t i v e of adults m a y
not be s u f f i c i e n t l y p r o t e c t i v e for children.
REFKREIqCBS
National Academy of Sciences, 1983, Risk Assessment in the

Federal Government: Manauinu the Process. National Academy
Press, Washington, DC.
USEPA, 1989a, Risk Assessment Guidance for Supes Volume I,

Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A~, EPA/540/1-89/O02.
USEPA, 1989b, Exposure Factors Handbook, EPA/600/8-89/043.
USEPA, 1991, Health Effects Assessment Summarv Tables. Annual

FY-1991, NTIS No. PB91-921199.
Sandra A. Smith, l R a v i n d e r Joseph, l and Jan R. Beck !
INHALATION OF VOLATILE CHEMICALS FROM RESIDENTIAL USE OF CONTAMINATED

WATER
REFERENCE: Smith, S. A., Joseph, R., and Beck, J. R., " I n h a l a t i o n of

Volatile Chemicals F r o m R e s i d e n t i a l U s e of C o n t a m i n a t e d Water,"
SuDerfund R i s k A s s e s s m e n t in Soil C o n t a m i n a t i o n Studi@S, STP 1158,
K e l t h B. Hoddinott, Ed., A m e r i c a n Society for Testing and Materials,
P h i l a d e l p h i a 1992.
ABSTRACT: A i r e m i s s i o n s m a y occur as a result of v o l a t i l i z a t i o n of

c h e m i c a l s d u r i n g indoor use of c o n t a m i n a t e d water. B a s e d on air-water
p a r t i t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s and v e n t i l a t i o n equations, it can be p r e d i c t e d
that indoor use of water c o n t a m i n a t e d w i t h volatile c o m p o u n d s will pose
as great or g r e a t e r h e a l t h risk to r e s i d e n t s as d r i n k i n g the same water.
Indoor air sampling data support the p o t e n t i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of inhala-
tion e x p o s u r e to c o n t a m i n a n t s in the w a t e r supply. D e s p i t e this
potential, a v a i l a b l e g u i d a n c e on how to q u a n t i f y e x p o s u r e to chemicals
w h i c h v o l a t i l i z e from the water during home use is sketchy. For the
b a s e l i n e risk assessment of a site i n v o l v i n g c o n t a m i n a t e d groundwater,
the author~ d e v i s e d a m e t h o d o l o g y to q u a n t i f y i n h a l a t i o n e x p o s u r e while
showering, o p e r a t i n g a dishwasher, and o p e r a t i n g a w a s h i n g machine.
This m e t h o d o l o g y is presented, using contaminant c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in the
water at t h e M a x i m u m Contaminant Level (MCL) for i l l u s t r a t i v e purposes.
R e s u l t i n g e x p o s u r e and h e a l t h risk e s t i m a t e s for inhaling contaminants
in the home are compared with e s t i m a t e d risks from d r i n k i n g the water.
KEYWORDS: v o l a t i l e organic compounds, indoor air, inhalation, health

risk assessment, shower, w a s h i n g machine, d i s h w a s h e r
Use of c o n t a m i n a t e d water for bathing, showering, and other uses

in the home m a y c o n t r i b u t e concentrations of v o l a t i l e organic compounds
(VOCs) to t h e indoor air. Recent r e s e a r c h to q u a n t i f y the transfer of
VOCs from t h e h o u s e h o l d w a t e r supply to the indoor air -- p r i m a r i l y from
s h o w e r i n g -- indicates that inhalation exposures could equal or e x c e e d
exposures from ingesting two liters/day (standard d r i n k i n g water
i n g e s t i o n rate for an adult) of water [!,~,~,~]. D e s p i t e this poten-
tial, a v a i l a b l e g u i d a n c e on conducting baseline risk a s s e s s m e n t s for
S u p e r f u n d (or other) sites does not include a standard m e t h o d o l o g y to
q u a n t i f y indoor air e x p o s u r e s from use of c o n t a m i n a t e d w a t e r in the
home, p a r t i c u l a r l y from uses other than showering [~,~,Z]-
For t h e b a s e l i n e r i s k assessment of a site i n v o l v i n g c o n t a m i n a t e d

g r o u n d w a t e r just u p g r a d i e n t of m u n i c i p a l water supply wells, the U.S.
E n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o n A g e n c y (EPA), R e g i o n IX, and the state request-
ed an e v a l u a t i o n of risk from multiple potential p a t h w a y s of exposure
(Fig. 1). A l t h o u g h inhalation of vapors in the home from residential
use of c o n t a m i n a t e d w a t e r is only o n e of m a n y p o t e n t i a l pathways of
exposure a s s o c i a t e d w i t h subsurface contamination, the state
~Senior scientist and group leader, staff scientist, and scien-

tist, respectively, R a d i a n Corporation, P.O. Box 201088, Austin, TX
78720-1088.
SMITH ET AL. ON INHALATION OF VOLATILE CHEMICALS 139
specifically requested an evaluation of exposure and risk from inhaling

chemicals which might volatilize from the water while showering,
operating a dishwasher, and operating a washing machine.
FIG. 1--Generalized illustration of potential exposure pathways

from a buried waste site.
The methodology devised for this purpose involves assumptions and

algorithms to estimate: (i) concentrations of chemicals in the breathing
z o n e resulting from showering, washing dishes, and washing clothes; and
(2) inhalation intake by potentially exposed individuals. Necessary
assumptions included answering questions such as: what is the air
exchange rate in a "typical" bathroom?; what is the water flow rate from
a "typical" shower?; how long is the cycle time of a "typical" dishwash-
er and washing machine?; and how much time does a person spend unloading
the dishwasher and washing machine? The assumptions and algorithms used
to quantify exposure and risk for this investigation represent an
initial attempt to devise a screening approach and serve only as a point
of departure for further discussion and refinement.
METHODOLOGY
Concentrations in Residential Water
To illustrate the methods devised to estimate concentrations in

indoor air while showering, operating a dishwasher, and operating a
washing machine, a hypothetical case was developed that assumed residen-
tial w a t e r c o n t a m i n a t e d with six VOCs at levels equal to the Maximum
Contaminant Level (MCL) allowed in drinking water [~]. The VOCs
included three potential carcinogens (benzene, perchloroethene, and
trichloroethene) and three chemicals with noncarcinogenic effects
(ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes).
Indoor Air C o n c e n t r a t i o n s
Concentrations in Air While Showerinq--The method used to estimate

concentrations in air while showering is based on results of shower
v o l a t i l i z a t i o n e x p e r i m e n t s by A n d e l m a n et al. [!]. The e x p e r i m e n t s

involved p u m p i n g a t r a c e r chemical (aqueous t r i c h l o r o e t h e n e ) solution
t h r o u g h an e x p e r i m e n t a l shower chamber and m e a s u r i n g r e s u l t i n g concen-
t r a t i o n s of the t r a c e r in the air. The e x p e r i m e n t s r e v e a l e d the
following: (i) the t r i c h l o r o e t h e n e (TCE) c o n c e n t r a t i o n increased
a p p r o x i m a t e l y in a linear fashion over time; (2) the v o l a t i l i z a t i o n was
h i g h e r at h i g h e r w a t e r temperatures; and (3) the v o l a t i l i z a t i o n rate
i n c r e a s e d w h e n the height of the shower w a t e r drop path increased.
A kinetic-mass-balance relationship developed by A n d e l m a n et al.

[i] w h i c h p r e d i c t s air c o n c e n t r a t i o n s as a function of t i m e was used.
The basic m a s s b a l a n c e e q u a t i o n isz
V^(dC^/dt) = (R) - (F^C^) (i)

where
vA = Chamber volume (m3);
dC^/dt = Rate of change in c o n c e n t r a t i o n in air (g/m3/min);
= Mass of c h e m i c a l s v o l a t i l i z e d per unit t i m e (g/min);
F^ = Air flow rate (~/min);
CA = Concentration of a p a r t i c u l a r volatile compound in air

(g/m3).
Also: R = k(Cw-CA/H ) (2)
where
cw = Concentration of a p a r t i c u l a r volatile compound in

w a t e r (g/m3);
H = Henry's L a w Constant (dimensionless); and
k = Volatilization transfer coefficient (m3/min).
C o m b i n i n g e q u a t i o n s (i) and (2) and t r e a t i n g k/H as insignificant, the

e q u a t i o n reduces to:
V^(dC^/dt) = (kCw) - (F^C^) (3)

Integrating we get:
in (I-F^CA/kCw) = - (F^/V^)t (4)
w h i c h m a y be e x p r e s s e d as:
--(FA/VA)t
C A = [(kCw)/FA](l-e ) (s)
E q u a t i o n (5) was used to predict c o n c e n t r a t i o n s as a function of
time in the shower. The m a x i m u m value for k, the v o l a t i l i z a t i o n
t r a n s f e r coefficient, is assumed to be equal to Fw (the w a t e r flow rate)
at 100% v o l a t i l i z a t i o n [!]- In the a b s e n c e of e x p e r i m e n t a l data, k=F w
will give the w o r s t - c a s e c o n c e n t r a t i o n in the shower at different times.
However, A n d e l m a n ' s w o r k with e x p e r i m e n t a l showers showed that the

percent of TCE in w a t e r that v o l a t i l i z e s is less than 100%, varying from
43% to 79% [!]- The k value (at steady state = CAFA/Cw) drops signifi-
cantly from 100% to b e t w e e n 5% and 15% w h e n the percent v o l a t i l i z a t i o n
drops from 100% to the range of 43-79%. For TCE, therefore, it is
c o n s e r v a t i v e to assume a k value that is 50% of the m a x i m u m value.

Since k=Fw is the m a x i m u m value for k, c o r r e s p o n d i n g to 100% t h e o r e t i c a l
v o l a t i l i z a t i o n for TCE, 50% of the w a t e r flow rate is a j u s t i f i a b l e
e s t i m a t e for k.
E x p e r i m e n t a l data on percent v o l a t i l i z a t i o n in showers are not

a v a i l a b l e for m a n y other VOCs. By c o n s i d e r i n g the r e l a t i v e v o l a t i l i t y
of a specific chemical compared to the v o l a t i l i t y of trichlorethene, k
v a l u e s can be e s t i m a t e d for the chemicals of p o t e n t i a l concern, as
follows:
k = 0 . 5 F w x ~C
- (6)
VPa,cE
where
VP c = Vapor p r e s s u r e of chemical (mmHg at 48~ and
VPTc E = Vapor pressure of TCE (200 m m H g at 48~
A vapor p r e s s u r e at 48~ is u s e d to simulate a hot shower. This

approach is a p p l i c a b l e to chemicals w i t h v a p o r p r e s s u r e s lower than that
of TCE, as well as chemicals w i t h vapor p r e s s u r e s higher t h a n that of
TCE but less than or equal to 400 mmHg. For chemicals w i t h vapor
p r e s s u r e s higher t h a n 400 mmHg, use of this e q u a t i o n will p r o v i d e an
e s t i m a t e for the k value w h i c h is higher than the m a x i m u m value (k=Fw).
For these chemicals, k=F w should be c o n s e r v a t i v e l y assumed.
Other assumptions included:
1. Water flow rate = 20 L/min (based on a U.S. Department of

H o u s i n g and U r b a n D e v e l o p m e n t survey w h i c h found the m e a n
and m a x i m u m value for water flow rate in showers to be
b e t w e e n i0 L / m i n and 30 L/min [~]};
2. A i r exchange rate = 1 per hour (a c o n s e r v a t i v e value sug-

gested by A n d e l m a n et al. [3]);
3. D i m e n s i o n s of the shower stall = 5.5 x 3 x 8 ft (volume =

3.736 m3); and
4. Shower duration = 15 m i n u t e s (95th p e r c e n t i l e shower

duration, A u s t r a l i a n study) [6].
Table 1 summarizes the e s t i m a t e d c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in the shower

stall u s e d to estimate indoor inhalation exposures from showering,
a s s u m i n g c o n t a m i n a n t concentrations in the w a t e r at the MCLs. Concen-
trations have b e e n e s t i m a t e d b o t h a s s u m i n g 100% v o l a t i l i z a t i o n of the
VOCs, and c o n s i d e r i n g the relative v o l a t i l i t y of VOCs c o m p a r e d to the
v o l a t i l i t y of TCE.
M c K o n e and K n e z o v i c h [~] have also c o n d u c t e d experiments to

m e a s u r e the transfer of TCE from tap w a t e r in showers to indoor air and
c o n c l u d e d that the transfer e f f i c i e n c y of TCE has an arithmetic m e a n
value of 61% and an arithmetic standard d e v i a t i o n of 9%. They also
c o n c l u d e d that there is no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t difference b e t w e e n
the transfer e f f i c i e n c y m e a s u r e d w i t h hot or cold shower w a t e r nor
change in transfer e f f i c i e n c y with time d u r i n g a 20-minute shower.
Furthermore, they found that transfer e f f i c i e n c y for VOCs is l~mited b y
liquid-phase mass transfer and not by gas-phase mass transfer. Continu-

ing research in this area will provide the basis for refinements of the
above-descrlbed methodology.
TABLE l--Estlmated indoor air concentrations from showering.
Concentrations in Air
(m~/ms) ,
Concentration Vapor
in Tap Pressure Assuming Considering
Water-- (mmHg @ 100% Relative
Chemical MCL (mg/L) 48~ Volatilization Vola.tility
Potential Carcinogens
Benzene 0.005 250 0.36 0.22
Perchloroethene 0.005 51 0.36 0.045
Trichloroethene 0.005 200 0.36 0.18
Noncarcinogens
Ethylbenzene 0.7 32 50 4.0
Toluene 1 84 71 15
Xylenes i0 30 710 53
Concentrations in Air While Operating Dishwasher and Washing

Machlne--Volatile compounds in the dishwasher and washing machine water
will volatilize to the available air space in the machine while the
machine is operating. Volatilization is probably controlled by water
temperatures, air/water mixing, water agitation, and residence time.
Experimental data are not available that quantify the transfer of
volatile compounds from water in dishwashers or washing machines to the
air space in the machine or the room where the machine is located;
therefore, 100% volatilization was assumed.
Since the machine is not a closed system, the VOCs will tend to
leak out of the machine into the room where it is located, assumed to be
the kitchen for this investigation (Fig. 2). Due to emissions from the
dishwasher or washing machine, there is a continuous increase of VOC
concentrations in the kitchen during the operating cycle of the machine.
When the machine has finished its final cycle, the concentrations in the
room can be expected to steadily decrease due to dilution by incoming
air.
The dishwasher and washing machine model uses two equations. The
first equation models the increase of VOC concentrations in the kitchen
(taking air exchange into account) during the operating cycle of the
machine and is the same equation (5) used in the shower model. Concen-
trations are calculated for each minute of the cycle time and then
averaged for the duration of the cycle.
Fig. 2--Schematic of hypothetical kitchen.
The second equation, used to model the decrease in air concentra-

tions after the cycle is completed, is a simple modification to the
first equation. By integrating with the term kC w = 0 (assuming 0%
volatilization at the end of the cycle), the first equation becomes:
In(CAI/CA2 ) = (FA/VA) (t2-t 1) (7)

where
CA1 - Concentration in air at time t I (g/m3);
C~ - Concentration in air at time t 2 (g/m3);
tl - End of the operating cycle of the machine (min);
t2 - Anytime after t I (min);
F^ = Air flow rate [calculated by dividing VA

(volume of kitchen) by air exchange rate] (m3/min); and
VA - Volume of kitchen (m3).
Concentrations are calculated for each minute from the end of the final
cycle to an end time of 120 minutes (for an assumed total exposure time
in the kitchen of two hours) and then averaged for the post-cycle
duration of time.
Assumptions used to calculate air concentrations resulting from
operating a dishwasher or washing machine include:
i. Volatilization coefficient = 100% volatilization;
2. Dimensions of k i t c h e n - 15 X 15 X i0 feet (63.713 cubic me-

ters); and
3. Air exchange rate - 2 per hour.
For operation of the dishwasher, it was assumed:
i. Volume of water used during each cycle = 53 liters [9];

2. Cycle time = 72 minutes [i0]; and
3. Decay time = 48 minutes (from the end of the cycle to an end

time of 120 minutes).
For operation of the washing machine, it was assumed:
i. Capacity of the machine = 76.5 liters (manufacturer specifica-

tions for a standard size machine [Ii]);
2. Volume of water used during each cycle = 208 liters [9];

3. Cycle Time = 35 minutes [ii]; and
4. Decay time = 85 minutes (from the end of the cycle to an end

time of 120 minutes).
Table 2 summarizes estimated concentrations in the hypothetical

kitchen from operating a dishwasher and a washing machine located in the
kitchen. The two concentrations represent: (i) an average concentra-
tion in air while the machine is operating; and (2) an average concen-
tration in air after the cycle is completed (for the remainder of an
assumed two hour exposure period in the kitchen).
TABLE 2--Estimated indoor air concentrations from operating a

dishwasher and washin K machine.
Concentrations in Air (m~/m 3)

From Dishwasher From Washing Ma-
chine
Concentra-
tion
in Tap During After During After
Water-- Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle
MCL (72-min (48-min (35-min (85-min
Chemical (ms/L) av 5 ) av 5 ) av 5 ) av 5 )
Potential Carcinogens
Benzene 0.005 0.0011 0.00071 0.0057 0.0029
Perchloroethene 0.005 0.0011 0.00071 0.0057 0.0029
Trichloroethene 0.005 0.0011 0.00071 0.0057 0.0029
Noncarcinogens
Ethyl benzene 0.7 0.15 0.099 0.80 0.40
Toluene 1 0.22 0.14 i.i 0.58
X~lenes I0 2.2 1.4 ii 5.8
Estimation of Exposure
Exposure is defined as the contact rate of an orEanism with a
chemical or physical agent. Intake is exposure normalized for time and
body weight and is expressed in units of mg chemical/kg body weight-day
[l].
The generic equation for calculating chemical intakes is [~]:
I = (C x CR x EFD)/(BW x AT) (8)
where
Intake; the amount of chemical at the exchange boundary
(mg/kg body weight-day);
Chemlcal-related variable
C - Chemical concentration; the average concentration contacted
over the exposure period (e.g., mg/L water);
Variables that describe the exposed population
CR m Contact rate; the amount of contaminated medium contacted
per unit time or event (e.g., L/day);
EFD - Exposure frequency and duration; describes how long and how
often exposure occurs. Often calculated using two terms (EF
and ED):-
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year);
ED - Exposure duration (years);
BW m Body weight; the average body weight over the exposure
period (~g); and
Assessment-determlned variable
AT = AveraKing time; period over which exposure is averaged
(days~.
For estimating exposures to contaminant concentrations in indoor air,
the contact rate (CR) is expressed as an inhalation rate (IR) in units
of m=/hour and an additional term is used for exposure time (ET) in
units of hours/day. Therefore, the equation becomes:
I = (CA x IR x ET x EF x ED)/(BW x AT) (9)
where
Intake (mg/kg-day);
CA = Chemical concentration in indoor air (mg3/m3);
IR Inhalation rate for indoor activities (m3/hour);
ET = Exposure time (hours/day);
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year);
ED = Exposure duration (years);
BW = Body weight (kg); and
AT = Averaging time (days).
Table 3 lists exposure ass~nptions used to estimate inhalation exposure

from showering, operating a dishwasher, and operating a washing machine.
It also ineluaes assumptions used to estimate ingestion exposure from
drinking the same water.
TABLE 3--Values used tO estimate exposure.
Variable Value Justification

Showerln K
Inhalation Rate (m3/hr) 0.6 Showering, all age groups [6].
Exposure Time (hours/day) 0.25 95th percentile shower duration
[~l.
Exposure Frequency (days/year) 350 90% of American population take
bath or shower every day [6];
days/year spent at home [IT.
Exposure Duration (years) 30 National 90th percentile time at
one residence I~, l]-
Body Weight (kg) 70 Adult, average [6, !].
Averaging Time (days)
Noncarclnogenic effects 10,950 30 years (exposure duration) x
365 days/year.
- Carcinogenic effects 25,550 70 years (lifetime) x 365
days/year.
Dishwashin K
All values same as above for
showering, ~xcept:
Inhalation Rate (mS/hour) 0.63 Reasonable upper-bound inhalation
rate for daily, indoor, residen-
tial activities [!].
Exposure Time (hours/day) 2 72-min average exposure during
cycle ~lus 48-min average expo-
sure after completion oF final
cycle (120 minutes total).
Exposure Frequency (days/year) 312 Average of 6 cycles per week
[i0]. Operation of machine i
c ~ l e per day, 6 days per week.
Clothes Washln K
All variables same as above
for dishwashing, except:
Exposure Time (hours/day) 35-min average exposure during
cycle plus 85-min average expo-
sure after completion oF final
cycle (120 minutes total).
Drlnkln K Water
All variables same as above
for showering, except:
Ingestion Rate (liters/day) 2 Adult, 90th percentile [!].
Exposure frequency (days/year) 350 Days/year spent at home [Z].
Exposure assumptions recommended in the Human Health Evaluation

Manual, Supplemental Guidance: Standard Default Exposure Factors [!],
the Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund [5], and the Exposure Factors
Handbook [6] were used when available and applicable. In many cases,
standard exposure factors for indoor inhalation exposures have not been
developed and best professional judgement was used.
Risk Characterization
Risk characterization involves integrating estimates of exposure
with toxicity information into qualitative or quantitative expressions
of potential health risk. Carcinogenic effects are evaluated for the
three potential carcinogens (benzene, perchloroethene, and
trlchloroethene) and noncarcinogenic effects are evaluated for
ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes.
Carcinogenic Effects--To characterize potential carcinogenic

effects, probabilities that an individual will develop cancer over a
lifetime of exposure are estimated from projected intakes and the cancer
slope factor (SF). The SF converts estimated daily intakes directly to
an estimate of incremental risk. Because the SF is often an upper 95th
percentile confidence limit of the probability of response based on
experimental animal data and an assumption of linearity in the low-dose
portion of dose-response curves, the carcinogenic risk estimate will
generally be an upper-bound estimate [5]. This means the "true risk"
will probably not exceed the risk estimates generated using the SF and
is likely to be less than predicted [~]. Table 4 lists the SF values
used to evaluate carcinogenic effects. U.S. EPA has classified benzene
as a Group A - Human Carcinogen (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity
in humans) and perchloraethene and trichloroethene as group B2 -
Probable Human Carcinogens (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in
animals with inadequate or lack of evidence in humans).
TABLE 4--Toxicity values for evaluation of carcinogenic effects.
Inhalation Oral
Cancer Slope Factor Slope factor
Chemical Group (mg/kg-day) -1 (mg/kg-day) -1
Benzene A 2.9E-02 2.9E-02
Perchloroethene B2 1.8E-03 5.1E-02
Trichloroethene B2 1.7E-02 I.IE-02
Noncarcinogenic Effects--To characterize potential noncarcinogenic

effects, comparisons are made between projected inhalation intakes of
substances over a specified time period and the inhalation reference
concentration (RfC) derived for a similar exposure period. Likewise,
comparisons are made between projected ingestion intakes and the oral
reference dose (RfD). The RfD and RfC are estimates (with uncertainty
spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of the daily exposures to the
human population (including sensitive subgroups) that are likely to be
without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime
(chronic RfD or RfC) or a portion of a lifetime (subchronic RfD or RfC)
[~]. Table 5 lists the RfD and RfC values used to evaluate noncar-
cinogenlc effects [12].
The ratio of exposure to RfD or RfC is the hazard quotient. If

the exposure level exceeds the RfD or RfC (i.e., if the hazard quotient
is greater than one), there may be cause for concern about potential
noncancer effects.
TABLE 5--Toxicity values for evaluation of noncarcinogenic effects.
Inhalation Oral
RfC RfD
Chemical (m~/ks-day) (ms/k~-day)
Ethylbenzene 3E-01 IE-OI
Toluene 6E-01 2E-01
Xylenes 9E-02 2E+O0
RESULTS
Table 6 summarizes carcinogenic risk estimates for inhalation

while showering (both assuming I00 p e r c e n t v o l a t i l i z a t i o n and consider-
ing relative volatilities), inhalation while washing dishes, inhalation
while washing clothes, and ingestion of drinking water. Estimated risks
from inhaling chemicals that volatilize from residential water while
showering and washing clothes are of the same order of magnitude as
risks from ingesting the same water for the three potential carcinogens
considered in this investigation. Estimated risks from inhaling
chemicals that volatilize while the dishwasher is operating are about an
order of magnitude lower than risks from the other pathways.
TABLE 6--Estimated carcinogenic risk.
Inhalation - Shower
Ingestion
100% Inhalation- of
Volatil- Relative Inhalation- Washing Drinking
Chemical ization Volatility Dishwasher Machine Water
Benzene 9E-06 6E-06 2E-07 7E-07 2E-06
Perchloroeth 6E-07 7E-08 IE-08 4E-08 3E-06
erie
Trichloroeth 5E-06 3E-06 IE-07 4E-07 6E-07
ene
Total IE-05 9E-06 3E-07 IE-06 6E-06
Table 7 summarizes noncarcinogenic risk estimates for the same

exposure pathways. Estimated noncarcinogenic risks from inhaling
chemicals that volatilize from residential water while showering and
washing clothes are higher than risks from ingesting the same water or
inhaling chemicals that volatilize while the dishwasher is operating.
TABLE 7--Estimated noncarcino~enic hazard quotients.
Inhalation - Shower
Ingestion
100% Inhalation- of
Volatil- Relative Inhalation- Washing Drinking
Chemical ization Volatility Dishwasher Machine Water
Ethylbenzene 0.3 0.03 0.006 0.03 0.2
Toluene 0.2 0.05 0.005 0.02 0.i
Xylenes 2 I 0.3 i 0.i
Total 3 i 0.3 i 0.4
CONCLUSIONS
Indoor emissions of VOCs during domestic use of contaminated water

(e.g., while showering, washing dishes, and washing clothes) may have a
significant contribution to total health risk. Conservative methodolo-
gies to estimate indoor air concentrations during domestic use of
contaminated water and subsequent human exposure indicate that these
pathways may pose as great or greater health risk as drinking two liters
per day of the same water. MCLs may not protect human health when total
exposure from use of the water in the home is considered.
The model used to estimate exposure and risk to VOCs in the indoor
air of the shower stall while showering is based on the results of
shower volatilization experiments by Andelman et al. [!] and compiled
data on inhalation rates while showering, shower frequency, and shower
duration [~, 6, !]. Continuing research by Andelman, McKone and
Knezovich [~], and others will serve to improve this methodology.
However, the model used to estimate exposure and risk to VOCs in the
indoor air of the kitchen while a dishwasher and washing machine are
operating is based on many assumptions that need t o be tested by
experimental research. Since the results of this screening-level model
indicate that the operation of a washing machine may contribute to
exposure and health risks on the order of those predicted from showering
and drinking the water, research should focus on several key questions:
(I) what is the transfer efficiency of VOCs from washing machine water
to the air space of the machine?; (2) is the transfer efficiency
dependent on the t e m p e r a t u r e o f the water?; (3) how should emissions of
VOCs from the washing machine to the household air outside the machine
he characterized--as a continuous leak or more of a puff emission when
the machine is opened?; (4) what is the relationship between the
quantity of VOCs that volatilize from the washing machine water and the
concentrations in the household air?; and (5) how should human activi-
ties inside the home be characterized so that the contact rate, exposure
time, exposure frequency, and exposure duration can be modeled?
REFERENCES
C!] Andelman, J.B., Couch, A., and Thurston, W.W., "Inhalation Expo-
sures in Indoor Air to Triehloroethylene from Shower Water,"
Environmental Epidemiology, Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, MI,
1986, pp. 201-213.
[2] McKone, T.E., "Human Exposure to Volatile Organic Compounds in

Household Tap Water: the Indoor Inhalation Pathway," Environmen-
tal Science and Technology, 21:1194, 1987.
[3] Andelman, J.B., et al., "Exposure to Volatile Organics from Indoor
Uses of Water," In: Proceedings of Symposium on Total Exposure
Methodology: A New Horizon, Las Vegas, Nevada, November 27-30,
1989.
[4] McKone, T.E. and Knezovich, J.P., "The Transfer of Triehloroethyl-
ene (TCE) from a Shower to Indoor Air: Experimental Measurements
and Their Implications," Journal of the Air and Waste Management
Association, 41:832, 1991.
[5] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Risk Assessmept
Guidance for Superfund, Volume i: Human Health Evaluation Manual,
Part A, EPA/540/I-89/002, December 1989.
[6] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Exposure Factors
Handbook, EPA/600/8-89/043, July 1989.
[Z] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund, Volume i: Human Health Evaluation Manual,
Supplemental Guidance: Standard Default Exposure Factors, March
25 1991.
[8] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Drinking Water Regula-
tions and Health Advisories, April 1991.
[9] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (DHUD), Residen-
tial Water Conservation Proiects , March 1984, Contract 14-5230.
[I0] Consumer Reports, "Dishwashers," June 1987, pp. 384-391.
[II] General Electric, personal communication to Jan Beck (Radian) from
Sherry McGee (GE Sales Representative), June II, 1990.
[12] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Health Effects Assess-
ment Summary Tables (HEAST), Annual FY-1991, NTIS No. PB91-921199,
January 1991.
Paul C. Chrostowski I
Jennifer A. Wheeler 2
A COMPARISON OF THE INTEGRATED UPTAKE BIOKINETIC MODEL TO TRADITIONAL

RISK ASSESSMENT APPROACHES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL LEAD
REFERENCE: Chrostowski, P. C., and Wheeler, J. A., "A Comparison

of the Integrated Uptake Biokinetic Model to Traditional Risk
Assessment Approaches for Environmental Lead," SuDerfund Risk
Assessment in Soil Contamination Studies. ASTM STP 1158.
ABSTRACT: The calculation of exposures to contaminated soil at

Superfund sites has traditionally involved a steady state approach (the
time-weighted average intake) which is uncalibrated and unvalidated,
based on exposure factors which may be derived from risk management
decisions, and which fails to take pharmacokinetics into account.
Although the approach has some attractiveness from the standpoint of
amenability to standardization and simplicity of operation, it has been
criticized as being overly conservative, i.e. it yields chronic intake
values which far exceed those actually measured through biological
monitoring. Recently, USEPA has developed and published an alternative
approach, known as the Integrated Uptake/Biokinetic (UBK) model for the
determination of exposure to environmental lead. This model has two
principal components -- one involving the uptake of lead into the body
from different sources, the second involving the calculation of a blood
lead level from the uptake. The blood lead level is subsequently used
in conjunction with dose-response functions to predict the probability
of adverse health effects. Unlike the average intake approach, it has
undergone calibration and validation, is relatively free from risk
management, and incorporates pharmacokinetics. The purpose of this
paper is to present the results of a critical evaluation of the
different approaches used to calculate exposure to lead.
KEYWORDS: Soil lead, biokinetics, exposure modeling, blood lead, UBK

model, soil clean-up levels
ISenior Vice President, Director of Research and Development,

Clement International Corporation, 9300 Lee Highway, Fairfax, VA 22031-
1207.
2Analyst, Clement International Corporation, 9300 Lee Highway,

Fairfax, VA 22031-1207.
INTRODUCTION
Exposure to environmental lead has been the subject of a degree of

controversy which has exceeded that of almost any other chemical
element. Sparked by documents such as Agency for Toxic Substances
Disease Registry's (ATSDR) Report to Congress (ATSDR 1988) and stories
in the news media which relate lead exposure to cognitive dysfunction in
children, legislators and regulators have reacted with a flurry of
proposed statutes and regulations designed to control exposure of
children to lead. Lead has been named as a chemical of concern at 660
National Priorities List NPL Sites (ATSDR 1991). According to the
National Contingency Plan (NCP), each of these sites requires a risk
assessment to determine if cleanup is required, the degree to which the
site must be cleaned up, and the most appropriate remedy.
Exposure assessment is an integral component of a Superfund site

risk assessment (USEPA 1989a). Exposure assessments may be performed at
many levels which, in essence, constitute a hierarchy of accuracy. The
ideal level is one which yields a numerical value for the dose of the
chemical which is delivered to the target tissue in addition to
conveying information about the frequency and duration of exposure.
With regard to lead, the methods at the top of the hierarchy usually
involve extensive epidemiologic and environmental studies which include
blood- and/or bone-lead measurements. If conducted properly, these
studies can yield extremely valuable results which can be used in
assessing a current population's exposure to environmental lead. When
used in conjunction with an appropriate model, the combined risk
assessment tool is capable of calculating risks for situations other
than those which existed when the epidemiologic studies took place. For
example, they can be used to calculate future exposures, the effects of
shifting demographics, and the impacts of various remedial alternatives.
In Superfund practice, however, exposure assessments typically employ
methodologies representative of the bottom of the hierarchy, i.e.,
screening level exposure models. These concepts have been explored in
greater detail elsewhere (Chrostowski and Wheeler 1991). In this paper,
we will often use the hierarchical concept as a standard of comparison
for the accuracy, precision, and sensitivity of various models for
assessing exposure to lead. In particular, blood lead levels which are
predicted by various types of exposure models will be compared to
measured blood lead levels obtained from the same geographical location
as the input data for the predictive models.
H I S T O R Y OF LEAD R E G U L A T I O N AND R I S K A S S E S S M E N T AT S U P E R F U N D SITES
Lead has been regulated under both the Clean Air Act (CAA) and
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) using approaches which differ from the
approach which has traditionally been taken under Superfund. For non-
carcinogens, the traditional Superfund approach is to set a threshold
level of concern based on the reference dose (RfD) for the individual
chemical (USEPA 1989a). This threshold of concern, in the form of a
chronic daily intake, is then used, along with relevant exposure
CHROSTOWSKI AND WHEELER ON THE BIOKINETIC MODEL 153
assumptions, to calculate a chemical-specific cleanup goal. This topic

will be discussed further in the subsequent section. In the health
effects assessment (HEA) for lead, USEPA's Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment (OHEA) declined to develop an RfD for lead,
instead deferring to the numerical values of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) and the drinking water Maximum Contaminant
Level (MCL) (USEPA 1984).
The traditional MCL for lead was a value of 0..05 mg/L derived by
the United States Public Health Service and adopted by USEPA under the
SDWA in 1975. In 1985, USEPA's Office of Drinking Water (ODW) proposed
a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for lead of 0.020 mg/L. This
value was based on the assumption that 15 ~g/dL was a blood lead level
of concern for infants, that infants receive 100% of their lead exposure
from drinking water, and that every ~g/L of lead in drinking water
corresponds to an increase in blood lead of 0.16 ~g/dL. An uncertainty
factor of 5 was also applied to account for uncertainty in the data.
This proposed MCLG has been used in conjunction with assumptions that an
individual drinks 2 liters of water per day and has a body weight of 70
kg to derive a reference intake value (RIV) of 6xlO "4 mg/kg/day. This
value is analogous to an RfD and was used in numerous risk assessments
early in the Superfund program (e.g., Clear Creek, Sand Creek, Sharon
Steel/Midvale). This approach is discussed in greater detail in the
Sharon Steel/Midvale Feasibility Study (CDM and Clement 1990). Table i
shows the evolution of lead drinking water criteria and standards, the
corresponding RIVs, and soil lead cleanup goals derived from RlVs.
These soil lead goals were developed using a bioavailability of 100%.
USEPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER),

which has responsibility for the Superfund program, adopted CDC's levels
as lead soil cleanup guidelines for Superfund sites in 1989 (USEPA
1989b). OSWER's directive implementing these guidelines notes that the
levels of 500 to i000 mg/kg refer to total soil lead as measured by the
Contract Laboratory Program and that site-specific conditions such as
increased likelihood of exposure or background contamination may warrant
the use of cleanup levels below the 500 mg/kg level or above the 1,000
mg/kg level. This directive was severely criticized by the regulated
community (ARCO 1989). The criticisms included methodological and
technical deficiencies in documentation, extending the use of CDC's
values beyond the uses originally intended by CDC, failure to
incorporate available modeling procedures, toxicological, and site-
specific data, and failure to consider differences in lead
bioavailability and indoor/outdoor lead transfer. These site specific
factors appear to be most significant when considering mining sites.
Steele et al. (1990) have recently investigated the relationship between
exposure to lead in mining wastes and blood levels and concluded that
lead at mining sites contributes less to body burdens than some other
forms of lead. These authors attribute this phenomenon to lead
speciation and particle size characteristics in addition to exposure
factors.
TABLE i
CURRENT AND PROPOSED DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS FOR LEAD

AND ASSOCIATED REFERENCE INTAKE VALUES
Corresponding
Lead Corresponding Soil Cleanup
Concentration RIV c Level
Regulation (mg/L) (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg) d
Historical MCL 0.050 IE-03 600
Proposed MCLC a 0.020 6E-04 200
Proposed MCL b 0.005 IE-04 60

Proposed MCLG b 0 0 0
Action Level 0.015 4E-04 180
Proposed by USEPA's Office of Drinking Water 40 CFR

Part 141. Fed. Reg. 50:46967-47025. November 13,
1985. Replaced; see footnote (b).
Federal Register 53:31516-31578. August 18, 1988.
RlVs have been calculated from regulatory drinking
water levels assuming consumption of 2 liters water/day
by a 70-kg individual for a 70-year lifetime.
The presented soil levels, when combined with standard
exposure factors developed for soil ingestion in a
residential scenario, yield intakes equal to the
reference intake values. Standard exposure factors are
provided by USEPA and take into account ingestion by
residents for a period of 30 years (age 0 to 30 years),
350 days/year, at a rate of 200 mg/day as a young child
(age 0 to 6 years) and I00 mg/day when older (7 to 24
years). The average body weight for persons 0 to 30
years of age is approximately 48 kg.
USEPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)

developed several exposure models in support of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead including an aggregate approach, a
disaggregate approach, and the integrated uptake/biokinetic (UBK) model.
The use of the UBK approach has been recently institutionalized by an

OSWER directive (USEPA 1991). This directive recommended a risk
management criterion of either 95% of the sensitive population having
blood lead levels below I0 ~g/dL or a 95% probability of an individual
having a blood lead level below I0 ~g/dL. The directive also
anticipated that use of the model would likely result in a soil lead
cleanup level of 500 mg/kg, however, it also acknowledged that other
cleanup levels could result. A detailed discussion of these approaches
will be the subject of subsequent sections.
APPROACHES TO LEAD EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
The Time-Weighted Average Intake ParadiKm
USEPA's Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (USEPA 1989a) uses

the concept of a time-weighted average intake as the basis of a dose
calculation. USEPA also espouses the concept of "reasonable maximum
exposure" (RME) which biases average intake calculations to higher than
average values by selection of particular assumptions used for the
calculation of exposure. Together, the concepts of time weighted
exposure and reasonable maximum exposure will be referred to as the
average intake paradigm. USEPA's average intake methodology tacitly
assumes that a receptor is exposed to a constant level of a chemical
continuously over the exposure period. The generic algorithm presented
by USEPA for calculation of intake is of this form:
I C e x CRx EFD (i)

AT x BW
where
intake (mg/kg body weightLday);
Ce environmental chemical concentration (e.g. mg/liter

water);
CR = contact rate (e.g. liter water/day);
EFD = exposure frequency and duration (days);
AT = averaging time (days); and
BW = body weight (kg).
If risk is being assessed by a comparison of intake from the environment

to an administered dose in a test species, but the environmental medium
differs from the dosing vehicle in the toxicological test, the concept
of bioavailability may be used to adjust the intake, although this is
not explicitly discussed by USEPA (1989a). This method provides no
opportunity for calculating the concentration of the chemical at the
target tissue. It may be contrasted to a method used in classical
pharmacokinetics for calculating the steedy-state concentration of a
chemical at the target tissue resulting from multiple dosages of a toxin
(Ritschel 1986) which is closely analogous to multiple exposures at a
Superfund site:
o x f (2)
cv= v~xk,, x t
where
CV steady state chemical concentration in distribution volume

(e.g., ~g/dL blood);
D dose (mass chemical/kg body weight);
f = fraction of dose absorbed;
Vd - distribution volume;
ket elimination rate constant; and
t = time interval between doses.
As can be seen from comparison of this equation to USEPA's method, this

equation explicitly incorporates bioavailability in the term which
describes the fraction of dose absorbed, allows for treatment of doses
as discrete events, and allows for clearance of the toxin between doses.
Since lead undergoes biphasic elimination with a half-life of 19 days
for the fast phase (ATSDR 1991), if the interval between exposures is
relatively long, elimination can be significant.
In addition to t h e uncertainties introduced by "using time-

invariant dose calculations, USEPA also relies on the concept of
reasonable maximum exposure (RME) which was first introduced in the
National Contingency Plan and elaborated on in the risk assessment
guidance (USEPA 1989a). USEPA defines the RME to be the "highest
exposure that is reasonably expected to occur at a siteo" USEPA further
states that the intent of the RME is to estimate a conservative exposure
case (i.e. well above the average case) that is still within the range
of possible exposures". The calculation of RME intakes is carried out
by inputting both upper bound and average values into intake algorithms.
For example, in calculating the intake associated with ingestion of
chemicals in soil, USEPA uses a 95% upper confidence limit on the mean
soll chemical concentration, a 95th percentile soil ingestion rate, a
maximum value for exposure frequency, a 90th percentile for exposure
duration, an average value for body weight and a default value for
averaging time. The net result of the combination of these variables is
typically a value for intake which substantially exceeds the true value.
The primary source of bias in these calculations is the 95% upper
confidence limit soil concentration which is calculated according to the
method of Land (1971) and Gilbert (1987): This is an unstable statistic
which h a s a tendency to exaggerate exposure point concentrations for
Superfund sites where the variance of the data is large or the sample
size is small. These concepts have been elaborated on elsewhere
(Chrostowski and Wheeler 1991; Chrostowski and Foster 1991; Foster et
al. 1991).
The UBK Approach
The integrated uptake/biokinetic (UBK) model is currently being

recommended by USEPA for use at Superfund sites (USEPA 1991). The UBK
model uses measured rates of absorption or uptake of lead through
different exposure routes from experimental studies in conjunction with
mathematical biokinetic modeling from lead balance studies to predict
either total body burden or the amount of lead in a pharmacokinetic
compartment as a function of time (Cohen et al. 1990). The history and
development of the model and its proposed application to Superfund sites
have been recently discussed elsewhere (Elias 1991; Griffin 1991) and
will not be discussed further here. Versions 0.2 to 0.61 have been
circulated for comment. The work reported in this paper has been
conducted using Version 0.4 (USEPA 1990, 1989c) which is a personal
computer version designed to accept user input of exposure variables and
output probability distributions of blood lead levels for children in
the age range from birth to 84 months. Our previous research
(Chrostowski and Wheeler 1991) concluded that the UBK approach was
capable of accurately predicting blood lead distributions at the Sharon
Steel/Midvale Superfund site. In this paper, we expand on the previous
research by investigating the operation of the model under various
conditions, again comparing its output to community blood lead studies.
Many of our conclusions concerning the use of the model stem from
our experience in using earlier versions at Superfund sites. At the
Sharon Steel/Midvale site, we found that incorporation of site-specific
levels for lead in homegrown vegetables yielded biologically implausible
results for blood lead levels. This was true whether the vegetable
concentrations were themselves predicted by mathematical modeling or
whether they were actually measured (Clement 1990). Bornschein's
structural equation approach to the site (Bornschein et al. 1990) showed
that the vegetable garden pathway was of little importance to overall
exposure, thus, it appeared that the model overemphasized this pathway,
probably through the vegetable consumption rates or fraction of food
from homegrown vegetables which are themselves implausible. This
problem appears to have been rectified in subsequent versions of the
model. We have found that inaccurate blood lead levels result when we
input USEPA's standard intake assumption for inadvertent soil ingestion

of 200 mg/day for children. The evidence from soil ingestion studies
shows that this value is actually an upper bound rather than an average
parameter (Davis et al. 1990; Calabrese et al. 1989). We have concluded
that only best estimates of central tendency for all exposure factors
should be used as model inputs. A numerical summary of our
investigations concerning soil and dust exposure point concentrations
and ingestion rates is shown in Table 2. Using accuracy as a criterion,
the table clearly shows that the best results are achieved using
arithmetic mean soil and dust concentrations in conjunction with the
model default ingestion rate of I00 mg soil and dust/day. There are
other factors affecting the accuracy of UBK calibration; a detailed
treatment of which is beyond the scope of this paper. These include the
impact of the baseline blood lead level on soil contribution to blood
lead. If the baseline contributed by diet, for example, is over or
underestimated, the soil/dust contribution will be under or over
estimated. Additionally, non-linearity of the biokinetic slope factor
may also have an impact. As lead uptake increases, the impact on blood
lead becomes relatively smaller due to saturation of the red blood
cell/plasma compartments.
Another area of debate associated with the UBK model concerns

selection of an appropriate geometric standard deviation (GSD) for blood
lead levels. The choice of GSD is critical since it determines the
proportion of the population which exceeds a given blood lead level and
thus can often be the key factor in determining the need for remediation
of a site. The default GSD built into the UBK is 1.42 which was derived
primarily from the NHANES II study and other studies dealing primarily
with stationary lead sources. Other values for GSDs which have been
obtained through community blood lead measurements average around 1.7.
Close examination of this data suggests that there is an inverse
relationship between geometric mean blood lead levels and GSDs derived
from the same studies. The most plausible mechanism for this effect is
one derived from the principles of analytical chemistry which indicates
a loss of measurement precision as lower detection limits are pursued
for a given analyte. The high GSD values obtained from recent studies
with low geometric means are probably more a reflection of this
analytical artifact rather than greater variability among actual blood
lead levels. An alternative explanation is concerned with the presence
of outliers in a low blood lead level distribution. A GSD of 1.7
appears to be generally applicable to mining sites. Figure 1 shows the
UBK model output (smooth curve) superimposed over blood lead data
(histograms) for the Sharon Steel/Midvale data (Bornschein et al. 1990)
after it has been optimized for exposure point concentrations (soil and
dust), ingestion rates, and GSDs. There is a close degree of
correspondence between modeled and actual results indicating that the
model can be highly accurate if optimized.
Another critical factor which is a model input is lead

bioavailability or percent absorption. Although these terms are often
used synonymously, bioavailability usually is taken to be the combined
phenomenon of desorption of lead from the medium of administration and
TABLE 2
EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION STATISTIC
AND INGESTION RATE P A R A M E T E R ON M O D E L OUTPUT
Predicted
Geometric
Mean Blood o
"r
Lead %
0
Model Input Parameter I Concentration Error 0c,
,-I
(~g/dL) 2 0
Arithmetic m e a n concentrations from sampling 00

data (soil - 367.94 ~g/g; dust = 543.46 ~g/g) >
9 Default Ingestion Rate 5.47 9.4 z
9 200 m g / d a y Ingestion Rate 9.35 87
T
Geometric m e a n concentrations from sampling m
data (soil = 157.71 ~g/g; dust = 437.23 ~g/g) m
r-
9 Default Ingestion Rate 4.18 -16.4 m
"11
9 200 m g / d a y Ingestion Rate 6.79 35.8
0
z
95% upper confidence limit on arithmetic m e a n --t
concentrations from sampling data (RME T
m
concentrations) (soil = 732 ~g/g;
dust 593 ~g/g)
9 Default Ingestion Rate 7.08 41.6
9 200 m g / d a y Ingestion Rate 12.50 150
rrl
.-t
Model was used with default parameters except as noted.

The geometric m e a n b l o o d lead c o n c e n t r a t i o n c a l c u l a t e d from O
Bornschein's b l o o d lead sampling was 5 ~g/dL. m
~o
CO
v
z
o
t'-
ooo_
W
=J
V/////I////////~
0
0
=,J
_o
g////////////////////////////////////////////////////////1
flllllllll//lll/I/I//ll//lll/I/////llA
I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0
(qd poolq)l uo!~oun::l @

~l!suea ~l!l!qeqoJd
absorption through the gastrointestinal track. The bioavailability of

lead is medium-specific depending heavily on such factors as lead
speciation and particle size of the matrix (Steele et al. 1990; Davis et
al. 1991). Bioavailabilities for lead ranging from 10% to 70% have been
reported in the literature. The bioavailability of lead at the Sharon
Steel/Midvale site was measured in a study sponsored by USEPA and found
to be about 30% (LaVelle 1990). Although this value is the same as the
model default, it was found that a bioavailability of 12% active + 12%
passive best fit the blood lead data. For sites with lead in forms
which may be more or less hioavailable than that at Midvale, site
specific optimization for bioavailability is required for accuracy to be
attained. Figure 2 shows a comparison of modeled results calculated
with various bioavailability (absorption) values to actual blood lead
concentrations as a function of soil concentration. Data points were
generated in the UBK model assuming all model defaults except soil
concentrations and soil bioavailability. The similarities among the
curve shapes from the monitoring data suggests that bioavailability
(along with exposure and behavior related factors) is a primary
difference in the underlying studies. It also shows that, especially at
high soil lead levels, the shape of the modeled curve differs
qualitatively from the shapes of the actual curves, i.e., the actual
data become asymptotic much more quickly than the modeled data. The
UBK model handles absorption in either a linear or an alternative non-
linear mode which matches the actual data better than the linear
fashion. The curves in Figure 2 were generated using the non-linear
mode. It would appear that modification to the functional form for
absorption are required to obtain the most accurate results. The square
hyperbolic shape of the curves suggests that the asymptote is
biologically determined and may be described using a Michaelis-Menten
type of kinetic function. These results also suggest that the model
should be used with caution at soil lead levels >I000 mg/kg.
Obviously a wide range of soil cleanup values can be calculated

using the model. The current practical range of Version 0.4 is limited
to soil lead levels between approximately 500 and 1600 using blood lead
< I0 ~g/dL in ~ 95% of the population as a criterion. This range
assumes that soil and indoor dust lead concentrations are equal. The
lower end of the range was derived using all model default parameters
(except soil and dust lead levels), whereas the upper end of the range
was derived by reducing the bioavailability from soil and dust to i0%
and reducing the default dietary lead intakes by 30%. This range
assumes that soil and indoor lead concentrations are equal.
DISCUSSION A N D U O N C L U S I O N S
The ultimate tool of exposure assessment is environmental

epidemiology. Properly designed and conducted blood lead studies are
capable of accurately depicting lead body burdens in an exposed
population within about 30 days of exposure. If these studies are
repeated as a function of time, they may be used to demonstrate the
stability of body burdens over longer periods. Additionally, bone and
dentine lead are useful measures of cummulative exposure. The advent of
ro
3O
" Minnesota, 1987 0")
28 C
Urban ~ ..................... "13
m
26 ~ ................ 3o
-n
C
- Port Plrle, 1986 ~ ~ ............ Z
24 - Smelter~ i i ..-' ......... ....--" 0
:D
22 - / ...... ..-"
- / ......... ... - ~ Model Output
20 - /., ...... . ..." 5 0 % Absorption >
9 "1"" . O9
- .oO..~176 ,.*" Ill
18 - . .... / ., 9149 0")
m
z
t- / u...~,.,,ll.a.k, taa.= - .... ~ . ~,~ Model Output --I
J'- / ...... ~ ' . ~ ...r --- . -" Default Absorption
t- a m e n e r "-~. ---,-- . - -
"~ 10 j-- / ," ~ "X Leadvllle, 1987 ..-

0 I- / .f..~.. ~ ;,. ....... M i n i n g _ ............
9 " ~ " ~ " ' ~ ~ - - - - ' = " ~ - " -~.-Model Out-ut
_ _ _ _ - - - - - - -
24 f ~ Copper Mining
/I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
L e a d in S u r f a c e Soil ( p p m )
Figure 2--Relationship Between Lead in Residential Surface Soil and Children's Blood Lead Source of Measured Data: Bornschein 1991.
screening tools such as K- and L-X/IF has made bone lead measurements
accessible to environmental epidemiologist on a routine basis. A
combination of biological and environmental monitoring is adequate for
the characterization of the exposures associated with the current use
scenario as defined in the risk assessment guidance (USEPA 1989a).
There are several limitations of the biological monitoring

approach, however, insofar as Superfund sites are concerned. The NCP
and risk assessment guidance direct the assessor to evaluate potential
as well as actual exposures. Biological monitoring cannot be used in an
experimental situation to evaluate potential exposures due to ethical
constraints on human experimentation. Thus, to assess exposures which
may differ spatially or temporally from those represented by the
biological monitoring, other tools are required. In addition,
biological monitoring is expensive, time consuming and requires a
relatively large study population. This obviates its use at all sites.
Mathematical models are useful tools for circumventing the limitations
associated with biological monitoring or complementing the results of a
monitoring study. Models can be used to evaluate potential as well as
current exposure including estimating the impact of remedial
alternatives on blood lead levels. In addition models are inexpensive
to use and yield results quickly. Our experience shows, however, that a
high degree of experience and knowledge is required to interpret either
the results of biological monitoring or modeling studies.
The UBK approach is optimized if it can be combined with site

specific data. Important site specific data includes exposure point
concentrations (especially soil and dust), behavior patterns, and
bioavailability. If accurate and complete site specific data are not
available, the UBK model should not be used as the sole basis for risk
management decisions, especially if they lead to extensive remediation.
We recommend the following overall protocol for assessing lead at

Superfund sites. First, a site investigation should be completed to
yield adequate measurements of lead in soil and house dust at the site.
This information should be input to the UBK model with default
parameters to calculate the resulting distribution of blood lead levels.
(If prior knowledge indicates that defaults are inappropriate, they may
be changed with adequate justification). If the results are under
USEPA's decision criteria (i.e. >95% of the population have blood lead
levels 510 ~g/dL), a no-action alternative is indicated. If the results
exceed USEPA's decision criteria, then further study is recommended. If
possible, investigation should include a well designed and conducted
blood lead study in addition to measurements of lead speciation and
bioavailability. The collection of environmental data should focus on
the exposure point of concern, i.e., soil or dust that is regularly
contacted, and the epidemielogical data should include information on
factors such as behavior and parental occupations. A recent publication
by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC 1991) describes methodologies
for biological and environmental monitoring in detail. As discussed
previously, biological monitoring may not be appropriate or possible at
all sites.
Site-specific data that is collected can be used to calibrate the

UBK model for site-specific use. The calibrated model can be used to
investigate potential exposure or other conditions required at the site.
If stability of blood lead measurements or variability of exposure is of
concern, bone measurements using K-XRF may be useful at this point. The
weight of this evidence should then be examined for comparison to
USEPA's decision criteria for lead. If the criteria are exceeded, the
site-specific calibrated UBK model can be used to generate cleanup
levels for the site. If this type of approach is used, the ultimate
outcome will be accurate risk management decisions. In addition, we
urge regulatory agencies and researchers to apply these concepts to
other chemicals so that more accurate and consistent regulatory
decisions can be made regarding all chemicals of concern in soils of
Superfund sites.
REFERENCES
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 1988, The
Nature and Extent of Lead Poisoning in Children in the United
States, Report to Congress, USDHHS, Atlanta, GA.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), October 1991,
Toxicological Profile for Lead, public comment draft.
ARCO, October 26, 1989, Letter from Richard Krablin, Manager

Environmental Projects, ARCO Coal Company to Jonathan Z. Cannon,
USEPA.
Bornschein, R., Clark, S., Pan, W., and Succop, P., 1990, "Midvale
Community Lead Study" University of Cincinnati Medical Center,
Cincinnati, OH.
Bornschein, R.L., November 7, 1991, Statement by Robert L. Bornschein,

Department of Environmental Health, University of Cincinnati, to
the USEPA Science Advisory Board.
Calabrese, E.J., Barnes, R., Stanek, E.J., Pastides, H., Gilbert, C.E.,
Veneman, P., Wang, X., Lasztity, A., and Kostecki, P.T., 1989,
"How Much Soil do Young Children Ingest: An Epidemiologic Study",
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Volume I0, pp 123-127.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. and Clement International Corporation,

1990, Feasibilit Y Study for the Sharon Steel/Midvale Tailings NPL
Site, Produced for USEPA Region VIII.
Centers for Disease Control (CDC), October 1991, Preventing Lead

Poisoning in Young Children, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Public Health Service.
CHROSTOWSKI AND WHEELER ON THE 81OKINETIC MODEL 165
Chrostowski, P.C. and Wheeler, J.A., 1991, "Actual Compared to Predicted

Chemical Exposures at Superfund Sites", Proceedings , Hazardous
Materials Control/Superfun d '91, HMCRI, Greenbelt, MD.
Chrostowski, P.C., Foster, S.A., and Dolan, D., 1991, "Monte Carlo
Analysis of the Reasonable Maximum Exposure Concept", ProceedinKs ,
Hazardous Materials Control/Superfun d '91, HMCRI, Greenbelt, MD.
Clement International Corporation (Clement), 1990, "Interim Baseline

Risk Assessment for'the Sharon Steel/Midvale Tailings Site,
Midvale, Utah", Produced for USEPA, Region VIII, Denver, CO.
Cohen, J., Marcus, A., Elias, R., 1990, "Estimating Childhood Multi-
media Lead Exposure: Expanded Exposure/Uptake/Biokinetic Model",
Air & Waste Management 83rdAnnual Meeting, Publication 90-12.2.
Davis, A., Ruby, M.V., Bergstrom, P.D., 1991, "Geochemical Controls on

the Bioavailability of Lead from Mine Waste Impacted Soils",
ProceedinKs,Hazardous Materials Control/Superfund '91, HMCRI,
Greenbelt, MD.
Davis , S., Waller, P., Bushbom, R., Ballou, J., and White, P.,
March/April 1990, "Quantitative Estimates of Soil Ingestion in
Normal Children between the Ages of 2 and 7 Years: Population-
based Estimates Using Silicon, Aluminum, and Titanium as Soil
Tracer Elements", Archives of Environmental Health Vol. 45, pp
112-122.
Elias, R., November 7, 1991, "Overview of UBK Model" Presented to the

USEPA Science Advisory Board.
Foster, S.A., Chrostowski, P.C., and Dolan, D., November 1991, "The Use
of Log-normal Kriging to Calculate Exposure Point Concentrations",
Presented at: Measuring, Understanding, and predicting Exposures
in the 21st Century, Atlanta, GA.
Gilbert, R.O., 1987, Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution

Monitorin K. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Griffin, S., 1991, "Application of the USEPA's Uptake Biokinetic Model

for Establishing Lead Cleanup Levels at CERCLA Sites",
Proceedings, Hazardous Materials Control Superfund '91, HMCRI,
Greenbelt, MD.
Land, C.E., 1971, "Confidence Intervals for Linear Functions of the

Normal Mean and Variance", Annals of Mathematical Statistics, Vol
42, pp 1187-1205.
LaVelle, J., May 24, 1990, "Bioavailability of Lead in Mine Taillngs:

An Oral Intubation Study in Swine, Preliminary Report - Results of
Phase I Studies," Attached to Memorandum from Jim LaVelle, USEPA
Region VIII to RTP Lead Workshop Attendees.
Ritschel, W.A., 1986, Handbook of Basic Pharmacokinetics, 3rd edition,

Drug Intelligence Publications, Hamilton, IL.
Steele, M.J., Beck, B.D., Murphy, B.L., Strauss, H.S., 1990, "Assessing
the Contribution from Lead in Mining Wastes to Blood Lead",
ReKulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Vol II, pp 158-190.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1984, Health

Effects Assessment for Lead, ECAO, Cincinnati, OH, EPA 540/1-86-
055.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1989a, Risk

Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Vol. I. "Human Health
Evaluation Manual", OSWER Directive 9285.1-01a.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1989b, Interim

Guidance on EstablishinK Soil Lead Cleanup Levels at Superfund
Sites, OSWER Directive #9355.2-02, OSWER, Washington, DC.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1989c, Technical

Support Document on Lead, ECAO, Cincinnati, OH.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1990, "User's

Guide for Lead: A PC Software Application of the Uptake/Biokinetic
Model, Version 0.40" ECAO, Cincinnati, OH, 1990.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), August 29, 1991,

"Update on OSWER Soil Lead Cleanup Guidance", Memorandum from Don
Clay.
Robert H. Ross I and Po-Yung Lu 2
TOXICITT ASSESSMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTB J~T A F B D B R A L FACILITY
REFERENCE: Ross, R. H., and Lu, Po-Yung, "Toxicity Assessment

of Hazardous Waste at a Federal Facility," Superfund Risk
bssessment in Soil Contamination Studies. ASTM STP 1158.
ABSTRACT: In November 1989 the Department of Energy's facilities

in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, collectively known as the Oak Ridge
Reservation (ORR), were placed on the National Priorities List
(NPL}. The result was acceleration of ongoing efforts to identify
waste sites and to begin assessing the toxicity of each site. It
was soon discovered that assessment efforts were hampered by the
lack of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) toxicity
values (e.g., Reference Concentrations or slope factors) and related
information for many of the contaminants identified at the ORR. A
decision was made to derive the missing toxicity values, but only in
close collaboration with the U.S. EPA. In conducting similar
assessments for the U.S. Army, it became apparent that toxicity
assessment is not necessarily site specific and, therefore, lends
itself to collaboration among Federal agencies who have
responsibilities for hazardous waste cleanup.
KEYWORDB: Risk Assessment, Toxicity, Hazardous Waste
The Biomedical and Environmental Information Section of the Health

and Safety Research Division at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory is
currently involved with various issues involving toxicity assessment
for the U.S. Army and for the Oak Ridge Reservation Environmental
Restoration Program (ORRERP). The guiding principle is that
toxicity assessment, as opposed to exposure assessment, is not
dependent on the characteristics found at the hazardous waste site.
This paper describes the toxicity assessment process that evolved as
we examined the hazard potential of the Army and ORRERP waste sites.
IGroup Leader, Chemical Hazard Evaluation and Communication Group,

Biomedical and Environmental Information Analysis Section, Health and
Safety Research Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee 37831-6050.
2Sectlon Head, Biomedical and Environmental Information Analysis

Section, Health and Safety Research Division, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6050.
As a helpful insight to the reader, a brief background of the Oak

Ridge site and Army sites is provided.
BACKGROUND
The Oak Ridge site 18 located in Eastern Tennessee,

approximately 20 miles west of Knoxville. This Department of Energy
(DOE} owned site has in excess of 30 000 acres including three
facilities as shown in Fig. 1. These facilities, known by map
coordinates K-25, Y-12, and X-10, have contributed to the present
hazardous waste burden that is addressed by the ORRERP. In Fig. 1
X-10 is identified as ORNL, the acroynm for Oak Ridge National
Laboratory which i8 the most commonly used name for this
Installation. The principal problems at K-25 stem from its former
mission as a site for enrichment of uranium. Y-12 is a weapons
manufacturing facility and ORNL, is today a diversified physical and
life science research facility, but in times past ORNL hosted an
array of nuclear and other research programs involving radioactive
materials. Each of these sites has hazardous waste areas that are
presently undergoing assessment and in some cases, remediation, but
it is the ORNL 81te that has caused the most concern because of the
documented offsite release of both radioactive and nonradioactive
contaminants.
AS illustrated in Table 1, the toxicity assessment activities

for the U.S. Army have to date involved 18 sites in 13 states. The
Army's Installation Restoration Program which is responsible for the
remediation of these and other Army sites i8 located at the Edgewood
Arsenal in Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland. The majority of the
Army's NPL sites are ammunition plants with the primary mission of
manufacturing and storing munitions; consequently, resulting in soil
contaminated with nitroaromatics, heavy metals, and polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons. Leaching of these chemicals from sell
results in the contamination of ground water at these sites. Some
of the Army's installations also perform equipment rework functions,
which usually results in the contamination of ground water with
volatile organic compounds.
C O N T A M I N A N T P R I O R I T I S A T I O N K N D D O C U M E N T A T I O N OF E X I S T I N G
TOXICITY VALUES
Very early in the toxicity assessment process, it became

evident that a large number of chemicals would need to be evaluated.
On the Oak Ridge site a total of 35 inorganic and 97 organic
chemicals have been identified thus far. In addition several
radionuclides were also identified. For the 18 Army sites assessed
to date, 18 inorganic and 68 organic chemlcals and three
radionuclides have been identified as chemicals of concern.
Therefore, chemical prioritlzation was necessary so'that our initial
efforts could focus on the chemicals of greatest interest. As a
result of prloritlzation, four groups of chemicals were identified
at the Oak Ridge site and the chemicals found at Army sites were
placed into three groups. The high priority chemicals at the Oak
Ridge site were those found offsite and at two or more other sites;
the second priority chemicals were those found offslte and at one
other site or only offsite; the third priority were those chemicals
found at two or more sites, but not offsite; and the fourth priority
ROSS AND LU ON TOXICITY ASSESSMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 169
-~1
04
o
n~
1.4
!
I
r't
6
r~
Table I--U.S. Army Sites Currently Under Assessment.
Alabama Army Ammunition Plant, Fort Dix, New Jersey

Alabama
Umatilla Depot Activity, Oregon
Annlston Army Depot, Alabama
Umatilla Depot Activity,
Riverbank A r m y A m m u n i t i o n Explosive Washout Lagoons, Oregon
Plant, California
L e t t e r k e n n y A r m y Depot,
Sharps Army Depot, California Pennsylvania
Savanna Army Depot Milan Army Ammunition Plant,

Activity, Illinois Tennessee
Joliet Army Ammunition Volunteer Army Ammunition Plant,

Plant, Illinois Tennessee
Louisiana Army Ammunition Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant,

Plant, Louisiana Texas
Lake City A r m y A m m u n i t i o n Tooele Army Depot, Utah

Plant, Missouri
Fort A.P. Hill, Virginia
Cornhusker Army Ammunition
Plant, Nebraska
chemicals were those found at only one site, but not offsite. The
three groupings for the Army were made on the basis of the number of
sites where the chemicals were detected. The group of most concern
were the chemicals found most frequently.
Once the chemicals were assigned to a priority group, the

toxicity values, i.e., subchronic and chronic oral Reference Doses
(RfDs), subchronic and chronic inhalation Reference Concentrations
(RfCs), and slope factors, that have been developed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) were located using the
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and the Health Effects
Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST). It is important to note that the
toxicity values in IRIS are the only Agency-approved values and all
others including the HEAST values are developed for specific
purposes and therefore may have received differing levels of review.
It was not surprising that many of the higher priority chemicals on
both the Army and Oak Ridge lists have RfDs because these chemicals
are also of high concern to the U.S. EPA. Not as many of these
higher priority chemicals, however, have RfC8 since the U.S. EPA has
not been actively deriving these values as long as they have the
RfDs. Similarly, U.S. EPA cancer classifications and slope factors
are also available for many of the higher priority chemicals.
When chemicals were identified that did not have a U.S. EPA
approved toxicity value, the next step was to check whether the
chemicals were under consideration for toxicity value development by
the U.S. EPA. This was accomplished through communication (verbal
and written) with the U.S. EPA Environmental Criteria and Assessment
Offices in Cincinnati, Ohio and Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. The p u r p o s e of this exercise was to e n s u r e that chemicals

s e l e c t e d for t o x i c i t y value d e r i v a t i o n w e r e not also b e i n g con-
sidered by the U.S. EPA, thus avoiding d u p l i c a t i o n of effort.
TOXICITY ~u1OaIRu P R E P A R A T I O N AND TOXICITY VALUE DERIVATION
A t o x i c i t y summary will be p r e p a r e d for each chemical on both

t h e A r m y and O a k R i d g e lists, starting w i t h the h i g h e r p r i o r i t y
chemcial8. This brief d o c u m e n t (15 to 25 pages) serves several
functions. For the risk assessor, the document p r o v i d e s e s s e n t i a l
t o x i c i t y information such as target o r g a n s of c o n c e r n and the
p r e s e n t l y a v a i l a b l e U.S. E P A t o x i c i t y values. The one p a g e
e x e c u t i v e summary i8 d e s i g n e d for direct i n c o r p o r a t i o n in the
remedial i n v e s t i g a t i o n document. In a d d i t i o n the t o x i c i t y summary
p o i n t s out d a t a gaps and, v e r y importantly, identifies t h e a v a i l a b l e
l i t e r a t u r e that w o u l d be useful for the d e r i v a t i o n of m i s s i n g
t o x i c i t y values.
O n c e a t o x i c i t y s u m m a r y is c o m p l e t e d and has r e c e i v e d internal

review, t h e t o x i c i t y information and t o x i c i t y v a l u e s and r e l a t e d
d a t a are input into data bases m a i n t a i n e d on a p e r s o n a l computer.
T h e c o m p u t e r i z a t i o n of these data allows t r a c k i n g of t h e information
by w a s t e site or other d e s i r e d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e criteria.
Additionally, the data bases can m a k e t a b u l a r p r e s e n t a t i o n s of the
d a t a (Table 2) as is r e c o m m e n d e d in the U.S. E P A R i s k A s s e s s m e n t
G u i d a n c e for S u p e r f u n d H u m a n Health E v a l u a t i o n M a n u a l (U.S.
E n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o n Agency, 1989). In Table 2 p r i m a r y target
o r g a n s are those w h e r e adverse effects first appear as w e l l as being
the m o s t severely affected. Other t a r g e t organs are t h o s e affected
at dose levels higher t h a n that w h i c h c a u s e d effects to t h e p r i m a r y
t a r g e t o r g a n s and w h o s e effects are g e n e r a l l y less s e v e r e or less
w e l l documented.
T o x i c i t y values are derived using U.S. E P A a p p r o v e d metho-

d o l o g y and s u b s e q u e n t l y s u b m i t t e d to t h e U.S. E P A for review. For
n o n c a n c e r h e a l t h effects, RfDs are d e r i v e d as a b e n c h m a r k for the
amount of a chemical t h a t can be ingested without an a p p r e c i a b l e
r i s k of d e l e t e r i o u s effects, and similarly, RfC8 are d e r i v e d for the
c o n c e n t r a t i o n s that can be inhaled w i t h o u t d e l e t e r i o u s effects. The
basic f o r m u l a for d e r i v i n g the RfD and the RfC is as follows:
RfD/RfC = NOAEL (I)

UF x MF
where
NOAEL = No-observed-adverse-effect-level
UF = Uncertainty factors
MF = Modifying factor
The N O A E L is selected f r o m human data if possible, but it is m o r e

often o b t a i n e d from studies using l a b o r a t o r y animals. Based on
e x t r a p o l a t i o n uncertainties, there are five p o s s i b l e UFs: (1) human
to s e n s i t i v e human; (2) animal to human; (3) s u b c h r o n i c to chronic
Table 2-Potential Noncarcinogenic Effects. .,~
Ix)
CAS RfD RfC Primary Target Other Target
Number Chemical (mg/kg/day) (mg/m3) UF* MFb Confidence Source Organs Organs
C
"u
I'n
67-66-3 Chloroform 20
Oral m
Subchronic 1E-2 c:
Chronic 1E-2 1000 1 Medium IRIS Liver, Kidney, Thyroid, Vascular zo
Testes System 2o
Inhalation
Subchronic UR pz
Clxronic UR Liver, Kidney, CNS, Spleen
GI Tract >
99-65-0 1,3-Dinitrobenzene u)
Oral m
Subchronic 1E-3 o~
f.D
Chronic 1E-4 3000 1 Low IRIS/ Spleen Blood, Testes m
~ T m
Inhalation z
--4
Subchronic UD
Chronic LID
02691-41-0 HMX
Oral
Subchronic UD
Chronic 5E-2 1000 1 Low IRIS CNS, Liver, Ki0ncy _Spl~n,"rn~.m,
Hcmatopoletic
sy~m
Inhalation
Subchronic UD
Chronic UD
07439-96-5 Manganese
Oral
Subchronic 1E-1
Chronic 1E-1 1 1 Medium IRIS/ Reproductive Blood
HEAST System, CNS
Inhalation
Subchronic 4E-4
Chronic 4E-4 300 3 Medium IRIS/ L ~ r ~ t u ~ c System' SystemPancreas'
Immune
HEAST
System, CNS
qJncertaintv Factor LID = Unable to Derive

bModifying ~ ' t o r UP, = Under Review by EPA
toxicity extrapolation; (4) lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level

(LOAEL) to NOAEL; and (5) incomplete to complete data base. Each of
these factors can be 10, but to avoid the possibility of being too
conservative, the U.S. EPA has established a maximum UF of 3 000
when 4 areas of uncertainty exist and a maximum of 10 O00 for 5
areas of uncertainty. The MF can be used as an additional UF to
account for some aspect of the study that is not covered by the 5
UFs described above or the MF can be < 1 which reduces the
uncertainty associated with the selected study. The MF most
frequently used is 1 which is the default value.
Derivation of the RfC is more involved than the RfD because

some chemicals are inhaled as particles and some as gases, and
because of the differences in pulmonary physiology and anatomy
between animals and humane. For more information concerning the
RfC, the reader is referred to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(1990).
The derivation of a toxicity value for carclnogenicity

requires a different approach than that used to calculate the RfD or
RfC. The present U.S. E P A p o l i c y regarding carcinogenicity is that
there is not a threshold level of exposure below which potential
carcinogens do not present some risk of cancer (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1988}. This is in contrast with most other toxic
effects, for which threshold levels can be demonstrated. The
quantification of this risk is accompllshed through the use of a
computer model which extrapolates high experimental doses used in
animal studies to the low exposure levels expected for human contact
in the environment. This computer model ylelds a value known as the
slope factor which is a risk per unit dose. The slope factor can be
used to calculate a dose that corresponds to a specified risk level,
e.g., 1 out of 1 DO0 000 (10-6), or if the exposure dose is known,
the slope factor can be used to determine the cancer risk.
Mathematically, the expressions are as follows:
Risk
Dose ffi
slope factor (2)
Risk ffi Dose • slope factor
COLLABORATION AMONG FEDERAL AGENCIES
Toxicity assessment, as opposed to exposure assessment, is not

dependent on the characteristics found at the hazardous waste site.
Therefore, a toxicity assessment performed for a chemical can be
used at any waste site where the same chemical is of concern. This
is significant because there are many chemicals in common at the
various waste sites for which Federal agencies such as DOE and the
Department of Defense have the remediation oversight. For example,
of the 27 highest priority chemicals on the Oak Ridge list, all but
three are also on the list compiled for the Army. When the other
100 chemicals on the Oak Ridge list are considered, the correlation
is not as good with only 19 chemicals found in common. However, the
Army list will be modified as more sites are assessed and the
correlation will undoubtedly improve. When a list of over 80
chemicals of interest to the Air Force Installation Restoration

Program (U.S. Air Force 1989, 1990) is correlated with the Oak Ridge
and Army lists, 33 chemicals from each list were found in common
with the Air Force chemicals. This information provides strong
support for collaboration efforts in toxicity assessment among
Federal agencies.
CONCLUSION
Hazardous waste sites for which the Federal government has direct
responsibility for remedlation have many chemicals in common. A t
each site a priority list of chemicals of concern should be
assembled based on factors such as the potential for offsite migra-
tion, multlslte occurrence, and concentration levels in environ-
mental media, thus enabling the common chemicals to be identified.
For these chemicals of concern, toxicity values (RfDs, RfCs, and
slope factors} should be identified and missing values calculated as
data permit. The fact that toxicity assessment is chemical specific
and not site specific, and that the methodologies used to assess
risk are the same regardless of site, provide strong support for
purposing that toxicity assessment activities be centralized to
improve consistency, eliminate redundancy of effort and to
demonstrate that different agencies of the Federal government are
collaborating in the area of hazardous waste management.
REFERENCES
Blaylock, B. G., Frank, M. L., Hook, L. A., and Hoffman, F.O.,

"Interim Site Characterization and Contaminant Screening Report on
the White Oak Creek Embayment," Draft Report, Environmental Sciences
Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, 1991.
U.S. Air Force," The Installation Restoration Program Toxicology

Guide," Vols. 1-4, Harry G. Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research
Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH, 1989.
U.S. Air Force, "The Installation Restoration Program Toxicology

Guide," Vol. 5, Harry G. Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research
Laboratory, Wrlght-Patterson Air Force Base, OH, 1990.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Methodology for Evaluating

Potential Carcinogenicity in Support of Reportable Quantity
Adjustments Pursuant to CERCLA Section 102," Report OHEA-C-073, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1988.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency," Risk Assessment Guidance for

Superfund - Human Health Evaluatlon Manual, Part A," Report
EPA/540/1-89/002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., 1989.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Interim Methods for

Development of Inhalation Reference Concentrations," Report
EPA/600/8-90/066A, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office,
Research Triangle Park, NC, 1990.
E d m u n d A.C. Crouch, Matthew B.G. Pilkington, and Stephen G. Zemba I
THE EFFECTS OF "HOT SPOTS" AND UPPER CONFIDENCE LIMITS IN ESTIMATING

EXPOSURE CONCENTRATIONS IN SOILS
REFERENCE: Crouch, E. A. C., Pilkington, M. B. G., and

Zemba, S. G., "The Effects of "HOT SPOTS" and Upper Confidence
Limits in Estimatln 8 Exposure Concentrations in Soils"
Suoerfund Risk Assessment in Soil Contam4nation Studien, A S T M
STP 1158, K e i t h B. Hoddinott, Ed., A m e r i c a n Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, 1992.
ABSTRACT: Remedial investigations often are b i a s e d t o w a r d sampling "hot

spots", or the areas of a site that are s u s p e c t e d to be most
contaminated. This bias m a y be needed to c h a r a c t e r i z e the contamination
on site, but it can distort exposure estimates. We e x p l o r e d the p r o b l e m
of "hot spot" sampling by c o n s t r u c t i n g a h y p o t h e t i c a l site with a single
contaminant source randomly located within the site domain. We
p r e s c r i b e d two different spatial d i s t r i b u t i o n s for the source, which
were i n t e g r a t e d to provide exact measures of the average concentration
over the site. Actual averages were c o m p a r e d to "empirical" averages
c o n s t r u c t e d by sampling the c o n t a m i n a t i o n field on an e v e n l y spaced grid
and c a l c u l a t i n g the arithmetic mean of the samples. E m p i r i c a l estimates
e i t h e r u n d e r e s t i m a t e or o v e r e s t i m a t e the true site average
concentration. We i n v e s t i g a t e d the pattern of errors i n t r o d u c e d by
finite sampling schemes, and found the interaction between the relative
extent of the source and the sampling d e n s i t y was p a r t i c u l a r l y
important. The smallest errors introduced by g r i d d e d s a m p l i n g occurred
when the domain was e x t e n s i v e l y sampled and the source was spread over a
large p o r t i o n of the site. One of two results occurred at the other
extreme, in which a relatively small source was p l a c e d in a sparsely
sampled network: either the source was not d e t e c t e d and the average
c o n c e n t r a t i o n g r e a t l y underestimated, or the source c o i n c i d e d with a
sampling point and the site-average c o n c e n t r a t i o n was g r e a t l y
overestimated. On average, empirical sampling on evenly s p a c e d grids
o v e r e s t i m a t e d the actual site average concentration. Even larger
o v e r e s t i m a t e s o c c u r r e d when the upper 95th p e r c e n t i l e confidence limit
of the e m p i r i c a l means were c o m p a r e d to the actual average
concentrations. D e p e n d i n g on the contaminant d i s t r i b u t i o n and sampling
density, o v e r e s t i m a t e s ranged from (on average) 7% to more than 200%.
An i n v e s t i g a t i o n of purposive sampling of "hot spots" was conducted by
p l a c i n g a d d i t i o n a l samples in the p r o x i m i t y of the m a x i m u m concentration
d e t e c t e d on the regular grid. The additional samples t e n d to increase
the e m p i r i c a l averages, and c o n s e q u e n t l y increase the degree of
o v e r e s t i m a t i o n of the true site average concentrations. The results
e m p h a s i z e the critical importance of the p a t t e r n of c o n t a m i n a t i o n and
the c o n s e r v a t i v e bias of p u r p o s i v e sampling plans.
KEYWORDS: Sampling strategies, remedial investigation design, site

average c o n c e n t r a t i o n s , . u p p e r confidence limits.
ISenior scientists, and senior engineer, respectively, Cambridge

Environmental Inc., 58 Charles St., Cambridge, MA 02141.
INTRODUCTION
A number of factors must be taken into account to assess potential

exposure to contaminated soils. Some of these factors are site-
specific, so the U.S. EPA (1989), for example, has recognized the need
for case-specific risk assessments to account for the uniqueness of
these factors for a particular hazardous waste site.
Other factors, however, have been standardized in various aspects,

at least in the context the methodology used to conduct risk assessments
within the Superfund program (U.S. EPA 1989). For example, current
guidance recommends specific values for the rates of incidental soil
ingestion for general application (Porter 1989), and other documentation
outlines generic procedures for conducting exposure assessments (U.S.EPA
1988).
The notion of consistency between site characterizations has been

extended to the treatment of the analytical data that are collected in
the course of Jite investigations. Typically, a moderate to large
number of samples are obtained and analyzed for the chemical(s) of
concern in a remedial investigation of a hazardous waste site.
Procedures are recommended for interpreting these data for use in risk
assessments. The suggested method for estimating exposure point
concentrations (concentrations to which individuals, or "receptors," may
be exposed) in soil involves the construction of the upper 95th
percentile confidence limit of the arithmetic mean concentration (UCL95)
(U.S.EPA 1989).
The use of the UCL95 as the measure of exposure point

concentration embodies at least two assumptions. First, it suggests
that an average concentration is appropriate in assessing exposure,
implicitly presuming non-preferential exposure to all relevant areas
(assuming equal accessibility). Second, use of the UCL95 provides a
concentration estimate that is greater than the arithmetic average of
the individual sample concentrations. Presumably, this is intended to
compensate for the uncertainty inherent in the necessarily finite scope
of a site investigation, in which the number of samples is limited, and
the area(s) of highest contamination may not have been sampled, or the
distribution of samples obtained may not be representative of the
contamination at the site.
We believe that the particular statistic (such as the UCL95) used

to characterize soil contamination should take account of the nature of
soil contamination and the sampling strategy used within the remedial
investigation. A purposive strategy that samples areas preferentially
for likely contamination may provide a set of measurements that
overemphasizes the overall contamination of the site. In such a case,
the UCL95 will reflect an even greater exaggeration of the average site
contamination.
In this paper, we investigate the effect of finite sampling

strategies for contaminated soils. Specifically, we consider a regular,
gridded sampling domain and introduce a randomly located source of
contamination with a specified spatial distribution. The site-average
concentration is determined by analytically integrating the prescribed
source distribution over the area of the site. This "actual" average is
then compared to arithmetic averages and UCL95 estimates constructed
from a regular array of locations; these comparisons allow us to
examine the effects of different finite sampling strategies. Finally,
the methodology is extended to investigate the implications of a simple
purposive sampling scheme.
CROUCH ET AL. ON "HOT SPOTS" AND UPPER CONFIDENCE LIMITS 177
METHODOLOGY
Our method requires the definition of site and sampling

geometries, contaminant distributions, and evaluation of actual
site-average concentrations. Sampling estimates are obtained by
selecting the analytically-specified concentrations at d i s c r e t e p o i n t s
in a sampling network (this c o r r e s p o n d s to point measurements of s o i l
concentrations that are free from measurement error).
Site Geometry and Gridded Samplinq Networks
We considered a square-shaped area with a normalized coordinate

r a n g e of z e r o t o u n i t y in b o t h t h e h o r i z o n t a l (x) a n d v e r t i c a l (y)
directions. A s c h e m a t i c of t h i s h y p o t h e t i c a l s i t e is s h o w n in F i g u r e I.
A g r i d d e d s a m p l i n g n e t w o r k is c o n s t r u c t e d by subdividing the area into
s m a l l e r s q u a r e s a n d p l a c i n g a s a m p l i n g p o i n t at t h e c e n t e r o f e a c h of
the smaller squares. Figure 1 illustrates the three networks considered
t h a t c o n s i s t of 4, 16, a n d 64 s a m p l i n g l o c a t i o n s .
1
Q O O O [] Q O O Randomly
0.9-
placed
0.8- O D O O D Q - contaminant
X X source
0.7- O D Q O O Q O O
'41' 4" ~I, ,~
0.6-
O O 0 O [] [] O O
~0.5-
O O [] [] 0 O [] O Number of
0.4
samples
0.3 O [] O O O O [] O
X X
0.2 O Q ~ ~ O O O O
4, '4' ,b 4,
0.i
O O [] O Q O O O
~ oh 0'.2 o:3 0'.4 0'.5 o~6 0'.7 0'.8 o'.9

x
Figure i Site geometry and sampling schemes
Contaminant Source
In t h e a n a l y s e s t h a t f o l l o w , a d i s t r i b u t e d source of contaminant
is i n t r o d u c e d i n t o t h e s i t e d o m a i n c e n t e r e d at t h e c o o r d i n a t e s (xs,ys) ,
w i t h x s a n d Ys i n d e p e n d e n t l y and uniformly distributed in (0,i). The
contaminant l o c a t i o n is u s e d t o d e f i n e a c o n c e n t r a t i o n field across the
site. Two different analytical distributions of c o n t a m i n a t i o n were
investigated. T h e f i r s t w a s a s s u m e d t o be:
1 (i)
c(x, y) = ~ +~Ix-xst +~ly-y,l
where c(x,y) is t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n of t h e c o n t a m i n a n t in soil,

x s a n d Ys a r e t h e c o o r d i n a t e s of t h e c e n t e r of t h e s o u r c e ,
and y-~ is a scale length that governs the rate of decay away from the
center of the source in both the x and y directions.
The s e c o n d d i s t r i b u t i o n investigated was a circular gaussian decay

away from a point source:
(2)
C ( x , y ) = e -I(~[....])'.(~[y-y,])'}
where c(x,y), x, y, xs, and y s are d e f i n e d as before, and ~-i is a scale

length that determines the rate of decay in c o n c e n t r a t i o n from the
center of the source.
Both of the contaminant profiles [equations (i) and (2)] are

d e s i g n e d to yield a m a x i m u m c o n c e n t r a t i o n of unity at the center of the
distribution. The distributions, however, represent different degrees
in the rate at which the m a x i m u m c o n c e n t r a t i o n decays away from the
source region: the inverse profile [equation (i)] embodies a moderate
rate of decrease in c o n c e n t r a t i o n away from the peak value, while the
g a u s s i a n p r o f i l e [equation (2)] represents a very rapid rate of decay.
Bases of Comparison: Site-Averaqed Concentrations
Both of the contaminant d i s t r i b u t i o n s can be i n t e g r a t e d to derive

actual (analytical) averages of c o n c e n t r a t i o n D a across the site. The
r e s u l t i n g expressions are:
Inverse profile [equation (i)I :

1 4
where the variables ~ and ~ are integration limits b a s e d on the four

q u a d r a n t s a r o u n d the source, wit h the subscript i p e r m u t a t e d as follows:
1 xs Ys
2 l--xs Ys
3 Xs 1 --Ys
4 I--Xs l--ys
Gaussian profile [equation (2)J:
T~a= ~[erf(~x.)+erf(~[l-x.])][erf(~Y.)+erf(~[l-Y.]) 1 (4)
where erf refers to the t a b u l a t e d error function (as c o m p i l e d in

handbooks such as Abramowitz and Stegun [1970]).
The actual averages ca were compared to "empirical" estimates of

the s i t e - a v e r a g e c o n c e n t r a t i o n Dq, the values of which were e s t i m a t e d by
a v e r a g i n g c o n c e n t r a t i o n s at the e v e n l y spaced sampling grid. For N
sampling points, this empirical average is e x p r e s s e d simply as:
~ C ( Xj, yj) (s)

-~g : j-i N
where o(xj,y 9) is d e t e r m i n e d at each g r i d point j by one of the a s s u m e d

c o n t a m i n a n t d i s t r i b u t i o n s [equations (1)-(2)]. The u p p e r 95th
p e r c e n t i l e c o n f i d e n c e limit c95 of the m e a n c o n c e n t r a t i o n Dq is e s t i m a t e d
as:
~ =~+ sg tgs (N-I)
(6)
where sq is the e s t i m a t e d standard deviation given by
(7)
Sg ---- ,-i
N-I
and t95 is the o n e - t a i l e d t statistic for N-I d e g r e e s of freedom.
The n o r m a l i z e d d i f f e r e n c e em b e t w e e n the i n t e g r a t e d (or "actual")

s i t e - a v e r a g e c o n c e n t r a t i o n ca and the e m p i r i c a l m e a n c o n c e n t r a t i o n ~q is
d e f i n e d as:
e~ = ~-____~ (8)
zq~
Similarly, the p a r a m e t e r e95 is d e f i n e d as the n o r m a l i z e d

d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n the i n t e g r a t e d c o n c e n t r a t i o n ca and the e m p i r i c a l
e s t i m a t e of the upper 95th p e r c e n t i l e c o n f i d e n c e limit of the m e a n c95,
w h i c h is d e r i v e d from the c o n c e n t r a t i o n s o b s e r v e d at the g r i d d e d
s a m p l i n g points.
e95 -- (9)
The values of e m and e95 are n e g a t i v e if the e s t i m a t e of the

e m p i r i c a l site c o n c e n t r a t i o n is g r e a t e r than the actual s i t e - a v e r a g e
c o n c e n t r a t i o n , and p o s i t i v e if the e m p i r i c a l e s t i m a t e is smaller than
the actual value.
A v e r a g e d e s t i m a t e s em or e95 are c o n s t r u c t e d as the a r i t h m e t i c mean

value of e i t h e r e m or e95, respectively, over a large n u m b e r R of
iterations:
R R
(zo)
Similarly, the s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n sm or 995 of the d i s t r i b u t i o n s of R

v a l u e s of em or e95, respectively, is e s t i m a t e d in the s t a n d a r d manner:
Two a d d i t i o n a l q u a n t i t i e s are i n t r o d u c e d as a l t e r n a t e measures of
the a v e r a g e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n the actual averages and the empirical
e s t i m a t e s o b t a i n e d f r o m finite sampling. Instead of e q u a t i o n (i0),
w h i c h d e f i n e s an average d i f f e r e n c e as its m e a n value a v e r a g e d over m a n y
iterations, the q u a n t i t i e s ~ and e~5 are d e f i n e d as a single d i f f e r e n c e
"~m--
1 1
R-1 ~=
1
R-1
(IZ)
value constructed f r o m the sums of c o n c e n t r a t i o n s over the R iterations.

R a a a
e~-- i
R
i egs =
~
1121
Parameter Ranqes Investiqated
Each of the d i s t r i b u t i o n s is c o n s t r u c t e d w i t h a single scaling

parameter, the i n v e r s e of which can be t h o u g h t of as a d e c a y distance.
For p u r p o s e s of comparison, we set the values of these s c a l i n g
p a r a m e t e r s equal to each other.
= 7 (13)
Table 1 lists the three values of the s c a l i n g p a r a m e t e r and the

three s a m p l i n g n e t w o r k s that we investigated. Products of the distance
b e t w e e n s a m p l i n g points (AL=I/~N) and the s c a l i n g p a r a m e t e r (~ or y) are
p r e s e n t e d for the nine p o s s i b l e c o m b i n a t i o n s of the s c a l i n g p a r a m e t e r
and s a m p l i n g g r i d density, each of which is i d e n t i f i e d as a separate
case. Taken together, the p a r a m e t e r s in Table 1 represent a m a t r i x of
the p o s s i b l e i n t e r p l a y b e t w e e n the relative size of the site and the
d i s t a n c e over which the c o n t a m i n a n t c o n c e n t r a t i o n s decrease. For
example, a s c a l i n g p a r a m e t e r of 2 and a s a m p l i n g g r i d of 64 points, for
which the p r o d u c t of AL and ~ is one-fourth, c o r r e s p o n d s to a r e l a t i v e l y
w i d e s p r e a d source in a w e l l - s a m p l e d network; a scaling p a r a m e t e r of 32
and a s a m p l i n g g r i d of 4 points, for which the p r o d u c t of ~L and ~ is
16, c o r r e s p o n d s to a r e l a t i v e l y small source in a s p a r s e l y s a m p l e d
network, in which case the source is likely to not be "detected" unless
it is l o c a t e d near one of the s a m p l i n g points.
TABLE 1 -- Ranges of s c a l i n g p a r a m e t e r s and s a m p l i n g grids, and the

p r o d u c t s of ~ L and the s c a l i n g p a r a m e t e r
Scaling Number of samples in s a m p l i n g g r i d (N)

parameter
2 x 2 = 4 4 x 4 = 16
J 8. x 8 = 64
2 CASE 1 CASE 2 CASE 3

n L x ~ = l ~n x ~ = 1/2 ~L x ~ = 1/4

~L • ~ = 4 ~L x ~ = 2 ~L x ~ = 1

.. ~L x ~ = 16 . AL x ~ = 8 . AL x ~ = 4
"Hot Spot" Samplinq
As a c u r s o r y effort to i n v e s t i g a t e the e f f e c t s of s t r a t e g i e s
b i a s e d t o w a r d s s a m p l i n g areas of high contamination, we c o n s t r u c t e d a
series of cases in which four points were a d d e d to the e v e n l y - s p a c e d
s a m p l i n g grids in the v i c i n i t y of the s a m p l i n g point where the m a x i m u m
c o n c e n t r a t i o n was "detected". The a d d i t i o n a l samples were offset from
the l o c a t i o n of the m a x i m u m c o n c e n t r a t i o n at a d i s t a n c e o n e - f o u r t h of
the i n t e r v a l b e t w e e n e v e n l y - s p a c e d samples, as shown in F i g u r e 2. We
i n v e s t i g a t e d the same m a t r i x of cases d e s c r i b e d in Table i, except that
the n u m b e r of s a m p l i n g p o i n t s N was i n c r e a s e d by four in e a c h case,
r e s u l t i n g in N values of 8, 20, and 68, respectively, for the three "hot
spot" s a m p l i n g grids.
Dimensions indicate
relative distance
between samples
Location of maximum
concentration in
the gridded network
|ToIo O
Additional
hot spot samples
+ .... + + 9 Griddedsamples
FIGURE 2 -- "Hot spot" sampling strategy
The i n s e r t i o n of the extra samples into the r e g u l a r l y spaced grid

i n t r o d u c e s v a r i a b i l i t y in the f r a c t i o n a l area of the site r e p r e s e n t e d by
e a c h s a m p l i n g location. By e s t i m a t i n g site average c o n c e n t r a t i o n s with
e q u a t i o n s (5)-(6), which weight all samples equally, we elect not to
account for this n o n - u n i f o r m i t y , a l t h o u g h such c o n s i d e r a t i o n s could be
e a s i l y a c c o m m o d a t e d in future work.
RESULTS
Evenly-Spaced (Gridded I S a m p l i n q Strateqies
E a c h of the cases of Table 1 was e x a m i n e d for both the inverse and

g a u s s i a n c o n t a m i n a n t p r o f i l e s using 10,000 iterations. Statistical
summaries of the p r e l i m i n a r y results are p r e s e n t e d in Tables 2 and 3.
In a d d i t i o n to the p r e v i o u s l y d e f i n e d p a r a m e t e r s em, sm, e~, e95, 395, and
e~5, the 25th, 50th (median), and 75th p e r c e n t i l e values of the
d i s t r i b u t i o n s of e m and e95 are included for reference.
For the inverse d i s t r i b u t i o n (Table 2), the a r i t h m e t i c m e a n

d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n the actual s i t e - a v e r a g e c o n c e n t r a t i o n and the
e m p i r i c a l l y s a m p l e d average (~) ranged f r o m -0.053 to -0.002 over the
nine cases~ i n d i c a t i n g that, on average, g r i d d e d s a m p l i n g o v e r p r e d i c t e d
s i t e - a v e r a g e c o n c e n t r a t i o n s by 0.2 to 5.3% in the nine cases examined.
The values of em follow a g e n e r a l t r e n d in which the m a g n i t u d e of em
i n c r e a s e s as (i) the source decay d i s t a n c e d e c r e a s e s and (2) the
s a m p l i n g d e n s i t y decreases. As a consequence, cases 7 and 3 e x h i b i t e d
largest and smallest m a g n i t u d e s of em, respectively; these cases

c o r r e s p o n d to a q u i c k l y decaying source in a c o a r s e l y sampled grid (Case
7) and a slowly d e c a y i n g source in a relatively well sampled grid (Case
3). Thus, there is a rough c o r r e l a t i o n between the m a g n i t u d e of em and
the p r o d u c t of ~L and ~.
We emphasize, however, that the t e n d e n c y for e m p i r i c a l sampling to

o v e r p r e d i c t s i t e - a v e r a g e concentrations is an average trend d e r i v e d over
numerous iterations. In each of the nine cases in Table i, the standard
d e v i a t i o n (~) of the d i s t r i b u t i o n is larger than the mean value of the
d i s t r i b u t i o n (~), indicating that for any given iteration, empirical
sampling (Dq) can e i t h e r overpredict or u n d e r p r e d i c t the average site
concentration (ca). In fact, for cases 7-9, the m e d i a n value of ~m is
positive, m e a n i n g the g r i d d e d sampling u n d e r e s t i m a t e s the true site
average c o n c e n t r a t i o n more than half of the time (even though the
average m a g n i t u d e of em is negative).
~ABLE 2 -- Analysis of empirical and actual site-average concentrations derived with the inverse contaminant
distribution [equation (i)] on evenly sampled networks
INVERSE d i s t r i b u t i o n
~=~ N= 4 N= 16 N= 64
0
0
C
-0.031 0.048 -0.032 -0.008 0.013 -0.008 -0.002 0.003 -0.002 0
I
.)5~%ile Median 75~%ile 25t~%ile Median 75th%ile 25th%ile Median 75th%ile
-0.060 -0.024 0.007 -0.017 -0.007 0.002 -0~ -0.002 0.0005
>
eg~ S95 e~5 e95 s95 e~5 e95 s95 e~5
-0.468 0.173 -0.466 -0.142 0.029 -0.141 -0.065 0.009 -0.064 0
Z
.~5t~%ile Median 75~%ile 25t~%ile Median 75t~%ile 25t~%ile Median 75~h%ile
4
-0.574 -0.461 -0.361 -0.162 -0.140 -0.121 -0.071 -0.065 -0.059 0
-I
% m
"U
-0.045 0.139 -0.048 -0.015 ).042 -0.014 -0.004 ).012 -0.004 0
-.t
.)5th%ile ~edian 15t~%ile 25th%ile .~edian 75th%ile 25th%ile Median 75th%ile
-0.098 -0.014 ).057 -0.037 -0.007 0.018 -0.011 -0.003 ).006
Z
-~95 i,s %95 e~ e95 %9s .m95
r"
-0.819 0.498 -0.819 -0.269 ).099 -0.266 -0.124 ).025 -0.122 "0
.)5th%ile ~edian y5th%ile 25th%ile Median 75th%ile 25th%ile Median /5th%ile m
-i. 012 -0.714 -0.495 -0.321 -0.252 -0.196 -0.139 -0.121 -0.106 0
0
Z
-0.053 0.283 -0.060 -0.019 0.109 -0.019 -0.005 ).035 -0.005 121
m
.)5th%ile Median 75th%ile 25t~%ile Median 75th%ile 25th%ile Median 75th%ile z
0
32 -0.104 0.025 0.117 -0.050 0.009 0.055 -0.021 ).002 ) .021 m
i--
J95 S95 egs egs s95 e95 e95 %9s e95
-1.050 1.021 -1.063 -0.387 0.277 -0.384 -0.188 ).078 -0. 186 --t
.)5th%ile Median 75th%ile 25th%ile Median 75th%ile 25th%ile Median 15th%ile

+-P-++ . . . . . . + I tlll'lll -_--_+I,1 ,II~I, | -- +--+-:m ~'r'-~'- +~'II -0.170 -0.133
TABLE 3 -- Analysis of empirical and actual site-average concentrations derived with the gaussian
contaminant distribution [equation (2)] on evenly sampled networks 4~
Gaussian distribution
= 7 N = 4 N = 16 N = 64 (n
"0
m
-11
-0.067 0.016 -0.071 -0.016 0.004 -0.016 -0.004 0.001 -0.004 "71
t-
25th%ile median 75th%ile 25th%ile median 75th%ile 25~%iIe median 75~%ile z
c3
-0.082 -0.070 -0.055 -0.019 -0.016 -0.013 -0.005 -0.004 -0.003 m_
-1.218 0.374 -1.142 -0.346 0.086 -0.328 -0.159 0.039 -0.151 >
6O
25th%ile median 75th%ile 25th%ile median 75t~%ile 25~h%ile median 75th%ile
m
--1.488 --1.255 --0.985 --0.404 --0.349 --0.280 --0.184 --0.159 --0.129
m
z
-0.048 1.252 -0.154 -0.070 0.202 --0.065 -0.015 0.202 -0.065 -4
25th%ile median 75th%ile 25th%ile median 75th%ile 25th%ile median 75th%ile
-0.506 0.526 0.831 -0.211 -0.049 0.078 -0.027 -0.013 -0.001
egs sgs e95 39s e95 @95 s95 e95
-2.899 4.688 -3.301 -1.577 0.704 -I .543 -0.750 0.132 -0.726
-4.697 -0.703 -0.454 -2.106 -1.485 -1.050 -0.846 -0.688 -0.643
0.010 6.330 -0.028 -0.029 3.096 -0.067 0.002 1.235 -0.022
32
1.000 1.000 1.000 0.868 0.999 1.000 -0.438 0.583 0.855
eg5 39s e95 sgs e95 e95 595 e95
-2.251 21.19 -2.374 -1.826 8.502 -1.929 -1.654 3.305 -1.718
25th%ile ~dian 75th%ile 25th%ile median 75t~%ile 25th%ile median 75th%ile
1.000 1.000 1.000 0.636 0.998 1.000 -2.838 -0.103 0.647
Estimates of e95, which compare the e m p i r i c a l upper 95th

p e r c e n t i l e c o n f i d e n c e limit of the site-average c o n c e n t r a t i o n (D95) with
the actual site average (Ca), are negative and larger in m a g n i t u d e than
the values of em- The results in Table 2 indicate that the use of the
upper c o n f i d e n c e limit overestimates the actual s i t e - a v e r a g e
c o n c e n t r a t i o n by 6.5-105% over the nine cases examined, with a general
t r e n d of i n c r e a s i n g overestimates with increasing values of ~L • ~.
C o m p a r e d to em, the values of e95 exhibit a more dominant tendency to
o v e r e s t i m a t e the true site-average concentration, as d e m o n s t r a t e d by the
fact the standard d e v i a t i o n (s95) of each of the nine d i s t r i b u t i o n s of
e95 is smaller than the m a g n i t u d e of the mean d i f f e r e n c e (eg~).
The general p r o p e r t i e s of the gaussian d i s t r i b u t i o n (Table 3) were

similar to those of the inverse d i s t r i b u t i o n (Table 2). On average,
e m p i r i c a l sampling of the gaussian d i s t r i b u t i o n o v e r e s t i m a t e d the actual
s i t e - a v e r a g e c o n c e n t r a t i o n in seven of the nine cases, with values of ~
ranging from -0.070 to -0.004 (Table 3). In cases 7 and 9, however,
p o s i t i v e values of em indicate an average u n d e r e s t i m a t i o n of the site-
average concentration. In several cases, large standard deviations
reflect l e f t - s k e w e d distribus since the value of either e~ or e95
cannot e x c e e d unity. Case 7, which corresponds to a small source in a
sparsely sampled network, is e s p e c i a l l y interesting. In this case, the
25th p e r c e n t i l e value of e m is 1.0 (which corresponds to the situation
where ~g is m u c h less than ~ ) - evidence that the source is e s s e n t i a l l y
"missed" by the sampling network in the m a j o r i t y of iterations. The
infrequent c o i n c i d e n c e of the location of the source with the sampling
point, however, can lead to dramatic o v e r e s t i m a t i o n of more than 1000%.
Values of e95 e s t i m a t e d with the g a u s s i a n d i s t r i b u t i o n range from -2.9
to -0.16, i n d i c a t i n g that the upper 95th p e r c e n t i l e confidence limit of
the mean Site c o n c e n t r a t i o n overestimates s i t e - a v e r a g e concentrations by
16-290% on average for the nine cases considered.
"Hot-Spot" Samplinq Strategies
As for the analysis of the r e g u l a r l y - s p a c e d networks, each of the

"hot spot" sampling grids were t e s t e d for i0,000 instances of randomly
p l a c e d sources. The addition of four samples a r o u n d the location of
m a x i m u m c o n c e n t r a t i o n in the g r i d d e d network h a d dramatic effects on the
d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n actual site-average c o n c e n t r a t i o n s and e m p i r i c a l
p a r a m e t r i c estimates, as e v i d e n c e d by the results p r e s e n t e d in Tables 4
and 5. Over the nine cases c o n s i d e r e d (Table i), average differences
e s t i m a t e d with a r i t h m e t i c mea t concentrations (~) ranged from -0.494 to
-0.083 for the inverse d i s t r i b u t i o n (Table 4) and from -3.282 to -0.229
for the gaussian d i s t r i b u t i o n (Table 5), which t r a n s l a t e to
o v e r e s t i m a t i o n of the actual site-average c o n c e n t r a t i o n s by 8.3-49% and
23-330%, respectively, for the inverse and g a u s s i a n contaminant
distributions. Moreover, only cases 7 and 8 of the gaussian profile
(Table 5) exhibit standard deviations (~) that e x c e e d the m a g n i t u d e of
the m e a n of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of e m values; this characteristic, which
was much more common in the e v e n l y - s p a c e d grids (Tables 2 and 3),
indicates the g r e a t e r propensity for the hot spot sampling networks to
o v e r e s t i m a t e the actual site-average concentration. This tendency is
u n d e r s t a n d a b l e in view of the fact that the samples inserted in the
v i c i n i t y of the m a x i m u m concentration s e l e c t i v e l y overemphasize the peak
region of the contaminant distribution.
The tendency of the hot spot networks to overestimate site-average

c o n c e n t r a t i o n s is e n h a n c e d even further by comparisons using the upper
95th p e r c e n t i l e confidence limit of the empirical mean concentration.
For the inverse distribution, average overestimates, as e s t i m a t e d by the
p a r a m e t e r s95, range from 13% to 130% over the nine cases c o n s i d e r e d
(Table 4). For the gaussian distribution, average overestimates are
even greater, ranging from 26% to 990% (Table 5).
TABLE 4 -- Analysis of empirical and actual site-average concentrations derived with the inverse contaminant
d i s t r i b u t i o n [equation (i) ] on hot spot networks O~
INVERSE distribution with extra sampling a r o u n d the m a x i m u m c o n c e n t r a t i o n
= 7 N = 4 + 4 = 8 N = 16 + 4 = 20 N = 64 + 4 = 68
C
"O
e~ m
"n
-0.204 0.067 -0.202 -0.140 0.033 -0.138 -0.053 0.010 -0.053 -n
C
25th%ile Median 75th%ile 25th%ile Median 75th%ile 25th%ile Median 75th%ile Z
-0.255 -0.221 -0.153 -0.164 -0.139 -0.115 -0.060 --0.053 --0.046 -n

e95 sgs egs &gs s95 e~s egs Sgs egs
-0.448 0.iii -0.443 -0.292 0.057 -0.288 -0.126 0.019 -0.125 >
O9
25~h%ile Median 75~h%ile 25th%ile Median 75th%ile 25th%ile Median 75th%ile m
rn
--0.535 -0.473 -0.367 -0.332 -0.294 -0.248 -0.140 -0. 125 -0. iii m
co
8m m
z
-0.368 0.150 -0.363 -0.305 O.O87 -0.299 -0.137 0.031 -0.135 -I
25th%ile Median 75th%ile 25th%ile Median 75th%ile 25th%ile Median 75th%ile
--0.478 -0.392 -0.258 -0.373 -0.3O5 --0.239 --0.158 -0.135 -0.115
e95 ~95 e~s egs ~gs e~s egs S95 egs
-0.887 0.280 -0.877 -0.634 0.150 -0.624 -0.297 0.053 -0.292
25~%ile Median 75th%ile 25th%ile Median 75th%ile 25th%ile Median 75th%ile
-1.076 -0.908 --0.692 --0.749 -0.627 --0.523 --0.334 -0.292 -0.258
8m 8m
-0.494 0.276 -0.490 -0.478 0.175 --0.469 --0.258 0.074 -0.253
25~h%ile Median 75th%ile 25th%ile Median 75th%ile 25th%ile Median 75th%ile
32
-0. 652 -0.485 -0.310 -0.606 -0.481 --0.340 --0.307 -0.257 -0.201
e95 895 egs egs ~95 895 895 s95 895
-1.318 0.676 -1.309 -1.036 0.338 --1.020 --0.546 0. 1 3 2 -0. 537
25~%ile Median 75th%ile 25th%ile Median 75th%ile 25th%ile Median 75th%ile
-1.563 -1.252 -0.887 -1.260 -1.019 -0.777 -0.633 -0.541 -0.446
TABLE 5 -- Analysis of e m p i r i c a l and actual site-average concentrations derived with the gaussian
contaminant d i s t r i b u t i o n [equation (2)] on evenly sampled networks
Gaussian distribution with extra sampling a r o u n d the m a x i m u m c o n c e n t r a t i o n
~=~ N= 4 + 4 = 8 N = 16 + 4 = 20 N = 64 + 4 = 68
0
D3
4. 4. 4. 0
-0.517 0,198 -0.479 -0.295 0.109 -0.273 -0.094 0.034 -0.088 C
0
-1-
25tu%ile median 75t~%ile 25th%ile median 75th%ile 25th%ile median 75th%ile
m
-0.669 -0.504 -0.371 -0.354 -0.280 -0.204 -0.114 -0.088 -0.067
egs 9,s e95 ~s 995 e95 ~95 995 e95 t-
-1.094 0.403 -1.012 -0.637 0.219 -0.592 -0.258 0.080 -0.241 O
Z
25~%ile median 75th%ile 25th%ile median 75th%ile 25th%ile median 75th%ile
4
-1.384 -1.063 -0.796 -0.762 -0.614 -0.457 -0.308 -0.250 -0.194 0
-.t
4. 4. 4. CO
"U
-1.509 0.824 -1.542 -1.979 0.699 -1.904 -1.071 0.308 -1.016 0
-4
25th%ile median 75th%ile 25th%ile median 75th%ile 25th%ile median 75tU%ile
-2.207 -1.570 -0.895 -2.537 -1.931 -1.443 -1.253 -0.959 -0.862
Z
egs 99s egs egs sgs egs e95 895 egs
-5.165 1.811 -5.160 -4.303 1.247 -4.139 -2.193 0.573 -2.089 c-
"0
25th%ile median 75th%ile 25th%ile median 75th%ile 75th%ile "U
25th%ile median m
"-n
-6.610 -5.442 -3.871 -5.246 -4.212 -3.370 -2.528 -1.964 -1.809
0
4. 0
z
-1.407 6.530 -1.493 -3.075 4.225 -3.179 -3.282 1.701 -3.287
m
25th%ile median 75th%ile 25th%ile median 7yh%ile 25th%ile median 75th%ile z
32 0
0.358 0.988 1.000 -5.282 -1.499 0.367 -4.755 -3.273 -1.806 m
egs sgs egs egs 99s egs e95 895 egs g

-6.283 19.80 -6.550 -9.881 11.510 -10.160 -8.664 3.399 -8.649 -.4
-0. 996 0. 965 1.000 -15.85 -5. 499 -0. 656 -11.77 -9.029 -5. 699
CO
"4
The gaussian d i s t r i b u t i o n g e n e r a l l y p r o d u c e d h i g h e r values of both

~ and s95 than did the inverse distribution. The factor p r i m a r i l y
r e s p o n s i b l e for this t e n d e n c y was the relative d i f f e r e n c e in decay
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the two distributions. Given equal values of the
scaling p a r a m e t e r s ~ a n d y, the c o n c e n t r a t i o n p r o f i l e of the g a u s s i a n
d i s t r i b u t i o n [equation (2)] dissipates much more rapidly from the
m a x i m u m c o n c e n t r a t i o n than does the inverse d i s t r i b u t i o n [equation (i)].
DISCUSSION
S u p e r f u n d risk c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s are f r e q u e n t l y c r i t i c i z e d because

the finite data c o l l e c t e d in site investigations cannot guarantee the
highest contaminant concentrations have been i d e n t i f i e d (Bennett 1991).
The r e c o m m e n d a t i o n of c h a r a c t e r i z i n g a sampling d i s t r i b u t i o n with the
upper 95th p e r c e n t i l e confidence limit on the m e a n (U.S.EPA 1989)
reflects a c o n s e r v a t i v e goal of the S u p e r f u n d p r o g r a m not to
u n d e r e s t i m a t e s i t e - a v e r a g e concentrations. In actuality, this p o l i c y
d e c i s i o n embraces two issues. F i r s t , it recognizes the need to properly
average m e a s u r e m e n t s in order to construct exposure point concentrations
that mimic human i n t e r a c t i o n with a c o n t a m i n a t e d site. Second, it
accounts for sampling u n c e r t a i n t y by i n t e n t i o n a l l y o v e r e s t i m a t i n g the
m e a n c o n c e n t r a t i o n with a p r e s c r i b e d statistical m e a s u r e that depends
upon the nature of the sampling d i s t r i b u t i o n and the number of samples
o b t a i n e d in the remedial investigation.
The m e t h o d o l o g y d e s c r i b e d here can be used to examine the

c o n s e q u e n c e s of using the upper 95th p e r c e n t i l e c o n f i d e n c e limit of the
a r i t h m e t i c mean c o n c e n t r a t i o n (UCL95) as the p a r a m e t r i c measure of the
exposure point concentration~ Tables 6 and 7 present the percentiles of
the d i s t r i b u t i o n s of sm and s~5 for which values are negative, i.e., the
e m p i r i c a l estimate - either Dg or c95 -- exceeds the actual site average
concentration (~). The tables are a r r a n g e d a c c o r d i n g to the nine cases
d e s c r i b e d in Table i; each case is s u m m a r i z e d by a b l o c k of four values
that d i f f e r e n t i a t e the empirical m e a s u r e used for the average
concentration (mean value or UCL95) and both the d e n s i t y and type of the
sampling network (with or without hot spot samples).
As expected, both the use of the UCL95 and the introduction of

"hot spot samples" increase the f r e q u e n c y of o v e r e s t i m a t i o n of the
actual site concentration, although the tendency to o v e r e s t i m a t e depends
on the c o m b i n a t i o n of the sampling d e n s i t y and the scaling parameter.
In m a n y of the cases in Tables 6-7, the empirical m e a n c o n c e n t r a t i o n
o v e r p r e d i c t s the s i t e - a v e r a g e concentration; indeed, in cases 1-3 in
Table 7, the empirical mean c o n c e n t r a t i o n o v e r e s t i m a t e s more than 99% of
the time.
Generally, u n d e r e s t i m a t e s of the actual s i t e - a v e r a g e concentration

o c c u r r e d more often for (i) small contaminant sources and (2) sparse
networks, although the latter factor was not very important for the
cases of the inverse contaminant d i s t r i b u t i o n (Table 6). For e v e n l y
spaced networks that e x a m i n e d the inverse profile (Table 6), the use of
the UCL95 as the m e a s u r e of average site c o n t a m i n a t i o n (as opposed to
the empirical mean) g r e a t l y reduced the frequency of u n d e r p r e d i c t i o n s of
the actual s i t e - a v e r a g e concentration. For the g a u s s i a n profile, the
p e r f o r m a n c e of the UCL95 was case-dependent; at the extreme combination
of most rapid source decay and sparsest network (case 7), use of the
e m p i r i c a l mean r e s u l t e d in u n d e r e s t i m a t i o n of the s i t e - a v e r a g e
c o n c e n t r a t i o n 95% of the time, while use of the UCL95 reduced this
f r e q u e n c y to only 93%. The tendency to underpredict site-average
concentrations, however, was reduced to a comparable or greater degree
by the insertion of the "hot spot" samples in the v i c i n i t y of the
highest sampled concentration.
TABLE 6 -- P e r c e n t i l e s for which the actual s i t e - a v e r a g e c o n c e n t r a t i o n

was e x c e e d e d by the empirical estimate: inverse d i s t r i b u t i o n
Inverse D i s t r i b u t i o n
Scaling 2 x 2 Grid 4 • 4 Grid 8 • 8 Grid
parameter Empirical
Measure I Hot Hot I Hot
~=~ Even Spot Even Spot Even Spot
N=4 N=8 N=I6 N=20 N=64 N=68
Mean 68
2 >99 >99 >99 >99 >99
UCL95 >99
Mean 54
8 UCL95 >99 >99 >99 >99 >99 >99
II I
Mean 44
32 UCL95 98 >99 >99 >99 >99 >99
TABLE 7 -- Percentiles for which the actual s i t e - a v e r a g e concentration

was e x c e e d e d by the e m p i r i c a l estimate: g a u s s i a n d i s t r i b u t i o n
Gaussian Distribution
Scaling 2 • 2 Grid 4 • 4 Grid 8 x 8 Grid
parameter Empirical
Measure J Hot Hot Hot
Even Spot Even Spot Even Spot
N=4 N=8 N=I6 N=20 N=64 N=68
Mean
2
UCL95 :,99 i>99
>. 1 >99
>. i>.
>99 i >99
>. >99
Mean
UCL95 61 >99 >99 >99 >99 >99
Mean
32
UCL95 7 29 19 82 51 >99
'CONCLUSIONS
In this t h e o r e t i c a l investigation, we e x a m i n e d some aspects of

sampling a randomly located source of contamination. A v e r a g e d over many
s i t e / s o u r c e geometries, the a r i t h m e t i c mean c o n c e n t r a t i o n of the samples
was found to overpredict the actual site-average c o n c e n t r a t i o n under
most of the conditions considered. For any given geometry, however, the
l i k e l i h o o d of u n d e r p r e d i c t i n g the site-average c o n c e n t r a t i o n depended
upon the nature of the contaminant d i s t r i b u t i o n and the density of the
sampling network. The use of the UCL95 as the m e a s u r e of the empirical
s i t e - a v e r a g e c o n c e n t r a t i o n reduced the tendency to u n d e r p r e d i c t the
actual site-average. Similar or greater reductions, however, were
a c h i e v e d by i n t r o d u c i n g additional samples around the sample of highest
concentration. The consequences of such "hot spot" sampling may
m i t i g a t e the need to use the UCL95 as a conservative estimator in site
i n v e s t i g a t i o n s that p r e f e r e n t i a l l y sample known or s u s p e c t e d areas of
contamination.
REFERENCES
Abramowitz, M., and Stegun, I.A., 1970, Handbook of Mathematical

Functions, Ninth printing, Dover Publications, New York.
Bennett, D.A., January 22, 1991, Presentation at the monthly meeting of

the Boston Society for Risk Analysis, Cambridge, MA.
Porter, J.W., January 1989, "Interim Final Guidance for Soil Ingestion
Rates," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response Directive 9850.4.
U.S. EPA, 1988, Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Remedial Response. EPA/540/1-88/001.
U.S. EPA, 1989, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I - Human
Health Evaluation Manual, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 9285.7-01a.
Risk Characterization/Case Studies
Harlal Choudhury I, W. Bruce Peirano, A. Marcus 2, R. Elias, S. Griffin,
and Christopher T. DeRosa
UTILIZATION OF UPTAKE BIGKINETIC (UBK) LEAD MODEL TO ASSESS RISK IN

CONTAMINATED SITES
REFERF/~CE: Choudhury, H., Peirano, W. B., Marcus, A., Elias, R.,

Griffin, S., and DeRosa, C. T., "Utilization of Uptake Bioklnetic
(UBK) Lead Model to Assess Risk in Contaminated Sites," Sunerfund
Risk Assessment in Soil Contamination Studies, ASTM STP 11~8,
Keith B. Hoddinott, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, 1992.
ABSTRACTz Approaches usually available for the assessment of

exposures that occur via water, land and/or air are limited by their
ability to integrate multiroute scenarios. Additionally, there are
indications that these exposures can differentially affect specific
subgroups, each having unique sensitivities to chemical insults. Lead
is one of the major toxic contaminants of concern found at approxi-
mately 47% of the Superfund National Priority List (NPL) Sites. Low
level exposure to lead has been shown to produce adverse effects on
heme metabolism, serum vitamin D levels, mental and physical develop-
ment of infants and children, and blood pressure in adults. Experi-
mental and epidemiologic studies have indicated that blood lead levels
in the range of 10-15 ~g/dQ, or possibly lower, are likely to produce
subclinical toxicity. Since a threshold has not been established it
is prudent to assume that, for regulatory purposes, a threshold for
lead toxicity does not exist. As an alternate to the traditional
reference dose approach, the U.S. EPA has developed the Uptake/
Biokinetic Lead Model that provides a means for evaluating the
relative contribution of various media to establishing blood lead
levels. The model is flexible and versatile and predicts mean blood
lead levels and population distributions associated with multimedia
exposure in children. This allows for the identification of site- and
situation-specific abatement strategies based on projected blood lead
levels in vulnerable human populations. This paper will present
examples of NPL site exposure scenarios for lead and how the UBK lead
model may be used for characterization of potential health risks as a
result of these exposure scenarios.
KEYWORDSz lead, uptake biokinetic model, Superfund National Priority

List, reference dose
iToxicologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,

Ohio 45268
2Statistician, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, 2101 Wilson

Boulevard, Suite 800, Arlington, VA 22201.
Lead is one of the major toxic contaminants of concern found at

approximately 47% of the Superfund National Priority List (NPL) sites.
Lead'~ toxicity is not specific to a particular organ or biochemical
process. Rather, lead has many effects on a variety of physiologic
systems, including the brain, the kidney, the hematopoietic system,
the cardiovascular system, and the developing fetus. The reason that
lead is so toxic to so many systems is that it interferes with a
component of all cells, the mitochondrion, the energy-producing center
of the cell. This interference results in diverse effects, including
substitution of various essential minerals by lead, decreases in the
rates of metabolic reactions, and changes in the rate of transport of
essential ions across cell membranes. Numerous whole animal and cell
culture reports (U.S. EPA 1986) have indicated mitochondrial swelling
and functional impairment after lead treatment.
Lead is not distributed homogeneously in the human body.

Instead, it is dispersed across several physiologically distinct
compartments. Evidence from human studies, especially in children,
supports a relationship between prenatal and postnatal lead exposure
in infants and young children, as indexed by blood lead levels, and a
variety of diverse health effects (U.S. EPA 1990). These include
impaired or delayed mental and physical development, decreased heme
biosynthesis and other biochemical effects on erythrocytes and
decreased levels of serum vitamin D levels. Although a threshold for
these effects has not been established, the evidence suggests that it
may lie within 10-15 ~g/d~ blood lead levels or possibly lower. As
blood lead levels increase above the range of 10-15 ~g/dQ, the risks
for more pronounced effects on all of the above endpoints increases.
Effects of lead on development are particularly disturbing in that the
consequences of early delays or deficits in physical or mental
development may have long-term adverse consequences over the lifetime
of affected individuals.
The goals for the risk characterization effort for lead included
the development of an approach that is both predictive in terms of
projecting the impact of altered media-specific exposures on blood
lead and accomplishes this recognizing the heterogeneity of exposed
populations in terms of exposure pattern and vulnerability. It was
also intended that the approach be flexible and be able to accommodate
a range of data with variations in quality, quantity and the source;
thus making the model more sensitive when applied on a site-specific
basis.
Site-specific data on default assumptions regarding exposure

scenarios and absorption efficiency for lead intake from various media
have been incorporated into existing multimedia exposure analysis
methods for the UBK lead model. The results yield estimates of the
relative contributions of air, dietary, and dust/soil lead exposure to
any given estimated lead uptake. This model allows benchmark blood
lead levels to be related quantitatively to route-independent uptake
rates and can provide estimates of frequency distributions of blood
lead levels associated with any given uptake rate. Outputs from such
multimedia analyses can be used to define the implications of regula-
tory decisions and abatement strategies on the distribution of blood
lead levels in relevant human populations.
APPROACH
Risk assessments are conducted on many different levels depend-

ing on the goals and associated level of refinement of the assessment
effort, for example, a statement of whether a chemical is or is not
toxic, the ranking of its toxicity relative to Some standard, the
level of exposure we can permit and still be protected from the
CHOUDHURY ET AL. ON THE UPTAKE BIOKINETIC LEAD MODEL 195
potenti~tl toxicity of this exposure, or a prediction about the

toxicity of this chemical. The U.S. EPA has established the reference
dose (RfD} for the purpose of quantitative risk assessment of noncar-
cinogenic chemicals. The RfD is an estimate (with uncertainty
spanning Perhaps an order of magnitude) of the daily exposure to the
human population (including sensitive subgroups} that is likely to be
without appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime
(U.S. EPA 1987). In developing an RfD for a specific chemical, the
best available scientific data on health effects of the chemical are
reviewed to identify the highest level of exposure that is clearly not
associated with adverse health effects in humans. Typically, Uhe
highest no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) is adjusted by an
uncertainty factor to derive the RfD. The uncertainty factor reflects
the degree of uncertainty associated with extrapolating the NOAEL
identified from analysis of relevant human toxicologic studies to the
most sensitive fraction of the healthy human population. The RfD
approach has yielded useful quantitative estimates of toxic threshold
for many chemicals, and thus, has been used as a "benchmark" on which
to consider regulatory decisions in relation to potential impacts on
human health. However, based on our current understanding of the
dose-response relationship for the various effects of lead and its
nature of exposure (multimedla), it is inappropriate to derive a
reference dose for risk assessments related to environmental lead.
Multimedia exposure analysis coupled with predictive biokinetic models
has been proposed to provide a pOwerful tool for developing an alter-
native and more useful risk assessment strategy for lead.
RATIONALE FOR DEPARTURE FROM THE TRADITIONAL RfD APPROACH
A critical assumption implicit to the RfD is the concept of

threshold, a dose level below which adverse health effects will not
occur. This assumption precludes developing RfDB based on effects for
which thresholds have not been established from experimental or epide-
miological data or for chemicals for which theoretical considerations
suggest the absence of a threshold. Like carcinogens, there is no
widely accepted theoretical basis for the absence of a threshold for
many of the health effects associated with lead exposure. However,
analyses of correlations between blood lead levels and ALA-D (amino-
levulenic acid) activity, vitamin D and pyrimidine metabolism, neuro-
behavioral indices, growth, and development indicate that associations
may persist through the lowest blood lead levels (10-15 ~g/d~) in the
populations tested (U.S. EPA 1990). Thus, it is possible that if a
threshold for the toxic effects of lead exists, it may lie within a
range of blood lead levels below 10-15 ~g/dQ; however, the data
currently available are not sufficient to adequately define the dose-
response relationships for many of the toxic effects of lead in
populations having blood lead levels below 10 ~g/dQ. Hence, it is not
possible to confidently identify a blood lead level below which no
undesirable health effects would occur. The range of 10-15 ~g/d~ for
blood lead levels represents a "level of concern". A level of concern
is not the same as threshold. In this case, a level of concern repre-
sents a blood lead level associated with health effects that warrant
attention from a medical or governmental regulatory standpoint, and
does not imply that a biologic or toxicologic effect may not occur at
lower levels of exposure (Davis 1990).
The complex nature of lead exposure has not prevented advances

in our understanding of dose-response relatlonships for lead in humans
because many of the health effects of lead in humans are correlated
with blood lead levels. Thus, blood lead (~g/dQ) is a m o r e appro-
priate benchmark for exposure than a level in air (mg/m 3) or an oral
exposure level (mg/kg/day). By estimating changes in blood lead
level, one may estimate change in risk of experiencing health effects
a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the blood lead level. It is p o s s i b l e to d e f i n e

critical ranges of blood lead levels and a s s o c i a t e d effects. In this
way, blood lead levels can be u s e d to define r i s k in a relative sense
(U.S. E P A 1986).
An enormous amount of scientific literature r e g a r d i n g the health

effects of lead in humans and animals has been published. M u c h of
this information is contained in the Air Q u a l i t y C r i t e r i a D o c u m e n t on
Lead (U.S. EPA 1986), in subsequent addenda and r e l a t e d U.S. E P A
d o c u m e n t s (U.S. EPA 1990; ATSDR/U.S. EPA 1988) and the A T S D R report to
the U.S. Congress (ATSDR 1988).
NEUROBEHAVIORAL AND GROWTH E F F E C T S I N I N F A N T S AND CHILDREN
The p r i m a r y focus of this r e v i e w on low-level lead e f f e c t s on

n e u r o b e h a v i o r a l d e v e l o p m e n t is on recent p r o s p e c t i v e studies conducted
in Boston, Cincinnati, and Port Pirie, Australia. These studies used
similar tests of n e u r o b e h a v i o r a l development, such as the B a y l e y
Scales of Infant D e v e l o p m e n t (BSID) and the M c C a r t h y Scales of
C h i l d r e n ' s A b i l i t i e s (MSCA).
The Boston study provides strong evidence of an a s s o c i a t i o n

b e t w e e n prenatal blood lead and cognitive d e v e l o p m e n t up to age 2.
This study p r o v i d e d support for the 10-15 ~g/d~ blood lead level of
concern by indicating that MDI (Bayley Mental D e v e l o p m e n t Index)
deficits can be d e t e c t e d in r e l a t i o n to cord b l o o d lead levels of 6-7
~g/d8 in lower socioeconomic (SES) children (Bellinger et al. 1989).
Since the B o s t o n cohort was m o s t l y m i d d l e - t o - u p p e r class, "lower" SES
m e r e l y refers to less than the highest SES levels and is p r o b a b l y in
fact m u c h closer to the m e d i a n of the U.S. p o p u l a t i o n than the t e r m
suggests.
A p e r s p e c t i v e study c o n d u c t e d at C i n c i n n a t i (Bornschein et al.

1989) p r o d u c e d e v i d e n c e of direct effects of p r e n a t a l lead e x p o s u r e on
infant physical development at birth. Results from this study showed
an inverse r e l a t i o n s h i p between maternal blood lead levels and both
birth weight and length. The m e a n maternal b l o o d lead level was 7.6
~g/dQ (range~ 1-26 ~g/dQ). Analyses of p o s t n a t a l growth rates in a
cohort of 260 c h i l d r e n from the Cincinnati study s u g g e s t e d an inter-
active effect of prenatal and p o s t n a t a l lead e x p o s u r e (Shukla et al.
1989). S p l i t t i n g prenatal blood lead levels and the average increase
in postnatal blood lead levels at the m e d i a n (prenatal: 7.7 ~g/dS,
postnatal: 3.4 ~g/dS) provided a m a t r i x of low/low, low/high, high/low
and h i g h / h i g h e x p o s u r e conditions. Analyses of data for 129 subjects
in the high p r e n a t a l exposure c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i n d i c a t e d that covariate
adjusted growth rates for stature over 3-15 m o n t h s of age were
s i g n i f i c a n t l y and n e g a t i v e l y related to the p o s t n a t a l increase in
blood lead level. No effect was seen for the low prenatal exposure
group.
As reported in the 1986 A d d e n d u m (U.S. E P A 1986), the available

information s u g g e s t e d that results from the Port Pirie study were
consistent with the other p r o s p e c t i v e studies in p o i n t i n g to deficits
on the Bayley MDI as a function of perinatal lead exposure. Although
p o s t n a t a l rather than prenatal lead exposure a p p e a r e d to play a
g r e a t e r role in the MDI deficits of the Port Pirie cohort, Davis and
S v e n d s g a a r d (1987) stated that blood lead levels increased consider-
ably after birth, p a r t i c u l a r l y from 6-15 m o n t h s of age, and that
e a r l i e r t e s t i n g on the Bayley Scales (e.g., at 6 months) might have
r e v e a l e d a more significant r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h a m e a s u r e of prenatal
lead exposure. P r e g n a n c y outcomes were also e v a l u a t e d in the Port
Pirie cohort (McMichael et al. 1986). A s i g n i f i c a n t l y e l e v a t e d risk
of p r e t e r m (<37 weeks) delivery was associated w i t h maternal blood
CHOUDHURY ET AL. ON THE UPTAKE BIOKINETIC LEAD MODEL 19-7
lead levels above 14 ~g/dQ. Neither birth weight nor spontaneous

abortions (<20 weeks} showed a significant association with blood lead
levels.
The perspective studies discussed above clearly demonstrated

that a blood lead concentration of 10-15 ~g/dQ, and possibly lower,
remains the level of concern for impaired neurobehavioral development
in infants and children. Given the fact that such effects have been
associated with b l o o d lead measures in pregnant women, umbilical
cords, and infants up to at least 2 years of age, there is no apparent
distinction at present as to whether this level of concern applies to
only fetuses or infants or preschool-age children. Thus, a blood lead
level of 10-15 ~g/dQ, and possibly lower, must be avoided in pregnant
women, fetuses, infants, and young children, recognizing that growing
fetuses and infants are at a greater risk than pregnant women.
In his follow-up study, Needleman et al. (1990) reported that

those children evaluated at age 6-7 years originally having high
dentin lead levels (>20 ppm), had markedly higher rates of having a
reading disability and of dropping out of high school than lower lead
exposed children (dentin lead <10 ppm). Also, higher lead levels in
earlier childhood were significantly related to lower class standing,
increased absenteeism, lower verbal scores, and poorer sensory-motor
performance. These persisting effects were detected a decade later
when blood lead levels had declined to 7 ~g/dQ or lower (high-lead
dentin group averaged 34 ~g/d~ at the time of original study).
As indexed by blood lead levels and a variety of diverse

effects, there exists a relationship between pre- and postnatal lead
exposure in infants and young children (U.S. EPA 1986). At blood lead
levels of 10-15 ~g/d~ and higher, currently available data do not
provide evidence of a lead exposure level that could be protective for
effects such as impaired or delayed mental and physical development,
decreased heme biosynthesis, and decreased levels of serum vitamin D
levels. At blood levels above 30 ~g/d~, the risks for nephrotoxicity
and overt neurologic effects becomes substantial. For regulatory
purposes, the RfD approach, therefore, is considered inappropriate for
noncarcinogenic effects of environmental lead.
EXPOSURE&SSESSNENT
As discussed earlier, the blood lead level at which neuro-

behavioral effects are observed and whether it corresponds to prenatal
or postnatal blood lead level is critical to the derivation of cleanup
levels for lead-contaminated dust/soil. Significantly, exposure
between fetuses and young children is linked to quantity of soil to
which they are exposed. Numerous reports in the literature have
described the hand-to-mouth behaviors, such as thumb sucking, nail
biting, and mouthing nonfood items, which increase the likelihood of
soil ingestion in young children (U.S. EPA 1986; Barltrop et al.
1975}.
In addition to behavioral characteristics that facilitate lead

exposure, nutritional factors may also contribute to the vulnerability
of infants and young children to lead. The nutritional requirements
for rapid physical growth during the first 3 years render this age
group susceptible to a variety of nutritional deficits including iron,
copper, and zinc deficiencies. As discussed in U.S. EPA (1986), defi-
ciencies of these minerals are associated with increased gastrointes-
tinal absorption of lead in animals.
In general, inhalation is a quantitatively minor route of

exposure for infants and children. Nevertheless, children may be more
vulnerable than adults to exposure to airborne lead particles.

Physiologic characteristics of the respiratory tract of infants and
children result in higher deposition efficiencies of inhaled airborne
particles than in adults {Xu and Yu 19861.
To fully appreciate the significance of childhood lead exposure

as a critical focus of risk assessment methodology, the above consid-
erations must be placed in perspective with serious potential for
long-term consequences of neurobehavloral and developmental effects
encountered at an early age. This does not trivialize the importance
of long-term exposure and effects of lead in adults. The long
biologic half-life of lead in bone and the potential for trans-
placental transfer of lead translates into additional risk factors for
the fetus and for the infants of mothers exposed during childhood.
Adults are known to both absorb and retain less ingested lead than
young children (U.S. EPA 19861. Thus, less of the lead that an adult
ingests would contribute to elevated blood lead levels. Because fetal
exposures to dust/soil lead are mediated by adult (maternal)
exposures, fetuses would be expected to have lower soil lead exposures
than young children. Using the relative slopes, dust/soil ingestion
and absorption rates discussed in the U.S. EPA (19891, a dust/soil
lead level resulting in 15 pg/d~ blood lead in a young child would
produce a maternal blood lead level of <4.4 pg/d~. Lower target blood
lead levels for young children would produce correspondingly lower
fetal lead exposures. These estimations suggest that target blood
lead levels that are established to protect young children would
provide significant protection for fetuses as well.
Infants and children appear to be the most vulnerable segments

of the population to environmental lead, because, in addition to
inhaling airborne lead and ingesting dietary lead, they tend to ingest
dust and soil as part of their normal behavior. Indeed, oral inges-
tion of dust and soil can be the predominant uptake mechanism in
infants and young children. These same behavioral tendencies place
them at risk for ingesting lead-based paint chips.
The biologic effects of lead in infants and children have been

related to blood lead levels, which are determined by the combined
uptakes from the respiratory and digestive tracts. Uptake from both
routes can be expected to vary appreciably with the nature and
proximity of the exposure source, as well as age-related physiologic
variables that influence intake and absorption efficiency.
Although dust, soil, and dietary lead have been largely derived
from atmospheric deposition, simple relationships between airborne
lead concentrations and blood lead levels useful for deriving age-
specific and media-specific risk assessments are not available (U.S.
EPA 1986). However, media- and age-specific uptakes can be predicted
using a multimedia uptake assessment model, given certain assumptions
regarding the nature and proximity to the exposure source, levels of
lead in each media, and behavioral and physiologic variables that
influence intake and absorption. The UBK lead model can then be used
to predict age-specific blood lead levels associated with m u l t i m e d i a
uptakes. In U.S. EPA (19891, strategies for predicting uptake rates
from air, diet, water, and dust/soil have been described, which, in
conjunction with biokinetic models, provide the basis for predicting
relationships between media-specific exposure levels and blood lead
levels.
UBK LEAD MODEL AND RISK CHARACTERIZATION
The uptake/biokinetic model was originally developed by the

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS I (U.S. EPA 19891
and New York University (Harley and Kneip 1985) that estimated age-
specific blood lead levels associated with levels of continuous
exposure to air, diet, drinking water, dust/soil, and paint lead
sources. The original and the current version of the uptake model
accepts site-specific data or default values for lead levels in each
medium. This information is combined with assumptions regarding
behavioral and physiologic parameters that determine intake and
absorption of lead from each medium to yield estimated rates of lead
uptake into the blood. Behavioral and physiologic parameters are
adjusted for different ages and include such items as time spent
indoors and outdoors; time spent sleeping; diet; dust/soil ingestion
rates; daily breathing volumes; deposition efficiency in the respira-
tory tract; and absorption efficiency in the respiratory and gastro-
intestinal tracts. The UBK lead model incorporates default assump-
tions regarding rate constants for transfers between blood and bone,
kidney, liver, and gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Transfers from blood
to urine, liver to GI tract, and mother to fetus are also considered.
These assumptions include adjustments that reflect age-related changes
in metabolism and physiology that affect the distribution and excre-
tion of lead (e.g., bone turnover rates). The UBK lead model sums
predicted uptakes over time to yield estimates of blood lead levels
associated with continuous uptakes over the lifespan. The default
assumptions and values on which uptake rate and blood lead calcula-
tions are based can be replaced with site-specific data or revised
defaults. Thus, the UBK model can be updated as new information on
exposure level, intake and uptake parameters become available. This
can be used to explore predictions regarding the impact of future
trends in environmental lead levels resulting from regulatory
decisions and other developments.
The original Harley and Kneip (1985) model has been extended in
several directions, based on recent data, to develop the current
version of the UBK lead model. These extensions include the following
(Marcus 1985):
1. Additional compartmentation of the blood and bone

lead pools.
2. Kinetic nonlinearity in the uptake of lead by red

blood cells at high concentrations.
3. Transfer of lead from the mother to fetus.
The current UBK model predicts mean blood lead levels associated
with defined multimedia exposure levels (DeRosa et al. 1991).
However, to assess the risks associated with such exposures in a given
population and evaluate potential effects of regulatory or abatement
decisions, the frequency distribution for the population blood lead
levels is a more useful parameter than population means. The fraction
of the population with the highest blood lead levels could then be the
focus of regulatory and abatement decisions.
The model, based on NHANES II data (U.S. EPA 1986), assumes a

GSD (geometric standard deviation) of 1.42 as a default value. It
should be noted, however, that this value pertains to fairly homo-
geneous populations exposed to similar mean levels of lead from the
same sources. Other distributions and levels of variability may be
encountered in populations having subgroups exposed to very different
soil or air lead concentrations. The U.S. EPA is currently working on
guidance on how the user of the UBK lead model can vary the GSD based
on what is known about the homogenicity of the exposed populations.
The model predicted a mean blood lead level of 2.98 ~g/dl and
that 0.02% of the U.S. children (2-3 year olds) will have blood lead
levels higher t h a n i0 ~g/dQ, the low end of the range of concern for
adverse h e a l t h effects (i.e., 10-15 ~g/dQ). The i n t a k e / u p t a k e param-
eters used An this model are p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e i. Maternal blood
lead was a s s u m e d to be 7.5 ~g/d~ (U.S. E P A 1990).
TABLE 1--Lead intake and u p t a k e in 2- to 3 - y e a r - o l d children.
M e d i a Intake Intake Absorption Uptake

(per day) (~g/day) (fraction) (~g/day)
Air lead: 2.5 cu.m 0.5 0.4 0.2
Diet lead: -- 6.8 0.5 3.4
Soil lead: 45 mg 9.0 0.3 2.7

Dust lead: 55 mg 11.0 0.3 3.3
Water lead: 0.5 Q 2.0 0.5 1.0
Total 29.3 10.6
Several v a l i d a t i o n e x e r c i s e s have been u n d e r t a k e n to test the

p e r f o r m a n c e of the u p t a k e / b i o k i n e t i c model for p r e d i c t i n g m e a n blood
lead levels and d i s t r i b u t i o n s in human p o p u l a t i o n s and can be found in
D e R o s a et al. (1991) and U.S. E P A (1986).
A recent U B K v a l i d a t i o n report from a large field studied

c o n d u c t e d in Midvale, Utah in 1989 (Marcus 1991; B o r n s c h e i n et al. 1990)
has been p r e s e n t e d in Tables 2 and 3. E n v i r o n m e n t a l lead levels were
m e a s u r e d in h o u s e h o l d s of children, pregnant women, and other adults,
along with blood lead data and m a n y behavioral and demographic
variables. A core data set of 166 children (under 7 years of age) was
d e v e l o p e d for d e t a i l e d analysis (Table 2). The U B K lead model was run
for each of t h e s e 166 children, and the blood lead c o n c e n t r a t i o n was
p r e d i c t e d by the model for the given input values. In Table 2,
p e r c e n t i l e s are b a s e d on individual runs for all 166 children.
In the default case, all p a r a m e t e r s w e r e e x a c t l y as in the base

model, except for child-specific age, dust/soil lead and w a t e r lead.
Dust and soil intake was assumed to be i00 m g / d a y at all ages, and lead
a b s o r p t i o n was assumed to be 30% from these media. The high U.S. EPA
dust/soll intake was assumed to be the m a x i m u m value in the ragnes from
the U.S. EPA O f f i c e of Air Quality, Planning and Standards staff paper
(U.S. EPA 1989). Based on a site-speclfic analysis, n o n l i n e a r absorp-
tion model w i t h p a s s i v e a b s o r p t i o n of 2% and s a t u r a b l e absorption (half-
saturation c o n c e n t r a t i o n 1200 ~g/g) of 26% for soil lead, and passive
a b s o r p t i o n of 4% and saturable absorption (half-saturation concentration
i000 pg/g) of 26% for dust lead was used for a g e - s p e c i f i c high dust/soil
intakes. The paint lead a b s o r p t i o n in the n o n l i n e a r model was very low
(2%) at levels of interest (Marcus 1991).
TABLE 2 - - P e r c e n t i l e s of o b s e r v e d and p r e d i c t e d blood lead distribu-

tion in se__nsitivity analyses for M i d v a l e lead scenarios.
Model Percentiles
Geom Mean
Paint Dust/Soil Absorption (~g/dQ) 50 75 90 Max
Intake*
No Default Linear 4.97 4.95 6.87 9.77 19.29

No Default Nonlinear 5.61 5.72 7.92 10.90 21.06
No U.S. E P A HI Linear 5.55 5.55 8.15 11.11 21.37
No U.S. E P A HI Nonlinear 5.35 5.41 7.69 10.34 18.41
Yes Default Linear 5.33 5.04 7.22 10.35 19.37
Yes Default Nonlinear 5.65 5.70 7.63 10.87 19.62
Yes U.S. E P A HI Linear 5.55 5.42 7.75 10.71 19.80
Yes U.S. E P A HI Nonlinear 5.75 5.77 7.91 10.89 19.74
Observed 5.31 6 8 ii 23
*Default in U B K model is 100 pg/day. HI (U.S. E P A 1989) includes 0.085,

0.135, 0.135, 0.135, 0.100, 0.09 and 0.085 g / d a y intakes of soil for
i-, 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-, 6- and 7-year-old children, respectively.
TABLE 3 - - P r e d i c t i o n of the number of c h i l d r e n with e l e v a t e d blood

lead levels u s i n q p r e d i c t e d individual or c o m m u n i t y blood lead levels.
Basis for Input Data for GSD Number Number G e o m Mean

Estimate Prediction (~I0 ~g/d~) (~15 pg/d~) Blood
Observed . . . . . . 21 8 5.31
b l o o d lead
Predicted Individual 21 6 5.35

individual h o u s e h o l d lead
blood lead
Predicted Community 1.60 25.79 5.02 6.24

percent with M e a n Soil 1.66 28.74 6.78 6.24
elevated and Dust 1.72 31.38 8.61 6.24
b l o o d lead
Predicted Community 1.66 15.57 2.83 5.15

percent with G e o m Mean 1.72 18.08 3.94 5.15
elevated Soil/dust 1.80 21.17 5.59 5.15
blood lead
The results (see Table 2) of this analysis showed that the model
defaults gave a b a r e l y adequate (i><0.051) p r e d i c t i o n of geometric mean
blood lead (5.31 pg/d[ observed vs. 4.97 pg/dQ predicted), but consis-
t e n t l y u n d e r e s t i m a t e d the percentiles of the distribution. The high
dust/soil intake model, in which intake was age-dependent, gave a much

closer prediction of community blood lead (5.35 predicted vs. 5.31
observed), and the distribution functions were comparable. With only
the dust/soil absorption parameters changed to the nonlinear specifica-
tion, the default intake parameters provided a good prediction of the
geometric mean and most of the percentile community blood lead distribu-
tion. However, the upper 10% of blood lead levels were somewhat
underestimated. Adding paint lead information improved the prediction
of higher blood lead levels.
The geometric mean blood lead predicted by the model can also be
used as a basis for estimating the number of children with elevated
blood lead levels. In Table 3 the comparisons between the observed and
predicted number of children above i0 and 15 ~g/dQ h a v e been presented.
The validation exercise used two different approaches: (i) individual
input data, using nonlinear absorption model and (2) community mean
dust/soil or geometric mean dust/soil lead with age-specific high
dust/soil intake (as used earlier) and nonlinear absorption. The
results show that each of these approaches allow a reasonable prediction
of number of children with elevated blood lead, but not as good predic-
tion of which individual children would have these blood lead levels.
The data for individual children are provided in detail in the Midvale
study (Marcus 1991; Bornschein et al. 1990). Table 3 also presents data
using different geometric standard deviations (GSD) for blood lead
distributions. These calculations suggest that the UBK lead model will
provide useful predictions of risks under a wide variety of model
specifications, but that some site-specific data on the bioavailability
of lead in soil, dust and paint may be needed.
CONCLUSION
The UBK lead model provided adequate descriptions of the community

geometric mean blood lead level, the upper percentiles of the blood lead
distribution, and the central part of the community distribution of
blood lead levels. Several model specifications provided almost equally
good predictions of the blood lead distribution, and further studies are
needed before a single specification can be recommended.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the following individuals who

helped in providing technical support and guidance in the development of
the UBK model: Terry Harvey, Lester Grant and Cynthia Sonich-Mullin,
U.S. EPA. The authors are also grateful to Bette Zwayer for the
preparation of this manuscript and to Judith Olsen for editorial review.
REFERENCES
ATSDR/U.S. EPA, 1988, "Toxicological Profile for Lead," Draft for Public
Comment. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Public
Health Service, Atlanta, GA, in collaboration with U.S. EPA.
ATSDR, 1988, "The Nature and Extent of Lead Poisoning in Children in the
United States: A Report to Congress," U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S.
Public Health Service, Atlanta, GA.
Bellinger, D., Leviton, A., Waternaux, C., Needleman, H., and

Rabinowitz, M., 1989, "Low-Level Lead Exposure, Social Class, and Infant
Development," Neurotoxicolouv and Teratoloov, Vol. 10, pp 497-503.
Barltrop, D., Strehlow, C. D., Thorton, I. and Webb, J. S., 1975,

"Absorption of Lead from Dust and Soil," Posturaduate Medical Journal,
Vol. 51, pp 801-804.
Bornschein, R. L., Grote, J., Mitchell, T., 1989, "Effects of Prenatal

Lead Exposure on Infant Size at Birth," Lead Exposure and Child
Development: An International Assessment, M.A. Smith, L.D. Grant and
A.I. Sors, Ed. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Lancaster, United Kingdom,
pp 307-319.
Bornschein, R.L., Clark, C.S., Pan, U.W., and Succop, P.A., 1990,
"Midvale Community Lead Study," Dept. of Environmental Health,
University of Cincinnati Medical Center.
Davis, J. M. and Svendsgaard, D. J., 1987, "Lead and Child Development,"

Nature tLondon}, Vol. 329, pp 297-300.
Davis, J. M., 1990, "Risk Assessment of the Developmental Neurotoxicity

of Lead," NeurotoxicoloqT, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp 285-291.
DeRosa, C. T., Choudhury, H., and Peirano, W. B., 1991, "An Integrated
Exposure/Pharmacokinetic Based Approach to the Assessment of Complex
Exposures. Lead: A Case Study," Toxicoloov and Industrial Health, Vol.
7, No. 4, pp 231-248.
Harley, N. H. and Kneip, T. H., 1985, "An Integrated Metabolic Model for
Lead in Humans of All Ages," Final report to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Contract No. B44899. Office of Air Quality, Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, January.
Marcus, A. H., 1985, "Multicompartment Kinetic Model for Lead. III.

Lead in Blood Plasma and Erythrocytes," Environmental Research, Vol. 36,
pp 473-489.
Marcus, A. H., 1991, "Inter-Site Comparisons of Environmental Lead

Uptake," Report from Battelle Columbus Laboratory to U.S. EPA, Office of
Toxic Substances, Report No. 68-D-8-0115.
McMichael, A. J., Vimpani, G. V., Robertson, E. F., Baghurst, P. A. and

Clark, P. D., 1986, "The Port Pirie Cohort Study: Maternal Blood Lead
and Pregnancy Outcome," Journal of Epidemioloq7 and Communit 7 Health,
Vol. 40, pp 18-25.
Needleman, H. L., Sche11, A., Bellinger, D., Leviton, A. and Allred, E.,
1990, "The Long-Term Effects of Low Doses of Lead in childhood: An
11-Year Follow-Up Report," New Enqland Journal of Medicine, Vol. 322,
No. 2, pp 83-88.
Shukla, R., Bornschein, R. L., Dietrich, K. N., 1989, "Fetal and Infant
Lead Exposure: Effects on Growth in Stature," pediatrics, Vol. 84, pp
604-612.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1986, "Air Quality Criteria

for Lead. June, 1986 and Addendum, September, 1986," Office of Research
and Development, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Research Triangle Park,
NC. EPA 600/8-83-028AF, BF, CF, DF. EPA/602/8-83/028A.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1987, "Interim Guidelines

for Development of Inhalation Reference Doses," Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office,
Cincinnati, OH; Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA 600/8-88/066.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1989, "Review of the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead: Exposure Analysis
Methodology and Validation," Final Draft. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1990, "Air Quality Criteria

for Lead: Supplement to the 1986 Addendum," Office of Research and
Development, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Research Triangle Park,
NC. EPA 600/8-89/049F.
Xu, G. B. and Yu, C. P., 1986, "Effects of Age on Deposition of Inhaled

Aerosols in the Human Lung," Aerosol Science Technoloq 7, Vol. 5, pp
349-357.
Mitchell J. Small I
A PC-EXECUTABLE PROGRAM FOR RISK CHARACTERIZATION EVALUATIONS OF

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTANTS
REFERENCE: Small, M. J . , "A PC-Executable Program for Risk

Characterization Evaluations of Environmental Pollutants,"
Supe~fund Risk Assessment in Soil Contamination Studies.
ASTM STP 1158. Kelth B. Hoddinott, Editor, American Society
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1992.
ABSTRACT: The U.S. Army Biomedical Research and Development

Laboratory has been involved in site cleanup assessment problems
since 1974, predating the passage of Superfund legislation. The
approaches developed in the last 15 years have been adapted into a
software package, the Pollutant Hazard Assessment System (PHAS20).
PHAS20 conforms with regulatory guidance concerning baseline health
assessments and is intended to assist decision makers through the
various steps of a baseline assessment or similar risk assessment
exercise. PHAS20 includes selected chemical property estimation
methods and closed-form transport/transfer models to provide data
inputs when reported or experimental data sources are not available.
ReSults appear in a format that enhances integration of environmental
biota effect considerations into the public health assessment
process.
KEYWORDS: baseline assessments, public health, biota effects,

computer programs, remedial action.
The baseline assessment, an integral part of the remedial

investigation process, estimates the potential hazard of a waste site
to humans and indigenous biota. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) has issued guidance for such assessments with respect
to human health (USEPA 1986), which was subsequently updated (USEPA
1989a). However, risk assessment analyses of waste sites preceded
IResearch Engineer, US Army Biomedical Research and Development

Laboratory, Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD 21702-5010
guidance by several years, and in that period, other innovative

assessment procedures were developed. In one case, in 1974, the U.S.
Army Biomedical Research and Development Laboratory was tasked to
provide health-effects related information about contaminants either
known or suspected of being in soil and groundwater at Rocky Mountain
Arsenal, CO (Rosenblatt et al. 1975). A complementary approach was
developed to determine safe residual levels of pollutants in soil or
water from a public health viewpoint assuming that the arsenal was
fully demilltarized. This approach, with improvements, became known
as the Preliminary Pollutant Limit Value (PPLV) approach, and was
used to address problems at several military sites (Small 1988).
This approach was adapted for personal computer use as the
Pollutant Hazard Assessment System (PHAS). PHAS was first reported
in 1989 (Small 1989), and has undergone an extensive revision (Small
1991). PHAS was designed as a small-scale "user-frlendly" system
that could be used on most microcomputers. It features menu-driven
procedures, prompted responses which are monitored for logical or
semantic errors, and a considerable volume of on-line scientific and
operational guidance. This paper describes the conceptual algorithms
of the current version, PHAS20, in terms of the general assessment
problem (of which the baseline assessment is a special case), and
hlghlights features of the system of prime interest to prospective
users.
RELATIONSHIP OF PUBLIC HEALTH ALGORITHMS: USEPA GUIDANCE AND PHAS20
While the Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS)

document (USEPA 1989a) and PHAS20 were developed by different groups,
the algorlthms are readily comparable. The USEPA algorithm
determines a hazard index (HI) for a pollutant at a waste site. The
index is specific to a particular set of pathways, each of which
describes a route of pollutant exposure to humans, and in the
aggregate are called a scenario. The algorithm compares a "RAGS
intake", evaluated at a specific pollutant concentration, to a design
dose for which HI is unity. The design dose drives the public health
assessment. For better-known pollutants, the USEPA provides design
dose values (better known as reference doses). The reference dose
and "RAGS intake" (which the author will keep in parentheses) have
the same units (in SI units, kg pollutant/kg body weight-day).
For this discussion, assume that soil is the repository for a
pollutant. From remedial investigation efforts, a representative
pollutant concentration (CR) is obtained (in SI units, kg pollutant
per kg soil). For each pathway, a "RAGS intake" equatlon is
developed. Each equation has the general form:
"RA6S - Consumptionor ingestion x Transfer factors x Time x Soil (1)

Intake" rate of instant dose item from Soil to the adjustment concentration
instant dose item factors
The "instant dose item" is the substance that a person actually

encounters, such as pbtable water, some type of food, or air. This
item is consumed or ingested at some mass/day (or volume/day) per kg
of body weight. The second term relates the poilutant concentration
SMALL ON A PC-EXECUTABLE PROGRAM 207
in soil to that in the instant dose. For example, if contaminated

milk was the instant item, factors would express the relation between
pollutant concentration in soil and that in milk. In s o m e cases,
this relation can be accounted for by a partition coefficient. In
other cases, a model treatment may be required along with or in place
of partition coefficients. Time adjustment factors are used to
reconcile scenario conditions with design dose conditions. For
example, a design dose may be based on daily exposure over a
lifetime, while the scenario involves 20-year exposure for 5
days/week.
Figure la displays curves of "RAGS intake" equations for
"Pathway I" and "Pathway 2". A hypothetical scenario, based on these
pathways, has a corresponding curve which is the sum of pathway
equations. From the scenario equation, HI is computed for CR.
PHAS20 converts the design dose to a limiting intake (SI units
of kg pollutant per day). The conversion is:
Limiting Intake - design dose x body weight
PHAS20 pathway exposure assessment equations are expressed on a

pollutant intake per unit pollutant concentration basis. For soil,
the SI units are kg soil/day. The "RAGS intake" equations can be
readily transformed to a pollutant intake per unit concentration
basis by multiplying intake dose by body weight and dividing the
product by concentration in soil.
Figure lb displays the curves of PHAS20 pathway exposure
assessment equations and of the scenario for the previous
hypothetical situation. The scenario intake per unit pollutant
concentration (SIU) is the ordinate corresponding to the scenario
intake curve evaluated at unit concentration. The PPLV is then
defined:
PPLV = Limiting intake / SIU
The PPLV is the pollutant concentration corresponding to HI - I .

Note that the PHAS20 algorithm does not use CR as explicit input.
However, with the PPLV known, the hazard index corresponding to CR is
HI = CR / PPLV
The above treatment assumes that a linear relation exists

between intake (or dose) and concentration. In terms of factors
presented in equation I, this assumption means that the term
"transfer factors from soil to the instant item" is invariant over
the concentration range that includes unit concentration, CR, and
PPLV. For many substances, this assumption is implicitly made in
assessments, so the limitation is not severe.
HI at CR=
"RAGS Intake" at CR o,.,,n.ri o
~v-Design Dose Design Dose s "~ " " = =
s ~
"RAGS Intake" at CR .- s . . . .
- - - - ~ v'amway z
i / ~ ~PathwayI
CR
CS, Pollutant Concentration in Soil (kg/kg)
a. RAGS Algorithm
HI at CR= C R " PPLV

Scenario
-~-Limiting Intake s "~
s "~ ~ Pathway2I
SIU
1 CR PPLV
CS, Pollutant Concentration in Soil (kg/kg)
b. PHAS20 Algorithm
FIG. l--Comparison of USAEPA Superfund (RAGS) and PHAS20 public

health assessment algorithms to compute a hazard index.
PHAS20 PROGRAM STRUCTURE
Fisure 2 is a schematic of PHAS20 structure. The program

OPEN20 is the entry to and exit from PHAS20. With the exception of
"satellite programs", OPEN20 accesses all other programs in the
system and is entered to transfer from one program to another.
External Files
PHAS20 programs process three types of external files that

respectively contain scenario information (.PXX files), non-chemical
data (.LDS files), and chemical-related data (.DAT files). With
PHAS20, these files can be created, stored, and recalled for
modification or use.
.PXX files store two numeric index lists. The first list keeps
track of pathways involved in a given scenario. The second list
codes the role of data in PHAS20 calculations, and is referred to as
the Data Use Status Table (DUST). The specific extension names will
differ based on the source environmental medium for the pollutant.
PHAS20 processes three media -- water, soil, and sediment, and the
respective extensions are .PWA, .PTS, and .PSD.
.LDS files contain non-chemical data inputs to an assessment.
Typical information includes human and livestock consumption factors,
site soil parameters, watershed descriptors, and non-chemical model
parameters for transfers between soil, water, and air. These files
also contain air dispersion model results.
r- . . . . . . . . . . . . .
"PlanetPs~gram" [ 1
"*SatelliteProgram"
External
File
9
RepoN
Two-way
D-7
Transferof ~
Online data
Oae-wiy
Transferof -~
online dais
One-w~
Transferof -- -4~
dust
Public llesltll PAS
A~ms~nenls
FIG. 2--PHAS20 system structure and program-files relationship.
.DAT files contain the chemical-related d a t a i n p u t s t o an

assessment. Typical information includes design doses,
physico-chemical p r o p e r t i e s u s e d to e s t i m a t e inputs to intake
equations, partition coefficients, soil to air or to water transfer
m o d e l o u t p u t d a t a , as w e l l as b i o t a l i m i t s t o c o n s t r a i n t analyses.
pro6ram Functions
To follow program function, the assessment p r o c e s s is t r e a t e d

as a f o u r - s t e p a c t i v i t y . For each activity, the PHAS20 functions and
output from the system are discussed.
S t e p I -- D e f i n e a s c e n a r i o of i n t a k e p a t h w a y s t o a c c o u n t f o r
reasonable r o u t e s of e x p o s u r e f r o m the polluted environmental medium
to people.
In P H A S 2 0 , t h e u s e r s e l e c t s pathways from a repertoire in t h e
program PATWAY20. These pathways a r e l i s t e d in T a b l e I. After the
u s e r h a s m a d e a s e l e c t i o n , he c a n obtain a "blueprint" of input
factors required for the scenario assessment. The "blueprint" also
TABLE 1 - - P a t h w a y s a v a i l a b l e for analysts in PHAS20
PATHWAY DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIUM

(Routes shown in parentheses) Water Topsoll Sediment
Domestic water use, surface water supply. Yes Yes Yes

(constuned water alone or wlth either or both
inhaled vapor intake and dermal absorption)
Water recreation (ingested water alone or Yes Yes Yes

with either or both inhaled vapor intake and
dermal absorption)
Fish consumptlon Yes Yes Yes
Vegetable consumption Yes Yes ---
Beef or milk consumption

(water, or water and plant) a Yes ......
(plant alone, plant and soll, or plant, soll
and water) a Yes ......
Dust Intake in vlclnlty of on-slte residence --- Yes ---
Dust intake at an on-slte work setting --- Yes ---
Inhaled pollutant In house from vapors --- Yes ---

diffused from soll
Inhaled pollutant at on-slte location from --- Yes ---

vapors diffused from soll
Off-slte exposure to alr-borne pollutant --- Yes ---

(pollutant vapor diffused from soil and In
partlcles)
Domestic water use, groundwater supply. --- Yes ---

(Ingested water alone or with either or both
Inhaled vapor intake end dermal absorption)
a. R e f e r e n c e i s t o e x p o s u r e r o u t e s t o t h e s t e e r o r cow.
S M A L L ON A P C - E X E C U T A B L E P R O G R A M 211
Step 2 -- Collect data for the factors determined necessary for

the assessment analysis. Depending on the specific input, this can
be accomplished by such means as direct measurement, search of the
llterature or onllne database systems, on-site sampling, estimation
by correlation equations or performance of transport/transfer models.
FHAS20 broadly divides input factors into non-chemlcal and
chemlcal-related categories. In the case of model results (see the
Model Treatment section), any input factor requiring data from both
categories is considered chemical-related. Factors are entered into
database files in the programs NOCHFL20 and CHMFIL20. The DUST from
a .PXX file manages the presentation of factors in these programs.
NOCHFL20 allows users to input relevant non-chemical related data and
documentation. Closed-form air dispersion models are included in
NOCHFL20. CHMFIL20 allows users to input relevant chemical-related
data and documentation.
While in CHMFIL20, users can access the routines in program
CRDES20 for estimation of data and selected transfer models outputs.
CRDES20 can also be accessed from OPEN20 for estimation methods
routines in the "desk calculator" mode; in this case, the user
selects routines from a menu presentation (Figure 3).
*****s.s.tt. WELCOME TO THE CHEMICAL PROPERTIES ESTIMATION MODULE m * * m * * m s S * i l l
****.I. CRDES2B SELECTION MENU OF DATA DESCRIBED AND ESTIMATED * . * * i . i *

The c h e m i c a l - r e l a t e d d a t a s e l e c t e d may r e q u i r e d a t a I n p u t s w h i c h h a v e t o be
estimated. Consult the user's guide. [D] Indicates description only.
8 indicates selection of one specific datum In e s t i m a t i o n module.
g . QUIT W/O a n y s e l e c t i o n 17. PC ( d e r m a l p e r m . c o n s t . )
1. DTo and DTos ( t o x i c i t y limits) [D] 18. BCF ( f i s h bloconc, factor)
2 . DTI and DTd ( t o x i c i t y limits) [D] 19. Kwv ( w a t e r - > v e g e t a b l e D.c.)
3. MW (molecular w e l g h ~ ) [ D ~ 2 ~ . Kwp ( w a t e r - > f o r a g e plant P.o.)
4 . Tm ( m e l t i n g point)[D] 2 1 . Kpm ( f o r a g e p l a n t - > m e a t p.c.)
5 . Tb ( b o i l i n g point) 2 2 . Kpd ( f o r a g e p l a n t - > m i l k D.c.)
6 . LogP ( o c t a n o I - w a t e r D.C.)[D] 2 3 . Kd (sotl->water D.C.) I
7 . Wsol ( w a t e r s o l u b i l i t y ) 2 4 . MKrol o r MKro2 (model s o i l - >
8 . VP ( S a t u r a t i o n vapor pressure) surface water p.c,)*
9 . Koc ( O C - > w a t e r P . C . ) 2 5 . MKdb ( e o l l - > b a e e m e n t flux D.c.)
I g . Ksv ( S o l l - > v e g e t a b l e p.c.) o r MKdo ( s o l l - > o n e l t e flux D.c.)*
11. KSD ( S o l l - > p l a n t ( f o r a g e ) D.c.) 2 8 . MKgw ( s o l l - > g r o u n d w a t e r D.c.)
12. R e f e r e n c e f o c f o r K s v & KSD [ D ] 2 7 . MKdw ( s e d l m e n t - > w a t e r flux p.o.)
13. K p a t ( p l a n t - > a d i p o s e tissue D.C.) 28. Organoleptlc constraint [D]
14. De ( m o l e c u l a r dlffuslvlty In atr) 29. Aquatic toxicity COnStraint [D]
15. Ow ( m o l e c u l a r dlffuslvity Jn w a t e r ) 3 g . P h o t o t o x i c constraint [D]
16. Kh ( H e n r y ' s Law c o n s t a n t ) 31. Livestock toxicity constraint [D]
I n p u t t h e number o f y o u r s e l e c t i o n :
FIG. 3--CRDES20 selection menu
Step 3 -- Develop equations for scenario pathways that relate

the pollutant intake by exposed persons to the pollutant
concentration in the environmental medium of concern. Solve the
equations and make the necessary comparisons (in terms of USEPA
guidance, the "RAGS intake" corresponding to CR is compared to the
design dose; while in PHAS20, CR is compared to the PPLV).
PHAS20 intake equations are in the p r o g r a m COMPUT20. The first

numeric index list from a .PXX file determines the specific equations
to be employed, w h i c h are e v a l u a t e d w i t h intake factor data from .LDS
and .DAT files. The program then provides a summary public health
assessment, as shown in Fisure 4. A hardcopy report of the input
factor data can be obtained by routines c o n t a i n e d in p r o g r a m OPEN20.
*-=*,,=.*-..., HUMAN TARGET SELECTION e , e e * * * * B * = . . * =
Input 'I' for adult-based analysis
Input '2' for chlld-based analysis
I n p u t ' 3 ' t o do b o t h a n a l y s e s : I
Scenarlo is... Sample p r o b l e m d e s c r l b e d In T e c h n i c a l R e p o r t l U s e r ' s Manual
Medium b e i n g a n a l y z e d I s . . . S u r f a c e and n e a r - s u r f a c e soll
Non-chemical data file title is...
Default file for starting new .LDS f i l e . Check u s e r ' s g u i d e f o r p a r a m e t e r v a l u e
derivation.
Scensrlo pathways are...
PATHWAY 8 consume c o n t a m i n a t e d v e g a . grown a t d e s i g n a t e d s u b s l t e (1 o r 2)
PATHWAY 9 consume b e e f , l i v e s t o c k g r a z e s on f o r a g e grown a t d e s i g n a t e d
subslte(t or 2). A l l o w a n c e I s made f o r l i v e s t o c k I n g e s t i o n o f s o i l and f o r
I v e s t o c k w a t e r i n g on s u r f a c e s u p p l y w h i c h g e t s c o n t . r u n o f f f r o m s u b - s i t e .
PATHWAY t l e x p o s u r e t o d i r t at residence (oral, dermal, respired)
PATHWAY t 3 e x p o s u r e t o v a p o r s d i f f u s i n g from soil In v i c i n i t y of house.
E x p o s u r e assumed t o be p r i m a r i l y caused by i n h a l a t i o n Of v a p o r s In b a s e m e n t .
~stlssBsses=s
Hit enter (return) to continue ....
ANALYSIS FOR ADULTS: INTAKE CRITERION IS . . . . 21 mg/day
* * * = = = * * = = , = = , = = s ASSESSMENT COMPUTATIONS = = * = * * = * * ' * = = = = =

SUBSTANCE NAME IS
RDX o r c y c l o t r l m e t h y l e n e trlnltramlne. CAS 1 2 1 - 8 2 - 4 . h i g h e x p l o s i v e
PATH NUMBER UNIT INTAKE MEDIUM C O N C L I M I T INTAKE
mg/day per AT L I M I T INTAKE mg/day a t L i m i t Conc.
mglkg mglkg
e 8 1.264E+~ 1.662E-~1 2.O82E-OI
e 9 3.615E-~3 5.81~E+~1 5.956E-O4
II 7.~45E-B3 2.gS1E+B1 1.161E-~3
13 1.743E-QS 1.2BSE+B5 2.873E-~7
PPLV" IS 1.848E-~1 mg/kg

Hazard Index per unit concentration Is 6.B69161
PUBLIC HEALTH L I M I T INTAKE ( r e f e r e n c e d o s e x body w e i g h t ) Is .21 m g / d a y
* PPLV I s medium c o n e f o r w h i c h I n t a k e i s A O I .
***=*'==" OPTIONS = * * * * * = * * , s
Vegetable Intake pathway computed for subslte el
Meat o r m i l k I n t a k e p a t h w a y s c o m p u t e d f o r s u b s l t e e2
FIG. 4--Sample PHAS20 public health assessment report
Step 4 -- Determine if ecological biota p r o t e c t i o n limits might

be more restrictive than public health limits. The assessment in the
previous steps had been directed to human exposure. There is no
assurance that a limiting c o n c e n t r a t i o n based upon public h e a l t h
considerations, if adopted as a remediation tarEet, would be
s u f f i c i e n t l y stringent to protect against e c o s y s t e m damage. For this
reason, environmental risk assessments are required, for w h i c h
general guidance was issued by U S E P A (1989b).
The PHAS20 p r o g r a m CONSTR20 compares the PPLV from the public
h e a l t h assessment to other biota limits, either directly or after
biota limits are adjusted to a concentration basis. These biota
limits are p r o c e s s e d as c h e m i c a l - r e l a t e d input factors, such as
toxicity to fish or a sensitive aquatic species, phytotoxicity, or
toxicity to land animals. The comparisons are central to the
constraint assessment explained in the "PHAS20 Applications" section.
MODELS
Models are frequently employed to estimate the concentration

of pollutant in one medium based on that in another when a pollutant
is transferred from its initial repository to the instant dose item.
Some of these models include both non-chemical data (for example, in
a groundwater dispersion model, dispersion and porosity data
describing the aquifer), and chemical-related data (in the above
model, a retardation factor).
PHAS20 has limited provision for models. They are treated as
"super" partition coefficients. CRDES20 provides estimation methods
to provide model results with closed-form, relatively simple,
relations. If the user employs a more sophisticated model, the
calculation can be performed externally, and the model result
inserted as an input factor in PHAS20. As a cue, the factor symbols
are prefixed with an "M", as shown in the Figure 3 selection menu.
The model situations accommodated in the estimation program CRDES20
are listed below; the factor symbol is shown first:
I. MKro, runoff from soil to surface waterway (SI units of

kg/kg in soil per kg/m 3 in receptor surface water). Two estimation
methods are provided in CRDES20. The first method accounts for
dilution by site runoff water from uncontaminated watershed, where
the runoff is in equilibrium with pollutant in soil. The second
method involves use of the USLE-Haith equation (USEPA 1988).
2. MKdb and MKdo, diffusion from soil to basement-air or
topsoil-air interface respectively (SI units of kg/kg soil per
kg/m2-day). CRDES20 has the time averased diffusion flux equation
suggested by USEPA (USEPA 1988).
3. MKgw, the nominal partitioning of pollutant to groundwater
(SI units of kE/kg soil per kg/m3). CRDES20 uses a model based on
infiltration throush a contaminated region in which infiltrate
attains equilibrium with pollutant in soil. The infiltrate is
subsequently diluted by groundwater in the aquifer that flows beneath
the contaminated region.
4. MKdw, the diffusion from sediment to the sediment-water
interface (SI units of kg/kg sediment per kg/m2-day). CRDES20
employs a time averaged diffusion flux equation.
Air-dispersion models are included for situations where

pollutant from soil is transported in air, either in vapor form or
included in particulates. As indicated previously, these model
equations appear in NOCHFL20, the non-chemical data processin 8
program.
Three additional models are "hard-wired" into PHAS20 intake
equations. The first is an approach proposed by McKone (1987) to
estimate inhalation of pollutant from either potable water or water
in a recreational setting. The second model processes dermal
absorption of pollutant from water as a steady-state process. The
last model processes dermal absorption of pollutant from deposited
soil. A soil-water partitioning approach is used.
PHAS20 APPLICATIONS
Remedial Investi6ation Plannin~ and Performance
PHAS20 is most useful at the start of a remedial investigation

exercise. It can resolve questions of analysis sensitivity; clearly
problems can occur in credibility if an analytical m e t h o d cannot
detect the FPLV concentration. Accordingly, the PFLV can serve as a
rationale for selection of an analytical methodology. The public
h e a l t h assessment report (Figure 4) can serve to identify pathways
for close scrutiny, w h i c h would be those w i t h the highest unit
intake. Alternatively, the report can identify pathways that are
expected to be relatively unimportant. The PHAS20 blueprint
indicates possible input factor needs for the exposure assessment.
These factors include data employed in p a t h w a y or route intake
equations, as well as factors used e x c l u s i v e l y for e s t i m a t i o n
purposes. While every identified factor may not be n e c e s s a r y for the
investigation, the planner is aware of the input requirements for
different estimation options that are available for use w i t h i n
PHAS20. The constraint analyses provide "red flags" that the user
may want to address in depth as part of an environmental risk
assessment.
Visualization of Public H e a l t h Data
The PPLV, as a concentration analog to the hazard index, is

useful for showing the public health impact of soil c o n c e n t r a t i o n
data. Figure 5 shows an example for a site w i t h two contaminants;
the c o n c e n t r a t i o n of each contaminant can be thought of as a
d i m e n s i o n in a mathematical space. The PPLVs (points "A" and "B")
are located on the axes. If the c o n t a m i n a n t s have additive effects
(an a s s u m p t i o n made in the absence of knowledge to the contrary), a
line between the PPLVs defines the unit hazard index for the two
substances. Representative concentrations, determined from survey
results, can be viewed as points in the c o n c e n t r a t i o n space. If a
point is "inside" the boundary, such as point "C' in Figure 5, the
hazard index corresponding to point "C" is less than I.
Inte6ration of Public Health and Ecological Endpoint Effects
PHAS20 allows the user to compare the p u b l i c - h e a l t h impact of

p o l l u t a n t s to the environmental risk assessment in terms of the
c o n c e n t r a t i o n space discussed above. This is an advantage over U S E P A
suggested methodology, w h i c h does not directly link public health
impacts and environmental impacts. This is due to a units mismatch;
public h e a l t h impacts are expressed in dose units while ecological
impacts are expressed in concentration units. Figure 5 shows a
simple PHAS20 analysis example. The c r i t e r i o n for a hypothetical
ecological effect of "Substance A" appears as the vertical line
through points "D" and "E". If there were some adverse environmental
effect of "Substance B", it would appear as a horizontal line. In
PHAS20 terminology, if line D-E transects the t r i a n g u l a r area O-A-B,
a type I constraint situation exists; the biota c r i t e r i o n may dictate
T
pB
@
r
c
PPLV
for ~- -- - - Biota-limit d a t u m
Hazard I n d e x >1
J~
IIl~'~
-i
U~
c
O
o Area O - B - E - D
' u ....
,or
criteria. I " " A
O D A
Conc. S u b s t a n c e "A"
FIG. 5--Integrated view of PPLV and environmental biota constraints.
the extent to which remediation is necessary. This situation is

shown in Figure 5, where only the area O-B-E-D meets the two
conditions that the hazard index is less than I and the concentration
of substance "A" is less than D.
More complex cases could be advanced, such as a situation where

adverse aquatic effects occur with either substance. If the
substances' effects were additive, a line connecting the values on
each axis could be constructed. Then, the Type I constraint
condition occurs if that line intersects the triangular area O-A-B.
HARDWARE NOTES
PHAS20 operates on computer systems with 640K capacity. It

operates with conventional BASIC program interpreters under control
of conventional disk operating systems. PHAS20 is designed to
operate with several different storage device confiEurations. It can
be operated on stand-alone systems with either two floppy disk drives
or a hard disk drive and external disk drive (floppy disk or
diskette), and can be easily installed on a local area network. Any
monitor may be used. A line-printer should be provided.
The user's manual (Small 1991) is available from the Defense

Technical Information Center. The author will provide software upon
request as well as any updated documentation. Software can be placed
on user-provided devices (either one high-density floppy disk or
diskette or on two double-density floppy disks).
DISCLAIMERS
The views, opinions, and/or findings contained in this chapter

are those of the author and should not be construed as official
Department of the Army position, policy, or decision, unless so
designated by other official documentation.
REFERENCES
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1986, Superfund Public

Health Evaluation Manual, EPA 540/I-86/060, Washington, DC.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1989a, Risk Assessment

Guidance for Superfund. Volume I. Human Health Evaluation Manual
(Part A) Interim Final, EPA 5&0/I-89/002, Washington, DC.
Rosenblatt, D.H., Muul, I., Miller, T.A., Cogley, D.R. and Dacre,
J.C., 1975, Problem Definition Studies on Potential
Environmental Pollutants. I. Toxicology and Ecolo6ical Hazards
of 16 Substances at Rocky Mountain Arsenal., Defense Technical
Information Center Document AD-AI50767, USAMBRDL TR7508, Fort
Detrick, Frederick, MD.
Small, M.J., 1988, The Preliminary Pollutant Limit Value Approach:

Manual for Users t Defense Technical Information Center Document
AD-A206976, USABRDL TR8918, Fort Derrick, Frederick, MD.
Small, M.J., 1989, The Pollution Hazard Assessment System:

Documentation and Users Manual, Defense Technical Information
Center Document AD-A217108, USABRDL TR9003, Fort Derrick,
Frederick, MD.
Small, M.J., 1991, The Pollution Hazard Assessment System Version 20:
Documentation and Users Manual., Defense Technical Information
Center Document AD-A236439, USABRDL TRPI04, Fort Detrick,
Frederick, MD
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1989b, Risk Assessment

Guidance for Superfund. Volume II. Environmental Evaluation
Manual Interim Final, EPA 540/I-89-001, Washington, D.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1988, Superfund

Exposure Assessment Manual, EPA 540/I-88/001, Washington, DC.
McKone, T.E., 1987, "Human exposure to volatile organic compounds in

tap water: the indoor inhalation pathway.", Environmental
Science and Technolosy , Vol 21, No. 12, pp 1194-1201.
Richard A. Moore I
ASSESSMENT OF HEALTH RISK FROM WASTES IN THREE SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
REFERENCE: Moore, R. A , "Assessment of Health Risk from Wastes

In Three Surface Impoundments," Superfund Risk Assessment in Soil
Contamination Studies. ASTM STP 1158. K e i t h B. Hoddinott, Editor,
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1992.
R~$TRACTz A quantitative risk assessment was performed to estimate the

potential for adverse health effects due to contaminants originating
from wastes in three surface impoundments. A hypothetical exposure
scenario was developed to assess potential risk. The scenario assumed
chronic exposure to contaminants by daily consumption of groundwater
from wells adjacent, and downgradient from the impoundments.
Assumptions included future residential land use, utilization of
shallow groundwater as a source of potable water, and steady-state
conditions. These assumptions produced maximum exposure conditions and
a conservative estimate of risk.
Methods follow Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance
for Superfund sites. Toxicity data were obtained from the EPA's
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and Health Effects Assessment
Summary Tables (HEAST). Noncarcinogenic risk was expressed by
comparing the reference dose (RfD) for chemicals of concern to
estimated intakes. Carcinogenic risk was expressed as the probability
of an individual developing cancer during a lifetime of exposure at the
specified dose. Uncertainties associated with the risk assessment are
presented and discussed.
KEYWORDSz risk assessment, site characterization, remedial

investigation, feasibility study, nitrates in groundwater, fluoride in
groundwater
INTRODUCTION
This assessment provides a quantitative estimate of the

potential for adverse health effects due to contaminants originating
from wastes in three settling basins at a nuclear fuel production
facility. The settling basins (i.e., impoundments) are being
decommissioned pursuant to regulatory requirements of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
and the State of Tennessee. The assessment was performed in January
and February 1990 at the request of the Tennessee Department of
Environment and Conservation (TDEC) and was intended to supplement the
Decommissioning Plan for waste removal and impoundments closure [!]-
IProject Manager, EcoTek, Inc., 1219 Banner Hill Road, Erwin, TN

37650.
Overview
The surface impoundments were used from 1957 to 1978 to retain

process waste streams generated from operations associated with the
production of nuclear fuels. The three impoundments contain
approximately 86,000 ft 3 of radioactive Low Specific Activity (LSA)
material. Isotopes of uranium and thorium are the predominant
contaminants in this material.
The potential for exposure to residual radioactive material from
the impoundments was evaluated in a radiological risk assessment
completed in November 1989 [2]. The information presented herein
complements the radiological risk assessment and provides a basis for
determining the disposition of residual nonradiological contaminants.
Scope and Objectives
The scope of the risk assessment specifically examined

nonradiological contaminants potentially originating from wastes in the
three surface impoundments. The exposure scenario assessed chronic
ingestion of drinking water by the groundwater pathway. Objectives of
the risk assessment are listed below:
i. Evaluate available data to identify nonradiological

contaminants present in the environment due to wastes in the three
impoundments.
2. Determine whether identified contaminants warrant
quantitative risk characterization based on their concentration,
frequency of detection, and health hazard.
3. Identify potential effects to human health caused by
exposure to contaminants.
4. Identify the quantitative relationship between the amount of
exposure to contaminants and the resulting effect on human health.
5. Determine the degree of exposure to contaminants due to
ingestion of groundwater from wells adjacent, and downgradient from the
impoundments.
6. Based on current site conditions, provide a quantitative
estimate of risk due to consumption of groundwater from wells adjacent,
and downgradient from the impoundments.
NE'I'HODS
Methods for conducting this assessment followed EPA guidance for

Superfund sites [3]. EPA guidance is designed to provide an approach
that is generally applicable to all sites; therefore, components of the
EPA approach were selected that provided the level of detail needed to
accomplish the objectives of this study.
Identification of Chemicals of Potential Concern
For the purpose of this assessment, chemicals of-potential

concern were defined as nonradiological contaminants present in the
environment due to the impoundments. The identification process
involved a thorough evaluation of analytical data compiled from
impoundment waste, soil, surface water, and groundwater sampling
programs. Factors considered in listing a substance as a chemical of
concern included concentration, toxicity, frequency of detection, and
potential to appear as a transformation product. For instance, calcium
is a contaminant identified as originating from the impoundments but
was not listed because it is an essential human nutrient with low
toxicity. Also, vinyl chloride was not detected in wastes but was
included in the assessment due to the potential for biological
transformation of tetrachloroethene (PCE), trichloroethene (TCE), and
dichloroethene (DCE).
M O O R E ON A S S E S S M E N T OF HEALTH RISK FROM WASTES 219
Exposure Assessment
The exposure assessment consisted of characterizing the site

location and potentially exposed populations, describing the exposure
scenario, and quantifying the reasonable maximum exposure. Due to the
absence of an exposed population, a hypothetical exposure scenario was
developed to assess potential risk. The scenario assumes chronic
exposure to contaminants by daily consumption of groundwater from wells
adjacent, and downgradient from the impoundments. Other assumptions of
the scenario are future residential land use, utilization of shallow
groundwater as a source of potable water, and steady-state
concentrations of contaminants present in groundwater. These
assumptions result in maximum exposure conditions and conservative
estimates of risk.
Data evaluation--Mean concentrations of contaminants in

groundwater were determined by combining analytical results from
impoundment area monitoring wells (Figure 1). This approach was used
to compensate for the lack of a sufficient number of data points from
individual wells to perform statistical analysis. This is a valid
approach based on the assumption that a hypothetical water supply well
could draw groundwater from any or all points represented by existing
monitoring wells. Analytical results from background wells (Wells 52
and 23) were not combined with data from adjacent and downgradient
wells.
The assumption of normally distributed data was necessary to
calculate upper confidence limits for exposure concentrations from
chemicals of concern. Probability plots were used as a visual tool for
determining data distributions. Plots were constructed by ranking
observations in ascending order, computing the cumulative frequency for
each value, and plotting cumulative frequency versus concentration on
probability paper. If data points approximated a straight line, the
underlying distribution was accepted as normal.
PLANT
NORTH
N
1
, I I, l<aIlT, /,
9 MONITORINGWELL
FIGURE 1--Monitoring well locations.
Plots of data that were not normally distributed resulted in a

curved line with a shape characteristic of the lognormal distribution.
In these instances the natural logarithms of observations were plotted
instead of measured concentrations. The hypothesis of lognormality was
assumed valid if results approximated a straight line. Some data
required log-transformation to more closely approximate the normal
distribution. Normal probability plots for fluoride data are provided
to illustrate the lognormal distribution (Figures 2 and 3).
"":-J.~~i~~i~
..............i::.... ......... ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i................................
,~ !~ . .............
........................... ~ .....
U
L
I
.1111i1S T..............................
i................................
i...............................
i.....
5e ..... ~......................... i ............................... ~................................ ! ................................ i ............................... i . . . . .
J
0
1 ......4:........................................................................................................................................................................
e . 1 '"'~i .......................................................................................................................................................................
. . . . . . . . 9 . . . . . . . . . . .
O 2OO 2co 3oe 4oo Gee
fluoride conclntrati=n (mg/L)
FIGURE 2--Normal probability plot of fluoride data.
99.9 ..................................................................................................................................................................... i .....

.!
99
C 9G
II
I
D.
ee
|
se ! .~" i i i
I Re
,,,t
3
E
3 5
U !:
1 ""i." ....................................................................................................................................................................
0.1 "-'§ ......................................................................................................................................................................

I i I i i i i i i i i i i
-1.? 0.3 2.3 4.3 6.3
log (In) =on=entration fluoride (mg/L)
FIGURE 3--Normal probability plot of log-transformed fluoride data.
MOORE ON ASSESSMENT OF HEALTH RISK FROM WASTES 221
E~Dosure concentrations--Exposure e s t i m a t e s w e r e d e r i v e d from

t h e 99% upper c o n f i d e n c e limit c a l c u l a t e d from m e a n c o n t a m i n a n t
c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in impoundment area wells. Upper c o n f i d e n c e limits for
b o t h normal and log-normal data were d e t e r m i n e d by
R + tm.ss.~1)(s)/qn (i)
where
= m e a n c o n c e n t r a t i o n in impoundment area wells,
t = Student's t - v a l u e (n-1 degrees of f r e e d o m and 0.01
s i g n i f i c a n c e level),
s = standard deviation, and
n = n u m b e r of samples.
Q u a n t i f i c a t i o n of e x p o s u r e - - C h r o n i c daily intakes from ingestion

of g r o u n d w a t e r were c a l c u l a t e d for child and adult from e s t i m a t e d
e x p o s u r e c o n c e n t r a t i o n s and standard default factors as follows
Intake (mg/kg/day} = Cw(IR)(EF)(ED)/BW(AT) (2)

where
Cw = chemical c o n c e n t r a t i o n in water, mg/L,
IR = ingestion rate, 1 L/day child, 2 L/day adult,
EF = exposure frequency, 365 days/year,
ED = exposure duration, 70 years,
EW = body weight, 10 kg child, 70 kg adult, and
AT = a v e r a g i n g time, 365 d a y s / y e a r x 70 years.
Toxicity Assessment
T o x i c i t y data were obtained from EPA's I n t e g r a t e d R i s k

I n f o r m a t i o n S y s t e m (IRIS} [!], and H e a l t h Effects A s s e s s m e n t Summary
Tables (HEAST) [5]. IRIS is a computer d a t a base c o n t a i n i n g health
r i s k and r e g u l a t o r y information on specific chemicals. The
q u a n t i t a t i v e toxicity values and s u p p o r t i n g d o c u m e n t a t i o n in IRIS
r e p r e s e n t a consensus o p i n i o n of EPA's R e f e r e n c e Dose W o r k g r o u p or
C a r c i n o g e n R i s k A s s e s s m e n t V e r i f i c a t i o n E n d e a v o r (CRAVE) W o r k g r o u p [6].
IRIS is u p d a t e d m o n t h l y and is the EPA's p r e f e r r e d source of t o x i c i t y
information. Toxicity data not available on IRIS w e r e o b t a i n e d from
HEAST. HEAST is u p d a t e d q u a r t e r l y and is the second most current
source of E P A t o x i c i t y information. In contrast to IRIS, HEAST
p r o v i d e s interim as well as verified h e a l t h effects data.
T o x i c i t y data for n o n c a r c i n o q e n i c e f f e c t s - - Q u a n t i t a t i v e toxicity

values d e v e l o p e d for n o n c a r c i n o g e n i c health effects are b a s e d on
t h r e s h o l d [!]- T h r e s h o l d pertains to the c a p a b i l i t y of humans, or
other organisms, to t o l e r a t e a range of exposure levels to certain
substances w i t h o u t e x p e r i e n c i n g adverse effects. The a p p r o a c h to
e s t a b l i s h i n g a t o x i c i t y value is to identify the u p p e r b o u n d of the
t o l e r a n c e range. The d o s e - r e s p o n s e r e l a t i o n s h i p is d e s c r i b e d in terms
of the "no o b s e r v e d adverse effect level" (NOAEL). The NOAEL is
d e f i n e d as the highest e x p e r i m e n t a l dose at which t h e r e is no
significant increase in frequency or severity of an adverse effect in
an e x p e r i m e n t a l group w h e n compared to a control group [4].
The reference dose (RfD) is an e s t i m a t e of the level of daily
e x p o s u r e to a certain agent that is likely to be w i t h o u t appreciable
r i s k of d e t r i m e n t a l effects during a lifetime [4]. The RfD is
e x p r e s s e d as mg of s u b s t a n c e per kg of b o d y w e i g h t per d a y (mg/kg-day or
mg/kg/day}. It is d e r i v e d from the NOAEL, an u n c e r t a i n t y factor (UF},
and a m o d i f y i n g factor (MF) as follows:
RfD = N O A E L / i U F x MF) (3)

Q u a l i t a t i v e c o n f i d e n c e levels (i.e., high, medium, low} are
a s s i g n e d to RfDs based on the adequacy of the t o x i c i t y d a t a base and
u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the d o s e - r e s p o n s e relationship. H i g h confidence
indicates that t h e RfD is u n l i k e l y to change; low c o n f i d e n c e indicates

that the RfD could change as additional data b e c o m e a v a i l a b l e [!]-
T o x i c i t y data for c a r c i n o q e n i c e f f e c t s - - T h e concept of t h r e s h o l d

levels does not apply to t h e e v a l u a t i o n of r i s k posed by c a r c i n o g e n s
[8]. The m e c h a n i s m for c a r c i n o g e n e s i s is b a s e d on the a s s u m p t i o n that
no level of e x p o s u r e is w i t h o u t some probability, h o w e v e r small, of
g e n e r a t i n g a c a r c i n o g e n i c r e s p o n s e (!]. Therefore, no dose is e n t i r e l y
"risk-free". E P A uses a two-part approach to express r i s k from
e x p o s u r e to carcinogens: a w e i g h t - o f - e v i d e n c e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and a
slope factor. H u m a n studies and l o n g - t e r m animal studies serve as the
p r i m a r y bases for d e t e r m i n i n g the potential c a r c i n o g e n i c i t y of a
s u b s t a n c e in humans. A v a i l a b l e studies are e v a l u a t e d and a w e i g h t - o f -
e v i d e n c e approach is used to c l a s s i f y the l i k e l i h o o d that the agent of
c o n c e r n is a human carcinogen. Each chemical e v a l u a t e d by the E P A is
p l a c e d in one of five categories (Table i).
TABLE I--EPA c a r c i n o g e n classifications.
Group Category
A Human c a r c i n o g e n
B1 P r o b a b l e carcinogen: limited human evidence
B2 P r o b a b l e carcinogen: sufficient evidence in
animals and i n a d e q u a t e or no e v i d e n c e in
humans
C P o s s i b l e human c a r c i n o g e n
D Not c l a s s i f i a b l e as to human c a r c i n o g e n i c i t y
E E v i d e n c e of n o n c a r c i n o g e n i c i t y for humans
Slope factors are c a l c u l a t e d for p o t e n t i a l c a r c i n o g e n s in

classes A, BI, and B2. The slope factor is an u p p e r - b o u n d e s t i m a t e
(usually the upper 95% confidence limit) of the p r o b a b i l i t y of a
r e s p o n s e per unit intake of a chemical over a lifetime [3].
Slope factor = risk per unit dose (4)

= risk per m g / k g / d a y
The p r o b a b i l i t y of an individual developing cancer d u r i n g a

lifetime is e s t i m a t e d from the slope factor by the f o l l o w i n g
Risk = CDI (SF) (5)

where
Risk = p r o b a b i l i t y of d e v e l o p i n g cancer,
CDI = chronic daily intake, mg/kg/day, and
SF slope factor, (mg/kg/day) "I.
Risk C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n
Data g e n e r a t e d from the exposure and t o x i c i t y assessments were

i n t e g r a t e d and e x p r e s s e d as q u a n t i t a t i v e and q u a l i t a t i v e e s t i m a t e s of
risk. N o n c a r c i n o g e n i c risk is e x p r e s s e d by c o m p a r i n g the RfD for
chemicals of concern to e s t i m a t e d intakes for child and adult. Intakes
less than the RfD are not likely to result in adverse h e a l t h effects,
even in s e n s i t i v e subgroups of human populations, and are t h e r e f o r e
less likely to be of regulatory concern [Z]. C a r c i n o g e n i c risk is
e x p r e s s e d as the p r o b a b i l i t y of an individual d e v e l o p i n g cancer during
a lifetime of exposure at the specified dose. Uncertainties associated
w i t h the r i s k assessment are also p r e s e n t e d and discussed.
RESULTS
~xposure Assessment
Estimated exposure concentrations from chemicals of concern and

chronic daily intakes from ingestion of groundwater are provided in
Tables 2 and 3. The exposure assessment contains information not
discussed here including a description of the site location, current
and projected land use patterns, and a summary of hydrogeologic
conditions. Public groundwater supplies were identified from a survey
by the First Tennessee Development District [9]. The three
impoundments lie outside the recharge boundaries identified for wells
and springs in the survey. Private groundwater supplies within a five
mile radius of the site were also identified. None of the water
sources are downgradient from the impoundments. Residents near the
site are serviced by a local utility district.
Toxicity Assessment
Toxicity data for noncarcinoqenic effects--The risk assessment

summarizes potential noncarcinogenic health effects from contaminants
identified as chemicals of concern; however, only RfDs are provided
here (Table 3). Toxicity data were not available for TCE, cis-l,2-DCE,
di-n-octyl phthalate (DOP), tributyl phosphate (TBP), vinyl chloride,
and Bromacil. An oral RfD assessment for TCE was under review by an
EPA workgroup and had not been released as of February 1990. Cis-I,2-
DCE, DOP, vinyl chloride, and Bromacil were not available on IRIS but
were listed as either under review, or to be reviewed, by the EPA for
potential human health hazards. EPA published a final test rule for
TBP August 14, 1989 pursuant to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
(i0]. The rule requires manufacturers and processors of TBP to perform
testing for health effects, environmental effects, and chemical fate.
TABLE 2--Estimated exposure concentrations.
Mean Exposure
Parameter Concentration Concentration
[Eq l]
Tetrachloroethene -3.54 in mg/L 0.097 mg/L

Trichloroethene 0.012 mg/L 0.019 mg/L
Toluene 0.0007 mg/L 0.001 mg/L
Vinyl chloride 0.II0 mg/L I
ois-l,2-Dichloroethene -3154 in mg/L 0.ii0 mg/L
Methylene chloride 0.002 mg/L 0.002 mg/L
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.019 mg/L 0.034 mg/L
Di-n-butyl phthalate 0.007 mg/L 0.007 mg/L
Di-n-octyl phthalate 0.044 mg/L 0.094 mg/L
Tributyl phosphate -3.02 in mg/L 0.190 mg/L
Bromacil -1.35 in mg/L 0.657 mg/L
Barium (total) 0.16 mg/L 0.21 mg/L
Beryllium (total) -4.99 in mg/L 0.012 mg/L
chromium (total) 0.026 mg/L 0.026 mg/L
Cyanide (total) 0.014 mg/L 0.021 mg/L
Lead (total) 0.005 mg/L 0.007 mg/L
Mercury (total) -8.45 in mg/L 0.0004 mg/L
Nickel (total) -4.34 in mg/L 0.02 mg/L
Zinc (total) 0.013 mg/L 0.021 mg/L
Fluoride 1.96 in mg/L 11.5 mg/L
Nitrate (as N) 15.3 mg/L 19.5 mg/L
IEstimate based on the exposure concentration for 1,2-dichloroethene.
TABLE 3--Comparison of d a i l y intakes to t o x i c i t y v a l u e s .
Estimated Intake
(mg/kg/day) Chronic RfD Slope Factor Cancer Cancer o9
C
-U
Parameter Child Adult (mg/kg/day) I/(mg/kg/day) Risk 3 Class m
-n
[Eq 2] [Eq 3] [Eq 4] [Eq 5] -n
C
Z
E9
Tetrachloroethene 0.0097 0.0028 0.01 0.051 IE-04 B2 ~n
Trichloroethene 0.0019 0.00054 ..}
Toluene 0.0001 0.00003 0.3 . . . D >
Vinyl chloride 0.011 0.0031 ... o9
2.3 7E-03 A o9
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene 0.011 0.0031 ... m
co
Methylene chloride 0.0002 0.00006 0.06 0.O075 5E-07 B2 o9
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.0034 0.00097 0.02 0.014 1E-05 B2 m
z
Di-n-butyl phthalate 0.0007 0.0002 0.1 D
Di-n-octyl phthalate 0.0094 0.0027 ...
Tributyl phosphate 0.019 0.0054 ...
Bromacil 0.0657 0.0188 ...
B a r i u m (total) 0.021 0.0060 0.05
B e r y l l i u m (total) 0.0012 0.00034 0.005 B2
C h r o m i u m (total) 0.0026 0.00074 0.0052
C y a n i d e (total) 0.0021 0.00060 0.02 D
L e a d (total) 0.0007 0.0002 ... B2
M e r c u r y (total) 0.00004 0.00001 0.0003 D
N i c k e l (total) 0.002 0.0006 0.02
Z l n c (total) 0.0021 0.00060 0.02
Fluoride 1.15 0.329 0.06
Nitrate 1.95 0.557 1.0 . . .
Notes:
1. B l a n k s (...) i n d i c a t e t h a t q u a n t i t a t i v e d a t a w e r e not a v a i l a b l e on IRIS or HEAST.
2. T h e R f D for c h r o m i u m (VI) is p r o v i d e d in lieu of a RfD for total c h r o m i u m .
3. C a n c e r r i s k is the p r o b a b i l i t y of an i n d i v i d u a l d e v e l o p i n g c a n c e r f r o m l i f e t i m e (70 year) exposure.
Toxicity data for carcinoqenic effects--Slope factors were

available for all A and E classified chemicals with the exception of
beryllium and lead (Table 3). Quantitative values were available for
beryllium by the inhalation route but not by oral exposure. The EPA
CRAVE workgroup recommends not using a numerical estimate to quantify
lead's cancer risk because an estimate derived by standard procedures
might not adequately describe potential risk [4]. The carcinogen
assessment summary for TCE was withdrawn from IRIS. A new summary
being developed by the CRAVE workgroup was not available when this risk
assessment was prepared.
DIS~SSION
Noncarcinouenic Risk Estimates
The estimated child intakes from chemicals of concern exceed

their corresponding RfDs for fluoride and nitrate (as N). The child
intake of PCE (0.01 mg/kg/day) is equal to the RfD. Adult intake
estimates exceed the RfDs for fluoride only. Potential adverse health
effects attributable to PCE, fluoride and nitrate are discussed below.
Tetrachloroethene--Two principal studies served for establishing

the oral RfD for PCE. In the first study, PCE was administered to mice
by gavage at varying doses for a period of six weeks [ii]. PCE was
administered to rats by drinking water in the second study [12]. The
critical effect observed during both studies was hepatotoxicity (liver
toxicity). Evidence of hepatotoxicity was first observed at dose
levels of i00 mg/kg/day in mice and 400 mg/kg/day in rats. Findings of
the principal studies are supported by other data.
The sensitivity of humans to PCE cannot be established with
certainty using data derived from studies with laboratory animals.
However, the RfD of 0.01 mg/kg/day is protective of the mildest effect
observed in humans, diminished odor perception [4]. Confidence in the
oral RfD is medium due to a lack of information on reproductive and
fetal development endpoints following oral exposure to PCE [4]. An
uncertainty factor of 1000 was used in deriving the RfD to account for
intraspecies variability, interspecies variability, and extrapolation
of a subchronic effect level to its chronic equivalent [4].
Because the RfD represents the level of exposure likely to be
without adverse effects during a lifetime, it is improbable that
chronic exposure to PCE at a level of 0.01 mg/kg/day would cause health
problems in children. A possible exception is children with pre-
existing liver disease or dysfunction. The maximum concentration of
PCE measured in an impoundment area monitoring well was 1.1 mg/L. The
ten-day PCE Drinking Water Health Advisory for a child is 2 mg/L [4].
Because the maximum detected concentration is less than the ten-day
Health Advisory, there is no apparent acute health threat posed by PCE.
Fluoride--Health effects data for fluoride are available from

human epidemiologic studies conducted with large populations. The
availability of data from human studies is primarily due to fluoride
use in drinking water for the prevention of dental caries. The oral
RfD for fluoride is 0.06 mg/kg/day. No uncertainty factors were used
to derive the oral RfD and confidence in the RfD is high because of
little uncertainty in the toxicity data base.
The principal study examined children who ingested fluoride in
drinking water at levels of 0-14 mg/L [13]. The parameter of interest
to the study was dental fluorosis (mottling of the teeth). Mottling
increased in direct proportion to dose at fluoride levels of 2-10 mg/L.
Depending on its severity, the effects of dental fluorosis range from
minor teeth discoloration to brown or black stains and pitting.
Because dental fluorosis occurs only during the age of teeth
calcification, susceptibility to the disease is limited to children [4].
The E P A has e s t i m a t e d that an intake of 0.28 m g / k g / d a y of

fluoride for a p e r i o d of t w e n t y years m a y lead to d e v e l o p m e n t of
c r i p p l i n g skeletal fluorosis [14]. To p r e v e n t this m o r e severe
endpoint in adults, EPA r e c o m m e n d e d a safe e x p o s u r e level of 0.12 mg
f l u o r i d e / k g / d a y [4]. However, this is not a RfD b e c a u s e t h e "no
o b s e r v e d e f f e c t s level" for crippling skeletal fluorosis in humans is
unknown. E P A issued a request for i n f o r m a t i o n on c r i p p l i n g skeletal
fluorosis from fluoride in d r i n k i n g w a t e r J a n u a r y 3, 1990 [15].
E s t i m a t e d intakes of fluoride e x c e e d the RfD (0.06 mg/kg/day)
for both child and adult. The level of d a i l y e x p o s u r e to children was
1.15 mg/kg/day. Chronic e x p o s u r e to fluoride at this level w o u l d most
likely result in some form of dental fluorosis, p o s s i b l y severe. The
E P A regards dental fluorosis as a cosmetic effect and not a toxic
and/or adverse health effect [14].
A d u l t s should not be susceptible to dental fluorosis. However,
adults might be subject to d e v e l o p i n g c r i p p l i n g skeletal fluorosis
b e c a u s e the e s t i m a t e d daily intake of 0.33 m g / k g / d a y e x c e e d s the
r e c o m m e n d e d safe exposure level of 0.12 mg/kg/day. The p o s s i b i l i t y of
this o c c u r r i n g at the c a l c u l a t e d exposure level is uncertain. This
p o s s i b i l i t y can be better e v a l u a t e d after t h e EPA has a s s i m i l a t e d
further i n f o r m a t i o n on this topic.
N i t r a t e - - T h e oral RfD e s t a b l i s h e d for nitrate is 1.0 mg/kg/day.

No u n c e r t a i n t y or m o d i f y i n g factors w e r e u s e d to derive the RfD and
confidence in the RfD is high. The p r i n c i p a l study is an e p i d e m i o l o g i c
study on the incidence of m e t h e m o g l o b i n e m i a in infants [16]. The study
examined infants who r o u t i n e l y consumed formula p r e p a r e d w i t h water
c o n t a i n i n g n i t r a t e c o n c e n t r a t i o n s ranging from i0 m g / L to greater than
i00 mg/L. The RfD of 1.0 m g / k g / d a y was b a s e d on the o b s e r v a t i o n that
no incidence of m e t h e m o g l o b i n e m i a occurred in w a t e r c o n t a i n i n g less
than i0 m g / L of nitrate (as N).
N i t r a t e is not a direct toxicant. N i t r a t e t o x i c i t y is due to in
vivo c o n v e r s i o n (under certain conditions) to nitrite. N i t r i t e in
blood o x i d i z e s h e m o g l o b i n to m e t h e m o g l o b i n causing o x y g e n d e p r i v a t i o n
to cells. Methemoglobinemia (cyanosis) can result in anoxia, or in
severe cases death. There has b e e n one fatal case of m e t h e m o g l o b i n e m i a
d o c u m e n t e d in the U. S. during the last t h i r t y years [17].
Infants less than six m o n t h s old are most s u s c e p t i b l e to nitrate
(i.e., nitrite) toxicity. Infants are at h i g h e r risk due to their high
gut content of n i t r a t e - r e d u c i n g bacteria, fewer enzymes for reducing
m e t h e m o g l o b i n to hemoglobin, and the p r e s e n c e of H e m o g l o b i n F which is
e a s i l y oxidized. Adults are capable of c o n s u m i n g large amounts of
nitrates w i t h o u t risk of d e v e l o p i n g m e t h e m o g l o b i n e m i a .
Based on an exposure c o n c e n t r a t i o n of 19.5 mg/L, the e s t i m a t e d
intake of n i t r a t e (as N) for a child c o n s u m i n g g r o u n d w a t e r from
impoundment area wells is 1.95 mg/kg/day. This level e x c e e d s the RfD
of 1.0 mg/kg/day. Therefore, infants w o u l d be at some r i s k of
suffering an adverse health effect from n i t r a t e s in groundwater.
Noncancer Hazard Index
The h a z a r d index is an EPA approach for assessing the potential

for n o n c a r c i n o g e n i c health effects from c o m b i n e d exposure to m u l t i p l e
chemicals. The assumption is that s i m u l t a n e o u s exposure to
s u b t h r e s h o l d levels of several chemicals m a y result in an adverse
health e f f e c t even t h o u g h no p a r t i c u l a r RfD is exceeded [3]. The
h a z a r d index is equal to the sum of hazard q u o t i e n t s for individual
chemicals. The hazard quotient is the ratio of the chronic daily
intake to the RfD. If the h a z a r d index e x c e e d s unity (i.0), there may
be p o t e n t i a l for adverse health effects from combined exposures.
The a s s u m p t i o n of dose additivity is i n a p p r o p r i a t e w h e n applied
to a m i x t u r e of chemicals that induce d i f f e r e n t effects and act by
different mechanisms. H a z a r d index e s t i m a t e s are used here only as a
screening tool for d e t e r m i n i n g the relative c o n t r i b u t i o n of individual
contaminants to total exposure. Fluoride and nitrate contribute the

bulk of exposure from contaminants in groundwater (Table 4 and Figure
4). Index estimates excluding fluoride and nitrate still exceed unity
for children, but are less than unity for adults.
TABLE 4--Hazard quotients.
Hazard Quotient
Parameter Child Adult
Tetrachloroethene 0.97 0.28

Toluene 0.00 0.00
Methylene chloride 0.00 0.00
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.17 0.05
Di-n-butyl phthalate 0.01 0.00
Barium (total) 0.42 0.12
Beryllium (total) 0.24 0.07
Chromium (total) 0.52 0.15
Cyanide (total) 0.Ii 0.03
Mercury (total) 0.13 0.04
Nickel (total) 0.i0 0.03
Zinc (total) 0.ii 0.03
Fluoride 19.17 5.48
Nitrate 1.95 0.56
Hazard Index (sum of quotients) 23.89 6.83

Hazard Index (excluding fluoride 2.77 0.79
and nitrate)
15
10
0
Child Adult Child Adult
Estimates Excladllsg F]aaride and Nitrate
m Fluoride Nitrate m PCE D Others ~ Unity
FIGURE 4--Hazard index.
Carcinouenic Risk Estimates
Chemicals of concern that are classified as B2 probable human

carcinogens include PCE, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (BEHP), methylene
chloride (DCM), beryllium, and lead. Probabilities of an individual
developing cancer from lifetime exposure at estimated intakes are IE-04
for PCE, 1E-05 for BEHP, and 5E-07 for DCM (Table 3). Probabilities
for beryllium and lead are not provided because slope factors were not
available. Vinyl chlorlde is classified as a known human carcinogen.
Cancer risk from vinyl chloride is 7E-03.
In a July 27, 1990 proposed rule, EPA stated its intent to
establish target cleanup levels for carcinogens in e n v i r o n m e n t a l m e d i a
within the protective risk range of 1E-04 to 1E-06 [18]. A risk level
of 1E-06 would serve as the point of departure; increases in risks
become less desirable and the risks to individuals should not exceed
approximately IE-04. Site-specific factors would be evaluated to
determine the appropriate level and in some instances remediation to
1E-04 to 1E-06 would not be required. An example of how cleanup levels
might be adjusted is groundwater that is not a potential source of
drinking water. Cancer risks from chemicals of concern are within the
protective risk range proposed by EPA with the exception of vinyl
chloride. Uncertainties associated with the exposure assessment for
vinyl chloride are discussed below.
Uncertainties
Exposure estimation--Several assumptions were made when

estimating exposure concentrations from chemicals of concern. A
critical assumption for assessing potential health effects was the
exposure estimate derived for vinyl chloride. Vinyl chloride was
detected in 3 of 23 groundwater samples during a single sampling period
in 1988. It was not detected in samples from the same wells during
subsequent sampling and analysis in 1989. The source of vinyl chloride
is uncertain but there is no evidence that it was used in the
production process or discharged to the impoundments.
The exposure estimate for vinyl chloride was based on the
exposure concentration calculated for cis-l,2-DCE. It was assumed that
microbial degradation of PCE, TCE, and DCE by sequential dehalogenation
might ultimately result in the appearance of vinyl chloride in
groundwater. The possibility of biological transformation occurring
and the resulting concentrations of vinyl chloride is uncertain.
Because vinyl chloride is a known human carcinogen and presents a
greater cancer risk than other chemicals of concern in this assessment,
routine monitoring is required to resolve the uncertainty of its
presence in groundwater.
In some instances it was difficult to differentiate between th e
influence of wastes on groundwater quality and natural influences. For
example, barium was detected in all background samples of surface
water, soil, and groundwater as well as all downgradient samples.
There appears to be little difference between barium concentrations in
downgradient wells and the background well. However, the number of
background data points is not sufficient to test for statistically
significant differences. Therefore, risk estimates may reflect
potential for adverse effects not directly attributable to impoundment
wastes. Chromium, lead, nickel, and zinc are other parameters for
which exposure concentrations may be influenced by natural sources.
Future land use--An assumption of the hypothetical exposure

scenario is that land overlying the impoundments will be used for
residential purposes. It is also assumed that residents will rely on
relatively shallow groundwater (i.e., wells less than fifty feet deep)
as a source of potable water. These assumptions allow the formulation
of maximum credible exposure estimates since residential land use
results in greater exposure than other land uses.
A l t h o u g h future residential use of the site is possible, t h e

p r o b a b i l i t y of this o c c u r r i n g in the near future (i.e., the next i0 to
20 years) is low. The facility is o p e r a t i n g and i n s t i t u t i o n a l controls
will restrict land use at the end of plant life. Further, given the
a v a i l a b i l i t y of u t i l i t y water it is not likely that p r i v a t e w a t e r
s u p p l y wells will be u s e d by future residents. An e x a m i n a t i o n of
e x p o s u r e from industrial land use might provide m o r e r e a l i s t i c r i s k
estimates. However, this would be a less c o n s e r v a t i v e approach.
S t e a d y - s t a t e c o n d i t i o n s - - T h e a s s u m p t i o n of s t e a d y - s t a t e
c o n t a m i n a n t c o n c e n t r a t i o n s is a r e f l e c t i o n of current site conditions.
E s t i m a t e s do not account for e x p e c t e d improvement in g r o u n d w a t e r
q u a l i t y following w a s t e removal and subsequent source depletion.
C a l c u l a t i o n s based on t h e a s s u m p t i o n of s t e a d y - s t a t e c o n d i t i o n s are
likely to over e s t i m a t e long-term e x p o s u r e concentrations.
Consequently, risk estimates are conservative. Fate and t r a n s p o r t
p r o c e s s e s such as dilution, dispersion, partitioning, and
b i o d e g r a d a t i o n w e r e not modeled. M o d e l i n g might result in a m o r e
a c c u r a t e estimate of potential e x p o s u r e at specific p o i n t s in time and
space. Because there is no immediate risk the need for m o d e l i n g can be
a s s e s s e d after a data base has b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d w i t h information
c o l l e c t e d following w a s t e removal.
C h e m i c a l s not ~ u a n t i t a t i v e l v a s s e s s e d - - N o n c a r c i n o g e n i c toxicity
d a t a w e r e not a v a i l a b l e for TCE, vinyl chloride, cis-l,2-DCE, DOP, TBP,
and Bromacil. Therefore, the p o t e n t i a l for these c h e m i c a l s to cause
a d v e r s e health effects could not be assessed. B e c a u s e exposure
c o n c e n t r a t i o n s from t h e s e chemicals are included in this assessment
r i s k estimates can be made as t o x i c i t y data b e c o m e available.
BbI~4ARu
Based on current information, if shallow g r o u n d w a t e r w e r e u s e d

as a source of p o t a b l e water the risk of adverse human health effects
from n o n r a d i o l o g i c a l c o n t a m i n a n t s w o u l d be small. Contaminants most
likely to cause adverse, n o n c a r c i n o g e n i c health e f f e c t s are PCE,
fluoride, and nitrate. Children are most s u s c e p t i b l e to p o t e n t i a l
a d v e r s e effects from these contaminants. Chronic intake of PCE from
g r o u n d w a t e r is not likely to result in adverse effects w i t h the
p o s s i b l e e x c e p t i o n of children w i t h liver dysfunctions. Chronic
i n g e s t i o n of g r o u n d w a t e r by children w o u l d likely result in some form
of dental fluorosis w h i c h EPA regards as a cosmetic effect and not a
toxic and/or adverse h e a l t h effect. Routine i n g e s t i o n of groundwater
by infants might induce methemoglobinemia; however, this risk does not
appear great. The p o t e n t i a l for adverse health effects in adults from
chronic ingestion of g r o u n d w a t e r seems limited to t h e r i s k of
d e v e l o p i n g c r i p p l i n g skeletal fluorosis from e x p o s u r e to fluoride.
Cancer risks from chemicals of concern are w i t h i n the p r o t e c t i v e
r i s k range p r o p o s e d by E P A with the e x c e p t i o n of vinyl chloride.
However, the exposure c o n c e n t r a t i o n u s e d to d e t e r m i n e the cancer risk
from vinyl chloride is based on an assumption, not analytical data.
F u r t h e r efforts are required to confirm, or deny, t h e p r e s e n c e of vinyl
chloride in g r o u n d w a t e r and to m o n i t o r for its a p p e a r a n c e in the future
until its chemical p r e c u r s o r s dissipate.
REFERENCES
[!] EcoTek, Inc., " D e c o m m i s s i o n i n g Plan for Three W a s t e W a t e r

Surface Impoundments," Unpublished, 1989.
[~] M o r t o n and Potter, "Radiological Safety A s s e s s m e n t , "

Unpublished, 1989.
[_3] Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Guidance for

Superfund, Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A),
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC, 1989.
[4] Environmental Protection Agency, Inteqrated Risk Information

System (IRIS}, Oct. 1989 Data File, EPA/DF/DK-88/049, 1989.
[5] Environmental Protection Agency, Health Effects Assessment

Summary Tables, Third Ouarter FY 1989, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, Washington, DC, OERR 9200.6-303-(89-3), 1989.
[6] Environmental Protection Agency, Letter from William Farland to

IRIS users, 1988.
(~] Barnes, D., "Reference Dose (RfD): Description and Use in Health
Risk Assessments," Background Document 1 to IRIS, 1989.
[8] Environmental Protection Agency, " E P A A p p r o a c h for Assessing the

Risks Associated with Chronic Exposures to Carcinogens,"
Background Document 2 to IRIS, 1989.
[9] First Tennessee Development District, "Survey of Public

Groundwater Supplies," 1987.
[i0] Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Reqister, Vol. 54, Aug.

14, 1989, p 33400.
[Ii] Buben, J. A. and E. J. O'Flaherty, "Delineation of the Role of

Metabolism in the Hepatotoxicity of Trichloroethylene and
Perchloroethylene: A Dose-Effect Study," Toxicoloqy and Applied
Pharmacoloqy, Vol. 78, 1985, p 105-122.
[12] Hayes, J. R., L. W. Condie, Jr. and J. F. Borzelleca, "The

Subchronic Toxicity of Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene)
Administered in the Drinking Water of Rats," Fundamentals of
Applied Toxicoloqy, Vol. 7, 1986, p 119-125.
(13] Hodge, H. C., "The Concentration of Fluorides in Drinking Water

to Give the Point of Minimum Caries with Maximum Protection,"
Journal of the American Dental Assn., Vol. 40, 1950, p 436,
Cited in: Underwood, E. J., Trace Elements in Human and Animal
Nutrition, Academic Press, NY, 1977.
[14] Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Reqister, Vol. 50,

1985, p 47142.
[15] Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Reqister, Vol. 55, Jan.

3, 1990, p 160.
[16] Walton, G., "Survey of Literature Relating to Infant

Methemoglobinemia Due to Nitrate-Contaminated Water," American
Journal of Public Health, Vol. 41, 1951, p 986-996.
[1_/7] Rajagopal, R. and G. Tobin, "Expert Opinion and Ground-Water

Quality Protection: The Case of Nitrate in Drinking Water,"
Ground Water, Vol 27, No. 6, 1990, p 835-847.
[18] Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Reqister, Vol. 55, July

27, 1990, p 30798.
A n d r e a Temeshy, I J u d i t h M. Liedle, I Lynn M. Sims, I and Carl
R. E f i r d 2
ESTIMATING RISK AT A SUPERFUND SITE CONTAMINATED WITH

RADIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL WASTES
REFERENCE: Temeshy, A., Liedle, J. M., Sims, L. M., and Efird, C. R..,
"Estimati~4~Risk at a Superfund Site Contaminated With Radiological
and 6~emlcal Wastes," SuDerfund Risk Assessment in Soil Contamination
Studies, ASTM STP i158, Keith B. Hoddinott, Ed., American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1992.
ABSTRACT: This paper d e s c r i b e s the m e t h o d s and r e s u l t s for

e s t i m a t i n g c a r c i n o g e n i c and n o n c a r c i n o g e n i c e f f e c t s at a
S u p e r f u n d site that is r a d i o l o g i c a l l y and c h e m i c a l l y
contaminated. Risk to r e c e p t o r s from d i s p o s a l of w a s t e in
soil and r e s u l t i n g c o n t a m i n a t i o n of groundwater, air,
s u r f a c e water, and s e d i m e n t is quantified. S p e c i f i c risk
a s s e s s m e n t c o m p o n e n t s w h i c h are a d d r e s s e d are the e x p o s u r e
assessment, t o x i c i t y assessment, and the r e s u l t i n g risk
characterization. In the e x p o s u r e assessment, p o t e n t i a l
e x p o s u r e p a t h w a y s are i d e n t i f i e d u s i n g waste d i s p o s a l
i n v e n t o r y i n f o r m a t i o n for soil and m o d e l e d i n f o r m a t i o n for
other media. M o d e l s are used to c a l c u l a t e future
r a d i o n u c l i d e c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in groundwater, soil, surface
w a t e r and air. C h e m i c a l e x p o s u r e c o n c e n t r a t i o n s are
q u a n t i f i e d using site c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n data. M o d e l s are
u s e d to d e t e r m i n e c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of c h e m i c a l s in surface
w a t e r and in air. T o x i c i t y p a r a m e t e r s used to q u a n t i f y the
d o s e - r e s p o n s e r e l a t i o n s h i p a s s o c i a t e d with the c a r c i n o g e n i c
c o n t a m i n a n t s are slope factors and w i t h n o n c a r c i n o g e n i c
c o n t a m i n a n t s are r e f e r e n c e doses. In the risk
c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n step, results from the e x p o s u r e a s s e s s m e n t
and t o x i c i t y a s s e s s m e n t are s u m m a r i z e d and i n t e g r a t e d into
q u a n t i t a t i v e risk e s t i m a t e s for c a r c i n o g e n s and h a z a r d
iSenior E n v i r o n m e n t a l Scientist, Bechtel National, Inc.,

P.O. Box 350, Oak Ridge, TN ~7831-0350
2Senior Safety and Health Representative, Bechtel

National, Inc., P.O. Box 350, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0350
indices for n o n c a r c i n o g e n s . C a l c u l a t e d risks for

c a r c i n o g e n i c c o n t a m i n a n t s are c o m p a r e d w i t h EPA's t a r g e t
r i s k range. At W A G 6, the risk f r o m r a d i o n u c l i d e s and
c h e m i c a l s for an o n - W A G h o m e s t e a d e r exceeds EPA's t a r g e t
r i s k range. H a z a r d indices are c o m p a r e d to u n i t y for
noncarcinogenic contaminants. At W A G 6, the total p a t h w a y
h a z a r d index for the on-WAG h o m e s t e a d e r e x c e e d s unity.
KEYWORDS: risk, h u m a n health, c o n t a m i n a n t s of concern,

e x p o s u r e assessment, t o x i c i t y assessment, r i s k
characterization
A b a s e l i n e h u m a n h e a l t h risk a s s e s s m e n t was c o n d u c t e d
for a C o m p r e h e n s i v e E n v i r o n m e n t a l Response, C o m p e n s a t i o n ,
and L i a b i l i t y Act (CERCLA) site to e v a l u a t e the need for and
e x t e n t of r e m e d i a t i o n r e q u i r e d [!]- This p a p e r a d d r e s s e s
the m e t h o d s for q u a n t i f y i n g h u m a n h e a l t h h a z a r d s a s s o c i a t e d
w i t h r a d i o l o g i c a l and chemical c o n t a m i n a t i o n at a site
l o c a t e d on the Oak R i d g e R e s e r v a t i o n , r e f e r r e d to as W a s t e
A r e a G r o u p i n g 6 (WAG 6). WAG 6 is about i0 m i l e s s o u t h w e s t
of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, w h i c h has a p o p u l a t i o n of about
30,000 people. WAG 6 is b o r d e r e d on the east by a t r i b u t a r y
of W h i t e O a k Creek, on the south by W h i t e O a k Lake, and on
the w e s t by State H i g h w a y 95.
The t o p o g r a p h y at the site c o n s i s t s of g e n t l y to

m o d e r a t e l y sloping land, w h i c h d r a i n s to W h i t e Oak Lake.
W A G 6 is c o m p r i s e d of 70 acres, w i t h a p p r o x i m a t e l y 19 acres
u s e d for r a d i o a c t i v e and c h e m i c a l w a s t e disposal.
R a d i o l o g i c a l and c h e m i c a l w a s t e s h a v e been d i s p o s e d in a
v a r i e t y of b e l o w g r o u n d waste d i s p o s a l units since 1969.
C h e m i c a l w a s t e d i s p o s a l has not o c c u r r e d since 1986.
To c h a r a c t e r i z e W A G 6, e x t e n s i v e s a m p l i n g of
e n v i r o n m e n t a l media (including groundwater, soil, s u r f a c e
water, and sediment) was c o n d u c t e d around k n o w n d i s p o s a l
areas. D i r e c t s a m p l i n g of c o n t a m i n a t e d d i s p o s a l areas w a s
not p e r m i t t e d b e c a u s e of the a d v e r s e r a d i o a c t i v e e x p o s u r e
p o t e n t i a l and h e t e r o g e n e i t y of the wastes. However, w a s t e
d i s p o s a l i n v e n t o r y data for the r a d i o a c t i v e c o n t a m i n a n t s
w e r e a v a i l a b l e from site records. No i n v e n t o r y data w e r e
a v a i l a b l e for c h e m i c a l c o n t a m i n a n t s .
The m e t h o d o l o g y for the e v a l u a t i o n was d e v e l o p e d u s i n g

s t a n d a r d g u i d a n c e documents, p r i m a r i l y the R i s k A s s e s s m e n t
G u i d a n c e for Superfund, Vol. I: Human H e a l t h E v a l u a t i o n
TEMESHY ET AL. ON RADIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL WASTES 233
M a n u a l (Part A) [2] and S u p p l e m e n t a l R e q i o n IV R i s k

A s s e s s m e n t G u i d a n c e [3]. The steps c o m p r i s i n g the
e v a l u a t i o n p r o c e s s include: s e l e c t i n g c o n t a m i n a n t s of
p o t e n t i a l concern, e x p o s u r e assessment, t o x i c i t y assessment,
and r i s k c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n . These steps are d i s c u s s e d in
d e t a i l below.
SELECTING CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
This s e c t i o n d e s c r i b e s the m a n n e r in w h i c h r a d i o a c t i v e
and c h e m i c a l c o n t a m i n a n t s at WAG 6 w e r e e v a l u a t e d to
i d e n t i f y t h o s e that are of p o t e n t i a l c o n c e r n to h u m a n
health. All data w e r e r e v i e w e d for d a t a q u a l i t y i n d i c a t o r s
[i.e., precision, accuracy, r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s ,
c o m p l e t e n e s s , and c o m p a r a b i l i t y (PARCC)] prior to use in the
r i s k a s s e s s m e n t [4].
Radioactive Contaminants
E x i s t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n on the w a s t e d i s p o s a l i n v e n t o r y
w a s u s e d as a source term. There w e r e 151 r a d i o n u c l i d e s
i d e n t i f i e d f r o m the i n v e n t o r y i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h the total
a c t i v i t y over 570,000 curies. To m a k e the a s s e s s m e n t m o r e
m a n a g e a b l e , the r a d i o n u c l i d e s were s c r e e n e d to i d e n t i f y
t h o s e w h i c h c o n t r i b u t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 99% of the p o t e n t i a l
dose. As the first step in the s c r e e n i n g process, the
r e l a t i v e d o s e from each r a d i o n u c l i d e w a s e s t i m a t e d for three
e x p o s u r e routes: ingestion, inhalation, and e x t e r n a l
exposure. T h e p o t e n t i a l r e l a t i v e dose was c a l c u l a t e d for
c u r r e n t and future time frames u s i n g the r a d i o n u c l i d e
i n v e n t o r y d e c a y e d to these times. The future time frame was
n e c e s s a r y to a c c o u n t for the g e n e r a t i o n of r a d i o a c t i v e decay
products. As the next step in the s c r e e n i n g process, the
r a d i o n u c l i d e s w e r e r a n k e d a c c o r d i n g to their p o t e n t i a l
r e l a t i v e doses. T h o s e c o n t r i b u t i n g t h e least (slightly
g r e a t e r than 1%) were e l i m i n a t e d from further analyses. The
r e m a i n i n g r a d i o n u c l i d e s , r e s p o n s i b l e for about 99% of the
p o t e n t i a l dose, w e r e c o n s i d e r e d to be r a d i o n u c l i d e s of
p o t e n t i a l concern.
These r a d i o n u c l i d e s w e r e c o m p a r e d to those d e t e c t e d in
s u r f a c e w a t e r and g r o u n d w a t e r samples at WAG 6 to identify
a n y a d d i t i o n a l r a d i o n u c l i d e s of concern. From this
comparison, t r i t i u m was i d e n t i f i e d as a n o t h e r r a d i o n u c l i d e
of p o t e n t i a l concern. Seventeen radionuclides were
i d e n t i f i e d as of p o t e n t i a l c o n c e r n at W A G 6 (Table i). All
of the r a d i o n u c l i d e s of p o t e n t i a l c o n c e r n w e r e s e l e c t e d for
fate and t r a n s p o r t modeling.
Chemical Contaminants
Data f r o m field s a m p l i n g around w a s t e d i s p o s a l areas

were used to identify c h e m i c a l s of p o t e n t i a l c o n c e r n to
TABLE 1--Contaminants of potential concern at WAG 6.
Radionuclides
Am-241 Pa-234 a
Ba-137m a Pa-234m a
Cm-244 Sr-90
Co-60 Th-232
Cs-137 Th-234 a
Eu-152 U-233
Eu-154 U-238
Eu-155 Y-90
H-3
a Short-lived daughter assumed to be in eqailibrium with

parent and therefore also considered in the quantitative
analysis of risk.
Chemicals
Orqanics:
Carbon tetrachloride Ethylbenzene
Acetone Benzyl alcohol
Chloroform 2,4-Dimethylphenol
Benzene 1,2-Dichloroethane
Chloromethane Toluene
Ethyl chloride 1,2-Dichloroethene
Vinyl chloride Xylenes (total)
Methylene chloride
Carbon disulfide Inorganics:
l,l-Dichloroethane Aluminum
Trichlorofluoromethane Manganese
2-Butanone Silver
Trichloroethene Thallium
l,l,2,2-Tetrachlorothane Titanium
Diethylphthalate Arsenic
Di-n-butylphthalate Barium
Naphthalene Chromium
2-Methylnaphthalene Cobalt
2,4,5-TP Copper
2,4,5-T Vanadium
2,4-D Zinc
h u m a n health. All d e t e c t e d v o l a t i l e and s e m i v o l a t i l e

o r g a n i c c h e m i c a l s w e r e assumed to be of p o t e n t i a l concern.
S e v e r a l i n o r g a n i c c h e m i c a l s w e r e d e t e c t e d in field samples
at c o n c e n t r a t i o n s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from
reference concentrations. However, some of t h e s e i n o r g a n i c s
w e r e t r a c e e l e m e n t s (iron, magnesium, and sodium) e s s e n t i a l
in h u m a n nutrition; r e l a t i v e l y h i g h c o n c e n t r a t i o n s are
r e q u i r e d to p r o d u c e toxic effects, and t h e r e f o r e these
e l e m e n t s w e r e not c o n s i d e r e d c h e m i c a l s of p o t e n t i a l concern.
There w e r e 41 c h e m i c a l s i d e n t i f i e d as being of p o t e n t i a l
c o n c e r n at W A G 6, 29 o r g a n i c s and 12 i n o r g a n i c s (Table I).
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
An i n d i v i d u a l ' s e x p o s u r e (i.e., p o t e n t i a l for intake of

contaminants) is a function of the e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s
u n d e r w h i c h that p e r s o n operates, the a c t i v i t i e s that p e r s o n
pursues, and the length of time t h a t p e r s o n c o n d u c t s t h e s e
a c t i v i t i e s w i t h i n the environment. C o n s e q u e n t l y , to a r r i v e
at e s t i m a t e d intakes a t t r i b u t a b l e to c o n t a m i n a n t s at W A G 6,
a s s u m p t i o n s (or scenarios) were e s t a b l i s h e d r e g a r d i n g the
o p e r a t i o n of the site, h y p o t h e t i c a l r e c e p t o r s p e r t i n e n t to
each s c e n a r i o w e r e identified, and p e r i o d s of e v a l u a t i o n
w e r e specified. For each receptor, e x p o s u r e p a t h w a y s (e.g.,
i n g e s t i o n of c o n t a m i n a t e d water, i n h a l a t i o n of p a r t i c u l a t e s )
were selected; c o n t a m i n a n t c o n c e n t r a t i o n v a l u e s in
e n v i r o n m e n t a l m e d i a (e.g., air, water) w e r e c a l c u l a t e d from
field data and m o d e l e d data and e v a l u a t e d in the c o n t e x t of
these pathways.
Hypothetical Exposure Scenarios
Two h y p o t h e t i c a l s c e n a r i o s w e r e a s s u m e d for WAG 6. The

first, t e r m e d the n o - a c t i o n scenario, a s s u m e d that c u r r e n t
access r e s t r i c t i o n s for the site b e c o m e i n e f f e c t i v e
immediately. Site fencing, w a r n i n g signs, patrols, and
i n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n t r o l s w e r e a s s u m e d to disappear. The
second s c e n a r i o a s s u m e d an o p e r a t i o n a l p e r i o d f o l l o w e d by a
i n s t i t u t i o n a l control period.
Hypothetical Receptors
G i v e n the two s c e n a r i o s d e s c r i b e d above, h y p o t h e t i c a l

r e c e p t o r s w e r e selected. For the n o - a c t i o n s c e n a r i o that
a s s u m e d free access to the waste d i s p o s a l areas, only a
h o m e s t e a d e r who lived in a house b u i l t d i r e c t l y on top of
the w a s t e areas was a s s e s s e d for c u r r e n t e x p o s u r e since this
r e p r e s e n t e d the g r e a t e s t risk value for that scenario.
For the i n s t i t u t i o n a l control scenario, t h r e e

h y p o t h e t i c a l o f f - s i t e r e c e p t o r s w e r e a s s e s s e d for current
e x p o s u r e to r e p r e s e n t exposure to the p u b l i c in general.
Since site c o n t r o l s e l i m i n a t e d the f e a s i b i l i t y of on-site
h o m e s t e a d i n g , an o n - s i t e h o m e s t e a d e r was a s s e s s e d only for

the future, p o s t - c o n t r o l p h a s e of this scenario. A person
s t a t i o n e d at the fence that s u r r o u n d s m o s t of the WAG was
a s s e s s e d b e c a u s e c e r t a i n s e c t i o n s of the fence are
a c c e s s i b l e to the public. An i n d i v i d u a l h u n t i n g deer n e a r b y
was e v a l u a t e d b e c a u s e h u n t i n g o c c u r s at s p e c i f i e d times of
the y e a r in d e s i g n a t e d areas w i t h i n the O R R W i l d l i f e
M a n a g e m e n t Area south and w e s t of W A G 6. Finally, a
downstream off-WAG homesteader was examined because
c o n t a m i n a t i o n could p o t e n t i a l l y be m i g r a t i n g from the site.
T h e s e t h r e e i n d i v i d u a l s were not a s s e s s e d for future
e x p o s u r e b e c a u s e the future e x p o s u r e of the o n - s i t e
h o m e s t e a d e r r e p r e s e n t e d the g r e a t e s t risk v a l u e for that
p h a s e of the i n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n t r o l scenario.
EXpOsure Pathways
A s s o c i a t e d w i t h each h y p o t h e t i c a l r e c e p t o r were a
v a r i e t y of p o t e n t i a l p a t h w a y s by w h i c h t h a t individual could
p o t e n t i a l l y be e x p o s e d to c o n t a m i n a n t s from W A G 6. Table 2
i l l u s t r a t e s the s i g n i f i c a n t r e c e p t o r / p a t h w a y c o m b i n a t i o n s
s e l e c t e d for a s s e s s m e n t and the p e r i o d s for w h i c h they w e r e
evaluated.
Quantification of E x p o s u r e
The final step in a s s e s s i n g r a d i o l o g i c a l and c h e m i c a l

e x p o s u r e s to a h y p o t h e t i c a l r e c e p t o r was to d e t e r m i n e the
intake to the r e c e p t o r from e a c h p a t h w a y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h
that individual. This q u a n t i f i c a t i o n of e x p o s u r e was a two-
stage process: first, the c o n t a m i n a n t c o n c e n t r a t i o n s to
w h i c h the r e c e p t o r was exposed in d i f f e r e n t m e d i a were
estimated. Second, these c o n c e n t r a t i o n s w e r e c o m b i n e d w i t h
other variables, such as e x p o s u r e f r e q u e n c y and duration, to
y i e l d p a t h w a y - s p e c i f i c intakes.
W h e n q u a n t i f y i n g e x p o s u r e for a given pathway,

v a r i a b l e s used w e r e s e l e c t e d so that the c o m b i n a t i o n of all
v a r i a b l e s r e s u l t e d in an e s t i m a t e of the r e a s o n a b l e m a x i m u m
e x p o s u r e for that p a t h w a y [2]. T h e goal of the r e a s o n a b l e
m a x i m u m e x p o s u r e is to c o m b i n e u p p e r - b o u n d and a v e r a g e
e x p o s u r e factors so that the r e s u l t r e p r e s e n t s an e s t i m a t e
of e x p o s u r e that is both p r o t e c t i v e and reasonable, not the
w o r s t p o s s i b l e case [3]. Thus not all v a r i a b l e s used in
this e v a l u a t i o n (e.g., body weight, c o n t a m i n a n t
c o n c e n t r a t i o n s ) w e r e at their individual maximums, but w h e n
used in c o m b i n a t i o n w i t h other v a r i a b l e s r e s u l t e d in
r e a s o n a b l e e s t i m a t e s of m a x i m u m exposure.
Estimation of C o n t a m i n a n t Concentrations in M e d i a
To p r o v i d e a r e a s o n a b l e e s t i m a t e of m a x i m u m exposure,
p o t e n t i a l c o n t a c t c o n c e n t r a t i o n s for each c o n t a m i n a n t w e r e
TABLE 2--Receptor/pathway combinations selected for assessment at WAG 6.
Pathway evaluated
Potential Pathway evaluated for current assessment a for future
receptors assessment
On-WAG Off-WAG WAG 6 area b
Hunter Ingestion-deer (R,C)

receptor
Boundary Inhalation-air c (R,C)

receptor External exposure-soil (R)
On-WAG External exposure-soil (R) External exposure-soil (R)

homesteader Inhalation-ai~ t (R,C); SW (R); Inhalation-air '/(R,C); SW
GW (C) (R); GW (C)
Ingestion-GW, biota (R,C) Ingestion-GW, biota (R,C)
Incidental ingestion-soil (R,C); Incidental ingestion-soil
SW, sediment (C) (R,C); SW, sediment (C)
Dermal contact-soil, GW, SW, Dermal contact-soil, GW,
sediment (C) SW, sediment (C)
Off-WAG External exposure-soil (R)

homesteader e Inhalation-air / (R,C)
lngestion-SW, biota (R,C)
Incidental ingestion-soil (R,C)
Dermal contact-soil, SW (C)
aGW means groundwater; SW means surface water; R means assessed for radionuclide components;
C means assessed for chemical components.
/'WAG 6 area in future, no WAG boundaries exist; assumes institutional controls plus post-
operational period.
CAssessed for volatiles only.
dAssessed for volatiles and particulates.
eoff-WAG receptor located downstream of WAG 6; includes contamination of specific media
through irrigation using contaminated river water.
fAssessed for particulates only.
calculated at t h e upper 95 p e r c e n t i l e confidence interval

around the mean.
Derivation of r a d i o n u c l i d e concentrations--Radionuclide
concentrations in e n v i r o n m e n t a l media were estimated using
fate and transport modeling. The radionuclides modeled were
those previously i d e n t i f i e d as c o n t a m i n a n t s of c o n c e r n . The
two models used were a surface/subsurface w a t e r m o d e l (the
w a t e r model) and an air model. G r o u n d w a t e r and s u r f a c e

w a t e r c o n t a m i n a n t c o n c e n t r a t i o n s from the w a t e r m o d e l w e r e
c a l i b r a t e d by c o m p a r i n g t h e m w i t h field s a m p l i n g d a t a from
g r o u n d w a t e r w e l l s and s u r f a c e w a t e r sources. Contaminant
c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in soil w e r e d e t e r m i n e d f r o m the w a t e r m o d e l
by a c c o u n t i n g for p a r t i c l e a d s o r p t i o n to soil and s u b s e q u e n t
d e c a y of r a d i o n u c l i d e s . From t h e s e c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in soil,
t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of a i r b o r n e r a d i o n u c l i d e p a r t i c u l a t e s
were calculated. The air m o d e l used c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in
s u r f a c e w a t e r f r o m the w a t e r m o d e l as s o u r c e d a t a to
c a l c u l a t e the m a x i m u m a n n u a l a v e r a g e v o l a t i l e c o n c e n t r a t i o n
in air. R a d i o n u c l i d e c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in v e g e t a b l e s and
fruits, beef, milk, and fish, w h i c h w e r e u s e d in the food
chain, w e r e p r e d i c t e d from c o n t a m i n a n t c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in
s u r f a c e water, g r o u n d w a t e r , a n d soil.
Off-site downstream contaminant concentrations

r e s u l t i n g f r o m m i g r a t i o n of site c o n t a m i n a n t s w e r e c o m p u t e d
by fate and t r a n s p o r t m o d e l i n g . O f f - s i t e c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of
r a d i o n u c l i d e s in soil and b i o t a at t h i s l o c a t i o n w e r e
c a l c u l a t e d f r o m d o w n s t r e a m s u r f a c e w a t e r values.
D e r i v a t i o n of c h e m i c a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n s - - C h e m i c a l s
e v a l u a t e d w e r e t h o s e listed as b e i n g of p o t e n t i a l concern.
F i e l d s a m p l i n g r e s u l t s w e r e u s e d d i r e c t l y to c a l c u l a t e
e s t i m a t e d c o n c e n t r a t i o n s for g r o u n d w a t e r , s u r f a c e water,
s e d i m e n t , and soil. C o n c e n t r a t i o n s of v o l a t i l e o r g a n i c s in
air w e r e m o d e l e d from s u r f a c e w a t e r and soil data. Chemical
c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in v e g e t a b l e s , fruit, beef, milk, and fish
w e r e c a l c u l a t e d u s i n g c o n t a m i n a n t c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in soil,
g r o u n d w a t e r , s u r f a c e water, and air.
As w i t h r a d i o n u c l i d e c o n c e n t r a t i o n s , s u r f a c e w a t e r
c o n c e n t r a t i o n s d o w n s t r e a m w e r e c a l c u l a t e d u s i n g fate a n d
transport modeling. From the s u r f a c e w a t e r results,
c o n c e n t r a t i o n s in soil, air ( p a r t i c u l a t e s ) , and b i o t a w e r e
calculated.
As p r e v i o u s l y stated, no c h e m i c a l s o u r c e data w e r e
available. T h e r e f o r e , future c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of c h e m i c a l s in
w a s t e d i s p o s a l a r e a s could not be m o d e l e d and the
c o n s e r v a t i v e a s s u m p t i o n was m a d e that c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of
c h e m i c a l s in the e n v i r o n m e n t d i d not c h a n g e over time.
T h e r e f o r e e x p o s u r e intakes to a future o n - s i t e h o m e s t e a d e r
w e r e a s s u m e d to be the same as t h o s e for t h e c u r r e n t o n - s i t e
homesteader.
TOXICITY ASSESSMENT
T h i s s e c t i o n s u m m a r i z e s the t o x i c i t y a s s e s s m e n t
process, w h i c h c o n s i s t e d of two steps. First, h a z a r d s w e r e
i d e n t i f i e d and second, t o x i c i t y p a r a m e t e r s that q u a n t i f y
these hazards were determined. H a z a r d i d e n t i f i c a t i o n is the
p r o c e s s of d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r or not e x p o s u r e to an agent
can c a u s e an i n c r e a s e in the i n c i d e n c e of a p a r t i c u l a r
a d v e r s e h e a l t h effect (e.g., cancer, b i r t h defect).
T o x i c i t y p a r a m e t e r s express a d o s e - r e s p o n s e r e l a t i o n s h i p
(i.e., t h e y q u a n t i f y w h e t h e r or not a r e l a t i o n s h i p exists
b e t w e e n the d o s e of a c o n t a m i n a n t a d m i n i s t e r e d or r e c e i v e d
and the i n c i d e n c e of a d v e r s e h e a l t h e f f e c t s in the e x p o s e d
population). T h e s e d o s e - r e s p o n s e v a l u e s are then u s e d in
c o m b i n a t i o n w i t h intake v a l u e s to c h a r a c t e r i z e risk.
Radionuclide Toxicity Assessment
Hazard identification--All radionuclides produce

c a r c i n o g e n i c e f f e c t s and h a v e been f o r m a l l y c l a s s i f i e d as
c a r c i n o g e n s by either the EPA C a r c i n o g e n i c A s s e s s m e n t G r o u p
[5] or the I n t e r n a t i o n a l A g e n c y for R e s e a r c h on Cancer [6].
T h e s e e f f e c t s are assumed to be l i n e a r l y p r o p o r t i o n a l to
dose by the I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o m m i s s i o n on R a d i o l o g i c a l
P r o t e c t i o n (ICRP) and the N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l on R a d i a t i o n
P r o t e c t i o n and M e a s u r e m e n t s (NCRP). No t h r e s h o l d a s s o c i a t e d
w i t h e x p o s u r e to ionizing r a d i a t i o n is assumed, so that any
exposure, no m a t t e r how small, m i g h t give r i s e to cancer.
D o s e - r e s p o n s e e v a l u a t i o n for r a d i o n u c l i d e s - - T o x i c i t y
p a r a m e t e r s u s e d to q u a n t i f y the d o s e - r e s p o n s e r e l a t i o n s h i p
a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the r a d i o n u c l i d e s of c o n c e r n were slope
factors [Z] and dose c o n v e r s i o n factors. Dose c o n v e r s i o n
f a c t o r s (DCFs) are d e r i v e d from r e l a t i n g h u m a n e x p o s u r e in
an e n v i r o n m e n t a l m e d i u m to a r e s u l t a n t dose e q u i v a l e n t in
the e x p o s e d individual. Slope factors are t y p i c a l l y u s e d in
risk a s s e s s m e n t studies to express c a n c e r risk. T h e y are
c o m p u t e d u s i n g age- and s e x - s p e c i f i c c o e f f i c i e n t s for
i n d i v i d u a l organs r e c e i v i n g s i g n i f i c a n t r a d i a t i o n doses.
This i n f o r m a t i o n is then u s e d along w i t h o r g a n - s p e c i f i c dose
c o n v e r s i o n factors to d e r i v e slope f a c t o r s that r e p r e s e n t
the a g e - a v e r a g e d lifetime excess cancer i n c i d e n c e per u n i t
intake for r a d i o n u c l i d e s of concern.
N o n e of the DCFs or slope factors w e r e a p p l i c a b l e to

e x t e r n a l e x p o s u r e for c o n t a m i n a t i o n at d e p t h (i.e., for
s u b s u r f a c e c o n t a m i n a t i o n c o v e r e d by a s u r f a c e layer of clean
soil). In these cases, the d o s e - r e s p o n s e r e l a t i o n s h i p was
e x p r e s s e d as the ratio of slope factor to DCF.
Chemical Toxicity Assessment
Hazard identification--In i d e n t i f y i n g c h e m i c a l hazards,

p o t e n t i a l c o n t a m i n a n t s of c o n c e r n are s e p a r a t e d into
t o x i c o l o g i c a l c a t e g o r i e s d e p e n d i n g on w h e t h e r or not t h e y
e x h i b i t n o n c a r c i n o g e n i c or c a r c i n o g e n i c effects. Exposure
to n o n c a r c i n o g e n i c c h e m i c a l s m a y result in n u m e r o u s h e a l t h
effects, r a n g i n g from effects on s p e c i f i c organ systems
(e.g., n e u r o t o x i c i t y ) to e f f e c t s on r e p r o d u c t i o n and
o f f s p r i n g (e.g., fetotoxicity). C h e m i c a l s c o n s i d e r e d to be
potential carcinogens may also be capable of causing

noncarcinogenic effects.
Dose-response evaluation for chemicals--Toxicity

parameters used to quantify hazards associated with
chemicals are reference doses and slope factors [7,8].
Reference doses are used to express the dose-response
relationship for noncarcinogenic chemicals. The reference
dose is an estimate of the maximum human chronic daily
exposure level that is likely not to produce an appreciable
risk of adverse effect during a lifetime. Since all of the
exposure durations in this human health evaluation were
assumed to be 7 years or longer, chronic reference dose
values were used. Slope factors express the dose-response
relationship for carcinogenic chemicals.
Reference doses and slope factors are available for the

inhalation and ingestion routes of exposure. In the absence
of specific toxicity values based on absorbed doses for the
dermal route of exposure, oral reference doses and slope
factors were modified to express doses by assuming a 5%
absorption efficiency (i.e., the oral reference dose was
multiplied by 0.05 and the slope factor was divided by
0.05 [2]).
RISK CHARACTERIZATION
In the risk characterization step of the baseline human

health evaluation, results from the exposure assessment and
toxicity assessment were summarized and integrated into
quantitative risk estimates and hazard indices. To quantify
risk from exposure to carcinogenic contaminants,
probabilities that an individual developed cancer over a
lifetime of exposure were estimated from projected intakes
and contaminant-specific dose-response information. To
quantify risk from exposure to noncarcinogenic chemicals,
direct comparisons were made between projected exposure
levels and toxicity values to derive a hazard index. The
following discussion addresses risk from carcinogenic and
noncarcinogenic contaminants for the hypothetical receptors
associated with WAG 6. Carcinogenic risk is quantified for
radionuclides; carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risk is
calculated for chemical contaminants of potential concern.
Quantification of carcinoqenic Risk
For carcinogenic contaminants, a slope factor was used

to convert estimated daily intakes averaged over a lifetime
to a value expressing incremental risk. For the inhalation
and ingestion pathways, risk associated with each
radionuclide or chemical was estimated by multiplying the
appropriate slope factor by the estimated intake of the
substance in question. Risk from the external exposure
p a t h w a y (relevant o n l y to r a d i o n u c l i d e s ) was c o m p u t e d as the

p r o d u c t of the s l o p e factor, the c o n c e n t r a t i o n in soil, and
t h e d u r a t i o n of e x p o s u r e to the r a d i o n u c l i d e u n d e r study.
S i m u l t a n e o u s e x p o s u r e s to s e v e r a l r a d i o n u c l i d e s and
c h e m i c a l s via m o r e t h a n one p a t h w a y w e r e a l s o assessed. The
r i s k of d e v e l o p i n g c a n c e r from s i m u l t a n e o u s e x p o s u r e to
s e v e r a l c o n t a m i n a n t s is based on the a s s u m p t i o n t h a t
c a r c i n o g e n i c risks are a d d i t i v e [~]. T a b l e 3 s u m m a r i z e s the
r i s k f r o m the r a d i o n u c l i d e s and c h e m i c a l s for e a c h p a t h w a y
for t h e o n - W A G h o m e s t e a d e r u n d e r the n o - a c t i o n scenario.
T a b l e 4 s u m m a r i z e s t h e risk u n d e r the i n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n t r o l
s c e n a r i o f r o m r a d i o n u c l i d e s for e a c h p a t h w a y for the o f f - W A G
h o m e s t e a d e r and the f u t u r e o n - W A G h o m e s t e a d e r . For
c h e m i c a l s u n d e r this scenario, r i s k to the f u t u r e o n - W A G
h o m e s t e a d e r for each p a t h w a y is a l s o s u m m a r i z e d in T a b l e 4.
S i n c e t o t a l risk v a l u e s from c h e m i c a l s to the o f f - W A G
h o m e s t e a d e r and from r a d i o n u c l i d e s and c h e m i c a l s to the
b o u n d a r y r e c e p t o r and the h u n t e r w e r e less t h a n 10 -6 , t h e s e
v a l u e s are not p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e 4.
EPA e s t a b l i s h e d a t a r g e t r i s k r a n g e of 10 -6 to 10 -4 for
r i s k s from e x p o s u r e to r a d i o n u c l i d e s and c h e m i c a l s [9].
W h e n a b a s e l i n e r i s k a s s e s s m e n t i n d i c a t e s t h a t an
i n d i v i d u a l ' s c u m u l a t i v e risk, d e r i v e d u s i n g r e a s o n a b l e
m a x i m u m e x p o s u r e a s s u m p t i o n s for e i t h e r c u r r e n t or future
land use, e x c e e d s 10 -4 (i.e., 1 in I0,000 c h a n c e of
d e v e l o p i n g cancer), a c t i o n is g e n e r a l l y w a r r a n t e d at the
site. However, EPA has e x p r e s s e d a p r e f e r e n c e for
r e m e d i a t i o n to a c h i e v e the more p r o t e c t i v e end of the t a r g e t
r i s k r a n g e (10 -6 or a 1 in 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 c h a n c e of d e v e l o p i n g
cancer) [i0]. R i s k s c a l c u l a t e d for W A G 6 r e c e p t o r s w e r e
c o m p a r e d w i t h EPA's t a r g e t risk r a n g e values.
A t W A G 6, the r i s k from r a d i o n u c l i d e s for an o n - W A G

h o m e s t e a d e r e x c e e d e d t h e u p p e r b o u n d (10 -4 ) of E P A ' s t a r g e t
r i s k r a n g e for b o t h the n o - a c t i o n and i n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n t r o l
scenarios. The r i s k s from r a d i o n u c l i d e s for t h e o f f - W A G
h o m e s t e a d e r w e r e b e l o w the u p p e r l i m i t of t h e t a r g e t r i s k
range. T h e risks to the h u n t e r and b o u n d a r y r e c e p t o r w e r e
less t h a n 10 -6 .
For chemicals, the risk v a l u e s for the o n - W A G

h o m e s t e a d e r s s l i g h t l y e x c e e d e d the u p p e r limit (10 -4 ) of
E P A ' s t a r g e t risk range. Risks to the o t h e r r e c e p t o r s w e r e
all less t h a n 10 -6 .
Quantification of N o n c a r c i n o q e n i c Risk
T h e p o t e n t i a l for n o n c a r c i n o g e n i c e f f e c t s on h e a l t h is
e v a l u a t e d by c o m p a r i n g an e x p o s u r e level w i t h a r e f e r e n c e
dose. T h i s ratio of e x p o s u r e to t o x i c i t y is c a l l e d a h a z a r d
quotient. The h a z a r d q u o t i e n t a s s u m e s t h a t a level of
e x p o s u r e e x i s t s [i.e., r e f e r e n c e d o s e (RfD)] b e l o w w h i c h it
TABLE 4--Radionuclide and chemical risk for the off-WAG

homesteader and future on-WAG homesteader under
the institutional control scenario.
Radionuclides Chemicals a
Off-WAG On-WAG On-WAG

homesteader homesteader homesteader
Pathway Risk Percent b Risk Percent b Risk Percent
Inhalation 4E-8 <i 6E-2 <l 7E-8 <l

Inhalation . . . . . . . . . . . . 4E-5 9
while showering
Ingestion of IE-6 <i 3E-4 <i IE-6 <I
food c
Ingestion of 3E-6 <i 3E-4 <i 3E-4 87
water
Ingestion of 2E-8 <i IE-3 <i 2E- <I
soil i0 d
Dermal contact . . . . . . . . . . . . 8E-6 3
with
groundwater
Dermal contact . . . . . . . . . . . . 8E-8 <l
with
soil/sediment
External 6E-5 100 4E-1 I00 ......
exposure
Total 6E-5 4E-I 3E-4
aTotal risk from chemicals to the off-WAG homesteader was less than 10 .6.
brisk attributable to the specific pathway divided by receptor's total
risk; sum of total percents may be slightly greater than i00 due to
rounding.
CIncludes ingestion of fruits and vegetables, milk, and meat.
dIncludes ingestion of sediments.
is unlikely for a receptor to experience adverse health

effects. If the exposure l e v e l (E) e x c e e d s this threshold
( i . e . , if E / R f D e x c e e d s u n i t y ) , the potential exists for
noncarcinogenic effects to develop.
Exposures to noncarcinogenic chemicals may involve

potential exposure to several chemicals simultaneously for a
critical effect. To assess the overall potential for
noncarcinogenic effects in such circumstances, a hazard
index (HI) s p e c i f i c to a critical effect was used. The HI
is equal to the sum of the hazard quotients corresponding to
that effect. T h u s , t h e H I c a n e x c e e d u n i t y e v e n if n o
single chemical exposure exceeds the RfD for that chemical.
Naturally, any single chemical with an estimated daily
intake greater than the corresponding RfD will cause the HI
to exceed unity. When the HI exceeds unity, adverse
critical effects on human health may develop. At WAG 6, the

total pathway HI for the on-WAG homesteader exceeded unity
(1.4) However, no organ-specific critical effect totals
were at or above unity for this receptor. The HI for the
off-WAG homesteader was below unity (7.2 x 10-3).
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The baseline human health evaluation quantifies

potential carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects on
hypothetical receptors from exposure to radiological and
chemical contaminants. The objective of the evaluation is
to determine whether or not human health may be threatened,
given the evaluation of hypothetical scenarios, if no
remedial action is undertaken at WAG 6. Incremental
lifetime cancer risks are estimated on the basis of total
dose received from all possible exposure routes. These
calculated "excess" lifetime cancer risks are conservative
estimates of the reasonable maximum risk to hypothetical
receptors, using assumptions within the framework of
accepted health risk assessment methodologies.
REFERENCES
[!] Bechtel National, Inc./CH2MHILL/ERCE/PEER, 1991, RCRA

Facility Investigation Report for Waste Area Grouping 6
at Oak Ridqe National Laboratory, Oak Ridqe Tennessee,
ES/ER-22/VI&DI, ORNL/ER/Sub-87/99053/5/VI-V6, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee.
[2] EPA, 1989, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Vol.

I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A), EPA/549/I-
89/002, office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
Washington, D. C.
[!] EPA, 1991a, Supplemental Region IV Risk Assessment

Guidance, Atlanta, Georgia.
[4] EPA, 1990a, Guidance for Data Useability in Risk

Assessment, EPA/540/G-90/008, October.
[5] EPA, 1986, "Guidelines for the Carcinogen Risk

Assessment," Federal Register 51:33992-34013,
September 24.
[6] IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer),
1982, IARC Monoqraphs on the Evaluation of the
Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans, Supplement 4,
Lyon, France.
[Z] EPA, 1991b, Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables

First Quarter FY 1991, OERR9200.6-303(91-1), office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C.
[8] EPA, 1991c, Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS),

office of Research and Development, Environmental
Criteria and Assessment office, Cincinnati, Ohio, April
update.
[9] EPA, 1990b, National Oil and Hazardous Substances

Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Subpart E,
300.430(e) (2) (A) (2).55 FR 8848, March 8.
[i0] EPA, 1991d, Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment in

Superfund Remedy Selection Decisions, OSWER Directive
9355.0-03, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, Washington, D.C., April 22.
Susan D. Meadows 1, Susan M. Turnblom2, Thomas W. Hahne 3, and Timothy J.
Prendiville4
RISK E V A L U A T I O N OF LEAD IN SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT THE H. BROWN

SUPERFUND SITE IN WALKER, MICHIGAN
REFERENCE: Meadows, S. D., Trunblom, S. M., Hahne, T. W., and

Prendlville, T. J., "Risk Evaluation of Lead in Soil and
Groundwater at the H. Brown Superfund Site in Walker, Michigan,"
Suverfund Risk Assessment in Soil Contamination Studies, ASTM STP
1158. Keith B. Hoddinott, Editor, American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, 1992.
ABSTRACT: A remedial investigation was conducted at a lead battery recycling facility
in Walker, Michigan. The soil and groundwater are contaminated with high
concentrations of lead. A baseline risk assessment was complicated by the lack of toxicity
values for lead. The risk assessment compared on-site concentrations and worker blood
levels of lead with concentrations and blood levels shown to result in adverse health
effects. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Lead Uptake/Biokinetic Model was
also used to calculate potential blood lead levels in children on-site and in nearby
neighborhoods. On-site exposures for workers, future residents, and workers adjacent to
the site were concluded to be unacceptably high. For children in nearby neighborhoods
the exposures do not appear to be significant.
KEYWORDS: blood lead, Lead Uptake/Biokinetic Model, risk assessment, lead
The H. Brown Superfund site in Walker, Michigan is a former battery recycling

facility located near the Grand River, across the river from the city of Grand Rapids.
The site is in a light industrial area near residential neighborhoods and across the river
from large residential communities with schools and playgrounds. Soil concentrations of
lead as high as 26 percent were measured on the site. Many site-related contaminants of
concern other than lead were identified during site investigations, but this paper only
addresses how exposure to lead was evaluated.
Currently, the quantitative evaluation of health risks from lead exposure is

confounded by certain unique attributes of lead toxicity. The toxicity of lead may
depend on multiple factors specific to the exposed individual, such as age, sex, nutritional
1Toxicologist, PRC Environmental Management, Inc., 1907 Central Ave., Rm. 204,
Los Alamos, NM 87544.
2Toxicologist, PRC Environmental Management, Inc., 1411 Fourth Ave., Ste. 720,
Seattle, WA 98101.
3Project Manager, PRC Environmental Management, Inc., 233 N. Michigan Ave.,
Ste. 1621, Chicago, IL 60601.
4Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5,

Chicago, IL.
Copyright9 1992 by ASTM International www.aslm.org
status, the presence of certain genetic disorders, and lead body burden at the time of
exposure. Also, there may be no threshold for certain aspects of lead toxicity, including
the neurobehavioral effects in children and altered blood enzyme levels in adults.
Therefore, a qualitative assessment was developed for potential exposures resulting from
the lead contamination at the H. Brown site. The results of this assessment are compared
with results using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Lead U p t a k e /
Biokinetic Model.
The site area is essentially flat, with no drainage controls. In general, surface
runoff from the site flows to the eastern margin, then through two culverts that discharge
to a floodplain bordering the Grand River.
The site is located in Walker (population 15 088). The Grand River is 0.25 km
due east of the site, and the site is immediately north and west of Grand Rapids
(population 181 843). About half of the population of Walker has occupied the same
houses for 5 years or more [!]. Approximately 2 200 (15 percent) of the inhabitants of
Walker are 9 years of age or younger. Young children are at the greatest risk from this
site because of their susceptibility to the toxic effects of lead. There are seven schools
within 2 km (1.2 miles) of the site. The children in these schools represent a potentially
sensitive subpopulation that may be exposed to contaminants dispersed from the H. Brown
site.
The on-site and off-site employees of adjacent businesses to the north and south
and across Turner Avenue to the west are also potential receptors of contaminants from
the H. Brown site during working hours. Recreational users of the Grand River and the
riverfront park just east of the site may also be exposed to contaminants that migrate
from the site.
Sorption on soils and low water solubility are probably the major factors affecting
the distribution of lead in the environment. Soils at the H. Brown site are expected to
serve as a sink for this contaminant. Lead sorption onto soils is highly pH-dependent,
especially above a pH of 7, where essentially all the lead is in the solid phase [2__]. The pH
level of soils at the site is generally between 7.5 and 9.5, except in the proximity of the
battery acid spill area where soil surface pH is 4 to 5.5. At lower pH levels, lead is
leached from the soil during infiltration events, resulting in elevated levels of lead in
runoff water and potentially in groundwater.
METHODS
This human health risk assessment was conducted in accordance with guidelines
established by the EPA [3, 4_, 5_]. The method consisted of the following steps:
Evaluate data and identify chemicals of concern--screen remedial

investigation data for use in the quantitative risk assessment and in
identifying chemicals of concern.
Assess exposure--characterize contaminant concentrations, exposure

routes, transport pathways, potentially exposed populations, and chemical
doses that may result from that exposure.
Evaluate toxicity--identify the types of health effects that may result from
human exposure to these chemicals and the dose-response values that can
be used in combination with exposure levels to predict potential health
risks.
MEADOWS ET AL. ON RISK EVALUATION OF LEAD IN SOIL 247
Characterize risk--estimate health risks using dose-response data and

human exposure information, and discuss the uncertainties associated with
the risk assessment.
Lead Concentrations Used in Exnosur~ Calc~llations
The upper 95 percent confidence limit of the mean for contaminant concentrations
in soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediments was used to calculate exposures to
receptors exposed on or near the site. Contaminants could be transported off-site in
surface water runoff, in groundwater, and through the air.
Deep groundwater underneath the site apparently migrates to the east, and shallow
groundwater may migrate to the east, where it is thought to empty into the Grand River.
Potential receptors of contaminants in groundwater entering the Grand River are aquatic
organisms and humans downstream from the point of confluence.
Air concentrations of lead on the H. Brown site were measured during the site
investigation. This information was used to estimate exposure concentrations in air for
downwind receptors, as described below.
During the remedial investigation, PRC Environmental Management, Inc.

measured air concentrations of lead (in particulate form) on the H. Brown site and at the
site perimeter. Based on site conditions, wind-blown contaminated dust and soil particles
were identified as the primary air exposure route.
The estimation procedure was based on a method developed by Gravitz [6] and
used air concentrations of lead, measured at the downwind fenceline of the H. Brown site
as a starting point. The method then used a simple atmospheric dispersion model [7_] to
estimate the additional dispersion to potential receptors.
Exno~ure Estimation
The risk assessment assumed baseline conditions at the site. Two sets of
conditions were considered for baseline exposure estimates: restricted and unrestricted
public access to the site. Under current conditions, access is restricted. Public exposure
could occur only through off-site transport of chemicals in groundwater, surface water
and sediments, and air. Workers, however, could be exposed on the site by inhaling
particulates and vapors and through dermal contact with and accidental or incidental
ingestion of contaminated soils. Estimates for the future assume that development of the
H. Brown site will result in unrestricted public access and full use of local resources by
persons living on the site. The potential exposure pathways as a result of unrestricted
public access include ingestion of soil, groundwater, and surface water; dermal absorption
of chemicals in soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediments; and inhalation of fugitive
dust emissions.
The reasonable maximum exposures (RME) were calculated based on the upper 95
percent confidence limits of mean chemical concentrations and the 95th or 90th percentile
values for contact rate, exposure frequency, and exposure duration [~].
Exposure was averaged over body weight and the time over which the exposure
was estimated to occur:
~Qt~l exoosure
Chronic exposure ffi body weight x averaging time
Total exposure is calculated as follows:
Total Exposure ffi Contaminant x Contact x Exposure

Concentration Rate Duration
The following standard assumptions were used in estimating lead intake for each
route of exposure [~, 3, ~]. These assumptions were reviewed and approved by EPA
Region $ and Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR):
9 Exposure duration is assumed to be 9 years (national average time at one

residence) for children, 30 years (national upper-bound time at one
residence) for adults, and 45 years for workers.
9 Contact rates for exposure to lead in soils are 200 mg soil/day (ingestion
rate for children aged 2-6 years) and 100 mg soil/day (ingestion rate for
adults) for the ingestion route. Skin area exposed is hands and forearms
(3 120 cm2) for workers, and hands~ forearms, and lower legs for residents
(4 050 cm ~ for adults and 3 160 cm" for children aged 3-4).
9 The daily contact rate for exposure to lead in groundwater through

ingestion is 2 L/day for adults and 1 L/day for children.
9 The daily contact rate for exposure to lead in air is 30 m3/day for
inhalation for nonoccupational exposure and 3.0 m3/hour for outdoor
occupational exposure on-site (both rates are reasonable worst-case values).
Inhalation exposures of children in the Riverside School neighborhood
were estimated using an inhalation rate of 22 m3/day. This estimate
accounts for a daily activity level mix of 25 percent resting, 60 percent
light activity, 10 percent moderate activity, and 5 percent heavy activity
[~.
9 The average body weight for the exposed adult population is 70 kg. The
average body weight is 16 kg for children 1 to 6 years old and 25 kg for
children 6 to 9 years old.
Toxicity Evaluation of Lead
Normal adults absorb about 10 percent of an oral dose of a lead compound, the
amount absorbed depends on the nature of the compound and on the individual.
Absorption is higher in children, up to 50 percent, or 5 times greater than in adults [~.
Absorption is also affected by concurrent dietary levels of calcium, iron, fats, and
proteins, high dietary calcium tends to reduce lead absorption and may indicate a common
transport mechanism. Fasting increases the absorption of ingested lead. The deposition
of airborne lead in the lungs ranges from 30 to 50 percent, depending on particle size and
ventilation rates (Friberg, 1986 [10]). About half the lead deposited in the alveoli is
absorbed. Small amounts of inorganic lead may also be absorbed through the skin when
applied in high concentrations. Alkyl (organic) lead compounds are more readily
absorbed through the skin than are inorganic compounds.
Most (90 to 95 percent) of the absorbed lead is deposited in the bones; the
remainder is widely distributed. Lead is not metabolized, but its interactions with
enzymes, ~,specially sulfur-containing enzymes, produce the toxic effects. Excretion,
mostly in the urine, is very slow; the half-life of bone lead ranges from 10 to 27 years.
Lead apparently continues to accumulate in humans throughout life. There is a fairly
strong correlation between the degree of lead intoxication and body burden of lead
(International Agency for Research on Cancer [IARC], 1972 [I_.Q]). Children tend to retain
a greater dose in soft tissues than do adults, with a 27.5 percent body burden in soft
tissues versus 5 percent in adults. A greater proportion of the total body burden (and
dose) is therefore available to produce toxic effects in children [9].
Chronic lead poisoning produces loss of appetite, metallic taste, constipation,

anemia, pallor, malaise, weakness, insomnia, headache, nervous irritability, muscle and
joint pains, fine tremors, damage to kidney tubules, and in cases of high, long-term
exposure, chronic nephritis. Other effects include certain muscular weaknesses (wrist
drop) and lead encephalopathy. Lead affects the peripheral nervous system by interfering
with the transmission between nerve cells (Kostial, 1957 [I_.Q]).
The most sensitive indicators of lead toxicity are the changes in certain blood
enzyme levels and neurobehavioral effects in children. EPA considers it inappropriate to
develop a chronic reference dose for lead, because these effects may occur at blood levels
so low that no threshold is apparent [l_!]. Other signs of low-dose lead toxicity include
learning deficits and growth retardation in children and hypertension in middle-aged
men. Exposure to low doses of lead in childhood causes long-lasting effects, even in
young adults [12]. Blood lead levels in children ranging from 40 to g0 micrograms per
deciliter (/~g/dL) have been associated with decreased intelligence and slowed
neuromuscular responses (Lancranjan et al., 1975 [1_.0_]).
Lead is not known to be carcinogenic in humans, but many animal studies have
found a significant increase in tumors, primarily of the kidney, at the highest doses
tested. EPA has therefore concluded that lead is a probable human carcinogen,
classification B2 [11]. However, no slope factor has been developed for lead. The EPA
Carcinogen Assessment Group recommends against using a numerical estimate because
properties that may be unique to lead limit the usefulness of such an estimate for
describing the potential cancer risk associated with lead exposure [1_1.1]. A few clinical
studies have found chromosomal defects in workers with blood lead levels above 60 #g/alL
[1_.~.], indicating that lead may alter genetic material.
Lead has severe reproductive toxicity, producing premature deliveries and

spontaneous abortions in women. In men, blood lead levels greater than 52 #g/dL have
been associated with altered sperm production (Lancranjan et al., 1975 [I_.Q]).
Lead Risk Characterization
Because the unique properties of lead discussed above make quantification of

toxicity values impossible [1_].], a qualitative evaluation of the risk associated with the lead
concentrations present on the H. Brown site was performed. Two approaches were used
in this evaluation. First, lead concentrations on the H. Brown site and the doses estimated
to result from these concentrations were compared to lead concentrations and doses that
have been shown to cause adverse health effects. Blood lead (PbB) results for on-site
workers were compared to PbB results reported in various occupational studies.
The risks to exposed children at schools and playgrounds were difficult to estimate
because of uncertainties inherent in modeled exposure concentrations and the fact that the
bioavailability of lead in children may be considerably higher than in adults. Using
published information on the relative bioavailability of lead in children versus adults, a
conversion factor was developed to derive an "adult-equivalent-dose" from the estimated

R M E for children off-site. Because adult on-site exposures were unacceptable, this
modified R M E for children was then compared to the estimated R M E for on-site adults
as an approximation of the potential for adverse health effects.
In the second approach to evaluating the risk from lead, the EPA Lead
Uptake/Bioklnetic Model [J..#.] was used to approximate PbB levels in children exposed to
lead contamination on or from the H. Brown site. At the time of publication the Model
was only available on a limited basis to EPA Regions and their representatives. The
model was used with the permission of EPA Region 5 toxicologist Pat Van Leeuwen.
The model and its parameters are fully described in two EPA documents [14, 1_~.].
The model consists of a series of equations that incorporate assumptions regarding the
uptake (absorption) of lead from all common environmental sources (that is, air, diet,
drinking water, indoor dust, soil, and paint). These assumptions are derived from
published data. The model calculates the expected PbB for children aged 0 to 84 months
(7 years).
The user can alter the EPA default values for lead based on site-specific
information. For the analyses presented here, only the environmental media default
values (air, soil, and drinking water) were changed to reflect the conditions at the H.
Brown site. No other parameters were changed from those described in the EPA user's
guide [.!~].
The lead model was developed by EPA because the noncarcinogenic effects of
lead in infants and young children do not appear to exhibit a threshold. In other words,
there is no evidence of a dose or exposure level of lead below which no adverse effects
are observed.
PbB levels in children have been correlated with a diverse group of adverse
effects, including impaired mental and physical development, decreased heme
biosynthesis, and decreased levels of Vitamin D in blood serum. These effects have been
correlated with a range of PbB levels extending below 10/~g/dL.
There are insufficient data to define the dose-response relationship of lead in

children at PbB levels below 10/~g/dL. A PbB range of 10-15/~g/dL is considered a level
of concern (not to be confused with a threshold). Adverse effects may be associated with
PbB less than 10-15//g/dL. Adverse effects occurring at 10-15/~g/dL and above may be
sufficiently significant to warrant regulatory action.
PbB levels calculated using the lead model in this analysis were compared with a
10/~g/dL benchmark or cutoff value. Two analyses using the model were performed.
The first analysis considered the contribution of lead from the H. Brown site to air
concentrations of lead at Riverside School and the resulting effect on PbB in a population
of children living near the school. The other analysis considered the effect of site lead
concentrations on a population of children living on the site and being exposed to
measured on-site lead concentrations in soil, groundwater, and air. "
The exposure of children at the nearby riverfront park was not considered in this
analysis because the lead model is designed to calculate PbB levels based on daily
continuous exposure, such as exposure that would occur in the vicinity of a child's home.
RESULTS
The lead concentrations present on the H. Brown site were compared to lead
concentrations known to cause adverse health effects and to regulatory standards. The 95
percent upper confidence limit of the arithmetic mean concentration of lead in
groundwater at the site is 0.55 mg/L. This level is 28 percent of the level of lead in
drinking water (2-3 rag/L) that was reported to cause cases of clinical lead poisoning in
Scotland (Goldberg, 1974 [1.0_]). Adverse neurological effects that correlated with lead
body burden have been detected in children who showed no previously recognized
symptoms of lead poisoning [1_.2.]. There is less than a fourfold difference between
groundwater concentrations of lead on the H. Brown site and the levels of lead in
drinking water demonstrated to produce clinical poisoning. If groundwater were used as a
source of drinking water at the site, the hazard would likely be significant. Furthermore,
lead concentrations are 10 times higher than maximum contaminant levels promulgated
under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.
The air concentrations of lead measured at the downwind fenceline and the site
center averaged 7.4/lg/m ~ [.!.6.]. Lead levels measured in the breathing zone of two
workers during their normal duties at the site were nearly 70/~g/m 3 [1_.77]. Studies suggest
that inhaling 1 //g/m 3 of lead in respirable particles increases the blood levels by I /~g/dL
[13].
PbB levels are well correlated with recent exposure [13]. Blood tests of the
employees at the H. Brown site revealed PbB levels ranging from 40 to above 60 #g/dL
[1-7.7]. An unrelated study of workers with mean PbB levels of 32• #g/dL showed lead-
related effects such as decreased serum phosphorus and abnormal urine concentrating
ability (Greenburg et al., 1986 [.1_0.]). Adverse effects on the reproductive ability of men
with PbB levels above 41 #g/dL have also been demonstrated (Lancranjan et al., 1975
[LQ.D. A risk of lead poisoning has been demonstrated at PbB levels above 60/~g/dL,
according to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH, 1978 [10]).
One worker at the H. Brown site had PbB above this level. This worker exhibited an
elevated level of erythrocyte protoporphyrin (a component of blood cells), a symptom of
lead intoxication indicating impairment of hemoglobin synthesis, the blood component
responsible for the transport of oxygen in the body [17, J.~].
Exposures were calculated for a variety of receptors as described above in the

Methods section. The results of RME calculations for lead are presented in Table 1. The
highest doses calculated are for current on-site workers and future workers and residents
on the site.
The exposure of off-site workers at the adjacent business to the north is about
2 percent of the on-site worker exposure, if direct contact is included. The ingestion and
inhalation exposure is about 21 percent (or one-fifth) of on-site worker exposure by these
routes alone.
Children playing at the nearby park were estimated to have an exposure of

0.001 percent of the on-site worker exposure. A PbB level of 10 to 15/~g/dL has been
cited as a level of concern for adverse effects in children [1_~]. This level is about
25 percent of the PbB levels found in workers on the H. Brown site (see above). Only a
hypothetical child living on the site would be exposed to lead levels equivalent to the
exposure of on-site workers. However, studies indicate that children may absorb lead at a
rate 5 times that of adults following ingestion and may retain 5 times more of the dose in
a form that is available to produce toxic effects [9]. Although the increased absorption
rate does not necessarily imply a 5-fold difference in peak dose, this was assumed for the
purposes of this evaluation. This information was used to develop an approximate factor
for converting the exposure of a child to an adult-equivalent-dose. The exposure for a
T A B I ~ 1 - Total ~ Lead l k t e s F t u a All Peteatinl Pathwa~
03
( ~ effem eme) IX}
(=g/trdday)
C
Current Future "0
On-Site Adjacent Child Child On-Site Resident Resident m
Receptor Worker Worker at Park At School Worker Adult Child -n
"11
C
Z
Pathway C~
:]3
Inhalation 1 x 10 "3 1 x I0 "3 9 x 10 .7 8 x 10 "6 1 x 10 "3 3 x 10 "3 9 x 10 "3
Direct contact 2 x 100 2 x 10-2 NA (a) NA 2 x 100 2 x 100 1 x 100 ~Z
(Soils) O3>
03
Ingestion 8 x 10 "2 2 x 10-2 NA NA 8 x 10 "2 2 x 10"1 2 x 100 m
(Soils)
Direct contact NA NA 4 x 10 "6 NA NA 1 x 10.5 3 x 10"5

E
m
(Surface water) Z
(Sediments) 7 x 10 -6 NA 1 x 10-3 3 x 10-3 --4
Ingestion NA NA NA
(Ground water) NA 6 x 10 -3 2 x 10-2 2 x 10"2
(Surface water) 2 x 10 "5 NA 3 x 10-5 2 x 10-4
TOTAL
with direct b 2 x 100 4 x 10 -2 3 x 10 -5 2 x 100 2 x 100 3 x 100

contact
without direct 8 x 10 -2 2 x 10-2 2 x 10 -5 8 x 10-6 9 x 10-2 2 x 10"1 2 x 100
contact
(a) NA = Pathway not applicable for this receptor.
(b) Exposures estimated for direct contact with chemicals in soil and water are associated with a high degree of uncertainty, so total eXlXmurce ware calculated with and without direct
contact exposures to assess contribution of direct contact exposures to total.
child playing at the nearby park (0.034/tg/kg-day) times the conversion factor (5x5ffi25) is
equal to an adult-equivalent-dose of approximately 0.8/tg/kg-day, or about 0.03 percent
of the dose to on-site workers. Similarly, the inhalation exposure to students at Riverside
School was converted to an adult-equivalent-dose of 0.21 ~tg/kg-day (2.1x10 TM
mg/kg-day), about 20 percent of the inhalation exposure to on-site workers.
The nutritional status of an exposed child also influences the effects of lead,
through such factors as levels of calcium, Vitamin D, iron, zinc, fats, proteins, and
phosphate, as well as hormonal influences [19, 18]. The baseline lead body burden also
determines whether additional exposure will result in unacceptable PbB levels and
corresponding adverse effects. As stated above, the EPA has determined that there may
be no threshold for the adverse effects of lead, particularly for the neurobehavioral
effects seen in children [11]. Clearly, the H. Brown site would be unacceptable for
residential development based solely on the health hazard demonstrated from lead
contamination. The hazard to children in school or playing near the site is less certain.
The PbB levels in children exposed to contamination at the H. Brown site were
also estimated using the EPA lead model. Figure 1 presents the probability-density
curves for PbB in children resulting from four different air concentrations of lead. PbB
levels were calculated based on total environmental exposure, but only the concentrations
of lead in air were modified to reflect site-specific conditions. Curves 1 and 2 are
identical and appear as one curve on the graph. The apex (highest point) of each curve
represents the geometric mean PbB level. The vertical line indicates a 10/zg/dL
benchmark value for comparison with each curve.
The curves represent different air concentrations as follows:.
Curve 1 ffi 0.209 #g lead/m3 of air

Curve 2= 0.250/Jg lead/v~ ~ of air
Curve 3 ffi 2.50 #8 lead/m~ of air
Curve 4 ffi 7.40 #8 lead/m e of air
Curve 1 was calculated using the default value for lead in air (0.200 # 8 / m 3) plus
the concentration of lead in air predicted to occur at Riverside School as a result of
dispersion from the H. Brown site (0.009/Jg/m~; assuming the site is an area source and
the wind blows toward the school 9.2 percent of the time).
A Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) air specialist derived an

air concentration that when adjusted using wind rose data, equates to 0.052 # g / m 3,
approximately 6 times higher than the value presented above (0.009/~g/m3). Curve 2
presents the results of the model using the M D N R - d e r i v e d value (0.052 ffg/m ~) plus the
default value (0.200 fig/m3). Curves 1 and 2 are nearly indistinguishable in the figure.
Curve 3 is based on an arbitrary air concentration value of 10 times the value used in
Curve 2. This value (2.5 ffg/m ~) was used to provide perspective. Curve 4 was calculated
using the on-site measured concentration of 7.4 ffg/m ~
The results of the model calculations indicate that at all four air lead
concentrations, a small percentage of children (less than 1 percent in all four cases) would
exhibit PbB levels above the 10/~8/dL benchmark value. When compared to PbB levels
resulting from typical urban air concentrations of lead, shown in Figure 2, Curves 1 and 2
within Figure 1 are within the typical range. Air lead concentrations in urban areas
typically range from 0.10 to 0.30 # g / m 3. The estimated contribution of the H. Brown site
lead to air at Riverside School does not appear to significantly affect the lead
concentrations at that location.
Cutos i8.8 ug/dL

Run i: 8.86|
Run 2:8.861
Run 3: 8.tGZ
A
Run 4: 8.9iZ
qq
CO
|0
~N
3v
,iq
,r
"0
~0
0C
8 2 4 6 8 t8 t2 t4 t6
BLOODLERDCOHCEHI'RRTIOH(ug/dL)
Note: The population distributions of blood

lead levels were calculated using the FIGURE 1
EPA lead uptake/biokinetic model
Version 0.50 1141. The dashed line COMPARISON OF POTENTIALBLOOD LEAD
represents the 10/;/dL cutoff value LEVELS IN A HYPOTHETICALPOPULATION
of blood lead, above which potential OF CHILDREN EXPOSEDTO FOUR
adverse health effects are expected CONCENTRATIONS OF LEAD IN NR
to be significant enough to be of Pmpamd~:
regulatory concern.
PRC ENVIRONMENTALMANAGEMENT,INC.
t I ' I ' I ' I i I i I ~ I ' I i I i I I I
Cutoff: to.o ug/dL

Z Above:~9.~
l
k ~1~: ~99.94
r ~an: 13.23
A
,d
CO
I0
t=l.
:Iv
,14
" C
" 0
i; ,14
0
,},, i 2
T I
3
I I
4
~ I
5
v I
G
i I ~-P-,
7 8
j
9 tO
i
t!
I l
t2
BLOODLFJ~ CONC~1TJtTION(ug/clL)
Note: The population distributions of blood

lead levels were calculated using the RGURE 2
Version 0.50 [141. The dashed line THE DISTRIBUTIONOF BLOOD LEAD
represents the 10/~/dL cutoff value LEVELS IN A PP/POTHETICALPOPULATION
of blood lead, above which potential OF CHILDREN E3(POSEDTO LEAD
adverse health effects are expected AT TYPICAL URBANNR CONCENTRATIONS
to be significant enough to be of (]3~A, 1~1b)
regulatory concern. Pmpan~
PRC ENVIRONMENTALMANAGEMENT,INC.
Typical concentrations of lead in air within 2 to 5 km (approximately 1 to 3 miles)

of point sources such as lead smelters and battery plants are 0.3 to 3.0 #g/m e. Curve 3
(Figure 1) gives an approximation of predicted PbB levels for children exposed to air lead
concentrations at the upper end of this range. At 2.50 #g/m 3, the percentage of a
hypothetical population of children exposed daily that would have PbB levels above the
10/tg/dL benchmark value would be 0.16 percent, or 16 in 10,000. Approximately 3 times
as many children are predicted to have PbB levels above the benchmark value in this case
than at typical urban air lead concentrations.
The air lead concentrations measured on-site (7.4/~g/m 3) would put nearly 1 in
1,000 children (0.91 percent) at risk of exhibiting PbB levels above the benchmark value
(Curve 4 in Figure 1). This number is an increase of 15 times the typical number of
children that may be in this risk group.
In summary, children living in the vicinity of Riverside School may not be at

significantly greater risk of achieving PbB levels above the 10/~g/dL benchmark as a
result of windborne dispersion of lead from the H. Brown site. Children living on-site (as
in the future hypothetical case) would, however, be at significantly greater risk based on
measured air concentrations alone.
If the lead concentrations measured in all on-site media (soil, air, and
groundwater) are used in place of the model default parameters, the result is represented
by the curve shown in Figure 3. One hundred percent of children living on-site would
have PbB levels that exceed the 10/~g/dL benchmark. At the high concentrations of lead
measured on-site, it is not possible to accurately predict the resulting PbB levels. Because
the red blood cells reach a saturation concentration at high intake levels, the predicted
levels may not be physically possible. They demonstrate, however, that on-site exposure
would be unacceptably high.
As stated above, the exposure of children frequenting the riverfront park cannot
be directly evaluated using the lead model, because exposure at the park would not be on
a daily, continuous basis. However, typical concentrations of lead in the environment
reported by EPA [.1.~] were used to derive the Lead Model default parameters. In the
following discussion, these typical values are compared to concentrations of lead measured
at the riverfront park.
Concentrations of lead in ambient water (such as rivers and streams) tend to range
from less than 3 to 28/~g/L. The maximum background concentration measured in the
Grand River is within this range, at 14/~g/L. The 95 percent upper confidence limit
concentration measured downstream from the H. Brown site is 55/~g/L, approximately
2 times the upper end of the typical range. The default value used in the lead model is
4 #g/L, slightly below the typical range of lead found in drinking water (5 to
2 100/~g/L), which includes water obtained from lead piping and faucets. Lead
concentrations downstream of the H. Brown site may be slightly elevated based on these
values but are still within the range typically found in drinking water. Also, while lead
concentrations downstream are approximately 14 times the default value used in the Lead
Model for drinking water, the incidental ingestion of river water is expected to be much
less than the ingestion of drinking water. The model uses an approximate consumption
rate of 0.5 liters of water per day for children, which results in a yearly intake of 182
liters of water. If incidental ingestion of river water while swimming is conservatively
estimated to be 0.05 liters per hour for 2.6 hours per day for 28 days per year, this results
in an annual river water consumption of 3.64 liters, only 2 percent of drinking water
ingestion. In other words, while the 95 percent upper confidence limit estimate of lead in
the river is 14 times greater than the default value for drinking water used in the Lead
Model, the contact or ingestion rate is one-fiftieth of the rate assumed in the model.
' i ' I ' I i I i I '
CutofC: 16.6 ug/dL

~ Above: t90.66
Be]oH: 9.66
g. He=: i48i.~.49
A
3~
,d
C 0
0 0
=
Pv
,i,I
" C
*=,q
0
=0
0C
tM888 2M888 3N88e 48NM 500000

BLOOD~ COHC~T~'['IOH (ug/dL)
Note: The population distribution of blood

lead levels were calculated using the RGURE 3
Version 0.50 [l_.4J. Saturation of HYPOTHETICAL BLOOD ~ IN
lead uptake mechanisms would prevent A POPULATION OF CHILDREN
these levels from actually being EXPOSED TO LEAD CONCENTRAllON8
achieved. This curve merely illustrates IN AIR, SOIL, AND WATER ON THE
that the lead levels on-site would result H. BROWN SITE
in lead poisoning if children were exposed Pr~oar~,,~.
to them in n residential setting.
PRC ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, INC.
Typical sediment concentrations of lead are not reported by EPA [.!.~.], but typical
soil concentrations in urban areas are reported as 30 to 4 500 mg/kg. The lead model uses
a default soil concentration of 200 mg/kg. The 95 percent upper confidence limit lead
concentration in river sediments measured downstream of the site was 97 mg/kg, or about
half the default value used in the model for soil concentrations.
In summary, the concentrations of lead in sediments and surface water at the

riverfront park are near the lower end of the range for typical soil and drinking water
concentrations, although 95 percent upper confidence limit concentrations in river water
are about twice the typical ambient water concentrations. At the relatively low
concentrations of lead in the river, and with the lack of daily continuous exposure there,
it is unlikely that children playing at the riverfront park would be at significant risk.
CONCLUSION
The main conclusion of the baseline risk assessment is that contaminated soil
presents a significant health threat to current workers on the site, workers immediately to
the north of the site, and hypothetical future residents if the site is developed for
residential use. Dermal absorption of inorganic lead is low, but calculated dermal
exposures appear high. Because of the large uncertainty associated with dermal
exposures, several conservative assumptions are incorporated into the dermal exposure
calculations. Consequently, the main exposure pathways of concern are considered to be
incidental ingestion of the contaminated soil and inhalation of the soil as dust. The
current risk that the H. Brown site poses to children living off-site appears to be low.
However, no sampling has been conducted in the Riverside School neighborhood. The
nutritional status and baseline lead levels of children in this neighborhood are unknown.
REFERENCES
[~ U.S. Department of Commerce, 1983. Census of the Population. Vol. I.
Characteristics of the Population, Chapter C, Part 24. Washington, D.C.
[~ Huang, C. P. et al., 1977. lnterfacial Reaction and the Fate of Heavy Metals in
Soil-Water Systems. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation 49: 745-
756.
[~ U.S. Environment Protection Agency, 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund, Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Interim Final.
EPA/540/I-89/002.
[4_] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund, Volume II, Environmental Evaluation Manual. Interim Final.
EPA/540/1-89/001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989. Exposure Factors Handbook.

EPA/600/8-g9/043.
[61 Gravitz, N., 1985. Derivation and Implementation of Air Criteria During
Hazardous Waste Site Cleanups. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association
35(7):753.
[7] Turner, D.B., 1970. Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates. AP-26.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina.
[P.] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988. Superfund Exposure Assessment

Manual. OSWER Directive 9285.5-1. Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1984. Air Quality Criteria for Lead.
EPA/600/8-83/028B.
(..t.O.] Hazardous Substance Data Bank, 1990. National Library of Medicine Online
Database. Bethesda, Maryland.
[.U.] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990. Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS). Online database. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, Ohio.
[J21 Needleman, H. L., A. Schell, D. Bellinger, A. Leviton, and E. N. Allred, 1990.

The Long-term Effects of Exposure to Low Doses of Lead in Childhood, An 1l -
Year Follow-up Report. New England Journal of Medicine, 322:83-88.
[!~.1 Klaassen, C. D., M. O. Amdur, and J. DoulI, editors, 1986. Casarett and Doull's
Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons. Third Edition. MacMillan Publishing
Company, New York.
[1_4] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991. User's Guide for Lead: A PC
Software Application of the Uptake/Biokinetic Model Version 0.50. First Draft,
January 1991. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Office of Health
and Environmental Assessment.
[LS_] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991. Technical Support Document on
Lead. First Draft, January 1991. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office,
Office of Health and Environmental Assessment.
[l_.~ PRC, 1989. Draft Data Transmittal Memorandum for Phase 1 Remedial
Investigation, H. Brown Superfund Site, Walker, Michigan. PRC Environmental
Management, Inc., Chicago, lllinois.
[LT.I Wiener, R. M., 1989. Michigan Department of Public Health, Letter to Rael
Brown of the H. Brown Company, September 29, 1989.
[L8_] Doull, J., Klaassan, C. D., and M. O. Amdur, editors, 1980. Casarett and Doull's
Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons. Second Edition. MacMillan Publishing
Company, New York.
[]9] Gilman, A. G., L.S. Goodman, and A. Gilman, editors, 1980. Goodman and
Gilman's The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. Sixth Edition. MacMillan
Publishing Company, New York.
G o r d o n M. Elliott I
RISK ASSESSMENT AND CONTAMINATED SITES
REFERENCE: Elliott, G. M., "Risk A s s e s s m e n t a n d C o n t a m i n a t e d

Sites," SuDerfund R i s k A s s e s s m e n t in Soil C o n t a m i n a t i o n Studies,
A S T M STP 1158. K e i t h B. Hoddinott, Editor, A m e r i c a n Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1992.
Abstract: D e c i s i o n s about r e m e d i a t i n g c o n t a m i n a t e d sites are m a d e
p r i m a r i l y on the basis of human h e a l t h risk: d e f i n e d as the expected
f r e q u e n c y of o c c u r r e n c e of an u n a c c e p t a b l e h e a l t h response in a
p o p u l a t i o n e x p o s e d to hazardous substances. However, current methods of
h u m a n health e v a l u a t i o n are of little help to t h o s e who, not only wish
to m i n i m i z e h e a l t h risk, but also m a k e a wise economic d e c i s i o n that
m i n i m i z e s current costs and future e n v i r o n m e n t a l liability. This paper
explores a p r o b a b i l i s t i c approach to human health risk assessment that
g e n e r a t e s results in a form that can be used to satisfy b o t h the
concerns of r e g u l a t o r y authorities and the concerns of those w h o seek
c o s t - e f f e c t i v e remedies. The a p p r o a c h is illustrated using the results
from a d e m o n s t r a t i o n project u s i n g data for an e x i s t i n g S u p e r f u n d site.
Keywords: economic risk, h e a l t h risk, risk assessment, c o n t a m i n a t e d

sites, probability, decision making, case history, Bayesian Updating,
M o n t e Carlo, c u m u l a t i v e density function.
INTRODUCTION
C E R C L A and the Superfund p r o g r a m were d e v e l o p e d in response to a

national r e a l i z a t i o n that past i n d i s c r i m i n a t e releases of hazardous
substances had r e s u l t e d in a d e t e r i o r a t i o n of the environment and a real
threat to human health. S o m e t h i n g had to be done to identify where
these hazards e x i s t e d and to r e m o v e or reduce the threat that these
substances present to human health and the environment.
Individual h e a l t h risk is the p a r a m e t e r that was chosen then, and

is still used now, to measure and judge the severity of a h e a l t h hazard
p o s e d by a c o n t a m i n a t e d site, and to define "how clean is clean" in
c o n n e c t i o n w i t h i m p l e m e n t i n g a remedy. Individual health risk is
defined as the number of p e o p l e that are expected to experience an
unacceptable, adverse health r e s p o n s e from e x p o s u r e to chemicals under
p r e s c r i b e d conditions, divided by the size of the exposed population.
In the S u p e r f u n d context, risk assessment is the process of

e s t i m a t i n g the individual health risk to chemicals released at a site.
The r i s k assessment is usually carried out in two steps: first an
exposure assessment to estimate the exposure dose, and then a toxicity
assessment to e s t i m a t e the individual health risk given that dose.
The approach to risk a s s e s s m e n t currently adopted by the United

States E n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o n A g e n c y (USEPA 1990a) follows a
d e t e r m i n i s t i c logic that quantifies individual h e a l t h risk for the
IAssociate, Golder Associates Inc., Atlanta, GA 30341.
ELLIOTF ON RISK ASSESSMENT AND CONTAMINATED SITES 261
"reasonable m a x i m u m exposure". The U S E P A d e f i n e s r e a s o n a b l e m a x i m u m

such that only p o t e n t i a l e x p o s u r e s that are l i k e l y to occur w i l l be
included in the assessment of e x p o s u r e s (USEPA 1990b). However, the
logic e m b o d i e d in the current g u i d a n c e (USEPA 1990a) assumes a specific
and n a r r o w set of exposure conditions, and then, using c o n s e r v a t i v e
p a r a m e t e r values, calculates the individual h e a l t h risk. O n e then
h a s t e n s to t h e q u e s t i o n "how likely is the o c c u r r e n c e of the c a l c u l a t e d
risk?". W h i l e the U S E P A a p p r o a c h has b e e n successful in c r y s t a l l i z i n g
p u b l i c focus on the issues of e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n t a m i n a t i o n and health
risk, it has n e i t h e r been e a s i l y adapted, nor s u c c e s s f u l l y u s e d for
i d e n t i f y i n g c o s t - e f f e c t i v e remedies for sites.
O n e e x p l a n a t i o n is that t h e indivldual h e a l t h r i s k c a l c u l a t i o n
i n c o r p o r a t e s m a n y layers of c o m p o u n d e d levels of c o n s e r v a t i s m that are
t r a n s p a r e n t to t h e calculated individual h e a l t h risk (e.g., Brookes
1990; B u r m a s t e r and Lehr 1991). A n o t h e r p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n is that by
a d o p t i n g a frequentist d e f i n i t i o n of risk r a t h e r than an e c o n o m i c
d e f i n i t i o n of risk, the scope of the current m e t h o d of h u m a n health risk
a s s e s s m e n t is t o o n a r r o w for choosing c o s t - e f f e c t l v e remedies. Owing to
t h e inherent u n c e r t a i n t y in p r e d i c t i n g the r e l i a b i l i t y of p o s s i b l e
remedies, one r e m e d y that costs s u b s t a n t i a l l y m o r e than another in terms
of c o n s t r u c t i o n m a y in fact be only a little m o r e reliable in the long
term.
This p a p e r presents a p r o b a b i l i s t i c approach to c a l c u l a t i n g

individual h e a l t h risk. Several recent p u b l i c a t i o n s have a d v o c a t e d
similar v a r i a t i o n s of this approach (e.g., Finkel 1990; F r e e z e et al.
1991; Lioy et al. 1991). This alternative a p p r o a c h is aimed at
a d d r e s s i n g some of the issues faced by industry in addition to
e v a l u a t i n g r e g u l a t o r y compliance. The a p p r o a c h is s u b s e q u e n t l y
i l l u s t r a t e d u s i n g a case study for an e x i s t i n g S u p e r f u n d site.
THBID~,~'s R I S K C~LCULATZON
An individual who is p o t e n t i a l l y e x p o s e d to h a z a r d o u s chemicals

r e l e a s e d to the e n v i r o n m e n t will only exhibit a health r e s p o n s e if a
specific series of c i r c u m s t a n c e s occur together. There must be an
i d e n t i f i a b l e source of the h a z a r d o u s substances of concern, and a
m e c h a n i s m by w h i c h these chemicals can be r e l e a s e d and t r a n s p o r t e d away
from the source towards a p o t e n t i a l receptor. Then there m u s t be a
m e a n s of i n t e r c e p t i n g the path of the m i g r a t i n g chemicals and taking
t h e m into the b o d y of an e x p o s e d individual in sufficient q u a n t i t i e s to
cause a r e s p o n s e that might not otherwise have occurred. This series of
c i r c u m s t a n c e s is referred to as an exposure scenario. In reality, all
of the elements of an exposure scenario are u n c e r t a i n and v a r y with time
such that it cannot be d e t e r m i n e d with c e r t a i n t y that there will be a
h e a l t h effect or not. However, there will c l e a r l y be no r i s k if any one
of the c i r c u m s t a n c e s that comprise an e x p o s u r e scenario is absent.
Once all the exposure scenarios have b e e n identified and the

c o m p o n e n t s quantified, the average l i f e t i m e - d a i l y dose (ALDD) and the
h e a l t h risk can be calculated for an individual p i c k e d at r a n d o m from a
p o p u l a t i o n g r o u p e x p o s e d under the assumed conditions. The equation for
c a l c u l a t i n g the ALDD for a p a r t i c u l a r chemical in a p a r t i c u l a r medium,
t a k i n g into account the v a r i a t i o n w i t h t i m e of p a r a m e t e r v a l u e s and the
p r o p o r t i o n of an individual's intake that contains hazardous substances
m i g r a t i n g from a suspected source, is here given by:
ALDD = ~ C(0 ~0 F(0 ~ (I)

~(0 L
where C(t) is the c o n c e n t r a t i o n of a chemical in a p a r t i c u l a r medium;

I(t) is the rate of intake of the m e d i u m by an individual p i c k e d
at r a n d o m from the population;
F(t) is the p r o p o r t i o n of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s intake of the
p a r t i c u l a r m e d i u m that contains h a z a r d o u s substances
r e l e a s e d from the site;
t2 is the date at the end of the e x p o s u r e period;
tI is the date at the start of the e x p o s u r e period;
m(t) is t h e b o d y weight of t h e individual; and
L is the average lifetime e x p e c t a n c y of t h e individual.
All q u a n t i t i e s except L, t i, and t2 m a y be f u n c t i o n s of time.
The r e s p o n s e to a p a r t i c u l a r dose is t y p i c a l l y c a l c u l a t e d using

the r e s u l t s of a statistical r e g r e s s i o n analysis of t o x i c o l o g i c a l test
data. The r e g r e s s i o n function is d e r i v e d e i t h e r t h r o u g h c o n s t i t u t i v e
m o d e l l i n g of p h y s i c a l and b i o l o g i c a l p r o c e s s e s w i t h i n the body, or by
s t a t i s t i c a l l y fitting an a r b i t r a r y m a t h e m a t i c a l f u n c t i o n to test data
(e.g., Barnard 1987; Sielkin 1987). In e i t h e r case, the general form
of t h e e q u a t i o n for c a l c u l a t i n g the h e a l t h risk g i v e n the ALDD is here
given by:
szsk = ~ ( A L D D ) (2)
where G(ALDD) is the d o s e - r e s p o n s e function for the chemical

absorbed into the body by the same m e c h a n i s m as used
to derive the ALDD.
To account for the u n c e r t a i n t y in choosing values for each

v a r i a b l e in the h e a l t h risk c a l c u l a t i o n (equations (I) and (2)), these
v a r i a b l e s are d e s c r i b e d in terms of d i s t r i b u t i o n s (e.g. f r e q u e n c y
distributions, p r o b a b i l i t y density functions, etc.}. These
d i s t r i b u t i o n s can be derived by any one or a c o m b i n a t i o n of the
f o l l o w i n g methods: statistical analysis of a v a i l a b l e data (e.g., USEPA
1990a), subjective assessment (encoding of expert o p i n i o n and
p r o f e s s i o n a l judgement)(e.g., Roberds 1990), or t r a n s p o r t m o d e l l i n g
(e.g., Lee and Lee 1990).
W h e n c o m p l e t i n g the c a l c u l a t i o n s for each e x p o s u r e scenario,

conditional p r o b a b i l i t i e s are used to c h a r a c t e r i z e the l i k e l i h o o d of an
incremental c o n t r i b u t i o n to the ALDD and lifetime h e a l t h risk given the
c o n d i t i o n a l nature of some of the elements in the exposure scenario at
d i f f e r e n t points in time. These conditional p r o b a b i l i t i e s have an
on/off influence on w h e t h e r the c a l c u l a t e d r i s k for a given increment of
time c o n t r i b u t e s to the a c c u m u l a t e d lifetime risk. This conditional
d e p e n d e n c e of t h e calculated dose and risk is illustrated in Figure 1.
This p a r t i c u l a r feature adds an important element o f - r e a l i s m into the
calculations, and enables the risks a s s o c i a t e d w i t h future e x p o s u r e s to
be c o m p a r e d d i r e c t l y w i t h the risks a s s o c i a t e d w i t h e x p o s u r e s under
e x i s t i n g conditions.
The results of the health r i s k c a l c u l a t i o n are p r e s e n t e d in the

form of the l i k e l i h o o d that the e x p e c t e d risk will be equal to or less
than a p a r t i c u l a r m a g n i t u d e (i.e., a C u m u l a t i v e D e n s i t y Function or
CDF). This curve not only reflects the u n c e r t a i n t i e s in our k n o w l e d g e
and a b i l i t y to p r e d i c t the result of each scenario, but also reflects
the l i k e l i h o o d that the exposure scenario will occur at all.
There will be a CDF for each exposure s c e n a r i o i d e n t i f i e d for

c h a r a c t e r i z i n g human health risks at a site. In order to apply this
enormous q u a n t i t y of information to m a k i n g r e m e d i a t i o n d e c i s i o n s at a
ELLIOTT ON RISK ASSESSMENT AND CONTAMINATED SITES 263
F o r s i n g l e e x p o s u r e route, t i m e i n c r e m e n t t to t + d t
Chemical
Cause, Contributed
R~spon,e ~ R i s k = R(t)
C i 1 in Humans? /
Chemical Body of / \ ~'"

Released Receptor?. / \
From ~" "
s~ ~ J~ \ N
Calculated
Risk = R(t)
pay) II~k = 0
Figure 1 - Influence of C o n d i t i o n a l P r o b a b i l i t i e s
on C a l c u l a t e d H e a l t h R i s k
site, it is n e c e s s a r y to a g g r e g a t e the results into a single result

r e p r e s e n t i n g the health threat to any individual chosen at random from a
p o p u l a t i o n of individuals h a v i n g p r e s c r i b e d behavioral characteristics.
The a p p r o a c h could also be m o d i f i e d to account for the size of the
e x p o s e d p o p u l a t i o n in order to p r i o r i t i z e clean-ups in residential and
rural areas.
CASE HISTORY
Site D e s c r i p t i o n
The 825 acre S u p e r f u n d site selected for carrying out this

d e m o n s t r a t i o n study is located in a f l o o d p l a i n area of low p h y s i o g r a p h i c
relief. It is c u r r e n t l y o c c u p i e d by light industrial companies,
t r u c k i n g firms, p e t r o c h e m i c a l supply and p r o d u c t i o n companies, small
businesses, and a few private residences. The land s u r r o u n d i n g the site
is m o s t l y used for business and industrial purposes, a l t h o u g h there is a
r e s i d e n t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t located about one m i l e away. Past waste
disposal and industrial activities at five p o t e n t i a l source locations
w i t h i n the site have resulted in c o n t a m i n a t i o n of g r o u n d water, surface
water, and soil. These p r o p e r t i e s had a l r e a d y been e i t h e r redeveloped
or closed prior to the site b e i n g added to the National Priorities List.
C o n t a m i n a n t s d e t e c t e d include volatile organic chemicals, biocides, and
metals. P o t e n t i a l human health risks have been c h a r a c t e r i z e d using the
following 25 indicator chemicals, 5 t r a n s p o r t mechanisms, 8 receptor
categories, 4 intake m e c h a n i s m s and 9 e x p o s u r e points:
Exposure Scenarios
This d e m o n s t r a t i o n study c o n c e n t r a t e d on d e v e l o p i n g a list of

e x p o s u r e s c e n a r i o s that a d e q u a t e l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d current and future
Table l--Summarv of Exposure Scenario Comoonents
Chemical Source Transport Receptor Intake Exposure

Mechanism Category Mechanism Point
II VOCs Source 1 Ground Adult Ingestion Source 1

Water Resident of Soll
Source 2 Source 2
9 Metals Surface Child Drinking
Source 3 Water Resident Water Source 3
5 Biocides Source 4 Air Indoor Inhalation Source 4

Worker
Source 5 Ground Dermal Source 5
Water Outdoor Absorption
+ Air Worker Resid. 1
Not Child at Resid. 2

Transported Play
Resid. 3
Adult in
Shower Nearest
School
School
Children
Transient
health threats, and on deriving realistic models and probability

distributions of model parameters for each exposure scenario.
Development of exposure scenarios involved=
reviewing available information of site history, land-use,

geography, climate, geology, surface water hydrology,
hydrogeology, field investigations, sampling data, detected
chemicals, extent of apparent chemical migration, chemical
toxicity and dose-response relationships;
o defining a list of suitable exposure points;
o compiling a list of suitable receptor categories and

defining behavioral patterns for each category at each
exposure point; and
assessing the conditional probability (as a function of

time) that a particular exposure route will be completed.
A total of 657 feasible individual exposure scenarios were

identified from 180,000 theoretical combinations of source, chemical,
transport mechanism, exposure point, intake mechanism and receptor
category. A separate health risk calculation was carried out for each
feasible Individual exposure scenario.
EXPosure Assessment
Since this was only a demonstration study, several simplifying

assumptions were made in the health calculations. The following
paragraphs briefly describe the various components of the exposure
assessment together with the simplifying assumptions that were made.
The concentration of a chemical transported by ground water to any

specific location was treated as a t i m e - d e p e n d e n t variable, and was
calculated using probability distributions of the concentration of each
chemical at each source, the apparent seepage velocity of ground water
from each source, and the apparent dispersivity of each chemical in
ground water. Since no measured data existed for these parameters and
the exact point of release and extent of each source were ill-defined, a
Bayesian procedure was developed to derive the probability distributions
from measurements of chemical concentration in ground water samples
taken from numerous monitoring wells at several different sampling times
(Lee and Lee 1990). This procedure was derived using Bayes theorem, and
accounted for spatial correlation as well as time-dependence. The
contaminant transport model used was a simple two-dimensional model
(Domenico and Robbins 1985). The probability distributions for the
concentration of each chemicals at each of the exposure points at
specified times were calculated using a discrete probability method
(Kaplan 1981) for the same contaminant transport model. An illustration
of a typical set of results for C(t). obtained for a single chemical
transported by ground water between one source and one exposure point is
presented in Figure 2.
Figure 2 - Typical Ground Water Transport Modelling Results
The concentrations of chemicals transported by air to any specific

location were calculated assuming that the rate of emission of chemical
to air transport remains constant (i.e., an infinite supply of chemical
for release, and no significant depletion of source concentration}. The
equation that was used to calculate the concentration of a chemical
transported by air to the exposure points in these instances was as
follows:
c, = E,D (3)
where C9 is the c o n c e n t r a t i o n of c h e m i c a l per u n i t v o l u m e of air

i n h a l e d at the e x p o s u r e point;
Es is the m e a s u r e d e m i s s i o n r a t e of the chemical; and
D is the d i s p e r s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t u s e d to d e s c r i b e the d i l u t i o n
of the m e d i u m in unit v o l u m e of air as it is t r a n s p o r t e d
away from the source to an e x p o s u r e point.
For cases w h e r e no field m e a s u r e m e n t s of e m i s s i o n rates of

c h e m i c a l s had b e e n m a d e at a s u s p e c t e d source location, the e m i s s i o n
rates had to be e s t i m a t e d u s i n g e m p i r i c a l methods. For m o s t of t h e s e
methods, the e q u a t i o n s can be r e d u c e d toz
E, = C, R (4)
where C, is the c o n c e n t r a t i o n of c h e m i c a l in a p a r t i c u l a r medium

b e i n g r e l e a s e d at the source (e.g. c o n c e n t r a t i o n of c h e m i c a l
in dust particles, or liquid); and
R is the rate of r e l e a s e of the m e d i u m to air at the source

(i.e., rate of u p t a k e of dust into the air stream, or r a t e
of v o l a t i l i z a t i o n ) .
P r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n s for t h e source c o n c e n t r a t i o n , C,, w e r e

d e r i v e d t h r o u g h s t a t i s t i c a l analysis of a v a i l a b l e d a t a for the
c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of c h e m i c a l s in s u r f a c e soils and in s t a n d i n g water.
P r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n s for the c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of c h e m i c a l s in soil
w e r e d e r i v e d by s t a t i s t i c a l e v a l u a t i o n of soil s a m p l e analyses, g i v i n g
due r e g a r d to likely s u r f a c e w a t e r flow paths in o r d e r to g r o u p d a t a
t r a c e a b l e to a p a r t i c u l a r source.
M o d e l s u s e d to e s t i m a t e the rater of release, R, included: w i n d

e r o s i o n and v e h i c u l a r dust e m i s s i o n s (Cowherd et al. 1984);
v o l a t i l i z a t i o n from s u r f a c e water (Lies and Slater 1974); v o l a t i l i z a t i o n
from soil (Karimi et al. 1987); and v o l a t i l i z a t i o n f r o m shower w a t e r
(Lies and S l a t e r 1974). Input v a l u e s to t h e s e m o d e l s w e r e d e s c r i b e d
e i t h e r as p r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n s or as d i s c r e t e values. Discrete
v a l u e s w e r e u s e d w h e r e o n l y one data v a l u e e x i s t e d and a s u b j e c t i v e
a s s e s s m e n t of u n c e r t a i n t y seemed u n n e c e s s a r y .
The d i s p e r s i o n coefficient, D, w a s d e t e r m i n e d u s i n g the c o m p u t e r

p r o g r a m "PAL". This p r o g r a m is a v a i l a b l e t h r o u g h the Users N e t w o r k for
A p p l i e d M o d e l i n g of Air P o l l u t i o n (UNAMAP-6). PAL i n c o r p o r a t e s a steady
state, two d i m e n s i o n a l , g a u s s i a n p l u m e a t m o s p h e r i c d i s p e r s i o n model.
The c o n c e n t r a t i o n of c h e m i c a l per unit v o l u m e of air at e a c h of the
e x p o s u r e p o i n t s was c a l c u l a t e d for an a s s u m e d w i n d direction, w i n d speed
and s o u r c e e m i s s i o n rate. The source e m i s s i o n rate of I g/m2-sec for
area sources, or i g/sec for vent sources, and a c o n s e r v a t i v e w i n d speed
of 1 m / s e c (stability class 6 - most stable) w e r e assumed. The model
c a r r i e d out r e p e a t e d c a l c u l a t i o n s for w i n d d i r e c t i o n s i n c r e m e n t e d from 0
d e g r e e s to 350 d e g r e e s in ten d e g r e e increments. No a t t e m p t was m a d e in
this p a r t i c u l a r study to account for m o d e l u n c e r t a i n t i e s . However, d a t a
p r o v i d e d by the w i n d r o s e for the site was u s e d to c h a r a c t e r i z e the
u n c e r t a i n t y in the w i n d d i r e c t i o n (i.e., the p r o b a b i l i t y of a p a r t i c u l a r
v a l u e of D is equal to the p r o b a b i l i t y of the w i n d direction, w h i c h is
p r o v i d e d by the w i n d rose). In the case of e x p o s u r e s to v o l a t i l e
c h e m i c a l s r e l e a s e d from shower water, t h e d i s p e r s i o n of chemical in the
air w i t h i n a shower c u b i c l e (D in e q u a t i o n (3)) w a s c a l c u l a t e d u s i n g a
simple o n e - b o x air p o l l u t i o n model (Foster and C h r o s t o w s k i 1987).
ELLIOI-r ON RISK ASSESSMENT AND CONTAMINATED SITES 267
D i s t r i b u t i o n s for the rate of release, R, and e x p o s u r e point

concentration, Ce, in e q u a t i o n (4), and the d i s p e r s i o n coefficient, D,
in e q u a t i o n (3) w e r e c a l c u l a t e d using Monte Carlo methods.
D i s t r i b u t i o n s for rates of intake, I(t), of d i f f e r e n t m e d i a (e.g.,

air, liquids, and soil}, body weight, m(t), and length of r e s i d e n c e and
e m p l o y e r tenure, t~tl, for an individual p i c k e d at r a n d o m from a
p o p u l a t i o n were d e r i v e d from p u b l i s h e d statistical data (USEPA 1985;
U S E P A 1989a; N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of R e a l t o r s 1987; C a r e y 1988). For
s i m p l i c i t y in this d e m o n s t r a t i o n project, t h e rate of intake I(t I and
b o d y w e i g h t m(t) w e r e assumed to r e m a i n constant w i t h time. The length
of r e s i d e n c e and e m p l o y e r t e n u r e w e r e used to d e f i n e the p e r i o d of
i n t e g r a t i o n for e x p o s u r e ( t ~ t I in e q u a t i o n (1)). T h e start date for
exposure, tl, was set at 1990, c o n s i s t e n t w i t h current r i s k a s s e s s m e n t
guidelines.
A t i m e - d e p e n d e n t conditional p r o b a b i l i t y was a s s e s s e d for there

b e i n g a n y intake at an exposure point (i.e., t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of intake
by c o n s u m i n g well w a t e r will equal zero if t h e r e is no well in e x i s t e n c e
at that point in time). This conditional p r o b a b i l i t y was introduced in
order to enable current and future h y p o t h e t i c a l e x p o s u r e scenarios to be
c o m b i n e d in the final aggregation of results. For current e x p o s u r e
scenarios, this c o n d i t i o n a l p r o b a b i l i t y was set equal to unity (e.g.
d r i n k i n g water from an existing well I . For future h y p o t h e t i c a l exposure
scenarios (e.g., d r i n k i n g water from a well that m i g h t be installed in
the future), this conditional p r o b a b i l i t y was d e s c r i b e d using a linear
function of time that started at (0,01 and i n c r e a s e d linearly up to some
m a x i m u m assessed p r o b a b i l i t y at some specified date, and then r e m a i n e d
constant.
D i s t r i b u t i o n s for the p r o p o r t i o n of a p a r t i c u l a r intake (e.g.

c o n s u m p t i o n of water} an individual receives at the site (F in e q u a t i o n
(11) w e r e d e r i v e d by considering the b e h a v i o r a l p a t t e r n s of d i f f e r e n t
r e c e p t o r c a t e g o r i e s (e.g. adults at work, c h i l d r e n at play, etc. I .
Toxicity Assessment
The scope of this d e m o n s t r a t i o n study did not include a d e t a i l e d

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t o x i c o l o g i c a l data and c o n s i d e r e d only c a r c i n o g e n i c
responses. C o n s i s t e n t with U S E P A g u i d e l i n e s (USEPA 1990a1, a linear
r e l a t i o n s h i p was assumed b e t w e e n the ALDD and the h e a l t h risk. However,
in this case history, the u n c e r t a i n t y in the value of the constant of
p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y (referred to as the slope factor) was r e p r e s e n t e d by a
u n i f o r m d i s t r i b u t i o n b e t w e e n zero and the U S E P A p u b l i s h e d value
m u l t i p l i e d by 100/95 (i.e., the U S E P A p u b l i s h e d v a l u e was c o r r e c t l y
r e p r e s e n t e d as a 95 p e r c e n t i l e upper bound I . A u n i f o r m d i s t r i b u t i o n was
c h o s e n in p r e f e r e n c e to a normal or log-normal d i s t r i b u t i o n (the m o s t
p l a u s i b l e alternatives) because the variance in t h e s e d i s t r i b u t i o n s is
unknown. Had a m o r e detailed study of the t o x i c i t y of the chemicals
b e e n undertaken, the value for the variance could have been determined.
In order to account for the u n c e r t a i n t y of e x t r a p o l a t i n g animal

b i o a s s a y data to human exposures, another c o n d i t i o n a l p r o b a b i l i t y was
i n t r o d u c e d into the c a l c u l a t i o n s to reflect the w e i g h t of evidence
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of each of the indicator chemicals. V a l u e s b e t w e e n 1.0
for Class A c a r c i n o g e n s and 0.5 for Class C c a r c i n o g e n s w e r e assigned
for this conditional probability.
ExamPle Risk Calculation
T h e following example illustrates the input and output of the risk

c a l c u l a t i o n for a single exposure scenario. The e x a m p l e involves the
i n h a l a t i o n of m e t h y l e n e chloride by an adult resident. This chemical
was r e l e a s e d at the source by v o l a t i l i z a t i o n from s a t u r a t e d soils, and

t r a n s p o r t e d by air to the exposure point. The p r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n s
used to d e s c r i b e each of the variables in the c a l c u l a t i o n have been
p r e s e n t e d in a format consistent w i t h t h e @RISK a d d - i n to Lotus 123
(Palisade Corp. 1991). For those not familiar w i t h @RISK, e x p l a n a t i o n s
of t h e s e d i s t r i b u t i o n p r e s e n t a t i o n formats are p r e s e n t e d in A p p e n d i x A.
In addition, input v a l u e s for each p a r a m e t e r that w o u l d be selected in
a c c o r d a n c e w i t h current E P A g u i d e l i n e s are p r e s e n t e d in square
p a r e n t h e s e s f o l l o w i n g the p r o b a b i l i t y distribution, t o g e t h e r w i t h
r e l a t i v e l i k e l i h o o d of the E P A input v a l u e (e.g. [EPA value, P ( E P A
value}) ). The relative likelihood of each E P A input v a l u e was
d e t e r m i n e d by d i v i d i n g the range of p o s s i b l e input v a l u e s into 10 equal
sequential ranges, g e n e r a t i n g a frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n of the p o s s i b l e
input values, and d e t e r m i n i n g the p r o b a b i l i t y for t h e d i s c r e t e range
c o n t a i n i n g the E P A input value. The r e s u l t of a c a l c u l a t i o n carried out
u s i n g the E P A input v a l u e s and the c u m u l a t i v e p r o b a b i l i t y of that v a l u e
are p r e s e n t e d in b r a c e s (e.g., {result, P ( a n o t h e r r e s u l t < result) }
The c a l c u l a t i o n of t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n of m e t h y l e n e chloride in air

at the e x p o s u r e point can be c a l c u l a t e d u s i n g e q u a t i o n s (3} and (4), and
the f o l l o w i n g p r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n inputs:
C s = @HISTOGRM(0,401,0.48,0.215,0.11,0.07,0.04,0.025,0.015,0.01,0.01,
0,0,0.01,0,0.005,0,0,0,0,0,0,20) [120.7, 0.025] ng/g
R = @CUMUL(0.0485,42.52,0.1663,0.05,0.2471,0.1,0.3412,0.15,0.4418,0.
2,0.548,0.25,0.677,0.3,0.8501,0.35,1.011,0.4,1.1939,0.45,1.3911,
0.5,1.6379,0.55,1.9109,0.6,2.2202,0.65,2.6202,0.7,3.0284,0.75,3.
6112,0.8,4.1944,0.85,5.2333,0.9,7.2636,0.95,19) [7.26, 0.11]
g/m2-sec
D = @DISCRETE(0.05,0.047,18.435,0.0444,6.45,0.04,0,O.8686,4) [6.45,
0.04] sec/m
C o m b i n i n g these input p r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n s u s i n g Monte Carlo

t e c h n i q u e s (2000 iterations), and a s s u m i n g i n d e p e n d e n c e of each
variable, the d i s t r i b u t i o n for the e x p o s u r e point c o n c e n t r a t i o n was
c a l c u l a t e d to be:
C~ = @ H I S T O G R M ( 0 , 0 . 0 0 0 0 3 3 8 0 5 4 , 0 . 9 8 1 4 7 7 , 0 . 0 0 8 5 2 3 , 0 . 0 0 5 , 0 , 0 . 0 0 0 6 5 3 , 0 , 0 ,
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,20) {5.65x10 "~, 0.996} mg/1
The ALDD was c a l c u l a t e d using M o n t e Carlo t e c h n i q u e s (2000

iterations) in c o n j u n c t i o n with e q u a t i o n (1) and the f o l l o w i n g constant
p r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n s for the variables:
I = @NORMAL(18.7,2.1) [22, 0.24] i/min

F = @CUMUL(0,1,0.5,0.1,0.685,0.5,2) [1, 0.16] dimensionless
m = @TNORMAL(70,35,0,200) [70, 0.21]kg
L = 75 [P(75) not applicable - n o r m a l i z i n g constant) years
tI = 1990 [P(1990) not applicable - default value] years A.D.
t2-t I = @CUMUL(0,30,1,0.05,3,0.3,7,0.67,9,0.76,4) years
For this example calculation, no c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n rate of

intake and body w e i g h t was assumed. The c a l c u l a t e d p r o b a b i l i t y
d i s t r i b u t i o n for the ALDD for a random individual in this exposed
receptor c a t e g o r y was:
ALDD = @ C U M U L ( 0 , 0 . 0 0 2 7 9 2 4 , 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 1 , 0 . 1 , 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 3 , 0 . 2 , 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 5 , 0 . 3 , 0 . 0 0 0 0
08,0.4,0.00001,0.45,0.00001,0.5,0.00001,0.55,0.00001,0.6,0.00002
,0.65,0.00002,0.7,0.00003,0.75,0.00004,0.8,0.00005,0.85,0.00008,
0.9,0.0001,0.95,15) {l.02x10 ~, 0.997) mg/kg/day
Assuming that the dose-response function for methylene chloride is

linear, the probability distribution is given by,
K = @UNIFORM(0,0.0147) [0.01387, 0.1] (mg/kg-day) "l
However, methylene chloride is classed as a B2 carcinogen (USEPA 1989b}.

That is, there is sufficient evidence that methylene chloride causes
cancers in animals but inadequate or no evidence in humans (USEPA
1990a}. Therefore, the probability of a response in humans is not equal
to 1.0. For the purposes of this study, and to illustrate the
contribution of these conditional probabilities, the probability of a
response in humans was assumed to be 0.6. Using this conditional
probability,the probability distribution for the individual health risk
was calculated (using Monte Carlo techniques (2000 iterations) in
conjunction with equation (2)) to be:
Risk = @CUMUL(0,3.74x104,3x10%0.1,1x104,0.2,2x104,0.3,4x10%O.4,6x104,
0.5,gx10%0.6,1x104,0.7,2x104,0.8,5x104,0.9,9} {1.4x10 ~, 0.995}
Again this is the calculated risk for a random individual in this

specified receptor category at the specified location exposed to
methylene chloride transported from the source by air and taken into the
body by inhalation. The CDF for this result is presented in Figure 3.
1
0.9
o.8
0.7
~ 0.6 EPA Value
v"'41 ~
~
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
1"4x10"5
0
I0 10' I0 10 '0 I0 1012
Risk Value
Figure 3 - CDF for the Example Health Risk Calculation
The risk value calculated according to the EPA methodology is also

indicated in this figure. It is not clear to see at the scale of the
CDF, but the cumulative probability of the EPA risk value is 0.995. If
one wanted to know the likelihood of the EPA risk value (i.e., the
likelihood of the exposure conditions for the calculated health risk),
one would have to calculate the product of the probabilities of each of
the EPA input values provided in the square parentheses above and
multiply by the conditional probabillty of a response in humans. This
follows since the calculated EPA risk value is conditional on each
variable in the risk calculation having the assigned input value. Using
the values presented above, the likelihood of the EPA risk value is
2x10 ~. While this calculated likelihood is dependent on the way in
which each of the variables is discretized, it serves to illustrate that
decisions are currently being made at Superfund sites, involving,
considerable sums of money, on the basis of extremely small and highly
unlikely risks. By quantifying the uncertainties in the health risk
calculation for reasonable likely exposure conditions, the alternative
approach described herein advances the ability of risk assessors and
regulators to evaluate health risk and make remediation decisions versus
the current EPA guidance.
Auureuatinu Individual Health Risk Estimates
As stated previously, this case study comprised 657 individual

exposure scenario calculations. However, a particular indlvidual at any
particular exposure point is likely to have been exposed to more than
one hazardous chemical released at the site, and may have been exposed
to hazardous chemicals at the site through more than one exposure route.
For this reason it is necessary to aggregate the results for multiple
exposure scenarios that end with a receptor of prescribed behavioral
patterns.
One of the most significant assumptions made in this study was

that the calculated individual health risks were independent for
different exposure scenarios. Using this assumption, the results for
several exposure scenarios ending with a particular receptor category
could be aggregated simply by adding the probability distributions for
the health risks using Monte Carlo techniques. The authors are aware
that the correlations among variables within an individual exposure
scenario and among different exposure scenarios can significantly affect
the aggregate result. However, several confidential factors contributed
to the decision to make the simplifying assumption for this
demonstration study.
Risk Characterization
Having aggregated the results, the CDFs for each of the receptor
categories can be compared to determine which receptor category is
exposed to the greatest health risk. The CDFs for the receptor
categories exposed to the greatest health risk for each of the four
sources from which carcinogenic chemicals are suspected to have been
released are presented in Figure 4.
If one now took an individual at random from the receptor category

associated with any of the CDFs in Figure 4, and calculated the risk for
that individual, one could use the CDF to determine the probability that
another randomly selected individual will have greater risk. Thus a
reasonable maximum exposure could be assessed in terms of the maximum
probability that a random individual from any prescribed receptor
category will be exposed to a risk greater than lx10 ~
(40.CFR.300.430(e)).
Discussion of Results
The results of the case study indicated that the calculated

uncertainty in the predicted individual health risk (the range of risk
values between the 0.0 probability and 1.0 probability for each CDF) is
at least 6 orders of magnitude for individual exposure scenarios, and is
strongly skewed towards no risk at all for this particular site. The
uncertainties for individual exposure scenarios appear to offset each
other for any given receptor category exposed to multiple exposure
scenarios such that, for this particular study, the calculated
uncertainty for the aggregated risk was between 2 and 3 orders of
1
0.9-
o.8
=:\ \ p =o
~ 0.7 ::i ~ ~.,./ Sour 2
~ 0.6
\
~ 0.5
Source~4
Source 5 "
\i
0.1 No chemicals from 1..... ~ ,
Source 3 are ca~inogenic
| i
10 "1 10.2 ld 10-4 10"B l d 10 .7 10 -s 10 .9
Risk Value
Figure 4 - Results of Receptor Categories Exposed to Greatest Risk
magnitude. This prediction may be an underestimate for the following

reasons:
choosing a uniform distribution for the slope factor;
assuming statistical independence of the individual health

risk for different exposure scenarios when aggregating
results for multiple exposure routes;
using simple models and probability distributions;
performing very simple and limited scope subjective

assessments;
assuming that the rates of release of contaminants to air

transport remain constant with time;
ignoring bias in the transport models; and
using discrete distributions for variables where very few

data exist.
Another meaningful achievement was the development of the

procedure for calibrating the probability distributions for three ground
water transport modelling parameters using only laboratory analysis
results for groundwater samples taken from monitoring wells at the site,
and knowledge of the date and location where the samples were collected.
It was also found serendipitously that this procedure provided
information to indicate the likely source depletion period for each of
the chemicals. This had a significant impact on the magnitude of the
calculated exposure risk.
As in all research and development studies of this type, the

knowledge gained can be used to improve the model next time around.
This study has nevertheless demonstrated that probabilistic techniques
can be applied to evaluating human health risks at contaminated sites.
The techniques can provide useful insight about the degree of
conservatism incorporated within the methods presented in current USEPA
guidelines (USEPA 1990a), as illustrated for the example presented
above.
APPLZCATZONTORISKMANAGEMi~IT
Risk management deals with the need for rlsk reduction. The goal
of risk management at contaminated sites is to select the remedial
strategy that best balances the benefits of reducing a real or perceived
health risk with the financial resources available to reduce that risk.
The role of health risk assessment in risk management is to establish
the magnitude of the baseline health risk, and assist in determining
performance goals for all possible remedial actions being considered.
However, it is extremely difficult to make cost-effective decisions when
there is considerable uncertainty in calculating a health risk, unless
that uncertainty is quantified.
By nature, industry uses a broader definition of risk than that

used by regulators. Industry's perspective of risk Is based on minimum
and maximum environmental liability. Each site on the National
Priorities List Is an environmental liability to industry. Industry has
to make many operational decisions in conjunction with remediating
contaminated sites, the outcome of which could result in them either
having to pay large sums in compensation or other consequential losses,
or to pay no further costs after the selected remedy is implemented.
Therefore, industry interprets risk in economic terms (i.e. the chance
of benefiting or forfeiting on the results of the outcome of a decision}
rather than the frequency of occurrence of cancer in an exposed
population. To industry, what regulators define as risk, is simply the
benchmark used to determine whether a decision to implement a particular
remedy at a site has been successful (i.e., whether the remedy complied
with the regulations or not).
No matter how much resources are committed to cleaning up a site,

decision makers cannot know in advance what the outcome of their
remedial action decision will be. Thus in the face of the economic risk
if a selected remedy does not achieve compliance in the future as
expected, the chosen strategy towards remediating a site will reflect an
acceptable balance between the chances of incurring significant
financial losses later if the remedy fails to achieve compliance, and
the real costs of actions taken now to clean up the site, improve the
chances of achieving compliance, and thereby avoid future loss.
Identifying this balance in turn requires an assessment of the
probability that the outcome of the decision will fulfill the desired
performance goal (e.g., concentration of chemical in ground water at a
monitoring well, etc.). These probabilities are provided in the C D F
curve generated by the method of health risk assessment described
herein. Hence, the approach to health risk assessment presented herein
could assist site owners in selecting cost-effective remedies using
decision analysis techniques (e.g., Wilson and Crouch 1982).
To illustrate this process, consider the plight of a site owner or

regulator faced with having to choose between two feasible and
appropriate remedial strategies for a site, Remedy A and Remedy B.
Apparently, both will meet regulatory criteria using the current remedy
selection process, the performance goals having been set by back-
calculating from the compliance risk. The estimated present value cost
of Remedy A is $20 millions, and Remedy B is $6 millions. Which
remedial strategy should be selected? This question is not easily

answered using deterministic methods because the increased cost of
Remedy A has to be offset by an imprecise description of the relative
reliability of the two remedies.
Now, consider that, to assist with making this decision, the

decision maker has been provided with CDFs representing the reliability
of each remedy (Figure 5). In this context it is assumed that
reliability can be measured in terms of the probability that the
calculated post-remediation risk will be equal to or less than a given
risk value. These CDFs can be calculated probabilistically using the
approach described above. From these curves, the decision maker can
evaluate the likelihood that implementation of the remedy will achieve
compliance (probability that the calculated risk is leas than lx104).
From Figure 5 this probability is 0.96 for Remedy A and 0.756 for Remedy
B. Consider also, that if, at some point after implementation of the
selected remedial strategy, it is shown that the compliance performance
levels have not been achieved, the present value cost to reinvestigate
the site, determine why compliance was not achieved, and implement
another remedy, has been estimated to be $40 millions. The decision of
which remedy to select becomes a matter of the amount of money that
should be spent now to remediate the site in order to avoid larger
losses in the future.
I
0.9
0.8
0.7 Remedy A I
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.8
0.2
0.1
0
10.4 I0"5 I 0"(i 167 i d 169 I(~I0 1611 i(~12
Risk Value
Figure 5 - Reliability Curves for Two Feasible

and Appropriate Remedial Actions for a site.
Assuming that the decision can be made on the basis of least

expected cost, the expected cost for each remedial strategy under
consideration is calculated as follows (costs reduced to $millions):
For Remedy A: $20 x 0.96 + ($20+$40)x(i-0.96) = $21.6; and
For Remedy B~ $6 x 0.756 + ($6+$40)x(1-0.756} = $15.8.
Therefore, on the basis of expected cost, it would be more cost-

effective to select Remedy B now at a cost of $6 millions rather than
select Remedy A at a cost of $20 millions. This simple illustration
serves to demonstrate why uncertainty rather than an estimated risk
value is important in decision making at contaminated sites.
SUMMARY AND C O N C L U S I O N S
This paper has presented a probabilistic approach to calculating

human health risk. This approach quantifies the uncertainties in risk
assessments as a function of the uncertainties and limitations in the
available data and knowledge of the physical processes that govern the
performance of the system. The approach described herein considers both
the variation of parameter values with time and the conditional nature
of exposure pathways. Implementation of the approach has been
illustrated using a case study for an existing Superfund site. This
approach provides a more realistic estimate of the dose used in
predicting potential individual health risk than does the conservative
method currently advocated in the current USEPA guidelines (USEPA
1990a), and thereby advances the ability of risk assessors and
regulators to evaluate health risk and make remediation decisions versus
the current EPA guidance. In particular, the approach is attractive to
those decision-makers in industry who seek to manage risks and resources
in a more effective way when remediating contaminated sites.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work described in this paper was performed as part of an

applied research project funded by Browning Ferris Industries, Inc.
REFERENCES
Barnard, R.C., 1987, "Scientific Risk Assessment and the Regulation of

Human Cancer Risks: Background and New Directions", American Industrial
Hyqiene Association Journal, Vol. 21, No. ii, pp. 1033-1039.
Brookes, W.T., 1990, "The Wasteful Pursuit of Zero Risk", Forbes, April
30, pp. 161-172.
Burmaster, D.E. and Lehr, J.H., 1991, "It's Time to Make Risk Assessment
a Science", Ground Water Monitorinq Review , Vol. ii, No. 3, pp. 5-15.
Carey, M.L., 1988, "Occupational Tenure in 1987: Many Workers Remain in

their Fields", Monthly Labor Review, Vol. III, No. i0, pp. 3-12.
Cowherd, c, Muleski, G.E., Englehart, P.J., and Gillette, D.A., 1984,

Rapid Assessment of Exposure to Particulate Emissions for Surface
Contamination Sites, PB85-192219, Report prepared by Midwest Research
Institute, Kansas City, Missouri.
Domenico, F.A.and Robbins, G.A., 1985, "A New Method of Contaminant

Plume Analysis", Ground Water, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 476-485.
Finkel, A., 1990, Confrontinq Uncertainty in Risk Manaqement, Resources

of the Future, Washington, D.C.
Foster, S.A. and Chrostowski, P.C., 1987, "Inhalation Exposures to

Volatile Organic Contaminants in the Shower", Proceedinus 80th Annual
Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, New York, New York,
June.
Freeze, R.A., Massman, J., Smith, L., Sperling, T., and James, B., 1990,
"Hydrogeological Decision Analysis: 1. A Framework", Ground Water, Vol.
28, No. 5, pp. 738-766.
Kaplan, S., 1981, "On the Method of Discrete Probability Distributions

in Risk and Reliability Calculations - Application to Seismic Risk
Assessment", ~isk Analvsis, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 189-196.
Karimi, A.A., Farmer, W.J., and Cliath, M.M., 1987, "Vapor-Phase

Diffusion of Benzene in Soil", J. Environ. Qua1., Vol. 16, No. 1.
Lee, K. and Lee. W.L., 1990, "A Bayesian Data Analysis Procedure for
Contaminant Transport Studies," SuDerfund '90. Proc~edinus, llth
National Conference for Hazardous Materials Control, Washington, D.C.,
Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute, Silver Spring, MD, pp.
189-196.
Lioy, P.J. Averbach, S., Graham, J.D., Kim, N., Finkel, A.M., and Burke,
T.A., 1991, "Do We Know Enough to Take a Risk-Based Approach", EPA
Journal, Vol. 17, NO. 2, pp. 34-39.
Liss, P.S. and Slater, P.G., 1974, "Flux of Gases Across the Air-Sea
Interface", Nature, Vol. 247, pp. 181-184.
National Association of Realtors, 1987, The Homebuyinq and Sellinq

Process: 1987, Economics & R e s e a r c h Division, National A s s o c i a t i o n of
Realtors, Washington, D.C.
Palisade Corp., 1991, @RISK. Risk Analvsis and Simulation Add-In for
Lotus 123, Version 2.X Users Guide, Palisade Corporation, 31 Decker
Road, Newfield, NY 14867.
Roberds, W.J., 1990, "Methods for Developing Defensible Subjective

Probability Assessments", Transportation Research Record, No. 1288,
N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 183-190.
Sielkin, R.L., Jr., 1987, "Cancer Dose-Response Extrapolations",

Environmental Science and Technolouv, Vol. 21, No. 11, pp. 1033-1039.
USEPA, 1985, Development of Statistical Distributions of Ranqes of

Standard Factors Used in Exposure Assessments, Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C.
USEPA, 1989a, Exposure Factors Handbook, Office of Health and

Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C.
USEPA, 1989b, Inteqrated Risk Information System (databbase}, Office of

Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
USEPA, 1990a, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Human Health

Evaluation Manual Part A, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
Washington, D.C.
USEPA, 1990b, Federal Reqister, Voi.55, No.46, p.8710.
Wilson, R. and Crouch, E., 1982, Risk/Benefit Analysis, Balinger,

Boston, MA.
APPENDIX A - DISTRIBUTION PIU~SE]~_ATIONFORN;~S
@HISTOGRM(min,max,pi,p2, ..... ,p.,n)
m e a n s a h i s t o g r a m d i s t r i b u t i o n w i t h a r a n g e of v a l u e s set b y m / n and
max, a d l s c r e t i z a t i o n of n, a n d a r e l a t i v e w e i g h t i n g p~ for v a l u e s
w i t h i n t h e r a n g e of t h e i t h b i n
@DISCRETE(XI,pI,X2,p2, ..... ,X,,p.,n)
means a discrete distribution with n outcomes ~...X,. Each outcome

h a s an a s s o c i a t e d r e l a t i v e w e i g h t i n g ~ .
@CUMUL(min,max,~,p,,X2,p~, ...... X.,p.,n)
m e a n s a c u m u l a t i v e d i s t r i b u t i o n o v e r a r a n g e set b y m / n a n d max. The

d i s t r i b u t i o n c o n t a i n s n points. Each point on the cumulative
distribution has a value ~ and a cumulative probability pp
@NORMAL(mean,standard deviation)
means a normal distribution with specified mean and standard deviation

values.
@TNORMAL(mean,standard deviation,min,max)
means a truncated normal distribution with specified mean and standard

d e v i a t i o n v a l u e s , a n d u p p e r a n d l o w e r b o u n d s of m a x a n d m / n
respectively.
@UNIFORM(min,max)
m e a n s a u n i f o r m d i s t r i b u t i o n o v e r a r a n g e set b y m i n and max.
Donald R. Huff, I and Laura A. Tesch 2
REDUCING THE NUMBER OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN: FOUR

CASE STUDIES
REFERENCE: Huff, D. R., and Tesch, L. A., "Reducing

the Number of Chemicals of Potential Concern: Four Case
Studies," Superfund Risk Assessment in Soil ContaminatiQn
Studies. ASTM STP 1158. Keith B. Hoddinott, Editor, American
ABSTRACT: This is a comparative study that evaluates

various methods for reducing the number of chemicals of
potential concern in baseline risk assessments. The methods
of reducing the number of chemicals of potential concern
that were evaluated are the indicator score method (OERR
1986), grouping of chemicals by class, evaluating frequency
of detection, and the concentration-toxicity screening
method (OERR 1989). The evaluation consisted of comparison
of quantitative risk assessment results For four case
studies. Seven quantitative risk assessments were completed
for each case study, six using a reduced subset of chemicals
of potential concern and the seventh using all of the
chemicals of potential concern. The six subsets were
determined by using each of the four methods separately and
two combinations of the methods.
The estimated risks for the subsets of chemicals of

potential concern were generally equal to or less than the
risks for the entire set of chemicals of potential concern.
Carcinogenic risks were decreased in ten of the twenty-three
test cases. Each of these decreases was less than an order
of magnitude (i0 times). Also none of the decreases reduced
the carcinogenic risks to less than 104 . This is
significant since 104 represents the excess lifetime cancer
risk which generally warrants remedial action (OSWER 1991a).
Noncarcinogenic hazard indices were also decreased in ten of
the twenty-three test cases. However, the hazard indices
ISenior Scientist, Geraghty & Miller, Inc., Chicago, IL

60601.
2Environmental Scientist, Braun Intertec Environmental,

Inc., Chicago, IL 60647.
remained above one, the level of concern (OSWER 1991a), in

all cases.
KEYWORDS: chemical selection, risk assessment, chemicals of

potential concern
Chemicals of potential c o n c e r n are defined as chemicals

that are potentially site-related and whose data are of
sufficient quality for use in the quantitative risk
assessment (OERR 1989). B a s e l i n e risk assessments required
at Superfund sites (USEPA 1990) most often involve the
evaluation of more than one chemical of potential concern.
Those chemicals remaining after the initial data evaluation
process are referred to as chemicals of potential concern
(OERR 1989). When a large number of chemicals are detected
at a site, the number of chemicals of potential concern to
be evaluated in the quantitative risk assessment may be
thirty or more. Evaluating a large number of chemicals
becomes time-consuming and cumbersome. Therefore, the
number of chemicals to be included in the assessment is
often reduced to only those chemicals that may present a
significant risk. Therein, lies a problem; how can the
chemicals that may present a significant risk, or chemicals
of potential concern, be identified before the actual risks
are estimated?
Current guidance suggests using chemical classes (i.e.,

grouping), frequency of detection, essential nutrient
information, and a c o n c e n t r a t i o n - t o x i c i t y screening
procedure to reduce the number of chemicals of potential
concern (OERR 1989). In this paper three of these four
methods for reduction of the number of chemicals of
potential concern are evaluated in regard to their effects
on the final estimation of risk. The essential nutrient
information method was not evaluated due to the lack of an
applicable data set. In addition, the indicator-score
method, previously recommended by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (OERR 1986) was also evaluated. Thus
there are four methods for reducing the number of chemicals
of potential concern that are evaluated in this paper. As
discussed in the next section these methods were evaluated
separately and in combination.
The evaluation consisted of comparison of quantitative

risk assessments results for four case studies. The four
sites were chosen for this comparison because of the large
number and different types of chemicals detected at these
sites and the relatively high risks. Site 1 is an
industrial site in the m i d w e s t e r n United States. Two of the
HUFF AND TESCH ON REDUCING CHEMICALS OF CONCERN 279
sites, Site 2 in the midwest and Site 4 in the east, are

inactive hazardous waste landfills, and Site 3 is an
inactive PCB transformer manufacturing facility in the
southeast.
METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS
The four methods for reducing the n u m b e r of chemicals

of potential concern studied were: (A) e v a l u a t i n g frequency
of detection, (S) grouping chemicals by class, (C)
performing a concentration-toxicity screen (OERR 1989) and
(D) performing the indicator score m e t h o d (OERR 1986). The
evaluation of these methods consisted of comparing
quantitative risk assessment results for the four site case
studies. Seven quantitative risk a s s e s s m e n t s were completed
for each case study, one using the full list of chemicals of
potential concern, one for each of the reduced subsets
generated from the four methods, one w i t h a combination of
methods A, B and C, and one with a c o m b i n a t i o n of methods A,
B and D.
Method A, evaluating frequency of detection, reduced

the total list of chemicals used in the quantitative risk
assessment by eliminating a chemical if it was detected in
only one or two samples and reported at concentrations less
than the detection limit.
To group chemicals by class, Method B, concentrations

of chemicals within each class in a g i v e n medium were summed
and a single toxicity value, associated with one of the
chemicals in the particular class, was used to represent the
group. Chemicals were grouped according to structure-
activity relationships and toxicity characteristics. The
major groups of chemicals used in this study included
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), c a r c i n o g e n i c PAHs,
noncarcinogenic PAHs, phthalate esters and phenols (Table
i). The chemical selected to represent the group was either
the chemical with the highest (or only available) toxicity
value or the most frequently detected chemical of the group.
Method C, the concentration-toxicity screen was

designed to generate a subset of the "most significant"
chemicals based on concentration and t o x i c i t y (OERR 1989).
The representative concentrations used in this screening
were the 95th percent upper confidence level (UCL) on the
arithmetic mean. Toxicity values were obtained from
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and Third Quarter
1990 Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (OSWER 1990).
These were the most current toxicity v a l u e s available at the
time of completion of the original risk assessments. In
this screening procedure, each chemical in a medium was
first scored according to the product of its concentration
and toxicity to obtain a risk factor. These chemical-
specific risk factors were then summed to obtain the total
TABLE 1 -- G r o u p Chemicals By Class
GROUP 1 - Carcinogenic PAHs GROUP 2 - Noncarcinogenic

PAHs
Benzo(a)pyrene Acenaphthylene
Benzo(a)anthracene Anthracene
Benzo(b) f l u o r a n t h e n e Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k) f l u o r a n t h e n e Fluoranthene
Chrysene Fluorene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Phenanthrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Pyrene
Naphthalene
GROUP 3 - PCBs
GROUP 4 - PHTHALATES GROUP 5 PHENOLS
Di-n-butylphthalate Phenol
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) p h t h a l a t e 2-Methy ipheno 1
Di-n-octylphthalate 4-Methylphenol
Butyl b e n z y l p h t h a l a t e 2,4-Dimethylphenol
Diethylphthalate
r
Toxicity values for the chemicals in bold were used as representative
for the group.
r i s k factor for all c h e m i c a l s of p o t e n t i a l c o n c e r n in a

medium. T h e r a t i o of the c h e m i c a l s p e c i f i c r i s k factor to
the total r i s k factor a p p r o x i m a t e d the r e l a t i v e risk or
c o n t r i b u t i o n to the e s t i m a t e d t o t a l r i s k for each chemical
in e a c h medium. As s u g g e s t e d in the R i s k A s s e s s m e n t
G u i d a n c e for Superfund (OERR 1989), 0.01 w a s used as the
s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i a for t h i s s c r e e n i n g . C h e m i c a l s with r a t i o s
b e l o w 0.01 w e r e not r e t a i n e d as c h e m i c a l s of potential
concern.
The i n d i c a t o r score p r o c e d u r e , M e t h o d D, from the

S u p e r f u n d P u b l i c Health E v a l u a t i o n M a n u a l (SPHEM)(OERR 1986)
was the final m e t h o d evaluated. M e d i u m - s p e c i f i c toxicity
c o n s t a n t s (T) provided in S P H E M a n d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e
concentrations (C) for e a c h c h e m i c a l (again using the 95th
p e r c e n t UCL) w e r e used to c a l c u l a t e C t i m e s T (C-T) values
for each medium. Separate C - T v a l u e s w e r e c a l c u l a t e d for
b o t h c a r c i n o g e n i c and n o n c a r c i n o g e n i c h e a l t h effects. To
d e v e l o p an i n d i c a t o r score, C - T v a l u e s for each chemical
w e r e s u m m e d across media. T h e t o p - s c o r i n g I0 chemicals for
b o t h p o t e n t i a l c a r c i n o g e n i c a n d n o n c a r c i n o g e n i c effects w e r e
r e t a i n e d as c h e m i c a l s of p o t e n t i a l concern.
It s h o u l d be noted t h a t c h e m i c a l s l a c k i n g toxicity
v a l u e s w e r e a u t o m a t i c a l l y r e m o v e d f r o m the s e l e c t i o n p r o c e s s
for both m e t h o d s C and D ( c o n c e n t r a t i o n - t o x i c i t y screen and
i n d i c a t o r score, respectively). T h e n u m b e r of chemicals
u s e d in the q u a n t i t a t i v e r i s k a s s e s s m e n t s for the complete
list and e a c h of the r e d u c e d s u b s e t s f r o m the four methods
of reduction and combination of methods are presented in

Figure i.
Exposure scenarios used in the original quantitative

risk assessments for all four sites were also used to
evaluate the test methods. The exposure scenarios for Site
i included residential exposure to both soil and ground
water. The exposure pathways evaluated for Site i were
ingestion of and dermal contact with drinking water (i.e.,
ground water), inhalation of volatile chemicals while
showering and ingestion of and dermal contact with soil.
Both Sites 2 and 4 were evaluated for ingestion of and
dermal contact with soil. The risk assessment for Site 3
evaluated residential exposures to drinking water (i.e.,
ground water) via inhalation of volatiles while showering,
ingestion of and dermal contact to chemicals in drinking
water. Standard assumptions and parameters associated with
these exposure scenarios were used in the risk assessments
(OERR 1989; OSWER 1991b).
RESULTS
The methods for reducing the number of chemicals of

potential concern decreased the number of chemicals to be
e v a l u a t e d by varying amounts at all four sites (Figure i).
Use of Method A (frequency of detection) resulted in an 18
to 39 percent reduction in the number of chemicals of
potential concern. Grouping by chemical class (Method B)
r e d u c e d the number of chemicals by 27 to 32 percent.
G r o u p i n g could not be accomplished for Site 3 because the
complete list of chemicals of potential concern did not have
any chemicals in the same groups. The greatest reduction of
number of chemicals for three of the four sites was observed
w h e n the concentration-toxicity screening method (Method C)
was used. M e t h o d C reduced the number of chemicals by 62 to
82 percent. Method D, indicator score, created the second
greatest reduction in number of chemicals for all sites
except Site i. For site i, M e t h o d D resulted in the fewest
number of remaining chemicals of potential concern.
Human health risks associated with site-specific

exposures were quantitatively estimated for the four sites.
Each site was assessed using seven separate lists of
chemicals of potential concern. A summary of the total
human health risks are shown on Figures 2 and 3. These
risks are separated as noncarcinogenic hazard indices
(Figure 2) and carcinogenic risks (Figure 3).
Noncarcinogenic risks are presented as chronic hazard

indices. A hazard index is defined as "the sum of more than
one hazard quotient for multiple substances and/or multiple
exposure pathways" (OERR 1989). In turn, a hazard quotient
is defined as "the ratio of a single substance exposure
level over a specified time period to a reference dose for
that substance" (OERR 1989). All noncarcinogenic risks are
based on chronic exposures for the age group I to 8 years
old. This group was selected because it commonly
represented the most sensitive receptor group or the group
experiencing the highest exposure doses. Chronic reference
doses were used in the estimation of all hazard quotients.
A chronic reference dose is an estimate of an exposure level
that is not likely to cause adverse effects on human health
over a lifetime. Therefore, a hazard quotient or hazard
index equal to or greater than one is an indication of
p o t e n t i a l l y increased noncarcinogenic health risks.
Carcinogenic health risks are presented in terms of a

unitless p r o b a b i l i t y of an individual developing cancer over
a lifetime. Carcinogenic health risks were derived by
solving for the product of chronic daily intakes and slope
factors. Chronic daily intakes were estimated assuming
reasonable m a x i m u m exposures for individuals between the
ages 0 to 30 years, averaged over a 70-year lifetime. Slope
factors are defined as "a plausible upper-bound estimate of
the probability of a response per unit intake of a chemical

over a lifetime" (OERR 1989). EPA has established a target
range of 104 to 104 for excess lifetime cancer risk at
hazardous waste sites (USEPA 1990). Further, U.S. EPA in a
recent OSWER directive has suggested that generally
carcinogenic risks less than 104 do not w a r r a n t remedial
action unless there are adverse environmental impacts (OSWER
1991a).
Hazard indices at all four sites were equal to or

greater than one, indicating a potential for noncarcinogen
health risks. Hazard indices ranged from 1 to i00. Sites 1
and 3 had the highest hazard indices. O r g a n i c chemicals of
potential concern accounted for the majority of the hazard
index at Site i, while inorganic chemicals of potential
concern accounted for the majority of the hazard index at
site 3.
Carcinogenic risks ranged from 2x10 "5 to ixl0 "2. Again,

sites 1 and 3 had the highest estimated risks. All
carcinogenic risks were greater than 104 . Carcinogenic
risks were primarily attributed to organic contaminants.
The four methods used to reduce the number of chemicals

of potential concern each had differing but generally, minor
effects on the estimated risks. Three of the four reduction
methods either caused no change in the total risk or reduced
the risks. The fourth method grouping (Method B), either
did not change total risks or, in one case (noncarcinogenic
risk at Site 4, Figure 2), actually increased the hazard
index. Grouping could not be accomplished for Site 3 due to
lack of groupable chemicals.
Resulting total risks for Method A indicate reduced

noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic risks in two of the four
site assessments (Sites 2 and 3). These reductions were
less than 15 percent of the noncarcinogenic hazard indices
estimated by using the complete list of chemicals of
potential concern. In none of the four site risk
assessments did the Method A reduction result in a hazard
index of less than one. Therefore, if this method had been
used for the assessment of risks at these sites, the final
conclusion (potential noncarcinogenic risk based on a hazard
index greater than one) would not have changed.
Similarly, the carcinogenic risks estimated using

Method A, would not have resulted in different conclusions
with regard to the potential carcinogenic risks at any of
the sites. Normally, carcinogenic risks of more than 104
are considered indicative of levels of concern, generally
requiring some type of remedial action (OSWER 1991a).
Neither the estimated risks for Site 2 nor 3 had risks that
were less than 104 after Method A reduction. Also, the
observed risks after Method A reduction, were less than an

order of magnitude smaller than the originally estimated
risks~ However, total risks did decrease by up to 78
percent (Site 2).
Reduction of the number of chemicals of potential

concern by grouping (Method B) normally did not change the
total estimated noncarcinogenic or carcinogenic risks. This
was expected since the chemical groups selected for this
paper were composed of chemicals having similar toxicity
values. As noted above, the noncarcinogenic risks
calculated for Site 4 under Method B were greater than the
estimated noncarcinogenic risks for the complete list of
chemicals of potential concern. This was caused by the
grouping of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, some of w h i c h
had greater reference doses than the reference dose
(naphthalene) selected to represent this group.
The concentration - toxicity screening method (Method

C) generally reduced or did not change risks for a
particular site. Resulting hazard indices were up to i0
percent less than those calculated for the entire list of
chemicals of potential concern. Hazard indices under Method
C were less than those for the total list of chemicals of
potential concern for three of the four sites, but still
were greater than one. Carcinogenic risks calculated for
the chemicals retained after the concentration-toxicity
screening (Method C) were less than the original risks for
two of the four sites. The greatest percentage decrease in
carcinogenic risk using Method C was noted for Site 3 (33
percent).
Results of the indicator chemical screening method

(Method D) varied from the original baseline assessment by
more than the other methods. Method D noncarcinogenic
hazard indices were less than the original for all four
sites. However, Method D hazard indices did not fall below
one. Thus, this method would lead to the s a m e overall
conclusions with far fewer chemicals of potential concern.
Carcinogenic risks calculated under Method D were reduced
for two of the four sites. Site 2 risks showed the greater
reduction (67 percent). The other site which had reduced
risks was Site 3 (33 percent).
Most sites showed similar pattern of results.

Noncarcinogenic hazard indices were lowest when estimated
under Method D (indicator score method) for three of the
four sites. At Site 2, the Method A hazard index was 0.i
less than the Method D hazard index. The highest hazard
indices were observed for Method B and the complete list of
chemicals of potential concern. Carcinogenic risks were
lowest under Method A for two of the four sites. Sites 1
and 4 showed no change in carcinogenic risks among the six
chemical selection methods.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The four sites e v a l u a t e d in t h i s study w e r e

p r e f e r e n t i a l l y s e l e c t e d based on t h e r e l a t i v e l y h i g h risks
a n d large n u m b e r s of c h e m i c a l s of p o t e n t i a l c o n c e r n .
O r i g i n a l b a s e l i n e risk a s s e s s m e n t s for these s i t e s e v a l u a t e d
all c h e m i c a l s d e t e c t e d at the site at levels g r e a t e r t h a n
t h o s e d e t e c t e d in b a c k g r o u n d or b l a n k samples as c h e m i c a l of
p o t e n t i a l concern. O r i g i n a l b a s e l i n e or c o m p l e t e list risks
r a n g e d from 1 to I00 for n o n c a r c i n o g e n i c h a z a r d i n d i c e s and
from 9x10 "5 to ixl0 "2 for c a r c i n o g e n i c risks.
The n u m b e r of c h e m i c a l s of p o t e n t i a l c o n c e r n w e r e
r e d u c e d 18 to 82 p e r c e n t by the f o u r r e d u c t i o n m e t h o d s .
Generally, M e t h o d s A (frequency of detection) a n d M e t h o d B
(grouping) r e t a i n e d m o r e c h e m i c a l s of p o t e n t i a l concern,
w h i l e M e t h o d s C and D r e t a i n e d fewer. The c o m b i n a t i o n of
M e t h o d s A, B and C and A, B and D r e s u l t e d in t h e same
n u m b e r of c h e m i c a l s of p o t e n t i a l c o n c e r n as M e t h o d C and
M e t h o d D, respectively, for each site.
After r e d u c i n g the n u m b e r of c h e m i c a l s of p o t e n t i a l
concern, the r e s u l t i n g risks w e r e the same or s l i g h t l y
d e c r e a s e d in all but one case. A seven percent increase was
n o t e d for one of the h a z a r d indices (Site 4) w h e n the n u m b e r
of c h e m i c a l s w a s r e d u c e d by grouping. Decreased hazard
indices w e r e noted in ten of the t w e n t y - t h r e e t e s t cases.
However, h a z a r d indices w e r e never d e c r e a s e d b e l o w one. A
h a z a r d index of one or g r e a t e r is n o r m a l l y a c c e p t e d as an
i n d i c a t i o n of p o t e n t i a l n o n c a r c i n o g e n i c h e a l t h r i s k s (OERR
1989; O S W E R 1991a).
C a r c i n o g e n i c risks w e r e d e c r e a s e d in ten of t h e t w e n t y -
three test cases, also. Each of t h e s e d e c r e a s e s w a s less
t h a n an order of m a g n i t u d e (<i0 times). Also, n o n e of the
chemical r e d u c t i o n m e t h o d s caused the c a r c i n o g e n i c risks to
change from g r e a t e r t h a n 104 to less than 1 0 4 . T h i s is
s i g n i f i c a n t since 104 r e p r e s e n t s the excess l i f e t i m e
c o n c e r n risk w h i c h g e n e r a l l y w a r r a n t s remedial a c t i o n (OSWER
1991a).
Thus, the r e d u c t i o n of the n u m b e r of c h e m i c a l s of

p o t e n t i a l c o n c e r n by any of the four m e t h o d s or t h e
c o m b i n a t i o n of m e t h o d s d i d not u l t i m a t e l y a f f e c t t h e
d e t e r m i n a t i o n of w h e t h e r r e m e d i a l a c t i o n was w a r r a n t e d at
t h e site. However, at o t h e r sites w h e r e risks a r e v e r y n e a r
critical levels (hazard index = I, or c a r c i n o g e n i c risk =
104), the 'use of the four tested m e t h o d s to r e d u c e the
number of c h e m i c a l s of p o t e n t i a l c o n c e r n may l e a d to
i n a p p r o p r i a t e r e m e d i a l decisions. Therefore, it is
r e c o m m e n d e d t h a t risk assessments, w h i c h use a n y of the four
r e d u c t i o n methods, be r e e v a l u a t e d if the final r i s k s are
w i t h i n an order of m a g n i t u d e of a c r i t i c a l r i s k level. This
reevaluation should include an assessment of all chemicals

at the site which were found at levels above background.
REFERENCES
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR), 1986,

"Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual,"
EPA/540/I-86/060, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR), 1989,

"Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume i:
Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A)," Interim
Final, EPA/540/I-89/002, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), 1990,

Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables, Third Quarter
FY-1990, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), 1991a,

"Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfund
Remedy Selection Decisions," OSWER Directive 9355.0-30,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), 1991b,

"Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplement Guidance:
"Standard Default Exposure Factors"," Directive 9285.6-
03, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1990,

"National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Control Contingency Plan," Code of Federal Regulations
40 Part 300.
Greg Linder, ~ Clarence Callahan, 2 and Gary Pascoe'
A strategy for ecological risk assessments for Superfund: Biological

methods for evaluating soil contamination
REFERENCE: Linder, G., Callahan, C., and Pascoe, G., "A Strategy
for Ecological Risk Assessments for Superfund: Biologica/ Methods
for Evaluating Soil Contamination," Suverfund Risk Assessments in
Soil Contamination Studies. ASTM STP 1158. Keith B. Hoddinott,
Editor, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1992.
ABSTRACT: Within the Superfund ecological risk assessment process,

soils represent not only complex contaminant sources but also complex
exposure systems. Hence, soil contamination evaluations relevant to
ecological risk assessments for Superfund sites must consider various
routes and sources of exposure, as well as biological targets
representative of various plant, animal, and microbial species. Within
ecological contexts, biological evaluations in the field and laboratory
should be considered c r i t i c a l components in the ecological risk
assessment process, since integrated approaches to hazard evaluation
consider contaminant bioavailability and subtle expressions of adverse
biological effects associated with chronic exposures. Depending upon
habitat type -- freshwater, marine and estuarine, wetland, or
terrestrial -- field and laboratory methods have been developed for
hazard evaluation which lend themselves directly to the Superfund
ecological risk assessment process. For example, in various mining
d i s t r i c t s in the western United States, riparian wetlands are frequently
impacted by heavy metal-laden sediments. The present study illustrates
preliminary work within a Superfund ecological risk assessment for such
a heavy metal-impacted riparian wetland in western Montana. A variety
of biological test methods (e.g., terrestrial and aquatic tests) were
c r i t i c a l to the wetland evaluation, and in conjunction with chemical
analyses, these biological and ecological evaluations yielded an
integrated assessment of heavy metal effects on the wetland, and assured
that environmental decisions regarding the wetland could be made with
reduced uncertainty.
iManTech Environmental Technology, Inc., Environmental Research Laboratory,

200 S.W. 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333.
2U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory, 200 S.W. 35th Street,

Corvallis, OR 97333.
~Environmental Toxicology International, Inc., 600 Stewart Street, Suite

700, Seattle, WA 98101.
LINDER ET AL. ON ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENTS FOR SUPERFUND 289
KE~ORDS: ecological risk assessment, heavy metals, riparian wetlands,

mining, sediments
Chemical and biological interactions associated with exposures to

soil contaminants may be evaluated according to various assessment
strategies. For example, both chemically-based and toxicity-based
approaches have made significant contributions to ecological assessments
for hazardous waste sites (Parkhurst, et al. 1989). But, unifying
chemical and biological response data requires that these techniques be
carefully interpreted as part of the site-assessment. An ecological
assessment may be considered an integrated evaluation of biological
effects derived through measurements of ecological effects and exposure
(U.S. EPA 1988; 1989). From an ecotoxicological perspective, t o x i c i t y
evaluations and f i e l d surveys are major components in an ecological
effects assessment, and in conjunction with an exposure assessment,
ecological hazard and risk can be evaluated for environmental
contaminants that occur in various matrices sampled at a site (Figure
I ) . Dependingupon the environmental matrix being tested, t o x i c i t y
assessments may be derived using test methods which evaluate freshwater,
marine, or terrestrial biota. Within the context of ecological effects
assessment, adverse biological effects potentially associated with
environmental exposures may suggest various applications for evaluating
soil t o x i c i t y throughout the site-assessment process (Athey, et al.
1987; Warren-Hicks, et a__!l. 1989). For example, in evaluating
contaminated soils in terrestrial and wetland habitats, t o x i c i t y
estimates may be derived from phytotoxicity tests as well as animal and
microbial test systems. Linkagesbetween chemical contaminants and
adverse ecological effects, however, require not only t o x i c i t y
evaluations of representative species but adequate chemical analyses for
deriving strong inferences regarding causality (Parkhurst, et all. 1989;
Stevens, et al 1989). Whent o x i c i t y assessments are combined with (I)
f i e l d surveys which measure ecological endpoints (Suter 1991) and (2)
chemical analyses of pertinent site samples, higher level biological
organization (e.g., populations and communities) may be evaluated during
the ecological risk assessment process. Ecological data, then, as well
as toxicological and chemical information must be acquired within
ecological risk assessments to assure that sound ecological management
practices are implemented.
The chemical, toxicological, and ecological information collected
for a site may be balanced or weighted among these component parts,
depending upon site-specific characteristics. Historically, for
example, chemically-based methods were the primary assessment tools
applied to hazardous waste site evaluations, regardless of whether the
concerns regarded human health or ecological effects. Causal linkages
between adverse biological responses and contaminant presence were
assumed. These linkages were based largely on extrapolation from
laboratory-derived single-compoundt o x i c i t y evaluations to field
PROBLEM FORMULATION
* Qualitatively evaluate contaminant release, migration, and fate
* Identify:
- Contaminants of ecological concern - Exposure pathways
- Receptors - Known effects
* Select endpoints of concern
* Specify objectives and scope
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
I I
ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS
ASSESSMENT
* Quantify release, migration, and fate
* Characterize receptors * Literature
* Measure or estimate * Toxicity testing
exposure point concentrations * Field studies
RISK CHARACTERIZATION
*
*
*
*
Current adverse effects
Future adverse effects
Uncertainty analysis
Ecological significance
Lt
i
REMEDIAL OBJECTIVES
ANALYSIS OF
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
* REMEDY SELECTION
* RECORD OF DECISION
* REMEDIAL DESIGN
* REMEDIAL ACTION
FIGURE ]. Ecological effects and exposure assessments as components of

the ecological assessment process for hazardous waste sites (US EPA
1991).
settings frequently characterized by complex chemical mixture exposures.

However, i f toxicity-based evaluations and ecological survey data were
considered complementary components to chemical analyses during any
site-assessment, then s t a t i s t i c a l methods could integrate these
component data sets (Figure 2).
Toxicity data Chemical d a t a Ecological data

i I J
Statistical or Quantitative
Integration
I
Contribution to ecological
effects assessment
FIGURE 2. Sources of information (toxicity, chemical, and ecological)
that contribute to an ecological risk assessment for a hazardous waste
site.
Management decisions regarding the environmental hazard associated with

soil contaminants at the site should be developed using an integrated
assessment strategy and should not rely exclusively on chemical
analyses. Toxicity assessments which evaluate adverse effects through
measurement of biological endpoints (Parkhurst, et al. 1989) and f i e l d
surveys which measure ecological endpoints indicative of higher level
structure and function (Bromenshenk 1989; Kapustka 1989; LaPoint and
Fairchild 1989; McBee 1989) contribute to the environmental hazard
evaluation and enhance resource management during all phases of the
ecological risk assessment process.
The following case study illustrates the integrated strategy
outlined above where the roles of t o x i c i t y testing and f i e l d surveys are
complementary to chemical analysis within the ecological assessment
process. From a site management perspective, the case study illustrates
contaminant-related risk assessment problems which frequently occur
throughout a variety of sites. While site-specific contaminants may
vary from an analytical perspective (e.g., heavy metals versus
organics), the integrated assessment strategy is flexible by design and
broadly applicable on a site-specific basis.
CASE SI~JDY. As background information, in the western United States
riparian wetlands are frequently impacted by heavy metal-laden sediments
which result from hard rock mining. Wetland soils, then, may be sources
of toxic heavy metals, and the biological and ecological effects
associated with these complex metal mixtures may express themselves in
various patterns throughout these landscapes. For example, Milltown
Reservoir is located six miles east of Missoula, MT at the confluence of
the Blackfoot and Clark Fork Rivers (Figure 3). Since the construction
of Milltown Dam below the confluence of the rivers in 1906-1907, the
reservoir has accumulated a large volume of river-borne sediment.
Figure 3. Nap of Milltown Reservoir wetlands study site. Preliminary

sampling and i n situ testing was completed at sampling units identified
by Roman numerals. /_O situ testing with amphibians was completed in
emergent zone habitats [shaded areas]; plant and earthworm field tests
evaluated upland habitats in a l l sampling units.
" LINDERET AL. ON ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENTS FOR SUPERFUND 293
Contaminant problems at the s i t e are characterized by large volumes of

metals-containing sediments and the presence of metals in local surface
water and groundwater. These sediments have accumulated from upstream
releases associated with mining, m i l l i n g , and smelting a c t i v i t i e s , and
are the source of the surface water and groundwater contamination.
Sediments deposited along the r i p a r i a n zones and banks of the reservoir
by periodic flooding may also contribute to ecological impacts.
For Milltown Reservoir, the objective of the ecological assessment

centered about current and potential risks to the health of fish and
other w i l d l i f e that may have been exposed to metal contaminants in the
r e s e r v o i r and r i v e r sediments. The major ecological concern f o r
Milltown Reservoir was the potential e f f e c t s of metal contaminants
adsorbed to and migrating from sediments. Specific goals of the
ecological r i s k assessment f o r the s i t e considered:
contaminant concentrations in sediment that may be

associated with adverse ecological e f f e c t s at the s i t e ;
9 potential adverse ecological e f f e c t s that could be evaluated

f o r the s i t e such as reduced f i s h and amphibian populations;
9 altered wetland community structures and the resultant

effects on prey-predator relationships;
bioaccumulation and transfer of metals in the wetlands food

web and the potential effects on higher trophic level
organisms; and
9 potential toxic effects of metals that were present in

surface waters of the reservoir as a result of releases of
metals from sediments.
Specific objectives of the ecological assessment at Milltown

Reservoir were driven by these site-specific goals, and included: ( i ) a
qualitative field survey to identify the natural resources present at
the site ( i . e . , vegetation and wildlife species present); (2) a
preliminary analysis of metal concentrations in the indigenous plants
and animals inhabiting the wetland; (3) a preliminary evaluation of the
bioavailability of the metals present in the sediments and their
partitioning in the ecosystem and their bioaccumulation; (4) a
preliminary assessment of any adverse effects on the ecosystem including
ecological functions, community structure, and predator-prey
relationships that may have resulted from contact with or accumulation
of these metals; and (5) a characterization of potential human health
risks associated with recreational fishing.
FIELD AND LABORATORYM E ~ S . During the preliminary field and

laboratory season at Milltown Reservoir wetlands, these field and
laboratory tasks were implemented in response to the site-specific goals
and objectives outlined above:
A preliminary food-web contamination survey (field and

laboratory methods) which emphasized small mammals
(insectivores and herbivores) was initiated (McBee 1989);
9 Vegetationevaluations, including phytotoxicity assessments

in laboratory and field (seed germination and root
elongation), were initiated (Greene, et a_!l. 1989); plant
uptake studies to evaluate metal incorporation into above
ground and below ground plant tissues were also initiated as
part of the food-web contamination survey; metal residues in
biological materials were measured;
Earthworm testing in both field and laboratory was initiated

as an effort to evaluate the short-term effects of metals on
soil macroinvertebrates (Callahan, et a__!l. 1985; Callahan, e__t
a_]_l. 1991)
9 Preliminary evaluations of adverse biological effects

associated with surface waters were initiated by using
amphibian tests in the field and laboratory (ASTM 1991);
Laboratory methods using bacterial tests (Microtox",

Microbics 1989) were applied to surface water samples and to
soil-derived aqueous extracts (Greene, et al. 1989); and
Each environmental matrix (soils, sediments, and biota) was

analyzed for total metals (U.S. EPA 1986) to provide
contaminant concentration data required for preliminary
interpretations of biological effects, i f expressed in field
or laboratory.
PRELIMINARY FIELD SAMPLINGDESIGN. For the scoping field effort, the

wetlands at Milltown Reservoir were delineated (Federal Interagency
Committee on Wetland Delineation 1989) and stratified into sampling
units (I through V) based upon topography (Figure 3). Line transects
were established on each sampling unit. Each line transect originated
from a randomly selected point in each sampling unit, and then sampling
stations were systematically located on the transects at 10 meter
intervals along habitat gradients (Gilbert 1987; Eberhardt and Thomas
1991). During the scoping year's operations, plant and earthworm
methods were applied on the upland features, and amphibian methods were
applied in emergent zones.
PRELIMINARY RESULTSAND DISCUSSION: AN OVERVIEW OF MILLTOWN RESERVOIR

WETLANDS. While illustrating the implementation of the ecological
assessment process (Figure I), the preliminary laboratory work and field
season completed at Milltown Reservoir provided an evaluation of the
extent of contamination for the wetland habitat. As indicated by the
few available data bases (for example, see Beyer 1990), some soil and
sediment samples from the Milltown wetlands had metals concentrations
that may be considered elevated. Biological information gained during
these preliminary studies, however, must be considered when interpreting
these total metals concentrations. Overt expressions of acute toxicity
were consistently absent at all sampling locations in the wetland
regardless the biological assessment methods used in the evaluation.

There were no indications of acute effects associated with any
presumptive contaminant exposures on those areas surveyed and sampled
during scoping operations.
These preliminary Field and laboratory studies did suggest that

coincident spatial patterns between metals in sediments and biological
effects occur. While the biological and chemical data gathered during
the preliminary field season at Milltown Reservoir wetlands was scoping
in nature, i t suggested that mitigation of heavy metal impacts and
remediation of the wetlands should be focussed at "hot spots" rather
than the wetland as a whole. Specifically, while heavy metal-laden
sediments occurred throughout the wetlands, distributions of elevated
metal concentrations in the sediments (Table 1) and biological effects
(Table 2) were spatially correlated, but were heterogeneous in their
distribution across the wetland. Earthworm and plant tests indicated
upland soils were consistently not toxic, and only the sediment
deposition zones within various sampling units (e.g., Sampling Unit IV
and Sampling Unit V at the Clark Fork Arm) presented subtle indications
of biological effects (Table 3). For example, subacute or teratogenic
endpoints expressed by frog embryos in laboratory exposures were
frequently subtle (e.g., mild abdominal edema, hyperpigmentation) and
only occasionally severe (Figure 4). Gross malformations, i f expressed,
were most frequently characterized by ocular and abdominal edema, and
skeletal and ocular malformations. As suggested by the supporting
laboratory testing with amphibians, no metal-specific malformations were
noted in these exposures with Milltown surface water samples collected
in emergent zones (Linder, et al. 1991).
Given these results from Ln situ and laboratory studies, a

preliminary ecological risk assessment for Milltown Reservoir wetlands
can be considered with less uncertainty, particularly since field
surveys evaluated ambient toxicity and contaminant bioavailability. For
example, biological tests in the field and laboratory suggested that
metal concentrations in surface waters and in pore waters should not
present acute toxicity in those areas at Milltown tested in the
preliminary field season. While the sediment samples clearly suggested
that metal concentrations were heterogeneously distributed across the
wetland, no overt expression of adverse biological effects was noted in
upland habitats. High concentrations of metals in sediments, however,
suggested that deposition zones should be more rigorously studied, owing
to the biological effects noted in some laboratory exposures.
Biological tests suggested that subacute or chronic effects may be
associated with deposition zones where sediments either currently or
historically had accumulated as a function of changes in the Clark Fork
channel or flow rates. Samples characterized by adverse biological
responses in laboratory or field exposures were frequently identified by
more than one test method. Indeed, focussed sampling efforts in future
work at Milltown should consider both spatial and geochemical
heterogeneity across the site. Furthermore, i f indicated after a more
complete study, deposition zones may be the focus for future efforts in
the ecological assessment.
Table 1. Total metals in sediment samples collected at Milltown

Reservoir during preliminary f i e l d season.
Sample location" Metal (total) ~

Zn ____~U Cd As
Deer Creek~ 134 41 1.1 4.4

Bridge (reference)
45 26 2.5 13.5
57 35 2.7 10.3
31 16 1.3 5.1
IV 2195 349 6.6 50.1

3149 504 g.o 59.1
1635 331 7.0 47.1
1405 357 6.4 67.6
635 299 4.3 34.7
657 303 4.5 28.3
IV/VI 455 230 3.7 28.7

channel 463 198 3.3 25.0
656 272 4.4 45.0
441 221 3.4 27.2
443 242 3.5 25.6
V, Railroad 740 267 5.5 24.7

Slough on the 1641 400 8.6 64.1
the Clark 1134 229 5.2 22.1
Fork Arm 1226 1219 6.2 83.8
564 174 3.7 30.6
"see Figure 3 for map location.

~metal residues as Mg analyte/gm dry weight.
Creference site located immediately downstream from Milltown Dam.
Table 2. Acute and subacute effects results in in situ and laboratory

frog tests for surface water samples. Sample units identified by Roman
numerals; RRS = Railroad Slough on Clark Fork Arm; TL = Tunnel Lake."
SAMPLE UNIT/STATION SURVIVAL MALFORMATION

In. situ Laboratory LaboratorY-
Deer Creek Bridge~ NT 18/20 1/18
(reference)
I 23/25 19/19 1/19
23/25 19/19 6/19
IV 22/25 19/20 5/19
21/25 18/20 5/18
22/25 20/20 0/20
21/25 20/20 14/20
21/25 20/20 4/20
21/25 18/19 5/19
NT~ 20/20 0/20
22/25 19/20 0/19
23/25 18/20 0/18
NT 20/20 1/20
V, Railroad NT 20/20 6/20

Slough on the NT 19/19 4/19
Clark Fork Arm NT 20/20 0/20
NT 19/20 7/19
NT 18/20 1/18
NT 19/20 0/19
Vl NT 9/10 3/9
NT 19/20 6/20
'All scores recorded as "number responsive/number exposed."
Malformations other than growth reduction.
~reference site located immediately downstream from Milltown Dam.
dNT = not tested in preliminary f i e l d season.
Table 3. Summaryof laboratory amphibian growth results for Milltown

surface water samples collected during preliminary field season."
Sample Unit/Station Mean (+_ s.d.) b Median~
Deer Creek Bridgec 9.7 (0.3) 9.8

(reference)
I 8.5 (0.3) + 8.5

8.1(0.4)+ 8.1
IV 9.2 (0.3) 9.1

9.8 (0.3) g.9
i0.0 (0.2) 10.0
9.8 (o.3) Io.o
9.1 (0.3) g.l
9.4 (0.7) 9.6
9.8 (0.3) 10.0
9.9 (0.3) 10.0
10.0 (0.2) 10.0
9.1 (o.4) 9.2
V, Railroad 9.4 (0.6) 9.4

Slough on the 8.9 (0.5) 9.0
Clark Fork Arm 9.2 (0.2) 9.1
9.7 (0.4) 9.7
9.7 (0.3) 9.8
9.9 (0.3) 10.0
Vl 9.7 (0.6) 10.0

9.7 (0.4) 9.8
'Growth results from FETAX completed in laboratory exposures;

"+" indicates significantly different from other treatments,
P = 0.05 (Newman-Keuls).
bLengths given in millimeters; s.d. = standard deviation.
SITE-SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS: PROBLEMFORMULATIONAND SCOPINGSTUDIES.

The preliminary year's work at Milltown Reservoir wetlands illustrates
the c r i t i c a l role that problem formulation and scoping studies play in
ecological assessment at Superfund sites (Figure I ) . On the basis of
the results from the preliminary year's studies, future work for the
Milltown Reservoir wetlands baseline ecological assessment can be
identified to reduce uncertainty. Clearly, biological, and
presumptively ecological, impacts associated with heavy metals in
sediment and soil were not overtly expressed in the tests applied during
scoping operations. In future studies, heterogeneity across the site
may be minimized by stratifying the sample design along topographic
boundaries determined by current or historic depositional areas on the
Clark Fork. Also, future work should include evaluations of emergent
zone sediments, as well as upland sediments and soils. These sediments
evaluations should include t o x i c i t y tests using benthic invertebrates,
community structure analysis, and chemical characterization where
applicable, and should include work with wetland plants ( i . e . , floating
and emergent) to evaluate the potential adverse biological effects
associated with sediment exposures in emergent zones (e.g., Fleming,
a__ll. 1988; Walsh, et a_!l. 1991). For more complete site-specific
evaluations regarding bioavailability of metals in soils and sediments,
additional physicochemical characterizations may also be advantageous.
For example, to adequately evaluate vegetation responses, routine soil
texture, nutrient (N-P-K), cation exchange capacity (CEC) and total
organic carbon (TOC) analyses may be beneficial. Metals speciation
should be included, and i f metals occur in the plant rooting zone,
direct sampling of soil and sediment i n t e r s t i t i a l water, particularly in
the emergent zones, should be pursued. These water samples should be
evaluated in the laboratory with root elongation tests (Greene, et a_!l.
1989) or marsh plants (Walsh, et al. 1991).
ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENTSTRATEGYRECDr@IENOATIONS. Integrated

ecological effects assessments are recommended for assessing ecological
risks (Warren-Hicks, et al. 1989; US EPA 1991), and are similar in
strategy to toxicity-based methods developed for regulation of toxic
complex effluents discharged to surface waters. Ecological risk
assessment should also be based on endpoints that are site-specific and
reasonably accurate indices of ecological effects (Warren-Hicks, et al.
1989; Suter 1990a).
The Ecological Research Program (U.S. EPA 1990) states that l i t t l e

is presently known about how pollution and stresses affect ecosystems,
and that " . . . the use of simplified small-scale or laboratory
experiments to quantitatively estimate ecological effects..." has
contributed to this knowledge gap. The Ecological Research Program
further concluded that using laboratory microcosms to try to reproduce
the integrated effects of the physical, chemical, and biological
components of an ecosystem is unrealistic. Additionally, d i f f i c u l t i e s
in extrapolating laboratory results to the field due to differences in
physical and chemical properties have long been recognized as
confounding elements in environmental risk assessment.
Within an ecological effects assessment, laboratory, i_~nsitu or

on-site t o x i c i t y assessments should be considered early in the problem
formulation phase of the process, and field tests should be pursued

where chemical impacts may be evaluated in the actual site environment,
particularly when "lab-to-field" extrapolation errors are identified as
potentially confounding factors in the assessment. For example, Warren-
Hicks, et ~!. (1989) suggests that t o x i c i t y tests of soils, sediments,
and water supplement chemical residue data in establishing cleanup
criteria, and also concludes that on-site toxicity tests may be more
sensitive than other monitoring methods to low levels of contaminants.
On-site and in sftu methods may also indicate t o x i c i t y of mixtures of
contaminants more readily than single-chemical criteria. Field and
laboratory activities, then, provide site-specific information for an
exposure-response assessment (Suter 1990b). Activities described in the
field and laboratory guide (Warren-Hicks, et al. 1989) and guidance
provided by the federal agencies should be particularly useful for
development of site-specific exposure-response relationships, and for
integration of this information with results of other studies in the
ecological risk characterization at the site.
SbI4MARY. Within an ecological assessment, three types of information

are needed to establish a firm, causal relationship between toxic wastes
and ecological effects:
chemical analyses of the appropriate media are necessary to

establish the occurrence, spatial distribution and
concentrations of specific toxic chemicals;
ecological surveys can establish that adverse ecological

effects have occurred; and
toxicity tests are necessary to establish a link between the

adverse ecological effects and the toxicity of the wastes.
Without all three types of data, other potential causes of the

observed effects unrelated to the toxic effects of hazardous wastes,
such as habitat alterations and natural v a r i a b i l i t y , are d i f f i c u l t to
determine. For the following reasons, confidence in cleanup decisions
is greatly enhanced when based on a combination of chemical, ecological,
and toxicological data:
ecological and toxicological data can be used to assess the

aggregate toxicity of all toxic constituents at a specific
hazardous waste site;
bioavailability of a toxic chemical is measured with

ecological and toxicological assessments, but not with
chemical analyses; hence, greater confidence in evaluating
toxicities of chemicals is achieved;
ecological and toxicological assessments link chemical-

specific toxicity with measurable biological responses,
thereby providing a realistic assessment of environmental
effects; and
ecological and toxicological assessments provide information

on the magnitude and variation of toxic effects which may be
useful in cleanup strategies.
From a technical perspective, soil contamination evaluations, as
well as ecological assessments for hazardous waste sites in general,
should include acute t o x i c i t y tests which measure mortality, and short-
term tests which measure biological endpoints other than death.
Toxicity assessment tools, then, may yield information regarding acute
biological responses elicited by site-samples as well as suggest longer-
term biological effects (e.g., genotoxicity or teratogenicity)
potentially associated with subacute and chronic exposures to complex
chemical mixtures characteristic of hazardous waste sites. Toxicity
evaluation methods used in site-assessment should reflect site-specific
demands implicit to the ecological assessment process, but t o x i c i t y
tests are but one component of an ecological assessment for a hazardous
waste site. Strongest inferences regarding the coincidence of
contaminants and biological response may be derived from sampling plans
which consider both t o x i c i t y and chemical characterization, yet an
ecological assessment must also consider field components early in site
evaluation. This becomes particularly important when f i e l d sampling is
considered, since integration of t o x i c i t y assessments (be those in situ
or laboratory-generated), chemical analyses and f i e l d assessments
requires a well-designed sample plan to establish linkages among
t o x i c i t y , site-sample chemistry and adverse ecological effects.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. We want to thank Tom Pfleeger, Nelson Beyer, and Gray
Henderson for helpful comments on an early draft of this paper, as well
as three anonymous colleagues who provided reviews of the final
manuscript.
REFERENCES.
ASTM. 1991. Standard guide for conducting the frog embryo
teratogenesis assay-Xenopus [FETAX]. Ann. Book of Standards, Vol.
11.04, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
PA.
Athey, L.A., J.M. Thomas, J.R. Skalski, and W.E. Miller. I g 8 7 . Role of
acute t o x i c i t y bioassays in the remedial action process at
hazardous waste sites. EPA/600/8-87/044. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis,
OR.
Beyer, W.N. 1990. Evaluating soil contamination. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Biol. Rep. 90[2]. 25pp.
Bromenshenk, J. 198g. Terrestrial invertebrate surveys. In W. Warren-
Hicks, B. Parkhurst, and S. Baker, Jr. (eds.). Ecological
assessment of hazardous waste sites. EPA/600/3-sg/013. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research
Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.
Figure 4. Representative terata developed in amphibian embryos [Xenop_us

laevis.] evaluated in laboratory exposures of Milltown surface water
samples. Only a limited number of surface water samples from Milltown
Reservoir presented 96-hr tadpoles with gross terata; these l a t e r a l
presentations i l l u s t r a t e abdominal and cardiac edema~ skeletal and eye
malformations, and reduced growth [top tadpole~ control; bottom
tadpoles, Mi]ltown-exposed; each rule divisfo~ = 1.0 mm, a f t e r t i n d e r ,
et al. (1991)].
Callahan, C.A., L.K. Russell, and S.A. Peterson. 1985. A comparison of

three earthworm bioassay procedures for the assessment of
environmental samples containing hazardous wastes. Biol. Fert.
Soils 1:195-200.
Callahan, C.A., C.A. Menzie, D.E. Burmaster, D.C. Wilborn, and T. Ernst.
1991, On-site methods for assessing chemical impact on the soil
environment using earthworms: a case study at the Baird and
McGuire Superfund site, Holbrook, Massachusetts. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 10:817-826.
Eberhardt, L.L., and J.M Thomas. 1991. Designing environmental f i e l d
studies. Ecol. Monog. 61:53-73.
Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal
manual for identifying and delineating j u r i s d i c t i o n a l wetlands.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A. Soil
Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Cooperative technical
publication. 76pp.
Fleming, W.J., J.J. Momot, and M.S. Ailstock. 1988. Bioassay for
phytotoxicity of toxicant to sago pondweed. ChesapeakeRes.
Consort. Publication 129. pp. 431-440.
Gilbert, R.O. 1987. S t a t i s t i c a l methods for environmental pollution
monitoring. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
Greene, J.C., C. Bartels, W. Warren-Hicks, B. Parkhurst, G. Linder, S.
Peterson, and W. M i l l e r . 1989. Protocols for Short Term Toxicity
Screening of Hazardous Waste Sites. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.
EPA/600/3-88/029.
Kapustka, L. 1989. Vegetation assessment, i n W. Warren-Hicks, B.

Parkhurst, and S. Baker, Jr. (eds.). Ecological assessment of
hazardous waste sites. EPA/600/3-S9/013. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis,
OR.
LaPoint, T. and J. Fairchild. 1989. Aquatic surveys. I_onW. Warren-
assessment of hazardous waste sites. EPA/600/3-89/013. U.S.
Linder, G., J. Wyant, and Rich Meganck, and B i l l Williams. 1991.
Evaluating amphibian responses in wetlands impacted by mining
a c t i v i t i e s in the western United States. Inn Fifth Biennial
Symposium on Issues and Technology in the Management of Impacted
Wildlife, Thorne Ecological I nst it ut e, Boulder, CO. pp. 17-25.
McBee, K. 1989. Field surveys: t e r r e s t r i a l vertebrates, l_onW. Warren-

assessment of hazardous waste sites. EPA/600/3-89/OI3. U.S.

Microbics. 1989. How to run toxicity tests using the Microtox RModel
500. Microbics Corporation, Carlsbad, CA.
Parkhurst, B, G. Linder, K. McBee, G. Bitton, B. Dutka, and C.

Hendricks. Toxicity tests, l__nnW. Warren-Hicks, B. Parkhurst, and
S. Baker, Jr. (eds.). Ecological assessment of hazardous waste
sites. EPA/600/3-8g/013. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.
Stevens, D., G. Linder, and W. Warren-Hicks. 1989. Data
interpretation. In W. Warren-Hicks, B. Parkhurst, and S. Baker,
Jr. (eds.). Ecological assessment of hazardous waste sites.
EPA/600/3-89/013. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.
Suter, G.W. 1990a. Endpoints for regional ecological risk assessments.

Environ. Manage. 14:9-23.
Suter, G.W. 1990b. Use of biomarkers in ecological risk assessment.

I_n J.F. McCarthy and L.R. Shugart (eds.). Biomarkers of
environmental contamination. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
pp. 419-426.
U.S. EPA. 1989. Risk assessment guidance for Superfund--Environmental

evaluation manual. 540/I-89/001A. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1986. Testing methods For evaluating solid waste. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. Washington, D.C. SW-846.
U.S. EPA. 1988. Review of ecological r i s k assessment methods.
EPA/230/IO-88/041. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Policy Planning and Evaluation, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund--Environmental

Evaluation Manual (Interim Final). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington,
D.C. EPA/540/I-89/OOIA.
U.S. EPA. 1990. Protecting the Environment: A Research Strategy for

the 1990s. Ecological Risk Assessment Program. Office of Research
and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1991. Ecological assessment of Superfund sites: An

overview. In ECO Update, Vol. I, Number 2. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Hazardous Site
Evaluation Division (0S-230), Washington, D.C. Publication

9345.0-051.
Walsh, G.E., D.E. Weber, T.L. Simon, and L.K. Brashers. 1991. Toxicity
tests of effluents with marsh plants in water and sediment.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 10:517-525.
Warren-Hicks, W., B.R. Parkhurst, and S.S. Baker, eds. 1989.

Ecological assessment of hazardous waste sites: A field and
laboratory reference. EPA 600/3/89/013. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory. CorvalTis,
OR.
Kylie J. Lloyd, 1 Kimberly M. Thompson, 2 David E. Burmaster t
PROBABIL|STIC TECHNIQUES FOR BACKCALCULATING SOIL CLEANUP

TARGETS
REFERENCE: Lloyd, K. J., Thompson, K. M., and Burmaster,

D. E., "Probabilistic Techniques for Backcalculating Soil
Cleanup Targets," Superfun~ R~sk Assessment in Soil
Contamination Studies, ASTM STP ~158, Keith B. Hoddinott,
Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, 1992.
ABSTRACT
Most public health risk assessments combine a series of average, conservative,
and worst-case assumptions to derive a conservative point estimate of risk or a
conservative point estimate for a cleanup target. This paper demonstrates a risk
assessment methodology (probabilistic sensitivity analysis) that overcomes many
of the limitations in current practices under thefederal Superfund program and
corresponding state programs. The methodology begins, as do many
conventional methods, with the preparation of a spreadsheet to estimate soil
cleanup targets. Following this key inputs are then modeled as random variables
described by probability density functions (PDFs) or cumulative distribution
functions (CDFs). The method then estimates PDFs or CDFs for the soil cleanup
target using commercial Monte Carlo software on a desktop computer. With
appropriate precautions to consider various pitfalls, we use the probabilistic
method to estimate distributions for soil cleanup targets for two compounds in
soils regulated by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. In
this manuscript, rather than advocate specific numerical results, we instead
emphasize a general approach to probabilistic sensitivity analysis through
visualization of results too granular to understand through tabulations.
KEYWORDS
soil cleanup targets; Monte Carlo simulation; probabilistic sensitivity analysis.
1 SeniorAssociate and President,respectively,Alceon Corporation, PO Box 2669, Harvard

Square Station, Cambridge, MA 02238-2669.
2 Harvard School of Public Health, Department of EnvironmentalHealth, 665 HuntingtonAvenue,
Building 1, Room 1308, Boston, MA 02115.
INTRODUCTION
Current Practice in Risk Assessment
Risk assessments that follow guidance published by the US Environmental

Protection Agency (US EPA) combine a series of average; conservative, upper
bound, and worst-case assumptions to derive a "conservative" point estimate of
risk, i.e., one that is protective of the public's health (US EPA 1989, HHEM; US
EPA 1989, EFH). This procedure has at least three major limitations. First, by
selecting a combination of average, conservative, and worst-case assumptions,
risk assessors and risk managers have no way of knowing the degree of
conservatism in an assessment. Second, by setting the bias high enough to
overwhelm the uncertainty for each of the many input variables, the risk
assessment considers scenarios that will rarely if ever happen. Third, it is
meaningless to run traditional sensitivity analyses (e.g., to make calculations at
+10 or +25 percent from each input value) to determine the uncertainties in the
final point estimates because many of the input variables are at or near their
maxima. The current procedures offer comfort if the estimated risks falls below a
de minimis value, but they offer no insight if the estimated risk exceeds a de
minimis value. Interested readers may wish to read Finkel (1989) for a different
point of view.
Monte Carlo Techniaues
Usually the calculated point estimate of carcinogenic risk falls far above the 95th
percentile of the full risk range, thus forcing the calculated cleanup targets well
below the 5th percentile of their range. The Monte Carlo technique extends the
regular methods used in public health dsk assessments by adding several steps
to estimate both point values and full distributions for the risks or cleanup targets,
thereby putting the point estimates into a full and proper context (Smith 1991 ).
With desktop computers as powerful as mainframes were just a few years ago,
we can now use commercial software to estimate probability distributions for
health risks experienced by people chronically exposed to toxic chemicals at or
near hazardous waste sites. To estimate distributions, we assign continuous or
discrete probability density functions to describe each of the variables to be
included in the analysis. Then we use suitable software (Crystal Ball m~ or other
commercial programs) in conjunction with a spreadsheet to make a large number
of realizations. For each realization, the computer draws one random value from
the appropriate distribution for each of the random variables in the model,
computes and stores a single result. This computation is repeated a large
number of times; in this paper we use 10 000 iterations with Latin Hypercube
sampling (LHS), a factor of 8 to 10 times higher than that needed to stabilize the
results with LHS.
" CrystalBallTM, Decisioneering, Inc., Suite 200, 1727ConestogaStreet, Boulder,CO 80202.
LLOYD ET AL. ON BACKCALCULATING SOIL CLEANUP TARGETS 311
Finally, we view the results and establish (i) the shapes of the distributions for
intermediate and final results, and (ii) various statistical summaries of the results.
In this framework, a complete distribution for the risk or the cleanup target is
derived by combining the distributions for all the variables. These probabilistic
techniques make the analyses more informative to risk managers and members
of the public (Finkel 1990).
Pa,rameterized Distributions for Variables
In Monte Carlo simulations, each of the many input variables becomes a random
variable with known or estimated probability density function (PDF). [Equivalently,
an input variable can be specified by a cumulative distribution function (CDF).]
Within this framework, a variable takes on a range of values with known
probabilities. Some examples of common distributions for variables are (i) a
normal distribution, (ii) an exponential distribution, and (iii) a Iognormal
distribution.
Exhibit 1 compares the ordinary histogram (PDF) and the cumulative histogram
(CDF) for a unit normal distribution. Although these graphs contain identical
information, an informal poll revealed (i) that nontechnical people understand the
ordinary histogram far more readily than the cumulative histogram and (ii) that
technical people want both presented (Ibrekk & Morgan 1987).
NJ DEP Aooroach to Soil Cleanuo Standards
In May 1991, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJ DEP)
published Preliminary Draft Regulations for Cleanup Standards for the use during
remediation of surface soils, subsurface soils, building interior surfaces, and
ground water (NJ DEP 1991 ). To estimate a total site cleanup "standard" for
contaminated soils, the NJ DEP guidance document inverts the formulae for
incremental lifetime cancer risk, thereby estimating cleanup targets in each of the
media.
Focus of this Paper
To demonstrate the probabilistic method in a limited case study considering only

one pathway (soil ingestion) for the carcinogenic effects of only two common
organic contaminants, we reanalyze the NJ DEP's proposed point estimates for
cleanup standards for surface soil (called, SS). Specifically, we calculated full
distributions of SS based on the carcinogenic effects of benzene and
benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P) on a Non-Industrial property, considering only the soil
ingestion pathway.
Exhibit 1
Two Equivalent Ways to Show Distributions
Forecast: Unit Normal Distribution

F r e q u e n c y Distribution 9,977 Trials
.03 9 r 253
"~ .01
~- .01
.00
.,.,,,i,iliiiilliillll!
.
,i;iiiii:i:i51il
. . .
1.00
"~ .50 ..........
~- .25
.00 1' 4
-3.00 -1.50 0.00 1.50 3.00
Alceon
METHODS
NJ DEP's Point Values and Assumotions
Following NJ DEP's instructions (NJ DEP 1991) we made the following

assumptions to estimate SS for benzene and B(a)P:
(i) the target risk is a one-in-a-million risk;

(ii) a child ingests 200 mg/day of soil from the site, and an adult ingests 100
mg/day;
(iii) a child weighs 16 kg, and an adult weighs 70 kg;
(iv) a child is exposed for 5.5 years of a 70 year life, and an adult 24 years of
a 70 year life;
(v) benzene has a Cancer Potency Factor (CPF) of 0.23 (mg/(kg 9 day)) -1 and
B(a)P has a CPF of 11.5 (mg/(kg ~ day)) -1 ; and
(vi) a person lives 30 years on the property (i.e., approximately 5.5 years as a
child and 24 years as an adult, the upper 90 th percentile of an average
residence time).
Using the above assumptions, NJ DEP estimated SS point values for benzene
and B(a)P on a Non-Industrial site with this formula (NJ DEP 1991 ):
SS = , RSD ~ (1)
(,( sl.BWc . TCFc ) + ( BWa
TCFa ) ) . CF
where:
SS = Surface Soil Cleanup Standards, (mg/kg)
(TR)
RSD = Risk Specific Dose, CPF (mg/(kgoday))
TR = Target Risk, (10 -6) (unitless)
CPF = Cancer Potency Factor, (mg/(kgoday)) "1
SlngR = Incidental Soil Ingestion Rate, (mg/day)
BW = Body Weight, (kg)
TCF = Time Correction Factor, (unitless)
CF = Conversion Factor, (10 -6 kg/mg)
c = Subscript for Child
a = Subscript for Adult
Using these assumptions, the NJ DEP calculated and published the SS point
estimate for benzene in soils at a Non-Industrial property as 3 mg/kg. Similarly,
the NJ DEP calculated the SS point estimate for B(a)P in soils at a Non-Industrial
property as 0.06 mg/kg; however, they then published the SS value as 0.33
mg/kg to account for the current laboratory Practical Quantitation Limit (PQL)
under standard state policy.
Implicit in their guidance document, the NJ DEP assumed:
(i) chemicals on soil have perfect bioavailability when ingested; (i.e., that 100
percent of the chemical in the ingested soil is biologically absorbed);
(ii) people ingest soil every day of the year (i.e., no allowance for inclement
weather);
(iii) people ingest 100 percent of their total daily estimated soil intake from the
site under study; and
(iv) the same exposure scenarios occur for all sites.
Distril2utions for Four Inout Values
To estimate overall distributions of the SS values for benzene and B(a)P, we

investigated and used distributions for the four input variables (cancer potency
factor, body weight, soil ingestion rates, and exposure years); in this limited case
study, we kept all other input variables at the point values chosen by NJ DEP.
More specifically, we developed distributions for these inputs as follows:
9 We used these Iognormal distributions for CPFs for benzene and B(a)P
developed by E. Crouch (Crouch 1990):
CPFbenzene ~ Exp [ N ( -4.33, 0.67 ) ] and

CPFB(a)p ~ Exp [ N ( -0.79, 2.39) ]
with N (11,o) denoting a Normal distribution with mean l~ and standard
deviation o.
We used (equally) weighted averages for the appropriate age groups of

both men and women to estimate normal distributions for body weight
(BW) based on values from a federal guidance document (GCA 1984).
The body weight for children 0.5 to 6 years has a mean of 14 kg and a
standard deviation of 2 kg, i.e., BWc ~ N ( 14, 2 ), and the body weight for
adults 6 to 30 years has a mean of 54 kg and a standard deviation of 12
kg, i.e., BWa ~ N ( 54, 12 ). The average body weight for adults here
differs from the usual default value (70 kg) because the age range
specified by NJ DEP includes people less than 18 years of age.
We used estimated Iognormal distributions for soil ingestion rates (SlngR)

by reanalyzing and extending the data from a soil ingestion study by
Thompson & Burmaster (1991). More specifically, we used the following
distributions for children and adults:
SlngRc Exp [ N ( 4.13, 0.80 ) ]; and

SlngRa Exp [ N ( 3.44, 0.80)].
9 We developed an exponential distribution for exposure years (ExpYr) used

in the time correction factor for Non-Industrial properties. We used
published values to estimate a "decay rate" of 0.12 per year for an

exponential decay curve for the exposed population at a Non-Industrial
sites (US EPA 1989, EFH)
RESULTS
Exhibits 2 and 3 show our results for benzene and Exhibits 4 and 5 show our
results for benzo(a)pyrene. For reference and comparison, the vertical lines
drawn through the histograms and the cumulative histograms in each of these
four exhibits show the approximate locations of the SS point values published by
the NJ DEP in their draft regulations (NJ DEP 1991 ). For each compound, we
first present our results in linear space (Exhibits 2 and 4) and then present our
results in log10 space (Exhibits 3 and 5).
In each of the four exhibits, the individual panels demonstrate a new technique,
tentatively called "probabilistic sensitivity analysis", in which we sequentially
investigate the contribution of each individual input distribution to the overall
distribution. For example, in the left column of histograms in Exhibit 2 for
benzene, the top panel shows the contribution from the CPF input distribution
with all other inputs held at their respective point values. Similarly, the next three
panels down the page show the contributions - - one at a time - - from the BW
input, the SlngR input, and the ExpYr input used in the time correction factor. The
fifth panel down the column combines the effects from the three exposure-related
factors (BW, SlngR and ExpYr). The bottom panel in the column shows the
overall distribution for the entire calculation showing the combined contributions
from all inputs simultaneously.
Benzene
NJ DEP's point estimate for benzene SS, 3 mg/kg, is the conservative point value
calculated by combining conservative point values for each the inputs. Although
the NJ DEP published this SS point estimate as the unique answer, we compare
it to the estimated distributions (Exhibits 2 and 3) and find that it is very
conservative indeed, i.e., far below the 1 percentile of the overall distribution.
Much but not all of the apparent conservatism of the NJ DEP value flows from the
contrast between the point value and the distribution for the CPF.
NJ DEP's determination for the SS for B(a)P, 0.06 mg/kg, is conservative based
on the current laboratory PQL (although laboratory PQLs are not health-based
values). We also compare it to the full distributions (Exhibits 4 and 5), and note
the SS for a Non-Industrial site is located about one standard deviation below the
mean in Ioglo space.
DISCUSSION
We promote the use of spreadsheets and Monte Carlo software in practical

applications, even though some simple situations (e.g., the multiplication of many
variables distributed Iognormally) can be calculated or well approximated by
closed-form expressions for two reasons. First, most practical risk assessments,
such as those for hazardous waste sites, are far more complicated than can be
addressed analytically. Second, few risk assessors have the mathematical skill to
manipulate the closed-form methods (Springer, 1979).
Although we have chosen a simplified example to illustrate the calculation and

presentation of SS distributions, commercial software can handle far more
general cases, including: multiple compounds, multiple exposed populations,
multiple exposure pathways, and multiply correlated exposure variables (through
the technique of Iman & Conover (1982) and Iman & Davenport (1982)). With the
combination of a spreadsheet and Crystal Ball TM, we can design and perform a
probabilistic risk assessment using any set of algebraic, equilibrium, or steady
state models in linked spreadsheets. As a general proposition, any situation that
can be modeled in a full-featured spreadsheet, can then be simulated in Crystal
Ball TM by specifying either common distributions from a built-in "Gallery" (e.g.,
uniform, triangular, normal, Iognormal, exponential, weibull, beta, poisson,
binomial, geometric, and hypergeometric) or a custom distribution (using (x, y)
pairs to specify the breakpoints of a piece wise linear CDF). By combining the
features of the spreadsheet and the simulation software, we can also model
mixture problems and derive new distributions, e.g., the distribution of a function,
say, f(X) = X 2.3, where X is distributed Iognormally.
Using risk assessment techniques in determining soil cleanup targets (i.e.,

backcalculation of targets from typical formulae to determine risk) allows scientific
advances to be incorporated as they occur. Moreover, by using graphic displays
of the probabilistic distributions it is easier to see which variables contribute in a
major or minor way to the overall uncertainty and conservatism of the calculation.
Again, by using Monte Carlo distributions we can allow risk managers to choose
a variation on the resultant cleanup targets for individual sites and situations.
Uncertainties propagate and combine through a series of calculations. While it is

highly unlikely that the uncertainties and variabilities will combine in a purely
additive or multiplicative way to produce the largest theoretically possible
uncertainty, it is true that the overall uncertainty in a calculation can never be
smaller than the uncertainty associated with the least certain step in the chain.
For this reason when presenting the results it is useful to disaggregate the
contributions from the different groups of input variables, using the individual
variable probabiUstic distributions and the resultant distribution.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of these calculations indicate that the NJ DEP's calculation of SS

point estimates are very conservative, at least for benzene and B(a)P. However,
all the analyses performed here are limited by the simplicity of the exposure
model used and the assumptions made. We propose that Monte Carlo
distributions be required and site-specific decisions be made for cleanup targets
of hazardous waste sites.
LIMITATIONS
We believe the strengths of the Monte Carlo methods far outweigh any
limitations; this case study rests on many assumptions which simplify the
calculations but which also limit the results. It is not possible to list all the
simplifications, but it is important to discuss some of the main types and to give
illustrations.
First, this case study uses greatly simplified equations to estimate

exposure to chemicals and their resultant cleanup targets. Current federal
guidance for public health risk assessments rests on dramatic
simplifications of reality. A risk distribution based on a model is only as
good as the model. For example, in this simplified case study, we use only
one model for incidental soil ingestion, for only two chemicals. Each of
these assumptions is the source of additional uncertainty quite outside the
model and the results. The analyst must acknowledge exogenous sources
of uncertainty (not included in the model) and discuss their potential for (i)
shifting and/or (ii) increasing the variance of the estimated cleanup target
distributions.
Second, even in the Monte Carlo simulations, this example treats some
variables known to be stochastic as deterministic. While it is relatively
easy to overcome this second class of oversimplifications and limitations
within current knowledge and computational resources, more research is
needed to address and resolve the limitations imposed by the above class
of simplifying assumptions.
Finally, although it may seem obvious, inadvertent or deliberate abuse of

the Monte Carlo approach can occur and does lead to unrealistic and
incorrect results. With a powerful new tool available foruse, we must all
take care to use it wisely and appropriately, especially in the specification
of input distributions and functional relationships.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
American Cyanamid Company, Alceon Corporation, and others funded this

research.
REFERENCES
Crouch 1990
Crouch, E.A.C., 1990, "Incorporating Uncertainty into Carcinogenic Risk
Assessments for Chemicals", Unpublished Draft, Cambridge
Environmental. Inc.. 58 Charles Street, Cambridge, MA 02142. See also
manuscript in preparation.
Finkel 1989
Finkel, A.M., 1989, "Is Risk Assessment Really Too Conservative?:
Revising the Revisionists", Colum~i~ Journal of Environmental Law. Vol.
14, No. 2.
Finkel 199O
Finkel, A.M., 1990, "Confronting Uncertainty in Risk Management, A Guide
for Decision-Makers", Resources for the Future. Washington, DC.
GCA 1984
GCA Corporation, 1984, "Development of Statistical Distributions or
Ranges of Standard Factors Used in Exposure Assessments", Revise~
Draft.Final Reoort to US EPA's Exoosure Assessment Grouo in
Washinaton. GCNTechnology Division, Chapel Hill, NC.
Ibrekk & Morgan 1987

Ibrekk, H. and M.G. Morgan, 1987, "Graphical Communication of
Uncertain Quantities to Nontechnical People", Risk Analy~i~;, Vol. 7, No. 4,
pp 519 - 529.
Iman & Conover 1982

Iman, R.L. and W.J. Conover, 1982, "A Distribution-Free Approach to
Inducing Rank Correlation Among Input Variables", Communications in
Statistical Simulation Comoutation. Vol. 11, No. 3, pp 311 - 334.
Iman & Davenport 1982

Iman, R.L. and J.M. Davenport, 1982, "Rank Correlation Plots for Use with
Correlated Input Variables", Communications in Statistical Simulation
(~0m0utation. Vol. 11, No. 3, pp 335 - 360.
LLOYD ET AL. ON BACKCALCULATINGSOIL CLEANUPTARGETS 327
NJ DEP 1991
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 1991, "Preliminary
Draft Regulations for Cleanup Standards", Division of Hazardous Waste
Manaaement.
Smith 1991
R. Smith, 1991, "personal communication with Chief Toxicologist", Re0ioq
III. US Environmental Protection Aaencv. Philadelphia.
Springer 1979
Springer, M.D., 1979, "The Algebra of Random Variables", John Wiley &
Sons, New York.
Thompson & Burmaster, 1991

Thompson, K. M. and Burmaster, D. E., 1991, "Parametric Distributions for
Soil Ingestion by Children", Risk Analvsis. Vol. 11, No. 2, pp 339-342.
US EPA 1989, EFH

US Environmental Protection Agency, 1989, "Final Report Exposure
Factors Handbook", Office of Health and Environmentar Assessment.
EPN600/8-89/043, Washington.
US EPA 1989, HHEM

US Environmental Protection Agency, 1989, "Risk Assessment Guidance
for Superfund, Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A, Interim
Final", Office of Emeraencv and Remedial Resoonse. EPA/540/1-89/002,
Washington.
STP1158-E B/Dec. 1992
SUMMARY
This Special Technical Publication (STP) on Risk

Assessment in Soil Contamination Studies serves to present
a sampling of the state-of-the-art and the leading edge of
research in the field. This STP was not intended to be a
step by step outline of the EPAs basic rules for
conducting a risk assessment; rather, it represents
modifications to the basic methods that have been
acceptable to the EPA at specific sites. Therefore, this
STP complies with the EPAs written desire not to inhibit
research in this area and stagnate the field.
The topics addressed in this publication are:
I. Site Characterization
2. Fate and Transport
3. Toxicity, Exposures, and Receptors
4. Risk Characterization~Case Studies
5. Establishing Cleanup Levels
The papers included herein, which have undergone peer

review and extensive revision since their original
presentation, provide state-of-the-art information on
conducting risk assessments for complex sites. This
collection should not be viewed as the sum total of all
the method modifications suitable for risk assessment use
or as a guarantee of EPA acceptance, but rather a starting
point from which the environmental professional can begin
to realize the wealth of variability available in
assessing health risk from a site.
site Characterization
A wide range of papers on Site Characterization were

submitted for this symposium. A number of them, however,
did not fit well into this theme and were rejected. The
incorporation in the symposium and in this technical
publication is indicative of the importance of the methods
proposed in these papers in an environmental evaluation.
Cameron presented a guide for field personnel who must

identify, describe, sample, and interpret site and soil
characteristics of hazardous waste sites where metal
contamination is suspected or known.
Anderson, Donnelly, Brown and Giam outlined a concept

which used a comprehensive bioassay to direct the protocol
of the site's chemical characterization. Their method was
used at 29 superfund sites which included petroleum
manufacturing facilities and wood-preserving facilities.
Moran, Kufs, and Messinger detailed an innovative

system for logging and interpreting geologic data. These
logs use a computerized program to attempt to standardize
the information collected from a boring so that it can be
used by a multitude of disciplines.
Clarkson, Peuler, Menzie, Crotwell, Bordenave,

Metcalf, and Pahl discussed a variety of analytical
screening procedures and their application to risk
assessment, while Laszewski and Lehrke compared the effect
of using the arithmetic and lognormal statistics on the
final determination of the risk assessment.
Two papers involved the selection of indicator

chemicals. Hovatter and Gibson discussed the pros and
cons of the ~PAs prescreening procedure, while Streeter,
Molholt, and Jampo presented a critical evaluation of the
EPAs factors for selecting chemicals of concern. Factors
discussed include: frequency of detection; presence of a
chemical above a specific standard, background, or in more
than one media; and environmental mobility and
persistence.
Corwin outlined the use of a user friendly, functional

model for the vertical movement of contaminants through
the soil vadose zone.
Fate and Transport
The fate and transport of a chemical can be as

important in a risk assessment as the actual concentration
of the chemical in the environment. An example are
chemicals that do not volatilize and are not important in
the air exposure pathway.
Menzie, Morgan, Unites, and Burmaster presented an

overview of two research programs directed at the use of
environmental endpoints for evaluating environmental risk.
Sober and Paul described a method for predicting the

fate and transport of hazardous waste constituents from
hydrocarbon contaminated soil. His method employed a
mathematical model to estimate the release of hazardous
constituents from the soil.
Baum and Weyand outlined how the fate and transport

data could be used to determine the treatability of soils
and industrial residues contaminated with heavy metals.
Toxicity, EXposures, and Receptors
SUMMARY 331
Toxicity, exposures, and receptors combined make the

exposure assessment. No health effect is possible if one
of these factors is missing. Simply, if the chemical is
not toxic, if an exposure to the chemicals is impossible,
or if no one exists around the site to be exposed, a
health effect is not possible. Thus, a realistic
estimation of these factors is essential to the value of
the final risk assessment.
Hixson, Jennings, and Smith discussed the effects of

childhood ingestion of contaminated soil to the overall
carcinogenic risk.
Smith, Beck, and Joseph evaluated the validity of the

inhalation pathway for volatile organics from the
residential use of contaminated water.
Chrostowski and Wheeler compared the use of the

integrated uptake biokinetic model (IU/BK) to the
traditional exposure assessment approach. While the IU/BK
has been used to predict lead exposure, Chrostowski made
the case that the approach can be adopted for use with
other site contaminants.
Ross and Lu presented a scheme for determining the

toxicity values for chemicals which do not have currently
accepted reference doses or carcinogenic slope factors.
Crouch, Pilkington, and Zemba outlined a mathematical

approach for determining the effects of "hot spots" on the
overall exposure concentration in soils.
Risk Characterization~Case Studies
The final step in any risk assessment is to

characterize the risk. Contamination assessments,
exposure assessments, and toxicity assessments are useful
in themselves but their best use is in calculating what
health effects could arise from the site. These papers
illustrate the use of the three previous assessment in
case studies at actual superfund sites.
Choudhury, Peirano, Marcus, Elias, Griffin, and DeRosa

illustrate the use of the uptake biokinetic lead model at
several national priority list sites.
Small presented a computer software program for

characterizing risk from environmental pollutants. The
method uses the Preliminary Pollutant Limit Value approach
developed for public health impacts from U.S. Army
installations.
Moore described and assessed the health effects from

surface impoundment wastes. The assessment used the
maximum credible exposure assumptions to determine a
conservative estimation of risk.
Temeshy, Liedle, Sims, and Efird outlined the results

of a site assessment with mixed radiological and chemical
wastes and Meadows, Turnblom, Hahne, and Prendiville
discussed the estimation of health effects from lead
exposure to a residential neighborhood near a large
industrial area.
Elliott examined the use of a business approach to the

assessment of risk at a hazardous waste site. His method
employed the goal of providing protection to health but
also minimized future environmental liability. Huff and
Tesch compared four case studies to minimize the number of
potential chemicals of concern.
Linder, Callahan, and Pascoe presented the range of

field and laboratory analytical methods to evaluate a site
for a biological assessment.
Cura and Menzie outlined the use of the risk

assessment process in assessing risk to non-human
receptors from the exposure to poly-aromatic hydrocarbons
in sediments of the marine and other aquatic environments.
Lastly, a session on establishing cleanup levels was

held. Lloyd, Thompson, and Burmaster presented a paper on
probabilistic techniques for backcalculating soil cleanup
targets.
Keith Hoddinott
U.S. Army Environmental
Hygiene Agency
Symposium Co-Chair
STP1158-E B/Dec. 1992
Author Index
B L
Beck, J. R., 138 Laszewski, S. J., 32
Bordenave, T. V., 18 Lehrke, S. G., 32
Burmaster, D. E., 95, 309 Liedle, J. M., 231
Linder, G., 288
C Lloyd, IC J., 309
Lu, P.-L., 167
Callahan, C., 288
Cameron, R. E., 3 M
Choudhury, H., 193
Chrostowski, P. C., 151 Marcus, A., 193
Clarkson, J. R., 18 Meadows, S. D., 245
Corwin, D. L., 65 Menzie, C. A., 18, 95
Crotwell, D. T., 18 Metcalf, M. C., 18
Crouch, E. A. C., 175 Molholt, B., 50
Moore, R. A., 217
D Morgan, D., 95
DeRosa, C. T., 193 P
Dibyendu, P., 113
Pahl, D. H., 18
E Pascoe, G., 288
Peirano, W. B., 193
Efird, C. R., 231 Peuler, E. A., 18
Elias, R., 193 Pilkington, M. B. G., 175
Elliott, G. M., 260 PrendMlle, T. J., 245
G R
Gibson, R. E., 81 Ross, R. H., 167
Griffin, S., 193
S
H Sims, L. M., 231
Small, M. J., 205
Hahne, T. W., 245 Smith, S. A., 129, 138
Hixson, E. J., 29 Sober, R. F., 113
Hovatter, P. S., 81 Streeter, R. A., 50
Huff, D. R., 277
T
Temeshy, A., 231
Jampo, C., 50 Tesch, L. A., 277
Jennings, R. E., 129 Thompson, K. M., 309
Joseph, R., 138 Turnblom, S. M., 245
U
Unites, D. F., 95
W
Wheeler, J. A., 151

Z
Zemba, S. G., 175
STP1158-E B/Dec. 1992
Subject Index
A Cleanup levels, 151

Cleanup targets, 309
Concentrations, chemical, 32,
Adult ingestion, 129 129, 167, 175, 231
Aquatic environments, soil Concentration toxicity
contamination, 288 screening procedure, 81
Aromatic hydrocarbons, Cumulative density function,
polycyclic, 32, 95 260, 309
Aromatic hydrocarbons,
polynuclear, 18, 50 D
Automobile assembly plant, 32
Database management, 18
B Degradation products,
chemical, 50
Baseline assessments, 50, 81, 138, Density function, cumulative, 260
205, 245, 277 Design, remedial investigation,
Bayesian updating, 260 175
Bioassays Desorption tests, 95
animal, 95 Dioxins, 50
plant, 95 Dishwasher, water contamination,
Biokinetics, 151, 193, 245 138
Biological test methods, 288 Displacement, miscible, 65
Biota effects, 205 Distribution, data, 32
Blood lead level, 151, 193, 245 Dose-response relationship, 231
C E
Carcinogenic risk, 129 Ecological risk, 95, 288

Characterization, site, 3, 18, 32, Economic risk, 260
50, 65, 81 Endpoints, 95
Chemdat6, 113 Environmental Sample Expert
Chemical parameters System (ESES), 3
average concentrations, 175 Estimation methods, chemical
concentration, 32, 129, 167, 231 property, 205
detection, 50 Expert systems, 3
frequency of occurrence, 50, 81 Exposure assessment, 175, 231
levels, 50, 138 Exposure calculations, 32
property estimation, 205 Exposure modeling, 151
reference concentrations, 167
subsets, 277 F
Chemical property estimation
methods, 205 Field guide, site/soil description
Chemicals of concern, 81, 277 and analysis, 3
identification, 50 Field screening procedures
isolating, 277 soils applications, 18
reference dose, 193, 217 Fluoride, 217
Childhood ingestion, 129 Fugitive emissions, 113
G N
Gridded sampling, 175 New Jersey Department of
Ground water Environmental Protection,
contamination, 138 309
fluoride in, 217 Nitrates, 217
lead in, 245
nitrates in, 217 O
H Oak Ridge Reservation, 167
Waste Area Grouping (WAG)
Health Effects Assessment Summary 6, 231
Tables (HEAST), 217
Hydrocarbon-contaminated soils,
113 P
Phenols, 18
Piston flow, 65
Indicator chemicals, selection, 81 Pollutant Hazard Assessment
Indicator score method, 277 System (PHAS20), 205
Ingestion, soil, 128 Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,
Inhalation, 138 32, 95
Integrated Risk Information Polynuclear aromatic
System (IRIS), 217 hydrocarbons, 18, 50
Preliminary pollutant limit value
K approach, 205
Prescreenlng procedure, 81
Knowledge frames, site/soil Probabilistic sensitivity analysis,
characteristics, 3 309
Probability approach, risk
L assessment, 260
Probability density functions,
Lead, 151,193,245 309
Probability plots, 32
M
R
Maximum contaminant level, 138
Metal contamination, 3, 18, 32, Radionuclides, 231 "
288 Reference concentrations, 167
lead, 151, 193, 245 Reference dose, 193, 217
Mining, 288 Refinery site, 18
Mobility, 81 Riparian wetlands, 288
coefficient, 65
Models and modeling S
biokinetic, integrated uptake,
151, 193, 245 Sampling, 18
concentrations, 231 strategies, 175
solute transport, 65 Screening procedures
transport, 113 field, 18
transport/transfer, 205 prescreening, 81
Monte Carlo, 260, 309 soil concentrations, 129
INDEX 337
Shower, water contamination, 138 U.S. Department of Energy

Site average concentrations, 175 Oak Ridge Reservation, 167
Site characterization, 3, 18, 32, U.S. Environmental Protection
50, 65, 81, 217 Agency, 3, 50, 81, 217
Solute concentration distributions, Health Effects Assessment
65 Summary Tables
(HEAST), 217
T Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS), 217
Tentatively identified compounds integrated uptake/biokinetic
(TICs), 50 model, 151, 193, 245
TETrans, 65 National Priorities List, 81,
Time-wle~ghted average intake, 113, 167
target risk range, 231
Trace element transport
(TETrans), 65
Transport, contaminant, 65, 113 V
Transport/transfer models, 205
U Vadose zone, 65
Volatile organic compounds, 18,
UBK model, 151, 193 138
Upper confidence limit, 175
Uptake biokinetic model, 151, W
193, 245
U.S. Army WAG 6, 231
Biomedical Research and Water contamination, 138, 217,
Development 245
Laboratory, 205 Wetlands, 288
ISBN 0-8031-1445-1

Stp1158-Eb 31101 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stp1158-Eb 31101 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Thu Nov 28 06:28:03 EST 2019

Superfund Risk Assessment in

Keith B. Hoddinott, editor

ASTM Publication Code Number (PCN)

Superfund risk assessment in soil contamination studies / Keith B.

Peer Review Policy

Introduction--K. B. HODDINO17F vii

Field Screening Procedures Applied to Soils for use in Risk A s s e s s m e n t s - -

Impact of the Distribution of Soil Contamination Date on Human Health Risk

Identification and Evaluation of Chemicals of Concern in a Baseline Risk

A User-Friendly, Contaminant Transport Software Package for the Preliminary

Selection of Indicator Chemicals at Hazardous Waste Sites--P. s. HOVATrER AND

FATE AND TRANSPORT

Fate and Transport of Hazardous Waste Constituents and Assessment of

TOXICITY, EXPOSURES, AND RECEPTORS

Contribution of Childhood Ingestion of Contaminated Soil to Lifetime Carcinogenic

A Comparison of the Integrated Uptake Biokinetic Model to Traditional Risk

Toxicity Assessment of Hazardous Waste at a Federal F a d l i t y - - R . H. ROSS AND

RISK CHARACTERIZATION/CAsE STUDIES

Utilization of Uptake Biokinetic (UBK) Lead Model to Assess Risk in

A PC-Executable Program for Risk Characterization Evaluations of Environmental

Assessment of Health Risk from Wastes in Three Surface I m p o u n d m e n t s m

Estimating Risk at a Superfund Site Contaminated with Radiological and Chemical

Risk Assessment and Contaminated Sites--G. M. ELLIOT]? 260

Reducing the Number of Chemicals of Potential Concern: Four Case Studiesm

ESTABLISHING CLEANUP LEVELS

Probabilistic Techniques for Backcalculating Soil Cleanup Targets--l<. J. LLOYD,

Author Index 333

C h e m i c a l s in our e n v i r o n m e n t have b e c o m e common place

Now, waste d i s p o s a l and h a n d l i n g has b e c o m e v e r y

The p u r p o s e of this s y m p o s i u m on risk a s s e s s m e n t was

To p r o d u c e this Special T e c h n i c a l P u b l i c a t i o n (STP),

The e v a l u a t i o n of these risks should follow the EPAs

these methods will be acceptable at all sites, in all

Papers in this STP were selected from the symposium

In addition to the authors of the individual papers,

The continued support of this symposium by the

Critical to maintaining the technical quality of this

Considerable staff support was also required for the

A GUIDE FOR SITE AND SOIL DESCRIPTION IN HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE

ABSTRACT: A guide has been prepared to assist field personnel to

KEYWORDS: Hazardous wastes, site characterization, soil parameters,

A guide (or knowledge book) has been developed to provide field

isenior Staff Scientist, Lockheed Engineering & sciences Company,

scientists and e n v i r o n m e n t a l scientists. However, p r o c e d u r e s for site

SITE AND SOIL KNOWLEDGE FRAMES

T h i r t y - f i v e site and soil k n o w l e d g e frames have b e e n d e v e l o p e d for

Each knowledge frame requires a value judgment based upon the

OBJECT/ATTRIBUTE: SITE/CLIMATE AND W E A T H E R

DEFINITION: climate: the average course or c o n d i t i o n of the

PROPERTIES: INPUT FACT

REFERENCES: Koeppe and Delong, 1958

DEFINITION: A general category for a climatic regime that is

CONDITIONS: climate and w e a t h e r - r e l a t e d m e a s u r e m e n t s for a site

climate, interacting with parent materials and

DEFINITION: A climate regime common in middle latitudes,

DEFINITION: A dry climatic regime not dependent on temperature,

CONDITIONS: Arid, semi-arid, and desert "types" of soils are

climate has less effect in soil formation than

Bulk Density Mesofauna and Macrofauna

The soil knowledge frame for temperature regimes is presented

OBJECT/ATTRIBUTE: SOIL/TEMPERATURE REGIMES

DEFINITION: The pattern of soil temperature fluctuations in a