PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

EVALUATION OF CURRENT (1990 TO 2003) AND FUTURE CHEMICAL EXPOSURES IN THE VICINITY OF THE OAK RIDGE RESERVATION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OAK RIDGE RESERVATION
OAK RIDGE, ANDERSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE


V. HEALTH OUTCOME DATA EVALUATION

Health outcome data are measures of disease occurrence in a population. Common sources of health outcome data are existing databases (cancer registries, birth defects registries, and death certificates) that measure morbidity (disease) or mortality (death). Health outcome data can provide information on the general health status of a community—where, when, and what types of diseases occur and to whom they occur. Public health officials use health outcome data to look for unusual patterns or trends in disease occurrence by comparing disease occurrences in different populations over periods of years. These health outcome data evaluations are descriptive epidemiologic analyses. They are exploratory in that they provide additional information about human health effects and they are useful in that they help identify the need for public health intervention activities (for example, community health education). That said, however, health outcome data cannot—and are not meant to—establish cause and effect between environmental exposures to hazardous materials and adverse health effects in a community.

ATSDR scientists generally consider health outcome data evaluation when a plausible, reasonable expectation emerges of adverse health effects associated with the observed levels of exposure to contaminants. In this PHA, ATSDR scientists determined that current and future exposures to ORR site-related chemicals (individually or in combination) in soil, sediment, surface water, biota (other than fish), and air do not pose a public health hazard. Very limited "dioxin" data exist for fish; therefore, exposure to dioxins in fish poses an indeterminate public health hazard.

Criteria for Conducting a Health Outcome Data Evaluation

To determine how to use or analyze health outcome data in the public health assessment process, or even whether to use the data at all, ATSDR scientists receive input from epidemiologists, toxicologists, environmental scientists, and community involvement specialists. These scientists consider the following criteria, based only on site-specific exposure considerations, to determine whether a health outcome data evaluation should be included in the PHA.

  1. Is there at least one current (or past) potential or completed exposure pathway at the site?
  2. Can the time period of exposure be determined?
  3. Can the population that was or is being exposed be quantified?
  4. Are the estimated exposure doses(s) and the duration(s) of exposure sufficient for a plausible, reasonable expectation of health effects?
  5. Are health outcome data available at a geographic level or with enough specificity to be correlated to the exposed population?
  6. Do the validated data sources or databases have information on the specific health outcome(s) or disease(s) of interest—for example, are the outcome(s) or disease(s) likely to occur from exposure to the site contaminants—and are those data accessible?

Using the findings of the exposure evaluation in this PHA, ATSDR sufficiently documented completed exposure pathways. However, current and future exposures to ORR site-related chemicals in soil, sediment, surface water, biota, and air do not pose a public health hazard. Because the estimated doses are not expected to cause health effects, no further analysis of health outcome data is appropriate. Analysis of site-related health outcome data is not scientifically reasonable unless the level of estimated exposure is likely to result in an observable number of health effects. And because such an estimate of exposure is not feasible, the requirement to consider analysis of site-related health outcome data on the basis of exposure is fulfilled.


VI. COMMUNITY HEALTH CONCERNS

Responding to community health concerns is an essential part of ATSDR’s overall mission and commitment to public health. ATSDR has actively gathered comments and other information from the people who live and work near the ORR; ATSDR is particularly interested in hearing from residents of the area, civic leaders, health professionals, and community groups. ATSDR addresses these community health concerns in the ORR public health assessments that are related to those concerns.

To improve the documentation and organization of community health concerns at the ORR, ATSDR developed a Community Health Concerns Database specifically designed to compile and track community health concerns related to the site. The database allows ATSDR to record, track, and respond appropriately to all community concerns and to document its responses to these concerns.

From 2001 to 2005, ATSDR compiled more than 3,000 community health concerns obtained from the ATSDR/ORRHES community health concerns comment sheets, written correspondence, phone calls, newspapers, comments made at public meetings (ORRHES and work group meetings), and surveys conducted by other agencies and organizations. These concerns were organized in a consistent and uniform format and imported into the database.

The community health concerns addressed in this section of the public health assessment include those in the ATSDR Community Health Concerns Database that are related to current and future chemical releases from the ORR. These concerns and ATSDR’s responses are sorted and organized by category. Additional community concerns are addressed in the appropriate public health assessments.

VI.A. Chemical Mixtures

There were 17 individual comments specifically related to chemical mixtures and potential interactive effects in the Community Health Concerns Database. In this public health assessment on screening off-site current and future chemical exposure, ATSDR has considered interactive effects (cumulative, additive, synergistic, and antagonistic) of chemicals following exposure to multiple chemicals to the extent of the scientific knowledge in this area (please see the "Multiple Chemical Exposure" section on page 60). ATSDR does not expect interactive health effects of multiple chemicals because for each chemical evaluated the conservatively estimated exposure doses are below health effect levels reported in the scientific literature. The scientific literature surrounding chemical interactions indicates that if the estimated exposure doses for individual contaminants are below doses shown to cause adverse effects, then the combined effects of multiple chemicals are not expected to result in adverse health effects.

VI.B. Future Land Use

There was one concern that exposure to environmental contamination is causing adverse health effects, which will negatively impact future land use. ATSDR has concluded that current (1990 to 2003) and future exposures to site-related chemicals in soil, sediment, surface water, biota (other than fish), and air pose no apparent public health hazard. "No apparent public health hazard" means that people may be exposed to contaminated media, but that exposure to contamination is not expected to result in adverse health effects. Dioxins pose an indeterminate public health hazard in an unknown fish species, but ATSDR does not expect adverse health effects to occur. Exposure to mercury, PCBs, uranium, fluoride, iodine 131, off-site groundwater, releases from the TSCA Incinerator, and radiological releases from White Oak Creek are evaluated in other public health assessments. The documents released to date are available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/oakridge/phact/index.html and can also be ordered through a toll-free ATSDR telephone number, 1-800-232-4636.

VI.C. General Concerns

One comment was concerned whether it would be difficult to account for people tending to fish from more than one location. ATSDR accounted for this type of activity by using a conservative (protective) approach when calculating exposure doses—including using the species with the highest average concentration, using the sampling location with the highest average concentration, and assuming an adequate fish species population for recreational and subsistence behavior.

Another comment was related to exposure routes, including animal migration and deer hunting. ATSDR considered multiple exposure routes (current and future exposures to site-related chemicals in soil, sediment, surface water, groundwater, biota [game, fish, and vegetables], and air) based on environmental data from 1990 to 2003. In 1993, ATSDR released a health consultation that evaluated whether it was safe to eat fish from EFPC. ATSDR concluded that there was not an acute health hazard for people eating fish, but there was a hypothetical increased risk of adverse effects for people who frequently ingested fish over many years from EFPC at the levels reported in the health consultation. However, ATSDR currently believes this exposure scenario is unlikely because EFPC is not a productive fishing location. Copies of this health consultation, entitled Y-12 Weapons Plant Chemical Releases into East Fork Poplar Creek (ATSDR 1993b), are available from http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/efork1/y12_toc.html.

VI.D. Odor/Stench/Public Nuisance

One commenter indicated that drinking water changes color and is sometimes cloudy. Oak Ridge receives and distributes public water from a treatment plant that collects surface water from Melton Hill Lake. The public water intake is approximately 1 mile upstream from the ORR.

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA sets standards for many substances in public drinking water and specifies treatments for providing safe drinking water. The public water supplies for Oak Ridge and throughout the State of Tennessee are continually monitored for these regulated substances. To ask specific questions related to your drinking water, contact TDEC's Environmental Assistance Center in Knoxville, Tennessee at 865-594-6035. To find additional information related to your water supply or other water supplies in the area, please call EPA's Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800-426-4791 or visit EPA's Safe Drinking Water Web site at http://www.epa.gov/safewater Exiting ATSDR Website.

VI.E. Ongoing Activities of Health Concern

Five comments asked whether ATSDR would be screening chemicals from other currently operating plants/facilities and/or continuing releases from the ORR. During the public health assessment process, ATSDR evaluates environmental data (i.e., levels of chemicals in specific media), regardless of source. As such, any releases to soil, sediment, surface water, groundwater, biota, and air were evaluated with respect to public health.

VI.F. Screening Issues

One commenter asked about thorium levels detected at or near the site. ATSDR has reviewed available environmental data and determined that thorium levels are below screening values, and thus not a public health hazard for current and/or future exposures.

One comment stated that "the screening is done only for a finite period of time." In this public health assessment, the chemical screening process evaluated environmental data from 1990 to 2003, to assess current and future exposures.

Several comments were related to availability/existence of biological testing for specific chemicals. Testing methods are available for certain compounds. The most common is for blood lead levels. Mercury can also be tested for in blood and urine. A 24-hour urine collection is used for chronic mercury exposures typically seen with environmental scenarios. Blood testing for mercury is used to assess more acute exposures associated with industrial uses and poisoning. For additional information regarding biological testing, please contact your local physician or poison control center.

VI.G. Soil, Sediment, and Surface Water Concerns

Several comments expressed concern over the "background soil sample" locations, with respect to which counties were included. Background soil samples were collected from Morgan, Loudon, and Knox Counties, but not from Roane, Anderson, and Blount Counties. ATSDR believes that the background soil samples are representative of the area and are appropriate to use in this public health assessment.

Several concerns were expressed regarding the robustness of the soil, sediment, and surface water data used to assess exposures. ATSDR believes the data set is adequate to evaluate current and future exposures to soil, sediment, and surface water. Appendix D contains maps that depict the number of samples collected from and the number of chemicals sampled at each location in each medium.

VI.H. Scarboro Concerns

Scarboro residents have expressed concern that their community might be contaminated with chemicals currently being released from the ORR. To address this concern, ATSDR screened and evaluated the environmental data collected by the Florida Agriculture and Mechanical University (FAMU) and EPA. ATSDR’s Scarboro-specific public health evaluation follows.24

Scarboro Environmental Sampling

In 1998, FAMU sampled soil, sediment, and surface water in the Scarboro community to address community concerns about environmental monitoring in the neighborhood. All samples were analyzed for mercury, gross alpha/beta, uranium, and gamma-emitting radionuclides. About 10 percent of the samples were also analyzed for target compound list organics, target analyte list inorganics, strontium 90, thorium, and plutonium (FAMU 1998).

In 2001, EPA collected soil, sediment, and surface water samples from the Scarboro community to respond to community concerns, identify data gaps, and validate the sampling performed by FAMU in 1998. All samples were subjected to a full analytical scan, including inorganic metals, volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, radiochemicals, organochlorine pesticides, and PCBs (EPA 2003).

Methodology

The same methodology that was used to screen and evaluate current (1990 to 2003) environmental data was applied to the Scarboro-specific health evaluation (see Section III.B). ATSDR selected contaminants for further evaluation by comparing the maximum detected concentrations in Scarboro against health-based comparison values. Comparison values are derived using conservative exposure assumptions and reflect concentrations much lower than those that have been observed to cause adverse health effects. This means they are protective of public health in essentially all exposure situations; concentrations detected at or below ATSDR’s comparison values are not a public health hazard and are not evaluated further.

ATSDR derived exposure doses for those contaminants that were detected above comparison values. When estimating exposure doses, health assessors evaluate chemical concentrations to which people could be exposed, together with the length of time and the frequency of exposure. ATSDR applied several protective assumptions to estimate exposures for Scarboro residents. ATSDR then compared the exposure doses to protective screening guideline values, including ATSDR’s MRLs and EPA’s RfDs. Estimated exposure doses that are below screening guideline values are not a public health hazard and are not evaluated further.

Scarboro Results

Soil

Sediment

Surface Water

Figure 8 shows ATSDR's chemical screening process for the Scarboro public health evaluation. Chemicals without screening guidelines are discussed in Appendix B.

Figure 8. ATSDR Chemical Screening Process for Scarboro
Figure 8. ATSDR Chemical Screening Process for Scarboro

Public Health Implications—Scarboro

A release of a chemical does not always result in human exposure, and human exposure does not always result in adverse health effects. Because screening guideline values were exceeded for two chemicals detected in soil (heptachlor epoxide and iron), ATSDR examined the health effect levels discussed in the scientific literature and more fully reviewed exposure potential for these chemicals. This information is used to describe the disease-causing potential of a particular chemical and to compare site-specific dose estimates with doses shown in applicable studies to result in illness. This process enables ATSDR to weigh the available evidence in light of uncertainties and offer perspective on the plausibility of harmful health outcomes under site-specific conditions.

Heptachlor Epoxide

The calculated dose for adults is below the noncancer and cancer screening guidelines for heptachlor epoxide; therefore, adults are not being exposed to heptachlor epoxide at levels constituting a health hazard. The calculated dose for pica children is below the acute screening guideline; therefore, pica children are not being exposed to heptachlor epoxide at levels constituting a health hazard. Because the calculated doses estimated for a non-pica child is above the noncancer screening guideline, ATSDR further examined the harmful effect levels reported in the scientific literature and more fully reviewed exposure potential for non-pica children.

Heptachlor epoxide is a breakdown product of heptachlor, a synthetic chemical used before 1988 for killing insects in homes, in buildings, and on food crops. Heptachlor epoxide was not manufactured—bacteria in the environment form heptachlor epoxide from heptachlor. Ingestion of soil containing heptachlor epoxide is one way the chemical can enter the body. The toxicokinetics (i.e., absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion) of heptachlor epoxide are not well studied in humans. Animal studies suggest that heptachlor epoxide is primarily stored in adipose tissue (i.e., fat). One animal study reported that the levels of heptachlor epoxide decreased to below detection limits 6 to 8 weeks after exposure (ATSDR 1993a).

ATSDR estimated that a non-pica child is expected to receive a dose of 0.000015 mg/kg/day from exposure to the soil in Scarboro. The oral screening guideline for heptachlor epoxide is based on a study in which liver-to-body weight ratios were significantly increased in animals fed heptachlor epoxide at doses of 0.0125 mg/kg/day for 60 weeks (Dow Chemical Company 1958). Supporting animal studies report no adverse health effects for doses ranging from 0.025 to 0.25 mg/kg/day (EPA 2004a). The estimated dose for non-pica children in Scarboro is well below these health effect levels.

Therefore, ATSDR does not expect that children who incidentally ingest soil from Scarboro would experience adverse health effects from exposure to heptachlor epoxide.

Iron

The calculated dose for adults is below the noncancer screening guideline for iron; therefore, adults are not being exposed to iron at levels constituting a health hazard. The estimated doses for both a pica child and non-pica child were above the acute and chronic noncancer screening guidelines, respectively. Therefore, ATSDR further examined the harmful effect levels reported in the scientific literature and more fully reviewed exposure potential.

Iron is a naturally occurring element in the environment. In fact, it is the fourth most abundant element in the Earth's crust by weight (LANL 2001). The most common iron ore is hematite, which frequently can be seen as black sand along beaches and stream banks. It is hard and brittle, and is usually combined with other metals to form alloys, including steel.

Iron is also an important mineral that assists in the maintenance of basic life functions. It combines with protein and copper to make hemoglobin, which transports oxygen in the blood from the lungs to other parts of the body, including the heart. It also aids in the formation of myoglobin, which supplies oxygen to muscle tissues (ANR 2003). Without sufficient iron, the body cannot produce enough hemoglobin or myoglobin to sustain life. Iron deficiency (anemia) is a condition that occurs when the body does not receive enough iron. NAS's DRI for children 1 to 3 years old is 7 mg/day and for children 4 to 8 years old is 10 mg/day (NAS 2001).

According to the FDA, doses greater than 200 mg per event could poison or kill a child (FDA 1997). Doses of this magnitude are generally the result of children accidentally ingesting iron pills and are not from ingesting iron in soil. Acute iron poisoning has been reported in children less than 6 years of age who have accidentally overdosed on iron-containing supplements for adults. Because iron is not considered to cause harmful health effects in general, toxicological and epidemiological literature is limited.

For comparison, ATSDR calculated a daily consumption from exposure to the iron in soil using a modification of the dose equation (dose = concentration × intake rate). Exposure to iron in the soil would increase a pica child's daily consumption of iron by 149 mg/day and a non-pica child's daily consumption of iron by 5.1 mg/day. The median daily intake of dietary iron is roughly 11 to 13 mg/day for children 1 to 8 years old and 13 to 20 mg/day for adolescents 9 to 18 years old (NAS 2001). The daily increase in consumption of iron (from ingesting soil) by a non-pica child is within the NAS- and FDA-recommended intake guidelines, and well below the dose known to induce poisoning (e.g., greater than 200 mg/event). While the daily consumption of iron for a pica child exceeds the NAS and FDA recommended intake guidelines, the daily increase in consumption is not likely to cause a pica child's daily dose to exceed levels known to induce poisoning. Further, to the ATSDR health assessors' knowledge, no case of acute iron toxicity has ever occurred as a direct result of soil consumption. The absence of such cases probably reflects the large amount of soil that would have to be ingested combined with the much lower intestinal absorption of iron from soil than from food, and the fact that the human body regulates its own iron level. Therefore, ATSDR does not expect that children who incidentally ingest the soil or who exhibit pica behavior would experience adverse health effects from exposure to iron in Scarboro soil.

Conclusions

None of the soil, sediment, or surface water samples collected from the Scarboro community contained chemicals at levels posing a public health hazard.

VI.I. Cancer Concerns

Area residents have voiced concerns about cancer. Citizens living in the communities surrounding the ORR expressed many concerns to the ORRHES about a perceived increase in cancer in areas surrounding the ORR. A 1993 TDOH survey of eight counties surrounding the ORR indicated that cancer was mentioned as a health problem more than twice as much as any other health problem. The survey also showed that 83 percent of the surveyed population in the surrounding counties believed it was very important to examine the actual occurrence of disease among residents in the Oak Ridge area.

"Cancer incidence" refers to newly diagnosed cases of cancer that are reported to the Tennessee Cancer Registry.

To address these concerns, ORRHES requested that ATSDR conduct an assessment of health outcome data (cancer incidence) in the eight counties surrounding the ORR (see Figure 6). Therefore, ATSDR conducted an assessment of cancer incidence using data already collected by the Tennessee Cancer Registry. This assessment is a descriptive epidemiologic analysis that provides a general picture of the occurrence of cancer in each of the eight counties. The purpose of this evaluation was to provide citizens living in the ORR area with information regarding cancer rates in their county compared to the State of Tennessee. The evaluation only examines cancer rates at the population level, not at the individual level. It is not designed to evaluate specific associations between adverse health outcomes and documented human exposures, and it does not—and cannot—establish cause and effect.

The results of the assessment of cancer incidence, released in 2006, indicated both higher and lower rates of certain cancers in some of the counties examined when compared to cancer incidence rates for the State of Tennessee. Most of the cancers in the eight-county area occurred at expected levels, and no consistent pattern of cancer occurrence was identified. The reasons for the increases and decreases of certain cancers are unknown. ATSDR's ORR Assessment of Cancer Incidence is available online at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/oakridge/phact/cancer_oakridge/index.html.

In addition, over the last 20 years, local, state, and federal health agencies have conducted public health activities to address and evaluate public health issues and concerns related to chemical and radioactive substances released from the ORR. For more information, please see the Compendium of Public Health Activities at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/oakridge/phact/c_toc.html. The documents ATSDR has released to date are available from http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/oakridge/phact/index.html.

VI.J. Private Vegetable Gardens

Because some people may only eat vegetables from their own garden, ATSDR specifically looked at exposures from eating the edible portion of vegetables sampled from each garden. Using the same assumptions and methodologies described in Section III.B, "Methodology," ATSDR determined that none of the chemicals were detected at levels constituting a health hazard. If people are concerned, they should consider building raised-bed gardens and filling them with "clean" topsoil and compost, or increasing the organic matter in the soil by adding compost or manure from outside sources such as commercial garden centers.


VII. CONCLUSIONS

Based on ATSDR's evaluation of current (1990–2003) and future chemical exposures in the vicinity of the Oak Ridge Reservation, ATSDR concludes the following:


VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS

Because dioxin data for fish are very limited, ATSDR recommends following the current State of Tennessee fish advisories to reduce exposure to contaminants in fish.


IX. PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN

The public health action plan for the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) contains a description of actions taken at the site and those to be taken at the site following the completion of this public health assessment. The purpose of the public health action plan is to ensure that this document not only identifies potential and ongoing public health hazards, but also provides a plan of action designed to mitigate and prevent adverse human health effects resulting from exposure to harmful substances in the environment. The following public health actions at the ORR are completed or ongoing:

Completed Actions

Ongoing Actions


X. PREPARERS OF REPORT

Karl V. Markiewicz, Ph.D.
Senior Toxicologist
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Jack Hanley, M.P.H.
Environmental Health Scientist
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

This public health assessment was prepared with the assistance of ERG and Lockheed Martin.


XI. REFERENCES

[ANR] Austin Nutritional Research. 2003. Reference guide for minerals. Available from: http://www.realtime.net/anr/minerals.html Exiting ATSDR Website. Last accessed 13 September 2006.

[ATSDR] Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1992. Toxicological profile for antimony and compounds. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; September. Available from: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp23.html. Last accessed 13 September 2006.

[ATSDR] Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1993a. Toxicological profile for heptachlor/heptachlor epoxide. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; April.

[ATSDR] Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1993b. Health consultation for U.S. DOE Oak Ridge Reservation: Y-12 weapons plant chemical releases into East Fork Poplar Creek, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Available from: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/pha/efork1/y12_toc.html. Last accessed 18 September 2006.

[ATSDR] Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1996. Toxicological profile for toxaphene. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; August. Available from: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp94.html. Last accessed 8 November 2006.

[ATSDR] Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1999a. Toxicological profile for cadmium. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; July. Available from: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp5.html. Last accessed 13 September 2006.

[ATSDR] Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1999b. Toxicological profile for lead. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; July.

[ATSDR] Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2000a. Toxicological profile for arsenic. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; September.

[ATSDR] Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2000b. Toxicological profile for chromium. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; September. Available from: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp7.html. Last accessed 13 September 2006.

[ATSDR] Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2000c. Toxicological profile for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; November. Available from: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp17.html. Last accessed 13 September 2006.

[ATSDR] Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2000d. Toxicological profile for manganese. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; September. Available from: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp151.html. Last accessed 13 September 2006.

[ATSDR] Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2002. Toxicological profile for aldrin/dieldrin. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; September. Available from: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp1.html. Last accessed 13 September 2006.

[ATSDR] Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2003. Toxicological profile for hexachlorocyclohexanes (HCHs). Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; September.

[ATSDR] Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2004. Interaction profile for 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethane, trichloroethylene, and tetrachloroethylene. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available from: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/interactionprofiles/ip02.html. Last accessed 13 September 2006.

[ATSDR] Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, National Center for Environmental Health, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Tennessee Department of Health, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, U.S. Department of Energy. 2000. Compendium of public health activities at the U.S. Department of Energy. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; November. Available from: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/oakridge/phact/c_toc.html. Last accessed 13 September 2006.

Berman E, House DE, Allis JW, Simmons JE. 1992. Hepatotoxic interactions of ethanol with allyl alcohol or carbon tetrachloride in rats. J Toxicol Environ Health 37(1):161–176.

Buchet JP, Lauwerys R, Roels H. 1981. Comparison of the urinary excretion of arsenic metabolites after a single oral dose of sodium arsenite, monomethylarsonate or dimethylarsinate in man. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 48:71–9. Cited in: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2000. Toxicological profile for arsenic. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; September.

Bureau of the Census. 1900–1990. Population of counties by decennial census: 1900 to 1990. Compiled and edited by RL Forstall, population division. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Available from: http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/tn190090.txt Exiting ATSDR Website. Last accessed 14 September 2006.

Bureau of the Census. 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, and 1990. Census populations for Anderson, Blount, Knox, Loudon, Meigs, Morgan, Rhea, and Roane Counties. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Cited in: East Tennessee Development District. 1995. 1990 census summary reports for Anderson, Blount, Knox, Loudon, Morgan, and Roane Counties; December.

Bureau of the Census. 2000. Census populations for Anderson, Blount, Knox, Loudon, Meigs, Morgan, Rhea, and Roane Counties. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Available from: http://factfinder.census.gov Exiting ATSDR Website. Last accessed 14 September 2006.

Caprino L, Borrelli F, Antonetti F, et al. 1983. Sex-related toxicity of somatostatin and its interaction with pentobarbital and strychnine. Toxicol Letters 17:145–149.

ChemRisk. 1993a. Oak Ridge Health Studies, Phase 1 report. Volume II—Part A—Dose Reconstruction Feasibility Study. Tasks 1 & 2: A summary of historical activities on the Oak Ridge Reservation with emphasis on information concerning off-site emissions of hazardous materials. For: Oak Ridge Health Agreement Steering Panel and Tennessee Department of Health. Alameda, CA; September.

ChemRisk. 1993b. Oak Ridge Health Studies, Phase 1 report. Volume II—Part C—Dose Reconstruction Feasibility Study. Task 5: A summary of information concerning historical locations and activities of populations potentially affected by releases from the Oak Ridge Reservation. For: Tennessee Department of Health and the Oak Ridge Health Agreement Steering Panel. Alameda, CA; September.

ChemRisk. 1999. Uranium releases from the Oak Ridge Reservation—a review of the quality of historical effluent monitoring data and a screening evaluation of potential off-site exposures, task 6. Report of the Oak Ridge Dose Reconstruction, volume 5. For: Tennessee Department of Health. Alameda, CA; July. Available from: http://www2.state.tn.us/health/CEDS/OakRidge/Uranium.pdf Exiting ATSDR Website. Last accessed 13 September 2006.

City of Oak Ridge. 1989. Comprehensive plan including 1988 update. Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Comprehensive Update Team; February.

Convention and Visitors Bureau. 2003. Secret city. Convention and Visitors Bureau. Oak Ridge, TN. Available from: http://oakridgevisitor.com/secret.html Exiting ATSDR Website. Last accessed 13 September 2006.

Crecelius EA. 1977. Changes in the chemical speciation of arsenic following ingestion by man. Environ Health Perspect 19:147–50. Cited in: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2000. Toxicological profile for arsenic. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; September.

Davidsson L, Cederblad A, Hagebo E, et al. 1988. Intrinsic and extrinsic labeling for studies of manganese absorption in humans. J Nutr 118:1517–1524. Cited in: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2000. Toxicological profile for manganese. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; September. Available from: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp151.html. Last accessed 13 September 2006.

Dow Chemical Company. 1958. MRID No. 00061912. Available from EPA. Write to FOI, EPA, Washington, DC 20460. Cited in: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated risk information system. Heptachlor epoxide (CASRN 1024-57-3). Available from: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0160.htm Exiting ATSDR Website. Last accessed 13 September 2006.

Drott P, Meurling S, Gebre-Medhin M. 1993. Interactions of vitamins A and E and retinol-binding protein to healthy Swedish children—evidence of thresholds of essentiality and toxicity. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 53:275–280.

Eisenstein RS, Blemings KP. 1998. Iron regulatory proteins, iron responsive elements and iron homeostasis. J Nutr 128: 2295–2298.

[EUWG] End Use Working Group. 1998. Final report of the Oak Ridge Reservation End Use Working Group; July.

[EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Health assessment document for manganese. Final draft. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. EPA-600/8-83-013F. Cited in: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2000. Toxicological profile for manganese. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; September. Available from: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp151.html. Last accessed 13 September 2006.

[EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996a. EPA soil screening guidance: users guide. US EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Publication 9355.4–23; July.

[EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996b. PCBs: cancer dose-response assessment and application to environmental mixtures. EPA/600/P-96/001F. Washington, DC; September. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/pcb/pubs/pcb.pdf Exiting ATSDR Website. Last accessed 14 September 2006.

[EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Exposure factors handbook. Document No. 600-C-99-001.Washington, DC; February.

[EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002a. Tennessee NPL/NPL caliber cleanup site summaries. U.S. DOE Oak Ridge Reservation, Oak Ridge, Anderson County, Tennessee. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/npl/npltn/oakridtn.htm Exiting ATSDR Website. Last accessed 13 September 2006.

[EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002b. NPL site narrative for Oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE), Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/oerrpage/superfund/sites/npl/nar1239.htm Exiting ATSDR Website.

[(EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002c. Soil screening guidance for radionuclides; October. Available from: http://risk.lsd.ornl.gov/rad_start.shtml Exiting ATSDR Website. Last accessed 13 September 2006.

[EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Final report. September 2001 sampling report for the Scarboro community, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Athens, GA: Science and Ecosystem Support Division; April. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/fedfac/scarborofinal.pdf Exiting ATSDR Website. Last accessed 14 September 2006.

[EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004a. Integrated risk information system. Heptachlor epoxide (CASRN 1024-57-3). Available from: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0160.htm Exiting ATSDR Website. Last accessed 6 July 2004.

[EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004b. Integrated risk information system. Cadmium (CASRN 7440-43-9). Available from http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0141.htm Exiting ATSDR Website. Last accessed 10 December 2004.

[EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004c. Integrated risk information system. Chromium (CASRN 18540-29-9). Available from: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0144.htm Exiting ATSDR Website. Last accessed 10 December 2004.

[EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004d. Integrated risk information system. Thallium(I) sulfate (CASRN 7446-18-6). Available from: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0116.htm Exiting ATSDR Website. Last accessed 10 December 2004.

[FAMU] Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University. 1998. Scarboro community environmental study. Tallahassee, FL.

[FDA] U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 1993. Guidance document for arsenic in shellfish. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition; January. Available from: http://www.foodsafety.gov/~frf/guid-as.html Exiting ATSDR Website. Last accessed 13 September 2006.

[FDA] U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 1997. Preventing iron poisoning in children. FDA Backgrounder; 15 January. Available from: http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/ Exiting ATSDR Website. Last accessed 13 September 2006.

Feron VJ, Groten JP, van Zorge JA, Cassee FR, Jonker D, van Bladeren PJ. 1995. Toxicity studies in rats of simple mixtures of chemicals with the same or different target organs. Toxicol Lett82–83:505–512.

Francesconi KA, Edmonds JS. 1997. Arsenic and marine organisms. Advances in Inorganic Chemistry 44:147–189.

Friday JC, Turner RL. 2001. Scarboro community assessment report. Washington, DC: Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies; August.

Gough M. 2002. Antagonism—no synergism—in pairwise tests of carcinogens in rats. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 35:383–392.

Groten JP, Sinkeldam EJ, Muys T, Luten JB, van Bladeren PJ. 1991. Interaction of dietary Ca, P, Mg, Mn, Cu, Fe, Zn and Se with the accumulation and oral toxicity of cadmium in rats. Food Chem Toxicol 29(4):249–258.

Groten JP, Schoen ED, van Bladeren PJ, Kuper CF, van Zorge JA, Feron VJ. 1997. Subacute toxicity of a mixture of nine chemicals in rats: detecting interactive effects with a fractionated two-level factorial design. Fundam Appl Toxicol 36(1):15–29.

Harris LW, Lennox WJ, Talbot BG, et al. 1984. Toxicity of anticholinesterases: interactions of pyridostigmine and physostigmine with soman. Drug Chem Toxicol 7:507–526.

Hasegawa R, Miyata E, Futakuchi M, Hagiwara A, Nagao M, Sugimura T, et al. 1994. Synergistic enhancement of hepatic foci development by combined treatment of rats with 10 heterocyclic amines at low doses. Carcinogenesis 15(5):1037–1041.

Jonker D, Woutersen RA, van Bladeren PJ, Til HP, Feron VJ. 1990. 4-week oral toxicity study of a combination of eight chemicals in rats: comparison with the toxicity of the individual compounds. Food Chem Toxicol 28(9):623–631.

Jonker D, Woutersen RA, van Bladeren PJ, Til HP, Feron VJ. 1993. Subacute (4-wk) oral toxicity of a combination of four nephrotoxins in rats: comparison with the toxicity of the individual compounds. Food Chem Toxicol. 31(2):125–136.

Kjellstrom T, Borg K, Lind B. 1978. Cadmium in feces as an estimator of daily cadmium intake in Sweden. Environ Res 15:242–251. Cited in: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1999. Toxicological profile for cadmium. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; July. Available from: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp5.html. Last accessed 13 September 2006.

[LANL] Los Alamos National Laboratory. 2001. Periodic table of the elements. Chemistry Division. Available from: http://pearl1.lanl.gov/periodic/default.htm Exiting ATSDR Website. Last updated 11 December 2003. Last accessed 13 September 2006.

Mappes R. 1977. Experiments on excretion of arsenic in urine. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 40:267–72. Cited in: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2000. Toxicological profile for arsenic. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; September.

Mena I, Horiuchi K, Burke K, et al. 1969. Chronic manganese poisoning: individual susceptibility and absorption of iron. Neurology 19:1000–1006. Cited in: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2000. Toxicological profile for manganese. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; September. Available from: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp151.html. Last accessed 13 September 2006.

Mizuta N, Mizuta M, Ito F, et al. 1956. An outbreak of acute arsenic poisoning caused by arsenic-contaminated soy-sauce (shōyu): a clinical report of 220 cases. Bull Yamaguchi Med Sch 4(2–3):131–149. Cited in: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2000. Toxicological profile for arsenic. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; September.

[NAS] National Academy of Sciences. 1989. Recommended daily allowances. 10th edition. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, Food and Nutrition Board.

[NAS] National Academy of Sciences. 1994. Recommended daily allowances. 10th edition rev. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, Food and Nutrition Board.

[NAS] National Academy of Sciences. 2001. Dietary reference intakes for vitamin A, vitamin K, arsenic, boron, chromium, copper, iodine, iron, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, silicon, vanadium, and zinc. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Available from: http://books.nap.edu/books/0309072794/html/index.html Exiting ATSDR Website. Last accessed 14 September 2006.

[NRC] National Research Council. 1989. Recommended dietary allowances. 10th edition. Food and Nutrition Board, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. p. 230–235. Cited in: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System. Manganese (CASRN 7439-96-5). Available from: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0373.htm Exiting ATSDR Website. Last accessed 13 September 2006.

[ORHASP] Oak Ridge Health Agreement Steering Panel. 1999. Releases of contaminants from Oak Ridge facilities and risks to public health. Final report of the ORHASP; December. Available from: http://www2.state.tn.us/health/CEDS/OakRidge/ORHASP.pdf Exiting ATSDR Website. Last accessed 13 September 2006.

[ORNL] Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 2002. Oak Ridge National Laboratory land and facilities plan. For: US Department of Energy. Oak Ridge, TN; August. Available from: http://www.ornl.gov/~dmsi/landUse/ Exiting ATSDR Website. Last accessed 14 September 2006.

[SAIC] Science Applications International Corporation. 2002. Land use technical report; September. Available from: http://landuseplanning.ornl.gov/technical_report/UT-B_Final_Land_Use_Report.pdf Exiting ATSDR Website. Last accessed 14 September 2006.

[SAIC] Science Applications International Corporation. 2004. 2004 remediation effectiveness report for the U.S. Department of Energy Oak Ridge Reservation, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. For: US Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management; March.

Seed J, Brown RP, Olin SS, Foran JA. 1995. Chemical mixtures: current risk assessment methodologies and future directions. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 22:76–94.

Shacklette HT, Boergen JG. 1984. Element concentrations in soil and other surficial materials of the conterminous United States. Washington, DC: US Geological Survey. Prof. Paper 1270.

Stacey NH. 1989. Toxicity of mixtures of trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, and 1,1,1-trichloroethylene: similarity of in vitro and in vivo responses. Toxicol Ind Health 5(3):441–450.

Takayama S, Hasegawa H, Ohgaki H. 1989. Combination effects of forty carcinogens administered at low doses to male rats. Jpn J Cancer Res 80(8):732–736.

Tam GKH, Charbonneau SM, Bryce F, Pomroy C, Sandi E. 1979. Metabolism of inorganic arsenic (74As) in humans following oral ingestion. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 50:319–22. Cited in: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2000. Toxicological profile for arsenic. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; September.

Teasley N. 1995. Deer hunt radiation monitoring guidelines. Oak Ridge National Laboratory Chemical Sciences Division. Oak Ridge, TN; January. Available from: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/rmal/deer_hunt_procedure.pdf Exiting ATSDR Website. Last accessed 14 September 2006.

[TDEC] Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 2002. Status report to the public; fiscal year 2001. TDEC, DOE Oversight Division. Nashville, TN; March. Available from: http://www.local-oversight.org/TDEC2001.pdf Exiting ATSDR Website. Last accessed 14 September 2006.

[TDOH] Tennessee Department of Health. 2000. Contaminant releases and public health risks: Results of the Oak Ridge health agreement studies. Knoxville, TN; July.

Tseng WP, Chu HM, How SW, Fong JM, Lin CS, Yeh S. 1968. Prevalence of skin cancer in an endemic area of chronic arsenicism in Taiwan. J Natl Cancer Inst 40(3):453–63. Cited in: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2000. Toxicological profile for arsenic. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; September.

[WHO] World Health Organization. 1973. Trace elements in human nutrition: manganese. Report of a WHO expert committee. Geneva, Switzerland: Technical Report Service, 532, WHO. p. 34–36. Cited in: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated risk information system. Manganese (CASRN 7439-96-5). Available from: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0373.htm Exiting ATSDR Website. Last accessed 14 September 2006.


TABLES

Table 16. Estimated Exposure Doses for Chemicals in Off-Site Soil Compared to Noncancer Screening Guidelines

Substance Name

Minimum (ppm)

Maximum (ppm)

2nd Tier Screening Concentration
(ppm)

Estimated Exposure Dose (mg/kg/day)

Noncancer Screening Guideline (mg/kg/day)

Source

Does the Estimated Exposure Dose Exceed the Noncancer Screening Guideline?

Child

Adult

Child

Adult

Inorganics

Arsenic

1

77.3

15

1.8E-04

8.4E-06

0.0003

CMRL

No

No

Cadmium

0.0702

41.3

11

1.3E-04

6.0E-06

0.0002

CMRL

No

No

Chromium

9.4

546§

100

1.2E-03

5.8E-05

0.003

RfD (CrVI)

No

No

Iron

5,790

61,600§

32,000

3.9E-01

1.8E-02

0.3

RfD

Yes

No

Lead

5.3

3,040§

570

7.0E-03

3.3E-04

0.02

Acute LOAEL

No

No

Organics 

Benzidine*

4.0

4.13

1.8

4.1E-05

1.9E-06

0.003

RfD

No

No

Benzo(a)anthracene

0.12

158§

39

Evaluated for carcinogenic effects (see Table 17)

Benzo(a)pyrene

0.14

156§

36

Evaluated for carcinogenic effects (see Table 17)

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

0.29

206§

47

Evaluated for carcinogenic effects (see Table 17)

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

0.17

95.4§

23

Evaluated for carcinogenic effects (see Table 17)

bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether

0.42

4.13

2.6

Evaluated for carcinogenic effects (see Table 17)

Chrysene

0.16

134§

32

Evaluated for carcinogenic effects (see Table 17)

trans-Chlordane

0.096

2.8

1.1

1.3E-05

6.0E-07

0.0006

CMRL (chlordane)

No

No

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene

0.066

22.7§

7.6

Evaluated for carcinogenic effects (see Table 17)

3,3’-Dichlorobenzidine

0.79

4.13

2.4

Evaluated for carcinogenic effects (see Table 17)

Heptachlor epoxide

0.0096

0.97

0.48

5.8E-06

2.7E-07

0.000013

RfD

No

No

Hexachlorobenzene

0.42

4.13

2.7

3.3E-05

1.5E-06

0.00005

CMRL

No

No

HCDD

2.47E-05

0.000801§

0.00053

Evaluated for carcinogenic effects (see Table 17)

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

0.049

4.7§

2.5

Evaluated for carcinogenic effects (see Table 17)

n-Nitroso-di-n-butylamine*

4.0

4.13

1.8

5.1E-05

2.4E-06

0.095

AMRL (n-nitrosodi-n-propylamine)

No

No

n-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine

0.42

0.79

0.63

7.7E-06

3.6E-07

0.095

AMRL

No

No

TCDD

1.98E-08

0.000117§

0.000039

4.8E-10

2.2E-11

1E-09

CMRL

No

No

Doses were calculated using the following formulas:
child dose = (second-tier screening concentration×0.0002 kg/day×291.2 days/year×6 years)/(13 kg×(365 days/year×6 years))
ppm = parts per million
adult dose = (second-tier screening concentration×0.00005 kg/day×291.2 days/year×30 years)/(70 kg×(365 days/year×30 years))
RfD = reference dose (EPA)
* Chemical was detected in less than 10% of the samples. The second-tier screening concentration was estimated using 1/2 the detection limit for nondetected samples.
§ The maximum concentration was detected in an industrial area (Atomic City Auto Parts) that has since been remediated (i.e., all the contaminated soil has been removed).
The second-tier screening concentrations are rounded.
CMRL = chronic minimal risk level (ATSDR)
LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level (ATSDR)
AMRL = acute minimal risk level (ATSDR)
CrVI = chromium VI
mg/kg/day = milligram per kilogram per day

Table 17. Estimated Exposure Doses for Chemicals in Off-Site Soil Compared to Cancer Screening Guidelines

Substance Name

2nd Tier Screening Conc.
(ppm)

Estimated Exposure Dose (mg/kg/day)

EPA’s Oral Cancer Slope Factor (mg/kg/day)-1

Risk

Does the Estimated Exposure Dose Exceed the Cancer Screening Guideline (10-4)?

Inorganics

Arsenic

15

3.6E-06

1.5

5.4E-06

No

Cadmium

11

Evaluated for noncarcinogenic effects (see Table 16)

Chromium

100

Evaluated for noncarcinogenic effects (see Table 16)

Iron

32,000

Evaluated for noncarcinogenic effects (see Table 16)

Lead

570

Evaluated for noncarcinogenic effects (see Table 16)

Organics

Benzidine*

1.8

8.3E-07

230

1.9E-04

Yes

Benzo(a)anthracene

39

9.6E-06

0.73

7.0E-06

No

Benzo(a)pyrene

36

8.8E-06

7.3

6.4E-05

No

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

47

1.2E-05

0.73

8.5E-06

No

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

23

5.5E-06

0.073

4.0E-07

No

bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether

2.6

6.3E-07

1.1

7.0E-07

No

Chrysene

32

7.7E-06

0.0073

5.6E-08

No

trans-Chlordane

1.1

2.6E-07

0.35

9.1E-08

No

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene

7.6

1.8E-06

7.3

1.3E-05

No

3,3’-Dichlorobenzidine

2.4

5.8E-07

0.45

2.6E-07

No

Heptachlor epoxide

0.48

1.2E-07

9.1

1.1E-06

No

Hexachlorobenzene

2.7

6.6E-07

1.6

1.1E-06

No

HCDD

0.00053

1.3E-10

6,200

8.1E-07

No

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

2.5

6.0E-07

0.73

4.4E-07

No

n-Nitroso-di-n-butylamine*

1.8

6.0E-07

5.4

3.3E-06

No

n-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine

0.63

1.5E-07

7

1.1E-06

No

TCDD

0.000039

9.6E-12

150,000

1.4E-06

No

Doses were calculated using the following formula:
dose = (second-tier screening concentration×0.00005 kg/day×291.2 days/year×30 years)/(70 kg×(365 days/year×70 years))
Risk was calculated by multiplying the cancer dose by EPA's oral cancer slope factor.
* Chemical was detected in less than 10% of the samples. The second-tier screening concentration was estimated using 1/2 the detection limit for nondetected samples.
The second-tier screening concentrations are rounded.
conc. = concentration
mg/kg/day = milligram per kilogram per day
ppm = parts per million

Table 18. Estimated Exposure Doses for Chemicals in Off-Site Sediment Compared to Noncancer Screening Guidelines

Substance Name

Minimum (ppm)

Maximum (ppm)

2nd Tier Screening Conc.
(ppm)

Estimated Exposure Dose (mg/kg/day)

Noncancer Screening Guideline (mg/kg/day)

Source

Does the Estimated Exposure Dose Exceed the Noncancer Screening Guideline?

Child

Adult

Child

Adult

Inorganics

Arsenic

0.3

432

37

9.3E-06

1.7E-06

0.0003

CMRL

No

No

Cadmium

0.05

98.1

7.3

1.9E-06

3.4E-07

0.0002

CMRL

No

No

Copper

1.1

14,500

650

1.6E-04

3.1E-05

0.04

RfD

No

No

Iron

1,410

113,000

33,000

8.4E-03

1.6E-03

0.3

RfD

No

No

Lead

0.72

1,520

120

3.0E-05

5.6E-06

0.02

Acute LOAEL

No

No

Manganese

140

7,230

2,700

6.8E-04

1.3E-04

0.05

RfD

No

No

Organics

Aldrin

0.00007

1.8

0.47

1.2E-07

2.2E-08

0.00003

CMRL

No

No

Benzo(a)anthracene

0.011

23.2

2.1

Evaluated for carcinogenic effects (see Table 19)

Benzo(a)pyrene

0.013

30.1

2.5

Evaluated for carcinogenic effects (see Table 19)

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

0.013

42.4

3.1

Evaluated for carcinogenic effects (see Table 19)

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

0.0067

20.5

2.1

Evaluated for carcinogenic effects (see Table 19)

bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether

0.17

3.4

1.4

Evaluated for carcinogenic effects (see Table 19)

cis-Chlordane

0.00025

18

4.6

1.2E-06

2.2E-07

0.0006

CMRL (chlordane)

No

No

trans-Chlordane

0.00024

18

4.6

1.2E-06

2.2E-07

0.0006

CMRL (chlordane)

No

No

DDD, p,p’-

0.00018

4.3

1.1

Evaluated for carcinogenic effects (see Table 19)

DDE, p,p’-

0.00016

4.3

1.1

Evaluated for carcinogenic effects (see Table 19)

DDT, p,p’-

0.00024

4.3

1.1

2.8E-07

5.3E-08

0.0005

RfD

No

No

di(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate

0.015

256

16

4.1E-06

7.6E-07

0.06

CMRL

No

No

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene

0.014

4.2

1.4

Evaluated for carcinogenic effects (see Table 19)

3,3’-Dichlorobenzidine

0.22

6.7

2.7

Evaluated for carcinogenic effects (see Table 19)

Dieldrin

0.00015

4.3

1.1

2.9E-07

5.3E-08

0.00005

CMRL

No

No

Heptachlor

0.00007

1.8

0.46

1.2E-07

2.2E-08

0.0005

RfD

No

No

Heptachlor epoxide

0.00044

1.8

0.48

1.2E-07

2.3E-08

0.000013

RfD

No

No

Hexachlorobenzene

0.17

3.4

1.4

3.4E-07

6.4E-08

0.00005

CMRL

No

No

HCH, alpha-

0.0001

1.8

0.48

1.2E-07

2.3E-08

0.008

CMRL

No

No

HCH, beta-

0.00044

1.8

0.48

1.2E-07

2.3E-08

0.0006

IMRL

No

No

HCH, delta-

0.00044

1.8

0.48

1.2E-07

2.3E-08

0.0003

RfD (gamma-HCH)

No

No

HCH, gamma-

0.00022

1.8

0.48

1.2E-07

2.3E-08

0.0003

RfD

No

No

HCDD

6.28E-05

0.000575

0.00068

Evaluated for carcinogenic effects (see Table 19)

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

0.017

13.4

1.8

Evaluated for carcinogenic effects (see Table 19)

n-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine

0.17

3.4

1.4

3.4E-07

6.4E-08

0.095

AMRL

No

No

Pentachlorophenol

0.026

16

6.4

1.6E-06

3.0E-07

0.001

CMRL

No

No

Toxaphene

0.044

43

12

2.9E-06

5.4E-07

0.001

IMRL

No

No

Doses were calculated using the following formulas:
child dose = (second-tier screening concentration×0.0001 kg/day×12 days/year×6 years)/(13 kg×(365 days/year×6 years))
adult dose = (second-tier screening concentration×0.0001 kg/day×12 days/year×30 years)/(70 kg×(365 days/year×30 years))
The second-tier screening concentrations are rounded.
AMRL = acute minimal risk level (ATSDR)
CMRL = chronic minimal risk level (ATSDR)
conc. = concentration
IMRL = intermediate minimal risk level (ATSDR)
LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level (ATSDR)
mg/kg/day = milligram per kilogram per day
ppm = parts per million
RfD = reference dose (EPA)


24 Radionuclides are evaluated separately.

Next Section     Table of Contents