PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
CARROLL & DUBIES SEWAGE DISPOSAL
PORT JERVIS, ORANGE COUNTY, NEW YORK
Figures 
Figure 1. Site Location Map
Figure 2. Site Plan (Taken from December 1993 RI Report)
Figure 3. 1991 Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Facilities
Tables
Table 1A. Carroll and Dubies Site
On-Site Shallow Soil (0-6 inches) Sampling Data from the Remedial Investigation andComparison Values for Potential Trespasser Exposure
(All values in milligrams per kilogram)
| Chemical | Frequency ofDetection | Range ofDetection | Background Range** | Comparison Value (Trespasser Exposure)a | |||
| Cancer | Basis*** | Noncancer | Basis*** | ||||
| acetone | 3/12 | 0.009-0.10 | - | - | - | 147,000 | EPA RfD |
| aroclor1254 | 5/12 | 0.012-0.29 | <0.01-0.04b | 1.3 | EPA CPF | 103 | EPA RfD |
| bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate | 9/12 | 0.044-1.7 | - | 700 | EPA CPF | 29,400 | EPA RfD |
| 4-chloroaniline | 5/12 | 0.10-1.4 | - | - | - | 5,880 | EPA RfD |
| 1,2-dichlorobenzene | 3/12 | 4.6-6.9 | - | - | - | 132,300 | EPA RfD |
| 1,4-dichlorobenzene | 3/12 | 1.4-2.2 | - | 408 | EPA CPF | 294,000 | EPAHEAST |
| di-n-butylphthalate | 6/12 | 0.009-0.20 | - | - | - | 147,000 | EPA RfD |
| isopropylbenzene | NA | ||||||
| 4-methylphenol | 3/12 | 0.032-0.049 | - | - | - | 7,350 | EPA RfD |
| 2-methylnaphthalene | 4/12 | 0.002-0.054 | - | - | - | 58,800**** | EPA RfD |
| naphthalene | 3/12 | 0.054-0.097 | - | - | - | 58,800 | EPA RfD |
| n-propylbenzene | NA | ||||||
| tetrachloroethene | 2/12 | 0.003-0.005 | - | 188 | EPA CPF | 14,700 | EPA RfD |
| 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene | NA | ||||||
| 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene | NA | ||||||
| Metals | |||||||
| chromium | 12/12 | 7.5-44.8 | 10-40 | - | - | 7,350 | EPA RfD |
| *lead | 12/12 | 9.5-1,400 | 10-300 | - | - | - | - |
| mercury | 5/12 | 0.14-8.3 | 0.01-3.4 | - | - | 441 | EPA RfD |
NA - not analyzed
aComparison values for cancer risk are determined for a 70 kg adult who ingests 100 mg soil perday, 2 days per week for 3 months per year. Comparison values for non-cancer risk aredetermined for a 21 kg child who ingests 200 mg soil per day, 2 days per week for 3 months peryear.
bTotal PCBs
*Contaminant selected for further evaluation.
**References: Adriano (1986); Clarke et al. (1985); Connor et al. (1957); Davis and Bennett(1983); Dragun (1988); Frank et al. (1976); McGovern (1988);Schacklette and Boerngen (1984); ATSDR (1991i).
***EPA HEAST = US EPA Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
EPA RfD = US EPA Reference Dose
EPA CPF = EPA Cancer Potency Factor
****No comparison value available; comparison value for naphthalene used as a surrogate.
Table 1B. Carroll and Dubies Site
On-Site Shallow Soil (0-6 inches) Sampling Data from the Remedial Investigation andComparison Values for Potential Residential Exposure
(All values in milligrams per kilogram)
| Chemical | Frequency of Detection | Range ofDetection | Background Range** | Comparison Value (Residential Exposure)a | |||
| Cancer | Basis*** | Noncancer | Basis*** | ||||
| acetone | 3/12 | 0.009-0.10 | - | - | - | 2 | EPA RfD |
| *aroclor1254 | 5/12 | 0.012-0.29 | <0.01-0.04b | 0.03 | EPACPF | 0.8 | ATSDRMRL |
| bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate | 9/12 | 0.044-1.7 | - | 2.3 | EPACPF | 17.6 | EPA RfD |
| 4-chloroaniline | 5/12 | 0.10-1.4 | - | - | - | 1.53 | EPA RfD |
| 1,2-dichlorobenzene | 3/12 | 4.6-6.9 | - | - | - | 324 | EPA RfD |
| *1,4-dichlorobenzene | 3/12 | 1.4-2.2 | - | 0.37 | EPACPF | 546 | EPA HEAST |
| di-n-butylphthalate | 6/12 | 0.009-0.20 | - | - | - | 4,100 | EPA RfD |
| isopropylbenzene | NA | ||||||
| 4-methylphenol | 3/12 | 0.032-0.049 | - | - | - | 2 | EPA HEAST |
| 2-methylnaphthalene | 4/12 | 0.002-0.054 | - | - | - | 14.3**** | EPA RfD |
| naphthalene | 3/12 | 0.054-0.097 | - | - | - | 14.3 | EPA RfD |
| n-propylbenzene | NA | ||||||
| tetrachloroethene | 2/12 | 0.003-0.005 | - | 0.06 | EPACPF | 9.7 | EPA RfD |
| 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene | NA | ||||||
| 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene | NA | ||||||
| Metals | |||||||
| chromium | 12/12 | 7.5-44.8 | 10-40 | - | - | 250 | EPA RfD |
| *lead | 12/12 | 9.5-1,400 | 10-300 | - | - | - | - |
| *mercury | 5/12 | 0.14-8.3 | 0.01-3.4 | - | - | 1.6 | EPA RfD |
bTotal PCBs
*Contaminant selected for further evaluation.
**References: Adriano (1986); Clarke et al. (1985); Connor et al. (1957); Davis and Bennett(1983); Dragun (1988); Frank et al. (1976); McGovern (1988);
Schacklette and Boerngen (1984); ATSDR (1991i).
***EPA HEAST = US EPA Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
EPA RfD = US EPA Reference Dose
EPA CPF = EPA Cancer Potency Factor
ATSDR MRL = ATSDR Minimal Risk Level
****No comparison value available; comparison value for naphthalene used as a surrogate.
Table 2. Carroll and Dubies Site
On-Site Subsurface Soil (2 to 22 feet deep) Sampling Data from the Remedial Investigationand Comparison Values for Potential Residential Exposure
(All values in milligrams per kilogram)
| Chemical | Frequency of Detection | Range of Detection | BackgroundRange** | Comparison Value (Residential Exposure)a | |||
| Cancer | Basis*** | Noncancer | Basis*** | ||||
| *acetone | 62/100 | 0.005-200 | - | - | - | 2 | EPA RfD |
| *aroclor 1248 | 7/100 | 0.059-1.7 | <0.01-0.0b | 0.03 | EPACPF | 0.8 | ATSDRMRL |
| *aroclor1254 | 8/100 | 0.015-1.6 | <0.01-0.04b | 0.03 | EPACPF | 0.8 | ATSDRMRL |
| *aroclor1260 | 5/100 | 0.025-0.65 | <0.01-0.04b | 0.03 | EPACPF | 0.8 | ATSDRMRL |
| *benzene | 43/100 | 0.001-2,800 | - | 0.05 | EPACPF | 0.4 | EPARfD(p) |
| *bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate | 84/100 | 0.004-1,400 | - | 2.3 | EPACPF | 17.6 | EPA RfD |
| *4-chloraniline | 14/100 | 0.013-6.5 | - | - | - | 1.5 | EPA RfD |
| chlorobenzene | 12/100 | 0.001-0.33 | - | - | - | 27 | EPA RfD |
| 1,2-dichlorobenzene | 18/100 | 0.032-9.1 | - | - | - | 324 | EPA RfD |
| *1,4-dichlorobenzene | 24/100 | 0.010-3.3 | - | 0.37 | EPACPF | 546 | EPAHEAST |
| 1,1-dichloroethane | 1/100 | 0.041 | - | - | - | 33 | EPA RfD |
| *1,2-dichloroethene | 9/100 | 0.001-1,100 | - | - | - | 1**** | EPA RfD |
| *di-n-butylphthalate | 33/100 | 0.016-61,000 | - | - | - | 4,100 | EPA RfD |
| ethylbenzene | 14/100 | 0.008-68 | - | - | - | 200 | EPA RfD |
| isopropylbenzene | NA | ||||||
| *methylenechloride | 77/100 | 0.004-5,100 | - | 0.07 | EPACPF | 10 | EPA RfD |
| *4-methylphenol | 15/100 | 0.019-40 | - | - | - | 2 | EPAHEAST |
| *2-methylnaphthalene | 44/100 | 0.001-610 | - | - | - | 14.3+ | EPA RfD |
| *naphthalene | 18/100 | 0.023-34 | - | - | - | 14.3 | EPA RfD |
| n-propylbenzene | NA | ||||||
| *tetrachloroethene | 22/100 | 0.001-12,000 | - | 0.06 | EPACPF | 9.7 | EPA RfD |
| *toluene | 44/100 | 0.001-13,000 | - | - | - | 230 | EPA RfD |
| 1,1,1-trichloroethane | 1/100 | 0.18 | - | - | - | 76 | EPA RfD |
| *trichloroethene | 8/100 | 0.004-2,400 | - | 0.2 | EPACPF | 5.3 | EPA RfD |
| 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene | NA | ||||||
| 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene | NA | ||||||
| *vinylchloride | 1/100 | 0.36 | - | 0.0003 | EPACPF | 0.004 | ATSDRMRL |
| xylene | 21/100 | 0.004-330 | - | - | - | 4,620 | EPA RfD |
| Metals | |||||||
| *cadmium | 3/100 | 3.4-11.8 | <0.5-1 | - | - | 10 | ATSDRMRL |
| *chromium | 100/100 | 4.8-16,000 | 10-40 | - | - | 250 | EPA RfD |
| *lead | 100/100 | 4.6-609 | 10-300 | - | - | - | - |
| *mercury | 57/100 | 0.11-5.9 | 0.01-3.4 | - | - | 1.6 | EPA RfD |
Footnotes for Table 2.
NA - not analyzed
p = proposed
aCancer comparison values for organics and mercury are determined for a 70 kg adult ingesting82 mg of soil/day, 2 days/week, 5 months/year plus 111 g/day homegrown fruits and vegetables. Noncancer comparison values for organics and mercury are determined for a 13.2 kg childingesting 200 of mg soil/day, 5 days/week, 6 months/year plus 66 g/day homegrown fruits andvegetables. Comparison values for cadmium and chromium based on ingestion of 200 mg of soilby a 10 kg child.
bTotal PCBs
*Contaminant selected for further evaluation.
**References: Adriano (1986); Clarke et al. (1985); Connor et al. (1957); Davis and Bennett(1983); Dragun (1988); Frank et al. (1976); McGovern (1988); Schacklette and Boerngen (1984);ATSDR (1991i).
***ATSDR MRL = ATSDR Minimal Risk Level
EPA CPF = US EPA Cancer Potency Factor
EPA HEAST = US EPA Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
EPA RfD = US EPA Reference Dose
****Comparison value for cis-1,2-dichloroethene.
+No comparison value available; comparison value for naphthalene used as a surrogate.
Table 3A. Carroll and Dubies Site
Sludge Sampling Data from the Remedial Investigation for On-Site Lagoonsa andComparison Values for Potential Trespasser Exposure
(All values in milligrams per kilogram)
| Chemical | Sludge Near Surface (0-12 inches) | Background Range * | Comparison Value (Trespasser Exposure)b | ||||
| Frequency ofDetection | Range | Cancer | Basis*** | Noncancer | Basis*** | ||
| acetone | 2/10 | 2.7-2.8 | - | - | - | 147,000 | EPA RfD |
| aroclor1254 | ND | - | <0.01-0.04c | 1.3 | EPA CPF | 29.4 | EPA RfD |
| benzene | 1/10 | 0.025 | - | 338 | EPA CPF | 1,029 | EPARfD(p) |
| bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate | 2/2 | 7.3-130 | - | 700 | EPA CPF | 29,400 | EPA RfD |
| 4-chloroaniline | 2/2 | 4.0-200 | - | - | - | 5,880 | EPA RfD |
| chlorobenzene | 10/10 | 0.36-27 | - | - | - | 29,400 | EPA RfD |
| 1,2-dichlorobenzene | 2/2 | 40-430 | - | - | - | 132,300 | EPA RfD |
| 1,4-dichlorobenzene | 2/2 | 21-120 | - | 408 | EPA CPF | 294,000 | EPAHEAST |
| 1,2-dichloroethene | 1/2 | 0.38 | - | - | - | 14,700*** | EPA RfD |
| di-n-butylphthalate | 2/10 | 6.2-48 | - | - | - | 147,000 | EPA RfD |
| ethylbenzene | 2/2 | 0.02-0.24 | - | - | - | 147,000 | EPA RfD |
| isopropylbenzene | NA | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| methylenechloride | 9/10 | 0.016-0.9 | - | 1,307 | EPA CPF | 88,200 | EPA RfD |
| 4-methylphenol | 2/2 | 1.4-74 | - | - | - | 7,350 | EPA RfD |
| 2-methylnaphthalene | 2/2 | 4.4-89 | - | - | - | 58,800**** | EPA RfD |
| naphthalene | 2/2 | 1.9-24 | - | - | - | 58,800 | EPA RfD |
| n-propylbenzene | NA | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| toluene | 10/10 | 0.088-27 | - | - | - | 294,000 | EPA RfD |
| 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene | NA | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene | NA | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| xylene | 4/10 | 0.11-2.5 | - | - | - | 2,940,000 | EPA RfD |
| Metals | |||||||
| cadmium | 2/2 | 4.2-16.8 | <0.5-1 | - | - | 1,029 | ATSDRMRL |
| chromium | 2/2 | 38.5-113 | 10-40 | - | - | 7,350 | EPA RfD |
| *lead | 2/2 | 245-499 | 10-300 | - | - | - | - |
| mercury | 2/2 | 3.4-7.2 | 0.01-3.4 | - | - | 441 | EPA RfD |
aSurface sludge samples were composited before analysis for semi-volatile and metals.
bComparison values for cancer risk are determined for a 70 kg adult who ingests 100 mg soil perday, 2 days per week for 3 months per year. Comparison values fornoncancer risk are determined for a 21 kg child who ingests 200 mg soil per day, 2 days perweek for 3 months per year.
cTotal PCBs
*References: Adriano (1986); Clarke et al. (1985); Connor et al. (1957); Davis and Bennett(1983); Dragun (1988); Frank et al. (1976); McGovern (1988); Schacklette andBoerngen (1984); ATSDR (1991i).
**ATSDR MRL = ATSDR Minimal Risk Level EPA CPF = US EPA Cancer Potency Factor
EPA RfD = US EPA Reference Dose EPA HEAST = US EPA Health Effects AssessmentSummary Tables
***Comparison value for cis-1,2-dichloroethene.
****No comparison value available; comparison value for naphthalene used as a surrogate.
Table 3B. Sludge Sampling Data from the Remedial Investigation for On-Site Lagoonsaand Comparison Values for Potential Residential Exposure
(All values in milligrams per kilogram)
| Chemical | Sludge Near Surface (0-12inches) | Sludge Subsurface(more than 12inches) | BackgroundRange** | Comparison Value (ResidentialExposure)b | |||||
| Frequency of Detection | Range | Frequency ofDetection | Range | Cancer | Basis*** | Noncancer | Basis*** | ||
| *acetone | 2/10 | 2.7-2.8 | 1/4 | 0.34 | - | - | - | 2 | EPARfD |
| *aroclor1254 | ND | - | 4/4 | 0.22-0.74 | <0.01-0.04c | 0.03 | EPACPF | 0.8 | EPARfD |
| benzene | 1/10 | 0.025 | ND | - | - | 0.05 | EPACPF | 0.4 | EPARfD(p) |
| *bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate | 2/2 | 7.3-130 | 4/4 | 0.125-13 | - | 2.3 | EPACPF | 17.6 | EPARfD |
| *4-chloroaniline | 2/2 | 4.0-200 | 4/4 | 2.9-43 | - | - | - | 1.53 | EPARfD |
| chlorobenzene | 10/10 | 0.36-27 | 4/4 | 0.64-10 | - | - | - | 27 | EPARfD |
| *1,2-dichlorobenzene | 2/2 | 40-430 | 4/4 | 7.5-100 | - | - | - | 324 | EPARfD |
| *1,4-dichlorobenzene | 2/2 | 21-120 | 4/4 | 2-250 | - | 0.37 | EPACPF | 546 | EPAHEAST |
| 1,2-dichloroethene | 1/2 | 0.38 | ND | - | - | - | - | 1**** | EPARfD |
| di-n-butylphthalate | 2/10 | 6.2-48 | 4/4 | 0.92-1.6 | - | - | - | 4,100 | EPARfD |
| ethylbenzene | 2/2 | 0.02-0.24 | 2/4 | 0.016-3.2 | - | - | - | 200 | EPARfD |
| isopropylbenzene | NA | - | NA | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| *methylenechloride | 9/10 | 0.016-0.9 | 1/4 | 1.6 | - | 0.07 | EPACPF | 10 | EPARfD |
| *4-methylphenol | 2/2 | 1.4-74 | 1/4 | 98 | - | - | - | 2 | EPARfD |
| *2-methylnaphthalene | 2/2 | 4.4-89 | 4/4 | 1.4-9.0 | - | - | - | 14.3+ | EPARfD |
| *naphthalene | 2/2 | 1.9-24 | 4/4 | 0.37-3.5 | - | - | - | 14.3 | EPARfD |
| n-propylbenzene | NA | - | NA | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| *toluene | 10/10 | 0.088-27 | 4/4 | 1.0-240 | - | - | - | 230 | EPARfD |
| 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene | NA | - | NA | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene | NA | - | NA | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| xylene | 4/10 | 0.11-2.5 | ND | - | - | - | - | 4,620 | EPARfD |
| Metals | |||||||||
| *cadmium | 2/2 | 4.2-16.8 | 3/4 | 0.8-14.8 | <0.5-1 | - | - | 10 | ATSDRMRL |
| chromium | 2/2 | 38.5-113 | 4/4 | 32.1-137 | 10-40 | - | - | 250 | EPARfD |
| *lead | 2/2 | 245-499 | 4/4 | 97.3-368 | 10-300 | - | - | - | - |
| *mercury | 2/2 | 3.4-7.2 | 4/4 | 1.1-139 | 0.01-3.4 | - | - | 1.6 | EPARfD |
aSurface sludge samples were composited before analysis for semi-volatiles and metals.
bCancer comparison values for organics and mercury are determined for a 70 kg adult ingesting82 of mg soil/day, 2 days/week, 5 months/year plus 111 g/day homegrown fruit and vegetables. Noncancer comparison values for organics and mercury are determined for a 13.2 kg childingesting 200 of mg soil/day, 5 days/week, 6 months/year plus 66 g/day homegrown fruits andvegetables. Comparison values for cadmium and chromium based on ingestion of 200 mg of soilby a 10 kg child.
cTotal PCBs
*Contaminant selected for further evaluation
**References: Adriano (1986); Clarke et al. (1985); Connor et al. (1957); Davis and Bennett(1983); Dragun (1988); Frank et al. (1976); McGovern (1988); Schacklette and Boerngen (1984);ATSDR (1991i).
***ATSDR MRL = ATSDR Minimal Risk Level; EPA CPF = US EPA Cancer Potency Factor;EPA RfD = US EPA Reference Dose; EPA HEAST = US EPA Health Effects AssessmentSummary Tables
****Comparison value for cis-1,2-dichloroethene.
Table 3C. Carroll and Dubies Site
Surface Water Sampling Data from the Remedial Investigation from the On-Site Lagoonsand Comparison Values for Potential Trespasser Exposure
(All values in micrograms per liter)
| Chemical | SurfaceWaterSample | Comparison Value (Trespasser Exposure )a | |||
| Cancer | Basis** | Noncancer | Basis** | ||
| acetone | ND | - | - | 10,000 | EPA RfD |
| aroclor 1254 | ND | 0.02 | EPA CPF | 2 | EPA RfD |
| benzene | ND | 6.2 | EPA CPF | 70 | EPA RfD(p) |
| *bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate | 190 | 13 | EPA CPF | 2,000 | EPA RfD |
| *4-chloroaniline | 510 | - | - | 400 | EPA RfD |
| chlorobenzene | 96 | - | - | 2,000 | EPA RfD |
| 1,2-dichlorobenzene | ND | - | - | 9,000 | EPA RfD |
| 1,4-dichlorobenzene | 39 | - | - | 20,000 | EPA HEAST |
| 1,2-dichloroethene | ND | - | - | 1,000*** | EPA RfD |
| di-n-butylphthalate | ND | - | - | 10,000 | EPA RfD |
| ethylbenzene | ND | - | - | 10,000 | EPA RfD |
| isopropylbenzene | NA | ||||
| methylenechloride | ND | 24 | EPA CPF | 6,000 | EPA RfD |
| 4-methylphenol | 67 | - | - | 500 | EPA RfD |
| 2-methylnaphthalene | 25 | - | - | 4,000**** | EPA RfD |
| naphthalene | ND | - | - | 4,000 | EPA RfD |
| n-propylbenzene | NA | ||||
| toluene | 6 | - | - | 20,000 | EPA RfD |
| 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene | NA | ||||
| 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene | NA | ||||
| xylene | ND | - | - | 200,000 | EPA RfD |
| Metals | |||||
| cadmium | 653 | - | - | 4,117 | ATSDRMRL |
| chromium | 2,110 | - | - | 29,410 | EPA RfD |
| *lead | 2,340 | - | - | - | - |
| mercury | 415 | - | - | 1,765 | EPA RfD |
ND - not detected
p - proposed
aNoncancer comparison values for organic chemicals are determined for a 21 kilogram childwhose arms, hands, legs and feet are exposed to surface water for 1 hour per day, 2 days perweek for 3 months per year and who swallows 0.05 liters of surface water per day, 2 days a weekfor 3 months per year. Noncancer comparison values for metals are determined for a 21kilogram child who swallows 0.05 liters of surface water per day, 2 days a week for 3 months peryear. Cancer comparison values for organic chemicals are determined for a 70 kilogram adultwhose arms, hands, legs and feet are exposed to surface water for 1 hour per day, 2 days perweek for 3 months per year and who swallows 0.05 liters of surface water per day, 2 days a weekfor 3 months per year. Cancer comparison values for metals are determined for a 70 kilogramadult who swallows 0.05 liters of surface water per day, 2 days a week for 3 months per year.
*Contaminant selected for further evaluation.
**ATSDR MRL = ATSDR Minimal Risk Level
EPA CPF = US EPA Cancer Potency Factor
EPA RfD = US EPA Reference Dose
EPA HEAST = US EPA Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
***Comparison value for cis-1,2-dichloroethene.
****No comparison value available; comparison value for naphthalene used as a surrogate.
Table 4. Carroll and Dubies Site
On-Site Groundwater Sampling Data from the Remedial Investigation Water QualityStandards/Guidelines and Comparison Values for Potential Residential Exposure
(All values in micrograms per liter)
| Chemical | Frequency ofDetection | RangeofDetection | Water QualityStandards/Guidelines | Comparison Values (DrinkingWater)a | ||||||
| New York State | U.S.EPA | Cancera | Basis** | Noncancera | Basis** | |||||
| Groud-water | SurfaceWater | DrinkingWater | DrinkingWater | |||||||
| *benzene | 9/16 | 0.1-770 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 5 | 5 | 1.2 | EPACPF | 5.0 | EPARfD(p) |
| chlorobenzene | 5/16 | 0.1-1.8 | 5 | 20 | 5 | 100 | - | - | 100 | EPALTHA |
| 1,1-dichloroethane | 2/16 | 1.1-1.8 | 5 | 5g | 5 | - | - | - | 700 | EPARfD |
| *1,2-dichloroethene | 6/16 | 0.2-55 | 5 | 5g | 5 | - | - | - | 70**** | EPALTHA |
| *ethylbenzene | 1/16 | 6.8 | 5 | 5g | 5 | 700;30ps | - | - | 700 | EPALTHA |
| isopropylbenzene | 2/16 | 0.6-3.6 | 5 | 5g | 5 | - | - | - | - | - |
| *4-methylphenol | 2/16 | 3.0 | 1 | 1 | 50 | - | - | - | 35 | EPARfD |
| 2-methylnaphthalene | 2/16 | 3.0 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 20+ | EPALTHA |
| naphthalene | 2/16 | 6.0-7.0 | 10g | 10 | 50 | - | - | - | 20 | EPALTHA |
| n-propylbenzene | 2/16 | 0.2-2.7 | 5 | 5g | 5 | - | - | - | - | - |
| *tetrachloroethene | 3/16 | 0.7-50 | 5 | 0.7g | 5 | 5 | 0.7 | EPACPF | 70 | EPARfD |
| *toluene | 2/16 | 3-23 | 5 | 5g | 5 | 1,000;40ps | - | - | 1,000 | EPALTHA |
| *trichloroethene | 1/16 | 22 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 3 | EPACPF | 52 | EPARfD |
| *1,2,4-trimethylbenzene | 2/16 | 5.7-42 | 5 | 5g | 5 | - | - | - | - | - |
| *1,3,5-trimethylbenzene | 2/16 | 1.2-12 | 5 | 5g | 5 | - | - | - | - | - |
| *xylene | 2/16 | 8.7-23 | 5++ | 5g | 5+ | 10,000 | - | - | 10,000 | EPALTHA |
| Metals | ||||||||||
| *cadmium | 2/10 | 5.3-6.0 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 5 | - | - | 5 | EPALTHA |
| *chromium | 6/16 | 7-2,930 | 50 | 50 | 100 | 100 | - | - | 100 | EPALTHA |
| *lead | 3/16 | 21.7-924 | 25 | 50 | 15+++ | 15+++ | - | - | - | - |
| *mercury | 2/16 | 0.81-2.4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | - | - | 2 | EPALTHA |
p = proposed
ps = proposed national secondary drinking water standard
aComparison values based on daily ingestion of 2 liters of water by a 70 kg adult, assuming 20%contaminant exposure via drinking water.
*Contaminant selected for further evaluation
**EPA LTHA = US EPA Drinking Water Lifetime Health Advisory
EPA CPF = US EPA Cancer Potency Factor
EPA RfD = US EPA Reference Dose
***Applies to total of 1,2- and 1,4-isomers.
****Comparison value for cis-1,2-dichloroethene.
+No comparison value available; comparison value for naphthalene used as a surrogate.
++Applies to each isomer individually.
+++The maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for lead is zero and the action level is 15mcg/L at the tap.
Table 5. Carroll and Dubies Site
Off-Site Groundwater Sampling Data from the Remedial Investigation Water QualityStandards/Guidelines and Comparison Values for Potential Residential Exposure
(All values in micrograms per liter)
| Chemical | FrequencyofDetection | Range ofDetection | Water QualityStandards/Guidelines | Comparison Values (DrinkingWater)a | ||||||
| New York State | U.S.EPA | Cancera | Basis** | Noncancera | Basis** | |||||
| Ground- water | SurfaceWater | DrinkingWater | DrinkingWater | |||||||
| *benzene | 2/8 | 230-1,300 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 5 | 5 | 1.2 | EPACPF | 5.0 | EPARfD(p) |
| chlorobenzene | 2/8 | 0.1-4.3 | 5 | 20 | 5 | 100 | - | - | 100 | EPALTHA |
| 1,2-dichlorobenzene | 1/8 | 2.1 | 4.7*** | - | 5 | 600;10ps | - | - | 600 | EPALTHA |
| 1,1-dichloroethane | 2/8 | 0.4-2.0 | 5 | 5g | 5 | - | - | - | 700 | EPARfD |
| *1,2-dichloroethene | 2/8 | 2.6-12 | 5 | 5g | 5 | - | - | - | 70**** | EPALTHA |
| *ethylbenzene | 2/8 | 0.2-9.8 | 5 | 5g | 5 | 700;30ps | - | - | 700 | EPALTHA |
| isopropylbenzene | 1/8 | 3.4 | 5 | 5g | 5 | - | - | - | - | - |
| naphthalene | 2/8 | 0.2-10 | 10g | 10 | 50 | - | - | - | 20 | EPALTHA |
| n-propylbenzene | 1/8 | 2.4 | 5 | 5g | 5 | - | - | - | - | - |
| *tetrachloroethene | 3/8 | 0.1-13 | 5 | 0.7g | 5 | 5 | 0.7 | EPACPF | 70 | EPARfD |
| *toluene | 3/8 | 0.2-9.6 | 5 | 5g | 5 | 1,000;40ps | - | - | 1,000 | EPALTHA |
| trichloroethene | 2/8 | 0.3-0.9 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 3 | EPACPF | 52 | EPARfD |
| *1,2,4-trimethylbenzene | 2/8 | 0.4-44 | 5 | 5g | 5 | - | - | - | - | - |
| *1,3,5-trimethylbenzene | 2/8 | 0.1-9 | 5 | 5g | 5 | - | - | - | - | - |
| *vinylchloride | 2/8 | 1.1-1.8 | 2 | 0.3g | 2 | 2 | 0.02 | EPACPF | 0.14 | ATSDRMRL |
| *xylene | 2/8 | 0.8-40 | 5++ | 5g | 5+ | 10,000 | - | - | 10,000 | EPALTHA |
| Metals | ||||||||||
| *chromium | 3/8 | 7.3-106 | 50 | 50 | 100 | 100 | - | - | 100 | EPALTHA |
| *lead | 3/8 | 3.2-19.1 | 25 | 50 | 15+++ | 15+++ | - | - | - | - |
| mercury | 1/10 | 0.24 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | - | - | 2 | EPALTHA |
p = proposed
ps = proposed national secondary drinking water standard
aComparison values based on daily ingestion of 2 liters of water by a 70 kg adult, assuming 20%contaminant exposure via drinking water.
*Contaminant selected for further evaluation
**ATSDR MRL = ATSDR Minimal Risk Level
EPA LTHA = US EPA Drinking Water Lifetime Health Advisory
EPA CPF = US EPA Cancer Potency Factor
EPA RfD = US EPA Reference Dose
***Applies to total of 1,2- and 1,4-isomers.
****Comparison value for cis-1,2-dichloroethene.
+No comparison value available; comparison value for naphthalene used as a surrogate.
++Applies to each isomer individually.
+++The maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for lead is zero and the action level is 15mcg/L at the tap.
PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATING POTENTIAL HEALTH RISKS FOR CONTAMINANTSOF CONCERN
To evaluate the potential health risks from contaminants of concern associated with the Carrolland Dubies site, the New York State Department of Health assessed the risks for cancer andnoncancer health effects.
Increased cancer risks were estimated by using site-specific information on exposure levels forthe contaminant of concern and interpreting them using cancer potency estimates derived for thatcontaminant by the US EPA or, in some cases, by the NYS DOH. The following qualitativeranking of cancer risk estimates, developed by the NYS DOH, was then used to rank the riskfrom very low to very high. For example, if the qualitative descriptor was "low", then the excesslifetime cancer risk from that exposure is in the range of greater than one per million to less thanone per ten thousand. Other qualitative descriptors are listed below:
Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk | |
Risk Ratio | Qualitative Descriptor |
| equal to or less than one per million | very low |
| greater than one per million to less than oneper ten thousand | low |
| one per ten thousand to less than one perthousand | moderate |
| one per thousand to less than one per ten | high |
| equal to or greater than one per ten | very high |
An estimated increased excess lifetime cancer risk is not a specific estimate of expected cancers. Rather, it is a plausible upper bound estimate of the probability that a person may develop cancersometime in his or her lifetime following exposure to that contaminant (i.e., there is only about a5 percent chance that the risk of a response is greater than the estimated value).
There is insufficient knowledge of cancer mechanisms to decide if there exists a level ofexposure to a cancer-causing agent below which there is no risk of getting cancer, namely, athreshold level. Therefore, every exposure, no matter how low, to a cancer-causing compound isassumed to be associated with some increased risk. As the dose of a carcinogen decreases, thechance of developing cancer decreases, but each exposure is accompanied by some increasedrisk.
There is no general consensus within the scientific or regulatory communities on what level ofestimated excess cancer risk is acceptable. Some have recommended the use of the relativelyconservative excess lifetime cancer risk level of one in one million because of the uncertainties inour scientific knowledge about the mechanism of cancer. Others feel that risks that are lower orhigher may be acceptable, depending on scientific, economic and social factors. An increasedlifetime cancer risk of one in one million or less is generally considered an insignificant increasein cancer risk.
For noncarcinogenic health risks, the contaminant intake was estimated using exposureassumptions for the site conditions. This dose was then compared to a risk reference dose orminimal risk level (estimated daily intake of a chemical that is likely to be without anappreciable risk of health effects) developed by the US EPA, ATSDR and/or NYS DOH. Theresulting ratio was then compared to the following qualitative scale of health risk:
Qualitative Descriptions for
Noncarcinogenic Health Risks
Ratio of Estimated Contaminant
Intake to Risk Reference DoseQualitative
Descriptorequal to or less than the risk reference dose minimal greater than one to five times the riskreference dose low greater than five to ten times the riskreference dose moderate greater than ten times the risk reference dose high
Noncarcinogenic effects unlike carcinogenic effects are believed to have a threshold, that is, adose below which adverse effects will not occur. As a result, the current practice is to identify,usually from animal toxicology experiments, a no-observed-effect-level (NOEL). This is theexperimental exposure level in animals at which no adverse toxic effect is observed. The NOELis then divided by an uncertainty factor to yield the risk reference dose. The uncertainty factor isa number which reflects the degree of uncertainty that exists when experimental animal data areextrapolated to the general human population. The magnitude of the uncertainty factor takes intoconsideration various factors such as sensitive subpopulations (for example, children or theelderly), extrapolation from animals to humans, and the incompleteness of available data. Thus,the risk reference dose is not expected to cause health effects because it is selected to be muchlower than dosages that do not cause adverse health effects in laboratory animals.
The measure used to describe the potential for noncancer health effects to occur in an individualis expressed as a ratio of estimated contaminant intake to the risk reference dose. If exposure tothe contaminant exceeds the risk reference dose, there may be concern for potential noncancerhealth effects, because the margin of protection is less than that afforded by the reference dose. As a rule, the greater the ratio of the estimated contaminant intake to the risk reference dose, thegreater the level of concern. A ratio equal to or less than one is generally considered aninsignificant (minimal) increase in risk.
Response to Public Comments
This responsiveness summary was prepared to answer the public's comments on the Carroll andDubies draft Public Health Assessment. The public was invited to comment during the publiccomment period which ran from December 9, 1994, to January 31, 1995. One reply form wasreceived from the public and one from the US EPA . If you have any questions about theresponses to public comments for the Carroll and Dubies site, contact the New York StateDepartment of Health, Health Liaison Program at the toll-free number 1-800-458-1158,extension 402.
Local Citizen Comments
Comment
The public hearing should have been held in Port Jervis or Deer Park.
Response
The background section of the draft document incorrectly stated that the location of the August23, 1994, public meeting was at the Tusten Town Hall. The document has been changed toaccurately describe the meeting location as the Port Jervis High School.
Comment
Gold Creek (Cold Brook) is a natural trout stream and also stocked by the NYS DEC. North toMartins Lake is natural swamp area with significant wetland wildlife and should be kept as such.
Response
This concern was directed to the NYS DEC's Division of Fish and Wildlife.
Comments from the US EPA
Comments included corrections to a date in the historical information and an omission of twosamples of environmental media collected in 1983. Changes have been made to the text whichreflect these corrections. Figures 2 through 4 were combined into one figure, Figure 2, toaddress several comments about these figures, which included missing and confusinginformation.
Public Health Hazard Category Classification
The following section was not available in electronic format for conversion to HTML at the time of preparation of this document. For a copy please contact ATSDR.
