Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to site content

HEALTH CONSULTATION

CEDAR POINT SUBDIVISION
CICERO, ONONDAGA COUNTY, NEW YORK


BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF ISSUES

During June 2001, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) was contacted by a local resident who lives in the Cedar Point subdivision located in Cicero, Onondaga County, New York (i.e., a suburban community near Syracuse, New York). The resident contacted ATSDR seeking information and assistance for health concerns that were related to an industrial/hazardous waste spill that occurred in 1991 not far from the resident's home. The spill occurred about ten years prior to the resident's home being built, and according to environmental health officials constituted a relatively small spill of two barrels that was immediately cleaned up.

The resident initially contacted the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH), and Onondaga County Department of Health (OCDOH) prior to contacting ATSDR. Personnel of the above agencies investigated the resident's claims thoroughly; however, they did not find any evidence to support the resident's belief that chemical contamination existed near the Cedar Point subdivision at levels that posed a threat to human health or the environment.

According to a letter from the NYSDEC, on June 12, 2001, soil and groundwater samples were collected around two Cedar Point homes in March 2001 and analyzed for numerous chemical substances (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Letter to concerned citizen from Richard Brazell concerning contamination at Cedar Point subdivision. Cicero, New York. 2001). Resulting chemical analyses data were forwarded to ATSDR in September 2001 for review and assessment (New York State Department of Health. Letter to Maurice West from Henriette Hamel concerning contamination at Cedar Point subdivision. Cicero, New York. 2001). In addition to assessing the sampling data, an ATSDR medical officer, with the family's permission, reviewed the family's medical records with their physician to determine if there was any plausible connection with environmental chemical exposures.


DISCUSSION

ATSDR reviewed chemical analyses of soil and groundwater samples. The samples were analyzed for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), metals, pesticides, herbicides, total petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs). NYSDEC felt this constituted a broad scan of chemicals and should have indicated the presence of any unusual substances in the area sampled (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Letter to concerned citizen from Richard Brazell concerning contamination at Cedar Point subdivision. Cicero, New York. 2001).

Environmental Sampling and Chemical Analyses

During March 2001, NYSDEC collected 13 soil and 5 groundwater samples from two residences in the Cedar Point subdivision (Figure 1). Additionally, one water sample was collected from a sump pump at one of the residences (Residence 1 as depicted in Figure 1).

Chemical analyses of collected soil samples (Table 1) detected the presence of 17 metals. This is not an uncommon finding because metals are natural constituents of most soils and are released into the environment from anthropogenic sources (mining and metallurgic operations). ATSDR selects and compares detected chemical levels with ATSDR comparison values (CVs) for noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic effects (Appendix A). Of the 17 metals detected in Cedar Point subdivision soil samples, aluminum, arsenic, and vanadium were present at levels that exceeded soil CVs and were selected for further public health evaluation.

Chemical analyses of groundwater samples (Table 2) indicated the presence of 21 chemicals. Of these, aluminum, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, iron, lead, manganese, and nickel were present at levels that exceeded drinking water CVs. However, these chemicals were not selected for further public health evaluation because residents of the Cedar Point subdivision are not exposed to this groundwater; they do not use this groundwater as a source of drinking water. Chemical analyses of the residential sump pump water sample (Table 3) indicate that concentrations of all detected chemicals were below drinking water CVs and reported exposures are not expected to produce adverse health effects. However, as a matter of prudent public health, it is always advisable to use caution when drinking untreated water due to the unknown presence of elevated chemical levels, microbial agents, and other hazardous substances. Your most reliable drinking water source is from the public water supply, since the water authorities must follow regulatory guidelines ensuring that the water quality is at an acceptable level for drinking. Furthermore, the sump pump water sample did not indicate the presence of VOCs vaporizing into the air, alleviating the concern of inhalation exposures.

Exposure Pathways and Public Health Implications

This section summarizes the exposure pathways ATSDR considered in evaluating public health implications posed by chemical substances in the immediate vicinity of the Cedar Point subdivision. An exposure pathway is defined as the process of how people are exposed to or come in contact with chemical substances. An exposure pathway has five parts: A source of contamination; an environmental media and transport mechanism; a point of exposure; a route of exposure; and a receptor population. When all five parts are present, the exposure pathway is termed a completed exposure pathway. There can be no impact to public health from chemical substances via an exposure pathway unless exposures in excess of tolerable limits actually occur.

Soil

Residents may be exposed to contaminated soil either through direct dermal contact, ingestion, and/or inhalation. Possible human exposure points to soil could include work and play areas in residential yards.

Analytical results showed that of the 17 metals detected in soil samples, none exceeded any of ATSDR's noncancer soil CVs for nonpica children or adults. More conservative CVs were exceeded only by arsenic, aluminum, and vanadium in soil.

The arsenic levels detected in the soil samples collected from the Cedar Point subdivision (1-9.3 ppm) were well within the range of levels typically found in the eastern United States (<0.1-73 ppm, mean 4.8 ppm) and do not pose any realistic cancer hazard to exposed residents. Arsenic was initially selected for further public health evaluation because it was present in soil at concentrations (range, 1.0-9.3 ppm; mean, 3.7 ppm) that exceeded an ATSDR cancer risk evaluation guide (CREG) of 0.5 ppm. ATSDR CREGs are based on chronic exposure, essentially lifelong exposure amounting to 70 years, and the policy assumption of zero-threshold for carcinogens (Appendix A). However, exposures at this site were neither chronic nor lifelong, and carcinogens actually do exhibit observable practical thresholds. The threshold for arsenical cancer has been estimated to be somewhere between 200 and 400 µg/day (Marcus and Rispin 1988; Stöhrer 1991). These thresholds are 1-2 orders of magnitude higher than the highest intermittent arsenic exposure doses that could result from ingestion of the maximally contaminated soils at this site. More realistic average exposures would be even smaller (Appendix B, Case 2).

Aluminum and vanadium were selected for further public health evaluation because they were present at concentrations that exceeded ATSDR's EMEGs for pica children assuming intermediate exposure. Because this is a child health issue, these implications to public health will be discussed further in the section dealing with ATSDR's Child Health Initiative.

Four additional substances, calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium, were selected for further public health evaluation because there are no soil CVs available for these elements (Table 1). All four substances are essential elements required for normal human growth and maintenance of health. Calcium is required for the development of strong bones, magnesium is an essential cofactor of many enzymes, potassium is important in the transmission of nerve impulses, and sodium is the primary volume regulator of bodily fluids. The Required Daily Allowance (RDA) of calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium for children is 800, 170, 500, and 2000 mg/day, respectively. The maximum concentrations of calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium detected in soil in the Cedar Point subdivision were 40,000; 13,000; 250; and 1,600 ppm, respectively (Table 1). Thus, at these levels, a child would have to eat 20,000 milligrams (1.41 oz) of calcium contaminated soil, 13,000 milligrams (0.46 oz) of magnesium contaminated soil, 2,000,000 milligrams (70.55 oz) of sodium contaminated soil, and 1,250,000 milligrams (44.09 oz) of potassium contaminated soil every day to obtain even the RDA of these four mineral nutrients. By way of comparison, the default value for soil ingestion by children is 200 mg/day or 0.007 oz/day. The detected chemical levels of these essential nutrients in the soil samples collected from the Cedar Point subdivision are also within the range of levels typically found in the eastern United States. Therefore, exposures to calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium levels detected in residential soils at the Cedar Point subdivision would not be expected to produce adverse health effects.

Groundwater

Detected concentrations for aluminum, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, iron, lead, manganese, and nickel analyzed in the five groundwater samples exceeded drinking water CVs. These chemicals were not selected for further public health evaluation because residents in the Cedar Point subdivision do not use the area groundwater as a drinking water source. Since there is no exposure, there can be no potential for adverse health effects.

Cedar Point residences are connected to the municipal water supply furnished by the Onondaga County Water Authority (OCWA). The OCWA supplies water to area homes from one of three sources. Water may originate from Otisco Lake, which is treated by OCWA, Lake Ontario which is treated by the Metropolitan Water Board (MWB) and wholesaled to the OCWA, or Skaneateles Lake which is treated by the Syracuse Water Department and sold to the OCWA. The Cedar Point subdivision is located in the Town of Cicero; homes in Cicero receive a mixture of water originating from Otisco Lake and Lake Ontario (Figure 2).

The OCWA is regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act which requires monitoring for organic, inorganic, synthetic organic, and radiological components in the drinking water at least annually and in some cases, monthly. In this way, potential contamination of the municipal water supply would be addressed by the municipality, OCDOH, NYSDOH, and NYSDEC. Of the nine chemicals detected in the five groundwater samples exceeding ATSDR's drinking water CVs (Table 2), these same chemicals did not exceed ATSDR's drinking water CVs and met federal drinking water guidelines (i.e., at or below federal regulatory drinking water limits) in the municipal water supply furnished by the OCWA (OCWA 2001). As for other chemical constituents within the municipal water supply, the overall water quality of the municipal water supply also met federal drinking water guidelines. The results of a preliminary subsurface investigation conducted at the Cedar Point subdivision suggest that there are no private supply wells in the near vicinity of the subdivision (Thomas J. DiCaprio, NATURE'S WAY Environmental Consultants & Contractors, Inc., to Richard Brazell, NYSDEC, Report Summary, 2001). The high readings in the groundwater samples may have been due to turbidity, fine particles of soil suspended in the water samples (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Letter to concerned citizen from Richard Brazell concerning contamination at Cedar Point subdivision. Cicero, New York. 2001). ATSDR concludes that, because exposure to detected groundwater contaminants is not occurring, there is no potential or direct impact to public health through this exposure pathway.

Medical Records Review

After reviewing medical records and speaking with the resident's family physician, ATSDR determined that the resident had experienced multiple symptoms over the past year. These symptoms included heartburn, sore throat, limb pain (wrist, knee, foot), fatigue, poor memory, rashes, and increased flatulence, as well as a darkening of the urine.

In addition to the above listed symptoms, the resident's family physician made the following clinical observations: hypertension, isolated elevation of a liver enzyme (ALT increased to 74 U/L), and osteopenia as indicated by DEXA scan. Moreover, the resident's family physician concluded the resident at the time had signs of hypertension, osteopenia, and anxiety. After referring the resident to an endocrinologist and conducting a complete metabolic battery of tests, the resident's family physician still could not find any specific reason for the resident's symptoms.

Medical conditions of the other family members also were reviewed. The clinical observations and symptoms were similar to those of the resident, which included foot and limb pain, memory loss, and increased flatulence. The exam and laboratory results of one other family member were also normal, showing no specific diagnosis. Each child received a DEXA scan that suggested possible osteopenia; however, these test results are difficult to interpret in their age group (i.e., 6 years old and younger).

Based on the above information, the observed symptoms could not be attributed to any specific environmental chemical exposure.

Residents who are still concerned that their health may have been affected by chemical exposure might want to contact an Associated Occupational and Environmental Clinic (AOEC) in the New York area for further assistance. The AOEC is a nonprofit organization committed to improving the practice of occupational and environmental health through information sharing and collaborative research. The long term goal of the AOEC is to facilitate the prevention and treatment of occupational and environmental illnesses and injuries through collaborative reporting and investigation of health problems. Three AOECs in the New York area, with appropriate contacts, are listed below:

Central New York Occupational Health Clinical Center
6712 Brooklawn Parkway
Suite 204
Syracuse, New York 13211-2195
(315) 432-8899
(315) 431-9528, fax
contact:

Michael B. Lax, MD, MPH

Eastern New York Occupational & Environmental Health Center
1873 Western Avenue
Albany, New York 12203
(518) 690-4420
(518) 690-4427, fax
contact:

Anne Tencza, BS, RN, COHN-S
Lynne Portnoy, MD, MPH, DC

Finger Lakes Occupational Health Services
980 Westfall Road, Suite 210
Rochester, New York 14618
(716) 256-0853
(716) 256-2271, fax
contact:

Deanna Woodhams, MA, Administrator

Environmental Bio-hazards

ATSDR is responsible for the evaluation of exposures to chemical and/or radioactive substances and their impact to public health. However, chemical and radiological exposures are not the only potential hazards to public health. Biological agents such as bacteria, fungi, and viruses can also adversely affect one's health. Residents who are concerned that their symptoms may be linked to biological hazards, such as household molds, may want to consult their family physicians. Additional information on fungi-related disease can be obtained from the centers listed below.

Mycotic Diseases Branch
Division of Bacterial and Mycotic Diseases
National Center for Infectious Diseases
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Telephone: (404) 639-3548

Air Pollution and Respiratory Health Branch
Division of Environmental Hazards and Health Effects
National Center for Environmental Health
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Telephone: (404) 498-1000
Fax: (404) 498-1088


ATSDR'S CHILD HEALTH INITIATIVE

As part of ATSDR's Child Health Initiative, ATSDR considers children in the evaluation for all environmental exposures and uses health guidelines that are protective for children. When evaluating any potential health effects via ingestion, children are considered a special population because, due to their lower body weight, the same exposure will result in a higher dose in children when compared to adults. Average body weight differences, as well as average differences in child-specific intake rates for various environmental media, are taken into account by ATSDR's child EMEGs (Environmental Media Exposure Guidelines).

As previously stated, aluminum and vanadium were selected for further public health evaluation because their concentrations exceeded ATSDR's soil EMEGs for intermediate exposure in pica children. Pica behavior (the craving or eating of substances that have no food value such as starch, clay, plaster, paint, and gravel) is exhibited by a small percentage of children 1 to 6 years old and may be related to nutritional or emotional needs. Pica is not to be confused with the common habit of infants and toddlers of putting everything in their mouths (Griffith 1995). Most children do not exhibit pica behavior, but those who do may be at an increased risk of exposure to chemicals and/or parasites in the material that they eat. Thus, parents should take every precaution to prevent or limit this behavior.

ATSDR's minimum risk level (MRL) is a level at which no appreciable increase in adverse health effects is expected to occur under specified conditions of exposure, i.e., for acute, intermediate, or chronic durations. (See Appendix A for ATSDR's working definitions of exposure durations, the MRL, and other comparison values.) ATSDR's intermediate MRL for aluminum (2 mg/kg/day) is based on a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 62 mg/kg/day for decreased activity in mice (which was interpreted as a mild neurological effect) and includes a 30-fold safety factor (Golub et al. 1992; ATSDR 1999). Assuming that a pica child weighing 10 kilograms chronically ingests 5,000 mg of soil per day containing aluminum at the highest level detected at this site (12,000 ppm), the resulting exposure dose (6 mg/kg/day) would exceed the MRL by a factor of 3, or only 10% of the incorporated 30-fold safety factor (see case 1 in Appendix C). Thus, the estimated worst-case exposure for a pica child would still be 10 times lower than the NOAEL on which the MRL was based.

ATSDR's intermediate MRL for vanadium (0.003 mg/kg/day) is based on an NOAEL of 0.3 mg/kg/day for renal effects in rats treated for 3 months and includes a 100-fold safety factor (Domingo et al. 1985; ATSDR 1992). Assuming that a pica child weighing 10 kilograms chronically ingests 5,000 mg of soil per day containing vanadium at the highest level detected at this site (20 ppm in soil), the resulting exposure dose (0.01 mg/kg/day) would exceed the MRL by a factor of 3, or only 3% of the incorporated 100-fold safety factor (see case 3 in Appendix C). In other words, even this worst case pica child exposure (i.e., a worst case scenario) would result in daily vanadium doses 30 times lower than the no effect level in rats on which ATSDR's MRL is based, and more than 100 times lower than a similar NOAEL established in humans. In a study of humans ingesting 1.3 mg/kg/day of encapsulated vanadium for 45 to 68 days, Dimond et al. (1963) detected no adverse effects in the kidney or any other organ system evaluated.

The worst-case exposure scenarios described above are extremely conservative. Pica behavior is not a common occurrence in all children. In one study of soil ingestion by children, one out of 320 children (0.3%) ingested as much as 5,000 milligrams (mg) of soil in a single day (ATSDR's default soil ingestion rate for pica children); 95 percent of the children studied ingested less than 100 mg of soil daily (average, 40 mg/day) (Gough 1991). Also, the available data suggest that pica events (i.e., consumption of 5,000 mg of soil in a single day) occur on average only 40 times a year, instead of daily, as ATSDR assumes solely for the purpose of screening. Finally, pica behavior is exhibited only in very young children 2 to 3 years of age who are, therefore, unlikely to have ready access to highly-contaminated soils usually found at hazardous waste sites rather than in the yards of private residences. However, regardless of the source of the contaminated soil samples and the total daily soil ingestion rate one uses, no one is exclusively exposed to soil from the same maximally contaminated spot every day. Thus, actual average daily exposures to contaminants in soil will be much less than those suggested by the worst case estimates previously discussed.

Considering that the potential exposures estimated above represent worst-case scenarios and these exposures are well below levels known to cause any adverse health effect, ATSDR concludes that the levels of aluminum and vanadium detected in the Cedar Point subdivision pose no public health hazard to pica children, non-pica children, or adults. Moreover, the concentrations of aluminum and vanadium detected in soil samples collected from the Cedar Point subdivision are well within the range of levels typically found in the eastern United States.


CONCLUSION

On the basis of the information reviewed in this health consultation, ATSDR has determined that the chemicals identified in the immediate vicinity of the Cedar Point subdivision pose no apparent public health hazard to the residents. This conclusion is supported by the following:

  1. Residents are not exposed to chemical substances in soil at levels high enough to induce adverse health effects.


  2. Residents are not exposed to contaminants in the groundwater because residential homes are connected to the municipal water supply. There is no evidence of contamination of the municipal water supply.


  3. The health conditions reported by residents to ATSDR do not appear to be associated with exposure to environmental chemicals.

RECOMMENDATIONS

No actions due to public health concerns are recommended.


PREPARERS OF REPORT

Environmental Health Scientist:

David S. Sutton, PhD
Exposure Investigations and Consultations Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Toxicologist:

Frank C. Schnell, PhD, DABT
Exposure Investigations and Consultations Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Medical Officer:

Robert H. Johnson, MD
Exposure Investigations and Consultations Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Writer/Editor:

Tom Wilson
Office of Policy and External Affairs
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry


Reviewed by

Branch Chief:

John Abraham, PhD, MPH
Exposure Investigations and Consultations Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Section Chief, Health Consultation Section:

Susan Moore, MS
Exposure Investigations and Consultations Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Technical Project Officer, State of New York:

Gregory V. Ulirsch
Superfund Site Assessment Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Senior Regional Representative, Region II:

Arthur Block
Office of Regional Operations
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry


REFERENCES

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1992. Toxicological profile for vanadium. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1999. Toxicological profile for aluminum (Update). Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services.

Dimond EG, Caravaca J, Benchimol A. 1963. Vanadium: excretion, toxicity, and lipid effect in man. Am J Clin Nutr 12:49-53.

Domingo JL, Llobet JM, Tomas JM, et al. 1985. Short-term toxicity studies of vanadium in rats. J Appl Toxicol 5:418-21.

Griffith, Winter H., M.D. 1995. Complete guide to symptoms, illness, and surgery. 3rd ed. New York: Perigee.

Golub MS, Donald JM, Gershwin ME, et al. 1989. Effects of aluminum ingestion on spontaneous motor activity of mice. Neurotoxicol Teratol 11:231-5.

Gough, Michael. 1991. Human exposures from dioxin in soil--A meeting report.
J Toxicol Environ Health 32: 205-45.

Marcus WL, Rispin AS. 1988. Threshold carcinogenicity using arsenic as an example. In: Cothern CR, Mehlman MA, Marcus WL, editors. Advances in modern environmental toxicology. Vol. 15. Risk assessment and risk management of industrial and environmental chemicals. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Scientific Publishing Co., Inc.

Onondaga County Water Authority. 2001. OCWA 2001 annual water supply statement and consumer confidence report. Available from:
URL: http://www.ocwa.org/ocw2.html .

Stöhrer, Gerhard. 1991. Arsenic: opportunity for risk assessment. Arch Toxicol 65:525-31.


Selected Bibliography

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2000. Toxicological profile for arsenic (update). Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2002a. Drinking water comparison value table. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2002b. Soil comparison value table. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region III. 2002. Risk-based concentration table. Available from: URL: http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/index.htm

Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX. 2002. Preliminary remediation goals Available from: URL: http://www.epa.gov/region09/waste/sfund/prg/index.htm

Institute of Medicine, Food and Nutrition Board. 2001. Dietary reference intakes. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Williams GM, Weisburger JH. 1991. Chemical carcinogenesis. In: Amdur MD, Doull J, Klaassen C, editors. Casarett and Doull's toxicology-- the basic science of poisons. 4th ed. New York: Pergamon Press. p. 127-200.


APPENDIX A: COMPARISON VALUES

ATSDR comparison values (CVs) are media-specific concentrations that are considered to be safe under default conditions of exposure. They are used as screening values in selecting site-specific chemicals for further evaluation of their public health implications. Generally, a chemical is selected for further public health evaluation because its maximum concentration in air, water, or soil at the site exceeds at least one of ATSDR's CVs. This approach is conservative by design. ATSDR may also select detected chemical substances for further public health evaluation and discussion because ATSDR has no CVs or because the community has expressed special concern about the substance, whether it exceeds CVs or not.

It cannot be emphasized strongly enough that CVs are not thresholds of toxicity. While concentrations at or below the relevant CV are generally considered to be safe, it does not automatically follow that any environmental concentration that exceeds a CV would be expected to produce adverse health effects. In fact, the whole purpose behind highly conservative, health-based standards and guidelines is to enable health professionals to recognize and resolve potential public health problems before they become actual health hazards. For that reason, ATSDR's CVs are typically designed to be 1 to 3 orders of magnitude lower (i.e., 10 to 1,000 times lower) than the corresponding no-effect levels or lowest-effect levels on which they are based. The probability that adverse health outcomes will actually occur depends not on environmental concentrations alone, but on several additional factors, including site-specific conditions of exposure, and individual lifestyle and genetic factors that affect the route, magnitude, and duration of actual exposures.

Listed below are the abbreviations for selected CVs and units of measure used within this document. Following this list of abbreviations are more complete descriptions of the various comparison values used within this document, as well as a brief discussion on one of ATSDR's most conservative CVs.

CREG = Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
EMEG = Environmental Media Evaluation Guide
LTHA = Drinking Water Lifetime Health Advisory
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLA = Maximum Contaminant Level Action.
MRL = Minimal Risk Level
RBC = Risk-Based Concentration
RfD = Reference Dose
RMEG = Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide
Units of Measure:
ppm = Parts Per Million [e.g., mg/L (water), mg/kg (soil)]
ppb = Parts Per Billion [e.g., µg/L (water), µg/kg (soil)]
kg = kilogram (1,000 grams)
mg = milligram (0.001 gram)
µg = microgram (0.000001 gram)
L = liter (1000 mL or 1.057 quarts of liquid, or 0.001 m3 of air)
m3 = cubic meter (a volume of air equal to 1,000 liters)

Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides (CREGs) are derived by ATSDR. They are estimated chemical concentrations theoretically expected to cause no more than one excess cancer in a million people exposed over a lifetime. CREGs are derived from EPA's cancer slope factors and therefore reflect estimates of risk based on the assumption of zero threshold and lifetime exposure. Such estimates are necessarily hypothetical, as stated in EPA 1986 Guidelines for Carcinogenic Risk Assessment, "the true value of the risk is unknown and may be as low as zero."

Drinking Water Equivalent Levels (DWELs) are lifetime exposure levels specific for drinking water (assuming that all exposure is from that medium) at which adverse, noncarcinogenic health effects would not be expected to occur. They are derived from EPA RfDs by factoring in default ingestion rates and body weights to convert the RfD dose to an equivalent concentration in drinking water.

Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) are ATSDR estimates of daily human exposures to a chemical that are unlikely to be associated with any appreciable risk of deleterious noncancer effects over a specified duration of exposure. MRLs are calculated using data from human and animal studies and are reported for acute (< 14 days), intermediate (15-364 days), and chronic (> 365 days) exposures. MRLs for oral exposure (i.e., ingestion) are doses and are typically expressed in mg/kg/day. Inhalation MRLs are concentrations and are typically expressed in either parts per billion (ppb) or µg/m3. The latter are identical to ATSDR's EMEGs for airborne contaminants. ATSDR's MRLs are published in ATSDR Toxicological Profiles for specific chemicals.

Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs) are media-specific concentrations that are calculated from ATSDR's Minimal Risk Levels by factoring in default body weights and ingestion rates. Different EMEGs are calculated for adults and children, as well as for acute (<14 days), intermediate (15-364 days), and chronic (> 365 days) exposures.

EPA Reference Dose (RfD) is an estimate of the daily exposure to a contaminant unlikely to cause any non-carcinogenic adverse health effects over a lifetime of chronic exposure. Like the ATSDR MRL, the EPA RfD is a dose and is typically expressed in mg/kg/day.

Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide (RMEG) is the concentration of a contaminant in air, water, or soil that ATSDR derives from EPA's RfD for that contaminant by factoring in default values for body weight and intake rate. RMEGs are calculated for adults and children. RMEGs are analogous to ATSDR EMEGs.

Risk-Based Concentrations (RBCs) are media-specific values derived by the Region III Office of the Environmental Protection Agency from EPA RfDs, RfCs, or cancer slope factors, by factoring in default values for body weight, exposure duration, and ingestion/inhalation rates. These values represent levels of chemicals in air, water, soil, and fish that are considered safe over a lifetime of exposure. RBCs are calculated for adults and children. RBCs for noncarcinogens and carcinogens are analogous to ATSDR EMEGs and CREGs, respectively.

Lifetime Health Advisories (LTHAs) are calculated from the DWEL (Drinking Water Equivalent Level) and represent the concentration of a substance in drinking water estimated to have negligible deleterious effects in humans over a lifetime of 70 years, assuming 2 L/day water consumption for a 70-kg adult, and taking into account other sources of exposure. In the absence of chemical-specific data, LTHAs for noncarcinogenic organic and inorganic compounds are 20% and 10%, respectively, of the corresponding DWELs. LTHAs are not derived for compounds which are potentially carcinogenic for humans.

Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) are drinking water standards established by the EPA. They represent levels of substances in drinking water that EPA deems protective of public health over a lifetime (70 years) at an adult exposure rate of 2 liters of water per day. They differ from other protective comparison values in that they are legally enforceable and take into account the availability and economics of water treatment technology.

Maximum Contaminant Level Action (MCLA) are action levels for drinking water set by EPA under Superfund. When the relevant action level is exceeded, a regulatory response is triggered.

When screening individual chemical substances, ATSDR staff compare the highest single concentration of a chemical detected at the site with the appropriate comparison value available for the most sensitive of the potentially exposed individuals (usually children). Typically the cancer risk evaluation guide (CREG) or chronic environmental media evaluation guide (cEMEG) is used. This worst-case approach introduces a high degree of conservatism into the analysis and often results in the selection of many chemical substances for further public health evaluation that will not, upon closer scrutiny, be judged to pose any hazard to human health. However, in the interest of public health, it is more prudent to use an environmental screen that identifies many chemicals for further evaluation that may be determined later to be harmless, as opposed to one that may overlook even a single potential hazard to public health. The reader should keep in mind the conservativeness of this approach when interpreting ATSDR's analysis of the potential health implications of site-specific exposures.

The most conservative ATSDR comparison value, the CREG, deserves special mention. The CREG is a media-specific contaminant concentration derived from the chronic (essentially, lifetime) dose of that substance which, according to an EPA estimate, corresponds to a 1-in-1,000,000 cancer risk level. This does not mean that exposures equivalent to the CREG actually are expected to cause 1 excess cancer case in 1,000,000 people exposed over a lifetime. Nor does it mean that every person in that exposed population has a 1-in-1,000,000 risk (i.e., 1x10-6) of developing cancer from the specified exposure. Although commonly misinterpreted in precisely this way, cancer risk assessment methodology can only provide conservative estimates of population risk which do not, in fact, apply to any particular individual. Even for populations, cancer risk estimates do not necessarily constitute realistic predictions of the risk. As EPA states in its Guidelines for carcinogen Risk Assessment, "the true value of the risk is unknown and may be as low as zero" (EPA 1986).

Unlike non-cancer comparison values which correspond to safe levels that include specified margins of safety, ATSDR CREGs (and the risk estimates on which they are based) correspond to purely hypothetical (and unmeasurable) 1-in-a-million cancer risk levels that include unspecified margins of safety (i.e., relative to the lowest known cancer effect levels) which often range from thousands to millions or more. In the United States, these hypothetical risk levels are based on the zero-threshold assumption according to which any non-zero dose of a carcinogen must be associated with some finite increment of risk, however small. Using linear models based on this assumption, it is actually possible to quantify undetectable/non-existent cancer risks that are (hypothetically) associated with even immeasurably small doses. EPA uses such risk estimates as regulatory tools in, for example, the ranking of contaminated sites for cleanup. ATSDR uses them as screening values. However, once ATSDR has screened a substance and selected it for further evaluation, the CREG, like all other screening values, becomes irrelevant in subsequent stages of analysis. Further evaluation of the public health implications of site-specific exposures must, necessarily, be based on the best medical and toxicologic information available (ATSDR 1992).

References

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1992. Public health assessment guidance manual. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services.

Environmental Protection Agency. Guidelines for carcinogenic risk assessment. September 24, 1986. Federal Register 51(185): 33992-34003.


APPENDIX B: LIFETIME DOSE AND INTAKE ESTIMATES FOR ARSENIC

When the primary health concern posed by a chemical is cancer or another chronic effect, exposure doses can be presented as lifetime average daily doses (LADDs) (EPA 1992). The LADD may take the form of the following equation:

LADD =  10-6 * C * B * IFS adj IFSadj EDc * IRSc   (LT - EDc) * IRSa


 + 
LT BWc   BWa

 

where, LADD  =  lifetime average daily dose, (mg/kg/day)
  C  =  exposure concentration, (mg/kg)
  B  =  bioavailability = 0.5
       
  IFSadj  = 

age-adjusted factor for soil ingestion,

mg * yr

kg * day
  LT  =  lifetime = 70 yr
  EDc  =  child exposure duration = 6 yr
  IRSc  =  child soil ingestion rate = 200 mg/day (non-pica)
                                   = 5,000 mg/day (pica)
  BWc  = child body weight = 10 kg
  IRSa  =  adult soil ingestation rate = 100 mg/day
  BWa  =  adult body weight = 70 kg

Even though exposure may not occur over the entire lifetime, a conservative assumption was applied in the LADD calculations by erring on the side of public health (i.e., assume a single individual is exposed to a contaminant concentration in soil every day for the whole lifetime). Applying this assumption leads to the above equation. Because exposure factors (i.e., ingestion rates, body weights, exposure durations, etc.) for soil are different for children and adults, the LADD caclulations used age-adjusted factors (EPA III 2002). These factors approximated the integrated exposure from birth until age 70 by combining ingestion rates, body weights, and exposure durations for two age groups, small children and adults. Another limiting exposure factor is the bioavailability of arsenic in soil, which is reduced (relative to that in water) by low solubility and inaccessibility (ATSDR 2000). A conservative bioavailability value of 0.5 (i.e., 50%) was assumed for these estimates. Applying these limiting assumptions, the potential LADDs for arsenic in the Cedar Point subdivision were estimated at maximum and average concentrations considering both nonpica behavior and pica behavior in children, the most conservative childhood exposure scenario for soil ingestion. Moreover, if the LADD is multiplied by a reasonable value of body weight (i.e., an average), a lifetime average daily intake (LADI) of the contaminant for an individual is approximated:

LADI = 103 * ABW * LADD, ABW  =  EDc * BWc + (LT - EDc) * BWa
   
   
LT

 

where,

LADI = 

lifetime average daily intake, (ug/day)

 

ABW =

average body weight, (mg/kg)

 

Case 1: LADD of Arsenic at the Maximum Concentration, Assuming Non-Pica Behavior

C := 9.3 B := 0.5

LT := 70

EDc := 6

IRSc := 200

BWc := 10

IRSa := 100

BWa := 70

 

 

 

EDc * IRSc

  

(LT - EDc) * IRSa

          

 

 

10-6 * C * B * IFSadj

IFSadj

 := 


 +


 

LADD

 := 


 

 

BWc

 

BWa

 

 

 

LT

 

 

 

EDc * BWc + (LT - EDc) * BWa

 

   

 

ABW

 := 


          

LADI

 := 

103 * ABW * LADD

 

 

LT

 

     

 

 

 

 

mg * yr

  

 

          

 

mg

          

 

ug

IFSadj

 = 

211.429  


          

LADD = 

1.404 * 10-5

 
 

LADI = 0.911 


 

 

 

kg * day

 

 

 

 

kg * day

 

 

day

 

Case 2: LADD of Arsenic at the Maximum Concentration, Assuming Pica Behavior

C := 9.3 B := 0.5

LT := 70

EDc := 6

IRSc := 5000

BWc := 10

IRSa := 100

BWa := 70

 

 

 

EDc * IRSc

  

(LT - EDc) * IRSa

          

 

 

10-6 * C * B * IFSadj

IFSadj

 := 


 +


 

LADD

 := 


 

 

BWc

 

BWa

 

 

 

LT

 

 

 

EDc * BWc + (LT - EDc) * BWa

 

   

 

ABW

 := 


          

LADI

 := 

103 * ABW * LADD

 

 

LT

 

     

 

 

 

 

mg * yr

  

 

          

 

mg

          

 

ug

IFSadj

 = 

3.091 * 103  


          

LADD = 

2.054 * 10-4

 
 

LADI = 13.319 


 

 

 

kg * day

 

 

 

 

kg * day

 

 

day

 

Case 3: LADD of Arsenic at the Average Concentration, Assuming Non-Pica Behavior

C := 3.7 B := 0.5

LT := 70

EDc := 6

IRSc := 200

BWc := 10

IRSa := 100

BWa := 70

 

 

 

EDc * IRSc

  

(LT - EDc) * IRSa

          

 

 

10-6 * C * B * IFSadj

IFSadj

 := 


 + 


 

LADD

 := 


 

 

BWc

 

BWa

 

 

 

LT

 

 

 

EDc * BWc + (LT - EDc) * BWa

 

   

 

ABW

 := 


          

LADI

 := 

103 * ABW * LADD

 

 

LT

 

     

 

 

 

 

mg * yr

  

 

          

 

mg

          

 

ug

IFSadj

 = 

211.429  


          

LADD = 

5.588 * 10-6

 
 

LADI = 0.362 


 

 

 

kg * day

 

 

 

 

kg * day

 

 

day

 

Case 4: LADD of Arsenic at the Average Concentration, Assuming Pica Behavior

C := 3.7 B := 0.5

LT := 70

EDc := 6

IRSc := 5000

BWc := 10

IRSa := 100

BWa := 70

 

 

 

EDc * IRSc

  

(LT - EDc) * IRSa

          

 

 

10-6 * C * B * IFSadj

IFSadj

 := 


 + 


 

LADD

 := 


 

 

BWc

 

BWa

 

 

 

LT

 

 

 

EDc * BWc + (LT - EDc) * BWa

 

   

 

ABW

 := 


          

LADI

 := 

103 * ABW * LADD

 

 

LT

 

     

 

 

 

 

mg * yr

  

 

          

 

mg

          

 

ug

IFSadj

 = 

3.091 * 103  


          

LADD = 

8.17 * 10-5

 
 

LADI = 5.299 


 

 

 

kg * day

 

 

 

 

kg * day

 

 

day

 

References

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2000. Toxicological profile for arsenic (update). Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services.

Environmental Protection Agency. Guidelines for exposure assessment. May 29, 1992. Federal Register 57(104): 22888-938.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region III. 2002. Risk-based concentration table. Available from: URL: http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/index.htm


APPENDIX C: DAILY DOSE AND INTAKE ESTIMATES FOR ALUMINUM AND VANADIUM

When the primary health concern posed by a chemical is non-cancer effects, exposure doses are usually presented as average daily doses (ADDs). The ADD may take the form of the following equation:

   

10-6 * C * B * IRS

ADD

 = 


   

BW

 

where,  

ADD

 = 

average daily dose, (mg/kg/day)

 

C

 = 

exposure concentration, (mg/kg)

 

B

 = 

bioavailability = 1

 

IRS

 = 

soil ingestion rate, (mg/day)

 

BW

 = 

body weight, (kg)

Even though exposure may not occur every day, a conservative assumption was applied in the ADD calculations by erring on the side of public health and assuming that it did, yielding the above equation. In assessing exposures in the Cedar Point subdivision, only aluminum and vanadium were screened for further public health evaluation. Moreover, the two chemicals only seem to impact one sensitive sub-population group, children who exhibited pica behavior. Therefore, the soil ingestion rate used in the ADD calculations was 5,000 mg/day, along with a body weight assumption of 10 kg. Another limiting exposure factor is the bioavailability of these two chemicals in soil. Even though invalid and most likely lower, an overly conservative bioavailability value of 1 (i.e., 100%) was assumed for these estimates as a precaution of being most protective to public health. Applying these limiting assumptions, the potential ADDs for aluminum and vanadium in the Cedar Point subdivision were estimated at maximum and median concentrations, Cases 1 and 2 for aluminum and Cases 3 and 4 for vanadium. Cases 1 and 3 are rather unrealistic of average daily doses, while Cases 2 and 4 are more realistic of such doses. Cases 2 and 4 are more realistic because the chemical concentrations used in the dose estimates are values of central tendency or averages of the sampled data that may constitute concentrations for average exposures to these two chemicals. Cases 1 and 3 were used only for comparative purposes to illustrate that at the most unrealistic exposures, no appreciable health effects will occur at such exposures for these two chemicals. If the ADD is multiplied by a value of body weight (i.e., 10 kg), an average daily intake (ADI) of the contaminant for a pica child is approximated:

ADI = 10 * ADD

where, ADI = average daily intake, (mg/day)

 

Case 1: ADD of Aluminum at the Maximum Concentration

C := 12000

  B := 1

  IRS := 5000

  BW := 10

       

 

 

10-6 * C * B * IRS

ADD

 := 


 

 

BW

ADI := 10 * ADD

   
     
mg
ADD  =  6  
      kg * day
     
mg
ADI  =  60  
      day

 

Case 2: ADD of Aluminum at the Median Concentration

C := 8300

  B := 1

  IRS := 5000

  BW := 10

       

 

 

10-6 * C * B * IRS

ADD

 := 


 

 

BW

ADI := 10 * ADD

   
     

mg

ADD  = 

4.15  


      kg * day
     
mg
ADI  =  41.5  
      day

 

Case 3: ADD of Vanadium at the Maximum Concentration

C := 20

  B := 1

  IRS := 5000

  BW := 10

       

 

 

10-6 * C * B * IRS

ADD

 := 


 

 

BW

ADI := 10 * ADD

   
     

mg

ADD  = 

0.01  


      kg * day
     
mg
ADI  =  0.1  
      day

 

Case 4: ADD of Vanadium at the Median Concentration

C := 14

  B := 1

  IRS := 5000

  BW := 10

       

 

 

10-6 * C * B * IRS

ADD

 := 


 

 

BW

ADI := 10 * ADD

   
     

mg

ADD  = 

7 * 10-3  


      kg * day
     
mg
ADI  =  0.07  
      day


APPENDIX D: TABLES

 

Table 1. Detected chemical concentrations in surface soil samples collected from Cedar Point subdivision

CHEMICAL
SUBSTANCE

CHEMICAL
CONCENTRATIONS
(ppm)

SOIL COMPARISON
VALUES
(ppm)
BACKGROUND SOIL
CONCENTRATIONS
FOR EASTERN
UNITED STATES
FURTHER
PUBLIC
HEALTH
EVALUATION
REQUIRED

Detected Concentrations

Detection
Rate

Range

Mean

Median

Metals

Aluminum

4,800 - 12,000

7,846

8,300

13/13

4,000

iEMEG (pica child)

7,000 - > 100,000

Yes

Arsenic

1 - 9.3

3.7

2.3

13/13

0.5

CREG

< 0.1 - 73

Yes

Barium

55 - 120

67

80

13/13

4,000

RMEG (child)

10 - 1,500

No

Cadmium

0.62 - 1.1

0.9

0.93

6/13

10

cEMEG (child)

 

No

Calcium

2,200 - 40,000

14,592

4,800

13/13

 

 

100 - 280,000

NA

Chromium1

6.1 - 16

11

11

13/13

80,000

RMEG (child)

1 - 1,000

No

Cobalt

3.9 - 9.6

6.3

5.9

13/13

20

iEMEG (pica child)

< 3 -70

No

Copper

9.5 - 16

11.9

12

13/13

3,100

RBC (Child)

< 1 - 700

No

Iron

8,900 - 17,000

12,992

12,000

13/13

23,000

RBC (Child)

100 - > 100,000

No

Lead2

3.9 -13

6.4

5.4

13/13

400

PRG (child)

< 10 - 300

No

Magnesium

2,100 - 13,000

5,738

4,100

13/13

 

 

50 - 50,000

NA

Manganese

290 - 670

418

370

13/13

3,000

RMEG (child)

< 2 - 7,000

No

Nickel

8.6 - 19

13.5

13

13/13

1,000

RMEG (child)

< 5 -700

No

Potassium

480 - 1,600

838

780

13/13

 

 

50 - 37,000

NA

Sodium

85 -250

138

120

12/13

 

 

< 500 - 50,000

NA

Vanadium

8.8 - 20

14

14

13/13

6

iEMEG (pica child)

< 7 - 300

Yes

Zinc

23 - 48

33

33

13/13

600

iEMEG (pica child)

< 5 - 2,900

No

 
Notes: A chemical is selected for further public health evaluation if the maximum detected chemical level exceeds at least one of its comparison values. Shading indicates the comparison values that are exceeded.
CREG = Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
EMEG = Environmental Media Evaluation Guide
PRG =

Preliminary Remediation Goal (Note, PRG values derived from equations documented in following reference: EPA Region IX Preliminary Remediation Goals. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 Office: 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, Calif., 94105 (Send PRG-related comments and questions to smucker.stan@epa.gov). Available on EPA Region IX's Internet Website,
http://www.epa.gov/region09/waste/sfund/prg/index.htm

RBC = Risk Based Concentration (Note, RBC values derived from equations documented in following reference: EPA Region III Risk-Based Concentration Table. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19107. Available on EPA Region III's Internet website,
http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/index.htm
RMEG = Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide
NA = None Available
ppm = parts per million

1All chemical detects of chromium are considered to be Chromium III (i.e., Chromium, Trivalent), predominant chemical series, instead of Chromium VI (i.e., Chromium, Hexavalent); therefore, the comparison values are reflective of Chromium III.

2The listed Lead comparison value for residential soil exposures is based on EPA's 1994 IEUBK model. 


Table 2. Detected chemical concentrations in groundwater samples collected from Cedar Point subdivision

CHEMICAL
SUBSTANCE

CHEMICAL
CONCENTRATIONS
(ppm)

EPA MCL
(ppb)
WATER COMPARISON VALUES
(ppb)

Detected Concentrations

Detection
Rate

Range

Mean

Median

Metals

Aluminum

17,000 - 78,000 43,400 37,000 5/5   37,000 RBC

Arsenic

10 - 66 38.4 36 5/5 50 0.02 CREG

Barium

180 - 720 422 400 5/5 2,000 700 RMEG (child)

Cadmium

< 10 - 10 10 10 1/5 5 5 RMEG (child)

Calcium

170,000 - 300,000 232,000 230,000 5/5      

Chromium

27 - 110 60 49 5/5 100 100 LTHA

Cobalt

< 10 - 60 33.8 29 4/5   730 RBC

Copper

16 - 120 61 42 5/5   1,500 RBC

Iron

22,000 - 130,000 70,600 57,000 5/5 300 11,000 RBC

Lead2

< 10 - 54 33 30.5 4/5 15 15 MCLA

Magnesium

48,000 - 100,000 72,000 73,000 5/5      

Manganese1

2,300 - 21,000 6,840 3,900 5/5 50 500 RMEG (child)

Nickel

21 - 140 68.6 53 5/5   100 LTHA

Potassium

5,000 - 13,000 8,580 9,300 5/5      

Sodium

7,400 - 15,000 10,700 8,800 5/5      
Vanadium 28 - 140 76.4 65 5/5   260 RBC

Zinc1

89 - 340 192 160 5/5 5,000 2,000 LTHA
VOCs
Acetone < 5 - 76 42 42 2/5   3,000 RMEG (child)
Carbon Disulfide < 1 - 22 22 22 1/5   100 aEMEG (child)
Toluene < 1 - 1.9 1.45 1.45 2/5 1,000 1,000 LTHA
Xylenes < 1 - 2.8 1.95 1.95 2/5 10,000 10,000 LTHA
 
Notes: Shading indicates the comparison values that are exceeded.
CREG = Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
EMEG = Environmental Media Evaluation Guide
LTHA = Drinking Water Lifetime Health Advisory
MCL =

Maximum Contaminant Level

RBC = Risk Based Concentration (Note, RBC values derived from equations documented in following reference: EPA Region III Risk-Based Concentration Table. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19107. Available on EPA Region III's Internet website,
http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/index.htm
RMEG = Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide
ppb = parts per billion

1Listed value in "EPA MCL" column is a Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) for drinking water as set by EPA. SMCLs are unenforceable federal guidelines regarding taste, odor, color, and other non-aesthetic effects of drinking water. EPA recommends them to States as reasonable goals, but federal law does not require water supply systems to comply with them. States may, however, adopt their own enforceable regulations governing these concerns.

2Listed Value in "EPA MCL" column is a Maximum Contaminant Level Action (MCLA) for drinking water as set by EPA under Superfund. If the relevant action level is exceeded, a regulatory response is triggered.


Table 3. Chemical concentrations in a sump pump drain sample collected from Cedar Point subdivision

CHEMICAL
SUBSTANCE

CHEMICAL
CONCENTRATIONS
(ppm)

EPA MCL
(ppb)
WATER COMPARISON VALUES
(ppb)

Detected Concentrations

Detection
Rate

Range

Mean

Median

Metals

Aluminum

300 300 300 1/1   37,000 RBC

Arsenic

< 10 < 10 < 10 0/1 50 0.02 CREG

Barium

< 200 < 200 < 200 0/1 2,000 700 RMEG (child)

Cadmium

< 10 < 10 < 10 0/1 5 5 RMEG (child)

Calcium

77,000 77,000 77,000 1/1      

Chromium

< 10 < 10 < 10 0/1 100 100 LTHA

Cobalt

< 10 < 10 < 10 0/1   730 RBC

Copper

< 10 < 10 < 10 0/1   1,500 RBC

Iron

220 220 220 1/1 300 11,000 RBC

Lead2

< 10 < 10 < 10 0/1 15 15 MCLA

Magnesium

18,000 18,000 18,000 1/1      

Manganese1

11 11 11 1/1 50 500 RMEG (child)

Nickel

< 10 < 10 < 10 0/1   100 LTHA

Potassium

6,000 6,000 6,000 1/1      

Sodium

7,900 7,900 7,900 1/1      
Vanadium < 10 < 10 < 10 0/1   260 RBC

Zinc1

13 13 13 1/1 5,000 2,000 LTHA
VOCs
Acetone < 2 < 2 < 2 0/1   3,000 RMEG (child)
Carbon Disulfide Not Analyzed
< 0.5
--
< 0.5
--
< 0.5
--
0/1
  100 aEMEG (child)
Toluene 1000 1,000 LTHA
Xylenes < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 0/1 10,000 10,000 LTHA
 
Notes: Shading indicates the comparison values that are exceeded.
CREG = Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
EMEG = Environmental Media Evaluation Guide
LTHA = Drinking Water Lifetime Health Advisory
MCL =

Maximum Contaminant Level

RBC = Risk Based Concentration (Note, RBC values derived from equations documented in following reference: EPA Region III Risk-Based Concentration Table. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19107. Available on EPA Region III's Internet website,
http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/index.htm
RMEG = Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide
ppb = parts per billion

1Listed value in "EPA MCL" column is a Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) for drinking water as set by EPA. SMCLs are unenforceable federal guidelines regarding taste, odor, color, and other non-aesthetic effects of drinking water. EPA recommends them to States as reasonable goals, but federal law does not require water supply systems to comply with them. States may, however, adopt their own enforceable regulations governing these concerns.

2Listed Value in "EPA MCL" column is a Maximum Contaminant Level Action (MCLA) for drinking water as set by EPA under Superfund. If the relevant action level is exceeded, a regulatory response is triggered.



APPENDIX E: FIGURES

Soil and Groundwater Sampling Locations for Two Residential Homes in the Cedar Point Subdivision
Figure 1. Soil and Groundwater Sampling Locations for Two Residential Homes in the Cedar Point Subdivision

Distribution System Map of Onondaga County Water Authority Service Area
Figure 2. Distribution System Map of Onondaga County Water Authority Service Area



Table of Contents

 
 
USA.gov: The U.S. Government's Official Web PortalDepartment of Health and Human Services
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 4770 Buford Hwy NE, Atlanta, GA 30341
Contact CDC: 800-232-4636 / TTY: 888-232-6348

A-Z Index

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
  7. G
  8. H
  9. I
  10. J
  11. K
  12. L
  13. M
  14. N
  15. O
  16. P
  17. Q
  18. R
  19. S
  20. T
  21. U
  22. V
  23. W
  24. X
  25. Y
  26. Z
  27. #