PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
INITIAL RELEASE
CALLAWAY AND SON DRUM SERVICE
LAKE ALFRED, POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA
Figure 1. Site Location in Florida
Figure 2. Site Location in Lake Alfred
Table 1. Maximum concentrations of organic contaminants in on-site groundwater
Contaminants of Concern (COC) | Maximum Concentration (mg/L) | Sample I.D. | # Greater Than Comparison Value/ Total # of Samples |
Comparison Value* | |
(mg/L) | Source | ||||
Gamma Chlordane | 0.036J | TW-04 | 1/5 | 0.03 (CREG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Chlorophenol | 100JN | TW-05 | 1/5 | 50 (Ch. RMEG) | ATSDR 2000 |
4, 4'- DDE | 0.27N | TW-05 | 1/5 | 0.1 (CREG) | ATSDR 2000 |
1,2-Dichloroethylene | 160 | CGW-02 | 2/17 | 70 (LTHA) | ATSDR 2000 |
3 and/or 4-Cresol | 78 | TW-05 | 1/5 | 4 (GWCTL) | FDEP 1999 |
Tetrachloroethylene | 950 | CGW-02 | 2/17 | 0.7 (CREG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Trichloroethylene | 110 | CGW-02 | 2/17 | 3 (CREG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Vinyl Chloride | 33 | CGW-02 | 2/17 | 0.02 (CREG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Table 2. Maximum inorganic contaminant concentrations in
on-site groundwater
Contaminants of Concern (COC) | Maximum Concentration (mg/L) | Well I.D. | # Greater Than Comparison Value/ Total # of Samples |
Comparison Value* | |
(mg/L) | Source | ||||
Aluminum | 270,000 | TW-05 | 3/8 | 20,000 (Ch. EMEG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Arsenic | 68 | TW-05 | 2/8 | 0.02 (CREG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Barium | 3,400 | TW-05 | 2/8 | 700 (Ch. RMEG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Cadmium | 6.4JN | TW-05 | 1/8 | 2 (CH. EMEG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Chromium | 530 | TW-05 | 4/15 | 30 (Ch. RMEG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Lead | 740 | TW-05 | 5/15 | 15 (GWCTL) | FDEP 1999 |
Mercury | 0.92 | TW-05 | 0/8 | 2 (LTHA) | ATSDR 2000 |
Nickel | 55 | TW-05 | 0/8 | 200 (Ch. RMEG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Selenium | 10J | TW-05 | 0/8 | 50 (Ch. EMEG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Thallium | 9JN | TW-05 | 1/8 | 0.5 (CREG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Vanadium | 1,100 | TW-05 | 2/5 | 30 (Ch. EMEG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Table 3. Maximum concentrations of organic contaminants
in on-site surface soil (0-6 inches bgs) or sediment
Contaminants of Concern (COC) | Maximum Concentration (mg/kg) | Sample I.D. | # Greater Than Comparison Value/ Total # of Samples |
Comparison Value* | |
(mg/kg) | Source | ||||
Gamma Chlordane | 0.023 | SS-03 | 0/10 | 2 (CREG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Chlorophenol | N.D. | --- | 0/11 | 300 (Ch. RMEG) | ATSDR 2000 |
4, 4'- DDE | 0.017 | SS-05 | 0/11 | 2 (CREG) | ATSDR 2000 |
1,2-Dichloroethylene | N.D. | --- | 0/11 | 10,000 (Ch. EMEG) | ATSDR 2000 |
3 and/or 4-Cresol | N.D. | --- | 0/11 | 3000 (Ch. RMEG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Tetrachloroethylene | N.D. | --- | 0/11 | 500 (Ch. RMEG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Trichloroethylene | N.D. | --- | 0/11 | 6 (SCTL) | FDEP 1999 |
Vinyl Chloride | N.D. | --- | 0/11 | 0.3 (CREG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Table 4. Maximum concentrations of inorganic contaminants
in on-site surface soil (0-6 inches bgs) or sediment
Contaminants of Concern (COC) | Maximum Concentration (mg/kg) | Sample I.D. | # Greater Than Comparison Value/ Total # of Samples |
Comparison Value* | |
(mg/kg) | Source | ||||
Aluminum | 12,000 | SS-03 | 0/10 | 100,000 (Ch. EMEG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Arsenic | 6 | SS-03 | 3/10 | 0.5 (CREG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Barium | 34 | SD-03 | 0/10 | 4000 (Ch. RMEG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Cadmium | 2.9 | SD-01 | 0/10 | 10 (CH. EMEG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Chromium | 1500 | SS-04 | 1/10 | 200 (Ch. RMEG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Lead | 5,300 | SS-04 | 1/10 | 400 (SCTL) | FDEP 1999 |
Mercury | N.D. | --- | 0/10 | 3.4 (SCTL) | FDEP 1999 |
Nickel | 3.2J | SS-03 | 0/10 | 1000 (Ch. RMEG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Selenium | 0.92J | SS-03 | 0/10 | 390 (SCTL) | FDEP 1999 |
Thallium | N.D. | --- | 0/10 | 5 (Ch. RMEG)) | ATSDR 2000 |
Vanadium | 32 | SS-03 | 0/10 | 200 (Ch. EMEG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Table 5. Maximum concentrations of organic contaminants
in off-site groundwater
Contaminants of Concern (COC) | Maximum Concentration (mg/L) | Sample I.D. | # Greater Than Comparison Value/ Total # of Samples |
Comparison Value* | |
(mg/L) | Source | ||||
Gamma Chlordane | 0.13 | TW-02 | 1/4 | 0.03 (CREG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Chlorophenol | N.D. | --- | 0/4 | 50 (Ch. RMEG) | ATSDR 2000 |
4, 4'- DDE | N.D. | --- | 0/4 | 0.1 (CREG) | ATSDR 2000 |
1,2-Dichloroethylene | N.D. | --- | 0/11 | 70 (LTHA) | ATSDR 2000 |
3 and/or 4-Cresol | N.D. | --- | 0/4 | 4 (GWCTL) | FDEP 1999 |
Tetrachloroethylene | N.D. | --- | 0/11 | 0.7 (CREG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Trichloroethylene | N.D. | --- | 0/11 | 3 (CREG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Vinyl Chloride | N.D. | --- | 0/11 | 0.3 (CREG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Table 6. Maximum inorganic contaminant concentrations in
off-site groundwater
Contaminants of Concern (COC) | Maximum Concentration (mg/L) | Well I.D. | # Greater Than Comparison Value/ Total # of Samples |
Comparison Value* | |
(mg/L) | Source | ||||
Aluminum | 210,000 | TW-02 | 2/11 | 20,000 (Ch. EMEG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Arsenic | 110 | TW-02 | 1/11 | 0.02 (CREG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Barium | 6000 | TW-02 | 1/11 | 700 (Ch. RMEG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Cadmium | 84JN | TW-02 | 2/11 | 2 (CH. EMEG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Chromium | 340 | TW-02 | 2/11 | 30 (Ch. RMEG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Lead | 2,200 | TW-02 | 2/11 | 15 (GWCTL) | FDEP 1999 |
Mercury | 26 | TW-02 | 2/11 | 2 (LTHA) | ATSDR 2000 |
Nickel | 390 | TW-02 | 1/11 | 200 (Ch. RMEG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Selenium | 170J | TW-02 | 1/11 | 50 (Ch. EMEG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Thallium | 27JN | TW-02 | 1/11 | 0.5 (CREG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Vanadium | 420 | TW-02 | 2/4 | 30 (Ch. EMEG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Table 7. Maximum concentrations of organic contaminants
in surface soil (0-6 inches bgs) off-site
Contaminants of Concern (COC) | Maximum Concentration (mg/kg) | Sample I.D. | # Greater Than Comparison Value/ Total # of Samples |
Comparison Value* | |
(mg/kg) | Source | ||||
Gamma Chlordane | N.D. | --- | 0/3 | 2 (CREG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Chlorophenol | N.D. | --- | 0/3 | 300 (Ch. RMEG) | ATSDR 2000 |
4, 4'- DDE | N.D. | --- | 0/3 | 2 (CREG) | FDEP 1999 |
1,2-Dichloroethylene | N.D. | --- | 0/3 | 10,000 (Ch. EMEG) | ATSDR 2000 |
3- and 4-Cresol | N.D. | --- | 0/3 | 3000 (Ch. RMEG) | FDEP 1999 |
Tetrachloroethylene | N.D. | --- | 0/3 | 500 (Ch. RMEG) | FDEP 1999 |
Trichloroethylene | N.D. | --- | 0/3 | 6 (SCTL) | FDEP 1999 |
Vinyl Chloride | N.D. | --- | 0/3 | 0.3 (CREG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Table 8. Maximum concentrations of inorganic contaminants
in off-site surface soil (0-6 inches bgs) or sediment
Contaminants of Concern (COC) | Maximum Concentration (mg/kg) | Sample I.D. | # Greater Than Comparison Value/ Total # of Samples |
Comparison Value* | |
(mg/kg) | Source | ||||
Aluminum | 5,300 | SS-02 | 0/4 | 100,000 (Ch. EMEG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Arsenic | 0.68J | SS-02 | 1/4 | 0.5 (CREG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Barium | 63 | SS-02 | 0/4 | 4000 (Ch. RMEG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Cadmium | N.D. | --- | 0/4 | 10 (CH. EMEG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Chromium | 5.3 | SS-02 | 0/4 | 200 (Ch. RMEG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Lead | 15 | SS-02 | 0/4 | 400 (SCTL) | FDEP 1999 |
Mercury | N.D. | --- | 0/1 | 3.4 (SCTL) | FDEP 1999 |
Nickel | 25 | SS-06 | 0/4 | 1000 (Ch. RMEG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Selenium | N.D. | --- | 0/4 | 390 (SCTL) | FDEP 1999 |
Thallium | N.D. | --- | 0/4 | 5 (Ch. RMEG)) | ATSDR 2000 |
Vanadium | 2.1 | SS-02 | 0/3 | 200 (Ch. EMEG) | ATSDR 2000 |
Table 9. Potential Exposure Pathways
Pathway Name | Exposure Pathway Elements | Time | ||||
Source | Environmental Media | Point of Exposure | Route of Exposure | Exposed Population | ||
On-site Soil/sediment Ingestion |
On-site soil contamination | On-site soil/sediment | On the property | Incidental ingestion of soil/sediment | On-site residents or trespassers | Current/Future |
On-site Soil Inhalation |
On-site soil contamination | On-site dusts from soil | On the property | Inhalation of dusts | On-site residents or trespassers | Current/Future |
Ingestion of On-site groundwater | On-site soil contamination | Groundwater | On-site wells/ Tap water |
Ingestion of contaminated groundwater | On-site residents | Future |
Inhalation of vapors from on-site groundwater | On-site soil contamination | Groundwater | On-site wells/ Tap water |
Inhalation of vapors from contaminated water | On-site residents | Future |
Off-site Soil/sediment Ingestion |
Contaminated surface water in drainage ditch | Off-site soil/sediment | Drainage ditch | Incidental ingestion of soil/sediment | Off-site residents/children | Current/Future |
Off-site Soil Inhalation |
Contaminated surface water in drainage ditch | Off-site dusts from soil | Drainage ditch | Inhalation of dusts | Off-site residents/children | Current/Future |
Ingestion of off-site groundwater | On-site soil contamination | Groundwater | Off-site wells/ Tap water |
Ingestion of contaminated groundwater | Off-site residents | Current/ Future |
Inhalation of vapors from off-site groundwater | Migration of on-site groundwater | Groundwater | Off-site wells/ Tap water |
Inhalation of vapors from contaminated water | Off-site residents | Current/Future |
Table 10. Total Population Estimation Table
Pathway Types | Estimated Total Population in Potential Exposure Pathways* | Minimum Population* | Maximum Population* |
Potential Pathways On-site | 0 | 0 | 1-50 |
Potential Pathways Off-site | 2300 | 0 | 501-2500 |
Total Potential On and Off-site | 2300 | 0 | 501-2500 |
Completed Pathways On-site | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Completed Pathways Off-site | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Total Completed On and Off-site | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Potential and Completed Pathways On-site | 0 | 0 | 1-50 |
Potential and Completed Pathways Off-site | 0 | 0 | 501-2500 |
Total Potential and Completed On and Off-site | 2300 | 0 | 501-2500 |
Table 11. Calculated dose of organic chemicals from residential
use of on-site groundwater
Contaminant of Concern (maximum concentration) |
Oral MRL (mg/kg/day) |
Groundwater- Ingestion (mg/kg/day) | Groundwater- Dermal (mg/kg/day) | Inhalation MRL (mg/m3) |
Groundwater- Inhalation (mg/m3) | |||
Child | Adult | Child | Adult | Child | Adult | |||
Gamma-Chlordane (0.000036 mg/L) |
0.0006 | 0.000002 | 0.000001 | 2x10-9 | 2x10-9 | 0.00002 | N.S. | N.S. |
Chlorophenol (0.1 mg/L) |
0.005 | 0.007 | 0.003 | 0.0005 | 0.0003 | N.A. | 1 | 1 |
3 and/or 4-Cresol (0.078 mg/L) |
0.05 | 0.005 | 0.002 | 0.0003 | 0.00009 | N.A. | 0.78 | 0.78 |
4,4'-DDE (0.00027 mg/L) |
0.0005 | 0.000018 | 0.000008 | 0.0001 | 0.00007 | N.A. | 0.003 | 0.003 |
1,2-Dichloroethylene (0.16 mg/L) |
0.2 | 0.01 | 0.005 | 0.0008 | 0.0006 | 0.9 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
Tetrachloroethylene (0.95 mg/L) |
0.05 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.27 | 10 | 10 |
Trichloroethylene (0.11 mg/L) |
0.2 | 0.007 | 0.003 | 0.0008 | 0.0005 | 0.55 | 1.1 | 1.1 |
Vinyl Chloride (0.033 mg/L) |
0.00002 | 0.002 | 0.0009 | 0.00007 | 0.00005 | 0.078 | 0.33 | 0.33 |
Adult body weight- 70 kgmg/kg/day= milligram of contaminant per kilogram body weight per day
Adult water consumption- 2 liters/day
Adult skin surface area- 23,000cm2
Child body weight- 15 kg
Child water consumption- 1 liter/day
Child skin surface area- 7,200cm2
Table 12. Calculated dose of metals from residential use
of on-site groundwater
Contaminant of Concern (maximum concentration) |
Oral MRL (mg/kg/day) |
Groundwater- Ingestion (mg/kg/day) | Groundwater- Dermal (mg/kg/day) | Inhalation MRL (mg/m3) |
Groundwater- Inhalation (mg/m3) | |||
Child | Adult | Child | Adult | Child | Adult | |||
Aluminum (270 mg/L) | 2 | 18 | 8 | 0.03 | 0.02 | N.A. | N.S. | N.S. |
Arsenic (0.068 mg/L) | 0.0003 | 0.005 | 0.002 | 0.000007 | 0.000004 | N.A. | N.S. | N.S. |
Barium (3.4 mg/L) | 0.07 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.0003 | 0.0002 | N.A. | N.S. | N.S. |
Cadmium (0.0064 mg/L) | 0.0002 | 0.0004 | 0.0002 | 0.0000006 | 0.0000004 | N.A. | N.S. | N.S. |
Chromium (0.53 mg/L) | 0.003 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.000006 | 0.000004 | 0.0005 | N.S. | N.S. |
Lead (0.74 mg/L) | N.A. | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.00007 | 0.00005 | N.A. | N.S. | N.S. |
Thallium (0.009 mg/L) | 0.00008 | 0.0006 | 0.0003 | 0.000001 | 0.0000007 | N.A. | N.S. | N.S. |
Vanadium (1.1 mg/L) | 0.003 | 0.07 | 0.03 | 0.0001 | 0.00007 | 0.0002 | N.S. | N.S. |
Adult body weight- 70 kgmg/kg/day= milligram of contaminant per kilogram body weight per day
Adult water consumption- 2 liters/day
Adult skin surface area- 23,000cm2
Child body weight- 15 kg
Child water consumption- 1 liter/day
Child skin surface area- 7,200cm2
Table 13. Calculated dose of metals from ingestion of on-site
surface soil
Contaminant of Concern (maximum concentration) |
Oral MRL (mg/kg/day) |
Soil/dust- Ingestion (mg/kg/day) | Soil/dust- Dermal (mg/kg/day) | Inhalation MRL (mg/m3) |
Soil/dust- Inhalation (mg/m3) | |||
Child | Adult | Child | Adult | Child | Adult | |||
Arsenic (6 mg/kg) | 0.0003 | 0.00008 | 0.000009 | N.S. | N.S. | N.A. | N.S. | N.S. |
Chromium (1500 mg/kg) | 0.003 | 0.02 | 0.002 | N.S. | N.S. | 0.0005 | 0.00008 | 0.00008 |
Lead (5300 mg/kg) | N.A. | 0.07 | 0.008 | N.S. | N.S. | N.A. | 0.0003 | 0.0003 |
Adult body weight- 70 kgmg/kg/day= milligram of contaminant per kilogram body weight per day
Adult soil ingestion- 100 mg/day
Adult skin surface area- 23,000cm2
Child body weight- 15 kg
Child soil ingestion- 200 mg/day
Child skin surface area- 7,200cm2
Table 14. Calculated dose of organics from residential
use of off-site groundwater
Contaminant of Concern (maximum concentration) |
Oral MRL (mg/kg/day) |
Groundwater- Ingestion (mg/kg/day) | Groundwater- Dermal (mg/kg/day) | Inhalation MRL (mg/m3) |
Groundwater- Inhalation (mg/m3) | |||
Child | Adult | Child | Adult | Child | Adult | |||
Gamma-Chlordane (0.00013 mg/L) | 0.0006 | 0.000009 | 0.000004 | 1x10-8 | 9x10-9 | 0.00002 | N.S. | N.S. |
Chlorophenol (N.D.) | 0.005 | N.D | N.D | N.D | N.D | N.A. | N.D | N.D |
3 and/or 4-Cresol (N.D.) | 0.05 | N.D | N.D | N.D | N.D | N.A. | N.D | N.D |
4,4'-DDE (N.D.) | 0.34 | N.D | N.D | N.D | N.D | N.A. | N.D | N.D |
1,2-Dichloroethylene (N.D.) | 0.2 | N.D | N.D | N.D | N.D | 0.9 | N.D | N.D |
Tetrachloroethylene (N.D.) | 0.05 | N.D | N.D | N.D | N.D | 0.27 | N.D | N.D |
Trichloroethylene (N.D.) | 0.2 | N.D | N.D | N.D | N.D | 0.55 | N.D | N.D |
Vinyl chloride (N.D.) | 0.00002 | N.D | N.D | N.D | N.D | 0.078 | N.D | N.D |
Adult body weight- 70 kgmg/kg/day= milligram of contaminant per kilogram body weight per day
Adult water consumption- 2 liters/day
Adult skin surface area- 23,000cm2
Child body weight- 15 kg
Child water consumption- 1 liter/day
Child skin surface area- 7,200cm2
Table 15. Calculated dose of metals from residential use
of off-site groundwater
Contaminant of Concern (maximum concentration) |
Oral MRL (mg/kg/day) |
Groundwater- Ingestion (mg/kg/day) | Groundwater- Dermal (mg/kg/day) | Inhalation MRL (mg/m3) |
Groundwater- Inhalation (mg/m3) | |||
Child | Adult | Child | Adult | Child | Adult | |||
Aluminum (210 mg/L) | 2 | 14 | 6 | 0.02 | 0.01 | N.A. | N.S. | N.S. |
Arsenic (0.11mg/L) | 0.0003 | 0.007 | 0.003 | 0.00001 | 0.000007 | N.A. | N.S. | N.S. |
Barium (6.0 mg/L) | 0.07 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.0006 | 0.0004 | N.A. | N.S. | N.S. |
Cadmium (0.084 mg/L) | 0.0002 | 0.006 | 0.002 | 0.000008 | 0.000006 | N.A. | N.S. | N.S. |
Chromium (0.34 mg/L) | 0.003 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.00003 | 0.00002 | 0.0005 | N.S. | N.S. |
Lead (2.2 mg/L) | N.A. | 0.1 | 0.06 | 0.0002 | 0.0001 | N.A. | N.S. | N.S. |
Mercury (0.026 mg/L) | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.0007 | 0.000002 | 0.000002 | 0.0002 | N.S. | N.S. |
Nickel (0.39 mg/L) | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.00004 | 0.00003 | 0.0002 | N.S. | N.S. |
Selenium (0.17 mg/L) | 0.005 | 0.01 | 0.005 | 0.00002 | 0.00001 | N.A. | N.S. | N.S. |
Thallium (0.027 mg/L) | 0.00008 | 0.002 | 0.0008 | 0.00003 | 0.00002 | N.A. | N.S. | N.S. |
Vanadium (0.42 mg/L) | 0.003 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.00004 | 0.00003 | 0.0002 | N.S. | N.S. |
Adult body weight- 70 kgmg/kg/day= milligram of contaminant per kilogram body weight per day
Adult water consumption- 2 liters/day
Adult skin surface area- 23,000cm2
Child body weight- 15 kg
Child water consumption- 1 liter/day
Child skin surface area- 7,200cm2
APPENDIX C: RISK OF ILLNESS, DOSE RESPONSE/THRESHOLD, AND UNCERTAINTY IN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENTS
Risk of Illness
In this health assessment, the risk of illness is the chance that exposure to a hazardous contaminant is associated with a harmful health effect or illness. The risk of illness is not a measure of cause and effect; only an in-depth health study can identify a cause and effect relationship. Instead, we use the risk of illness to decide if a follow-up health study is needed and to identify possible associations.
The greater the exposure to a hazardous contaminant (dose), the greater the risk of illness. The amount of a substance required to harm a person's health (toxicity) also determines the risk of illness. Exposure to a hazardous contaminant above a minimum level increases everyone's risk of illness. Only in unusual circumstances, however, do many people become ill.
Information from human studies provides the strongest evidence that exposure to a hazardous contaminant is related to a particular illness. Some of this evidence comes from doctors reporting an unusual incidence of a specific illness in exposed individuals. More formal studies compare illnesses in people with different levels of exposure. However, human information is very limited for most hazardous contaminants, and scientists must frequently depend upon data from animal studies. Hazardous contaminants associated with harmful health effects in humans are often associated with harmful health effects in other animal species. There are limits, however, in only relying on animal studies. For example, scientists have found some hazardous contaminants are associated with cancer in animals, but lack evidence of a similar association in humans. In addition, humans and animals have differing abilities to protect themselves against low levels of contaminants, and most animal studies test only the possible health effects of high exposure levels. Consequently, the possible effects on humans of low-level exposure to hazardous contaminants are uncertain when information is derived solely from animal experiments.
Dose Response/Thresholds
The focus of toxicological studies in humans or animals is identification of the relationship between exposure to different doses of a specific contaminant and the chance of having a health effect from each exposure level. This dose-response relationship provides a mathematical formula or graph that we use to estimate a person's risk of illness. There is one important difference between the dose-response curves used to estimate the risk of noncancerous illnesses and those used to estimate the risk of cancer: the existence of a threshold dose. A threshold dose is the highest exposure dose at which there is no risk of a noncancerous illness. The dose-response curves for noncancerous illnesses include a threshold dose that is greater than zero. Scientists include a threshold dose in these models because the human body can adjust to varying amounts of cell damage without illness. The threshold dose differs for different contaminants and different exposure routes, and we estimate it from information gathered in human and animal studies. In contrast, the dose-response curves used to estimate the risk of cancer assume there is no threshold dose (or, the cancer threshold dose is zero). This assumes a single contaminant molecule may be sufficient to cause a clinical case of cancer. This assumption is very conservative, and many scientists believe a threshold dose greater than zero exists for the development of cancer.
Uncertainty
All risk assessments, to varying degrees, require the use of assumptions, judgements, and incomplete data. These contribute to the uncertainty of the final risk estimates. Some more important sources of uncertainty in this Public Health Assessment include environmental sampling and analysis, exposure parameter estimates, use of modeled data, and present toxicological knowledge. These uncertainties may cause risk to be overestimated or underestimated to a different extent. Because of the uncertainties described below, this Public Health Assessment does not represent an absolute estimate of risk to persons exposed to chemicals at or near Callaway and Son.
Environmental chemistry analysis errors can arise from random errors in the sampling and analytical processes, resulting in either an over- or under-estimation of risk. We can control these errors to some extent by increasing the number of samples collected and analyzed and by sampling the same locations over several different periods. The above actions tend to minimize uncertainty contributed from random sampling errors.
There are two areas of uncertainty related to exposure parameter estimates. The first is the exposure-point concentration estimate. The second is the estimate of the total chemical exposures. In this assessment we used maximum detected concentrations as the exposure point concentration. We believe using the maximum measured value to be appropriate because we cannot be certain of the peak contaminant concentrations, and we cannot statistically predict peak values. Nevertheless, this assumption introduces uncertainty into the risk assessment that may over- or under-estimate the actual risk of illness. When selecting parameter values to estimate exposure dose, we used default assumptions and values within the ranges recommended by the ATSDR or the EPA. These default assumptions and values are conservative (health protective) and may contribute to the over-estimation of risk of illness. Similarly, we assumed the maximum exposure period occurred regularly for each selected pathway. Both assumptions are likely to contribute to the over-estimation of risk of illness.
There are also data gaps and uncertainties in the design, extrapolation, and interpretation of toxicological experimental studies. Data gaps contribute uncertainty because information is either not available or is addressed qualitatively. Moreover, the available information on the interaction among chemicals found at the site, when present, is qualitative (that is, a description instead of a number) and we cannot apply a mathematical formula to estimate the dose. These data gaps may tend to underestimate the actual risk of illness. In addition, there are great uncertainties in extrapolating from high-to-low doses, and from animal-to-human populations. Extrapolating from animals to humans is uncertain because of the differences in the uptake, metabolism, distribution, and body organ susceptibility between different species. Human populations are also variable because of differences in genetic constitution, diet, home and occupational environment, activity patterns, and other factors. These uncertainties can result in an over- or under-estimation of risk of illness. Finally, there are great uncertainties in extrapolating from high to low doses, and controversy in interpreting these results. Because the models used to estimate dose-response relationships in experimental studies are conservative, they tend to overestimate the risk. Techniques used to derive acceptable exposure levels account for such variables by using safety factors. Currently, there is much debate in the scientific community about how much we overestimate the actual risks and what the risk estimates really mean.