PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
CAMILLA WOOD PRESERVING COMPANY
(a/k/a ESCAMBIA TREATING COMPANY INCORPORATED
CAMILLA, MITCHELL COUNTY, GEORGIA
APPENDIX A - COMPARISON VALUES
Health Comparison Values
Health Comparison Values (CVs) are contaminant concentrations found in specific media (air, soil, or water) and used to select contaminants for further evaluation. The CVs used in this document are listed below.
Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs) are estimated contaminant concentrations in media where there is no chance for noncarcinogenic health effects to occur. The EMEG is derived from U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's (ATSDR) minimal risk level (MRL).
Remedial Media Evaluation Guides (RMEGs) are estimated contaminant concentrations in media where there is no chance for noncarcinogenic health effects to occur. The RMEG is derived from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) reference dose (RfD).
Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides (CREGs) are estimated contaminant concentrations that would be expected to cause no more than one excess cancer in a million persons exposed over a lifetime. CREGs are calculated from EPA's cancer slope factors (CSF).
Risk-Based Concentrations (RBCs) are the estimated contaminant concentrations in which there is no chance for carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic health effects. The RBCs used in this public health assessment were derived using provisional reference doses or cancer slope factors calculated by toxicologists of EPA's Region III (13).
EPA Action Levels (EPA AL) are the estimated contaminant concentrations in water where evaluation is needed to determine if action is needed to eliminate or reduce exposure. Action levels can be based on mathematical models.
EPA Soil Screening Levels (EPA SSL) are estimated contaminant concentrations in soil where
additional evaluation is needed to determine if action is needed to eliminate or reduce exposure.
APPENDIX B ON-SITE CONTAMINANT TABLES
TABLE B1 - CONTAMINANTS ABOVE A COMPARISON VALUE IN ON-SITE SOIL
| CONTAMINANT | RANGE IN SOIL mg/kg1 |
SAMPLES > DL2 | SAMPLES > CV3 | CV in mg/kg1 | CV SOURCE4 |
| ARSENIC | ND - 3,400 | 81/127 | 81/115 | 0.5/20 | CREG/EMEG |
| BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE | ND - 27 | 112/127 | 41 | 0.9 | EPA SSL |
| BENZO(a)PYRENE | ND - 19 | 112/127 | 36 | 0.1 | CREG |
| BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE6 | ND - 55 | 117/127 | 82 | 0.9 | EPA SSL |
| BERYLLIUM | ND - 3,400 | 2/127 | 2/15 | 0.2/300 | CREG/RMEG |
| CADMIUM | ND - 3,400 | 14/127 | 1 | 10 | EMEG |
| CHROMIUM | 2.6 - 3,400 | 127/127 | 1 | 300 | RMEG |
| CYANIDE | ND - 3,400 | 1/127 | 1 | 1,600 | RMEG |
| DIBENZ(a,h)ANTHRACENE | ND - 2 | 52/127 | 7 | 0.09 | EPA SSL |
| HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE | ND - 0.1 | 13/127 | 1 | 0.08/0.7 | CREG/EMEG |
| INDENO(1,2,3-c,d)PYRENE | ND - 16 | 113/127 | 58 | 0.9 | EPA SSL |
| IRON | 600 - 24,000 | 127/127 | 1 | 23,000 | RBC |
| LEAD | 4 - 3,400 | 127/127 | 1 | 400 | EPA SSL |
| MERCURY | ND - 3,400 | 16/127 | 1 | 23 | EPA SSL |
| OCTACHLORODIBENZO-p-DIOXIN | ND - 7 | 40/127 | 12 | 1 | note 7 |
| PENTACHLOROPHENOL | ND - 130 | 88/127 | 21/05 | 6/2,000 | CREG/RMEG |
| SILVER | ND - 3,400 | 3/127 | 1 | 300 | RMEG |
| THALLIUM | ND - 3,400 | 1/127 | 1 | 5.5 | HEAST |
| VANADIUM | ND - 3,400 | 53/127 | 1 | 550 | EPA SSL |
| 1 - mg/kg is milligrams of contaminant per
kilogram of soil. 2 - DL is detection limit. 3 - CV is comparison value. 4 - A brief description of these sources can be found in Appendix A on page 18. 5 - The first number is the number of samples above the carcinogenic CV (CREG) and the second is the number above the noncarcinogenic CV (EMEG or RMEG). 6 - The analytical method used did not differentiate between benzo(b) - and benzo(k)fluoranthene so it was assumed that all was benzo(b)fluoranthene. 7 - 2,3,7,8-tetrachlordibenzo-p-dioxin toxic equivalent factor (tcdd tef) action level of 0.001 ppm divided by toxicity factor for octoachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin of 0.001. |
|||||
TABLE B2 - CONTAMINANTS IN ON-SITE GROUNDWATER ABOVE A COMPARISON VALUE
| CONTAMINANT | RANGE IN WATER IN MG/L1 | SAMPLES > DL2 | SAMPLES > CV3 | CV IN MG/L1 | CV SOURCE4 |
| LEAD | ND - 0.07 | 19/22 | 16 | 0.015 | EPA AL |
| NAPHTHALENE | ND - 3.7 | 13/22 | 9 | 0.2 | RMEG |
| PENTACHLOROPHENOL | ND - 4.3 | 8/22 | 8/35 | 0.0003/0.3 | CREG/RMEG |
| ARSENIC | ND - 0.03 | 6/22 | 6/05 | 0.00002/0.003 | CREG/EMEG |
| DIMETHYLPHENOL (NOT 2,4) | ND - 0.06 | 4/22 | 4 | 0.006 | RMEG6 |
| HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE | ND - 0.2 | 1/22 | 1/15 | 0.000004/0.0001 | CREG/RMEG |
| BENZENE | ND - 0.006 | 1/22 | 1/05 | 0.001/40 | CREG/RMEG |
| (3-AND/OR 4-)METHYLPHENOL | ND - 0.7 | 4/22 | 1 | 0.5 | RMEG |
| TOTAL MERCURY | ND - 0.6 | 1/22 | 1 | 0.005 | EMEG |
| 1 - MG/L is milligrams of chemical per liter
of water. 2 - DL is detection limit. 3 - CV is comparison value. 4 - A brief description of these sources can be found in Appendix A on page 18. 5 - The first number is the number of samples above the carcinogenic CV (CREG) and the second is the number above the noncarcinogenic CV (EMEG or RMEG). 6 - This is the RMEG for 2,6-dimethylphenol. |
|||||
TABLE B3 - CONTAMINANTS IN ON-SITE SEDIMENT ABOVE A COMPARISON VALUE
| CONTAMINANT | RANGE IN SEDIMENT IN MG/KG1 |
SAMPLES > DL2 | SAMPLES > CV3 | CV in mg/kg1 | CV SOURCE4 |
| BENZO(a)PYRENE | ND - 2.3 | 9/11 | 8 | 0.1 | CREG |
| BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE5 | ND - 14 | 9/11 | 5 | 0.9 | EPA SSL |
| BENZOFLUORANTHENE (not b or k) | ND - 7 | 6/11 | 5 | 0.9 | EPA SSL6 |
| INDENO(1,2,3-c,d)PYRENE | ND - 4 | 9/11 | 5 | 0.9 | EPA SSL |
| ARSENIC | ND - 12 | 3/11 | 3/07 | 0.5/20 | CREG/EMEG |
| BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE | ND - 1.7 | 5/11 | 2 | 0.9 | EPA SSL |
| BENZOPYRENE (NOT A) | ND - 6 | 2/11 | 2 | 0.1 | CREG8 |
| 1 - MG/KG is milligrams of contaminant per
kilogram of sediment. 2 - DL is detection limit. 3 - CV is comparison value. 4 - A brief description of these sources can be found in Appendix A on page 18. 5 - This was identified as benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene in the environmental data. Since the comparison value for benzo(b)fluoranthene is ten times lower (0.9 ppm) than the CV for benzo(k)fluoranthene (9 ppm), 0.9 ppm was used as the CV. 6 - The comparison value for benzo(b)fluoranthene was used here. 7 - The first number is the number of samples above the carcinogenic CV (CREG) and the second is the number above the noncarcinogenic CV (EMEG ). 8 - This is the comparison value for benzo(a)pyrene. |
|||||
TABLE B4 - CONTAMINANTS IN ON-SITE SURFACE WATER ABOVE A COMPARISON VALUE
| CONTAMINANT | RANGE IN WATER IN MG/L1 |
SAMPLES > DL2 | SAMPLES > CV3 | CV in mg/l*1 | CV SOURCE4 |
| ARSENIC | ND - 0.02 | 5/11 | 5/05 | 0.002/0.3 | CREG/EMEG |
| * These comparison values are multiplied by
0.01 because it is assumed that daily ingestion of surface water for a child
is 10 milliliters (ml) rather than the 1 liter (1,000 ml) used for drinking
tap water. 1 - MG/L is milligrams of chemical per liter of water. 2 - DL is detection limit. 3 - CV is comparison value. 4 - A brief description of these sources can be found in Appendix A on page 18. 5 - The first n umber is the number of samples above the carcinogenic CV (CREG) and the second is the number above the noncarcinogenic CV (EMEG ). |
|||||
| Pathway Name: | Source | Medium | Exposure Point |
Exposure Route | Receptor Population | Time of Exposure | Exposure Activities | Estimated Number Exposed | Chemicals |
| Bennett Street area soil | CWP | Soil | Yards near that portion of Bennett St. between Thomas and Lincoln Sts. | Ingestion Inhalation |
Residents of homes with contaminated soil | Past, Present Future | Contact with soil in yards | 1002 | arsenic, benzo(a)pyrene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, pentachlorophenol, dioxin |
| 1 An exposure pathway is considered completely
if there is good evidence that people are or have been exposed to site
contaminants. 2 The approximate number of exposed people is the estimate of persons who reside in the approximately 20 homes that sampling indicates may have been contaminated. |
|||||||||
| Pathway Name: | Source | Medium | Exposure Point |
Exposure Route | Receptor Population | Time of Exposure | Exposure Activities | Estimated Number Exposed | Chemicals |
| Off-site Surface Water | CWP | Water draining off CWP | Off-site drainage ditches | Ingestion | Individuals who contact surface water coming off the south side of CWP | Past Present Future |
Contact with surface water | < 502 | arsenic |
| Off-site Sediment | CWP | Sediment moving off CWP | Off-site drainage ditches and the flood plain for that ditch | Ingestion | Individuals who contact sediment coming off the south side of CWP | Past Present Future |
Contact with sediment | < 502 | arsenic, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, and indeno(1,2,3-c,d) pyrene |
| 1 These exposure pathways are considered
potential because it is not known whether contaminants from the source,
CWP, have actually moved off-site due to the lack of sampling data. 2 This is a very rough estimate of the number of individuals who potentially could have contact with surface water or sediment in the ditches draining the south side of the site. The south side of CWP is not near a residential area so the number of people with the opportunity for significant contact is small. |
|||||||||
APPENDIX D - CALCULATION OF EXPOSURE DOSES
Appendix D - Calculation of Exposure Doses from Ingestion of Contaminated Soil
The exposure doses for soil ingestion were calculated in the following manner. The maximum concentration for a contaminant was multiplied by the soil ingestion rate for adults, 0.0001 kg/day; or children, 0.0002 kg/day. This product was divided by the average weight for an adult, 70 kg (154 pounds) or for a child, 10 kg (22 pounds). Those calculations assumed that there was frequent daily exposure to soil contaminated at the specified level. The results of the actual calculations are recorded in Table D1.
Calculation of Risk of Carcinogenic Effects
Carcinogenic risks from the ingestion of soil were calculated using the following procedure. The adult exposure doses for ingestion of soil, (calculated as described previously), were multiplied by EPA's cancer slope factor (CSF) for that contaminant and the results are in Table D1 (14).
The actual risk of cancer is probably lower than the calculated number. The method used to
calculate EPA's cancer slope factor assumes that high dose animal data can be used to estimate
the risk for low-dose exposures in humans (15). The method also assumes that there is no safe
level for exposure (16). There is little experimental evidence to confirm or refute those two
assumptions. Lastly, the method computes the 95% upper bound for the risk, rather than the
average risk, which results in there being a very good chance that the risk is actually lower,
perhaps several orders of magnitude (17). One order of magnitude is 10 times greater or lower
than the original number, while two orders of magnitude are 100 times, and three orders 1,000 times.
TABLE D1 - CALCULATION OF EXPOSURE DOSE FROM INGESTION OF CONTAMINATED SOIL
| Maximum Contaminant Level | Level in Parts Per Million (ppm) | Estimated Adult Exposure Doses in mg/kg/day1 | Estimated Child Exposure Doses in mg/kg/day1 | Health Guideline in mg/kg/day1 | Source of Guideline | Cancer Risk |
| Arsenic | 4 | 0.000006 | 0.00008 | 0.0003 | MRL2 | 8 in 1,000,000 |
| Benzo(a)pyrene | 2.2 | 0.000003 | 0.00004 | none | none | 2 in 100,000 |
| Dioxin equivalents | 0.0011 | 0.000000001 | 0.00000002 | none | none | 1 in 1,000,000 |
| Dibenz(a,h) Anthracene |
0.2 | 0.0000002 | 0.000004 | none | none | 2 in 1,000,000 |
| Pentachlorophenol | 13 | 0.00002 | 0.0003 | 0.03 | RfD3 | 2 in 1,000,000 |
|
1 - mg/kg/day is milligrams of substance per kilogram
of body weight per day. |
||||||
1.
Conversation between Wayne Hall (ATSDR) and Astrid Aponte (EPA).
2. The 1998 environmental sampling data were provided to ATSDR by EPA as electronic files.
