MEMORANDUM

To: Martin SwansonFrom: Dave Rosa v̂ S<̂Subject: Preliminary Risk Assessment Results for the

Jacksonville and Rogers Road Landfill SitesDate: July 6 , 1989

Please find enclosed a memo to me from Theresa Hoffman-Tilloutlining human exposure risks from 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 - T C D D , 2 , 4 , 5 - T and2,4,5-TP found at the Jacksonville and Rogers Road Landfillsites. The memo presents data used in calculations of the excesscancer risk due to 2,3,7,8-TCDD and hazard indices for 2,4,5-Tand 2,4,5-TP.The results indicate that a potential health hazard exists forall three compounds within the drum areas of both Jacksonvilleand Rogers Road. The results also indicate that there is limited(2, 3 , 7 , 8 - T C D D ) or acceptable ( 2 , 4 , 5 - T , 2,4,5-TP) risk within thelandfill but outside of the drum areas, for both sites.The headings on Page 2 of Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 should be read"Landfill minus Hot Spot (drum a r e a ) . " If you have any questionsregarding this memo, please contact me.

cc: Bob LombardProject Files

g:\memos\risk.dr

CO.'? 03r^ ^

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Bob LombardDave Rosa

FROM: Theresa Hoffman-Till, Ph.D.RE: Risk Assessments for Jacksonville & Rogers Road LandfillsDATE: June 27, 1989

The risks identified at Jacksonville and Rogers Road Landfillsare based on the distribution and extent of chemical contamination,the potential for contaminant transport, opportunities for exposureand the toxicity of the contaminants.

Preliminary risk assessment findings at the two landfillssuggest potential health risk at the sites is associated withdirect contact with or accidental ingestion of contaminated soilat the drum sites ("hot spots") on both landfills. Specifically,the drum sites may be associated with excess carcinogenic healthrisks and acute hazards. The carcinogenic risks from 2,3,7,8-TCDDat the Jacksonville drum site ("hot spot") range from 1.87 x 10'3for plausible exposure to 1.81 x 10'2 worst possible exposure (Table1) . The risks from 2,3,7,8-TCDD at the Rogers Road drum site rangefrom 3.30 x 10'4 for plausible exposure to 1.19 x 10'3 for worstpossible exposure (Table 2 ) . Excess cancer risk for the landfillminus the hot spot are also given on Tables 1 and 2 for comparisonpurposes. Plausible exposure results are derived using average andgeometric means of laboratory chemical analyses of field data.Worst possible exposure results are derived using the highest valuefor the laboratory chemical analyses of field data.

Analytical results indicate that 2,3,7,8-TCDD, 2,4,5-T or2,4,5-TP contamination are not present in any off-site residentialbackyard areas above the analytical detection limits. Thesedetection limits ranged from 0.006 to 0.08 ng/g. Assuming thatthe concentrations in the backyard were to average one-half of thedetection limit, risks were calculated for a 2-6 year old child andan adult gardener and found not to be greater than a 10' order ofmagnitude. Specifically, risks were 3 . 3 6 x 10'6 for a child and4.05 x 10' for an adult gardener for plausible exposure from2,3,7,8-TCDD. Hazard indices for off-site herbicide exposure wereinsignificant as concentrations were non-detectable. It should bestressed that these are only theoretical values since no 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 -TCDD, 2,4,5-T or 2,4,5-TP were ever detected at these off-siteresidential backyards.

TABLE 1

Su—ry of Eat(Rated Do««a and Riaka • Carcinogen*JackaonvUla Landfill

CofxxJnd

2.3,7.6.-TCDO

Sod Route (Dor Rate • na/kg-day)'•Hot Spot" (Drm S*»ple«)

Concentration, na/g(Average: 70.54((G«OMtric H«an: 22.66

Accidental Inaeitlon1.67 x 10'9 (S.63 x 10'9)**6.06 M 10'10 (5.63 x l0'9)

Der—l Contact3.52 x 10'8 (1.10 x l0'7)l . U x lO'8 (1.10 x 10'7)

Total3.71 x 10'8 (1.16 x 10'7)1.20 x 10'® (1.16 x 10'7)

q*. (•g/kfl-day)*1

1.56 x 105

1.56 x 105

Rlik5.79 x 10'1 (1.61 x If1.67 x 10'3 (1.61 x 10'2)*

• RIak In exceaa o» 10'7 to 10'4

*• lha nuBbera outalde paranthaua are the Boat plaualbta caaa; tha nuMbera Inalde parantheica are the worat caae.

001105

TAILE 1 (Continued)

Su—ry of Ectl—fd Do«— and Rl»k* - Cti-cfnoflena (Continued)Jackaonvllle Landfill (Continued)

Compound

2,3,7,fl-TCOO

Soil Rout* (Doc Rata • ng/kg-day)

Landfill - "Hot Spot-

Concentration, no/g

(Avrigt: 0.51((GaoiMtrIc Mean: 0.0}

Accidental Ingectlon

1.35 x ID'11 (S.57 x 10'10)"

9.16 x 10'" (5.57 x 10'10)

Oer*al Contact

2.54 x 10'10 (1.05 K 10'8)

1.72 x 10'11 (1.05 x 10'®)

Total

2.6o x 10'10 (1.11 x 10'8)

1.82 x 10'11 (1.11 x 10'®)

q*. (•a/kg-day)*1

1.56 x 105

1.56 x 105

Rf»k

4.18 x 10'5 (1.73 x 1

2.83 x 10'* (1.73 K 10'3)*

• Rl»k in exceaa of 10'7 to 10'4

•• The ninber* outild* parentheta* are the colt plaualbia cac; the nuni>er« Inalda parenthe«e« are the wont caa«.

001106

TAU.E 2

tu—ry of Eatl—fd DM— and Rfeka - CarclnogenaRogera Ro*d Landfill

Compound

2,3.7.B,-TCl)0

Soil Route (Ooae Rata • na/kg-d«y)"Hot Spot- (OruR SiMplw)

Concentration, ng/g(Average: 5.30((Geometric Mean: 4.02

Accidental Inflection1.41 K 10'10 (3.B5 x 10'10)**1.07 x 10'10 (3.65 x 10'10)

Oerawl Contact2.64 x 10'9 (7.24 x 10'9)2.01 x 10'9 (7.24 x 10'9)

Total2.79 x 10"9 (7.63 x 10"9)2.11 x 10" 9 (7.63 x 10'9)

q*. (•B/kfl-day)'1

1.56 x 105

1.56 x 105

Riak4.35 x 10'4 (1.19 K . •3.30 x 10'4 (1.19 K 10'3)*

• Rl«k In axceaa of 10*7 to 10*4

•• The rmbera ouflda parenthuea are the •oat plaualble caae; the nubere Inalda perentheiee ere the uorat caaa.

001107

TABLE 2 (Continued)

»ry of E«t<—t«d Roaaa and RIaka • Carcinogen* (Continued)Rooara Road Landfill (Continued)

Cowpound

2.1,7.0-TCOO

Soil Rouf (Oo»« Rata • ng/kg-d*y)Landfill • "Hot tpot"

Concentration, ng/g

(Avrage: 0.90((G«amtr(c Hem: 0.03

Accidental Inaction

2.39 x 10'11 (7.83 x 10'10)**7.96 K 10'11 (7.03 x 10'10)

DTMI Contact

4.49 K 10'10 (1.47 x 10'8)1.50 x 10" 1 1 (1.47 x 10'®)

Total

4.73 x 10'10 (1.55 x 10'1)1.58 x 10'11 (1.55 K 10'")

a*. (•8/kg-day)'1

1.56 K 105

1.56 x 105

Riak

7.3fl x 10'5 (2.42 K ^2.46 x 10"* (2.42 K 10'5)*

• Ritk in exceia of 10'7 to 10'4

•• Tha nunbara outalda paranthaiac ara tha wt plaualbia caaa; tha nuMbar* Inalda paranthaaal ara tha worat caaa.

001108

Total excess cancer risks between 10' to 10'4 serve as actionlevels for EPA. If the computed total excess cancer risk for anexposure route is greater than 10'4, this suggests a removal action(EPA, 1987) ; if the excess cancer risk is greater than 10'7,remediation is suggested.

The risks were derived using measured soil contaminantconcentrations during remedial investigation field studiesconducted in 1988 and 1989. Mathematical equations were used toderive the total dose rate of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Equations weredeveloped from a knowledge of the possible modes of exposure todioxin and conservative assumptions. The estimates are not likelyto underestimate the risk.

Average and geometric mean soil TCDD concentrations at thelandfill hot spots is in excess of 1 ppb that was recommended asa limit by Centers for Disease Control for TCDD in residential soil( U . S . EPA, CH2M Hill, Inc., Ecology and Environment, 1 9 8 6 ) . CDCalso recommended 1 ppb for residential soils and channel sedimentsand flood plain soils that are subject to erosion and transportprocesses and that TCDD concentrations not exceed 5-7 ppb in soilsand sediments where the general public nay have infrequent contact.

There may also be acute hazards at the drum site on thelandfill from the herbicides present in the drums. Hazard indices(His) from 2,4,5-T and 2,4,5-TP at the Jacksonville drum site rangefrom 0.50 and 0 . 3 6 , respectively, for plausible exposure (Table 3)to 2.82 and 4.41, respectively, for worst possible exposure (Table3 ) . At Rogers Road, the His from 2,4,5-T and 2,4,5-TP range from4.11 and 0 . 6 3 , respectively, for plausible exposure (Table 4) and4 9 . 3 6 to 2. 2 0 , respectively, for worst possible exposure (Table 4 ) .Hazard Indices for the landfill minus the hot spot are also givenin Tables 3 and 4 for comparison purposes.

Hazard indices greater than 1.00 indicate that possibleimmediate or acute toxicity may be observed in the exposed.

Acute toxic effects of 2,4,5-TP include irritation to theeyes, skin and mucous membranes (Merck Index, 1 9 8 3 ) , fatigue,weakness, anorexia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, lethargyprogressing to coma and constricted pupils, paralysis, convulsionsand progressive decline in blood pressure, coma and ultimate death.There are other adverse effects of the herbicide includingreproductive CNS and chronic effects that were observed in labanimals exposed to Silvex experimentally [National Library ofMedicine, Toxnet System, Hazardous Substances Databank (HSDB),Bethesda, M D ] .

TAIIE 3

Su—ry of EatlMtad Do«— - NoncaccinogenaJackcomllta Landfill

Coopound

2,4.5-T;

2,4,5-TP:

Solt Rout* (Doc Rata • •g/kg-day)

"Hot Spot" (Drua S—plaa)

Concentration, ng/g

(Avefge 5.61 x 10s

(Caoaatcic Hein 2.o< x 10s

(Avrag* 3.72 x 10s

< .(G«o—trlc N«MI 1.65 x 10'

Accident*! Ingcitlon

5.72 x t0'4 (1.63 x 10'3)-

2.90 x 10'4 (1.63 x 10'3)

3.80 x 10'* (2.04 x 10'3)

1.66 x 10'4 (2.04 x 10'1)

OT—I Confct

9.31 x 10'3 (2.66 x 10'2)

4.71 x 10'3 (2.66 x 10"2)

6.17 X 10'3 (3.32 x 10'2)

2.74 x 10"3 (3.32 x 10'2)

Total

9.oo x 10'3 (2.82 K 10"2)

5.00 x 10'3 (2.B2 x 10'2)

6.55 x 10'3 (3.52 x 10'2)

2.91 x 10'3 (3.52 K 10'2)

Nasartf Index

0.99 (2.82 )

0.50 (2.B2*)

0.82 (4.41*)

0.36 (4.41*)

RfO. •o/kg-day

1 x 10'2

• x 10'3

• Expoaura > RfR

•• lha nfb«ra outald* paranthada ara •o«t plaualbia caaa; tha nurtxra Inalda paranthaaaa ara Morat ca»e.

001110

TABLE 3 (Continued)

Su—ry of Eatl—fd Do«« • Noncarclnogena (Continued)Jacfctonvme landfill (Continued)

Soil Rouf (Oo«« Rate • •0/ka-day) (Continued)Landfill • "Hot Spot-

Concentration, ng/g(Average 4.51 x 10s< .(Gee—trie Mean 4.S x 10*(Average -0-((Cto—tric Mean

Accidental Ingeatlon4.59 x 10'6 (4.59 x 10'6)4.59 x Id'6 (4.59 x 10'*)

.0-

Denaal Contact7.47 x 10"5 (7.47 x 10"5)7.47 K 10'5 (7.45 x 10'5)

.0-

Total7.93 x 10"5 (7.93 x 10"5)7.93 x 10'5 (7.93 x 10"5)

-0-

Naiard Index7.93 x 10'3 (7.93 x 10"3)7.93 x 10'5 (7.93 x 10'3)

-0-

afO, •a/kB-day

1 K 10'2

8 x 10'5

00

oonn

TABLE 4

Su—ary of Eatl—ted Ooaea * HoncarclnogenaRo—n Road Landfill

Compound

2.4.5-T:

2,4,5-TP;

(oil Houf (Dor Rate • •8/kg-day)"Hot Spot" (Orr SMpl««)

Concentration, ng/g(Average 8.S3 x ID6t .(GeoMtrIc Mean 2.3} x 10"(Av«rag« S.84 x 10s( 5(CtOMtrIc H«Mt 2.67 x 10"

Accidental Inflection8.70 x 10'3 (2.66 K 10'2)**2.36 x 10'3 (2.86 x 10^)5.95 x 10'4 (1.02 x 10'3)2.93 K 10'* (1.02 x 10'3)

0«nMt Contact1.<2 x 10'1 (4.65 x 10'1)3.87 x 10'2 (4.65 x 10't)9.69 x 10'3 (1.66 x 10"2)4.76 x 10'3 (1.66 x 10"2)

Tofl1.50 x 10'1 (4.94 K 10't)4 . 1 1 x 10'2 (4.94 x 10't)1.03 x 10"2 (1.76 x 10'2)5.06 x 10'3 (1.76 x 10'2)

Hacrd Index15.02* (49.36*)4.11* (49.36*)1.29* ( 2.20")0.63 ( 2.20')

«f0, •g/kg-da>

1 x 10"2

a K io'3

• Cxpoiure > •f0

•• The (UMbera ouflde parenth««la are •oit plaualble caae; the nuriMra Inalde parentheie* are Morat caae.

001112

TABLE 4 (Continued)

Su—ry of Eatl—tad Do*— • Noncarclnogene (Continued)Roflttra Road Landfill (Continued)

Soil Rout* (Dor Raf • i/kg-day) (Continued)Landfill • "Hot (pot-

Concentration, ng/g(Average 4.6 x 10'(Geocetric Hean 4.6 x 103

(Average 6.5 x 103< ,(Geo—tric Mean 6.5 x 10'

Accidental Ingeatlon4.69 x 10'6 (4.69 x 10'*)4.69 x 10'6 (4.69 x 10'6)6.63 x 10'6 (6.63 x 10'6)6.63 x 10'6 (6.63 x 10"6)

DenMl Contact7.63 x 10'5 (7.63 x 10'5)7.63 x 10'5 (7.63 x 10'5)1.0fl x 10'4 (1.08 x 10'4)i.oa x io'4 (i.oa K io'4)

TotalB.10 x 10"5 (B.10 x 10'5)B.10 x 10'5 (B.10 x 10'5)1.15 x 10'4 ( 1 . 1 5 x 10'4)1.15 x 10'4 (1.15 x 10'4)

Hazard IndexB.10 x 10'3 (B.10 x 10"3)B.10 x 10'3 (B.10 x 10'3)1.43 x 10'2 (1.43 x 10'2)1.43 x 10'2 (1.43 x 10'2)

RfO, ^/kfl-day

1 x 10'2

B x 10'3

0

001113

Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid is a highly toxic chlorinatedphenoxyacid herbicide that acutely produces weakness, lethargy,anorexia, diarrhea, ventricular fibrillation and/or cardiac arrestand death (Sax, 1984). Occupational exposure of humans to 2,4,5-T (along with other chemicals such as 2,4-D and triphenols and2,3,7,8-TCDD) resulted in reduced nerve conduction velocities..

Preliminary results support possible long-term hazards due to2,3,7,8-TCDD and short-term hazards due to the herbicides, 2,4,5-T and 2,4,5-TP at Jacksonville Landfill.

The toxic contaminants are located in soil inside a number ofcorroded drums that are visible to an observer on the surface ofthe landfills. The contaminated dirt is exposed to the air. Thedrums are localized in an area on each landfill. Teenagers ridingbikes have been observed on-site recently. A hole was cut in thefence surrounding the landfill such that the landfill was notalways entirely secured. Residential dwellings exist within yardsof the fence to the landfills. A major potential route of exposureto local populations include direct contact with contaminatedsurface soil- on-site via dermal exposure and-accidental ingeationof contaminated soil.

Chemical characteristics of the dioxins (andphenoxyherbicides) from the drums indicate that they adsorbstrongly to soil. There is a high content of clay in the soil on-site that would preclude infiltration of chemicals into the soilsand the landfill periodically floods. This suggests that thedioxins could be transported by erosion of soil or by surface waterrunoff of contaminated soil.

Initial indications are the chemicals in the documents are attoxic concentrations and future transport is possible. Since thesite has not always been secured and the drums are visible andcorroded, there are plausible routes of exposure to localinhabitants. Therefore, a potential health hazard exists.

11

REFERENCES

CH2M HILL, INC., Ecology and Environment, 1986, Vertac Off siteEndangerment Assessment, Final Report, Site No. 98-6L04.0, CH2MHill, Inc., Denver, Colorado.NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE TOXNET SYSTEM, Toxicology DataNetwork, Hazardous Substances Databank (HSDB), Bethesda, MD.SAX, Irving N. 1984. Dangerous Properties of IndustrialChemicals. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.SINGER, R . , M. Moses, J. Valciukas, R. Lilis and I. J. Selikoff.1982. Nerve Conduction Velocity Studies of Workers Employed in theManufacture of Phenoxyherbicides. Environ. Res. 29: 297-311.THE MERCK INDEX, 10th Edition, M. Windholz, E d . , Merck & C o . , Inc.,Rahway, NJ. 1983, p 1224.U . S . EPA. 1987. Guidance for Providing Alternative WaterSupplies. Prepared by CDM for the Office of Emergency and Remedial-Response. Washington, D . C . , August, 1987.

12