RISK ASSESSMENT of DUMP SITE BOR MINING COMPLEX · UNEP Cleanup of Environmental Hotspots (YUG 00-R71) Risk Assessment Dump Site – Bor Mining Complex Page 5 • The sampling and

RISK ASSESSMENT

of

DUMP SITE BOR MINING COMPLEX

OCTOBER 2002

UNEP Cleanup of Environmental Hotspots (YUG 00-R71) Risk Assessment Dump Site – Bor Mining Complex

Page 2

Executive summary Table of Contents: Page 1.0 Introduction 7 2.0 Objectives and framework 9 3.0 Site Assessment and Characterization 12

3.1 General Information 12 3.2 Geological Setting of the Dump Site & Surroundings 13

4.0 Contaminants of Concern 16

4.1 On-Site Contamination 16 4.2 Off-Site Contamination 17 4.3 Ground water Sampling 18 4.4 Analytical Data from Sediments 18 4.5 Systematic Sampling 18

5.0 Exposure Assessment 20

5.1 Land use 20 5.2 Non-residential Land Use 20 5.3 On-Site Population Characteristic 21 5.4 Off-Site Population Characteristic 21 5.5 Other Receptors 21 5.6 Pathways Analysis (Exposure Scenarios) 21 5.7 Preliminary Remediation Goals 24 5.8 Proposed Remediation Levels 27

6.0 Toxicity Assessment 29

6.1 PCB Toxicity Values 29 6.2 Inorganic Site Contaminants, toxicity data 32 6.3 Resume 35

7.0 Risk assessment 37 8.0 Remedial Actions 43

8.1 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 46 9.0 Recommendations and Conclusions 50 10.0 Bibliography 54


Page 3

Appendix 1 Chemical Specific and physical-Chemical Parameters, PCB 56 Appendix 2 Maps 64 Appendix 3 Definitions 71 Appendix 4 Photographs 76 Appendix 5 Analysis of Soil Samples 80 Appendix 6 Results of environmental sampling, Bor Region 91 Appendix 7 Calculations of Preliminary Remediation Goals 97


Page 4

Executive Summary This summary presents an overview of the key findings of the environmental investigations and risk assessment concluded by UNEP, Cleanup of Environmental Hotspots Project in Yugoslavia (YUG 00-R71) at the Dump Site located at the premises of the Bor Mining Complex, Bor. The report is a contribution towards a continued effort of the Bor stakeholders to advance workers health protection issues at the Bor Mining Complex. The primary investigation and the Risk Assessment were conducted in order to evaluate whether the Dump Site contains contaminants that pose a threat to human health or the environment as a consequence of uncontrolled disposal of damaged transformer capacitors containing PCB polluted oil and PCB polluted soil originating from the adjacent transformer station, which was bombed during the 1999 Kosovo-Conflict. The intent of the Dump Site risk assessment was two-fold. One objective was to assess the potential for health risks from current exposure pathways (soil, air). The second objective was to use pathway-specific information to develop soil intervention levels to protect against any immediate or future health risk for the worker community at Site. A baseline risk assessment was performed to estimate the probability and magnitude of potential adverse human health effects from the exposure to contaminants associated with the Dump Site, assuming no remedial action is taken. The human health risk assessment followed a four-step process: • Hazard identification, which identifies those contaminants which, given the specifics of the Site

were of significant concern; • Exposure assessment, which identified actual or potential exposure pathways, characterised the

exposed human receptors, and determined the extend of possible exposure; • Effect assessment, which considered the types and magnitudes of adverse effects on humans

associated with exposure to site contaminants; • Risk characterisation integrating the earlier steps including carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic

risks; Subsequently, the presumptive remedial measures have been reviewed and the preferred option proposed, taking into account the threshold criteria and remedial selection balancing factors. The modifying criteria (State Acceptance and Community Acceptance) have not been reviewed during this assessment. Key findings: • On the whole, the Dump Site shows evidence of restricted areas (hot spots) with high-level soil

contamination with PCB, as compared with the US EPA regulatory levels. In particular, the surface soil shows the highest levels of contamination as evidenced by the analysis of the soil samples collected at the different depths. In the ‘hot spot’ areas, the PCB has not migrated significantly to deeper soil layer and is readily amenable to clean up actions that would prevent evaporation and human exposure.


Page 5

• The sampling and analysis campaign revealed also presence of heavy metals in the site soil at

concentrations above the regulatory levels (Yugoslav Legislation). • Based on the established ‘base line review’ the Dump Site presents risks higher than excess

cancer risk of 10-6 towards human health associated with the presence of contaminants such as Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Copper, Cadmium, Lead, Zinc, Mercury, Chromium, Nickel and Arsenic.

• Based on available data, the preferred remedial action is to remove of the upper 10 cm of site

soil from the hot spot areas with subsequent off-site disposal and/or treatment of the excavated soil. This action fulfils the requirements of the remedial selection balancing factors and diminish the soil concentrations of PCB and Arsenic below the levels of 25 ppm and 120 ppm respectively. This action will also diminish the concentration levels of the other pollutants.

Sampling results: Soil samples have been collected at the pre-determined site locations at following depths: 0.1m, 0.5 m and 1.5 m. The obtained samples have been analysed at the Institute of Public Health in Belgrade for the content of PCB, inclusive the amount of single congeners. In addition two samples have been subjected to the leachate test based on IPH internal standards. The obtained results show values of PCB in the range of 1 to 10,000 ppm in the ‘hot spot’ areas. All other areas do not show PCB contamination. The leachate tests revealed that the site soil contains heavy metals, such as mercury, cadmium, lead, arsenic, copper, zinc and nickel. The values are high for the Arsenic and other heavy metals as compared to the background values obtained from the Bor surroundings. The most probable origin of this pollution is the emission of those pollutant from the Cu-smelter located in short distance from the Site. The vertical and horizontal distribution of the inorganic contaminants is not known for the entire Site and additional sampling needs to be performed. Human Health Risk Assessment: The contaminants detected at Dump Site, such as Polychlorinated Biphenyls and heavy metals (Cadmium, Arsenic, Chromium, Nickel, Zinc, Copper, Lead, and Mercury) were chosen as contaminants of potential concern for evaluation of the human health risk assessment. Potential human health effects associated with exposure to the contaminants of potential concern were estimated quantitatively or qualitatively through the development of several hypothetical exposure pathways. These pathways were developed to reflect the potential of exposure to hazardous substances based on the present, potential future uses, and the location of the Site. Excess lifetime cancer risks were determined for each exposure pathway. In assessing the potential for adverse effects other than cancer, a hazard quotient (HQ) was calculated.


Page 6

All detected contaminants (PCB and heavy metals) were screened against available US EPA or national (Yugoslav) criteria for soil and air standards or risk based calculated values. Those exceeding regulatory levels or contributing to a pathway that exceeds a 10-6 risk or hazard index greater than 1 for any of the exposure scenario evaluated in the assessment, were considered to be Contaminants of Concern with the levels of contamination warranting implementation of the remedial action. Final Remediation Levels: Final Remediation Level for PCB contaminant is established at 25 ppm. This value is based on the US EPA requirements (40 CFR 761). The risk based calculated value for the excavation scenario is 63 ppm of PCB. With respect to the heavy metals contaminants, the Final Remediation Levels are not established due to lack of data for spatial horizontal and vertical distribution of these contaminants at the Dump Site. The available risk based calculated maximum levels for heavy metals contaminants (excavation scenario) or statutory levels established by Yugoslav Authorities (residential scenario) may be used. Remedial Actions: The Remedial Action review was performed in order to give the stakeholders a possibility to evaluate the most appropriate remedial course of action in order to diminish the level of Contaminants of Concern to levels either warranted by the risk based limiting contaminants values or by the values established by the existing national legislation (Yugoslav) or foreign regulations such as US EPA. The preferred remedial action involves removal of the soil to a depth of approximately 10 cm in the hot spot areas with subsequent off-site treatment, most likely permanent storage in the salt mines or incineration at the facilities approved for thermal treatment of PCB and heavy metals polluted soil. The question of feasibility of the incineration of soils containing Arsenic, Lead and Mercury has not been addressed in the report as this option is facility dependent.


Page 7

1.0 Introduction: The UNEP report entitled “The Kosovo Conflict - Consequences for the Environment and Human Settlements” published in October 1999, singled out four heavily polluted environmental “hot spots” (Pancevo, Kragujevac, Novi Sad and Bor) for immediate humanitarian assistance. The original report was followed by a feasibility study, finalized in April 2000 that identified 27 clean-up projects, of which one project in Bor, to address the post-conflict environmental and humanitarian problems at these 4 hotspots1. The main industrial activity in Bor is open mining of copper ore with subsequent flotation and refining. The conflict related environmental problems in Bor were caused by the bombing of transformer station T3 at RTB Bor, the Bor Mining and Smelter complex. The clean-up project identified in the UNEP feasibility study for Bor consisted of remedial action concerning the PCB contamination at the bombed transformer station. The study recommended the removal and safe disposal of damaged capacitors, contaminated soil as well as contaminated concrete in order to reduce risks to human health and the environment. During the feasibility study mission the building debris and deposited soil has been inspected at the Dump Site and sampling has taken place. The resulting PCB values obtained by analysing the soil samples indicated PCB values in the range of 682 to 3.35 mg/kg of soil as based on dry matter2. With regards to the proposed remediation of the transformer station, contaminated with PCB, it is important to note that local stakeholders had during 1999-2000 already taken the initiative to remove PCB contaminated debris and material form the destroyed transformer station (including approximately 120 capacitors) to the dump site within RTB Bor. However, no proper health and safety precautionary measures were respected during the handling, transporting and disposal of the contaminated materials and equipment. Consequently, several workers reportedly were exposed to various extents to the PCB contaminated materials. In August/September 2001, UNEP, in full agreement with the relevant federal and local authorities, conducted an assessment at the former T3 transformer site in order to study the extent and levels of remaining PCB pollution in soil and associated underground water and to review the feasibility of a further remediation project. The study involved review of the site characterisation, review of the obtained analysis results, toxicity and exposure assessment, site-specific remedial goals incl. target concentration limits and review of remedial options. Based on the analysis performed and applying the risk-based protective level of PCB of 25 mg/kg in the surface soil it was recommended to implement the remedial alternative “No action”.3 Following this study the Government of Norway went ahead with financing the design-built project for a new transformer station. Construction works should be completed by October 2002. Following the risk assessment of the former transformer station site, UNEP has in August 2002 initiated a risk assessment of the Dump Site located on the premises of the RTB Bor company where previously mentioned transformer building debris, PCB polluted soil and damaged capacitors have been deposited.

1Up-dated information on implementation status and feasibility study project summaries are available on http://postconflict.unep.ch/

2 UNEP Balkan Task Force: Feasibility Study- Environmental Hot Spots, April 2000 3 UNEP Balkans Unit: B.1 – Remedial actions concerning the PCB contamination at the transformer station Bor. Assessment report is available at UNEP Post-Conflict

Assessment Unit, Geneva.


Page 8

This document provides a risk assessment and proposals of remedies to facilitate the selection of the appropriate course of action for the Dump Site contaminated with Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and heavy metals. Assumptions made in this document were based on the currently available data on physical, chemical and toxicological properties of the contaminants of concern present at the Site. Supporting documentation in form of the performed site sampling, concentrations of the contaminants of potential concern, calculated protective risk-based concentrations (RBCs) were utilised to identify and evaluate remedial alternatives. This report is utilising data developed during the site investigations in order to conduct the site-specific base line risk assessment characterising the current and potential threats to human health and the environment that may be posed by contaminants released to and /or migrating within the environmental media. This risk assessment of the impact of contaminants of concern on Site and therewith on humans will inevitably contribute to the assessment of the environmental situation at the Dumps Site in Bor and will elaborate on the presumptive remedy measures related to PCB contamination of the Site. This assessment is not containing evaluation of the ecological risk originating from the presence of the contaminants of concern at the Site.


Page 9

2.0 Objectives and framework: The risk assessment identifies and describes in detail potential environmental and health risks stemming from the Dump Site within RTB Bor complex, where PCB contaminated debris from the destroyed transformer station, in addition to considerable amounts of other waste material has been dumped. The conclusions of the risk assessment, if so required, are to form the basis for the recommendations to responsible local and national authorities in the elaboration of an action plan for risk reduction originating from the Site. A precondition for the successful execution of the risk assessment is that the representatives of Bor, made all relevant information available to the risk assessment team, including site history, description of materials dumped, boundaries of site, intended use of site for immediate and long-term future, measures taken for protection of workers and any other related studies/reports from the area. This report consists of following sections: • Site Assessment and Characterisation

The purpose of Site Assessment is to provide an understanding of the potential for exposure, under current and future land use, to contaminants present at a Site based on the source(s) of contamination, the release mechanism(s), the exposure pathway(s), and the receptor(s). Site Assessment and Characterisation describes all potential or suspected sources of contamination, reviews potentially contaminated media and potential exposure pathways with associated receptors. Furthermore the Assessment and Characterisation describes available hydro-geological data important from the potential transport pathways of contaminants of concern. Meteorological data might also be included in this section as air is one of the exposure pathways for the contaminants at the Site.

• Contaminants of Concern

The nature (types of contaminants) and extend (horizontal and vertical spatial distribution) of contamination must be determined prior to initiating the assessment activities. Information obtained will be used to develop the pattern of the Site contamination, delineate the Site and to establish soil characteristics. The concentrations of the individual contaminants are established during this stage making quantitative basis for the implementation of the next step.

• Assessment of Exposure, Toxicity and Risk

Based on reported levels of contaminants present in the Site soil, the assessment process can be initiated, taking into account exposure routes, available receptors (both at Site and off-Site), the concentration of contaminants with the associated toxicity values. The available concentrations of contaminants (either risk based or regulatory levels) can be compared to the actual concentrations obtained during the sampling and analysis of Site soil. This procedure will facilitate the definition of Contaminants of Concern for which the exposure pathways and Preliminary Remediation Goals can be established. The measured levels of contaminants will make basis for the establishment of the baseline risk assessment for the Site and the risk of impact on the human health.


Page 10

Current toxicological information is examined to determine the types of health effects which have been reported following exposure to each of the contaminants (hazard identification), and to identify the levels of exposure at which the reported effects were manifested (dose-response assessment). It also estimates the total exposure to each of these contaminants, which are likely to occur (exposure assessment). It then combines the toxicological and exposure information to estimate the potential health effects which may occur (risk characterization). Each of these components, hazard identification, exposure assessment, dose-response assessment and risk characterization has been described in detail. The schematics depicting the general approach taken is as follows:


Page 11

• Review of Remedial Actions Following the establishment of the risk of the impact of contaminants on human health, the remedial action objectives and resulting action will be reviewed. The aim is to diminish the exposure of human receptors to the contaminants present in the soil to the acceptable levels. Said levels are either risk based or defined by the applicable regulations. • Recommendations and Conclusions

Hazard Identification • Nature and extend • Potential to cause harm • Data evaluation

Exposure Assessment • Receptors • Contamination release • Exposure pathways • Exposure concentrations • Estimate of contaminant

intake

Dose-respond assessment • Possible effects • Acceptable intakes • Carcinogens vs. Non-

carcinogens

Risk charakterisation • Likelighood of effect occuring • Uncertainty • Summarise and communicate

Risk Management • Assess information from risk

assessment • Identification and implementation

of risk mitigation strategy


Page 12

This chapter summarise the obtained results, proposed remedial actions and the efficiencies of the steps to diminish or prevent exposure of human receptors to the contaminants. Additionally, recommendations with respect to the advisory, access and control measures may be outlined depending on the relevance for the actual site conditions. In certain cased implementation of precautionary measures may be recommended. This risk assessment is carried out as a part of the UNEP Clean-up of Environmental Hotspots programme, in co-operation with local and national authorities. By involving the competent authorities and scientific institutions and ensuring a transparent working process, the risk assessment also aims to strengthen the institutional capacity of the relevant organizations and to enhance an efficient follow-up by the national and local authorities4. The assessment report is available to all interested parties.

4 The risk assessment is also expected to provide substantive inputs to the LEAP in Bor Municipality


Page 13

3.0 Site Assessment and Characterization: Site Assessment and Characterization represents links between contaminant sources, release mechanisms, exposure pathways and receptors based on historical information helping to determine the applicability of the screening values of contaminants of potential concern and the need for additional information. The Site Assessment/Site Characterization phase is intended to provide additional spatial and contextual information about the site, which may be used to determine if there is any reason to believe that receptors and/or complete exposure pathways may exist at or in the locality of the site where a release of hazardous waste/constituents has occurred. In addition, the site assessment phase serves as the initial information gathering phase to determine whether potential exposures are sufficiently similar to those upon which the Preliminary Remediation Goals are established to support comparison. Finally, this phase can help to identify needs of a more detailed assessment of potential risk. 3.1 General Information:

The Municipality of Bor is located in a mountainous and forested area in the south-eastern part of Serbia, close to the Bulgarian and Rumanian borders, at approx. 160 km from Belgrade. It has a total population of 65 000 people of which 40 000 live in the city of Bor. Administratively it forms part of the Zajecar region, which has its capital in the city of Zajecar. Main economic activity comprises mining and metal processing. In between 10 000 and 15 000 inhabitants are reportedly employed in this sector. The industrial activities in Bor, in particular those by the mining and smelter complex, have resulted in substantive negative impacts on the environment in the region (including for air, water, and soil) as well have raised serious concerns about associated health effects to the pollution at large. The fact that the main polluter is also the main employer in the area highlights the need to solve the environmental problems as part of a wider economic and social context. The main source of environmental pollution in the Municipality of Bor constitutes the Mining & Smelter Complex, and in particular the following activities: ! the flotation process (water pollution); ! the smelting process (air-, water-, and soil pollution); ! the open cast pits and surrounding waste heaps (air- and water pollution); and ! underground mining (water pollution).

Dumpsites were created as the result of removing the debris remaining after the bombing of the transformer station III during the May and June 19995. Two dump sites were created some 800 m to the Northeast from the location of transformer station Bor T3 and cover the area of approximately P1= 4,860 m2 and P2= P2=1,574 m2. The respective dumpsites are located within the premises of company RTB Bor – between the floatation tailing pond "H" and sulfuric acid Factory. Aside from construction material debris contaminated with PCB, also the damaged capacitors with supporting construction were brought at the dumpsite from the transformer station Bor T3. During sampling campaign in August 2002, some 66 capacitors could be located at the dumpsite, out of more than a total of 100 moved from the transformer station. 5 Information supplied by the Management of RTB Bor.


Page 14

Undamaged capacitors, total of 129 pieces, were disassembled and placed in secured indoor area. The description of geological settings, tectonics and hydrogeological properties of the zone where the dumpsites are located is presented in the chapters below. Metallurgical slag being in the floor of the dumpsites and covering their wider surroundings is presently being recycled under the framework of a separate project. It is estimated that the recycling practice would result in reaching the perimeter of the dumpsites within a 5-year period. Excavation of the metallurgical slag is performed in the full extent of the slug cross-section, down to the bedrock. 3.2 Geological Setting of the Dump Site Surroundings Dump sites are located within the hydro thermally altered zone of Bor, being the integral part of Timok Andesite massif, and are located at Southeast rim of the investigated hydro thermally altered zone6. Techtonics: With respect to techtonics in this area the following rupture systems were detected: Longitudinal (NNW - SSI) Traverse (NE - SW rarely NNE - SSW) Diagonal (I – Z) Longitudinal Bor rupture is 3,00 - 8,00 thick, dip angle is 60º - 80º, dip direction West. Traverse Bor rupture was displaced several times by more recent tectonic activity at several locations (transverse ruptures: NE-SW and NNE-SSW) characterized by intensive rupturing of the rocks. The rupture of Bor creek has the direction E-W and is of diagonal type. Backfilled materials: Due to overall industrialization and development of mining and metallurgy, ever since 1949 the disposal of waste resulting from mining, metallurgical and flotation activities was taking place. Disposal was performed within the premises of the company, at the places considered to be convenient at the time of disposal. This resulted in backfilling of two watercourses: Bor river and Bor creek. Bor creek flowed along the Southern border of the present tailing dump of the ore body "H" and was a tributary to Bor River. From the former backfilled dam on the Easter side, the smelter slag was deposited, towards Bor river and in the river itself. Most of this slag was removed by the mining operations within the ore body “H”. The remaining of the smelter slag still exists at the Southern side, by the “floating station”. At the northern side of the ore body “H” tailing, larger quantities of smelter slag are deposited. Eastern parts of ore body “H” tailing are built by the rock tailing from the mining activities. Only the minor portion of the bedrock is still visible (at two locations: conglomerates and sandstones). In the Western part, where the open pit approaches the railway tracks, the pyroclastic rocks are located. All in all the bedrock is almost completely covered 6 Information supplied by the Management of RTB Bor.


Page 15

with tailings of different origin. Close to the dam, smelter slag was deposited in the Bor river valley, on the top of different backfilled material and alluvial sediments of Bor river, comprising sand and gravel. In the zone of deposited mining tailings at the Southeastern border of the former open pit of the ore body “H”, where the bedrock is made of conglomerates and sandstone, the active landslide exists. Hydrogeological Characteristics of the Terrain: At the terrain surface backfilled materials are mostly found: mining tailings, flotation tailings, smelter slag and other waste materials. Floor of these materials is the bedrock. From the point of view of hydrogeologic properties, all the major types of rocks in the area of ore body tailing “H”, could be divided into two basic groups: low permeable and impermeable. Low permeable rocks are andesine, conglomerates and sandstones. Impermeable rocks are hydro thermally altered volcanic rocks. The following aquifer types exist: intergranular aquifer and fissured aquifer. Intergranular aquifer could be further divided into: intergranular aquifer of higher and lower permeability (yield) respectively. Intergranular aquifer of higher permeability is represented by alluvial deposits of Bor River. Mining activities at the open pit mine of the ore body “H” resulted in covering the abovementioned sediments, and therefore the relevance of these sediments in minor. Intergranular aquifer of lower permeability has the broad occurrence within the flotation and mining tailings, as well as within deluvial-eluvial sediments. These deposits are clayey by the composition, and are deposited in large quantities and in irregular manner. Water seeps through these deposits at a very low rate. These deposits are subject to swelling due to presence of groundwater and surface water, what cold lead to instability of the slopes. Fissured aquifer: Fissured aquifer exists within the bedrock and could be divided into 3 subtypes: Fissured aquifer within the volcanic rocks is recharged by precipitation and wastewater. Fissured aquifer within the hydro thermally altered rocks is also recharged by precipitation. Fissured aquifer within sedimentary rocks has low water yield and is recharged by precipitation, infiltrated wastewater and partly by groundwater from other aquifer types.


Page 16

4.0 Contaminants of Concern (CoC): 4.1 On-Site Contamination: The remnants of the bombed transformer station T3 at TRB Bor, the Bor Mining and Smelter complex, have been removed to the Dump Site in close proximity of the said transformer station. As a consequence of this step, PCB polluted soil, approximately 120 damaged PCB oil containing capacitors and building debris have been deposited at the Dump Site at different locations. The inspection of the Site in August 2002 confirmed the existence of the damaged capacitor frames at different locations and the presence of building debris spread over the Site. The origin of the debris is not clear and visible oil spills on the concrete parts of the building were not detected. This fact does not preclude the possible presence of contaminated concrete debris at the Site. The current assessment aimed at verification of the results previously obtained during Feasibility Study, establishment of delineation of the Site, performance of the expanded sampling and contamination mapping utilizing GPS system. During the Mission in August 2002 an extended soil sampling has taken place.7 The work and analysis of the obtained soil samples has been performed by Institute of Public Health Laboratory in Belgrade.8 The origin of the PCB polluted soil is most likely spillage of oil from the damaged capacitors located at different places at the Site together with the deposits of soil removed from the transformer site.9 The location of single deposits is difficult due to lack of disposal records. The obtained analysis confirmed the presence of PCB in the soil in the restricted areas, mostly related to the presence of the capacitors. Soil leachate test has been performed on two soil samples only and the results show presence of heavy metals like mercury, cadmium, arsenic, copper, chromium, nickel, zinc and lead. Extend of heavy metal contamination is not clear as only two locations have been tested. It is recommended to implement additional sampling with respect to PCB and heavy metals in order to obtain the complete contamination map of the site and therewith the extend of the possible remediation action. PCB congeners, PCB 28 and PCB 52 seem to show the highest concentration in the samples taken. Those congeners contain the lowest amount of chlorine and are the ‘lightest’ congeners and therewith most ‘volatile’. The general impression is that the PCB pollution is confined to the presence and placement of damaged capacitors. Future additional mapping of the entire Site with respect to the PCB might confirm this assumption. During sampling activities at the Site, an air sample has also been taken approximately 15 cm above the ground level at the location of the sample 11-334. Subsequent analysis revealed existence of PCB in air at concentration of approximately 152 µg/m3.

7 Map of sampling points, Appendix 2

8 For further details, please see the IPH report, Appendix 5

9 Site visit, August 2002


Page 17

Measurements/sampling has been performed in the vicinity of the Site with respect to presence of PCB and no contamination is confirmed. The summary of the available concentrations of pollutants are shown below: Organic Contaminant: PCB (total average):

Surface soil: 16 211 ppm Surface soil (0.1m) 335 ppm Subsurface soil (0.5 m) 144 ppm Subsurface soil (0.8 m) 47 ppm Subsurface soil (1.1 m) 5 ppm

Inorganic contaminants at 0.1 m depth (average values): Pb 2400 ppm Cd 17.5 ppm Zn 1250 ppm Ni 95 ppm Cr 115 ppm Cr 115 ppm Cu 54.000 ppm As 2498 ppm Hg 29 ppm The results obtained with respect to heavy metals do not adequately describe the distribution of contaminants throughout the Site, neither horizontally nor vertically. They origin is most likely emissions from the Cu-smelter operating at the mining complex but the values seems to be higher than the concentrations for single contaminants obtained at the Bor surroundings. PCB contaminant seems to be confined to the upper soil layers and the penetration after two years has not taking place to subsoil to the high degree. PCB values exceed risk-based concentration corresponding to 100 times the acceptable risk levels for human exposure to PCB or its congeners and therefore maybe characterized as ‘hot-spots’´. 4.2 Off-Site Contamination: The investigation of the off-site contamination has been restricted during sampling in August 2002 to the location between two parts of the Dump Site. The soil samples were analysed for presence of PCB and no contamination was found. The samples were not analysed for presence of heavy metals. The background values are available through other investigations10 and the concentrations of heavy metals in the Bor area are in the following range: Zn: 62-126 ppm Ni: 6-17 ppm As: 2-45 ppm Hg: less than 0.15 ppm Cu: 84-408 ppm Cr: 6-15 ppm Pb: 6-58 ppm Cd: less than 1.2 ppm Those values are remarkably lower than those analysed at Site. 10 UNEP, ‘Assessment of Environmental Monitoring Capacities in Bor’, Mission Report, September 2002


Page 18

4.3 Ground water sampling: Institute of Public Health of Belgrade performed sampling of ground water, soil, plants, river sediments, surface water and suspended particles during April 2002. The sampling has taken place in the Bor area and all samples of water have been analyzed for PolyAromatic Hydrocarbons, Polychlorinated Biphenyls and pesticides. Samples from Bor and the Bor area show concentrations of PCB below 0.1 µg/L.11 During the Site sampling in August 2002, same Institute analysed samples of surface water originating from tailing lagoon adjacent to the Site. The results also show PCB values below 0.1 µg/L. The underlying aquifer is not currently used as a source of drinking water supply nor it is anticipated that it would be in the future. Even if the groundwater were not PCB contaminated, it would nonetheless be unsuitable for potable purposes because of the pollution by heavy metals. 4.4 Analytical data from sediments: During August 2002 the Institute analysed also sediments originating from the tailing lagoon. The obtained concentration of PCB was below 0.01 mg/kg. 4.5 Systematic sampling: In order to supplement current risk assessment investigation, the performance of the comprehensive pollution mapping of the entire Site is proposed. Systematic sampling also called grid sampling or regular sampling, are based on a specified pattern and have samples taken at regular intervals along that defined pattern. Systematic designs are good for uniform coverage, ease of use, and the intuitive appeal that nothing is missed. Samples taken at regular intervals, such as at every node of an area defined by a grid, are useful when the goal is to estimate spatial or temporal correlations or to identify a pattern. One application for using grid sampling that is widely encountered in environmental settings is in the spatial context of searching for hot spots. Systematic/grid sampling has the following benefits: Uniform, known, complete spatial/temporal coverage of the target population is possible. A grid design provides the maximum spatial coverage of an area for a given number of samples. Design and implementation of grids is relatively straightforward (only a calculator and measuring device is required to implement) and has intuitive appeal; field procedures can be written simply. Once an initial point is located, the regular spacing allows field teams to easily locate the next sampling point. Grid designs can be implemented with little to no prior information about a site.

11 Institute of Public Health of Belgrade, “Chemical Analyses of Ground and Surface Water, Soil, Plants, River Sediments and Suspended Particles in Ambient Air in the

Bor Area”- Report 23. May 2002


Page 19

The only inputs required are the total area to be covered and the number of samples (or alternatively, the grid spacing) to be used. Grid sampling is often used for pilot studies, scoping studies, and exploratory studies. Systematic sampling is often used in environmental applications because it is practical and convenient to implement in the field. It often provides better precision (i.e., smaller confidence intervals, smaller standard errors of population estimates) and more complete coverage than unrestricted random sampling. Implementation: A systematic grid is overlaid on the entire area and samples collected at the centre of each grid.

Central Aligned Square Grid Based on the already known size of the ‘hot-spot’ it is proposed to introduce a grid with a mesh of 10*10 m taking into account the economical restrictions of the project. The average sample ought to be taken as close as possible to the centre of the each square at the depth of 0.02 m and 0,1 m (two depths, one sample) and analysed for presence and concentrations of PCB and heavy metals previously identified. Based on the sampling results it might be necessary to define further extend of single ‘hot-spot’ areas. In addition, as part of the mapping it is proposed to analyse already taken soil samples for the presence and concentrations with regards to heavy metals previously analysed for (ref. IPH Belgrade sampling campaign in August 2002). The locations and depths of the samples are as follows: 11-386 (1 m), 11-356 (0.5 m), 11-337 (1.5 ), 11-388 (1 m), 11-363 (0.5 m). Both left and right part of the Site needs to be investigated further. There is no need for testing of the section in-between those two parts as no presence of PCB has been confirmed.


Page 20

5.0 Exposure Assessment: The purpose of the exposure assessment is to quantify human exposure to Contaminants of Potential Concern (COPC) for complete pathways. Potential human health effects associated with exposure to the COPCs were estimated quantitatively or qualitatively through the development of several hypothetical exposure pathways. These pathways were developed to reflect the potential for exposure to hazardous substances based on the present uses, potential future uses, and location of the Dump Site. Although the industry, which formerly occupies the Dump Site, has ceased operations, future commercial/industrial use of the Site was assumed to be the most probable future Site use. Subsequently, the results of the exposure assessment are combined with toxicity information (please see next chapter) to characterise potential risks. 5.1 Land use: The Dump Site is classified as non-residential (without occupancy) industrial area. The Site in the immediate vicinity is also classified as non-residential, low occupancy industrial area. Future land use has been considered as non-populated industrial area. The indications from RTB Bor to excavate the underlying slag for commercial utilization have been taken into account as a future relevant construction/excavation scenario with the associated pathways of concern. The placement of the slag beneath the Site is indicated in Appendix 2. Two distinct receptor populations must be considered in the development of soil and vapour inhalation criteria for industrial and commercial facilities: on-property workers and off-property, near-by workers. This study assumes that the compliance with on-site exposure route criteria at the property boundary of a facility is required for industrial worker and must consider the need to protect off-property receptors if they represent the more highly impacted receptor group. As indicated by the landowner12 no workers are present or foreseen to be present on-site in the current land use scenario. However it is envisaged that workers (machine operators) will be present off-site or at the site boundary in this scenario. Future land use scenario does indicate the utilisation of the sub-surface slag but not the upper layer of soil. During the removal of the soil layer (most likely of 1-1.5 m thickness) workers will be classified as on-site excavation workers exposed to following routes: Inhalation of vapours, dermal contact and soil ingestion. 5.2 Non-residential land uses: Non-residential land uses encompass all commercial and industrial land uses and focus on two very different receptors – a commercial/industrial worker and a construction worker. Exposure routes for non-residential land uses are based solely on exposures to adults. Consequently, exposures to carcinogens are not age-adjusted. Due to the wide range of activities and exposure levels a non-residential receptor may be exposed to during various work-related activities, it is important to 12 Official Letter to UNEP from RTB Bor dated 3.9.2002


Page 21

ensure that the default exposure parameters are representative of site-specific conditions. Section 5.6 provides a summary of the exposure characteristics and parameters for non-residential land use receptors. 5.3 On-site population characteristic: Due to the fact that the Dump Site is classified as an industrial area without presence of commercial/industrial workers, no human receptors are considered for this scenario. 5.4 Off-site population characteristics: In accordance with the information obtained13 the amount of industrial off-site workers is 42 on yearly average operating as closely as 50 to 100 m from the Site boundary. Based on this scenario off-site receptors shall be taken into account during this assessment. 5.5 Other receptors: The Site defined, as an industrial site with non-potable water shed is not considered to present any ecological impact originating from the Contaminants of Concern as no ecologically important receptors are found at the Site. Consequently no ecological risk assessment has been performed under this study. 5.6 Pathways Analysis (Exposure scenarios): To determine whether on-Site and off-Site workers at the Dump Site are exposed to Site-related contaminants, the pathways analysis consisting of five elements have been evaluated:

(1) source of contamination; (2) transport through an environmental media; (3) a point of human exposure; (4) route of human exposure; (5) a receptor (exposed) population;

The exposure pathways may be classified into three groups:

(1) ‘complete pathways’ that is, those in which exposure has occurred, is occurring or may yet occur;

(2) ‘potential pathways’ that is, those in which exposure might have occurred, maybe occurring, or may yet occur;

(3) ‘eliminated pathways’ that is, those that can be eliminated from further analysis because one of the five elements is missing and will never be present, or in which no contaminants of concern can be identified.

A limited sampling event was conducted at the Dump Site to locate and identify potential sources of contaminations. Although insufficient to fully characterise the extend of contamination at the entire 13 Official Letter to UNEP from RTB Bor dated 3.9.2002,


Page 22

Site, PCB, Lead, Cadmium, Arsenic, Mercury, Chromium, Nickel were detected at levels of public health concern, i.e. levels higher than those defined by Yugoslav Authorities.14 Following exposure scenario for current and near-future land use have been considered: Scenario 1) On-Site Pathways, both industrial and excavation (Surface soil): On-Site, non-residential, industrial site classified as Dump Site with following pathways of concern: • ingestion; • dermal absorption; • inhalation (fugitive dust outdoors and outdoors vapours); However, due to the absence of the human receptors, no site related exposures are considered for industrial scenario. All three pathways are relevant for consideration of the exposure scenario. Scenario 2) Off- Site Pathways: Off-Site, non-residential, low occupancy industrial site with following pathways of concern: • ingestion (surface soil); • dermal absorption (surface soil); • inhalation (fugitive dust outdoors and outdoors vapours); The nature and extend of off-site migration of PCB and heavy metals contaminated dust via wind in the community of off-Site workers has not been determined. It is likely that workers may be exposed to PCB and heavy metals through ingestion and inhalation of soil and dust, as well as through dermal contact, however at much lower contaminants levels than those existing on-Site. Manned machinery is an example of high contact industrial surface where dermal exposure or ingestion route would be expected. The Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling has not been performed quantifying the amount of dilution of the contaminants releases from the Site. In addition, the exposure of the off-site workers may also take place through inhalation of PCB vapours. The level of PCB vapours existing off-site has neither been evaluated as the Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling has not been performed nor off-Site measurements been performed. Exposure durations and frequency: Only industrial workers are considered as endpoint receptors under given exposure scenarios. The exposure frequency/duration is defined for both Scenarios, distinguished between industrial and excavation pathways. 14 Sl.gl-R.S. 23/94( UNEP, Assessment of Environmental Monitoring Capacities in Bor, Mission Report September 2002)


Page 23

With respect to Scenario 1) and Scenario 2) following generic data have been used in the calculations:

Occupational Excavation worker Off-site worker

Adult Adult Adult

Exposure factor Units

CTE RME CTE RME CTE RME Body weight Kg 70 70 70 70 70 70 Incidental Soil Ingestion rate mg/day 50 100 100 480 50 100 Exposure skin surface area, soil contact

cm2 3200 4100 3200 4100 3200 4100

Inhalation rate m3/d 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 Dermal absorption factor Semi-volatile organic compounds

Unitless 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Soil Adherence Factor mg/cm2-event

0.08 0.08 0.3 1.0 0.08 0.08

Exposure frequency (general) d/yr 250 250 - - - - Exposure frequency (soil contact) d/yr 250 250 9 9 9 9 Event frequency Soil contact

events/d - - 2 2 1 1

Exposure duration (general) (ED) yr 6 25 - - - -

Exposure duration (soil contact) (ED) yr - - 0.5 1 0.5 1 Averaging time, carcinogens d 25550 25550 25550 25550 25550 25550 Averaging time,noncarcinogens, general

d 365*ED 365*ED

Averaging time,noncarcinogens, general

d - - 365*ED 365*ED 365*ED 365*ED

CTE= Central Tendency Estimate RME= Reasonable Maximum Exposure Daily intake of the Contaminants of Potential Concern by Off-site workers is very difficult to quantify as no actual measurements have taken place in the vicinity of the Dump Site with respect to dust evolvement, concentrations of contaminants in the dust inside the machinery operating off-Site or concentrations of contaminants in the off-site air. As a consequence data applicable for the on-site worker has been used. Inhalation of Volatiles and Fugitive Dusts Toxicity data available from IRIS15 indicate that risks from exposure to some chemicals via the inhalation pathway far outweigh the risk via ingestion or dermal contact for certain chemicals. To address the soil-to-air pathways, the Preliminary Remediation Goals calculations incorporate volatilization factors (VF) for volatile contaminants and particulate emission factors (PEF) for non-volatile contaminants.16 The contaminant may adhere to soil particles or be present in interstitial air spaces in soil, and may volatilize into ambient air. This pathway may be particularly significant if the contaminant

15 www.epa.gov/iris/

16 Appendix 7


Page 24

emissions are concentrated in indoor spaces of onsite buildings. Volatile contaminants are considered those chemicals having a Henry’s Law constant greater than 1 x 10-5 atm-m3/mole-oK and a molecular weight less than 200 g/mole. Inhalation of contaminants via inhalation of fugitive dusts is assessed using a particulate emission factors (PEF) that relates the contaminant concentration in soil with the concentration of respirable particles in the air due to fugitive dust emissions. It is important to note that the particulate emission factors used to address residential and commercial/industrial exposures evaluates only windborne dust emissions and does not consider emissions from traffic or other forms of mechanical disturbance which could lead to a greater level of exposure. The particulate emission factors used to address construction worker exposures evaluates windborne dust emissions and emissions from vehicle traffic associated with construction activities. 5.7 Preliminary Remediation Goals: Preliminary Remediation Goals represent risk-based concentrations in soil developed by US EPA and derived from equations combining exposure assumptions with toxicity criteria. They are developed to quantify the standards (i.e., contaminant-specific media concentrations) that selected remedial alternatives must meet, to achieve the Threshold Criteria stipulated in chapter 8. Exposure point concentrations in soil were used for calculations of the exposure estimate, which were then compared with chemical-specific toxicity criteria. Target risk and hazard levels for human health are risk management-based criteria for carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic responses, respectively, to determine: (1) whether site-related contamination poses an unacceptable risk to human health and requires corrective action or (2) whether implemented corrective action(s) sufficiently protects human health. If an estimated risk or hazard falls within the target range, it may be concluded that a site does not pose an unacceptable risk. An estimated risk that exceeds these targets, however, does not necessarily indicate that the current conditions are not safe or that they present an unacceptable risk. Rather, a site risk calculation that exceeds a target value may simply indicate the need for further evaluation. For cumulative exposure via the ingestion, inhalation, and dermal pathways, toxicity criteria are used to calculate an acceptable level of contamination in soil. Preliminary Remediation Goals are based on a carcinogenic risk level of one-in-one-million (1 x 10-6) for single contaminant and a non-carcinogenic hazard quotient of 1. A carcinogenic risk level is defined as the incremental probability of an individual developing cancer over a lifetime as a result of exposure to a potential carcinogen. The non-carcinogenic hazard quotient assumes that there is a level of exposure below which it is unlikely for even sensitive populations to experience adverse health effects. Based on the default values outlined in Appendix 7, Risk Based Generic Preliminary Remediation Goals have been calculated. The results covering industrial and excavation scenarios and all exposure pathways are as follows (calculations are also attached in Appendix 7):


Page 25

Site Pollutant: PCB Generic Values (based on High Risk slope factors and Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk of 1*10-6) – Preliminary Remediation Goals for PCB Scenario Pathway Values

Dermal 2.1E+02 Ingestion 9.3E+01 Inhalation of particulate 1.0E+06* Inhalation of volatiles 2.1E+03

Excavation

Total pathway 6.3E+01 Dermal 6.8E-01 Ingestion 2.9E+00 Inhalation of particulates 9.4E+03 Inhalation of volatiles 6.7E+00

Industrial

Total pathway 5.1E-01 * default value PRG value for PCB in air is 3.4E-03 µg/m3 for ambient air as defined by US EPA Region IX. Exposure values for inhalation of PCB vapours based on measured value: Concentration in air measured 15 cm above the hot spot, Dump Site:17 Ci = 151.76 µg/m3 Lifetime Average Daily Dose Exposure (LADD) is calculated as the product of concentration C, intake rate IR and exposure duration ED divided by the body weight BW and lifetime LT, (values as quoted in Appendix 7). LADD= C*IR*ED/(BW*LT) LADD= 15.48 µg/kg*d The value of the risk based calculated Preliminary Remediation Goals for PCB and heavy metals present at Site are all below the actually measured values at Site. The concentrations of individual contaminants are also clearly above the Statutory Requirements of Yugoslav Regulations for the ‘maximum allowed concentrations of dangerous and harmful substances’ (Sl.gl.R.S. 23/94). The measured values of PCB in soil in certain areas of the Site exceed the value of 25 ppm defined by US EPA as the limit for industrial sites. Inorganic Site Pollutants: The waste characterisation of the soil samples utilising leachate test18 revealed presence of high concentrations of heavy metals, like Chromium, Zink, Lead, Mercury, Arsenic and Copper.

17 IPH Report, October 2002


Page 26

Generic Values (based on High Risk slope factors and Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk of 1*10-6 and non-carconegenic hazard=1) – Preliminary Remediation Goals for Arsenic Scenario Pathway Risk=10-6 Hazard =1

Dermal 7.7E+03 5E+04 Ingestion 1.2E+02 8E+02 Inhalation of particulate 3.9E+05 - Inhalation of volatiles - -

Excavation

Total pathway 1.2E+02 7.9E+02 Dermal 2.5E+01 4.0E+03 Ingestion 3.8 6.1E+02 Inhalation of particulates 1.3E+03 - Inhalation of volatiles - -

Industrial

Total pathway 3.3 5.3E+02 Maximum permitted value of Arsenic in soil in accordance with Yugoslav Regulation is up to 25 mg/kg of soil. Generic Values (based on High Risk slope factors and Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk of 1*10-6 and non-carconegenic hazard=1) – Preliminary Remediation Goals for Cadmium Scenario Pathway Risk=10-6 Hazard =1

Dermal - 4E+02 Ingestion - 2.7E+03 Inhalation of particulate 9.3E+05 1.0E+06* Inhalation of volatiles - -

Excavation

Total pathway 9.3E+05 3.5E+02 Dermal - 3.2E+01 Ingestion - 2.0E+03 Inhalation of particulates 3.0E+03 - Inhalation of volatiles - -

Industrial

Total pathway 3.0E+03 3.2E+01 * default value For Cadmium, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has established a non-residential cleanup level at 100 mg/kg of soil. The Yugoslav Regulations define max. value of Cd in soil to 3 mg/kg of soil. Generic Values (based on High Risk slope factors and Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk of 1*10-6 and non-carconegenic hazard=1) – Preliminary Remediation Goals for Zinc (inorganic) Scenario Pathway Risk=10-6 Hazard =1 Excavation Total pathway 1.2E+02 7.9E+02 Industrial Total pathway 3.3 5.3E+02 Generic Values (based on High Risk slope factors and Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk of 1*10-6 and non-carconegenic hazard=1) – Preliminary Remediation Goals for Mercury (inorganic salt) 18 UNEP correspondence with IPH


Page 27

Scenario Pathway Risk=10-6 Hazard =1 Excavation Total pathway - 7.3E+02 Industrial Total pathway - 3.2E+02 Preliminary Remediation Goals for Mercury are available for the ingestion pathway only.19 Based on the Hazard Quotient of 1, the PRG value is 6.1E+02. The value of Soil Cleanup Target Levels for Industrial Scenario, direct exposure published by Florida Env. Dept. (ref. 17) is 17 mg/kg. Yugoslav Regulation requires max. Mercury levels in soil up to 2 mg/kg. Lead is another inorganic pollutant. There is no appropriate slope factor or reference dose for lead. Rather, the generally accepted methodology for evaluating exposure to Lead is the estimation of blood lead (PbB) concentration from media exposure with a comparison to blood lead levels considered to be indicative of adverse health effects. Lead value based on 95 % protection of exposed fetal population from blood lead levels in excess of 10 µg/dl corresponds to soil cleanup level of 600 mg/kg. The generic direct contact soil standard for Lead for the commercial and industrial land use categories is 1800 mg/kg.20 5.8 Proposed Remediation Levels (PRLs): Proposed Remediation Levels are actual soil concentrations and could be considered as the PRG (incremental risk) concentrations plus background. In addition, cost benefit analysis and technology considerations can be used to modify a PRG to develop a PRL. Proposed Remediation Levels are contaminant- and media-specific remediation levels that are to be attained at the Site after implementation of the recommended remedy is complete. However, it is important to note that regardless of the approach used to develop and refine the PRGs, the PRLs may differ substantially from the PRGs because of modifications resulting from consideration of uncertainties, technical limitations, exposure factors, statutory requirements as well as from remedial action threshold, balancing factors and modifying criteria. This analysis adopted Statutory Values published by Yugoslav legislation as the Remediation Level for the Dump Site. In the case of values not currently available, such as for PCB, the values published by US EPA have been adopted. Presented below are a variety of key factors that should be considered when evaluating and PRLs: • current and future land use • institutional controls • site specific background concentrations • multimedia fate and transport issues • risk goals • multiple descriptors of risk

19 US EPA Region IX

20 US EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead


Page 28

Risk based calculated PRG values have been outlined in following table together with the statutory requirements for soil contaminants.

Contaminant PRG Value (risk based) Excavation Scenario

PRL (statutory requirement)

PCB 63 ppm 25 ppm (US EPA) Arsenic 120 ppm 25 ppm (FRY) Cadmium 9.3E+05 ppm 3 ppm (FRY) Lead 600 ppm (US EPA) 100 ppm (FRY) Mercury (inorganic) 730 ppm 2 ppm (FRY) Chromium 100 ppm (FRY) Nickel 50 ppm (FRY) Copper 600 ppm (EPA NJ) 100 ppm (FRY) Zinc 120 ppm 300 ppm (FRY)

PRG= Preliminary Remediation Goals PRL= Proposed Remediation Levels Authorities of FRY have not defined the max. allowable limit of PCB or its congeners in soil. US EPA Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR Part 761.61 ‘PCB remediation waste’ defines for the low occupancy, industrial area containing bulk PCB remediation waste, non-restricted area, the clean up level of soil to equal or less than 25 mg/kg of soil. In the case of securing the Site with a fence and ‘No entrance PCB’ sign, the maximum allowable soil concentration is equal to or below 50 mg/kg of PCB.


Page 29

6.0 Toxicity Assessment The purpose of the toxicity assessment is to consider the types of adverse health or environmental effects associated with exposures to contaminants of potential concern, the relationship between magnitude of exposure and adverse effects, and related uncertainties. This process involved locating and collating toxicity information for contaminants of potential concern that can be combined with the Exposure Assessment information to calculate risks, supplemented by identification of exposure periods for which toxicity values are needed. This toxicity assessment outlines the toxicological effects that have been reported to be associated with inhalation, ingestion and dermal contact exposures to PCB, arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead and nickel, and identify whether each metal should be considered as a carcinogen or a non-carcinogen based on the exposure pathway. The type of exposure limit selected is dependent upon whether a compound is considered to have noncarcinogenic or carcinogenic effects. However, in some cases, e.g., lead and cobalt, cancer potency factors are not available. For some compounds, the route by which the compound enters the body can have a marked effect on the toxicological effects that occur. In cases where the toxicological effects of a chemical differ between the routes of exposure, it is necessary to assess inhalation and ingestion exposures independently. For example, exposure to cadmium and nickel by inhalation may be carcinogenic, but the data suggests they are not proven to be carcinogenic if the exposure is via ingestion. However, arsenic may be carcinogenic following either inhalation or ingestion exposure. Therefore, where route-specific exposure limits are available, the toxicological profiles will provide both. A number of dose-response factors, such as reference dose (RfD) and slope factor (SF), have been developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and similar organisations to quantify the health risks associated with human exposure to various contaminants. The RfD and SF have been developed on the basis of available human and animal studies. The existing dose-response data are generally limited and are extrapolated to determine exposure levels that are consistent with a very low risk (typically 10-4 to 10-7) to determine acceptance criteria. 6.1 PCB Toxicity Values: PCB belongs to Group B2 Carcinogenic Contaminants21 defined as ‘Probable human carcinogen’. US EPA Region 9 has defined a volatile contaminant as one with a Henry’s Law constant (H) of >10-5 atm-m3/mol and a molecular weight of <200 g/mol. Under these criteria, PCBs, particularly the higher Aroclor mixtures, do not qualify as volatiles. However, others22 have suggested that volatilization can be a significant environmental transport process for PCBs; i.e., because of H values of 2.9 × 10-4 for Aroclor 1016 to 4.6 × 10-3 for Aroclor 1260. Further evidences of evaporation of PCB are found during removal of PCB contaminated sediments. During laboratory testing of Massena Sediment, it has lost nearly 30 % of the original PCB content during air drying of the sediment, Appendix 1. PCB solubility in water ranges by orders of magnitude from the lower chlorinated to the higher chlorinated congeners, Appendix 1. The lower chlorinated PCBs are more soluble, mobile and

21 US EPA Weight-of-Evidence Categories for Carcinogenicity (IRIS 2000)

22 “Handbook of Ecotoxicology” (D.J.Hoffman et al.), Lewis Publishers, Florida


Page 30

volatile; the higher chlorinated congeners are less soluble and volatile and more lipophilic and adsorb to particles and fat.23 Further confirmation of the volatility of PCB is the measured PCB concentration in the air at the Dump Site. The majority of toxicity values are published by US EPA under Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).24 The cancer potency of PCB mixtures is determined using a tiered approach covering all environmental exposure routes: • High risk and persistence: Upper-bound slope factor: 2.0 per (mg/kg)/day Central-estimate slope factor: 1.0 per (mg/kg)/day Criteria for use: - Food chain exposure - Sediment or soil ingestion - Dust or aerosol inhalation - Dermal exposure, if an absorption factor has been applied - Presence of dioxin-like, tumor-promoting, or persistent congeners - Early-life exposure (all pathways and mixtures) • Low risk and persistence Upper-bound slope factor: 0.4 per (mg/kg)/day Central-estimate slope factor: 0.3 per (mg/kg)/day Criteria for use: - Ingestion of water-soluble congeners - Inhalation of evaporated congeners - Dermal exposure, if no absorption factor has been applied • Lowest risk and persistence

Upper-bound slope factor: 0.07 per (mg/kg)/day Central-estimate slope factor: 0.04 per (mg/kg)/day

Criteria for use: Congener or isomer analyses verify that congeners with more than 4 chlorines comprise less than 1/2% of total PCBs.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, USA (ATSDR) is using Minimal Risk Levels(MRL) as a measurement of the human exposure levels for site contaminants, which serves as a screening tool to help public health professionals in their evaluation efforts.25

23 Environmental Research Centre, Oswego 1999

24 www.epa.gov/iris/


Page 31

An MRL is an estimate of the daily human exposure to hazardous substances that is likely to be without appreciable risk of adverse non-cancer health effect over a specified duration of exposure. MRLs are derived for acute (1-14 days), intermediate (>14-364 days), and chronic (365 days and longer) exposure duration, and for the oral and inhalation roués of exposure.

Values for PCB are based on the Aroclor 125426: • Intermediate exposure, oral: 0.03 µg/kg/day • Chronic exposure, oral: 0.02 µg/kg/day Agency for Toxic Substances and Diseases Register (USA) has published values of Minimal Risk Levels (MRL) for between others for the following contaminants:

Contaminant Route Duration MRL23 Acute 0.005 (mg/kg/day) Arsenic Oral Chronic 0.0003(mg/kg/day)

Cadmium Oral Chronic 0.0002(mg/kg/day) Chromium(VI)aerosol mists Inhalation Intermediate 0.000005 (mg/m3) Chromium (VI) particulates Inhalation Intermediate 0.001 (mg/m3) Mercury Inhalation Chronic 0.0002 (mg/m3) Nickel Inhalation Chronic 0.0002 (mg/m3)

Intermediate 0.03 (µg/kg/day) PCB (Aroclor 1254) Oral Chronic 0.02 (µg/kg/day)

Zinc Intermediate 0.3 (mg/kg/day)

Oral Chronic 0.3 (mg/kg/day)

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)27, USA requires workers occupationally exposed to PCB to institute engineering controls and work practice resulting in exposures at or below Permissible Exposure Limits (PEL). A maximum acceptable value of PEL for the 8-hours time-weight average is 1 mg/m3 for PCB congeners containing 42% Chlorine and 0.5 mg/m3 for PCB congeners with 54 % Chlorine. Toxicity Values for PCB as defined by US EPA, Region 9: CAS No. Contaminant Toxicity Information

Sfo 1/(mg/kg-d) RfDo (mg/kg-d) Sfi 1/(mg/kg-d) RfDi (mg/kg-d) Skin abs. soil 1336-36-3 PCB 2 2 0.14 12674-11-2 Aroclor 1016 0.07 7.00E-05 7.00E-02 7.00E-05 0.14 11104-28-2 Aroclor 1221 2 2 0.14 11141-16-5 Aroclor 1232 2 2 0.14 53469-21-9 Aroclor 1242 2 2 0.14 12672-29-6 Aroclor 1248 2 7.00E-05 2 0.14 11097-69-1 Aroclor 1254 2 2.00E-05 2 2.00E-05 0.14 11096-82-5 Aroclor 1260 2 2 0.14

25 An MRL is an estimate of the daily human exposure to a hazardous substance that is likely to be without appreciable risk of adverse noncancer health effect over a

specified duration of exposure.

26 www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls.html

27 www.osha.gov/


Page 32

6.2 Inorganic Site Contaminants, toxicity data: Lead: Inorganic lead and lead compounds have been evaluated for carcinogenicity by the EPA. The data from human studies are inadequate for evaluating the potential carcinogenicity of lead. Data from animal studies, however, are sufficient based on numerous studies showing that lead induces renal tumors in experimental animals. A few studies have shown evidence for induction of tumors at other sites (cerebral gliomas; testicular, adrenal, prostate, pituitary, and thyroid tumors). EPA has given lead the classification B2, probable human carcinogen. There is no current Minimal Risk Level or RfD for chronic exposure for Lead. The generic direct contact soil standard for Lead for the commercial and industrial land use categories is 1800 mg/kg.28 The US EPA recommends a default value of 100 mg/day as a plausible point estimate for average daily soil intake from all occupational sources, including soil in indoor dust. The average analysed Pb value in the soil samples was 2400 mg/kg of soil, which is above the recommended 1800 mg/kg. Therefore, adverse health effects are likely from exposure to Lead contaminated soil. Arsenic:29 Both cancer and noncancer outcomes are associated with exposure to arsenic. Studies30 have demonstrated that ingestion of arsenic is associated with an increased risk of skin cancer, and inhalation of arsenic is associated with an increased risk of lung cancer. Long term chronic ingestion of arsenic has been associated with skin changes including skin cancer and is reported to increase the risk of cancer of the liver, bladder, kidney and lung (ATSDR). Noncancer risks from the ingestion of arsenic include skin hyperpigmentation and skin keratoses. At higher exposure levels, other possible noncancer effects include vascular, neurological, and gastrointestinal disorders. Death from exposure to high environmental levels of arsenic (well above those occurring at this site) has been documented. US EPA have determined that inorganic arsenic is a human carcinogen and is classified: A; human carcinogen. The following is a presentation of the toxicity information associated with Arsenic: Noncarcinogenic Health Effects: The Oral Chronic Reference Dose is 3.00E-04 (mg/kg-day). The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose is 1.23E-04 (mg/kg-day). Carcinogenic Health Effects: The Oral Slope Factor is 1.50E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1. The Inhalation Unit Risk is 4.3E+00 (mg/m3)-1. The Dermal Slope Factor is 3.66E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1.

28 US EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead

29 US EPA RAIS (Risk Assessment Information System)

30 US EPA


Page 33

ATSDR has derived a chronic oral Minimal Risk Level (MRL) Dose of 0.0003 mg/kg/day for Arsenic. Using standard default values, an adult ingesting soil containing 2498 mg As per kg of soil will receive a dose of 0.0254 mg/kg/day, which is approximately 10 times more than the MRL. Therefore, adverse health effects are likely from exposure to Arsenic contaminated soil. People everywhere, including Bor, are chronically exposed to low levels of arsenic in the environment and as such everyone has a certain amount of risk. These exposures can occur by a number of different pathways including normal diet and drinking water. To understand the potential relevance of the measured soil levels at the Dump Site it is useful to compare the levels found with levels elsewhere in the Bor area and in particular with the findings of health studies around arsenic conducted in Bor. Cadmium:26 Cadmium was detected in the samples analysed with the average concentration of 17.5 mg/kg of soil. Exposure to Cadmium may occur due to ingestion of contaminated soil or inhalation of cadmium-laden dust. Chronic exposure to low levels of cadmium via ingestion may adversely affect the kidneys and skeletal system. Based on limited evidence from multiple occupational exposure studies and adequate animal data, cadmium is placed in weight-of-evidence group B1 - probable human carcinogen. The following is a presentation of the toxicity information associated with Cadmium: Noncarcinogenic Health Effects: The Oral Chronic Reference Dose for Cadmium in the diet is 1.00E-03 (mg/kg-day). The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose for Cadmium in the diet is 1.00E-05 (mg/kg-day). Carcinogenic Health Effects: The Inhalation Unit Risk is 1.8E+00 (mg/m3)-1. The inhalation slope factor of 6.1E+0 (mg/kg/day)-1 ATSDR has derived a chronic oral Minimal Risk Level (MRL) Dose of 0.0002 mg/kg/day. Using standard default values, an adult ingesting soil containing 17.5 mg Cd per kg of soil will receive a dose of 0.0000178 mg/kg/day, which is much less than the MRL. Therefore, adverse health effects are not likely from exposure to Cadmium contaminated soil. Chromium:26 Chromium(VI) has been placed in the EPA weight-of-evidence classification A, human carcinogen. Chromium(III) is most appropriately designated a Group D -- Not classified as to its human carcinogenicity; Chromium III (Insoluble Salts): Noncarcinogenic Health Effects:

The Oral Chronic Reference Dose is 1.50E+00 (mg/kg-day). The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose is 7.50E-03 (mg/kg-day).

Chromium VI (Chromic Acid Mists): Noncarcinogenic Health Effects: The Oral Chronic Reference Dose is 3.00E-03 (mg/kg-day). The Inhalation Chronic Reference Concentration is 8.00E-06 (mg/m3).


Page 34

The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose is 6.00E-05 (mg/kg-day). Carcinogenic Health Effects:

The Inhalation Unit Risk is 1.2E+01 (mg/m3)-1. Chromium VI (Particulates): Noncarcinogenic Health Effects: The Oral Chronic Reference Dose is 3.00E-03 (mg/kg-day). The Inhalation Chronic Reference Concentration is 1.00E-04 (mg/m3). The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose is 6.00E-05 (mg/kg-day). Carcinogenic Health Effects: The Inhalation Unit Risk is 1.2E+01 (mg/m3)-1. Copper:26 No suitable bioassays or epidemiological studies are available to assess the carcinogenicity of copper. U.S. EPA, therefore, has placed copper in weight-of-evidence group D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity. Acute inhalation exposure to copper dust or fumes at concentrations of 0.075-0.12 mg Cu/m3 may cause metal fume fever with symptoms such as cough, chills and muscle ache. Skin contact with copper can result in an allergic reaction, usually skin irritation or a skin rash. Mercury:26 The nervous system is very sensitive to all forms of mercury. Methylmercury and metallic mercury vapours are more harmful than other forms, because more mercury reaches the brain in these forms. Exposure to high levels of metallic, inorganic, or organic mercury can permanently damage the brain, kidneys, and developing fetus. Effects on brain functioning may result in irritability, shyness, tremors, changes in vision or hearing, and memory problems. Short-term exposure to high levels of metallic mercury vapours may cause lung damage, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, increases in blood pressure or heart rate, skin rashes, and eye irritation. No data were available regarding the carcinogenicity of mercury in humans or animals. EPA has placed inorganic mercury in weight-of-evidence classification D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity. Other forms of mercury are possible human carcinogens. The following is a presentation of the toxicity information associated with Mercury. Noncarcinogenic Health Effects: The Oral Chronic Reference Dose is 3.00E-04 (mg/kg-day). The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose is 2.10E-05 (mg/kg-day). ATSDR has derived a chronic inhalation Minimal Risk Level (MRL) Dose of 0.0002 mg/m3 for inorganic Mercury. No measurements of Mercury air concentrations have been undertaken at the Site. Nickel: Epidemiologic studies have shown that occupational inhalation exposure to nickel dust (primarily nickel subsulfide) at refineries has resulted in increased incidences of pulmonary and nasal cancer. Inhalation studies using rats have also shown nickel subsulfide or nickel carbonyl to be


Page 35

carcinogenic. Based on these data, the EPA has classified nickel subsulfide and nickel refinery dust in weight-of-evidence group A, human carcinogen. Based on an increased incidence of pulmonary carcinomas and malignant tumors in animals exposed to nickel carbonyl by inhalation or by intravenous injection, this compound had been placed in weight-of-evidence group B2, probable human carcinogen. The U.S. EPA has not evaluated soluble salts of nickel as a class of compounds for potential human carcinogenicity. The following is a presentation of the toxicity information associated with Nickel and Compounds: Nickel Soluble Salts: Noncarcinogenic Health Effects: The Oral Chronic Reference Dose is 2.00E-02 (mg/kg-day). The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose is 5.40E-03 (mg/kg-day). Nickel Refinery Dust: Carcinogenic Health Effects: The Inhalation Unit Risk is 2.4E-01 (mg/m3)-1. Nickel Subsulfide: Carcinogenic Health Effects: The Inhalation Unit Risk is 4.8E-01 (mg/m3)-1. Zinc:26 Zinc is placed in weight-of-evidence US EPA Group D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity due to inadequate evidence in humans and animals. The following is a presentation of the toxicity information associated with Zinc. Zinc, Metallic: Noncarcinogenic Health Effects: The Oral Chronic Reference Dose is 3.00E-01 (mg/kg-day). The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose is 6.00E-02 (mg/kg-day). Zinc Phosphide: Noncarcinogenic Health Effects: The Oral Chronic Reference Dose is 3.00E-04 (mg/kg-day). The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose is 6.00E-05 (mg/kg-day). ATSDR has derived a chronic oral Minimal Risk Level (MRL) Dose of 0.3 mg/kg/day for Zinc. Using standard default values, an adult ingesting soil containing 1250 mg Zn per kg of soil will receive a dose of 0.00127 mg/kg/day, which much less than the MRL. Therefore, adverse health effects are not likely from exposure to Zink contaminated soil. 6.3 Resume on toxicity data: This section identified relevant and available toxicity data for the contaminants of potential concern which are needed to perform risk evaluations and assessments. Additionally, the data quoted above contain supplemental information which clarifies some issues associated with the duration of exposure or health effects. Resume of toxicity of Site contaminants: Chemical of Concern Chronic/Sub-chronic Oral RfD

Value (mg/kg-day) Dermal RfD Value (mg/kg-day)


Page 36

Arsenic chronic 0.0003 0.0003 Chromium chronic 0.003 0.000075 Lead subchronic NA NA Copper chronic 3.7E-02 3.33E-02 Zinc chronic 3.00E-01 2.7E-01 Mercury chronic 3.00E-04 2.7E-04 Cadmium chronic 1.0E-03 1.0E-05 Total PCBs Chronic 0.00002 0.00002


Page 37

7.0 Risk assessment A risk assessment is an evaluation of the potential adverse impact of a given event (e.g.,the release or threat of release of a hazardous substance) upon the well-being of a person or a population. It is a process by which information or experience concerning the cause and effect under a set of circumstances (e.g., exposure) is integrated with the extent of those circumstances to quantify or otherwise describe risk. This step incorporates the outcome of the previous activities and calculates the risk or hazard resulting from exposure to contaminants of potential exposure via the pathways and routes of exposure determined appropriate for the source area. The risk of cancer from chemical exposure is described in terms of the probability that an exposed individual will develop cancer during his/her lifetime from that exposure. The current evaluation is based on incremental lifetime cancer risk of 1 * 10-6 or acceptable risk level for non-carcinogens based on Hazard Quotient of 1. These limits apply for all exposure scenarios and pathways. The risk estimate is calculated by multiplying the daily intake of a particular contaminant over a lifetime by the carcinogenic slope factor. Risk = CDI x SF; where: Risk = a unitless probability of an individual developing cancer over a lifetime CDI = chronic daily intake or dose [mg/kg-day] SF = slope factor, expressed in [(mg/kg-day)-1] The basic equation for calculating systemic toxicity (i.e., noncarcinogenic hazard) is: Non-cancer Hazard Quotient = CDI/RfD, where: CDI = chronic daily intake for the contaminant expressed in mg/kg-day, and RfD = chronic reference dose for the toxicant expressed in mg/kg-day. RfDs are developed for chronic, subchronic, and single-event intakes. A chronic RfD is an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of the highest average daily exposure to a member of the human population (including sensitive subpopulations) that will not result in deleterious effects during a lifetime. Subchronic RfDs define the highest average daily exposure over shorter time periods (i.e., between 2 weeks and 7 years) that will not cause adverse health effects. The calculation of risk values for the individual contaminants present at the Dump Site and off-Site is taking into account previously established pathways of exposure and toxicity values of the contaminants of potential concern. The calculations are using the default values for several input parameters as outlined in Appendix 7 and generic equations for single exposure paths (ingestion, dermal, inhalation) or a combined equation incorporating all paths.


Page 38

The primary sources for the human health PCB impacting value are US EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)31 Additional sources include the minimal risk levels (MRLs) developed by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)32. Human health risk values associated with PCB site concentrations outlined in Appendix 7 have been calculated for two scenarios, excavation and industrial with the associated exposure pathways, dermal, ingestion and inhalation. Concentrations of contaminants used for calculation of risks for off-Site receptors are the same as for on-Site scenario because data for off-Site scenario are not available. The results of the analysis for different depths have been used as input parameters and the summarised results are presented below: Human Health Risk Values (high risk) for PCB Scenario Exposure Pathway Sample concentration(mg/kg) Risk value

Dermal 16211.17 7.6E-05 Ingestion 16211.17 1.7E-04

Excavation

Inhalation 16211.17 7.7E-06 Dermal 16211.17 2.4E-02 Ingestion 16211.17 5.7E-03

Industrial


Excavation


Industrial


Excavation


Industrial

Inhalation 528.71 7.9E-05 Dermal 9784.21 4.6E-05 Ingestion 9784.21 1E-04

Excavation


Industrial


Excavation


Industrial

Inhalation 48.7 7.3E-06 Calculation of human health risk associated with the vapour inhalation of PCB based on the measured concentration in air at the Dump Site just above the ‘hot spot’ (point 11-334) is as follows:

31 www.epa.gov/iris/ 32 Further details are available in Appendix ………………


Page 39

Risk= LADD * Slope; PCB concentration = 151.76 µg/m3 LADD= 15.48 µg/kg-d assuming 25 years of exposure The value of the slope applied is 0.4 per mg/kg-d33 and the resulting value of the risk is 6.2E-03, which is higher than the desired value of 1*10-6. The upper bound slope factor of 0.4 is applicable for inhalation of evaporated congeners (US EPA). In the case of off-Site scenario and the PCB of concentration of 10 % of the on-Site concentration, the value of individual human risk is 0.6E-03, which still can be characterised as significant. Summarised calculation results for carcinogenic contaminants are presented below: This table provides risk estimates for the significant routes of exposure. These risk estimates are based on maximum available concentration of contaminants in surface soil and developed by taking into account the duration and frequency of site industrial worker’s exposure to soil particulates, as well as the toxicity of the Contaminants of Concern. The total risk level is estimated to be 4.5E-05. This risk level indicates that if no remedial action is taken, an individual would have an increased probability of 4.5 in 100.000 of developing cancer as a result of Dump Site related exposure to the Contaminants of Concern. Risk Characterisation Summary - Carcinogens

Scenario Timeframe: Future, Excavation Receptor Population: Site worker Receptor age: Adult

Carcinogenic Risk Medium Exposure medium

Exposure point

Contaminant of Concern

Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Exposure Routes Total

Total PCB Congeners

Depth 0.1 m C=2864 ppm

3.1E-05 1.3E-05 1.4E-06 4.5E-05


3.9E-06 1.7E-06 1.7E-07 5.8E-06

Soil air on site

Arsenic C=2498 ppm

2.0E-05 3.2E-7 6.4E-09 2.0E-05

Total Risk= 4.5E-05 This table provides risk estimates for the significant routes of exposure. These risk estimates are based on maximum available concentration of contaminants in surface soil and developed by taking into account the duration and frequency of site industrial worker’s exposure to soil particulates, as well as the toxicity of the Contaminants of Concern. The total risk level is estimated to be 3.9E-03 This risk level indicates that if no remedial action is taken, an individual would have an increased probability of 4 in 10.000 of developing cancer as a result of Dump Site related exposure to the Contaminants of Concern. Risk Characterisation Summary - Carcinogens

Scenario Timeframe: Future, Industrial Receptor Population: Site worker Receptor age: Adult Medium Exposure

mediumExposure point


Carcinogenic Risk

33 Appendix 1


Page 40

medium point Concern Ingestion Dermal Inhalation Exposure Routes Total

Total PCB Congeners


1.0E-03 4.2E-03 4.3E-04 5.6E-03

Depth 0.5 m C= 358.6 ppm

1.3E-04 5.3E-04 5.4E-05 7.1E-04

Soil air on site

Arsenic C=2498 ppm

6.6E-04 1.0E-04 2.0E-06 7.6E-04

Total Risk= 3.9E-03 The same procedure has been applied to inorganic contaminants34 of potential concern, applying concentrations obtained by the analysis of soil samples 11-335 and 11-360. The results of the calculations for As are available in the Appendix 7. The resume of the concentration based Hazard Quotients for inorganic Site contaminants are outlined below: This table provides hazard quotient (HQs) for the each significant routes of exposure and the hazard index (HI) (sum of hazard quotients) for all routes of exposure. The estimated H, for all organ endpoints does not exceeds a hazard index of concern and indicates that the potential for adverse non-cancer effects could not occur from exposure to contaminated particulates originating from the Dump Site.

Risk Characterisation Summary � Non-Carcinogens

Scenario Timeframe: Future, excavation Receptor Population: site worker Receptor age: Adult

Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient Medium Exposure medium

Exposure point


Primary Target Organ

Ingestion Dermal Exposure Routes Total

Chromium kidney 4.3E-05 5.7E-05 1.0E-04

Arsenic skin 3.6E-02 5.8E-04 3.7E-02

Lead blood - - -

Copper Gastrointestinal - - -

Mercury Kidney 3.6E-02 3.4E-03 3.9E-02

Zinc blood 1.6E-03 5.2E-05 1.7E-03

Soil air on site

Cadmium kidney 6.6E-03 4.3E-02 5.0E-02

Total = 8.0E-02 4.7E-02 1.3E-01 Skin Hazard Index 3.7E-02 Blood Hazard Index 1.7E-03 CNS Hazard Index

Cardiovascular Hazard Index Kidney Hazard Index 8.9E-02

Liver Hazard Index

34 IPH Report, October 2002, ‘Sampling & Analysis PCB Risk Assessent of Dump Site-Bor Mining Complex’ Report


Page 41

Eye Hazard Index Gastrointestinal Hazard Index

CNS= Central Nervous System

This table provides hazard quotient (HQs) for the each significant routes of exposure and the hazard index (HI) (sum of hazard quotients) for all routes of exposure. The estimated H for all organ endpoints does not exceeds a hazard index of concern and indicates that the potential for adverse non-cancer effects could not occur from exposure to contaminated particulates originating from the Dump Site.

Risk Characterisation Summary � Non-Carcinogens

Scenario Timeframe: Future, industrial Receptor Population: site worker Receptor age: Adult

Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient Medium Exposure medium

Exposure point


Primary Target Organ

Ingestion Dermal Exposure Routes Total

Chromium kidney 3.8E-05 4.7E-04 5.1E-04

Arsenic skin 4.7E-02 7.3E-03 5.4E-02

Lead blood - - -

Copper Gastrointestinal - - -

Mercury kidney 4.7E-02 4.3E-02 9.0E-02

Zinc blood 2.0E-03 6.4E-04 2.6E-03

Soil air on site

Cadmium kidney 8.6E-03 5.4E-01 5.5E-01

Total = 1.0E-01 5.9E-01 7.0E-01 Skin Hazard Index 5.4E-02 Blood Hazard Index 2.6E-03 CNS Hazard Index

Cardiovascular Hazard Index Kidney Hazard Index 6.4E-01

Liver Hazard Index Eye Hazard Index

Gastrointestinal Hazard Index CNS= Central Nervous System


Page 42

Conclusion of Risk Assessment:

Soil Cleanup Levels for the Protection of Off-Site Area Workers from Incidental Ingestion and Dermal Contact with Surface Soil (0-100 mm)

Carcinogenic Contaminants of Concern

Cancer Classification

Soil Cleanup Level (mg/kg)

Basis Reasonable Maximum Exposure Risk

Arsenic A 120 risk 1.0E-06

PCBs B2 25 Policy 40 CFR 761

A- Human carcinogen B1- Probable human carcinogen-indicates that limited data are available B2- Probable human carcinogen-indicates sufficient evidence in animals and inadequate or no evidence in humans C- Possible human carcinogen D- Not classifiable as human carcinogen E- Evidence of noncarcinogenity

Non-Carcinogenic Contaminants of Concern

Target endpoint Soil Cleanup level (mg/kg)

Basis RME Hazard Quotient

Lead Central Nervous System

600 US EPA Adult Lead Model

95 % protection of exposed fetal population from blood lead levels in excess of 10 µg/dl


Page 43

8.0 Identification and Evaluation of Remedial Action Alternatives: The Remedial Action Objectives were developed based upon the results of the human health risk assessments for the Dump Site. Remedial action objectives were developed to aid in the development and screening of alternatives based on information relating to types of contaminants, environmental media of concern, and potential exposure pathways. These remedial action objectives were developed to mitigate existing and future potential threats to public health and the environment. The remedial action objectives are: • The primary expected outcome of the selected remedy is that the entire Dump Site will no longer

present an unacceptable risk to future users and will be suitable for unrestricted use. • Restoring the level of contaminants present in the soil at the Dump Site to the Regulatory Levels,

in this case max. 25 mg/kg of PCB; • Preventing exposure of workers, both on-Site and off-Site to the contaminated soils and the

contaminants present in the air; • Minimize contaminant migration to the underground aquifer and surface waters (although

unlikely in this case); • Properly disposed removed and contaminated soil; The evaluation of remedial alternatives is based on the compliance with nine criteria falling into three groups: • Threshold criteria • Primary balancing factors • Modifying criteria Threshold Criteria: The two threshold criteria described below must be met in order for the alternatives to be eligible for selection: 1. Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses whether or not a remedy provides adequate protection and describes how risks posed through each pathway are eliminated, reduced or controlled through treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls; 2. Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (Regulatory Requirements) addresses whether or not a remedy will meet all environmental and facility siting standards, requirements, criteria or limitations defined by the Yugoslav authorities supplemented by the requirements of US EPA regulations outlined in 40 CFR 761, unless a waiver is invoked.


Page 44

Remedy Selection Balancing Factors: • Effectiveness (determines whether an alternative eliminates, reduces, or controls

threats to public health and the environment) • Long-term reliability (considers the ability of an alternative to maintain protection of human

health and the environment over time) • Implementability (considers the technical and administrative feasibility of implementing

the alternative, including factors such as the relative availability of goods and services)

• Implementation risk (considers short-term risk presented to on-site workers, the community

or the environment during implementation of the remedy) • Cost (includes estimated capital and annual operations and maintenance costs,

as well as present worth cost. Present worth cost is the total cost of an alternative over time in terms of today’s dollar value. Costs estimates are expected to be accurate within the range of +50 to –30 percent)

Modifying criteria: • State acceptance • Community acceptance These two modifying criteria are not reviewed in this report. In order to meet the remedial action objectives, following alternatives are reviewed: Alternative 1: No action inclusive On-Site management through engineering and institutional controls; Alternative 2: Excavation to protective level and off-site disposal; Alternative 3: Excavation to protective levels and Solidification with Stabilization and

Off-site Disposal; Alternative 4: Excavation to protective levels and off-Site Treatment by Incineration; Alternative 5: Excavation to protective levels, on-Site Treatment by Indirect Thermal

Desorption and Off-Site Disposal of treatment residues;


Page 45

Alternative 1: No Action inclusive on-site management through engineering and institutional controls No Action response consists of implementing no remedial technology or process to reduce or minimize the volume, toxicity or mobility of the PCBs in the soil, but may include environmental monitoring and/or institutional controls. In this particular case, the No Action alternative includes the covering the soil at their present location with additional high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and a 15 mm layer of crushed coral, and maintaining them at this location indefinitely. The Dump Site would require a certain degree of maintenance for the life of the alternative. Such maintenance could include repairs of the plastic containment system and control of surface water and erosion. Installing a network of monitoring wells that are sampled on a periodic basis would monitor impacts to underlying groundwater. The designated Dump Site area would need to be secured by fencing to prevent the public from entering the area. Furthermore, the designated area may have to be appropriated for ownership by the RTB Bor for the life of the alternative. Alternative 2: Excavation to Protective Levels and Off-Site Disposal Alternative 2 consists of off-Site disposal of the soil that has been excavated from areas where PCBs detected in soils exceeded 25 ppm to a licensed treatment, storage, and disposal facility. In this alternative, the contaminated soil would be packaged in UN-rated containers, typically with a rated capacity of 200 liters. The preferred method of treatment will be permanent storage (salt mines) as most likely, the thermal treatment is not the appropriate treatment process due high levels of heavy metals. The individual containers would be loaded into 20-foot shipping containers and transported for disposal at an appropriate disposal facility. Alternative 3: Excavation to protective levels and Solidification with Stabilization and off-site Disposal Alternative 3 consists of the off-Site disposal of the soil that has been excavated from areas where PCBs detected in soils exceeded 25 ppm to a waste disposal cell constructed in the vicinity of the Dump Site to permanently contain PCB and heavy metals impacted soils. The base of the cell would be designed with a primary and secondary flexible membrane liner system consisting of high density polyethylene (HDPE), and leachate collection and leak detection and removal systems. Contaminated soils would be stabilized to immobilize the PCBs and heavy metals prior to disposal in the cell unit and thereby reducing the potential for leaching, mobility and bio-availability. The disposal cell cover would be designed with a cover system which consists of a single layer of 0.15 mm HDPE, surface water collection and removal system, and a 1.2 m thick vegetative cover soil layer. Alternative 4: Excavation to protective levels and off-Site Treatment by Incineration In this alternative, the soil that has been excavated from areas where PCBs detected in soils exceeded 25 ppm is incinerated. The incineration process is a technique that utilizes high temperatures to volatilize and thermodynamically break down contaminants to non-hazardous components. The incineration process typically proceeds in two stages. First, the contaminated soil is introduced into a directly fired rotary kiln, operating at 950 deg. C, which partially destroys the PCBs and other organic materials. Vapors from the kiln are then introduced into a secondary


Page 46

combustion chamber at approximately 1100 deg. C for complete destruction of the PCBs and other organic materials. The incineration phase oxidizes the hazardous waste to non-hazardous compounds, principally water and carbon dioxide. Often, this phase produces some acid gas, which is scrubbed or removed by other means. However, incinerators are required to meet stringent emission standards for off-gas treatment. This generally results in high costs associated with the incineration of soil containing both PCB and heavy metals. The question of incineration of soil containing given levels of heavy metals need to be resolved prior to final review of this alternative. Alternative 5: Excavation to protective levels, On-Site Treatment by Indirect Thermal

Desorption and Off-Site Disposal of treatment residues; In this alternative, the soil that has been excavated from areas where PCBs detected in soils exceeded 25 ppm with subsequent treatment using Indirect Thermal Desorption of PCB contaminated soils. Approximately 2 % of PCB contaminated residuals will result from the application of the ITD process, which will be shipped off the Site for further treatment. In this alternative, the contaminated residuals would be packaged in UN-approved containers, typically with a rated capacity of 200 liters. The individual containers would be loaded with treatment residuals into 20-foot shipping containers and transported to the storage or treatment facility for disposal in an appropriate disposal facility. The question of the behavior of the heavy metals during treatment needs to be clarified prior to final recommendation of the process. 8.1 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives: Five remedial alternatives were evaluated for suitability for the Dump Site Remediation Action. These five remedial alternatives were individually compared with each of the five evaluation criteria to determine which of the alternatives met all of them. The alternatives, which satisfy the five criteria, are compared to evaluate the relative merits and deficiencies of each alternative relative to one another so that they can be ranked in terms of the various evaluation criteria. The detailed discussion and analysis concerning the alternatives is to be found below: Alternative 1: No Action This alternative was retained for comparative analysis. Under this alternative PCB and heavy metals contaminated soils would remain on Site and engineering controls such as capping and fencing will be utilized. Protectiveness will be enhanced through the use of institutional controls. However the Site is not an engineered containment system, thereby presenting a long-term threat to human health and the environment if engineering controls fail. Alternative 2: Excavation and Off-Site Disposal This alternative meets all five of the criteria evaluated to date and was retained for comparative analysis. Alternative 3: Excavation and Off-Site Solidification


Page 47

This alternative meets all five of the criteria evaluated to date and was retained for comparative analysis. Alternative 4: Excavation and Off-Site Treatment by Incineration This alternative meets all five of the criteria evaluated to date and was retained for comparative analysis. Alternative 5: Excavation, On-Site Treatment by ITD and Off-Site Disposal This alternative meets all five of the criteria evaluated to date and was retained for comparative analysis. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment: Alternative 1 (No Action) does not meet the threshold criterion of being protective of human health environment. As required by the US regulations 40 CFR 761.61, the soil containing PCB with concentrations above 25 mg/kg shall be treated if no institutional measures are implemented. Alternatives 2 (Off-Site Disposal), 3 (Off-Site Solidification), 4 (Off-Site Incineration), and 5 (On-Site ITD/ Off-Site Disposal) meet this criterion. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence: Alternative 1 (No Action) retains PCB contaminated soil on Site for an indefinite period of time. Long-term storage under those storage conditions presents a long-term threat to human health and the environment. Alternative 2 (Off-Site Disposal) permanently removes PCBs with associated heavy metals from the Dump Site. Alternative 3 (Off-Site Solidification) will permanently contain the PCBs and heavy metals. Alternative 5 (On-Site ITD/ Off-Site Disposal) is not a destruction remedy; however the PCBs are effectively and permanently removed from the Dump Site. Alternative 4 (Off-Site Incineration) destroys PCBs, thus making this alternative rank very high under this criterion conditioned by meeting the requirement of possibility of thermal treatment of heavy metals. Implementability: Alternative 1 (No Action) is the most easily implementable alternative because the implementations of capping operation does not require excavation or remedial treatment. Alternative 2 (Off-Site Disposal) is technically, easily implementable. However, shipping and the exact mapping of the polluted areas constraints and decrease the overall implementability rating. The advantage is also the restricted amount of excavated soil due to the relatively small sizes of the ‘hot spots’. The impact of the Site distribution of heavy metals is not established at this stage. Alternative 3 (Off-Site Solidification) is readily implementable subject to the location of a suitable site for the storage cell on the Site where a permit from the authorities would be required. Potential permit requirements would reduce the implementability rating. The use of a standard design for the waste management unit shortens the design and specification phase of his alternative. The HDPE liner is readily available, but will require a skilled installation team to perform the work. Alternative 4 (Off-Site Incineration) can be completed in the short timeframe conditioned availability of the plant able to receive and thermally treat soil polluted both with PCB and heavy


Page 48

metals. This alternative is conditioned upon availability of thermal treatment facility able to treat soil polluted with heavy metals at the said levels. Alternative 5 (On-Site ITD/Off-Site Residue Disposal) is technically implementable. ITD is a proven technology that will be capable of treating the soil containing PCB at the Site. Because the ITD process is continuous, the duration of the soil processing with this unit is anticipated to be relatively brief. The unit proposed for use at the Dump Site is a modular unit designed for containerized transportation. The applicability of this method for treatment of soil contaminated with heavy metals is not clear at this stage. In the case of lack of the appropriate facility, the method is not the proper one for the remediation of the Site. Implementation Risk: Alternatives 1 (No Action) is most protective for site workers and eliminates the risks to the community related to implementing an alternative that involves moving the contaminated materials or using heavy equipment. Alternatives 2 (Off –Site Disposal), 3 (Off-Site Solidification), Alternative 4 (Off-Site Incineration) and 5 (On-Site ITD/Off-Site Disposal) are essentially equally protective of site workers and the community. The hazards associated with moving, treating and loading contaminated soils are manageable through the application of appropriate work plan controls and monitoring. Cost: The costs associated with each individual alternative have not been quantified. However the most cost and time efficient alternative seems to be Alternative 2, Off-Site disposal. Selected remedy: Several factors were considered in the selection of Alternative 2 (Off-Site Disposal) as the preferred remedial alternative for the Dump Site. The Selected Remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with US EPA Federal requirements35 that are applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, is cost-effective, and utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable. This remedy also satisfies the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of the remedy (i.e., reduce mobility, or volume of materials comprising principal threats through treatment) except reduction of toxicity. The discussion below summarizes the approach that resulted in selection of Alternative 2. The remaining alternatives were excluded from the application because they did not meet basic criteria for successful remediation of the Site. Alternative 3 was excluded from comparative analyses, because it failed to reduce the toxicity of soils in a reasonable amount of time, requiring implementation of the stabilization process at Site with proven effect (performance of TCLP tests for all concentrations of PCB and heavy metals), establishment of the storage cell in the vicinity of the Site and therewith incurred additional costs both with respect to the design and construction. Similarly, Alternatives 4 and 5 were also excluded due to questions of commercial justification, as the amount of polluted soil is relatively small and treatment complicated due to presence of heavy metals. 35 US EPA 40CFR 761


Page 49

Of the remaining choices, Alternative 1 could not be considered a viable alternative, because the introduction of capping will require continuous monitoring of the Site and maintenance of the cover.


Page 50

9. 0 Recommendations and Conclusions: The intent of the Dump Site risk assessment was two-fold. One objective was to assess the potential for health risks from current exposure pathways (soil, air). The second objective was to use pathway-specific information to develop soil intervention levels to protect against any immediate or future health risk for the workers community at and off-site. Baseline human health risk assessment of the Dump Site was performed, as part of the UNEP Clean-up of Environmental Hotspots programme, in order to estimate the probability and magnitude of potential adverse human health and environmental effects from exposure to contaminants associated with the Dump Site assuming no remedial action was taken. The assessment provides the basis for taking remedial action and identifies the contaminants and exposure pathways that need to be addressed in the implementation phase. The human health risk assessments followed a four step process: 1) contaminant identification, which identified those hazardous substances which, given the specifics of the Site, were of significant concern; 2) exposure assessment, which identified actual or potential exposure pathways, characterized the potentially exposed populations, and determined the extent of possible exposure; 3) toxicity/effects assessment, which considered the types and magnitude of adverse effects associated with exposure to hazardous substances, and 4) risk characterization, which integrated the three earlier steps to summarize the potential and actual risks posed by hazardous substances at the Dump Site, including carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks. The exposure assessment looked at receptors (adults) and modelled exposures for inhalation, ingestion and dermal contact using standard exposure assessment methods. Adjustments were not made with respect to the forms heavy metals, which are currently present in soil at the Site as Acid leachate tests and bioaccessibility studies were not used to adjust for the amount of each metal that would be bioaccessible in the digestive tract. In all cases, accepted dermal and oral exposure factors were taken from the available data published mainly by US EPA. Speciation tests were not performed on site soils to determine which forms of arsenic and lead or other inorganic contaminants were present. Certain types of heavy metal compounds are more available for uptake into the human body. Also, certain types dissolve more easily in water, and as such, are more available for dissolution into ground water or surface water. The most common lead-bearing particles at the Site (i.e. those which were observed most often) will be iron oxide and iron sulphate, accounting for an average of about 39% and 28% of all lead-bearing particles respectively. However, because the concentration of lead in these forms is relatively low, they will most probably account for only about 7% of the total lead mass. The form of particle which contributed the majority of the lead mass is cerussite, also known as lead carbonate. This form contains approximately 73% of the lead mass. Lead carbonate is considered extremely bioavailable for uptake into the human body.


Page 51

The most common arsenic-bearing forms is also iron oxide and iron sulfate. However, the form of particle which contributes to the majority of the arsenic mass is lead arsenic oxide, which is also very bioavailable. The physical characteristics of the site soils also tended to increase the bioavailability of the Contaminants of Concern. In general, lead and arsenic will be found in particles which are extremely small (i.e. less than 50-100 micrometers) and separated from the surrounding soils. These small, liberated particles are often assumed to be more likely to adhere to the hands and be ingested and/or be transported into the home/office. They are also more readily digested in the stomach than larger particles. Based on the material available for the assessment and the analyses conducted, it is recommended to remove the upper layer of soil at the Dump Site from the localities characterized as ‘hot-spots’ to a depth of approximately 10-15 cm until concentration of PCB is equal to or less than 25 mg/kg is reached. This remedial action when implemented, will in an efficient manner remove the sources of pollution and therewith diminish the amount of PCB and detected heavy metals in the surface soil. The question of the building debris has not been addressed during this evaluation as no spots of PCB pollution of the concrete could be visually detected. A summary of only those aspects of the human health and ecological risk assessments which support the need for remedial action are discussed below. Risks not significant enough to warrant a response, such as risks to trespassers contacting chemicals of concern in the soils, have not been taken into consideration. Likewise, the human risks associated with the groundwater will not be discussed because this exposure path does not serve as a basis for this assessment. Final Remediation Levels: The risk based Preliminary Remediation Goals are considered as a Final Remediation Levels when fulfilling objections defined as remedial action’s threshold criteria, balancing factors and modifying criteria. Final Remediation Levels (FRLs) are contaminant- and media-specific remediation levels that are to be attained at the site after implementation of the remedy is complete. However, it is important to note that regardless of the approach used to develop and refine the FRLs may differ substantially from the PRGs because of modifications resulting from consideration of uncertainties, technical limitations, exposure factors, statutory requirements as well as from all nine remedy selection criteria. Presented below are a variety of key factors that should be considered when evaluating PRGs and potential FRLs: • Current and future land use • Institutional controls • Site specific background concentrations • Multimedia fate and transport issues • Risk goals • Multiple descriptors of risk


Page 52

The risk based calculated remediation value for PCB is 63 ppm for excavation scenario. However due to the fact that US EPA (40 CFR 761) regulation requires the minimum level of PCB for industrial sites, to be 25 ppm, the proposed Final Remediation Levels for PCB contaminants is: PCB: 25 ppm As the spatial vertical and horizontal distribution of heavy metal pollutants is not know at this stage, the proposed Final Remediation Level for these contaminants should be associated with obtainment of the 25 ppm levels in the soil for the PCB contaminant. Whether the concentration level of especially Arsenic, Cadmium and Mercury will be diminished during the implementation of the remedial action removing PCB contaminant is not known at this stage. Therefore no Final Remediation Level is established for heavy metals. The risk based values for inorganic pollutants, which may be adopted as FRL are: As: 120 mg/kg (excavation scenario) Cd: 350 mg/kg (excavation scenario) Zn: 120 mg/kg (excavation scenario) Hg: 720 mg/kg (excavation scenario) Pb: 600 mg/kg (95 % protection) Cu: 600 mg/kg (excavation scenario) Uncertainties: The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in this evaluation, as in all such assessments, are subject to a wide variety of uncertainties. In general, the main sources of uncertainty include: - environmental chemistry sampling and analysis; - environmental parameter measurement; - fate and transport modeling; - exposure parameter estimation; - toxicological data; Uncertainty in environmental sampling arises in part from the potentially uneven distribution of chemical in the media sampled. Consequently, there is significant uncertainty as to the actual levels present. Environmental chemistry-analysis error can stem from several sources, including the errors inherent in the analytical methods and characteristics of the matrix being sampled. Uncertainties in the exposure assessment are related to estimates of how often an individual would actually come in contact with the contaminant of concern, the period of time over which such exposure would occur, and in the models used to estimate the concentrations of the contaminants of concern at the point of exposure. Uncertainties in toxicological data occur in extrapolating both from animals to humans and from high to low doses of exposure, as well as from the difficulties in assessing the toxicity of a mixture of chemicals. These uncertainties are addressed by making generic (conservative) assumptions concerning risk and exposure parameters throughout the assessment.


Page 53

As a result, the risk assessment provides upper-bound estimates of the risks to populations near the Site, and is highly unlikely to underestimate actual risks related to the Site. A comparison of the content of As at the Site with the sampling results performed earlier during the Assessment of Environmental Monitoring Capacities in Bor36 shows that the contamination level with As is much higher. The average concentration of As in soil in the Bor area is 20.9 mg/kg, where as at the Site the average concentration measured was 2498 mg/kg. Lack of adequate data with respect to the spatial distribution of the heavy metal site contamination contributes essentially to the uncertainty with respect to the clean up remediation levels during remedial action proposed.

36 UNEP, Mission Report, May 2002


Page 54

10.0 Bibliography: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) ‘Toxicological Profile for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)’, November 2000 Institute of Public Health of Belgrade Bor: Environmental Assessment, May 2002 Institute of Public Health of Belgrade Chemical Analyses of Ground and Surface Water, Soil, Plants, River Sediment and Suspended Particles in Ambient Air in the Bor Area, Report 23 May, 2002 International Waste Management Group Assessment of Copper Smelter; Copper Mine; Landfill Site & Thermal Power Plant Bor, December 2000 International Waste Management Group Economic, Environmental & Public Health Assessment Bor Municipality, Yugoslavia Part I,II,III, (December 2000 & February 2001) Municipal Assembly Bor Report: Local Municipal Assembly Bor Group for the support to UNEP/UNOPS Monitoring Mission, Bor, May 2002 PCBs: Cancer Dose-Response Assessment and Application to Environmental Mixtures EPA/600/P-96/001F, September 1996 RTB Bor Air analysis results, Publication dated Bor, 25.04.2002 RTB Bor Geological Review, August 2002 RTB Bor

Official Letter to UNEP from RTB Bor, dated 3.9.2002 The Municipality of Bor Letter to UNEP/UNOPS project implementation office, dated 27.06.2002 UNEP: Cleanup of Environmental Hotspots, ‘Assessment of Environmental Monitoring Capacities in Bor. Mission Report September 2002’ UNEP Balkans Unit B.1 – Remediation actions concerning the PCB contamination at the transformer station Bor


Page 55

UNEP Balkans Task Force Feasibility Study, Environmental Hot Spots caused by the Kosovo Conflict April 2000 UNEP: PCB Transformers and Capacitors From Management to Reclassification and Disposal First Issue May 2002 UNEP: Survey of Currently Available Non-Incineration PCB Destruction Technologies First Issue, August 2000 US Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR Protection of Environment Chapter I, Subchapter R -- Toxic Substances Control Act Part 761 -- POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) MANUFACTURING, PROCESSING, DISTRIBUTION IN COMMERCE, AND USE PROHIBITIONS US EPA 40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-01 Edition) PART 761— ‘Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in Commerce, and Use Prohibitions’ US EPA 540/g-90/007, August 1990 ‘Guidance on Remedial Actions for Superfund Sites with PCB Contaminants’


Page 56

Appendix 1: Chemical-Specific and Physical-Chemical Parameters PCB


Page 57

Polychlorinated Biphenyls CASRN: 1336-36-3 Carcinogenicity, Oral Exposure: The cancer potency of PCB mixtures is determined using a tiered approach that depends on the information available. The following tier descriptions discuss all environmental exposure routes: tiers of human slope factors for environmental PCBs high risk and persistence37 Upper-bound slope factor: 2.0 per (mg/kg)/day Central-estimate slope factor: 1.0 per (mg/kg)/day Criteria for use: - Food chain exposure - Sediment or soil ingestion - Dust or aerosol inhalation - Dermal exposure, if an absorption factor has been applied - Presence of dioxin-like, tumor-promoting, or persistent congeners - Early-life exposure (all pathways and mixtures) LOW RISK AND PERSISTENCE1 Upper-bound slope factor: 0.4 per (mg/kg)/day Central-estimate slope factor: 0.3 per (mg/kg)/day Criteria for use: - Ingestion of water-soluble congeners - Inhalation of evaporated congeners - Dermal exposure, if no absorption factor has been applied LOWEST RISK AND PERSISTENCE1 Upper-bound slope factor: 0.07 per (mg/kg)/day Central-estimate slope factor: 0.04 per (mg/kg)/day Criteria for use: Congener or isomer analyses verify that congeners with more than 4 chlorines comprise less than 1/2% of total PCBs. Depending on the specific application, either central estimates or upper bounds can be appropriate. Central estimates describe a typical individual's risk, while upper bounds provide assurance that this risk is not likely to be 37 IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System) US EPA


Page 58

underestimated if the underlying model is correct. The upper bounds calculated in this assessment reflect study design and provide no information about sensitive individuals or groups. Central estimates are useful for estimating aggregate risk across a population. Central estimates are used for comparing or ranking environmental hazards, while upper bounds provide information about the precision of the comparison or ranking. UNIT RISK ESTIMATE AND DRINKING WATER CONCENTRATIONS38 For ingestion of water-soluble congeners, the middle-tier slope factor can be converted to a unit risk estimate and drinking water concentrations associated with specified risk levels. Upper-bound slope factor: 0.4 per (mg/kg)/day Upper-bound unit risk: 1 x 10-5 per µg/L Drinking water concentration associated with a risk of: 1 in 10,000 10 µg/L 1 in 100,000 1 µg/L 1 in 1,000,000 0.1 µg/L These estimates should not be used if drinking water concentrations exceed 1000 ug/L, since above this concentration the dose-response curve in the experimental range may provide better estimates. For food chain exposure or ingestion that includes contaminated sediment or soil, the slope factor for "high risk and persistence" should be used instead. Carcinogenicity, Inhalation Exposure: For inhalation of evaporated congeners, the middle-tier slope factor can be converted to a unit risk estimate and ambient air concentrations associated with specified risk levels. Upper-bound slope factor: 0.4 per (mg/kg)/day Upper-bound unit risk: 1 x 10-4 per µg/cu.m Ambient air concentration associated with a risk of: 1 in 10,000 1 µg/cu.m 1 in 100,000 0.1 µg/cu.m 1 in 1,000,000 0.01 µg/cu.m These estimates should not be used if ambient air concentrations exceed 100 µg/cu.m, since above this concentration the dose-response curve in the experimental range may provide better estimates.

38 IRIS


Page 59

For inhalation of an aerosol or dust contaminated with PCBs, the slope factor for "high risk and persistence" should be used instead.

PCB Cancer Slope Factors Route of Exposure Cancer Slope Factor

High Risk and Persistence

Ingestion

- Food Chain Exposure (i.e., fish)

- Sediment or soil ingestion

- Persistence of dioxin-like, tumor-promoting, or persistent congeners in other media

- Early-life exposure (all path-ways and mixtures)

2 mg/kg-day

Dermal

- If an absorption factor has been applied to reduce the external dose

2 mg/kg-day

Inhalation

- Dust or aerosol inhalation 2 mg/kg-day

Low Risk and Persistence

Ingestion

- Water-soluble congeners 0.4 mg/kg-day

Inhalation

- Evaporated congeners 0.4 mg/kg-day

Dermal

- If no absorption factor has been applied to reduce the external dose.

0.4 mg/kg-day

Lowest Risk and Persistence

Congener or isomer analyses verify that congeners with more than 4 chlorides comprise less than �% of total PCBs

0.07 mg/kg-day

Source: US EPA, Hudson River Superfund


Page 60

PCBs: Class of compounds with 209 possible individuals known as congeners, each with a different number and position of chlorines on a biphenyl ring. The number and position of the chlorines can effect the physicochemical behaviour of the congener.

PCB solubility in water versus GC retention time. Solubility ranges by orders of magnitude from the lower chlorinated to the higher chlorinated congeners. The lower chlorinated PCBs are more soluble, mobile and volatile; the higher chlorinated congeners are less soluble and volatile and more lipophilic and adsorb to particles and fat.39

39 Environmental Research Centre, Oswego 1999


Page 61

Chemical Name: PCBs (Arochlor 1254) CAS Number: 11097-69-1

Synonyms: PCBs, Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Arochlor 1254 in 50% Trichlorobenzene

European Risk Category for This Chemical:

Risk Category:

2

1.Extremely Dangerous: the LD50 for rabbits exposed by the dermal route is less than 50 mg/kg body weight.

2. Very Dangerous: the LD50 in rabbits exposed by the skin route is from 25 mg/kg to 200 mg/kg body weight.

3. Dangerous: the LD50 in rabbits exposed by the dermal route is between 400 mg/kg and 2000 mg/kg body weight.

4. Other: this chemical has low toxicity or no risk information is available.

European Toxicity Risk Code for This Chemical:

TX= Very Toxic T = Toxic

CX = Highly Corrosive CAN = Known or Suspected Carcinogen

C = Corrosive X = Harmful

XI = Irritant S = Allergen or Sensitizer

Risk Code:

T, CAN

V = Low Toxicity n.a. = No information available


Page 62

NFPA Health Rating for this Chemical

0 = NONE: Materials result in injury under unusual conditions or by overwhelming dosage.

1= SLIGHT: Short term exposure may result in minor injury that is reversible.

2 = MODERATE: Short term exposure may result in minor temporary or permanent injury; may result in major injury.

3 = HIGH: Short term exposure may result in major temporary or permanent injury; may threaten life.

NFPA Health:

2

4 = EXTREME: Short term exposure may result in major injury or death.

NFPA Flammability Rating for this Chemical:

0 = NONE: Will Not Burn.

1= MINOR: Ignites after considerable heating.

2 = MODERATE: Ignites if moderately heated.

3 = SEVERE: Can be ignited at all temperatures.

NFPA Flammability:

1

4 = EXTREME: Very flammable gases or liquids.

NFPA Reactivity Rating for this Chemical:

0 = NONE: Stable under exposure to fire. Not reactive with water.

1= MINOR: Unstable at high temperature and pressure; may react with water with energy release, but not violently.

2 = MODERATE: Unstable; undergoes violent chemical change, but will not detonate; may form explosive mixtures with water.

3 = SEVERE: Explosive if initiated, heated or water added.

NFPA Reactivity:

0

4 = EXTREME: Readily explosive under normal conditions.

ACGIH Skin Notation:

If "YES", this chemical has been identified by the American Conference of Governmental Hygienists as one that may permeate intact skin and may cause toxic effects.:


Page 63

Notation:

NO If "NO", this chemical has not been shown to permeate intact skin.

Other Toxicity and Risk Information

If "YES", this chemical has been shown by the International Agency for Research on Cancer to cause cancer in animals. The chemical would then be a suspected Human carcinogen.

IARC Carcinogen in Animals:

YES If "NO", this chemical has not been shown to cause cancer in animals.

If "YES", this chemical has been shown by the International Agency for Research on Cancer to have carcinogenic potential in humans.

IARC Carcinogen in Humans:

NO If "NO", this chemical has not been shown to be a potential carcinogen in humans.

If "YES", this chemical appears on the list of extremely hazardous substances developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as required by the Superfund Amendments and the Reauthorization Act of 1986.

EPA Extremely Hazardous Substance:

NO If "NO", this chemical has not been shown to be an extreme hazard.

Source: European Risk Information


Page 64

Appendix 2 Maps


Page 65

Dump Site Cross section P1


Page 66

Dump Site Cross Section P2


Page 67

Sampling Points during campaign in August 2002. Prepared by Institute of Public Health, Belgrade.


Page 68

Coordinates of the Dump Site and indications of geological cross-sections P1 and P2


Page 69

Source: Bor: Environmental Assessment, May 2002. Institute of Public Health of Belgrade


Page 70

Source: Bor: Environmental Assessment, May 2002. Institute of Public Health of Belgrade


Page 71

Appendix 3 Definitions


Page 72

Definitions: Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRG): Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRG) in this assessment are defined as risk-based concentration of soil contaminants, derived from standardised equations combining exposure information assumptions with quoted toxicity data. In this assessment PRG values are considered to be protective for humans over a lifetime. The quoted PRGs are site specific due to incorporation of the Dump-Site specific information. They do not address non-human endpoints such as ecological impact. PRGs identify initial cleanup goals at the Dump-Site or long-term targets to be used during the analysis of different remedial alternatives. Reference dose: A (toxicity) reference dose (RfD), is the value used most often in evaluation non-carcinogenic effects resulting from exposure to toxicants. Various types of RfDs are available depending on the exposure route (oral or inhalation) and the length of exposure being evaluated (chronic, subchronic, or single event). Chronic RfDs are generally used to evaluate the potential non-carcinogenic effects for risk assessments of prolonged exposure. Subchronic RfDs define the highest average daily exposure over shorter time periods (i.e., between 2 weeks and 7 years) that will not cause adverse health effects. Developmental RfDs estimate the highest single-event exposure level that will not be deleterious to a developing organism. Slope Factor: The slope factor is the lifetime cancer risk per unit of dose. It is typically expressed on the basis of chemical weight [milligrams of substance taken into the body per kilogram body weight per day (mg kg-1 d-1)]. Slope factors are usually calculated for potential carcinogens in Groups A, B, and C, based on the adequacy of the available data. The Group A classification implies that the contaminant of concern is carcinogenic to humans and that there is a statistically significant association between exposure to an agent and malignant or life-threatening benign tumours in humans. Group B includes chemicals that are probably carcinogenic to humans. The U.S. EPA divides Group B into the categories B1 and B2. Group B1 includes chemicals with limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. Group B2 includes chemicals with sufficient evidence for carcinogenicity in animals, but inadequate evidence for carcinogenicities in human. Group C includes chemicals which are potentially carcinogenic to humans. A chemical is classified in Group C when data are inadequate and animal data demonstrate limited evidence of carcinogenicity (e.g. and increased incidence of benign tumours only; a positive finding of carcinogenicity in one species only; and increased incidence of neoplasms that occur with high spontaneous background incidence). Quantitative estimates of slope factors for the chemicals in Group C are done on a base-by-base basis.


Page 73

Hazard Quotient: The noncarcinogenic hazard posed by a hazardous substance is the average daily intake divided by the reference dose (RfD);this ratio is known as the hazard quotient(HQ). The average daily intake is the mass of a hazardous substance contacted per unit body weight per unit time averaged over a portion of a lifetime (i.e., that portion of a lifetime during which exposure actually occurs. HQ (unitless) is expressed as: HQ = Intake/RfD Carcinogenic Risk: The carcinogenic risk posed by a hazardous substance is the average daily intake multiplied by the carcinogenic slope factor (SF);this multiplication product is known as the upper bound individual excess lifetime cancer risk (cancer risk above the background cancer risk due to exposure to other carcinogens not related to the site). The risk estimate is upper bound because it is an estimate based on conservative dose response modeling and the true risk may in fact be lower. The average daily intake is the mass of a hazardous substance contacted per unit body weight per unit time averaged over an assumed lifetime of 70 years. The SF is an upper bound estimate of cancer risk per mass of a hazardous substance contacted per unit body weight per day (expressed in units of (mg/kg/day) ). SFs are estimated through the use of

mathematical extrapolation models for estimating the largest possible linear slope (within the 95 % confidence limit) at low extrapolated doses that is consistent with the data. Carcinogenic risk estimate (unitless) is expressed as : Risk= Intake * SF Reasonable Maximum Exposure: The Reasonable Maximum Exposure is defined as the highest exposure that is reasonably expected to occur at a site under current and potential future site use. These reasonable maximum exposures will apply to most sites where individuals or groups of individuals are or could be exposed to hazardous substances. For example, the reasonable maximum exposure for most groundwater is defined as exposure to hazardous substances in drinking water and other domestic uses. Trench worker: The industrial worker in intimate and extended contact with contaminated soil and ground water Industrial Worker: The commercial/industrial scenario is considered representative of on-site workers who spend all or most of their workday outdoors. A commercial/industrial worker is assumed to be a long-term receptor exposed during the course of a work day as either (1) a full time employee of a company operating on-site who spends most of the work day conducting maintenance or manual labor activities outdoors or (2) a worker who is assumed to regularly perform grounds-keeping activities as part of his/her daily responsibilities. Exposure to surface and shallow subsurface soils (i.e., at depths of zero to two feet below ground surface) is expected to occur during moderate digging


Page 74

associated with routine maintenance and grounds-keeping activities. A commercial/industrial receptor is expected to be the most highly exposed receptor in the outdoor environment under generic or day-to-day commercial/industrial conditions. Thus, the screening levels for this receptor are expected to be protective of other reasonably anticipated indoor and outdoor workers at a commercial/industrial facility. However, screening levels developed for the commercial/industrial worker may not be protective of a construction worker due to the latter’s increased soil contact rate during construction activities. Equations 6 and 7 were used to develop generic SSLs for cumulative exposure to carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic contaminants by all exposure pathways. Default exposure parameters are provided and were used in calculating the SSLs. Construction/Excavation Worker: A construction worker is assumed to be a receptor who is exposed to contaminated soil during the work day for the duration of a single on-site construction project. If multiple construction projects are anticipated, it is assumed that different workers will be employed for each project. The activities for this receptor typically involve substantial exposures to surface and subsurface soils (i.e., at depths of zero to 3 m below ground surface) during excavation, maintenance and building construction projects (intrusive operations). A construction worker is assumed to be exposed to contaminants via the following pathways: incidental soil ingestion, dermal contact with soil, and inhalation of contaminated outdoor air (volatile and particulate emissions). While a construction worker receptor is assumed to have a higher soil ingestion rate than a commercial/industrial worker due to the type of activities performed during construction projects, the exposure frequency and duration are assumed to be significantly shorter due to the short-term nature of construction projects. However, chronic toxicity information was used when developing screening levels for a construction worker receptor. This approach is significantly more conservative than using sub-chronic toxicity data because it combines the higher soil exposures for construction workers with chronic toxicity criteria. Equations 8 and 9 were used to develop generic SSLs for cumulative exposure to carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic contaminants by all exposure pathways. Default exposure parameters are provided and were used in calculating the SSLs. Direct Ingestion: Exposure to contaminants through incidental ingestion of soil can result from the inadvertent consumption of soils adhering to the hands, food items, or objects that are placed into the mouth. It can also result from swallowing dust particles that have been inhaled and deposited in the mouth and subsequently swallowed. Commercial/industrial and construction workers and residential receptors may inadvertently ingest soil that adheres to their hands while involved in work- or recreation-related activities. Calculation of SSLs for direct ingestion are based on the methodology presented by US EPA.40 Dermal Absorption: Exposure to soil contaminants may result from dermal contact with contaminated soil and the subsequent absorption of contaminants through the skin. Contact with soil is most likely to occur as a result of digging, gardening, landscaping, or outdoor recreation activities. Excavation activities

40 Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS): Volume I - Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation

Goals), Interim (US EPA, 1991), Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document (US EPA, 1996a)


Page 75

may also be a potential source of exposure to contaminants, particularly for construction workers. Calculation of the screening levels for ingestion of soil under the residential exposure scenario is based on the methodology presented by EPA.41 Low-occupancy exposure: Low-occupancy exposure is defined in 40 CFR 761.3 as an average of less than 6.7 hours of contact with the PCB-affected soil per week. Risk (in the context of human health): The probability of injury, disease, or death from exposure to a chemical agent or a mixture of chemicals. In quantitative terms, risk is expressed in values ranging from zero (representing the certainty that harm will not occur) to one (representing the certainty that harm will occur) Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide: The concentration of a chemical in air, water, or soil (or other environmental media), that is expected to cause no more than one additional cancer in a million persons exposed over a lifetime. The CREG is a comparison value used to select contaminants of potential health concern.

41 Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I - Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation Goals), Interim

(1991), and Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document (US EPA, 1996a), RAGS, Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment


Page 76

Appendix 4 Photographs


Page 77

General view of the dump site RTB Bor. Building debri and destroyed capacitors mounting frames clearly visible. (Picture taken in August 2002)

Stored undamaged capacitors at the RTB Bor containing PCB polluted oil. (Picture taken in August 2002)


Page 78

Storage building for undamaged capacitors containing PCB contaminated oil. (Picture taken in August 2002)

Soil sampling in the vicinity of damaged capacitors. Dump Site, RTB Bor. (Picture taken in August 2002)


Page 79

Damaged capacitors at the Dump Site, RTB Bor. (Picture taken in August 2002)


Page 80

Appendix 5 Analysis of Soil Samples Results42

42 Sampling and Analysis by Institute of Public Health, Belgrade, Competent Authority for Waste Characterisation in FRY


Page 81

Analysis Results:

Table 1: Content of PCB′s in dump of waste material with PCB from RTB Bor

ID Number

Location.

Depth of sampling

in m

PCB in

mg/kg

ID Number

Location.

Depth of sampling in m

PCB in

mg/kg

ID Number

Location.

Depth of samplimg in

m

PCB in

mg/kg

11- 334 0 Surface area

16211.17 11- 346 0.1 <0.01 11- 386 9 1.1 0.25

11- 335 0.1 1094.53 11- 347 0.5 <0.01 11- 357 0.1 <0.01

11- 336 0.5 <0.01 11- 348

5

1.2 <0.01 11- 387

10 0.5 <0.01

11- 337

1

1.5 <0.01 11- 349 0.1 <0.01 11- 358 0.1 <0.01

11- 338 0.1 528.71 11- 350 0.5 <0.01 11- 359

11 0.5 <0.01

11- 339 0.5 0.87 11- 383

6

0.8 47.4 11- 360 0.1 9784.21

11- 340

2

1.5 0.45 11- 351 0.1 <0.01 11- 361 0.5 627.5

11- 341 0.1 1.25 11- 352 0.5 <0.01 11- 388

12

1.0 <0.01

11- 342 0.5 1.68 11- 384

7

0.9 <0.01 11- 362 0.1 48.7

11- 381

3

1.5 <0.01 11- 353 0.1 <0.01 11- 363 0.5 89.7

11- 343 0.1 <0.01 11- 354

8 0.5 1.08 11- 389

13

1.1 5.26


Page 82

11- 344 0.5 <0.01 11- 385 0.9 <0.01 11- 390 0.1 <0.01

11- 345 1.0 <0.01 11- 355 0.1 <0.01 11- 391

14 0.5 <0.01

11- 382

4

1.5 <0.01 11 - 356

9 0.5 <0.01

Table 2. Content of congeners PCB′s in dump of waste material with PCB from RTB Bor

Content of congeners PCB′s in µg/kg dry mass

Sample of

soil ID

Number

Number of Location � sampling

spots


PCB 28

PCB 52

PCB 101

PCB 118

PCB 138

PCB 153

PCB 180

11-334 0 – hot spot Surface area 146235.5 2832.5 1390.0 2645.0 2845.5 3491.2 65.2

11-335 0.1 7280.9 1286.8 180.9 102.9 135.6 144.8 27.9

11-336 0.5 5.8 1.4 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

11-337

1

1.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

11-338 0.1 2931.3 670.4 13.9 3.2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

11-339 0.5 10.5 1.7 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

11-340

2

1.5 7.3 1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0


Page 83

11-341 0.1 4.8 1.1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

11-342 0.5 5.5 1.4 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

11-381

3

1.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

Table 2. Content of congeners PCB′s in dump of waste material with PCB from RTB Bor (continued)


Sample of

soil ID

Number


spots


PCB 28

PCB 52

PCB 101

PCB 118

PCB 138

PCB 153

PCB 180

11-343 0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

11-344 0.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

11-345 1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

11-382

4

1.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

11-346 0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

11-347

5 0.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0


Page 84

11-348 1.2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

11-349 0.1 1.2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

11-350 0.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

11-383

6

0.8 1132.9 163.2 47.4 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0



Sample of

soil ID

Number


spots


PCB 28

PCB 52

PCB 101

PCB 118

PCB 138

PCB 153

PCB 180

11-351 0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

11-352 0.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

11-384

7

0.9 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

11-353 0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

11-354

8 0.5 6.9 6.3 2.5 2.8 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0


Page 85

11-385 0.9 112.9 <1.0 4.2 1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

11-355 0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

11-356 0.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

11-386

9

1.1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0



Sample of

soil ID

Number


spots


PCB 28

PCB 52

PCB 101

PCB 118

PCB 138

PCB 153

PCB 180

11-357 0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

11-387 0.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

10

11-358 0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

11-359

11 0.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0


Page 86

11-360 0.1 6911.2 2802.9 236.9 235.3 26.1 <1.0 <1.0

11-361 0.5 4202.2 11.6 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

11-388

12

1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0



Sample of

soil ID

Number

Number of Locatoin � sampling

spots


PCB 28

PCB 52

PCB 101

PCB 118

PCB 138

PCB 153

PCB 180

11-362 0.1 109.2 10.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

11-363 0.5 10802.6 1378.8 237.1 59.6 9.3 <1.0 <1.0

11-389

13

1.1 766.7 134.4 2.4 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

11-390 0.1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0


Page 87

11-391 0.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

14

Content of PCB′s in capacitor′s oil from RTB Bor: 492.6 g/kg (ID Number 11-333)′ Contents of PCB in industrial wastewater Tailings lagoon TILVA MIKA from RTB Bor: < 0.01 µg/L (ID Number 11-379) Contents of PCB in sediment Tailings lagoon TILVA MIKA from RTB Bor: < 0.01 mg/kg (ID Number 11-380) Contents of PCB in air hot spot Location 1. from RTB Bor: 151.76 µg /m3 (ID Number 09-2626)


Page 88

Table 3. Results of Analyses in dump of waste material with PCB from RTB Bor

Identification No. Parameters

11-335 11-360 pH(10% water

extract) 7.6 6.2

Moisture(105ºC,%) 32.09 12.18 Percent of solids % 67.91 87.82

Heavy metals * in mg/kg

Lead 1300 3500 Cadmium 10 25

Zinc 700 1800 Nickel 120 70

Chromium(total) 110 120 Copper 65000 43000 Arsenic 456 4540 Mercury 10 48

Antimony <200 <200 Barium 60 43

Content in the EP extract (neutral leaching test :leachate time: 24h, leachate

ratio:10): Ammonium(mgN/l) 2.37 5.15

Nitrite(mgN/l) 0.050 0.050 Chloride(mgCl/l) 1.24 4.83

Phosphates(mgP/l) <0.05 <0.05 Chromium-VI(mg/l) 0.51 0.85

Nitrate(mgN/l) 2 6 Phenol index (mg/l) <0.002 <0.002 Cyanides(mgCN/l)l <0.01 <0.01

Electric conductivity(µS/cm)

3.5 3.2

*dry mass

Table 3. (cont.) Results of Analyses in dump of waste material with PCB from RTB Bor


Page 89

Parameters Identification No.

11-335 11-360 PCB* in mg/kg 1094.53 9784.21 PCB 28 µg/kg 7280 6911.2 PCB 52 µg/kg 1286.8 2802.9 PCB 101 µg/kg 180.9 236.9 PCB118 µg/kg 102.9 235.3 PCB138 µg/kg 135.6 26.1 PCB152 µg/kg 144.8 <1.0 PCB180 µg/kg 27.9 <1.0

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons* in µg/kg: Naphtalene <10 <10

Acenaphthene <10 <10 Acenaphthylene <10 <10

Fluorene <10 <10 Phenantrene <10 <10 Anthracene <10 <10

Fluoranthene <10 <10 Pyrene <10 <10

Benzo(a)anthracene <10 <10 Chrysene <10 <10

Benzo(b)fluoranthene <10 <10 Benzo(k)fluoranthene <10 <10

Benzo(a)pyrene <10 <10 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene <10 <10

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene <10 <10 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene <10 <10

Total PAH <10 <10 *dry mass

Table 3. (cont.) Results of Analyses in dump of waste material with PCB from RTB Bor

Parameters Identification No.

11-335 11-360 Volatility organic hydrocarbons*(µg/kg):

Benzene <10 <10 Toluene <10 <10

Ethylbenzene <10 <10 Xylenes <10 <10

1,2-Dichloroethene <10 <10 Chloroform <10 <10

Trichloroethylene <10 <10 Tetrachloroethylene <10 <10

Chlorbenzene <10 <10 Carbon tetrachl. <10 <10


Page 90

Styrene <10 <10 *dry mass

Table 4. Waste Characterization

Sample Identification No.

11-335 11-360 Character of waste hazardous hazardous Categories of waste

according to the Annex I of the Basel

Convention

Y18,Y22,Y24,Y29,Y31

Y18,Y24,Y29,Y31

Hazardous Characteristics (H)

H11,H13 H11,H13

Code number according to the

Annex VIII of the Basel Convention

A3180/A1020/A1030 A3180/A1020/A1030

EWC Code number or a code number from catalogue of

waste

170902/170503 170902/170503

Categories of waste-List of waste

(G,A.R)

RA010 RA010


Page 91

Appendix 6 Results of Environmental Sampling Bor Region43

43 Sampling Campain implemented as part of the ”Assessment of Environmrntal Monitoring Capacities in Bor”. Mission Report August 2002.

Sampling and analysis by Institute of Public Health, Belgrade, Competent Authority for Waste Characterisation in FRY.


Page 92

Results of Analysis of ground water samples (springs) from the Bor (»V program« - Yugoslav standard for potable water)

Parameters / Sample ID Number 03-361 03-362 03-363 Temperature (°C) 13.8 10.7 8.6 Colour-platinum cobalt method <5 <5 <5 Odour without without without Turbidity NTU 0.1 0.1 0.8 pH 7.2 7.2 7.4 Oxidability (mg/L) KMnO4 2.8 1.9 3.1 Residue 105°C 218 214 191 Conductivity (µS/cm) 440 460 350 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) O2 8.1 8.9 11.0 Saturation % O2 78 79 94 Hydrogen sulfide (mg/L) H2S without without without Carbon dioxide (mg/L) CO2 13.0 13.9 7.4 Cyanide (mg/L) CN- <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Chlorine (residual) (mg/L) Cl2 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 p-alcalinity ml 0,1N HCl/L 0.0 0.0 0.0 m-alcalinity ml 0,1N HCl/L 41.6 43.6 31.7 Hardness total °dH 14.5 14.7 10.3 Hardness carbonat °dH 11.5 12.7 8.6

Hardness noncarbonat °dH 3.0 2.0 1.7

Carbonat (mg/L) CO32- 0.0 0.0 0.0

Bicarbonat (mg/L) HCO3- 253.8 266.0 193.4

Ammonia (mg/L) NH4+ <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Nitrite (mg/L) NO2- <0.006 <0.006 <0.006

Nitrate (mg/L) NO3- 7 8 8

Chloride (mg/L) Cl- 5.0 5.6 2.8 Sulfate (mg/L) SO4

2- 21.1 17.3 20.2 Ortho phosphate( mg/L) PO43- <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Fluoride (mg/L) F- 0.06 0.05 0.05 Surfactant,anionic MBAS (mg/L) <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Phenols index (mg/L) 0.000 0.000 0.000 UV absorpcion 254nm 1/m 1.5 1.1 2.3 TOC (mg/L) 0.79 0.71 0.89 Total Oil and grease (IR) (mg/L) <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 Mineral Oil and grease (IR) (mg/L) <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 Metals (mg/L) method AAS Aluminium (mg/L) Al 0.005 0.090 0.044 Arsenic (mg/L) As <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 Copper (mg/L)Cu 0.012 <0.005 <0.005 Zinc (mg/L) Zn 0.013 0.017 <0.010 Iron (total) (mg/L) Fe <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Chromium (total) (mg/L) Cr <0.010 <0.010 <0.010


Page 93

Cadmium (mg/L) Cd <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 Calcium (mg/L) Ca 89.2 95.4 68.0 Potassium (mg/L) K 0.29 0.42 0.42 Magnesium (mg/L) Mg 6.0 3.5 3.4 Manganese (mg/L) Mn <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 Sodium (mg/L) Na 1.23 1.62 0.94 Nickel (mg/L) Ni <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Lead (mg/L) Pb <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Mercury (mg/L) Hg <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 Pesticide (µg/L) method GC/MSD Total pesticide (µg/L) <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Alachlor <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Aldrin/Dieldrin <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Atrazin <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Bentazon <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 DDT <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2,4-D <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Hexsa chlor benzene <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Heptachlor/Heptachlorepoxid <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Chlorotoluron <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Isoproturon <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Carbofuran <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Lindan <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 MCPA <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Metolachlor <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Molinat <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Pendimentalin <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Penta chlor phenol <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Permetrin <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Piridat <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Simazin <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Trifluralin <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Chlorphenoxy herbicides different from 2,3-D and MCPA 2,4-D

<0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Dichlorprop <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 PAH ( µg/L) method GC/MSD Total PAH <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Fluoranthene <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Benzo 3,4 fluoranthene <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Benzo 11,12 fluoranthene <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Benzo 1,12- perilene <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Indeno (1,2,3 cd) pyrene <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Benzo (a) pyrene <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 PCB (µg /L) method GC/MSD PCB total(µg /L) <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2- chlorbiphenyl <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2,3- dichlorbiphenyl <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2,4,5-treechlorbiphenyl <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2,2,4,4- tetrachlorbiphenyl <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2,2,3,4,6- pentachlorbiphenyl <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2,2,4,4,5,6-hexachlorbiphenyl <0.1 <0.1 <0.1


Page 94

2,2,3,3,4,4,6-heptachlorbiphenyl <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2,2,3,3,5,5,6,6-oktachlorbiphenyl <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 By products of desinfection (µg/L) method GC/ECD Dibromacetonitrile <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Dichloracetonitrile <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Trichloracetonitrile <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 THM (µg/L) method GC/ECD Potential of THM* 31.4 20.8 52.3 Chloroform 27.2 17.4 46.4 Dichlorbrommethane 3.9 3.0 5.5 Dibromchlormethane 0.3 0.4 0.4 Bromoform <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Chlor alkanes (µg/L) method GC/ECD 1,1 dichlorethane <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1,2 dichlorethane <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Dichlormethane 2.4 2.8 2.4 1,1,1 trichlorethane <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Carbon tetrachloride <0.1 0.1 <0.1

Chlor ethenes (µg/L) method GC/ECD 1,1 dichlorethene <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1,2 dichlorethene <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Trichlorethene <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Tetrachlorethene <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Vinilchloride <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Chlor benzene (µg/L) method GC/ECD 1,2-dichlorbenzene <1 <1 <1 1,3- dichlorbenzene <1 <1 <1 1,4- dichlorbenzene <1 <1 <1 Volatility aromatic hydrocarbons (µg/L) method GC/FID Benzene <1 <1 <1 Ethylbenzene <1 <1 <1 Xylene <1 <1 <1 Styrene <1 <1 <1

Toluene <1 <1 <1

* The Potential of THM is measured after reaction with chlorine in the Laboratory ▪ Table A1.10 Results from Analyses of Surface water in the Bor area

Parameters / Sample ID Number

03-355 03-356 03-357 03-358 03-359 03-360 Air Temperature (°C)

20.7 19.3 19.4 19.6 19.6 19.7 Water Temperature (°C)

13.2 12.3 12.9 19.2 13.2 17.2


Page 95

pH 8.4 6.1 7.3 6.7 4.8 4.9

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) O2 7.2 9.0 8.8 7.9 9.9 7.8

Saturation % O2 68.0 84.0 83.0 84.0 93.0 80.0

BOD5 3.8 7.8 4.9 14.1 1.1 8.3

Oxidability (mg/L) KMnO4 12.4 14.3 13.2 54.2 6.2 43.7

COD (mg/L) 3.1 3.6 3.3 13.6 1.6 10.9

Residue 105(°C) 246.0 1567 340.0 1953 1398 1934

Suspended matter (mg/L) 137.0 752.0 218.0 1993 349.0 1570 Phosphate total (mg/L) P-

0.09 <0.02 0.04 <0.02 <0.02 0.02

Ortho phosphate (mg/L) PO43- 0.06 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Conductivity (µS/cm)

430.0 1670 570.0 1970 1640 1880 Alcalinity ml 0,1N HCl/L

36.7 4.9 31.7 4.0 1.0 1.0 Hardness total (°dH)

10.9 58.0 16.2 65.0 111.3 69.9

Iron (mg/L) 0.6 5.02 1.16 6.00 3.20 4.40 Ammonia (mg/L) NH4

+ 0.33 4.11 0.71 8.71 1.65 6.73

Nitrite (mg/L) NO2-

0.043 0.062 0.053 0.137 0.016 0.034 Nitrate (mg/L) NO3

- 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.8 1.7

TOC (mg/L) 2.82 3.21 2.95 15.93 0.95 8.60

Chloride (mg/L) Cl- 35.4 14.2 28.9 15.6 23.4 18.4

Surfactant,anionic MBAS (mg/L) <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.04 <0.02 0.03

Cyanide (mg/L) CN- <0.010 0.026 <0.010 0.040 0.026 0.029

Total hydrocarbons (µg/L) 4.4 9.1 6.8 151.5 28.0 131.7


Page 96

Metals (mg/L)

Copper 0.119 15.7 1.29 14.0 16.2 15.0

Zink 0.013 2.1 0.15 2.4 0.26 2.0

Lead <0.010 0.100 <0.01 0.100 <0.01 0.90

Cadmium <0.002 0.009 <0.002 0.011 0.003 0.09

Nikl <0.010 0.270 0.030 0.261 0.020 0.243

Chromium(total) <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Arsenic <0.002 0.008 0.005 0.021 <0.002 0.018

Mercury <5x10-

3 <5x10-

3 <5x10-

3 <5x10-

3 <5x10-

3 <5x10-

3

Mineral oil and grease (mg/L) <0.010 0.035 0.010 0.048 <0.005

0.025

Parameters / Sample ID Number 03-355 03-356 03-357 03-358 03-359 03-360

Total pesticide (µg/L) <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Volatility aromatics hydrocarbons

(µg/L):

<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Total PCB (µg /L) <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Total PAH ( µg/L) <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Chlorinated hydrocarbons (µg/L) <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Surface water and River sediment – Sampling of six samples of surface water and six samples of the river sediment was performed in two representative locations: Slatina Bridge (river mouth of Krivelj and Bor rivers) and River mouth of the Bor and Timok Rivers – in the district of village Vražogrnac. It was done with two aims: a) of obtaining more detailed data for estimate of the quality of surface waterways in the observed area and b) of obtaining the elements for the estimate of their impact on the quality of underground water sources and agricultural land, temporarily exposed to flooding.


Page 97

Appendix 7 Preliminary Remediation Goals Generic Calculation Equations, Soil Exposure Scenarios


Page 98

Industrial Land Use Soil or Sediment

Inhalation of particulates only

Inhalation of volatiles only

where: Parameters Definition (units) Default Value

AT averaging time (yr x day/yr) 70 x 365 (carcinogen) ED x 365 (noncarcinogen)

C chemical PRG in soil (mg/kg) .

ED exposure duration (yr) 25

EF exposure frequency (day/yr) 250

PEF particulate emission factor (m3/kg) 1.32 x 109

RfCi inhalation chronic reference concentration (mg/m3) Chemical-specific

URF inhalation unit risk factor ((mg/m3)-1) Chemical-specific

T target (unitless) TR (carcinogen) THI (non-carcinogen)

THI target hazard index (unitless) 1

TR target excess individual lifetime cancer risk (unitless) 10-6

TV inhalation toxicity value URF (carcinogen) 1/RfCi (noncarcinogen)

VF volatilization factor (m3/kg) chemical-specific (calculated)


Page 99

Industrial Land Use Soil or Sediment

Total - Ingestion and inhalation and dermal contact

where Parameters Definition (units) Default Value

ABS absorption factor (unitless) Chemical-specific

AF adherence factor (mg/cm2) 1


BW adult body weight (kg) 70


CF units conversion factor (kg-cm2)/(mg-m2) 0.01



IR soil ingestion rate (kg/day) 0.00005


Page 100

PEF particulate emission factor (m3/kg) 1.32 x 109

RfCi inhalation chronic reference concentration (mg/m3) Chemical-specific

RfDad absorbed chronic reference dose (mg/kg-day) Chemical-specific

RfDo oral chronic reference dose (mg/kg-day) Chmical-specific

SA adult surface area (head, hands, forearms) (m2/day) 0.316

SFad absorbed dose slope factor ((mg/kg-day)-1) Chemical-specific

SFo oral slope factor ((mg/kg-day)-1) Chemical-specific

T target (unitless) TR (carcinogen) THI (noncarcinogen)



TVad absorbed toxicity value SFad (carcinogen) 1/RfDad (noncarcinogen)

TVi inhalation toxicity value URF (carcinogen) 1/RfCi (noncarcinogen)

TVo oral toxicity value SFo (carcinogen) 1/RfDo (noncarcinogen)

URF inhalation unit risk factor ((mg/m3)-1) Chemical-specific

VF volatilization factor (m3/kg) chemical-specific (calculated)


Page 101

Industrial Land Use; Soil or Sediment

Ingestion only

Parameters Definition (units) Default Value


BW adult body weight (kg) 70




FI fraction ingested (unitless) 1

IR soil ingestion rate (kg/day) 0.00005

RfDo oral chronic reference dose (mg/kg-day) Chemical-specific

SFo oral slope factor ((mg/kg-day)-1) Chemical-specific

T target (unitless) TR (carcinogen) THI (non-carcinogen)



TV oral toxicity value SFo (carcinogen) 1/RfDo (non-carcinogen)


Page 102

Dermal Pathway Based on contaminated Soil Excavation Scenario

Equation Parameters Adult Surface Area= 0.316 (m2/day) Average Lifetime= 70 (year) Adherence Factor= 1 (mg/cm2) Body Weight= 70 (kg) Exposure Duration= 1 (year) Exposure Frequency= 20 (day/year)

Preliminary Remediation Goals

Analyte CAS Number Carcinogenic 1E-4

Carcinogenic 1E-6

Noncarcinogenic HQ=1

Noncarcinogenic HQ=0.1

Organics -- Units = mg/kg Polychlorinated Biphenyls (high risk) 1336363 2.1E+04 2.1E+02 No RfD



Carcinogenic 1E-6



Inorganics -- Units = mg/kg

Arsenic, Inorganic 7440382 7.7E+05 7.7E+03 5.0E+04 5.0E+03

Ingestion Pathway Based on contaminated Soil Excavation Scenario

Equation Parameters Average Lifetime= 70 (year) Body Weight= 70 (kg) Exposure Duration= 1 (year) Exposure Frequency= 20 (day/year) Ingestion Rate = 0.00048 (kg/day)



Carcinogenic 1E-6






Carcinogenic 1E-6





Inhalation of Particulates Pathway Equation Parameters


Page 103

Based on contaminated Soil Excavation Scenario

Average Lifetime= 70 (year) Exposure Duration= 1 (year) Exposure Frequency= 20 (day/year) Inhalation Rate= 20 (m3/day) Particulate Emission Factor = 1.32E+09 (m3/kg)



Carcinogenic 1E-6




Arsenic, Inorganic + 7440382 1.0E+06 3.9E+05 No RfC + There exists an upper bound of one million milligrams of substance which can exist in a kilogram of soil. Any PRG which exceed this limit has been set to the upper bound of 1.0E+6 mg/kg.

Inhalation of Volatiles Pathway Based on contaminated Soil Excavation Scenario

Equation Parameters Average Lifetime= 70 (year) Exposure Duration= 1 (year) Exposure Frequency= 20 (day/year) Inhalation Rate= 20 (m3/day) Particulate Emission Factor = 1.32E+09 (m3/kg) Volatilization Factor = 9.38E+05 (m3/kg)


Analyte CAS Number

Carcinogenic 1E-4

Carcinogenic 1E-6


Noncarcinogenic HQ=0.1 Csat VF

Organics -- Units = mg/kg Polychlorinated Biphenyls (high risk) 1336363 2.1E+05 2.1E+03 No RfC 1.3E+03 9.4E+05



Carcinogenic 1E-6




Arsenic, Inorganic 7440382 No Unit Risk No RfC Total Pathway Equation Parameters


Page 104

Based on contaminated Soil Excavation Scenario

Adult Surface Area= 0.316 (m2/day) Average Lifetime= 70 (year) Adherence Factor= 1 (mg/cm2) Body Weight= 70 (kg) Exposure Duration= 1 (year) Exposure Frequency= 20 (day/year) Gamma Exposure Time Factor (Te)= 8 (hr) Gamma Shielding Factor (Se)= 0.2 (unitless) Ingestion Rate = 0.00048 (kg/day) Particulate Emission Factor = 1.32E+09 (m3/kg) Volatilization Factor = 9.38E+05 (m3/kg)


Analyte CAS Number

Carcinogenic 1E-4

Carcinogenic 1E-6



Organics -- Units = mg/kg Polychlorinated Biphenyls (high risk) 1336363 6.3E+03 6.3E+01 No RfD 1.3E+03 9.4E+05



Carcinogenic 1E-6





Dermal Pathway Based on contaminated Soil Industrial Scenario

Equation Parameters Adult Surface Area= 0.316 (m2/day) Average Lifetime= 70 (year) Adherence Factor= 1 (mg/cm2) Body Weight= 70 (kg) Exposure Duration= 25 (year) Exposure Frequency= 250 (day/year)



Carcinogenic 1E-6



Organics -- Units = mg/kg Polychlorinated Biphenyls (high risk) 1336363 6.8E+01 6.8E-01 No RfD



Carcinogenic 1E-6




Arsenic, Inorganic 7440382 2.5E+03 2.5E+01 4.0E+03 4.0E+02 Ingestion Pathway Based on contaminated Soil

Equation Parameters Average Lifetime= 70 (year)


Page 105

Industrial Scenario

Body Weight= 70 (kg) Exposure Duration= 25 (year) Exposure Frequency= 250 (day/year) Ingestion Rate = 0.00005 (kg/day)



Carcinogenic 1E-6






Carcinogenic 1E-6





Inhalation of Particulates Pathway Based on contaminated Soil Industrial Scenario

Equation Parameters Average Lifetime= 70 (year) Exposure Duration= 25 (year) Exposure Frequency= 250 (day/year) Inhalation Rate= 20 (m3/day) Particulate Emission Factor = 1.32E+09 (m3/kg)



Carcinogenic 1E-6




Arsenic, Inorganic 7440382 1.3E+05 1.3E+03 No RfC

Inhalation of Volatiles Pathway Based on contaminated Soil Industrial Scenario

Equation Parameters Average Lifetime= 70 (year) Exposure Duration= 25 (year) Exposure Frequency= 250 (day/year)



Carcinogenic 1E-6



Organics -- Units = mg/kg Polychlorinated Biphenyls (high risk) 1336363 9.4E+05 9.4E+03 No RfC


Page 106

Inhalation Rate= 20 (m3/day) Particulate Emission Factor = 1.32E+09 (m3/kg) Volatilization Factor = 9.38E+05 (m3/kg)


Analyte CAS Number

Carcinogenic 1E-4

Carcinogenic 1E-6



Organics -- Units = mg/kg Polychlorinated Biphenyls (high risk) 1336363 6.7E+02 6.7E+00 No RfC 1.3E+03 9.4E+05



Carcinogenic 1E-6




Arsenic, Inorganic 7440382 No Unit Risk No RfC

Total Pathway Based on contaminated Soil Industrial Scenario

Equation Parameters Adult Surface Area= 0.316 (m2/day) Average Lifetime= 70 (year) Adherence Factor= 1 (mg/cm2) Body Weight= 70 (kg) Exposure Duration= 25 (year) Exposure Frequency= 250 (day/year) Gamma Exposure Time Factor (Te)= 8 (hr) Gamma Shielding Factor (Se)= 0.2 (unitless) Ingestion Rate = 0.00005 (kg/day) Particulate Emission Factor = 1.32E+09 (m3/kg) Volatilization Factor = 9.38E+05 (m3/kg)


Analyte CAS Number

Carcinogenic 1E-4

Carcinogenic 1E-6



Organics -- Units = mg/kg Polychlorinated Biphenyls (high risk) 1336363 5.1E+01 5.1E-01 No RfD 1.3E+03 9.4E+05



Carcinogenic 1E-6






Page 107

Additional parameters used to calculate PEF, VF, and Csat

Particulate Emission Factor (PEF) Q/C for PEF =90.8 (g/m2-s per kg/m3) Fraction of Vegetative cover =0.5 Mean Annual Windspeed =4.69 (m/s) Equivalent threshold value of windspeed at 7m =11.32 (m/s) Function Dependent on Um/Ut =0.194

Volatilization Factor (VF) Q/C for VF =68.81 (g/m2 -s per kg/m3) Fraction Organic Carbon in Soil =0.006 (g/g) Dry Soil Bulk Density =1.5 (g/cm3) Soil Particle Density =2.65 (g/cm3) Exposure Interval =950000000 (s) Water-Filled Soil Porosity =0.15 Soil Saturation Concentration (Csat)

Fraction Organic Carbon =0.006 (g/g) Dry Soil Bulk Density =1.5 (kg/L) Soil Particle Density =2.65 (kg/L) Water-Filled Soil Porosity =0.15

Documents

RISK ASSESSMENT of DUMP SITE BOR MINING COMPLEX · UNEP Cleanup of Environmental Hotspots (YUG 00-R71) Risk Assessment Dump Site – Bor Mining Complex Page 5 • The sampling and