Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer 1 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition) 1 Introduction This revised edition of the Primer provides information on the relative risk site evaluation framework being used by the Department of Defense (DoD), in concert with stakeholders, to help sequence environmental restoration work at sites at active military installations, Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) installations, and formerly used defense properties. It describes the structure and logic underpinning the framework and provides detailed instructions for conducting relative risk site evaluations in the field. It also describes how removal and remedial actions should be factored into relative risk site evaluations. This document is a product of the Interservice Relative Risk Working Groupcomprised of representatives from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Defense Logistics Agencythat was formed in May 1994 to develop concepts and implementation procedures for the relative risk site evaluation framework. This revised edition of the Primer replaces the Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer (Interim Edition, Summer 1994) issued in September 1994, in its entirety. It contains enhanced technical guidelines for performing relative risk site evaluations which have been added in response to DoD initiatives as well as questions and comments received from DoD field elements, regulatory agencies, and stakeholders during the first twenty months of relative risk implementation. The audience within DoD includes remedial project managers and other environmental personnel responsible for planning, executing, and evaluating environmental restoration activities at DoD installations and formerly used defense sites (FUDS). The audience outside DoD includes federal and state regulatory agencies, local governments, and public stakeholders living or working in the vicinity of DoD installations and FUDS. 1.1 Definition of Relative Risk Site Evaluation The relative risk site evaluation framework is a methodology used by all DoD Components to evaluate the relative risk posed by a site in relation to other sites. It is a tool used across all of DoD to group sites into high, medium, and low categories based on an evaluation of site information using three factors: the contaminant hazard factor (CHF), the migration pathway factor (MPF), and the receptor factor (RF). Factors are based on a quantitative evaluation of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants and a qualitative evaluation of pathways and human and ecological receptors in the four media most likely to result in significant exposuregroundwater, surface water, sediment, and surface soils. A representation of this evaluation concept is presented in Figure 1. Figure 1 also depicts possible opportunities for stakeholder input into the technical evaluation. The relative risk site evaluation framework is a qualitative and easy to understand methodology for evaluating the relative risks posed by sites and should not be equated with more formal risk assessments conducted to assess baseline risks posed by sites. It is a tool to assist in sequencing environmental restoration work (i.e., known requirements such as remedial investigation or cleanup actions) to be done by a DoD Component. It is
186
Embed
1 Introduction - DENIX€¦ · Natural Resources (Goodman, 1993). On 14 April 1994, DUSD(ES) issued Management Guidance for Execution of the FY94/95 and Development of the FY96 Defense
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer 1 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
1 Introduction
This revised edition of the Primer providesinformation on the relative risk siteevaluation framework being used by theDepartment of Defense (DoD), in concertwith stakeholders, to help sequenceenvironmental restoration work at sites atactive military installations, BaseRealignment and Closure (BRAC)installations, and formerly used defenseproperties. It describes the structure andlogic underpinning the framework andprovides detailed instructions for conductingrelative risk site evaluations in the field. Italso describes how removal and remedialactions should be factored into relative risksite evaluations.
This document is a product of theInterservice Relative Risk WorkingGroupcomprised of representatives fromthe Army, Navy, Air Force, and DefenseLogistics Agencythat was formed inMay 1994 to develop concepts andimplementation procedures for the relativerisk site evaluation framework.
This revised edition of the Primer replacesthe Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer(Interim Edition, Summer 1994) issued inSeptember 1994, in its entirety. It containsenhanced technical guidelines for performingrelative risk site evaluations which have beenadded in response to DoD initiatives as wellas questions and comments received fromDoD field elements, regulatory agencies, andstakeholders during the first twenty monthsof relative risk implementation.
The audience within DoD includes remedialproject managers and other environmentalpersonnel responsible for planning,executing, and evaluating environmentalrestoration activities at DoD installations andformerly used defense sites (FUDS). The
audience outside DoD includes federal andstate regulatory agencies, local governments,and public stakeholders living or working inthe vicinity of DoD installations and FUDS.
1.1 Definition of Relative Risk SiteEvaluation
The relative risk site evaluation frameworkis a methodology used by all DoDComponents to evaluate the relative riskposed by a site in relation to other sites. It isa tool used across all of DoD to group sitesinto high, medium, and low categories basedon an evaluation of site information usingthree factors: the contaminant hazard factor(CHF), the migration pathway factor (MPF),and the receptor factor (RF). Factors arebased on a quantitative evaluation ofComprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)hazardous substances, pollutants, orcontaminants and a qualitative evaluation ofpathways and human and ecologicalreceptors in the four media most likely toresult in significant exposuregroundwater,surface water, sediment, and surface soils. Arepresentation of this evaluation concept ispresented in Figure 1. Figure 1 also depictspossible opportunities for stakeholder inputinto the technical evaluation.
The relative risk site evaluation framework isa qualitative and easy to understandmethodology for evaluating the relative risksposed by sites and should not be equated withmore formal risk assessments conducted toassess baseline risks posed by sites. It is a toolto assist in sequencing environmentalrestoration work (i.e., known requirementssuch as remedial investigation or cleanupactions) to be done by a DoD Component. It is
XX
X
XXX
Site
s
Con
tam
inan
tH
azar
d F
acto
r
Mig
ratio
nP
athw
ayF
acto
r
Rec
epto
r F
acto
r
HIG
H
ME
DIU
M
LO
W
Reg
ulat
or a
nd P
ublic
Sta
keho
lder
Invo
lvem
ent i
n
Tec
hnic
al E
valu
atio
n
Sit
es*
at
each
In
stal
lati
on
**
Dat
a A
ssem
bly
***
Eva
luat
ion
F
acto
rsR
elat
ive
Ris
k C
ateg
ori
es
Sou
rce
Pat
hway
s
Rec
epto
rs
Figu
re 1
. R
elat
ive
Ris
k Si
te E
valu
atio
n C
once
pt S
umm
ary
*S
ites
for
curr
ent D
oD in
stal
latio
ns
equ
ate
with
"P
roje
cts"
in th
e F
orm
erly
U
tiliz
ed D
efen
se S
ites
(FU
DS
)
Pro
gram
**I
nsta
llatio
ns e
quat
e w
ith "
prop
ertie
s"
in
the
FU
DS
Pro
gram
***D
ata
asse
mbl
ed b
y en
viro
nmen
tal
m
ediu
m
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer 3 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
designed to handle the broad range of sitesthat exist at DoD installations and the broadrange of data available. Like any riskevaluation tool and perhaps more so than acomprehensive risk assessment, the relativerisk site evaluation framework makes use ofassumptions and approximations. Usersshould bear these limitations in mind whenapplying the framework. Relative risk is notthe sole factor in determining the sequence ofenvironmental restoration work, but it is animportant consideration in the priority settingprocess. It should be factored into all prioritysetting decisions, and should be discussedwith regulators and public stakeholders in theenvironmental restoration process, such asthose mentioned above. The grouping of sitesinto high, medium, or low relative riskcategories is not a substitute for either abaseline risk assessment or health assessment;it is not a means of placing sites into aResponse Complete/No Further Actioncategory; and it is not a tool for justifying aparticular type of action (e.g., the selection ofa remedy).
The relative risk site evaluation frameworkis used by all DoD Components to assesssite relative risks at installations andformerly used defense properties. Use of theframework and resulting relative riskinformation allows DoD and DoDComponents to communicate and helpestablish priorities for environmentalrestoration work.
The actual funding priority for a site isidentified after relative risk information iscombined with other important riskmanagement considerations (e.g., thestatutory and regulatory status of a particularinstallation or site, public stakeholderconcerns, program execution considerations,and economic factors). A list of commonrisk management considerations can befound in Appendix E, page 39. These
additional risk management considerationscan result in a decision to fund work at a sitethat is not classified as a high relative risk.DoD Components have each developedguidelines for combining relative risk andrisk management considerations as part oftheir planning, programming, and budgetingprocess. The planning, programming, andbudgeting process within DoD is outlined inAppendix E, page 16.
The relative risk site evaluation frameworkdoes not address the question of whetherwork is necessary at a site; it only providesinformation for use in helping to determinethe general sequence in which sites will beaddressed. At the DoD headquarters level, italso provides a framework for planning,programming, and budgeting requirements,a topic discussed further in Section 1.6.
Use of the relative risk site evaluationframework is restricted to environmentalrestoration sites and does not extend tounexploded ordnance (UXO) removal,building demolition/debris removal(BD/DR), potentially responsible party(PRP) activities, or compliance activities.
1.2 Rationale for Relative Risk SiteEvaluation
In a 1994 report, entitled EnvironmentalCleanup: Too Many High-Priority SitesImpede DoD’s Program, the GeneralAccounting Office (GAO, 3 May 1994)concluded that the method used at that timeby regulators and the DoD to determinewhich sites to work on first resulted in (1)too many similar priorities where too littlegot done, or (2) instances where DoD’sworst sites were not getting priorityattention. The report further stated that theapproach in 1994, which was based solelyon regulation-driven requirements, led tosignificant cost growth that strained limitedresources and forced difficult choices.
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer 4 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
Prior to 1994 and the implementation of therelative risk site evaluation concept withinDoD, restoration priorities were establishedat the field level using a variety of methodsand factors. At many installations, workpriorities were established by DoD andregulatory agency personnel as part ofregulatory agreement negotiations. By theend of negotiations, work sequencing wasoften included in legal agreements in theform of study and cleanup milestones, usinginformation available at that time. Thedegree to which risk-based considerationswere incorporated into scheduling milestonedecisions varied considerably within DoD.
Typical legal agreements that containmilestones for sites include Federal FacilityAgreements under CERCLA, permits forcorrective action under the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), asamended; two-party agreements underfederal or state law; and enforcement ordersunder CERCLA or RCRA, as amended.Because additional data continue to becomeavailable for many of the sites withestablished milestones, and in light of recentbudget shortfalls and funding recisions, DoDbelieves that a risk-based approach shouldcontinue to be applied to work sequencingusing relative risk as a key factor. Therelative risk site evaluation frameworkdescribed in this revised edition of thePrimer provides a means of helpingaccomplish this objective.
1.3 Development of the Relative Risk SiteEvaluation Framework
On 9 November 1993, the Deputy UnderSecretary of Defense (EnvironmentalSecurity) (DUSD[ES]) committed topursuing relative risk site evaluation in theDefense Environmental RestorationProgram (DERP) in consultation withregulators and communities in testimony
before the Senate Committee on Energy andNatural Resources (Goodman, 1993).
On 14 April 1994, DUSD(ES) issuedManagement Guidance for Execution of theFY94/95 and Development of the FY96Defense Environmental RestorationProgram (Office of the Under Secretary ofDefense [Environmental Security], 1994),which promotes the use of a risk manage-ment concept to evaluate the sequence ofwork at environmental restoration programsites in conjunction with the regulatoryagreement status of each site. It directs eachservice within DoD to begin developing itsenvironmental restoration program using arelative risk site evaluation framework.
In September 1994, DUSD(ES) issued theInterim Edition of the Primer, whichcontained instructions for performingrelative risk site evaluations at sites acrossDoD. In the fall of 1995, DUSD(ES)decided to revise the Primer, resulting in theissuance of this document.
1.4 Requirements for Relative Risk SiteEvaluations
Relative risk site evaluations are requiredfor all sites at active military installations,BRAC installations, and formerly useddefense properties that have future fundingrequirements that are not classified as (1)having “all remedies in place,”(2) ”response complete,” (3) lackingsufficient information, or (4) abandonedordnance. These four situations arediscussed in the following four paragraphs.
Relative risk site evaluations are notrequired (NR) for sites classified as havingall remedies in place (RIP) even though theymay be in remedial action operation (RAO)or long-term monitoring (LTM). A RIPdetermination requires that remedial actionconstruction is complete for a site.
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer 5 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
Relative risk site evaluations are notrequired (NR) for sites classified as responsecomplete (RC). Sites classified as RC arethose where a DoD Component deems thatno further action (NFA) is required with thepossible exception of LTM. A RCdetermination requires that one of thefollowing apply: (1) there is no evidencethat contaminants were released at the site,(2) no contaminants were detected at the siteother than at background concentrations,(3) contaminants attributable to the site arebelow action levels used for risk screening,(4) the results of a baseline risk assessmentdemonstrate that cumulative risks posed bythe site are below established thresholds, or(5) removal and/or remedial actionoperations (RAOs) at a site have beenimplemented, completed, and are the finalaction for the site. Only LTM remains.
Relative risk site evaluations should bebased on the information currently availableon contaminants, migration pathways, andreceptors. Sites lacking sufficientinformation for the conduct of a relative risksite evaluation should be given a “NotEvaluated” designation and should then beprogrammed for additional study, a removalaction if warranted, or other appropriateresponse action, including deferral, beforethey are evaluated.
Sites comprised solely of abandonedordnance are not subject to the relative risksite evaluation described in this Primer.Such sites should be evaluated using aseparate risk procedure, which is discussedin the management guidance cited above(Office of the Under Secretary of Defense[Environmental Security], 1994).
1.5 Implementation of the Relative RiskSite Evaluation Framework
DoD’s goal is to conduct relative risk siteevaluations at the field level with the
involvement of the regulators and publicstakeholders (see Figure 1). The technicalevaluation of sites using the evaluationframework can serve as a basis fordiscussion and negotiation with regulatorsand public stakeholders. In particular,regulators and public stakeholders can helpidentify receptors, and can make judgmentsabout the extent of contaminant migration invarious environmental media at a site.Where they exist, Restoration AdvisoryBoards (RABs) are an excellent forum forobtaining public stakeholder input onthese aspects of site relative risk. Otheropportunities for public stakeholderinvolvement may also be appropriate.Regulators and public stakeholders shouldalways be given the opportunity toparticipate in the development and review ofrelative risk site evaluation data before thedata is used in planning and programming.
As lessons are learned during thisimplementation phase, DoD will continue tomake appropriate adjustments andimprovements to the framework through theestablished interservice working group, ashas been done in this revised Primer.
1.6 Management Uses of Relative RiskInformation
DoD and DoD Components are using therelative risk site evaluation framework as atool to help sequence work at sites and as aheadquarters program management tool. Asa program management tool, the frameworkis being used by DoD and DoD Componentsto periodically identify the distribution ofsites in each of three relative riskcategories—high, medium, and low. Aseries of discrete relative risk siteevaluations provides headquarters programmanagers with a macro-level view ofchanges in relative risk distributions withinDoD over time.
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer 6 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
The relative risk site evaluation frameworkand resulting data also provide DoD with abasis for establishing goals and performancemeasures for the environmental restorationprogram. In this regard, DoD has establishedgoals for all DoD Components to reducerelative risk at sites in DefenseEnvironmental Restoration Account (DERA)and BRAC programs or to have remedialsystems in place where necessary for thesesites, within the context of legal agreements.DoD and DoD Components are trackingprogress towards these relative risk reductiongoals as one of several program measures ofmerit (MOMs) at the headquarters level.Another MOM tracks the number of siteswhere cleanup action has been taken andrelative risk has been reduced in one or moremedia. Resultant information is used toprovide the necessary feedback to developand adjust program requirements and budgetprojections, as well as to assess whetherestablished goals reflect fiscal reality.
1.7 Organization of This Primer
Section 2 provides a general and factor-by-factor description of the relative risk siteevaluation framework. Section 3 providesdetailed instructions for using theframework at the installation or field level todocument site evaluations.
Definitions of terms used to explain generalconcepts and specific elements of relativerisk site evaluations are found in Section 4.In addition, the Primer contains a referencesection (Section 5), a list of acronyms andabbreviations (Section 6), and fiveappendices.
Appendix A contains the revised RelativeRisk Site Evaluation Worksheet that is usedin determining relative risk for a site.
Appendix B contains Comparison Valuesderived from Preliminary RemediationGoals (PRGs) used by Region IX of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) and from benchmarks used by otherorganizations for radionuclides and military-unique compounds (B-1); Ambient WaterQuality Criteria developed under Section304(a) of the Clean Water Act (B-2); andsediment screening values developed in partby the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA) and by the OntarioMinistry of Environment and Energy (B-3).These comparison values are used indetermining the CHF for each applicablemedium, as described in later sections of thisPrimer.
Appendix C lists the types of regulatoryagreements used in DERA and BRACrestoration programs and their codes, as wellas site types and their codes.
Appendix D contains examples of relativerisk site evaluations using the Relative RiskSite Evaluation Worksheet. The examplesserve as a guide for performing actual site-by-site evaluations at the installation or fieldlevel.
Appendix E contains material that can beused for training or as a basis forpresentations to interested parties within andoutside of DoD. It contains two fact sheetsand an extensive briefing. The first factsheet summarizes the relative risk siteevaluation framework. The second providesanswers to common questions on thedevelopment and use of the relative risk siteevaluation framework. The briefing providesinformation on the origin of relative riskwithin DoD, the relative risk work group,the structure of the framework itself and itsuse. It also describes how relative risk isused as a program management tool withinDoD and provides technical slides thatillustrate detailed aspects of the framework.
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer 7 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
2 Description of Relative Risk Site Evaluation Framework
This section provides information on thestructure and logic underpinning the relativerisk site evaluation framework and providesdefinitions of each relative risk factor byenvironmental medium.
The relative risk site evaluation framework isbased on information fundamental to riskassessment: sources, pathways, andreceptors. These elements are building blocksof a conceptual site model, a tool used infield investigation and risk assessment toorganize site information.
Relative risks to human health for cancer andtoxicity, as well as to ecological systems, areaddressed in the relative risk site evaluationframework.
The framework uses recent/representativesite information to evaluate the followingfour media and their exposure endpoints:
• Groundwater (human endpoint)• Surface water
− Human endpoint− Ecological endpoint
• Sediments− Human endpoint− Ecological endpoint
• Surface soils, preferably from a depth of0-6 inches (human endpoint)
Air is not considered by the relative risk siteevaluation framework because the riskthrough this pathway from DoD sites withoutsoil contamination generally is minimal, andthe PRGs for contaminated soils considerinhalation of volatiles and contaminatedparticles (U.S. EPA, Region IX PreliminaryRemediation Goals, Second Half, 1 September1995). (The PRGs for water considerinhalation for water contaminated withvolatiles.)
Each environmental medium is evaluatedusing three factors that relate to the threestructural components of the conceptual sitemodel used in risk assessment: CHF(relationship of contaminants to comparisonvalues), MPF (likelihood/extent ofcontaminant migration), and RF (likelihood ofreceptor exposure to contamination). Each ofthese three factors is given a rating (e.g.,Significant, Moderate, or Minimal for CHF)based on recent/representative site informationfor a given medium. For each environmentalmedium, factor ratings are combined todetermine the environmental medium-specificrating of High, Medium, or Low. The site isthen placed in an overall category of High,Medium, or Low, based on the highestmedium-specific rating. This site-specificprocess is illustrated schematically inFigure 2. Figure 3 expands on Figure 2 andillustrates the decision framework for therelative risk site evaluations.
As shown in Figure 3, only sites with reliable(i.e., most recent/representative) contaminantdata will be evaluated using the framework.Do not perform evaluations on sites classifiedas RIP and RC, and do not performevaluations at sites comprised solely ofordnance. If data are available for only onemedium, a site can be evaluated for relativerisk. If data are absent, sites should bedesignated “Not Evaluated.” Action on thesesites may be deferred, or the sites may beprogrammed for additional study before theyare evaluated. In addition, a removal actionor other response action may be appropriate.
Figures 4 through 6 provide definitions ofeach factor for groundwater, surface waterand sediment, and surface soils, respectively.Factors and associated rating definitionsshould be used together with detailed
Figu
re 2
. Fl
ow D
iagr
am o
f th
e R
elat
ive
Ris
k Si
te E
valu
atio
n Fr
amew
ork
CH
F=
Con
tam
inan
t Haz
ard
Fac
tor
MP
F=
Mig
ratio
n P
athw
ay F
acto
r R
F=
Rec
epto
r F
acto
r
*Inc
lude
s hu
man
and
eco
logi
cal e
ndpo
ints
Gro
undw
ater
Sur
face
Wat
er
and
Sed
imen
t*
Soi
l
Sit
e In
form
atio
n
CH
FM
PF
RF
Cat
egor
y
CH
FM
PF
RF
Cat
egor
y
CH
FM
PF
RF
Cat
egor
y
ME
DIA
EV
AL
UA
TIO
N F
AC
TO
RS
(Hig
h, M
ediu
m, L
ow)
(Hig
h, M
ediu
m, L
ow)
(Hig
h, M
ediu
m, L
ow)
ME
DIA
-SP
EC
IFIC
R
EL
AT
IVE R
ISK R
AT
ING
Ove
rall
Sit
e C
ateg
ory
--H
igh
, Med
ium
, or
Lo
w
SE
LE
CT H
IGH
ES
T
ME
DIA
RA
TIN
G
Figu
re 3
. R
elat
ive
Ris
k Si
te E
valu
atio
n Fr
amew
ork:
Dec
isio
n Fl
owch
art
Rec
epto
rF
acto
rC
onta
min
ant
Haz
ard
Fac
tor
MIg
ratio
n P
athw
ayF
acto
r
Con
tam
inan
t H
azar
d F
acto
r
Are
rel
iabl
e2
conc
entr
atio
nda
ta a
vaila
ble?
3
Y -
Per
form
rel
ativ
e ris
k ev
alua
tion
N
Doe
s ex
istin
g in
form
atio
nin
dica
te a
con
cern
(e
.g.,
rele
ase
has
occu
rred
, pa
thw
ays
are
likel
y, s
ensi
tive
rece
ptor
s ne
arby
)
YF
und
addi
tiona
l stu
dy
or ta
ke r
emov
al a
ctio
nif
war
rant
ed
Syn
thes
ize
avai
labl
e in
form
atio
n on
Site
1
Def
er S
ite
1 Site
- D
iscr
ete
area
for
whi
ch s
uspe
cted
con
tam
inat
ion
has
been
ver
ified
and
whi
ch r
equi
res
furt
her
resp
onse
act
ion.
Are
a ha
s be
en (
or w
ill b
e) e
nter
ed in
to R
MIS
/DS
ER
TS
. F
or th
e F
UD
S p
rogr
am, "
Pro
ject
s" e
quat
es to
site
s fo
r cu
rren
t ins
talla
tions
.2 R
elia
ble
mea
ns r
ecen
t yet
rep
rese
ntat
ive
of s
ite c
ondi
tions
.3 I
f sam
plin
g re
sults
for
each
and
eve
ry m
ediu
m s
ampl
ed a
re b
elow
det
ectio
n or
are
with
in e
stab
lishe
d ba
ckgr
ound
con
cent
ratio
n ra
nges
, the
site
is a
utom
atic
ally
cat
egor
ized
as
Low
. 4 M
edia
- C
ondu
ct r
elat
ive
risk
eval
uatio
ns b
y m
edia
: gr
ound
wat
er, s
urfa
ce w
ater
, sed
imen
t, so
il. I
f rel
iabl
e da
ta a
re n
ot a
vaila
ble
for
a m
ediu
m, t
hat m
ediu
m is
ass
igne
d a
ratin
g of
"N
ot E
valu
ated
" (N
E).
N
Sel
ect
Med
ia4
iden
tifie
d
pote
ntia
l
limite
d
Rec
epto
rF
acto
r
iden
tifie
d
pote
ntia
l
limite
d
Rec
epto
rF
acto
r
iden
tifie
d
pote
ntia
l
limite
d
Rec
epto
rF
acto
r
iden
tifie
d
pote
ntia
l
limite
d
Rec
epto
rF
acto
r
iden
tifie
d
pote
ntia
l
limite
d
Mig
ratio
n P
athw
ay
Fac
tor
Rec
epto
rF
acto
r
HIG
H
Mig
ratio
n P
athw
ay
Fac
tor
sign
ifica
nt
mod
erat
e
evid
ent
pote
ntia
l
conf
ined
evid
ent
pote
ntia
l
conf
ined
ME
D
HIG
H
HIG
H
LOW
ME
D
ME
D
ME
D
HIG
H
HIG
H
LOW
HIG
H
ME
D
Mig
ratio
n P
athw
ay
Fac
tor
min
imal
evid
ent
pote
ntia
l
conf
ined
HIG
H
ME
D
LOW
iden
tifie
d
pote
ntia
l
limite
d
Rec
epto
rF
acto
rLO
W
HIG
H
ME
D
LOW
LOW
>10
0
2-10
0
<2
LOW
LOW
iden
tifie
d
limite
d
pote
ntia
l
ME
D
LOW
LOW
LOW
iden
tifie
d
pote
ntia
l
limite
d
iden
tifie
d
pote
ntia
l
limite
d
Rec
epto
rF
acto
r
Rec
epto
rF
acto
r
Rec
epto
rF
acto
r
Med
ia
Rat
ing
Figu
re 4
. R
elat
ive
Ris
k Si
te E
valu
atio
n Fa
ctor
Inf
orm
atio
n fo
r G
roun
dwat
er
Sum
of r
atio
s [m
axim
um c
once
ntra
tion/
com
paris
on v
alue
] > 1
00
Sum
of r
atio
s [m
axim
um c
once
ntra
tion/
com
paris
on v
alue
] = 2
- 1
00
Sum
of r
atio
s [m
axim
um c
once
ntra
tion/
com
paris
on v
alue
] < 2
Sig
nific
ant
Min
imal
Co
nta
min
ant
Haz
ard
Fac
tor
(CH
F)*
Mod
erat
e
Ana
lytic
al d
ata
or o
bser
vabl
e ev
iden
ce in
dica
tes
that
con
tam
inat
ion
in th
e gr
ound
wat
er is
mov
ing
or h
as m
oved
aw
ay fr
om th
e so
urce
are
aE
vide
nt
Pot
entia
l
Con
fined
Info
rmat
ion
indi
cate
s th
at th
e po
tent
ial f
or c
onta
min
ant m
igra
tion
from
the
sour
ce v
ia
the
grou
ndw
ater
is li
mite
d (d
ue to
geo
logi
cal s
truc
ture
s or
phy
sica
l con
trol
s)
Mig
rati
on
P
ath
way
F
acto
r (M
PF
)**
The
re is
a th
reat
ened
wat
er s
uppl
y w
ell d
owng
radi
ent o
f the
sou
rce
and
the
grou
ndw
ater
is a
cur
rent
sou
rce
of d
rinki
ng w
ater
or
sour
ce o
f wat
er fo
r ot
her
bene
ficia
l use
s su
ch a
s irr
igat
ion/
agric
ultu
re (
equi
vale
nt to
Cla
ss I
or II
A a
quife
r)Id
entif
ied
Pot
entia
l
Lim
ited
The
re is
no
thre
aten
ed w
ater
sup
ply
wel
l dow
ngra
dien
t of t
he s
ourc
e an
d th
e gr
ound
wat
er is
cur
rent
ly o
r po
tent
ially
usa
ble
for
drin
king
wat
er, i
rrig
atio
n, o
r ag
ricul
ture
(eq
uiva
lent
to C
lass
I, II
A, o
r IIB
aqu
ifer)
The
re is
no
pote
ntia
lly th
reat
ened
wat
er s
uppl
y w
ell d
owng
radi
ent o
f the
sou
rce
and
the
grou
ndw
ater
is n
ot c
onsi
dere
d a
pote
ntia
l sou
rce
of d
rinki
ng w
ater
and
is o
f lim
ited
bene
ficia
l use
(eq
uiva
lent
to C
lass
IIIA
or
IIIB
aqu
ifer,
or
whe
re p
erch
ed a
quife
r ex
ists
on
ly)
Rec
epto
rF
acto
r(R
F)*
*
FA
CT
OR
RA
TIN
GD
EF
INIT
ION
Con
tam
inat
ion
in th
e gr
ound
wat
er h
as m
oved
onl
y sl
ight
ly b
eyon
d th
e so
urce
(i.e
., te
ns o
f fee
t), c
ould
mov
e bu
t is
not m
ovin
g ap
prec
iabl
y, o
r in
form
atio
n is
not
su
ffici
ent t
o m
ake
a de
term
inat
ion
of E
vide
nt o
r C
onfin
ed
*Eva
luat
e us
ing
com
paris
on v
alue
s in
App
endi
x B
-1**
Eva
luat
e us
ing
defin
ition
s an
d de
taile
d in
stru
ctio
ns in
Sec
tion
3.4
Figu
re 5
. R
elat
ive
Ris
k Si
te E
valu
atio
n Fa
ctor
Inf
orm
atio
n fo
r Su
rfac
e W
ater
and
Sed
imen
t
Sum
of r
atio
s [m
axim
um c
once
ntra
tion/
com
paris
on v
alue
] > 1
00
Sum
of r
atio
s [m
axim
um c
once
ntra
tion/
com
paris
on v
alue
] = 2
- 1
00
Sum
of r
atio
s [m
axim
um c
once
ntra
tion/
com
paris
on v
alue
] < 2
Sig
nific
ant
Min
imal
Co
nta
min
ant
Haz
ard
Fac
tor
(CH
F)*
Mod
erat
e
Ana
lytic
al d
ata
or o
bser
vabl
e ev
iden
ce in
dica
tes
that
con
tam
inat
ion
in th
e m
edia
is p
rese
nt a
t, m
ovin
g to
war
d, o
r ha
s m
oved
to a
poi
nt
of e
xpos
ure
Evi
dent
Pot
entia
l
Con
fined
Info
rmat
ion
indi
cate
s a
low
pot
entia
l for
con
tam
inan
t mig
ratio
n fr
om
the
sour
ce to
a p
oten
tial p
oint
of e
xpos
ure
(cou
ld b
e du
e to
pre
senc
e of
geo
logi
cal s
truc
ture
s or
phy
sica
l con
trol
s)
Mig
rati
on
P
ath
way
F
acto
r (M
PF
)**
Rec
epto
rs id
entif
ied
that
hav
e ac
cess
to s
urfa
ce w
ater
or
sedi
men
t to
whi
ch c
onta
min
atio
n ha
s m
oved
or
can
mov
eId
entif
ied
Pot
entia
l
Lim
ited
Pot
entia
l for
rec
epto
rs to
hav
e ac
cess
to s
urfa
ce w
ater
or
sedi
men
t to
whi
ch c
onta
min
atio
n ha
s m
oved
or
can
mov
e
Littl
e or
no
pote
ntia
l for
rec
epto
rs to
hav
e ac
cess
to s
urfa
ce w
ater
or
sedi
men
t to
whi
ch c
onta
min
atio
n ha
s m
oved
or
can
mov
e
Rec
epto
rF
acto
r(R
F)*
*
FA
CT
OR
RA
TIN
GD
EF
INIT
ION
* E
valu
ate
usin
g co
mpa
rison
val
ues
in A
ppen
dix
B-1
for
surf
ace
wat
er a
nd s
edim
ents
for
hum
an r
ecep
tors
. U
se c
ompa
rison
val
ues
in A
ppen
dix
B-2
for
surf
ace
wat
er a
nd e
colo
gica
l rec
epto
rs, a
nd c
ompa
rison
va
lues
in A
ppen
dix
B-3
for
sedi
men
ts a
nd e
colo
gica
l re
cept
ors.
**E
valu
ate
usin
g de
finiti
ons
and
deta
iled
inst
ruct
ions
in
Sec
tion
3.5
Con
tam
inat
ion
in s
urfa
ce w
ater
or
sedi
men
t has
mov
ed o
nly
slig
htly
bey
ond
the
sour
ce (
i.e.,
tens
of f
eet)
, cou
ld m
ove
but i
s no
t m
ovin
g ap
prec
iabl
y, o
r in
form
atio
n is
not
suf
ficie
nt to
mak
e a
dete
rmin
atio
n of
Evi
dent
or
Con
fined
Figu
re 6
. R
elat
ive
Ris
k Si
te E
valu
atio
n Fa
ctor
Inf
orm
atio
n fo
r So
ils
Sum
of r
atio
s [m
axim
um c
once
ntra
tion/
com
paris
on v
alue
] > 1
00
Sum
of r
atio
s [m
axim
um c
once
ntra
tion/
com
paris
on v
alue
] = 2
- 1
00
Sum
of r
atio
s [m
axim
um c
once
ntra
tion/
com
paris
on v
alue
] < 2
Sig
nific
ant
Min
imal
Co
nta
min
ant
Haz
ard
Fac
tor
(CH
F)*
Mod
erat
e
Ana
lytic
al d
ata
or o
bser
vabl
e ev
iden
ce th
at c
onta
min
atio
n is
pr
esen
t at,
is m
ovin
g to
war
d, o
r ha
s m
oved
to a
poi
nt o
f exp
osur
eE
vide
nt
Pot
entia
l
Con
fined
Con
tam
inat
ion
has
mov
ed o
nly
slig
htly
bey
ond
the
sour
ce (
i.e.,
tens
of f
eet)
, cou
ld m
ove
but i
s no
t mov
ing
appr
ecia
bly,
or
info
rmat
ion
is n
ot s
uffic
ient
to m
ake
a de
term
inat
ion
of E
vide
nt o
r C
onfin
edLo
w p
ossi
bilit
y fo
r co
ntam
inat
ion
to b
e pr
esen
t at o
r m
igra
te to
a
poin
t of e
xpos
ure
Rec
epto
rs id
entif
ied
that
hav
e ac
cess
to c
onta
min
ated
soi
lId
entif
ied
Pot
entia
l
Lim
ited
Pot
entia
l for
rec
epto
rs to
hav
e ac
cess
to c
onta
min
ated
soi
l
Littl
e or
no
pote
ntia
l for
rec
epto
rs to
hav
e ac
cess
to c
onta
min
ated
so
il
FA
CT
OR
RA
TIN
GD
EF
INIT
ION
*Eva
luat
e us
ing
com
paris
on v
alue
s in
App
endi
x B
-1**
Eva
luat
e us
ing
defin
ition
s an
d de
taile
d in
stru
ctio
ns in
Sec
tion
3.6
Mig
rati
on
P
ath
way
F
acto
r (M
PF
)**
Rec
epto
rF
acto
r(R
F)*
*
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer 13 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
instructions in Section 3. Use of factordefinitions and corresponding instructionsin Section 3 ensures a commoncategorization method across DoDComponents.
2.1 Contaminant Hazard Factor
The CHF is based on the ratio of themaximum concentration of a contaminantdetected in an environmental medium to arisk-based comparison value for thatcontaminant in that medium. Detectedcontamination must be recent yetrepresentative of site conditions. Comparisonvalues are listed in Appendix B.
For carcinogens, the comparison value forhuman health is the concentration thatpresents a 1-in-10,000 risk of increasedcancer incidence, which is the remedialaction threshold for carcinogens defined inthe Preamble to the National Oil andHazardous Substance Pollution ContingencyPlan (55 Federal Register 8716, March 8,1990) and by Directive 9355.0-30 of theOffice of Solid Waste and EmergencyResponse, U.S. EPA (22 April 1991). Fornon-carcinogens, the comparison value forhuman health is the concentration thatprovides an exposed individual with the dailyreference dose (RfD), which is the estimateddaily exposure level of a contaminant to ahuman population below which adverse non-cancer health effects are not anticipated.
For ecological endpoint evaluations,comparison values are based on ambientwater quality criteria (for the surface watermedium) or sediment screening valuesdeveloped by either NOAA or the OntarioMinistry of Environment and Energy.
For a medium that contains more than onecontaminant, the ratios from the individualcontaminants are added. A CHF ofsignificant (sum of ratios is greater than100), moderate (from 2 to 100), or minimal(less than 2) is assigned on the basis of the
magnitude of the ratio or sum of ratios. Thebreakpoints were established by theinterservice working group after reviewingthe results of a considerable number of sitedistributions derived from a range ofdifferent breakpoints. Further discussion ofthese breakpoints is provided in Question 11of the Question and Answer Factsheet,contained in Appendix E. The mechanics ofthe CHF calculations are described in detailin Section 3.3 of the Instructions.
2.2 Migration Pathway Factor
Information about migration pathways ofcontamination for a site is summarized asthe MPF. MPFs of evident, potential, orconfined are determined by matchingavailable site information on pathways withthe corresponding definitions about thelikelihood of contaminant migration shownin Figures 4 through 6. Individuals or groupsperforming the relative risk site evaluationsshould determine the MPF on the basis ofconsideration of available site information,the definitions in Figures 4 through 6, thedetailed instructions associated withmedium-specific MPF evaluations inSection 3, and professional judgment.
2.3 Receptor Factor
Information about the present or futurelikelihood of receptors for each site issummarized as the RF. RFs of identified,potential, or limited are determined bymatching available information on receptorsat sites with the definitions in Figures 4through 6. These statements, like those forthe MPF, should be considered on the basisof available information, detailedinstructions associated with medium-specific RF evaluations in Section 3, andprofessional judgment.
Human and ecological receptors (i.e.,endpoints for exposure) to be consideredare as follows:
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer 14 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
• Groundwater. Human receptors includethose individuals that may be exposed togroundwater contamination via onsiteand downgradient water supply wellsused for human consumption or in foodproduction. Groundwater can beclassified using EPA's Guidelines forGroundwater Classification Under theEPA Groundwater Protection Strategy,Office of Groundwater Protection, 1986.This classification scheme is presentedin Table 1 and is used together withdefinitions and instructions to assist inthe determination of the groundwater RF(see Figure 4). Ecological receptors arenot evaluated.
Surface Water and Sediment. Thesetwo media are discussed together sincethey potentially affect the samereceptors. Human receptors for surfacewater and sediment share the samemigration pathway and, therefore,include those individuals that may beexposed to surface water or sedimentcontamination through onsite anddowngradient water supplies andrecreational areas. Receptors includedowngradient water supplies used fordrinking water, irrigation of food crops,watering of livestock, aquaculture, andrecreational activities such as fishing.Ecological receptors for surface waterand sediment are limited to criticalhabitats and other environments listedin Table 2 that can be reasonablyexpected to be impacted by a site.
• Surface Soil. Human receptors includeresidents, people in schools and daycare,and workers who have direct access tocontamination on a frequent basis.Ecological receptors are not consideredfor evaluation of the surface soil sinceecological standards are generally notavailable for the CHF calculation.Ecological receptors may beincorporated into the soil evaluation ifecological standards become available.
2.4 Site Categorization
For each medium at a site, the CHF, MPF,and RF are combined using the relative risksite evaluation matrix shown in Figure 7 toobtain the relative risk (High, Medium, orLow) for that medium. The highest relativerisk site evaluation result for a mediumdetermines the relative risk designation forthe site, according to the process illustratedin Figure 2. Where sufficient data areavailable, evaluate all four environmentalmedia and their associated endpoints for asite, since the data establish a site baselinethat is used throughout the relative risk siteevaluation process to show changes againstthe baseline due to the implementation ofresponse actions.
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer 15 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
Class I Groundwater** Special groundwater is (1) highly vulnerable tocontamination because of the hydrological characteristicsof the areas in which it occurs and (2) irreplaceable; noreasonable alternative source of drinking water isavailable to substantial populations.
If water supply wells inClass I groundwater arethreatened, the receptorfactor is Identified.
If water supply wells inClass I groundwater arenot threatened thereceptor factor isPotential.
Class II Groundwater Current and potential source of drinking water and waterhaving other beneficial uses includes all othergroundwater that is currently used (IIA) or is potentiallyavailable (IIB) for drinking water, agriculture, or otherbeneficial use.
If water supply wells inClass IIA groundwater arethreatened, the receptorfactor is Identified.
If water supply wells inClass IIA groundwater arenot threatened, thereceptor factor isPotential.
If groundwater is ClassIIB, the receptor factor isPotential.
Class III Groundwater Groundwater that is not considered a potential source ofdrinking water and of limited beneficial use (Class IIIAand Class IIIB), is saline (i.e., it has a total dissolvedsolids level over 10,000 milligrams per liter [mg/l]), or isotherwise contaminated by naturally occurringconstituents or human activity that is not associated witha particular waste disposal activity or another site beyondlevels that allow remediation using methods reasonablyemployed in public water treatment systems. Class IIIalso includes groundwater that is not available insufficient quantity at any depth to meet the needs of anaverage household.
Class IIIA includes groundwater that is interconnected tosurface water or adjacent groundwater that potentiallycould be used for drinking water.
Class IIIB includes groundwater that has nointerconnection to surface water or adjacent aquifers.
If groundwater is ClassIII, the receptor factor isLimited.
*Guidelines for Groundwater Classification Under the EPA Groundwater Protection Strategy, Office of GroundwaterProtection, December 1986.
**Special groundwater is also ecologically vital; the aquifer provides the base flow for a particularly sensitive ecological systemthat, if polluted, would destroy a unique habitat (this characteristic is not applicable for relative risk site evaluation sinceecological receptors are not evaluated for groundwater)
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer 16 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
Table 2. List of Ecological Receptors*(based on 55 FR 51624, 14 December 1990)
Critical habitata for federal designated endangered or threatened species
Marine Sanctuary
National Park
Designated Federal Wilderness Area
Areas identified under Coastal Zone Management Actb
Sensitive areas identified under National Estuary Programc or Near Coastal Waters Programd
Critical areas identified under the Clean Lakes Programe
National Seashore Recreational Area
National Lakeshore Recreational Area
Habitat known to be used by federal designated or proposed endangered or threatened species
National Preserve
National or State Wildlife Refuge
Unit of Coastal Barrier Resources System
Coastal Barrier (undeveloped)
Federal land designated for protection of natural ecosystems
Administratively Proposed Federal Wilderness Area
Spawning areas critical for the maintenance of fish or shellfish species within river, lake, orcoastal tidal watersf
Migratory pathways and feeding areas critical for maintenance of anadromous fish specieswithin river reaches or areas in lakes or coastal tidal waters in which the fish spend extendedperiods of time
Terrestrial areas utilized for breeding by large or dense aggregations of animalsg
National river reach designated as Recreationala Critical habitat as defined in 50 CFR 424.02b Areas identified in State Coastal Zone Management plans as requiring protection because of ecological valuec National Estuary Program study areas (subareas within estuaries) identified in Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plans as requiring protection because they support critical life stages of key estuarine species (Section320 of Clean Water Act, as amended)
d Near Coastal Waters as defined in Sections 104(b)(3), 304(1), 319, and 320 of Clean Water Act, as amendede Clean Lakes Program critical areas (subareas within lakes, or in some cases entire small lakes) identified by State
Clean Lake Plans as critical habitat (Section 314 of Clean Water Act, as amended)f Limited to areas described as being used for intense or concentrated spawning by a given speciesg For the surface water migration pathway, limited to terrestrial vertebrate species with aquatic or semiaquatic
foraging habits*See Section A.4 of the Hazard Ranking System Guidance Manual, OSWER Directive 9345.1-07, November 1992,for sources of information on how to identify these receptors. Information on how to obtain this guidance can befound in Section 5 of this Primer.
Figu
re 7
. R
elat
ive
Ris
k Si
te E
valu
atio
n M
atri
x
CH
F=
Con
tam
inan
t Haz
ard
Fac
tor
MP
F=
Mig
ratio
n P
athw
ay F
acto
rR
F=
Rec
epto
r F
acto
rH
=
Hig
hM
= M
ediu
mL
= L
ow
Evi
dent
Pot
entia
l
Con
fined
Iden
tifie
dP
oten
tial
Lim
ited
CH
F =
SIG
NIF
ICA
NT
HH H
M M
MM
L
H
RF
Evi
dent
Pot
entia
l
Con
fined
Iden
tifie
dP
oten
tial
Lim
ited
CH
F =
MO
DE
RA
TE
HH
H
M
ML
LL
L
RF
Evi
dent
Pot
entia
l
Con
fined
Iden
tifie
dP
oten
tial
Lim
ited
CH
F =
MIN
IMA
L*
HM
M
L
LL
LLL
RF
MP
F
MP
F
MP
F
*If s
ampl
ing
resu
lts fo
r a
part
icul
ar m
ediu
m a
re b
elow
det
ectio
n lim
its o
r ar
e de
tect
ed w
ithin
est
ablis
hed
back
grou
nd c
once
ntra
tion
rang
es, t
hen
that
med
ium
sho
uld
auto
mat
ical
ly b
e as
sign
ed a
rat
ing
of L
ow
.
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer 18 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer 19 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
3 Instructions for Relative Risk Site Evaluations
This section provides a set of general andspecific instructions for conducting relativerisk site evaluations at installations andformerly used defense sites (FUDS). Thegeneral instructions in Section 3.1 applythroughout the evaluation. Instructions onperforming medium-specific evaluations andcompleting specific parts of the RelativeRisk Site Evaluation Worksheet follow inSections 3.2 through 3.6. Because it formsthe basis of so much of the evaluation, theCHF, as it applies to all media, is discussedin detail. Following that, instructions forevaluating each medium are given, withspecific instructions for each of the factors inthat medium.
3.1 General Instructions
Use the Relative Risk Site EvaluationWorksheet, in Appendix A (or its electronicequivalent), to record pertinent informationon the site being evaluated. Page 1 of theWorksheet asks for information on the site.Pages 2 through 7 ask for information on eachenvironmental medium (groundwater, surfacewater [human and ecological endpoints],sediment [human and ecological endpoints],and soil) and cover determinations of theCHF, MPF, and RF for each medium.
Proceed through the Worksheet using thespecific instructions in this Primer. Evaluateall media with reliable analytical data at allsites; designate those sites without reliableanalytical data as “Not Evaluated.” SeeFigure 3 for an illustration of this decisionlogic.
Use the most recent yet representativesampling and analysis data from existingrestoration documents or databases tocomplete the Worksheet; additional datagathering activities are not required.
Examples of such documents includecompleted site inspections, remedialinvestigations, feasibility studies,engineering evaluations/cost analysis studies,records of decision, decision documents,design documents, performance monitoringreports, and equivalent types of information.
When conducting relative risk siteevaluations for sites contaminated solelywith petroleum, oils, and lubricants (POL),do not use Total Petroleum Hydrocarbondata. Instead, use the concentrations forbenzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene(BTEX) compounds in each medium,together with corresponding BTEXstandards, to calculate the CHF. Support forusing BTEX compounds in the evaluation ofPOL contamination can be found in Use ofRisk Based Standards for Cleanup ofPetroleum Contaminated Soil (Departmentof the Air Force, June 1994).
When conducting relative risk site evaluationsfor sites contaminated with POL and othercontaminants, use the concentrations forBTEX compounds and the other contaminantspresent, together with their correspondingcomparison values, to calculate the CHF.
Do not perform relative risk siteevaluations at sites that are categorized aseither “response complete” (RC) or “allremedies in place” (RIP). See Sections 1.4and 4 for these definitions. Do not performrelative risk site evaluations on sites withoutreliable concentration data. These sitesshould be categorized as Not Evaluated(NE). Finally, do not perform relative risksite evaluations on PRP sites and sitescomprised solely of ordnance.
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer 20 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
3.2 Site Information
The first page of the Worksheet asks forinformation on the background of the siteand a summary of key elements ofinformation about the site.
Site Background Information. Provide arecord of basic information on the following:the installation’s name (property name forFUDS), location, site name (project name forFUDS), and Restoration ManagementInformation System (RMIS)/Defense SiteEnvironmental Restoration Tracking System(DSERTS) identification number (projectnumber for FUDS), contact person, date ofrelative risk site evaluation, media evaluated,site execution phase from which data areavailable (e.g., site inspection, remedialinvestigation, remedial design), agreementstatus of the site, and site type. Applicableregulatory agreements and their codes and alist of site types are found in Appendix C.Much of this information is available fromexisting DoD Component databases and istypically imported from these into appropriatedata fields for each site. For example,agreement status and site type codes areavailable in and obtained fromRMIS/DSERTS.
The background information will aid inunderstanding the quality of informationused in site evaluations, the level ofuncertainty associated with the data, andanticipated follow-on phases of execution. Itwill also assist in explaining activities at thesite to stakeholders.
Site Summary (“Project Summary” forFUDS). Briefly describe the source ofcontamination (materials disposed of) at thesite, the exposure setting (the site’s physicalenvironment), and any potentially exposedhuman and ecological receptors. Theemphasis should be on including the keyelements of information used to conduct therelative risk site evaluation. As noted on the
summary sheet, you may include a mapand/or cross section of the site.
Preparers of worksheets should alsodetermine their Component-specificprocedures for submitting relative risk siteevaluation documentation.
3.3 Evaluation of Contaminant HazardFactor
This subsection discusses the general method,common to all environmental media, forevaluating the CHF. The CHF will besignificant, moderate, or minimal, based onsumming the ratios of maximum contaminantconcentrations in each medium tocorresponding comparison values inAppendices B-1, B-2, or B-3, as appropriate.The CHF is significant for a medium when thesum of the ratios for that medium exceeds 100,moderate when the sum of the ratios is from2 to 100, and minimal when the sum of theratios is less than 2. (See Figures 8 and 9.)
Select contaminants for inclusion in the CHFevaluation for each medium and list them onthe Worksheet. Only chemicals listed in theappropriate Appendix (B-1, B-2, or B-3)can be included. Total PetroleumHydrocarbons (TPH) is not included, and onlyspecific petroleum constituents are listed.Select only those contaminants havingreliable analytical data, using the mostrecent yet representative sampling andanalysis data. General considerations forselecting contaminants are discussed at theend of this subsection, while considerationsspecific to each medium are discussed underthe specific instructions for the medium. If noreliable concentration data are available forany contaminants for the medium, noevaluation can be made of that medium, andthe medium should be rated as “NotEvaluated.” If sampling results for a particularmedium are below detection limits or aredetected within established background
[D] m
axS
td**
**=
X
2
Co
nta
min
ants
Cal
cula
tio
n**
***
Rat
ing
Car
cino
gen
A:
[A
]* max
Car
cino
gen
B:
[B
] max
Non
-car
cino
gen
C:
[C] m
ax
Eco
logi
cal D
:
[D] m
ax
>10
0
= S
igni
fican
t CH
F2-
100
= M
oder
ate
CH
F<
2
=
Min
imal
CH
F
Std
**-
Com
paris
on v
alue
bas
ed o
n 10
h
uman
can
cer
inci
denc
e-4
Std
***
- C
ompa
rison
val
ue b
ased
on
refe
renc
e do
se fo
r hu
man
sS
td**
**-
Com
paris
on v
alue
for
ecol
ogic
al r
ecep
tors
whe
re a
vaila
ble
***
**U
se c
ompa
rison
val
ues
in A
ppen
dix
B-1
, B-2
, or
B-3
, as
appr
opria
te
Not
e: C
onta
min
ants
pos
ing
a th
reat
to e
colo
gica
l rec
epto
rs (
i.e.,
ecol
ogic
al c
onta
min
ants
) m
ust b
e ev
alua
ted
sepa
rate
ly fr
om th
ose
posi
ng a
thre
at to
hum
an r
ecep
tors
Figu
re 8
. M
echa
nics
of
the
Con
tam
inan
t Haz
ard
Fact
or C
alcu
latio
n
[A]* m
ax[B
] max
[C] m
ax+
+S
td**
Std
**S
td**
*
- M
axim
um c
once
ntra
tion
in m
ediu
m
=
X1
[A]*
[D]
Std
****
= X
2
Co
nta
min
ants
C
alcu
lati
on
****
*R
atin
g
= X
1
Car
cino
gen
A:
[A]*
max
Car
cino
gen
B:
[B] m
axN
on-c
arci
noge
n C
: [C
] max
Eco
logi
cal D
:
[D] m
ax
Car
cino
gen/
Non
-car
cino
gen
E:
[E] m
ax
>10
0
= S
igni
fican
t CH
F2-
100
= M
oder
ate
CH
F<
2
=
Min
imal
CH
F
Std
**-
Com
paris
on v
alue
bas
ed o
n 10
hu
man
can
cer
inci
denc
eS
td**
*-
Com
paris
on v
alue
bas
ed o
n re
fere
nce
dose
for
hum
ans
Std
****
- C
ompa
rison
val
ue fo
r ec
olog
ical
rec
epto
rs w
here
ava
ilabl
e
***
**U
se c
ompa
rison
val
ues
in A
ppen
dix
B-1
, B-2
, or
B-3
, as
appr
opria
te
Not
e: C
onta
min
ants
pos
ing
a th
reat
to e
colo
gica
l rec
epto
rs (
i.e.,
ecol
ogic
al c
onta
min
ants
) m
ust b
e ev
alua
ted
sepa
rate
ly fr
om th
ose
posi
ng a
thre
at to
hum
an r
ecep
tors
Figu
re 9
. M
echa
nics
of
the
Con
tam
inan
t Haz
ard
Fact
or C
alcu
latio
n fo
r Su
bsta
nces
w
ith b
oth
Car
cino
geni
c an
d N
on-C
arci
noge
nic
Eff
ects
[A]* m
ax[B
] max
[C] m
ax[E
] max
[E] m
ax
Std
**
Std
**
Std
***
S
td**
S
td**
*
++
++
[A]*
- M
axim
um c
once
ntra
tion
in m
ediu
m
max
-4
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer 23 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
concentration ranges, then that medium shouldautomatically be assigned a rating of Low. Ifsampling results for each and every mediumsampled are below detection or are withinestablished background concentration ranges,the site is automatically assigned a category ofLow (see Figure 3).
For each contaminant listed on the Worksheet,record the most recent yet representativemaximum detected concentration of thatcontaminant in that medium at that site on theWorksheet. Adjacent to this value record theappropriate comparison value for thecontaminant from Appendix B-1, B-2, or B-3.(See the instructions for each medium for thecomparison values appropriate to that medium.)Calculate the ratio to be listed on the Worksheetby dividing the maximum concentration by thecomparison value. Select only thosecontaminants having reliable analytical data,using the most recent sampling and analysis datawhich is representative of the site.
Sum the column of ratio values to obtain thetotal value (Figures 8 and 9). Where a lengthyseries of analyses has been carried out, it is notnecessary to list every contaminant found.However, the Worksheet should include allcontaminants of concern that are attributableto the site, especially those that produce thehighest ratios of observed concentrations to theircomparison values. The highest ratios do notnecessarily result from contaminants with thehighest concentrations. Extremely carcinogenicor toxic compounds may have very lowcomparison values and therefore result in thehighest ratios.
The existence of high ratio values will lead to ahigher rating for the CHF. Note that the CHF issignificant when the sum of the ratios exceeds100. Every attempt should be made to includeall contaminants of concern present at a site forthe CHF calculation in order to be able tocompare current site evaluations with futureones.
In selecting contaminants with reliableanalytical data, review the contaminants thathave been detected in the medium and that canbe reasonably attributed to the site. Attributionimplies that the contaminant concentrations aredistinguishable from backgroundconcentrations. Do not include naturallyoccurring compounds that are detectedwithin established background concentrationranges. Additionally, if all analytical data arewithin established background ranges for amedium or site, automatically assign thatmedium or site a rating of Low. Allcontaminants that have been reliably reported atconcentrations near or above the detection limitcan be included.
For contaminants with reliable analytical data,record only the maximum concentration foundin the medium for each contaminant. Thecontaminants need not have been detected at thesame location, but contaminant data should berecent and representative of conditions at thesite. Additional considerations specific to eachmedium are discussed in the instructions for thatmedium.
To implement the requirements of thissection (use reliable data, do no use resultsthat are less than detection limits, do no useresults within background ranges) mediawith CHF values below 0.005 will be assigneda category of Low.
3.4 Evaluation of Groundwater
The evaluation of the groundwater medium issummarized in Figure 4. Groundwatercontaminant data used in site evaluations mustbe based on groundwater samples affected bythe site. The sampling location need not be oninstallation property, but contamination must beattributable to the site. The groundwater samplelocation (i.e., a well) may be a source ofdrinking water or irrigation water, or it may be amonitoring well. A well that is confirmed to beupgradient from the site does not providesuitable data for this evaluation.
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer 24 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
If a well is thought to be influenced by morethan one site, exercise additional care inselecting the data to be used. Select onlycontaminants that can reasonably be linkedto past practices at the site. If, for example,a site was contaminated by trichloroethylene(TCE) and an adjacent site had been shownto have chromium contamination, eventhough both TCE and chromium may appearin groundwater samples downgradient fromthe sites, restrict the evaluation of each sitesolely to the specific contaminants that canbe reasonably linked to the site. Dependingon past practices, this could be both the TCEand chromium or just the chromium or justthe TCE.
Contaminant Hazard Factor (CHF).Review the most recent yet representativeanalytical data to determine whatcontaminants have been detected ingroundwater at or near the site and which ofthese contaminants can be reasonablyattributed to the site. Attribution implies thatthe contaminant concentrations aredistinguishable from backgroundconcentrations. For metals, analyses areoften available for both the dissolvedfraction and the “total” concentration. Thedissolved data are preferred for thisevaluation and should be used if available.
For each contaminant listed on theWorksheet, note a maximum detectedconcentration in ug/l. Adjacent to this value,record the comparison value for the con-taminant, using the values in Appendix B-l.For groundwater use the value listed under“water,” which is reported in units of ug/l.
Migration Pathway Factor (MPF). Themigration of a contaminant from a site intoand through groundwater is dependent upona complex interaction of the physical andchemical properties of the contaminant, thehydrologic environment surrounding thesite, and the presence or absence of physicalfactors that could impede transport. The
likelihood of transport of contaminants viagroundwater is evaluated qualitatively asevident, potential, or confined (seeFigure 4), based on available informationfor a site and professional judgment.
The MPF is evaluated as evident only ifanalytical data or direct observationindicates that contamination in thegroundwater is moving or has moved awayfrom the area under the source. The dataused in this evaluation may be from awater supply well or monitoring well(see Figure 10 for illustrations).
The MPF is potential under the followingconditions:
• Contamination in the groundwater islargely restricted to the area directlyunder the source or only slightly beyondthe edge of the source (i.e., tens of feet)
• There is no evidence of appreciablecontaminant migration in groundwater,but subsurface soil contamination hasbeen identified, the contaminants havephysical properties that suggest they aremobile, and there are no known barriersto migration. A leaking undergroundstorage tank above the water table is anexample.
• Information is not available to supportan MPF of evident or confined.
The MPF is confined at sites where thecontaminants in the source have very littlepotential to migrate to groundwater, orwhere contaminated groundwater has littlepotential to be transported down-gradient.Confined conditions may be due to physicalbarriers to migration, such as a hydraulicbarrier created by an installed and properlyoperating removal or remedial action, or aconfining clay layer between the source andgroundwater. There may be limited netprecipitation (i.e., 0 to 5 inches per year) to
CL
AS
S I
or
IIAA
qu
ifer
Act
ive
Wat
erS
up
ply
Wel
ls
Pro
per
lyA
ban
do
ned
Wel
l
CH
F =
As
calc
ula
ted
MP
F =
Evi
den
tR
F =
Iden
tifi
ed
CL
AS
S I,
IIA
, or
IIBA
qu
ifer
CH
F =
As
calc
ula
ted
M
PF
= P
ote
nti
alR
F =
Po
ten
tial
So
urc
e
So
urc
e w
ith
sig
nif
ican
t su
bsu
rfac
e
so
il co
nta
min
atio
n
Wat
erS
up
ply
Wel
ls
CL
AS
S I
or
IIAA
qu
ifer
CH
F =
As
calc
ula
ted
M
PF
= E
vid
ent
RF
= Id
enti
fied
CL
AS
S II
I A
qu
ifer
or
Per
ched
Aq
uif
er
CH
F =
As
calc
ula
ted
M
PF
= C
on
fin
edR
F =
Lim
ited
So
urc
e
So
urc
e
Figu
re 1
0. E
xam
ple
Scen
ario
s fo
r th
e G
roun
dwat
er M
ediu
m
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer 26 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
drive soil contamination towardsgroundwater, and/or groundwater may belocated several hundred feet below theground surface with very long travel timesfor contamination to reach groundwater.
Receptor Factor (RF). Possible RFs areidentified, potential, and limited (seeFigure 4). Only human receptors areconsidered for groundwater exposure, andno distinction is made for the type ofreceptor (e.g., workers versus residents) orthe number of receptors.
Evaluate the RF as identified if a currentlyused water supply well downgradient fromthe source is threatened. A threatened watersupply well is one that is impacted bycontamination, or will likely be impacted bycontamination within a reasonabletimeframe. The water supply must beequivalent to either EPA Class I or Class IIAgroundwater, as outlined in Table 1. The RFis potential if there are no threatened watersupply wells downgradient from the source,but the groundwater is currently orpotentially usable for drinking water,irrigation, or agriculture. The water supplyshould be equivalent to EPA Class I,Class IIA, or Class IIB groundwater(Table 1). The RF is limited when there is nopotentially threatened groundwater supplywell downgradient from the source and thegroundwater is not considered to be apotential source of drinking water and is oflimited beneficial use. This is a water supplyequivalent to Class III groundwater(Table 1), such as saline water or an aquiferwith insufficient production to meet theneeds of an average household, for example,a perched aquifer (see Figure 10). Do notinclude properly abandoned wells in the RFevaluation.
3.5 Evaluation of Surface Water andSediment
The evaluations for the surface water andsediment media are summarized in Figure 5.Consult a topographic map that includes thesite under evaluation when evaluatingsurface water and sediment factors. Atopographic map will reveal surface waterfeatures that potentially can be affected bythe site and will provide a view of potentialmigration pathways toward surface waterreceptors. Either water or sediment samplescan be used to document the presence andmigration of contaminants (and in somecases receptors) for this evaluation.
Contaminant Hazard Factor (CHF). Forcontaminants in surface water with apotential for human exposure, usecomparison values in Appendix B-1 under“water,” which are reported in units of ug/l.For contaminants in surface water with apotential for ecological exposure, usecomparison values in Appendix B-2, whichare reported in units of ug/l. Forcontaminants in sediment with a potentialfor human exposure, use values in AppendixB-1 under the “soil” column, which arereported in units of mg/kg. For contaminantsin sediments with a potential for ecologicalexposure, use comparison values inAppendix B-3, which are reported in units ofmg/kg. Only contaminants with comparisonvalues in the appropriate tables are to beincluded in the CHF calculation. Asignificant CHF is greater than 100. Amoderate CHF is from 2 to 100. A minimalCHF is less than 2. (See Figures 8 and 9.)
Review the most recent yet representativeanalytical data to determine whatcontaminants have been detected in surfacewater and sediment at or near the site andwhich of these contaminants can bereasonably attributed to the site. Attributionimplies that the contaminant concentrations
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer 27 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
are distinguishable from backgroundconcentrations. Samples collected fromsurface streams, drainage ditches, rivers,lakes, wetlands, and embayments are allappropriate. Samples do not have to becollected adjacent to the site, but greaterdistances often make attribution to the sitemore difficult, and dilution fromdownstream tributaries often reducesobserved contaminant concentrations.
For metals in surface water samples,analyses are often available for both thedissolved fraction and the “total”concentration. If they are available, use thedata on the dissolved fraction.
Sediment is the result of deposition of solidmaterial from the water. Obtain sedimentsamples from surface water bodies receivingrunoff from the site or from areas such asswales and ditches that are known to havetransported water from the site.
For each contaminant listed on theWorksheet, note a maximum detectedconcentration. Use units of ug/l for watersamples and mg/kg for sediment samples.Adjacent to this value record the comparisonvalue for the contaminant using theappropriate subsection of Appendix B.
Migration Pathway Factor (MPF). Thelikelihood of transport of contaminants viasurface water or sediment is evaluatedqualitatively as evident, potential, orconfined (see Figure 5). Base MPFevaluations on available information andprofessional judgment. The MPF is evidentif analytical data or direct observationindicates that contaminants in surface waterand sediments are present at a point ofexposure for a surface water receptor orhave moved in surface water or sedimentsaway from the source towards a point ofexposure for a surface water receptor. Wateror sediment samples can provide theanalytical data. Showing the actual
movement of contaminated runoff from asource toward a point of exposure is neededfor direct observation (see Figure 11).
The MPF is potential in any instance wherethere is information to suggestcontamination could move away from thesource toward a point of exposure for asurface water receptor, or has movedslightly beyond the source area (i.e., tens offeet). Where there is insufficient informationto support an MPF of evident or confined,the MPF defaults to potential.
Application of the confined MPF to a siterequires information that transport ofcontaminants from the source by surfacewater to a potential point of exposure to asurface water receptor is restricted. Reasonsto believe such a condition could existinclude the following:
• The site has engineered runon/runoffcontrols that can effectively interrupttransport of contaminants to surfacewater.
• Removal or remedial actions have beenimplemented that restrict the movementof contaminants away from the source.
• The contamination at the source is belowthe ground surface and is not subject toerosion or interaction with surface water.For example, leaking undergroundstorage tanks may result in subsurfacesoil and groundwater contamination butnot contamination of surface water.
• Topographic conditions prevent surfacewater from leaving the immediate areaof the site. If there is effectively norunoff from the site to surface water,there will be no migration ofcontaminants to points of exposure. Thismay also occur in areas with very lowrainfall, perhaps with only nearbyephemeral streams. In some areassurface water may be completely lost togroundwater recharge.
Figu
re 1
1. E
xam
ple
Scen
ario
s fo
r th
e Su
rfac
e W
ater
and
Sed
imen
t Med
ia
Dra
inag
edi
tch
Crit
ical
hab
itat f
or
thre
aten
ed o
r en
dang
ered
spe
cies
Riv
er
Sou
rce
Wit
h Id
enti
fied
Eco
log
ical
Rec
epto
rs
CH
F =
As
calc
ulat
edM
PF
= P
oten
tial
RF
=
Iden
tifie
d
Dra
inag
edi
tch
Wat
er s
uppl
y in
take
Riv
er
Sou
rce
Wit
h Id
enti
fied
Hu
man
Rec
epto
rs
CH
F =
As
calc
ulat
edM
PF
= E
vide
ntR
F
= Id
entif
ied
Con
tam
inat
ion
Loca
lized
S
edim
ent
Con
tam
inat
ion
at s
ite
boun
dary
(i.e.
, ten
s of
feet
)
Wit
h P
ote
nti
al H
um
an R
ecep
tors
CH
F =
As
calc
ulat
edM
PF
= C
onfin
edR
F
= L
imite
d
Rem
ote
Are
a w
ith
ou
t R
ecep
tors
Dra
inag
e D
itch
Riv
er
Sou
rce Eng
inee
red
Ber
m
Dra
inag
edi
tch
Pos
sibl
e w
ater
su
pply
inta
ke
Riv
er
Sou
rce
CH
F =
As
calc
ulat
edM
PF
= E
vide
ntR
F
= P
oten
tial
Con
tam
inat
ion
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer 29 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
Note that the rationale for a confined MPFmust be based upon hydrologic factors; watermust be prevented from coming into contactwith contaminated sources or moving to apotential point of exposure for a surfacewater receptor. The chemical or physicalcharacteristics of the contaminants, althoughimportant in determining transportmechanisms, will not in themselves preventsuch transport. The chemical and physicalproperties of a contaminant may determinewhether it will be transported primarily in adissolved form or adsorbed on particulatematter, but if the contaminant is in contactwith surface water and subject to erosiveforces, it will tend to move. Further, theexistence of manmade structures, such asdams, or the presence of lakes and reservoirsin the surface water pathway does notnecessarily imply a confined condition.Although the travel time for the contaminantswill undoubtedly be affected by suchstructures, the migration pathway may still beuninterrupted.
Receptor Factor (RF). Receptors could besubject to a number of exposure scenariosassociated with surface water and sediment.Surface water can be a source of drinkingwater and is often used for recreationalactivities such as boating, swimming, andfishing. Human exposure could occurthrough the use of surface water for drinkingwater, the incidental ingestion of surfacewater during recreational activity, dermalcontact with surface water or sediments,ingestion of aquatic species caught in thewater body for human consumption, and theuse of surface water for watering livestock orirrigation of human food crops. Aquaticspecies, considered part of the human foodchain, could potentially include fresh andmarine species, such as finfish, shellfish,shrimp, squid, snails, and crayfish.Ecological receptors to be considered arerestricted to those areas specificallyidentified in Table 2.
The RF can be identified, potential, or limited(see Figure 5). Rate the RF as identifiedwhenever receptors have been specificallyidentified as having access to surface wateror sediment to which the contaminants havemoved or can move. This could potentiallyinclude the use of water as drinking water,for irrigating human food crops, for wateringlivestock, and for supporting recreationalactivity, including fishing. It could alsoinclude the presence of ecological areasdownstream from the site and within thesurface water migration pathway (seeFigure 11).
The RF is potential if there are no knownuses of surface water as outlined above, butthe potential for such use is thought to existbecause of nearby populations or predictedfuture development.
The RF is limited when it is unlikely thathuman population will come into contactwith the water or sediment and when thereare no ecological receptors apparent. Theseconditions, as they apply to humans, may bemet in remote areas or areas in which accessis highly restricted.
3.6 Evaluation of Surface Soils
Samples for the soil evaluation should befrom a depth of 0 to 6 inches. If samples arenot available from this interval, samples fromdepths up to 24 inches can be used.Preference is given to shallower sampleswhen there is a choice. In no instance shouldsamples deeper than 24 inches be used. Forthe purpose of this evaluation, the hazardposed by subsurface soil contaminants (e.g.,a buried leaking storage tank deeper than24 inches) is assumed to be assessed by theevaluation of groundwater (based on actualgroundwater sampling data), which would bethe most probable pathway of deep soilcontaminant migration to humans.
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer 30 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
Contaminant Hazard Factor (CHF). Forcontaminants in surface soils with apotential for human exposure, usecomparison values in Appendix B-1 under“soil,” which are reported in units of mg/kg.Contaminants in soils with a potential forecological exposure are not evaluated sincecomparison values for such contaminants donot currently exist. A significant CHF isgreater than 100. A moderate CHF is from 2to 100. A minimal CHF is less than 2 (seeFigures 8 and 9).
Review the most recent yet representativeanalytical data to determine whatcontaminants have been detected in surfacesoils at the site. Attribution of thecontaminants to the site requires that theobserved concentrations are distinguishablefrom background.
For each contaminant listed on theWorksheet, note a maximum detectedconcentration in mg/kg (ppm). Adjacent tothis value, record the comparison value forthe contaminant, using the values inAppendix B-1.
Migration Pathway Factor (MPF). Thelikelihood of transport of contaminantsthrough soil is evaluated qualitatively asevident, potential, or confined (see Figure 6for definitions). Base MPF evaluations onavailable information and professionaljudgment. Assign evident to the MPF ifanalytical data or direct observationindicates that contamination is present at, ismoving toward, or has moved to a point ofexposure. This may be determined throughanalysis of runoff or observation ofsecondary sources as a result of theslumping of soil or wind erosion.
Assign potential to the MPF ifcontamination has moved only slightlybeyond the source (i.e., tens of feet) or itcould move but is not moving appreciably.Where there is insufficient information to
support an MPF of evident or confined, theMPF defaults to potential (see Figure 12).This rating would be appropriate when thethere is no evidence of movement from anunconfined source or when bermssurrounding sources are old, eroding, orotherwise unmaintained.
To apply the confined MPF to a site requiresinformation that transport of contaminatedsurface soil from the site to a point ofexposure is restricted. Reasons to believesuch confinement exists include thepresence of site barriers such as buildings,maintained berms, and pavement or capsthat prevent contact with the contaminatedsoil or prevent the contaminated soil frommoving to a point of exposure. Whenconducting relative risk site evaluations forsoils, take into account remediesimplemented to contain or confine soilcontamination.
Receptor Factor (RF). Soil receptorsinclude only those humans with the potentialto come into contact with contaminatedsurface soils, including residents, personsattending school or daycare on the site or inproximity to the site, and workers who havedirect access to soil contamination on afrequent long-term basis.
The RF can be identified, potential, orlimited (see Figure 6 for definitions). TheRF is identified if analytical data or directobservation indicates that people reside orfrequently work, recreate, or attend schoolor daycare in the area of contamination. Ifthere are no workplaces, residences, schools,or daycare centers in the area ofcontamination, but access is not restricted,the RF is potential (see Figure 12).
Evaluate the RF as limited when it isunlikely that humans will come into contactwith the contaminated soil. This would beappropriate when the MPF is confined.
Dir
t R
oad
Rem
ote
Are
a
Dirt Road
Res
iden
tial
Are
a
Su
rfac
e S
oil
So
ilC
on
tam
inat
ion
(u
nd
er p
avem
ent)
CH
F =
As
calc
ula
ted
MP
F =
Co
nfi
ned
RF
=
Lim
ited
CH
F =
As
calc
ula
ted
MP
F =
Evi
den
tR
F
= P
ote
nti
al
CH
F =
As
calc
ula
ted
MP
F =
Po
ten
tial
RF
=
Po
ten
tial
CH
F =
As
calc
ula
ted
MP
F =
Evi
den
tR
F
= Id
enti
fied
Mai
ntai
ned
Fenc
e
Tre
es
Figu
re 1
2. E
xam
ple
Scen
ario
s fo
r th
e So
il M
ediu
m
Old
Ber
m
Pav
ed
Are
a
Po
ten
tial
Po
int
of
Exp
osu
re
(op
en a
rea
on
ind
ust
rial
gro
un
ds)
Ind
ust
rial
Are
a
Dis
po
sal
area
on
hill
Exp
and
ing
Are
ao
f S
oil
Co
nta
min
atio
nX
Nav
igat
ion
alA
ids
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer 32 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer 33 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
4 Terms and Definitions
Base Realignmentand Closure(BRAC)
Refers to policy, procedures, authorities, and responsibilities for closingor realigning military installations across the Department of Defense.Includes environmental restoration activities.
Baseline RiskAssessment
An analysis of the potential adverse health effects (current or future)caused by contaminant releases from a site in the absence of any actionsto control or mitigate these releases.
Cancer Risk Incremental probability of an individual developing cancer over alifetime as a result of exposure to a carcinogen.
CERCLA, as amended by the Superfund Amendments andReauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, establishes a comprehensiveframework for identifying, investigating, and cleaning up releases ofhazardous substances to the environment. CERCLA authorizes thePresident to take response actions when a release or the threat of a releaseis discovered. Through Executive Order 12580, signed in January 1987,the President directs the Secretary of Defense to implement investigationand cleanup measures in consultation with EPA for releases of hazardoussubstances from facilities under the jurisdiction of the Secretary.
DefenseEnvironmentalRestorationAccount (DERA)
A transfer account, established by the Defense Appropriation Act of1984, that funds the Installation Restoration Program for activeinstallations and the Formerly Used Defense Sites Program for formerlyowned or used installations. The account also funds the other goals ofthe Defense Environmental Restoration Program.
DefenseEnvironmentalRestorationProgram (DERP)
A program established by Congress in 1984 to evaluate and clean upcontamination from past DoD activities (Title 10 U.S. Code 2701-2707and 2810.)
The Defense Site Environmental Restoration Tracking System (DSERTS)is a personal computer program used by installation and command levelrestoration program managers. It automates collection and reporting ofinformation on sites addressed by the Defense Environmental CleanupPrograms (Installation Restoration and Base Realignment and Closure).
Exposure Point A location of potential contact between a receptor and a chemical orphysical agent.
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer 34 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
Feasibility Study(FS)
Based on data collected during the remedial investigation, options forfinal cleanup actions are developed and evaluated in the FS. The FS isdivided into two phases: (1) an initial screening of alternatives, followedby (2) the detailed analysis of alternatives. The detailed analysisconsiders, among other things, cost-effectiveness, short- and long-termeffectiveness, and the overall protection of human health and theenvironment.
Hazard Quotient The ratio of a single substance exposure level over a specified timeperiod (e.g., subchronic) to a reference dose for that substance derivedfrom a similar exposure period.
Interim RemedialAction (IRA)
An early response action that may be identified and implemented at anytime during the study or design phase. IRAs are limited in scope, andthey address only areas or media for which a final remedy will bedeveloped by the RI/FS process. An IRA should be consistent with thefinal remedy for a site.
Media Environmental media subject to relative risk evaluation, namelygroundwater, surface water, sediment, and soils.
Measures of Merit(MOM)
DoD has developed Measures of Merit (MOMs) to define goals,measure how well these goals are achieved, and assess programeffectiveness. MOM #1 sets forth goals for relative risk reduction atsites in DERP over time. MOM #3 tracks the number of sites wherecleanup action has been taken and relative risk has been reduced in oneor more media.
National Oiland HazardousSubstances Pollu–tion ContingencyPlan (NCP)
Located at 40 Code of Federal Regulations 300, the NCP establishesEPA’s response policy and lays out the key response steps forimplementing CERCLA.
No Further Action(NFA)
A no-further-action designation for a site means that response actionsare either complete or not required and no additional actions arewarranted. A no-further-action decision can be made at different pointsin the process if data indicate that risks are within acceptable levels.
Not Required (NR) A site status classification that means that relative risk site evaluation isnot required. This classification applies to sites designated “ResponseComplete” (RC) or all “Remedies in Place” (RIP).
Petroleum, Oil, andLubricants (POL)
For example, jet fuel, gasoline, and their sludges.
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer 35 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
PreliminaryAssessment (PA)
A limited-scope investigation designed to distinguish between sites thatpose little or no threat to human health and the environment and sitesthat require further investigation. The PA is typically based oninstallation record searches, visual site inspections, and interviews ofsite personnel. It is required at sites listed on the Federal FacilityHazardous Waste Compliance Docket.
PreliminaryRemediation Goals(PRGs)
Relative risk PRGs are concentration levels set for individual chemicalsthat, for carcinogens, correspond to a specific cancer risk level of 1 in1 million and, for noncarcinogens, correspond to a Hazard Quotientof 1. They are generally selected when Applicable or Relevant andAppropriate Requirements (ARARs) are not available.
RCRA FacilityAssessment (RFA)
The first step in the RCRA corrective action process. The RFA acts as ascreen, first identifying and then eliminating solid waste managementunits (SWMUs), environmental media, or entire facilities from furtherconsideration for corrective action. RFAs are performed as part of theRCRA permitting process.
Receptor A human individual or individuals, ecological population, or sensitiveenvironment subject to, or potentially subject to, the hazard ofcontaminant exposure. Sensitive environments considered as receptorsare listed in Table 2.
Reference Dose(RfD)
An estimated daily exposure level of a contaminant to a humanpopulation below which no adverse noncancer health effects areanticipated.
Relative Risk The grouping of sites in DERP into High, Medium, and Low categoriesbased on an evaluation of site information using three key factors: thecontaminant hazard factor (CHF), the migration pathway factor (MPF),and the receptor factor (RF).
Remedial Action(RA)
Involves the construction, operation, and implementation of the finalcleanup remedy. Long-term RAs require continued monitoring,operation, and maintenance for a number of years.
Remedial ActionOperation (RAO)
A site status classification that applies after all remedies are in place, butbefore a response complete decision is made.
Remedial Design(RD)
Involves the development of the actual design of the selected cleanupremedy, including preparation of all technical drawings andspecifications needed to implement the cleanup action.
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer 36 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
RemedialInvestigation (RI)
A field investigation that is more extensive than an SI. Its purpose is tocharacterize the nature and extent of contamination at a site. The RI alsoassesses the risks posed by on-site contamination to human health andthe environment.
Remedies in Place(RIP)
A site status classification that implies that all required removal and/orremedial actions are in place at a site. If a site required a remedial actionfor contaminated groundwater and a second such action forcontaminated soils, both actions would need to be in place (e.g.,operating successfully for groundwater and construction completion forsoil) at the site before making an RIP designation.
Removal Action Taken to respond to a release, or threat of a release, of hazardoussubstances, pollutants, or contaminants so as to prevent, minimize, ormitigate harm to human health or the environment. Such actions may betaken during any phase of the site cleanup.
ResourceConservation andRecovery Act(RCRA)
RCRA, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of1984 (HSWA), requires the establishment of a management system forhazardous waste (Subtitle C), non-hazardous solid waste (Subtitle D),and underground storage tanks (Subtitle I). RCRA also providescorrective action authority for cleanup of non-hazardous solid wastemanagement units.
Response Complete(RC)
A “response complete” designation means that a Component deems thatno further action is required at the site with the exception of long-termmonitoring. A RC determination requires that (1) there is no evidencethat contaminants were released at the site, (2) no contaminants otherthan background levels were detected at the site, (3) contaminantsattributable to the site are below action levels used for risk screening,(4) the results of a baseline risk assessment demonstrate that cumulativerisks posed by the site are below established thresholds, or (5) removaland/or remedial actions at a site have been implemented, completed, andare the final action for the site.
RestorationManagementInformationSystem (RMIS)
A DoD database used to track information on the status and progress ofactivities at sites in the DERP. It is used to support the Annual Report toCongress and is linked with DSERTS.
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer 37 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
Site A discrete area where contamination has been verified, requiring furtherresponse action. By definition, a site has been or will be entered intoRMIS. For the Formerly Utilized Defense Sites (FUDS) program, a siteis equivalent to a “project” and an installation is equivalent to a “FUDSProperty.” Hence, there may be multiple projects on a single FUDSproperty.
Site Inspection (SI) Performed if the PA recommends further investigation. SI investigationstypically collect waste and environmental samples to determine thehazardous substances present at a site and whether they are beingreleased to the environment.
Slope Factor (SF) A plausible upper-bound estimate of the probability of a response perunit intake of a chemical over a lifetime. The slope factor is used toestimate an upper-bound probability of an individual developing canceras a result of a lifetime of exposure to a particular level of a carcinogen.
Source Area where hazardous substances or petroleum products have beendeposited, stored, released, disposed of, or placed.
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer 38 Summer 1996 (Revised Edition)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer 39 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
5 References
Department of the Air Force, Use of Risk-Based Standards for Cleanup of PetroleumContaminated Soil, June 1994.
General Accounting Office, Environmental Cleanup: Too Many High Priority Sites ImpedeDoD’s Program, 3 May 1994.
Goodman, Sherri Wasserman, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security),Statement before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,9 November 1993.
Long, Edward R., and Lee G. Morgan, The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment-SorbedContaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program, National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52, 1990.
Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security), Annual Report toCongress for Fiscal Year 1994 for the Defense Environmental Restoration Program,31 March 1995.
Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security), ManagementGuidance for Execution of the FY94/95 and Development of the FY96 Defense EnvironmentalRestoration Program, 14 April 1994. This document is available through the Cleanup ProgramOffice at (703) 697-7475.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Groundwater Protection, Guidelines forGroundwater Classification Under the EPA Groundwater Protection Strategy, 1986.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,Guidance on Remedial Actions for Contaminated Ground Water at Superfund Sites, Directive9283.1-2, December 1988.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Role ofthe Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfund Remedy Selection Decisions, Directive 9355.0-30,April 1991.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, TheHazard Ranking System Guidance Manual, Directive 9345.1-07, Interim Final, November 1992.Section A.4 of this document contains sources of information for identifying sensitiveenvironments listed in Table 2 of this Primer. Copies of this section can be obtained by callingthe Cleanup Program Office at (703) 697-7475 or through the National Technical InformationService at 1-800-553-NTIS.
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer 40 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Standards; Establishment of NumericCriteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants; States’ Compliance; Final Rule, 57 FederalRegister 60848, 22 December 1992.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,Superfund Chemical Data Matrix - Appendix B, Tables, Directive 9360.4-18-1, June 1994 (asupdated).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX Preliminary Remediation Goals, Second Half,1 September 1995.
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer 41 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
6 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
BRAC Base realignment and closureBTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability ActCAS Chemical Abstracts ServiceCHF Contaminant Hazard FactorCHHPM Center for Human Health and Preventative Medicine
DERA Defense Environmental Restoration AccountDERP Defense Environmental Restoration ProgramDLA Defense Logistics AgencyDSERTS Defense Site Environmental Restoration Tracking SystemDoD Department of DefenseDUSD(ES) Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security)
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyER-L Environmental Response-Low
FS Feasibility StudyFUDS Formerly Used Defense SitesFY Fiscal Year
GAO Government Accounting OfficeGW Groundwater
HEAST Health Effects Assessment Summary TablesHSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
ID IdentificationIRA Interim Remedial ActionIRIS Integrated Risk Information SystemIRP Installation Restoration Program
mg/kg Milligrams per kilogramMPF Migration Pathway Factor
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer 42 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency PlanNFA No Further ActionNOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNR Not Required
PA Preliminary AssessmentPAH Polyaromatic HydrocarbonsPCB Polychlorinated BiphenylPCi/kg Picocuries per kilogramPCi/l Picocuries per literPOL Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricantsppb Parts per billionppm Parts per millionPRG Preliminary Remediation Goal
RA Removal ActionRAO Remedial Action OperationRAB Restoration Advisory BoardRIP Remedies in PlaceRC Response CompleteRCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery ActRD Remedial DesignRF Receptor FactorRFA RCRA Facility AssessmentRfD Reference DoseRI Remedial InvestigationRMIS Restoration Management Information System
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization ActSF Slope FactorSI Site InspectionStd StandardSW Surface Water
TCE TrichloroethyleneTPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
UXO Unexploded Ordnance
µg/l Micrograms per liter
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer A-1 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
APPENDIX A
REVISED
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Worksheet
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer A-2 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
RE
LA
TIV
E R
ISK
SIT
E E
VA
LU
AT
ION
WO
RK
SH
EE
T
SIT
E1
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
IN
FO
RM
AT
ION
Inst
alla
tion
/Pro
pert
y N
ame
for
FU
DS:
Dat
e E
nter
ed /U
pdat
ed (
day,
mon
th, y
ear)
:
Loc
atio
n (C
ity/
Cou
nty
Stat
e):
Med
ia E
valu
ated
(GW
, SW
, Sed
imen
t, So
il, S
ed E
co, S
oil E
co.):
Site
(N
ame/
DSE
RT
S ID
)/P
roje
ct (
Nam
e/P
roje
ct N
o.)
for
FU
DS:
Pha
se o
f E
xecu
tion
(SI
, RI,
FS,
EE
/CA
, IR
A, R
D/R
A, o
r eq
uiv.
RC
RA
Sta
ge):
Poi
nt o
f C
onta
ct (
Nam
e/P
hone
):A
gree
men
t St
atus
(en
ter
appr
opri
ate
DE
RP
Sit
e co
de):
SIT
E S
UM
MA
RY
(Inc
lude
onl
y th
e ke
y el
emen
ts o
f in
form
atio
n us
ed to
con
duct
the
rela
tive
ris
k si
te e
valu
atio
n. A
ttac
h m
ap v
iew
of
site
if d
esir
ed.)
Bri
ef S
ite
Des
crip
tion
(in
clud
e si
te t
ype,
mat
eria
ls d
ispo
sed
of, d
ates
of
oper
atio
n, a
nd o
ther
rel
evan
t in
form
atio
n):
Bri
ef D
escr
ipti
on o
f P
athw
ays
(Gro
undw
ater
, Soi
l, Su
rfac
e W
ater
[H
uman
], S
urfa
ce W
ater
[E
colo
gica
l], S
edim
ent
[H
uman
], S
edim
ent
[E
colo
gica
l]):
Bri
ef D
escr
ipti
on o
f R
ecep
tors
(H
uman
and
Eco
logi
cal)
:
1T
he te
rm S
ite
is d
efin
ed a
s a
disc
rete
are
a fo
r w
hich
sus
pect
ed c
onta
min
atio
n ha
s be
en v
erif
ied
and
requ
ires
fur
ther
res
pons
e ac
tion
. A
Sit
e by
def
init
ion
has
been
, or
wil
lbe
, ent
ered
int
o R
MIS
/DS
ER
TS
. F
or t
he F
UD
S P
rogr
am, “
proj
ects
” eq
uate
s to
sit
es f
or c
urre
nt i
nsta
llat
ions
.
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
CO
NT
AM
INA
NT
Con
tam
inan
tM
ax. C
once
ntra
tion
(ug
/l)C
ompa
riso
n V
alue
(ug
/l)R
atio
2
HA
ZA
RD
FA
CT
OR
1
(CH
F)
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Sign
ific
ant
(if
Tot
al >
100)
___
__
Mod
erat
e (i
f T
otal
2-1
00)
____
_
1 E
valu
ate
for
hum
an c
onta
min
ants
onl
y2
Rat
io =
Max
. Con
cent
rati
on/C
ompa
riso
n V
alue
Tot
alM
inim
al (
if T
otal
<2)
___
__
MIG
RA
TIO
NP
AT
HW
AY
FA
CT
OR
(MP
F)
Evi
dent
- A
naly
tica
l dat
a or
obs
erva
ble
evid
ence
indi
cate
sth
at c
onta
min
atio
n in
the
grou
ndw
ater
is m
ovin
g or
has
mov
ed a
way
fro
m t
he s
ourc
e ar
eaP
oten
tial
- C
onta
min
atio
n in
the
grou
ndw
ater
has
mov
ed o
nly
slig
htly
bey
ond
the
sour
ce (
i.e.,
tens
of
feet
), c
ould
mov
ebu
t is
not m
ovin
g ap
prec
iabl
y, o
r in
form
atio
n is
not
suff
icie
nt to
mak
e a
dete
rmin
atio
n of
Evi
dent
or
Con
fine
d
Con
fine
d -
Info
rmat
ion
indi
cate
s th
at th
e po
tent
ial f
orco
ntam
inan
t mig
rati
on f
rom
the
sour
ce v
ia th
e gr
ound
wat
er is
lim
ited
(du
e to
geo
logi
cal s
truc
ture
s or
phy
sica
l con
trol
s)
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Evi
dent
___
__
Pot
enti
al _
____
Con
fine
d __
___
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
RE
CE
PT
OR
FA
CT
OR
(RF
)
Iden
tifi
ed -
The
re is
a th
reat
ened
wat
er s
uppl
y do
wng
radi
ent o
fth
e so
urce
and
the
grou
ndw
ater
is a
cur
rent
sou
rce
of d
rink
ing
wat
er o
r so
urce
of
wat
er f
or o
ther
ben
efic
ial
uses
suc
h as
irri
gati
on/a
gric
ultu
re (
equi
vale
nt to
Cla
ss I
or
IIA
aqu
ifer
)
Pot
enti
al -
The
re is
no
thre
aten
ed w
ater
sup
ply
wel
ldo
wng
radi
ent o
f th
e so
urce
and
the
grou
ndw
ater
is c
urre
ntly
or p
oten
tial
ly u
sabl
e fo
r dr
inki
ng w
ater
, irr
igat
ion,
or
agri
cult
ure,
(eq
uiva
lent
to C
lass
I, I
IA, o
r II
B a
quif
er)
Lim
ited
- T
here
is n
o po
tent
iall
y th
reat
ened
wat
er s
uppl
y w
ell
dow
ngra
dien
t of
the
sour
ce a
nd th
e gr
ound
wat
er is
not
cons
ider
ed a
pot
enti
al s
ourc
e of
dri
nkin
g w
ater
and
is o
fli
mit
ed b
enef
icia
l use
(eq
uiva
lent
to C
lass
III
A o
r II
IBaq
uife
r, o
r w
here
per
ched
aqu
ifer
exi
sts
only
)
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Iden
tifi
ed _
____
Pot
enti
al _
____
Lim
ited
___
__
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
Gro
un
dw
ater
Cat
egor
y(H
igh,
Med
ium
, Low
)
SU
RF
AC
E W
AT
ER
/HU
MA
N E
ND
PO
INT
CO
NT
AM
INA
NT
Con
tam
inan
tM
ax. C
once
ntra
tion
(ug
/l)C
ompa
riso
n V
alue
(ug
/l)R
atio
1
HA
ZA
RD
FA
CT
OR
(CH
F)
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Sig
nifi
cant
(if
Tot
al >
100)
____
_
Mod
erat
e (i
f T
otal
2-1
00)_
____
1 Rat
io =
Max
. Con
cent
rati
on/C
ompa
riso
n V
alue
Tot
alM
inim
al (
if T
otal
<2)
____
_
MIG
RA
TIO
NP
AT
HW
AY
FA
CT
OR
(MP
F)
Evi
dent
- A
naly
tica
l dat
a or
obs
erva
ble
evid
ence
indi
cate
sth
at c
onta
min
atio
n in
the
med
ia is
pre
sent
at,
mov
ing
tow
ard,
or
has
mov
ed to
a p
oint
of
expo
sure
Pot
enti
al -
Con
tam
inat
ion
in s
urfa
ce w
ater
or
sedi
men
t has
mov
ed o
nly
slig
htly
bey
ond
the
sour
ce (
i.e.,
tens
of
feet
),co
uld
mov
e bu
t is
not m
ovin
g ap
prec
iabl
y, o
r in
form
atio
n is
not s
uffi
cien
t to
mak
e a
dete
rmin
atio
n of
Evi
dent
or
Con
fine
d
Con
fine
d -
Info
rmat
ion
indi
cate
s a
low
pot
enti
al f
or c
onta
min
ant
mig
rati
on f
rom
the
sour
ce to
a p
oten
tial
poi
nt o
f ex
posu
re(c
ould
be
due
to p
rese
nce
of g
eolo
gica
l str
uctu
res
or p
hysi
cal
cont
rols
)
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Evi
dent
___
__
Pot
enti
al _
____
Con
fine
d __
___
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
RE
CE
PT
OR
FA
CT
OR
(RF
)
Iden
tifi
ed -
Rec
epto
rs id
enti
fied
that
hav
e ac
cess
to s
urfa
cew
ater
or
sedi
men
t to
whi
ch c
onta
min
atio
n ha
s m
oved
or
can
mov
eP
oten
tial
- P
oten
tial
for
rec
epto
rs t
o ha
ve a
cces
s to
sur
face
wat
er o
r se
dim
ent t
o w
hich
con
tam
inat
ion
has
mov
ed o
r ca
nm
ove
Lim
ited
- L
ittl
e or
no
pote
ntia
l for
rec
epto
rs to
hav
e ac
cess
tosu
rfac
e w
ater
or
sedi
men
t to
whi
ch c
onta
min
atio
n ha
s m
oved
or c
an m
ove
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Iden
tifi
ed _
____
Pot
enti
al _
____
Lim
ited
___
__
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
Su
rfac
e W
ater
/Hu
man
En
dp
oin
t C
ateg
ory
(Hig
h, M
ediu
m, L
ow)
SE
DIM
EN
T/H
UM
AN
EN
DP
OIN
T
CO
NT
AM
INA
NT
Con
tam
inan
tM
ax. C
once
ntra
tion
(m
g/kg
)C
ompa
riso
n V
alue
(m
g/kg
)R
atio
1
HA
ZA
RD
FA
CT
OR
(CH
F)
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Sig
nifi
cant
(if
Tot
al >
100)
____
_
Mod
erat
e (i
f T
otal
2-1
00)_
____
1 Rat
io =
Max
. Con
cent
rati
on/C
ompa
riso
n V
alue
Tot
alM
inim
al (
if T
otal
<2)
____
_
MIG
RA
TIO
NP
AT
HW
AY
FA
CT
OR
(MP
F)
Evi
dent
- A
naly
tica
l dat
a or
obs
erva
ble
evid
ence
indi
cate
sth
at c
onta
min
atio
n in
the
med
ia is
pre
sent
at,
mov
ing
tow
ard,
or
has
mov
ed to
a p
oint
of
expo
sure
Pot
enti
al -
Con
tam
inat
ion
in s
urfa
ce w
ater
or
sedi
men
t has
mov
ed o
nly
slig
htly
bey
ond
the
sour
ce (
i.e.,
tens
of
feet
),co
uld
mov
e bu
t is
not m
ovin
g ap
prec
iabl
y, o
r in
form
atio
n is
not s
uffi
cien
t to
mak
e a
dete
rmin
atio
n of
Evi
dent
or
Con
fine
d
Con
fine
d -
Info
rmat
ion
indi
cate
s a
low
pot
enti
al f
or c
onta
min
ant
mig
rati
on f
rom
the
sour
ce to
a p
oten
tial
poi
nt o
f ex
posu
re(c
ould
be
due
to p
rese
nce
of g
eolo
gica
l str
uctu
res
or p
hysi
cal
cont
rols
)
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Evi
dent
___
__
Pot
enti
al _
____
Con
fine
d __
___
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
RE
CE
PT
OR
FA
CT
OR
(RF
)
Iden
tifi
ed -
Rec
epto
rs id
enti
fied
that
hav
e ac
cess
to s
urfa
cew
ater
or
sedi
men
t to
whi
ch c
onta
min
atio
n ha
s m
oved
or
can
mov
eP
oten
tial
- P
oten
tial
for
rec
epto
rs t
o ha
ve a
cces
s to
sur
face
wat
er o
r se
dim
ent t
o w
hich
con
tam
inat
ion
has
mov
ed o
r ca
nm
ove
Lim
ited
- L
ittl
e or
no
pote
ntia
l for
rec
epto
rs to
hav
e ac
cess
tosu
rfac
e w
ater
or
sedi
men
t to
whi
ch c
onta
min
atio
n ha
s m
oved
or c
an m
ove
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Iden
tifi
ed _
____
Pot
enti
al _
____
Lim
ited
___
__
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
Sed
imen
t/H
um
an E
nd
poi
nt
Cat
egor
y(H
igh,
Med
ium
, Low
)
SU
RF
AC
E W
AT
ER
/EC
OL
OG
ICA
L E
ND
PO
INT
CO
NT
AM
INA
NT
Con
tam
inan
tM
ax. C
once
ntra
tion
(ug
/l)C
ompa
riso
n V
alue
(ug
/l)R
atio
1
HA
ZA
RD
FA
CT
OR
(CH
F)
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Sig
nifi
cant
(if
Tot
al >
100)
____
_
Mod
erat
e (i
f T
otal
2-1
00)_
____
1 Rat
io =
Max
. Con
cent
rati
on/C
ompa
riso
n V
alue
Tot
alM
inim
al (
if T
otal
<2)
____
_
MIG
RA
TIO
NP
AT
HW
AY
FA
CT
OR
(MP
F)
Evi
dent
- A
naly
tica
l dat
a or
obs
erva
ble
evid
ence
indi
cate
sth
at c
onta
min
atio
n in
the
med
ia is
pre
sent
at,
mov
ing
tow
ard,
or
has
mov
ed to
a p
oint
of
expo
sure
Pot
enti
al -
Con
tam
inat
ion
in s
urfa
ce w
ater
or
sedi
men
t has
mov
ed o
nly
slig
htly
bey
ond
the
sour
ce (
i.e.,
tens
of
feet
),co
uld
mov
e bu
t is
not m
ovin
g ap
prec
iabl
y, o
r in
form
atio
n is
not s
uffi
cien
t to
mak
e a
dete
rmin
atio
n of
Evi
dent
or
Con
fine
d
Con
fine
d -
Info
rmat
ion
indi
cate
s a
low
pot
enti
al f
or c
onta
min
ant
mig
rati
on f
rom
the
sour
ce to
a p
oten
tial
poi
nt o
f ex
posu
re(c
ould
be
due
to p
rese
nce
of g
eolo
gica
l str
uctu
res
or p
hysi
cal
cont
rols
)
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Evi
dent
___
__
Pot
enti
al _
____
Con
fine
d __
___
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
RE
CE
PT
OR
FA
CT
OR
(RF
)
Iden
tifi
ed -
Rec
epto
rs id
enti
fied
that
hav
e ac
cess
to s
urfa
cew
ater
or
sedi
men
t to
whi
ch c
onta
min
atio
n ha
s m
oved
or
can
mov
eP
oten
tial
- P
oten
tial
for
rec
epto
rs t
o ha
ve a
cces
s to
sur
face
wat
er o
r se
dim
ent t
o w
hich
con
tam
inat
ion
has
mov
ed o
r ca
nm
ove
Lim
ited
- L
ittl
e or
no
pote
ntia
l for
rec
epto
rs to
hav
e ac
cess
tosu
rfac
e w
ater
or
sedi
men
t to
whi
ch c
onta
min
atio
n ha
s m
oved
or c
an m
ove
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Iden
tifi
ed _
____
Pot
enti
al _
____
Lim
ited
___
__
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
Su
rfac
e W
ater
/Eco
logi
cal
En
dp
oin
t C
ateg
ory
(Hig
h, M
ediu
m, L
ow)
SE
DIM
EN
T/E
CO
LO
GIC
AL
EN
DP
OIN
T
CO
NT
AM
INA
NT
Con
tam
inan
tM
ax. C
once
ntra
tion
unit
sC
ompa
riso
n V
alue
unit
sR
atio
1
HA
ZA
RD
FA
CT
OR
(CH
F)
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Sig
nifi
cant
(if
Tot
al >
100)
____
_
Mod
erat
e (i
f T
otal
2-1
00)_
____
Min
imal
(if
Tot
al <
2)__
___
1 Rat
io =
Max
. Con
cent
rati
on/C
ompa
riso
n V
alue
Tot
al
MIG
RA
TIO
NP
AT
HW
AY
FA
CT
OR
(MP
F)
Evi
dent
- A
naly
tica
l dat
a or
obs
erva
ble
evid
ence
indi
cate
sth
at c
onta
min
atio
n in
the
med
ia is
pre
sent
at,
mov
ing
tow
ard,
or
has
mov
ed to
a p
oint
of
expo
sure
Pot
enti
al -
Con
tam
inat
ion
in s
urfa
ce w
ater
or
sedi
men
t has
mov
ed o
nly
slig
htly
bey
ond
the
sour
ce (
i.e.,
tens
of
feet
),co
uld
mov
e bu
t is
not m
ovin
g ap
prec
iabl
y, o
r in
form
atio
n is
not s
uffi
cien
t to
mak
e a
dete
rmin
atio
n of
Evi
dent
or
Con
fine
d
Con
fine
d -
Info
rmat
ion
indi
cate
s a
low
pot
enti
al f
or c
onta
min
ant
mig
rati
on f
rom
the
sour
ce to
a p
oten
tial
poi
nt o
f ex
posu
re(c
ould
be
due
to p
rese
nce
of g
eolo
gica
l str
uctu
res
or p
hysi
cal
cont
rols
)
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Evi
dent
___
__
Pot
enti
al _
____
Con
fine
d __
___
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
RE
CE
PT
OR
FA
CT
OR
(RF
)
Iden
tifi
ed -
Rec
epto
rs id
enti
fied
that
hav
e ac
cess
to s
urfa
cew
ater
or
sedi
men
t to
whi
ch c
onta
min
ant h
as m
oved
or
can
mov
eP
oten
tial
- P
oten
tial
for
rec
epto
rs t
o ha
ve a
cces
s to
sur
face
wat
er o
r se
dim
ent t
o w
hich
con
tam
inan
t has
mov
ed o
r ca
nm
ove
Lim
ited
- L
ittl
e or
no
pote
ntia
l for
rec
epto
rs to
hav
e ac
cess
tosu
rfac
e w
ater
or
sedi
men
t to
whi
ch c
onta
min
ant h
as m
oved
or
can
mov
e
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Iden
tifi
ed _
____
Pot
enti
al _
____
Lim
ited
___
__
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
Sed
imen
t/E
colo
gica
l E
nd
poi
nt
Cat
egor
y(H
igh,
Med
ium
, Low
)
SO
IL*
Con
tam
inan
tC
onta
min
ant
Max
. Con
cent
rati
on (
mg/
kg)
Com
pari
son
Val
ue (
mg/
kg)
Rat
io2
HA
ZA
RD
FA
CT
OR
1
(CH
F)
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Sign
ific
ant
(if
Tot
al >
100)
____
Mod
erat
e (i
f T
otal
2-1
00)_
___
1 E
valu
ate
for
hum
an c
onta
min
ants
onl
y2
Rat
io =
Max
. Con
cent
rati
on/C
ompa
riso
n V
alue
Tot
alM
inim
al (
if T
otal
<2)
___
MIG
RA
TIO
NP
AT
HW
AY
FA
CT
OR
(MP
F)
Evi
dent
- A
naly
tica
l dat
a or
obs
erva
ble
evid
ence
that
cont
amin
atio
n is
pre
sent
at,
is m
ovin
g to
war
d, o
r ha
s m
oved
to a
poi
nt o
f ex
posu
re
Pot
enti
al -
con
tam
inat
ion
has
mov
ed o
nly
slig
htly
bey
ond
the
sour
ce (
i.e.,
tens
of
feet
), c
ould
mov
e bu
t is
not m
ovin
gap
prec
iabl
y, o
r in
form
atio
n is
not
suf
fici
ent t
o m
ake
ade
term
inat
ion
of E
vide
nt o
r C
onfi
ned
Con
fine
d -
Low
pos
sibi
lity
for
con
tam
inat
ion
to b
e pr
esen
t at o
rm
igra
te to
a p
oint
of
expo
sure
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Evi
dent
___
__
Pot
enti
al _
____
Con
fine
d __
___
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
RE
CE
PT
OR
FA
CT
OR
(RF
)
Iden
tifi
ed -
Rec
epto
rs id
enti
fied
that
hav
e ac
cess
toco
ntam
inat
ed s
oil
Pot
enti
al -
Pot
enti
al f
or r
ecep
tors
to h
ave
acce
ss to
cont
amin
ated
soi
l
Lim
ited
- L
ittl
e or
no
pote
ntia
l for
rec
epto
rs to
hav
e ac
cess
toco
ntam
inat
ed s
oil
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Iden
tifi
ed _
____
Pot
enti
al _
____
Lim
ited
___
__
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
Soi
l C
ateg
ory
(Hig
h, M
ediu
m, L
ow)
*Soi
l sam
ples
sho
uld
be f
rom
a d
epth
of
0–6
inch
es. I
f sa
mpl
es a
re n
ot a
vail
able
fro
m th
e 0–
6 in
ch in
terv
al, r
esul
ts f
rom
dep
ths
up to
, but
not
exc
eedi
ng, 2
4 in
ches
can
be
used
.
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer A-10 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer B-1 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for EcologicalEndpoint Evaluations
APPENDIX B-3
Sediment Criteria for EcologicalEndpoint Evaluations
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer B-2 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix B-1 -- Page3
APPENDIX B-1
RELATIVE RISK COMPARISON VALUES
The Comparison Values contained in this Appendix were derived from the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) Region IX Preliminary Remediation Goals, which are updatedsemiannually by Region IX. The Comparison Values presented in this Appendix, unlessotherwise indicated, were derived from Region IX Preliminary Remediation Goals [PRGs],Second Half 1995, September 1, 1995. The Region IX values are based upon toxicologicalinformation documented by the EPA in the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and HealthEffects and Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) data bases. Other reference sources, asfootnoted, were used if and when Region IX data were not available.
The Comparison Values presented for soils utilize conservative exposure assumptions developedby Region IX for residential scenarios. Comparison Values that are based on non-carcinogenicexposure endpoints (nc) (i.e., references doses, RfDs) are translated directly into the table. Valuesbased on carcinogenic exposure endpoints (ca) are modified to reflect a 10-4 computed risk value.The EPA has determined that a computed risk of 10-4 to 10-6 (i.e., one-in-ten thousand to one-in-one-million) is acceptable, depending on other prevailing circumstances. The Preamble to theNational Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (55 Federal Register 8716,March 8, 1990) defines the remedial action threshold for carcinogens as 10-4. For the purposesof computing the relative risk, the DOD Workgroup has deemed 10-4 to be adequate. The RegionIX PRG table presents the values correlating to a 10-6 risk. Therefore, all carcinogenic valuespresented in the PRG tables have been multiplied by a factor of 100 to become the Relative RiskComparison Values.
The Comparison Values representing military-unique materials (e.g., explosives, propellants,chemical agent materials, and by-products) have been incorporated into the overall, alphabeticallisting of materials. When Region IX values were not available, the Comparison Values werecalculated using Region IX guidance. The reference doses were obtained from a number ofsources, as footnoted. The toxicological data conducted by the military (or DOD contractors), iscurrently being evaluated to establish environmental clean-up criteria for chemical agents and by-product materials. The criteria are now being reviewed by the Steering Committee for Standards inEmergency Response, Restoration, Remediation, and Demilitarization of Chemical WarfareMaterial. In addition, efforts are ongoing to develop pragmatic exposure assumptions, to replacethe default assumptions generally used in EPA calculations.
Criteria for radionuclides are provided in a separate table at the end of Appendix B-1. They havebeen derived from the EPA-Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, OSWER Directive9360.4-18-1, Superfund Chemical Data Matrix. All levels presented are based on Carcinogenicexposure endpoints; therefore, the values presented by EPA have been multiplied by 100 to reflectthe 10-4 risk Comparison Values (as described above). Representatives of the EPA, Departmentof Energy, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and DOD have been working together to developenvironmental criteria (in picocuries per kilogram [pCi/kg]) to represent the fraction of total annualdosages (in milli-radiation equivalent man per year [mrem/yr]) permitted, per recent regulations andguidance.
Appendix B-1 -- Page4
Please note that synonyms have been added to Appendix B-1 to facilitate its use. In instanceswhere no Chemical Abstract System (CAS) number was available, a unique identifier has beenassigned to the analyte for database function purposes.
The Relative Risk Comparison Values will be formally updated as part of future Primer revisionsto address new data issued from EPA or other sources. The Relative Risk Comparison Values willbe posted on the Internet through the U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and PreventativeMedicine home page.
Isomers of xylene 1330-20-7 9.9E+02 sat 1.4E+03 ncm-Xylene 108-38-3 9.9E+02 sat nc 1.4E+03 nco-Xylene 95-47-6 9.9E+02 sat 1.4E+03 ncp-Xylene 106-42-3 9.9E+02 sat nc 5.2E+02 ncc
Notes: All values presented in scientific notation - e.g., 2.5E+02 = 2.5 x 102 = 250 mg/kg - milligrams per killogram; equivalent to parts per million ug/L - micrograms per Liter; equivalent to parts per billion nc - value based on a non-cancer exposure endpoint ca - value based on a carcinogenic exposure endpoint sat - substance achieved point of saturation at this value max -set at 100,000 mg/kg for soils (nonvolatiles) Footnote in the qualifer column applies only to the associated media value. For example, the footnote "c" in the qualifier column for 1,4-Dimethylbenzene applies only to the value for water of 5.2E+02 ug/l.
a - Memorandum, HSHB-ME-SH, U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency, 18 Nov 1993, subject: Risk-Based Soil Action Levels, Operation Safe Removal, Phase II, Spring Valley. b - Opresko, D., et al, Estimated Control Limits, Technologies and Regulatory Requirements for Remediating Sites Potentially Contaminated with Nonstockpile Chemical Materiels, Final Draft Report, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, November 1994. These numbers are draft, as of March 1996.
c - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, Risk-Based Concentration Table, July December 1995, October 20, 1995. d - Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Draft Data Analysis for Sulfur Mustard (HD), April 1996.
e - Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Draft Data Analysis and Derivation of Reference Doses for Lewisite (CAS NO 541-25-3), January 1996.
f - Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Draft Data Analysis for Nerve Agent GA, April 1996
g - Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Draft Data Analysis for Nerve Agent GB, April 1996 h - Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Draft Data Analysis for Nerve Agent GD, April 1996
i - Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Draft Data Analysis for Nerve Agent VX, April 1996
j - No Chemical AbstractSystem (CAS) Number available, unique identifier assigned for database tracking
Note - Values taken from EPA SCDM database and adjusted for 1 in 10,000 cancer risk.
Appendix B-1 -- Page 36
Appendix B-2 -- Page1
APPENDIX B-2
RELATIVE RISK COMPARISON VALUES
Ambient Water Quality
Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) have been developed under Section 304(a) of the CleanWater Act for priority toxic pollutants as guidelines from which states develop water qualitystandards. The criteria used to develop the Relative Risk Comparison Values were extracted fromTitle 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 131, Chapter I, as amended. These ComparisonValues represent promulgated Federal criteria. Additional State requirements vary; thus, these arenot represented in this table. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) criteria used inthis Appendix are for fresh water and marine chronic exposures; although, acute exposure valueshave been used (and identified) where no chronic levels exist. Also, the EPA’s Lowest ObservedEffects Levels are used (as indicated by footnotes) in the absence of established AWQC.
The AWQ Relative Risk Comparison Values should be used for the assessment of surface waterswhere the potentials for impacts on ecological health are of primary interest.
Please note that synonyms have been added to Appendix B-2 to facilitate its use. In instanceswhere no Chemical Abstract System (CAS) number was available, a unique identifier has beenassigned to the analyte for database function purposes.
The Relative Risk Comparison Values will be formally updated as part of future Primer revisionsto address new data issued from EPA or other sources, including military unique compounds. TheRelative Risk Comparison Values will be posted on the Internet through the U.S. Army Center forHealth Promotion and Preventative Medicine home page.
Appendix B-2 -- Page2
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
RELATIVE RISK COMPARISON VALUESAmbient Water Quality
RELATIVE RISK COMPARISON VALUESAmbient Water Quality
Analyte CAS NumberFresh LeL
ug/L FootMarine ER-
L ug/L Foot5-Norbornene-2,3-dimethanol, 1,4,5,6,7,7-hexachloro-,cyclicsulfite 115-29-7 5.60E-02 9.00E-03O,O-Dimethyl phosphorodithioate 121-75-5 1.00E-01 1.00E-01O,O-Dimethyl thiophosphate 121-75-5 1.00E-01 1.00E-01Oxybenzene 108-95-2 2.56E+03 a 5.80E+03 a,bParathion 56-38-2 1.30E-02 NAPCB 1336-36-3 1.40E-02 3.00E-02PCBs 1336-36-3 1.40E-02 3.00E-02PCE 127-18-4 8.40E+02 a 4.50E+02 aPentachloroethane 76-01-7 1.10E+03 a 2.81E+02 aPentachlorophenol 87-86-5 1.30E+01 e 7.90E+00Pentachlorophenyl chloride 118-74-1 3.68E+00 d NAPERC 127-18-4 8.40E+02 a 4.50E+02 aPerchlorobenzene 118-74-1 3.68E+00 d NAPerchloroethylene (PCE) 127-18-4 8.40E+02 a 4.50E+02 aPhenanthrene 85-01-8 6.30E+00 d 4.60E+00 dPhenol 108-95-2 2.56E+03 a,b 5.80E+03 a,bPhenol,2,4-dichloro- 120-83-2 5.70E+03 a NAPhenylethane 100-41-4 3.20E+04 a,b 4.30E+02 a,bPhenylmethane 108-88-3 1.75E+04 a,b 5.00E+03 aPhosphorus 7723-14-0 NA 1.00E-01Phthalate Esters RRSE-027 3.00E+00 a 3.40E+00 aPhthalic acid, bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester 117-81-7 3.60E+02 d 3.60E+02 dPolychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 1336-36-3 1.40E-02 3.00E-02Polychlorobiphenyl 1336-36-3 1.40E-02 3.00E-02Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons RRSE-028 NA 3.00E+02 a,b2-Propenal 107-02-8 2.10E+01 a 5.50E+01 a,bPropenenitrile 107-13-1 2.60E+03 a NA2-Propenenitrile 107-13-1 2.60E+03 a NAPropylene aldehyde 107-02-8 2.10E+01 a 5.50E+01 a,bSelenium 7782-49-2 5.00E+00 7.10E+01Silver 7440-22-4 1.20E-01 9.20E-01 dSuccinic acid 121-75-5 1.00E-01 1.00E-01Sulfide-Hydrogen Sulfide 7783-06-4 2.00E+00 2.00E+00TCDD 1746-01-6 1.00E-05 a NA2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin) 1746-01-6 1.00E-05 a NA2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorobenzo-1,4- Dioxin 1746-01-6 1.00E-05 a NA2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorobenzo-p-Dioxin 1746-01-6 1.00E-05 a NA2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo(be) (1,4)Dioxin 1746-01-6 1.00E-05 a NA1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 2.40E+03 a 9.02E+03 a,bTetrachloroethanes 25322-20-7 9.32E+03 a,b NATetrachloroethylene (PCE) 127-18-4 8.40E+02 a 4.50E+02 a1,1,2,2,-Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 8.40E+02 a 4.50E+02 a2,3,5,6-Tetrachlorophenol 935-95-5 NA 4.40E+02 a,bThallium 7440-28-0 4.00E+01 a 2.13E+03 a,bToluene 108-88-3 1.75E+04 a,b 5.00E+03 aToluene,2,4-dinitro- 121-14-2 2.30E+02 a NAToluol 108-88-3 1.75E+04 a,b 5.00E+03 aToxaphene 8001-35-2 2.00E-04 2.00E-04Trichlorinated Ethanes 25323-89-1 1.80E+04 a,b NA1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 NA 3.12E+04 a,b1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 9.40E+03 a NA
Appendix B-2 -- Page 6
RELATIVE RISK COMPARISON VALUESAmbient Water Quality
Analyte CAS NumberFresh LeL
ug/L FootMarine ER-
L ug/L FootTrichloroethylene (TCE) 79-01-6 2.19E+04 a 2.00E+03 a,b2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 95-95-4 6.30E+01 d 1.10E+01 d2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 88-06-2 9.70E+02 a NAVinyl cyanide 107-13-1 2.60E+03 a NA2,4-Xylenol 105-67-9 2.12E+03 a,b NAm-Xylenol 105-67-9 2.12E+03 a,b NAZinc 7440-66-6 1.10E+02 c 8.60E+01
Notes -
a - Insufficient data to develop criteria. Value presented is the Lowest Observed Effect Level (LOEL). b - No chronic exposure values available; value presented based on available acute toxicity levels. c - Hardness dependent criteria; 100 mg/L CaCO3 used. d - Value presented is a proposed criterion. e - pH dependent criterion; pH = 7.8 used.
Appendix B-2 -- Page 7
Appendix B-3 -- Page1
APPENDIX B-3
RELATIVE RISK COMPARISON VALUES
MARINE AND AQUATIC SEDIMENTS
The Relative Risk Comparison Values presented should be used to rank marine, estuarine, andfresh water sediments that may impact potential ecological receptors in these habitats. (Concernsregarding human exposures to contaminated sediments should be addressed using the datapresented in Appendix B-1) These Comparison Values represent relatively conservative screeningvalues and are not to be considered as “clean-up goals.” Concentrations greater than theComparison Value generally indicates the need for a more extensive, site-specific assessment. TheNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] values apply to marine and estuarineenvironments, while the data, obtained from the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy,have been widely used within DOD to assess fresh water systems.
Please note that synonyms have been added to Appendix B-3 to facilitate its use. In instanceswhere no Chemical Abstract System (CAS) number was available, a unique identifier has beenassigned to the analyte for database function purposes.
The Relative Risk Comparison Values will be formally updated as part of future Primer revisionsto address new data issued from EPA or other sources. The Relative Risk Comparison Values willbe posted on the Internet through the U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and PreventativeMedicine home page.
Appendix B-3 -- Page2
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
RELATIVE RISK COMPARISON VALUESMarine and Aquatic Sediment
Analyte CAS Number Marine ER-L
(mg/kg) a Freshwater LEL
(mg/kg) b
Acenaphthene 83-32-9 1.50E-01 NAAcenaphthylene 207-08-9 NA 2.40E-01Aldrin 309-00-2 NA 2.00E-03Anthracene 120-12-7 8.50E-02 2.20E-01Anthracin 120-12-7 8.50E-02 2.20E-01Antimony 7440-36-0 2.00E+00 NAArochlor 1016 12674-11-2 NA 7.00E-03Arochlor 1248 RRSE-030 NA 3.00E-02Arochlor 1254 11097-69-1 NA 6.00E-02Arochlor 1260 RRSE-031 NA 5.00E-03Aroclor 1336-36-3 5.00E-02 7.00E-02Aroclor 1016 12674-11-2 NA 7.00E-03Arsenic 7440-38-2 3.30E+01 6.00E+001,2-Benzacenaphthene 206-44-0 6.00E-01 7.50E-01Benzene,1,2-(1,8-naphthylene)- 206-44-0 6.00E-01 7.50E-01Benzo(a)Anthracene 56-55-3 2.30E-01 3.20E-01Benzo(a)Pyrene 50-32-8 4.00E-01 3.70E-01Benzo(def)Phenanthrene 129-00-0 3.50E-01 4.90E-01Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene 198-55-0 NA 1.70E-01Benzo(jk)Fluorene 206-44-0 6.00E-01 7.50E-01Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 207-08-9 NA 2.40E-0111,12-Benzofluoranthene 207-08-9 NA 2.40E-018,9-Benzofluoranthene 207-08-9 NA 2.40E-01beta-Pyrene 129-00-0 3.50E-01 4.90E-01BHC 608-73-1 NA 3.00E-03alpha-BHC 319-84-6 NA 6.00E-03beta-BHC 319-85-7 NA 5.00E-032,3,1',8'-Binaphthylene 207-08-9 NA 2.40E-01Biphenyl, polychloro- 1336-36-3 5.00E-02 7.00E-02Cadmium 7440-43-9 5.00E+00 6.00E-01Carbazole 86-74-8 4.00E-01 3.40E-01Chlordane 57-74-9 5.00E-04 7.00E-03Chlordane, alpha- (2) 57-74-9 5.00E-04 7.00E-03Chlordane, gamma- 57-74-9 5.00E-04 7.00E-03Chlorinated Biphenyl 1336-36-3 5.00E-02 7.00E-02Chromium 7440-47-3 8.00E+01 2.60E+01Chrysene 218-01-9 6.00E-02 6.00E-02Copper 7440-50-8 7.00E+01 1.60E+011,8-Cyclopenta(de)naphthalene 207-08-9 NA 2.40E-01DDD 6088-51-3 1.00E-03 8.00E-034,4-DDD 6088-51-3 1.00E-03 8.00E-03DDE 72-55-9 2.00E-03 5.00E-034,4-DDE 72-55-9 2.00E-03 5.00E-03DDT 50-29-3 2.00E-03 8.00E-034,4-DDT 50-29-3 2.00E-03 8.00E-03Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene 218-01-9 6.00E-02 6.00E-02Dibenzo(b,jk)fluorene 207-08-9 NA 2.40E-011,2,5,6-Dibenzonaphthalene 218-01-9 6.00E-02 6.00E-02Dieldrin 60-57-1 2.00E-05 2.00E-03Endrin 72-20-8 2.00E-05 3.00E-03Fluoranthene 206-44-0 6.00E-01 7.50E-01Fluorene 86-73-7 3.50E-02 1.90E-01
Appendix B-3 -- Page 3
RELATIVE RISK COMPARISON VALUESMarine and Aquatic Sediment
Analyte CAS Number Marine ER-L
(mg/kg) a Freshwater LEL
(mg/kg) b
gamma-BHC 58-89-9 NA 3.00E-03HCB RRSE-032 NA 2.00E-02HCH (alpha) 319-84-6 NA 6.00E-03HCH (beta) 319-85-7 NA 5.00E-03HCH (gamma) Lindane 58-89-9 NA 3.00E-03HCH -technical 58-89-9 NA 3.00E-03Heptachlor Epoxide 1024-57-3 NA 5.00E-031,2,3,4,5,6-Hexachlorocyclo-hexane (HCH) -Technical 608-73-1 NA 3.00E-031,2,3,4,5,6-Hexachlorocyclo-hexane (HCH), Alpha 319-84-6 NA 6.00E-031,2,3,4,5,6-Hexachlorocyclo-hexane (HCH), Beta 319-85-7 NA 5.00E-031,2,3,4,5,6-Hexachlorocyclo-hexane (HCH), Gamma - Lindane 58-89-9 NA 3.00E-03Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene 86-73-7 NA 2.00E-01Iron 7439-89-6 NA 2.00E+04Lead 7439-92-1 3.50E+01 3.10E+01Lindane 58-89-9 NA 3.00E-03Manganese 7439-96-5 NA 4.60E+02Mercury 7439-97-6 1.50E-01 2.00E-012-Methylnapthalene 91-57-6 6.50E-02 NAMirex 2385-85-5 NA 7.00E-03Naphthalene 91-20-3 3.40E-01 NANickel 7440-02-0 3.00E+01 1.60E+01PAHs (total) RRSE-033 4.00E+00 4.00E+00Paranaphthalate 120-12-7 8.50E-02 2.20E-01PCB 1336-36-3 5.00E-02 7.00E-02PCB 1016 12674-11-2 NA 7.00E-03PCBs 1336-36-3 5.00E-02 7.00E-02Phenanthrene 85-01-8 2.25E-01 5.60E-01Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 1336-36-3 5.00E-02 7.00E-02Polychlorobiphenyl 1336-36-3 5.00E-02 7.00E-02Pyrene 129-00-0 3.50E-01 4.90E-01Silver 7440-22-4 1.00E+00 NATotal Kjeldahl Nitrogen RRSE-034 NA 5.50E+02Total Organic Carbon (%) RRSE-035 NA 1.00E+00Total Phosphorus RRSE-036 NA 6.00E+02Zinc 7440-66-6 1.20E+02 1.20E+02
Appendix B-3 -- Page 4
RELATIVE RISK COMPARISON VALUESMarine and Aquatic Sediment
Notes - a - Obtained from: Long, Edward R. and Lee G. Morgan, NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52, The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment-Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program , August 1990.
ER-L - Environmental Response-Low, which represents a no-effects level (i.e., response noted in less than 5% of the observations)
b - Obtained from: Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi, and A Hayton, Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy, Guidelines for the Protection and Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario , August 1993.
LEL - Lowest Effect Level, which indicates a level of contamination which has an effect on less than 5% of the sediment-dwelling organisms observed
Appendix B-3 -- Page 5
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer C-1 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
APPENDIX C
Regulatory Agreement and
Site Type Codes Used in DERA and BRAC Programs
Note: These codes are included here for informational purposes and will bekept consistent with codes used in the Restoration ManagementInformation System/Defense Site Environmental Restoration TrackingSystem (RMIS/DSERTS). Actual codes for each DoD installation andformerly used defense site reside in the Cost-to-Complete estimatesdatabase. Codes in this database will be cross-walked with relative risksite evaluation information to obtain actual Regulatory Agreement andRMIS/DSERTS Site Type Codes.
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer C-2 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer C-3 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
APPENDIX C
CODES FOR REGULATORY AGREEMENTS
Code Enforcement Agreement Comments*
A Federal Facility Agreement at NPL and proposed NPLinstallations
Yes
B Interagency Agreement (2 and 3 party) at non-NPLinstallations
Yes
C RCRA Permits with Corrective Action Requirements YesD RCRA Corrective Action Orders (Issued by EPA or a
state)Yes
E Consent Order under state law YesF Memorandum of Understanding commitments YesG Memorandum of Agreement commitments YesH Notice of Violation requirements YesI Requirements related to Agency for Toxic Substances
Disease Registry (e.g., response to health advisory)No
J Requirements related to Natural Resource Trustee claim(e.g., damage claim)
No
K Court-ordered requirements (in cases of litigation) YesL Imminent threats NoM Consent decrees (usually for third-party sites) YesN Unilateral orders (usually for third-party sites) YesO Preliminary Assessments for installations listed on the
DocketNo
P Long-Term Operation/Monitoring for in-place cleanupsystems for installations without agreements
No
Q State laws and regulations requiring response within aspecified period
No
R Congressional/owner concerns No, except for FUDSS Building demolition/debris removal No, except for FUDST Ordnance and explosive waste, RAC 1-2 No, except for FUDSU Ordnance and explosive waste, RAC 3-4 No, except for FUDSZ No agreements No
Blank Manpower/workyears No
* “Yes” in the comments column indicates a regulatory agreement for purposes of relative risk evaluation.“No” indicates that the agreement type is not considered a regulatory agreement for relative risk evaluation,with exceptions as noted.
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer C-4 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
CODES FOR RMIS/DSERTS SITE TYPES
Code Site Type
TA Aboveground Storage TankDB Building Demolition/Debris RemovalAB Burn AreaDC Chemical DisposalCB Contaminated BuildingsCF Contaminated FillCG Contaminated GroundwaterCS Contaminated SedimentsCD Contaminated Soil PilesDT Dip TankDP Disposal Pit/Dry WellDD Drainage DitchXE Explosive Ordnance Disposal AreaAT Fire/Crash Training AreaFR Firing RangeIN IncineratorID Industrial DischargeLF LandfillFL Leach FieldMY Maintenance YardWM Mixed Waste AreaOW Oil/Water SeparatorOS Optical ShopPS Pesticide ShopPR Pistol RangeSP Plating ShopPL POL (Petroleum/Oil/Lubricants) LinesWR Radioactive Waste AreaEP Sewage Effluent Settling PondsST Sewage Treatment PlantSR Small Arms RangeSO Soil Contamination After Tank RemovalSS Spill Site AreaSA Storage AreaSD Storm DrainDA Surface Disposal AreaSI Surface Impoundment/LagoonRS Surface RunoffTU Underground Storage TanksTT Underground Tank FarmXU Unexploded Munitions/Ordnance AreaRW WashrackWL Waste LinesWT Waste Treatment PlantZZ Other
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer D-1 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
APPENDIX D
Examples of CompletedRelative Risk Site Evaluation Worksheets
Army Landfill (Page D-3)
Navy Fire Training Area (Page D-6)
Air Force Landfill (Page D-13)
Note: Primer users are encouraged to read through the following example siteevaluations. They illustrate the type/nature of documentation to beincluded on worksheets, and provide example language that should beincluded as rationale for MPF and RF factor ratings.
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer D-2 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Exa
mp
le 1
Pag
e 1
- R
elat
ive
Ris
k S
ite
Eva
luat
ion
Wor
kshe
et
RE
LA
TIV
E R
ISK
SIT
E E
VA
LU
AT
ION
WO
RK
SH
EE
T
SIT
E1
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
IN
FO
RM
AT
ION
Inst
alla
tion
/Pro
pert
y N
ame
for
FU
DS:
Exa
mpl
e A
rmy
Bas
eD
ate
Ent
ered
/Upd
ated
(da
y, m
onth
,ye
ar):
15 J
une
1994
Loc
atio
n (C
ity/
Cou
nty
Stat
e):
Nor
th C
ity, W
ashi
ngto
nM
edia
Eva
luat
ed (G
W, S
W, S
edim
ent,
Soil,
Sed
. Eco
., So
il E
co.):
GW
Site
(Nam
e/D
SER
TS
ID)/
Pro
ject
(Nam
e/P
roje
ct N
o.) f
orF
UD
S:L
andf
ill 5
, AB
CD
EFG
HIJ
KL
Pha
se o
f E
xecu
tion
(SI
, RI,
FS,
EE
/CA
, IR
A, R
D/R
A, o
r e
quiv
. RC
RA
Stag
e):
RD
Poi
nt o
f C
onta
ct (
Nam
e/P
hone
):J.
Joh
nson
Agr
eem
ent
Stat
us (
ente
r ap
prop
riat
e D
ER
P S
ite
code
):A
SIT
E S
UM
MA
RY
(Inc
lude
onl
y th
e ke
y el
emen
ts o
f in
form
atio
n us
ed to
con
duct
the
rela
tive
ris
k si
te e
valu
atio
n. A
ttac
h m
ap v
iew
of
site
if d
esir
ed.)
Bri
ef S
ite
Des
crip
tion
(in
clud
e si
te t
ype,
mat
eria
ls d
ispo
sed
of, d
ates
of
oper
atio
n, a
nd o
ther
rel
evan
t in
form
atio
n):
60
acre
land
fill
ope
rate
d fr
om 1
967
thro
ugh
1990
. M
ater
ials
dis
pose
d of
incl
ude
som
e 77
,000
tons
of m
ixed
mun
icip
al s
olid
was
te, 1
88,0
00 c
ubic
yar
ds o
f dem
olit
ion
was
te ,
and
dew
ater
ed s
ludg
e fr
om a
nea
rby
sew
age
trea
tmen
t pla
nt.
Lan
dfil
l mat
eria
ls w
ere
buri
ed in
tren
ches
and
cov
ered
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith
Stat
e st
anda
rds.
Gro
undw
ater
is c
onta
min
ated
wit
h vo
lati
le o
rgan
ic c
ompo
unds
; su
rfac
e w
ater
sam
plin
g re
veal
ed n
o co
ntam
inat
ion;
soi
l sam
plin
g w
asde
emed
unn
eces
sary
bec
ause
the
land
fill
cap
pre
clud
es d
irec
t exp
osur
e to
sub
surf
ace
soil
s.
Bri
ef D
escr
ipti
on o
f P
athw
ays
(Gro
undw
ater
, Soi
l, Su
rfac
e W
ater
[H
uman
], S
urfa
ce W
ater
[E
colo
gica
l], S
edim
ent
[Hum
an],
Sed
imen
t [E
colo
gica
l]):
Sit
e is
und
erla
in b
y a
seri
es o
f gla
cial
and
inte
rgla
cial
dep
osit
s. T
he u
pper
mos
t aqu
ifer
, in
whi
ch th
e gr
ound
wat
er c
onta
min
atio
n is
foun
d, c
onsi
sts
of s
and,
gra
vel a
nd g
laci
al ti
ll.
It is
sep
arat
ed fr
om th
e lo
wer
, con
fine
d, s
and
and
grav
elaq
uife
r by
fine
san
ds a
nd s
ilty
cla
ys.
Bri
ef D
escr
ipti
on o
f R
ecep
tors
(H
uman
and
Eco
logi
cal)
: G
roun
dwat
er fr
om th
e up
per
aqui
fer
is u
sed
as th
e w
ater
sup
ply
for
the
near
by to
wn.
All
wat
er s
uppl
y w
ells
are
upg
radi
ent f
rom
the
site
,w
ith
the
near
est w
ater
sup
ply
4,00
0 fe
et u
pgra
dien
t. G
roun
dwat
er in
the
imm
edia
te v
icin
ity
of th
e si
te a
nd d
owng
radi
ent f
rom
the
site
is n
ot u
sed
for
dom
esti
c or
agr
icul
tura
l pur
pose
s. L
ocal
Tri
bes
cond
uct s
alm
on fi
shin
g in
Suq
ua C
reek
and
in th
e B
ay.
Seve
ral b
ase
empl
oyee
s w
ork
adja
cent
to th
e w
est e
dge
of th
e la
ndfi
ll, b
ut n
o on
e re
side
s or
wor
ks in
the
land
fill
are
a.
1 The
term
Sit
e is
def
ined
as
a di
scre
te a
rea
for
whi
ch s
uspe
cted
con
tam
inat
ion
has
been
ver
ifie
d an
d re
quir
es f
urth
er r
espo
nse
acti
on.
A S
ite
by d
efin
itio
n ha
s be
en, o
r w
ill b
e, e
nter
ed in
toR
MIS
/DSE
RT
S. F
or th
e FU
DS
Prog
ram
, "pr
ojec
ts"
equa
tes
to s
ites
for
curr
ent i
nsta
llatio
ns.
Exa
mp
le 1
Pag
e 2
- R
elat
ive
Ris
k S
ite
Eva
luat
ion
Wor
kshe
et
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
CO
NT
AM
INA
NT
Con
tam
inan
tM
ax. C
once
ntra
tion
(ug
/l)C
ompa
riso
n V
alue
(ug
/l)R
atio
2
HA
ZA
RD
1,1-
Dic
hlor
oeth
ylen
e ca
6.8
4.6
1.48
FA
CT
OR
11,
2-D
ichl
oroe
thyl
ene(
cis)
nc3.
361
0.05
(CH
F)
Vin
yl C
hlor
ide
ca3.
22.
01.
60T
olue
nenc
16.0
720
0.02
Man
gane
senc
10,7
0018
059
.44
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Sign
ific
ant
(if
Tot
al >
100)
___
Mod
erat
e (i
f T
otal
2-1
00)
X
1 E
valu
ate
for
hum
an c
onta
min
ants
onl
y2
Rat
io =
Max
. Con
cent
rati
on/C
ompa
riso
n V
alue
Tot
al62
.59
Min
imal
(if
Tot
al <
2)__
_
MIG
RA
TIO
NP
AT
HW
AY
FA
CT
OR
(MP
F)
Evi
dent
- A
naly
tica
l dat
a or
obs
erva
ble
evid
ence
indi
cate
sth
at c
onta
min
atio
n in
the
grou
ndw
ater
is m
ovin
g or
has
mov
ed a
way
fro
m t
he s
ourc
e ar
eaP
oten
tial
- C
onta
min
atio
n in
the
grou
ndw
ater
has
mov
ed o
nly
slig
htly
bey
ond
the
sour
ce (
i.e.,
tens
of
feet
), c
ould
mov
ebu
t is
not m
ovin
g ap
prec
iabl
y, o
r in
form
atio
n is
not
suff
icie
nt to
mak
e a
dete
rmin
atio
n of
Evi
dent
or
Con
fine
d
Con
fine
d -
Info
rmat
ion
indi
cate
s th
at th
e po
tent
ial f
orco
ntam
inan
t mig
rati
on f
rom
the
sour
ce v
ia th
e gr
ound
wat
er is
lim
ited
(du
e to
geo
logi
cal s
truc
ture
s or
phy
sica
l con
trol
s)
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Evi
dent
___
Pot
enti
al
X
Con
fine
d___
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
Mon
itor
ing
wel
l dat
a sh
ow v
ery
loca
lize
d co
ntam
inan
t mig
rati
on n
ot e
xten
ding
bey
ond
the
sour
ce b
ound
ary.
GW
grad
ient
is n
earl
y fl
at.
RE
CE
PT
OR
FA
CT
OR
(RF
)
Iden
tifi
ed -
The
re is
a th
reat
ened
wat
er s
uppl
y do
wng
radi
ent o
fth
e so
urce
and
the
grou
ndw
ater
is a
cur
rent
sou
rce
of d
rink
ing
wat
er o
r so
urce
of
wat
er f
or o
ther
ben
efic
ial
uses
suc
h as
irri
gati
on/a
gric
ultu
re (
equi
vale
nt to
Cla
ss I
or
IIA
aqu
ifer
)
Pot
enti
al -
The
re is
no
thre
aten
ed w
ater
sup
ply
wel
ldo
wng
radi
ent o
f th
e so
urce
and
the
grou
ndw
ater
is c
urre
ntly
or p
oten
tial
ly u
sabl
e fo
r dr
inki
ng w
ater
, irr
igat
ion,
or
agri
cult
ure,
(eq
uiva
lent
to C
lass
I, I
IA, o
r II
B a
quif
er)
Lim
ited
- T
here
is n
o po
tent
iall
y th
reat
ened
wat
er s
uppl
y w
ell
dow
ngra
dien
t of
the
sour
ce a
nd th
e gr
ound
wat
er is
not
cons
ider
ed a
pot
enti
al s
ourc
e of
dri
nkin
g w
ater
and
is o
fli
mit
ed b
enef
icia
l use
(eq
uiva
lent
to C
lass
III
A o
r II
IBaq
uife
r, o
r w
here
per
ched
aqu
ifer
exi
sts
only
)
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Iden
tifi
ed__
_
Pot
enti
al
X
Lim
ited
___
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
Gro
undw
ater
dow
ngra
dien
t of s
ite
is n
ot c
urre
ntly
use
d, b
ut w
ater
is p
oten
tial
ly u
sabl
e.
Gro
un
dw
ater
Cat
egor
yM
ediu
m
(H
igh,
Med
ium
, Low
)
Sequa Lake
Lake
Town
N
Roads
Landfill
Sequa Creek
MilitaryPost
Example 1. Map View of Landfill and Vicinity at Example Army Base
Town
Interstate Highway
BAY
Exa
mp
le 2
Pag
e 1
- R
elat
ive
Ris
k S
ite
Eva
luat
ion
Wor
kshe
et
RE
LA
TIV
E R
ISK
SIT
E E
VA
LU
AT
ION
WO
RK
SH
EE
T
SIT
E1
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
IN
FO
RM
AT
ION
Inst
alla
tion
/Pro
pert
y N
ame
for
FU
DS:
Exa
mpl
e N
avy
Bas
eD
ate
Ent
ered
/Upd
ated
(da
y, m
onth
, yea
r):
15 J
une
1994
Loc
atio
n (C
ity/
Cou
nty
Stat
e):
Sout
h C
ity, N
ew J
erse
yM
edia
Eva
luat
ed (G
W, S
W, S
edim
ent,
Soil,
Sed
. Eco
., So
il E
co.):
AL
LSi
te (N
ame/
DSE
RT
S ID
)/P
roje
ct (
Nam
e/P
roje
ct N
o.)
for
FU
DS:
Site
000
14P
hase
of
Exe
cuti
on (
SI, R
I, F
S, E
E/C
A, I
RA
, RD
/RA
, or
equ
iv. R
CR
A S
tage
):R
D
Poi
nt o
f C
onta
ct (
Nam
e/P
hone
):P.
Jac
kson
Agr
eem
ent
Stat
us (
ente
r ap
prop
riat
e D
ER
P S
ite
code
):A
SIT
E S
UM
MA
RY
(Inc
lude
onl
y th
e ke
y el
emen
ts o
f in
form
atio
n us
ed to
con
duct
the
rela
tive
ris
k si
te e
valu
atio
n. A
ttac
h m
ap v
iew
of
site
if d
esir
ed.)
Bri
ef S
ite
Des
crip
tion
(in
clud
e si
te t
ype,
mat
eria
ls d
ispo
sed
of, d
ates
of
oper
atio
n, a
nd o
ther
rel
evan
t in
form
atio
n):
1.5
acr
e fi
re fi
ghti
ng tr
aini
ng a
rea
whi
ch w
as in
use
196
5-19
78.
Was
te o
ils,
fuel
s an
d so
lven
ts w
ere
rele
ased
. T
he fi
re tr
aini
ng a
rea
is s
urro
unde
d by
a fe
nce
and
acce
ss is
res
tric
ted.
Con
tam
inat
ion
was
foun
d in
gro
undw
ater
, soi
ls, s
urfa
ce w
ater
and
sed
imen
t.
Bri
ef D
escr
ipti
on o
f P
athw
ays
(Gro
undw
ater
, Soi
l, Su
rfac
e W
ater
[H
uman
], S
urfa
ce W
ater
[E
colo
gica
l], S
edim
ent
[Hum
an],
Sed
imen
t [E
colo
gica
l]):
The
sit
e is
und
erla
in b
y 15
0 fe
et o
f san
din
whi
ch a
gro
undw
ater
plu
me
has
been
iden
tifi
ed s
ever
al h
undr
ed y
ards
dow
ngra
dien
t of t
he s
ite.
Sur
face
dra
inag
e fr
om th
e si
te le
ads
to a
larg
e la
ke.
Con
tam
inan
ts h
ave
been
iden
tifi
ed in
bot
hsu
rfac
e w
ater
and
sed
imen
ts in
the
lake
. T
he s
oils
in th
e fi
re tr
aini
ng a
rea
are
cont
amin
ated
wit
hin
the
fenc
ed-i
n ar
ea.
Bri
ef D
escr
ipti
on o
f R
ecep
tors
(H
uman
and
Eco
logi
cal)
: G
roun
dwat
er is
use
d fo
r bo
th d
rink
ing
and
live
stoc
k w
ater
ing
poin
ts d
owng
radi
ent f
rom
the
site
. T
he la
ke d
owns
trea
m fr
om th
e si
te is
use
dfo
r re
crea
tion
and
is b
orde
red
by a
Sta
te W
ildl
ife
Ref
uge.
The
sit
e is
in a
rem
ote
area
of t
he b
ase,
acc
ess
is r
estr
icte
d, a
nd th
ere
is n
o ev
iden
ce o
f hum
an a
ctiv
ity
on th
e si
te.
1 The
term
Sit
e is
def
ined
as
a di
scre
te a
rea
for
whi
ch s
uspe
cted
con
tam
inat
ion
has
been
ver
ifie
d an
d re
quir
es f
urth
er r
espo
nse
acti
on.
A S
ite
by d
efin
itio
n ha
s be
en, o
r w
ill b
e, e
nter
ed in
toR
MIS
/DSE
RT
S. F
or th
e FU
DS
Prog
ram
, "pr
ojec
ts"
equa
tes
to s
ites
for
curr
ent i
nsta
llatio
ns.
Exa
mp
le 2
Pag
e 2
- R
elat
ive
Ris
k S
ite
Eva
luat
ion
Wor
kshe
et
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
CO
NT
AM
INA
NT
Con
tam
inan
tM
ax. C
once
ntra
tion
(ug
/l)C
ompa
riso
n V
alue
(ug
/l)R
atio
2
HA
ZA
RD
Ben
zene
ca13
039
3.3
FA
CT
OR
11,
1 di
chlo
roet
hlye
neca
2400
4.6
521.
7
(CH
F)
Vin
yl C
hlor
ide
ca20
002.
010
00.0
Lea
dnc
864.
021
.5(P
lace
an
“X”
next
to
one
belo
w)
Sign
ific
ant
(if
Tot
al >
100)
X
Mod
erat
e (i
f T
otal
2-1
00)_
__
1 E
valu
ate
for
hum
an c
onta
min
ants
onl
y2
Rat
io =
Max
. Con
cent
rati
on/C
ompa
riso
n V
alue
Tot
al15
46.5
Min
imal
(if
Tot
al <
2)__
_
MIG
RA
TIO
NP
AT
HW
AY
FA
CT
OR
(MP
F)
Evi
dent
- A
naly
tica
l dat
a or
obs
erva
ble
evid
ence
indi
cate
sth
at c
onta
min
atio
n in
the
grou
ndw
ater
is m
ovin
g or
has
mov
ed a
way
fro
m t
he s
ourc
e ar
eaP
oten
tial
- C
onta
min
atio
n in
the
grou
ndw
ater
has
mov
ed o
nly
slig
htly
bey
ond
the
sour
ce (
i.e.,
tens
of
feet
), c
ould
mov
ebu
t is
not m
ovin
g ap
prec
iabl
y, o
r in
form
atio
n is
not
suff
icie
nt to
mak
e a
dete
rmin
atio
n of
Evi
dent
or
Con
fine
d
Con
fine
d -
Info
rmat
ion
indi
cate
s th
at th
e po
tent
ial f
orco
ntam
inan
t mig
rati
on f
rom
the
sour
ce v
ia th
e gr
ound
wat
er is
lim
ited
(du
e to
geo
logi
cal s
truc
ture
s or
phy
sica
l con
trol
s)
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Evi
dent
X
Pot
enti
al__
_
Con
fine
d___
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
Mon
itor
ing
data
indi
cate
pre
senc
e of
gro
undw
ater
plu
me
seve
ral h
undr
ed y
ards
dow
ngra
dien
t of s
ourc
e ar
ea
RE
CE
PT
OR
FA
CT
OR
(RF
)
Iden
tifi
ed -
The
re is
a th
reat
ened
wat
er s
uppl
y do
wng
radi
ent o
fth
e so
urce
and
the
grou
ndw
ater
is a
cur
rent
sou
rce
of d
rink
ing
wat
er o
r so
urce
of
wat
er f
or o
ther
ben
efic
ial
uses
suc
h as
irri
gati
on/a
gric
ultu
re (
equi
vale
nt to
Cla
ss I
or
IIA
aqu
ifer
)
Pot
enti
al -
The
re is
no
thre
aten
ed w
ater
sup
ply
wel
ldo
wng
radi
ent o
f th
e so
urce
and
the
grou
ndw
ater
is c
urre
ntly
or p
oten
tial
ly u
sabl
e fo
r dr
inki
ng w
ater
, irr
igat
ion,
or
agri
cult
ure,
(eq
uiva
lent
to C
lass
I, I
IA, o
r II
B a
quif
er)
Lim
ited
- T
here
is n
o po
tent
iall
y th
reat
ened
wat
er s
uppl
y w
ell
dow
ngra
dien
t of
the
sour
ce a
nd th
e gr
ound
wat
er is
not
cons
ider
ed a
pot
enti
al s
ourc
e of
dri
nkin
g w
ater
and
is o
fli
mit
ed b
enef
icia
l use
(eq
uiva
lent
to C
lass
III
A o
r II
IBaq
uife
r, o
r w
here
per
ched
aqu
ifer
exi
sts
only
)
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Iden
tifi
ed
X
Pot
enti
al__
_
Lim
ited
___
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
A m
unic
ipal
wel
lfie
ld is
loca
ted
appr
oxim
atel
y 1/
3 m
ile
dow
ngra
dien
t
Gro
un
dw
ater
Cat
egor
yH
igh
(Hig
h, M
ediu
m, L
ow)
Exa
mp
le 2
Pag
e 3
- R
elat
ive
Ris
k S
ite
Eva
luat
ion
Wor
kshe
et
SU
RF
AC
E W
AT
ER
/HU
MA
N E
ND
PO
INT
CO
NT
AM
INA
NT
Con
tam
inan
tM
ax. C
once
ntra
tion
(ug
/l)C
ompa
riso
n V
alue
(ug
/l)R
atio
1
HA
ZA
RD
Lea
dnc
824.
020
.5
FA
CT
OR
14-
4’-D
DE
ca0.
1720
<.1
(CH
F)
4-m
ethy
lphe
nol
nc2
180
<.1
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Sign
ific
ant
(if
Tot
al >
100)
__
Mod
erat
e (i
f T
otal
2-1
00)
X
1 R
atio
= M
ax. C
once
ntra
tion
/Com
pari
son
Val
ue20
.5M
inim
al (
if T
otal
<2)
___
MIG
RA
TIO
NP
AT
HW
AY
FA
CT
OR
(MP
F)
Evi
dent
- A
naly
tica
l dat
a or
obs
erva
ble
evid
ence
indi
cate
sth
at c
onta
min
atio
n in
the
med
ia is
pre
sent
at,
mov
ing
tow
ard,
or
has
mov
ed to
a p
oint
of
expo
sure
Pot
enti
al -
Con
tam
inat
ion
in s
urfa
ce w
ater
or
sedi
men
t has
mov
ed o
nly
slig
htly
bey
ond
the
sour
ce (
i.e.,
tens
of
feet
),co
uld
mov
e bu
t is
not m
ovin
g ap
prec
iabl
y, o
r in
form
atio
n is
not s
uffi
cien
t to
mak
e a
dete
rmin
atio
n of
Evi
dent
or
Con
fine
d
Con
fine
d -
Info
rmat
ion
indi
cate
s a
low
pot
enti
al f
or c
onta
min
ant
mig
rati
on f
rom
the
sour
ce to
a p
oten
tial
poi
nt o
f ex
posu
re(c
ould
be
due
to p
rese
nce
of g
eolo
gica
l str
uctu
res
or p
hysi
cal
cont
rols
)
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Evi
dent
X
Pot
enti
al__
_
Con
fine
d___
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
Con
tam
inat
ion
was
foun
d in
sur
face
wat
er s
ever
al h
undr
ed y
ards
dow
nstr
eam
of t
he s
ite.
RE
CE
PT
OR
FA
CT
OR
(RF
)
Iden
tifi
ed -
Rec
epto
rs id
enti
fied
that
hav
e ac
cess
to s
urfa
cew
ater
or
sedi
men
t to
whi
ch c
onta
min
atio
n ha
s m
oved
or
can
mov
eP
oten
tial
- P
oten
tial
for
rec
epto
rs t
o ha
ve a
cces
s to
sur
face
wat
er o
r se
dim
ent t
o w
hich
con
tam
inat
ion
has
mov
ed o
r ca
nm
ove
Lim
ited
- L
ittl
e or
no
pote
ntia
l for
rec
epto
rs to
hav
e ac
cess
tosu
rfac
e w
ater
or
sedi
men
t to
whi
ch c
onta
min
atio
n ha
s m
oved
or c
an m
ove
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Iden
tifi
ed
X
Pot
enti
al__
_
Lim
ited
___
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
A r
ecre
atio
nal l
ake
is lo
cate
d do
wns
trea
m o
f the
sit
e.
Su
rfac
e W
ater
/Hu
man
En
dp
oin
t C
ateg
ory
Hig
h
(H
igh,
Med
ium
, Low
)
Exa
mp
le 2
Pag
e 4
- R
elat
ive
Ris
k S
ite
Eva
luat
ion
Wor
kshe
et
SE
DIM
EN
T/H
UM
AN
EN
DP
OIN
T
CO
NT
AM
INA
NT
Con
tam
inan
tM
ax. C
once
ntra
tion
(m
g/kg
)C
ompa
riso
n V
alue
(m
g/kg
)R
atio
1
HA
ZA
RD
4-4’
-DD
Eca
270
130
2.1
FA
CT
OR
(CH
F)
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Sig
nifi
cant
(if
Tot
al >
100)
____
_
Mod
erat
e (i
f T
otal
2-1
00)_
_ X _
__
1 Rat
io =
Max
. Con
cent
rati
on/C
ompa
riso
n V
alue
Tot
al2.
1M
inim
al (
if T
otal
<2)
____
_
MIG
RA
TIO
NP
AT
HW
AY
FA
CT
OR
(MP
F)
Evi
dent
- A
naly
tica
l dat
a or
obs
erva
ble
evid
ence
indi
cate
sth
at c
onta
min
atio
n in
the
med
ia is
pre
sent
at,
mov
ing
tow
ard,
or
has
mov
ed to
a p
oint
of
expo
sure
Pot
enti
al -
Con
tam
inat
ion
in s
urfa
ce w
ater
or
sedi
men
t has
mov
ed o
nly
slig
htly
bey
ond
the
sour
ce (
i.e.,
tens
of
feet
),co
uld
mov
e bu
t is
not m
ovin
g ap
prec
iabl
y, o
r in
form
atio
n is
not s
uffi
cien
t to
mak
e a
dete
rmin
atio
n of
Evi
dent
or
Con
fine
d
Con
fine
d -
Info
rmat
ion
indi
cate
s a
low
pot
enti
al f
or c
onta
min
ant
mig
rati
on f
rom
the
sour
ce to
a p
oten
tial
poi
nt o
f ex
posu
re(c
ould
be
due
to p
rese
nce
of g
eolo
gica
l str
uctu
res
or p
hysi
cal
cont
rols
)
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Evi
dent
___
__
Pot
enti
al _
_ X _
_
Con
fine
d __
___
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
Con
tam
inat
ion
in s
edim
ent i
s li
mit
ed to
are
as im
med
iate
ly d
owns
trea
m o
f the
sit
e an
d is
not
ext
ensi
ve.
RE
CE
PT
OR
FA
CT
OR
(RF
)
Iden
tifi
ed -
Rec
epto
rs id
enti
fied
that
hav
e ac
cess
to s
urfa
cew
ater
or
sedi
men
t to
whi
ch c
onta
min
atio
n ha
s m
oved
or
can
mov
eP
oten
tial
- P
oten
tial
for
rec
epto
rs t
o ha
ve a
cces
s to
sur
face
wat
er o
r se
dim
ent t
o w
hich
con
tam
inat
ion
has
mov
ed o
r ca
nm
ove
Lim
ited
- L
ittl
e or
no
pote
ntia
l for
rec
epto
rs to
hav
e ac
cess
tosu
rfac
e w
ater
or
sedi
men
t to
whi
ch c
onta
min
atio
n ha
s m
oved
or c
an m
ove
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Iden
tifi
ed _
____
Pot
enti
al _
__
X
__
Lim
ited
___
__
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
A r
ecre
atio
nal l
ake
is lo
cate
d do
wns
trea
m o
f the
sit
e; th
ere
is a
pot
enti
al fo
r hu
man
s to
acc
ess
the
area
of s
edim
ent
cont
amin
atio
n, b
ut th
is w
ould
be
unli
kely
sin
ce r
ecre
atio
nal a
ctiv
itie
s ar
e si
gnif
ican
tly
dow
nstr
eam
.
Sed
imen
t/H
um
an E
nd
poi
nt
Cat
egor
yM
ediu
m(H
igh,
Med
ium
, Low
)
Exa
mp
le 2
Pag
e 5
- R
elat
ive
Ris
k S
ite
Eva
luat
ion
Wor
kshe
et
SU
RF
AC
E W
AT
ER
/EC
OL
OG
ICA
L E
ND
PO
INT
CO
NT
AM
INA
NT
Con
tam
inan
tM
ax. C
once
ntra
tion
(ug
/l)C
ompa
riso
n V
alue
(ug
/l)R
atio
1
HA
ZA
RD
Lea
d nc
823.
225
.6F
AC
TO
R4-
4’-D
DE
ca0.
17N
ot E
valu
ated
-(C
HF
)4-
met
hylp
heno
lnc
2N
ot E
valu
ated
-
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Sig
nifi
cant
(if
Tot
al >
100)
____
_
Mod
erat
e (i
f T
otal
2-1
00)_
__
X
__
1 Rat
io =
Max
. Con
cent
rati
on/C
ompa
riso
n V
alue
Tot
al25
.6M
inim
al (
if T
otal
<2)
____
_
MIG
RA
TIO
NP
AT
HW
AY
FA
CT
OR
(MP
F)
Evi
dent
- A
naly
tica
l dat
a or
obs
erva
ble
evid
ence
indi
cate
sth
at c
onta
min
atio
n in
the
med
ia is
pre
sent
at,
mov
ing
tow
ard,
or
has
mov
ed to
a p
oint
of
expo
sure
Pot
enti
al -
Con
tam
inat
ion
in s
urfa
ce w
ater
or
sedi
men
t has
mov
ed o
nly
slig
htly
bey
ond
the
sour
ce (
i.e.,
tens
of
feet
),co
uld
mov
e bu
t is
not m
ovin
g ap
prec
iabl
y, o
r in
form
atio
n is
not s
uffi
cien
t to
mak
e a
dete
rmin
atio
n of
Evi
dent
or
Con
fine
d
Con
fine
d -
Info
rmat
ion
indi
cate
s a
low
pot
enti
al f
or c
onta
min
ant
mig
rati
on f
rom
the
sour
ce to
a p
oten
tial
poi
nt o
f ex
posu
re(c
ould
be
due
to p
rese
nce
of g
eolo
gica
l str
uctu
res
or p
hysi
cal
cont
rols
)
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Evi
dent
__
X _
__
Pot
enti
al _
____
Con
fine
d __
___
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
Con
tam
inat
ion
was
foun
d in
sur
face
wat
er s
ever
al h
undr
ed y
ards
dow
nstr
eam
of t
he s
ite.
RE
CE
PT
OR
FA
CT
OR
(RF
)
Iden
tifi
ed -
Rec
epto
rs id
enti
fied
that
hav
e ac
cess
to s
urfa
cew
ater
or
sedi
men
t to
whi
ch c
onta
min
atio
n ha
s m
oved
or
can
mov
eP
oten
tial
- P
oten
tial
for
rec
epto
rs t
o ha
ve a
cces
s to
sur
face
wat
er o
r se
dim
ent t
o w
hich
con
tam
inat
ion
has
mov
ed o
r ca
nm
ove
Lim
ited
- L
ittl
e or
no
pote
ntia
l for
rec
epto
rs to
hav
e ac
cess
tosu
rfac
e w
ater
or
sedi
men
t to
whi
ch c
onta
min
atio
n ha
s m
oved
or c
an m
ove
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Iden
tifi
ed _
__
X
__
Pot
enti
al _
____
Lim
ited
___
__
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
A S
tate
Wil
dlif
e R
efug
e is
loca
ted
dow
nstr
eam
of t
he s
ite.
Su
rfac
e W
ater
/Eco
logi
cal
En
dp
oin
t C
ateg
ory
Hig
h(H
igh,
Med
ium
, Low
)
Exa
mp
le 2
Pag
e 6
- R
elat
ive
Ris
k S
ite
Eva
luat
ion
Wor
kshe
et
SE
DIM
EN
T/E
CO
LO
GIC
AL
EN
DP
OIN
T
CO
NT
AM
INA
NT
Con
tam
inan
tM
ax. C
once
ntra
tion
unit
sC
ompa
riso
n V
alue
unit
Rat
io1
HA
ZA
RD
4-4’
-DD
Eca
0.27
0m
g/kg
.005
mg/
kgg
54
FA
CT
OR
(CH
F)
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Sig
nifi
cant
(if
Tot
al >
100)
____
_
Mod
erat
e (i
f T
otal
2-1
00)_
_ X _
_
Min
imal
(if
Tot
al <
2)__
___
1 Rat
io =
Max
. Con
cent
rati
on/C
ompa
riso
n V
alue
Tot
al54
MIG
RA
TIO
NP
AT
HW
AY
FA
CT
OR
(MP
F)
Evi
dent
- A
naly
tica
l dat
a or
obs
erva
ble
evid
ence
indi
cate
sth
at c
onta
min
atio
n in
the
med
ia is
pre
sent
at,
mov
ing
tow
ard,
or
has
mov
ed to
a p
oint
of
expo
sure
Pot
enti
al -
Con
tam
inat
ion
in s
urfa
ce w
ater
or
sedi
men
t has
mov
ed o
nly
slig
htly
bey
ond
the
sour
ce (
i.e.,
tens
of
feet
),co
uld
mov
e bu
t is
not m
ovin
g ap
prec
iabl
y, o
r in
form
atio
n is
not s
uffi
cien
t to
mak
e a
dete
rmin
atio
n of
Evi
dent
or
Con
fine
d
Con
fine
d -
Info
rmat
ion
indi
cate
s a
low
pot
enti
al f
or c
onta
min
ant
mig
rati
on f
rom
the
sour
ce to
a p
oten
tial
poi
nt o
f ex
posu
re(c
ould
be
due
to p
rese
nce
of g
eolo
gica
l str
uctu
res
or p
hysi
cal
cont
rols
)
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Evi
dent
___
__
Pot
enti
al _
_ X _
__
Con
fine
d __
___
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
Con
tam
inat
ion
in s
edim
ent i
s li
mte
d to
are
as im
med
iate
ly d
owns
trea
m o
f the
sit
e an
d is
not
ext
ensi
ve.
RE
CE
PT
OR
FA
CT
OR
(RF
)
Iden
tifi
ed -
Rec
epto
rs id
enti
fied
that
hav
e ac
cess
to s
urfa
cew
ater
or
sedi
men
t to
whi
ch c
onta
min
ant h
as m
oved
or
can
mov
eP
oten
tial
- P
oten
tial
for
rec
epto
rs t
o ha
ve a
cces
s to
sur
face
wat
er o
r se
dim
ent t
o w
hich
con
tam
inan
t has
mov
ed o
r ca
nm
ove
Lim
ited
- L
ittl
e or
no
pote
ntia
l for
rec
epto
rs to
hav
e ac
cess
tosu
rfac
e w
ater
or
sedi
men
t to
whi
ch c
onta
min
ant h
as m
oved
or
can
mov
e
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Iden
tifi
ed _
__
X
__
Pot
enti
al _
____
Lim
ited
___
__
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
A S
tate
Wil
dlif
e R
efug
e is
loca
ted
dow
nstr
eam
of t
he s
ite.
Sed
imen
t/E
colo
gica
l E
nd
poi
nt
Cat
egor
yH
igh
(Hig
h, M
ediu
m, L
ow)
Exa
mp
le 2
Pag
e 7
- R
elat
ive
Ris
k S
ite
Eva
luat
ion
Wor
kshe
et
SO
IL*
Con
tam
inan
tC
onta
min
ant
Max
. Con
cent
rati
on (
mg/
kg)
Com
pari
son
Val
ue (
mg/
kg)
Rat
io2
HA
ZA
RD
Lea
dnc
254
400
0.64
FA
CT
OR
14-
4’ D
DD
ca23
019
01.
21
(CH
F)
Xyl
enes
5399
00.
05C
hlor
ofor
mca
453
0.08
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Sign
ific
ant
(if
Tot
al >
100)
___
Mod
erat
e (i
f T
otal
2-1
00)_
__
1 E
valu
ate
for
hum
an c
onta
min
ants
onl
y2
Rat
io =
Max
. Con
cent
rati
on/C
ompa
riso
n V
alue
Tot
al1.
98M
inim
al (
if T
otal
<2)
X
MIG
RA
TIO
NP
AT
HW
AY
FA
CT
OR
(MP
F)
Evi
dent
- A
naly
tica
l dat
a or
obs
erva
ble
evid
ence
that
cont
amin
atio
n is
pre
sent
at,
is m
ovin
g to
war
d, o
r ha
s m
oved
to a
poi
nt o
f ex
posu
re
Pot
enti
al -
con
tam
inat
ion
has
mov
ed o
nly
slig
htly
bey
ond
the
sour
ce (
i.e.,
tens
of
feet
), c
ould
mov
e bu
t is
not m
ovin
gap
prec
iabl
y, o
r in
form
atio
n is
not
suf
fici
ent t
o m
ake
ade
term
inat
ion
of E
vide
nt o
r C
onfi
ned
Con
fine
d -
Low
pos
sibi
lity
for
con
tam
inat
ion
to b
e pr
esen
t at o
rm
igra
te to
a p
oint
of
expo
sure
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Evi
dent
)___
Pot
enti
al
X
Con
fine
d___
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
No
dire
ct e
vide
nce
of c
onfi
nem
ent o
f soi
l
RE
CE
PT
OR
FA
CT
OR
(RF
)
Iden
tifi
ed -
Rec
epto
rs id
enti
fied
that
hav
e ac
cess
toco
ntam
inat
ed s
oil
Pot
enti
al -
Pot
enti
al f
or r
ecep
tors
to h
ave
acce
ss to
cont
amin
ated
soi
l
Lim
ited
- L
ittl
e or
no
pote
ntia
l for
rec
epto
rs to
hav
e ac
cess
toco
ntam
inat
ed s
oil
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Iden
tifi
ed__
_
Pot
enti
al__
_
Lim
ited
X
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
Res
tric
ted
area
in r
emot
e po
rtio
n of
bas
e
So
il C
ate
go
ryL
ow
(H
igh,
Med
ium
, Low
)
* S
oil s
ampl
es s
houl
d be
fro
m a
dep
th o
f 0–
6 in
ches
. If
sam
ples
are
not
ava
ilab
le f
rom
the
0–6
inch
inte
rval
, res
ults
fro
m d
epth
s up
to, b
ut n
ot e
xcee
ding
, 24
inch
es c
an b
e us
ed.
Exa
mp
le 3
Pag
e 1
- R
elat
ive
Ris
k S
ite
Eva
luat
ion
Wor
kshe
et
RE
LA
TIV
E R
ISK
SIT
E E
VA
LU
AT
ION
WO
RK
SH
EE
T
SIT
E1
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
IN
FO
RM
AT
ION
Inst
alla
tion
/Pro
pert
y N
ame
for
FU
DS:
Exa
mpl
e A
ir F
orce
Bas
eD
ate
Ent
ered
/Upd
ated
(da
y, m
onth
, yea
r):
15 J
une
1994
Loc
atio
n (C
ity/
Cou
nty
Stat
e):
Mid
dle
City
, Geo
rgia
Med
ia E
valu
ated
(GW
, SW
, Sed
imen
t, So
il, S
ed. E
co, S
oil E
co):
AL
LSi
te (
Nam
e/D
SER
TS
ID)/
Pro
ject
(Nam
e/P
roje
ct N
o.) f
orF
UD
S:L
andf
ill 4
, BC
CD
DE
EFH
HIJ
Pha
se o
f E
xecu
tion
(SI
, RI,
FS,
EE
/CA
, IR
A, R
D/R
A, o
r e
quiv
. RC
RA
Stag
e):
RD
Poi
nt o
f C
onta
ct (
Nam
e/P
hone
):R
. Ham
mon
dA
gree
men
t St
atus
(E
nter
app
ropr
iate
DE
RP
Sit
e co
de):
A
SIT
E S
UM
MA
RY
(Inc
lude
onl
y th
e ke
y el
emen
ts o
f in
form
atio
n us
ed to
con
duct
the
rela
tive
ris
k si
te e
valu
atio
n. A
ttac
h m
ap v
iew
of
site
if d
esir
ed.)
Bri
ef S
ite
Des
crip
tion
(in
clud
e si
te t
ype,
mat
eria
ls d
ispo
sed
of, d
ates
of
oper
atio
n, a
nd o
ther
rel
evan
t in
form
atio
n):
45
acre
land
fill
and
ass
ocia
ted
1.5
acre
slu
dge
lago
on o
pera
ted
from
196
2-19
78.
Mat
eria
ls d
ispo
sed
of in
clud
e ge
nera
l ref
use,
was
tew
ater
trea
tmen
t pla
nt s
ludg
e, e
lect
ropl
atin
g w
aste
s, o
rgan
ic s
olve
nts
from
cle
anin
g op
erat
ions
, and
pes
tici
des.
Vol
atil
e or
gani
c co
mpo
unds
and
met
als
dete
cted
in g
roun
dwat
er a
nd s
urfa
ce s
oil/
slud
ge s
ampl
es;
low
er le
vels
of m
etal
s al
so d
etec
ted
in s
urfa
ce w
ater
and
sed
imen
t sam
ples
in a
djac
ent d
rain
age
ditc
h.
Bri
ef D
escr
ipti
on o
f P
athw
ays
(Gro
undw
ater
, Soi
l, Su
rfac
e W
ater
[H
uman
], S
urfa
ce W
ater
[E
colo
gica
l], S
edim
ent
[Hum
an],
Sed
imen
t [E
colo
gica
l]):
Sit
e ha
s a
vege
tati
ve c
over
. U
nder
lain
by a
lluv
ial a
quif
er a
nd d
eepe
r gr
avel
ly a
nd s
ilty
san
d aq
uife
r, b
oth
of w
hich
rev
eal c
onta
min
ant m
igra
tion
(e.
g., T
CE
and
lead
) no
rthe
ast a
nd e
ast o
f con
tam
inat
ion
sour
ces.
A m
ound
ed w
ater
tabl
eha
s be
en e
stab
lish
ed w
ithi
n th
e la
ndfi
ll d
ue to
infi
ltra
tion
. R
unof
f fro
m la
ndfi
ll fl
ows
to d
rain
age
ditc
h th
at is
par
t of a
n op
erat
ing
and
com
plia
nt n
on-p
oint
-sou
rce
runo
ff c
olle
ctio
n sy
stem
at t
he b
ase.
Dra
inag
e di
tch
flow
s to
set
tlin
g ba
sin.
Ove
rflo
w fr
om s
ettl
ing
basi
n dr
ains
to w
etla
nds
and
cree
k to
the
east
. D
rain
age
ditc
h se
dim
ents
and
loca
l are
as o
f sta
ndin
g w
ater
alo
ng th
e di
tch
upg
radi
ent
of th
e se
ttli
ng b
asin
hav
e be
en im
pact
ed fr
om c
onta
min
ant m
igra
tion
. Sa
mpl
es s
how
no
surf
ace
wat
er o
r se
dim
ent c
onta
min
atio
n be
yond
set
tlin
g ba
sin.
Bri
ef D
escr
ipti
on o
f R
ecep
tors
(H
uman
and
Eco
logi
cal)
: G
roun
dwat
er in
the
vici
nity
of t
he s
ite
is C
lass
III
A a
nd is
not
use
d fo
r do
mes
tic
or a
gric
ultu
ral p
urpo
ses.
Acc
ess
to th
e si
te is
res
tric
ted
bya
lock
ed g
ate
and
fenc
e at
the
land
fill
ent
ranc
e. H
uman
s co
uld
have
acc
ess
to th
e dr
aina
ge d
itch
are
a, th
ough
acc
ess
to th
is a
reas
is li
mit
ed b
y w
etla
nds.
A p
orti
on o
f the
dra
inag
e di
tch
beyo
nd th
ese
ttli
ng p
ond
lead
s th
roug
h cr
itic
al h
abit
at fo
r an
end
ange
red
spec
ies
to a
cre
ek w
hich
is a
lso
part
of t
he c
riti
cal h
abit
at.
1 The
term
Sit
e is
def
ined
as
a di
scre
te a
rea
for
whi
ch s
uspe
cted
con
tam
inat
ion
has
been
ver
ifie
d an
d re
quir
es f
urth
er r
espo
nse
acti
on.
A S
ite
by d
efin
itio
n ha
s be
en, o
r w
ill b
e, e
nter
ed in
toR
MIS
/DSE
RT
S. F
or th
e FU
DS
Prog
ram
, "pr
ojec
ts"
equa
tes
to s
ites
for
curr
ent i
nsta
llatio
ns.
Exa
mp
le 3
Pag
e 2
- R
elat
ive
Ris
k S
ite
Eva
luat
ion
Wor
kshe
et
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
CO
NT
AM
INA
NT
Con
tam
inan
tM
ax. C
once
ntra
tion
(ug
/l)C
ompa
riso
n V
alue
(ug
/l)R
atio
2
HA
ZA
RD
1,2-
Dic
hlor
oeth
ylen
e (c
is)
nc19
,000
6131
1
FA
CT
OR
1T
CE
ca21
,000
160
131
(CH
F)
Vin
yl C
hlor
ide
ca6,
700
233
50C
rnc
2,70
018
015
Pbnc
5,24
04
1310
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Sign
ific
ant
(if
Tot
al >
100)
X
Mod
erat
e (i
f T
otal
2-1
00)_
__
1 E
valu
ate
for
hum
an c
onta
min
ants
onl
y2
Rat
io =
Max
. Con
cent
rati
on/C
ompa
riso
n V
alue
Tot
al51
17M
inim
al (
if T
otal
<2)
___
MIG
RA
TIO
NP
AT
HW
AY
FA
CT
OR
(MP
F)
Evi
dent
- A
naly
tica
l dat
a or
obs
erva
ble
evid
ence
indi
cate
sth
at c
onta
min
atio
n in
the
grou
ndw
ater
is m
ovin
g or
has
mov
ed a
way
fro
m t
he s
ourc
e ar
eaP
oten
tial
- C
onta
min
atio
n in
the
grou
ndw
ater
has
mov
ed o
nly
slig
htly
bey
ond
the
sour
ce (
i.e.,
tens
of
feet
), c
ould
mov
ebu
t is
not m
ovin
g ap
prec
iabl
y, o
r in
form
atio
n is
not
suff
icie
nt to
mak
e a
dete
rmin
atio
n of
Evi
dent
or
Con
fine
d
Con
fine
d -
Info
rmat
ion
indi
cate
s th
at th
e po
tent
ial f
orco
ntam
inan
t mig
rati
on f
rom
the
sour
ce v
ia th
e gr
ound
wat
er is
lim
ited
(du
e to
geo
logi
cal s
truc
ture
s or
phy
sica
l con
trol
s)
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Evi
dent
X
Pot
enti
al__
_
Con
fine
d___
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
Mon
itor
ing
wel
l dat
a re
veal
ed d
owng
radi
ent p
lum
e w
ell b
eyon
d so
urce
; se
e m
ap v
iew
and
cro
ss s
ecti
on
RE
CE
PT
OR
FA
CT
OR
(RF
)
Iden
tifi
ed -
The
re is
a th
reat
ened
wat
er s
uppl
y do
wng
radi
ent o
fth
e so
urce
and
the
grou
ndw
ater
is a
cur
rent
sou
rce
of d
rink
ing
wat
er o
r so
urce
of
wat
er f
or o
ther
ben
efic
ial
uses
suc
h as
irri
gati
on/a
gric
ultu
re (
equi
vale
nt to
Cla
ss I
or
IIA
aqu
ifer
)
Pot
enti
al -
The
re is
no
thre
aten
ed w
ater
sup
ply
wel
ldo
wng
radi
ent o
f th
e so
urce
and
the
grou
ndw
ater
is c
urre
ntly
or p
oten
tial
ly u
sabl
e fo
r dr
inki
ng w
ater
, irr
igat
ion,
or
agri
cult
ure,
(eq
uiva
lent
to C
lass
I, I
IA, o
r II
B a
quif
er)
Lim
ited
- T
here
is n
o po
tent
iall
y th
reat
ened
wat
er s
uppl
y w
ell
dow
ngra
dien
t of
the
sour
ce a
nd th
e gr
ound
wat
er is
not
cons
ider
ed a
pot
enti
al s
ourc
e of
dri
nkin
g w
ater
and
is o
fli
mit
ed b
enef
icia
l use
(eq
uiva
lent
to C
lass
III
A o
r II
IBaq
uife
r, o
r w
here
per
ched
aqu
ifer
exi
sts
only
)
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Iden
tifi
ed__
_
Pot
enti
al__
_
Lim
ited
X
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
Gro
undw
ater
is C
lass
III
A a
nd is
not
con
side
red
a po
tent
ial s
ourc
e of
wat
er fo
r dr
inki
ng o
r ag
ricu
ltur
al p
urpo
ses
Gro
un
dw
ater
Cat
egor
yM
ediu
m
(H
igh,
Med
ium
, Low
)
Exa
mp
le 3
Pag
e 3
- R
elat
ive
Ris
k S
ite
Eva
luat
ion
Wor
kshe
et
SU
RF
AC
E W
AT
ER
/HU
MA
N E
ND
PO
INT
CO
NT
AM
INA
NT
Con
tam
inan
tM
ax. C
once
ntra
tion
Com
pari
son
Val
ueR
atio
1
HA
ZA
RD
Cr
VI
nc1,
390
180
8
FA
CT
OR
1Pb
nc1,
400
435
0
(CH
F)
Cd
nc12
818
7
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Sign
ific
ant
(if
Tot
al >
100)
X
Mod
erat
e (i
f T
otal
2-1
00)_
__
1 R
atio
= M
ax. C
once
ntra
tion
/Com
pari
son
Val
ue36
5M
inim
al (
if T
otal
<2)
___
MIG
RA
TIO
NP
AT
HW
AY
FA
CT
OR
(MP
F)
Evi
dent
- A
naly
tica
l dat
a or
obs
erva
ble
evid
ence
indi
cate
sth
at c
onta
min
atio
n in
the
med
ia is
pre
sent
at,
mov
ing
tow
ard,
or
has
mov
ed to
a p
oint
of
expo
sure
Pot
enti
al -
Con
tam
inat
ion
in s
urfa
ce w
ater
or
sedi
men
t has
mov
ed o
nly
slig
htly
bey
ond
the
sour
ce (
i.e.,
tens
of
feet
),co
uld
mov
e bu
t is
not m
ovin
g ap
prec
iabl
y, o
r in
form
atio
n is
not s
uffi
cien
t to
mak
e a
dete
rmin
atio
n of
Evi
dent
or
Con
fine
d
Con
fine
d -
Info
rmat
ion
indi
cate
s a
low
pot
enti
al f
or c
onta
min
ant
mig
rati
on f
rom
the
sour
ce to
a p
oten
tial
poi
nt o
f ex
posu
re(c
ould
be
due
to p
rese
nce
of g
eolo
gica
l str
uctu
res
or p
hysi
cal
cont
rols
)
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Evi
dent
___
Pot
enti
al__
_
Con
fine
d
X
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
Met
als
dete
cted
in s
urfa
ce w
ater
sam
ples
in d
rain
age
ditc
h di
rect
ly a
djac
ent t
o la
ndfi
ll.
The
dit
ch is
par
tof
an
oper
atin
g an
d co
mpl
iant
non
-poi
nt s
ourc
e ru
noff
col
lect
ion
syst
em a
t the
bas
e. S
ampl
es s
how
no
cont
amin
atio
n in
sur
face
wat
er b
eyon
d th
e se
ttli
ng p
ond.
RE
CE
PT
OR
FA
CT
OR
(RF
)
Iden
tifi
ed -
Rec
epto
rs id
enti
fied
that
hav
e ac
cess
to s
urfa
cew
ater
or
sedi
men
t to
whi
ch c
onta
min
atio
n ha
s m
oved
or
can
mov
eP
oten
tial
- P
oten
tial
for
rec
epto
rs t
o ha
ve a
cces
s to
sur
face
wat
er o
r se
dim
ent t
o w
hich
con
tam
inat
ion
has
mov
ed o
r ca
nm
ove
Lim
ited
- L
ittl
e or
no
pote
ntia
l for
rec
epto
rs to
hav
e ac
cess
tosu
rfac
e w
ater
or
sedi
men
t to
whi
ch c
onta
min
atio
n ha
s m
oved
or c
an m
ove
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Iden
tifi
ed
___
Pot
enti
al_
X _
Lim
ited
___
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
Hum
ans
coul
d ha
ve a
cces
s to
the
drai
nage
dit
ch a
rea,
thou
gh a
cces
s to
this
are
as is
lim
ited
by
wet
land
s.
Su
rfac
e W
ater
/Hu
man
En
dp
oin
t C
ateg
ory
Med
ium
(Hig
h, M
ediu
m, L
ow)
Exa
mp
le 3
Pag
e 4
- R
elat
ive
Ris
k S
ite
Eva
luat
ion
Wor
kshe
et
SE
DIM
EN
T/H
UM
AN
EN
DP
OIN
T
CO
NT
AM
INA
NT
Con
tam
inan
tM
ax. C
once
ntra
tion
(m
g/kg
)C
ompa
riso
n V
alue
(m
g/kg
)R
atio
1
HA
ZA
RD
Cr
VI
ca88
030
00.2
9F
AC
TO
RPb
nc38
540
00.
96(C
HF
)C
dnc
1038
0.26
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Sig
nifi
cant
(if
Tot
al >
100)
____
_
Mod
erat
e (i
f T
otal
2-1
00)_
_ __
_
1 Rat
io =
Max
. Con
cent
rati
on/C
ompa
riso
n V
alue
Tot
al1.
51M
inim
al (
if T
otal
<2)
__ X
__
_
MIG
RA
TIO
NP
AT
HW
AY
FA
CT
OR
(MP
F)
Evi
dent
- A
naly
tica
l dat
a or
obs
erva
ble
evid
ence
indi
cate
sth
at c
onta
min
atio
n in
the
med
ia is
pre
sent
at,
mov
ing
tow
ard,
or
has
mov
ed to
a p
oint
of
expo
sure
Pot
enti
al -
Con
tam
inat
ion
in s
urfa
ce w
ater
or
sedi
men
t has
mov
ed o
nly
slig
htly
bey
ond
the
sour
ce (
i.e.,
tens
of
feet
),co
uld
mov
e bu
t is
not m
ovin
g ap
prec
iabl
y, o
r in
form
atio
n is
not s
uffi
cien
t to
mak
e a
dete
rmin
atio
n of
Evi
dent
or
Con
fine
d
Con
fine
d -
Info
rmat
ion
indi
cate
s a
low
pot
enti
al f
or c
onta
min
ant
mig
rati
on f
rom
the
sour
ce to
a p
oten
tial
poi
nt o
f ex
posu
re(c
ould
be
due
to p
rese
nce
of g
eolo
gica
l str
uctu
res
or p
hysi
cal
cont
rols
)
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Evi
dent
___
__
Pot
enti
al _
____
Con
fine
d __
X _
__
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
Met
als
dete
cted
in s
edim
ent s
ampl
es in
dra
inag
e di
rect
ly a
djac
ent t
o la
ndfi
ll. T
he d
itch
is p
art o
f an
oper
atin
g an
dco
mpl
iant
non
poin
t sou
rce
runo
ff c
olle
ctio
n sy
stem
at t
he b
ase.
Sam
ples
sho
w n
o co
ntam
inat
ion
in s
edim
ents
bey
ond
the
sett
ling
pon
d.
RE
CE
PT
OR
FA
CT
OR
(RF
)
Iden
tifi
ed -
Rec
epto
rs id
enti
fied
that
hav
e ac
cess
to s
urfa
cew
ater
or
sedi
men
t to
whi
ch c
onta
min
atio
n ha
s m
oved
or
can
mov
eP
oten
tial
- P
oten
tial
for
rec
epto
rs t
o ha
ve a
cces
s to
sur
face
wat
er o
r se
dim
ent t
o w
hich
con
tam
inat
ion
has
mov
ed o
r ca
nm
ove
Lim
ited
- L
ittl
e or
no
pote
ntia
l for
rec
epto
rs to
hav
e ac
cess
tosu
rfac
e w
ater
or
sedi
men
t to
whi
ch c
onta
min
atio
n ha
s m
oved
or c
an m
ove
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Iden
tifi
ed _
__
Pot
enti
al _
_ X _
_
Lim
ited
___
__
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
Hum
ans
coul
d ha
ve a
cces
s to
the
drai
nage
dit
ch a
rea,
thou
gh a
cces
s to
this
are
as is
lim
ited
by
wet
land
s.
Sed
imen
t/H
um
an E
nd
poi
nt
Cat
egor
yL
ow(H
igh,
Med
ium
, Low
)
Exa
mp
le 3
Pag
e 5
- R
elat
ive
Ris
k S
ite
Eva
luat
ion
Wor
kshe
et
SU
RF
AC
E W
AT
ER
/EC
OL
OG
ICA
L E
ND
PO
INT
CO
NT
AM
INA
NT
Con
tam
inan
tM
ax. C
once
ntra
tion
(ug
/l)C
ompa
riso
n V
alue
(ug
/l)R
atio
1
HA
ZA
RD
Cr
VI
nc1,
390
1112
6.4
FA
CT
OR
Pbnc
1,40
03.
243
7.5
(CH
F)
Cd
nc12
81.
111
6.4
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Sig
nifi
cant
(if
Tot
al >
100)
__
X
___
Mod
erat
e (i
f T
otal
2-1
00)_
____
1 Rat
io =
Max
. Con
cent
rati
on/C
ompa
riso
n V
alue
Tot
al68
0.3
Min
imal
(if
Tot
al <
2)__
___
MIG
RA
TIO
NP
AT
HW
AY
FA
CT
OR
(MP
F)
Evi
dent
- A
naly
tica
l dat
a or
obs
erva
ble
evid
ence
indi
cate
sth
at c
onta
min
atio
n in
the
med
ia is
pre
sent
at,
mov
ing
tow
ard,
or
has
mov
ed to
a p
oint
of
expo
sure
Pot
enti
al -
Con
tam
inat
ion
in s
urfa
ce w
ater
or
sedi
men
t has
mov
ed o
nly
slig
htly
bey
ond
the
sour
ce (
i.e.,
tens
of
feet
),co
uld
mov
e bu
t is
not m
ovin
g ap
prec
iabl
y, o
r in
form
atio
n is
not s
uffi
cien
t to
mak
e a
dete
rmin
atio
n of
Evi
dent
or
Con
fine
d
Con
fine
d -
Info
rmat
ion
indi
cate
s a
low
pot
enti
al f
or c
onta
min
ant
mig
rati
on f
rom
the
sour
ce to
a p
oten
tial
poi
nt o
f ex
posu
re(c
ould
be
due
to p
rese
nce
of g
eolo
gica
l str
uctu
res
or p
hysi
cal
cont
rols
)
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Evi
dent
___
__
Pot
enti
al _
____
Con
fine
d __
X _
__
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
Met
als
dete
cted
in s
urfa
ce w
ater
sam
ples
in d
rain
age
ditc
h di
rect
ly a
djac
ent t
o la
ndfi
ll. T
he d
itch
is p
art o
f an
oper
atin
gan
d co
mpl
iant
non
-poi
nt s
ourc
e ru
noff
col
lect
ion
syst
em a
t the
bas
e. S
ampl
es s
how
no
cont
amin
atio
n in
sur
face
wat
er b
eyon
d th
e se
ttli
ng p
ond.
RE
CE
PT
OR
FA
CT
OR
(RF
)
Iden
tifi
ed -
Rec
epto
rs id
enti
fied
that
hav
e ac
cess
to s
urfa
cew
ater
or
sedi
men
t to
whi
ch c
onta
min
atio
n ha
s m
oved
or
can
mov
eP
oten
tial
- P
oten
tial
for
rec
epto
rs t
o ha
ve a
cces
s to
sur
face
wat
er o
r se
dim
ent t
o w
hich
con
tam
inat
ion
has
mov
ed o
r ca
nm
ove
Lim
ited
- L
ittl
e or
no
pote
ntia
l for
rec
epto
rs to
hav
e ac
cess
tosu
rfac
e w
ater
or
sedi
men
t to
whi
ch c
onta
min
atio
n ha
s m
oved
or c
an m
ove
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Iden
tifi
ed _
_
X
___
Pot
enti
al _
____
Lim
ited
___
__
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
Ove
rflo
w fr
om s
ettl
ing
pond
flow
s to
cri
tica
l hab
itat
for
an e
ndan
gere
d sp
ecie
s
Su
rfac
e W
ater
/Eco
logi
cal
En
dp
oin
t C
ateg
ory
Med
ium
(Hig
h, M
ediu
m, L
ow)
Exa
mp
le 3
Pag
e 6
- R
elat
ive
Ris
k S
ite
Eva
luat
ion
Wor
kshe
et
SE
DIM
EN
T/E
CO
LO
GIC
AL
EN
DP
OIN
T
CO
NT
AM
INA
NT
Con
tam
inan
tM
ax. C
once
ntra
tion
unit
sC
ompa
riso
n V
alue
unit
sR
atio
1
HA
ZA
RD
Cr
VI
nc88
0m
g/kg
26.0
mg/
kg33
.8F
AC
TO
RPb
nc38
5m
g/kg
31.0
mg/
kg12
.4(C
HF
)C
dnc
10m
g/kg
0.6
mg/
kg16
.7
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Sig
nifi
cant
(if
Tot
al >
100)
____
_
Mod
erat
e (i
f T
otal
2-1
00)_
_ X _
__
Min
imal
(if
Tot
al <
2)__
___
1 Rat
io =
Max
. Con
cent
rati
on/C
ompa
riso
n V
alue
Tot
al62
.9
MIG
RA
TIO
NP
AT
HW
AY
FA
CT
OR
(MP
F)
Evi
dent
- A
naly
tica
l dat
a or
obs
erva
ble
evid
ence
indi
cate
sth
at c
onta
min
atio
n in
the
med
ia is
pre
sent
at,
mov
ing
tow
ard,
or
has
mov
ed to
a p
oint
of
expo
sure
Pot
enti
al -
Con
tam
inat
ion
in s
urfa
ce w
ater
or
sedi
men
t has
mov
ed o
nly
slig
htly
bey
ond
the
sour
ce (
i.e.,
tens
of
feet
),co
uld
mov
e bu
t is
not m
ovin
g ap
prec
iabl
y, o
r in
form
atio
n is
not s
uffi
cien
t to
mak
e a
dete
rmin
atio
n of
Evi
dent
or
Con
fine
d
Con
fine
d -
Info
rmat
ion
indi
cate
s a
low
pot
enti
al f
or c
onta
min
ant
mig
rati
on f
rom
the
sour
ce to
a p
oten
tial
poi
nt o
f ex
posu
re(c
ould
be
due
to p
rese
nce
of g
eolo
gica
l str
uctu
res
or p
hysi
cal
cont
rols
)
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Evi
dent
___
__
Pot
enti
al _
____
Con
fine
d __
X _
__
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
Met
als
dete
cted
in s
edim
ent s
ampl
es in
dra
inag
e di
rect
ly a
djac
ent t
o la
ndfi
ll. T
he d
itch
is p
art o
f an
oper
atin
g an
dco
mpl
iant
non
poin
t sou
rce
runo
ff c
olle
ctio
n sy
stem
at t
he b
ase.
Sam
ples
sho
w n
o co
ntam
inat
ion
in s
edim
ents
bey
ond
the
sett
ling
pon
d.
RE
CE
PT
OR
FA
CT
OR
(RF
)
Iden
tifi
ed -
Rec
epto
rs id
enti
fied
that
hav
e ac
cess
to s
urfa
cew
ater
or
sedi
men
t to
whi
ch c
onta
min
ant h
as m
oved
or
can
mov
eP
oten
tial
- P
oten
tial
for
rec
epto
rs t
o ha
ve a
cces
s to
sur
face
wat
er o
r se
dim
ent t
o w
hich
con
tam
inan
t has
mov
ed o
r ca
nm
ove
Lim
ited
- L
ittl
e or
no
pote
ntia
l for
rec
epto
rs to
hav
e ac
cess
tosu
rfac
e w
ater
or
sedi
men
t to
whi
ch c
onta
min
ant h
as m
oved
or
can
mov
e
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Iden
tifi
ed _
_
X
___
Pot
enti
al _
____
Lim
ited
___
__
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
Ove
rflo
w fr
om s
ettl
ing
pond
flow
s to
cri
tica
l hab
itat
for
an e
ndan
gere
d sp
ecie
s
Sed
imen
t/E
colo
gica
l E
nd
poi
nt
Cat
egor
yL
ow(H
igh,
Med
ium
, Low
)
Exa
mp
le 3
Pag
e 7
- R
elat
ive
Ris
k S
ite
Eva
luat
ion
Wor
kshe
et
SO
IL*
Con
tam
inan
tC
onta
min
ant
Max
. Con
cent
rati
on (
mg/
kg)
Com
pari
son
Val
ue (
mg/
kg)
Rat
io2
HA
ZA
RD
Cr
nc15
330
000.
05
FA
CT
OR
1Pb
nc12
240
00.
3
(CH
F)
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Sign
ific
ant
(if
Tot
al >
100)
___
Mod
erat
e (i
f T
otal
2-1
00)_
__
1 E
valu
ate
for
hum
an c
onta
min
ants
onl
y2
Rat
io =
Max
. Con
cent
rati
on/C
ompa
riso
n V
alue
Tot
al0.
35M
inim
al (
if T
otal
<2)
X
MIG
RA
TIO
NP
AT
HW
AY
FA
CT
OR
(MP
F)
Evi
dent
- A
naly
tica
l dat
a or
obs
erva
ble
evid
ence
that
cont
amin
atio
n is
pre
sent
at,
is m
ovin
g to
war
d, o
r ha
s m
oved
to a
poi
nt o
f ex
posu
re
Pot
enti
al -
con
tam
inat
ion
has
mov
ed o
nly
slig
htly
bey
ond
the
sour
ce (
i.e.,
tens
of
feet
), c
ould
mov
e bu
t is
not m
ovin
gap
prec
iabl
y, o
r in
form
atio
n is
not
suf
fici
ent t
o m
ake
ade
term
inat
ion
of E
vide
nt o
r C
onfi
ned
Con
fine
d -
Low
pos
sibi
lity
for
con
tam
inat
ion
to b
e pr
esen
t at o
rm
igra
te to
a p
oint
of
expo
sure
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Evi
dent
)
X
Pot
enti
al__
_
Con
fine
d___
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
Met
als
have
bee
n de
tect
ed in
sur
face
soi
l/sl
udge
sam
ples
out
side
land
fill
per
imet
er
RE
CE
PT
OR
FA
CT
OR
(RF
)
Iden
tifi
ed -
Rec
epto
rs id
enti
fied
that
hav
e ac
cess
toco
ntam
inat
ed s
oil
Pot
enti
al -
Pot
enti
al f
or r
ecep
tors
to h
ave
acce
ss to
cont
amin
ated
soi
l
Lim
ited
- L
ittl
e or
no
pote
ntia
l for
rec
epto
rs to
hav
e ac
cess
toco
ntam
inat
ed s
oil
(Pla
ce a
n “X
” ne
xt t
o on
e be
low
)
Iden
tifi
ed__
_
Pot
enti
al
X
Lim
ited
___
Bri
ef R
atio
nale
for
Sel
ecti
on:
Hum
an r
ecep
tors
cou
ld h
ave
acce
ss to
con
tam
inat
ed s
oil b
eyon
d th
e fe
nced
are
a
So
il C
ate
go
ryM
ediu
m
(Hig
h, M
ediu
m, L
ow)
* S
oil s
ampl
es s
houl
d be
fro
m a
dep
th o
f 0–
6 in
ches
. If
sam
ples
are
not
ava
ilab
le f
rom
the
0–6
inch
inte
rval
, res
ults
fro
m d
epth
s up
to, b
ut n
ot e
xcee
ding
, 24
inch
es c
an b
e us
ed.
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer D-22 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer E-1 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
APPENDIX E
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Concept Fact Sheet
Relative Risk Question-and-Answer Fact Sheet
Briefing Charts for Presentation/Training
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer E-2 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer E-1 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
Introduction
The Department of Defense (DoD) considersenvironmental restoration as an integralpart of its daily mission activities. Atinstallations around the country,environmental restoration activities areunderway to address contamination resultingfrom past DoD operations. Environmentalanalysis and cleanup activities address a widevariety of sites contaminated with fuels,solvents, chemicals, heavy metals, andcommon industrial materials.
Given the large number of sites to be addressedand limitations on money and people to workon these sites each year, DoD believes that arisk-based approach should be applied to worksequencing at active military installations, BaseRealignment and Closure (BRAC) installations,and formerly used defense properties usingrelative risk as a key factor. The relative risksite evaluation framework described in this factsheet provides a means of helping accomplishthis objective.
The framework for evaluating site relativerisk was published in September 1994, in theRelative Risk Site Evaluation Primer (InterimEdition) which contained instructions forperforming relative risk site evaluations atsites across DoD. A revised edition of thePrimer was issued in June 1996.
Definition of Relative Risk Site Evaluation
The relative risk site evaluation framework isa methodology used by all DoD Componentsto evaluate the relative risk posed by a site inrelation to other sites. It is a tool used acrossall of DoD to group sites into high, medium,and low categories based on an evaluation ofsite information using three factors: thecontaminant hazard factor (CHF), themigration pathway factor (MPF), and thereceptor factor (RF). Factors are based on aquantitative evaluation of contaminants and aqualitative evaluation of pathways and humanand ecological receptors in the four mediamost likely to result in significant exposuregroundwater, surface water, sediment, andsurface soils. A representation of thisevaluation concept is presented in Figures 1and 2. Figure 1 also depicts possibleopportunities for stakeholder input into thetechnical evaluation.
The relative risk site evaluation framework isa qualitative and easy to understand method–ology for evaluating the relative risks posed bysites and should not be equated with more formalrisk assessments conducted to assess baselinerisks posed by sites. It is a tool to assist insequencing environmental restoration work (i.e.,known requirements such as remedialinvestigation or cleanup actions) to be done by aDoD Component. It is designed to handle thebroad range of sites that exist at DoDinstallations and the broad range of dataavailable. The grouping of sites into high,
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer E-2 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
XXXXXX
Sites
Contaminant Hazard Factor
Migration Pathway Factor
Receptor Factor
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
Regulator and Public Stakeholder Involvement in Technical Evaluation
Sites* at each
Installation**
Data Assembly***
Evaluation Factors
Relative Risk
Categories
Source
Pathways
Receptors
*Sites for current DoD installations equate with "Projects" in the Formerly Utilized Defense Sites (FUDS) Program **Installations equate with "properties" in the FUDS Program ***Data assembled by environmental medium
Figure 1. Relative Risk Site Evaluation Concept Summary
CHF = Contaminant Hazard Factor MPF = Migration Pathway Factor RF = Receptor Factor *Includes human and ecological endpoints
Groundwater
Surface Water and Sediment*
Soil
Site Information
CHF MPF RF Category
CHF MPF RF Category
CHF MPF RF Category
MEDIA EVALUATION FACTORS
(High, Medium, Low)
(High, Medium, Low)
(High, Medium, Low)
MEDIA-SPECIFIC RELATIVE RISK RATING
Overall Site Category--
High, Medium, or Low
SELECT HIGHEST MEDIA RATING
Figure 2. Flow Diagram of the Relative Risk Site Evaluation Framework
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer E-3 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
medium, or low relative risk categories isnot a substitute for either a baseline riskassessment or health assessment; it is not ameans of placing sites into a ResponseComplete/No Further Action category; andit is not a tool for justifying a particulartype of action (e.g., the selection of aremedy).
Use of the relative risk site evaluationframework is restricted to environmentalrestoration sites and does not extend tounexploded ordnance (UXO) removal,building demolition/debris removal(BD/DR), potentially responsible party(PRP) activities, or compliance activities.
Relative Risk and Funding Decisions
Relative risk is not the sole factor indetermining the sequence of environmentalrestoration work, but it is an importantconsideration in the priority setting process.It should be factored into all priority settingdecisions, and should be discussed withregulators and public stakeholders in theenvironmental restoration process.
The actual funding priority for a site isidentified after relative risk information iscombined with other important riskmanagement considerations (e.g., thestatutory and regulatory status of aparticular installation or site, publicstakeholder concerns, program executionconsiderations, and economic factors).These additional risk managementconsiderations can result in a decision tofund work at a site that is not classified asa high relative risk. DoD Componentshave each developed guidelines forcombining relative risk and riskmanagement considerations as part oftheir planning, programming, andbudgeting process.
The relative risk site evaluationframework does not address the questionof whether work is necessary at a site; itonly provides information for use inhelping to determine the general sequencein which sites will be addressed. At theDoD headquarters level, it also provides aframework for planning, programming,
and budgeting requirements, a topicdiscussed below.
Requirements for Relative Risk SiteEvaluations
Relative risk site evaluations are requiredfor all sites at active militaryinstallations, BRAC installations, andformerly used defense properties thathave future funding requirements that arenot classified as (1) having “all remediesin place,” (2) ”response complete,”(3) lacking sufficient information, or(4) abandoned ordnance. These foursituations are discussed in the followingfour paragraphs.
Relative risk site evaluations are notrequired (NR) for sites classified as havingall remedies in place (RIP) even thoughthey may be in remedial action operation(RAO) or long-term monitoring (LTM). ARIP determination requires that remedialaction construction is complete for a site.
Relative risk site evaluations are notrequired (NR) for sites classified asresponse complete (RC). Sites classified asRC are those where a DoD Componentdeems that no further action (NFA) isrequired with the possible exception ofLTM. An RC determination requires thatone of the following apply: (1) there is noevidence that contaminants were releasedat the site, (2) no contaminants weredetected at the site other than atbackground concentrations,(3) contaminants attributable to the site arebelow action levels used for risk screening,(4) the results of a baseline risk assessmentdemonstrate that cumulative risks posed bythe site are below established thresholds, or(5) removal and/or remedial actionoperations (RAOs) at a site have beenimplemented, completed, and are the finalaction for the site. Only LTM remains.
Relative risk site evaluations should bebased on the information currentlyavailable on contaminants, migrationpathways, and receptors. Sites lackingsufficient information for the conduct of a
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer E-4 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
relative risk site evaluation should be givena “Not Evaluated” designation and shouldthen be programmed for additional study, aremoval action if warranted, or otherappropriate response action, includingdeferral, before they are evaluated.
Sites comprised solely of abandonedordnance are not subject to the relativerisk site evaluation described in thisPrimer. Such sites should be evaluatedusing a separate risk procedure, which isdiscussed in the management guidancecited above (Office of the Under Secretaryof Defense [Environmental Security],1994).
Implementation of the Relative RiskSite Evaluation Framework
DoD’s goal is to conduct relative risk siteevaluations at the field level with theinvolvement of the regulators and publicstakeholders (see Figure 1). The technicalevaluation of sites using the evaluationframework can serve as a basis fordiscussion and negotiation with regulatorsand public stakeholders. In particular,regulators and public stakeholders can helpidentify receptors, and can makejudgments about the extent ofcontaminant migration in variousenvironmental media at a site. Where theyexist, Restoration Advisory Boards (RABs)are an excellent forum for obtaining publicstakeholder input on these aspects of siterelative risk. Other opportunities forpublic stakeholder involvement may alsobe appropriate. Regulators and publicstakeholders should always be given theopportunity to participate in thedevelopment and review of relative risksite evaluation data before the data is usedin planning and programming.
Management Uses of Relative RiskInformation
DoD and DoD Components are using therelative risk site evaluation framework as atool to help sequence work at sites and as aheadquarters program management tool.As a program management tool, theframework is being used by DoD and DoDComponents to periodically identify thedistribution of sites in each of three
relative risk categories—high, medium,and low. A series of discrete relative risksite evaluations provides headquartersprogram managers with a macro-level viewof changes in relative risk distributionswithin DoD over time.
The relative risk site evaluation frameworkand resulting data also provide DoD with abasis for establishing goals and performancemeasures for the environmental restorationprogram. In this regard, DoD hasestablished goals for all DoD Componentsto reduce relative risk at sites in DefenseEnvironmental Restoration Account(DERA) and BRAC programs or to haveremedial systems in place where necessaryfor these sites, within the context of legalagreements. DoD and DoD Components aretracking progress towards these relative riskreduction goals as one of several programmeasures of merit (MOMs) at theheadquarters level. Another MOM tracksthe number of sites where cleanup actionhas been taken and relative risk has beenreduced in one or more media. Resultantinformation is used to provide thenecessary feedback to develop and adjustprogram requirements and budgetprojections, as well as to assess whetherestablished goals reflect fiscal reality.
For More Information
At the Installation, contact
At DoD Headquarters, contact the Office ofthe Deputy Under Secretary of Defense(Environmental Security - Cleanup) at703/697-7475.
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer E-7 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
Q.1 How is relative risk information beingused by the Department of Defense(DoD) and military services at the fieldand headquarters levels?
A. Field activities within the DoD userelative risk information as one meansof representing the status of theirenvironmental restoration program toDoD, regulators, and local stakeholders.Information on site relative risk is usedby each military installation or formerlyused defense site, in conjunction withother risk management considerations,to help sequence work at sites in light ofavailable resources within DoD.
Headquarters environmental restorationprogram offices within each militaryservice collect relative risk informationfrom each field activity to identify toCongress, regulators, and otherstakeholders the distribution of sites ineach of three relative risk categories−high, medium, and low. A series ofdiscrete relative risk site evaluationsprovides headquarters programmanagers with a macro-level view ofchanges in relative risk distributionswithin DoD over time. In the event ofbudget cuts or recessions, HeadquartersProgram Offices will consider therelative risk of sites along with otherrisk management considerations in theresultant deferral of projects. In general,low relative risk sites will be deferredbefore medium relative risk sites, and
medium relative risk sites will bedeferred before high relative risk sites.At the installation or field level, specificwork program adjustments will be madeconsidering relative risk and other riskmanagement concerns in the event thatbudget cuts or recessions occur.
Relative risk information will also beused to provide DoD with a basis forestablishing goals and performancemeasures for the environmentalrestoration program. In this regard, DoDhas established goals for all DoDComponents to reduce relative risk atsites or to have remedial systems inplace where necessary for these sites,within the context of legal agreements.Military services and DoD will trackchanges in relative risk towards theserelative risk reduction goals as ameasure of merit (MOM). Relative riskwill not be used to set cleanupstandards, nor will it be used as a basisfor making remedial action decisions,remedy selection decisions, or no furtheraction decisions.
Q.2 How are other risk managementconsiderations taken into account forpriority setting?
A. Relative risk is not the sole factor indetermining the sequence ofenvironmental restoration work, but it isan important consideration in thepriority setting process. It should be
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer E-8 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
factored into all priority settingdecisions, and should be discussed withregulators and public stakeholders in theenvironmental restoration process.
The actual funding priority for a site isidentified after relative risk informationis combined with other important riskmanagement considerations (e.g., thestatutory and regulatory status of aparticular installation or site, publicstakeholder concerns, programexecution considerations, and economicfactors). These additional riskmanagement considerations can result ina decision to fund work at a site that isnot classified as a high relative risk.Military services have each developedguidelines for combining relative riskand risk management considerations aspart of their planning, programming,and budgeting process.
Q.3 What is the role of the community inevaluating relative risk at sites?
A. Community members of RestorationAdvisory Boards and other members ofthe public participate in the technicalevaluation of relative risk at a variety oflevels depending on their desire forinvolvement. At some installations andformerly used defense sites, communitymembers have received relative risktraining and participate directly in theevaluation of relative risk factors foreach environmental medium at a site. Atother installations and formerly useddefense sites, community membersreview and provide input into relativerisk evaluations prepared by installationpersonnel. DoD intends to increasecommunity input into relative riskevaluations at all installations andformerly used defense sites where thereis sufficient interest. To increasecommunity awareness of and access toguidance on performing relative risk siteevaluations, DoD has placed the
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer onthe DoD Environmental RestorationElectronic Bulletin Board, a WorldWide Web site at http://www.dtic.dla.mil/envirodod/envdocs.html.
Q.4 What is the role of regulatory agenciesin evaluating relative risk at sites?
A. State and federal regulatory agencypersonnel are key participants in therelative risk evaluation process. Theirinvolvement in this process largelydepends on their degree of involvementin an environmental restoration programat a particular installation or formerlyused defense site. At some installationsor formerly used defense sites,regulatory agency personnel havereceived relative risk training andparticipate directly in the evaluation ofrelative risk factors for eachenvironmental medium at a site.Discussions with regulatory agencypersonnel on relative risk at thesetraining sessions and at project teammeetings at installations have provenhelpful in increasing regulatoryacceptance of relative risk. DoD seeksto increase regulatory involvement inrelative risk evaluations at allappropriate installations and formerlyused defense sites.
Q.5 How often will field activities need toconduct relative risk site evaluations?
A. Relative risk at sites should be evaluatedwhenever important new informationabout a site becomes available. DoDwill collect information on site relativerisk from the military services on asemi-annual basis, once in the middle ofthe fiscal year and once at year end.
Q.6 Will progress in the environmentalrestoration program be measured on thebasis of Relative Risk?
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer E-9 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
A. Yes, for the following reasons. Progressat sites in DERP has traditionally beenmeasured by reporting on the responsestatus of sites at the field andheadquarters level (e.g., number of siteswith responses complete). While thesetraditional measures of progress are stillimportant measures, DoD planningguidance for Fiscal Years (FYs) 1998-2002 establishes goals for all militaryservices to reduce relative risk at sites.The planning guidance specificallyrequires (1) military services toimplement actions that lower relativerisk for all high relative risk withinspecific time frames or have remedialsystems in place where necessary forthese sites, (2) implement actions thatlower relative risk of all mediumrelative risk sites within a specific timeframe or have remedial systems in placewhere necessary for those sites, and (3)implement actions that result in“response complete” for all relative risksites within a set time frame.
Q.7 Does relative risk site evaluation applyto sites at Base Realignment andClosure (BRAC) installations?
A. Yes. DoD planning guidance requiresthat available restoration funds at BRACinstallations be used to implementactions to lower relative risk for all highrelative risk sites within specific timeframes or have remedial systems inplace where necessary for these sites.
Q.8 What is the relationship between theRelative Risk Site EvaluationFramework and risk assessment?
A. Relative risk evaluation and riskassessment share a common conceptualframework, but have significantdifferences in purpose andmethodology. First and foremost,relative risk evaluation is not asubstitute for a risk assessment. It is a
screening-level evaluation of siteinformation at a point in time based onthree factors: the contaminant hazardfactor (CHF), the migration hazardfactor (MPF), and the receptor factor. Interms of hazard assessment, the relativerisk framework uses maximum (worst-case) contaminant data, while riskassessment uses average and/orreasonable maximum concentrations ofcontaminants. For exposure assessment,the relative risk framework relies on aqualitative evaluation of fate andtransport of contaminants away from asource, while risk assessmentemphasizes quantitative predictions ofcontaminant fate and transport. In termsof toxicity assessment, both relative riskand risk assessment use similar data.The relative risk framework usesconcentration standards derived frompreliminary remediation goals that arecalculated using the same toxicity dataused in risk assessment. In terms ofresults, relative risk information is usedat the field level to help sequence workat sites. Risk assessment results aretypically used to determine whether ornot additional response actions arewarranted at a site.
Q.9 Why were the Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) preliminary remediationgoals (PRGs) multiplied by 100 forcarcinogens?
A. PRGs are concentrations ofcontaminants in a specific medium thathave been estimated to (1) cause 1excess cancer occurrence per 1,000,000people over the course of a 70-year life-time or (2) cause non-cancer adverseeffects (e.g., birth defects, neurologicalproblems). These values have beencalculated through the use of toxicitydata found in EPA databases and byusing conservative assumptions (e.g., aperson will obtain all water for drinkingand showering over a 30-year period
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer E-10 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
from the same source). The methodsused by EPA for calculating “safe”doses for cancer-versus-noncancereffects differ dramatically. Noncancereffects have thresholds (levels ofexposure that do not cause toxicity),while cancer effects are not assumed tohave a threshold. The differingassumptions for noncancer and cancereffects mean that respective toxicitiesare handled differently when settingacceptable exposures. For cancer-inducing agents, mathematical formulasare used to determine acceptableexposure levels. For noncancertoxicants, a “reference dose” that isrelated to the threshold is used.Threshold doses are generally muchhigher than are doses that cause 1 in1,000,000 cancer occurrences.
In Office of Solid Waste and EmergencyResponse (OSWER) Directive9355.0-30, dated 22 April 1991, theRole of the Baseline Risk Assessment inSuperfund Remedy Selection Decisions,EPA states that action is generally notwarranted if reasonable maximumcontaminant exposures at a site are lessthan the reference dose or cause fewerthan 1 in 10,000 excess canceroccurrences. This is consistent with theremedial action threshold forcarcinogens defined in the Preamble tothe National Oil and HazardousSubstances Pollution Contingency Plan(55 Federal Register 8716, March 8,1990). This means that EPA has madethe reference dose equivalent to1 in 10,000 cancer occurrences forscreening purposes. Because PRGs arereference doses and concentrations ofcontaminants that result in 1 in1,000,000 cancer occurrences, the PRGsfor cancer agents are 100 times smallerthan the equivalence set by OSWERDirective 9355.0-30. Multiplying thecancer PRGs by 100 restores the
equivalence for purposes of relative riskevaluation.
Q.10 What is the relationship betweenMaximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)and concentration standards inAppendix B-1?
A. MCLs, established by EPA under theSafe Drinking Water Act, apply to watersupplies used for human consumption.Under the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act, asamended (CERCLA), MCLs are oftenconsidered applicable or relevant andappropriate requirements forgroundwater response actions. SomeMCLs are risk-based, while others aretechnology-based. When compared toconcentration standards inAppendix B-1, results are mixed. Fornoncancer toxicants, concentrationstandards in Appendix B-1 are generallyequivalent to or lower than MCLs. Forcancer-causing agents, concentrationstandards in Appendix B-1 (equivalentto 1 in 10,000 excess canceroccurrences) are in some cases aboveMCLs and in others below MCLsdepending in part on whether the MCLis risk-based or technology-based.
Q.11 Why is the threshold for the CHF ratingof “significant” set at 100?
A. The relative risk site evaluationframework is a programmatic tool usedto categorize sites that haverequirements for future work into threebroad bands called “high,” “medium,”and “low.” In order to place the CHF inthe appropriate perspective, it isimportant to note that neither the intentnor the application of relative riskevaluation is to classify risk in anabsolute sense that defines whatremedial action is required. Decisionsregarding future work are made
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer E-11 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
separately on the basis of a remedialinvestigation, baseline risk assessment,and evaluation of the acceptability of thecalculated risk. As stated in response toQuestion 16, a low overall site rating isnot equivalent to a no further actiondecision. Thus, the descriptors used inthe relative risk evaluation process suchas “significant,” “moderate,” and“minimal,” as applied to the CHF ratios,and “high,” “medium,” or “low,” asapplied to the overall site rating, must beconsidered relative terms to be usedonly in the relative rating of the sitesunder consideration. If there isinsufficient data to categorize a site, it isidentified as “Not Evaluated.”
The threshold values for the CHFdescriptors were chosen as 2 and 100such that when the site CHF wascombined with the other site ratingfactors, an approximately equaldistribution of sites among the threeoverall categories of “high,” “medium,”and “low” would result. This wasdetermined by testing the frameworkwith various values of CHF thresholdsat thousands of DoD sites. Each of thethree site-rating factors, which are basedon the three elements of the conceptualsite model used in a baseline riskassessment, are intended to have abalanced and appropriate impact on thefinal overall site rating. The balancedweighting of the three factors isillustrated (see Figure 7 in the Primer)by the fact that a “moderate” CHF willresult in a “high” overall site rating if an“identified” receptor exists and the MPFis either “evident” or “potential.” Evenwith a “potential” receptor, a “high”overall rating will result if an “evident”pathway exists for a site with a“moderate” CHF. (Also seeQuestion 13.)
Q.12 Does the Relative Risk Site EvaluationFramework consider wetlands as anecological receptor?
A. Wetlands, in the broad sense of thedefinition, are present at a large numberof DoD sites. As a result, maximumresolution of sites on the basis ofrelative risk to human health andecological receptors is obtained byconsidering wetlands as ecologicalreceptors when they are part of sensitiveenvironments such as critical habitats,marine sanctuaries, spawning areas, andother such environments listed inTable 2 of the Primer.
Q.13 What is the rationale for the assignmentof ratings to the 27 combinations of thethree factors used in the Relative RiskSite Evaluation Framework?
A. The bottom line answer is that forrelative risk site evaluation to be auseful programmatic tool, it had toresult in placing a significantdistribution of the evaluated sites intoeach of the three broad categories of“high,” medium,” and “low.” Thethresholds for each category wereestablished by evaluating data from allthe services to ensure that there wouldbe a distribution of sites into eachcategory. The choices of categories forthe 27 possible combinations of thethree different site characterizationfactors (depicted in Figures 3 and 7 ofthe Primer) are based on a balancedconsideration of the three factors as theydescribe the degree of completion ofexposure of receptors to contaminants.The logic of the assigned categories isperhaps best understood by consideringthe combinations depicted in Figure 7 ofthe Primer in light of the exposurescenarios represented by each of the27 possibilities.
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer E-12 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
With a significant CHF, whichrepresents a concentration ofcontaminant that is two orders ofmagnitude above the concentrationstandard (see Appendix B of thePrimer), any combination of evident orpotential migration pathway with anidentified or potential receptor isassigned to be in the high category. Anypotential for exposure to contaminantsat this high relative concentration willreceive highest priority. Only if eitherthe migration pathway is confined (nomigration to a point of exposure) or thereceptors are limited (little or noreceptor access to site) is the site placedin a medium category. If both migrationis unlikely and receptor access isunlikely, the site is assigned a lowrating. In this case, the contaminant,though present at high concentrations,will not be exposed to receptors and canawait cleanup while other sites with amore certain scenario for exposure areaddressed.
Sites with a moderate CHF, whereconcentrations of contaminants exceedconcentration standards by factors of2 to 100, also receive high ratings ifmigration is evident and receptors areidentified, if migration is evident andreceptors are potential, or if migration ispotential and receptors are identified.These situations all represent likelyexposure scenarios to concentrations ofcontaminant that exceed theconcentration standards by more than afactor of 2. If both the migration and thereceptors are potential, exposure is lesslikely and a medium rating is assigned.If migration is evident, even if thereceptor is judged to be limited, amedium rating is also assigned to allowfor the existence of an unanticipatedreceptor. In the case of confinedmigration (no migration to a point ofexposure), all receptor possibilities areassigned a low rating because exposure
is unlikely. The combination of potentialmigration and limited receptors is alsoassigned a low rating.
With a low CHF, where measuredconcentrations are less than twice theconcentration standard, only sites withboth evident migration and identifiedreceptors are assigned a high rating. Ahigh probability of exposure, even tothis relatively low concentration,received the highest priority. Evidentmigration with potential receptors orpotential migration with identifiedreceptors both receive a medium ratingbecause of the likelihood of exposure,albeit to a relatively lower concentrationof contaminant. All other possibilitieswith this relatively lower concentrationof contaminant receive a low rating.
Q.14 What happened to the Defense PriorityModel (DPM)?
A. In 9 November 1993, testifying beforethe Senate Committee on Energy andNatural Resources, Sherri Goodman,Deputy Under Secretary of Defense(Environmental Security) stated thefollowing: “...concerns have been raisedabout the use of DPM for determiningprogram priorities and DoD has decidednot to use the model on a DoD-widebasis.”
Q.15 How does the Relative Risk SiteEvaluation Framework relate to theHazard Ranking System (HRS)?
A. Both the HRS and evaluationframework are screening tools that canbe used to evaluate relative risks atwaste sites. The HRS is an EPAregulation (40 Code of FederalRegulations 300, Appendix A) used toplace sites or aggregates of sites on theNational Priorities List (NPL) if scoresare above 28.5. Although the HRS hasthe capability to differentiate among the
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer E-13 Summer 1997 (Revised Edition)
relative risk of sites, it is morefrequently applied to identify candidateinstallations for the NPL. The relativerisk framework is a tool used to groupsites in high, medium, and low relativerisk categories to help sequence work atinstallations or former defense sitesgiven the available resources. The HRSevaluates groundwater, surface water,soil, and air pathways and considershuman and ecological receptors (calledtargets). Each pathway in the HRS isevaluated using three factor categories(likelihood of release, wastecharacteristics, and targets) each ofwhich is subdivided into a number offactors tied to site-related information.The relative risk framework evaluatesgroundwater, surface water, and surfacesoils and considers human andecological receptors. Both the HRS andrelative risk use toxicity data from EPAdatabases for assessing contaminants;however, only the HRS takes wastequantity into account. The HRS assignsa single score to a site between 0 and100 from a one-time ranking thatbecomes permanent. The relative riskframework assigns a site a high,medium, or low rating at a point in time,but allows for re-evaluation of a sitewhen important new informationbecomes available. HRS ranking isdetailed, time-intensive, and requiressignificant support documentation. Inaddition, HRS evaluations are typicallynot specific to sites when applied tomilitary installations. HRS evaluationsare based on an aggregation of sitesacross an installation. Relative riskevaluation is simpler and moretransparent than HRS evaluation, isapplied site by site, but is subject tomore judgment.
Q.16 Will “low” relative risk sites beaddressed or will they be deferredindefinitely?
A. A low relative risk site is not equivalentto a no further action site. Appropriateresponse actions will be programmedfor all low relative risk sites as dictatedby available resources and other riskmanagement considerations.
Q.17 Does the Relative Risk Site EvaluationFramework apply to ordnance andexplosive wastes?
A. The relative risk evaluation frameworkapplies specifically to hazardous,petroleum, and radioactive waste sites inthe environmental restoration program.A separate methodology has beendeveloped for grouping ordnance andexplosive waste sites into high, medium,and low categories. This methodology isbased on safety concerns, and results aretracked separately from other sites.
Q.18 When are relative risk site evaluationsnot performed?
A. Relative risk site evaluations are notrequired at sites classified as (1) having“all remedies in place,” (2) “responsecomplete,” (3) lacking sufficientinformation, or (4) abandoned ordnance.These four situations are discussed insection 1.4 of the Primer.
Relative Risk Site Evaluation within the Department of Defense Cleanup Program
H050-B-221 2
● Introduction– Origins of relative risk– Work group composition and products
● Description of framework– What it is and is not– Media and factors– Documentation– Example/benefits
● Use of relative risk in program management
● Implementation
● Workgroup recommendations
● Detailed descriptions of each relative risk factor
Outline
INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION
DETAILSDETAILS
H050-B-221 3
Origin of Relative Risk within DoD
● Relative Risk guidelines specified in 14 April 1994 DERP Management Guidance– Proposed risk management concept for
building FY96 program– For interim and remedial action projects
Components will indicate “the number of sites, the current relative risk and expected risk reduction the project will achieve” (p. 16)
– To measure performance, Components will report on the number of sites where relative risk has been reduced (p. 6)
H050-B-221 4
Work Group Objectives
● Prepare a method or procedure to group sites into high, medium, and low relative risk categories based upon the risk management concept in Management Guidance (May 1994)– Review methods used by Components– Develop a common methodology using consistent
definitions● Establish a peer review process to monitor and
improve relative risk evaluation (August 1994)– Develop a consistent data format– Review and comment on relative risk data collected
by Components
H050-B-221 5
Work Group Participants
INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION
● DoD● Army
✓ Army Environmental Center✓ Army Center for Health Promotion and
Preventive Medicine● Navy
✓ Chief of Naval Operations ✓ HQ Navy Facilities Engineering Command
● Air Force✓ HQ Air Force Environmental Restoration Program Directorate✓ Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force✓ Air Force Institute of Technology
● FUDS✓ HQ and HTRW Center of Expertise U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
● Defense Logistics Agency
● HQ Environmental Protection Agency
H050-B-221 6
Work Group Products
● Produced the DoD Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer
● Developed DoD Question and Answer Fact Sheetand response to EPA comments
● Produced a draft Interservice Relative Risk Site Evaluation Peer Review Report
INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION
H050-B-221 7
What is Relative Risk Evaluation?
Definition The grouping of sites in the Defense Environmental Restoration Program into High, Medium, and Low categories based on an evaluation of site information using three factors: the contaminant hazard, the migration pathway, and the receptors
It is A common methodology for evaluating the relative risk posed by a site
A screening tool
An evolutionary instrument
A framework for dialogue with stakeholders
It isn’t A way to avoid our legal agreements
A means of reducing our financial obligations
An abdication of our cleanup responsibilities
An absolute assessment of risk
A substitute for a health assessment
A remedy selection tool
H050-B-221 8
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Concept Summary
XXXXX
X
Sites
Contaminant Hazard Factor
Migration Pathway Factor
Receptor Factor
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
Regulator and Public Stakeholder Involvement in Technical Evaluation
Sites* at each
Installation**
Data Assembly***
Evaluation Factors
Relative Risk
Categories
Source
Pathways
Receptors
*Sites for current DoD installations equate with "Projects" in the Formerly Utilized Defense Sites (FUDS) Program **Installations equate with "properties" in the FUDS Program ***Data assembled by environmental medium
Regulator and Public Stakeholder Involvementin Technical Evaluations
H050-B-221 9
Site Evaluation Framework is a Method for Placing Sites into Relative Risk Categories
It evaluates source, pathway, and receptor relationships in:
Based on:
Groundwater (human endpoint)Surface water (human and ecological endpoints)Sediment (human and ecological endpoints)Surface soils (human endpoint)
Contaminant Hazard Factor (CHF)How high are contaminant concentrations relative to standards?
Migration Pathway Factor (MPF)
Is the contamination moving or likely to move?
Receptor Factor (RF)Are there humans or sensitive environments affected or potentially affected by the contamination?
H050-B-221 10
Structure of Relative Risk Evaluation Framework
CHF = Contaminant Hazard Factor MPF = Migration Pathway Factor RF = Receptor Factor *Includes human and ecological endpoints
Groundwater
Surface Water and Sediment*
Soil
Site Information
CHF MPF RF Category
CHF MPF RF Category
CHF MPF RF Category
MEDIA EVALUATION FACTORS
(High, Medium, Low)
(High, Medium, Low)
(High, Medium, Low)
MEDIA-SPECIFIC RELATIVE RISK RATING
Overall Site Category--
High, Medium, or Low
SELECT HIGHEST MEDIA RATING
H050-B-221 11
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Matrix
CHF = Contaminant Hazard Factor MPF = Migration Pathway Factor RF = Receptor Factor H = High M = Medium L = Low
Evident
Potential
Confined
Identified Potential Limited
CHF = SIGNIFICANT
H H
H
M
M
MM L
H
RF
Evident
Potential
Confined
Identified Potential Limited
CHF = MODERATE
H H
H
M
M L
L L L
RF
Evident
Potential
Confined
Identified Potential Limited
CHF = MINIMAL
H M
M
L
L L L
LL
RF
MPF
MPF
MPF
H050-B-221 12
How is Relative Risk Evaluated?
Documentation The Relative Risk Site Evaluation Primer is the primary source for direction
The Relative Risk Evaluation Worksheet in the Primer is used to record pertinent information on each site that is evaluated
Instructions in the Primer show how to fill out the Relative Risk Evaluation Worksheet
A stand-alone/executable computer program has been developed for conducting relative risk evaluations consistent with the Primer
Regulatory agency and public stakeholder input is obtained on site evaluations, where possible
H050-B-221 13
Relative Risk Evaluation Example
H050-B-221 14
Benefits
Benefits The framework provides a common approach among DoD components for categorizing sites by relative risk
The most urgent sites are identified so that resources can be focused on higher relative risk projects first
The rating serves as a basis for dialogue with stakeholders on sequencing work at installations
Periodic ratings serve as an indicator of progress in reducing relative risk
H050-B-221 15
Use of Relative Risk Information
● A factor in sequencing environmental restoration work (known requirements)– Framework for discussions with stakeholders– One factor in priority setting
● A program-level management tool– Used to identify the distribution of sites in each
of three relative risk categories for military departments within DoD
– Used as a measure of merit (MOM) at the HQ level to measure and report progress toward achievement of cleanup goals
H050-B-221 16
DERP Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution
Goals
• Relative Risk Site Evaluation• Bottom-Up Cost-to Complete• Legal Agreements
• Legal Agreements• Relative Risk Site Evaluation• Bottom-Up Cost-to-Complete
PROGRAM
BUDGET
EXECUTE
PLAN
H050-B-221 17
Requirements from Defense Planning Guidance
✓Complete relative risk evaluations at every Defense Environmental Restoration Account (DERA) and Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) site
✓ Implement actions to reduce relative risk at sites in DERA and BRAC programs, or have remedial systems in place where necessary for these sites, within specified time frames and within the context of legal agreements
H050-B-221 18
Measures of Merit
● Relative risk reduction– High– Medium– Low– Not evaluated– Not required
● Progress at sites– Analysis– Cleanup– Response complete/NFA
● Milestones accomplished– Work underway– Actions taken– Remedy in place– Response complete/NFA
H050-B-221 19
Relative Risk Implementationat DoD Level
● Communication on a variety of levels
– Presentations to EPA staff and management
– Presentations to states at DSMOA conferences
– Placement of Primer on world wide web at http://www.dtic.dla.mil/envirodod/envdocs.html
● Training
– Service-specific training
– DoD training
● Performance
– Initial evaluations September 1994 - July 1995
– Accelerated data collection to meet the constraints for building the FY 96 program
H050-B-221 20
Relative Risk Implementationat DoD Level (Concluded)
● Data management
– Data managed by services
– Automated relative risk site evaluation worksheet
– DoD has assembled an integrated database for peer review purposes and incorporated relative risk information into its program management database
H050-B-221 21
Overview of the Draft Peer Review Report
● Requirement—Established by Relative Risk Work Group on 1 February 1995
● Scope—Active and former defense properties
● Primary Objective—To document work group efforts to develop the Relative Risk Site Evaluation Framework (i.e., Primer) and provide an internal DoD review of each Component’s relative risk data and implementation procedures
H050-B-221 22
Selected Findings and Recommendations
● Offer and provide relative risk training to environmental project managers and other stakeholders in the program using similar training materials
● Increase community input in relative risk evaluations through Restoration Advisory Boards and other means
● Establish a common relative risk data reporting structure to ensure consistency in service data submissions to DoD
● Improve the quality of data reported for the contaminant hazard factor by requiring quality assurance/quality control checks of relative risk data when it is computerized
● Add military-unique compounds to the list of contaminants that can be evaluated and identify concentration standards for these compounds
H050-B-221 23
Contaminant Hazard Factor (CHF)
● Comparison of maximum project contaminant concentrations in each medium to Relative Risk concentration comparison values
CHF =
● Three tiers– Significant = CHF > 100– Moderate = CHF of 2 - 100– Minimal = CHF < 2
[maximum concentration of A]
Comparison Value for A
H050-B-221 24
Standards for CHF Calculation
● Human health– Carcinogens = concentration that presents a 1 in 10,000 risk of
increased cancer incidence– Non-carcinogens = the reference dose (equivalent to Hazard
Quotient of 1)● Ecological
– Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) or EPA Lowest Observed Effects Levels in the absence of AWQC
– Sediment screening criteria from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy
H050-B-221 25
Appendix B-1: Comparison Values (For Human Endpoints)
● Apply to water and soil media● Used in conjunction with potential or actual human
exposures● Derived from EPA Region IX Preliminary Remediation
Goals (PRGs) with exception of military materials and radionuclides
● Military Materials standards are taken from Army and Oak Ridge National Lab Studies
● Radionuclide standards (“benchmarks”) are taken from EPA’s Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM) maintained as part of the Hazard Ranking System
Std** - Comparison value based on 10 human cancer incidence-4
Std*** - Comparison value based on reference dose for humansStd**** - Comparison value for ecological receptors where available
*****Use comparison values in Appendix B
Note: Contaminants posing a threat to ecological receptors (i.e., ecological contaminants) must be evaluated separately from those posing a threat to human receptors
[A]*max [B]max [C]max+ +
Std** Std** Std***
- Maximum concentration in medium
= X1
[A]*-4
H050-B-221 4
Mechanics of the CHF Calculation—Example*
Contaminant** Maximum Concentration (ug/l) Standard (ug/l)
4.6
61.0
2.0
720.0
180.0
6.8
3.3
3.2
16.0
10,700.0
1,1-Dichloroethylene [carcinogen]
1,2-Dichloroethylene (z) [non-carcinogen]
Vinyl Chloride [carcinogen]
Toluene [non-carcinogen]
Manganese [non-carcinogen]
Calculation
6.8 3.3 3.2 16.0 10,700
4.6 61 2.0 720 180+ + + + = 62.59
>100 = Significant
2-100 = Moderate
<2 = Minimal
*From Appendix A of Primer**Groundwater Medium
H050-B-221 5
Mechanics of the CHF Calculation for Substances with both Carcinogenic and Non-Carcinogenic Effects
Std** - Comparison value based on 10 human cancer incidenceStd*** - Comparison value based on reference dose for humansStd**** - Comparison value for ecological receptors where available
*****Use comparison values in Appendix B
Note: Contaminants posing a threat to ecological receptors (i.e., ecological contaminants) must be evaluated separately from those posing a threat to human receptors
[A]*max [B]max [C]max [E]max [E]max
Std** Std** Std*** Std** Std*** + + + +
[A]* - Maximum concentration in medium
max
-4
H050-B-221 6
Mechanics of the CHF Calculation—Example 2*
Contaminant2 Maximum Concentration (ug/l) Standard (ug/l)
180 ug/l
4 ug/l
18 ug/l
26 ppm
31 ppm
0.6 ppm
1,390 ug/l
1,400 ug/l
128 ug/l
880 ppm
385 ppm
10 ppm
Cr** [non-carcinogen]
Pb** [non-carcinogen]
Cd** [non-carcinogen]
Cr***
Pb***
Cd***
1,390 1,400 128
180 4 18++ = 365 = Significant
880 385 10
26 31 0.6++ = 62.9 = Moderate
*From Appendix A of Primer **Surface water medium, human exposure***Sediment, ecological exposure
H050-B-221 7
Mechanics of Surface Water/Sediment Evaluation
CHF = Sum of Ratios using Appendix B-1 (water); MPF; RF
CHF = Sum of Ratios using Appendix B-2 (fresh or marine); MPF; RF
CHF = Sum of Ratios using Appendix B-1 (soil); MPF; RF
CHF = Sum of Ratios using Appendix B-3;MPF; RF
Human
Ecological
ReceptorEndpoint
MediumSurface Water Sediment
l Summary of Relative Risk Site Evaluation possibilities
l Evaluate separately; take the highest rating
H050-B-221 8
l Each media pathway evaluated (groundwater, surface water/sediment, soil)
l Three tiers
– Evident: Contamination is present at, is moving toward, or has moved to a point of exposure
– Potential: Contamination has moved only slightly beyond the source (i.e., tens of feet), could move but is not moving appreciably, or information not sufficient to make determination of Evident or Confined
– Confined: Potential for contaminant migration from source is limited due to geological structures or physical controls
l Opportunity for technical input from regulators and community
Migration Pathway Factor (MPF)
H050-B-221 9
Receptor Factor
l Receptors (human or sensitive ecological species/environments) evaluated for each media
l Three tiers
– Identified: Receptors are threatened or have access to potentially contaminated media
– Potential: Receptors are not threatened but have potential access to media of concern
– Limited: Receptors are not threatened or have little or no access to potentially contaminated media
l Opportunity for technical input from regulators and community
H050-B-221 10
Site Evaluation Factor Information for Groundwater
Sum of ratios [maximum concentration/comparison value] > 100
Sum of ratios [maximum concentration/comparison value] = 2 - 100
Sum of ratios [maximum concentration/comparison value] < 2
Significant
Minimal
Contaminant Hazard Factor (CHF)*
Moderate
Analytical data or observable evidence indicates that contamination in the groundwater is moving or has moved away from the source areaEvident
Potential
ConfinedInformation indicates that the potential for contaminant migration from the source via the groundwater is limited (due to geological structures or physical controls)
Migration Pathway Factor (MPF)**
There is a threatened water supply well downgradient of the source and the groundwater is a current source of drinking water or source of water for other beneficial uses such as irrigation/agriculture (equivalent to Class I or IIA aquifer)
Identified
Potential
Limited
There is no threatened water supply well downgradient of the source and the groundwater is currently or potentially usable for drinking water, irrigation, or agriculture (equivalent to Class I, IIA, or IIB aquifer)
There is no potentially threatened water supply well downgradient of the source and the groundwater is not considered a potential source of drinking water and is of limited beneficial use (equivalent to Class IIIA or IIIB aquifer, or where perched aquifer exists only)
Receptor Factor (RF)**
FACTOR RATING DEFINITION
Contamination in the groundwater has moved only slightly beyond the source (i.e., tens of feet), could move but is not moving appreciably, or information is not sufficient to make a determination of Evident or Confined
*Evaluate using comparison values in Appendix B-1 **Evaluate using definitions and detailed instructions in Section 3.4
H050-B-221 11
Site Evaluation Factor Information for Surface Water/Sediment
Sum of ratios [maximum concentration/comparison value] > 100
Sum of ratios [maximum concentration/comparison value] = 2 - 100
Sum of ratios [maximum concentration/comparison value] < 2
Significant
Minimal
Contaminant Hazard Factor (CHF)*
Moderate
Analytical data or observable evidence indicates that contamination in the media is present at, moving toward, or has moved to a point of exposure
Evident
Potential
ConfinedInformation indicates a low potential for contaminant migration from the source to a potential point of exposure (could be due to presence of geological structures or physical controls)
Migration Pathway Factor
(MPF)**
Receptors identified that have access to surface water or sediment to which contamination has moved or can move
Identified
Potential
Limited
Potential for receptors to have access to surface water or sediment to which contamination has moved or can move
Little or no potential for receptors to have access to surface water or sediment to which contamination has moved or can move
Receptor Factor (RF)**
FACTOR RATING DEFINITION
* Evaluate using comparison values in Appendix B-1 for surface water and sediments for human receptors. Use comparison values in Appendix B-2 for surface water and ecological receptors, and comparison values in Appendix B-3 for sediments and ecological receptors.
**Evaluate using definitions and detailed instructions in Section 3.5
Contamination in surface water or sediment has moved only slightly beyond the source (i.e., tens of feet), could move but is not moving appreciably, or information is not sufficient to make a determination of Evident or Confined
H050-B-221 12
Site Evaluation Factor Information for Soils
Sum of ratios [maximum concentration/comparison value] > 100
Sum of ratios [maximum concentration/comparison value] = 2 - 100
Sum of ratios [maximum concentration/comparison value] < 2
Significant
Minimal
Contaminant Hazard Factor (CHF)*
Moderate
Analytical data or observable evidence that contamination is present at, is moving toward, or has moved to a point of exposureEvident
Potential
Confined
Contamination has moved only slightly beyond the source (i.e., tens of feet), could move but is not moving appreciably, or information is not sufficient to make a determination of Evident or Confined
Low possibility for contamination to be present at or migrate to a point of exposure
Receptors identified that have access to contaminated soilIdentified
Potential
Limited
Potential for receptors to have access to contaminated soil
Little or no potential for receptors to have access to contaminated soil
FACTOR RATING DEFINITION
*Evaluate using comparison values in Appendix B-1 **Evaluate using definitions and detailed instructions in Section 3-6
Migration Pathway Factor
(MPF)**
Receptor Factor (RF)**
H050-B-221 14
Considerations in a Priority Setting
Contaminant FactorMigration PathwayReceptors
Possible Elements/Factors Considered
in Priority Setting
Risk Factors
Stakeholder Concerns
Economic Considerations
Public InvolvementRegulatorsPresence/VisibilityPoliticalEnvironmental JusticeCultural/SocialOwnershipMission Impacts
ResponsibilityRisk/Benefit RatioProperty ValuesEconomic DevelopmentGeographic Equity/BalancePotential for Cost RecoveryResource CompetitionReuse
Program Execution
Considerations
Technology FeasibilityConsistency with Program GoalsContinuityImpact of Delayed Action
Relative Risk
Risk Management
Considerations
H050-B-221 15
Relative Risk Site Evaluation—Issue Clarification
SoilSample
GWSample
X
SoilSample
GWSample
X
1. No reliable analytical data for a site
2. Site in Remedies in Place (RIP) or in Response Complete (RC) status
3. Analytical data within established background levels
4. Analytical results are below method detection limit
Site categorized as Not Evaluated (NE)
Do not perform relative risk site evaluation. They are Not Required (NR).
Evaluated as Low in Primer
Evaluated as Low in Primer
H050-B-221 16
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Scenarios High Relative Risk—Groundwater
H050-B-221 17
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Scenarios Medium Relative Risk—Groundwater
H050-B-221 18
Relative Risk Site Evaluation Scenarios Low Relative Risk—Groundwater
H050-B-221 20
Relative Risk Site Evaluation ScenariosMedium Relative Risk (Human)—Surface Water or Sediment
Drainage ditch
Possible water supply
intake
River
Localized Contamination
Contaminant Source
Moderate Contaminant
Levels
Potential Migration
Potential Receptors
H050-B-221 21
Relative Risk Site Evaluation ScenariosLow Relative Risk (Human)—Surface Water or Sediment
Moderate Contaminant
Levels
Confined Migration
Limited Receptors
Contaminant Source
Drainage Ditch
Engineered Berm
Contamination
H050-B-221 25
Relative Risk Site Evaluation ScenariosHigh Relative Risk—Soil
H050-B-221 26
Relative Risk Site Evaluation ScenariosMedium Relative Risk—Soil
H050-B-221 27
Relative Risk Site Evaluation ScenariosLow Relative Risk—Soil