Document qk6aLNYEmB68RDpR4wEn6qzmR

Risk Assessment lor Exposure to Ambient Air in the Vicinity of the BKK landfill in West Covina. 1978-19B5 Kenneth T. Bogen. Dr.F.H. Uartyn T. Smith, Fh.D. Health Risk Associates P.0. Box 9529 Berkeley. CA 94709 V. ( 1. introduction The BKK landfill In West Covina has been In operation as a repository for toxic waste since 1976. Some of the residents in the vicinity of the landfill have complained that substances in the landfill are causing them to suffer an increased risk of disease and have asked that the landfill be closed. In 1983, the California Department of Health Services (DHS) ef at. (DKS 1983) issued a report which contained measurements of the ambient air concentrations of volatile organic Compounds, which the Department considered to be potential human carcinogens, and also reported corresponding measurements at a con* trol site located 9 miles away. These measurements were used as a basis for cal culation of the excess cancer risk associated with residence near the BKK landfill (DHS 1983, attached as Appendix 1). A review of the DHS 1983 report indicated that it was not possible to reproduce this calculation since no infor mation was given with regard to what animal cancer tests were used or how cer tain factors. such as meteorological conditions, were accounted for. We were therefore asked to perform our own calculation of the excess cancer risk that may be incurred by residence in the vicinity of the BKK landfill during a 7-year period between 1978 and 1985. Our anaLysis uses data from exposure monitor ing and from animal experiments along with a variety of methods and assump tions that are used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), plus several new methods that have been developed recently. Section 2 describes these methods. Section 3 reports the results of the calculations we made, and Section 4 discusses these results. 2. Methods In order to predict increased lifetime cancer risk, it is necessary in this case to calculate both a dose and a carcinogenic potency for each of the com pounds to which individuals are purportedly exposed around the BKK landfill. ( 2- - Dose is. of course, calculated from the available exposure information. Carcino genic potencies are derived from the selected animal bioassay data. Our assumptions and methods regarding the calculation of exposure and potency are described belovr. 2.1. Methods k. Assumptions Regarding Exposure Assessment In the absence of detailed information on exposure in the vicinity of the BKK landfill, a number of assumptions were made regarding how to interpret the concentration data available to us as well as how to estimate duration of exposure, dilution of ambient contaminant concentration, absorption of inhaled compounds and. finally, the impact of seasonal concentration variability. These assumptions are described below. 2.1.1. Concentration Data It is assumed that the mean ambient air concentrations (Le., the mean value of the 2 [1 in the case of benzene] compound-specific mean concentra tions) reported in DKS (1983) equal the actual time-weighted average (TWA) concentrations for the seven compounds measured, over the 7-year period of interest. These data were collected at 4 monitoring stations (Stations A. B. D. and F) located on the perimeter of the BKK landfill, as well as at a control moni toring station located 9 miles away (Station C). It is also assumed that the rela tive ratios of the latter values accurately reflect the relative contribution of each compound to total exposure over this period, for each monitoring station. For the purpose of our analysis, we have further assumed that the TWA concentrations at the stations on the perimeter of the BKK landfill and those at the control station are in fact different. That is. we assume that the DKSreported differences between the mean concentrations for Stations A. B. D and F, on the one hand, and Station C. on the other, are not due purely to chance. t c- 3 - If a proper statistical analysis of the the actual concentration measurement data indicate that the latter differences are in fact due to chance, then the excess risk is of course 0 without reference to any further assumptions. Since the raw concentration data were unavailable to us, we are unable to evaluate the likelihood of this possibility. Increased concentrations of the 7 contaminants measured by DHS in the BKK vicinity above the corresponding control station values were calculated for stations A. B, D and F in terms of mg/kg/day. These values are given in Appen dix 2. Note that for Station F, the mean of the measured values is less than the corresponding control station value for benzene and chloroform. 2.1.2. Exposure Duration Here we assume that exposed residents are present in the vicinity of the BKK landfill for an average of 15 hours per day, for 365 days per year over a 7year period. 2.1.3. Concentration. Dilution We assume that concentrations reported on the perimeter of the landfill are dispersed in the ambient air to some degree before being inhaled by the average resident, and that this process reduces the average concentration to which residents are exposed by a factor of 2. We further assume that no addi tional dilution takes place (e.g., due to filtration by air conditioning). 2.1.4. Absorption We assume residents' average respiratory intake rate is 20 m3/day per 70 kg body weight (Le., 0.2057 m3/kg/day). In their analysis of cancer risk due to household exposure of chlorinated hydrocarbons, such as those considered here, Cothern et at. (l9S4) make the assumption that 50Z of the amount of such compounds contained in inhaled air is absorbed into to blood and is R&S 146087 c -- c< distributed, via circulation, and the balanced is exhaled back into the atmo sphere. We follow the Cothern et aL. assumption of 5071 absorption (i.e., SOI! retention) of contaminants contained in respired air. 2.1.5. Seasonal Variation in Concentration It is possible that the release of volatile organic compounds, such as those considered here, from the surface of the BKK landfill may be enhanced with increasing temperature, resulting in increased ambient concentration during the warmer months of the year. We note that the DKS concentration measure ments were made between July and October of 1982. Since these months are the warmest of the year in southern California, these measurements may overestimate TWA concentrations at other times of the year. In the absence of other measurements, however, we make the conservative assumption that the DKS measurements accurately reflect TWA concentrations over the multi-year period of interest without seasonal adjustment. 2.2. Methods & Assumptions Regarding Carcinogen Potency Assessment Since the mid-1960s, the primary basis for judging both carcinogenicity (Le.. carcinogenic potential) per se and the carcinogenic potency of particular chemicals to humans, in the absence of adequate epidemiological data, has been data from long-term carcinogen bioassays using laboratory animals. By this means, an assessment of human carcinogenic potency of a compound at very low environmental dose levels begins with an assessment of tumorigenic potency at much higher experimental dose levels in the test species used. This is followed first by an extrapolation of expected response in that species from these experimental dose levels down to the environmental levels of interest, then by an extrapolation of the latter predicted response, in the test species used, to a response in a target human population. R&S 146088 The validity of risk predictions calculated in accordance with the above procedure, of course, is conditional on the validity of key assumptions or "infer ence bridges" that must be used to bridge fundamental gaps that currently exist in basic scientific knowledge concerning the mechanism of carcinogenesis, the extrapolation of high-dose observations to low-dose predictions for a given species, and the equivalence of tumorigenic doses between different species. Environmental cancer risk assessment cannot proceed without the use of these assumptions, so that much effort has gone into studying how they may stand ardized for use in a regulatory context (NAS 1983). But this does not mean that the uncertainty associated with these assumptions is in any way irrelevant or negligible, or even that their use will necessarily lead to risk predictions that are consistent with the "best guesses" of a majority of informed scientists/experts. In certain components of our potency assessment we have made use of some of the assumptions and procedures that have become standard in the context of regulatory carcinogen risk assessment. But in other components of I our analysis, we have made use of a range of plausible assumptions (rather than a single conservative assumption) in order to lend a greater degree of objec tivity to the analysis. The validity of the final result, however, remains condi tional on the validity of the residual set of inference bridges we have used for this analysis. The following subsections discuss the specific methods and assumptions we use for carcinogen potency assessment in the present analysis. 2.2.1. Selection of Animal Data The animal data we used for each compound were derived from EPA Health Assessment Documents when these were available. In the absence of such docu ments (for the cases of the S known human carcinogens vinyl chloride and 6- - (' benzene), data from the scientific literature were selected in general accor dance with EPA's preferred selection criteria. The latter criteria are conserva tive in the sense that efforts are made to err on the side of safety by generally focusing on data obtained for the most sensitive species/strain/sex tested while ignoring the weight of evidence for non-carcinogenicity or for less potent carcinogenicity presented by any remaining data (EFA 1984a). Below we describe the specific data sources we used in our potency assess ment. The actual dose-response input data used and related information appears in Appendix Z. We note that in the health assessment documents for the five compounds for which EPA has produced such documents to date, animal dose levels used to extrapolate tumorigenic response for given bioassay data sets represent life time TWA metabolised doses. In these cases, and in the case of vinyl chloride discussed below, dose levels were (linearly) transformed back into an applied dose level that corresponds with expected applied low-level dose, fully in accor dance with the pharmacokinetic data relied on in each case for determining metabolized dose. The latter transformation obviates the need to readjust cal culated potencies that are based directly on a metabolized dose, rather than on an applied dose such as that calculated for BKK-vicinity residents. (See, how-. ever, the discussion of vinylidene chloride bioassay data below.) We note finally that in certain cases several animal bioassay data sets are discussed and analyzed in EPA health assessment documents, whereas only a subset of these are actually used' to calculated potency values recommended for use (albeit, for use in a regulatory context) by EPA We have made use of only data sets relied on by EPA for final potency assessment in these cases. 1. Vinyl Chloride (VCL). No EPA health assessment document exists for VCL at this time. For potency assessment, we used the data of Maltoni and LeFem- ine (1975) on the induction of zymbal gland tumors, nephroblastomas and liver angiosarcomas in female Sprague-Dawly rats exposed to VCL by inhalation. The experimental exposures in this study (0, 50. 250. 500, 2500, 6000. and 10000 ppm) were converted to lifetime TWA exposures in mg/kg/day using standard assumptions employed by EPA (Anderson et al. 1983, EPA 1994a). In addition, the resulting animal TWA doses were adjusted to reflect non-linear metabolism of VCL by rats at these concentrations, in accordance with the pharmacokinetic analysis done by Gehring et aL (1978). 2. Perchioroethyleae (PCE). Bioassay data on PCE liver carcinogenicity in B6C3F1 mice have been used by EPA to extrapolate carcinogenicity at low doses (EPA 1984b). More recent bioassay data have been produced by the National Toxicology Program which may also be used to evaluate the carcinogenic poten tial of PCE (NTP 1985). See discussion in Section 2.2.2 regarding our omission of PCE data. 3. Trichloroethylene (TCE). Bioassay data on TCE liver carcinogenicity in B6C3F1 mice have been used by EPA to extrapolate carcinogenicity at low doses (EPA 1985a). See discussion in Section 2.2.2 regarding our omission of TCE data. 4. VLnyiidene Chloride (VDCL). We make use of bioassay data on VDCL's capacity to induce kidney adenocarcinomas in male Swiss mice reviewed in EPA (1985b). EPA's derivation of dose data for this bioassay relies on experimental information regarding VDCL metabolism in rats and mice. For potency assess ment, EPA assumes 100JJ metabolism of VDCL, and so uses calculated metabol ized dose directly in Us potency assessment. However, the metabolic data relied on by EPA for VDCL potency assessment show that 0.035 kg mice and 0.25 kg rats exposed to 10 ppm VDCL for 6 hours metabolize 0.188 mg and 0.723 mg VDCL. respectively. But using EPA's recommended method to calculate mouse c c- 0 - respiration rates in the context of cancer risk assessment (EPA 1934a), the corresponding inhaled amounts {which equal the respective applied doses only if 100" absorption is assumed--see discussion above) are Mouse: 10 ppmx 97 g/M 24.45 L/ M x 0.0345 0.035 0.025 2/3 m3/ day x 1 6 hr | 24 hr/ day 0.4281 Rut: 97 e/M 24.45 L/M 0.105 0.25 k0.113 I nr/ day x 24 hr/ day 1.7681 That is. 43X and 45% of applied dose is metabolized by mice and rats exposed to 10 ppm VDCL for 6 hours, respectively. Since metabolic saturation in these species occurs at a much greater dose level than 10 ppm. it may be argued that the appropriate applied dose data to use for mice in analyzing the VDCL bioas say data can be linearly extrapolated down to the ppb range of interest, Le., that the dose data should be increased by a factor of Q*4w- = 2.3 over the figures used by EPA. We did not correct for this source of potential conserva*tism in deriving appropriate dose data to use in the analysis of the VDCL bioas say data, but rather used EPA's dose data directly. 5. 1,2-Dichloroethane (DCE). We make use of bioassay data on DCE's capa city to Induce hemangiosarcomas in male Osborne-Mendel rats and hepatocellu lar carcinomas in male B5C3F1 mice reviewed in EPA (1985c). 6. Chloroform (CU"H). We make use of bioassay data on CLFM's capacity to induce hepatocellular carcinomas in male and female B6C3F1 mice reviewed in EPA (I985d). 7. Benzene (BNZ)- No EPA health assessment document exists for BNZ at this time. For potency assessment, we used the data of Maltoni (19B3) on zymbal gland tumor induction in female Sprague-Dawly rats exposed to BNZ by ingestion. Metabolism was not taken into account regarding the dose levels in R&S146092 c -9- this data set. 2.2.2. Dose-Response Extrapolation The extrapolation of observed response in animals at experimental doses to predicted response at low doses can be strongly influenced by the model used to carry out this extrapolation. This is clearly illustrated in Cothern et al. (1984). EPA uses the "linearized multistage" model to extrapolate lifetime human cancer risk at very low dose levels based on a given set of animal carci nogenicity bioassay data (Anderson et al. 1933, EPA 19B4a). This method yields an upper (one-tailed) asymptotic 95% confidence limit of low-dose potency for a given input data set. The uncertainty referred to by this confidence limit is that due only to estimation error in fitting the multistage model, where this model is simply assumed to be correct for the purpose of doing a quantitative potency analysis. This dose-response model is such that risk is approximately equal to dose multiplied by potency at very low dose levels, such as the levels we con sider here. In addition, low-dose patency and risk extrapolations generated by the multistage model are conditional on the assumption that the compounds whose potencies are extrapolated are indeed human carcinogens at low doses. While in a regulatory context, a number of conservative, safety-oriented assumptions have been adopted to enable analysts to predict the cancer risks which may possibly be associated with exposure to certain compounds (NAS 1933, EPA 1984a), these assumptions do not necessarily provide the most likely or most reasonable estimate of risk given current scientific knowledge. Accordingly, we do not feel that the compounds PCE and TCE should be included in our assess ment of the most likely risk associated with exposure to emissions from the BKK landfill. This is because both of these compounds are unlikely to be actual human carcinogens at the low doses considered in this analysis. Both ( C- 10 - compounds produce tumors in the livers of B6C3F1 mice and do not do so in the livers of rats. The B6C3F1 mouse is extraordinarily susceptible to liver cancer, possibly because of the presence of an oncogene in its liver cell DNA (Fox and Watantabe 1985). Therefore, any agency which produces toxicity in the livers of B6C3F1 mice is more than likely to produce liver tumors by stimulating cell proliferation rather than by causing genetic damage. Recent studies by Mirsalis *t aZ. (1985) using both TCE and PCE support this proposition, Le., that TCE and PCE produce liver cancer in B6C3F1 mice by an epigenetic toxic mechanism. Furthermore, mice do not metabolize TCE in the same manner as humans and do so at a much faster rate than either rats or humans. Since neither TCE nor PCE nor both will produce liver toxicity in humans at the low doses being con sidered here, they are extremeiy unlikely to produce liver cancer in the human population concerned. When more than one data set is used to calculate carcinogenic potency, EPA uses the geometric mean of the calculated asymptotic upper confidence limits based on those data sets as an overall estimate of potency. The latter procedure, for instance, was used in EPA's recent calculation of TCE's carcino genic potency based on 4 bioassay data sets (2 sexes in 2 different studies) (EPA 1984b). For the purpose of deriving a lifetime tumorigenic potency assessment which takes a more objective approach to the uncertainties arising in doseresponse extrapolation, we have used an alternative to EPA's method, called the Monte Carlo Potency Analysis (MCPA) method, to assess carcinogenic potency under different assumptions, such as regarding which data set to use (or how to do inter-species dose extrapolation, discussed below). The MCPA method uses the same multistage model used by the EPA method. However, the MCPA method relies on Monte Carlo simulation, rather than the more conservative C -u- c and approximate asymptotic approach used in the EPA method, and it produces complete distributions for potency estimation error, rather than the single upper confidence value for potency produced by the EPA method (Bogen 19S6), Our application of the MCPA method to the above-specified dose-response input data was carried out using a version of the program GLQBAL79 used for the analysis of dichotomous tumor response data (Crump and Watson 1979) which was modified to generate complete Monte Carlo distributions of site-specific as well as composite tumorigenic potency based on that data (Bogen 1986). Time-to-tumor data were not used in our analysis of carcinogenic potency, although it would be possible to do so in the context of our analytical frame work using a time-dependent multistage model (Crump and Howe 1994). EPA potency assessments have occasionally used time-to-tumor data with such a model when these data are available and when early mortality in a bioassay is prevalent to the extent that it may lead to distorted estimates of potency. Potency values thus derived tend to yield slightly greater values for potency than are derived using a multistage model that does not incorporate time-totumor information. For example, for compounds considered herein that are addressed by EPA health assessment documents, upper confidence limit potency values derived using time-to-tumor information are higher than those derived without this information by a factor of approximately Z or less. How ever, the incorporation of time-to-tumor information into potency assessment requires several additional assumptions, such as the selection of an appropri ate exponent of time (which corresponds to an assumed number of stages in the multistage carcinogenic process) to use in the more complicated time-to-tumor model (Crump and Howe 1994). This introduce yet additional sources of uncer tainty into the analysis. Since the time-dependent and time-independent models yield similar potency estimates in the cases we consider for which a comparison was undertaken by EPA in its health assessment documents, we <t have relied oniy on the time-independent multistage model for our analysis. Depending on the nature of a particular data set, the question may arise regarding how or whether to combine experimental incidence data for each significant tumor type observed in a given bioassay into data amenable to a quantitative assessment of increased composite risk, where here the term "composite" is used to refer to the potential or actual occurrence of any one or more types of tumor from among a prespecified set of types. EPA has used a tumor counting procedure that consequently has become widely applied in the context of environmental carcinogen risk assessment. According to EPA. if data exist for two or more significant tumor types in the same study, the number of animals with at least one of these types is used as incidence data for quantita tive assessment of composite risk when bioassay data must be relied on for this purpose (Anderson et al. 1983, EPA 1984a). This procedure has been criticized in that it may lead to results which are inconsistent with the underlying tumor incidence data used for a given potency assessment, and an alternative pro cedure, "composite potency analysis," is available which always yields con sistent potency estimates based on tumor incidence data segregated by tumor type (Bogen 1986). We have made use of composite potency analysis in the con text of our assessment of VCL carcinogenic potency, in which case 3 different tumor types were observed to occur with significantly increased incidence in rats. 2.2.3. Inter-Species Dose-Equivalence Extrapolation Equivalent doses between species may be calculated on the basis of dose per body weight or dose per body surface area. At present it is not known which inter-species dose extrapolation assumption better reflects reality in the context of extrapolating tumor response data in animals to anticipated , response in humans, and existing data do not rule out either approach (Hogan C1 - 13 - and Hoel 1932). When data from a bioassay using mice, e.g., are used for dose-response extrapolation, the choice of which inter-species dose extrapola tion method to use alters the resulting potency calculation by a factor o: more than 10. To provide and objective approach to the issue of inter-species dose extrapolation, we used a Monte Carlo approach to combine the potency distri butions based on the body weight and surface area methods, under the assump tion that each method is equally likely to reflect reality. 2.3. Methods Ic Assumptions Regarding Risk Calculations To calculate approximate increased low-dose risk to BKK-vicinity residents, calculated excess doses in mg/kg/day for each of the compounds VCL, VDCL. DCE, BNZ and CLFM at each station were multiplied by the factor --70 x 24 x 0.50 x 0.50 = 0.015625 in accordance with the assumptions we made regarding exposure duration, con centration dilution and absorption. These excess doses were then multiplied by the corresponding calculated MCFA potency distributions to yield approximate compound-specific risk distributions for each of the stations A. B. D. and F. in accordance with the approximate linearity of the multistage dose-response model at very low doses. The latter station-specific risk distributions were then summed, using a Monte Carlo procedure, to yield distributions of total increased risk due to all 5 compounds for each station, under the assumption that the carcinogenic potency of the mixture of compounds is in all cases equal to the simple sum of the individual compound-specific potencies. That is, we assumed that there is neither positive nor negative synergism among the carci nogenic potencies of the mixture of compounds considered. An overall BKK-vicinity risk distribution was then derived by taking a weighted average of the 4 calculated station-specific risk distributions, again using a Monte Carlo procedure, where the station-specific weights were all assumed to be equal (i.e.. all equal to 0.25, resulting in a simple average of the 4 distributions). Finally, from this average distribution of total increased risk, the median value (i.e,, the 50th percentile value) was selected to represent a risk value which is as likely as not to overestimate the true level of average increased individual risk which BKK-vieinity residents have incurred over the 7-year period of interest, conditional on the set of assumptions we made in our risk analysis. 3. Risk Analysis Results Our calculated MCPA potency distributions for each of the compounds VCL VDCL, DCE, BNZ and CLFM (as well as for the compounds PCE andTCE) are given in Appendix 3. Application of the methods described above using these potency distributions yielded the station-specific distributions of increased risk given in Appendix 3, and the corresponding overall distribution of increased risk is also given in Appendix 3. From the latter distribution, we select the 50th percentile value equal to 1.5 x 10"*. or approximately one chance in a million, as our best estimate of increased lifetime cancer risk for the average individual due to residence in the vicinity of the BKK landflli for the 7-year period of interest. Assuming a population of 7700 exposed individuals in the BKK landfill vicinity, this results in a corresponding predicted population risk of about 0.01 cases. 4. Discussion Our calculation indicates that it is highly unlikely that even a single case of cancer would arise from the described BKK landflli exposure scenario. This result is consistent with the DHS report which suggested that 50 x 10"* represents a "maximum risk" and that "the true excess risk of cancer is prob ably Lower" (DKS 1983, p. 12). Other various assumptions that could have led to a lower result were not included in our analysis. Such alternative assumptions include factors to take into account (l) seasonal adjustment of concentration data: (2) the possibility that the reported ambient concentration differences are due to chance such that the actual TWA concentrations at the landfill and at the comparison sta tions are equal and therefore the increased cancer risk is 0: (3) the possibility that the effective dilution factor due to atmospheric mixing might be much greater than the factor of 2 assumed for the average individual in the BKK residential population; or (4) the possibility that perhaps less than 50% of VDCL inhaled by humans will be metabolized even at low doses, in accordance with our analysis in Section 2.2.1.4 of data in EPA (1985b) relied on for VDCL potency assessment. We did Investigate, however, the effect of using alternative assumptions regarding (l) the carcinogenicity of PCE and TCE and (2) the relative population density in BKK-vicinity areas Influenced by Stations A. B. D and F. The inclusion of PCE and TCE potencies into our risk analysis, corresponding with a presump* tion that these compounds are human carcinogens at low doses analogous to the other compounds VCL, VDCL. DCS. BNZ and CLFM, results in an increase in our "best" estimate of increased individual risk from 1.5 x I0~fl to 2.2 x 10_S. that is. an increase by a factor, of only 1.47. This result highlights the fact that increased risk in our analysis is primarily due to the impact of VDCL's carcino genic potency, which was calculated to be greater than that of the other com pounds. In the context of our calculation of overall increased risk using a weighted average of station-specific risks, the effect of changing the station weights from (.25,.25..25,.25) to (.25..40,.15..20) for Stations A, B. D and F. respectively, was negligible. ( c- 16 - To put these risks further into perspective it must be understood that a 1 x 10~6 lifetime mortality risk is roughly equivalent to 19 minutes of life expec tancy. or put another way. equal to the added risk of death that is incurred by driving a car 100 miles, by riding a bicycle 10 miles, by traveiing for 6 minutes by canoe or by smoking 1 or 2 cigarettes (cf. Crouch and lTilson 1952). The latter risk, smoking 1-2 cigarettes, is approximately equivalent in cancer risk to living for two weeks in Los Angeles as a result of air pollution (cf. Ames 1933). Residents living in the vicinity of the BKK landfill therefore experience only a negligible increased cancer risk, similar to that now being used by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as a benchmark of insignificant health risk requiring no regulatory action (FDA 1985). At very low doses, individual cancer risk becomes approximately equal to carcinogenic potency multiplied by dose, according to the cancer risk extrapo lation model we have used in this analysis. Using the published CPA ("957! upper confidence limit'') potency values, this relation allows us to make certain com*, parisons of estimated excess individual risk associated with different exposure situations. Note that such risk values are only estimates that contain a great deal of uncertainty, and only a small part of this uncertainty is meant to be addressed by EFA's use of "upper confidence limit" risk estimates; see, e.g., Anderson et al. (1983), Cothern ef al. (1984) and Bogen (1986). Nevertheless, such risk estimates are useful for comparative purposes, as we have under taken here. Firstly, we calculated the excess individual risk due to exposures (15 hours per day) at an average BKK residence (see Tables 2.1 and 2.3). IVe then com pared this risk value of 2.4 x 10* with that associated with other typical expo sures to some of the compounds listed in Table 2.1 and exposure to other i "everyday" carcinogens such as aflatoxin Blt which is present in all peanut t - 17 - ( butter at an average of 2 ppb and which is regulated at 20 ppb (Table 2.4). One peanut butter sandwich per day works out to be at least 10 times worse than residence near BKK. which is similar in risk to drinking ordinary U.5. tap water and much less risky than taking a daily hot tub. This increased individual risk value of 2.4 x 1Q~ is also absolutely minimal when compared to the risk incurred by someone working in a dry cleaning shop or in a plant manufactur ing vinylidene chloride (Table 2.4). IVe therefore conclude that exposure of residents to the compounds and ambient concentrations listed in Table 2.1 poses a minimal, negligible cancer risk--a risk that is highly unlikely to result in even a single excess cancer case over the lifetime of the exposed BKK residen tial population. c(. REFERENCES Ames. B.. 1983. "Dietary carcinogens and anticarcinogens." Science, vol. 221. pp. 1256-1264. Anderson. E. L.. and the Carcinogen Assessment Group of the U.S. Environmen tal Protection Agency. 1983. "Quantitative approaches in use to assess cancer risk." Risk Analysis, voL 3, no. 4. pp. 277-295. Bogen. K.T.. 1986. Uncertainty in Environmental Health Risk Assessment: A Framework for Analysis and an Application to a Chronic Esposure Situa tion Involving a Chemical Carcinogen, Dissertation, School of Public Health. University of California at Berkeley. Cothern, C.R-, W.A. Coniglio. and W.L Marcus, 1984. "Techniques for the Assess ment of Carcinogenic Risk to the U.S. Population Due to Exposure from Selected Volatile Organic Compounds from Drinking Water Via the Inges tion. Inhalation and Dermal Routes," U.S. Environmental Protection Agen cy, Office of Drinking Water, EPA 570/9-35-001 (1 May 1984), NTIS Report No. PB84-213941, Washington D.C. Crouch, E.A.C. and R. Wilson, 1982, Risk/Benefit Analysis, BaUinger. Cambridge MA. pp. 165-193. Crump, K.S. and W.W. Watson. 1979, "GLQBAL79: A Fortran Program to Extrapo late Dichotomous Animal Carcinogenicity Data to Low Doses," National In stitute of Environmental Health Sciences, Contract No. l-ES-2123 (1979). Crump. K.S. and R.B. Howe, 1984, "The multistage model with a time-dependent dose pattern: applications to carcinogenic risk assessment," Risk Analysis. voL 4, no, 3, pp. 163-176. DHS. California Department of Health Services, Toxic Substances Control Divi sion; California Air Resources Board, Haagen-Smit Laboratory Division: and South Coast Air Quality Management District, 1983. "Ambient Air Monitor ing and Health Risk Assessment for Suspect Human Carcinogens Around the BKK Landfill in West Covina," (March 1983). EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1934a. "Proposed Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment," Federal Register, vol. 49, no. 227 (23 Nov. 1984), pp. 46294-46301. EPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and Develop ment. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Evironmental Cri teria and Assessment Office, 1984b, "Health Assessment Document for Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene)," (EPA/60Q/8-82/005F Final Re port. July 1985), Research Triangle Park. NC 27711. EPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and Develop ment. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Evironmental Cri teria and Assessment Office, 1985a, "Health Assessment Document for Tri chloroethylene." (EPA/600/8-32/006F FinaL Report. July 1935; NTIS # PB85-249696). Research Triangle Park. NC 27711. EPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and Develop ment, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. Evironmental Cri teria and Assessment Office, 1985b. "Health Assessment Document for Vinylidene Chloride," (EPA/800/S-S3/Q31F, August 1985). Research Triangle Park. NC 27711. <r* ' Cl - ( EPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and Develop ment. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Evironmental Cri teria and Assessment Office. 1935c. "Health Assessment Document for 1,2Dichloroethane (Ethylene Chloride)," (EPA/600/8-94/006F Final Report. Sept. 1985), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. EPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and Develop ment. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. Evironmental Cri teria and Assessment Office, 1985d, "Health Assessment Document for Chloroform." (EPA/600/9-94/004F Final Report. Sept. 1935), Research Tri angle Park. NC 27711. FDA, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 1985. "Proposed ban on the use of methylene chloride as an ingredient of aerosol cosmetic products." Federal Register, voL 50, no. (18 Dec. 1985), pp. 51551-51559. Fox, T.R. and P.G. Watanabe. 1985, "Detection of a cellular oncogene in spon taneous liver tumors of B6C3F1 mice," Science, vol. 222, pp. 596-597. Gehring, P.J.. P.G. Watanabe, and C.N. Park, 1978, "Resolution of dose-response toxicity data for chemicals requiring metabolic activation: Example--Vinyl Chloride." Toxical. AppL. Pharmacol., voL 44, pp. 581-591. Gehring, P.J., P.G. Watanabe. and C.N. Park, 1979, "Risk of angiosarcoma in workers exposed to vinyl chloride as predicted from studies in rats," Taxicol. Appl. Pharmacol., voL 49, pp. 15-21. Hogan. M.D. and D.G. Hoel. 1982, "Extrapolation to man." in Principles and Methods af Toxicology, ed. A.W. Hayes. Raven Press, New York, pp. 711-731. Maltoni, C. and G. LeFemine. 1975, "Carcinogenicity assays of vinyl chloride: current results," Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., vol. 24S, pp. 195*224. Maltoni, C., 1933. "Myths and facts in the history of benzene carcinogenicity." in Advances in Environmental Toxicology, Vol. IV: Carcinogenicity and Tox icity of Benzene, ed. M.A. Mehlman. Princeton Scientific Publishers Inc.. Princeton, pp. 1-13. Mirsalis, J.C., C.R. Tyson. E.N. Loh. K.L. Steinmetz, J.P. Bakke. C.M. Hamilton. D.K. Spak. and J.W.'Spalding. 1985. "Induction of hepatic cell proliferation and unscheduled DNA synthesis in mouse hepatocytes following in vivo treat ment." CarciTiagenesis, vol. 6, pp. 1521-1524. NAS, National Academy of Sciences, Committee on the Institutional Means for Assessment of Risks to Public Health. 1983, Pish Assessment in the Federal Government; Managing the Process, National Academy Press, Washington. D.C., pp. 36-37. NTP. National Toxicology Program. 1985. "NTP Technical Report on the Toxicol ogy and Carcinogenesis Studies of Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene) (Cas No. 127-18-4) In F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Inha lation Studies)." Draft Report dated 8/85 (NTP TR 311. NIK Publication No. 85*2567), Research Triangle Park, NC 27703. R&S146102 Table 2.1 Increased Exposure Above Measured Control Levels for Air Contaminants Measured at 4 BKK-Vicinity Monitoring Stations Compound Vinyl Chloride Perchloroethylene Trichloroethylene Vinylidene Chloride 1,2-Dichloroethane Benzene Chloroform Increased Exposure in mg/kg/day (assuming 20 m3/70 kg/day intake) At Monitoring station: A BD F Mean .0034 .0019 .0010 .0011 .0019 .0011 0.0 .0018 .0011 .00087 .0015. .0016 .0021 .00074 .00062 .0014 .0014 .00091 .00091 .00007 .00056 0.0 .0011 .0011 .00017 .00023 -.00055 -.00029 .0016 .0013 .0015 .0007 .0012 .0006 .00009 TABLE 2.2 POTENCY ANALYSIS INPUT KEY*. LINE wi * TITLE LINE HZ ` t ANIMALS PEP. DOSE CROUP (SURVIVING UNTIL after the occurrence of the iST Tumor IN THE EXPERIMENT) LINE *3 = 4 TUMOR-BEARING ANIMALS PER COSE GROUP LINE 4 - * EQUIVALENT APPLIED DOSES FOR EACH COSE GROUP (IN MG/KG/CAY) V CL MALTCM 75 SPR-DAw RATS FEMALE .3SKG HE AC KC/KG/C 5, 59,59*59,59,60*61 0 *0 *0* 9 *2*7 *16 0 *0*4*225.13*92.19.52,23.7b,30.90,31.57 2YMBAL GLAND V CL MALTCNI75 SPR-CAW RATS FEMALE .3EKG HEAD r.G/KG/C 56*59,59,59,59,bC.bl 0 ,1 ,b, 4 ,b ,4 ,5 0.0,4.225,13.92,19.52,22.76,30.90,31.57 NEFHROELASTOMAS VCL MALTONI75 SPR-Daw RaTS FEMALE .35KG HEAD MG/KG/C 58,59,59,59,59,60.61 itC,1,4,7,3 ,13,9 1C.0,4.225 ,13.92,19.52.23.76,30.90,31.57 MALTCNI75 SPR-DAW RaTS FEMALE .35KG HCAC MG/KG/C 58,59,59.59.59,60,61 6 .lC,lo,22,32.31,36 0.0,4.225 ,13.92,19.52,23.76,30.90,31.57 LIVER ANGIOSARCOMAS CCMPGSITE BENZENE MALT0N153 S-C RATS FEMALE .3CKG HE AC MG/KC/E 30,30,32 0,2,8 0 .0 ,lb07 ,30.36 ZYM8AL GLAND VlNYLlDENE CL MALTUNI65 SN MICE .035KG HEAO mu/kg/d kidney aoencsarc. 126,25,115 0 ,0,26 0.0,0.9627,2.457 CCE NCI 78 0-M RATS MALE 40.48,27 0 .9,7 0 -0,23.1c ,42.75 .5KG HEAD MG/KG/C hEMANG10SARCOMAS DCE NCI76 9oC2Fl MICE 19,47,46 1 .6.12 G .0,44.25 ,57. 7G MALE .035KG HEAC MC/KG/C HEPATOCARC INOMAS R&S146104 VAt-GRGFORh NCI 76 If 50,45 llN*8.44 -0 .0.79.42.159.4 BtoC3F 1 MICE MALE Q35KG HE AC MG/KG/C HEPATGCARCINQMAS CHLCRCFCRM NCI7& 20,45.41 0*36*39 C .0,137.0,274.5 e6C3Fl MICE FEMALE.028KG HEAD MGyKG/C HEFaTGCARCINGMAS PCE NCI77 EoC3F1 MICE 20,48*45 2 .32.27 0.0*118.66*163.39 MALES HALO (MG/KG/CAY) VIA SAME LIVER PCE NCI77 20*48*45 B6C3F1 MICE. FEMALES 0 *19*19 .0*97.718,142 .76 HALO (MC/KGyOAY) VIA SAME LIVER PCE NTP85 47,46,50 E6C3F1 MICE: 16*31*40 0.0*119.96*203.02 MalE HALC MG/KG/0A1 VIA SAME,HEP AC/CARC PCE NTP85 E6C3F1 |9*40,46 13,3d 12.4 .75,209 ib9 MICE FEMALE HALC MG/KG/DAV VIA SAME, HEP CARC TCE NTP82 48*50 8 *3C 0 .0*675.830 E6C3F1 MICE: MALE HALC MG/KG/DA 1 VIA SAME HEP CARC TCE NTF62 48,49 2 *13 0 *0 ?6 0 C9 E6C3F1 MICE: FEMALE HALC MG/KG/OAV VIA SAME HEP CARC TCE NC176 86C3F1 MICE: 2 C * 50,46 1,26,31 0 .0.444.555,345.545 MALES HALO MG/KG/DAT VIA SAME HEF CARC TCE NC17t 86C3F1 MICE: FEMALES 20,50,47 0,4,11 C.0,337.779,655 .5iC HALO MG/KG/CAY VIA SAME hEP CARC R&S146105 c f APPENDIX THREE RISK ANALYSIS OUTPUT R&S146106 v CL f'Ai. T IJN ' ~"i S-C aATS female J *J tv G - * !_ v 'D 4 i: Tuiror i gen ic Potency Distribution Calculatec Assuming Equipotent Doses Can Ee Extrapclatca Between Species cn a tlj mq per Bocy height lEw) Basis cr (2) r.g per Surface Area ISA) Basis ucAND Fercentiie 0.6300 1.000C 2.0C0C 3.0000 6.0000 5.0C0C 6.CCOC 7.000C 8.C00C 9.0000 10.0000 11.Q00C 12.0G0C X3.0C0C 16.0Q0C 15.0000 16.COCO 17.0000 1E.0CGC 19.0000 20.GC0C 21.000C 22.0C0C 23.000C 26.0C0C 25.0C0C 26.000C 27.0000 28.0000 29.0000 30.G00C 31.0C0C 32.0000 33.0000 36.0C0C 35.0C0C 36.0000 37.0000 3E.000C 29.0C0C 60.0GCC 61.0000 62.0000 63.0000 66.GOGC 65.G00C 66.0000 6 7.0000 <>8.0000 69.GG0C 50.0000 51.0000 Potency (j./[mg/kg/eayJ) Calculated using Extrapolation Assumption: BW SA 0. 0.CC05726795 0.0012998717 0 *CCl&156e92 0.00212bo2o0 0.0023978178 0.C02b266026 0.0028122789 0.0029672680 0.0031151613 0.C032536136 0.0033952565 0.CC35280201 0.0036366538 C.C03756536O 0.0036785900 0.0039769783 0.0060668273 0.0061523d78 0.CC62639095 0.0013675330 0.0066629616 0.0065606690 0.006o295l62 C.0C67117588 0*0067966e91 C.0068768963 0.0069669673 0.0050676182 0.005126666? 0.0051969653 C.0052697376 0.0053668596 0.0056183519 0.0056833536 0.0055657177 0.0056098561 0.0056853561 C *0057550259 0.0058230606 0.0058866727 0.0059575381 0.0060177930 0.0060732237 0.0061279965 0.0061866961 0.0062566325 0.C0o3161105 0.CG63730385 0.0006365961 0.0066955665 0.0Go552891S 0. 0.0033690527 0.0076017021 0.0106181065 0.0126365939 0.0160225267 0 *0153710032 0.0166663203 0 .017352566 7 0.01821 76 705 0.019C272c29 0 .0196555869 0.0206320025 0.0212769962 0.0219566603 0.0226621690 0.0232656320 0.0237966661 0.0262632135 0.0269355137 0.02 55 618 CIO 0.0 2 609 65 256 0.0265528666 0.0270735665 0.C275565569 0.0280616 595 0.0285202662 0.0290670235 0.C295175C35 0.0299679711 0 .030391966c 0 .0308176356 0.0312569551 0.0316667361 0 .0320651159 0 .0326315601 0 .0328066535 0 .0332681787 0.033655o211 0 .0360536696 0.0366126236 0 .0368602150 0.0351922959 0.0355203152 0.0356367562 0 .03617S8t65 0.0365 7 66 668 0.03c92obt60 0 .0372697660 0 .0376297757 0 .0379862152 0.0383215733 Percent ile 0.6 30C 1.0C0C 2.0CCC 3.0CCCJ 6.0C0C 5.0CCG 6.0C0C 7.0C0C 8.0C0C 9.0CCC 10.0C0C li.cccc 12.0C0C 13.0CCC 16.0CCC 15.0CCC 16.0C0C 17.0CCC le.occc 19.0CCC 20.0CCC 21.0CCC 22.0CCC 23..0CCO 26.0CCC 25.0CCC 26.0000 27.0C0C 26.0CCC 29.0C0C 20.QC0C 31.0C0C 32.0CC0 33.OC0C 36.0C0C 35.0C0C 36.0 CSC 37.0C0C 36.0CCC 39.0CCC 6C.0CCC 61.0CCC 62.0CCC 63.0CCC 66.0CCC 65.0C0C 66.0 COO 67.0CCC 68.0CCC 69.0CQC 50.0C0C 51.0CCC - R&S146107 -- ~Z I ObQ L 56.0000 57.0000 S6.000C 59.000G tO.COOG ti.oooc 62.QG0C 63.0C0C 04.0000 65.CQGC te.oooc 67.00GC te.oooc 69.0C0G 7C.0C0G 71.0000 72.000C 73.000C 7* .QCOC 7?.000C 76.QCOC 77.0C0C 76.000C 79.0000 eo.oooc 61.C00C 82.0000 ea.aooc eo.oooc 85.000C 66.0C0C 7.0000 66.000C 69.00CG 90.CC0C 91.00CC 92.000G 93.0CCC 94.0C0C 95.Q00C 96.0C0C 97.000C 98.0000 S9.0C0C 7S 7 1 *0066528769 0-.C0tj9ie2<fc9 0.00697259(30 0.0070274523 C.0070795454 0.CC 71284124 0.0C71989144 C.CC725294G0 0.0073079383 G.0073671O67 0.0074252975 C.0074962992 C.0075497241 0.0070115336 0.C07C3629536 0.C077161331 0.0077770394 0.0078272959 0.0076862319 0.0079470677 0.CCEQ047920 0.CC807CO635 O.CC132oi42 C.0082012340 C.0C82558179 0.0083276853 C.CCS3982216 0.0084746592 C.CC85414029 0.0C&6164356 C.C086653262 0.0067648258 0.0088466390 0.0C89439324 0.0090373392 0.0091302823 C.0092268033 0.0093513551 0.0094750915 C.CC96185394 0.C0976E3055 C.CC99&80D12 0.0102364104 0.0106925238 * j'i : z. 0 .039 75 04 450 0 .0400758962 ; 0 .0404581837 0 .0407760218 0 .04iOS682l4 0.0414014645 0.0417457223 0.0420995292 0 .0424154846 0.0427371152 0 .0430634852 0.C434234366 0.C438366574 0 .0441510901 0.0445125550 0.044ei32 604 0.0451362431 0.0454804276 0.0457743406 0.0461190C08 0.0404747697 0.0406123443 0.0471975654 0.04 75598536 0.04 79611450 0.0482803546 0.0437006361 0.0491131395 0.0495601483 0.0499508195 0.0503895544 0.0507950706 0.0512570515 0.0517257923 0.0523337163 0.0528536476 0.0532942560 0.0540171973 0.0546900257 0.0554107167 0 .0562496036 0 .0572424047 0.0584105812 0.0596629378 0.C625303C90 C. '. - v. ^ * WvU c .6.0000 57.0CCC 56.0CQC 59.0C0C 60.0C0C tl.OCCC 62.0000 63.0C0C 64.3CCC te.oooc 66.0C0C 67.0CCC 66.0CCC 69.0CCC 70.0CCC 71.QCOC 72.0C0C 73.0CCC 74.0C0C 75.0C0C 76.0CCC 77.0CCC 76.0CCC 79.0C0C 60.0CCC ei.occc 62.0C0C 83.0CCC 84.0CCC 85.0CCC 86.0CCC 87.0CCC E8.0CCC 69.0CCC 90.0CCC 91.QCCC 92.0C0C 93.0CQC 94.0CCC 92.0CCC 56.0 CO C 97.0CCC 56.0C0C 99.0CCC R&S146108 PCE PCE NTPS5 NTF65 '-ccdFi 66CI EoC3t-i MICE: MICE: MALE FEMALE ;-:uC IMG/NO/TiV; HALC MC/HX/DAI IA HALC MG/K.G/DA1 VIA *'U SAME L : V E same,HEP AO/CARC Same, hEP CARC Tumorigenic Potency distribution Calculatec Assuming Equipotent Dcses Can Ee Extrapciatec Between Species on a (11 mg per 6ocy weight (Eh) Easis cr lZ) mg per Surface Area ISA) Easis Percentile 23,5200 24.0000 25.0000 26.000C 27.000C 26.0C0C 29.000C 30.0000 31.Q00C 32.0000 33.C00C 34.0000 35.0000 36.0000 37.0000 38.0000 39.0C00 AO.000C 41.0000 42.0C0C 43.0000 44.0000 45.0000 46.0000 47.G00C 48.CQ0C 49.0000 50.0000 51.00CC 52.0000 53.0000 54.0000 55.0000 56.0000 57.0000 56.0000 59.0000 60.0000 bl.OOOC 62.0000 63.CC0C 64.0000 65.000C 66.0000 67.0000 68.0000 69.0000 70.0000 71.0000 72.0000 73.onnr Potency (1/Img/kg/cayl) Calculated Using Extrapolation Assumption: ew SA Percentile 0. 0.0000631399 0.0002477595 0.0004065095 0.0005406287 0.0006775336 0.0006084442 0.C0C9508039 0.0010622996 0.0012121021 0.0013783769 0.0015607907 0.0017147622 0.0018365651 0.00198X5555 0.0021057397 G.C022612270 0.0023447108 0.0024843295 0.0026001376 0.0026968133 0.0026273263 0.0029609974 G.CC30&3&603 0.0032178843 0.C033C38264 0.C033742981 0.0034405054 0.0035401534 0.C036381371 0.CC36876083 0.0037636900 0.CC36175124 0.0039036532 0.0039779469 0.0040559196 0.0041189243 0.0041798120 0.004249751b 0.0043027191 0.0043729548 O.0C4421O218 0.0044639323 0.0045630060 0.CC46134321 0.0047130641 0.0047519626 C.C04E404224 0.0049026082 0.0C49709054 n. nncni?naiis 0. 0.0008419139 0.0032905159 0.0053327973 0.0071C42348 0.0089232866 0.0105216513 0.C124C29776 0.0140911490 0.0157920271 0.0162200354 0.0207534 554 0.0223tl4757 0 *0239068777 0.0262096560 0.0275176186 0.0296708245 0.0310361241 0.0326C73261 0.0346589722 0.0360331582 0.0368654616 0 .0390260671 0.0406094414 0.0419077836 Q.0438546464 0.0451851636 0.0462C58075 0.0471365531 0.0481932C69 0.0497919470 0.0509260669 . 0.0517350100 0.0527276520 0 .0537138171 0.0543200411 0.0555971563 0.0560675710 0.0569670C14 0.0578635931 0.0585039258 0.0596585 C87 0.0602021478 0.0613929 220 0.062C1O4 797 0.0625100061 0.0634471178 0.0644137169 0.0649361526 0.0663178C4c n ,n>.(ir.77r?c 23.520C 24.0CQC 25.0C0C 26.0CCC 27.0C0C 2B.0CGC 29.0CQC 30.0COC 31.0C0C 32.0CCC 33.0C0Q 34.0C0C 35.0C0C 36.0C0C 37.0CQC 36.0C0C 39.0CQ0 4O.OCO0 41.0C0C 42.0CCC 43.0C0C 44.0CCC 45.0C0C 46.0C0C 47.0CQC 4e.ococ 49.0CCC 50.0C0C 51.0CGC 52.0C0C 53.0C0C 54.0C0C 55 .OCCC 56.0CCC 57.0C00 58.0C00 59.0C0C cO.QCOC 61.0C0C 62.0CCO 63. OCCC 64.OCCC 65.0C00 66.0CQC 67.0CQC 68.OCCC 69.0C0C 70.OCCC 71.0C0C 72.0C0C 7*5 r\crr R&S146109 4 6 U Cw W 77.0000 78.0C0C 79.000C eo.oooc 81.0000 82.GOOC 83.QC0G 84.0000 65.0000 86.0CCC 67.0000 ae.oooc 89.0000 9Q.0Q0C 91.0Q0C 92.0C0C 93.000C 94.000C 95.0C0C 96.0COC 57.000C 98.000C 99.0000 0.CC52;* 35 5 0 0.00551 -083 C.0053876846 0.0054476908 C.0055350373 0.0056042360 0.0056812912 0.0057923449 0.0058550616 0.0059278943 0.0060320524 0 .0061395695 0.0062557189 0.C063808989 0.0064814021 0.0066168713 0.0067779957 0.0068894438 0.0070212791 0.0072206062 0.0073681365 C.C075660926 0.0076990255 C.C084332814 0 .0629715^45 0.G696S85774 0.0707354471 0.0712223070 0.0723741651 0.073236045G 0.0739837436 0.0750207230 0.0761620775 0.0772702297 0.0783423260 0.0797456056 0.0812087208 0.0824906453 0 064C217t95 0.0853406 787 0.0867500380 0.0888896659 0.0911295139 0.0928635597 0.0956132222 0.0984796148 0.1026449278 0.1077651206 7cj.CC*'* 77.0 Cv 78.0C0C 79.0C00 eo.OCOC ei.OCOC 62.0CCC 63.0C0C 84.0CQC eS.OCCC 66.0CCC 67.0000 be.QCQC 89.0CQC 90.0CQC 91.0CCC 92.0C0C 53.0CQC 94;0CCC 95.0C0C 96.0C0C S7.0C0C 98.0CCC 59.0CCC R&S146110 res TCE went NCI 71 v-L* A mL $ BeC3Fl ..iCE: female s G / ll / 14 -`i 1 * . A . - 4-. t Z r _ A <\ L HALO ^G/Ko/LAVf A S A f*. HfcP CAkC halc pg/kg/cay iA SAFE hep CARC Tuiror i genic Potency Distribution Calculatec Assum in g Equipctent Ooses Can Be Extra pclatea Between Species on a 111 mg per Bocy Weight ISWI Basis or 121 mg per Surface Area (SA) Basis Percentile 11.600C 12.0000 13.0C0G 14.00GG 15.0000 16*0000 17.0000 18*0000 19*0000 20*0000 21.0000 22.0000 23.0000 24.0000 25*0000 26QCOC 27.0000 28.0000 29.000C 30.0000 31.0000 32.0000 33.0000 34.0000 35.0CC0 36.000 C 27.0Q0C 38.0000 39.000C 40.0000 41*0000 42.0000 43.0000 44.0000 45.0000 46COO 0 47.0000 46.0000 49.0000 50.0000 51.GOOC 52.0000 53.0000 54.0G00 55.0000 56.0000 S 7 *uGCC 58.QCOC 59.0000 tO*GCO C Potency (1/lmg/kg/cay]J Calcula ted Using Extrapolation Assumption: EW SA Percert ile 0. 0.0000236716 0.0000331952 0.0000735Q15 0.0000763560 0.0001185321 0.0001299646 0.CC01623Q41 0.0C01717535 0.0001994221 0.C002066782 0 .0002111395 0.0002317257 0.0002410765 0.0002555447 0.0002674329 C.C00Z729225 G.CC02864209 0.0002967948 0.0003045304 0.CC031245S8 0.0003X82811 O.0CG3278O30 0.0003427367 0.0003502932 0.0003569786 0.0003671742 0.0003819009 0.0003870664 0.0003929799 0.CCC4038969 0.0004203070 0.0004319644 0.0004422651 0.0C04531117 0.0004652110 C.0C04ei7551 G.0005044929 0.CC05184426 0.CCC5371177 0.0C05564741 0.0005792555 0 *CC0o02 6781 0.0C0c419369 0.000666030 1 0.0006980940 C.0007303558 0.0007553491 0.0007789262 C.0006099292 a ^* 1 1 ^ 0. 0.0004C10805 0 .0004617967 0.001C205493 0.0010893242 0.0016247210 0.0016874871 0.0021598854 0.0022996233 0.0025246800 0.0027376411 0.002E802C75 0.0029799310 0.0030773962 0.0033621620 0.0034916122 0.0035558485 0.0037451424 0.0C389C7297 0.0040064328 0.004C976494 0 .0041765667 0 .004317633d 0 .0044134 ie5 0.0044350601 0.0046192929 0.0048116501 0.CC46415521 0.0049207t99 0.0050728545 0.0052447678 0.00544G1690 0.C055211429 0 .0057086500 0 .0058406456 0.0059791761 0.0061627184 0.0063774111 0.0065426948 0.0067672594 0 .0070166427 0.0073C4G7C5 0.0075932685 o.ooaczeo732 0 .0083375 992 0.0086673899 0.0089960C33 0 .00932 87C15 0.009t417908 0.0099793402 11.6C00 12.0C0G 13.0C0C 14.0CCO 15.0CC0 16.0C0C 17.0CCC 18.0CCC 19.0C0C 20.0C0C 21.0C0C 22.0CCC 23.0C0C 24.0CCC 25.0C0C 26.0C0C 27.0CCC 2e.occc 29.0CCC 30.QCOC 31.3CCC 32.0C0C 33.0CCC 34.0CCC 35.0000 36.0C0C 37.QCCC 36.0C0C 39.0CCC 40.000C 41.0C0C 42.0C0C 43.QCCC 44.acoc 45.QCOC 46.0COC 47.QCOC `ie.ococ 49.0CCC 50.0CCC 51.OC0C 52.0C0C 53.0 CSC 54.QCOC 55.OCGO Se.OCOC 57.0CCC 58.OC0C 59.0CCC oO.OCCC R&S146111 62.000C 63.0000 69.0000 65.0C0C 66.0000 67.0C00 68.0000 69.QC00 70.0C0C 71.0000 72.000C 73.0000 79.0000 75.0000 76.G00C 77.CCCC 76.000C 79.0000 6C.0C0C 81.0000 82.0000 83.0000 69.000C 65.000C 66.000C 67.000C 68.0C0C 89.0000 9C.0G0C 91.000C 92.000C 53.000C 99.0000 95.0000 56.0G0G 57.QQ0C 98.0000 99.0000 0 . COGb' <*009 0.0006792258 C.0009100983 0.C00926O917 0.0009999993 0.0009639515 0.0009767219 C.CC09926786 0.0010138333 C.CC10969693 0.001059 729 7 C.0010860262 0.0010860262 0.0011097321 C.0011233O96 0.0011908336 0.0011601x31 0.0011717980 0.0011930885 0.CO1209332C 0.0012199678 0.0012353265 0.0012502579 0.0012755778 C.0012912979 0.0C1302o590 0.0013261532 0.0C13389988 0.0013619312 0.0C13769770 Q.C013983991 0.0019159299 0.CC1H915635 0.00198106-15 Q.0015181559 0.0015631353 0.0016321195 0.0017539167 0.0105952 565 0.0109503596 Q.0111167CB6 0.0113E79135 0.0116391598 0.0118269 270 0.0120875696 0.0122939909 0.012016226* 0.0126998971 0.0130673681 0.0132 C69130 0.0135276821 0.0136578909 0.0139599 963 0.0190519616 0.0193212999 0.0199956886 0.0196767269 0.0199525125 0.0152591291 0.0155025935 0.0156682275 0.0159120t39 0.0160679 929 0.0163902510 0.0166165269 0.0167716797 0.01709 79119 0.0172618193 0.0176176969 0.0179115627 0.0181699 767 0.0185676506 0.0190631878 0.0197035875 0.0209928229 0.0217668933 62.01 , 63.0C0C 69.GCOC 65.0COC 66.QC0C C7.0C00 C8.0CGC 69.0CQC 70.0CCC 71.0C0C 72.0COC 73.0C0C 79.0CCC 7E.OCOC 76.0C0C 77.0C0C 76.OC0C 79.0C0C 80.0CQC 61.0CCC 82.0CCC 83.0C0C 89.0CQC es.occc 66.0C0C 87.0C0C ee.ococ e9.occc 9C.0CCC 91.OC0C 52.0C0C 53.0C0C 59.0CCC 95.0C0C 56.0COC 57.0CCC 98.0C0C 59.0C0C R&S146112 VINYLICEht CL KALTIl.V 3 S MICE .G35KG MG/KG/C Kit y AOEhGC*RCINGhA$ Tun-.or i gen ic Potency Distribution Calculatec Assuming Equipctent Ocses Can 6e Extrapclatec Between Species on a 11) mq per Bocy Height lEW) Basis or (2) mg per Surface Area (SA) Basis Percent'! le 57.9CGC 58.G00C 59.000G 6G.0GGC tl.OOOC 62.C000 63.G00C tl.OOOC 65.0C0C 66.000C C7.QC0G ee.oooc 69.0C0C 70.0C0C 71.GG0C 72.CCCC 73.0C0C 79.0000 75.000C 76.0C0C 77.000C 78.000C 79.0C0C 6C.0C0C 61.0C0C 62.G00C 83.000C 89.0Q0G 85.QC0C Bb.OOOC E7.0C0C 88.CQ0G 9.0000 50.000C 91.000C 92.000C 93.0G0C 99.0COC 95.0000 96.0C0G 97.0000 9e.oocc 55.G00C Potency {1/Lmg/kg/day1) Calculatec) Using Extrapolation Assumption: &K SA 0. 0*0023508139 0*0023506139 0*0023508139 0.0023508139 C.C052523129 0*0052523129 0.0052523129 0.0061231373 0*0081231073 0.0109638385 0.0109635385 0*0137751363 C.0137751363 C.0165575966 0.0193118080 0.0297377918 0.0903775983 0.0501255058 0.0532969957 0.0595352650 0.062600o722 0.Co26C06722 C.0b563l866E 0.0656318665 0.0686295033 0.C715999767 0.0715999767 0.0795273232 0.0795273232 0.0779288177 0.0779288177 0.0799975162 0.0802996159 0.C831C80675 G.C8333lo995 0.0833316995 O.C906oie569 0.0969939337 C.1C66259709 0.1109157301 C.1166609372 0.1239383583 0. 0.0296163750 0.0296163750 0.0296163750 0.0296163750 0.0661799293 *0.0661799393 0.0661799293 0.1023996595 0.1023996595 0.1381355971 0.1381355971 0.1735557C2C 0.1735557C20 0.2086129716 0.2933133923 0.3116757572 0.5087259693 0.6315913117 0.6715189950 0.75009o7283 0.78871E9CZ9 0.7887189029 0.6269C9CC56 0.8269090C56 0 *8696768332 0.9020331502 0.9020331502 0.9389696921 0.9389E96921 0.9755911799 0.9755911799 1.0016051531 1 .0117108622 1 .0970951798 1 .0999120951 1.09 99120951 1.1997E67155 1 .2909997932 1.5959155560 1 .3979500095 1.9976053570 1.5552295276 Percert ile 57.9CCC se.ococ 59iOCCC 6G.OCOC tl.OCQC 62.0CCC 63.0CCC 69.0C0C 65.0C0C 66.0C0C 67.0C0C 68.0C0C 69.0CCC 70.QCCC 71.0CCC 72.0C0C 73.0CCC 79.0CCC 75.0CCC 76.0CCC 77.0C0C 78.0CCC 79.0C0C EO.OCOC 61.0CCC 62.0C0C 63.QCCC 69.0CCC 65.0CCC 66.0C0C 67.0CQC 88.0C0C 69.3CCC 90.0C0C 51.0C0C 92.0C0C 93.0CCC 99.0C0C 95.0CCC 96.0COC 97.0CCC 9E.0C0C 99.0C0C R&S 146113 * w / r; L/ Tuiror gen c Potency Distribution Calculatec Assuming Equipctent Oases Can be Extrapolated BetMeen Species on a (1) mg per Eoc> Weight (Sw) Basis cr (2) mg per Surface Area ISA) Basis Percentile 32.0550 33.000C 34.OCCC 35.0000 36.0C0G 37.000C 36.0000 39.QC0C 40.000C 41.0C0C 42.0000 43.0QQC 44.QC0C 45.GG0C 46.G00C 47.Q0CC 48.0000 49 *3C0C 50.000C 51.0C0C 52.0C0C 53.0C0C 54.0C0C 55.0C0C Sb.OCOC 57.000C 56.00CC 59.0000 6C.00CC 61.0000 fcZ.OOOC 63.000C 64.Q00C 65.00CC 66.0000 67.C00C 6B.000C 65.QC0C 70.000C 71.0000 72.0000 73.0000 74.0C0C 75.000C 76.0000 77.000C 76.0000 79.000C eo.ococ E1.QC0C 62.0C0C 63.0000 Potency 11/lmg/kg/cay1 ) Calculated Using Extrapolation Assumption: SA Percertile 0. 0.0001033053 0.0004153972 0.CQC6223066 0.0C06052544 0.C0106e037c 0.0012650864 O.CC1352431E 0.C014608926 0.CQ1&244322 0.0016513069 0.002017699c 0.CC205Q7973 C .0022667374 0.CC2395o372 C.0C25417092 0.0026377053 0.0027363470 0.0028409075 0.CC26641261 0.CC30001164 0.0C3166335C 0.CC33263M85 0.0034470066 0.0035790*91 0.0036292692 0.0027549126 0.0039007415 0.0041051777 C.0041463746 0.0C427347el 0.004282&235 C.C04 3652970 0*0045969049 0.0047065211 0.C046733628 0.0050965096 0.005x34 7017 0.0052294573 0.0052772732 C.GC56211530 0.0057518J49 0 .CC5792co7t 0.CC59661344 0.0063385554 0.C064E40131 0.0067303953 C.C0o6540093 0.0066751334 0.CC73733404 0.CC744 77480 0.0074609537 0. 0.0010927507 0 .0034300 131 0.0C52C99419 ' 0.0067425693 0 .0078208055 0.0101002c97 0.0106902649 0.C12E090139 0 .0142214 093 0.0146719465 0 .0160176922 0.0172541905 0.0133555556 0.0192078 575 0.0205113776 0.0220622C46 0.0222374 797 0.0227661C40 0.0244304445 3*0251566669 0.0264659651 0.0266618676 0.C2720CSCE7 0 .0280365632 3.C2912 08602 0.0296260266 0.0300076716 0.0307655465 0.0314085409 0.0326598287 0.0329465419 0 .0335101448 0 .0340721*56 0.0351862982 0.0355613206 0.0356993226 0.0363942C12 0.0382859968 0 .0386370271 0.03873e533< 0 .0390550457 0 .0395 76C53t 0.0404470563 0.0412730231 0 .04 15324c06 0.0426625122 0 .0*3*967284 0 *0443399996 0.04*5230563 0 .04 50259484 0.04554297*0 22.055C 33.0000 24.OC0C 25.0CCC 36.0CCC 37.0C0C 36.0CCC 39.0C0C 40.0CCC 41.0CCC *2.OCCC 43.0CCC *4.OCCC 45.OCCC 46.OCCC 47.OCCC 48.0C0C 49.OCCC 50.OCCC 51.0C0C 52.OCCC 53. OCCC 54.OCCC 55.OCCC 5O.0C0C 57.0C0C 58.OC0C 59.0C0C 60.OCCC 61.OCCC 62.0C0Q 63.0C0C 64.QC0C 65.OCCC 66.OCCC 67.OCCC 68.OCCC 69.QC0C 70.OCCC 71.OCCC 72.OCCC 73.OCCC 74.GC0C 75.OCCC 76.OCCC 77.OCCC 78.OCCC 79.OCCC 60.0COC ei.occc 62.OCCC 63.OCCC C INCi' A L R&S146114 ^< . 85.0000 Ci 79178**** 7 0.0976993917 l. .OCCC 86.0000 0.0079905632 0.0939076105 86.OCCC 67.000C 0.0061310*156 0.0996319tC** E7.0C0C c ea.ococ 89.0000 90.0000 0.0004*179109 0.00655303 * Cl 0.0065997615 0.0509898696 0.0508593812 0.0517573170 66.0C0C 69.0CCC 90.0COC 91.0000 0.0090888273 0.0522902669 91.QC0C 92.Q000 0.0091661*117 0 .0535886660 92.OCCC 53.000C 0.C096l865**2 0.0593918C86 93.OCCC 59.CC0C 0.0097569679 0.0557139*96 99.OCCC 55.0C0C 0.0098993611 0.0570629519 95.QC0C 96.0000 C.0103209176 0.C5829623e3 96.0CCC 97.Q0QC 0.0105662909 0.0606013367 97.OCCC 56.Q00C 0.0109909372 0 .0631922339 . 96.0CQC 99.0C0C 0*0117950356 0.0666660815 99.0C0C J. c \ 35tt0>* Otk) furror t gen ic. F> :ncy 3 i stri but ion Caiculatee Assuming Equipctent Oases Can 6 Extrspalateo Between Species on a (1) mg per Bocy *eignt (Eh) Basis ar (2) mg per Surface Area (SA) Basis Percentile 17.6000 1B.OOOC 19.0000 20.0000 21.0000 22.0000 23.0000 24.0C0C 25.0000 26.. 0000 7.0000 28.0000 29.000C 30.000C 31.0000 32.0000 33.0000 34.0000 35.0000 36.0000 37.00CC 36.000C 39.0000 40.0000 41.000C 42.0000 43.0000 44.0000 45.0000 46.0000 47.3000 48.000C 49.0000 50.0000 51.0C0C 52.0000 53.000C 54.000C 55.0000 56.0000 57.0000 58.Q00C 59.0000 60.000C 61.0000 62.0000 63.0000 64.0000 65.Q00G 66.3000 67.0000 66.0000 69.0000 7(1 nnnr Potency ll/[mg/k,g/ai.y ] ) Calculated Using Extrapolation Assumption: 6k Sa Percertile 0. 0.C005611179 0.0010146341 0.0010154366 0.0011749854 0.0013267462 0.0013267462 0.C013685476 0.0014714494 0.0C14 714494 0.CC14 714494 0.C014714494 0.0016097173 0.0016097173 0.0016097173 0.001o097I73 0.0016097173 G.C017354523 0.0017420996 0.0017420996 0.0017420996 0.CC17420996 0.CC17420996 0.C01742G996, 0.0016690775 0.0018690773 0.0016690773 0 .0016690773 0.0016690773 0.0019910738 0.0019910738 0.CO 19910736 0.0020652630 C.0021053632 0.002108h659 0.0021084659 0.0024 735923 0.0024735923 0.0024735923 0.0025360672 0.0028703806 0.0C267039C6 0.0026703806 0.0026703606 0.0032219272 0.0032400019 0.0O3Ze01141 O.CU328011*1 0.0032E01141 0.003 <16d5 44 0.0036572944 0.0036572944 0.0036572944 0. 0.0035 77530 0.0062475200 0.0062514152 0.0072336569 0.0081679663 0.0081679663 0.0064252951 0.0090SSSC15 0.0090588015 0 .0090568015 o.oo9c;seci5 0.0099100312 0 .0099100312 0.0099100312 0.0C991C0312 0.0099100512 0.0106841C46 0.0107250279 0.0107250279 0.C107250279 0.0107250279 0.0107250279 0.0107250279 0 .0115067502 0 .0H50675C2 0.0115067502 0.0115067502 0.0115067502 0*01225 78C79 0 .01225 78C79 0 .0122578079 0.0127145443 0.0129614165 0 .0129805 179 0.0129605179 0 .0152263749 0.0152283749 0.0152283749 0 .0174599085 0.0176711548 0.0176711546 0.017671154c 0.0176711546 0 .0196354068 0.0199406632 0 *Q20195oZ90 0.0201936290 0.0201936290 0 -021C477673 0.0225156955 0.0225156955 0.0225156955 17.3CCC le.ococ 19.0C0C 20.0CCC 21.0C0C 22.0CCC 23.0CCC 24.0C0C 25.0C0C 26.0C0C 27.0CCC 28.0CCC 29.0000 30.0CCC 31.0CCC 32.0CSC 33.0CQC 34.0CCC 35.0CCC 36.0CCC 37.0CCC 36.0CCC 39.0CGC 40.0CCC 41.0CCC 42.0CCC 43.0CCC 44.0CCC 45.0CCC 46.0CGC 47.0CCC 48.0CCC 49.0CCC 50.0CCC 51.0CCC 52.0C0C 53.0C0C 54.0C0C 55.QC00 56.0CCC 57.0CCC 58.0CGC 59.QCC0 60.QCCC 61.0C0C 62.0CCC 63.QCQC 64.QCQC t5.0CCC 66.0C0C 67.0C0C tb.OCOC 69.QCCC R&SH6116 71.0000 72.0000 73.0000 74.0000 75.G00C 76.QCQC 77.000C 76.0000 79.0000 60.0000 81.0000 82.0000 63.0000 4.0000 65.0000 86.0000 67.0COC 68.0000 89.0000 90.0000 91.0000 92.0000 93.0000 94.0000 95.0000 96.0000 97.0000 9B.000C 99.0000 0.00370 ,o34 O.CC37031>634 0.0037036634 0.0037036634 0.0037449196 0.0037449196 0.0040362515 0.0040562302 0.0040562302 00040666526 0.0040668526 0.0C4068352O 0.0041419901 0.0041419901 0.0041419901 0.0042009316 0.0042009316 0.0042009316 0.0044769049 0.0045356899 0.0045356399 0.0049324445 0.C049969149 G.CC49989149 0.0054797754 0.0054797754 0.C056957076 0.0059796646 C.0064061992 0 >0226011 565 0.0226011589 0 -0226011589 0 .0226011589 0 .0230551492 0 .0230551492 0 .0246466977 0.02 4971695c. 0 .0249716956 0.0251725216 0.0251725 316 0.0251725316 0 .0254996661 0 .0254996661 0.0254996661 0 .0256625 317 0.0256625317 0.0256625317 0.0275615266 0.02 79234 312 0.0279234312 0.0303660035 0.0307752211 0.0307752211 0.0337355807 0.0337355807 0.0362962166 0.0366130676 0.0394389965 71.0 CL 72.0C00 72.0CCC 74.0COC 75.OC0C 76.3CCC 77.0C0C 78.0CCC 79.0C0C eo.ococ 81.0C0C 82.0CCC 63.0CCC 84.QCQC es.ococ 86.0CCC E7.0C00 ee.ococ 89.0C0C 90.0C0C 51.0C0C 92.0C0C 93.0C0C 94.0C0C 55.0CCC 96.0CQC 97.0C0C 9B.0CCC 99.0C0C Tumorigenic Potency Distribution Calculates Assuming Equipotent Doses Can Be Extrapclateo Between Species on a (11 mg per Bocy Weight (6h) Easis cr (21 mg per Surface Area (SAl Easis TCC;.r.C I.'.C.'.a S Percent!le 26,7750 27.0C0C 26.000C 29.000C 30.0C0C 31.0000 32.0000 33.0000 34.0000 35.COOC 36.0000 37.0Q00 38.0000 39.0000 40.0000 41.0000 42.0000 43.0C0C 44.0000 45.000C 460GCG 47.0C0G 48.0000 49.0000 50.00GC 1.0000 52.0000 53.000C 54.0000 5.0000 56.000C 57.0000 58.0C0C 9.0000 60.0000 61.0000 62.0000 63.0000 64.0000 65.0000 66.000C 67.0000 68.0000 69.0000 70.00CC 71.3000 72 .0000 73.0000 74.0000 75.GC0C 76.0000 77.0000 Potency (l/tmg/kg/daylJ Calculated Using Extrapolation Assumption: 6W SA Percent ile C. 0.0000507622 0.C002C96018 0.0004298591 0.0005620106 0.G00972Q490 0.0012379130 0.CC146139C2 0.0016629012 0.0021019625 0.CC23729971 0.0026725268 0.0029567736 0.CG35l85*lo G.0036764252 0.0036315980 0.CC42651291 C.C046149381 0.0047179731 0.0047961711 0.C05C1641Q7 0.0C54e32995 0.0057254005 0.C0562753Q0 0.0060069736 0.0063974 769 0.006735 8073 0.0066979263 0.0070492476 0.CC704924 7o 0.0071712560 0.0073190155 0.0076582120 0.0060666031 0.0082255788 0.0082972646 0.0063875766 0.0084 361104 0.006*361104 0.0086623031 0.C068179O33 0.0091513284 O.OC9471936* 0.0G947925Q6 0.0095687062 0.0095945485 0.0099126194 0.0099640759 0.0099734217 0.0099734217 0.CIO1132747 0.0102331033 0. 0.C0062 75531 0.0026408150 0.0054194015 0.C0712513S7 0.0122466804 0.0155967139 0 .0185654219 0.0212158430 0.0264530215 0.0303103067 0 .0338076092 0.03SC34ee0O 0.G452052C57 0 .04 77245201 0.0483890921 0.0553291105 0.0594663114 0.0605577401 0.0626344010 0.0639160499 0.0698217377 0.0735943986 0.0 77*177330 0 .0797523020 0.083774*325 O.0B64733309 0.0504 720202 0.0956730517 0.0556720917 0.0965001956 0.0978169367 0.1016124487 0.1065208666 0.1116263746 0.1121719629 0.1126113C12 0.1145228744 0.1145228744 0 .1151535809 0 .119C914 735 0.1221939400 0.1278152466 0 .1206533 32 6 0.1296197508 0.1302181631 0.1332766947 0 .1349635545 0.1353602 707 0.1353602 707 0.1363334507 0.1368839483 1 ^n*r . - f * 26.775C 27.0C0C 26.0C0C 29.0CCC 30.0CCC 31.0CCC 32.0000 33.0CCC 34.0CCC 25.0CCC 36.0CGC 27.0CCC 36.0CCC 39.0CGC 40.0CGC 41.0C0Q 42.0CCC 43.0CCG 44.3CCC 45.0CCC 46.0CCC 47.0COC 46.0CCC 49.0C0C 5C.0CCC 51.0C0C 52.0CCC 53.0C0C 54.0CQC 55.0C0C 56.0CCC 57.0CQC se.acoc 59.0C0C fcO.OCCC el.occc 62.0CGC 63-OCCC 64.0C0C 65.0C0C 66.0CCC 67.0CCC 66.QCCC 69.QC0C 70.0C0C 71.0CQC 72.0CGC 73.0CCC 74.ocac 75.0C0C 76.0CCC 77.0CCC j ISD* in 07 co JO .GCCC ei.ocoo &2.0Q0C 83.0000 64.000C es.oooo 66.0000 67.000C 88.0000 89.000C 9C.QQ0C 91.0C0C 92.0C0C 93.0000 94.0Q0C 55.0000 96.0000 57.QC0C 98.0000 99.0000 C.C:.Q7 " ZZ1L 0.0108 i984 0.010954*0522 0.0110216215 0.0111465789 0.C111928107 0-0114462450 0.01x44 62450 0.0116167953 0.0116897561 0.0117640376 o.oii9430oae 0.0121220453 0.0124753751 0.0124858618 0.0130839720 0.0134910503 0.0136979064 0.0140798213 0.0144791398 i* | ^ ^ 0 .1h5< 70iC20 0.l472Goi574 0-143bfc9sl 2 0.1493000440 0.1512624744 0.1512624744 0 .1553495824 0 *1553495624 0-1573326141 0.1586545406 0.1595713543 0.1620917022 0 *1640242189 0.1689127068 0.1694593575 0.1775769740 0.1630649076 0.1858780364 0.1910927445 0.1965127140 .i ^Q.G;'-- 81.Ot, . S2.0CDC 63.0C0C 84.0CCC 85-OCCC 66.0C0C E7.0CCC 8B.0CCC 89-0CCC 9Q.QCCC 91.0C0C 92.0C0C 93.0CCC 94.0CCC 95.0CCC 96.0C0C 97.0C0C Se.OCGC 99.QCCC c -L V ; Eogen/Smitn 2/10-13/Et Percent!le O.CCOC 1.0Q0C 2.0000 3.Q0QC 9.Q00C 5.0000 6.Q00C 7.0Q0C 6.000C 9.000C lO.OOOC ll.COOC 12.0000 13.0000 19.0000 15.Q00C 16.0000 17.000C 16.0000 19.0000 20.0C0C 21.C00C 22.Q0CC 23.000C 29 *0000 25.000C 26.0000 27.0000 28.0000 29.0000 30.000C 31.0000 32.0000 33.0000 39.0C0C 35.0000 3O.0C0C 37.0000 38.0000 39.0000 9G.000C 91.0C0C 92.0000 93.0000 99.0000 95.0000 96.0000 97.0000 96.0C0C 99.0000 50.0000 51.0000 52.0000 53.0000 C3HP0UNDS I VCL VCCL, OCE. ENZ. CLFh Calculated Ci stributicns cf Individual Risk STATICN A 0. 0.0000117309 0.0000199576 0.C000171173 0.0000166231 0.0000202192 0.0003215991 0.0000223705 0.0000238056 0.0000297567 0.0003257650 0.0000265631 0.0000279636 C.0000282500 0 .0000290385 0.0000297792 0.C0003C9257 0.0000310296 0.0000318359 0.0003325951 . 0.0000332139 0.0003338986 0.0C0039o917 0.0000359209 0.0000363165 0.0000371377 C.0000381097 0.0000390199 0.0000900237 0.0003912689 0.0003923530 0.0003937918 0.0000951995 0.C0C3970129 0.0003986159 0.0000510023 0.0003599 181 0.0000617597 O.COOO730779 0.0003830700 0.0000901969 0.000395311C C.C000991079 0.0001029710 0 .0001060591 0.0001090590 0.000112-3632 0.0001152933 0.0001181696 0.COO 1212229 0 .0001292380 O.C001279027 0.C001312318 0 .COO 1352057 STATION E 0. 0.0000079220 0.0000093885 0.000010525** 0.0000119856 ' 0.0000123679 0.0000130836 0.000013795e 0.0000193756 0.CCQC199180 0.0000155280 0.000C15 5862 0.0000165286 0.0000169985 0.C000175196 0.0C0C160C97 0.0000163996 o.coocieesie 0.0000193605 0.C00G193277 0.0000203269 0.0000203272 0.C00C213Q97 0.000C218615 0.0000229705 O.OCOC228S9fc 0.C00C23539C 0.0000292239 O.OOOC2SOc3t O.OCOC253C39 0.0000269956 O.COOC279218 0.C00C289295 0.0000299635 0.0000305580 0.000032 9 2o2 0.0000399260 0.0000906651 0.C00C976779 0.0000590935 0.C00C568C7C 0.C00C622C19 0.C00C695162 O.COOCb70257 0.000069 C9o5 0.C00C7C969C 0.C00C72 7919 0.0000796921 0.0000765975 O.OOOC7E5C02 0.0C0C802130 0.0000823139 0.000069 5 59* 0.noons***' i *. STATICN 0 C. 0.0000066312 0.0000089509 0.0000099657 0 .0000101036 G.0000108399 0.0000115001 C.0000121013 C.Q00012a325 0.000013198C 0.0C0C136969 0.0000192639 G.ooooi9e3a9 0 .0000153391 0.0000158206 0 .0000162589 C.0000166756 C.0000171831 0.0000176232 0 .0000180155 0.0000189686 0.0000189362 0.0000199252 0.0000199231 0.0000205219 G.0000210565 C.Q0CQ217562 0.0000223537 0.0000230269 C .0000236635 0.0000299092 C.0000252952 C .0000261823 C .0000271670 0.0000233032 C .000029 76 79 0.0000316792 0.0000359636 0.0000923986 0.000096C227 0.0000517509 . 0.0000591636 0.0000563566 C.000G58569C C.000 06099 68 C.000C62C076 0 .0000637651 C.0000657357 0 .0000679010 0 .0000697566 0.0000721697 0.0000799212 C.0000767962 r. i i t cs I C STA TIuN *0.000060 "C.000057 -0.000059 *0.00005 1 -0.000099 -0.000096 -0.000095 -G.000C93 -0.000091 -0.000035 -0.000038 -0.000035 -0.000039 -0.000031 -0.00003C -0.00002E -0.C0002! -0.00002: -0.000C2: -0.000015 -G.OOOGU -0.000019 -C .000012 -o.oooci: -0.00000c -0.000001 -O.OOOCCf -0.000005 -0.000005 -o.cooco* -o.oooco* -G.COGOQ' -0.00000-G.OQOCO -o.oocco -o.oooco: -o.oocco: -o.oooco. -o.oooco. -o.oooco -o.oooco -o.oooco -o.oooco -0.00000 -0.00000 -0.00000 -0.00000 -0.00000 -C.00000 -0.00000 -0.00000 -0.00000 -o.oocco - ' > u 0 c 55.0000 56.000C 57.Q00C 58.00C0 59.0COC 6G.Q00C oi.aooc 62.0000 63.0000 64.0000 t5.000C 66.COO0 67.0000 te.oooo 69.0000 70.0000 71.000C 72.000C 73.0000 74.000C 75.0000 76.0000 77.0000 78.000C 79.0000 eo.oooc 61.0000 ez.oooc 63.0000 eo.oooc 65.C00C 86.CC00 E7.C00C ee.oooo 69.0000 90.0000 91.0C0C 9Z.0C0C 93.000C 94.0000 95.0000 96.0000 97.Q00C 58.000C 59.0000 o.v J1431934 0.COO 1475304 0.0001520836 0.0001556557 0.0001599696 0.0001636242 0.0001674493 0.0001712926 0.0001759144 0.0001804812 0.0001854171 0.0001897237 0.0001943767 0.0001991257 0.0002042394 0.0002096224 0.0002152158 0.0002201937 0 .0002254053 C.0002316638 0.0002371676 0.0002431321 0.0002497201 0.0002564164 0.0002632263 0.0002728368 C.000282649G 0.0002964873 0.0003144502 C.C003390945 0.00037e4977 0.0004330993 0.C006022413 0.0003746531 0.CC10024015 O.OC19721025 0.CO 1x265214 0.0011778152 0.0012234695 0.CO 12607755 0.0013030332 0*0013433116 0.0014258066 0.0015840221 0.0013085926 0 .C00CE0 5 72 3 O.OOOC90S275 0 .000C935C64 0.C00C95952e 0.0000984862 0.0001C03645 0.0001036360 O.OCOlCo 3234 0.CC01089515 0.C001116351 0.0001139289 O.OCC1168212 0.0001198681 0.0001236207 0.0001266284 0.00013C2695 0.0001335675 0.000137779E 0.0001406788 0.GC0144C666 0.0003486598 0.0001524146 O.COO155668C 0.0001599422 0.0001643577 O.COO3691C98 0.C00174912C 0.CC0181C22C 0.000191121C 0.0002033678 0.0002190669 0*0002450236 0.C00282996C 0.C002958667 O.COO582962E 0.000fc668676 0.C00714C977 0.0007506026 0.0G0765623C 0.0006155249 0.0006414 289 0.0006704799 O.C006952C50 0.000951544 7 0.001C58915C C.0012C6825C ' ococoostij .0000865959 0 .000C89tj91 0 .000093100 7 0.0000967255 0 .000 1006619 0.000105591b C .000109 3911 C.0001139939 C .0001164010 0 .000 122E2BG 0.0001273081 0.0001305436 0.0001347541 C.0001385C09 C.0U01423528 C .0001464086 0.0001513643 C.000155&G2G 0.0001594999 C .0001646039 0.0001689261 C .0001732660 0.0001781289 O.COO1834165 C.C00189C66C 0.0001963395 0.0002033284 0.0002111578 C.C0C2199215 C.0002306007 0.0002500727 0.0002807505 0.0003704334 0.0005154652 0.0005836092 C .0006263086 C.0C0c576739 0.0C068O1612 C.0007110817 Q.0007356133 C .0007671033 C.0007932637 C .0005353190 0.0009172775 C.001C3c255t >00 000 1C *C .000000c "O.QOOCOQ *0 .000000* -o .uoocoo: -o.oooooo; -O.OOOCOOl C.OOOCCQC c.ooocoo, 0.000000- 0.00 000 G< o.oooooo* O.OOOCOl. o.ooocoi 0.03000 2! G.000C03I 0.000004 0.000005 O.OOOCOq 0.000007. C.O0CC06 0.000008 0.000009 0.000010 0.000010 0.000C11 G.000012 0.000012 C.00UQ13 0.000015 O.OOOOlb 0 .000018 0.000022 0.000040 C.000075 0.000094 0.000106 0.000116 0.000125 C.000132 0.UO014C 0.00015C 0.00016C c.cooi?; 0.000191 0.000225 Bcgen/Smith Feb. 196b c COMPOUNDS: VCL, VOCL, DCE, BN2, CLFm STATIONS A,e.D. and F: Weighted Average Ind i vidUa1 Risk We iyhtS: Percenti1e A .25 B .25 D .25 F .25 O. l.OCOC Z.COOC 3.000C 4.000C 5.QOOC 6.000C 7.000C 8.000C 9.00QC XO.QOOC 11.QOOC 1Z.000C 13.000C 14.QOOC c 15.000C 16.000C 17.000C 16.C00C 19.0000 20.000C 21.0000 22.000C 23.0000 24.000C 25.QOOC 26.000C 27.0000 ze.oooc 29.0000 3C.000C 31.QOOC 32.0000 33.000C 34.0000 35.000C 36.0000 37.CC0C 38.000C 39.000C 40.CC0C 41.0000 42.000C 43.000C 4*.0000 45 -OCOC 46.00QC 47.0000 Ae.oooo 0. 0.0000115460 0.000015O075 0.0000179668 0.0000207219 0.0000223633 0.0000254 948 0.0000278966 0.0000300740 0.0000322868 0.0000337775 0.0000359101 0.0000375922 0.0000396047 0.0000412700 0.0000427910 0.0000443832 0.0000459137 0.0000475331 0.0000491222 0.0000505528 0.0000521641 0.0000534101 0.CC00551213 0.0000567950 0.0000583104 0.0000595291 0.0000609396 0.0C0G624920 0.0000639084 G.0000652984 0.0000666952 0.0000681751 0.0000695121 0.0000708344 0.0000721014 0.C000733940 0.0000746910 0.0000763045 0.000 D 777944 0.0000792022 0.0003809779 0.0003825669 0.0000643548 0.0000860280 0.0000875945 0.C0008921Ge 0.C000912 793 0.0000923251 A .25 .40 C .15 F .20 C. 0.0000132483 C.0C0C164225 0.0000186821 0.00C02C8173 O.OC0O2232C7 0.0000257504 0.0C00282544 C.CCC02C8466 0.0C00336372 C.0000356674 O.OC00379173 0.OC00397931 0.0C00413343 C.0C0042952B 0.0CC0444416 0.OC00459243 0.0C0C4 77EE9 0.0000492397 0.0C0C5C7661 0.0C00523307 C.0000528351 0.0000553665 0.0000570069 C.OC00564052 C.0C0C6C0574 0.0000615865 0.0000622521 0.0C0064712G 0.0CCC6c3750 0.OC00677963 0.CC006 90913 0.OCOO 7C6720 C.0C00717976 0.OCOC 733206 0.OCOO 748485 G.OC007t2210 0.0000 7 78 514 0.CC00793699 0.00008C9702 0.0C00826C75 0.0000841434 0.0CC0e561l6 0 .OC008 74 245 0.0CQ0692e29 0.0C009C9C96 C.0000927660 0.0C00545362 C .0000963741 Percenti1e 0.0000 1.0000 2.OCOO 3. OCOO 4.OCOO 5.OCOC 6 .OCOC 7.OCOO 8.0000 9.OCOO 10.OCOO 11.OCOC 12 .OCOC 13.0000 14.0000 15.OCOC 16.OCOC 17.000C 18 .OCOO 19.OCOO 20.0000 21.OCOO 22.OCOO 23.GCOO 4 .OCOO 25.0000 26.OCOO 27.0000 28.CC0C 29.0000 30.000C 31.OCOO 32.OCOO 33.OCOO 34 .0000 35.CCOO 36.OCOO 37.OCOO 36.OCOC 59.CC00 40.0C00 41.OCOO 42.0000 43.0000 44 .OCOO 45.0000 <t6*OCOO 47.OCOO *8 .OCOC ^9W s?fc/ 49.G00C 50.000C 51.CC0C 52.0000 53.0000 54.00QG 55.000C 56.0000 57.000C 58.0000 59.0000 6C.0000 61.0000 62.0000 63.000C 64.000C 65.000C 66.0000 67.0C00 68.0000 69.Q00C 70.000C 71.0000 72.000C 73.0000 74.QC0C 75.000C 76.0000 77.0000 76.0000 79.0000 80.0000 81.0000 82.0000 63.0000 84 *0000 85.00CC 86.0000 e7.Q00C 88.0000 89.0000 90.000C 91.000C 92.0000 93.0000 94.0000 95.0000 96.000C 97.000C 96.0000 99.0000 o G C C Mlti8 C.OOOO^ 75545 C . 0 0 0 0 99 o 21>2 0.000101t>**91 0.0001039926 0.00010b*. 349 0 .0001096245 0.0001122482 0.0001157567 C.OOOllfifeObO 0.0001227197 0.00012t)74b7 0.0001316333 0.0001369030 0*00014 34 428 0.0001501922 0.C001591538 0.0001710379 0.0001616358 0.0001896090 0.0001969361 C.0002064036 0.0002137381 0.0002190300 0.0002266648 0.CG02326950 0.0002394111 0.0002450625 0.0002520022 0.0002596123 0.0002673615 0.0002743790 0.0002819232 0.0002903360 0.0002976524 0.0003068053 0.0003149464 0.0003249839 0.0003346745 0.0003439268 0.000353o567 Q.0003&53216 0.0003775376 0.0003887416 0.0004076859 0.0004266342 0.0004508652 0.0004769169 0.0005128299 0.0005533487 0.0006155258 0.0000960939 0.0000999269 C.0001C 21408 0.0CC1C4&749 0.00C1C71460 0.0001057920 0.0001126752 0.0CC1150C56 0.0001176408 0.0C012C7562 0.0001234717 O.OCO1271274 0.00013C9e52 C.00G1349t03 0.0CC1390285 0.0CC1436627 0.0001465198 0.0C01543214 O.OCCi552774 0 .00016 41432 0.00017C4460 0.000177bc02 0.0CC1652956 O.OCCI94i56 0.0C02C53501 C.0C02179657 0.C002 308161 C.0CC2 499C23 0.0002 657587 0.0002859498 0.0CC2S99518 0.0003112532 0.0003220499 0.0CC3327C35 0 .0003409699 C.0003463519 0.0003574431 0.0003657447 C.0003 751234 0.0003841729 0.GCC3 944676 C.0C04C60S16 0.0C04157t64 0.0004345696 0.0004516638 0.0C04 724605 0.0004960444 0.0005232969 C.0005551788 0.0006160105 0.0000927988 <9.0000 50.0000 51 .GCOO 52.0000 53 .GCOO 54 .0000 55.0 CO 0 5c.0000 57.0000 56.0000 59.0000 cO.OCOO tl.OCOO 62.0000 63.0000 64.0000 65.0000 66.0000 67.0000 68.0000 69.0000 70.0000 71 .0000 72.GCOO 73.0C00 74 .0000 75.0000 76.0000 77.CC00 76.CC00 79.0000 80.000C bl.OCOC 62.0000 63.0000 84.0000 65.0000 86.0000 67.0C00 68.0000 69.0000 90.0000 91.0000 92.0000 93.0000 94 .0000 95.0000 96.0000 97.0000 98.0000 99.0000 R&S 146123 Percent!le 0. 1.0000 2.0000 3.000C A.0000 s.ococ 6.000C 7.0000 s.oooc 9.0C0C 10.000C 11.0000 12.0000 13.0000 14.0000 15.0000 16.0000 17.000C le.oooo 19.0000 20.0000 21.0000 22.000C 23.0000 24.0000 25.0000 26.0000 27.0000 26.000C 29.0000 30.0000 31.0000 32.0000 33.000C 34.0000 35.0000 36.C00C 37.0000 36.0000 39.0C0C 40.0000 41.0000 42.0000 43.0000 44.0000 45.0000 46.C00C 47.0000 46.0C0C 49.CC0C 50.0000 51.0000 52.0000 53.0000 - :_ Bogen/5mith 2/10-13/66 COMPOUNDS: VCL PCE. TCE VOCL. CCE. BNZ. CtFh Calculated Distributions cf Individual Risk STATION A STATICN 6 STATION C 0. 0.0000167416 0.0000201954 0.0000225259 0.0000242155 0.0000256961 0.0000271932 0.0000263096 0.0000295966 0.0000307031 0.0000316542 0.0000326966 0.0000338039 0.0000346373 0.0000355356 0.0000363311 0.0000370161 0.0000378112 0.0000385936 0.0000393749 0.0000401131 0.0C004C9161 0.0003418316 0.0000428108 0.0000438087 0.0000445363 0.0000454770 0.0000464649 0.0000475088 0.0000466140 0.0000497405 0.0000513301 0.0003527962 0.0000545322 C.00035o5647 0.0000596773 0.0000643914 0.0000760322 0.0003915892 0.0000990680 0.0001044989 C.000l09009e C.C001135631 0.0001166602 0.0001206o5e 0.0001241229 0.00012n4115 0.0001323431 0.0001368215 0.0001420116 0.0001484406 0.0001554 685 0.0001631516 0.0001714261 0. C.OOCC1Q4513 C.00C0125581 0.0000139631 0.00C0148549 0.CCC0156690 O.OOCO164566 O.OC00171433 0.0000178361 C.0CC0184297 C.C0C0190747 0.C0CC197551 0.00C0202387 0.00CC2C7854 0.00C0212115 O.CCC02180C4 0.00C02 22389 0.C0C02277C3 0.0CCC232621 0.00C0236722 0.00C0241711 0.0CC024c7E5 C.00C0252247 0.00CG258257 0.00CC265473 0.00CC27C865 0.0000277467 0.0000284356 0.0000291322 C.0000296555 C.00CC305784 C.0000315582 0.0000326300 0.00C0336427 C.COC03518CO 0.00CC3682C2 0.0000397141 0.0000*64029 0.0000575888 0.00C0643281 0.00CO684469 O.OOC0715235 C.00CC7417C5 0.0000767352 C .00C0792412 o.oocceit2ei C.0000644175 C.C0C0875&23 0.0000902983 0.0UC09370C7 C.000098C220 0.0001027172 0.0001068566 0.C0C1 1 ! 740*5 C. C.0000105567 C.00Q012406O C.0000137900 0.COCO 147735 C.0000156949 C.0000165174' C.0000172849 C.000015C422 C.00C01E7433 C.0000193151 C. 0000199449 C.000020567& C.C000210972 C.0000217091 t.0000223280 C.0000227976 C.0000233639 C.0000238953 C.0000244075 C.C0G0249112 C.00C0253927 C.00C02567C3 C.C000265080 C.0000272412 C.0000278962 C.0000285023 C.00C0291974 C.0000296926 C.0000305469 C.00C0313912 C.0000323316 0.0000333016 C.0000345954 0.0000357623 0.0000375966 C.00004C244n C.0000447861 C.0000522974 C.0000576410 C.C0C061344 7 C.000064225b C.C00067C281 C.00C0691ie6 C.OOCO 715299 C.0000 7415 65 C.OOCO 769191 0.0000602965 C.0000835524 C.0000876B39 C.0000929224 0.00009674 70 C.C00105ei47 c.nnm i R-S7i & X Cfl 4* CD STATION F -0.000044100 "0.000033111 -0.000032x1l -0.000026816 -0.00002167*; -0.00001724 -0.00001311c -0.000008614 -0.00000494* -C.00000374t -0.00000317t -0.000002664 -0.00000227; -0.00000195* -0.000001&2 ( -0.00000134: -0.00000105* -0.00000072 -0*00000043. -0.00000016 0*00000010. C.00000037 0.00000065 0.00000091 0.00000116 0.00000140 0.00000163 0.00000187 0.00000210 0.00000236 0.00000259 0.00000282 0.000003 1C 0.00000331 0.00000361 0.00000364 C.00000405 0.000004 39 0.00000462 0.00000494 0.000005 20 0.00000552 C.00000582 0 .00000(315 0.0000065; 0 .00000685 C.0000073* 0 .00000774 C.0000084C C .0000090 ` 0.0000096* 0.00001064 0.0000114 n .nnnn ^ 54 COGC 55.0000 5t..OOOO c 57.0000 56.0000 59.3C0C 6G.OCOC 61.0000 62.0000 63.00CC 64.0000 65.0000 66.0000 67.0000 66.0000 69.0000 70.000C 71.000C 72.0000 73.0000 74.0000 75.0000 76.000C 77.0000 78.0000 79.000C eo.oooo ei.oooo 82.0000 83.0000 c 64.0C0C 85.000C 66.0000 87.0C0C 86.0000 69.000C 90.0000 91.000C 92.0000 53.C00C 94.0000 95.000C .96.0000 97.000C 98.000C 99.000C O.OCCj 3300 0.CCOibcl400 0.0001967505 0.0002053009 0.0002127309 0.0CC22U341 0.0002291074 0.000237s 263 0.0002460355 C.0002532971 0.C002bC410B o.ooo2&essy4 0.0002754990 0.C0C2623051 0.0002690742 0.0002954087 0.0003035968 0.0003120290 0.0003186752 0.0003255634 0.0003337023 0.0003s22H7 0.0003491150 0.0003567085 0.0003672591 0.0003757695 0.0003869332 0.0003968601 C.0004160306 0.0004327652 0.0004527254 0.0004691809 0.0005543724 0.0007449347 0.0009677429 C.0010927630 0.0011622346 C.0012161805 0.0012656278 0.00131C7569 0.0013481090 C.0013977059 0.0014431383 0.0015204839 0.0Clb660416 0.0019914242 O.COtll51393 C.00C1193971 C.00012 40139 0.0001291605 0.00C1334420 0.0OC13P3OJ4 C.C0C143C0L9 C.00C14 74257 O.COC1E21993 0.0001565996 0.00CleC5321 0.00Clt4 ?ef5 C.00Clt852t3 O.GOC172t795 C.0001766196 0.00C161C707 0.C0C185C113 0*00016 944 72 0.00C153C911 C.00C19752C5 0.00C2C25943 C.00020 76156 0.0002116553 0.C0P216E571 C.00C22203C5 0.00C2276950 0.0002345239 C.00024250 53 0.0002515356 O.COC2e3e519 0.0002782673 C.00C3CC4160 0.00C3352321 O.OOC4476697 0.0006502672 0.0007125543 0.000762l924 C.00C8C1C6E6 0.0006343418 0.0008637734 C.00C8915118 0.00C9262862 0.00C9553564 0.0C10077254 C.0011076273 C.0012574432 C.l ;i25^0Cl C.0001351153 C.00Cl43C8tfa C.00015C72 L3 C.00015724C1 C.00Clt373Ci C.00017C5b2 C.OOC17t5954 C. 00016.30605 C.00Cl6534t2 C.00C19el023 C.G0C2G2258S C.00020E2o51 C.0OC2145O25 C.0002l9t7C3 C.00C2252651 C.00C23C911o C.0002371761 0.0002415357 C.0002471573 C.00C252t656 C.0002599254 C.0002654939 C.0002716460 C.0002764427 C.0002854S10 C.C0029412c7 C.0003031442 C.00031417c8 C.0003244769 C.00033774C7 C.000356C954 C .0003845051 C.0004569469 C.0005636126 C.C006S4C236 C.00070140C3 C.0007320404 0.0007656841 0.0007956789 0.0008216055 0.0008556131 C.00C864 7o72 0.0009340050 0.0010001422 C.C0U2fc29ei 6.U00013I966 O.OOOCJ40535 C.00001485 32 0.0000155704 0.00001636 12 C.0000170975 Q.0GOO179CS2 0.0000180928 0.0000196836 0.0000207714 0.0000220924 0 .0000236661 0.0000256823 C.00002825 31 0.0000313247 0.0000354304 0.0000386657 0.0000421539 0.00004543 71 C.0000407792 0.0000523578 0.0000554247 0.0000586852 0.000 0 6202 99 0.0000b55260 0.0000689765 0.0000731710 0.0000773982 0.0000823501 O.OOOU66l4ei 0*0000905731 0.0000960447 0.0001C31195 0.0001117394 0.0001230126 0.0001365960 C.0001511223 0.000lo58916 C.0001797781 0.0001928594 0.0002043543 0.0002171679 C.0002277545 C. 0002429122 0.0002586257 0.0002e8l467 3p3o L 03 CD r<7o1 Bcgen/Smith Fed. 1966 CCMPOUNOS: VCL PCE. TOE. VOCL, CCE. ENZ, CLFM 33 Sc/o <Cy>* raoo STATIONS A,E.3, and F: Weighted Average Individual R i Sk Weights: Percenti1e A .25 B .25 0 .25 F .25 A .25 e .40 c .15 r .20 (test) A .1 e .i 0 .1 F .7 (test) A .05 B .05 D .05 F .85 0. 1.0000 2.000C 3.0000 4.0000 5.0000 6.Q00C 7.000C 8.000C 9.0000 10.0000 ll.OOOC 12.0000 13.0000 14.0000 15.0000 16.000C 17.0000 18.0000 19.0000 2G.000C 21.0C0C 22.0000 23.0Q0C 24.0Q0C 25.0000 26.000C 27.0000 28.0000 29.0000 30.0000 31.0000 32.0000 33.0000 34.0000 35.0000 36.0G0C 37.0000 36.0000 39.0000 40.0000 41.0000 42.0000 43.0000 44.0000 45.0000 46.000C 47.0000 46.0COC 0. 0.0000204584 0.0003242386 0.0000279106 0.QC00311352 0.0000349727 0.0000378378 0.0000403607 0.0000437934 0.0000467385 0 .0000497234 0.0000524977 0.C000551247 0.0000582948 0.C00060S146 0.0000633737 0.0000656121 0.0000674 726 0.0000695475 0.0000719375 G.0000744128 0.0000770200 0.0000794324 0.0000816143 0.0000837869 0.00C0857691 0.0000876149 0.0000694127 0.C00091419e 0.0000935049 C.0000953721 0.0000977037 0.0000997645 0.0001019075 0.0001037152 0.CC01058274 0.0001076090 0.0001097040 0.0001117766 0.COO 1138 784 0.0001158186 0.0001180233 0.0001203513 0.0001229854 0.0001252108 C.0001275451 0.0001297198 0.0001325839 0.0001353Q9S 0. 0.00CQ211545 C.0CC0246190 C.00C0275176 0.0000304999 0.0000341969 0.00C0381523 0.0000413655 0.00C0442506 0.0000466923 C.0000499340 0.0000524410 C.00CC551983 0.C0C0582593 C.0000606122 0.00CC628670 O.C0CC65301O 0.0000676034 C.C0007CC922 C.00C0715697 0.0000741635 0.00C0766476 O.COC07923E2 C.00C0815102 0.0000834925 0.C0C0655724 0.0000675942 0.00C0E9T765 C.0000916467 0.0000943213 0.0000962963 0.00C0983643 C.00C1QC2667 0.00 CIO 2 b9 66 C.00C104 3956 0.0001065292 0.0001C64594 0.0001106679 O.OOC1126516 0.0001145645 0.0001168656 C.00C119C925 O.C001209054 C.00012 29395 0.C0C12 52725 0.0001272665 C.CCC1296862 0.00013243e3 0.000135 1520 C. 0.0000046512 C.0000087676 C.00C011C357 C.000013200e 0.0000155844 C.0000176491 C.0000194146 C.0000211199 C.00C0225700 0.0000239269 C.00Q0255 765 0.0000267758 C.C0C0279610 C.0000293068 C.0000304310 0.0000318560 C.0000330773 C.0000343715 C.0000355260 0.0000366745 C.0000379063 C.0000390427 C.OOGO40U7S C.0000414410 0.0000426145 0.0000436526 C.0000446564 C.00C0458641 C.0000472967 C.0000487736 0.0000498825 0.000051C056 C.0000522020 C.00G053el94 C.C00054e920 C.0000560756 C.0000575096 0.0000590906 C.C000606560 C.0000620599 0.0000636321 C.0000654171 C.0000671966 0.0000669713 C.Q0CO7C7d?O C.0000727126 C.000075H61 C.0000773350 0.0000l644( -0.00000903: 0.000001b2 0.000002 74: 0.00000A90C 0.00000664( 0.00000808 0.00000919 > 0.00001024 0.00001138 0.00001237 C.000013 36 0.00001417 0.00301504 0.00001593 0.00001675 0.000017o5 O.OCOQie36 0.00001916 0.00001989 0.00002057 0*00002149 0.00002208 0.00002264 0.00002355 O.GOOQ2422 0.00002514 0.00002592 0.C000265? 0 .000027 A 1 0.000 028 22 c.oooozaef 0.00002973 0 .0000 306* C.0000315f 0.0000 32 At 0.00003341 C.0O003A5t 0.0000 35 A'. 0. 0000366* O.C000377. C.0000391: 0 .0000 AO 3' 0.0000A15'. 0.0000 42 8' 0.0000 AA 3 O.OOOOA55 O.OOOOA73' O.OOOOA89 49.QOOC 5C.OCOO 51.0000 52.0000 53.000C 54.000C 55.COOO 56.0000 57.0000 56.0000 59.0000 60.0000 61.0000 62.0000 63.0C0C 64.0000 65.000C 66.000C 67.0000 te.oooc 69.0000 70.0000 71.0000 72.0000 73.0000 74.0000 75.0000 76.0000 77.0000 76.0000 79.0000 60.0000 61.0000 62.0000 63.0000 e4.oooo 85.0000 &6.G0QC 67.0000 66.0000 69.0000 90.CC0C 91.000C 92.0000 93.0000 94.0000 95.0000 96.0000 97.0000 98.0000 99.0000 o.i J1376552 0 .COO 1407559 0.0001435693 0.0001464 524 0.0001493753 0.0001523746 0.0001555732 0.0001596615 0.0001643265 0.0001680505 0.0001730946 0 .000a 77e 7i6 O.OOOieB&QOO 0.0001692681 0.0001947449 0.0002017037 0.0002095510 c.ooo2ieoai2 0.0002247096 0.0002307941 0.0002364554 0.0002457069 0.0002528513 0.0002599996 O.0G02673251 0.0002743479 0.0002805328 O.C002883072 0.0002966641 0.0003052506 0.0003129182 0.0003204447 0.0003272209 0.0003350463 0.C003432 383 0.0003520433 0.0003614785 0.0003710391 0.COO3&11696 0.0003913370 C.0004007554 0.0004137709 0.0004266316 0.0004425630 0.0004 56h003 0.0004791230 0.0005015589 0.0005291854 0.0005669994 0.0006076190 0.0006669510 C.C0C13 77227 C.OOG14 0C774 C.C0C142 7931 C .G0C14 521t3 C .OOC14 3263 C.COC15CU27 C.00C154Cei7 O.OOC15757G2 0.0001612572 C.00Cl64H625 C.0001684695 O.OOG1723213 C.0001764688 0.0001606079 0.0001852479 O.COC1E9E8C7 C.00C1941297 C.0001996267 0.0OC2056526 C.OOC21C91H 0.00C2172988 O.OOC22 4 6247 0.0002332646 C.00C24 2C739 0.C0C2652U2 0.0002667751 0.0002507976 0.0002967754 0.00C3116931 O.OOC3275154 0.0003374013 0.0CC3495175 C.000362 7074 0.00C371C674 0.C0C36C7&69 C.0003905885 0.0004001753 C.00C4G5t82 0.0004182790 0.0004299794 0.0004421347 0.0004 5 4 4519 0.0004664131 0.0004633953 0.00049965C1 C.00CM82414 C.0CC54 2868 C.GOC574S26B O.OOCbl24btO 0.0006667789 O.OOC75 51024 0000 793015 C.Q0C0813439 C.0OC053546 7 C.00008545C1 COOCO 38C0C1 C.00009C7375 C.0000925356 C.O0CO951295 C.0000975491 C.00010C? 750 0.0001026761 C.0001053664 0.0001076213 C.0001102704 0.0001130905 0.0001155380 C.0001186579 C.0001215133 C.000124399& C.0001274813 C.0001306388 0.0001334368 0.0001363476 C.C001394772 0.000142806b 0.000146442b C.0001459200 C.0001533030 C.0001564610 C.0001593564 C.0001625595 C.000166C865 0.0001695919 C.0001732141 C.00017810C6 C.0001630363 C.0001869070 C.0001923460 C.0001960053 C.00C20H726 C.0002060741 C.0002132245 C.0002214344 0.0002286343 C.0002366905 C.000245547& C.0002553466 C.C00265t395 C.0002801838 0.0003014575 0.0003365391 C .000 0 50 4{ 0.0C3Q520 0.003 0 53 6` 0.C030550! C.G0005c5< 0.0000553' 0.000059 11 C.0000tl2t C.000062&C C.000 0 644' 0.0000662' 0.0000679* C.0000695< 0.00007111 0.0000729* 0.0000 74 5* C. 0000766.' 0.0000 78 3! O.OGOOfeOGt c.ooooeio* 0.000053 61 0.00008561 0.00006771 0.00006951 0.0000925: C.000094 7. 0.0000973; 0.0031000! 0.0001031; 0.0001056 0.0001069* 0.0001124! I 0.0001165, 0.0001206C| 0.000124 7' 0.00013Cll| 0.0001355 C. 0001415! 0.0001476, C.000154 3' 0.0001609 C.0001692 0.0001782 0.0001565 0.0001962 C.0002C70; C.0002151 C.0002313' 0.0002461;) C. 0002643 C.0002970 c Table 2.3 Calculation of Increased Annual Carcinogenic Risk to Individuals for Comparative Purposes Compound EPA 95% UCL Potency* (mg/kg/day)-1 Individual Dose* (mg/kg/day) Annual Risk* (x 10*) Vinyl Chloride Perchloroethylene Trichloroethylene Vinylidene Chloride 1,2-Dichloroethane Benzene Chloroform .0175 .051 . .011 1.18 .091 .029 .007 2.5 x 10"* 2.0 x 10"* 2.3 x 10~* 1.1 x 10"* 1.9 x 10~* 9.4 x 10-3 1.4 x IQ"3 ..062 .15 .036 l.S .25 .039 .014 Total= 2.4 * EPA potency values are for lifetime exposure and are taken from the EFA's. Health Assessment Document for Trichloroethylene (EPA 6Q0/8-82/Q06F. July 1985) p. 3-133. * Doses derived from "Mean" values presented In Table 2.1, multiplied by the factor (l5/24)x(0.5)x(0.5) = 0.15625 to account for partial daily exposure, dilu tion and partial absorption, as explained in the text. c Annual risk calculated using 70 years as human lifespan. R&S146128 (0 Table 2.4 Table of Comparative Cancer Risks Daily Exposure Situation Person at Dose Individual Annual Risk* (mg/kg/day) Risk (x lQa) BKK Resident Adult Youth See Table 2.3 See Table 2.3 2.4 3.4 Drinking 2 liters of aver age U.S. tap water con taining 86 ppb chloro form Adult 2.45xl0"3 2.5 Swimming for 1 hr in a pool Child 0.01 10 Eating a peanut butter sandwich containing Z teaspoons of p. buttter 2 ppb aflatoxin Adult Child 0.914 x 10"a 2.133 x 10- 38 B8 Worker exposed to 50 ppm perehloroethylene for 0 hr. e.g., in a dry cleaning shop, for 5 days/week Adult 32.3 ~ 810.000 Worker exposed to 5 ppm vinylidene chloride for 8 hr, e.g., in an adhesive manufacturing plant, for 5 days/week Adult 1.90 ~ 890,000 " Exposure Assumptions: Adult weighs 70 leg snd inhales 30 m3 of air per day; Youth are aged 0*15 breathmg a time-weighted average of 0.4143 m3/kg/day (equivalent to 39 m! per 70 kg per day); and Child weighs 30 kg. R&S146129 APPENDIX E ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE DATA IN EPA AND DHS' 1984 EXTENDED MONITORING PROGRAM Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is a statistical technique that isolates and assesses the contribution of one or more factors to an outcome of interest. Independent categorical variables (factors) are investigated for their influence on the dependent continuous random variable (outcome). Assumptions underlying ANOVA are: independence of the values, normality of the errors of the values, and equal variance for all observations. Two types of models used with ANOVA are the fixed effects model and the mixed effects model. In the fixed effects model there is one level of effect for each group of observations, and the assumption is that the difference is due to the fixed effect. In the random effects model, the effects are drawn from a prior distribution in which it is not possible to estimate the magnitude of the effects for one group of observations, but it is possible to estimate the overall variance. The mixed effects model contains both fixed and random effects. For the data in EPA and DHS' 1984 Extended Monitoring Program (CH2MH111, 1988), the independent categorical variables were: "type" (Priority I homes/control home), "agent" (chemicals detected in the Priority I homes), and "sample date/calendar period"; the dependent random variable was "concentrations detected". Three-way ANOVA was performed on the data in the program for the primary factor of Interest, "type" (that is, whether or not there was a difference between the concentrations detected in the Priority I homes and the concentrations detected in the control home). The two other factors investigated to ensure that the difference was not due to their influence were "agent" (vinyl chloride, 1,1-dichloroethylene, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and benzene) and "sample date". A mixed effects model was used, with agent and date as random effects. Analysis required log transformation of the values recorded in Volume 5 Appendix H-2. The table below shows that, in 3-way ANOVA, concentrations detected in the Priority I homes were significantly higher than concentrations detected in the control home (p <0.039). 3-WAY MIXED EFFECTS ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE PARAMETER Error Variance Constant Type Agent Date ESTIMATE 0.049 0.354 0.053 0.072 0.009 STANDARD DEVIATION 0.003 0.106 0.026 0.039 0.004 P VALUE 0.001 0.039 - 0-p5w .\ A 2-way fixed effects model ANOVA was also done to verify that the sample date did not affect the primary factor of interest, "type". The analysis was done separately for the early part of the month (calendar period October 1-14) and the later part of the month (calendar period October 15-29). The second factor in the analysis was "agent" (the six compounds detected in the Priority I h mes). Benzene was omitted in the 2-way ANOVA because too few data points in the control home precluded its inclusion in the analysis. Values recorded in Volume 5 Appendix H-2 were log transformed for the analysis. The table below shows that, in 2-way ANOVA, concentrations detected in the Priority I homes were significantly higher than concentrations detected in the control home (p <0.006). 2-WAY FIXED EFFECTS ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR ALL DATES COMBINED SOURCE Agent Type Interaction Error SUM OF SQUARES 4.6203 0.4713 0.5490 28.2087 DEGREES OF FREEDOM 5 1 5 462 MEAN SQUARE 0.9241 0.4713 0.1098 0.0611 F VALUE 15.13 7.72 1.80 P VALUE 0.0000 0.0057 0.1117 R&S146132