Raytheon St. Petersburg HHRA 8-27-08.pdf

Human Health
Risk Assessment
Raytheon Company Facility
St. Petersburg, Florida
Prepared for:
Florida Department of
Environmental Protection
On behalf of:
Raytheon Company
St. Petersburg, Florida
Prepared by:
ENVIRON International Corporation
Tampa, Florida
Date:
August 2008
Human Health Risk Assessment
Contents
Page
Executive Summary
1
Introduction
5
1.1 Overview
1.2 Scope of the Risk Assessment
1.3 Organization of the Risk Assessment Report
2
Conceptual Site Model
8
2.1 Setting
2.2 Sources and Transport Mechanisms
2.3 Potential Human Exposure Pathways and Receptors
2.3.1 Potential On-Site Receptors
2.3.2 Potential Off-Site Receptors
3
Data Evaluation
8
8
9
9
10
11
3.1 Identification of Constituents of Potential Concern
3.1.1 On-Site Groundwater
3.1.2 Off-Site Groundwater
3.2 COPCs Detected in Air and Soil Vapor
3.2.1 Soil Vapor Sampling
3.2.2 Indoor Air Sampling
3.2.3 Ambient Air Sampling
3.2.4 Surface Water Sampling
3.2.5 Homegrown Produce Sampling
4
5
6
7
Exposure Assessment
11
12
14
14
14
16
16
17
17
18
4.1 Identification of Complete Exposure Pathways
4.1.1 On-Site
4.1.2 Off-Site
4.2 Estimating Exposure Point Concentrations
4.2.1 Indoor Air
4.2.2 Outdoor Air
4.2.3 Groundwater
4.2.4 Excavation Air
4.2.5 Subsurface Soil
4.2.6 Irrigation Water
4.2.7 Homegrown Produce
4.2.8 Surface Soil
4.3 Quantification of Exposure
4.3.1 On-Site Facility Worker
4.3.2 On-Site Landscape Worker
4.3.3 On-Site Trespasser
i
18
18
19
21
21
21
24
24
26
27
28
30
30
32
32
33
Human Health Risk Assessment
4.3.4
4.3.5
4.3.6
4.3.7
4.3.8
4.3.9
4.3.10
4.3.11
4.3.12
5
On-Site Construction Worker
On-Site Utility Worker
Azalea Park Landscape/Maintenance Worker
Azalea Park Ball Player and Recreation Center Employees
Pinellas Trail User
Apartment/Condo Complex Landscaper
Apartment/Condo Resident
Offsite Utility Worker
Off-Site Residents
Toxicity Assessment
47
5.1 Toxicity Information for Carcinogenic Effects
5.1.1 Oral and Dermal CSFs
5.1.2 Inhalation Unit Risk Factors and CSFs
5.2 Toxicity Information for Non-carcinogenic Effects
5.2.1 Oral and Dermal RfDs
5.2.2 Inhalation RfCs
6
Risk Characterization
Uncertainty Analysis
52
52
53
54
54
55
56
56
56
57
57
58
58
58
61
63
7.1 Site Characterization Data
7.2 Exposure Assessment
7.3 Toxicity Assessment
8
48
48
49
49
49
49
50
6.1 Risk Summary
6.1.1 On-Site Facility Worker
6.1.2 On-Site Landscape Worker
6.1.3 On-Site Trespasser
6.1.4 On-Site Construction Worker
6.1.5 On-Site Utility Worker
6.1.6 Azalea Park Landscape/Maintenance Workers
6.1.7 Azalea Park Ball Player and Visitor to Azalea Park Recreation Center
6.1.8 Pinellas Trail User
6.1.9 Apartment/Condo Complex Landscapers
6.1.10 Offsite Utility Worker
6.1.11 Apartment/Condo Residents
6.1.12 Off-Site Residents (other than Brandywine and Stone’s Throw)
6.2 Comparison to RBSLs
6.3 Potential Ecological Risks
7
33
36
37
37
37
37
38
38
39
63
65
67
Conclusions
68
ii
Human Health Risk Assessment
List of Tables
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Constituents of Potential Concern in On-Site Groundwater
Constituents of Potential Concern in Off-Site Groundwater
Correlation between Indoor Air and Subslab Soil Vapor Concentrations
Summary of Ambient Air Sampling Data Collected at Azalea Park as Part of the National
Air Toxics Trends Program
Table 5. Estimated Exposure Point Concentrations
Table 5a. Estimation of Onsite Outdoor Air and Trench Concentrations
Table 6. Summary of Exposure Factors
Table 7. Physical and Chemical Properties of COPCs
Table 8. Source and Derivation of Toxicity Values
Table 9. Risk-Based Screening Levels (RBSLs) for Evaluating Potential Exposures to Irrigation Water
List of Figures
Figure 1. Potential Exposure Pathways Under Current Use Scenarios – On-Site Receptors
Figure 2. Potential Exposure Pathways Under Current Use Scenarios – Off-Site Receptors
List of Appendices
Appendix A – Risk Spreadsheets
Appendix B – Indoor Air Monitoring Report – Azalea Elementary School
Appendix C – Homegrown Produce sampling Results
iii
Human Health Risk Assessment
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to characterize potential risks from exposure to Site-related
constituents under current and likely future exposure conditions in conjunction with the Site
Assessment Report Addendum (SARA) for the Raytheon Company facility in St. Petersburg, FL
(the “Site”) in support of an appropriate remediation plan to be submitted to the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). The levels of exposure estimated in this
report are based on extensive sampling data that has been collected to date and are
summarized in the SARA, prepared by ARCADIS, to which this report is attached. This risk
assessment addresses Site occupants, outside workers and visitors, as well as residents
surrounding the Site, who could be exposed to Site-related constituents. This report also
includes a qualitative analysis of ecological receptors.
To complete this type of an assessment, a series of health-protective assumptions about
exposure characteristics must be made. The assumptions used in this assessment have been
chosen to be health protective, and intentionally conservative, and therefore are expected to
overestimate the calculated non-cancer and theoretical excess cancer risks.
Current and likely future on-Site receptors include workers at the facility who spend the majority
of their time indoors, on-Site landscape workers who spend most of their time outdoors, contract
workers who may be required to perform subsurface excavation activities to maintain existing
underground utilities or support construction activities, and adolescent trespassers.
The primary potentially complete exposure pathway for on-Site facility workers is the inhalation
of constituents that have volatilized from shallow groundwater and entered indoor air. Only
chemicals present at the surface of the groundwater or in shallow soils are susceptible to
volatilization to indoor air.
For on-Site landscape workers and potential adolescent trespassers, the primary exposure
pathway is inhalation of outdoor air. Because there are currently no irrigation wells on-Site and
no planned excavation of soils to a depth below the water table, there is no direct exposure to
on-Site groundwater for these receptors under current exposure scenarios. However, some
subsurface excavation may be required to maintain/upgrade existing utilities on-Site and
commercial utility or construction workers could be exposed to Constituents of Potential
Concern (COPCs) via direct contact with subsurface soils and shallow groundwater, which may
be found at 1.5 to 4 feet bgs. In addition, workers may be exposed to COPCs volatilized from
exposed shallow groundwater during excavation.
The potential area of impacted groundwater extends to the east beneath the Pinellas Trail, the
Stone’s Throw Condominium Complex, and the Brandywine Apartments Complex as well as to
the south and west beneath Azalea Park, the ball field area, and some residential properties.
The impacted groundwater to the south and west is present below a clean water layer which
prevents volatilization of COPCs from the water table and eliminates potential inhalation
exposures to COPCs present in deeper groundwater. To be protective, we have assumed that
1
Human Health Risk Assessment
users of the Pinellas Trail may also be exposed to on-Site outdoor air when they pass by the
Facility.
In the off-Site areas above the deeper impacted groundwater, potential receptors include some
area residents who have irrigation wells screened within the area of impacted groundwater.
Residents using irrigation wells that are screened within the affected groundwater zone could be
exposed to COPCs via inhalation during lawn irrigation, dermal contact while gardening, or
ingestion by infrequent drinking from a hose or other connection to the irrigation well. In
addition, residents may be exposed to COPCs in irrigation water from ingestion of homegrown
produce or by using the irrigation water for recreational purposes. We have used conservative ,
health protective assumptions to determine risk levels for each scenario.
Theoretical excess cancer and non-cancer risk estimates are calculated for individual COPCs
for the complete exposure pathways associated with each assessed area using standard
USEPA recommended approaches. These estimates provide a quantitative representation of
the relationship between conservatively estimated exposures and potential risks. Risk
estimates are summarized for each receptor population in the tables below. These estimates
characterize whether potential Site-related risks for individual receptors are in excess of the
range considered to be de minimis by USEPA guidance (i.e. 10-4 to 10-6 for theoretical excess
cancer risk and a hazard index of less than 1.0 for non-cancer risks). Note that the FDEP risk
criteria are 1 x 10-6 for theoretical excess cancer risk and a hazard index of less than 1.0 for
non-cancer risks.
Potential Risk Ranges Under Current and Likely Future(a) Exposure
Scenarios for Completed Pathways
Potentially Exposed
Population
Non-Cancer
Hazard Quotient
Excess
Cancer Risk
On-Site Facility Worker
0.1
3 x 10-6
On-Site Landscape Worker
0.01
1 x 10-6
On-Site Construction Worker
0.1
9 x 10-7
On-Site Utility Worker
0.04
3 x 10-6
On-Site Trespasser
0.001
5 x 10-8
Pinellas Trail User
0.002
2 x 10-7
Offsite Apartment/Condo
Construction/Utility Worker
NA (b)
2 x 10-11
(a) Based on discussions with Raytheon, we have assumed that there will be future institutional controls associated
with the Site.
(b) No non-cancer toxicity reference values are available for 1,4-dioxane.
2
Human Health Risk Assessment
In addition, because private irrigation well sampling is currently underway by ARCADIS, we
have established risk-based screening levels (RBSLs) to facilitate evaluation of potential risks
from exposure to COPCs in groundwater collected from individual private irrigation wells.
RBSLs were developed for each potential exposure scenario associated with use of water from
these private irrigation wells. Comparison of concentrations measured in irrigation wells to
these RBSLs will be the first step in identifying any measures (e.g., providing an alternative
irrigation water supply) that may be taken to prevent exposure.
RBSLs are calculated concentrations of COPCs in environmental media that are developed by
combining toxicity data with exposure factors that are intended to represent reasonable
maximum exposure (RME) conditions and be protective of human health. The following is a
table of the COPCs found in off-Site irrigation wells (in excess of FDEP GCTLs) and their
respective RBSLs.
Calculated RBSLs (µg/L) for Potential Exposures to 1,4-Dioxane, TCE and cis-1,2DCE in Irrigation Water c
Exposure
Pathway
1,4-Dioxane
RBSL (µg/L)
TCE
cis-1,2-DCE
Ingestion of Irrigation Water while
Gardening
670
670
10,000
Dermal Contact while Gardening
30,000
650
31,000
Ingestion of Soil while Gardening
42,000,000
> 1,100,000 (a)
>3,500,000 (a)
Combined Gardening Scenario (b)
660
330
7,700
Inhalation During Lawn Irrigation
29,000
6,400
58,000
Ingestion of Homegrown Produce
520
210
29,000
2,300
420
6,400
400
190
22,000
2,100
410
9,900
Ingestion/Dermal Contact (Wading Pool
Scenario)
Ingestion/Dermal Contact (Swimming Pool
Scenario)
Ingestion/Inhalation/Dermal Contact
(Sprinkler Scenario)
(a) Concentration exceeds the solubility limit in water
(b) Scenario includes dermal contact and incidental ingestion of soil and irrigation water
(c) All RBSLs reported to two significant figures.
Based on the data received to date, there are no off-Site exceedances of the risk-based
screening levels referenced above for the use of irrigation well water. These data suggest that,
based on the residential irrigation well sampling results to date, anticipated exposure to
irrigation water does not present a threat to human health.
3
Human Health Risk Assessment
There are uncertainties in any risk assessment. These uncertainties are addressed by the use
of exposure scenarios reflecting reasonable maximum exposure and the use of toxicity factors
intentionally adjusted downward from levels documented to produce no adverse effect.
Therefore, risk assessment relies on health protective (conservative) assumptions based on
available studies and exposure scenarios and are likely to overestimate actual risks.
4
Human Health Risk Assessment
1 Introduction
This report has been prepared on behalf of Raytheon Company (Raytheon) by ENVIRON
International Corporation (ENVIRON) and contains an assessment of potential risks to human
health and the environment from exposure to constituents of potential concern (COPCs) in
groundwater and air at and near the Raytheon facility (hereafter referred to as the “Facility” or
“Site”). The Facility is located at 1501 72nd Street North, St. Petersburg, FL as shown in Figures
2-1 and 2-2 of the Site Assessment Report Addendum (“SARA”)1. The report is being
submitted as an addendum to the SARA for the purpose of helping (i) to identify any mitigation
measures that may be useful and (ii) in communicating potential risks to human health and the
environment from Site-related constituents under current exposure conditions.
Groundwater monitoring at the Facility has shown that COPCs that likely originated from historic
manufacturing and storage activities have been detected in groundwater on-Site and beyond
the Facility boundaries to the south, east and west. Surface soils in the vicinity of former
processing and storage areas have been removed, but associated COPCs remain in
groundwater and have been detected in on-Site soil vapor samples, monitoring wells (on and
off-Site) and certain residential irrigation wells. COPCs in soil vapor are capable of entering
indoor air environments or being released to outdoor air. COPCs in irrigation water may be
brought to the land surface during residential use of groundwater for landscaping, irrigation of
homegrown produce, or recreational purposes. Our evaluation of whether there are potential
human health risks from exposures to these COPCs in groundwater, indoor and outdoor air, and
homegrown produce is presented in this report.
Potential human health and ecological risks are evaluated based on COPC concentrations
detected in groundwater, surface water, soil vapor, indoor air, outdoor air and homegrown
produce samples collected during the most recent rounds of monitoring beginning in 2007.
These data are presented in detail in the SARA. Population groups (i.e., receptors) used to
characterize potential exposures under current scenarios include indoor and outdoor workers at
the Facility, construction and utility workers who may be involved in subsurface excavation
activities, on-Site trespassers, maintenance/landscape workers on-Site, at the nearby
Apartment/Condo Complex and at the public park adjacent to the Site (Azalea Park), ballplayers
and visitors to the Azalea Recreation Center, users of the nearby Pinellas Trail, and surrounding
single and multi-family residents including residents of the Brandywine Apartments and Stone’s
Throw Condominiums.
1.1
Overview
The Facility is located near the intersection of 22nd Avenue North and 72nd Street North in
Pinellas County. Three buildings are located on-Site: Building A, Building E and Building M.
Dating back to the late 1950’s, the Site has been used for general office use and various
1
Site Assessment Report Addendum; ARCADIS, May 30, 2008.
5
Human Health Risk Assessment
electronics manufacturing operations with activities such as soldering, vapor degreasing,
painting and electroplating. In 1991, COPCs were first discovered by the County during an
environmental site assessment of the then-proposed Pinellas Trail project. The source
appeared be located near the northeast corner of Building M. Soils in this area were excavated
to the water table to a depth of 1.5 to 2.0 feet below ground surface (bgs) in August, 1992. An
additional potential source area, a former wastewater equalization vault located on the east side
of Building M, was removed in 1994. Concentrations of chlorinated volatile organic chemicals
(CVOCs), a vapor degreasing additive 1,4-dioxane, and miscellaneous other breakdown
products and constituents are present in groundwater beneath the Site.
The solvents and CVOCs are slightly soluble in water and 1,4-dioxane is miscible in water.
These substances can be transported away from source areas by advection and dispersion
processes in the general direction of groundwater flow. Recent groundwater monitoring in the
area indicates that COPCs in groundwater have been detected off-Site to the east/northeast
and to the south and west.
COPCs with sufficient vapor pressure can volatilize from shallow groundwater and diffuse
through overlying soils, eventually entering the atmosphere or indoor air. COPCs may also be
brought to the land surface via pumping if an irrigation well is installed within the aquifer zone
containing COPCs.
The Facility is in the process of being vacated as employees move to new facilities in the area.
It is anticipated that once the Facility is vacated it will be sold for commercial re-use or
redevelopment with appropriate mitigation measures and/or institutional controls.
1.2
Scope of the Risk Assessment
The purpose of this report is to evaluate the potential risks from exposure to Site-related
constituents under current and likely future exposure conditions in conjunction with the SARA in
support of an appropriate remediation plan to be submitted to the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP). As noted above, this risk assessment addresses Site
occupants and visitors, as well as people surrounding the Site, who could be exposed to Siterelated COPCs. This report also includes a qualitative analysis of non-human receptors.
To complete this type of an assessment, a series of health-protective assumptions about
exposure characteristics must be made. The assumptions used in this assessment have been
chosen to be health protective and intentionally conservative and therefore tend to overestimate
the calculated non-cancer and theoretical excess cancer risks. For example, maximum
concentrations detected in indoor air, soil vapor and groundwater have been used to estimate
long-term average potential exposures to the various receptor populations; off-Site residents are
assumed to live in the same home for 30 years and spend all their time at home – not
accounting for time away at school or at work; and potential non-cancer risks are evaluated
separately for a child because potential exposures among children can be greater per unit body
weight than potential exposures for adults. Per body weight basis, ingestion and inhalation
rates for children yield greater daily exposures than for adults. Children also have a higher
6
Human Health Risk Assessment
surface area to body weight ratios and behave differently than adults. These conservative
assumptions used in risk evaluation tend to overestimate potential risks for adult and aggregate
resident receptor populations.
The level of exposure estimated in this report is based on extensive sampling data that has
been collected to date and is summarized in the SARA which was submitted to FDEP in May
2008. Since that time, additional data have been collected and to the extent practicable, these
additional data have been included in this revised risk assessment. The sampling of existing
irrigation wells in the off-Site area is continuing and more data are expected. To expedite
evaluation of that data, we have calculated health-based screening levels for constituents in the
irrigation water. Comparison of concentrations measured in irrigation wells to the risk-based
screening levels will be the first step in identifying any measures (e.g., providing an alternative
irrigation water supply) that may be taken to prevent exposure.
Also, the numerical values used to represent toxicity are standard regulatory default values
intentionally incorporating health protective safety factors. The use of this conservative
approach provides a substantial margin of safety to ensure protection for individuals with
different potential exposures and sensitivities under actual conditions of exposure.
1.3
Organization of the Risk Assessment Report
Following this introduction, a conceptual site model (CSM) is presented in Section 2.0. The
CSM is a tool that identifies potentially complete exposure pathways to environmental media
(e.g. soil, vapor, groundwater, etc.) associated with the Site and specifies the types of exposure
scenarios relevant to include in the risk assessment. An evaluation of the environmental data
used in the risk assessment and the identification of COPCs is presented in Section 3.0. An
estimate of the types and magnitude of potential exposures to the COPCs detected on-Site and
in the surrounding area is presented in Section 4.0.
Toxicity factors for carcinogenic and/or non-carcinogenic effects of each of the COPCs are
presented in Section 5.0 and theoretical cancer and potential non-cancer risk estimates are
summarized in Section 6.0. A qualitative analysis of uncertainties in the data, exposure
parameters, model assumptions and toxicity values are presented in Section 7.0. Finally, a
summary of conclusions is provided in Section 8.0.
7
Human Health Risk Assessment
2 Conceptual Site Model
The purpose of the Conceptual Site Model (CSM) is to identify potentially complete exposure
pathways to environmental media associated with the Site and to specify the types of exposure
scenarios relevant to include in the risk analysis. The first step in constructing a CSM is to
characterize the Site and surrounding area, including current and likely future land use
scenarios. Source areas and transport mechanisms are then identified along with potential
human receptors under current and likely future land use scenarios.
Potential exposure pathways are determined to be complete when they contain the following
four elements: 1) a recognized source area, 2) a mechanism of transport from the source area
to an environmental medium, 3) a point of contact with the medium, and 4) a route of exposure
at the point of contact (e.g., inhalation, ingestion, dermal contact). Completed exposure
pathways identified in the CSM are then evaluated in the human health risk assessment.
Exposure pathways are considered to be incomplete when one of the above elements is
missing and there are no risks. Based on this lack of potential exposure, risks are not estimated
for incomplete pathways.
2.1
Setting
The Site has been used historically for general office and electronics manufacturing purposes.
Land use in the surrounding area includes commercial, residential, and recreational areas. The
Site is adjacent to single-family residential areas to the south and southeast, the Brandywine
Apartments and Stone’s Throw Condominiums to the east, commercial buildings to the north,
and recreational areas including a park and ball field to the west. A recreational walking/biking
trail, built along a former CSX railroad bed, extends along the eastern boundary of the Site.
Additional residential areas can be found west of the park along with an elementary school and
preschool.
Soils beneath the Site consist of fine to very fine-grained quartz sands from land surface to a
depth of about 50 feet bgs. Groundwater in the shallow aquifer beneath the Site is encountered
as high as 1.5 to 4.0 feet bgs and flows generally in a southwest direction. The shallow aquifer
is not used as a source of potable water in the area; however, this aquifer remains classified by
the State of Florida as GII, potentially potable groundwater. A well survey conducted in the area
identified a number of irrigation wells within a ½ mile radius of the Site including a number of
residential irrigation wells and irrigation wells at the Stone’s Throw Condominium and
Brandywine Apartments complex. The City of St. Petersburg supplies all of its residents with
potable municipally treated drinking water, and no potable wells were identified within a ½ mile
radius of the Site.
2.2
Sources and Transport Mechanisms
Chlorinated volatile organic chemicals (CVOCs); hydrocarbons, (e.g., benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylenes); oxygenated solvents (e.g., MEK, MIBK and acetone); and a vapor
degreasing solvent stabilizer (1,4-dioxane) have been detected in groundwater beneath the
8
Human Health Risk Assessment
Site. Several of the constituents were first detected when the County initiated a 1991
environmental site assessment for the then-proposed Pinellas Trail project. Others were
detected later on as part of ongoing site assessment activities or as sampling methods
improved. The primary source of COPCs was determined to be from an area located near the
northeast corner of Building M. Soils in this area were excavated to the water table at a depth
of 1.5 to 2.0 feet bgs in August, 1992. An additional potential source area, a former wastewater
equalization vault located on the east side of Building M, was removed in 1994.
The CVOCs and hydrocarbons are sparingly soluble in water while the oxygenated solvents and
1,4-dioxane are miscible in water. These chemicals are capable of being transported away from
source areas by advection and dispersion processes in the general direction of groundwater
flow. Groundwater sampling data indicate that COPCs in groundwater extend to the east
beneath the Stone’s Throw Condominium complex and the Brandywine Apartments complex,
and to the south and west/southwest beneath Azalea Park and the ball field area as well as
under certain residential properties. Monitoring wells installed recently at Azalea Elementary
School indicate that COPCs are not present in groundwater on school grounds. The vertical
and horizontal extent of COPCs present in the groundwater is detailed in the SARA.
COPCs with sufficient volatility can volatilize from shallow impacted groundwater and diffuse
through overlying soils, potentially entering the atmosphere or indoor air if a building is located
above impacted groundwater. This process requires volatile COPCs to be present at the
surface of the shallowest aquifer (i.e. at the water table); otherwise overlying unaffected
groundwater impedes volatilization through the vadose zone. Based on the data received to
date, volatile COPCs are present in source areas on-Site, but are not present in the shallow
groundwater below off-Site residential areas. COPCs may also be brought to the land surface
via pumping if an irrigation well is screened within the groundwater zone containing the COPCs.
2.3
Potential Human Exposure Pathways and Receptors
Potentially complete exposure pathways may be classified as primary or secondary. Primary
exposure pathways are those that are expected to be the main contributors to risk analysis or
are of particular concern to the goals of the particular risk assessment. Secondary exposure
pathways may be complete, but are expected to contribute in relatively small proportions to
overall potential risks. Primary and secondary exposure pathways for on-Site and off-Site
receptors under current and likely future potential use scenarios are described below and
presented in Figures 1 and 2.
2.3.1 Potential On-Site Receptors
Under current conditions, potential on-Site receptors include workers at the facility who spend
the majority of their time indoors, on-Site landscape workers who spend most of their time
outdoors, contract workers who may be required to perform subsurface excavation activities to
maintain existing underground utilities or support construction activities, and adolescent
trespassers. The primary potentially complete exposure pathway for on-Site facility workers is
inhalation of constituents that have volatilized from shallow groundwater and entered indoor air.
9
Human Health Risk Assessment
Only chemicals present at the surface of the groundwater are susceptible to volatilization to
indoor air.
For on-Site landscape workers and potential adolescent trespassers, the primary exposure
pathway is inhalation of outdoor air. Because there are currently no irrigation wells on-Site and
no planned excavation of soils to a depth below the water table, there is no direct exposure to
on-Site groundwater for these receptors under current exposure scenarios. However, some
subsurface excavation may be required to maintain/upgrade existing utilities on-Site and
commercial utility or construction workers could be exposed to COPCs via direct contact with
subsurface soils and shallow groundwater, which may be found at 1.5 to 4 feet bgs. In addition,
workers may be exposed to COPCs volatilized from exposed shallow groundwater during
excavation.
2.3.2 Potential Off-Site Receptors
The potential area of impacted groundwater extends to the east beneath the Pinellas Trail, the
Stone’s Throw Condominium Complex, and the Brandywine Apartments Complex as well as to
the south and west beneath Azalea Park, the ball field area, and some residential properties.
However, the impacted groundwater to the south and west is present below a clean water layer
which prevents volatilization of COPCs from the water table and eliminates potential exposures
to COPCs in deeper groundwater. Because the area of impacted groundwater does not extend
beneath Azalea Elementary School, there are no complete exposure pathways for faculty and
students at the school. An indoor air monitoring study completed in August, 2008 (see
Appendix B) supports the conclusion that there are no potential exposures at the school related
to groundwater conditions associated with the Facility.
In the off-Site areas above the deeper impacted groundwater, potential receptors include some
area residents, landscape workers, construction/utility workers, workers at the Azalea Park
Recreation Center, ball players and users of the Pinellas Trail. In addition, children and adults
using the Pinellas Trail for recreational purposes could be exposed to COPCs volatilized from
groundwater onsite to outdoor air. The potential primary exposure pathways for area residents
involve direct exposure to groundwater used for irrigation purposes via ingestion, dermal contact
and inhalation. A recent well survey conducted in 2008 by ARCADIS identified a number of
irrigation wells located within a ½ mile radius of the Site; consequently, residential use of
groundwater for irrigation purposes is evaluated in this report. Potential exposures to surface
soil and ingestion of homegrown produce are additional potential exposure pathways for
residential receptors. Recreational use of irrigation water to fill a swimming pool or child’s
wading pool, or operate a sprinkler for children to play in has also been evaluated. Irrigation
water could also be used as a water source for pets.
10
Human Health Risk Assessment
3 Data Evaluation
For the purpose of this Risk Assessment, all groundwater data collected between March 2007
and May 2008 were used to identify COPCs at the Site. These data include samples collected
from on-Site and off-Site monitoring wells as well as samples collected from temporary borings
advanced with a direct-push rig using Cone Penetrometer Technology (CPT). Groundwater
analytical data are presented in SARA Tables 8, 9 and 11, and groundwater sampling locations
are shown in SARA Figures 3-1 and 3-2. Analytical data collected from private irrigation wells
are presented separately in SARA Table 11. As described in Section 3.1, COPCs were
identified separately for on-Site and off-Site locations.
Soil vapor and indoor air data were also collected at the Site. Soil vapor data are presented in
SARA Tables 12A (on-Site locations) and 12B (off-Site locations). On-Site indoor and outdoor
ambient air data are provided in SARA Table 13A; off-Site outdoor ambient air data are
provided in SARA Table 13B Soil vapor sampling results are described in Section 3.2.1.
Indoor air samples collected on-Site and are described in Section 3.2.2. More recently,
ENVIRON conducted an indoor air sampling program at Azalea Elementary School; results are
reported in Appendix B. A number of ambient air samples were also collected at the Site and in
the surrounding area. These data are described in Section 3.2.3. On-Site and off-Site soil
vapor and outdoor ambient air sampling locations are shown in SARA Figure 3-4.
The purpose of the COPC selection process is to identify Site-related constituents that are
present in environmental media at concentrations which exceed typical background levels and
may make non-negligible contributions to risk estimates. Constituents excluded as COPCs at
the screening step are those where the maximum detected Site-related concentration is below
the most stringent risk-based screening criterion or below typical background levels.
3.1
Identification of Constituents of Potential Concern
Constituents detected at least once in groundwater were considered for inclusion as COPCs.
The list of detected chemicals was then evaluated based on the frequency of detection and a
risk-based screening using the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) riskbased Cleanup Target Level (CTL) for residential direct exposure to groundwater. If no CTL
was available for a constituent, then the USEPA Region IX Preliminary Remediation Goal
(PRG) was used in the risk-based screening step. Both the FDEP CTLs and the USEPA
Region IX PRGs correspond to a 1x10-6 (one in one million) risk level for potential carcinogens
and a Hazard Quotient (HQ) of 1.0 for non-carcinogenic endpoints. In order to account for
cumulative exposures to multiple COPCs, maximum concentrations for carcinogens were
compared to screening criteria corresponding to a theoretical excess cancer risk of 1x10-7 and
non-carcinogens were compared to an adjusted screening criteria corresponding to an HQ of
0.1. The cumulative impact of the sum of the HQs is the Hazard Index. Potential exposures are
expected to be below the threshold required to produce non-cancer effects when the Hazard
Index is below a value of 1.0.
11
Human Health Risk Assessment
Constituents that are infrequently detected may represent sampling artifacts or localized
conditions unrelated to former activities at the Site. According to FDEP guidance, a constituent
may be eliminated from consideration at a site if it is detected: a) in only one out of 10 or more
samples, or 5% or fewer out of 20 or more samples; and b) in low concentrations (no more than
the default groundwater CTL); and c) there is no reason to believe that the contaminant may be
present due to historical site activities (FDEP, 2005).
Other factors used to evaluate constituents for selection as COPCs included whether or not the
constituent is an essential element with nutritive value and whether or not the constituent is
likely to be site related.
3.1.1 On-Site Groundwater
The selection process for determination of COPCs in groundwater was carried out separately
for on-Site and off-Site areas. In on-Site areas, samples collected from the upper portion of the
aquifer (0 – 20 feet bgs) were considered for determination of COPCs because only the upper
layer (shallow aquifer) can act as a potential source of constituents volatilizing to indoor and
outdoor air and because potential contact in a utility excavation scenario would only involve the
upper layer of the aquifer. In off-Site areas where irrigation wells can provide a pathway for
direct exposure to deeper groundwater, all groundwater samples collected off-Site, regardless
of depth, were used to determine COPCs. The lists of all chemical constituents detected at
least once in the upper layer of on-Site groundwater, and in off-Site groundwater regardless of
depth, are provided in Tables 1 and 2 of this report. Included in each table, for each
constituent, are:
•
the number of samples analyzed,
•
number of samples in which the COPC was detected,
•
the range of detection limits for samples where the COPC was not detected,
•
the calculated detection frequency,
•
the minimum, maximum and arithmetic average of the detected concentrations,
•
the risk-based screening values for direct contact under a residential exposure scenario,
and
•
the basis for retaining or eliminating the constituent as a COPC.
Organic Constituents. Of the 33 organic constituents detected at least once in the upper layer
of on-Site groundwater, 11 were eliminated as COPCs because the maximum concentration
detected did not exceed the screening criterion (equal to one-tenth the FDEP CTL for potential
carcinogens and one-tenth the CTL for non-carcinogens). The remaining 22 organic
constituents were retained as COPCs.
Although a number of constituents were infrequently detected and are not considered to be
Site-related constituents (i.e. 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene, 1,2-dichloropropane, 4-methylphenol,
12
Human Health Risk Assessment
methylene chloride, and tetrachloroethene), maximum concentrations exceed their respective
CTL values and these constituents were retained as COPCs.
Inorganic Constituents. Three of the groundwater samples collected from the upper portion of
the aquifer on-Site were analyzed for inorganic constituents, all of which are found naturally in
soils and groundwater and are not necessarily associated with Site-related activities. Of the 20
inorganic constituents detected at least once in the upper layer of on-Site groundwater, 8 were
eliminated as COPCs because the maximum concentration detected did not exceed the
screening criterion (equal to one-tenth the FDEP CTL). Of the remaining 12 inorganic
constituents, three (calcium, magnesium and potassium) were eliminated as COPCs because
they are commonly detected in groundwater and considered to be essential dietary minerals
with nutritional value (USEPA, 2000). Three other inorganic constituents (aluminum, iron and
manganese) were eliminated as COPCs because the CTLs are based on organoleptic or
aesthetic properties and the on-Site groundwater is not used as a drinking water supply. The
remaining six inorganic constituents detected in shallow groundwater on-Site (arsenic, boron,
molybdenum, sodium, strontium and vanadium) were retained as COPCs and are discussed
qualitatively in Section 7. Only sodium was detected above its groundwater CTL.
The list of 28 COPCs are indicated below and in Table 1 and consist of chlorinated VOCs,
miscellaneous solvents, hydrocarbons (e.g., toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes and
trimethylbenzene), 4-methylphenol,1,4-dichlorobenzene, 1,4-dioxane and the six inorganic
constituents.
On-Site COPCS
Chlorinated
Miscellaneous
Inorganic
VOCs
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethene
chloroethane
chloroform
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
1,2-dichloropropane
methylene chloride
tetrachloroethene
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
trichloroethene
vinyl chloride
Solvents
acetone
toluene
ethylbenzene
m, p-xylene
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
4-methylphenol
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dioxane
benzene
Constituents
arsenic
boron
molybdenum
sodium
strontium
vanadium
13
Human Health Risk Assessment
3.1.2 Off-Site Groundwater
Chlorinated VOCs and miscellaneous solvents were also detected in groundwater samples
collected at off-Site locations. Constituents exceeding screening criteria are identified below
and in Table 2.
Off-Site COPCs
Chlorinated
Miscellaneous
VOCs
1,1-dichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethene
1,2-dichloroethane
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
methylene chloride
trichloroethene
vinyl chloride
Solvents
benzene
1,4-dioxane
MIBK
The list of COPCs identified in off-Site groundwater includes one constituent not identified as a
COPC on-Site (4-methyl-2-pentanone, also known as methyl isobutyl ketone or MIBK).
However, because MIBK has been detected in deep groundwater on-Site at concentrations
exceeding groundwater CTLs (GCTLs), this constituent has been retained as an off-Site COPC.
Chloromethane was detected in 4 of 413 samples collected off-Site at a maximum concentration
of 3.3 µg/L, which slightly exceeds the GCTL of 2.7 µg/L. However, because chloromethane
has never been detected in groundwater on-Site, is commonly found in outdoor air, especially in
coastal environments, and is unlikely to be Site-related, it was eliminated as a COPC.
3.2
COPCs Detected in Air and Soil Vapor
3.2.1 Soil Vapor Sampling
To address potential exposures via soil vapor intrusion to indoor and outdoor air, soil vapor
samples were collected from 9 on-Site and 20 off-Site locations and analyzed for volatile
organic compounds (VOCs).2 Soil vapor sampling results are presented in SARA Table 12 and
soil vapor sampling locations are shown in SARA Figure 3-4.
The primary constituents detected in soil vapor samples collected from beneath the buildings
on-Site were CVOCs including trichloroethene (TCE), 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA) and their
degradation products cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cis-1,2-DCE), trans-1,2-dichloroethene (trans-1,22
The target analyte list for soil vapor and indoor air samples differed from the target analyte list for groundwater
samples and did not include the following COPCs: trimethylbenzenes, 4-methylphenol and 1,2-dichloropropane.
14
Human Health Risk Assessment
DCE), 1,1-dichloroethene (1,1-DCE) and 1,1-dichloroethane (1,1-DCA). None of these
constituents were detected in soil vapor samples collected off-Site. Also detected on-Site, but
at much lower concentrations, were a number of constituents commonly detected at low levels
in outdoor air including toluene, xylenes, acetone, carbon disulfide, and MEK as well as
chloroform and tetrachloroethene (PCE).
The primary constituents detected in off-Site soil vapor samples were the BTEX chemicals
(benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and the xylenes), acetone, carbon disulfide, methyl ethyl
ketone (MEK) and chloroform. The BTEX chemicals are found in gasoline and emitted in
vehicle tailpipe emissions; consequently, they are widely distributed throughout the
environment. Acetone and MEK are common solvents found in consumer products and
routinely detected in outdoor air. Chloroform has been detected on-Site, but is also a drinking
water disinfection byproduct commonly found in indoor air. Chloroform is also found in the
reclaimed water supplied by the City of St. Petersburg, which Raytheon uses to irrigate the
landscaping on-Site. Carbon disulfide is found naturally in ocean and coastal waters and also
generated by bacteria in soil.
Notably, no CVOCs were detected in off-Site soil vapor samples. This is consistent with the
SARA characteristics of the groundwater impacted by chlorinated VOCs which is present at the
water table near the on-Site source area but is only found at depth off-Site. In off-Site areas, a
clean water layer generated by infiltration of rainwater has built up over the impacted
groundwater area and limits volatilization of constituents from groundwater. However, in the onSite source area where buildings and asphalt pavement prevent infiltration of rainwater,
constituents are found near the surface of the water table.
To further evaluate the possibility that soil vapor may be migrating off-Site, a second round of
soil vapor samples were collected in April 2008 at 11 locations within the perimeter of the
Facility and 8 locations in Azalea Park. Soil vapor sampling locations are shown in SARA
Figure 3-4; analytical results are provided in SARA Tables 12A and 12B. As indicated in SARA
Tables 12A and 12B, one on-Site soil vapor sample contained 1,1-dichloroethane (1,1-DCA)
and one on-Site sample contained 1,4-dioxane; all other COPCs detected in soil vapor were
chloroform, common solvents (acetone and MEK) and gasoline constituents (toluene,
ethylbenzene and xylenes)3. These additional soil vapor sampling data do not indicate the
presence of a soil vapor plume migrating off-Site. Other than chloroform, which is present in the
reclaimed water used to irrigate the park, no chlorinated VOCs were detected in soil vapor
samples collected in Azalea Park. The only other chemicals detected in the park were the
common solvents acetone, MEK and the common gasoline constituents, toluene and xylenes.
3
Two non-COPC constituents commonly found in gasoline were also detected in one soil vapor sample
(tetrahydrofuran and 2,2,4-trimethylpentane).
15
Human Health Risk Assessment
3.2.2 Indoor Air Sampling
Indoor air samples were collected from 8 locations within Building M, 3 locations within Building
A, and 5 locations within Building E in November 2007. Indoor air samples were collected
under typical workday ventilation conditions with 100% of HVAC systems operating. This likely
resulted in a slight over pressurization in the building and represents typical exposure conditions
for employees. Sampling locations are shown in SARA Figure 3-4. Indoor air samples were
analyzed for VOCs using a modified Method TO-15 and analytical data are reported in SARA
Table 13A. Only low levels of VOCs were detected in indoor air. At several locations,
collocated soil vapor samples were collected from beneath the building slab and analyzed for
the same suite of VOCs. In general, indoor air concentrations were uncorrelated to soil vapor
levels. These data are shown in Table 3 of this report. As indicated in Table 3, indoor air levels
for a number of constituents (acetone, carbon disulfide, MEK, toluene and xylene) were
comparable to collocated subslab soil vapor concentrations. Constituents detected in indoor air
at levels comparable to subslab soil vapor concentrations are likely originating from indoor or
outdoor ambient sources. Indoor air concentrations for other constituents detected at much
higher levels in soil vapor such as TCE, TCA and their degradation products (cis- and trans-1,2DCE, 1,1-DCA and 1,1-DCE), may be attributed in part to the underlying soil vapor; however,
concentrations detected in indoor air are low, indicating that soil vapor intrusion is not a
significant exposure pathway for the three commercial buildings on-Site.
More recently, in response to a request by the Pinellas County School District, additional indoor
air sampling was conducted at Azalea Elementary School, which is located across Azalea Park
– west of the Facility. The purpose of the sampling program was to determine if COPCs
detected in groundwater samples collected at Azalea Park may be affecting indoor air quality at
the school via a soil vapor intrusion pathway. A total of 14 indoor air samples and six outdoor
air samples were collected at the school; results are reported in Appendix B. The data indicate
that indoor air quality is not affected by impacted groundwater at the park and soil vapor
intrusion is not a complete exposure pathway at the school. In addition no COPCs have been
detected in groundwater at the school, further verifying that vapor intrusion is not a complete
exposure pathway.
3.2.3 Ambient Air Sampling
Four separate rounds of ambient air monitoring were conducted at the Site, in Azalea Park, and
in the neighborhoods surrounding the Facility. Ambient air monitoring locations are shown in
Figure 3-4 of the SARA; analytical data are provided in SARA Tables 13A and 13B. The first
round of ambient air samples were collected on December 4, 2007. After anomalous results
were received in the first round of sampling, follow-up conversations with the analytical
laboratory revealed that the Summa canisters were not 100% certified clean. As a result, a
second round of sampling was conducted with 100% certified clean canisters on January 14,
2008. This sampling event was followed by a focused, third round of sampling on February 22,
2008 to further evaluate results obtained for one of the samples (AA-1). During the first two
rounds of sampling, winds were blowing primarily from north to south. During the third round of
sampling, winds were blowing primarily from the south/southwest.
16
Human Health Risk Assessment
To evaluate the possibility that soil vapor originating on-Site may be diffusing through soil and
entering outdoor air, a fourth round of ambient air monitoring was conducted. Ambient air
monitors were set up at five locations surrounding the buildings on-Site (see Figure 3-4 of the
SARA) and ambient air samples were collected over a period of approximately 8 hours on three
separate days in April 2008. Winds were variable, primarily out of the north on Day 1, out of the
east/northeast on Day 2, and out of the south on Day 3. Ambient air monitoring results are
provided in Table 13A of the SARA.
In addition to the four rounds of sampling described above, Pinellas County operates two
ambient air monitoring stations at Azalea Park and Skyview Elementary as part of the National
Air Toxics Trends (NATTS) program. The Azalea Park monitoring station is located northwest
of the Facility, adjacent to the tennis courts in Azalea Park. Summa canister samples are
collected over a 24-hour period every six days and analyzed for VOCs using EPA Method TO15. These data are summarized in Table 4 of this report and discussed in further detail in
Section 7.
3.2.4 Surface Water Sampling
Four surface water samples were collected in April 2008 from the drainage canal along Farragut
Drive North and analyzed for VOCs and 1,4-dioxane using EPA Methods 8260B and 8260C
SIM/ID (see SARA Table 10A). One COPC (1,4-dioxane) was detected in all four samples at
concentrations ranging from 5.4 to 8.9 µg/L. The only other COPC detected was cis-1,2-DCE at
concentration of 0.68 µg/L.
Ten additional surface water samples were collected from the same drainage canal in June
2008 (see SARA Table 10A). Concentrations of 1,4-dioxane ranged from non-detect to 6.1
µg/L. Cis-1,2-dichloroethene was also detected at a maximum concentration of 12 µg/L along
with 1,1-DCE, 1,1-DCA, toluene, TCE, vinyl chloride and m,p-xylenes at concentrations in the
low single digit µg/L range.
3.2.5 Homegrown Produce Sampling
Homegrown produce samples were collected in July and August 2008 from several residential
properties having irrigation wells containing one or more of the three constituents detected in
residential irrigation wells (i.e. 1,4-dioxane, trichloroethene, and cis-1,2-dichloroethene). The
homegrown produce samples included citrus (oranges, grapefruits, lemons, limes, tangerines
and tangelos) peppers (banana, bell and jalapeno peppers) onions and tomatoes. All samples
were sent to K Prime Inc. laboratory in Santa Rosa, California for analysis of 1,4-dioxane,
trichloroethene, and cis-1,2-dichloroethene. All three constituents were non-detect in all
samples. Homegrown produce sampling results and a description of the analytical methodology
for analyzing the samples is provided in Appendix C.
17
Human Health Risk Assessment
4 Exposure Assessment
The purpose of the exposure assessment is to characterize the types and magnitude of
potential exposures to the COPCs detected at and near the Site. The results of the exposure
assessment will be combined with toxicity information presented in Section 5.0 to characterize
potential risks to receptors. Possible exposure to COPCs in irrigation water is a concern to
residents in the surrounding neighborhoods. The sampling of irrigation wells is still underway.
To support at least a preliminary evaluation of that sampling program as the results become
available, we have calculated risk-based screening levels (RBSLs) to compare to the sampling
results as they become available. Test results from the well sampling program can be
compared to these screening levels as the first step in evaluating the significance of the test
results. The exposure assumptions used in the risk assessment and in the calculation of the
RBSLs are discussed in this chapter.
4.1
Identification of Complete Exposure Pathways
4.1.1 On-Site
Under current conditions, potential on-Site receptors include workers at the Facility who spend
the majority of their time indoors, on-Site landscape workers, construction and utility workers,
and adolescent trespassers. The primary potentially complete exposure pathway for on-Site
facility workers is inhalation of volatile constituents that have volatilized from shallow
groundwater and entered indoor air. The constituents present at the surface of the groundwater
(i.e. at the interface of the groundwater and the overlying vadose zone) have the potential for
migration from the groundwater, through the vadose zone and into indoor air.
For on-Site landscape workers and potential trespassers, the primary exposure pathway is
inhalation of outdoor air. Because there are currently no irrigation wells on-Site, there is no
direct exposure to on-Site groundwater under current exposure scenarios for trespassers and
landscape workers. However, direct exposure to groundwater could occur for construction and
utility workers involved in subsurface excavation activities to upgrade/maintain existing
underground utilities or support construction activities. For the construction and utility worker
scenarios we have assumed that potential exposures to impacted groundwater could occur via
dermal contact with the exposed groundwater and inhalation of COPCs volatilized from the
surface of the groundwater. We also consider incidental ingestion of subsurface soils in contact
with the impacted groundwater. Although some dermal contact with subsurface soils may
occur, this potential exposure pathway is addressed by considering direct contact with
groundwater which is assumed to be in contact with the subsurface soils. Similarly, potential
exposures to COPCs volatilized from subsurface soils is addressed by considering volatilization
from groundwater.
In summary, the following potential exposure pathways are assumed to be complete for on-Site
receptors:
On-Site Facility Worker
18
Human Health Risk Assessment
•
Inhalation of Indoor Air
On-Site Landscaper Worker
•
Inhalation of Outdoor Air
On-Site Trespasser
•
Inhalation of Outdoor Air
On-Site Construction Worker
•
Inhalation of Outdoor Air
•
Ingestion of Saturated Subsurface Soil
•
Dermal Contact with Groundwater
On-Site Utility Worker
•
Inhalation of Outdoor Air
•
Ingestion of Saturated Subsurface Soil
•
Dermal Contact with Groundwater
4.1.2 Off-Site
In the off-Site areas surrounding the Facility which are above the suspected area of impacted
groundwater, potential receptors include area residents and landscape workers who may be
exposed to COPCs via direct contact with groundwater from an irrigation well. The potential
primary exposure pathways for area residents are direct exposure to groundwater used for
irrigation purposes via ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation. Potential exposures to surface
soil and homegrown produce irrigated with groundwater are additional exposure pathways for
residential receptors. Although most of the COPCs in groundwater are volatile and tend to be
released to the atmosphere during irrigation as opposed to accumulating in plants and soil,
uptake in plants is a potential transport pathway for COPCs. Therefore, we have included
incidental ingestion of soil and ingestion of homegrown produce as potential exposure pathways
for off-Site residents. We have also considered recreational use of irrigation water for wading
(when used to fill a child’s wading pool), to operate a sprinkler for children to play in or to fill a
swimming pool.
Several COPCs have also been detected at low levels (below surface water cleanup criteria) in
surface water samples collected from the drainage canal located along Farragut Drive North.
Although access to the drainage ditch is generally difficult because of steep embankments, we
have evaluated exposure to COPCs in surface water using a health protective wading pool
scenario.
19
Human Health Risk Assessment
Benzene and 1,4-dioxane were found at low levels (5.5 and 7.7 µg/L, respectively) in shallow
groundwater collected off-Site east of the Facility at the Brandywine Apartment Complex.
However, benzene was detected in only one shallow monitoring well (SMW-4) that, in prior
sampling events, contained no benzene. Screening calculations indicate that, even if this
concentration is not an artifact, potential risks from exposure to benzene in indoor and outdoor
air are negligible (based on comparison to US EPA vapor intrusion screening criteria; USEPA,
2002c).
In addition, only chemicals with Henry’s law constants greater than about 1 x 10-5 atm-m3/mol
are considered sufficiently volatile to enter the vapor phase in significant quantities (USEPA,
2004a, 2004c). Note that 1,4-dioxane has a Henry’s law constant of 3 x 10-6 atm-m3/mol (see
Table 7) and, thus, has insufficient volatility to result in significant soil vapor or indoor air
concentrations. Therefore, potential indoor and outdoor air exposure pathways for residents
and landscapers at the Brandywine and Stone’s Throw Condominium Complex are incomplete.
However, construction workers involved in subsurface excavation activities could be exposed to
1,4-dioxane.
Children and adults using the park facilities for recreational purposes are unlikely to be exposed
to constituents volatilized from groundwater to outdoor air because the COPCs are present in
the deeper groundwater zone off-Site and an overlying clean water layer prevents volatilization
to indoor and outdoor air. Groundskeepers and landscape workers at the park are also
protected from potential exposures to COPCs volatilizing to outdoor air by this clean water layer.
However, because one area of the Pinellas Trail is located adjacent to the former on-Site
source area, we evaluate potential risks to users of the Pinellas Trail from exposure to COPCs
volatilizing from the former on-Site source area. In summary, the following exposure pathways
are evaluated as complete exposure pathways for off-Site receptors:
Off-Site Resident
•
Ingestion of Irrigation Water
•
Dermal Exposure to Irrigation Water
•
Dermal Exposure to Surface Water
•
Inhalation of Outdoor Air during Irrigation and Recreational Use of Groundwater
•
Ingestion of Homegrown Produce
•
Incidental Ingestion of Soil
Pinellas Trail User
•
Inhalation of Outdoor Air
Apartment/Condo Construction Worker
•
Ingestion of Saturated Subsurface Soil
•
Dermal Contact with Groundwater
20
Human Health Risk Assessment
•
4.2
Inhalation of Outdoor Air
Estimating Exposure Point Concentrations
In this section of the report, we present equations used to estimate exposure point
concentrations (EPCs) in indoor air, outdoor air, groundwater, surface soil and homegrown
produce at the Site and in the surrounding area. An EPC is an upper bound (conservative)
estimate of the concentration of a COPC in its transport medium (e.g., soil, groundwater, air) at
the point of contact where exposure may occur. For soils, the EPC is typically represented by
the 95% upper confidence limit of the arithmetic mean concentration based on an assumption of
random exposure in an exposure area. However, for assessing potential exposures to
groundwater from individual wells we look at levels detected in each individual well. For on-Site
exposure to vapors potentially migrating through the vadose zone, we have used a healthprotective (conservative) screening approach in which we have assumed the presence of the
highest level of each COPC detected anywhere is present at the same location. Estimated
EPCs are provided in Table 5 of this report. The derivation of these values is described below.
4.2.1 Indoor Air
Potential risks to current facility workers were estimated based on the maximum concentration
of any COPC detected in indoor air within Buildings A, E and M. Indoor air concentrations are
provided in Table 13A of the SARA; estimated EPCs under current and reasonably foreseeable
future exposure scenarios are provided in Table 5.
In off-Site areas, soil vapor intrusion to indoor and outdoor air is an incomplete exposure
pathway because an overlying clean water layer prevents volatilization. Although low levels of
several COPCs were detected in indoor air sampled at Azalea Elementary School (see
Appendix B), these COPCs are commonly detected in indoor and outdoor ambient air and the
data confirm that soil vapor intrusion is not a complete exposure pathway at the school. In
addition no COPCs have been detected in groundwater at the school, further verifying that
vapor intrusion is not a complete exposure pathway.
4.2.2 Outdoor Air
In on-Site areas not covered by asphalt or buildings, the potential exists for COPCs in soil vapor
or groundwater to volatilize to outdoor air. The process is expected to occur by diffusion and
requires COPCs to be present in soil vapor or at the surface of the groundwater. Because the
degree of mixing of COPCs volatilizing to outdoor air is expected to be much greater than the
degree of mixing in indoor air, and because residents spend more time indoors than outdoors,
inhalation of outdoor air is not expected to be a significant exposure pathway.
Nevertheless, outdoor air concentrations were estimated by assuming a mass transfer rate from
groundwater or soil vapor to outdoor air based on Fick’s first law of diffusion and then applying a
dilution factor using a simple box model. According to Fick’s law of diffusion, mass transfer
21
Human Health Risk Assessment
through an isotropic medium is proportional to the concentration gradient across the medium
and the diffusion coefficient as described by equation (4-1)(Crank, 1975).
(C
E =
sv
− C gs ) D A
L
(4-1)
where:
E
=
Rate of mass transfer through the soil column (mg/m2-s)
Csv
=
Concentration in the soil vapor phase (mg/m3)
Cgs
=
Concentration at the ground surface (mg/m3)
DA
=
Apparent diffusivity across the vadose zone (m2/s)
L
=
Thickness of the vadose zone (assumed to be 1 m)
The apparent diffusivity is chemical specific and provided in Table 7.4 The concentration of
COPC in the soil vapor phase can be taken directly from off-Site soil vapor samples (SARA
Table 12) or estimated from the groundwater concentration using Henry’s Law as described by
equation (4-2).
C sv
=
H ' ⋅ C gw ⋅ CF1
(4-2)
where :
H’
=
Dimensionless Henry’s law constant (chemical-specific, see Table 7)
Cgw
=
Concentration in groundwater (mg/L)
CF1
=
Conversion factor 1(1000 L/m3)
It is assumed that COPCs volatilizing from the ground surface are entrained immediately in the
outdoor air so that concentrations at the ground surface are zero. This conservative
assumption maximizes the estimated flux of chemicals from the subsurface; accordingly it is a
health-protective assumption.
A simple box model can be used to estimate ambient air concentrations from an area source.
The model assumes that a box is constructed over the emission area and as COPCs volatilize
4
Note that the apparent diffusivity term listed in Table 7 is reported in units of cm2/s and must be converted to m2/s
by dividing by 10,000 prior to its use in equation (4-1).
22
Human Health Risk Assessment
from the ground surface, they are constrained within the box and diluted by the volume of air
within the box. The outdoor air concentration predicted by the model is at the downwind end of
the box where the highest concentrations will be observed. This is a protective assumption and
equivalent to assuming that the box is well-mixed. To be protective, it is assumed that the
height of the box is equal to the breathing zone height (1.5 m). With these conservative
assumptions, the outdoor air concentration is given by equation (4-3).
C oa
=
E⋅x⋅ f
z ⋅u
(4-3)
where:
Coa
=
Outdoor air concentration (mg/m3)
x
=
Length of the box parallel to wind direction (m)
f
=
Frequency that winds are blowing from the source area
z
=
Mixing height (m)
u
=
Average wind speed (m/s)
Combining equations (4-1) to (4-3) yields the following expression used to predict outdoor air
concentrations from soil vapor (4-4) or groundwater (4-5) concentrations.
Coa
=
Coa
=
C sv ⋅ CF1 ⋅ DA ⋅ x ⋅ f
L⋅ z ⋅u
C gw ⋅ H ' ⋅ CF1 ⋅ DA ⋅ x ⋅ f
L⋅ z ⋅u
(4-4)
(4-5)
Note that the box model likely overestimates true outdoor air concentrations. One reason is that
the box model assumes that the entire area within the box is emitting and that dilution is limited
to the volume of the box rather than the open atmosphere. In contrast, for paved areas like the
Pinellas Trail or the parking lots on-Site, emissions are limited to openings and cracks in the
pavement.
Upper bound estimates of EPCs in outdoor air for on-Site areas are reported in Table 5. These
estimates were derived from the higher of the values derived from equations (4-4) and (4-5) and
assume a vadose zone thickness of 1 meter, a box length of 10 meters, a box height of 1.5
meters, a wind speed of 3.5 meters per second (average for St. Petersburg, FL), and a wind
direction frequency of 50%. Calculations are provided in Table 5a.
23
Human Health Risk Assessment
Measured levels of constituents in outdoor air were also obtained as part of the soil vapor
sampling program. In addition, the county routinely collects 24-hour ambient air samples as
part of the NATTS program. However, these data reflect potential contributions from multiple
sources that are regional and typically found in urban environments. Ambient air sampling
results are discussed in Section 7.
4.2.3 Groundwater
Direct exposure to groundwater could occur during subsurface excavation or via irrigation well
pumping. Because no irrigation wells currently exist on-Site or in Azalea Park (both use
reclaimed water from the City), direct exposure to irrigation water is not a reasonably
foreseeable exposure scenario for these two areas. However, a utility worker could be exposed
to shallow groundwater exposed during subsurface excavation activities. For the purpose of
estimating potential exposures by a utility worker to COPCs in groundwater, the maximum
concentration of each COPC detected in shallow groundwater5 was selected as the EPC.
4.2.4 Excavation Air
Utility workers involved in subsurface excavation activities could also be exposed to COPC
vapors released from the surface of the exposed groundwater during excavation. The model
used to estimate emissions from the groundwater surface is based on a mass transfer approach
that is governed by resistance to mass transfer in the liquid and vapor phase (for example, see
Lyman et al, 1982; USEPA, 1987). The basic emission rate equation is given in equation (4-6).
E = C gw ⋅ K ol
(4-6)
where:
E
=
Emission rate (g/m2 - s)
Cgw
=
Concentration in groundwater (g/m3)
Kol
=
Overall mass transfer coefficient (m/s)
The overall mass transfer coefficient Kol can be calculated by the following relationship given in
equation (4-7).
1
K ol
=
1
1
+
kl K eq k g
5
(4-7)
For the purpose of this risk assessment, all groundwater samples collected within the top 20 feet bgs were used to
characterize potential exposures to shallow groundwater. This is a health-protective assumption that may result in an
overestimate of potential risks.
24
Human Health Risk Assessment
where:
kl
=
Liquid phase mass transfer coefficient (m/s)
Keq
=
Air/water partition coefficient (unitless)
kg
=
Vapor phase mass transfer coefficient (m/s)
The liquid phase mass transfer coefficient can be estimated using the simple empirical
relationship shown in equation (4-8)6. According to USEPA (1987), this equation applies to
wind speeds greater than 3.25 m/s. At lower wind speeds, the liquid phase mass transfer
coefficient is approximately constant and equation (4-8a) may be used. In this assessment,
equation (4-8) was used to estimate the liquid phase mass transfer coefficient assuming a wind
speed of 3.5 m/s. This yields a higher, more conservative and health protective value.
kl
⎡ D ⎤
= 2.611x10 ⋅ u ⎢ w ⎥
⎣ Dether ⎦
−7
kl
0.67
2
= 2.78 x10
−6
⎡ Dw ⎤
⎢
⎥
⎣ Dether ⎦
(4-8)
0.67
(4-8a)
where:
Dw
=
Diffusivity of COPC in water (cm2/s)
Dether
=
Diffusivity of ether in water (8.5x10-6 cm2/s)
u
=
Wind speed (m/s)
The air/water partition coefficient used in this model is the dimensionless Henry’s Law constant,
which varies with temperature, and is calculated according to equation (4-9). Henry’s Law
constants are provided in Table 7.
K eq
= H' =
H
R ⋅T
where:
H
=
Henry’s Law constant (atm-m3/mole)
H’
=
Henry’s Law constant (dimensionless form)
6
USEPA. 1987. Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDF) – Air Emission Models,
Documentation. EPA-450/3-87-026.
25
(4-9)
Human Health Risk Assessment
R
=
Ideal gas constant (8.206 x 10-5 atm-m3/mole-K)
T
=
Temperature in degrees Kelvin (298 K)
The gas phase mass transfer coefficient in units of meters per second can be estimated from
equation (4-10) based on the work of Mackay and Matsugu (1973)7.
kg
= 4.82 x10−3 ⋅ u 0.78 ⋅ Scg
−0.67
⋅ de
−0.11
(4-10)
where:
Scg
=
Schmidt number
de
=
Effective diameter of the area emitting (assumed to be 2 m)
The Schmidt number is a dimensionless number that relates to the relative thickness of the
surface boundary layer and is calculated according to equation (4-11).
Sc g
=
µg
ρ g ⋅ Da
(4-11)
where:
µg
=
Viscosity of air (1.81 x 10-4 g/cm-s)
ρg
=
Density of air (1.2 x 10-3 g/cm3)
Da
=
Diffusivity of COPC in air (cm2/s)
Constituent-specific values for diffusivity in air are provided in Table 7. The emission rate
calculated from equation (4-6) is combined with the box model described by equation (4-3) to
arrive at an upper bound estimate of outdoor air concentrations in the vicinity of the subsurface
excavation. Estimated outdoor air concentrations in the vicinity of subsurface excavation
activities are provided in Table 5. Note that worker protection evaluations administered under
OSHA typically require air monitoring as opposed to this type of EPC estimation and that
estimation of worker exposure in this scenario is not represented to be an alternative to
complying with OSHA requirements.
4.2.5 Subsurface Soil
For the purpose of estimating potential exposures to construction or utility workers from
incidental ingestion of soil, subsurface soil concentrations in contact with shallow groundwater
7
D. Mackay and R.S. Matsugu. 1973. Evaporation rates of liquid hydrocarbon spills on land and water. Canadian J.
Chem Eng. 51:434. This model is also described in USEPA (1987).
26
Human Health Risk Assessment
were estimated assuming equilibrium partitioning with shallow groundwater according to
equation (4-12).
Cs
=
C gw (θ w + ρ b K oc f oc )
ρb
(4-12)
where:
Cs
=
Concentration in soil (mg/kg)
Cgw
=
Concentration in groundwater (mg/L)
θw
=
Volumetric water content (0.39; unitless)
ρb
=
Dry soil bulk density (1.62 kg/L)
Koc
=
Organic carbon-water partition coefficient (L/kg)
foc
=
Fraction of organic carbon in soil (0.01; unitless)
Soil parameters were chosen to be consistent with a loamy sand. Koc values are provided in
Table 7. Subsurface soil EPCs are provided in Table 5.
4.2.6 Irrigation Water
A recent well survey conducted in 2008 identified a number of irrigation wells located within a ½
mile radius of the Site. If these irrigation wells are screened within the area of impacted
groundwater, residents may be exposed to COPCs via dermal contact with irrigation water,
inhalation of COPCs volatilized during irrigation and incidental ingestion. In addition, if residents
are involved in gardening activities and irrigate their crops with well water, residents could be
exposed to COPCs from incidental ingestion of surface soils during gardening and ingestion of
homegrown produce. Recreational use of irrigation water to fill a swimming pool, child’s wading
pool or operate a sprinkler for children to play in has also been evaluated.
Potential outdoor air concentrations generated by volatilization of constituents during lawn
irrigation were estimated by assuming an upper bound estimate of the fraction of COPCs
volatilized to outdoor air. The fraction volatilized from groundwater during irrigation was
estimated using the procedure described by McKone (1987) where the transfer efficiency from
water to air is estimated relative to the transfer efficiency for radon. This procedure assumes
that the transfer efficiency is proportional to the overall mass transfer coefficient at the air/water
boundary layer. The volatilized COPCs are released into a “box” and resulting outdoor air
concentrations are estimated using equation (4-3). The emission rate of volatile COPCs into the
box is calculated based on an assumed irrigation rate of one inch per hour applied over a 2500
square foot area. This rate is consistent with recommended values provided by the University
of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences for Florida lawns.8 The corresponding
8
http://polkfyn.ifas.ufl.edu/lawn_irrigation_guide.shtml
27
Human Health Risk Assessment
volume rate of water applied to the lawn is approximately 1.64 liters per second or 26 gallons
per minute and the emission rate of volatile COPCs into the atmosphere is calculated according
to equation (4-13).
Eirr
C irr ⋅ ARirr ⋅ f COPC
A
=
(4-13)
where:
Eirr
=
Emission rate during irrigation (mg/m2-s)
Cirr
=
Concentration of constituent in irrigation water (mg/L)
ARirr
=
Irrigation water application rate (L/s)
fCOPC
=
Fraction of COPC volatilized to outdoor air (unitless)
A
=
Area of lawn irrigated (m2)
and the fraction volatilized to outdoor air is chemical specific and calculated according to the
equation below (McKone, 1987)
f COPC
=
f Radon
⎛ 2.5
RT ⎞
⎜⎜ 2 / 3 + 2 / 3 ⎟⎟
Da H ⎠ Radon
⎝ Dw
⎛ 2.5
RT ⎞
⎜⎜ 2 / 3 + 2 / 3 ⎟⎟
Da H ⎠ COPC
⎝ Dw
(4-14)
where:
fRadon
=
Fraction of radon volatilized to outdoor air (assumed to be 100%)
Da
=
Diffusivity in air (cm2/s)
Dw
=
Diffusivity in water (cm2/s)
R
=
Ideal gas constant (cm3-atm/mole-K)
T
=
Temperature (K)
Note that McKone (1987) cites a value of 0.2 cm2/s for the diffusivity of radon in air and a value
of 1.4 x 10-5 cm2/s for the diffusivity of radon in water and these values were used to determine
fCOPC.
4.2.7 Homegrown Produce
For residents who maintain a home garden and irrigate their crops or trees with groundwater,
potential exposures to COPCs may occur via ingestion of homegrown produce and incidental
ingestion of soil while gardening. As previously mentioned, most of the COPCs present in off28
Human Health Risk Assessment
Site groundwater are volatile constituents, which will tend to be released to outdoor air during
irrigation rather than accumulate in soil or taken up by plants.
COPC concentrations in homegrown produce were estimated for root vegetables and aboveground fruits and vegetables using empirical correlations with octanol-water partition coefficient
(Kow) established by Briggs et al. (1982, 1983) and later updated by Ryan et al. (1988) to
account for sorption to soil. Consequently, the Ryan model predicts uptake in plants based on
measured soil concentrations. Because only irrigation water concentrations are available and
no data are available for concentrations of COPCs in garden soil, the Briggs model is used to
predict uptake in plants based on soil pore water concentrations. The soil pore water
concentrations are assumed to be equivalent to irrigation water concentrations after accounting
for volatilization losses and mixing with rainfall.
The root concentration factor (RCF) is defined in equation (4-15)
RCF
=
concentration in root (mg / kg fresh weight )
concentration in soil pore water (mg / L )
(4-15)
and estimated according to equation (4-16).
RCF
= 10 0.77 log Kow − 1.52 + 0.82
(4-16)
A stem concentration factor (SCF) derived by Briggs is used to estimate COPC concentrations
in above-ground fruits and vegetables. The SCF is defined in equation (4-17)
SCF
=
concentration in stem (mg / kg fresh weight )
concentration in soil pore water (mg / L )
(4-17)
and calculated according to equation (4-18).
SCF
=
(0.82 + 10
0.95 log Kow − 2.05
)
− 0.434 (log Kow − 1.78 )
⎛
2.44
⋅ ⎜ 0.748 ⋅ 10
⎜
⎝
2
29
⎞
⎟
⎟
⎠
(4-18)
Human Health Risk Assessment
Because St Petersburg receives about 52 inches of rain per year9, we have assumed that the
concentrations of COPCs in soil pore water are diluted by 50% compared to concentrations in
irrigation water. This assumes that an equal amount of irrigation water (~52 inches per year) is
applied to the home garden or trees. The net irrigation rate is 104 inches per year or 2 inches
per week, which according to the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences (IFAS) is at the upper end of the water requirement necessary to maintain a
productive vegetable garden in Florida. We have also assumed that some fraction volatilizes to
outdoor air and is unavailable for plant uptake using equation (4-14). As discussed in Section
6.2, homegrown produce samples were collected to supplement and confirm the model results.
No COPCs were detected in any samples.
4.2.8 Surface Soil
Surface soil concentrations resulting from irrigation of lawns and gardens were calculated
assuming equilibrium partitioning with irrigation water according to equation (4-19).
C ss
=
C irr (θ w + ρ b K oc f oc )
ρb
(4-19)
where:
Css
=
Concentration in surface soil (mg/kg)
θw
=
Volumetric water content (unitless)
ρb
=
Dry soil bulk density (kg/L)
Koc
=
Organic carbon-water partition coefficient (L/kg)
foc
=
Fraction of organic carbon in soil (unitless)
Soil parameters were chosen to be consistent with a loamy sand with a volumetric water content
of 7.6% and soil bulk density of 1.62 kg/L (USEPA, 2004c). The fraction of organic carbon in
the soil was assumed to be 1%.
4.3
Quantification of Exposure
For the purpose of quantitative risk assessment, dose is the estimation of exposure to
constituents in specific environmental media. This risk assessment considers two types of
dose: administered dose and absorbed dose. An administered dose is the amount of
constituent (concentration) in material that is ingested, inhaled, or applied to the skin and is
available for absorption. Absorbed dose is the amount of constituent actually crossing the
9
Southeast Regional Climate Center http://www.sercc.com/cgi-bin/sercc/cliMAIN.pl?fl7886
30
Human Health Risk Assessment
absorption barrier (i.e., the amount absorbed). The type of dose estimate used in a risk
assessment is dependent on the route of exposure. Typically, ingestion and inhalation
pathways are evaluated with the administered dose, and exposure is quantified by multiplying
exposure concentrations by an intake rate (i.e., ingestion or inhalation rate, respectively). On
the other hand, dermal exposure is evaluated not for intake but for absorption of the constituent.
For the dermal exposure route with constituents in soil, an absorbed dose is calculated from the
product of exposure concentration (administered dose), dermal absorption factor, and exposed
surface area. In the risk characterization stage, dose estimates are combined with toxicity
criteria to estimate potential risk associated with exposure to COPCs.
Doses are presented in this risk assessment as a daily dose rate per unit body weight (mg/kgday). The “Average Daily Dose” (ADD) and “Lifetime Average Daily Dose” (LADD) are the
general parameters used to quantify exposure doses in site risk assessments. The ADD is
used as a standard measure for characterizing long-term exposure pertaining to non-cancer
effects. The LADD addresses exposures that may occur over varying durations, but are
averaged over a 70-year human lifetime; these are used in estimating potential carcinogenic
risks. The quantitative estimation of constituent intake involves the incorporation of numeric
assumptions for a variety of exposure parameters. Exposure parameters were based primarily
on factors provided in USEPA’s Exposure Factors Handbook, Vols. I-III (USEPA, 1997). Other
sources include:
•
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation’s (FDEP’s) report on Development of
Cleanup Target Levels (CTLs) for Chapter 62-777, F.A.C. (FDEP 2005),
•
USEPA’s Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) document (USEPA, 1989,
1991),
•
USEPA Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Region 4 Human Health Risk Assessment
Bulletins (USEPA, 2000),
•
USEPA’s RAGS Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk assessment (USEPA,
2004d),
•
USEPA’s Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA, 2002a), and
•
in a limited number of cases, on best professional judgment of the site-specific
characteristics.
The following subsections present the equations for calculating ADD and LADD for each of the
exposure pathways evaluated in this risk assessment along with scenario-specific exposure
parameters. Exposure factors assumed for each of the exposure scenarios are provided in
Table 6; chemical-specific parameters are summarized in Table 7. Dose and risk calculations
are provided in Appendix A.
31
Human Health Risk Assessment
4.3.1 On-Site Facility Worker
Inhalation of Indoor Air. On-Site facility workers may be exposed to COPCs via inhalation of
indoor air. The average daily dose (ADD) from inhalation of COPCs is calculated using
equation (4-20).
ADD =
EPCa x IRi x ET x EF x ED
BW x ATn
(4-20)
where:
EPCa
IRi
ET
EF
ED
BW
ATn
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Exposure point concentration in air (mg/m3)
Inhalation rate (m3/hr)
Exposure time (hr/day)
Exposure frequency (days/year)
Exposure duration (years)
Body weight (kg)
Averaging time for non-carcinogens (days)
Exposure assumptions are summarized in Table 6. An inhalation rate of 0.83 m3/hr was
assumed for indoor workers at the Facility. This value, which is equivalent to a daily inhalation
rate 20 m3/day, is the value recommended by FDEP (2005) for workers. We have assumed the
worker is exposed for 8 hours per day, 250 days per year (allowing for 2 weeks vacation) for 25
years and weighs an average of 76.1 kg.
For potential exposures to carcinogens, a lifetime average daily dose (LADD) is calculated as
shown in equation (4-21).
LADD =
ADD x ED
70 years
(4-21)
Dose and risk calculations for potential exposures to COPCs by on-Site facility workers via
inhalation of indoor air are provided in Appendix A; Table A-1.
4.3.2 On-Site Landscape Worker
On-Site landscape workers spend the majority of their time outdoors and split their time
between this Site (averaging approximately 150 days per year on-Site) and another Raytheon
facility in the area.
Inhalation of Outdoor Air. The ADD from inhalation of COPCs in outdoor air is calculated
according to equation (4-20) where the EPC is the concentration of COPCs in outdoor air as
described in section 4.2.2. The LADD is calculated using equation (4-21). Exposure point
32
Human Health Risk Assessment
concentrations for on-Site outdoor air are reported in Table 5 and exposure factors are
summarized in Table 6. We have assumed an inhalation rate of 1.5 m3/hr for outdoor air
exposures based on data presented in USEPA’s Exposure Factors Handbook (EFH) for an
outdoor worker participating in moderate activities.
Dose and risk calculations for potential exposures to COPCs via inhalation of outdoor air by onSite landscape workers are provided in Appendix A; Table A-2.
4.3.3 On-Site Trespasser
Although the Site is fenced and site security ensures that access is limited, in accordance with
USEPA Region 4 guidance, we have considered potential exposures to an adolescent
trespasser. The adolescent trespasser scenario assumes that a child between the ages of 7
and 16 spends an average of two hours per day, one day per week on site where potential
exposure to constituents in outdoor air could occur via inhalation. The average daily dose from
inhalation of outdoor air is calculated according to equation (4-20). EPCs are provided in Table
5 and exposure factors are summarized in Table 6. We have assumed a body weight of 45 kg
and an inhalation rate of 1.2 m3/hr based on data presented in USEPA’s Child-Specific
Exposure Factors Handbook for a child participating in moderate activities (USEPA, 2002a).
Dose and risk calculations for potential exposures to COPCs by on-Site trespassers via
inhalation of outdoor air are provided in Appendix A; Table A-3.
4.3.4 On-Site Construction Worker
In the event that subsurface excavation is required to support potential future construction
activities on-Site, a construction worker could be exposed to COPCs via dermal contact with
exposed groundwater and saturated soils, and inhalation of COPCs volatilized from the
groundwater surface. The construction worker scenario also considers potential exposures to
COPCs via incidental ingestion of subsurface soil. The construction scenario is modeled as a
one-time event in which the excavation could remain open for as long as 20 days. However, we
have assumed that incidental ingestion of soil takes place over the entire construction event,
which we have assumed could last as long as 6 months, even after the excavation has been
covered.
Dermal Contact with Groundwater. For the purpose of estimating potential risks to
construction workers from dermal exposure to COPCs, it is assumed that a worker may be
exposed to saturated soils and groundwater for 2 hours per day, 20 days per year for 1 year. It
is assumed that the worker is wearing long pants, shoes and a short-sleeved shirt but the
worker’s head, hands, and forearms could be exposed to saturated soil and groundwater. The
dermally absorbed dose (DAD) of COPCs received from contact with saturated soils and
groundwater was calculated following USEPA dermal risk assessment guidance for
groundwater (USEPA, 2004d) where:
33
Human Health Risk Assessment
DAD =
DAevent ⋅ EV ⋅ EF ⋅ ED ⋅ SA
BW ⋅ AT
(4-22)
and
DAevent
DAevent
=
= 2 ⋅ FA ⋅ K p ⋅ C w
6 ⋅ τ event ⋅ t event
π
if tevent ≤ t*
⎡t
⎛ 1 + 3 B + 3B 2 ⎞ ⎤
⎟⎥ if tevent > t*
FA ⋅ K p ⋅ C w ⎢ event + 2 τ event ⎜⎜
2
⎟
+
1
B
(
)
+
1
B
⎝
⎠⎦⎥
⎣⎢
(4-23)
(4-24)
where:
DAD
=
Dermal absorbed dose (mg/kg-day)
DAevent =
Absorbed dose per event (mg/cm2-event)
EV
=
Event frequency (1 event/day)
EF
=
Exposure frequency (days/year)
ED
=
Exposure duration (years)
SA
=
Exposed skin surface area (cm2)
BW
=
Body weight (kg)
AT
=
Averaging time (days)
FA
=
Fraction absorbed water (dimensionless, assumed to be 1.0)
Kp
=
Dermal permeability coefficient (cm/hr)
Cw
=
Concentration of COPC in water (mg/cm3)
τ event
=
Lag time per event (hr/event)
tevent
=
Event duration (hr/event)
B
=
Ratio of permeabilities through stratum corneum and viable epidermis
(unitless)
t*
=
Time to reach steady state (hr)
The LADD is calculated using equation (4-21) with the exception that the ADD is replaced by
the DAD. Exposure point concentrations for on-Site shallow groundwater are reported in Table
5 and exposure factors are summarized in Table 6. Dose and risk calculations for potential
exposures to COPCs via dermal contact with saturated soils and exposed groundwater by onSite construction workers are provided in Appendix A; Table A-4. Note that as defined by
34
Human Health Risk Assessment
USEPA (2004d), the concentration in water is reported in units of mg/cm3. One mg/cm3 is
equivalent to 1000 mg/L. Thus, exposure point concentrations reported in Table 5 must be
divided by a factor of 1000 prior to use in equations (4-23) and (4-24).
Incidental Ingestion of Soil. Some incidental ingestion of saturated soil may occur during
subsurface excavation activities. The average daily dose (ADD) from ingestion of soil is
calculated using equation (4-25).
ADD =
EPCs x IRs x ET x EF x ED
BW x ATn
(4-25)
where:
EPCs
IRs
EF
ED
BW
ATn
=
=
=
=
=
=
Exposure point concentration in soil (mg/kg)
Soil ingestion rate (kg/day)
Exposure frequency (days/year)
Exposure duration (years)
Body weight (kg)
Averaging time for non-carcinogens (days)
The LADD is calculated using equation (4-21). Subsurface soil concentrations were estimated
using equation (4-19) and exposure point concentrations for subsurface soils on-Site are
reported in Table 5. Soil parameters were chosen to be consistent with a loamy sand.
Exposure factors are summarized in Table 6. We have assumed a soil ingestion rate of 330
mg/day (0.00033kg/day) based on USEPA guidance (USEPA, 2002b). To address the potential
concern that some subsurface soils may be spread around the surface during construction
activities, we have assumed that incidental ingestion of soils takes place over the entire
construction period, which is assumed to be 125 days. However, because these COPCs are all
volatile constituents and will eventually volatilize to the atmosphere, this is a conservative,
health protective assumption.
Dose and risk calculations for potential exposures to COPCs via incidental ingestion of
subsurface soils by on-Site construction workers are provided in Appendix A; Table A-5.
Inhalation of Air During Subsurface Excavation. Construction workers could also be
exposed to COPCs volatilized from the surface of the exposed groundwater. The ADD received
from inhalation of outdoor air is calculated according to equation (4-20) where the EPC is the
concentration of COPCs in outdoor air as described in section 4.2.4. The LADD is calculated
using equation (4-21). Exposure point concentrations for on-Site outdoor air in the vicinity of
subsurface excavation activities are reported in Table 5 and exposure factors are summarized
in Table 6.
Dose and risk calculations for potential exposures to COPCs via inhalation of outdoor air by onSite landscape/maintenance workers involved in subsurface excavation activities are provided
in Appendix A; Table A-6.
35
Human Health Risk Assessment
4.3.5 On-Site Utility Worker
The utility worker scenario considers potential exposures to a worker involved in multiple shortterm events over a 10-year period as opposed to the construction worker who may be exposed
during a single event but over a longer period of time.
Dermal Contact with Groundwater. For the purpose of estimating potential risks to utility
workers involved in subsurface excavation activities, it is assumed that a utility worker may be
dermally exposed to saturated soil and groundwater for 2 hours per day, 8 days per year for 10
years. It is assumed that the worker is wearing long pants, shoes and a short-sleeved shirt but
the worker’s head, hands, and forearms could be exposed to groundwater. The dermally
absorbed dose of COPCs received from contact with groundwater is calculated using equations
(4-22) through (4-24) and the LADD is calculated using equation (4-21) with the exception that
the ADD is replaced by the DAD. Exposure point concentrations for on-Site shallow
groundwater are reported in Table 5 and exposure factors for on-Site utility workers are
summarized in Table 6.
Dose and risk calculations for potential exposures to COPCs via dermal contact with exposed
groundwater by on-Site utility workers are provided in Appendix A; Table A-7.
Incidental Ingestion of Soil. Some incidental ingestion of soil may occur during subsurface
excavation activities. The average daily dose (ADD) from ingestion of soil is calculated using
equation (4-25). The LADD is calculated using equation (4-21). Subsurface soil concentrations
were estimated using equation (4-19) and exposure point concentrations for subsurface soils
on-Site are reported in Table 5. Soil parameters were chosen to be consistent with a loamy
sand with a dry soil bulk density of 1.62 L/kg and a volumetric water content of 39% for
saturated soils. Exposure factors are summarized in Table 6.
Dose calculations for potential exposures to COPCs via incidental ingestion of subsurface soil
by on-Site utility workers are provided in Appendix A; Table A-8.
Inhalation of Air During Subsurface Excavation. If groundwater containing COPCs is
exposed during the subsurface excavation activities, volatile constituents may be released to
outdoor air. The ADD received from inhalation of outdoor air in the vicinity of the subsurface
excavation is calculated according to equation (4-20) where the EPC is the concentration of
COPCs in outdoor air as described in section 4.2.5. The LADD is calculated using equation (421). Exposure point concentrations for on-Site outdoor air in the vicinity of subsurface
excavation activities are reported in Table 5 and exposure factors for on-Site utility workers are
summarized in Table 6.
Dose and risk calculations for potential exposures to COPCs via inhalation of outdoor air by
utility workers involved in subsurface excavation activities are provided in Appendix A; Table A9.
36
Human Health Risk Assessment
4.3.6 Azalea Park Landscape/Maintenance Worker
Currently, the City of St. Petersburg maintains the ballfields and landscaping at Azalea Park
using reclaimed water supplied by the City and there are no irrigation wells in use at the park.
In addition, a clean water layer prevents potential volatilization of COPCs from underlying
groundwater so no potential exposure pathways are complete for Azalea Park landscape
workers.
4.3.7 Azalea Park Ball Player and Recreation Center Employees
Ballplayers and other individuals participating in recreational activities at the park could also be
exposed to COPCs that have volatilized to outdoor air. However, as previously mentioned, a
clean water layer prevents potential volatilization of COPCs from underlying groundwater so no
potential exposure pathways are complete for Azalea Park ball players and workers/visitors to
the Recreation Center.
4.3.8 Pinellas Trail User
Because areas of the Pinellas Trail are located adjacent to the former source area, we have
evaluated potential risks to users of the Pinellas Trail from exposure to COPCs volatilized from
nearby areas on-Site. In this scenario, we have assumed that an avid jogger pushes a stroller
along the Pinellas trail an average of 200 days per year for 30 years. The jogger makes several
passes along the boundary of the Site and is exposed to COPCs in outdoor air for a total of 0.25
hours per day. For childhood exposures used to estimate the ADD for noncarcinogens, we
assume that the child accompanies the parent initially in the stroller and then on bicycle. We
have assumed an average breathing rate of 1.2 m3/hour for the child exposure scenario and 3.2
m3/hour for the aggregate resident. The ADD received under this scenario is calculated
according to equation (4-20). The LADD for potential carcinogens is not calculated based on
the childhood exposure duration because the LADD is higher (i.e., more protective) based on
the longer-term exposure scenario for the adult. EPCs are provided in Table 5 and exposure
factors are summarized in Table 6. Because the Pinellas Trail is located immediately adjacent
to the Site, we have used on-Site groundwater concentrations to estimate outdoor air levels on
the Pinellas Trail.
Dose and risk calculations for potential exposures to COPCs by users of the Pinellas Trail via
inhalation of outdoor air are provided in Appendix A; Table A-10.
4.3.9 Apartment/Condo Complex Landscaper
The Brandywine Apartments and Stone’s Throw Condominium Complex are located east of the
Pinellas Trail. There are two irrigation wells on the Brandywine property and a single irrigation
well on the Stone’s Throw Condominium property. All three irrigation wells are more than 200
feet deep and cased to a minimum depth of 100 feet. The irrigation well on the Stone’s Throw
37
Human Health Risk Assessment
Condominium property has been sampled over the past several years and no COPCs have
been detected above FDEP GCTLs.10
Because existing irrigation wells are screened in the unaffected Floridan aquifer, no potential
exposure pathways are complete for landscape/maintenance workers at the Brandywine
Apartments and Stone’s Throw Condominium Complex. The only COPCs detected in shallow
groundwater in this area are benzene and 1,4-dioxane; however, volatilization from groundwater
is not considered to be a complete exposure pathway for 1,4-dioxane, and benzene was
detected in only one shallow monitoring well (SMW-4) that, in prior sampling events, contained
no benzene. Benzene is a ubiquitous constituent in the environment and the single detection in
SMW-4 is likely to be a sampling artifact. Therefore, no potential exposure pathways are
considered to be complete for apartment/condo complex landscapers. Even if the detection of
benzene is not an artifact, screening calculations indicate that potential risks from exposure to
benzene in outdoor air are negligible (USEPA, 2002c).
4.3.10 Apartment/Condo Resident
Similarly, because a clean water layer prevents potential volatilization of COPCs from
underlying groundwater, no potential exposure pathways are complete for residents of the
Brandywine Apartments and Stone’s Throw Condominium Complex. The only COPCs
detected in shallow groundwater in this area are benzene and 1,4-dioxane; however,
volatilization from groundwater is not considered to be a complete exposure pathway for 1,4dioxane, and benzene was detected in only one shallow monitoring well (SMW-4) that, in prior
sampling events, contained no benzene. Even if this concentration is not an artifact, screening
calculations indicate that potential risks from exposure to benzene in indoor and outdoor air are
negligible (USEPA, 2002c).
4.3.11 Offsite Utility Worker
Dermal Contact with Groundwater. For the purpose of estimating potential risks to
construction/utility workers involved in subsurface excavation activities, the more conservative
utility worker scenario involving multiple short-term events over a longer time period was used.
It is assumed that a worker may be dermally exposed to saturated soil and groundwater for 2
hours per day, 8 days per year for 10 years. It is assumed that the worker is wearing long
pants, shoes and a short-sleeved shirt but the worker’s head, hands, and forearms could be
exposed to groundwater. The dermally absorbed dose of COPCs received from contact with
groundwater is calculated using equations (4-22) through (4-24) and the LADD is calculated
using equation (4-21) with the exception that the ADD is replaced by the DAD. Exposure point
10
1,4-dioxane was detected below the GCTL at a concentration of 1.9 µg/L in April, 2008 but was not detected in a
second, follow-up sample from the same well.
38
Human Health Risk Assessment
concentrations for off-Site shallow groundwater are reported in Table 5 and exposure factors for
off-Site utility workers are summarized in Table 6.
Dose and risk calculations for potential exposures to COPCs via dermal contact with exposed
groundwater by off-Site utility workers are provided in Appendix A; Table A-11.
Incidental Ingestion of Soil. Some incidental ingestion of soil may occur during subsurface
excavation activities. The average daily dose (ADD) from ingestion of soil is calculated using
equation (4-25). The LADD is calculated using equation (4-21). Subsurface soil concentrations
were estimated using equation (4-19) and exposure point concentrations for subsurface soils
off-Site are reported in Table 5. Soil parameters were chosen to be consistent with a loamy
sand with a dry soil bulk density of 1.62 L/kg and a volumetric water content of 39% for
saturated soils. Exposure point concentrations for off-Site soils are reported in Table 5 and
exposure factors for off-Site utility workers are summarized in Table 6.
Dose and risk calculations for potential exposures to COPCs via incidental ingestion of
subsurface soil by off-Site utility workers are provided in Appendix A; Table A-12.
Inhalation of Air During Subsurface Excavation. If groundwater containing COPCs is
exposed during the subsurface excavation activities, volatile constituents may be released to
outdoor air. The ADD received from inhalation of outdoor air in the vicinity of the subsurface
excavation is calculated according to equation (4-20) where the EPC is the concentration of
COPCs in outdoor air as described in section 4.2.5. The LADD is calculated using equation (421). Exposure point concentrations for off-Site outdoor air in the vicinity of subsurface
excavation activities are reported in Table 5 and exposure factors for off-Site utility workers are
summarized in Table 6.
Dose and risk calculations for potential exposures to COPCs via inhalation of outdoor air by offSite utility workers involved in subsurface excavation activities are provided in Appendix A;
Table A-13.
4.3.12 Off-Site Residents
In off-Site areas above the suspected area of impacted groundwater, residents may be exposed
to COPCs via direct exposure to groundwater used for irrigation purposes via ingestion, dermal
contact and inhalation. Additional potential exposure pathways for residential receptors include
exposures to surface soil and ingestion of homegrown produce irrigated with groundwater.
Dermal contact with irrigation water used for recreational purposes (to operate a sprinkler, fill a
child’s wading pool, or fill a swimming pool) is also evaluated along with potential exposures
from dermal contact with surface water. Because a clean water layer prevents potential
volatilization of COPCs from underlying groundwater, indoor and outdoor air exposure pathways
via volatilization from groundwater are considered to be incomplete.
Use of Irrigation Water. In off-Site areas, the existence of an irrigation well can facilitate direct
contact with COPCs in groundwater. A recent well survey conducted in 2008 identified a
39
Human Health Risk Assessment
number of irrigation wells located within a ½ mile radius of the Site. A program to identify
additional wells and to test water samples from the wells is currently underway. Results from a
number of wells are available at the time this report is being prepared and results received to
date are presented in Table 11 of the SARA. In order to facilitate evaluation of potential risks
from exposure to COPCs in groundwater collected from individual private irrigation wells, RiskBased Screening Levels (RBSLs) have been developed for each potential exposure scenario
associated with use of water from the home irrigation wells.
RBSLs are calculated concentrations of COPCs in environmental media that are developed by
combining toxicity data with exposure factors that are intended to represent reasonable
maximum exposure (RME) conditions and be protective of human health. Because there are a
number of uncertainties inherent in the development of RBSLs due to modeling approaches,
assumptions regarding exposure, and the toxicity of particular constituents, input assumptions
are intentionally selected to be conservative and health protective. Upon receipt of data, COPC
concentrations that fall below the RBSL are considered to not pose a threat to human health.
For risk assessment purposes, potential effects of COPCs are separated into two categories:
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects. For the purpose of calculating RBSLs to evaluate
potential exposures to COPCs in irrigation water, we have selected a target theoretical excess
cancer risk of 1 x 10-6 (equivalent to one in a million) and an HQ of 1.0 for non-cancer effects
consistent with the inputs used by FDEP in their calculation of Cleanup Target Levels in state
cleanup programs. These criteria are discussed in further detail in Section 6 of this report.
Ingestion of Irrigation Water. For the purpose of evaluating potential exposures to COPCs
from ingestion of irrigation water, it is assumed that a resident drinks on average 0.12 liters of
water from the irrigation well per day (equivalent to 4 ounces per day), one day per week (50
days per year – allowing for two weeks away from home per year) for 30 years. This scenario is
intended to evaluate potential exposures to individuals who may be involved in gardening or
landscaping and take an occasional drink from the garden hose. To be conservative, noncancer risks are evaluated separately for a child because potential exposures among children
can be greater than potential exposures for adults on a per unit body weight basis. The RBSL
to protect against potential exposures from ingestion of irrigation water is calculated according
to equation (4-26) for carcinogenic effects and (4-27) for non-carcinogenic effects, which follow
the approach specified by FDEP for calculating Cleanup Target Levels.
RBSLIng ,c
=
Risk ⋅ BW ⋅ ATc ⋅ CF2
IRo ⋅ EF ⋅ ED ⋅ CSF
(4-26)
RBSLIng ,n
=
HQ ⋅ BW ⋅ ATn ⋅ CF2 ⋅ RfD
IRo ⋅ EF ⋅ ED
(4-27)
where:
RBSLing,c
=
Risk-Based Screening Level for ingestion of irrigation water,
carcinogenic effects (µg/L)
40
Human Health Risk Assessment
RBSLing,n
=
Risk
BW
ATc
CF2
IRo
EF
ED
CSF
HQ
ATn
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Risk-Based Screening Level for ingestion of irrigation water,
non-carcinogenic effects (µg/L)
Theoretical excess cancer risk (1 x 10-6)
Body weight (kg)
Averaging time for carcinogenic effects (25,550 days)
Conversion factor (1000 µg/mg)
Irrigation water ingestion rate (L/day)
Exposure frequency (days/year)
Exposure duration (years)
Cancer Slope Factor (Risk per mg/kg-day)
Hazard Quotient (1.0)
Averaging time for non-carcinogenic effects (days)
Exposure factors are summarized in Table 6; toxicity values are presented in Table 8; and
calculated RBSLs are provided in Table 9.
Dermal Contact with Irrigation Water. For residents involved in home gardening activities, it
is assumed that a resident is exposed to irrigation water on average for 1 hour per day, 1 day
per week (50 days per year) for 30 years. During this hour, it is assumed that the resident’s
head, hands, feet, forearms and lower legs could be exposed to irrigation water. The RBSL to
protect against potential exposures from dermal contact with irrigation water is calculated
according to equation (4-28) for carcinogenic effects and (4-29) for non-carcinogenic effects.
Non-cancer effects are evaluated under a child exposure scenario.
RBSLDerm,c
=
Risk ⋅ BW ⋅ ATc ⋅ CF3
F ⋅ EV ⋅ SA ⋅ EF ⋅ ED ⋅ CSF
(4-28)
RBSLDerm,n
=
HQ ⋅ BW ⋅ ATn ⋅ CF3 ⋅ RfD
F ⋅ EV ⋅ SA ⋅ EF ⋅ ED
(4-29)
where:
F
F
= 2 ⋅ FA ⋅ K p
6 ⋅ τ event ⋅ tevent
π
if tevent ≤ t*
⎡t
⎛ 1 + 3B + 3B 2 ⎞ ⎤
⎟⎟⎥ if tevent > t*
= FA ⋅ K p ⎢ event + 2 τ event ⎜⎜
2
⎢⎣1 + B
⎝ (1 + B )
⎠⎥⎦
41
(4-30)
(4-31)
Human Health Risk Assessment
and
RBSLDerm,c
=
Risk-Based Screening Level for dermal contact with irrigation
water, carcinogenic effects (µg/L)
RBSLDerm,n
=
Risk-Based Screening Level for dermal contact with irrigation
water, non-carcinogenic effects (µg/L)
CF3
=
Conversion factor (1000 µg/mg x 1000 cm3/L)
F
=
Calculation factor (cm/event)
and all other parameters are as previously described for equations (4-23) and (4-24).
Exposure factors are summarized in Table 6; toxicity values are presented in Table 8; and
calculated RBSLs are provided in Table 9.
Inhalation of COPCs Volatilized During Irrigation. Potential exposures to COPCs volatilized
to outdoor air during lawn irrigation were estimated using a number of conservative, health
protective assumptions. For example, it is assumed that an individual stands downwind of the
area being irrigated for the entire irrigation event, and emissions are constrained to within the
breathing zone. It is assumed that the individual is exposed for one day per week, 50 weeks
per year for 30 years. Estimation of outdoor air concentrations during lawn irrigation is
described in section 4.2.6; RBSLs are calculated according to equations (4-32) for carcinogenic
effects and (4-33) for non-carcinogenic effects. Non-cancer effects are evaluated under a child
exposure scenario.
RBSLIrrAir ,c
=
Risk ⋅ BW ⋅ ATc ⋅ CF2
TF ⋅ IRi ⋅ ET ⋅ EF ⋅ ED ⋅ CSF
(4-32)
RBSLIrrAir ,n
=
HQ ⋅ BW ⋅ ATn ⋅ CF2 ⋅ RfD
TF ⋅ IRi ⋅ ET ⋅ EF ⋅ ED
(4-33)
where:
RBSLIrrAir,c
=
Risk-Based Screening Level for inhalation of outdoor during lawn
irrigation, carcinogenic effects (µg/L)
RBSLIrrAir,n
=
Risk-Based Screening Level for inhalation of outdoor during lawn
irrigation, non-carcinogenic effects (µg/L)
TF
=
Transfer Factor from water to air (mg/m3 air per mg/L water)
IRi
=
Inhalation rate – outdoor air (m3/hr)
42
Human Health Risk Assessment
and all other parameters are as previously described. Exposure factors are summarized in
Table 6; toxicity values are presented in Table 8; and calculated RBSLs are provided in Table 9.
The transfer factor for COPCs volatilizing from irrigation water to outdoor air (equation 4-33a) is
derived from equations (4-3) and (4-13) and defined below.
TF
=
ARirr ⋅ x ⋅ f COPC
A⋅u ⋅ z
(4-33a)
Ingestion of Homegrown Produce. For residents who maintain a home garden and irrigate
their crops and/or trees with groundwater, potential exposures to COPCs could occur via
ingestion of homegrown produce. Potential concentrations of COPCs in homegrown produce
have been estimated for root crops and crops grown above ground using equations presented
in section 4.2.8. RBSLs are calculated according to equations (4-34) for carcinogenic effects
and (4-35) for non-carcinogenic effects.
RBSLCrop ,c
=
(RCF ⋅ IR
RBSLCrop ,n
=
p ,r
Risk ⋅ BW ⋅ ATc ⋅ CF2
+ SCF ⋅ IR p ,a ) ⋅ EF ⋅ ED ⋅ CSF ⋅ RDF ⋅ (1 − f COPC )
(RCF ⋅ IR
p ,r
HQ ⋅ BW ⋅ ATn ⋅ CF2 ⋅ RfD
+ SCF ⋅ IR p ,a ) ⋅ EF ⋅ ED ⋅ RDF ⋅ (1 − f COPC )
(4-34)
(4-35)
where:
RBSLCrop,c
=
Risk-Based Screening Level for ingestion of homegrown produce,
carcinogenic effects (µg/L)
RBSLCrop,n
=
Risk-Based Screening Level for ingestion of homegrown produce,
non-carcinogenic effects (µg/L)
RDF
=
Rainfall dilution factor (50%)
IRp,r
=
Ingestion rate for homegrown root crops (kg/day)
IRp,a
=
Ingestion rate for above-ground homegrown crops (kg/day)
RCF
=
Root crop concentration factor (L/kg)
SCF
=
Above-ground crop concentration factor (L/kg)
and all other parameters are as previously described.
43
Human Health Risk Assessment
For the purpose of estimating potential exposures to COPCs in homegrown produce, it is
assumed that an individual consumes homegrown produce 350 days per year for 30 years.
Daily average ingestion rates were obtained for protected and exposed aboveground produce
and below ground produce from USEPA’s Exposure Factors Handbook (EFH) (USEPA, 1997).
These values were derived from the 1987-1988 USDA National Food Consumption Survey and
corrected for preparation and cooking losses as recommended by USEPA (1997). Ingestion
rates are derived from the 50th percentile values of consumer only intake for homegrown
exposed fruit (EFH Table 13-61), homegrown protected fruits (EFH Table 13-62), homegrown
exposed vegetables (EFH Table 13-63), homegrown protected vegetables (EFH Table 13-64),
and homegrown root vegetables (EFH Table 13-65) for the South region. Average paring and
cooking losses were calculated for the various fruit and vegetable types based on data
presented in Tables 13-6 and 13-7 of the EFH. Average paring losses were calculated to be
19.5% for exposed fruit and 29% for protected fruit; average cooking losses were calculated to
be 13.9% for vegetables and 18.5% for root crops.
Exposure factors are summarized in Table 6; toxicity values are presented in Table 8; and
calculated RBSLs are provided in Table 9. As indicated in Section 4.2.7, we have assumed that
the concentrations of COPCs in irrigation water that are available for plant uptake are diluted by
50% due to rainfall and that some fraction of COPCs volatilizes to outdoor air according to
equation (4-14). Note that in addition to this modeling effort, actual samples of fruits and
vegetables have been analyzed and it was confirmed that no COPCs were detected in
homegrown produce samples collected from gardens irrigated with impacted groundwater (see
Appendix C).
Ingestion of Soil. For residents involved in gardening activities, hand-to-mouth activity can
result in incidental ingestion of soil. It is assumed that residents are involved in gardening
activities one day per week, 50 weeks per year for 30 years. Because there are no garden soil
data, we have estimated potential soil concentrations using equation (4-19) presented in section
4.2.9. RBSLs are calculated according to equations (4-36) for carcinogenic effects and (4-37)
for non-carcinogenic effects. Non-cancer effects are evaluated under a child exposure
scenario.
RBSLSoil ,c
=
Risk ⋅ BW ⋅ ATc ⋅ CF2
K d ⋅ (1 − f COPC ) ⋅ RDF ⋅ IRs ⋅ EF ⋅ ED ⋅ CSF
RBSLSoil ,n
=
HQ ⋅ BW ⋅ ATn ⋅ CF2 ⋅ RfD
K d ⋅ (1 − f COPC ) ⋅ RDF ⋅ IRs ⋅ EF ⋅ ED
(4-36)
(4-37)
where:
RBSLSoil,c
=
Risk-Based Screening Level for ingestion of soil, carcinogenic
effects (µg/L)
RBSLCrop,n
=
Risk-Based Screening Level for ingestion of soil, non44
Human Health Risk Assessment
carcinogenic effects (µg/L)
IRs
=
Soil ingestion rate (kg/day)
Kd
=
Soil-water partition coefficient (L/kg – see Table 7)
and all other parameters are as previously described.
Exposure factors are summarized in Table 6. Average soil ingestion rates of 120 mg/day for a
resident and 200 mg/day for a child are values recommended by FDEP (2005). Toxicity values
are presented in Table 8; and calculated RBSLs are provided in Table 9.
Recreational Use of Irrigation Water. In order to evaluate potential risks from use of irrigation
water for recreational purposes, we have included three additional exposure scenarios: potential
exposure to irrigation water used to fill a child’s wading pool, potential exposure to irrigation
water used to operate a sprinkler, and potential exposure to irrigation water used to fill a large
swimming pool. Exposure factors are summarized in Table 6.
Child Wading Pool Scenario. The child wading pool scenario considers a child ages 1
to 6 who plays in a small wading pool filled with irrigation water for 2 hours per day, 50 days per
year (about once per week), for 6 years. During each play event, we have also assumed that
some incidental ingestion of irrigation water takes place equivalent to 50 milliliters per day.
RBSLs are calculated as previously described according to equations (4-26) through (4-29).
Child Sprinkler Scenario. The sprinkler scenario considers a slightly older child, ages
2 to 11 plays in the sprinkler one hour per day, 50 days per year (about once per week) for 10
years. During each play event, we have again assumed that some incidental ingestion of
irrigation water takes place equivalent to 50 milliliters per day. In addition, we have assumed
that the child is exposed via inhalation to COPCs volatilized to outdoor air as described by
equations (4-32) and (4-33). RBSLs are calculated as previously described according to
equations (4-26) through (4-29).
Aggregate Resident Swimming Scenario. The swimming scenario considers potential
exposures for an aggregate resident exposed to irrigation water used to fill a larger, swimming
pool. We have assumed that the pool is used one hour per day, 190 days per year for 30 years
and that potential exposures take place via dermal contact and incidental ingestion. We have
assumed an average skin surface area of 15,160 cm2 based on an average body weight of 51.9
kg (FDEP, 2005) and an incidental ingestion rate of 50 milliliters per day for the one hour in the
pool (USEPA, 2000).
Unlike a child’s wading pool, which is likely to be re-filled frequently, larger swimming pools are
only rarely completely re-filled after the initial fill event. Consequently, concentrations of COPCs
are expected to decrease to negligible levels due to volatilization, photodegradation and
chemical oxidation (i.e. chlorination) over the assumed exposure duration (i.e 30 years). As a
45
Human Health Risk Assessment
first approximation, we have assumed that concentrations will be reduced due to volatilization
according to equation (4-14) and RBSLs calculated for the swimming scenario according to
equations (4-26) through (4-29) have been corrected by this volatilization factor.
Note that RBSLs calculated for individual exposure pathways may be combined to arrive at a
scenario-specific RBSL using the general equation below.
RBSLScenario
1
1
1
1
+
+
K
RBSL1 RBSL2 RBSL3
=
(4-38)
Thus, for the wading pool scenario, the RBSL is calculated according to equation (4-39) and for
the sprinkler scenario, the RBSL is calculated according to equation (4-40).
RBSLWading Pool
RBSLSprinkler
=
=
1
RBSLDerm
1
1
1
+
RBSLDerm RBSLIng
1
1
1
+
+
RBSLIng RBSLIrrAir
46
(4-39)
(4-40)
Human Health Risk Assessment
5 Toxicity Assessment
The toxicity assessment provides a characterization of the relationship between a dose of a
COPC and the potential occurrence of an adverse health effect. The purpose of toxicity
assessment is to provide a quantitative estimate of the inherent toxicity of COPCs for use in risk
characterization. In risk assessments, extrapolation of actual toxicity information from high
doses to low doses is necessary since environmentally relevant exposure concentrations for
humans are typically much lower than experimental or occupational exposure concentrations
where adverse effects were observed. Also, extrapolation of results from laboratory animals to
humans is typically required.
For risk assessment purposes, potential effects of COPCs are separated into two categories:
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects. This division relates to current USEPA policy that
the mechanisms of action for these endpoints differ in all cases. COPCs that are believed to be
carcinogenic also are capable of producing non-cancer health effects. In these instances,
potential health risks for these constituents are evaluated for both cancer and non-cancer health
effects as described below.
The USEPA generally assumes that carcinogens do not exhibit a response threshold (i.e., dose
below which no effect occurs), while non-carcinogenic effects are universally recognized as
threshold phenomena (USEPA, 1986). Recent scientific evidence clearly indicates that this
assumption is an oversimplification of carcinogenic responses. A growing number of
substances have been shown to elicit carcinogenic effects in experimental animals via
mechanisms that are: (a) not relevant to human biological processes; or (b) are not expected to
occur in humans at significantly lower, environmentally relevant doses (James and Saranko,
2000). For the purposes of this risk assessment, USEPA guidance was used for characterizing
potential cancer risk.
Toxicity factors used in the development of Florida Cleanup target Levels (FDEP, 2005) will be
used as the primary source of toxicity values. In the event no value is given, USEPA’s
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) will be used. For constituents having no IRIS values,
other USEPA toxicity values will be used including provisional values developed by the National
Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) and values used in USEPA Region 9 Preliminary
Remediation Goals (PRG) table (USEPA, 2004e).
If a COPC has no chronic toxicity values, then the toxicity value from a surrogate chemical that
is related both chemically and toxicologically will be used. Sources and derivation of toxicity
values used in the calculations for this risk assessment are summarized in Table 13. The
following sections describe the approaches used to evaluate the toxicity of the COPCs
associated with the Site.
47
Human Health Risk Assessment
5.1
Toxicity Information for Carcinogenic Effects
USEPA uses a two-step process for evaluating potential carcinogenic effects. First, the
available scientific data are reviewed to determine if there is an association between the
substance and cancer in humans or experimental animals. Based on this review, the substance
is assigned a weight-of-evidence classification reflecting the likelihood that the substance is a
human carcinogen. Second, a cancer slope factor (CSF) or unit risk factor (URF) is calculated
for substances considered to be known or probable human carcinogens. Substances are
classified by USEPA (2003) as follows:
•
carcinogenic to humans,
•
likely to be carcinogenic to humans,
•
suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential,
•
inadequate information to assess carcinogenic potential, and
•
not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.
Hypothetical risk estimates for potential carcinogens are estimated quantitatively using CSFs,
which represent the theoretical increased risk per milligram of constituent intake per kilogram
body weight per day (mg/kg-day)-1, or unit risk factors, which are the theoretical increased risk
at a defined exposure concentration. CSFs or URFs are used to estimate a theoretical upperbound lifetime probability of an individual developing cancer as a result of a particular exposure
to a potential carcinogen.
CSFs are developed most commonly based on a linearized multi-stage model used to estimate
the 95% Upper Confidence Limit (UCL) linear slope. USEPA’s Draft Final Guidelines for
Carcinogen Risk Assessment (2003) recommended that the linearized multistage model be
employed in the absence of adequate information to the contrary, and that, in general, models
that incorporate low-dose linearity are preferred. The 95% UCL slope of the dose-response
curve is subjected to various adjustments and an inter-species scaling factor is usually applied
to derive a CSF or URF for humans. The modeled extrapolations (CSFs) are expected to
provide estimates of the upper limits on carcinogenic potency. The actual risks associated with
exposure to a potential carcinogen are not likely to exceed the risks estimated, and may be
much lower or even zero according to USEPA (2003).
5.1.1 Oral and Dermal CSFs
USEPA has developed CSFs specific to the oral route of exposure. In accordance with USEPA
guidance (1989), this risk assessment uses route-to-route extrapolation to estimate dermal
CSFs from the oral CSFs in order to estimate the risk associated with dermal contact with
irrigation water. This extrapolation is done by dividing the oral CSF by a constituent-specific
oral absorption factor. This factor represents the relationship between an administered dose
48
Human Health Risk Assessment
and an absorbed dose for the oral route, essentially estimating the dose that enters a receptor’s
circulation and elicits a toxic effect.
5.1.2 Inhalation Unit Risk Factors and CSFs
The USEPA has developed inhalation URFs to estimate carcinogenic risk for inhalation routes
of exposure. In this risk assessment, inhalation unit risks (per mg/m3) were converted to
inhalation CSFs (per mg/kg-day) assuming an inhalation rate of 20 m3/day and an average adult
body weight of 70 kg. In the absence of CSFs or URFs specific to the inhalation route, route-toroute extrapolation of oral CSFs to inhalation CSFs was employed.
5.2
Toxicity Information for Non-carcinogenic Effects
Non-carcinogenic effects are considered to be threshold phenomena. Adverse effects are not
expected at a range of exposures and resulting doses below the threshold dose. The threshold
dose for a compound is usually estimated from the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) or
the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL), as determined from animal studies or human
data. These threshold values are adjusted downward through the application of uncertainty
factors to estimate a protective reference dose (RfD) or reference concentration (RfC).
Potential non-carcinogenic effects resulting from human exposures are generally estimated
quantitatively by comparing RfDs and RfCs to the exposure anticipated from the site. USEPA
specifies that the RfD or RfC is an estimate of the daily maximum level of exposure to human
populations (including sensitive sub-populations) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk
of deleterious effects during a lifetime (USEPA, 1989).
5.2.1 Oral and Dermal RfDs
Oral reference doses are expressed in units of daily dose (mg/kg-day) and incorporate
uncertainty factors to account for limitations in the quality or quantity of available data. The oral
RfD provides a benchmark against which human intakes (via ingestion) are compared. Where
environmental exposure results in a dose lower than the RfD, then there is no appreciable risk
for non-cancer health effects. Non-carcinogenic toxicity criteria are typically only available for
oral and inhalation exposures. In this risk assessment, dermal RfDs were extrapolated from the
oral values using constituent-specific oral absorption factors. In contrast to the route-to-route
extrapolation described for the carcinogenic toxicity criteria in the previous section, the dermal
RfD is extrapolated from the oral RfD by multiplying the oral RfD by the oral absorption factor.
5.2.2 Inhalation RfCs
For inhalation exposures, USEPA has derived reference concentrations (RfCs) for substances
that are more likely to be associated with adverse non-carcinogenic effects by the inhalation
route of exposure (e.g., volatile or irritant substances). If the concentration of a constituent in air
to which a human is exposed is lower than the RfC then there is no appreciable risk for noncancer health effects from that exposure. In this risk assessment, RfCs (mg/m3) were converted
to inhalation RfDs (mg/kg-day) using a daily inhalation rate of 20 m3/day and a body weight of
70 kg. This conversion allows a cumulative dose from all routes of exposure to be calculated.
49
Human Health Risk Assessment
6 Risk Characterization
This section provides a characterization of the potential risks estimated for identified exposure
pathways. Risk characterization integrates the estimated exposure information for site
receptors with the representations of the potential toxicity derived for each COPC. Using
standard USEPA-recommended approaches, this integration yields quantitative estimates of
theoretical excess cancer and non-cancer risk for site-related COPCs. These conservative
estimates provide a quantitative representation of the risks associated with the protectively
estimated exposures associated with the Site.
Risk estimates are calculated for individual COPCs for the complete exposure pathways
associated with each assessed area. Per USEPA guidance, risk characterization also includes
combining COPC-specific risk estimates across complete exposure pathways to provide overall
characterizations of potential site-related risks (i.e., cumulative risks across all exposure
pathways).
Theoretical Excess Cancer Risks. Theoretical excess cancer risks for receptors are
expressed as an estimated upper-bound probability of additional lifetime cancer risk due to
exposure to site-related constituents. Thus these estimates do not reflect a receptor’s overall
risk of cancer but rather are an upper bound estimate of the incremental risk that could
theoretically be attributed to exposure to Site COPCs.
Theoretical excess cancer risks are calculated for those COPCs identified as potential
carcinogens by the USEPA. They are calculated for each COPC for each complete exposure
pathway, by receptor. The upper-bound estimate of excess risk related to each COPC is
calculated by multiplying the lifetime average daily dose estimated for that COPC by its
corresponding route-specific cancer slope factor (USEPA, 1989).
Risk ex = LADD x CSF
(6-1)
where:
Riskex = theoretical excess lifetime cancer risk
LADD = lifetime average daily dose
CSF
= cancer slope factor
Overall theoretical excess cancer risks for complete pathways and receptors were estimated by
summing all COPC-specific risk estimates. This form of summation incorporates the
assumption that carcinogenic risks from multiple constituent exposures are additive. This health
protective assumption ensures that excess lifetime cancer risks for each COPC, pathway and
receptor risk estimates are theoretical upper-bound estimates (i.e., the actual risk is very
unlikely to be higher and is expected to be much lower).
50
Human Health Risk Assessment
USEPA Superfund guidance (USEPA, 1991a) directs that risk managers consider excess
cancer risks within the range of one-in-ten thousand (1 x 10-4) and one-in-one million (1 x 10-6)
to be acceptable depending upon site-specific considerations. This range of risk is generally
referred to as the “acceptable risk range” under the USEPA National Contingency Plan. Under
this federal policy, regulators have discretion to require risk management measures.
Incremental risks greater than 1 x10-4 generally oblige regulators to require some form of risk
management. In contrast, incremental risks less than 1 x 10-6 are widely considered to be de
miminis risks, not requiring management. A risk level of one in a million is often referred to as a
“point of departure” or a level of risk where the estimated level of risk and its attendant exposure
assumptions and estimated exposure concentrations are taken into account and the need for
risk management is evaluated. In Florida, the risk level of 1 x 10-6 is the target risk level used in
setting health protective cleanup levels.
Potential Non-cancer Risks. Potential non-cancer risks for individual COPCs are expressed
as hazard quotients (HQs) (USEPA, 1989). HQs are calculated as the ratio of the estimated
daily intake of each COPC to the corresponding route-specific RfD. HQs are calculated as
follows:
HQ =
ADD
RfD
(6-2)
where:
ADD
= average daily dose (mg/kg-day)
RfD
= reference dose (mg/kg-day)
When the average daily dose estimated from site-associated soil constituents exceeds the
protective RfD, the HQ exceeds one. This typically is considered a circumstance requiring
further evaluation since it indicates that exposure could be higher than the “no-effect” dose
represented by the RfD. An HQ higher than one does not necessarily indicate a significant
potential for non-cancer effects, however, since both the average daily dose and RfD are
intended to be conservative estimations. An HQ higher than 1.0 suggests that further
consideration should be given to the likelihood for potential non-cancer effects.
When the HQ does not exceed 1.0, the average daily dose estimated from site-related soil
constituents is not greater than the conservative RfD, indicating that exposure is expected to be
below the threshold required to produce effects and the likelihood of realizing a non-cancer
effect from that COPC is negligible.
To summarize potential non-cancer risks for multiple COPCs across complete exposure
pathways, and across receptors, HQs are summed to arrive at a Hazard Index (HI). The
resulting HI serves as a conservative health protective summary of pathway and receptor risks,
since summing all of the individual COPC HQs incorporates the assumption that their risks are
all additive. In fact, different COPCs may act through different mechanisms and on different
target organs. The overall HIs are useful for rapidly excluding pathways or receptors with
51
Human Health Risk Assessment
negligible potential for non-cancer effects – where all the COPC HQs added together do not
exceed an HI of one.
6.1
Risk Summary
Potential risks are summarized by receptor and exposure scenario in this section of the report.
Theoretical excess cancer risks are calculated for those COPCs identified as carcinogens by
the USEPA, for each complete exposure pathway, by receptor. Overall theoretical excess
cancer risks are estimated by summing all COPC-specific risk estimates for each receptor type.
Potential non-cancer risks for individual COPCs are reported as HQs and summed across
complete exposure pathways for each receptor type as an overall hazard index.
6.1.1 On-Site Facility Worker
Potential risks to on-Site facility workers are summarized below; COPC-specific risks are
provided in Appendix A; Table A-1. As described in section 4.2.1, potential risks to current
facility workers were estimated based on the maximum concentration of each of the COPCs
detected in indoor air within Buildings A, E and M.
Potential Risks to On-Site Facility Workers
Exposure
Pathway
Inhalation of Indoor Air
Non-Cancer
Hazard Quotient
Excess
Cancer Risk
0.1
3 x 10-6
3 x 10-6
Total Excess Cancer Risk
Hazard Index
0.1
The cumulative theoretical excess cancer risk is calculated to be 3 x 10-6, which is at the low
end of the range of risks (10-4 to 10-6) that is considered to be acceptable by USEPA and slightly
above the FDEP risk criterion. As indicated in Table A-1, the majority of the risk is attributed to
exposure to benzene and chloroform. Both are ubiquitous chemicals in the environment and
the concentrations detected in indoor air on-Site are similar to typical indoor air levels.
Therefore, these concentrations do not necessarily result from volatilization of on-Site COPCs.
Chloroform was detected at a maximum concentration of 0.001 mg/m3 in one sample collected
from within Building M. The average concentration of chloroform detected in all three buildings
on-Site was 0.00033 mg/m3. These levels are similar to typical indoor air concentrations. The
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) reports that typical median indoor
air concentrations range from 0.001 to 0.02 mg/m3 (ATSDR, 1997). The primary source of
chloroform in indoor air is chlorinated tap water (ATSDR, 1997). Chloroform represents a
52
Human Health Risk Assessment
significant fraction of total trihalomethanes in drinking water and total trihalomethanes detected
in drinking water provided by the City of St. Petersburg range from 0.0093 to 0.0165 mg/L11.
Benzene is a component of gasoline and is released to the atmosphere in automobile exhaust.
The maximum concentration detected in indoor air at the Site was 0.0016 mg/m3. This is within
the range of benzene concentrations detected in outdoor air on-Site and in samples collected at
Azalea Park by Pinellas County as part of the National Air Toxics Trends (NATTS) program.
For example, over the past three years of monitoring, benzene concentrations detected by
Pinellas County ranged from 0.00019 to 0.00283 mg/m3 at Azalea Park and 0.00017 to 0.00474
mg/m3 at the Skyview Elementary Monitoring Station (see Table 4). Thus, indoor air benzene
concentrations are within the range of concentrations detected in outdoor air.
Non-cancer risk estimates for on-Site facility workers are below a hazard index of one (HI =
0.1), indicating that exposures are below levels that could result in adverse health effects.
6.1.2 On-Site Landscape Worker
Potential risks to on-Site landscape workers are summarized below; COPC-specific risks are
provided in Appendix A; Table A-2. On-Site maintenance workers are assumed to spend on
average 150 days per year at the Site performing landscaping and general maintenance
activities. Potential risks from exposure to outdoor air are based on estimated values as
described in Section 4.2.2.
Potential Risks to On-Site Landscape Workers
Exposure
Pathway
Non-Cancer
Hazard Quotient
Excess
Cancer Risk
0.01
1 x 10-6
Inhalation of Outdoor Air
1 x 10-6
Total Excess Cancer Risk
Hazard Index
0.01
The cumulative theoretical excess cancer risk for on-Site maintenance workers is calculated to
be 1 x 10-6 and the non-cancer hazard index is 0.01. Both risk estimates are similar in range to
the values calculated for the on-Site facility worker. The theoretical excess cancer risk is at the
low end of the range of risks (10-4 to 10-6) that is considered to be acceptable by USEPA and at
the FDEP risk criterion. The hazard index is below 1.0, indicating that exposures are below
levels that could result in adverse health effects.
Potential risks from exposure to outdoor air are based on modeled outdoor air concentrations
derived from maximum groundwater or soil vapor concentrations detected on-Site. Because the
highest concentrations of COPCs in groundwater and soil vapor are located beneath the
11
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/drinkingwater/chemdata.htm
53
Human Health Risk Assessment
existing buildings on-Site, the risk estimates presented above more accurately reflect potential
future conditions if the existing buildings are removed. Current risks from exposure to outdoor
air are expected to be much lower because existing buildings prevent volatilization to outdoor
air in the areas with the highest groundwater and soil vapor concentrations.
6.1.3 On-Site Trespasser
Potential risks to on-Site trespassers are summarized below; COPC-specific risks are provided
in Appendix A; Table A-3. Potential risks from exposure to outdoor air are based on estimated
outdoor air levels assuming volatilization from the most concentrated part of the area of
impacted groundwater. Because this area is located beneath the existing buildings on-Site,
current risks are expected to be much lower than those reported below.
Potential Risks to On-Site Trespassers
Exposure
Pathway
Inhalation of Outdoor Air
Non-Cancer
Hazard Quotient
Excess
Cancer Risk
0.001
5 x 10-8
5 x 10-8
Total Excess Cancer Risk
Hazard Index
0.001
The cumulative theoretical excess cancer risk estimate based on modeled outdoor air
concentrations is 5 x 10-8. This value is well below the range of risks that is considered to be
acceptable by USEPA and below the FDEP criterion of 1 x 10-6. Similarly, non-cancer risk
estimates are many times below a hazard index of one (HI = 0.001), supporting the conclusion
that exposures are substantially below levels that could result in adverse health effects.
6.1.4 On-Site Construction Worker
Potential risks to on-Site construction workers are summarized below; COPC-specific risks are
provided in Appendix A; Tables A-4, A-5 and A-6. Potential risks to on-Site construction
workers assume that a worker may be dermally exposed to groundwater for 2 hours per day, 20
days per year (4 weeks) over a six month (125-day) construction event. Dermal exposure to
groundwater, incidental ingestion of saturated soils, and inhalation of COPCs volatilized from
groundwater is assumed to take place during the 20 days when the excavation is open. Once
the excavation is closed, it is assumed that these two exposure pathways are no longer
complete. However, to be conservative, we have assumed that incidental ingestion of soil
occurs over the entire 125-day construction event – even after the excavation is covered.
54
Human Health Risk Assessment
Potential Risks to On-Site Construction Workers
Exposure
Pathway
Non-Cancer
Hazard Quotient
Excess
Cancer Risk
Inhalation of Outdoor Air
0.02
1 x 10-7
Dermal Contact with Groundwater
0.09
8 x 10-7
Ingestion of Subsurface Soil
0.002
1 x 10-8
9 x 10-7
Total Excess Cancer Risk
Hazard Index
0.1
The cumulative theoretical excess cancer risk estimate based on modeled outdoor air
concentrations is 9 x 10-7. This value is below the range of risks (10-4 to 10-6) used by USEPA
as a point of departure for concluding that risks are unacceptable and below the FDEP risk
criterion. Similarly, non-cancer risk estimates are below a hazard index of 1.0 (HI = 0.1),
supporting the conclusion that exposures are below levels that could result in adverse health
effects.
6.1.5 On-Site Utility Worker
Potential risks to on-Site utility workers are summarized below; COPC-specific risks are
provided in Appendix A; Tables A-7, A-8 and A-9. Potential risks to on-Site utility workers
assume that a worker may be dermally exposed to groundwater for 2 hours per day, 8 days per
year (2 days per event and 4 events per year) over a period of 10 years.
Potential Risks to On-Site Utility Workers
Exposure
Pathway
Non-Cancer
Hazard Quotient
Excess
Cancer Risk
Inhalation of Outdoor Air
0.002
1 x 10-7
Dermal Contact with Groundwater
0.04
3 x 10-6
0.0001
8 x 10-9
Ingestion of Subsurface Soil
3 x 10-6
Total Excess Cancer Risk
Hazard Index
0.04
The cumulative theoretical excess cancer risk estimate is 3 x 10-6. This value is at the lower
end of the range of risks (10-4 to 10-6) considered to be acceptable by USEPA and slightly above
the FDEP risk criterion. Similarly, non-cancer risk estimates are below a hazard index of 1.0 (HI
= 0.04), supporting the conclusion that exposures are below levels that could result in adverse
health effects.
55
Human Health Risk Assessment
6.1.6 Azalea Park Landscape/Maintenance Workers
Currently, the City of St. Petersburg maintains the ballfields and landscaping at Azalea Park
using reclaimed water supplied by the City and there are no irrigation wells in use at the park.
In addition, a shallow clean water layer prevents potential volatilization of COPCs from
underlying groundwater so no potential exposure pathways are complete for Azalea Park
landscape workers.
6.1.7 Azalea Park Ball Player and Visitor to Azalea Park Recreation Center
Ballplayers and other individuals participating in recreational activities at the park could also be
exposed to COPCs that have volatilized to outdoor air. However, as previously mentioned, a
shallow clean water layer prevents potential volatilization of COPCs from underlying
groundwater so no potential exposure pathways are complete for Azalea Park ball players and
workers/visitors to the Recreation Center.
6.1.8 Pinellas Trail User
Potential risks calculated for a frequent user of the Pinellas Trail are summarized below; COPCspecific risks are provided in Appendix A; Table A-10. The primary exposure pathway is
inhalation of outdoor air. To be conservative, we have used on-Site outdoor air concentrations
for evaluating potential risks to Pinellas Trail users.
Potential Risks to Pinellas Trail Users
Exposure
Pathway
Inhalation of Outdoor Air
Non-Cancer
Hazard Quotient
Excess
Cancer Risk
0.002
2 x 10-7
2 x 10-7
Total Excess Cancer Risk
Hazard Index
0.002
Under current exposures, the theoretical excess cancer risk is 2 x 10-7. This value is below the
range of risks (10-4 to 10-6) considered to be acceptable by USEPA and below the FDEP
criterion of 1 x 10-6. Similarly, non-cancer risk estimates are many times below an HI of 1.0,
supporting the conclusion that exposures are substantially below levels that could result in
adverse health effects.
Note that potential risks to users of the Pinellas Trail are based on modeled outdoor air
concentrations derived from maximum groundwater or soil vapor concentrations detected onSite. Because the highest concentrations of COPCs in groundwater and soil vapor are located
beneath the existing buildings on-Site, the risk estimates presented above more accurately
reflect potential future conditions if the existing buildings are removed. Current risks from
exposure to outdoor air are expected to be much lower because existing buildings prevent
56
Human Health Risk Assessment
volatilization to outdoor air in the areas with the highest groundwater and soil vapor
concentrations.
6.1.9 Apartment/Condo Complex Landscapers
There are two irrigation wells on the Brandywine property and a single irrigation well on the
Stone’s Throw Condominium property. All three irrigation wells are more than 200 feet deep
and cased to a minimum depth of 100 feet. Because existing irrigation wells are screened in
the unaffected Floridan aquifer, no potential exposure pathways are complete for
landscape/maintenance workers at the Brandywine Apartments and Stone’s Throw
Condominium Complex. The only COPCs detected in shallow groundwater in this area are
benzene and 1,4-dioxane; however, volatilization from groundwater is not considered to be a
complete exposure pathway for 1,4-dioxane and benzene was detected in only one shallow
monitoring well (SMW-4) that, in prior sampling events, contained no benzene. Screening
calculations indicate that, even if this concentration is not an artifact, potential risks from
exposure to benzene in indoor and outdoor air are negligible.
6.1.10 Offsite Utility Worker
Potential risks to offsite utility workers are summarized below; COPC-specific risks are provided
in Appendix A; Tables A-11, A-12 and A-13. Potential risks to off-Site utility workers assume
that a worker may be dermally exposed to groundwater for 2 hours per day, 8 days per year (2
days per event and 4 events per year) over a period of 10 years. This scenario also considers
potential exposures from incidental ingestion of soil and inhalation of COPCs volatilized from
exposed groundwater. The only COPCs detected in shallow groundwater off-Site are 1,4dioxane which has been detected at a maximum concentration of 7.7 µg/L, and benzene, which
has only been detected once at a concentration of 5.5 µg/L and is considered to be an artifact.
Potential Risks to Off-Site Apartment/Condo Construction/Utility Workers
Exposure
Pathway
Non-Cancer
Hazard Quotient
Excess
Cancer Risk
NA12
8 x 10-12
Dermal Contact with Groundwater
NA
1 x 10-11
Ingestion of Subsurface Soil
NA
4 x 10-14
Inhalation of Outdoor Air
2 x 10-11
Total Excess Cancer Risk
Hazard Index
12
NA
There is no reference dose available for 1,4-dioxane.
57
Human Health Risk Assessment
The cumulative theoretical excess cancer risk estimates based on modeled outdoor air
concentrations is 2 x 10-11. This value is well below the range of risks (10-4 to 10-6) considered
to be acceptable by USEPA and below the FDEP criterion of 1 x 10-6. No non-cancer Hazard
Index has been calculated because there are no non-cancer toxicity reference values available
for 1,4-dioxane. Benzene was only detected once in shallow groundwater beneath the
apartment/condo complex property at a concentration of 5.5 µg/L. Benzene was not detected in
prior samples collected from the same well nor in any other shallow wells on the property and is
likely to be an artifact. Nevertheless, if benzene is included in the risk calculation, the total
theoretical excess cancer risk increases to 2 x 10-9 but remains well below the range of risks
(10-4 to 10-6) considered to be acceptable by USEPA and below the FDEP criterion of 1 x 10-6.
6.1.11 Apartment/Condo Residents
Because a clean water layer prevents potential volatilization of COPCs from underlying
groundwater, no potential exposure pathways are complete for residents of the Brandywine
Apartments and Stone’s Throw Condominium Complex. The only COPCs detected in shallow
groundwater in this area are benzene and 1,4-dioxane; however, volatilization from groundwater
is not considered to be a complete exposure pathway for 1,4-dioxane and benzene was
detected in only one shallow monitoring well (SMW-4) that, in prior sampling events, contained
no benzene. Screening calculations indicate that, even if this concentration is not an artifact,
potential risks from exposure to benzene in indoor and outdoor air are negligible (USEPA,
2002c).
6.1.12 Off-Site Residents (other than Brandywine and Stone’s Throw)
Because a clean water layer prevents potential volatilization of COPCs from underlying
groundwater, no potential indoor and outdoor air exposure pathways are complete for off-Site
residents. Potential risks from exposure to COPCs in irrigation water to off-Site residents are
summarized in section 6.2. As previously indicated, potential risks from exposure to COPCs in
irrigation water are treated differently, using an RBSL approach, so that potential risks can be
evaluated separately based on individual irrigation well sampling results.
6.2
Comparison to RBSLs
A risk-based screening level approach is used to evaluate potential risks from exposure to
COPCs in irrigation water because sampling of the irrigation wells is an ongoing process. As
previously described, RBSLs are COPC concentrations that are intended to represent
reasonable maximum exposure (RME) conditions and be protective of human health and/or the
environment. COPC concentrations that fall below the RBSL are considered not to pose a
threat to human health. If the concentration of COPC detected in an irrigation well exceeds the
RBSL, then further characterization of the potential exposure is warranted.
As indicated in Table 11 of the SARA, the only Site-related COPCs detected above GCTLs thus
far in off-Site irrigation wells are 1,4-dioxane, TCE and cis-1,2-DCE at maximum concentrations
of 32, 65 and 77 µg/L, respectively. The RBSLs calculated to protect against potential
58
Human Health Risk Assessment
exposures to these three COPCs from ingestion of irrigation water are summarized below. As a
matter of reference, a complete list of RBSLs for all COPCs is provided in Table 9.
Calculated RBSLs (µg/L) for Potential Exposures to 1,4-Dioxane, TCE and cis-1,2DCE in Irrigation Water c
Exposure
Pathway
Ingestion of Irrigation Water while Gardening
Dermal Contact while Gardening
1,4-Dioxane
RBSL (µg/L)
TCE
cis-1,2-DCE
670
670
10,000
30,000
650
>3,500,000(a)
Ingestion of Soil while Gardening
42,000,000
Combined Gardening Scenario (b)
660
330
7,700
Inhalation during Lawn Irrigation
29,000
6,400
58,000
520
210
29,000
2,300
420
6,400
400
190
22,000
2,100
410
9,900
Ingestion of Homegrown Produce
Ingestion/Dermal Contact (Wading Pool
Scenario)
Ingestion/Dermal Contact (Swimming Pool
Scenario)
Ingestion/Inhalation/Dermal Contact
(Sprinkler Scenario)
>1,100,000
31,000
(a)
(a) Concentration exceeds the solubility limit in water
(b) Scenario includes dermal contact and incidental ingestion of soil and irrigation water
(c) All RBSLs are reported to two significant figures.
Ingestion of Irrigation Water. For the purpose of evaluating potential exposures to COPCs
from ingestion of irrigation water, it is assumed that a resident drinks on average 0.12 liters per
day (equivalent to 4 ounces per day), one day per week, 50 weeks per year for 30 years. This
scenario is intended to evaluate potential exposures to individuals who may be involved in
gardening or landscaping and take a drink from the garden hose. As indicated above,
maximum concentrations detected in residential irrigation wells to-date indicate that an
occasional sip from the irrigation well does not pose a health threat from COPCs.
Dermal Contact while Gardening. Potential dermal exposure to COPCs may occur for
residents using irrigation water during home gardening activities. Under this scenario, it is
assumed that a resident is exposed to irrigation water on average for 1 hours per day, 1 day per
week (50 days per year) for 30 years. During this hour, it is assumed that the resident’s head,
hands, feet, forearms and lower legs could be exposed to irrigation water. The calculated
RBSLs for 1,4-dioxane, TCE and cis-1,2-DCE are 29900, 650 and 31300 µg/L, respectively,
59
Human Health Risk Assessment
which are well above maximum concentrations detected to date in residential irrigation wells.
Thus potential exposure to irrigation water from dermal contact while gardening does not
present a threat to human health.
Ingestion of Soil while Gardening. For residents involved in home gardening activities, handto-mouth behavior can result in incidental ingestion of soil. However, because the COPCs tend
to volatilize to the atmosphere, or in the case of 1,4-dioxane, do not sorb appreciably to soil,
potential exposures to COPCs in soil are negligible. For TCE and cis-1,2-DCE, concentrations
in irrigation water would have to exceed their respective solubility limits, which cannot occur, to
approach any level of concern.
Inhalation of COPCs during Lawn Irrigation. The lawn irrigation scenario assumes that the
resident is standing downwind during lawn irrigation for one hour per day, 50 days per year, for
30 years. As indicated above, maximum concentrations detected in residential irrigation wells
to-date are well below calculated RBSLs to protect against potential exposures to COPCs from
inhalation during lawn irrigation. Thus potential inhalation exposure during lawn irrigation does
not present a threat to human health.
Ingestion of Homegrown Produce. Under this scenario we have assumed that a resident
ingests 237 grams per day (about ½ pound per day; 183 pounds per year) for 30 years. These
estimates were obtained from USEPA’s Exposure Factors Handbook and are based on a 7-day
USDA survey of consumers of homegrown produce living in the South (USEPA, 1997).
Maximum concentrations detected in residential irrigation wells to-date are all below RBSLs that
have been calculated based on the plant uptake model presented by Briggs et al. (1982, 1983).
Moreover, no COPCs were detected in a recent sampling of fruits and vegetables collected from
homes having impacted irrigation wells. The homegrown produce samples included citrus
(oranges, grapefruits, lemons, limes, tangerines and tangelos) peppers (banana, bell and
jalapeno peppers) onions and tomatoes. COPCs present in irrigation wells above FDEP CTLs
(1,4-dioxane, trichloroethene, and cis-1,2-dichloroethene) were not detected in any produce
samples. Results and a description of the analytical methodology for analyzing the samples is
provided in Appendix C.
Recreational Use of Irrigation Water. In order to evaluate potential risks from use of irrigation
water for recreational purposes, we have included three additional exposure scenarios: potential
exposure to irrigation water used to fill a child’s wading pool, potential exposure to irrigation
water used to fill a swimming pool, and potential exposure to irrigation water used to operate a
sprinkler. The child wading pool scenario considers children ages 1 to 6 who play in a small
wading pool filled with irrigation water for 2 hours per day, 50 days per year (about once per
week), for 6 years. The sprinkler scenario considers slightly older children, ages 2 to 11 play in
the sprinkler one hour per day, 50 days per year (about once per week) for 10 years. We also
considered a swimming pool scenario in which an aggregate resident swims for 1 hour per day,
190 days per year for 30 years. During each exposure event, we have assumed that some
incidental ingestion of irrigation water takes place equivalent to 50 milliliters per day. For the
sprinkler scenario, we have also assumed potential exposures via inhalation of volatilized
60
Human Health Risk Assessment
COPCs. As indicated above and in Table 9, RBSLs calculated for these three scenarios are
well above maximum concentrations of COPCs detected in residential irrigation wells. Thus
potential exposures from recreational use of irrigation water does not present a threat to human
health.
These conservative recreational use scenarios also indicate that there is no threat to health
under lesser exposure scenarios such as walking barefoot across a freshly watered lawn or
playing on the lawn after watering.
Surface Water Contact. The potential risk from exposure to COPCs detected in the surface
water drainage canal along Farragut Drive North can be evaluated by comparing detected
concentrations to the RBSLs derived for the child wading pool scenario. This is a conservative
approach because young children are unlikely to completely immerse themselves in the
drainage canal as assumed in the wading pool scenario. Concentrations of 1,4-dioxane in the
canal ranged from non-detect to 8.9 µg/L. Cis-1,2-dichloroethene was detected at a maximum
concentration of 12 µg/L along with 1,1-DCE at a maximum concentration of 4.6 µg/L, 1,1-DCA
at a maximum concentration of 2.5 µg/L, toluene at a maximum concentration of 5.2 µg/L, TCE
at a maximum concentration of 1.4 µg/L, vinyl chloride at a maximum concentration of 2.2 µg/L
and m,p-xylenes at a maximum concentration of 0.8 µg/L. Comparison of maximum detected
concentrations with RBSLs calculated for a wading pool scenario in Table 9 indicates that
potential exposures from dermal contact and incidental ingestion of surface water in the
drainage canal are below the range of risks (10-4 to 10-6) considered to be acceptable by
USEPA and below the FDEP criterion of 1 x 10-6.
6.3
Potential Ecological Risks
Several COPCs have been detected in the surface water drainage canal along Farragut Drive
North. As indicated above, concentrations of 1,4-dioxane in the canal ranged from non-detect
to 8.9 µg/L. Cis-1,2-dichloroethene was detected at a maximum concentration of 12 µg/L and
all other COPCs were detected at a maximum concentration of 5.2 µg/L or less. The maximum
concentration of 1,4-dioxane is well below the FDEP surface water cleanup target level of 120
µg/L, which is developed based on the protection of human health (ingestion of fish). Similarly,
maximum concentrations of other detected COPCs are below FDEP surface water cleanup
target levels. As noted above, 1,1-DCE was detected at a maximum concentration of 4.6 µg/L.
The average concentration detected in the canal, assuming a concentration equal to the
detection limit for non-detects, was 1.8 µg/L. In comparison, the FDEP surface water CTL is 3.2
µg/L evaluated on an annual average basis.
61
Human Health Risk Assessment
USEPA Region V provides Ecological Screening Levels (ESLs) for a number of the COPCs
including 1,4-dioxane.13 Maximum concentrations of COPCs detected in the drainage canal are
compared to Region V ESLs below.
Comparison of Maximum Concentrations Detected in the Farragut Drive
Drainage Canal with Region V ESLs
Max Concentration
Region V ESL
COPC
(µg/L)
(µg/L)
1,4-dioxane
8.9
22,000
cis-1,2-DCE
12
NA
1,1-DCA
2.5
47
1,1-DCE
4.6
65
toluene
5.2
253
TCE
1.4
47
vinyl chloride
2.2
930
xylenes (total)
0.8
27
Maximum concentrations detected in the canal are well below ecological screening levels and
indicate that potential ecological risks from COPCs detected in the canal are negligible.
Pet Exposure Scenario. Toxicity reference values for evaluating potential risks to pets from
exposure to irrigation water used for drinking water purposes are lacking. To be protective,
irrigation water concentrations should be compared to human risk standards, and in those
cases where irrigation water is found to be in excess of the FDEP drinking water standards,
pets should be supplied with an alternative potable water source (i.e. tap water).
13
http://www.epa.gov/reg5rcra/ca/ESL.pdf
62
Human Health Risk Assessment
7 Uncertainty Analysis
Uncertainties are inherent in quantitative risk assessment due to the use of environmental
sampling results, modeling approaches, assumptions regarding exposure, and the toxicity of
particular constituents. This risk assessment has incorporated Site-specific information where
feasible, in order to reduce the uncertainty associated with those assumptions. Analysis of the
critical areas of uncertainty in risk assessment provides context for better understanding the
assessment conclusions by identifying the uncertainties expected to most significantly affect the
results.
7.1
Site Characterization Data
A large amount of data has been collected to characterize the nature and extent of constituents
present in environmental media at the Site and in the surrounding area, yet some uncertainties
remain and where they do, upper bound estimates have been used so as not to understate any
potential risk.
Indoor and Ambient Air Concentrations Represent a Snapshot in Time. Indoor air samples
were collected from the three main buildings on-Site over a limited number of days. Although
these data were collected during the winter when soil vapor intrusion is expected to be greatest,
they represent a snapshot in time and may not be representative of concentrations present at
other times of the year under different ventilation conditions. To be conservative and account
for expected variability in indoor air conditions, exposure point concentrations in indoor air are
based on maximum detected COPC concentrations.
Calculated Risks to On-Site Facility Workers May Reflect Exposures to Non-Site Sources.
Potential risks from exposure to COPCs in indoor air may reflect a significant contribution from
non-Site sources (e.g. chloroform from drinking water and benzene from automobiles) because
risks are based on measured values. Indoor air is constantly being replaced by outdoor air and
constituents typically present in outdoor air will also be detected in indoor air. In addition
common solvents in cleaning products and disinfection byproducts in drinking water can be a
source of volatiles in indoor air (Rappaport and Kupper, 2004). Thus potential risks to on-Site
facility workers, which are based on measured indoor air concentrations, may reflect
contributions from non-Site sources.
Measured Ambient Air Concentrations Reflect Contributions from Many Sources.
Ambient air samples collected at the Site and in the surrounding neighborhoods reflect potential
contributions from multiple sources. For example, emissions from automobiles are a significant
source of benzene in outdoor air and day to day concentrations can vary significantly due to
changes in local traffic conditions (Batterman et al., 2002). PCE is also commonly found in
outdoor air due to its widespread use as a drycleaning agent. A comparison of ambient air
concentrations detected at the Pinellas County Skyview Elementary monitoring station indicates
that alternative sources exist for most of the COPCs at this Site (see Table 4). TCE is a COPC
at the Site; however, according to the 2000 Air Toxics Inventory for Pinellas County, Florida
(Pinellas County Environmental Management, 2003), there are other emission sources in the
63
Human Health Risk Assessment
area that as of the time of the inventory continued to emit this constituent in amounts up to 7.87
tons per year.
TCE was detected at low levels (1.2 µg/m3) in two samples collected on-Site northeast and
northwest of Building M on November 20, 2007 with winds out of the northeast. TCE was also
detected in six of six ambient air samples collected off-Site to the south and southeast of the
facility on December 4, 2007 when winds were blowing steadily out of the north at 3 to 6 miles
per hour. Concentrations ranged from 9 to16 µg/m3. However no TCE was detected in followup samples collected from the same area on January 14, 2008 when winds were blowing out of
the north, and no TCE was detected in ambient air samples collected on-Site over three days of
sampling in April, 2008 when winds were blowing out of the north and east. TCE was detected
in only one other sample, which was collected near the Azalea Park Recreation Center.
TCE concentrations detected in Azalea Park over the past three years (2005, 2006 and 2007)
ranged from non-detect to 0.16 µg/m3; the median value was non-detect (see Table 4). These
data reflect 24-hour average concentrations recorded every 6 days over the past three years
(from 2005 to 2007) and provide a more representative indication of average conditions in the
park near the tennis courts. Six additional outdoor air samples were collected as part of the
indoor air sampling effort conducted at Azalea Elementary School. No TCE was detected
above the detection limit of 1 µg/m3 in 6- to 8-hour average samples collected at the school with
winds out of the southeast/southwest (see Appendix B).
For comparison, the maximum concentration of TCE estimated in outdoor air at the Facility is
0.049 µg/m3. This is a modeled result based on the maximum concentration of TCE detected in
shallow groundwater. A similar value (0.04 µg/m3) is derived based on the maximum soil vapor
concentration detected at the Site. This value was used as the average exposure point
concentration for estimating potential long-term exposures to on-Site maintenance workers, onSite trespassers and users of the Pinellas Trail.
The estimated outdoor air concentration generated during lawn irrigation with groundwater
containing 0.065 mg/L TCE is approximately 1 µg/m3. This is a one-hour average concentration
during lawn irrigation. When converted to a 24-hour average basis, this estimated value falls
within the range of values detected in Azalea Park by Pinellas County (i.e. 1/24 = 0.042 µg/m3).
Benzene was also detected in a number of outdoor ambient air samples off-Site. For example,
as indicated in SARA Table 13B, benzene was detected on February 22, 2008 at
concentrations ranging from 9.1 to 26 µg/m3. These data were collected in Azalea Park when
winds were originating out of the south/southwest – away from the Facility. However, as
indicated in Table 5a, the maximum concentration of benzene detected in shallow groundwater
onsite is 0.85 µg/L and benzene was not detected in any on-Site soil vapor samples. Thus, the
source of benzene detected in the ambient air samples appear to be unrelated to groundwater
conditions on-Site.
Benzene levels detected in 24-hour samples collected as part of the NATTS program at the
northern end of the park, approximately 1200 feet away, ranged from non-detect to 2.83 µg/m3.
The NATTS data are about one order of magnitude lower than the samples collected on
64
Human Health Risk Assessment
February 22 from the same park. These differences may be attributed to differences in sample
height (the NATTS data are collected from a height of 20 feet where concentrations are
expected to be lower compared to breathing zone height for the February 22 samples) and
averaging time (the NATTS data are collected over a period of 24 hours compared to 8 hours
for the February 22 samples). Air concentrations are known to decrease with increasing
averaging times.
Overall, measured ambient air concentrations likely represent contributions from many sources.
In addition, there is considerable uncertainty associated with derivation of an annual average
ambient air concentration from an 8-hour sample representing a snapshot in time. For this
assessment, potential risks from exposures to outdoor air are based on modeled concentrations
rather than measured values in order to focus on Site-related risks. However, there are
recognized uncertainties associated with emission and dispersion models as well. Therefore
maximum groundwater concentrations and maximum soil vapor concentrations have been used
to derive average ambient air concentrations associated with conditions at the Facility.
Cone Penetrometer Samples May Overestimate Well Concentrations. Groundwater
concentrations in samples collected using Cone Penetrometer Technology (CPT) may
overestimate irrigation and monitoring well concentrations because CPT samples are collected
from narrow, discrete zones in the aquifer (immediately surrounding the probe tip) whereas
wells are typically screened over a much wider zone (five to ten feet, or open borehole) that
allows for dilution with cleaner water. Use of these data may result in an overestimation of
potential risks to on-Site workers from exposure to groundwater.
7.2
Exposure Assessment
Under the standard approach to exposure assessment recommended by the USEPA, if a
constituent is found to be present at a site, it is generally assumed that exposure to that
substance will occur. The human health risk assessment attempts to make use of Site-specific
exposure information where available. Uncertainties associated with the exposure assessment
include calculation of exposure point concentrations and selection of exposure parameters.
Use of Maximum Detected Concentrations. The maximum detected concentration of a
constituent was used as the exposure point concentration (EPC) or used to estimate the EPC.
Use of the maximum detected concentration is a highly conservative estimate of exposure
which, when combined with a number of upper percentile exposure assumptions, leads to a
very conservative estimate of potential risk. This was the case for all constituents detected in
groundwater, soil vapor and indoor air.
Use of Default Exposure Factors. Although effort has been taken to apply Site-specific and
receptor-specific exposure factors, for those with limited data, FDEP and USEPA defaults were
used. These recommended defaults are also based on limited data and are chosen to
represent conservative estimates. For example, it is assumed that residents are exposed to
indoor air for 22 hours per day, 350 days per year for 30 years – neglecting time away from
65
Human Health Risk Assessment
home at work or at school. We have also conservatively assumed that residents ingest up to
one half of a pound of homegrown produce every day, 350 days per year for 30 years.
Use of Health Protective Assumptions. In order to arrive at an upper bound estimate of
potential risks associated with use of irrigation water we have used a number of conservative,
health protective assumptions. We have assumed that residents are standing outdoors,
downwind of lawn irrigation activities each time the lawn is watered. We have also assumed
that residents take a drink from the hose, once every two weeks for 30 years. Use of these
assumptions increases the overall uncertainty associated with estimates of COPC intake. The
intentional conservatism makes it unlikely that exposures are underestimated.
Potential Exposures to Inorganic COPCs. Three of the shallow groundwater samples
collected on-Site were analyzed for inorganic constituents and six of these constituents (arsenic
boron, molybdenum, sodium, strontium and vanadium) were identified as COPCs. However,
maximum concentrations for all but sodium are below FDEP’s risk-based groundwater CTLs,
which are based on a residential drinking water exposure scenario. Because these inorganic
constituents are non-volatile, the only potential receptors are on-Site construction and utility
workers who may be involved in subsurface excavation activities and potentially exposed to
shallow groundwater. However, potential exposures are limited to incidental ingestion and
dermal contact at a much lower intake rate compared to a residential receptor using
groundwater as a drinking water source. Therefore potential risks from exposure to these
inorganic COPCs are expected to be negligible. In addition, all of these inorganic constituents
are found naturally in soils and groundwater and are not necessarily associated with Siterelated activities. Although sodium was detected at a maximum concentration that exceeds the
groundwater CTL, on-Site groundwater is not used as a drinking water supply and potential
risks from dermal exposure to sodium at levels that are well below concentrations in seawater
are negligible.
Building pressurization. Potential risks from exposure to indoor air are based on indoor air
levels measured during typical ventilation conditions with air conditioning systems on. These
conditions generally result in a slight building overpressurization, which tends to limit soil vapor
intrusion. Other factors such as indoor heating and wind effects can lead to a slight
underpressurization inside the building which tends to increase potential effects from soil vapor
intrusion.
Homegrown Produce Uptake Modeling. RBSLs to protect against potential exposures to
COPCS from ingestion of homegrown produce were estimated using an empirical model to
predict the uptake of COPCs in fruits and vegetables. There are a number of models reported
in the literature and recognized uncertainties associated with the use of these models for
estimating plant uptake. Sampling and analysis of homegrown fruits and vegetables irrigated
with impacted groundwater was conducted to further evaluate this exposure scenario and
confirm model results.
66
Human Health Risk Assessment
7.3
Toxicity Assessment
The toxicity information used in the health risk assessment is a substantial source of
uncertainty. The uncertainties specific to the toxicity assessment are associated with: (1) the
toxicity studies that form the basis for the toxicity values recommended by USEPA and (2) the
lack of sufficient toxicity data to develop toxicity values for certain substances.
USEPA Toxicity Values. The toxicity values (i.e., RfDs and CSFs) used in this risk
assessment were developed by the USEPA and FDEP for regulatory purposes and are
intended to represent upper-bound estimates of potential toxicity. For example, most of the
RfDs incorporate large uncertainty factors are intended to lie well below the true threshold for
toxicity in humans. While this helps ensure the protectiveness of decisions based on the RfD, it
should be recognized that a dosage exceeding the RfD (i.e., a HQ > 1.0) does not necessarily
indicate the likelihood for toxicity. Similarly, the CSFs developed by the USEPA incorporate a
number of conservative choices in risk extrapolation. These include the assumption of a linear,
non-threshold dose-response relationship for cancer, interpretation of animal carcinogenicity
data, and dose-metrics for extrapolation of results from rodents to humans. As a result, cancer
risk estimates using these values reflect conservative upper bound estimates of risk associated
with specific exposures.
In summary, there are uncertainties in any risk assessment. These uncertainties are primarily
associated with lack of known human health effects directly attributable to constituents at
concentrations encountered in the environment. Therefore, risk analyses rely on health
protective (conservative) assumptions based on available studies and exposure scenarios.
67
Human Health Risk Assessment
8 Conclusions
A risk assessment was completed for potential exposures to Site-related COPCs in
groundwater, soil and indoor and outdoor air at and near the Site. Potential human health risks
were characterized based on COPC concentrations detected during the most recent rounds of
groundwater monitoring conducted from March 2007 through May 2008. Exposure pathways
were evaluated for current and likely future exposures to COPCs in groundwater, soil and indoor
and outdoor air. Potential receptors included on-Site and off-Site workers, trespassers, off-Site
residents and individuals involved in recreational activities in the Park and along the Pinellas
Trail.
In addition, RBSLs were developed for a number of potentially complete exposure pathways
involving residential use of irrigation water. Potentially complete exposure pathways include
ingestion of irrigation water, ingestion of homegrown produce, dermal contact with irrigation
water while gardening and during recreational use, and inhalation of COPCs volatilized from
irrigation water to outdoor air during lawn irrigation.
Calculated non-cancer and theoretical excess cancer risk estimates for the potential exposure
pathways evaluated in this report support the following conclusions:
•
The cumulative theoretical excess cancer risk to on-Site facility workers is calculated to
be 3 x 10-6, which is at the lower end of the range of risks that is considered to be
acceptable by USEPA and slightly above the FDEP criterion. It should be noted that
these risks are based in part on COPCs that may not be associated with subsurface
conditions or historic site uses (i.e. benzene and chloroform). Measured indoor air
levels are well below OSHA standards governing worker safety. Non-cancer risk
estimates for on-Site facility workers are below a hazard index of one (HI = 0.1)
indicating that exposures are below levels that could result in adverse health effects.
•
The cumulative theoretical excess cancer risk for on-Site landscape workers is
calculated to be 1 x 10-6, which is at the low end of the range of risks that is considered
to be acceptable by USEPA and at the FDEP risk criterion. The non-cancer hazard
index is 0.01. Both risk estimates are similar to the values calculated for the on-Site
facility worker. The theoretical excess cancer risk and the hazard index is below 1.0,
indicating that exposures are below levels that could result in adverse health effects.
•
The cumulative theoretical excess cancer risk to on-Site trespassers is 5 x 10-8 which is
well below the range of risks that is considered to be acceptable by USEPA and below
the FDEP criterion of 1 x 10-6. Similarly, non-cancer risk estimates are many times
below a hazard index of one (HI = 0.001), supporting the conclusion that exposures are
substantially below levels that could result in adverse health effects.
•
Potential risks to on-Site construction and utility workers is 9 x 10-7 and 3 x 10-6,
respectively, which are within or below the range of risks that is considered to be
acceptable by USEPA. Similarly, non-cancer risk estimates are below a hazard index of
68
Human Health Risk Assessment
1.0 supporting the conclusion that exposures are below levels that could result in
adverse health effects.
•
The cumulative theoretical excess cancer risk for off-Site construction workers is
2 x 10-11 which is well below the range of risks that is considered to be acceptable by
USEPA and below the FDEP criterion of 1 x 10-6. Similarly, non-cancer risk estimates
are below a hazard index of 1.0 supporting the conclusion that exposures are below
levels that could result in adverse health effects.
•
The cumulative theoretical excess cancer risk for users of the Pinellas Trail is 2 x 10-7
which is below the range of risks that is considered to be acceptable by USEPA and
below the FDEP criterion of 1 x 10-6. Similarly, non-cancer risk estimates are below a
hazard index of 1.0 supporting the conclusion that exposures are below levels that
could result in adverse health effects.
•
At Azalea Park, no potential exposure pathways are complete for
landscape/maintenance workers, individuals involved in recreational activities, or
Recreation Center workers because there are no irrigation wells in use at the park and
because a shallow clean water layer prevents potential volatilization of COPCs from
underlying groundwater.
•
No potential exposure pathways are complete for residents of the Brandywine
Apartments and Stone’s Throw Condominiums because existing irrigation wells are
screened in the unaffected Floridan aquifer and the only COPC detected in the shallow
aquifer on these properties is 1,4-dioxane, which is miscible and exhibits low volatility in
water and therefore does not present a health threat from volatilization to indoor and
outdoor air.
In addition, no COPC concentrations detected in residential irrigation wells to-date
exceeded RBSLs for any of the potentially complete exposure pathways involving use of
irrigation water. These data suggest that based on residential irrigation well data collected
to date, there is no significant health threat from exposure to irrigation water or from
consumption of produce irrigated with groundwater.
69
Human Health Risk Assessment
References
Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1997. Toxicological Profile for
Chloroform.
ARCADIS Geraghty and Miller, 1998. Contamination Assessment Report, Raytheon E-Systems
Facility, 1501 72nd Street North, St. Petersburg Florida, OGC Case No. 93-4374.
ATSDR. 2004. Draft Toxicological Profile for 1,4-Dioxane. US Department of Health and
Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry. September.
Batterman, S.A., C-Y Peng and J. Braun. 2002. Levels and composition of volatile organic
compounds on commuting routes in Detroit, Michigan. Atmospheric Environment 36: 60156030.
Briggs, G.G., R.H. Bromilow and A.A. Evans. 1982. Relationships between lipophilicity and
root uptake and translocation of non-ionised chemicals by barley. Pesticide Science
13:495-504.
Briggs, G.G., R.H. Bromilow, A.A. Evans and M. Williams. 1983. Relationships between
lipophilicity and the distribution of non-ionised chemicals in barley shoots following uptake
by roots. Pesticide Science 14: 492-500.
Crank, J. 1975. The Mathematics of Diffusion. Second Edition. Oxford Science Publications,
Clarendon Press, Oxford.
FDEP. 2005. Technical Report: Development of Cleanup Target Levels (CTLs) for Chapter 62777, F.A.C. Prepared for Division of Waste Management by Center for Environmental &
Human Toxicology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. February.
Fitzpatrick, N.A. and J.J. Fitzgerald. 1996. An evaluation of vapor intrusion into buildings
through a study of field data. Paper presented at the 11th annual Conference on
Contaminated Soils, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, October.
Hers, I., R. Zapf-Gilje, L. Li, and J. Atwater. 2001. The use of indoor air measurements to
evaluate intrusion of subsurface VOC vapors into buildings. J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc.
51: 1318-1331.
James, R.C. and C.J. Saranko. 2000. Carcinogenesis. In: Principles of Toxicology:
Environmental and Industrial Applications, 2nd Edition. (Williams, P.L, James, R.C., and
Roberts, S.M., eds), New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Jury, W.A., D. Russo, G. Streile, and H. El Abd. Evaluation of volatilization of organic chemicals
residing below the soil surface. Water Resources Research 26(1): 13-20.
Klaassen, C.D., ed. 1996. Casarett and Doull's Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons, 3rd
edition. Casarett and Doull, eds. MacMillan Publishing, New York.
70
Human Health Risk Assessment
Lyman, W.J., W.F. Reehl, and D.H. Rosenblatt. 1990. Handbook of Chemical Property
Estimation Methods: Environmental Behavior of Organic Compounds. American Chemical
Society, Washington, DC.
Mackay, D. and R.S. Matsugu. 1973. Evaporation rates of liquid hydrocarbon spills on land
and water. Canadian J. Chem Eng. 51:434.
McKone, T.E. 1987. Human exposure to volatile organic compounds in household tap water:
The indoor inhalation pathway. Environmental Science & Technology 21(12):1194 – 1201.
Nazaroff, W.W. 1992. Radon transport from soil to air. Reviews of Geophysics 30(2): 137-160.
Pinellas County Environmental Management. 2003. 2000 Air Toxics inventory for Pinellas
County, Florida. August.
Rappaport, S.M. and L.L. Kupper. 2004. Variability of environmental exposures to volatile
organic compounds. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 14:92107.
Ryan, J.A., R.M. Bell, J.M. Davidson and G.A. O’Connor. 1988. Plant uptake of non-ionic
organic chemicals from soils. Chemosphere 17: 2299-2323.
USEPA. 1986. Guidelines for Carcinogenic Risk Assessment. Federal Register. 51:33992.
USEPA. 1987. Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDF) – Air
Emission Models, Documentation. EPA-450/3-87-026.
USEPA. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund – Volume I. Human Health
Evaluation Manual (Part A). Interim Final. EPA/540/1-89/002.
USEPA. 1991a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume I. Part B. Development of
Risk-Based Remediation Goals. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. OSWER
Directive 9285.7-018.
USEPA. 1991b. Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfund Remedy Selection
Decisions. OSWER Directive 9355.0-30.
USEPA. 1996. Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document. Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response. EPA/540/R95/128.
USEPA. 1996b. Proposed Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. Office of Research and
Development. EPA/600/P-92/003C. April.
USEPA. 1997. Exposure Factors Handbook – Volume I – General Factors. Update to
EPA/600/8-89/043. Office of Research and Development, National Center for
Environmental Assessment. Washington, DC. August.
71
Human Health Risk Assessment
USEPA. 2000. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Region 4 Bulletins, Human Health Risk
Assessment Bulletins. EPA Region 4, originally published November 1995, Website version
last updated May 2000: http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/ots/healtbul.htm.
USEPA. 2002a. Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook. Interim Report. September.
EPA-600-P-00-002B.
USEPA. 2002b. Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund
Sites. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. OSWER 9355.4-24. December.
USEPA. 2003. Draft Final Guidelines for Carcinogenic Risk Assessment. EPA/630/P-03/001A,
NCEA-F-0644A www.epa.gov/ncea/raf/cancer2003.htm
USEPA. 2004a. Johnson & Ettinger (1991) Model for Subsurface Vapor Intrusion Into
Buildings.
USEPA. 2004b. An Examination of EPA Risk Assessment Principles and Practices. Staff
paper prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Members of the Risk
Assessment Task Force. Office of the Science Advisor, Washington, DC. March.
USEPA. 2004c. User’s Guide for Evaluating Subsurface Vapor Intrusion into Buildings.
Prepared by Environmental Quality Management, Inc. for USEPA Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, Washington, DC. February.
USEPA. 2004d. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund – Volume I: Human Health
Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) Final.
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. Washington, DC. July.
EPA/540/R/99/005 OSWER 9285.7-02EP, PB99-963312.
USEPA. 2004e. Region IX PRG Table. http://www.epa.gov/region09/waste/sfund/prg/ .
72
Human Health Risk Assessment
Tables
Human Health Risk Assessment
Table 1. Constituents of Potential Concern in On-Site Groundwater
Carcinogen?
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Detection
Frequency
(%)
Range of
Detection
Limits
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dioxane
4-Methyphenol
Acenaphthene
Acetone
Benzene
Carbon Disulfide
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Fluorene
Isopropylbenzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
Methylene chloride
m-Xylene & p-Xylene
N-Propylbenzene
o-Xylene
Phenol
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl chloride
Aluminum
Arsenic (total)
Barium
Boron
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper (total)
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc (total)
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
61
61
61
61
57
61
57
64
62
3
3
57
61
57
61
61
61
61
61
3
57
64
61
61
57
61
3
61
61
61
61
61
61
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
13
3
27
24
3
1
3
2
14
1
1
2
2
7
1
5
8
26
11
1
4
2
2
13
1
12
1
2
10
14
28
2
27
3
1
3
3
3
2
1
1
3
1
3
3
1
3
1
3
3
2
1
2
21.3
4.9
44.3
39.3
5.3
1.6
5.3
3.1
22.6
33.3
33.3
3.5
3.3
12.3
1.6
8.2
13.1
42.6
18.0
33.3
7.0
3.1
3.3
21.3
1.8
19.7
33.3
3.3
16.4
23.0
45.9
3.3
44.3
100.0
33.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
66.7
33.3
33.3
100.0
33.3
100.0
100.0
33.3
100.0
33.3
100.0
100.0
66.7
33.3
66.7
1 - 10
1 - 25
1
1
1 - 50
1 - 50
1 - 50
1 - 50
1 - 50
10
2
20 - 500
1 - 50
1 - 50
1 - 50
5 - 250
1 - 10
1
1 - 10
2
1 - 50
1 - 50
5 - 250
2 - 10
1 - 50
1 - 10
10
1 - 50
1 - 10
1 - 50
1
5 - 250
1
NA
0.01
NA
NA
NA
0.01
0.01
0.02
NA
0.005
NA
NA
0.01
NA
0.01
NA
NA
0.01
0.01
0.02
Notes:
A
B
C
D
E
Constituent
Organic
Constituents
(µg/L)
Inorganic
Constituents
(mg/L)
ENVIRON
Min of Detected Max of Detected Mean of Detected
Concentrations Concentrations Concentrations
2.5
0.96
1
0.53
1.5
160
0.63
9.7
0.8
4.6
1.1
19
0.56
1.2
1
4.7
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.1
0.29
6.9
22
0.72
2.3
0.61
8.4
1.4
1.1
0.62
0.6
6.1
0.72
0.24
0.0063
0.02
0.11
96
0.0033
0.002
0.083
0.065
0.0019
7.1
0.018
0.013
3.5
0.0036
38
0.47
0.0012
0.02
0.089
4900
130
2300
2300
31
160
56
53
100
4.6
1.1
890
0.85
16
1
180
2600
1200
390
1.1
48
19
30
1400
2.3
440
8.4
77
4700
110
810
6.3
1800
0.46
0.0063
0.034
0.22
180
0.0092
0.002
0.083
2.4
0.0019
39
0.1
0.013
29
0.0036
400
1.6
0.0019
0.02
0.12
Constituent is infrequently detected
Maximum concentration is below screening level
Constituent is an essential dietary mineral with nutritive value
GCTL is based on organoleptic or aesthetic properties and water is not used for drinking
Addressed qualitatively in the risk assessment
Page 1 of 1
643
45.8
291
363
11.6
160
19.2
31.35
26.5
4.6
1.1
454.5
0.71
7.1
1
63.7
387
246
74.1
1.1
12.9
12.9
26
196
2.3
71.3
8.4
39.2
868
13.6
138
6.2
274
0.343
0.0063
0.029
0.156
135
0.00625
0.002
0.083
1.028
0.0019
22.4
0.05
0.013
16
0.0036
226
0.99
0.00155
0.02
0.1045
GCTL
Detection
Frequency >
5%
Max Above
Screening
Criterion?
Retain as
COPC?
200
5
70
7
350
5
350
75
3.2
3.5
420
6300
1
700
100
12
70
70
700
280
700
210
5
10000
240
10000
2100
3
1000
100
3
2100
1
7
0.01
2
1.4
NA
0.1
0.14
1
4.2
0.015
NA
0.33
0.035
NA
0.1
160
4.2
28
0.049
5
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
NA
No
No
No
Yes
No
NA
Yes
Yes
NA
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Basis for Elimination as
COPC
B
B
B
A, B
B
B
A, B
A, B
B
B
A, B
B
E
B
E
C
B
B
B
D
E
C
D
E
C
B
E
E
B
E
B
Human Health Risk Assessment
Table 2. Constituents of Potential Concern in Off-Site Groundwater
Carcinogen?
Number of
Samples
Number of
Detects
Detection
Frequency
(%)
Range of
Detection
Limits
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1,4-Dioxane
2-Butanone (MEK)
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)
Acetone
Benzene
Carbon Disulfide
Chloroform
chloromethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
Methyl tert-butyl ether
Methylene chloride
m-Xylene & p-Xylene
N-Propylbenzene
o-Xylene
Toluene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
413
413
405
413
405
415
405
405
405
413
405
413
413
413
413
405
413
413
413
405
413
413
413
413
413
34
25
21
2
10
143
2
2
17
30
30
2
4
62
27
4
4
8
27
1
24
47
12
55
27
8.2
6.1
5.2
0.5
2.5
34.5
0.5
0.5
4.2
7.3
7.4
0.5
1.0
15.0
6.5
1.0
1.0
1.9
6.5
0.2
5.8
11.4
2.9
13.3
6.5
1 - 250
1 - 450
1 - 250
1 - 250
1 - 250
1-3
10 - 2500
10 - 2500
10 - 5000
1 - 250
1 - 250
1 - 250
4 - 1000
1 - 10
1 - 250
1 - 250
1 - 250
4 - 1300
2 - 500
1 - 250
1 - 250
1 - 250
1 - 250
1 - 10
1 - 100
Notes:
A
B
C
D
E
Constituent
ENVIRON
Mean of
Detected
Min of Detected Max of Detected
Concentrations Concentrations Concentrations
0.55
0.5
0.93
3.3
1.2
0.62
11
20
9.9
0.55
0.9
1.2
1.8
0.68
0.65
1
0.66
4.1
1.5
1.3
0.88
0.54
0.5
0.59
0.71
450
450
4
17
1.6
1400
14
160
82
9.7
3.9
2.6
3.3
1300
4.8
1.1
2.2
10
14
1.3
6.8
84
23
18000
660
Constituent is infrequently detected
Maximum concentration is below GCTL
Constituent is unlikely to be site-related
GCTL is based on organoleptic or aesthetic properties and water is not used for drinking
All units are reported in µg/L
Page 1 of 1
44.6
44.3
2.1
10.2
1.4
79.0
12.5
90.0
21.9
2.1
1.8
1.9
2.6
90.8
2.2
1.1
1.2
6.0
5.4
1.3
2.8
7.0
4.7
775.0
80.8
GCTL
Detection
Frequency >
5%
Max Above
Screening
Criteria?
Retain as
COPC?
70
7
350
3
350
3.2
4200
560
6300
1
700
70
2.7
70
700
700
20
5
10000
240
10000
1000
100
3
1
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Basis for Elimination as COPC
B
A
A, B
B
B
A, B
A, C
B
B
A, B, D
B
A, B
B
B
Human Health Risk Assessment
Table 3. Comparison Between Indoor Air and Subslab Soil Vapor Concentrations
Detected in Buildings Onsite
ENVIRON
Building ID
Soil Vapor
Sample ID
Indoor Air
Sample ID
Constituent
Bldg E
Bldg E
Bldg E
Bldg E
Bldg E
Bldg E
Bldg M
Bldg M
Bldg M
Bldg E
Bldg M
Bldg E
Bldg M
Bldg M
Bldg M
Bldg E
Bldg M
Bldg E
Bldg E
Bldg M
Bldg E
Bldg M
Bldg E
Bldg M
Bldg M
Bldg E
Bldg M
Bldg M
Bldg M
Bldg M
Bldg M
Bldg M
Bldg M
Bldg M
Bldg M
Bldg M
Bldg M
Bldg M
SV-21
SV-65
SV-21
SV-21
SV-64
SV-21
SV-4
SV-7
SV-4
SV-65
SV-7
SV-64
SV-62
SV-62
SV-4
SV-64
SV-6
SV-64
SV-64
SV-6
SV-21
SV-7
SV-21
SV-4
SV-6
SV-19
SV-4
SV-4
SV-62
SV-62
SV-7
SV-7
SV-6
SV-62
SV-62
SV-62
SV-62
SV-6
0711339A-06A
0711339A-04A
0711339A-06A
0711339A-06A
0711462A-20A
0711339A-06A
0711339A-01A
0711339A-07A
0711339A-01A
0711339A-04A
0711339A-07A
0711462A-20A
0711339A-08AA
0711339A-08A
0711339A-01A
0711462A-20A
0711339A-02A
0711462A-20A
0711462A-20A
0711339A-02A
0711339A-06A
0711339A-07A
0711339A-06A
0711339A-01A
0711339A-02A
0711339A-03A
0711339A-01A
0711339A-01A
0711339A-08AA
0711339A-08A
0711339A-07A
0711339A-07A
0711339A-02A
0711339A-08AA
0711339A-08A
0711339A-08AA
0711339A-08A
0711339A-02A
Acetone
Acetone
Toluene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
m,p-Xylene
Trichloroethene
Trichloroethene
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Chlorofrom
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Chlorofrom
trans-1,2-Dichloroethe
Tetrachloroethene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethe
Carbon Disulfide
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
Chlorofrom
Chlorofrom
Chlorofrom
Page 1 of 1
Concentration (µg/m3)
Indoor Air
Soil Vapor
51
49
11
8.4
3.9
3.4
3.2
1.9
1.7
1.5
1.3
1
0.96
0.96
0.92
0.91
0.9
0.73
0.72
0.64
0.64
0.61
0.61
0.6
0.48
0.41
0.38
0.34
0.33
0.33
0.32
0.31
0.29
0.28
0.28
0.25
0.25
0.18
29
17
11
5.2
4.3
4.9
280000
43000
68000
10
200000
8.5
24000
23000
3900
17
72
8.5
38
7.6
6.2
20000
8.2
17000
4.8
11
2100
6200
520
490
1800
6400
4.9
1100
1100
92
92
5.5
Human Health Risk Assessment
Table 4. Summary of Ambient Air Sampling Data Collected at Azalea Park and Skyview Elementary as part of
the National Air Toxics Trends (NATTS) Program 2005-2007
Constituent
Freon-12
chloromethane
Freon 114
Vinyl chloride
1,3-butadiene
bromomethane
chloroethane
Freon 11
Acrylonitrile
1,1-dichloroethene
Methylene chloride
Freon 113
1,1-dichloroethane
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
chloroform
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1,1-trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbontetrachloride
1,2-dichloropropane
Trichloroethene
cis 1,3-dichloropropene
trans 1,3-dichloropropene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Toluene
1,2-Dibromoethane
Tetrachloroethene
Chlorobenzene
Ethyl benzene
m/p Xylene
styrene
o-Xylene
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
ENVIRON
Count
168
177
177
177
177
177
177
176
177
177
177
176
177
177
177
177
177
177
177
177
177
177
177
177
177
177
176
177
177
177
177
177
177
177
174
177
177
177
165
163
Azalea Park
Min
Median
(µg/m3)
(µg/m3)
1.61
2.71
0.94
1.28
0.00
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.11
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.03
0.78
1.57
0.05
0.24
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.30
0.39
0.62
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.05
0.06
0.11
0.19
0.65
0.32
0.54
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.28
1.69
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.26
0.11
0.79
0.00
0.13
0.00
0.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.11
0.07
0.44
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Page 1 of 1
Max
(µg/m3)
3.72
2.02
0.36
0.05
0.74
0.95
0.13
11.65
0.66
0.08
1.91
1.32
0.08
0.10
2.63
0.12
15.81
2.83
0.77
0.09
0.16
0.09
0.19
0.17
58.94
0.16
0.76
0.11
1.28
4.24
1.59
1.32
0.14
0.60
2.25
0.12
4.40
0.12
0.27
0.26
Count
518
545
545
545
545
545
545
541
545
545
545
541
545
545
545
545
545
545
545
545
545
545
545
545
545
545
543
545
545
545
545
545
545
545
537
545
545
545
509
503
Skyview Elementary
Min
Median
(µg/m3)
(µg/m3)
1.01
2.67
0.89
1.31
0.00
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.13
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.03
1.13
1.62
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.16
0.33
0.00
0.62
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.11
0.17
0.84
0.32
0.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.41
2.64
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.40
0.13
1.19
0.00
0.22
0.08
0.42
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.10
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Max
(µg/m3)
4.08
2.96
0.78
0.05
1.12
0.72
0.13
11.48
0.79
0.12
1.49
1.32
0.12
0.12
0.60
0.21
0.28
4.74
0.77
0.09
0.33
0.09
0.09
0.19
18.39
0.16
2.21
0.09
2.60
8.74
4.68
2.87
0.14
1.05
4.65
0.18
1.83
0.24
1.60
1.89
Human Health Risk Assessment
Table 5. Estimated Exposure Point Concentrations
Carcinogens
benzene
chloroethane
chloroform
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,2-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloropropane
1,4-dioxane
methylene chloride
tetrachloroethene
1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethene
vinyl chloride
NonCarcinogens
acetone
benzene
chloroethane
chloroform
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,1-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethene
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,4-dioxane
ethylbenzene
methyl isobutyl ketone
methylene chloride
4-methylphenol
tetrachloroethene
toluene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethene
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
xylenes
vinyl chloride
ENVIRON
Indoor Air
(mg/m3)
1.6E-03
0.0E+00
1.0E-03
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
1.3E-03
8.9E-04
0.0E+00
3.2E-03
0.0E+00
Outdoor Air
(mg/m3)
3.9E-08
7.1E-05
8.4E-05
2.8E-08
0.0E+00
2.2E-06
1.7E-11
6.6E-07
1.4E-05
1.8E-07
4.9E-05
2.8E-03
Onsite
Excavation Air
(mg/m3)
2.8E-06
6.7E-04
8.8E-03
1.5E-04
0.0E+00
4.9E-04
7.4E-05
1.1E-04
2.3E-04
4.0E-04
2.6E-03
7.0E-03
Subsurface Soil
(mg/kg)
7.1E-04
7.0E-02
1.7E+00
3.4E-01
0.0E+00
1.1E-01
2.8E-02
1.1E-02
1.4E-01
9.6E-02
1.5E+00
7.7E-01
Shallow GW
(mg/L)
8.5E-04
1.8E-01
2.6E+00
5.3E-02
0.0E+00
1.6E-01
1.0E-01
3.0E-02
7.7E-02
1.3E-01
8.1E-01
1.8E+00
Excavation Air
(mg/m3)
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
7.7E-07
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
Offsite
Subsurface Soil
(mg/kg)
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
2.8E-04
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
Shallow GW
(mg/L)
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
7.7E-03
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
5.6E-02
1.6E-03
0.0E+00
1.0E-03
0.0E+00
4.5E-04
0.0E+00
9.2E-04
1.7E-03
7.2E-04
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
1.8E-03
1.2E-03
1.3E-03
0.0E+00
8.9E-04
7.5E-01
1.0E-03
0.0E+00
3.2E-03
0.0E+00
1.2E-02
0.0E+00
1.4E-08
3.9E-08
7.1E-05
8.4E-05
2.8E-08
1.4E-04
0.0E+00
1.8E-03
4.1E-05
1.2E-05
2.2E-06
7.4E-12
6.6E-06
0.0E+00
6.6E-07
3.9E-14
1.4E-05
1.2E-04
1.1E-03
1.8E-07
4.9E-05
4.2E-07
2.3E-05
2.8E-03
2.7E-03
2.8E-06
6.7E-04
8.8E-03
1.5E-04
8.1E-03
0.0E+00
8.0E-03
4.4E-03
4.2E-04
4.9E-04
7.4E-05
1.1E-03
0.0E+00
1.1E-04
1.2E-06
2.3E-04
1.4E-02
1.5E-02
4.0E-04
2.6E-03
1.5E-04
5.3E-03
7.0E-03
2.2E-01
7.1E-04
7.0E-02
1.7E+00
3.4E-01
1.3E+00
0.0E+00
1.9E+00
7.1E-01
8.4E-02
1.1E-01
2.8E-02
1.5E+00
0.0E+00
1.1E-02
5.3E-03
1.4E-01
9.7E+00
6.6E+00
9.6E-02
1.5E+00
4.7E-01
7.9E+00
7.7E-01
8.9E-01
8.5E-04
1.8E-01
2.6E+00
5.3E-02
2.3E+00
0.0E+00
2.3E+00
1.2E+00
1.1E-01
1.6E-01
1.0E-01
3.9E-01
0.0E+00
3.0E-02
4.6E-03
7.7E-02
4.7E+00
4.9E+00
1.3E-01
8.1E-01
5.6E-02
1.8E+00
1.8E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
7.7E-07
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
2.8E-04
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
7.7E-03
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
Page 1 of 1
Human Health Risk Assessment
Table 5a. Estimation of Onsite Outdoor Air and Trench Air Concentrations
Carcinogens
benzene
chloroethane
chloroform
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,2-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloropropane
1,4-dioxane
methylene chloride
tetrachloroethene
1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethene
vinyl chloride
NonCarcinogens
acetone
benzene
chloroethane
chloroform
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,1-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethene
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,4-dioxane
ethylbenzene
methyl isobutyl ketone
methylene chloride
4-methylphenol
tetrachloroethene
toluene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethene
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
xylenes
vinyl chloride
Notes:
ENVIRON
Maximum Concentration Detected Onsite
Soil Vapor
Shallow Groundwater
(mg/m3)
(mg/L)
ND
8.5E-04
ND
1.8E-01
9.2E-02
2.6E+00
ND
5.3E-02
ND
ND
ND
1.6E-01
2.8E-02
1.0E-01
ND
3.0E-02
ND
7.7E-02
ND
1.3E-01
2.8E+02
8.1E-01
ND
1.8E+00
2.9E-02
ND
ND
9.2E-02
ND
6.8E+00
ND
2.1E+00
2.3E+02
2.2E+01
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.7E-02
1.1E-02
2.4E+01
0.0E+00
2.8E+02
ND
4.9E-03
ND
Estimated Outdoor Air Concentration
from Soil Vapor
from Groundwater
(mg/m3)
(mg/m3)
-3.9E-08
-7.1E-05
2.0E-08
8.4E-05
-2.8E-08
---2.2E-06
1.7E-11
7.4E-12
-6.6E-07
-1.4E-05
-1.8E-07
4.0E-05
4.9E-05
-2.8E-03
8.9E-01
8.5E-04
1.8E-01
2.6E+00
5.3E-02
2.3E+00
ND
2.3E+00
1.2E+00
1.1E-01
1.6E-01
1.0E-01
3.9E-01
ND
3.0E-02
4.6E-03
7.7E-02
4.7E+00
4.9E+00
1.3E-01
8.1E-01
5.6E-02
1.8E+00
1.8E+00
2.8E-10
--2.0E-08
-1.7E-06
-1.5E-06
4.1E-05
6.1E-06
------3.9E-09
1.0E-09
7.4E-06
-4.0E-05
-2.0E-10
--
Soil vapor concentrations are provided in SARA Table 12A
Groundwater concentrations are provided in SARA Tables 8, 9 and 11.
Estimated outdooor air concentrations are calculated using equations (4-4) and (4-5)
Trench air concentrations are calculated as described in Section 4.2.4.
Page 1 of 1
1.4E-08
3.9E-08
7.1E-05
8.4E-05
2.8E-08
1.4E-04
0.0E+00
1.8E-03
3.6E-05
1.2E-05
2.2E-06
7.4E-12
6.6E-06
-6.6E-07
3.9E-14
1.4E-05
1.2E-04
1.1E-03
1.8E-07
4.9E-05
4.2E-07
2.3E-05
2.8E-03
Onsite Outdoor Air
EPC
(mg/m3)
3.9E-08
7.1E-05
8.4E-05
2.8E-08
0.0E+00
2.2E-06
1.7E-11
6.6E-07
1.4E-05
1.8E-07
4.9E-05
2.8E-03
Onsite Excavation Air
EPC
(mg/m3)
2.8E-06
6.7E-04
8.8E-03
1.5E-04
-4.9E-04
7.4E-05
1.1E-04
2.3E-04
4.0E-04
2.6E-03
7.0E-03
1.4E-08
3.9E-08
7.1E-05
8.4E-05
2.8E-08
1.4E-04
0.0E+00
1.8E-03
4.1E-05
1.2E-05
2.2E-06
7.4E-12
6.6E-06
0.0E+00
6.6E-07
3.9E-14
1.4E-05
1.2E-04
1.1E-03
1.8E-07
4.9E-05
4.2E-07
2.3E-05
2.8E-03
2.7E-03
2.8E-06
6.7E-04
8.8E-03
1.5E-04
8.1E-03
0.0E+00
8.0E-03
4.4E-03
4.2E-04
4.9E-04
7.4E-05
1.1E-03
-1.1E-04
1.2E-06
2.3E-04
1.4E-02
1.5E-02
4.0E-04
2.6E-03
1.5E-04
5.3E-03
7.0E-03
Human Health Risk Assessment
Table 6. Summary of Exposure Factors
Receptor Population
Exposure Factor
IRia,w
ET
EF
Current Onsite Facility Worker
ED
BWw
AT
IRoa,w
ET
Current Onsite Landscape/ EF
Maintenance Worker
ED
BW
AT
IRi
ET
EF
Current Onsite Trespasser
ED
BW
AT
IRoa
IRs
EF
On-Site and Off-Site Utility ED
Worker
ET
SA
BW
AT
IRoa
IRs
EF
EF
EF
Onsite Construction
ED
Worker
ET
ET
SA
BW
AT
IRioa
Current Off-Site Resident IRoa
IRs
IRs
IRw
IRw
ENVIRON
Value
Inhalation rate (m3/hr)
Exposure Time (hr/day)
Exposure frequency (day/yr)
Exposure duration (yr)
Body weight (kg)
Averaging time (days)
Inhalation rate – outdoors (m3/hr)
Exposure time – outdoors (hr/day)
Exposure frequency – outdoors (day/yr)
Exposure duration (yr)
Body weight (kg)
Averaging time (days)
Inhalation rate (m3/hr)
Exposure time (hr/day)
Exposure frequency (day/yr)
Exposure duration (yr)
Body weight (kg)
Averaging time (days)
Inhalation rate – outdoor air (m3/hr)
Soil ingestion rate – outdoor worker (kg/day)
Exposure frequency (day/yr)
Exposure duration (yr)
Exposure Time – dermal contact (hr/day)
Exposed skin surface area (cm2)
Body weight (kg)
Averaging time (days)
Inhalation rate – outdoor air (m3/hr)
Soil ingestion rate (kg/day)
Exposure frequency - dermal contact with groundwater (day/yr)
Exposure Frequency - inhalation from groundwater (day/yr)
Exposure frequency - soil ingestion (day/yr)
Exposure duration (yr)
Exposure Time – dermal contact (hr/day)
Exposure Time - inhalation pathway (hr/day)
Exposed skin surface area (cm2)
Body weight (kg)
Averaging time (days)
Inhalation rate – outdoors, aggregate resident (m3/hr)
Inhalation rate – outdoors, child (m3/hr)
Soil ingestion rate – aggregate resident (kg/day)
Soil ingestion rate – child (kg/day)
Ingestion rate – irrigation water, aggregate res (L/day)
Ingestion rate - irrigation water, child (L/day)
Page 1 of 3
0.83
8
250
25
76.1
9,125
1.5
8
150
25
76.1
9,125
1.2
2
52
10
45
3,650
1.5
0.00033
8
10
2
3,500
76.1
3,650
1.5
0.00033
20
20
125
1
2
8
3,500
76.1
365
1.5
1.2
0.00012
0.0002
0.12
0.12
Source
FDEP (2005); equivalent to 20 m3/day
Assumes 8-hour work day
FDEP (2005); default assumption
FDEP (2005); default assumption
FDEP (2005); value for workers (derived from NHANES III data)
FDEP (2005); default assumption (AT = ED)
EFH - outdoor worker - moderate activities
Assumes 8-hour work day
Site-specific employee info
FDEP (2005); default assumption
FDEP (2005); value for workers (derived from NHANES III data)
FDEP (2005); default assumption (AT = ED)
Child EFH – moderate activities
Assumed value
Assumes 1 day per week
Child exposure from age 7-16; USEPA (2000)
USEPA (2000)
USEPA (2000)
EFH - Outdoor Worker - moderate activities
USEPA (2002)
Assumed value (2 days every 3 months)
Assumed value
Assumed value
FDEP (2005); value for workers (derived from NHANES III data)
FDEP (2005); value for workers (derived from NHANES III data)
FDEP (2005); default assumption (AT = ED)
EFH - Outdoor Worker - moderate activities
USEPA (2002) - outdoor worker
Assumed to occur during 20 days of open excavation activities
Assumed to occur during 20 days of open excavation activities
Assume to occur during entire construction event
Assumed value
Assumed value
Assumed value
FDEP (2005); value for workers (derived from NHANES III data)
FDEP (2005); value for workers (derived from NHANES III data)
FDEP (2005); default assumption (AT = ED)
EFH - moderate activites (child +adult)
Child EFH – moderate activities
FDEP (2005)
FDEP (2005)
Assumed value; (equivalent to 4 ounces)
Assumed value; (equivalent to 4 ounces)
Human Health Risk Assessment
Table 6. Summary of Exposure Factors
Receptor Population
Child Wading Pool
Scenario
Pinellas Trail User
Exposure Factor
Source
Ingestion rate – above-ground crops, aggregate resident (kg/day)
0.208
IRp,a
IRp,r
IRp,r
EF
EF
ED
ED
SA
SA
BWar
BWc
AT
ATar
ATc
Ingestion rate – above-ground crops, child
Ingestion rate - root crops, aggregate resident (kg/day)
Ingestion rate – root crops, child (kg/day)
Exposure frequency – irrigation water (day/yr)
Exposure frequency (day/yr)
Exposure duration – aggregate resident (yr)
Exposure duration – child (yr)
0.067
0.029
0.0094
50
350
30
6
4,810
2,960
51.9
16.8
25,550
10,950
2,190
Assumed value
FDEP (2005); default value
FDEP (2005); default value
FDEP (2005); default value
FDEP (2005); value for residents (derived from NHANES III data)
FDEP (2005); value for residents (derived from NHANES III data)
FDEP (2005); value for residents (derived from NHANES III data)
FDEP (2005); value for residents (derived from NHANES III data)
FDEP (2005); default value
FDEP (2005); default assumption (AT = ED)
FDEP (2005); default assumption (AT = ED)
SA
IRw
ET
EF
ED
BW
AT
AT
IRi
IRi
ET
EF
EDar
EDc
BWc
BWar
ATar
ATc
Exposed skin surface area – child (cm2)
Ingestion rate - irrigation water, child (L/day)
Exposure time (hr/day)
Exposure frequency (day/yr)
Exposure duration (yr)
Body weight (kg)
Averaging time - carcinogens (days)
Averaging time, noncarcinogens (days)
Inhalation rate - child (m3/hr)
Inhalation rate - aggregate resident (m3/hr)
Exposure time (hr/day)
Exposure frequency (day/yr)
Exposure duration - aggregate residnet (yr)
Expoosure duration - child
Body weight – child (kg)
Body weight – aggregate resident (kg)
Averaging time – aggregate resident (days)
Averaging time – child (days)
6,912
0.05
2
50
6
16.8
25,550
2,190
1.2
3.2
0.25
200
30
6
16.8
51.9
10,950
2,190
FDEP (2005); entire body exposed (derived from NHANES III data)
Assumed value
Assumed value
Assumed value
Assumes child exposure from age 1 - 6
FDEP (2005); ages 1 - 6 (derived from NHANES III data)
FDEP (2005); default value
FDEP (2005); default assumption (AT = ED)
Child EFH – moderate activities
EFH - adult - heavy activities
Assumed value
Assumed value
Child exposure from age 7-16; USEPA (2000)
Assumes child exposure from age 1 - 6
FDEP (2005); value for residents (derived from NHANES III data)
FDEP (2005); value for residents (derived from NHANES III data)
FDEP (2005); default assumption (AT = ED)
FDEP (2005); default assumption (AT = ED)
Exposed skin surface area – child (cm2)
Ingestion rate - irrigation water, child (L/day)
Exposure time (hr/day)
Exposure frequency (day/yr)
Exposure duration (yr)
Body weight (kg)
Averaging time - carcinogens (days)
Averaging time, noncarcinogens (days)
15,158
0.05
1
190
30
51.9
25,550
10,950
FDEP (2005); based on a body weight of 51.9 kg
Assumed value
Assumed value
FDEP recommendation
Assumes exposure for an aggregate resident over 30 years
FDEP (2005); value for residents (derived from NHANES III data)
FDEP (2005); default value
FDEP (2005); default assumption (AT = ED)
SA
IRw
ET
EF
Swimming Pool Scenario
ED
BW
AT
AT
ENVIRON
Value
IRp,a
Exposed skin surface area – aggregate res (cm2)
Exposed skin surface area – child (cm2)
Body weight – aggregate resident (kg)
Body weight – child (kg)
Averaging time for carcinogens (days)
Averaging time, noncarcinogens – aggregate resident (days)
Averaging time, noncarcinogens – child (days)
Page 2 of 3
derived from EFH Tables 13-61, 13-62, 13-63, 13-64 and 13-65 (South
Region; P-50; corrected for cooking and paring lossess (Tables 13-6 and
13-7). (RCF and SCF calculated according to Briggs et al., 182, 1983)
Human Health Risk Assessment
Table 6. Summary of Exposure Factors
Receptor Population
Child Sprinkler
Scenario
Notes:
Exposure Factor
SA
IRw
IRoa
ET
EF
ED
BW
AT
AT
Value
Exposed skin surface area – child (cm2)
Ingestion rate - irrigation water, child (L/day)
9,232
0.05
1.20
1
50
10
26.1
25,550
3,650
Inhalation rate – outdoor air (m3/hr)
Exposure time (hr/day)
Exposure frequency (day/yr)
Exposure duration (yr)
Body weight (kg)
Averaging time - carcinogens (days)
Averaging time, noncarcinogens (days)
Source
FDEP (2005); entire body exposed (derived from NHANES III data)
Assumed value
Child EFH – moderate activities
Assumed value
Assumed value
Assumes child exposure from age 2 - 11
FDEP (2005); ages 2 - 11 (derived from NHANES III data)
FDEP (2005); default value
FDEP (2005); default assumption (AT = ED)
FDEP (2005) - Technical Report: Development of Cleanup Target Levels (CTLs) for Chapter 62-777, F.A.C. Prepared for Division of Waste Management
EFH - USEPA. 1997. Exposure Factors Handbook – Volume I – General Factors. Update to EPA/600/8-89/043. Office of Research and Development,
USEPA (2000) - Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Region 4 Bulletins, Human Health Risk Assessment Bulletins. EPA Region 4, originally published
Child EFH (2002) - Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook. Interim Report. September. EPA-600-P-00-002B
USEPA (2005) - Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. Office of solid Waste and Emergency Response.
Briggs et al. (1982) - Pesticide Science 13: 495-504; Briggs et al. (1983) Pesticide Science 14: 492 - 500.
USEPA (2002) Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
ENVIRON
Page 3 of 3
Human Health Risk Assessment
Table 7. Physical and Chemical Properties of COPCs
Acetone
Benzene
chloroethane
chloroform
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,1-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethene
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,4-dioxane
ethylbenzene
methyl isobutyl ketone
methylene chloride
4-methylphenol
tetrachloroethene
toluene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethene
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
xylenes
vinyl chloride
MW
(g/mol)
58.0
78.1
65.0
119.0
150.0
99.0
99.0
97.0
97.0
97.0
113.0
88.1
106.2
100.0
85.0
108.1
165.8
92.0
133.0
133.0
131.0
120.0
106.0
63.0
H
H'
(atm-m3/mol) (dimensionless)
3.9E-05
1.6E-03
5.6E-03
2.3E-01
1.1E-02
4.5E-01
3.7E-03
1.5E-01
2.4E-03
9.8E-02
5.6E-03
2.3E-01
9.8E-04
4.0E-02
2.6E-02
1.1E+00
4.1E-03
1.7E-01
9.4E-03
3.8E-01
2.8E-03
1.1E-01
3.00E-06
1.2E-04
7.9E-03
3.2E-01
1.4E-04
5.7E-03
2.2E-03
9.0E-02
1.0E-06
4.1E-05
1.8E-02
7.5E-01
6.6E-03
2.7E-01
1.7E-02
7.0E-01
9.1E-04
3.7E-02
1.0E-02
4.2E-01
7.7E-03
3.1E-01
7.3E-03
3.0E-01
2.7E-02
1.1E+00
Da
(cm2/s)
Dw
(cm2/s)
Koc
(cm3/g)
1.2E-01
8.8E-02
1.0E-01
1.0E-01
6.9E-02
7.4E-02
1.0E-01
9.0E-02
7.4E-02
7.1E-02
7.8E-02
8.7E-02
7.5E-02
7.5E-02
1.0E-01
7.4E-02
7.2E-02
8.7E-02
7.8E-02
7.8E-02
7.9E-02
7.5E-02
7.0E-02
1.1E-01
1.1E-05
9.8E-06
1.2E-05
1.0E-05
7.9E-06
1.1E-05
9.9E-06
1.0E-05
1.1E-05
1.2E-05
8.7E-06
9.3E-06
7.8E-06
7.8E-06
1.2E-05
8.3E-06
8.2E-06
8.6E-06
8.8E-06
8.8E-06
9.1E-06
7.1E-06
7.8E-06
1.2E-05
5.8E-01
5.9E+01
1.5E+01
4.0E+01
6.2E+02
3.2E+01
1.7E+01
5.9E+01
3.6E+01
5.3E+01
4.4E+01
3.5E+00
3.6E+02
1.3E+02
1.2E+01
9.1E+01
1.6E+02
1.8E+02
1.1E+02
5.0E+01
1.7E+02
8.2E+02
4.1E+02
1.9E+01
data obtained from Region IX PRG table unless otherwise noted
log Kow for acetone and MIBK obtained from http://www.arb.ca.gov/db/solvents/all_cmpds.htm
* estimated from USEPA Equation 3.8 in Dermal Guidance (2004)
log Kow obtained from USEPA Dermal Guidance (2004)
MW, H and Koc for 1,4-dioxane obtained from Environmental Claims Journal 16:69-79 (2004)
Note: H' = 41 * H
Kow for 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene obtained from SRC ChemFate database (http://www.syrres.com/esc/chemfate.htm)
Kow for 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene obtained from HSDB (http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov)
Data for phenol obtained from USEPA's Soil Screening Guidance Technical Background Document
Data for 2-methylphenol from Soil Screening Guidance used as a surrogate for 4-methylphenol
ENVIRON
Kd
(L/kg)
5.8E-03
5.9E-01
1.5E-01
4.0E-01
6.2E+00
3.2E-01
1.7E-01
5.9E-01
3.6E-01
5.3E-01
4.4E-01
3.5E-02
3.6E+00
1.3E+00
1.2E-01
9.1E-01
1.6E+00
1.8E+00
1.1E+00
5.0E-01
1.7E+00
8.2E+00
4.1E+00
1.9E-01
MW
H
H'
Da
Dw
Koc
Kd
Kow
Kp
S
log Kow
-0.24
2.13
1.43
1.97
3.39
1.79
1.48
2.13
1.86
1.86
2.00
-0.27
3.15
1.31
1.25
1.95
3.40
2.73
2.49
2.05
2.42
3.42
3.20
1.36
Kp *
(cm/hr)
5.2E-04
1.5E-02
6.0E-03
6.8E-03
4.0E-02
6.7E-03
4.2E-03
1.2E-02
7.7E-03
7.7E-03
7.7E-03
3.4E-04
4.8E-02
3.2E-03
3.5E-03
7.6E-03
3.3E-02
3.1E-02
1.3E-02
6.4E-03
1.2E-02
6.1E-02
5.2E-02
5.6E-03
S
(mg/L-water)
1.0E+06
1.8E+03
5.7E+03
7.9E+03
7.4E+01
5.1E+03
8.5E+03
2.3E+03
3.5E+03
6.3E+03
2.8E+03
miscible
1.7E+02
1.9E+04
1.3E+04
2.0E+02
5.3E+02
1.3E+03
4.4E+03
1.1E+03
4.8E+01
1.6E+02
2.8E+03
DA
(cm2/s)
VF
(m3/kg)
9.7E-05
1.4E-03
7.3E-03
1.5E-03
5.5E-05
1.9E-03
7.6E-04
5.6E-03
1.3E-03
2.0E-03
8.3E-04
4.5E-06
3.3E-04
1.5E-05
2.0E-03
2.1E-07
1.6E-03
6.2E-04
2.1E-03
2.5E-04
9.3E-04
1.5E-04
2.6E-04
1.2E-02
1.2E+04
3.2E+03
1.4E+03
3.1E+03
1.6E+04
2.7E+03
4.3E+03
1.6E+03
3.3E+03
2.7E+03
4.2E+03
5.6E+04
6.6E+03
3.1E+04
2.7E+03
molecular weight
Henry's Law Constant
dimensionless Henry's Law Constant
diffusivity in air
diffusivity in water
organic carbon/water partition coefficient
soil/water partition coefficient
octanol/water partition coefficient
skin permeabiity coefficient
solubility in water
Page 1 of 1
3.0E+03
4.8E+03
2.6E+03
7.6E+03
3.9E+03
9.9E+03
7.5E+03
1.1E+03
DA
VF
SAT
kg
kl
Kol
SAT
(mg/kg)
1.0E+05
8.7E+02
1.6E+03
2.9E+03
2.8E+02
1.7E+03
1.8E+03
1.5E+03
1.2E+03
3.1E+03
1.1E+03
4.0E+02
1.7E+04
2.5E+03
2.3E+02
6.5E+02
1.2E+03
1.8E+03
1.3E+03
2.4E+02
4.2E+02
1.2E+03
kg
(cm/hr)
1.7E+03
1.4E+03
1.6E+03
1.2E+03
1.0E+03
1.3E+03
1.3E+03
1.3E+03
1.3E+03
1.3E+03
1.2E+03
1.4E+03
1.2E+03
1.3E+03
1.4E+03
1.2E+03
9.9E+02
1.3E+03
1.1E+03
1.1E+03
1.1E+03
1.2E+03
1.2E+03
1.6E+03
kl
(cm/hr)
1.7E+01
1.5E+01
1.6E+01
1.2E+01
1.1E+01
1.3E+01
1.3E+01
1.3E+01
1.3E+01
1.3E+01
1.2E+01
1.4E+01
1.3E+01
1.3E+01
1.4E+01
1.3E+01
1.0E+01
1.4E+01
1.2E+01
1.2E+01
1.2E+01
1.2E+01
1.3E+01
1.7E+01
Kol
(cm/hr)
2.3E+00
1.4E+01
1.6E+01
1.1E+01
9.8E+00
1.3E+01
1.1E+01
1.3E+01
1.3E+01
1.3E+01
1.1E+01
1.6E-01
1.2E+01
4.7E+00
1.3E+01
5.0E-02
1.0E+01
1.3E+01
1.1E+01
9.0E+00
1.1E+01
1.2E+01
1.2E+01
1.7E+01
apparent diffusivity as defined in USEPA, 1996.
soil volatilization factor
Saturated soil concentration
gas phase mass transfer coefficient
liquid phase mass transfer coefficient
overall mass transfer coefficient
B
1.5E-03
5.0E-02
1.9E-02
2.9E-02
1.9E-01
2.6E-02
1.6E-02
4.4E-02
2.9E-02
2.9E-02
3.2E-02
1.2E-03
1.9E-01
1.2E-02
1.3E-02
3.0E-02
1.6E-01
1.1E-01
5.6E-02
2.9E-02
5.1E-02
2.6E-01
2.1E-01
1.7E-02
Tau
(hr)
2.2E-01
2.9E-01
2.4E-01
4.9E-01
7.3E-01
3.8E-01
3.8E-01
3.7E-01
3.7E-01
3.7E-01
4.5E-01
3.3E-01
4.1E-01
3.8E-01
3.1E-01
4.2E-01
8.9E-01
3.4E-01
5.8E-01
5.8E-01
5.7E-01
4.9E-01
4.1E-01
2.4E-01
t*
(hr)
5.3E-01
6.9E-01
5.8E-01
1.2E+00
1.7E+00
9.0E-01
9.0E-01
8.8E-01
8.8E-01
8.8E-01
1.1E+00
7.8E-01
9.9E-01
9.1E-01
7.5E-01
1.0E+00
2.1E+00
8.3E-01
1.4E+00
1.4E+00
1.4E+00
1.2E+00
9.9E-01
5.7E-01
Human Health Risk Assessment
NonCarcinogens
acetone
benzene
chloroethane
chloroform
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,1-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethene
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,4-dioxane
ethylbenzene
methyl isobutyl ketone
methylene chloride
4-methylphenol
tetrachloroethene
toluene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethene
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
xylenes
vinyl chloride
0.1
9
Kidney, Liver, Neuro
Blood
Developmental
Liver
Liver
Kidney
None Specified
Liver
Blood
Blood, Liver
Nasal
Develop, Kidney, Liver
Kidney, Liver
Liver
Neuro, Respiratory
Liver
Kidney, Liver, Neuro
Liver
Neurological
Liver
I = IRIS
E = Extrapolated
A = ATSDR
N = NCEA
R = RAGS-E
H = HAL (USEPA's 2002 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories)
HE = HEAST
HS = HSDB
T = TPHCWG
9 = Region 9 PRG Table
ENVIRON
Page 1 of 1
NA
3.00E-02
1.00E+01
NA
8.00E-01
5.00E-01
NA
2.00E-01
NA
NA
4.00E-03
NA
1.00E+00
3.00E+00
3.00E+00
NA
NA
5.00E+00
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.00E-01
1.00E-01
RfDo
(mg/kg-day)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
H
I
I
I
I
H
I
I
I
9.00E-01
4.00E-03
4.00E-01
1.00E-02
3.00E-02
1.00E-01
3.00E-02
5.00E-02
1.00E-02
2.00E-02
1.10E-03
NA
1.00E-01
8.00E-02
6.00E-02
5.00E-03
1.00E-02
8.00E-02
2.80E-01
4.00E-03
6.00E-03
5.00E-02
2.00E-01
3.00E-03
H
I
H
I
I
N
I
N
I
2.73E-02
2.90E-03
8.05E-02
2.20E-02
9.10E-02
6.80E-02
1.10E-02
1.65E-03
2.00E-03
5.60E-02
6.00E-03
1.54E-02
E
E
E
N
E
E
E
E
N
E
N
E
6.11E-02
2.90E-03
NA
2.40E-02
9.10E-02
6.80E-02
1.10E-02
7.50E-03
5.20E-02
7.04E-02
1.16E-02
8.23E-01
RfDi
(mg/kg-day)
RfDd
(mg/kg-day)
I
N
I
I
N
I
N
H
N
I
H
I
9
I
H
I
H
I
I
N
I
N
N
I
I
9.00E-01
8.57E-03
2.86E+00
1.40E-02
2.29E-01
1.43E-01
3.00E-02
5.71E-02
1.00E-02
2.00E-02
1.14E-03
NA
2.86E-01
8.57E-01
8.57E-01
3.73E-03
1.40E-01
1.43E+00
2.86E-01
3.24E-03
5.67E-03
1.70E-03
2.86E-02
2.86E-02
E
E
E
N
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
N
E
N
E
E
N
E
E
9.00E-01
3.60E-03
4.00E-01
1.00E-02
3.00E-02
1.00E-01
3.00E-02
5.00E-02
1.00E-02
2.00E-02
1.10E-03
NA
1.00E-01
8.00E-02
6.00E-02
3.73E-03
1.00E-02
8.00E-02
2.80E-01
3.24E-03
5.67E-03
5.00E-02
1.79E-01
2.63E-03
Source
CSFd
1/(mg/kg-day)
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Source
R
A
R
A
A
R
A
A
R
R
A
R
R
R
A
A
A
R
HS
A
A
R
A
A
I
5.50E-02
2.90E-03
NA
2.40E-02
9.10E-02
6.80E-02
1.10E-02
7.50E-03
5.20E-02
5.70E-02
1.10E-02
7.20E-01
Source
1
0.9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.745
1
1
1
0.81
0.945
1
0.895
0.875
RfC
(mg/m3)
I
H
H
H
I
I
I
CSFi
1/(mg/kg-day)
Source
Critical Effect
I
H
I
7.80E-06
NA
2.30E-05
NA
2.60E-05
NA
NA
4.70E-07
NA
1.60E-05
NA
4.40E-06
Source
GI Absorption
I
CSFo
1/(mg/kg-day)
Source
A
NA
B2
C
B2
B2
B2
B2
NA
C
B2
A
Source
A
R
A
A
A
A
R
A
A
A
A
A
IUR 1/(ug/m3)
Source
0.9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.81
0.945
0.875
Source
Cancer Class
Source
Skin
Absorption
9
Source
0.1
GI Absorption
Source
Skin
Absorption
Source
COPCs in Indoor Air
Carcinogens
benzene
chloroethane
chloroform
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,2-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloropropane
1,4-dioxane
methylene chloride
tetrachloroethene
1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethene
vinyl chloride
Source
Table 8. Source and Derivation of Toxicity Values
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Human Health Risk Assessment
Table 9. Risk-Based Screening Levels (RBSLs) for Evaluating Potential Exposures to Residential Irrigation Water
Constituent
acetone
benzene
chloroethane
chloroform
1,1-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethene
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,4-dioxane
ethylbenzene
methyl isobutyl ketone
methylene chloride
4-methylphenol
tetrachloroethene
toluene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethene
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
xylenes
vinyl chloride
Notes:
ENVIRON
Ingestion of Water
while Gardening
9.2E+05
1.3E+02
2.5E+03
1.0E+04
1.0E+05
8.1E+01
5.1E+04
1.0E+04
2.0E+04
1.1E+02
6.7E+02
1.0E+05
8.2E+04
9.8E+02
SL
1.4E+02
8.2E+04
2.9E+05
1.3E+02
6.7E+02
SL
SL
1.0E+01
Dermal Contact
while Gardening
5.0E+07
1.3E+02
7.1E+03
3.1E+04
3.5E+05
2.8E+02
1.0E+05
3.1E+04
6.3E+04
1.9E+02
3.0E+04
4.7E+04
5.9E+05
4.3E+03
SL
4.1E+01
6.5E+04
4.4E+05
1.9E+02
6.5E+02
1.7E+04
7.8E+04
2.7E+01
Ingestion of Soil
while Gardening
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
4.2E+06
SL
SL
SL
1.8E+06
4.2E+07
SL
SL
SL
8.1E+07
SL
SL
SL
1.8E+06
SL
SL
SL
SL
Combined
Gardening Scenario
9.0E+05
6.6E+01
1.9E+03
7.7E+03
7.9E+04
6.3E+01
3.4E+04
7.7E+03
1.5E+04
6.9E+01
6.6E+02
3.2E+04
7.2E+04
8.0E+02
8.1E+07
3.2E+01
3.6E+04
1.7E+05
7.7E+01
3.3E+02
1.7E+04
7.8E+04
7.5E+00
a - Scenario includes dermal exposure and incidental ingestion
b - Scenario includes dermal exposure, inhalation exposure and incidental ingestion
SL - Concentration exceeds the water solubility limit
Page 1 of 1
RBSL (µg/L)
Inhalation during
Lawn Irrigation
7.8E+06
1.3E+03
1.1E+04
4.5E+02
8.7E+05
4.1E+02
3.5E+05
5.8E+04
1.1E+05
5.8E+02
2.9E+04
SL
7.3E+06
2.0E+04
SL
2.1E+04
SL
SL
7.2E+02
6.4E+03
1.3E+04
SL
2.0E+03
Ingestion of
Homegrown Produce
4.6E+06
6.4E+01
3.6E+03
1.8E+04
2.4E+05
6.2E+01
9.0E+04
2.9E+04
7.8E+04
4.5E+01
5.2E+02
3.4E+04
1.2E+05
1.6E+03
SL
1.3E+01
5.0E+04
2.4E+05
5.0E+01
2.1E+02
1.1E+04
6.5E+04
2.3E+01
Wading Pool
Scenario a
1.9E+06
7.8E+01
3.2E+03
6.5E+03
7.0E+04
1.2E+02
2.3E+04
6.4E+03
1.3E+04
1.0E+02
2.3E+03
1.3E+04
8.9E+04
1.7E+03
2.5E+03
3.1E+01
1.7E+04
1.1E+05
1.1E+02
4.2E+02
4.9E+03
2.2E+04
1.3E+01
Swimming Pool
Scenario a
3.4E+06
4.5E+01
3.5E+03
1.9E+04
1.4E+05
7.1E+01
6.4E+04
2.2E+04
5.7E+04
4.6E+01
4.0E+02
7.9E+03
1.0E+05
1.9E+03
1.2E+04
1.1E+01
3.2E+04
2.2E+05
4.7E+01
1.9E+02
7.4E+03
3.3E+04
2.0E+01
Sprinkler
Scenario b
2.4E+06
8.2E+01
3.0E+03
8.5E+02
1.1E+05
1.1E+02
3.8E+04
9.9E+03
2.0E+04
9.8E+01
2.1E+03
2.2E+04
1.5E+05
1.7E+03
SL
3.1E+01
2.9E+04
1.7E+05
1.1E+02
4.1E+02
6.0E+03
3.3E+04
1.4E+01
Human Health Risk Assessment
Figures
Onsite Receptors
Primary
Source
Primary
Release Mechanism
Secondary
Source
Volatilization
through Vadose
Zone
Indoor Air
Secondary
Release Mechanism
Media
Affected
Exposure
Route
Facility
Worker
Onsite
Landscaper
Construction
Worker
Utility
Worker
Tresspasser
Indoor Air
Inhalation
9
--
--
--
--
Outdoor Air
Inhalation
o
9
o
o
9
Outdoor Air
(trench)
Inhalation
--
--
9
9
--
Groundwater
(trench)
Dermal Absorption
--
--
9
9
--
Ingestion
----
----
9
o
o
9
o
o
----
Outdoor Air
(vapor)
Ground
Water
Plume
Digging Trench
Groundwater in
Trench
Volatilization
`
Contact with Soil
Subsurface Soil
Excavation
Activities
Soil
Dermal Absorption
Inhalation
Legend
9
o
--
pathway
principal pathway for quantitative evaluation
pathway for qualitative evaluation
incomplete pathway
Drafted by:
Date:
5/30/08
Potential Exposure Pathways Under Current Use Scenarios –
On-Site Receptors
Raytheon Company Facility, St Petersburg, FL
FIGURE
1
Offsite Receptors
Primary
Source
Primary
Release Mechanism
Secondary
Source
Secondary
Release Mechanism
Media
Affected
Exposure
Route
Offsite
Resident†
Construction
Worker
Other
Offsite*
Indoor Air
Indoor Air
Inhalation
--
--
--
Outdoor Air
(vapor)
Outdoor Air
(vapor intrusion)
Inhalation
--
--
-- **
Outdoor Air
(irrigation)
Inhalation
9
--
--
Ingestion
9
9
---
---
Inhalation
9
o
o
----
----
Homegrown
Produce
Ingestion
9
--
--
Ingestion
Surface Water
Dermal Absorption
o
o
---
---
Outdoor Air
(trench)
Inhalation
--
9
--
Groundwater
(trench)
Dermal Absorption
--
9
--
Ingestion
----
9
o
o
----
Volatilization
Ground
Water
Plume
Irrigation Water
Irrigation Water
Deposition
Surface Soil
Pumping Well
Dermal Absorption
Ingestion
Dermal Absorption
Plant Uptake
Groundwater
Migration
Digging Trench
Surface Water
Groundwater in
Trench
Volatilization
`
Subsurface Soil
Excavation
Activities
Soil
Dermal Absorption
Inhalation
Legend
9
o
--
Notes
Offsite resident includes children exposed to irrigation water in a swimming or wading pool or by sprinklers.
* Other offsite receptors include: Pinellas Trail users, Azalea Park ball players, Workers at the Azalea
Park recreation center, Azalea Park Groundskeepers, and Apartment/Condominium landscapers
pathway
principal pathway for quantitative evaluation
pathway for qualitative evaluation
†
incomplete pathway
** Pinellas Trail users may be exposed to outdoor air originating onsite
Potential Exposure Pathways Under Current
Use Scenarios – Off-Site Receptors
Drawn By:
Date: 5/30/08
Raytheon Company Facility, St Petersburg, FL
FIGURE
2
Human Health Risk Assessment
Appendix A:
Dose and Risk Spreadsheets
Human Health Risk Assessment
Table A-1. Dose and Risk Calculations for Potential Current/Future Exposures to COPCs via Inhalation of Indoor Air
Based on Measured Indoor Air Levels. Facility Worker - Raytheon Facility - St. Petersburg, FL
COPC
Carcinogens
benzene
chloroethane
chloroform
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,2-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloropropane
1,4-dioxane
methylene chloride
tetrachloroethene
1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethene
vinyl chloride
NonCarcinogens
acetone
benzene
chloroethane
chloroform
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,1-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethene
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,4-dioxane
ethylbenzene
methyl isobutyl ketone
methylene chloride
4-methylphenol
phenol
tetrachloroethene
toluene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethene
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
xylenes
vinyl chloride
Totals
ADD
RfDi
Cair
ADD
LADD
Hazard
Excess Cancer
(mg/kg-day)
(mg/m3)
(mg/kg-day)
(mg/kg-day)
Quotient
Risk
0.0016
0
0.001
0
0
0
0
0.0013
0.00089
0
0.0032
0
9.6E-05
0.0E+00
6.0E-05
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
7.8E-05
5.3E-05
0.0E+00
1.9E-04
0.0E+00
3.4E-05
0.0E+00
2.1E-05
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
2.8E-05
1.9E-05
0.0E+00
6.8E-05
0.0E+00
0.056
0.0016
0
0.001
0
0.00045
0
0.00092
0.0017
0.00072
0
0
0.0018
0.0012
0.0013
0
0
0.00089
0.75
0.001
0
0.0032
0
0.0116
0
3.3E-03
9.6E-05
0.0E+00
6.0E-05
0.0E+00
2.7E-05
0.0E+00
5.5E-05
1.0E-04
4.3E-05
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
1.1E-04
7.2E-05
7.8E-05
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
5.3E-05
4.5E-02
6.0E-05
0.0E+00
1.9E-04
0.0E+00
6.9E-04
0.0E+00
2.7E-02
2.9E-03
8.1E-02
2.2E-02
9.1E-02
6.8E-02
1.1E-02
1.6E-03
2.0E-03
5.6E-02
6.0E-03
1.5E-02
9.0E-01
8.6E-03
2.9E+00
1.4E-02
2.3E-01
1.4E-01
3.0E-02
5.7E-02
1.0E-02
2.0E-02
1.1E-03
NA
2.9E-01
8.6E-01
8.6E-01
3.7E-03
3.0E-01
1.4E-01
1.4E+00
2.9E-01
3.2E-03
5.7E-03
1.7E-03
2.9E-02
2.9E-02
=
C air × IRi × ET × EF × ED
BW × AT
LADD
ENVIRON
CSFi
(mg/kg-day)-1
=
ADD × ED
70
Cair
Indoor Air Concentration
IRi
ET
EF
ED
BW
AT
Inhalation Rate
Exposure Time
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body weight
Averaging Time
Page 1 of 1
9.E-07
0.E+00
2.E-06
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
5.E-08
4.E-08
0.E+00
4.E-07
0.E+00
4.E-03
1.E-02
0.E+00
4.E-03
0.E+00
2.E-04
0.E+00
1.E-03
1.E-02
2.E-03
0.E+00
4.E-04
8.E-05
9.E-05
0.E+00
4.E-04
3.E-02
2.E-04
0.E+00
3.E-02
0.E+00
2.E-02
0.E+00
1.E-01
3
chemical -specific mg/m
0.83
8
250
25
76.1
9,125
3
m /hr
hr/day
days/year
year
kg
days
3.E-06
Human Health Risk Assessment
Table A-2. Dose and Risk Calculations for Potential Current/Future Exposures to COPCs via Inhalation of Outdoor Air
Onsite Landscape/Maintenance Worker - Raytheon Facility - St. Petersburg, FL
COPC
Carcinogens
benzene
chloroethane
chloroform
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,2-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloropropane
1,4-dioxane
methylene chloride
tetrachloroethene
1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethene
vinyl chloride
NonCarcinogens
acetone
benzene
chloroethane
chloroform
1,4-dchlorobenzene
1,1-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethene
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,4-dioxane
ethylbenzene
methyl isobutyl ketone
methylene chloride
4-methylphenol
tetrachloroethene
toluene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethene
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
xylenes
vinyl chloride
Totals
CSFi
RfDi
Coa
ADD
LADD
Hazard
Excess Cancer
(mg/kg-day)-1
(mg/kg-day)
(mg/m3)
(mg/kg-day)
(mg/kg-day)
Quotient
Risk
3.94E-08
7.05E-05
8.42E-05
2.82E-08
0.00E+00
2.17E-06
1.66E-11
6.61E-07
1.36E-05
1.76E-07
4.90E-05
2.75E-03
2.6E-09
4.6E-06
5.5E-06
1.8E-09
0.0E+00
1.4E-07
1.1E-12
4.3E-08
8.8E-07
1.1E-08
3.2E-06
1.8E-04
9.1E-10
1.6E-06
1.9E-06
6.5E-10
0.0E+00
5.0E-08
3.8E-13
1.5E-08
3.1E-07
4.1E-09
1.1E-06
6.4E-05
1.38E-08
3.94E-08
7.05E-05
8.42E-05
2.82E-08
1.37E-04
0.00E+00
1.83E-03
4.09E-05
1.19E-05
2.17E-06
7.39E-12
6.58E-06
0.00E+00
6.61E-07
3.88E-14
1.36E-05
1.23E-04
1.07E-03
1.76E-07
4.90E-05
4.17E-07
2.26E-05
2.75E-03
8.9E-10
2.6E-09
4.6E-06
5.5E-06
1.8E-09
8.9E-06
0.0E+00
1.2E-04
2.7E-06
7.7E-07
1.4E-07
4.8E-13
4.3E-07
0.0E+00
4.3E-08
2.5E-15
8.8E-07
8.0E-06
7.0E-05
1.1E-08
3.2E-06
2.7E-08
1.5E-06
1.8E-04
2.7E-02
2.9E-03
8.1E-02
2.2E-02
9.1E-02
6.8E-02
1.1E-02
1.6E-03
2.0E-03
5.6E-02
6.0E-03
1.5E-02
9.0E-01
8.6E-03
2.9E+00
1.4E-02
2.3E-01
1.4E-01
3.0E-02
5.7E-02
1.0E-02
2.0E-02
1.1E-03
NA
2.9E-01
8.6E-01
8.6E-01
3.7E-03
1.4E-01
1.4E+00
2.9E-01
3.2E-03
5.7E-03
1.7E-03
2.9E-02
2.9E-02
ADD =
LADD
ENVIRON
C oa × IRi × ET × EF × ED
BW × AT
=
ADD × ED
70
Coa
Outdoor Air Concentration
IRi
ET
EF
ED
BW
AT
Inhalation Rate
Exposure Time
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body weight
Averaging Time
Page 1 of 1
2.E-11
5.E-09
2.E-07
1.E-11
0.E+00
3.E-09
4.E-15
3.E-11
6.E-10
2.E-10
7.E-09
1.E-06
1.E-09
3.E-07
2.E-06
4.E-04
8.E-09
6.E-05
0.E+00
2.E-03
3.E-04
4.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-06
0.E+00
5.E-08
7.E-13
6.E-06
6.E-06
2.E-04
4.E-06
6.E-04
2.E-05
5.E-05
6.E-03
1.E-02
3
chemical -specific mg/m
3
m
/hr
1.5
8
150
25
76.1
9,125
hr/day
days/year
year
kg
days
1.E-06
Human Health Risk Assessment
Table A-3. Dose and Risk Calculations for Potential Exposures to COPCs via Inhalation of Outdoor Air
Onsite Trespasser - Raytheon Facility - St. Petersburg, FL
COPC
Carcinogens
benzene
chloroethane
chloroform
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,2-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloropropane
1,4-dioxane
methylene chloride
tetrachloroethene
1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethene
vinyl chloride
NonCarcinogens
acetone
benzene
chloroethane
chloroform
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,1-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethene
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,4-dioxane
ethylbenzene
methyl isobutyl ketone
methylene chloride
4-methylphenol
tetrachloroethene
toluene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethene
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
xylenes
vinyl chloride
Totals
RfDi
Coa
ADD
LADD
Hazard
Excess Cancer
(mg/kg-day)
(mg/m3)
(mg/kg-day)
(mg/kg-day)
Quotient
Risk
3.9E-08
7.1E-05
8.4E-05
2.8E-08
0.0E+00
2.2E-06
1.7E-11
6.6E-07
1.4E-05
1.8E-07
4.9E-05
2.8E-03
3.0E-10
5.4E-07
6.4E-07
2.1E-10
0.0E+00
1.6E-08
1.3E-13
5.0E-09
1.0E-07
1.3E-09
3.7E-07
2.1E-05
4.3E-11
7.7E-08
9.1E-08
3.1E-11
0.0E+00
2.4E-09
1.8E-14
7.2E-10
1.5E-08
1.9E-10
5.3E-08
3.0E-06
1.4E-08
3.9E-08
7.1E-05
8.4E-05
2.8E-08
1.4E-04
0.0E+00
1.8E-03
4.1E-05
1.2E-05
2.2E-06
7.4E-12
6.6E-06
0.0E+00
6.6E-07
3.9E-14
1.4E-05
1.2E-04
1.1E-03
1.8E-07
4.9E-05
4.2E-07
2.3E-05
2.8E-03
1.0E-10
3.0E-10
5.4E-07
6.4E-07
2.1E-10
1.0E-06
0.0E+00
1.4E-05
3.1E-07
9.1E-08
1.6E-08
5.6E-14
5.0E-08
0.0E+00
5.0E-09
2.9E-16
1.0E-07
9.3E-07
8.2E-06
1.3E-09
3.7E-07
3.2E-09
1.7E-07
2.1E-05
2.7E-02
2.9E-03
8.1E-02
2.2E-02
9.1E-02
6.8E-02
1.1E-02
1.6E-03
2.0E-03
5.6E-02
6.0E-03
1.5E-02
9.0E-01
8.6E-03
2.9E+00
1.4E-02
2.3E-01
1.4E-01
3.0E-02
5.7E-02
1.0E-02
2.0E-02
1.1E-03
NA
2.9E-01
8.6E-01
8.6E-01
3.7E-03
1.4E-01
1.4E+00
2.9E-01
3.2E-03
5.7E-03
1.7E-03
2.9E-02
2.9E-02
ADD
=
LADD
ENVIRON
CSFi
(mg/kg-day)-1
C oa × IR i × ET × EF × ED
BW × AT
=
ADD × ED
70
Coa
Iri
ET
EF
ED
BW
AT
Page 1 of 1
Outdoor Air Concentration
Inhalation Rate
Exposure Time
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body weight
Averaging Time
1.E-12
2.E-10
7.E-09
7.E-13
0.E+00
2.E-10
2.E-16
1.E-12
3.E-11
1.E-11
3.E-10
5.E-08
1.E-10
3.E-08
2.E-07
5.E-05
9.E-10
7.E-06
0.E+00
2.E-04
3.E-05
5.E-06
1.E-05
2.E-07
0.E+00
6.E-09
8.E-14
7.E-07
7.E-07
3.E-05
4.E-07
7.E-05
2.E-06
6.E-06
7.E-04
1.E-03
chemical -specific
1.2
2
52
10
45
3,650
mg/m3
m3/hr
hr/day
days/year
year
kg
days
5.E-08
Human Health Risk Assessment
Table A-4. Dose and Risk Calculations for Potential Exposures to COPCs via Dermal Exposure to Groundwater
Onsite Construction Worker - Raytheon Facility - St. Petersburg, FL
COPC
Carcinogens
benzene
chloroethane
chloroform
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,2-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloropropane
1,4-dioxane
methylene chloride
tetrachloroethene
1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethene
vinyl chloride
NonCarcinogens
acetone
benzene
chloroethane
chloroform
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,1-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethene
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,4-dioxane
ethylbenzene
methyl isobutyl ketone
methylene chloride
4-methylphenol
tetrachloroethene
toluene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethene
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
xylenes
vinyl chloride
Totals
DAD
CSFd
RfDd
(mg/kg-day)-1
(mg/kg-day)
6.1E-02
2.9E-03
NA
2.4E-02
9.1E-02
6.8E-02
1.1E-02
7.5E-03
5.2E-02
7.0E-02
1.2E-02
8.2E-01
9.0E-01
3.6E-03
4.0E-01
1.0E-02
3.0E-02
1.0E-01
3.0E-02
5.0E-02
1.0E-02
2.0E-02
1.1E-03
NA
1.0E-01
8.0E-02
6.0E-02
3.7E-03
1.0E-02
8.0E-02
2.8E-01
3.2E-03
5.7E-03
5.0E-02
1.8E-01
2.6E-03
=
DAevent
2
(mg/cm -event)
Cw
DAD
LADD
Hazard
Excess Cancer
(mg/cm3)
(mg/kg-day)
(mg/kg-day)
Quotient
Risk
3.1E-08
2.7E-06
5.2E-05
7.1E-06
0.0E+00
3.5E-06
9.0E-08
2.8E-07
9.3E-06
2.6E-06
2.9E-05
2.4E-05
0.00000085
0.00018
0.0026
0.000053
0
0.00016
0.0001
0.00003
0.000077
0.00013
0.00081
0.0018
7.9E-08
6.7E-06
1.3E-04
1.8E-05
0.0E+00
8.9E-06
2.3E-07
7.0E-07
2.3E-05
6.6E-06
7.3E-05
6.2E-05
1.1E-09
9.6E-08
1.9E-06
2.6E-07
0.0E+00
1.3E-07
3.2E-09
1.0E-08
3.4E-07
9.5E-08
1.0E-06
8.8E-07
1.1E-06
3.1E-08
2.7E-06
5.2E-05
7.1E-06
4.2E-05
0.0E+00
7.1E-05
2.5E-05
2.3E-06
3.5E-06
9.0E-08
5.0E-05
0.0E+00
2.8E-07
9.9E-08
9.3E-06
3.7E-04
1.9E-04
2.6E-06
2.9E-05
9.6E-06
2.5E-04
2.4E-05
0.00089
0.00000085
0.00018
0.0026
0.000053
0.0023
0
0.0023
0.0012
0.00011
0.00016
0.0001
0.00039
0
0.00003
0.0000046
0.000077
0.0047
0.0049
0.00013
0.00081
0.000056
0.00184
0.0018
2.9E-06
7.9E-08
6.7E-06
1.3E-04
1.8E-05
1.1E-04
0.0E+00
1.8E-04
6.3E-05
5.7E-06
8.9E-06
2.3E-07
1.3E-04
0.0E+00
7.0E-07
2.5E-07
2.3E-05
9.3E-04
4.8E-04
6.6E-06
7.3E-05
2.4E-05
6.4E-04
6.2E-05
DA event x SA × EV × EF × ED
BW × AT
LADD =
DAD × ED
70
Cw
SA
ET
EF
ED
BW
AT
EV
see text for definition of DAevent
ENVIRON
Page 1 of 1
Irrigation Water Concentration
Exposed skin surface area
Exposure Time
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body weight
Averaging Time
Event Frequency
7.E-11
3.E-10
6.E-09
0.E+00
9.E-09
4.E-11
7.E-11
2.E-08
7.E-09
1.E-08
7.E-07
3.E-06
2.E-05
2.E-05
1.E-02
6.E-04
1.E-03
0.E+00
4.E-03
6.E-03
3.E-04
8.E-03
1.E-03
0.E+00
1.E-05
7.E-05
2.E-03
1.E-02
2.E-03
2.E-03
1.E-02
5.E-04
4.E-03
2.E-02
9.E-02
Worker
chemical -specific
3,500
2
20
1
76.1
365
1
mg/cm3
2
cm
hr/day
day/yr
years
kg
days
per day
8.E-07
Human Health Risk Assessment
Table A-5. Dose and Risk Calculations for Potential Exposures to COPCs via Incidental Ingestion of Soil
Onsite Construction Worker - Raytheon Facility - St. Petersburg, FL
COPC
Carcinogens
benzene
chloroethane
chloroform
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,2-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloropropane
1,4-dioxane
methylene chloride
tetrachloroethene
1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethene
vinyl chloride
NonCarcinogens
acetone
benzene
chloroethane
chloroform
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,1-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethene
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,4-dioxane
ethylbenzene
methyl isobutyl ketone
methylene chloride
4-methylphenol
tetrachloroethene
toluene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethene
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
xylenes
vinyl chloride
Totals
ADD
RfDo
Cs
ADD
LADD
Hazard
Excess
Cancer
(mg/kg-day)-1
(mg/kg-day)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg-day)
(mg/kg-day)
Quotient
Risk
7.05E-04
6.98E-02
1.66E+00
3.41E-01
0.00E+00
1.08E-01
2.75E-02
1.07E-02
1.38E-01
9.64E-02
1.54E+00
7.68E-01
1.0E-09
1.0E-07
2.5E-06
5.1E-07
0.0E+00
1.6E-07
4.1E-08
1.6E-08
2.0E-07
1.4E-07
2.3E-06
1.1E-06
1.5E-11
1.5E-09
3.5E-08
7.2E-09
0.0E+00
2.3E-09
5.8E-10
2.3E-10
2.9E-09
2.0E-09
3.3E-08
1.6E-08
2.19E-01
7.05E-04
6.98E-02
1.66E+00
3.41E-01
1.28E+00
0.00E+00
1.91E+00
7.15E-01
8.42E-02
1.08E-01
2.75E-02
1.51E+00
0.00E+00
1.07E-02
5.30E-03
1.38E-01
9.69E+00
6.57E+00
9.64E-02
1.54E+00
4.73E-01
7.93E+00
7.68E-01
3.3E-07
1.0E-09
1.0E-07
2.5E-06
5.1E-07
1.9E-06
0.0E+00
2.8E-06
1.1E-06
1.3E-07
1.6E-07
4.1E-08
2.2E-06
0.0E+00
1.6E-08
7.9E-09
2.0E-07
1.4E-05
9.8E-06
1.4E-07
2.3E-06
7.0E-07
1.2E-05
1.1E-06
5.5E-02
2.9E-03
NA
2.4E-02
9.1E-02
6.8E-02
1.1E-02
7.5E-03
5.2E-02
5.7E-02
1.1E-02
7.2E-01
9.0E-01
4.0E-03
4.0E-01
1.0E-02
3.0E-02
1.0E-01
3.0E-02
5.0E-02
1.0E-02
2.0E-02
1.1E-03
NA
1.0E-01
8.0E-02
6.0E-02
5.0E-03
1.0E-02
8.0E-02
2.8E-01
4.0E-03
6.0E-03
5.0E-02
2.0E-01
3.0E-03
=
LADD
ENVIRON
CSFo
C s × IR s × EF × ED
BW × AT
=
ADD × ED
70
Cs
Irs
EF
ED
BW
AT
Page 1 of 1
Soil Conc.
Soil Ingestion Rate
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body weight
Averaging Time
8.E-13
4.E-12
2.E-10
0.E+00
2.E-10
6.E-12
2.E-12
2.E-10
1.E-10
4.E-10
1.E-08
4.E-07
3.E-07
3.E-07
2.E-04
2.E-05
2.E-05
0.E+00
6.E-05
1.E-04
6.E-06
1.E-04
2.E-05
0.E+00
3.E-07
2.E-06
2.E-05
2.E-04
3.E-05
4.E-05
4.E-04
1.E-05
6.E-05
4.E-04
2.E-03
Worker
chemical -specific
0.00033
125
1
76.1
365
mg/kg
kg/day
days/year
year
kg
days
1.E-08
Human Health Risk Assessment
Table A-6. Dose and Risk Calculations for Potential Exposures to COPCs via Inhalation of Outdoor Air
During Subsurfcae Excavation Activities - Onsite Construction Worker - Raytheon Facility - St. Petersburg, FL
COPC
Carcinogens
benzene
chloroethane
chloroform
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,2-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloropropane
1,4-dioxane
methylene chloride
tetrachloroethene
1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethene
vinyl chloride
NonCarcinogens
acetone
benzene
chloroethane
chloroform
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,1-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethene
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,4-dioxane
ethylbenzene
methyl isobutyl ketone
methylene chloride
4-methylphenol
tetrachloroethene
toluene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethene
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
xylenes
vinyl chloride
Totals
RfDi
Coa
ADD
LADD
Hazard
Excess Cancer
(mg/kg-day)
(mg/m3)
(mg/kg-day)
(mg/kg-day)
Quotient
Risk
2.84E-06
6.71E-04
8.81E-03
1.53E-04
0.00E+00
4.94E-04
7.40E-05
1.13E-04
2.29E-04
4.01E-04
2.58E-03
7.02E-03
2.5E-08
5.8E-06
7.6E-05
1.3E-06
0.0E+00
4.3E-06
6.4E-07
9.7E-07
2.0E-06
3.5E-06
2.2E-05
6.1E-05
3.5E-10
8.3E-08
1.1E-06
1.9E-08
0.0E+00
6.1E-08
9.1E-09
1.4E-08
2.8E-08
4.9E-08
3.2E-07
8.7E-07
2.67E-03
2.84E-06
6.71E-04
8.81E-03
1.53E-04
8.05E-03
0.00E+00
8.02E-03
4.41E-03
4.19E-04
4.94E-04
7.40E-05
1.12E-03
0.00E+00
1.13E-04
1.20E-06
2.29E-04
1.44E-02
1.53E-02
4.01E-04
2.58E-03
1.51E-04
5.28E-03
7.02E-03
2.3E-05
2.5E-08
5.8E-06
7.6E-05
1.3E-06
7.0E-05
0.0E+00
6.9E-05
3.8E-05
3.6E-06
4.3E-06
6.4E-07
9.7E-06
0.0E+00
9.7E-07
1.0E-08
2.0E-06
1.2E-04
1.3E-04
3.5E-06
2.2E-05
1.3E-06
4.6E-05
6.1E-05
2.7E-02
2.9E-03
8.1E-02
2.2E-02
9.1E-02
6.8E-02
1.1E-02
1.6E-03
2.0E-03
5.6E-02
6.0E-03
1.5E-02
9.0E-01
8.6E-03
2.9E+00
1.4E-02
2.3E-01
1.4E-01
3.0E-02
5.7E-02
1.0E-02
2.0E-02
1.1E-03
NA
2.9E-01
8.6E-01
8.6E-01
3.7E-03
1.4E-01
1.4E+00
2.9E-01
3.2E-03
5.7E-03
1.7E-03
2.9E-02
2.9E-02
ADD
=
LADD
ENVIRON
CSFi
(mg/kg-day)-1
C oa × IR i × ET × EF × ED
BW × AT
=
ADD × ED
70
Coa
Iri
ET
EF
ED
BW
AT
Page 1 of 1
Outdoor Air Concentration
Inhalation Rate
Exposure Time
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body weight
Averaging Time
1.E-11
2.E-10
9.E-08
4.E-10
0.E+00
4.E-09
1.E-10
2.E-11
6.E-11
3.E-09
2.E-09
1.E-08
3.E-05
3.E-06
2.E-06
5.E-03
6.E-06
5.E-04
0.E+00
1.E-03
4.E-03
2.E-04
4.E-03
3.E-05
0.E+00
1.E-06
3.E-06
1.E-05
9.E-05
5.E-04
1.E-03
4.E-03
8.E-04
2.E-03
2.E-03
2.E-02
Worker
chem-specific
1.5
8
20
1
76.1
365
mg/m3
m3/hr
hr/day
days/year
year
kg
days
1.E-07
Human Health Risk Assessment
Table A-7. Dose and Risk Calculations for Potential Exposures to COPCs via Dermal Exposure to Groundwater
Onsite Utility Worker - Raytheon Facility - St. Petersburg, FL
COPC
Carcinogens
benzene
chloroethane
chloroform
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,2-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloropropane
1,4-dioxane
methylene chloride
tetrachloroethene
1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethene
vinyl chloride
NonCarcinogens
acetone
benzene
chloroethane
chloroform
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,1-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethene
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,4-dioxane
ethylbenzene
methyl isobutyl ketone
methylene chloride
4-methylphenol
tetrachloroethene
toluene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethene
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
xylenes
vinyl chloride
Totals
DAD
CSFd
RfDd
(mg/kg-day)-1
(mg/kg-day)
6.1E-02
2.9E-03
NA
2.4E-02
9.1E-02
6.8E-02
1.1E-02
7.5E-03
5.2E-02
7.0E-02
1.2E-02
8.2E-01
9.0E-01
3.6E-03
4.0E-01
1.0E-02
3.0E-02
1.0E-01
3.0E-02
5.0E-02
1.0E-02
2.0E-02
1.1E-03
NA
1.0E-01
8.0E-02
6.0E-02
3.7E-03
1.0E-02
8.0E-02
2.8E-01
3.2E-03
5.7E-03
5.0E-02
1.8E-01
2.6E-03
=
DAevent
2
(mg/cm -event)
Cw
DAD
LADD
Hazard
Excess Cancer
(mg/cm3)
(mg/kg-day)
(mg/kg-day)
Quotient
Risk
3.1E-08
2.7E-06
5.2E-05
7.1E-06
0.0E+00
3.5E-06
9.0E-08
2.8E-07
9.3E-06
2.6E-06
2.9E-05
2.4E-05
0.00000085
0.00018
0.0026
0.000053
0
0.00016
0.0001
0.00003
0.000077
0.00013
0.00081
0.0018
3.2E-08
2.7E-06
5.3E-05
7.2E-06
0.0E+00
3.6E-06
9.0E-08
2.8E-07
9.4E-06
2.6E-06
2.9E-05
2.5E-05
4.5E-09
3.8E-07
7.5E-06
1.0E-06
0.0E+00
5.1E-07
1.3E-08
4.0E-08
1.3E-06
3.8E-07
4.2E-06
3.5E-06
1.1E-06
3.1E-08
2.7E-06
5.2E-05
7.1E-06
4.2E-05
0.0E+00
7.1E-05
2.5E-05
2.3E-06
3.5E-06
9.0E-08
5.0E-05
0.0E+00
2.8E-07
9.9E-08
9.3E-06
3.7E-04
1.9E-04
2.6E-06
2.9E-05
9.6E-06
2.5E-04
2.4E-05
0.00089
0.00000085
0.00018
0.0026
0.000053
0.0023
0
0.0023
0.0012
0.00011
0.00016
0.0001
0.00039
0
0.00003
0.0000046
0.000077
0.0047
0.0049
0.00013
0.00081
0.000056
0.00184
0.0018
1.1E-06
3.2E-08
2.7E-06
5.3E-05
DA event x SA × EV × EF × ED
BW × AT
LADD =
DAD × ED
70
Cw
SA
ET
EF
ED
BW
AT
EV
see text for definition of DAevent
ENVIRON
Page 1 of 1
3.E-10
1.E-09
2.E-08
0.E+00
3.E-08
1.E-10
3.E-10
7.E-08
3.E-08
5.E-08
3.E-06
1.E-06
9.E-06
7.E-06
5.E-03
0.E+00
4.E-04
0.E+00
1.E-03
3.E-03
1.E-04
3.E-03
4.2E-05
0.0E+00
7.2E-05
2.5E-05
2.3E-06
3.6E-06
9.0E-08
5.1E-05
0.0E+00
2.8E-07
9.9E-08
9.4E-06
3.7E-04
1.9E-04
2.6E-06
2.9E-05
9.7E-06
2.6E-04
2.5E-05
Irrigation Water Concentration
Exposed skin surface area
Exposure Time
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body weight
Averaging Time
Event freqency
5.E-04
0.E+00
5.E-06
3.E-05
9.E-04
5.E-03
7.E-04
8.E-04
5.E-03
2.E-04
1.E-03
9.E-03
4.E-02
Worker
chemical -specific
3,500
2
8
10
76.1
3,650
1
mg/cm3
cm2
hr/day
day/yr
years
kg
days
per day
3.E-06
Human Health Risk Assessment
Table A-8. Dose and Risk Calculations for Potential Exposures to COPCs via Incidental Ingestion of Soil
Onsite Utility Worker - Raytheon Facility - St. Petersburg, FL
COPC
Carcinogens
benzene
chloroethane
chloroform
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,2-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloropropane
1,4-dioxane
methylene chloride
tetrachloroethene
1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethene
vinyl chloride
NonCarcinogens
acetone
benzene
chloroethane
chloroform
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,1-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethene
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,4-dioxane
ethylbenzene
methyl isobutyl ketone
methylene chloride
4-methylphenol
tetrachloroethene
toluene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethene
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
xylenes
vinyl chloride
Totals
ADD
RfDo
Cs
ADD
LADD
Hazard
Excess
Cancer
(mg/kg-day)-1
(mg/kg-day)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg-day)
(mg/kg-day)
Quotient
Risk
7.05E-04
6.98E-02
1.66E+00
3.41E-01
0.00E+00
1.08E-01
2.75E-02
1.07E-02
1.38E-01
9.64E-02
1.54E+00
7.68E-01
6.7E-11
6.6E-09
1.6E-07
3.2E-08
0.0E+00
1.0E-08
2.6E-09
1.0E-09
1.3E-08
9.2E-09
1.5E-07
7.3E-08
9.6E-12
9.5E-10
2.3E-08
4.6E-09
0.0E+00
1.5E-09
3.7E-10
1.5E-10
1.9E-09
1.3E-09
2.1E-08
1.0E-08
2.19E-01
7.05E-04
6.98E-02
1.66E+00
3.41E-01
1.28E+00
0.00E+00
1.91E+00
7.15E-01
8.42E-02
1.08E-01
2.75E-02
1.51E+00
0.00E+00
1.07E-02
5.30E-03
1.38E-01
9.69E+00
6.57E+00
9.64E-02
1.54E+00
4.73E-01
7.93E+00
7.68E-01
2.1E-08
6.7E-11
6.6E-09
1.6E-07
3.2E-08
1.2E-07
0.0E+00
1.8E-07
6.8E-08
8.0E-09
1.0E-08
2.6E-09
1.4E-07
0.0E+00
1.0E-09
5.0E-10
1.3E-08
9.2E-07
6.2E-07
9.2E-09
1.5E-07
4.5E-08
7.5E-07
7.3E-08
5.5E-02
2.9E-03
NA
2.4E-02
9.1E-02
6.8E-02
1.1E-02
7.5E-03
5.2E-02
5.7E-02
1.1E-02
7.2E-01
9.0E-01
4.0E-03
4.0E-01
1.0E-02
3.0E-02
1.0E-01
3.0E-02
5.0E-02
1.0E-02
2.0E-02
1.1E-03
NA
1.0E-01
8.0E-02
6.0E-02
5.0E-03
1.0E-02
8.0E-02
2.8E-01
4.0E-03
6.0E-03
5.0E-02
2.0E-01
3.0E-03
=
LADD
ENVIRON
CSFo
C s × IR s × EF × ED
BW × AT
=
ADD × ED
70
Cs
Irs
EF
ED
BW
AT
Page 1 of 1
Soil Conc.
Soil Ingestion Rate
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body weight
Averaging Time
5.E-13
3.E-12
1.E-10
0.E+00
1.E-10
4.E-12
1.E-12
1.E-10
7.E-11
2.E-10
8.E-09
2.E-08
2.E-08
2.E-08
2.E-05
1.E-06
1.E-06
0.E+00
4.E-06
7.E-06
4.E-07
9.E-06
1.E-06
0.E+00
2.E-08
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
2.E-06
2.E-06
2.E-05
9.E-07
4.E-06
2.E-05
1.E-04
Worker
chemical -specific
0.00033
8
10
76.1
3,650
mg/kg
kg/day
days/year
year
kg
days
8.E-09
Human Health Risk Assessment
Table A-9. Dose and Risk Calculations for Potential Exposures to COPCs via Inhalation of Outdoor Air
During Subsurfcae Excavation Activities - Onsite Utility Worker - Raytheon Facility - St. Petersburg, FL
COPC
Carcinogens
benzene
chloroethane
chloroform
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,2-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloropropane
1,4-dioxane
methylene chloride
tetrachloroethene
1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethene
vinyl chloride
NonCarcinogens
acetone
benzene
chloroethane
chloroform
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,1-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethene
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,4-dioxane
ethylbenzene
methyl isobutyl ketone
methylene chloride
4-methylphenol
tetrachloroethene
toluene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethene
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
xylenes
vinyl chloride
Totals
RfDi
Coa
ADD
LADD
Hazard
Excess Cancer
(mg/kg-day)
(mg/m3)
(mg/kg-day)
(mg/kg-day)
Quotient
Risk
2.84E-06
6.71E-04
8.81E-03
1.53E-04
0.00E+00
4.94E-04
7.40E-05
1.13E-04
2.29E-04
4.01E-04
2.58E-03
7.02E-03
2.5E-09
5.8E-07
7.6E-06
1.3E-07
0.0E+00
4.3E-07
6.4E-08
9.7E-08
2.0E-07
3.5E-07
2.2E-06
6.1E-06
3.5E-10
8.3E-08
1.1E-06
1.9E-08
0.0E+00
6.1E-08
9.1E-09
1.4E-08
2.8E-08
4.9E-08
3.2E-07
8.7E-07
2.67E-03
2.84E-06
6.71E-04
8.81E-03
1.53E-04
8.05E-03
0.00E+00
8.02E-03
4.41E-03
4.19E-04
4.94E-04
7.40E-05
1.12E-03
0.00E+00
1.13E-04
1.20E-06
2.29E-04
1.44E-02
1.53E-02
4.01E-04
2.58E-03
1.51E-04
5.28E-03
7.02E-03
2.3E-06
2.5E-09
5.8E-07
7.6E-06
1.3E-07
7.0E-06
0.0E+00
6.9E-06
3.8E-06
3.6E-07
4.3E-07
6.4E-08
9.7E-07
0.0E+00
9.7E-08
1.0E-09
2.0E-07
1.2E-05
1.3E-05
3.5E-07
2.2E-06
1.3E-07
4.6E-06
6.1E-06
2.7E-02
2.9E-03
8.1E-02
2.2E-02
9.1E-02
6.8E-02
1.1E-02
1.6E-03
2.0E-03
5.6E-02
6.0E-03
1.5E-02
9.0E-01
8.6E-03
2.9E+00
1.4E-02
2.3E-01
1.4E-01
3.0E-02
5.7E-02
1.0E-02
2.0E-02
1.1E-03
NA
2.9E-01
8.6E-01
8.6E-01
3.7E-03
1.4E-01
1.4E+00
2.9E-01
3.2E-03
5.7E-03
1.7E-03
2.9E-02
2.9E-02
ADD
=
LADD
ENVIRON
CSFi
(mg/kg-day)-1
C oa × IR i × ET × EF × ED
BW × AT
=
ADD × ED
70
Coa
Iri
ET
EF
ED
BW
AT
Page 1 of 1
Outdoor Air Concentration
Inhalation Rate
Exposure Time
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body weight
Averaging Time
1.E-11
2.E-10
9.E-08
4.E-10
0.E+00
4.E-09
1.E-10
2.E-11
6.E-11
3.E-09
2.E-09
1.E-08
3.E-06
3.E-07
2.E-07
5.E-04
6.E-07
5.E-05
0.E+00
1.E-04
4.E-04
2.E-05
4.E-04
3.E-06
0.E+00
1.E-07
3.E-07
1.E-06
9.E-06
5.E-05
1.E-04
4.E-04
8.E-05
2.E-04
2.E-04
2.E-03
Worker
chem-specific
1.5
2
8
10
76.1
3,650
mg/m3
m3/hr
hr/day
days/year
year
kg
days
1.E-07
Human Health Risk Assessment
Table A-10. Dose and Risk Calculations for Current Exposures to COPCs via Inhalation of Outdoor Air
Pinellas Trail Jogger - Raytheon Facility - St. Petersburg, FL
COPC
Carcinogens
benzene
chloroethane
chloroform
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,2-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloropropane
1,4-dioxane
methylene chloride
tetrachloroethene
1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethene
vinyl chloride
NonCarcinogens
acetone
benzene
chloroethane
chloroform
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,1-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethene
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,4-dioxane
ethylbenzene
methyl isobutyl ketone
methylene chloride
4-methylphenol
tetrachloroethene
toluene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethene
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
xylenes
vinyl chloride
Totals
CSFi
RfDi
Coa
ADD
LADD
Hazard
Excess Cancer
(mg/kg-day)-1
(mg/kg-day)
(mg/m3)
(mg/kg-day)
(mg/kg-day)
Quotient
Risk
3.9E-08
7.1E-05
8.4E-05
2.8E-08
0.0E+00
2.2E-06
1.7E-11
6.6E-07
1.4E-05
1.8E-07
4.9E-05
2.8E-03
3.3E-10
6.0E-07
7.1E-07
2.4E-10
0.0E+00
1.8E-08
1.4E-13
5.6E-09
1.1E-07
1.5E-09
4.1E-07
2.3E-05
1.4E-10
2.6E-07
3.0E-07
1.0E-10
0.0E+00
7.9E-09
6.0E-14
2.4E-09
4.9E-08
6.4E-10
1.8E-07
1.0E-05
1.4E-08
3.9E-08
7.1E-05
8.4E-05
2.8E-08
1.4E-04
0.0E+00
1.8E-03
4.1E-05
1.2E-05
2.2E-06
7.4E-12
6.6E-06
0.0E+00
6.6E-07
3.9E-14
1.4E-05
1.2E-04
1.1E-03
1.8E-07
4.9E-05
4.2E-07
2.3E-05
2.8E-03
1.3E-10
3.9E-10
6.9E-07
8.2E-07
2.8E-10
1.3E-06
0.0E+00
1.8E-05
4.0E-07
1.2E-07
2.1E-08
7.2E-14
6.4E-08
0.0E+00
6.5E-09
3.8E-16
1.3E-07
1.2E-06
1.1E-05
1.7E-09
4.8E-07
4.1E-09
2.2E-07
2.7E-05
2.7E-02
2.9E-03
8.1E-02
2.2E-02
9.1E-02
6.8E-02
1.1E-02
1.6E-03
2.0E-03
5.6E-02
6.0E-03
1.5E-02
9.0E-01
8.6E-03
2.9E+00
1.4E-02
2.3E-01
1.4E-01
3.0E-02
5.7E-02
1.0E-02
2.0E-02
1.1E-03
NA
2.9E-01
8.6E-01
8.6E-01
3.7E-03
1.4E-01
1.4E+00
2.9E-01
3.2E-03
5.7E-03
1.7E-03
2.9E-02
2.9E-02
ADD
=
LADD
C oa × IR i × ET × EF × ED
BW × AT
=
ADD × ED
70
Coa
Iri
ET
EF
ED
BW
AT
Outdoor Air Concentration
Inhalation Rate
Exposure Time
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body weight
Averaging Time
4.E-12
7.E-10
2.E-08
2.E-12
0.E+00
5.E-10
7.E-16
4.E-12
1.E-10
4.E-11
1.E-09
2.E-07
1.E-10
4.E-08
2.E-07
6.E-05
1.E-09
9.E-06
0.E+00
3.E-04
4.E-05
6.E-06
2.E-05
2.E-07
0.E+00
8.E-09
1.E-13
9.E-07
8.E-07
4.E-05
5.E-07
8.E-05
2.E-06
8.E-06
9.E-04
2.E-03
Aggregate Resident
Chem-specific
3.2
0.25
200
30
51.9
10,950
Child
Chem-specific
1.2
0.25
200
6
16.8
2,190
Note that child exposure assumptions are used to calculate noncancer risks and aggregate resident exposure assumptions are used to calculate excess cancer risks.
ENVIRON
Page 1 of 1
2.E-07
mg/m3
m3/hr
hr/day
days/year
year
kg
days
Human Health Risk Assessment
Table A-11. Dose and Risk Calculations for Potential Exposures to COPCs via Dermal Exposure to Groundwater
Off-Site Utility Worker - Raytheon Facility - St. Petersburg, FL
COPC
Carcinogens
benzene
chloroethane
chloroform
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,2-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloropropane
1,4-dioxane
methylene chloride
tetrachloroethene
1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethene
vinyl chloride
NonCarcinogens
acetone
benzene
chloroethane
chloroform
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,1-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethene
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,4-dioxane
ethylbenzene
methyl isobutyl ketone
methylene chloride
4-methylphenol
tetrachloroethene
toluene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethene
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
xylenes
vinyl chloride
Totals
DAD
CSFd
RfDd
(mg/kg-day)-1
(mg/kg-day)
6.1E-02
2.9E-03
NA
2.4E-02
9.1E-02
6.8E-02
1.1E-02
7.5E-03
5.2E-02
7.0E-02
1.2E-02
8.2E-01
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
6.9E-09
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
9.0E-01
3.6E-03
4.0E-01
1.0E-02
3.0E-02
1.0E-01
3.0E-02
5.0E-02
1.0E-02
2.0E-02
1.1E-03
NA
1.0E-01
8.0E-02
6.0E-02
3.7E-03
1.0E-02
8.0E-02
2.8E-01
3.2E-03
5.7E-03
5.0E-02
1.8E-01
1.8E-01
=
DAevent
2
(mg/cm -event)
DAD × ED
70
DAD
LADD
Hazard
Excess Cancer
(mg/kg-day)
(mg/kg-day)
Quotient
Risk
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
7.0E-09
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
9.9E-10
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0000077
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
DA event x SA × EV × EF × ED
BW × AT
LADD =
Cw
(mg/cm3)
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
1.E-11
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
Cw
SA
ET
EF
ED
BW
AT
see text for definition of DAevent
ENVIRON
0.E+00
0.E+00
Page 1 of 1
Irrigation Water Concentration
Exposed skin surface area
Exposure Time
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body weight
Averaging Time
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
Worker
chemical -specific
3,500
2
8
10
76.1
3,650
mg/cm3
2
cm
hr/day
day/yr
years
kg
days
1.E-11
Human Health Risk Assessment
Table A-12. Dose and Risk Calculations for Potential Exposures to COPCs via Incidental Ingestion of Soil
Off-Site Utility Worker - Raytheon Facility - St. Petersburg, FL
COPC
Carcinogens
benzene
chloroethane
chloroform
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,2-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloropropane
1,4-dioxane
methylene chloride
tetrachloroethene
1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethene
vinyl chloride
NonCarcinogens
acetone
benzene
chloroethane
chloroform
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,1-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethene
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,4-dioxane
ethylbenzene
methyl isobutyl ketone
methylene chloride
4-methylphenol
tetrachloroethene
toluene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethene
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
xylenes
vinyl chloride
Totals
ADD
RfDo
Cs
ADD
LADD
Hazard
Excess
Cancer
(mg/kg-day)-1
(mg/kg-day)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg-day)
(mg/kg-day)
Quotient
Risk
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.80E-04
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
2.7E-11
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
3.8E-12
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.80E-04
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
2.7E-11
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
5.5E-02
2.9E-03
NA
2.4E-02
9.1E-02
6.8E-02
1.1E-02
7.5E-03
5.2E-02
5.7E-02
1.1E-02
7.2E-01
9.0E-01
4.0E-03
4.0E-01
1.0E-02
3.0E-02
1.0E-01
3.0E-02
5.0E-02
1.0E-02
2.0E-02
1.1E-03
NA
1.0E-01
8.0E-02
6.0E-02
5.0E-03
1.0E-02
8.0E-02
2.8E-01
4.0E-03
6.0E-03
5.0E-02
2.0E-01
3.0E-03
=
LADD
ENVIRON
CSFo
C s × IR s × EF × ED
BW × AT
=
ADD × ED
70
Cs
Irs
EF
ED
BW
AT
Page 1 of 1
Soil Conc.
Soil Ingestion Rate
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body weight
Averaging Time
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
4.E-14
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
Worker
chemical -specific
0.00033
8
10
76.1
3,650
mg/kg
kg/day
days/year
year
kg
days
4.E-14
Human Health Risk Assessment
Table A-13. Dose and Risk Calculations for Potential Exposures to COPCs via Inhalation of Outdoor Air
During Subsurface Excavation Activities - Off-Site Utility Worker - Raytheon Facility - St. Petersburg, FL
COPC
Carcinogens
benzene
chloroethane
chloroform
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,2-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloropropane
1,4-dioxane
methylene chloride
tetrachloroethene
1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethene
vinyl chloride
NonCarcinogens
acetone
benzene
chloroethane
chloroform
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,1-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethene
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,4-dioxane
ethylbenzene
methyl isobutyl ketone
methylene chloride
4-methylphenol
tetrachloroethene
toluene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethene
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
xylenes
vinyl chloride
Totals
RfDi
Coa
ADD
LADD
Hazard
Excess Cancer
(mg/kg-day)
(mg/m3)
(mg/kg-day)
(mg/kg-day)
Quotient
Risk
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
5.70E-06
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
4.9E-09
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
7.0E-10
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
2.7E-02
2.9E-03
8.1E-02
2.2E-02
9.1E-02
6.8E-02
1.1E-02
1.6E-03
2.0E-03
5.6E-02
6.0E-03
1.5E-02
9.0E-01
8.6E-03
2.9E+00
1.4E-02
2.3E-01
1.4E-01
3.0E-02
5.7E-02
1.0E-02
2.0E-02
1.1E-03
NA
2.9E-01
8.6E-01
8.6E-01
3.7E-03
1.4E-01
1.4E+00
2.9E-01
3.2E-03
5.7E-03
1.7E-03
2.9E-02
2.9E-02
ADD
=
LADD
ENVIRON
CSFi
(mg/kg-day)-1
C oa × IR i × ET × EF × ED
BW × AT
=
ADD × ED
70
Coa
Iri
ET
EF
ED
BW
AT
Page 1 of 1
Outdoor Air Concentration
Inhalation Rate
Exposure Time
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body weight
Averaging Time
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
8.E-12
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
0.E+00
Worker
chem-specific
1.5
2
8
10
76.1
3,650
mg/m3
m3/hr
hr/day
days/year
year
kg
days
8.E-12
Human Health Risk Assessment
Appendix B:
Azalea Elementary School
Indoor Air Sampling Report
Indoor Air Monitoring Report
Azalea Elementary School,
St. Petersburg, Florida
Prepared for:
Raytheon Company
St. Petersburg, Florida
Prepared by:
ENVIRON International Corporation
Tampa, Florida
Date:
August 2008
Indoor Air Monitoring Report.
Contents
Page
1
Introduction
1
Air Sampling Procedures
Air Sampling Locations
Sampling Equipment/Procedures
Field QA/QC Procedures
Meteorological Conditions
Potential Interferences
2
2
3
5
5
5
3
Results
7
4
Summary and Conclusions
9
5
References
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
10
List of Tables
Table 1. Indoor and Outdoor Air Sampling Locations
Table 2. SUMMA® Canister Sampling
Table 3. VOC Analyte List
Table 4. Summary of VOCs Detected in Indoor Air
Table 5. Summary of VOCs Detected in Outdoor Air
List of Figures
Figure 1. Aerial Photo of Azalea Elementary School and Surrounding Area
Figure 2. SUMMA® Canister Sampling Locations
List of Appendices
Appendix A – Photo Log
Appendix B – Analytical Data Reports
i
Indoor Air Monitoring Report.
1 Introduction
This report contains results of indoor and outdoor air sampling conducted at the Azalea
Elementary School (hereafter referred to as “the School”) located at 1680 74th Street N in St.
Petersburg, Florida. The School is bordered by a daycare center and residential areas to the
south, residential areas to the north and west, and Azalea Park to the east. The Raytheon
Company Facility is located east of Azalea Park. An aerial photo of the School west of Azalea
Park and the surrounding area is shown in Figure 1.
The purpose of the sampling program is to determine if Constituents of Potential Concern
(COPCs) detected in groundwater samples collected beneath nearby Azalea Park may be
affecting indoor air quality at the School. COPCs including trichloroethene (TCE); cis-1,2dichloroethene (cis-1,2-DCE); trans-1,2-dichlorothene (trans-1,2-DCE); 1,1-dichloroethene (1,1DCE); 1,1-dichloroethane (1,1-DCA); vinyl chloride and 1,4-dioxane have been detected in
deeper groundwater samples collected from beneath Azalea Park, and many of these same
constituents have been detected at low levels in the surface water drainage ditch located along
Farragut Drive.
Sampling to-date indicates that no VOCs are present in shallow or deep groundwater beneath
the School property and only 1,4-dioxane, which does not volatilize readily from water, has been
detected in shallow groundwater near the School. In order to determine if indoor air quality at
the School is being affected by constituents detected in deeper groundwater beneath the park,
indoor and outdoor air samples were collected as part of a two-day sampling program
conducted by ENVIRON on July 30 and August 4, 2008.
Ten indoor air samples and four outdoor air samples were collected on July 30, 2008; and an
additional four indoor air and two outdoor air samples were collected concurrently with the
Pinellas County School District on August 4, 2008.
This report is divided into four sections as follows:
1.0 Introduction – discusses the purpose of the air sampling program.
2.0 Air Sampling Procedures – provides a basis for the selection of indoor and
outdoor air sampling locations; describes air sampling procedures, analytical
methods, and field QA/QC procedures; and reports meteorological conditions during
the sampling events.
3.0 Results – summarizes the results of the air sampling program.
4.0 Summary and Conclusions – interprets the results of the study.
5.0 References – includes all references cited in the report.
1 of 1
Indoor Air Monitoring Report.
2 Air Sampling Procedures
This section provides a basis for the selection of indoor and outdoor air sampling locations;
describes air sampling procedures, analytical methods, and field QA/QC procedures; and
reports meteorological conditions during the sampling events.
2.1
Air Sampling Locations
Air sampling locations were selected following a pre-sampling inspection of the School
conducted by ENVIRON personnel accompanied by the School principal and personnel from
Pinellas County Schools. Sample locations are depicted in Figure 2 and described in Table 1.
Table 1. Indoor and Outdoor Air Sampling Locations.
Sample ID (a)
Location (b)
Description
AE-1
Outdoors
Front entrance to Administration Building
AE-2; AE-22
Outdoors
Kindergarten Playground Area
AE-3
Outdoors
Adjacent to air intake for Kindergarten Bldg.
AE-4; AE-24
Outdoors
Center of Play Court
AE-5
B11; R016
Production workroom in Administration Bldg.
AE-6
B1; R017A
Student restroom in Kindergarten Bldg.
AE-7
B9; R005
Building 9 primary classroom
AE-8; AE-26
B3; R002
Cafeteria dining area
AE-9; AE-21
B1; R011
Inside circulation area in Kindergarten Bldg.
AE-10
B1; R005
Kindergarten classroom
AE-11; AE-12;
B10; R002
Media Center reading room/stacks
AE-23
AE-13; AE-25
B7: R005
Building 7 primary classroom
AE-14
B6; R006
Building 6 intermediate classroom
(a)
(b)
(c)
Area (SF)(c)
NA
NA
NA
NA
360
34
960
1,229
341
845
2732
960
828
Samples AE-1 through AE-14 were collected on July 30, 2008; samples AE-21 through AE-26
were collected on August 4, 2008
Building Number; Room Number
Estimated area in square feet; NA – not applicable
July 30, 2008. Ten indoor air samples were collected on July 30, 2008. Because the
Kindergarten Building is located closest to the area of affected groundwater beneath Azalea
Park and closest to the drainage ditch along Farragut Drive, three indoor air samples (AE-6, AE9 and AE-10) were collected from this building. One of these samples (AE-6) was collected
from a student restroom where indoor plumbing connections provide a potential pathway for soil
vapor intrusion to indoor air. Indoor air samples were also collected from high-use common
areas including the media center and cafeteria building (AE-8, AE-11 and AE-12) as well as
representative classrooms in Buildings 6, 7 and 9 (AE-14, AE-13 and AE7, respectively). One
additional indoor air sample (AE-5) was collected in the production workroom in the
Administration Building.
2 of 2
Indoor Air Monitoring Report.
Two outdoor air samples were collected from the Kindergarten area including one sample (AE2) collected from the playground and one sample (AE-3) collected at the fresh air intake to the
Kindergarten Building. A third sample (AE-1) was collected from the front entrance of the
property facing Azalea Park; and a fourth sample (AE-4) was collected from the covered Play
Court at the rear of the property.
August 4, 2008. On August 4, 2008 a consultant for Pinellas County Schools collected 14 air
samples from the 13 locations described in Table 1 and one additional location in the center of
Azalea Park. In order to provide an interlaboratory comparison of results obtained by Pinellas
County Schools, ENVIRON co-located six additional SUMMA® canisters at four indoor and two
outdoor locations, which are identified in Table 1 and shown in Figure 2 as locations AE-21
through AE-26.
2.2
Sampling Equipment/Procedures
All indoor and outdoor air samples were collected in 6-liter, individually certified stainless steel
SUMMA® Canisters in accordance with the USEPA guidelines outlined in Compendium Method
TO-15 – Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Air Collected in Specially
Prepared Canisters and analyzed by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). All
SUMMA® canisters were fitted with individually certified 8-hour flow regulators and leak
checked prior to deployment in the field.
All indoor air samples were collected with building air conditioning systems turned on to ensure
that samples are collected during exposure conditions representative of a typical school day.
Indoor SUMMA® canisters were deployed at breathing zone height by placing the canisters on
desks in classrooms and in the media center, and on a chair in the student restroom. Because
the cafeteria was in use on the day of sampling, the canister in this room was placed on a
cabinet along the west wall of the building, away from student activity. The sampler in the
Administration Building work area was placed on top of the centrally located filing cabinets, and
the outdoor air samplers were attached to tripods and set at a height of about 5 feet. Due to the
threat of rain, the outdoor air sampler in the Kindergarten playground was placed on a chair
under cover of one of the playground slides. All other outdoor air samplers were located under
covered walkways or covered play areas due to the threat of rain. Photographs of the sampling
locations are provided in Appendix A.
SUMMA® canister sampling times are provided in Table 2. As indicated in Table 2, with a few
exceptions, samples were collected over a period of 8 hours during the first sampling event on
July 30. A malfunctioning regulator on one of the co-located samplers deployed in the Media
Center (AE-11) prompted this canister to be shut down after 5.9 hours. All of the outdoor
canisters were shut down after approximately seven hours due to rain. On August 4, all
SUMMA® canisters were shut down after approximately six hours to coincide with the Pinellas
County School sampling program, which employed 6-hour regulators.
3 of 3
Indoor Air Monitoring Report.
Table 2. SUMMA® Canister Sampling Times
Sample
Location
Start
Stop
Sample Duration
Date
ID
Time
Time
(hours)
7/30/08
AE-1
8:50
16:08
7.3
AE-2
9:10
16:20
7.2
AE-3
9:12
16:20
7.1
AE-4
8:57
15:50
6.9
AE-5
8:00
16:00
8.0
AE-6
8:10
16:10
8.0
AE-7
8:30
16:32
8.0
AE-8
8:43
16:41
8.0
AE-9
8:15
16:15
8.0
AE-10
8:18
16:18
8.0
AE-11
8:23
14:18
5.9
AE-12
8:23
16:30
8.1
AE-13
8:33
16:37
8.1
AE-14
8:37
16:39
8.0
AE-21
8:06
14:26
6.3
AE-22
8:15
14:30
6.3
AE-23
8:20
14:33
6.2
AE-24
8:28
14:42
6.2
AE-25
8:38
14:45
6.1
AE-26
8:45
14:51
6.1
8/04/08
All samples were analyzed for a selected list of VOCs, based on groundwater data, via modified
EPA Method TO-15 using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) in the full scan
mode. All analyses were conducted by Air Toxics Ltd., a Florida accredited, National
Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAP) certified laboratory based in
Folsom, California. The analyte list was derived from the list of offsite Constituents of Potential
Concern (COPCs) identified in the human health risk assessment prepared for the nearby
Raytheon Company facility (see Figure 1) by ENVIRON (2008). Two additional compounds
were added to the analyte list (chloromethane and trans-1,2-dichloroethene) based on
comments received by FDEP and more recent surface water sampling results. The complete
analyte list is shown in Table 3. Note that this list of offsite COPCs includes some VOCs (i.e.
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, cumene, trimethylbenzenes and xylenes) that are common
4 of 4
Indoor Air Monitoring Report.
indicator compounds for gasoline (NYDOH, 2005) and vehicle emissions, which may be present
in urban air due to sources unrelated to historical operations at the Raytheon facility.
Table 3. VOC Analyte List
Trichloroethene
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
Vinyl Chloride
Methylene chloride
Chloromethane
2.3
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
o-Xylene
m,p-Xylene
Cumene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,4-Dioxane
Field QA/QC Procedures
As indicated in Table 1, co-located samples were collected from the Media Center on July 30,
2004 to serve as field duplicates. The identity of these duplicates remained anonymous to the
laboratory for quality control purposes.
2.4
Meteorological Conditions
During the July 30 sampling event, winds recorded at the St. Petersburg – Clearwater Airport
originated out of the southwest at about 2 – 6 miles per hour and temperatures ranged from 81
to 87 °F (NOAA, 2008). Rain was recorded at the School at approximately 3:15 pm. This
prompted a re-location of the Kindergarten playground sampling canister (AE-2) from the
playground area to the covered overhang at the back entrance to the Kindergarten Building.
During the August 4 sampling event, winds recorded at the St. Petersburg – Clearwater Airport
were out of the southeast at 3 – 6 miles per hour and temperatures ranged from 80 to 85 °F
(NOAA, 2008). No rain was recorded during the sampling event.
2.5
Potential Interferences
A pre-sampling inspection was conducted to help identify conditions that may affect or interfere
with the indoor air sampling. An inspection of each classroom was conducted to identify any
potential products containing compounds of interest listed in Table 3. Although a number of
glues, markers, paints and other supplies were noted, none of the VOCs listed in Table 3 were
5 of 5
Indoor Air Monitoring Report.
listed as ingredients on product labels or MSDS sheets with one exception.1 Xylenes were
listed as an ingredient on a can of white spray paint found in the Cafeteria Building. It should
also be noted that a small “Flammable Storage” Building (indicated on Figure 2 and
photographed in Appendix A) is located on the School property between Buildings 6 and 7.
This building is used for the storage of gasoline, paint and other products, which are a potential
source for a number of the VOCs listed in Table 3.
1 Note that MSDS sheets only require constituents comprising greater than 1% of the product (greater than 0.1 % for
carcinogens) to be listed as an ingredient. Therefore, some constituents may be present in a product at levels
sufficient to be detected in indoor air but below the listing threshold.
6 of 6
Indoor Air Monitoring Report.
3 Results
Summaries of constituents detected in indoor and outdoor air are provided in Tables 4 and 5.
Analytical data reports are provided in Appendix B. Chloromethane was detected in all indoor
air and outdoor air samples. According to ATSDR (1998), chloromethane is always present in
air at low levels and mostly derived from natural sources as it is produced from chemical
reactions that occur in oceans and combustion of organic materials. Concentrations of
chloromethane detected in indoor air ranged from 1.1 to 1.7 µg/m3 and were similar to levels
detected in outdoor air at 1.2 to 2.0 µg/m3.
Table 4. Summary of Constituents Detected in Indoor Air
Detection Frequency
Constituent
(# detects / # samples)
Chloromethane
Toluene
m,p-Xylene
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
o-Xylene
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
(14 / 14)
(13 / 14)
(4 / 14)
(1 / 14)
(1 / 14)
(1 / 14)
(1 / 14)
(1 / 14)
Table 5. Summary of Constituents Detected in Outdoor Air
Detection Frequency
Constituent
(# detects/# samples)
Chloromethane
Toluene
m,p-Xylene
Benzene
(6 / 6)
(4 / 6)
(3 / 6)
(1 / 6)
Concentration Range
(µg/m3)
1.1 – 1.7
0.93 – 6.8
0.91 – 3.0
0.94
0.82
0.88
1.2
2.7
Concentration Range
(µg/m3)
1.2 – 2.0
1.8 – 3.5
0.8 – 1.1
0.64
Similarly, toluene was detected in 13 of 14 indoor air samples at concentrations ranging from
0.93 to 6.8 µg/m3 and 4 of 6 outdoor air samples at concentrations ranging from 1.8 to 3.5
µg/m3. The highest concentration of toluene was detected in sample AE-11 located in the
media center. Benzene, ethylbenzene, m,p-xylene, o-xylene and 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, each
of which are indicator compounds for gasoline, were also detected in this sample at
concentrations of 0.94, 0.82, 3.0, 0.88 and 1.2 µg/m3, respectively. Note that this is the sample
which was shut down early due to a malfunctioning regulator. The co-located sample collected
at this location contained only chloromethane and toluene at 1.2 and 1.3 µg/m3, respectively.
These data suggest that the gasoline constituents detected in sample AE-11 are unrelated to
7 of 7
Indoor Air Monitoring Report.
indoor air in the Media Center and may have been picked up during sample handling and/or
transport to and from the laboratory.
Meta- and para-xylenes (m,p-xylenes) are ubiquitous constituents in the environment that were
also detected in indoor and outdoor air. As previously mentioned, m,p-xylenes are indicator
compounds for gasoline and found at low levels in ambient urban air. According to the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR, 2007) typical levels of xylene measured in
indoor air range from 1 to 10 ppb (about 4.4 to 44 µg/m3). Indoor air m,p-xylene levels detected
at the School are at the low end of this range.
Benzene was detected in one indoor air sample (AE-11, which had a malfunctioning regulator)
and one outdoor air sample (AE-1, located at the edge of the parking lot at the front entrance to
the administration building). According to ATSDR (2007a), major sources of benzene exposure
include tobacco smoke, automobile service stations and exhaust from motor vehicles. Thus it is
not surprising to detect benzene in the outdoor air sample collected adjacent to the parking lot.
1,2-Dichlorethane was detected in one sample (AE-14) collected from an intermediate
classroom in Building 6 at a concentration of 2.7 µg/m3. 1,2-Dichloroethane was originally
included as an offsite COPC in the Raytheon Company Facility Risk Assessment because it
was detected above screening levels in two groundwater samples collected east of the Pinellas
Trail. However, 1,2-dichloroethane has not been detected in any groundwater or surface water
samples collected west of the Raytheon Company facility, at Azalea Park or at the School, or in
any other soil vapor or outdoor air samples collected as part of the Raytheon Site Investigation.
This suggests that the presence of this VOC in Building 6 is unrelated to conditions attributed to
the Raytheon Company facility. It should be noted that 1,2-dichloroethane was also detected by
the Pinellas County School’s consultant in only one sample collected from the same classroom
in Building 6.
8 of 8
Indoor Air Monitoring Report.
4 Summary and Conclusions
A total of fourteen indoor air samples and six outdoor air samples were collected in and around
Azalea Elementary School in order to determine if COPCs detected in nearby surface water and
groundwater were affecting indoor air quality at the School. 1,4-dioxane and a number of
chlorinated VOCs including TCE, cis-1,2-DCE, trans-1,2-DCE, 1,1-DCE, 1,1-DCA and vinyl
chloride have been detected in groundwater samples collected from Azalea Park. Many of
these same constituents have also been detected at low levels in the surface water drainage
ditch located along Farragut Drive. However, none of these COPCs have been detected in
groundwater or indoor air samples collected at the School. Indoor air and groundwater
sampling results confirm that soil vapor intrusion is not an exposure pathway at the School.
Several VOCs were detected at the School, but these constituents are routinely detected in
urban air and appear to be unrelated to any potential impacts associated with historical
operations at the nearby Raytheon Company Facility.
9 of 9
Indoor Air Monitoring Report.
5 References
ATSDR. 1998. Public Health Statement – Chloromethane. CAS# 74-87-3. December.
ATSDR. 2007. Public Health Statement for Xylene (Xileno). August.
ENVIRON. 2008. Human Health Risk Assessment – Raytheon Company Facility, St
Petersburg, Florida. May
New York State Department of Health (NYDOH). 2005. New York State Department of Health
– Division of Environmental Health Assessment – Center for Environmental Health Indoor
Air Sampling and Analysis Guidance. February.
NOAA. 2008. National Severe Storms Laboratory Historical Weather Data Archives, Norman
Oklahoma. http://data.nssl.noaa.gov
USEPA. 1999. Compendium Method TO-15 – Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs) in Air Collected in Specially Prepared Canisters and analyzed by Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). EPA/625/R-96/010b.
10 of 10
Indoor Air Monitoring Report.
Figures
Raytheon
Facility
Azalea
Elementary School
Azalea
Gingerbread
School
Azalea Park
Drainage Ditch
along Farragut
Drive
Aerial Photo of Surrounding Area
Drawn By:
Date: 8/4/08
Azalea Elementary School, St. Petersburg, FL
FIGURE
1
2519577A
Legend
Outdoor Air Sampling Location
Representative
Classrooms
Play Court
Indoor Air Sampling Location
AE-1 through AE-14
collected July 30, 2008
AE-4; AE-24
AE-21 through AE-26
collected August 4, 2008
Media Center
(collocated samples)
Playground Area
AE-11
AE-12
AE-23
AE-13
AE-25
AE-14
AE-7
AE-2; AE-22
B1 Air Intake
Flammable
Storage Building
AE-3
AE-8
AE-26
AE-6
AE-9
AE-21
Bathroom
AE-10
Cafeteria
AE-5
AE-1
Front Entrance
Kindergarten Building
Admin – Front office
Indoor and Outdoor Air Sampling Locations
Azalea Elementary School, St. Petersburg, FL
Drafted by:
Date:
7/29/08
FIGURE
2
2519577A
Indoor Air Monitoring Report.
Appendix A:
Photolog
Photo 1: AE – 1; Front entrance to Administration Building
Photo 2: AE – 2; Kindergarten playground area
Title:
Azalea Elementary School Indoor Air
Monitoring
Site:
Azalea Elementary School,
St Petersburg, FL
Client:
Raytheon
Approved:
Project-No:
25-19577A
Date:
July 30, 2008 and
August 4, 2008
Page 1 of 10
Photo 3: AE – 3; Clean air intake to Kindergarten Building
Photo 4: AE – 4; Center of Play Court
Title:
Azalea Elementary School Indoor Air
Monitoring
Site:
Azalea Elementary School,
St Petersburg, FL
Client:
Raytheon
Approved:
Project-No:
25-19577A
Date:
July 30, 2008 and
August 4, 2008
Page 2 of 10
Photo 5: AE – 5; Production workroom in Administration Building
Photo 6: AE – 6; Student restroom in Kindergarten Building
Title:
Azalea Elementary School Indoor Air
Monitoring
Site:
Azalea Elementary School,
St Petersburg, FL
Client:
Raytheon
Approved:
Project-No:
25-19577A
Date:
July 30, 2008 and
August 4, 2008
Page 3 of 10
Photo 7: AE – 7; Building 9 primary classroom
Photo 8: AE – 8; Cafeteria Building – west wall
Title:
Azalea Elementary School Indoor Air
Monitoring
Site:
Azalea Elementary School,
St Petersburg, FL
Client:
Raytheon
Approved:
Project-No:
25-19577A
Date:
July 30, 2008 and
August 4, 2008
Page 4 of 10
Photo 9: AE – 9; Inside circulation area – Kindergarten Building
Photo 10: AE – 10; Kindergarten classroom
Title:
Azalea Elementary School Indoor Air
Monitoring
Site:
Azalea Elementary School,
St Petersburg, FL
Client:
Raytheon
Approved:
Project-No:
25-19577A
Date:
July 30, 2008 and
August 4, 2008
Page 5 of 10
Photo 11: AE – 11 & AE – 12 (co-located samples); Media Center
Photo 12: AE – 13; Building 7 primary classroom
Title:
Azalea Elementary School Indoor Air
Monitoring
Site:
Azalea Elementary School,
St Petersburg, FL
Client:
Raytheon
Approved:
Project-No:
25-19577A
Date:
July 30, 2008 and
August 4, 2008
Page 6 of 10
Photo 13: AE – 14; Building 6 intermediate classroom
Photo 12:
Photo 14: AE-21; Inside circulation area – Kindergarten Building
Title:
Azalea Elementary School Indoor Air
Monitoring
Site:
Azalea Elementary School,
St Petersburg, FL
Client:
Raytheon
Approved:
Project-No:
25-19577A
Date:
July 30, 2008 and
August 4, 2008
Page 7 of 10
Photo 15: AE-22; Kindergarten playground area
Photo 16: AE-23; Media Center
Title:
Azalea Elementary School Indoor Air
Monitoring
Site:
Azalea Elementary School,
St Petersburg, FL
Client:
Raytheon
Approved:
Project-No:
25-19577A
Date:
July 30, 2008 and
August 4, 2008
Page 8 of 10
Photo 17: AE-24; Center of Play Court
Photo 18: AE – 25; Building 7 primary classroom
Title:
Azalea Elementary School Indoor Air
Monitoring
Site:
Azalea Elementary School,
St Petersburg, FL
Client:
Raytheon
Approved:
Project-No:
25-19577A
Date:
July 30, 2008 and
August 4, 2008
Page 9 of 10
Photo 19: AE-26; Cafeteria Building – west wall
Photo 20: Flammable Storage Building South of Building 6
Title:
Azalea Elementary School Indoor Air
Monitoring
Site:
Azalea Elementary School,
St Petersburg, FL
Client:
Raytheon
Approved:
Project-No:
25-19577A
Date:
July 30, 2008 and
August 4, 2008
Page 10 of 10
Indoor Air Monitoring Report.
Appendix B:
Laboratory Reports
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Air Toxics Ltd. Introduces the Electronic Report
Thank you for choosing Air Toxics Ltd. To better serve our customers, we are providing your report by
e-mail. This document is provided in Portable Document Format which can be viewed with Acrobat Reader
by Adobe.
This electronic report includes the following:
• Work order Summary;
• Laboratory Narrative;
• Results; and
• Chain of Custody (copy).
180 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, SUITE B FOLSOM, CA - 95630
(916) 985-1000 .FAX (916) 985-1020
Hours 8:00 A.M to 6:00 P.M. Pacific
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
WORK ORDER #:
0807612
Work Order Summary
CLIENT:
Mr. Thomas Gauthier
Environ International
10150 Highland Manor Drive
Suite 440
Tampa, FL 33610
PHONE:
813-628-4325
P.O. #
FAX:
813-628-4983
PROJECT #
25-19577A Rayethon-Azalea E.S
DATE RECEIVED:
07/31/2008
08/04/2008
CONTACT:
Bryanna Langley
DATE COMPLETED:
Mr. Thomas Gauthier
Environ International
10150 Highland Manor Drive
Suite 440
Tampa, FL 33610
BILL TO:
FRACTION #
NAME
TEST
01A
02A
03A
04A
05A
06A
07A
08A
09A
09AA
10A
11A
12A
13A
14A
15A
15B
AE-1
AE-2
AE-3
AE-4
AE-5
AE-6
AE-7
AE-8
AE-9
AE-9 Lab Duplicate
AE-10
AE-11
AE-12
AE-13
AE-14
Lab Blank
Lab Blank
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
RECEIPT
VAC./PRES.
FINAL
PRESSURE
8.5 "Hg
8.5 "Hg
8.0 "Hg
8.5 "Hg
5.0 "Hg
6.5 "Hg
6.0 "Hg
6.0 "Hg
6.5 "Hg
6.5 "Hg
6.0 "Hg
2.0 "Hg
6.0 "Hg
7.5 "Hg
6.5 "Hg
NA
NA
5 psi
5 psi
5 psi
5 psi
5 psi
5 psi
5 psi
5 psi
5 psi
5 psi
5 psi
5 psi
5 psi
5 psi
5 psi
NA
NA
Continued on next page
180 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, SUITE B FOLSOM, CA - 95630
(916) 985-1000 . (800) 985-5955 . FAX (916) 985-1020
Page 1 of 29
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
WORK ORDER #:
0807612
Work Order Summary
CLIENT:
Mr. Thomas Gauthier
Environ International
10150 Highland Manor Drive
Suite 440
Tampa, FL 33610
PHONE:
813-628-4325
P.O. #
FAX:
PROJECT #
25-19577A Rayethon-Azalea E.S
DATE RECEIVED:
813-628-4983
07/31/2008
CONTACT:
Bryanna Langley
DATE COMPLETED:
08/04/2008
BILL TO:
FRACTION #
NAME
TEST
16A
16B
17A
17B
CCV
CCV
LCS
LCS
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
CERTIFIED BY:
Mr. Thomas Gauthier
Environ International
10150 Highland Manor Drive
Suite 440
Tampa, FL 33610
DATE:
RECEIPT
VAC./PRES.
FINAL
PRESSURE
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
08/04/08
Laboratory Director
Certfication numbers: CA NELAP - 02110CA, LA NELAP/LELAP- AI 30763, NJ NELAP - CA004
NY NELAP - 11291, UT NELAP - 9166389892, AZ Licensure AZ0719
Name of Accrediting Agency: NELAP/Florida Department of Health, Scope of Application: Clean Air Act,
Accreditation number: E87680, Effective date: 07/01/07, Expiration date: 06/30/08
Air Toxics Ltd. certifies that the test results contained in this report meet all requirements of the NELAC standards
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of Air Toxics Ltd.
180 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, SUITE B FOLSOM, CA - 95630
(916) 985-1000 . (800) 985-5955 . FAX (916) 985-1020
Page 2 of 29
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
LABORATORY NARRATIVE
Modified TO-15
Environ International
Workorder# 0807612
Fourteen 6 Liter Summa Canister (100% Certified) samples were received on July 31, 2008. The laboratory
performed analysis via modified EPA Method TO-15 using GC/MS in the full scan mode. The method
involves concentrating up to 1.0 liter of air. The concentrated aliquot is then flash vaporized and swept
through a water management system to remove water vapor. Following dehumidification, the sample passes
directly into the GC/MS for analysis.
This workorder was independently validated prior to submittal using 'USEPA National Functional Guidelines'
as generally applied to the analysis of volatile organic compounds in air. A rules-based, logic driven,
independent validation engine was employed to assess completeness, evaluate pass/fail of relevant project
quality control requirements and verification of all quantified amounts.
Method modifications taken to run these samples are summarized in the table below. Specific project
requirements may over-ride the ATL modifications.
Requirement
TO-15
ATL Modifications
ICAL %RSD acceptance criteria
+- 30% RSD with 2
compounds allowed
out to < 40% RSD
30% RSD with 4 compounds allowed out to < 40% RSD
Daily Calibration
+- 30% Difference
</= 30% Difference with four allowed out up to </=40%.;
flag and narrate outliers
Blank and standards
Zero air
Nitrogen
Method Detection Limit
Follow 40CFR Pt.136
App. B
The MDL met all relevant requirements in Method TO-15
(statistical MDL less than the LOQ). The concentration of
the spiked replicate may have exceeded 10X the calculated
MDL in some cases
Sample collection media
Summa canister
ATL recommends use of summa canisters to insure data
defensibility, but will report results from Tedlar bags at
client request
Receiving Notes
There were no receiving discrepancies.
Analytical Notes
There were no analytical discrepancies.
Definition of Data Qualifying Flags
Eight qualifiers may have been used on the data analysis sheets and indicates as follows:
B - Compound present in laboratory blank greater than reporting limit (background subtraction not
performed).
Page 3 of 29
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
J - Estimated value.
E - Exceeds instrument calibration range.
S - Saturated peak.
Q - Exceeds quality control limits.
U - Compound analyzed for but not detected above the reporting limit.
UJ- Non-detected compound associated with low bias in the CCV
N - The identification is based on presumptive evidence.
File extensions may have been used on the data analysis sheets and indicates
as follows:
a-File was requantified
b-File was quantified by a second column and detector
r1-File was requantified for the purpose of reissue
Page 4 of 29
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Summary of Detected Compounds
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
Client Sample ID: AE-1
Lab ID#: 0807612-01A
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.67
0.20
0.92
0.26
0.39
0.60
0.70
0.81
1.4
0.64
3.5
1.1
Rpt. Limit
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.83
0.67
0.23
0.39
0.70
0.81
1.7
2.5
0.98
Rpt. Limit
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.18
0.18
0.95
0.49
0.38
0.69
2.0
1.8
Rpt. Limit
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.61
0.65
0.18 J
0.39
0.70
0.81
1.2
2.4
0.80 J
Rpt. Limit
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.16
0.16
0.85
0.26
0.33
0.61
1.7
0.97
Rpt. Limit
Compound
Chloromethane
Benzene
Toluene
m,p-Xylene
Client Sample ID: AE-2
Lab ID#: 0807612-02A
Compound
Chloromethane
Toluene
m,p-Xylene
Client Sample ID: AE-3
Lab ID#: 0807612-03A
Compound
Chloromethane
Toluene
Client Sample ID: AE-4
Lab ID#: 0807612-04A
Compound
Chloromethane
Toluene
m,p-Xylene
Client Sample ID: AE-5
Lab ID#: 0807612-05A
Compound
Chloromethane
Toluene
Page 5 of 29
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Summary of Detected Compounds
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
Client Sample ID: AE-6
Lab ID#: 0807612-06A
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.17
0.17
0.61
0.25
0.35
0.64
1.3
0.93
Rpt. Limit
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.17
0.17
0.58
0.41
0.35
0.63
1.2
1.5
Rpt. Limit
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.17
0.55
0.35
1.1
Rpt. Limit
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.53
0.60
0.21
0.35
0.64
0.74
1.1
2.3
0.91
Rpt. Limit
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.54
0.58
0.21
0.35
0.64
0.74
1.1
2.2
0.91
Rpt. Limit
Compound
Chloromethane
Toluene
Client Sample ID: AE-7
Lab ID#: 0807612-07A
Compound
Chloromethane
Toluene
Client Sample ID: AE-8
Lab ID#: 0807612-08A
Compound
Chloromethane
Client Sample ID: AE-9
Lab ID#: 0807612-09A
Compound
Chloromethane
Toluene
m,p-Xylene
Client Sample ID: AE-9 Lab Duplicate
Lab ID#: 0807612-09AA
Compound
Chloromethane
Toluene
m,p-Xylene
Page 6 of 29
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Summary of Detected Compounds
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
Client Sample ID: AE-10
Lab ID#: 0807612-10A
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.52
0.52
0.21
0.35
0.63
0.73
1.1
2.0
0.92
Rpt. Limit
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.63
0.29
1.8
0.19
0.69
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.46
0.54
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.71
1.3
0.94
6.8
0.82
3.0
0.88
1.2
Rpt. Limit
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.17
0.17
0.60
0.34
0.35
0.63
1.2
1.3
Rpt. Limit
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.18
0.18
0.59
0.31
0.37
0.67
1.2
1.2
Rpt. Limit
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
Rpt. Limit
Compound
Chloromethane
Toluene
m,p-Xylene
Client Sample ID: AE-11
Lab ID#: 0807612-11A
Compound
Chloromethane
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Client Sample ID: AE-12
Lab ID#: 0807612-12A
Compound
Chloromethane
Toluene
Client Sample ID: AE-13
Lab ID#: 0807612-13A
Compound
Chloromethane
Toluene
Client Sample ID: AE-14
Lab ID#: 0807612-14A
Compound
(ppbv)
Page 7 of 29
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Summary of Detected Compounds
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
Client Sample ID: AE-14
Lab ID#: 0807612-14A
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.54
0.66
0.75
0.35
0.69
0.64
1.1
2.7
2.8
Rpt. Limit
Compound
Chloromethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
Toluene
Page 8 of 29
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Client Sample ID: AE-1
Lab ID#: 0807612-01A
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
s080108
1.87
Date of Collection: 7/30/08
Date of Analysis: 8/1/08 12:45 PM
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.37
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.67
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.20
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.92
Not Detected
0.26
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.39
0.48
0.74
1.3
0.74
0.76
0.74
0.60
0.76
1.0
0.67
0.70
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.92
0.92
1.4
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.64
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
3.5
Not Detected
1.1
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Rpt. Limit
Compound
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,4-Dioxane
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Cumene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Container Type: 6 Liter Summa Canister (100% Certified)
Surrogates
%Recovery
Method
Limits
117
105
97
70-130
70-130
70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
Toluene-d8
4-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 9 of 29
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Client Sample ID: AE-2
Lab ID#: 0807612-02A
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
s080109
1.87
Date of Collection: 7/30/08
Date of Analysis: 8/1/08 01:49 PM
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.37
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.83
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.67
Not Detected
0.23
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.39
0.48
0.74
1.3
0.74
0.76
0.74
0.60
0.76
1.0
0.67
0.70
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.92
0.92
1.7
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
2.5
Not Detected
0.98
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Rpt. Limit
Compound
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,4-Dioxane
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Cumene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Container Type: 6 Liter Summa Canister (100% Certified)
Surrogates
%Recovery
Method
Limits
118
106
98
70-130
70-130
70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
Toluene-d8
4-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 10 of 29
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Client Sample ID: AE-3
Lab ID#: 0807612-03A
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
s080110
1.83
Date of Collection: 7/30/08
Date of Analysis: 8/1/08 02:22 PM
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.37
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.95
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.49
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.38
0.47
0.72
1.3
0.72
0.74
0.72
0.58
0.74
0.98
0.66
0.69
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.90
0.90
2.0
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
1.8
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Rpt. Limit
Compound
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,4-Dioxane
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Cumene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Container Type: 6 Liter Summa Canister (100% Certified)
Surrogates
%Recovery
Method
Limits
117
106
90
70-130
70-130
70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
Toluene-d8
4-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 11 of 29
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Client Sample ID: AE-4
Lab ID#: 0807612-04A
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
s080111
1.87
Date of Collection: 7/30/08
Date of Analysis: 8/1/08 02:55 PM
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.37
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.61
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.65
Not Detected
0.18 J
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.39
0.48
0.74
1.3
0.74
0.76
0.74
0.60
0.76
1.0
0.67
0.70
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.92
0.92
1.2
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
2.4
Not Detected
0.80 J
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Rpt. Limit
Compound
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,4-Dioxane
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Cumene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
J = Estimated value.
Container Type: 6 Liter Summa Canister (100% Certified)
Surrogates
%Recovery
Method
Limits
120
108
89
70-130
70-130
70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
Toluene-d8
4-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 12 of 29
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Client Sample ID: AE-5
Lab ID#: 0807612-05A
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
s080112
1.61
Date of Collection: 7/30/08
Date of Analysis: 8/1/08 03:27 PM
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.32
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.85
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.26
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.33
0.41
0.64
1.1
0.64
0.65
0.64
0.51
0.65
0.86
0.58
0.61
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.79
0.79
1.7
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.97
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Rpt. Limit
Compound
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,4-Dioxane
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Cumene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Container Type: 6 Liter Summa Canister (100% Certified)
Surrogates
%Recovery
Method
Limits
122
104
86
70-130
70-130
70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
Toluene-d8
4-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 13 of 29
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Client Sample ID: AE-6
Lab ID#: 0807612-06A
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
z080113
1.71
Date of Collection: 7/30/08
Date of Analysis: 8/1/08 04:03 PM
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.34
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.61
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.25
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.35
0.44
0.68
1.2
0.68
0.69
0.68
0.55
0.69
0.92
0.62
0.64
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.84
0.84
1.3
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.93
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Rpt. Limit
Compound
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,4-Dioxane
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Cumene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Container Type: 6 Liter Summa Canister (100% Certified)
Surrogates
%Recovery
Method
Limits
106
99
94
70-130
70-130
70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
Toluene-d8
4-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 14 of 29
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Client Sample ID: AE-7
Lab ID#: 0807612-07A
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
z080114
1.68
Date of Collection: 7/30/08
Date of Analysis: 8/1/08 04:34 PM
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.34
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.58
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.41
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.35
0.43
0.67
1.2
0.67
0.68
0.67
0.54
0.68
0.90
0.60
0.63
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.82
0.82
1.2
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
1.5
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Rpt. Limit
Compound
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,4-Dioxane
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Cumene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Container Type: 6 Liter Summa Canister (100% Certified)
Surrogates
%Recovery
Method
Limits
109
91
96
70-130
70-130
70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
Toluene-d8
4-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 15 of 29
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Client Sample ID: AE-8
Lab ID#: 0807612-08A
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
z080105
1.68
Date of Collection: 7/30/08
Date of Analysis: 8/1/08 11:26 AM
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.34
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.55
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.35
0.43
0.67
1.2
0.67
0.68
0.67
0.54
0.68
0.90
0.60
0.63
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.82
0.82
1.1
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Rpt. Limit
Compound
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,4-Dioxane
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Cumene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Container Type: 6 Liter Summa Canister (100% Certified)
Surrogates
%Recovery
Method
Limits
102
96
91
70-130
70-130
70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
Toluene-d8
4-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 16 of 29
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Client Sample ID: AE-9
Lab ID#: 0807612-09A
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
z080106
1.71
Date of Collection: 7/30/08
Date of Analysis: 8/1/08 11:57 AM
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.34
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.53
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.60
Not Detected
0.21
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.35
0.44
0.68
1.2
0.68
0.69
0.68
0.55
0.69
0.92
0.62
0.64
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.84
0.84
1.1
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
2.3
Not Detected
0.91
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Rpt. Limit
Compound
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,4-Dioxane
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Cumene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Container Type: 6 Liter Summa Canister (100% Certified)
Surrogates
%Recovery
Method
Limits
105
98
93
70-130
70-130
70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
Toluene-d8
4-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 17 of 29
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Client Sample ID: AE-9 Lab Duplicate
Lab ID#: 0807612-09AA
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
z080108
1.71
Date of Collection: 7/30/08
Date of Analysis: 8/1/08 12:59 PM
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.34
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.54
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.58
Not Detected
0.21
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.35
0.44
0.68
1.2
0.68
0.69
0.68
0.55
0.69
0.92
0.62
0.64
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.84
0.84
1.1
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
2.2
Not Detected
0.91
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Rpt. Limit
Compound
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,4-Dioxane
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Cumene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Container Type: 6 Liter Summa Canister (100% Certified)
Surrogates
%Recovery
Method
Limits
109
95
91
70-130
70-130
70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
Toluene-d8
4-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 18 of 29
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Client Sample ID: AE-10
Lab ID#: 0807612-10A
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
z080107
1.68
Date of Collection: 7/30/08
Date of Analysis: 8/1/08 12:29 PM
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.34
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.52
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.52
Not Detected
0.21
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.35
0.43
0.67
1.2
0.67
0.68
0.67
0.54
0.68
0.90
0.60
0.63
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.82
0.82
1.1
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
2.0
Not Detected
0.92
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Rpt. Limit
Compound
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,4-Dioxane
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Cumene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Container Type: 6 Liter Summa Canister (100% Certified)
Surrogates
%Recovery
Method
Limits
105
97
94
70-130
70-130
70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
Toluene-d8
4-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 19 of 29
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Client Sample ID: AE-11
Lab ID#: 0807612-11A
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
z080109
1.44
Date of Collection: 7/30/08
Date of Analysis: 8/1/08 01:47 PM
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.29
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.63
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.29
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
1.8
0.19
0.69
0.20
Not Detected
0.25
0.30
0.37
0.57
1.0
0.57
0.58
0.57
0.46
0.58
0.77
0.52
0.54
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.71
0.71
1.3
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.94
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
6.8
0.82
3.0
0.88
Not Detected
1.2
Rpt. Limit
Compound
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,4-Dioxane
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Cumene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Container Type: 6 Liter Summa Canister (100% Certified)
Surrogates
%Recovery
Method
Limits
106
96
92
70-130
70-130
70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
Toluene-d8
4-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 20 of 29
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Client Sample ID: AE-12
Lab ID#: 0807612-12A
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
z080110
1.68
Date of Collection: 7/30/08
Date of Analysis: 8/1/08 02:18 PM
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.34
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.60
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.34
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.35
0.43
0.67
1.2
0.67
0.68
0.67
0.54
0.68
0.90
0.60
0.63
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.82
0.82
1.2
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
1.3
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Rpt. Limit
Compound
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,4-Dioxane
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Cumene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Container Type: 6 Liter Summa Canister (100% Certified)
Surrogates
%Recovery
Method
Limits
108
96
91
70-130
70-130
70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
Toluene-d8
4-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 21 of 29
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Client Sample ID: AE-13
Lab ID#: 0807612-13A
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
z080111
1.79
Date of Collection: 7/30/08
Date of Analysis: 8/1/08 02:55 PM
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.36
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.59
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.31
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.37
0.46
0.71
1.2
0.71
0.72
0.71
0.57
0.72
0.96
0.64
0.67
0.78
0.78
0.78
0.88
0.88
1.2
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
1.2
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Rpt. Limit
Compound
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,4-Dioxane
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Cumene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Container Type: 6 Liter Summa Canister (100% Certified)
Surrogates
%Recovery
Method
Limits
112
96
90
70-130
70-130
70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
Toluene-d8
4-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 22 of 29
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Client Sample ID: AE-14
Lab ID#: 0807612-14A
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
z080112
1.71
Date of Collection: 7/30/08
Date of Analysis: 8/1/08 03:25 PM
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.34
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.54
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.66
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.75
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.35
0.44
0.68
1.2
0.68
0.69
0.68
0.55
0.69
0.92
0.62
0.64
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.84
0.84
1.1
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
2.7
Not Detected
Not Detected
2.8
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Rpt. Limit
Compound
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,4-Dioxane
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Cumene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Container Type: 6 Liter Summa Canister (100% Certified)
Surrogates
%Recovery
Method
Limits
114
93
90
70-130
70-130
70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
Toluene-d8
4-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 23 of 29
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Client Sample ID: Lab Blank
Lab ID#: 0807612-15A
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
z080104
1.00
Date of Collection: NA
Date of Analysis: 8/1/08 10:24 AM
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.21
0.26
0.40
0.69
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.32
0.40
0.54
0.36
0.38
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.49
0.49
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Rpt. Limit
Compound
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,4-Dioxane
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Cumene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Container Type: NA - Not Applicable
Surrogates
%Recovery
Method
Limits
99
96
91
70-130
70-130
70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
Toluene-d8
4-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 24 of 29
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Client Sample ID: Lab Blank
Lab ID#: 0807612-15B
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
s080107
1.00
Date of Collection: NA
Date of Analysis: 8/1/08 11:56 AM
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.21
0.26
0.40
0.69
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.32
0.40
0.54
0.36
0.38
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.49
0.49
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Rpt. Limit
Compound
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,4-Dioxane
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Cumene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Container Type: NA - Not Applicable
Surrogates
%Recovery
Method
Limits
124
104
103
70-130
70-130
70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
Toluene-d8
4-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 25 of 29
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Client Sample ID: CCV
Lab ID#: 0807612-16A
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
z080102
1.00
Date of Collection: NA
Date of Analysis: 8/1/08 09:04 AM
Compound
%Recovery
105
102
87
89
95
98
89
96
110
99
89
96
101
99
97
103
103
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,4-Dioxane
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Cumene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Container Type: NA - Not Applicable
Surrogates
%Recovery
Method
Limits
100
101
92
70-130
70-130
70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
Toluene-d8
4-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 26 of 29
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Client Sample ID: CCV
Lab ID#: 0807612-16B
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
s080103
1.00
Date of Collection: NA
Date of Analysis: 8/1/08 09:14 AM
Compound
%Recovery
109
106
91
87
92
96
88
93
112
92
89
96
90
91
91
92
90
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,4-Dioxane
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Cumene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Container Type: NA - Not Applicable
Surrogates
%Recovery
Method
Limits
115
108
106
70-130
70-130
70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
Toluene-d8
4-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 27 of 29
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Client Sample ID: LCS
Lab ID#: 0807612-17A
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
z080103
1.00
Date of Collection: NA
Date of Analysis: 8/1/08 09:35 AM
Compound
%Recovery
92
90
90
91
90
96
88
90
104
93
77
94
94
92
90
100
95
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,4-Dioxane
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Cumene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Container Type: NA - Not Applicable
Surrogates
%Recovery
Method
Limits
99
99
94
70-130
70-130
70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
Toluene-d8
4-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 28 of 29
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Client Sample ID: LCS
Lab ID#: 0807612-17B
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
s080104
1.00
Date of Collection: NA
Date of Analysis: 8/1/08 09:59 AM
Compound
%Recovery
116
100
102
98
92
100
91
88
99
86
80
95
84
86
86
89
86
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,4-Dioxane
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Cumene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Container Type: NA - Not Applicable
Surrogates
%Recovery
Method
Limits
116
110
99
70-130
70-130
70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
Toluene-d8
4-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 29 of 29
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Air Toxics Ltd. Introduces the Electronic Report
Thank you for choosing Air Toxics Ltd. To better serve our customers, we are providing your report by
e-mail. This document is provided in Portable Document Format which can be viewed with Acrobat Reader
by Adobe.
This electronic report includes the following:
• Work order Summary;
• Laboratory Narrative;
• Results; and
• Chain of Custody (copy).
180 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, SUITE B FOLSOM, CA - 95630
(916) 985-1000 .FAX (916) 985-1020
Hours 8:00 A.M to 6:00 P.M. Pacific
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
WORK ORDER #:
0808080
Work Order Summary
CLIENT:
Mr. Thomas Gauthier
Environ International
10150 Highland Manor Drive
Suite 440
Tampa, FL 33610
PHONE:
813-628-4325
P.O. #
FAX:
813-628-4983
PROJECT #
25-19577A Azalea E.S.
DATE RECEIVED:
08/05/2008
08/04/2008
CONTACT:
Bryanna Langley
DATE COMPLETED:
BILL TO:
FRACTION #
NAME
TEST
01A
02A
03A
04A
05A
05AA
06A
07A
07B
08A
08B
09A
09B
AE-21
AE-22
AE-23
AE-24
AE-25
AE-25 Lab Duplicate
AE-26
Lab Blank
Lab Blank
CCV
CCV
LCS
LCS
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
Modified TO-15
CERTIFIED BY:
Mr. Thomas Gauthier
Environ International
10150 Highland Manor Drive
Suite 440
Tampa, FL 33610
DATE:
RECEIPT
VAC./PRES.
FINAL
PRESSURE
9.0 "Hg
11.0 "Hg
9.0 "Hg
9.5 "Hg
10.0 "Hg
10.0 "Hg
9.5 "Hg
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5 psi
5 psi
5 psi
5 psi
5 psi
5 psi
5 psi
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
08/06/08
Laboratory Director
Certfication numbers: CA NELAP - 02110CA, LA NELAP/LELAP- AI 30763, NJ NELAP - CA004
NY NELAP - 11291, UT NELAP - 9166389892, AZ Licensure AZ0719
Name of Accrediting Agency: NELAP/Florida Department of Health, Scope of Application: Clean Air Act,
Accreditation number: E87680, Effective date: 07/01/07, Expiration date: 06/30/08
Air Toxics Ltd. certifies that the test results contained in this report meet all requirements of the NELAC standards
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of Air Toxics Ltd.
180 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, SUITE B FOLSOM, CA - 95630
(916) 985-1000 . (800) 985-5955 . FAX (916) 985-1020
Page 1 of 18
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
LABORATORY NARRATIVE
Modified TO-15
Environ International
Workorder# 0808080
Six 6 Liter Summa Canister (100% Certified) samples were received on August 05, 2008. The laboratory
performed analysis via modified EPA Method TO-15 using GC/MS in the full scan mode. The method
involves concentrating up to 1.0 liter of air. The concentrated aliquot is then flash vaporized and swept
through a water management system to remove water vapor. Following dehumidification, the sample passes
directly into the GC/MS for analysis.
This workorder was independently validated prior to submittal using 'USEPA National Functional Guidelines'
as generally applied to the analysis of volatile organic compounds in air. A rules-based, logic driven,
independent validation engine was employed to assess completeness, evaluate pass/fail of relevant project
quality control requirements and verification of all quantified amounts.
Method modifications taken to run these samples are summarized in the table below. Specific project
requirements may over-ride the ATL modifications.
Requirement
TO-15
ATL Modifications
ICAL %RSD acceptance criteria
+- 30% RSD with 2
compounds allowed
out to < 40% RSD
30% RSD with 4 compounds allowed out to < 40% RSD
Daily Calibration
+- 30% Difference
</= 30% Difference with four allowed out up to </=40%.;
flag and narrate outliers
Blank and standards
Zero air
Nitrogen
Method Detection Limit
Follow 40CFR Pt.136
App. B
The MDL met all relevant requirements in Method TO-15
(statistical MDL less than the LOQ). The concentration of
the spiked replicate may have exceeded 10X the calculated
MDL in some cases
Sample collection media
Summa canister
ATL recommends use of summa canisters to insure data
defensibility, but will report results from Tedlar bags at
client request
Receiving Notes
There were no receiving discrepancies.
Analytical Notes
There were no analytical discrepancies.
Definition of Data Qualifying Flags
Eight qualifiers may have been used on the data analysis sheets and indicates as follows:
B - Compound present in laboratory blank greater than reporting limit (background subtraction not
performed).
Page 2 of 18
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
J - Estimated value.
E - Exceeds instrument calibration range.
S - Saturated peak.
Q - Exceeds quality control limits.
U - Compound analyzed for but not detected above the reporting limit.
UJ- Non-detected compound associated with low bias in the CCV
N - The identification is based on presumptive evidence.
File extensions may have been used on the data analysis sheets and indicates
as follows:
a-File was requantified
b-File was quantified by a second column and detector
r1-File was requantified for the purpose of reissue
Page 3 of 18
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Summary of Detected Compounds
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
Client Sample ID: AE-21
Lab ID#: 0808080-01A
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.19
0.19
0.60
0.48
0.39
0.72
1.2
1.8
Rpt. Limit
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.21
0.70
0.44
1.4
Rpt. Limit
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.19
0.19
0.75
1.0
0.39
0.72
1.6
3.9
Rpt. Limit
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.20
0.70
0.40
1.4
Rpt. Limit
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.20
0.20
0.73
0.43
0.42
0.76
1.5
1.6
Rpt. Limit
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
Rpt. Limit
Compound
Chloromethane
Toluene
Client Sample ID: AE-22
Lab ID#: 0808080-02A
Compound
Chloromethane
Client Sample ID: AE-23
Lab ID#: 0808080-03A
Compound
Chloromethane
Toluene
Client Sample ID: AE-24
Lab ID#: 0808080-04A
Compound
Chloromethane
Client Sample ID: AE-25
Lab ID#: 0808080-05A
Compound
Chloromethane
Toluene
Client Sample ID: AE-25 Lab Duplicate
Lab ID#: 0808080-05AA
Compound
(ppbv)
Page 4 of 18
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Summary of Detected Compounds
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
Client Sample ID: AE-25 Lab Duplicate
Lab ID#: 0808080-05AA
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.20
0.20
0.78
0.42
0.42
0.76
1.6
1.6
Rpt. Limit
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.20
0.20
0.83
0.30
0.40
0.74
1.7
1.1
Rpt. Limit
Compound
Chloromethane
Toluene
Client Sample ID: AE-26
Lab ID#: 0808080-06A
Compound
Chloromethane
Toluene
Page 5 of 18
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Client Sample ID: AE-21
Lab ID#: 0808080-01A
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
s080510
1.91
Date of Collection: 8/4/08
Date of Analysis: 8/5/08 12:54 PM
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.38
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.60
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.48
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.39
0.49
0.76
1.3
0.76
0.77
0.76
0.61
0.77
1.0
0.69
0.72
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.94
0.94
1.2
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
1.8
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Rpt. Limit
Compound
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,4-Dioxane
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Cumene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Container Type: 6 Liter Summa Canister (100% Certified)
Surrogates
%Recovery
Method
Limits
112
99
101
70-130
70-130
70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
Toluene-d8
4-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 6 of 18
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Client Sample ID: AE-22
Lab ID#: 0808080-02A
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
s080511
2.12
Date of Collection: 8/4/08
Date of Analysis: 8/5/08 01:39 PM
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.42
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.70
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.44
0.54
0.84
1.5
0.84
0.86
0.84
0.68
0.86
1.1
0.76
0.80
0.92
0.92
0.92
1.0
1.0
1.4
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Rpt. Limit
Compound
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,4-Dioxane
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Cumene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Container Type: 6 Liter Summa Canister (100% Certified)
Surrogates
%Recovery
Method
Limits
117
104
101
70-130
70-130
70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
Toluene-d8
4-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 7 of 18
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Client Sample ID: AE-23
Lab ID#: 0808080-03A
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
s080512
1.91
Date of Collection: 8/4/08
Date of Analysis: 8/5/08 02:11 PM
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.38
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.75
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
1.0
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.39
0.49
0.76
1.3
0.76
0.77
0.76
0.61
0.77
1.0
0.69
0.72
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.94
0.94
1.6
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
3.9
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Rpt. Limit
Compound
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,4-Dioxane
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Cumene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Container Type: 6 Liter Summa Canister (100% Certified)
Surrogates
%Recovery
Method
Limits
122
104
100
70-130
70-130
70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
Toluene-d8
4-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 8 of 18
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Client Sample ID: AE-24
Lab ID#: 0808080-04A
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
s080513
1.96
Date of Collection: 8/4/08
Date of Analysis: 8/5/08 02:44 PM
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.39
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.70
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.40
0.50
0.78
1.4
0.78
0.79
0.78
0.63
0.79
1.0
0.71
0.74
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.96
0.96
1.4
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Rpt. Limit
Compound
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,4-Dioxane
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Cumene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Container Type: 6 Liter Summa Canister (100% Certified)
Surrogates
%Recovery
Method
Limits
115
103
94
70-130
70-130
70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
Toluene-d8
4-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 9 of 18
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Client Sample ID: AE-25
Lab ID#: 0808080-05A
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
z080514
2.01
Date of Collection: 8/4/08
Date of Analysis: 8/5/08 04:25 PM
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.40
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.73
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.43
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.42
0.51
0.80
1.4
0.80
0.81
0.80
0.64
0.81
1.1
0.72
0.76
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.99
0.99
1.5
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
1.6
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Rpt. Limit
Compound
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,4-Dioxane
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Cumene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Container Type: 6 Liter Summa Canister (100% Certified)
Surrogates
%Recovery
Method
Limits
111
97
90
70-130
70-130
70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
Toluene-d8
4-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 10 of 18
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Client Sample ID: AE-25 Lab Duplicate
Lab ID#: 0808080-05AA
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
z080516
2.01
Date of Collection: 8/4/08
Date of Analysis: 8/5/08 05:58 PM
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.40
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.78
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.42
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.42
0.51
0.80
1.4
0.80
0.81
0.80
0.64
0.81
1.1
0.72
0.76
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.99
0.99
1.6
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
1.6
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Rpt. Limit
Compound
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,4-Dioxane
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Cumene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Container Type: 6 Liter Summa Canister (100% Certified)
Surrogates
%Recovery
Method
Limits
114
97
88
70-130
70-130
70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
Toluene-d8
4-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 11 of 18
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Client Sample ID: AE-26
Lab ID#: 0808080-06A
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
s080515
1.96
Date of Collection: 8/4/08
Date of Analysis: 8/5/08 03:55 PM
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.39
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.83
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.30
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.40
0.50
0.78
1.4
0.78
0.79
0.78
0.63
0.79
1.0
0.71
0.74
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.96
0.96
1.7
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
1.1
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Rpt. Limit
Compound
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,4-Dioxane
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Cumene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Container Type: 6 Liter Summa Canister (100% Certified)
Surrogates
%Recovery
Method
Limits
123
103
95
70-130
70-130
70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
Toluene-d8
4-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 12 of 18
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Client Sample ID: Lab Blank
Lab ID#: 0808080-07A
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
s080509
1.00
Date of Collection: NA
Date of Analysis: 8/5/08 12:01 PM
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.21
0.26
0.40
0.69
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.32
0.40
0.54
0.36
0.38
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.49
0.49
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Rpt. Limit
Compound
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,4-Dioxane
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Cumene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Container Type: NA - Not Applicable
Surrogates
%Recovery
Method
Limits
114
98
109
70-130
70-130
70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
Toluene-d8
4-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 13 of 18
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Client Sample ID: Lab Blank
Lab ID#: 0808080-07B
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
z080508
1.00
Date of Collection: NA
Date of Analysis: 8/5/08 12:43 PM
(ppbv)
Amount
(ppbv)
Rpt. Limit
(uG/m3)
Amount
(uG/m3)
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
0.21
0.26
0.40
0.69
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.32
0.40
0.54
0.36
0.38
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.49
0.49
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Rpt. Limit
Compound
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,4-Dioxane
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Cumene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Container Type: NA - Not Applicable
Surrogates
%Recovery
Method
Limits
118
95
92
70-130
70-130
70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
Toluene-d8
4-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 14 of 18
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Client Sample ID: CCV
Lab ID#: 0808080-08A
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
s080503
1.00
Date of Collection: NA
Date of Analysis: 8/5/08 08:25 AM
Compound
%Recovery
115
108
96
92
95
99
95
92
105
93
89
94
87
88
90
90
91
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,4-Dioxane
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Cumene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Container Type: NA - Not Applicable
Surrogates
%Recovery
Method
Limits
112
108
106
70-130
70-130
70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
Toluene-d8
4-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 15 of 18
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Client Sample ID: CCV
Lab ID#: 0808080-08B
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
z080505
1.00
Date of Collection: NA
Date of Analysis: 8/5/08 10:40 AM
Compound
%Recovery
117
110
89
93
99
106
92
103
127
103
96
101
102
102
97
107
109
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,4-Dioxane
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Cumene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Container Type: NA - Not Applicable
Surrogates
%Recovery
Method
Limits
108
102
94
70-130
70-130
70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
Toluene-d8
4-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 16 of 18
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Client Sample ID: LCS
Lab ID#: 0808080-09A
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
s080504
1.00
Date of Collection: NA
Date of Analysis: 8/5/08 08:55 AM
Compound
%Recovery
104
97
98
94
87
96
89
86
98
84
79
89
78
78
80
82
81
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,4-Dioxane
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Cumene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Container Type: NA - Not Applicable
Surrogates
%Recovery
Method
Limits
115
110
108
70-130
70-130
70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
Toluene-d8
4-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 17 of 18
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
Client Sample ID: LCS
Lab ID#: 0808080-09B
MODIFIED EPA METHOD TO-15 GC/MS FULL SCAN
File Name:
Dil. Factor:
z080506
1.00
Date of Collection: NA
Date of Analysis: 8/5/08 11:11 AM
Compound
%Recovery
101
95
89
90
91
101
86
95
116
94
83
96
93
92
89
100
94
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
1,4-Dioxane
Toluene
Ethyl Benzene
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Cumene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Container Type: NA - Not Applicable
Surrogates
%Recovery
Method
Limits
110
101
93
70-130
70-130
70-130
1,2-Dichloroethane-d4
Toluene-d8
4-Bromofluorobenzene
Page 18 of 18
Human Health Risk Assessment
Appendix C:
Homegrown Produce Sampling Results
Homegrown Produce Sampling
Homegrown produce samples were collected from 3 residential properties on July 2, 2008
and 4 residential properties on August 15, 2008 and submitted to K Prime, Inc laboratory
for analysis of the three chemicals that had been detected in residential irrigation wells
(i.e., 1,4-dioxane, trichloroethene [TCE], and cis-1,2-dichloroethene [cis-1,2-DCE]). As
illustrated in the table below, none of the three chemicals were detected in any of the
produce samples tested. The table presents a summary of the types of produce sampled
and the limits of detection in each sample.
Table 1. Summary of Test Results for 1,4-Dioxane, TCE, and cis-1,2-DCE in
Homegrown Produce Samples, St Petersburg Florida
1,4 dioxane
TCE
cis-1,2-DCE
Type of
Produce
Result
LOD (ppb) *
Result
LOD (ppb) *
Result
LOD (ppb) 
Grapefruit
ND
37.5
ND
0.75
ND
200
Lemon
ND
37.5
ND
0.75
ND
200
Lime
ND
37.5
ND
0.75
ND
500
Onion
ND
37.5
ND
0.75
ND
400
Orange
ND
37.5
ND
0.75
ND
200
Pepper, banana
ND
37.5
ND
0.75
ND
1.5
Pepper, bell
ND
37.5
ND
0.75
ND
1.5
Pepper, jalapeno
ND
37.5
ND
0.75
ND
1.5
Tangelo
ND
37.5
ND
0.75
ND
200
Tangerine
ND
37.5
ND
0.75
ND
200 - 1000
Tomato
ND
37.5
ND
0.75
ND
1.5
ND = Not detected
* Limit of Detection (analyzed using EPA 5035/8260 in the SIM mode)

Limit of Detection (analyzed using EPA 5035/8260 or 5035/8260 SIM)
Source of analytical data: K Prime, Inc.
Sampling Methodology
The edible portions of produce samples were analyzed for 1,4-dioxane, TCE, and cis-1,2DCE using EPA Method 5035 for the extraction and EPA 8260 for the analysis. The
edible portions of each produce sample were sealed into a 40 ml volatile organic analysis
(VOA) vial, purged using helium in a closed system purge and trap, directly introduced into
a gas chromatograph, and analyzed using GCMS according to EPA 8260 or EPA 8260
SIM. The samples collected on July 2, 2008 were initially analyzed using EPA 8260.
However, due to the significant levels of certain naturally occurring VOCs in the citrus
samples, all samples were reanalyzed for 1,4-dioxane and TCE using 8260 operated in
the SIM mode. The samples collected on August 15, 2008 were analyzed using 8260
SIM.
Risk Characterization
Using data from USEPA (1997), an ingestion rate of 8.4 ounces of homegrown produce
per day was assumed for residents. At this assumed consumption level, the concentration
of 1,4-dioxane and the concentration of TCE corresponding to a lifetime incremental
cancer risk of one in a million would be 48 ppb. The third chemical tested, 1,2-DCE is not
a carcinogen. The concentration of 1,2-DCE above which noncarcinogenic health effects
might be expected would be 2,300 ppb, assuming that a person consumes 8.4 ounces of
homegrown produce per day.
As shown in Table 1, neither 1,4-dioxane, TCE, nor 1,2-DCE were detected in any of the
tested samples. Because none of the chemicals were detected and because the detection
limits for all three chemicals in all of the various produce samples tested were below levels
corresponding to a one in a million cancer risk or levels at which other health effects could
be expected, the test results provide a basis for concluding that homegrown produce does
not pose a threat to the health of people in the vicinity of the Raytheon facility who
consume homegrown produce.
References
ENVIRON International Corporation (ENVIRON) 2008. Human Health Risk Assessment,
Raytheon Company Facility St. Petersburg, Florida. Prepared for the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection on behalf of Raytheon Company, St.
Petersburg, Florida
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) 2005. Technical Report:
Development of Cleanup Target Levels (CTLs) for Chapter 62-777, F.A.C.
Prepared for Division of Waste Management by Center for Environmental &
Human Toxicology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. February.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 1997. Exposure Factors
Handbook. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa. August
Laboratory Data Reports