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