Health Effects of Exposure to Soils Contaminated by Hydrocarbon or Heavy Metal Compounds
Mohamed S. Abdel-Rahman and Rita M. Turkall, UMDNJ, Newark, NJ

Moss Point Community Exposure to Contaminants from a Releasing Facility
Paul Rosenfeld, UCLA School of Public Health, Los Angeles, CA  

Soil Vapor Intrusion Data – Planning and QA/QC Evaluation for Risk Assessment
Nancy Rothman, New Environmental Horizons, Inc., Skillman, NJ  

Application of Geostatistics and Risk Assessment to Property Divestitures
Betsy Ruffle, ENSR, Westford, MA

Unintended Environmental Risks from Processes and Products Intended to Reduce Environmental Risk
William A. Farone, Applied Power Concepts, Inc., Anaheim, CA

Quite a challenge: Assessment of the Human Health Risks of Asbestos in Soils. A Tiered Approach
Frank A. Swartjes, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands

Health Effects of Exposure to Soils Contaminated by Hydrocarbon or Heavy Metal Compounds

Mohamed S. Abdel-Rahman, Ph.D., Pharmacology and Physiology Dept., UMDNJ, New Jersey Medical School, 185 South Orange Avenue, Newark, NJ, 07101, Tel: 407-568-5122, Email: abdelrms@umdnj.edu 
Gloria A. Skowronski, Ph.D., Pharmacology and Physiology Dept., UMDNJ, New Jersey Medical School, 185 South Orange Avenue, Newark, NJ, 07101, Tel: 732-721-9432, Email: skowroga@optonline.net
Rita M. Turkall, Ph.D., Clinical Laboratory Sciences Dept., UMDNJ, School of Health Related Professions, 65 Bergen Street, Newark, NJ, 07107, Tel: 407-568-5122, Email: turkalrm@umdnj.edu

The potential health risk from exposure to chemically contaminated soil is traditionally based on the quantity of chemical that can be removed from soil by vigorous chemical extraction procedures.  The approach can overestimate risk since it ignores the complex interactions between chemicals and soil that can result in the reduction in the amount of chemical that desorbs from soil and subsequently absorbs by the body, i.e., bioavailability.  The aim of these studies was to determine the dermal bioavailability of soil contaminated chemicals for representatives of hydrocarbon and heavy metal classes of chemicals and examine the relative contribution of soil matrix and chemical sequestration in soil with time (“aging”).  In vitro, flow-through diffusion cell studies were performed utilizing dermatomed male pig skin and radioactive chemicals to measure total penetration (sum of each chemical in skin and receptor fluid).  While volatilization alone was predominant in reducing the dermal penetration of toluene, immediate contact with soil further reduced skin penetration by 29 fold.  Benzo(a)pyrene penetration was reduced >88% following immediate contact with soil, with further reduction occurring after aging for 3 months particularly with soil of high clay content.  Similarly, immediate soil contact reduced the dermal penetration of arsenic, mercury and nickel with further reductions occurring after 3 months aging in soil, particularly of high clay content.  The results indicate that the potential health risk from dermal exposure to the chemicals studied can be significantly reduced by soil and aging.    

Moss Point Community Exposure to Contaminants from a Releasing Facility

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D, UCLA School of Public Health, 16-035 CHS, Box 951772, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, Tel: 310-795-2335, Email: prosenfe@ucla.edu
Rob Hesse, R.G., R.E.A, Soil/ Water/ Air Protection Enterprise, 201 Wilshire Blvd, 2nd Floor, Santa Monica, CA, 90401, Tel: 310-795-0592, Email: rhesse@swape.com
Amy Hensley, M.S., UCLA School of Public Health, 16-035 CHS, Box 951772, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, Tel: 310-622-3350, Email: arhensley@gmail.com
Andrew Scott, B.S., Soil/ Water/ Air Protection Enterprise, 201 Wilshire Blvd, 2nd Floor, Santa Monica, CA, 90401, Tel: 559-260-2180, Email: Andrew@swape.com 

In 2006, a Morton International Inc. facility in Moss Point, Mississippi, was issued the largest-ever civil fine for environmental violations at a single facility by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  The civil settlement was filed by the Justice Department on behalf of the EPA and the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ).  Morton also pleaded guilty to criminal violations of the Clean Water Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and agreed to pay a $2 million criminal penalty for these violations.  The Moss Point Releasing Facility in Jackson County produces plasticizers, synthetic rubber, rocket polymers, and other chemicals and adhesives.  Limited tap water sampling was conducted and many homes tested positive for acetamide, ocyclohexanone, and octadecenamide.  The extent of the contamination has not been properly characterized or quantified. Many of the chemicals found in the drinking water samples are not regulated and not required to be quantified by the EPA.  This paper describes the future uncertainty relating to community exposure to a variety of contaminants from this long term release.

Soil Vapor Intrusion Data – Planning and QA/QC Evaluation for Risk Assessment

Nancy C. Rothman, Ph.D., New Environmental Horizons, Inc., 34 Pheasant Run Drive, Skillman, NJ 08558, Tel: 908-874-5686, Fax: 908-874-4786, Email: n.rothman@patmedia.net
Susan D. Chapnick, M.S., New Environmental Horizons, Inc., 2 Farmers Circle, Arlington, MA 02474, Tel: 781-643-4294, Fax: 908-874-4786, Email: s.chapnick@comcast.net

Vapor intrusion, the migration of vapors into a building from the subsurface originating from contaminated groundwater or soil above the water table, has emerged at the forefront of current environmental issues at many sites.   Subsurface contamination of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that exceed regulatory cleanup standards or risk-based concentrations of concern often lead to the requirement to evaluate the risk of an inhalation pathway at the site or off-site, using soil vapor or indoor air sample data.  To generate VOC data that will be valid and usable in the risk calculation of exposure point concentrations, the specific sampling and analysis methods must be tailored to improve the representativeness of the sample, decrease VOC losses, and increase overall accuracy and sensitivity of the soil vapor or indoor air sample.  VOC results are impacted by field sampling issues such as weather, pressurization of the SUMMA® canister, placement of the sampling train, and interpretation of field quality control samples.  Choice of method of analysis (e.g., TO-15), target compound list, and the mode in which the gas chromatography/mass spectrometer (GC/MS) is run for VOC analysis, such as selected ion monitoring (SIM) vs. electron impact (EI), will effect the accuracy and sensitivity of the results.  We use real-world examples from CERCLA and state-led sites to explore the impacts of these field and analytical issues on the interpretation and usability of VOC data in air samples.  We provide recommendations on how to collect and analyze the samples correctly to obtain usable data for site assessment and risk characterization.

Application of Geostatistics and Risk Assessment to Property Divestitures

Betsy Ruffle, M.S., ENSR, 2 Technology Park Drive, Westford , MA 01886, Tel: 978-589-3071, Email: bruffle@ensr.aecom.com
Marcia Greenblatt, Ph.D., ENSR, 2 Technology Park Drive, Westford, MA 01886, Tel: 978-589-3024, Email: mgreenblatt@ensr.aecom.com
J. Douglas Reid-Green, BASF Corporation, 100 Campus Drive , Florham Park , NJ 07932 , Tel: 908-806-6472, Email: douglas.reid-green@basf.com
Kathleen Nolan, M.S., ENSR, 2 Technology Park Drive , Westford , MA 01886 , Tel: 978-589-3289, Email: knolan@ensr.aecom.com

Divestiture of contaminated properties poses environmental and legal challenges for companies.  This paper examines an approach that incorporates risk assessment and geostatistics to allow the owner to assess and manage divestiture risks associated with the potential for future liability at the property.  This approach applies geostatistics to demonstrate with a desired level of confidence (e.g., 90%) whether significant soil impacts have been identified. 

Available soil data are analyzed using standard risk-based approaches to quantify potential risks associated with current and future exposure scenarios.  Risk-based target levels (RBTLs) are derived for the risk-driving compounds and exposure scenario.  Soil concentrations below the most restrictive RBTLs will be acceptable for all other potential exposure scenarios.   

A geostatistical analysis of available soil data is performed. Two soil intervals (surface and subsurface) are typically considered.  For each interval, a map is generated to delineate areas within which there is 90% confidence that concentrations are greater than the RBTL.  A second map delineates areas outside of which there is 90% confidence that concentrations are less than the RBTL.  Regions between these two areas represent lower confidence in the estimated concentrations.  If these regions represent areas of significant impact, more samples are necessary to increase the confidence in the estimates.  Significant impact is defined as an area where the concentration within a site-specific target volume of soil is greater than the RBTL.  

Based on the initial geostatistical analysis, locations of additional soil samples needed to reduce uncertainty in the regions of lower confidence are identified.  The geostatistical analysis is then updated with results of the supplemental samples, and new maps are generated.  Typically, one supplemental soil sampling event is sufficient to demonstrate with desired confidence that there are no significant areas of impact that have not been identified. 

Case examples of this approach will be presented.    

Unintended Environmental Risks from Processes and Products Intended to Reduce Environmental Risk

William A. Farone, Applied Power Concepts, Inc., 411 East Julianna Street , Anaheim , CA 92801 , Tel: 714-502-1150 ext 110, Fax:714-502-2450, Email: farone@appliedpowerconcepts.com

For the last 50 years there has been a strong movement to reduce environmental risks from modern society.  From the removal of phosphates in detergents in the 1970s through to the wind energy projects of the eighties, the bioremediation and chemical remediation technologies of the 1990s and today, personnel of Applied Power Concepts, Inc. have been involved in this movement.  For each of the potentially beneficial products and processes an alternate risk is possible.  This presentation provides a historical perspective of these risks from carcinogenicity of potential phosphate alternatives; birds kills, oil leaks and sound pollution from wind turbines; ozone and reduced energy efficiency from ethanol use; increased groundwater and air pollution from gasoline additives; cancer risk from nanoparticles: and many more. The risk to benefit ratio of many of these cases are not in the news when the technologies, products and products are embraced.  The result is that the risks come as a surprise when widespread investment in both money and faith has already occurred.

Quite a challenge: Assessment of the Human Health Risks of Asbestos in Soils. A Tiered Approach

Frank A. Swartjes, PhD, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), PO Box 1; 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands; Tel: +31.30.2743356, Email: fa.swartjes@rivm.nl 

The behavior of asbestos in soil differs from other contaminants. For that reason, neither standard fate and transport processes, nor standard exposure calculations are applicable for assessing human health risks. Therefore, an alternative tiered approach for the assessment of human health risks of soil contamination with asbestos has been developed. When in a specific tier the human health risk can not be rejected the assessment in the following tier has to be performed. The underlying principle is: “simple when possible and complex when necessary”.

In Tier 0 a generic soil quality standard is used. This Intervention Value is 100 mg/kgdw for the sum of the concentration of chrysotile asbestos (or serpentine asbestos or white asbestos) and ten times the concentration of amphibolic asbestos (other asbestos types) for bound (non friable) as well as for friable asbestos. In contravention with the standard procedure prescribed in the Dutch Soil Protection Act this value is derived from measured concentrations of asbestos in soil and air and not using the CSOIL exposure model. Tiers 1 to 3 are site-specific. Tier 1 concerns a simple, qualitative testing procedure, in which the potential or probability of exposure is investigated. In Tier 2 the respirable fraction in the soil, which relates to the potential emission of asbestos fibres and hence to the site-specific exposure to humans through inhalation, is determined and tested. Finally, when the risk can not be excluded, the concentration of asbestos fibres in outdoor and (when applicable) in indoor air has to be measured and tested in Tier 3, according to a standardised protocol.

Recently, this tiered approach was incorporated in the revised “soil quality assessment framework” in The Netherlands.

Top