HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 98-14; Thompson/Tabata; Tentative Map (CT) (168)I*
to
•»
to
P.
GEOCON
1 !h.I |
I i
if|
„»
ti
SITE ASSESSMENT AND
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
REPORT
POINSETTIA AGRICULTURAL
PROPERTY - TABATA SITE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for
STANDARD PACIFIC OF SAN DIEGO
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
AUGUST 1998
STANDARD PACIFICHOMES
9335 Chesapeake Dr., San Diego, CA 92123-1010
TEL (619) 292-2200 • FAX (619) 292-2233
TO .lark H<anthnrn 8* Associates
5375 Avenida Encinas, Suite D
Carlsbad, California 92008
WE ARE SENDING YOU O Attached D Under separate cover via
0 Shop drawings O Prints CH Plans
1 | Copy of letter I I Change order I I
LETTED
°ATE 12/23/98
ATTENTION Jack Henthorn
JoeNOThompson
HE:
the following items:
Samples O Specifications
COPIES DATE NO.DESCRIPTION
Addendum to Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, dated Jan. 29, 1998
Tabata Phase 1 Site Assessment and Health Risk Assessment, dated 8/98
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
I I For approval
Ix] For your use
| | As requested
I | For review and comment
n FOR BIDS DUE
I I Approved as submitted
| | Approved as noted
I | Returned for corrections
n
CU Resubmit.
I I Submit
I I Return
. copies for approval
. copies for distribution
. corrected prints
19 D PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
| | Proper updated Insurance Certificate on file I I Yes I I No (If no please provide with bid.)
REMARKS.
Based on the City's response r.nmments it appears WR did nnt submit thp Tahata site asgpssmpnr nr
overlooked it in the original package. Enclosed is an additional copy cf the Tabata study, as well as an addendum
to the original site assessment study covering I nompson, Mendivil, Engler. Please submit with revised TM
package.
COPY TO
SIGNED. Gregg L inhnff
// enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once.
GEOCON
GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Project No. 08802-06-02
August 17, 1998
HAND-DELIVERED
Standard Pacific of San Diego
7290 Clairemont Mesa Boulevard
San Diego, California 92111-1091
Attention: Mr. Gregg Linhoff
Subject: POINSETTIA AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY
TABATA SITE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
SITE ASSESSMENT AND HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT
Dear Mr. Linhoff:
In accordance with your request on behalf of Standard Pacific of San Diego (Client), Geocon
Environmental Consultants, Inc. (Geocon) has conducted environmental site assessment activities at
the subject site. The property is located west of Aviara Parkway and on the north and south sides of
Poinsettia Lane in Carlsbad, California. The scope of services for the assessment included limited
soil sampling and analyses to evaluate the potential presence of organochlorine pesticides,
organochlorine herbicides, and petroleum hydrocarbons in surficial soil on-site, and observation of
geotechnical trenching and drilling activities. Geocon also performed a health risk assessment to
evaluate the potential risks to human health posed by the presence of Dieldrin detected in soil
samples collected from the site.
The accompanying report presents the details of the assessment and summarizes the findings relative
to the potential existing presence, as of the date of the soil sampling activities, of hazardous
materials/wastes at the site at levels likely to warrant mitigation action pursuant to current regulatory
guidelines. If there are any questions concerning the contents of the report, or if Geocon may be of
further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
GEOCON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Office Manager
CEH:MPW:BWS:sc
(2) Addressee
. -,-,
Charles E. Houser £
RG 5781
Mark P. Wanek
Staff Geologist
6970 Flanders Drive • San Diego, California 92121-2974 • Telephone (619) 558-6100 • Fax (619) 558-8437
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SITE ASSESSMENT AND HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT Page
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Site Description 1
1.2. Existing Conditions and Improvements 1
1.3. Background 1
1.3.1. Purpose and Scope of Services 2
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE FIELD AClTVITffiS l 2
2.1. Geotechnical Trenching and Boring Activities 2
2.2. Agricultural Chemical and Petroleum Hydrocarbon Impact Investigation 4
2.2.1. Purpose 4
2.2.2. Soil Sampling Activities 4
2.2.3. Laboratory Testing 5
2.2.4. Results of Laboratory Analyses 5
3. HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT 6
3.1. Introduction 6
3.2. Derivation of the Site-Specific Exposure Point Concentration for Dieldrin 7
3.3. Environmental Fate of Dieldrin 7
3.4. Routes of Exposure 8
3.5. Potential Human Receptors 8
3.5.1. Commercial/Industrial Land Use 8
3.5.2. Residential Land Use 9
3.6. Estimation of Potential Chronic Daily Intakes 9
3.6.1. Particulate Emission Factor 10
3.6.2. Soil-To-Air Volatilization Factor 10
3.6.3. Dermal Contact with Soil 11
3.7. Toxicity Assessment 11
3.8. Individual Lifetime Cancer Risks 12
4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13
4.1. Trenching and Geotechnical Boring Activities 13
4.2. Agricultural Chemical and Petroleum Hydrocarbon Investigation 13
4.3. Human Health Risk Assessment 14
5. LIMITATIONS 15
6. REFERENCES 16
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONCLUDED)
SITE ASSESSMENT AND HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT
Figures:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Site Plan (map pocket)
Tables:
I. Summary of Analytical Laboratory Results, Organochlorine Pesticides
II. Summary of Analytical Laboratory Results, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel Fuel
Appendices:
A. Acknowledgment dated May 29, 1998
B. Acknowledgment dated June 22,1998
C. Laboratory Report and Chain-of-Custody Documentation
D. Equations for Calculating 90% of the UCL
E. Risk Assessment Calculations - Commercial Exposure - Adult
F. Risk Assessment Calculations - Residential Exposure - Adult
G. Risk Assessment Calculations - Residential Exposure - Child
H. Sources of Chemical-Specific and Default Value Data
SITE ASSESSMENT AND HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT
1. INTRODUCTION
This report has been prepared by Geocon Environmental Consultants, Inc. (Geocon) in accordance
with the request of Mr. Greg Linhoff of Standard Pacific of San Diego (Client). The report presents
the results of environmental site assessment activities conducted for the Tabata site, approximately 30-
acre property located north and south of Poinsettia Lane approximately 1 mile east of Interstate 5 in
Carlsbad, California. The report also presents the findings of a risk assessment associated with the
presence of Dieldrin detected in surficial soil on-site.
1.1. Site Description
Of the approximately 30 acres comprising the Tabata property, approximately 15 acres each lie north
and south of Poinsettia Lane in Carlsbad, California. The site is bounded by residential property to the
north, agricultural properties to the west and south, and undeveloped property to the east. The
approximate location of the site is depicted on the Vicinity Map presented as Figure 1. A Site Plan is
included as Figure 2 (map pocket).
1.2. Existing Conditions and Improvements
The site was being used for agricultural activities at the time of the assessment. The principal crop
grown at the site was strawberries. The portion of the site south of Poinsettia Lane consisted primarily
of graded farm fields. The portion of the site north of Poinsettia Lane consisted of graded farm fields
in the central, southern, and western portions, with a packing shed, hazardous waste storage shed,
other miscellaneous storage sheds and trailers, and worker housing facilities located in the
northeastern portion of the site. An above-ground storage tank (AST) labeled "Diesel #2" was
observed on the south side of the packing shed (Figure 2). Staining/discoloration of surface soil was
observed adjacent to the AST. Farm equipment, irrigation piping, and wooden stakes were observed
stored in the southeastern portion of the site situated north of Poinsettia Lane.
1.3. Background
The subject site is a portion of an approximately 83-acre group of properties of which a Phase I
environmental site assessment (ESA) was conducted by Geocon and summarized in a report entitled
Phase I Environmental Assessment, The Poinsettia Agricultural Property, Carlsbad, California, and
dated January 29, 1998. Access to the Tabata portion of the site was not provided during the ESA. Six
borings were advanced at the remainder of the site with a stainless steel hand auger. Soil samples were
collected and analyzed for organochlorine pesticides following United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Test Method 8080 and organochlorine herbicides following EPA Test
Method 8150.
Project No. 08802-06-02 -1 - August 17, 1998
Detectable concentrations of 4,4'-DDT, 4,4'-DDE, or 4,4'-DDD were reported for nine of the twelve
soil samples analyzed. Reported concentrations of DDT, DDE, and DDD were below preliminary
remediation goals (PRGs) listed in a document issued by the EPA entitled Region 9 Preliminary
Remediation Goals (PRGs), 1998. Further, the reported concentrations were below generic soil
screening levels (SSLs) established by the EPA for the protection of groundwater. Therefore, Geocon
concluded in the ESA report that a significant threat to public health or underlying groundwater did
not likely exist at the site due to concentrations of DDT, DDE, and DDD in on-site soil.
1.3.1. Purpose and Scope of Services
The purpose of the site assessment activities discussed in this report was to assess the potential
existing presence, as of the date of the soil sampling activities, of hazardous materials/wastes at the
Tabata portion of the site at levels likely to warrant mitigation action pursuant to current regulatory
guidelines. The guidelines used for the definition of hazardous materials/hazardous wastes are
referenced in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, Division 4.5. Geocon performed a
scope of services as described in the Acknowledgments dated May 29 and June 22, 1998, which are
included herein as Appendices A and B, respectively.
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE FIELD ACTIVITIES
The field activities performed by Geocon and described in this report were performed between May 29
and June 3', 1998. In summary, the field activities included sampling of random and biased locations
for agricultural chemicals and petroleum hydrocarbons, observing the excavation of geotechnical
exploratory trenches at various locations underlain by undocumented fill material, and observing the
advancement of geotechnical exploratory borings at locations within a landfill deposit at the site. The
field activities are described below.
2.1. Geotechnical Trenching and Boring Activities
On May 29, 1998, eleven exploratory trenches were excavated at the site during a geotechnical
investigation in order to evaluate the presence and thickness of possible undocumented fill deposits.
Geocon monitored the trenching activities for the possible presence of hazardous materials or wastes
within the fill, and to determine the appropriate health and safety measures to be implemented during
the trenching activities. The approximate locations of the trenches are depicted on the Site Plan,
Figure 2. Monitoring was performed as follows:
• The trenches were visually monitored for indicators of the potential existing presence of
hazardous materials or wastes, including 55-gallon drums, chemical containers, stained or
discolored soil, or debris.
Project No. 08802-06-02 - 2 - August 17, 1998
• Air monitoring was performed using a combustible gas indicator (CGI) to measure atmospheric
oxygen content (percent), concentration of hydrocarbon vapors (such as methane), and percent of
the lower explosion limit.
On June 3, 1998, two exploratory soil borings, identified as G-l and G-2 were advanced through
landfill deposits in the northeastern portion of the site. The purpose of these borings was to evaluate
the presence and thickness of the undocumented landfill deposits in this portion of the site. Geocon
monitored the drilling activities for the possible presence of hazardous materials or wastes within
these landfills, and to determine the appropriate health and safety measures to be implemented during
the drilling activities. The approximate locations of the geotechnical borings are depicted on the Site
Plan, Figure 2. Monitoring was performed as follows:
• The borings and drill cuttings were visually monitored for indicators of the potential existing
presence of hazardous materials or wastes, including 55-gallon drums, chemical containers,
stained or discolored soil, or debris.
• Air monitoring was performed using a combustible gas indicator (CGI) to measure atmospheric
oxygen content (percent), concentration of hydrocarbon vapors (such as methane), and percent of
the lower explosion limit, and a photoionization detector (PID) to measure organic vapor
concentrations.
Eight of the eleven exploratory trenches, identified as D-l to D-8 were excavated in the portion of the
site south of Poinsettia Lane. Materials observed in the eight trenches appeared to consist primarily of
fill soil, underlain by formational geologic materials. Debris was encountered in the fill soil of trench
D-3. The fill soil consisted of sand with varying amounts of silt or clay. The debris consisted primarily
of green waste (brush and other vegetative debris); trash, such as plastic sheeting, fragments of PVC
pipe, and old tires; and fragments of concrete and asphalt. Formational materials included terrace
deposits consisting of orange-brown sandstone with clay and undifferentiated Santiago
Formation/Torrey Sandstone consisting of pale yellow to light olive gray sandstone with varying
amounts silt and/or clay. Air monitoring with the CGI did not suggest the presence of combustible
vapors in the trenches.
Landfill material was encountered in the three trenches, identified as D-9, D-10, and D-ll, excavated
in the portion of the property north of Poinsettia Lane. The landfill materials were observed starting at
depths ranging from near ground surface to approximately 8 feet below grade, and extending to the
maximum depth of the trench excavations at approximately 16 feet below grade. Landfill debris
encountered in each of the three trenches included fragments of asphalt and concrete, green waste,
wood debris, plastic sheeting, PVC pipe fragments, and other inorganic solid waste (metal, fiberglass,
Project No. 08802-06-02 - 3 - August 17, 1998
etc.). Organic odors were noted by Geocon personnel during the trenching activities. The CGI did not
detect the presence of combustible vapors in the trenches.
Two soil borings, identified as G-l and G-2, were advanced through the landfill deposits in the
northeastern portion of the site. Landfill material was encountered in the borings, starting at a depth of
approximately 4 to 6 feet below grade, and extending to depths of approximately 44 and 31 feet in Gl,
and G2, respectively. Landfill debris encountered in the borings included fragments of asphalt and
concrete, green waste, wood debris, plastic sheeting, PVC pipe fragments, and other inorganic solid
waste (metal, cloth, etc.). During the drilling activities, the CGI was lowered into boring Gl. At a
depth of approximately 15 to 20 feet below grade, the CGI audible alarm activated indicating an
atmosphere with less than approximately 20 percent oxygen. Similar conditions were not detected
within boring Gl at depths less than approximately 15 to 20 feet, or in the work zone around the
borings.
2.2. Agricultural Chemical and Petroleum Hydrocarbon Impact Investigation
2.2.1. Purpose
As indicated by the site reconnaissance, aerial photographs, and previously obtained information, the
site is currently, and has been historically used for agricultural purposes. According to the County of
San Diego Department of Environmental Health (DEH), Site Assessment and Mitigation (SAM)
Division, soil impacted by the legal application of pesticides/herbicides is not considered a hazardous
waste, assuming that the soil will not be transported off-site, will not be treated on-site, and will not
pose a threat to public health or the environment. However, substances including pesticides,
determined by the State of California to be known or suspected carcinogens or to cause reproductive
toxicity, are regulated in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of
1986, also known as Proposition 65. Since the Client has knowledge that pesticides were potentially
applied to the site albeit through their legal, registered application, according to Proposition 65, the
Client is required to evaluate the extent of potential human exposure to these pesticides.
In addition, because surficial staining of the soil near an above-ground fuel tank was observed,
Geocon recommended that soil samples be collected from two hand-augered borings and analyzed to
evaluate the potential presence of near-surface petroleum hydrocarbon impacts.
2.2.2. Soil Sampling Activities
Prior to the sampling event, the site was divided into three sampling cells. Three sampling locations
(Bl, B2, and B4) were established at biased locations near areas historically or currently utilized to
store agricultural chemicals. Three additional soil sampling locations (B5, B6, and B7) were chosen at
random in actively cultivated areas. In addition, two borings (Tl and T2) were established within the
Project No. 08802-06-02 - 4 - August 17,1998
surficial soil stain near the above-ground fuel tank. The approximate boring locations are depicted on
the Site Plan, Figure 2 (map pocket).
The sampling activities were performed by a representative of Geocon on May 29, 1998. Eight
exploratory borings were advanced utilizing a stainless steel hand auger. The sampling methodology
and quality assurance/quality control procedures followed are outlined in the referenced
Acknowledgments, included as Appendices A and B. Three soil samples were collected from each
boring at depths of approximately 0 to 6 inches, 2'/2 to 3 feet, and 4 to 4'/2 feet below the ground
surface. The soil samples were placed in 4-ounce glass jars and labeled with an identification number.
The soil encountered during the field activities consisted primarily of soft to stiff, humid to wet,
brown, sandy clay. At a depth of approximately 1 foot below the ground surface, medium dense to
dense, humid to moist, reddish orange, silty sand was encountered in borings Bl, B2, and B7.
2.2.3. Laboratory Testing
The six soil samples collected from borings Bl, B2, and B4 through B7 from approximately 0 to 6
inches below the ground surface, and the six soil samples collected from these borings at a depth of
2'/2 to 3 feet were initially analyzed for the presence of organochlorine pesticides following EPA Test
Method 8080 and for chlorinated herbicides following EPA Test Method 8150. Soil samples collected
at greater depths from those borings were not analyzed based on the results of the initial analyses.
The six soil samples from the two borings advanced in proximity to the above-ground tank were
analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel fuel (TPHd) following the California Department
of Health Services (CDOHS) test method. Reproductions of the laboratory report and chain-of-custody
documentation are included as Appendix C. A summary of the analytical laboratory test results for the
detected compounds is presented in Tables I and II.
2.2.4. Results of Laboratory Analyses
2.2.4.1. Organochlorine Pesticides
The pesticide 4,4'-DDT and its natural degradation products, 4,4'-DDD and 4,4'-DDE, were detected
in each of the soil samples collected from borings Bl, B2, B4, B5, B6, and B7 at approximately 0 to 6
inches, with the exception of boring location Bl, where 4,4'-DDT was not detected. Detectable
concentrations of DDT were exhibited in the soil samples collected from approximately 2'/2 to 3 feet in
borings B4 and B5. The soil sample collected from approximately 2!/2 to 3 feet in boring B5 also
exhibited a detectable concentration of DDE. Other compounds detected were the pesticides
Endosulfan I, Endosulfan II, and Dieldrin. Endosulfan I was detected in soil samples collected from
approximately 0 to 6 inches in borings Bl and B4, and Endosulfan II was detected in soil samples
Project No. 08802-06-02 - 5 - August 17, 1998
collected from approximately 0 to 6 inches in borings Bl, B2, B4, B5, and B6. The pesticide Dieldrin
was detected in soil samples collected from approximately 0 to 6 inches in borings B4 through B7, and
in the soil sample collected from approximately 2'/2 to 3 feet in boring B5.
As indicated in Table I, detectable concentrations of 4,4' -DDT in the samples analyzed ranged from
6.8 micrograms per kilogram (ug/kg) to 1220 ug/kg. Detectable concentrations of 4,4'-DDD in the
samples analyzed ranged from 6.1 ug/kg to 130 |4.g/kg. Detectable concentrations of 4,4'-DDE in the
samples analyzed ranged from 6.6 ug/kg to 320 ug/kg. Detectable concentrations of Endosulfan I in
the samples analyzed ranged from 2.5 fig/kg to 9.5 ug/kg, and of Endosulfan II from 17 fig/kg to 52.5
. Detectable concentrations of Dieldrin ranged from 5 ug/kg to 38 ug/kg.
2.2.4.2. Organochlorine Herbicides
Organochlorine herbicides were not detected in the samples analyzed at concentrations greater than
the respective method detection limits.
2.2.4.3. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel Fuel
Four of the six soil samples collected from the two borings advanced near the AST exhibited
detectable concentrations of TPH as diesel fuel. Soil samples Tl-2, collected at a depth of
approximately 2!/2 to 3 feet from boring Tl, and T2-3, collected at a depth of approximately 4 to 4'/z
feet from boring T2, did not exhibit a detectable concentration of diesel fuel. Soil samples Tl-1, Tl-3,
T2-1, and T2-2 exhibited concentrations of TPH as diesel fuel of 18,200, 12, 25,300, and 14
milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), respectively. A summary of the laboratory results of the soil
samples analyzed is presented in Table II.
3. HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
3.1. Introduction
Since levels of Dieldrin were detected at concentrations above the PRGs, a human health risk
assessment was performed in order to evaluate the potential risk to public health. This section presents
the results of the human health risk assessment addressing the potential carcinogenic risk to workers
during development and to future occupants subsequent to development from Dieldrin. The risk
assessment was performed in accordance with Geocon's Acknowledgment dated June 22, 1998, to satisfy
the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65),
promulgated in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22, Section 12000. Guidance documents
prepared by and/or under the auspices of the EPA and California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-
EPA) were utilized during the human health risk assessment.
Project No. 08802-06-02 - 6 - August 17, 1998
Proposition 65 prohibits a person in the course of doing business from knowingly and intentionally
exposing an individual to a chemical, known to the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive
toxicity, at a concentration of toxicological significance, without first giving that individual clear and
reasonable warning. An estimated potential individual intake of Dieldrin at a level less than that
calculated to result in greater than one excess cancer risk in an exposed population of 100,000,
assuming lifetime exposure at the level in question, would waive disclosure requirements, according
to Proposition 65.
3.2. Derivation of the Site-Specific Exposure Point Concentration for Dieldrin
According to the Cal EPA guidance document Supplemental Guidance for Human Health Multimedia
Risk Assessments of Hazardous Waste Sites and Permitted Facilities, a chemical's exposure point
concentration (EPC) is ordinarily the lesser of the upper end of the 90% confidence interval (UCL) of
the arithmetic mean of the sample values or the maximum observed value. Accordingly, the 90% UCL
of the arithmetic mean concentration of Dieldrin was utilized as the EPC for the purpose of the human
health risk calculations. The value for the 90% UCL of the arithmetic mean along with other
parameters used to calculate the 90% UCL are presented in the table below.
PARAMETER Dieldrin
Mean 33
Standard Deviation 4.6
Observations 3
Degrees of Freedom 2
Student's"t" Value 1.886
90% UCL 38
Note: Concentrations are in units of micrpgrams per kilogram (ng/kg)
The equations for calculating the 90% UCL and other parameters are presented in Appendix D.
3.3. Environmental Fate of Dieldrin
Dieldrin possesses a low water solubility and a relatively high organic carbon partition coefficient
(EPPD, 1994). Consequently, Dieldrin does not readily dissolve in water and adsorbs to soil. The
adsorption is stronger in humic soil containing high organic carbon content, which is frequently
encountered in agricultural land uses. A vapor pressure of 3.1E-6 torr, (at 20°C), suggests that
volatilization will account for a loss of this compound from the soil. In addition, Dieldrin may become
airborne as the particulates onto which it is adsorbed are emitted into the atmosphere as fugitive dust.
Due to Dieldrin's high adsorption potential, it is very persistent in soil under both aerobic and
Project No. 08802-06-02 - 7 - August 17, 1998
anaerobic conditions (Castro and Yoshida, 1971; Sanborn and Yu, 1973). Reported soil half-lives for
Dieldrin range from 175 days to 3 years (Howard et al., 1991).
3.4. Routes of Exposure
An exposure pathway is a mechanism by which an individual is exposed to a chemical. Exposure
pathways are determined based on chemical and physical characteristics of the chemical and the
potential for human contact to the chemical or to media that contain the chemical.
Dieldrin enters the body mainly when a person eats contaminated food, although small amounts may
also be inhaled and/or absorbed into the body. Because Dieldrin attached to airborne particles are
usually too large to pass through the lungs into the body after breathing air containing them, these
particles are likely to be carried upward in the mucus of the air passages and swallowed. Dieldrin may
enter the body by penetrating the skin. According to the public health statement by ATSDR, and
according to Cal-EPA guidance documents, dermal exposure is to be considered a potential route of
exposure. An absorption rate of 5 percent is to be utilized for calculation of risk according to Cal-EPA.
Consequently, potential routes of exposure to Dieldrin addressed in this health risk assessment
include: inadvertent ingestion of soil and dust, inhalation of volatiles, and direct dermal contact with
soil.
3.5. Potential Human Receptors
Persons may potentially be exposed to pesticides existing in on-site soil prior to development, during
development when construction activities would be occurring, subsequent to development if involved
in subsurface activities, and subsequent to development as residential occupants. For the purpose of
the human health risk assessment, focus is placed on the most sensitive target populations. The most
sensitive target populations are those persons who may be exposed for the longest duration and/or at
the highest level. It is assumed that others considered less sensitive would be adequately addressed
through focus on the most sensitive potential receptors. EPA guidance documents present two
exposure scenarios for calculating incremental risk of carcinogenic effects: (1) commercial/industrial
land use, and (2) residential land use. A discussion of the two scenarios, the assumptions they are
based on, and persons they each apply to, are presented below.
3.5.1. Commercial/Industrial Land Use
This exposure scenario, according to EPA guidance documents, accounts for inadvertent ingestion of
soil and dust and inhalation of volatiles. Soil particles will potentially become airborne and respirable
from the use of construction equipment for activities such as loading and unloading of soil material,
transportation of uncovered soil material, vehicular traffic on unpaved roads, soil material spreading
operations, and from wind erosion. The most sensitive target population potentially exposed during
Project No. 08802-06-02 - 8 - August 17, 1998
such on-site activity would be construction workers during site development. The potential risk to this
target population from inhalation and ingestion is determined utilizing the commercial/industrial land
use equation. To account for risk associated with dermal exposure, an additional equation addressing
dermal exposure is utilized. Other persons may be exposed inadvertently, during site development or
during the course of subsurface activities subsequent to development, for shorter a duration and/or at
lower concentrations. However, focus on the most sensitive population should adequately address the
risk to these other persons.
3.5.2. Residential Land Use
Persons who may be exposed are those who may inhabit residential dwellings, persons who may work
at facilities within the residential development, and persons who may visit residential or other
properties. The most sensitive target population, subsequent to development, would be an occupant of
a future on-site residence, in consideration of the amount of time that person would be potentially
exposed. This target population would include adults as well as children. In consideration of their
differing physical characteristics and their different opportunities for exposure, the incremental risk of
cancer for adults and children are calculated separately, with differing values utilized in certain
instances. For both the child and adult target populations, they may inadvertently ingest soil and dust,
have direct dermal contact with the soil, and inhale volatiles. Children considered to be most sensitive
receptors are those below the age of seven; children age seven or greater would spend a significant
portion of the day at school and would not be exposed during this time away from the site. Persons
who may work on-site or others who may be exposed for short durations are considered to be
relatively less sensitive. However, focus on the most sensitive populations should adequately address
the incremental risk to these other persons.
3.6. Estimation of Potential Chronic Daily Intakes
The term "intake" is defined as the amount of a chemical that actually enters the body tissues. The
total intake may only be a fraction of the amount of the chemical to which an individual is exposed.
For the purposes of this health risk assessment, chronic daily intakes were estimated for oral,
respiratory, and dermal exposure pathways. In addition, both residential as well as commercial settings
were used in calculating different intakes based on land uses and associated activities.
The calculations of chronic daily intakes (GDI) of Dieldrin are accomplished utilizing chemical/site-
specific soil-to-air volatilization factors (VF) and a site-specific particulate emission factor (PEF) for
adults and children. The GDI is converted to an incremental risk of an individual developing cancer
(Risk) utilizing an oral slope factor, an inhalation slope factor or a dermal slope factor, by means of
the equation: Risk = GDI x slope factor. Each of these equations and accompanying default values
were obtained from the Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume 1 - Human Health
Evaluation Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-based Preliminary Remediation Goals).
Project No. 08802-06-02 ~- August 17, 1998
The derivations of the GDI, VFs, and PEFs, and the conversion of the GDI to an incremental risk of an
individual developing cancer, are presented separately as "Commercial Exposure - Adult,"
"Residential Exposure - Adult," and "Residential Exposure - Child" in Appendices E, F, and G,
respectively. Sources of chemical specific and default value data for calculations performed are
presented in Appendix H. An explanation of the equations and certain parameter values used are
presented below. Given the nature of the near-surface materials, default values for soil characteristics
referenced in EPA and Cal EPA guidance documents are considered appropriate for the subject site.
3.6.1. Participate Emission Factor
The PEF relates the contaminant concentration in soil to the concentration of respirable particles
(PM10) in the air due to fugitive dust emissions from wind erosion and on-site activities at surficially
contaminated sites. The equation is representative of a surface with "unlimited erosion potential"
characterized by bare surfaces of finely divided material, such as sandy agricultural soil with a
significant number of credible particles. This characterization would be applicable to the subject site,
during site development, for commercial/industrial land use human receptors. In addition, to be
conservative, this characterization of the site is also assumed for the site, subsequent to site
development, for residential land use human receptors. The PEFs for adult receptors, applied in the
risk calculations for both commercial/industrial and residential settings, are calculated in both
Appendices E and F. The PEF for child receptors, applied in the risk calculations for residential
settings, is calculated in Appendix G.
3.6.2. Soil-To-Air Volatilization Factor
The VF is used for defining the relationship between contaminants in the soil and the volatilized
contaminants in the air. The VF assumes that the contaminant concentration in the soil is homogenous
from the surface soil to the depth of concern and that the contaminated material is not covered by
contaminant-free soil material. The VF uses chemical-specific parameters (e.g., the Henry's Law
Constant, the molecular diffusivity, and the organic carbon partition coefficient) as well as site-
specific parameters (e.g., soil moisture, organic carbon content, size of contaminated area, and
representative wind characteristics) to estimate the amount of each chemical that actually volatilizes
into the vapor phase and is ultimately transported via wind currents to a receptor. Again, to be
conservative, the VFs for Dieldrin are utilized for characterization of the site during, as well as
subsequent to, site development. The VFs for adult receptors, applied in the risk calculations for both
commercial/industrial and residential settings, are calculated in both Appendices E and F. The VF for
child receptors, applied in the risk calculations for residential settings, is calculated in Appendix G.
Project No. 08802-06-02 - 10 - August 17, 1998
3.6.3. Dermal Contact with Soil
An equation to calculate dermal exposure from contact with chemicals in soil is presented in the U.S.
EPA Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume 1 - Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A).
An equation to estimate lifetime average daily intakes from dermal exposure to soil was derived from
this equation. The guidance document advocates the use of a conservatively-adjusted oral or inhalation
exposure slope factor, based on an empirical estimation of the fraction of the chemical that actually is
absorbed through the skin and enters the body's tissues. The adjustment would potentially increase the
slope value if it could be determined that the toxicological study from which the slope factor was
derived did not account for the absorbed dose being different from the exposed dose. However, it was
determined based upon review of literature that absorption from inhalation and/or ingestion can be
assumed to be 100 percent. Accordingly, adjustment of the slope factor was not necessary. The
equation to calculate the incremental risk from dermal exposure also utilizes the EPC, as well as
absorption an estimate of an individual's surface area of skin exposed to soil, a soil-to-skin adherence
factor, an factor, and potential frequency and duration of exposure. A representative of the Office of
Scientific Affairs of the Department of Toxic Substances Control has indicated that an appropriate
absorption factor for organochlorine pesticides is 0.05.
3.7. Toxicity Assessment
The U.S. EPA has estimated that an intake of Dieldrin has the potential to cause cancer in humans,
based upon an oral slope factor of 16 milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day) and an inhalation
cancer slope factor of 4.61 mg/kg/day (IRIS, 1997, OPP). Estimates of human carcinogenic effects
from potential exposure are based on epidemiological studies involving humans or, lacking such data,
on extrapolation of dose level and resulting carcinogenic responses observed in animals in laboratory
experiments. Human exposure data for Dieldrin is considered to be inadequate for the determination of
a dose-response relationship in humans (ATSDR, 1989). However, Dieldrin has been shown to be
carcinogenic in various strains of mice of both sexes. At different dose levels the effects range from
benign liver tumors, to hepatocarcinomas with transplantation confirmation, to pulmonary metastases
(IRIS, 1997). The absorption of Dieldrin in humans is expected to resemble that observed in animals
(U.S. EPA, 1987).
Dieldrin is classified, according to Proposition 65, as a chemical known to the State of California to
cause cancer (CCR, 1993) and by the EPA as a probable (Group B2) human carcinogen (IRIS, 1997).
Dieldrin is stored most readily in fatty tissues, and stored amounts leave the body very slowly. Levels
in fatty tissue may remain either relatively the same over time or even increase with continued
exposure (ATSDR, 1989).
Project No. 08802-06-02 -11 - August 17, 1998
3.8. Individual Lifetime Cancer Risks
Risk from the contaminant in soil is assumed to be due to direct ingestion, inhalation of volatiles from
the soil, inhalation of soil particles, and dermal absorption. In determining the potential risk based on
all pertinent routes of exposure to the given chemical, two individual lifetime cancer risk equations
were used. One generates a potential risk based on inhalation of volatiles and ingestion and the other
generates a risk based on dermal absorption. When summed, they provide the total potential risk.
These two equations were used for both residential and commercial/industrial land uses, with
modifications to certain parameter values as required. Potential risks associated with residential land
use are calculated for a child as well as for an adult, whereas the potential risks associated with an
industrial/commercial land use are calculated for only an adult worker. Although the general risk
equations are identical for both an adult and a child, certain parameter values are adjusted to be
representative of a child versus an adult. The risk calculations for commercial/industrial adults, for
residential adults, and for residential children are shown in Appendices E, F, and G, respectively. The
risk from Dieldrin to each potential human receptor are summarized in the table below.
Potential Human Receptors
Commercial Exposure - Adult
Residential Exposure - Adult
Residential Exposure - Child
Ingestion &
Inhalation Risk
1.73 x 1C'7
4.41 x ID'7
8.23 x lO'7
Dermal Intake
Risk
3.82xlO-8
2.96 x 10'7
3.33 x ID'7
Total Risk
2.11xlO-7
7.37 x 1C'7
1:16x10*
As determined by the equations presented in Appendices E, F, and G, the cumulative individual
additional lifetime risks of cancer from exposure by ingestion, inhalation, and dermal absorption to
on-site soil impacted with Dieldrin, shown in the above table, are less then one case of cancer in an
exposed population of 100,000. The equations used and sources of data are presented in Appendix H.
Project No. 08802-06-02 -12 - August 17, 1998
4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1. Trenching and Geotechnical Boring Activities
Based on observation of the geotechnical trenching and boring activities at the site, the potential for
the areas of the site explored to be impacted by hazardous materials/wastes at levels warranting
mitigation action pursuant to current regulatory guidelines is considered very low.
4.2. Agricultural Chemical and Petroleum Hydrocarbon Investigation
Soil samples collected and analyzed for agricultural chemicals and petroleum hydrocarbons exhibited
detectable concentrations of DDT, DDD, DDE, Endosulfan, Dieldrin, and TPHd.
A document issued by the EPA entitled Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs), 1998 was
reviewed to compare the concentrations of pesticides detected in on-site soil to the respective PRGs
for soil in a residential setting. The EPA has also established generic soil screening levels (SSLs) for
the protection of groundwater. These generic SSLs were derived using default values in standardized
equations adopted by the EPA. Two different SSLs are listed by the EPA depending on the degree of
dilution and attenuation between the source and a receptor well. The PRGs and SSLs listed by the
EPA for DDT, DDE, and DDD, Endosulfan, and Dieldrin are presented in the table below.
Organochlorine
Pesticide
DDT
DDD
DDE
Endosulfan
Dieldrin
PRGs
(jig/kg); -.
1,300
1,900
1,300
390,000
28
SSLs
0*8*8)
a>AF20
32,000
16,000
54,000
1,800
4
DAF1 ,
2,000
800
3,000
900
0.2
Note:
DAF20 =
DAF 1
Soil screening level considering natural degradation and
breakdown processes
Soil screening level assuming no dilution or attenuation
Based on a comparison of DDT, DDD, DDE, and Endosulfan concentrations detected in the soil
samples collected with the PRGs and SSLs established by the EPA, a significant threat to public health
or underlying groundwater does not likely exist at the site.
Project No. 08802-06-02 -13-August 17, 1998
Furthermore, groundwater was not encountered in geotechnical borings drilled to a depth of 47 feet at
the site. Based on the attenuation of Dieldrin concentrations with depth in the soil samples collected
and considering the depth to groundwater, the potential for impacts to groundwater beneath the site
from Dieldrin is considered unlikely.
Soil impacted by diesel fuel near the existing above-ground storage tank should be removed and
properly disposed. The volume of impacted soil is approximately 3 cubic yards assuming impacts
extend to a depth of approximately 3 feet.
4.3. Human Health Risk Assessment
The risk assessment indicates that the incremental risks of cancer in the most sensitive target
populations from exposure to Dieldrin present in on-site soil are not calculated to be greater than one
in 100,000 persons potentially exposed. According to the State of California, this determination
indicates that it is not necessary to provide notice of the presence of Dieldrin in order to comply with
Proposition 65 legislation (CCR, Title 22, Section 12000). According to the State of California, this
determination indicates that additional measures in the name of protecting human health from
carcinogenic effects are not warranted. However, it is recommended that environmental counsel be
contacted to obtain additional information pertaining to current disclosure requirements of Proposition
65.
Project No. 08802-06-02 -14 - August 17,1998
5. LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared solely for the Client, in consideration of the Client's requirements.
Other parties may rely on the findings and conclusions of the report for informational purposes only.
However, the Client and other parties who may rely on the findings and conclusions of the report
should recognize that this report is not a comprehensive site characterization and should not be
construed as such. The findings and conclusions in this report are predicated on the services provided.
Therefore, the report should only be deemed conclusive with respect to the information obtained. No
guarantee of the results of the study is implied within the intent of this report or any subsequent report,
correspondence or consultation, either expressed or implied. The services performed were conducted
in accordance with the local standard of care in the geographic region at the time the services were
rendered.
Project No. 08802-06-02 -15 - August 17, 1998
6. REFERENCES
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Public Health Statement for Aldrin &
Dieldrin. May 1989.
California Code of Regulations (CCR), 1993. Title 22, Chapter 3, Section 12000. Safe Drinking Water
and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. State of California Health and Welfare Agency.
California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Office of
Scientific Affairs. 1992. Supplemental Guidance for Human Health Multimedia Risk Assessments of
Hazardous Wastes Sites and Permitted Facilities. July 1992.
California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Office of
Scientific Affairs, Human and Ecological Risk Section. 1994. Screening Level Dermal Absorption
Fractions (ABS) From Soil. Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual. January 1994.
California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Office of
Scientific Affairs, Human and Ecological Risk Section. 1995.
Castro, T.F. and T. Yoshida. "Degradation of Organochlorine Insecticides in Flooded Soils in the
Philippines", J. Agric. Food Chem., 19(6): 1168-1170 (1971).
Howard, P.H., et al. Handbook of Environmental Degradation Rates (Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers,
Inc., 1991).
Oregon State University Extension Pesticide Properties Database (EPPD), July 24,1994
Sanborn, J.R. and C. Yu. "The Fate of Dieldrin in a Model Ecosystem," Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol,
10(6):340-346 (1973).
U.S. EPA, 1987. "Carcinogenicity Assessment of Aldrin and Dieldrin". August 1987
U.S. EPA, 1989. "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume 1 - Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Part A)." December, 1989.
U.S. EPA, 1991. "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume 1 - Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-based Preliminary Remediation Goals)." December, 1991.
U.S. EPA. 1995. Environmental Research Laboratory, Measurements Branch. Athens, Georgia.
January, 1995.
U.S. EPA, 1997. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Dieldrin File. March 1, 1997.
U.S. EPA. Office of Pesticides Programs (OPP) Reference Dose Tracking Report. Dieldrin File
RISK =
APPENDIX H
DATA SOURCES
INHALATION + INGESTION RISK
(SF.. x C x IP"6 x EF x ED x + CSR xCxEFxEDxIR^x f 1/VF + 1/PEF^
BWxATx365
where:
Parameters
Risk
C
SFj
SF0
BW
AT
EF
ED
VF
PEF
Definition (units)
excess individual lifetime cancer risk (unitless)
chemical concentration (mg/kg)
inhalation cancer slope factor (mg/kg/day)
oral cancer slope factor(mg/kg/day)
adult body weight (kg)
averaging time (yr)
exposure frequency (days/yr)
exposure duration (yr)
soil ingestion rate (mg/day)
inhalation rate (mYday)
soil-to-air volatilization factor (m3/day)
particulate emission factor (mVday)
Source
1
4
5
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
6
2
3
4
5
6
Risk equation obtained from "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume 1 -
Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-based Preliminary
Remediation Goals)."
IRIS, 1997
Default values obtained from "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume 1 -
Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-based Preliminary
Remediation Goals)."
Site-specific values obtained from soil sampling and laboratory analysis.
U.S. EPA. Office of Pesticides Programs Reference Dose Tracking Report
Calculated following equation presented in "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund:
Volume 1 - Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-based
Preliminary Remediation Goals)."
APPENDIX H (continued)
SOIL-TO-AIR VOLATILIZATION FACTOR (VF)
VF (mVkg) = rLS x V x G.14xaxTV/2
(2xDeixExKasxlO-3kg/g)
where:
Parameter
VF
LS
V
DH
A
T
Dei
E
D,
K,,
H
Ps
Ka
K.C
OC
Definition Source
volatilization factor (mVkg) 6
length of side of contaminated area (m) 4
wind speed in mixing zone (m/s) 3
diffusion height (m) 3
area of contamination (cm2) 4
exposure interval (s) 3
effective diffusivity (cm2/s) (Di)(Ea33)
true soil porosity (unitless) 3
molecular in air (cm2/s) 5
soil/air partition coefficient (g soil/cm3 air) (H/Kd)(41)
Henry's law constant (atm-mVmol) 5
true soil density or particulate density (g/cm3) 3
soil-water partition coefficient (cm3/g) (KOC)(OC)
organic carbon partition coefficient (cnrVg) 5
organic carbon content of soil (fraction) 3
4
5
Default values obtained from "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume 1 -
Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-based Preliminary
Remediation Goals)."
Site-specific values obtained from soil sampling and laboratory analysis.
Chemical-specific values obtained from U.S. EPA Environmental Research Lab, Athens,
Georgia, 1995.
Volatilization factor equation obtained from "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund:
Volume 1 - Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-based
Preliminary Remediation Goals)."
APPENDIX H (continued)
PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR (PEF)
PEF = LSxVxDHx3600s/hr x 1000 g/kg
A 0.036
where:
Parameter Definition (units) Source
PEF particulate emission factor (m3/kg) 1
LS width of contaminated area (m) 4
V wind speed in mixing zone (m/s) 3
DH diffusion height (m) 3
A area of contamination (m2) 4
0.036 respirable fraction (g/m2-hr) 3
G fraction of vegetative cover (unitless) 4
Um mean annual wind speed (m/s) 3
U, equivalent threshold value of wind speed at 10 m (m/s) 3
F(x) function dependent on Un/U, (unitless) 3
Particulate emission factor (PEF) equation obtained from "Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund: Volume 1 - Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-
based Preliminary Remediation Goals)."
Default values obtained from "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume 1 -
Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-based Preliminary
Remediation Goals)."
Site-specific values obtained from Site Plan.
APPENDIX H (continued)
CANCER RISK FROM DERMAL INTAKE
RISKD = Intake xq*
C x CF x SA x AF x ABS x EF x ED x q*
BWxATx365
where:
Parameters Definition Source
RISKD cancer risk from dermal exposure (unitless) 1
Intake average daily dose of chemical (mg/kg/day) 1
q* dermal cancer slope factor (mg/kg/day) 2
C chemical concentration in soil (mg/kg) 4
CF conversion factor (lO^kg/mg) 3
SA surface area of skin exposed to soil (cm2 skin/day) 3
AF adherence factor of soil to skin (mg soil/cm2 skin) 5
ABS fraction absorbed (unitless) 5
EF exposure frequency (days/year) 3
ED exposure duration (years) 3
BW body weight (kg) 3
AT averaging time (days) 3
1 = Intake equation obtained from "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume 1
Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A)"
2 = IRIS, 1995.
3 = Default values obtained from "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume 1
Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A)"
4 = Site-specific values obtained from soil sampling and laboratory analyses.
5 = Default values obtained from California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Scientific Affairs, Ecological and Human Risk Section.
APPENDIX D
CALCULATION OF 90% UPPER CONFIDENCE LEVEL OF THE GEOMETRIC MEAN
Mean Concentration (x) Calculation: x = Z(Xj)/n
where:
Xj = individual sample value from x, to x,,
n = number of samples
Estimated Standard Deviation (s): s = [(Z(xrx)2)/n-l]'/2
90% Upper Confidence Level (U): U = x + (ts)/(n'/a)
where:
t = Students "t" value for 2 degrees of freedom and a 10% significance level.
Source of formulas: Davis, J.C.,1973 Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology, p. 17-84
TABLE!
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL LABORATORY RESULTS
. PF.STTfmV.S
SAMPLE
ID
Bl-1
Bl-2
B2-1
B2-2
B4-1
B4-2
B5-1
B5-2
B6-1
B6-2
B7-1
B7-2
APPROX.
SAMPLE
DEPTH
(feet)
'/4
2'/2
'/4
2'/2
'/4
2/2
'/4
2'/2
l/4
2'/2
'/4
2'/2
4,4'-DDT
(^tg/kg)
ND
ND
1220
ND
845
6.8
33
9
100
ND
40
ND
4,4'-DDD
(^g/kg)
6.1
ND
130
ND
93
ND
56
ND
64
ND
47
ND
4,4'-DDE
(jig/kg)
8.1
ND
320
ND
191
ND
57
6.6
77
ND
35
ND
Endosulfan I
(ng/kg)
9.5
ND
ND
ND
2.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Endosulfan II
(^g/kg)
52.5
ND
22
ND
49.5
ND
19
ND
17
ND
ND
ND
Dieldrin
(jig/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
12
ND
38
5
30
ND
30
ND
Note:
|j.g /kg = micrograms per kilogram
ND = not detected above laboratory detection limit
Other organochlorine pesticides not detected above laboratory detection limits
Organochlorme herbicides not detected above laboratory detection limits
Project No. 08802-06-02 August 17, 1998
TABLEn
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL LABORATORY RESULTS
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS AS DTESEL FUEL
SAMPLE
IDENTIFICATION
Tl-1
Tl-2
Tl-3
T2-1
T2-2
T2-3
APPROX.
SAMPLE
DEPTH
(feet)
!/4
2'/2
4
'/4
2'/2
4
TPHd
(mg/kg)
18,200
ND
12
25,300
14
ND
Note:
TPHd
mg/kg
ND
total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel fuel
milligrams per kilogram
not detected above laboratory detection limit
Project No. 08802-06-02 August 17, 1998
SOURCE: 1998 THOMAS BROTHERS MAP
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
REPRODUCED WITH PERMISSION GRANTED BY THOMAS BROTHERS MAPS.
THIS MAP IS COPYRIGHTED BY THOMAS BROS. MAPS. IT IS UNLAWFUL TO COPY
OR REPRODUCE ALL OR ANY PART THEREOF, WHETHER FOR PERSONAL USE OR
RESALE, WITHOUT PERMISSION
N
NO SCALE
GEOCON
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED
6970 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974
PHONE 619 558-6100 - FAX 619 558-8437
VICINITY MAP
POINSETTIA AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY
TABATA SITE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
MPW/JS DSK/EOOOO DATE 08-17-1998 PROJECT NO. 08807 - 06 - 02 FIG. 1
1VICMAP
I
I
I
c
G
C
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
APPENDtX
GEOCON
GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Project No. 08802-06-01
May 29, 1998
VIA FACSIMILE AND U. S. MAIL
Mr. Gregg Linhoff
Standard Pacific of San Diego
9335 Chesapeake Drive
San Diego, California 92123-1010
Subject: POINSETTIA AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT - ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
Dear Mr. Linhoff:
The purpose of this correspondence is to acknowledge that Geocon Environmental Consultants, Inc.
(Geocon) has been retained by Standard Pacific of San Diego (Client) to conduct environmental
engineering services at the subject site. Of the approximately 83-acre property, approximately 15 acres
are located north of Poinsettia Lane and the remainder of the site is located south of Poinsettia Lane,
between Snapdragon Drive, Foxglove View, and Aviara Parkway in Carlsbad, California.
Geocon has previously conducted a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the site. A
portion of the site is currently used for agricultural purposes and limited soil sampling and laboratory
testing was performed during the ESA to evaluate the presence of herbicides and/or pesticides in the
surficial soil. Access to the Tabata portion of the subject site was not provided during the ESA.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
Geocon proposes the following scope of services to complete the Phase I ESA for the Tabata portion
of the subject site:
• Collect soil samples from three random sampling locations in areas actively cultivated, and collect
soil samples from three biased sampling locations in areas historically or currently utilized to store
agricultural chemicals. Soil samples will be collected at the ground surface and at depths of
approximately 2l/2 and 4 feet below the existing ground surface. This proposal assumes that a total
of three soil samples will be collected from each of the six sampling locations. The soil samples
will be collected utilizing a stainless steel trowel or hand auger, transferred to laboratory-supplied
glass jars, capped with Teflon-lined lids, labeled, placed in a cooler with ice, and transported to a
California Department of Health Services-certified analytical laboratory.
• Submit the 18 soil samples collected to the analytical laboratory. The 12 soil samples collected at
the ground surface and approximately 2Vi feet below the existing ground surface will be subjected
to analyses for organochlorine pesticides following EPA Test Method 8080, and for chlorinated
herbicides following EPA Test Method 8150. Soil samples collected from a depth of
624 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2900 • Los Angeles, CA 90017 • Telephone (213) 538-1282 • Fax (213) 538-1283
approximately 4 feet below the ground surface will be held for potential future testing, pending the
results of the initial analyses.
Perform quality assurance/quality control procedures during the field sampling activities including
the cleansing/rinsing of sampling equipment prior to each sampling effort and the use of chain of
custody documentation.
Backfill the resulting borings with the soil cuttings generated.
Observe and document conditions exposed and materials generated during trenching activities
performed during Geocon Incorporated's geotechnical investigation.
Prepare a report summarizing the services described above. The report will be considered an
addendum to the referenced ESA report.
FEE FOR SERVICES
Geocon will perform the services referred to above on a "lump sum" basis for a fee of
Additional services required beyond the scope referred to herein will be billed on a "time and
materials" basis and will only be performed upon authorization from the Client.
The fee assumes laboratory test results will be provided on a standard turnaround time basis of 7 to 10
working days. If different conditions are identified or as additional information is obtained, it may
become necessary to revise the scope of services and associated fee.
The fee includes the submittal of two copies of a final report. Drafts or additional copies may be
requested for an additional administrative fee.
One invoice will be submitted with the report Consultation services rendered after the issuance of the
report will be billed on a "time and materials" basis and will be additive to the "lump sum" fee.
Please carefully review the contents of this acknowledgment and the enclosed Change Order
Agreement for Professional Services (Change Order No. 001-MPW). If they meet with your approval,
please execute both copies of the Change Order and return one fully executed copy to our office.
Should you have any questions, or if Geocon may be of further service, please contact the undersigned
at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
GEOCON ENVIRONMENTALCJDNSULTANTS, INC.
JriaiTW. StaffordfJr, £E>^ Mark P. Wanek
Office Manager Staff Geologist
MPW:BWS:sc
(1) Addressee
Enclosure: Change Order Agreement for Professional Services
Project No. 08802-06-01 ~ May 29, 1998
I
I
I
G
§
I
I
I
I
6
APPENDIX
GEOCON
GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Project No. 08802-06-02
June 22, 1998
VTA FACSIMILE AND U. S. MAIL
Mr. Gregg Linhoff
Standard Pacific of San Diego
9335 Chesapeake Drive
San Diego, California 92123-1010
Subject: POZNSETTIA AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY
TABATA SITE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
Dear Mr. Linhoff:
The purpose of this correspondence is to acknowledge that Geocon Environmental Consultants, Inc.
(Geocon) has been retained by Standard Pacific of San Diego (Client) to conduct environmental
engineering services at the subject site. The Tabata portion of the Poinsettia Agricultural Property is
approximately 30 acres in size and occupies the northeast portion of the property. The site is located
west of Aviara Parkway both north and south of Poinsettia Lane in Carlsbad, California.
In general accordance with our Acknowledgment letter dated May 29, 1998, Geocon has conducted
soil sampling and analysis at random and biased locations throughout the site, and has observed
trenching activities designed to investigate possible undocumented fill deposits at the site. Following is
a summary of additional work that you have approved:
• An above-ground storage tank (AST) labeled "Diesel #2" was observed south of the packing
shed at the northeast comer of the site. Stained/discolored soil with a moderate to strong
hydrocarbon odor was observed adjacent to this AST. Geocon recommended and you approved
collection and analysis of soil samples from the stained/discolored area to assess whether
detectable concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons were present in the soil and the likelihood
that such concentrations, if present, were due to a release from the AST or associated fuel
dispensing system. Geocon collected a total of six soil samples from two hand-auger borings
within the stained/discolored area. Samples were collected at the surface and at depths of
approximately 2 feet and 4 feet below grade. These soil samples were analyzed for total
petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) following modified EPA Test Method 8015.
• After completion of the initial trenching activity, Geocon Incorporated (geotechnical
consultant) recommended advancing several borings in an area near the northeast corner of the
site. During the trenching activities, debris was observed in three trenches advanced in this
area. Since the trenches could not be advanced to the bottom of the undocumented fill deposits
in this area, Geocon Incorporated recommended that borings be advanced to evaluate the depth
and nature of the undocumented fill and debris.
624 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2900 • Los Angeles, CA 90017 • Telephone (213) 538-1282 • Fax (213) 538-1283
• Three near surface samples collected at randomly selected locations at the site exhibited
Dieldrin concentrations ranging from 30 mg/kg to 38 mg/kg. Since the PRO concentration for
Dieldrin is 28 mg/kg, Geocon recommended that a human health risk assessment be
performed.
FEES FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Geocon will perform the additional services on a "lump sum" basis for a fee of . If different
conditions are identified or as additional information is obtained, it may become necessary to revise the
scope of services and associated fee.
Please carefully review the contents of this Acknowledgment and the enclosed Change Order
Agreement for Professional Services (Change Order No. 002-CEH). If they meet with your approval,
please execute both copies of the Change Order and return one fully executed copy to our office.
Should you have any questions regarding this Acknowledgement, or if Geocon may be of further
service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
GEOCON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Charles E. Houser
Office Manager RG 5781
MPW:BWS:sc
(2) Addressee
Enclosure: Change Order Agreement for Professional Services
Project No. 08802-06-02 - 2 - June 22. 1998
I
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
c
i
I
Client: Geocon Environmental
Attn: Mr. Chuck Houser
Client's Project: Poinsettia Ag, 08802-06-01
Matrix: Soil
Analyst Initials: AK
QC Batch #:
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed:
Extraction Method:
Extraction Material:
L988015DS255
05/29/98
06/01/98
06/02/98
06/02/98
3550
Methylene
Chloride
Lab No.:
Method Blank
26439-019
26439-020
26439-021
26439-022
26439-023
26439-024
Sample ID:
_
Tl-1
Tl-2
Tl-3
T2-1
T2-2
T2-3
Results, ing/kg
ND
18200
ND
12
25300
14
ND
DLR, mg/kg
10
100
10
10
100
10
10
Dilution Factor
1.0
10
1.0
1.0
10
1.0
1.0
MDL = Method Detection Limit
ND = Not Detected (Below DLR).
DLR = MDL X Dilution Factor
Reviewed/Approved By:
Lee Ingvaldson
Department Supervisor
The cover letter is an integral part of this analytical report.
^ ^^^Advanced Technology
Date:
Laboratories 1510 E. 33rd Street Signal Hill, CA 90807 Tel: 562 989-4045 Fax: 562 989-4040
Method
Title
Last Update
Response via
Spike Recovery and RPD Summary Report - SOIL (mg/kg)
: C:\HPCHEM\5\METHODS\DIESEL.M
: Diesel
Wed May 13 03:04:26 1998
Initial Calibration
Non-Spiked Sample: L98B2736.D
Spike
Sample
Spike
Duplicate Sample
File ID : L98S2744.D
Sample : MS blk,
Acq Time: 02 Jun 98 10:51 PM
L98S2745.D
MSD blk,
02 Jun 98 11:16 PM
Compound
Diesel
Sample Spike Spike Dup Spike Dup RPD QC Limits
Cone Added Res Res %Rec %Rec RPD % Rec
ND 1000 811 812 81 81 0 37 40-140
QC Batch # : L988015DS255
Reviewed/Approved by:Date:
Lee Ingvaldson
Organics Supervisor
'vanced Technology
Laboratories 1510 E. 33rd Street Signal Hill, CA 90807 Tel: 562 989-4045 Fax: 562 989-4040
Client: Geocon Environmental
Attn: Mr. Chuck Houser
Client's Project:
Date Received:
Extraction Method:
Matrix:
Units:
Poinsettia Ag, 08802-06-01
06/01/98
3550
Soil
ug/kg
Lab No.:
Client Sample LD.:
Date Sampled:
QC Batch #:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed :
Analyst Initials:
Dilution Factor:
.....> .. ".smMXjm
Alpha-BHC
Ganuna-BHC (Lindane)
Beta-BHC
Heptachlor
Delta-BHC
Aldrin
Heptachlor Epoxide
Endosulfan I
4,4'-DDE
Dieldrin
Endrin
4,4'-DDD
Endosulfan II
4,4'-DDT
Endrin Aldehyde
Endosulfan Sulfate
Methoxychlor
Chlordane
Toxaphene
pa*>j
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
17
17
170
Method Blank
—
—H988080S194
06/03/98
06/04/98
DT
1
^Pv2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
17
17
170
,:&p$li
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
26439-001
Bl-1
05/29/98
H988080S194
06/03/98
06/04/98
DT
1
3$t3&
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
17
17
170
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
9.5
8.1
ND
ND
6.1
43
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
26439-002
Bl-2
05/29/98
H988080S194
06/03/98
06/04/98
DT
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
17
17
170
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
26439-004
B2-1
05/29/98
H988080S194
06/03/98
06/04/98
DT
1
cMES*:-:
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
40
4
4
40
4
40
4
4
17
17
170
•!!$!•
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
320*
20
ND
130*
22
1220*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
26439-005
B2-2
05/29/98
H988080S194
06/03/98
06/04/98
DT
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
17
17
170
iifitfi&iifiS?
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
26439-007
B4-1
05/29/98
H988080S194
06/03/98
06/04/98
DT
1
Sjjj-jjjjj?
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
40
4
4
4
4
40
4
4
17
17
170
^'itfestttife'''
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.5
191*
12
ND
93
47
845*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MDL = Method Detection Limit
ND = Not Detected (Below DLR).
DLR = MDL X Dilution Factor
NA = Not Analyzed
Reviewed/Approved By:
= Dilution Factor is 10.
Lee Ingvaldson
Department Supervisor
Date:
The cover letter is an integral part of this analytical report.
^Advanced Technology
Laboratories 15 WE. 33rd Street Signal Hill, CA 90807 Tel: 562 989-4045 Fax: 562 989-4040
Client: Geocon Environmental
Attn: Mr. Chuck Houser
Client's Project:
Date Received:
Extraction Method:
Matrix:
Units:
Poinsettia Ag, 08802-06-01
06/01/98
3550
Soil
ug/kg
Lab No.:
Client Sample I.D.:
Date Sampled:
QC Batch #:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed :
Analyst Initials:
Dilution Factor:
" ANSLTfE '"" - -' "
Alpha-BHC
Gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Beta-BHC
Heptachlor
Delta-BHC
Aldrin
Heptachlor Epoxide
Endosulfan I
4,4'-DDE
Dieldrin
Endrin
4,4'-DDD
Endosulfan II
4,4'-DDT
Endrin Aldehyde
Endosulfan Sulfate
Methoxychlor
Chlordane
Toxaphene
W*L:
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
17
17
170
26439-008
B4-2
05/29/98
H988080S194
06/03/98
06/04/98
DT
1
DLR
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
17
17
170
ResaSa:
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NIL
ND
6.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
26439-010
B5-1
05/29/98
H988080S194
06/03/98
06/04/98
DT
1®m
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
17
17
170
'sftettEfe*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
57
38
ND
56
19
33
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
26439-011
B5-2
05/29/98
H988080S194
06/03/98
06/04/98
DT
1
BPfc
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
17
17
170
SUHnj&s.
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
6.6
5.0
ND
ND
ND
9.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
26439-013
B6-1
05/29/98
H988080S194
06/03/98
06/04/98
DT
1nut'
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
17
17
170
'-"&*&*«
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
77
30
ND
64
17
100
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
26439-014
B6-2
05/29/98
H988080S194
06/03/98
06/04/98
DT
1
HLft
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
17
17
170
KftSttlts
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
26439-016
B7-1
05/29/98
H988080S194
06/03/98
06/04/98
DT
1vm
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
17
17
170
,j&!$Hfis:H
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
35
30
ND
47
ND
40
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MDL = Method Detection Limit
ND = Not Detected (Below DLR).
DLR = MDL X Dilution Factor
NA = Not Analyzed
Reviewed/Approved By:
Lee Ingvaldson
Department Supervisor
Date:
The cover letter is an integral part of this analytical report.
Advanced Technology
Laboratories 1510 E. 33rd Street Signal Hill, CA 90807 Tel: 562 989-4045 Fax: 562 989-4040
Client: Geocon Environmental
Attn: Mr. Chuck Houser
Client's Project:
Date Received:
Extraction Method:
Matrix:
Units:
Poinsettia Ag, 08802-06-01
06/01/98
3550
Soil
ug/kg
Lab No.:
Client Sample I.D.:
Date Sampled:
QC Batch #:
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed :
Analyst Initials:
Dilution Factor:r..?..r. Jwyasracr..&L..j.
Alpha-BHC
Gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Beta-BHC
Heptachlor
Delta-BHC
Aldrin
Heptachlor Epoxide
Endosulfan I
4,4'-DDE
Dieldrin
Endrin
4,4'-DDD
Endosulfan II
4,4'-DDT
Endrin Aldehyde
Endosulfan Sulfate
Methoxychlor
Chlordane
Toxaphene
&¥*W2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
17
17
170
26439-017
B7-2
05/29/98
H988080S194
06/03/98
06/04/98
DT
1
,fP;
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
17
17
170
..JfttMflfci
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
•• i \
:• ..>...>...J :T.^V...A.M, ,f,^C:-.."..^l»»s>.^:"&.&..*.:£7^,?,.X^S....>xJ , \
MDL = Method Detection Limit
ND = Not Detected (Below DLR).
DLR = MDL X Dilution Factor
NA = Not Analyzed
Reviewed/Approved By:Date:
Lee Ingvaldson
Department Supervisor
The cover letter is an integral part of this analytical report
^Advanced Technology
Laboratories 1510 E. 33rd Street Signal Hill, CA 90807 Tel: 562 989-4045 Fax: 562 989-4040
Method
Title
Last Update
Response via
Spike Recovery and RPD Summary Report - SOIL(ug/kg)
: C:\HPCHEM\1\METHODS\PCBPESTA.M (RTE Integrator)
: 8080 Pesticides
: Sun Feb 15 17:28:34 1998
Initial Calibration
Non-Spiked Sample: HB0604A.D
Spike
Sample
Spike
Duplicate Sample
File ID : HMS0604A.D
Sample : Blank MS E:6/3/98
Acq Time: 5 Jun 1998 1:23 am
HMD0604A.D
Blank MSD E:6/3/98
5 Jun 1998 2:00 am
Compound Sample Spike Spike Dup Spike Dup RPD QC Limits
Cone Added Res Res %Rec %Rec RPD % Rec
gamma -BHC
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Endrin
4,4 ' -DDT
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
40
40
40
80
80
80
24
22
24
44
53
34
24
22
25
46
52
39
61
56
61
55
66
43
59
56
61
58
66
49
3
0
0
3
1
12
9
12
19
8
16
22
50-127
35-136
47-143
54-134
61-138
15-155
QC Batch #:H988080S194
Reviewed and Approved by:Date:
Lee Ingvaldson
Organics Supervisor
dvanced Technology
Laboratories 1510 E. 33rd Street Signal Hill, CA 90807 Tel: 562 989-4045 Fax: 562 989-4040
Oun-O9-9S O5:1OP APCL 1 9O9 59O 1498 P.O4
Applied P & Cn Laboratorv
1376O Magnolia Ave. China. CA 91710
Tel: (9O9) 590-1828 Fax: (9O9) 59O-1498
Submitted to:
Advanced Technology Lab
Attention: Rachelle Arada
1500 E. 33rd St.
Signal Hill CA 90807
Tel: (562)989-4045 Fax: (562)989-4040
Analysis of Soil Samples
APCL Analytical Report
Service ID #: 801-983182
Collected by:
Collected on: 05/29/98
Received: 06/03/98
Extracted: 06/08/98
Tested: 06/08-09/98
Reported: 06/09/98
Sample Description: Soil
Project Description: P.O. #20309
Analysis Result
Component Analyzed
Chlorinated herbicides
2,4-D
2,4-DB
Dalapon (dichloroacetic acid)
Dicamba
Dichtoroprop
Dinoseb (DNBP)
MCPA
MCPP
2,4, 5-T
2,4,5-TP (Silvex)
Method
8150
8150
8150
8150
8150
8150
8150
8150
8150
8150
Unit PQL
Mg/kg 10
Mg/kg 10
jjg/kg 20
Mg/kg 10
^g/kg 10
Mg/kg 20
mg/kg 2
mg/kR 2
0g/kg 10
jig/kg 10
2W39-001/B1-1
98-03182-1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
26439-002 /Bl-2
98-03182-2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
26439-00-1 /B2-1
98-03182-3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
26439-005/B2-2
98-03182-4
KD
KD
ND
ND
KD
KD
KD
KD
ND
ND
Analysis Result
Component Analyzed
Chlorinated herbicides
2,4-D
2,4-DB
Dalapon (dichloroacetic acid)
Dicamba
Dichloroprop
Dinoseb (DNBP)
MCPA
MCPP
2,4,5-T
2, 4, 5-T P (Silvex)
Method
8150
8150
8150
8150
8150
8150
8150
8150
8150
8150
Unit PQL
,,g/kg 10
ng/kg 10
Mg/kg 20
pg/kg 10
^g/kg 10
ng/kg 20
mg/kg 2
mg/kg 2
^ig/kg 10
,jg/kg 10
26-139- 007/B4-1
9S-03182-5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
KD
ND
ND
26439-008/B-1-2
98-03182-6
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
KD
ND
ND
ND
ND
26439-010/B5-1
98-03182-7
KD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Ml)
26439-01 1/B5-2
98-03182-8
KD
KD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
KD
ND
CADHS ELAP No.: 1431 Ci-(Ki20 08-3182 1] Page: 1
Oun-O9-98 O5:11P APCL 1 9O9 59O 1498 P.O5
Applied F & Cn Laboratory
1376O Magnolia Ave. Chino, CA 91710
Tel: (909) 590-1828 Faxt (909) 590-1498
APCL Analytical Report
Component Analyzed
Analysis Result
Method Unit PQI, 2K439-013/B6-1 26439-014/86-2 26439-016/B7-1
98-03182-9 98-03182-10 98-03182-11 98-03182-12
Chlorinated herbicides
2,4-D
2,4-DB
Dalapon {dichlotoacetic acid)
Dicamba
Dichloroprop
Dinoseb (DNBP)
MCPA
MCPP
2,4,5-T
2,4,5-TP (Silvex)
8150
8150
8150
8150
8150
8150
8150
8150
8150
8150
pg/kg 10
pg/kg 10
^g/kg 20
0g/kg 10
pg/kg 10
,<g/kg 20
mg/kg 2
mg/kg 2
^g/kg in
ng/kg 10
.ND
ND
ND
ND '
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
.ND
ND
ND
KB
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NU
ND
ND
ND
-NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
PQL: Practical Quantitatiori Limit. MDL: Method Detection Limit.
N.D.: Not Detected or less than the practical quantitation limit
J: Reported between PQL and MDL.
CRDL: Contract Required Detection Limit
"-": Analysis is not required.
D
Laboratory Director
Applied P & Ch Laboratory
CADHS ELAP No.: 1431 Cl-tir,2(> N 98-3182 1}
t 1 it t 1 i 1 i i 1 i • ICft. IN t «Cll,tOil.iRgL»RlS I t i t I I 1 t
^^^f I nhnrntnries Batch #:
15 10 E. 3 3rd Street
Signal Hill, CA 90807
(562) 989-4045 • FAX
P.O.#:
/M\
f562) 989-4040 Loqqed Bv: 1 W\
D.O. #
Date: IP " I- 1
Client: ^eoco-A
Attrv /\ f f / 1/-inn. C^wcc. HouSef
Project Name: Q . Project #:
rS.vreft;? />v ^
Relinquished by: (signature and Printed Name? Date :
Relinquished by: (Signature and Printed Name) Date :
Relinquished by: (Sjgnalure and Printed Name) Date :
SHIP TO LAB:
(SUB CONTRACT)
TES
ATL
DAT
T:
It
E:
CLIENT I.O.
Unless otherwise
requested, all samples
will be disposed 45 days
after receipt.
1
T
E
M
LAB USE ONLY:
Batch #:
Lab No.
ftu^'POl
(X)^
00^
00^
005
00^>
OD&
mo
• TAT starts 8 a.m. following
samples received after 5 p
Address: £ f 7
city Sa*
PB*_W.O/
_ P Time:-O I — IT
Time:
Time:
1 hereby authorize ATL.to perform the work indicated below:
Project Mgr /Submitter:
A^*rt- i ^ Wv*.t^- Date' 0fl 2f 1^9
Print Name
Signature
Sample Archive/Disposal:
D Laboratory Standard
D Other
D Return To:
* $10.00 FEE PER HAZARDOUS SAMPLE DISPOSAL.
Sample Description
Sample I.D.
B(-/
13/-2.
3i-3
15^-1
-51-1
81-2.
tSH-l
PH-i-
ftf-^
sr-i
day if TAT: A, ?£lS>ht B.
Date
s-/2
\
Time
»•
10:01
lo:l\
fl-.LO
ll'.o-j.
U:«
II *_, yj
If' */*f
ir.fl
lr.41
Emergency
Next workday
Se
AH
Co
Ad
Cit
FOR LABORATORY USE ONLY:
imeO&lfi
Method of Transport
Walk-in D
Courier D
UPS D
FED. EXP. D
ATL L>^
Sample Condition Upon Receipt
1. CHILLED Y0T ND 4. SEALED Y D N/d
2. HEADSPACE (VOA) YD ND 5. * OF SPLS MATCH COC Y^^N D
3. CONTAINER INTACT Yf^ND 6. PRESERVED YDND
o F/attc/frt A-
5/e40 state c/x^ Zip Code fl/zt
TEL:( 6/T ) yj-^^ c/fff>
FAX:( x/?- ) 4"ST'/>^S?
Sampler: (p*ted Name) (Signature)
Received by: (Signature and Printed Namei^^f^..-- Dat6:£|, \pt~Q1 Time: £\o~£>
Received by: (Signature and Printed Name) Date: Time:
Received by: (s^nature and Printed Name) Date: Time:
nd Report To: Spec
n- O••^
dress
y
Circle or A
Analysis(«
Requeste
m
"\ » ^
^^\ ^^s
State Zip
dd / /o/ ///////
yfft////w///////$*/ ////*////
W//ff//m////rr¥
X
<
Vr
*
K
K
Y
c=Critical n2 Workdays u~
/
X
)(
X
X
X
<
L
IK
/
Urgent
3 Workdays
al Instructions/Comments:
>?O S*1**^'®^ r*X ^*C P J.
'///// CIRCLE APPROPRIATE
/ / / / / MATRIX
///////////' / / /£/////$/ ///MW////A' / /*7&/*/// /#// /&/?/&/£/ /«;A/ w*7//f/$/f/&
\f
- Routinefc- 7 Workdays
'"' Container Types: T=Tube V=VOA L=Liter P=Pint J=Jar B=Tedlar G=Glass P=Plastic M=Metal
4\V
/TAT
E
f
/
Containers
#
/
1
Type
0*6,
r
z
^-<>rr
%
LUtc
0_
Q A/QC
RTNE D
RWQCB D
WIP D
NAVY D
CT D
OTHER
REMARKS
Preservatives:
H=Hcl N=HNO3 S=H2SO4 C=4'C
Z=Zn(AC)s O=NaOH T=Na*S*O3
DISTRIBUTION: White with report, Yellow to folder, Pink to submitter.
CftJiN L.'Ctl-lQg .»RgL&Rif < i 1 I 1 I 1 I IpgJLJot I
^Advanced Technology
Laboratories
1510 E. 33rd Street
Signal Hill, CA 90807
(562) 989-4045 • FAX (562) 989-4040
FOR LABORATORY USE ONLY:
Batch #:_
P.O.#: _
D.O. #
Logged By: _Date:
Method of Transport
Walk-in D
Courier D
UPS D
FED. EXP. D
ATL
Sample Condition Upon Receipt
1. CHILLED Y0^"ND 4. SEALED YDN0
2. HEADSPACE (VGA) YD ND 5. »OFSPLSMATCHCOC Y C^N D
YQ N D 6. PRESERVED Y D N D3. CONTAINER INTACT
Client:
Attn:
Address:
City State Zip Code ?Z/2 i
TEL:(
Project Name:Project #:Sampler: (prinled Name)(Signature)
Relinquished by: (Signature and Primed Date :Time:Received by: (Signature and Printed Name)Tim8:
Relinquished by: (Signature and Printed Name)Date:Time:Received by: (Signature and Printed Name) /Date:Time:
Relinquished by: (Signature and Printed Name)Date :Time:Received by: (Signature and Printed Name)Date:Time:
SHIP TO LAB:
(SUB CONTRACT)
TEST:
ATL #:
DATE:
CLIENT I.D.
I hereby authorize ATL to perform the work indicated below:
Project Mgr /Submitter:
Date: S , 2l ,??
Print Name
Signature
Send Report To:
Co:.
Address .
City . State_-Zip-
Special Instructions/Comments:
Unless otherwise
requested, all samples
will be disposed 45 days
after receipt.
Sample Archive/Disposal:
D Laboratory Standard
D Other
D Return To:
Circle or Add
Analysis(es)
Requested
CIRCLE APPROPRIATE
MATRIX
* $10.00 FEE PER HAZARDOUS SAMPLE DISPOSAL.
LAB USE ONLY:
Batch #:Sample Description
Lab No.Sample I.D.Date Time
Container(s)
Type
Q A/QC
RTNE D
RWQCB D
WIP
NAVY
CT
OTHER
D
D
D
REMARKS
-B5--3
3'-51
111
TI7-Z.
37-3
1 TAT starts 8 a.m. following day if
samples received after 5 p.m.
TAT: A=Overnight
<24hr B=Emergency
Next workday C=Critical
2 Workdays D=Urgent
3 Workdays
Routine
7 Workdays
Container Types: T=Tube V=VOA L=Liter P=Pint J=Jar B=Tedlaf G=Glass P=Plastic M=Metal
Preservatives:
H=Hcl N=HNO3 S=H2SO
Z=Zn(AC)* O=NaOH T
C=4'C
DISTRIBUTION: White with report, Yellow to folder, Pink to submitter.
mjp^v^^ , , FOR LABORATORY USE ONLY:
^^^g I sihnrfitnries Batch #:
1510E. 33rd Street
Signal Hill, CA 90807
(562) 989-4045 • FAX (
P.O.#:
D.O. #
b ,1 fW>\r" U Time\J/SML
1VJV /
Client: f^oc*.* ^
Attn* >fe /*** t~ L, if »»
Method of Transport
Walk-in D
Courier D
UPS D
FED. EXP. D
ATL P^
Sample Condition Upon Receipt
1. CHILLED YE ND 4. SEALED YD N0
2. HEADSPACE (VOA) YD ND 5. 1 OF SPLS MATCH COC Y-H^N D
3. CONTAINER INTACT YDX^ID 6. PRESERVED YDND
Address: £ <f ^Q F/W^ess Jt)/-jV^_
City *Sart lii'e<to state C/4 Zip Code Til I/
TEL: £/<f ) Sfg1. 6/oe>
FAX:( tf,/f ) S-S-F-81-1.?
Project Name: Q , Project #: r Sarrfpler: (Printed Name) (signature)
Relinquished by: (signature and Primed Name) . (J , Date: , _ o» Time: Received by: (signature and Printed Hxnt\(J/j .* - *.^- Date: if! r i If^CS T\me:,f. *QsS'^*<«^- \J.VL—^JZ<__ /'vrrfc- i-kwe/0 u- Oi 'To /^Zo^-Cr "i l|T« tt'<
Relinquished by: (Signature and printed Name) Date : Time: Received by: (Signature and Printed Name)/ Date: Time:
Relinquished by: (Signature and Printed Name) Date: Time: Received by: (signature and Printed Name) Date: Time:
SHIP TO LAB:(SUB CONTRACT)
TES
ATL
DAT
T:
#•
E:
CLIENT I.D.
Unless otherwise
requested, all samples
will be disposed 45 days
after receipt.
1
T
E
M
LAB USE ONLY:
Batch #:
Lab No.
^,(\^\-Ot\
0^^ov>
0^
• TAT starts 8 a.m. following
samples received after 5 p
I hereby authorize ATL to perform the work indicated below:
Project Mgr /Submitter:
Alvfc- tJ^Me-'L Date: S~l2fl ff
Print Name
Signature
Sample Archive/Disposal:
D Laboratory Standard
D Other
D Return To:
* $10.00 FEE PER HAZARDOUS SAMPLE DISPOSAL
Sample Description
Sample I.D.
Tl-*>
-Tl't
T2-Z
Ti-3
day if TAT: A= %™ff* B-
Date
^Y
I
1
Time
V-V,
IT.*,
IKl\
VM
Emergency
Next workday
Send Report To: Special Instructions/Comments:
Attn- "^
^NCo: "S a rMue.
Address ^""^
City State Zip
^-f«-'
Circle or Add / /&/ ///////////
Analysis(es) / §/ // / / / /£/ //////
w*%W«7J//////l//////^//ff^/f///^//^///A
///////ffff/M//// / / / ff///i
„ Critical
°- 2 Workdays
f
D=Urgent
3 Workdays
! .
E
' / CIRCLE APPROPRIATE
/ MATRIX
'?///#/////////$///.w/i/A
Routine= 7 Workdays
Container Types: T=Tube V=VOA L=Liter P=Pint J=Jar B=Tedlaf G=Glass P=Plastic M=Metal
£
N/
/
Container(s)
#
/
1 f
Type
J-S
\J V PRESERVATIONQ A/QC
RTNE D
RWQCB D
WIP D
NAVY D
CT D
OTHER
REMARKS
Preservatives:
H=Hcl N=HNO3 S=H2SO4 C=4'C
Z=Zn(AC)2 O=NaOH T=Na2S2O3
DISTRIBUTION: White with report, Yellow to folder, Pink to submitter.
I
I
I
I
E
I
I
I
G
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX
APPENDIX D
CALCULATION OF 90% UPPER CONFIDENCE LEVEL OF THE GEOMETRIC MEAN
Mean Concentration (x) Calculation: x = Z(Xj)/n
where:
X; = individual sample value from x, to x,,
n = number of samples
Estimated Standard Deviation (s): s = [(Z(Xi-x)2)/n-l]'/z
90% Upper Confidence Level (U): U = x + (ts)/(ny>)
where:
t = Students "t" value for 2 degrees of freedom and a 10% significance level.
Source of formulas: Davis, J.C.,1973 Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology, p. 17-84
I
I
1
c
E
e
c
APPENDIX
I
I
e
c
APPENDIX E
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL EXPOSURE - ADULT
(DIELDRIN)
CALCULATION OF THE SOIL-TO-AIR VOLATILIZATION FACTOR (VF)
Parameter
LS
V
DH
A
Dei
E
Kas
Ps
T
D,
H
Kd
KOC
OC
a =
VF =
Value
548.64
2.25
2
8.53E+08
0.0257
0.35
9.91 E-06
2.65
7.90E+08
3.63E-02
5.80E-05
2.400E+02
1.200E+04
0.02
5.168E-08
1.841E+05
CALCULATION OF THE
Parameter
LS
V
DH
A
0.036
G
um
u,
F(x)
Value
548.64
2.25
2
8.53E+04
0.036
0.25
4.5
12.8
0.0497
Units
m
m/s
m
cm2
cm2/s
unitless
Description
Length of side of contaminated area (approx.1 ,800 ft.)
Wind speed in mixing zone
Diffusion height
Area of contamination
Effective diffusivity (=0^ E033)
True soil porosity
g soil/cm3 air Soil/air partition coefficient (=H/K(j x 41 )
g/cm3
s
cm2/s
atm-m3/mol
cm3/g
cm3/g
unitless
cm2/s
m3/kg
PARTICULATE
Units
m
m/s
m
m2
g/m2-hr
unitless
m/s
m/s
unitless
True soil or particulate density
Exposure interval
Molecular diffusivity
Henry's Law constant
Soil-water partition coefficient(=Kocx OC)
Organic carbon partition coefficient
Organic carbon content
= (DeixPa)/[Pa + (ps)(1-Pa)/Kas]
= LS x V x DH(3.14 x a x T)1/2/(A x 0.002 x Dei x E x Kas)
EMISSION FACTOR (PEF)
Description
Width of contaminated area
Wind speed in mixing zone
Diffusion height
Area of contamination
Respirable fraction
Fraction of vegetative cover
Mean annual wind speed
Equivalent threshold value of wind speed
Function, dependent on UJ\Jt
PEF =1.788E+09 m3/kg = (LS x V x DH x 3.6E6)/(A x 0.036 x (1-G) x (lUU,)3 x F(x))
I
I
E
E
I
I
1
I
E
1
I
E
APPENDIX
E
APPENDIX F
RESIDENTIAL EXPOSURE - ADULT
(DIELDRIN)
CALCULATION OF THE SOIL-TO-AIR VOLATILIZATION FACTOR (VF)
Parameter
LS
V
DH
A
Dei
E
Kas
Ps
T
D,
H
Kd
KOC
OC
a =
VF*
Value
548.64
2.25
2
8.53E+08
0.0257
0.3500
9.91 E-06
2.65
7.90E+08
3.630E-02
5.800E-05
2.400E+02
1.200E+04
0.02
5.168E-08
1.841E+05
CALCULATION OF THE
Parameter
LS
V
DH
A
0.036
G
um
u,
F(x)
Value
548.64
2.25
2
8.53E+04
0.036
0
4.5
12.8
0.0497
Units
m
m/s
m
cm2
cm2/s
unitless
Description 1
Length of side of contaminated area (approx. 2,900 ft.) 1
Wind speed in mixing zone 1
Diffusion height 1
Area of contamination 1
Effective diffusivity (=D, x E° 33) I
True soil porosity i
g soil/cm3 air Soil/air partition coefficient (=H/Kd x 41 |
g/cm3
s
cm2/s
atm-m3/mol
cm3/g
cm3/g
unitless
cm2/s
m3/kg
PARTICULATE
Units
m
m/s
m
m2
g/m2-hr
unitless
m/s
m/s
unitless
True soil or particulate density 1
Exposure interval 1
Molecular diffusivity i
Henry's Law constant i
Soil-water partition coefficient(=KoCx OC) I
Organic carbon partition coefficient i
Organic carbon content 1
= (DeixPa)/[Pa + (Ps)(1-Pa)/Kas] I
= LS x V x DH(3.14 x a x T)1/2/(A x 0.002 x Dei x E x Kas) I
EMISSION FACTOR (PEF) j
*
Description I
Width of contaminated area I
Wind speed in mixing zone I
Diffusion height I
Area of contamination iI
Respirable fraction \
Fraction of vegetative cover j
Mean annual wind speed I
Equivalent threshold value of wind speed 1
Function, dependent on UJ(Jt i
PEF =1.341E+09 m3/kg = (LS x V x DH x 3.6E6)/(A x 0.036 x (1-G) x (Um/U,)3 x F(x))
^ APPENDIX E (Continued)
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL EXPOSURE - ADULT
m (DIELDRIN)
«• CALCULATION OF CANCER RISK FROM INGESTION AND INHALATION EXPOSURES
Parameter
C
SF(
SF0
BW
AT
EF
ED
IRsoil
IRair
VF
PEF
Value
0.038
4.61
16
70
70
250
25
50
20
1.84E+05
1.79E+09
Ingestion and Inhalation Risk:
CALCULATION
Parameter
C
SA
AF
ABS
EF
ED
BW
AT
q*
Intake =
Dermal Risk:
CALCULATION
Units
mg/kg
(mg/kg/day)
(mg/kg/day)
kg
yr
days/yr
yr
mg/day
m3/day
m3/kg
m3/kg
1.73E-07
Description H8
Concentration in soil ••
Inhalation cancer slope factor 11BJ
Oral cancer slope factor MBi
Adult body weight Hi
Average time Ha
Exposure frequency I^B
Exposure duration
Soil ingestion rate
Workday inhalation rate
Soil-to-air volatilization factor
Particulate emission factor
= [(SF0 x C x 1CT6 x EF x ED x IR^,)* (SF, x C x EF x ED x IRair x (1A/F + 1/PEF))]
(BWxATx365)
OF CANCER RISK FROM DERMAL INTAKE •
value
0.038
360
1
0.05
250
25
70
70
16
2.39E-09
3.82E-08
OF TOTAL RISK
Units
mg/kg
cm2 skin/day
mg soil/cm2 skin
unitless
days/year
year
kg
years
(mg/kg/day)
(mg/kg/day)
BlDescription
Concentration in soil
Surface area of skin exposed to soil
Adherence factor of soil to skin
Fraction absorbed
Exposure frequency
Exposure duration
Body weight
Average time
Dermal cancer slope factor
=(C x 1 .OE-6 x SA x AF x ABS x EF x ED)/(BW x AT x 365) Rf|
Cancer risk from dermal exposure
(= Intake x q*) H|
FROM INGESTION, INHALATION, AND DERMAL EXPOSURES H
HB| TOTAL RISK (DIELDRIN) = 2.11 E-07
— APPENDIX F (Continued)
RESIDENTIAL EXPOSURE - ADULT
„ (DIELDRIN)
— CALCULATION OF CANCER RISK FROM INGESTION AND INHALATION EXPOSURES
Parameter
C
SF;
SF0
BW
AT
EF
ED
IRsoil
IRair
VF
PEF
Value
0.038
4.61
16
70
70
350
.30
100
15
1.84E+05
1.34E+09
Ingestion and Inhalation Risk:
CALCULATION
Parameter
C
SA
AF
ABS
EF
ED
BW
AT
q*
Intake =
Dermal Risk:
CALCULATION
Units
mg/kg
(mg/kg/day)
(mg/kg/day)
kg
yr
days/yr
yr
mg/day
m3/day
m3/kg
m3/kg
4.41 E-07
Description iK
Concentration in soil Ji
Inhalation cancer slope factor
Oral cancer slope factor
Adult body weight mm
Average time
Exposure frequency
Exposure duration
Soil ingestion rate
Inhalation rate Bi
raHiSoil-to-air volatilization factor
Participate emission factor
= [(SF0 x C x KT6 x EF x ED x IRMi|)+ (SF-, x C x EF x ED x (RM x (1/VF + 1/PEF))] |||j
(BWxATx365) |jj|j
"•OF CANCER RISK FROM DERMAL INTAKE •
•Value
0.038
5800
1
0.05
100
30
70
70
16
1.85E-08
2.96E-07
OF TOTAL RISK
Units
mg/kg
cm2 skin/day
mg soil/cm2 skin
unitless
days/year
year
kg
years
(mg/kg/day)
(mg/kg/day)
Description
Concentration in soil
Surface area of skin exposed to soil
Adherence factor of soil to skin
Fraction absorbed
Exposure frequency
Exposure duration
Body weight K
Average time ||§
i£rDermal cancer slope factor
=(C x 1 .OE-6 x SA x AF x ABS x EF x ED)/(BW x AT x 365) j||
•1Cancer risk from dermal exposure
(= Intake x q*) |J|
K
FROM INGESTION, INHALATION, AND DERMAL EXPOSURES fc
1
[ TOTAL RISK (DIELDRIN) = 7.37E-07
I
I
1
E
E
I
I
Ir
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
APPENDIX
APPENDIX G
RESIDENTIAL EXPOSURE - CHILD
(DIELDRIN)
CALCULATION OF THE SOIL-TO-AIR VOLATILIZATION FACTOR (VF)
Parameter
LS
V
DH
A
Dei
E
Kas
Ps
T
D,
H
Kd
KOC
OC
a =
VF =
Value
548.64
2.25
1
8.53E+08
0.0257
0.35
9.91 E-06
2.65
7.90E+08
3.63E-02
5.80E-05
2.400E+02
1.200E+04
0.02
5.168E-08
9.206E+04
CALCULATION OF THE
Parameter
LS
V
DH
A
0.036
G
um
u,
F(x)
Value
548.64
2.25
1
8.53E+04
0.036
0
4.5
12.8
0.0497
Units
m
m/s
m
cm2
cm2/s
unitless
Description
Length of side of contaminated area (approx.1,800 ft.)
Wind speed in mixing zone
Diffusion height
Area of contamination (approx. 40 ac)
Effective diffusivity (=D|X E033)
True soil porosity
g soil/cm3 air Soil/air partition coefficient (=H/Kd x 41 )
g/cm3
s
cm2/s
atm-m3/mol
cm3/g
cm3/g
unitless
cm2/s
m3/kg
PARTICULATE
Units
m
m/s
m
m2
g/m2-hr
unitless
m/s
m/s
unitless
True soil or particulate density
Exposure interval
Molecular diffusivity
Henry's Law constant
Soil-water partition coefficient(=Koc*OC)
Organic carbon partition coefficient
Organic carbon content
= (DeixPa)/[Pa + (ps)(1-Pa)/Kas]
= LS x V x DH(3.14 x a x T)1/2/(A x 0.002 x Dei x E x Kas)
EMISSION FACTOR (PEF)
Description
Width of contaminated area
Wind speed in mixing zone
Diffusion height
Area of contamination
Respirable fraction
Fraction of vegetative cover
Mean annual wind speed
Equivalent threshold value of wind speed
Function, dependent on Um/Ut
PEF =6.703E+08 m3/kg = (LS x V x DH x 3.6E6)/(A x 0.036 x (1-G) x (Um/U,)3 x F(x))
APPENDIX G (Continued)
RESIDENTIAL EXPOSURE - CHILD
(DIELDRIN)
CALCULATION OF CANCER RISK FROM INGESTION AND INHALATION EXPOSURES
Parameter
C
SFi
SF0
BW
AT
EF
ED
IRsoil
IRair
VF
PEF
Value
0.038
4.61
16
15
70
350
6
200
15
9.21 E+04
6.70E+08
Ingestion and Inhalation Risk:
CALCULATION
Parameter
C
SA
AF
ABS
EF
ED
BW
AT
q*
Intake =
Dermal Risk:
CALCULATION
Units
mg/kg
(mg/kg/day)
(mg/kg/day)
kg
yr
days/yr
yr
mg/day
m3/day
m3/kg
m3/kg
8.23E-07
Description
Concentration in soil
Inhalation cancer slope factor
Oral cancer slope factor
Child body weight
Average time
Exposure frequency
Exposure duration
Soil ingestion rate
Inhalation rate
Soil-to-air volatilization factor
Particulate emission factor
= [(SF0 x C x 10"6 x EF x ED x IR^)* (SF, x C x EF x ED x IRair x (1/VF + 1/PEF))]
(BW x AT x 365)
OF CANCER RISK FROM DERMAL INTAKE
Value
0.038
2000
1
0.05
350
6
15
70
16
2.08E-08
3.33E-07
OF TOTAL RISK
Units
mg/kg
cm2 skin/day
mg soil/cm2 skin
unitless
days/year
year
kg
years
(mg/kg/day)
(mg/kg/day)
Description
Concentration in soil
Surface area of skin exposed to soil
Adherence factor of soil to skin
Fraction absorbed
Exposure frequency
Exposure duration
Child Body weight
Average time
Dermal cancer slope factor
=(C x 1 .OE-6 x SA x AF x ABS x EF x ED)/(BW x AT x 365)
Cancer risk from dermal exposure
(= Intake x q*)
FROM INGESTION, INHALATION, AND DERMAL EXPOSURES
| TOTAL RISK (DIELDRIN) = 1.16E-06
I
1
I
I
c
1
c
c
c
c
E
ft
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX
APPENDIX H
DATA SOURCES
INHALATION + INGESTION RISK
RISK = rSFaxCx IP"5xEFxEDxIR^ + (SfixCxEFxEDxIR^xf 1/VF + 1/PEF))
BWxATx365
where:
Parameters
Risk
C
SFj
SF0
BW
AT
EF
ED
IR,oil
VF
PEF
Definition (units)
excess individual lifetime cancer risk (unitless)
chemical concentration (mg/kg)
inhalation cancer slope factor (mg/kg/day)
oral cancer slope factor(mg/kg/day)
adult body weight (kg)
averaging time (yr)
exposure frequency (days/yr)
exposure duration (yr)
soil ingestion rate (mg/day)
inhalation rate (m3/day)
soil-to-air volatilization factor (nrVday)
particulate emission factor (mVday)
Source
1
4
5
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
6
2
3
4
5
6
Risk equation obtained from "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume 1 -
Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-based Preliminary
Remediation Goals)."
IRIS, 1997
Default values obtained from "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume 1 -
Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-based Preliminary
Remediation Goals)."
Site-specific values obtained from soil sampling and laboratory analysis.
U.S. EPA. Office of Pesticides Programs Reference Dose Tracking Report
Calculated following equation presented in "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund:
Volume 1 - Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-based
Preliminary Remediation Goals)."
APPENDIX H (continued)
SOIL-TO-AIR VOLATILIZATION FACTOR (VF)
VF(m3/kg) = CLS x V x PHI x (3.14xaxT>1/2
A (2xDeixExKasxlO-3kg/g)
where:
Parameter Definition Source
VF volatilization factor (nrVkg) 6
LS length of side of contaminated area (m) 4
V wind speed in mixing zone (m/s) 3
DH diffusion height (m) 3
A area of contamination (cm2) 4
T exposure interval (s) 3
Dei effective diffusivity (cnrVs) (Dj)(E033)
E true soil porosity (unitless) 3
Di molecular in air (cnrVs) 5
K^ soil/air partition coefficient (g soil/cm3 air) (H/Kd)(41)
H Henry's law constant (atm-m /mol) 5
ps true soil density or particulate density (g/cm3) 3
K,, soil-water partition coefficient (cnrVg) (KOC)(OC)
KO,. organic carbon partition coefficient (cm3/g) 5
OC organic carbon content of soil (fraction) 3
3 = Default values obtained from "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume 1 -
Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-based Preliminary
Remediation Goals)."
4 = Site-specific values obtained from soil sampling and laboratory analysis.
5 = Chemical-specific values obtained from U.S. EPA Environmental Research Lab, Athens,
Georgia, 1995.
6 = Volatilization factor equation obtained from "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund:
Volume 1 - Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-based
Preliminary Remediation Goals)."
APPENDIX H (continued)
PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTOR (PEF)
PEF = LS x V x DH x 3600 s/hr x 1000 g/kg
A 0.036 xCl-G
where:
Parameter Definition (units) Source
PEF particulate emission factor (m3/kg) 1
LS width of contaminated area (m) 4
V wind speed in mixing zone (m/s) 3
DH diffusion height (m) 3
A area of contamination (m2) 4
0.036 respirable fraction (g/m2-hr) 3
G fraction of vegetative cover (unitless) 4
Um mean annual wind speed (m/s) 3
U, equivalent threshold value of wind speed at 10 m (m/s) 3
F(x) function dependent on U./U, (unitless) 3
Particulate emission factor (PEF) equation obtained from "Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund: Volume 1 - Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-
based Preliminary Remediation Goals)."
Default values obtained from "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume 1 -
Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-based Preliminary
Remediation Goals)."
Site-specific values obtained from Site Plan.
APPENDIX H (continued)
CANCER RISK FROM DERMAL INTAKE
RISKD = Intake xq*
CxCFxSAxAFxABSxEFxED x q*
BWxATx365
where:
Parameters Definition Source
RISKD cancer risk from dermal exposure (unitless) 1
Intake average daily dose of chemical (mg/kg/day) 1
q* dermal cancer slope factor (mg/kg/day) 2
C chemical concentration in soil (mg/kg) 4
CF conversion factor (lO^kg/mg) 3
S A surface area of skin exposed to soil (cm2 skin/day) 3
AF adherence factor of soil to skin (mg soil/cm2 skin) 5
ABS fraction absorbed (unitless) 5
EF exposure frequency (days/year) 3
ED exposure duration (years) 3
BW body weight (kg) 3
AT averaging time (days) 3
1 = Intake equation obtained from "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume 1
Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A)"
2 = IRIS, 1995.
3 = Default values obtained from "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume 1
Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A)"
4 = Site-specific values obtained from soil sampling and laboratory analyses.
5 = Default values obtained from California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Scientific Affairs, Ecological and Human Risk Section.