Skip directly to: content | left navigation | search

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE
CAMP SPRINGS, PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND


APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF TERMS

ATSDR Plain Language Glossary of Environmental Health Terms

Adverse Health Effect:
A change in body function or the structures of cells that can lead to disease or health problems.


ATSDR:
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. ATSDR is a federal health agency in Atlanta, Georgia that deals with hazardous substance and waste site issues. ATSDR gives people information about harmful chemicals in their environment and tells people how to protect themselves from coming into contact with chemicals.


Background Level:
An average or expected amount of a chemical in a specific environment. Or, amounts of chemicals that occur naturally in a specific-environment.


Cancer:
A group of diseases which occur when cells in the body become abnormal and grow, or multiply, out of control


Carcinogen:
Any substance shown to cause tumors or cancer in experimental studies.


CDC:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


CERCLA:
See Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.


Chronic Exposure:
A contact with a substance or chemical that happens over a long period of time. ATSDR considers exposures of more than one year to be chronic.


Completed Exposure Pathway:
See Exposure Pathway.


Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA):
CERCLA was put into place in 1980. It is also known as Superfund. This act concerns releases of hazardous substances into the environment, and the cleanup of these substances and hazardous waste sites. ATSDR was created by this act and is responsible for looking into the health issues related to hazardous waste sites.


Concern:
A belief or worry that chemicals in the environment might cause harm to people.


Concentration:
How much or the amount of a substance present in a certain amount of soil, water, air, or food.


Contaminant:
See Environmental Contaminant.


Dermal Contact:
A chemical getting onto your skin. (see Route of Exposure).


Dose:
The amount of a substance to which a person may be exposed, usually on a daily basis. Dose is often explained as "amount of substance(s) per body weight per day".


Dose / Response:
The relationship between the amount of exposure (dose) and the change in body function or health that result.


Duration:
The amount of time (days, months, years) that a person is exposed to a chemical.


Environmental Contaminant:
A substance (chemical) that gets into a system (person, animal, or the environment) in amounts higher than that found in Background Level, or what would be expected.


Environmental Media:
Usually refers to the air, water, and soil in which chemicals of interest are found. Sometimes refers to the plants and animals that are eaten by humans. Environmental Media is the second part of an Exposure Pathway.


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
The federal agency that develops and enforces environmental laws to protect the environment and the public's health.


Epidemiology:
The study of the different factors that determine how often, in how many people, and in which people will disease occur.


Exposure:
Coming into contact with a chemical substance.(For the three ways people can come in contact with substances, see Route of Exposure.)


Exposure Assessment:
The process of finding the ways people come in contact with chemicals, how often and how long they come in contact with chemicals, and the amounts of chemicals with which they come in contact.


Exposure Pathway:
A description of the way that a chemical moves from its source (where it began) to where and how people can come into contact with (or get exposed to) the chemical.

ATSDR defines an exposure pathway as having five parts:

  1. Source of Contamination,
  2. Environmental Media and Transport Mechanism,
  3. Point of Exposure,
  4. Route of Exposure, and
  5. Receptor Population.


When all 5 parts of an exposure pathway are present, it is called a Completed Exposure Pathway. Each of these 5 terms is defined in this Glossary.



Frequency:
How often a person is exposed to a chemical over time; for example, every day, once a week, twice a month.


Hazardous Waste:
Substances that have been released or thrown away into the environment and, under certain conditions, could be harmful to people who come into contact with them.


Health Effect:
ATSDR deals only with Adverse Health Effects (see definition in this Glossary).


Indeterminate Public Health Hazard:
The category is used in Public Health Assessment documents for sites where important information is lacking (missing or has not yet been gathered) about site-related chemical exposures.


Ingestion:
Swallowing something, as in eating or drinking. It is a way a chemical can enter your body (See Route of Exposure).


Inhalation:
Breathing. It is a way a chemical can enter your body (See Route of Exposure).


MRL:
Minimal Risk Level. An estimate of daily human exposure - by a specified route and length of time -- to a dose of chemical that is likely to be without a measurable risk of adverse, noncancerous effects. An MRL should not be used as a predictor of adverse health effects.


NPL:
The National Priorities List. (Which is part of Superfund.) A list kept by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the most serious, uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in the country. An NPL site needs to be cleaned up or is being looked at to see if people can be exposed to chemicals from the site.


No Apparent Public Health Hazard:
The category is used in ATSDR's Public Health Assessment documents for sites where exposure to site-related chemicals may have occurred in the past or is still occurring but the exposures are not at levels expected to cause adverse health effects.


No Public Health Hazard:
The category is used in ATSDR's Public Health Assessment documents for sites where there is evidence of an absence of exposure to site-related chemicals.


Plume:
A line or column of air or water containing chemicals moving from the source to areas further away. A plume can be a column or clouds of smoke from a chimney or contaminated underground water sources or contaminated surface water (such as lakes, ponds and streams).


Point of Exposure:
The place where someone can come into contact with a contaminated environmental medium (air, water, food or soil). For examples:
the area of a playground that has contaminated dirt, a contaminated spring used for drinking water, the location where fruits or vegetables are grown in contaminated soil, or the backyard area where someone might breathe contaminated air.


Population:
A group of people living in a certain area; or the number of people in a certain area.


Public Health Assessment(s):
A report or document that looks at chemicals at a hazardous waste site and tells if people could be harmed from coming into contact with those chemicals. The PHA also tells if possible further public health actions are needed. Abbreviation: PHA.


Public Health Hazard:
The category is used in PHAs for sites that have certain physical features or evidence of chronic, site-related chemical exposure that could result in adverse health effects.


Public Health Hazard Criteria:
PHA categories given to a site which tell whether people could be harmed by conditions present at the site. Each are defined in the Glossary. The categories are:


Receptor Population:
People who live or work in the path of one or more chemicals, and who could come into contact with them (See Exposure Pathway).


Reference Dose (RfD):
An estimate, with safety factors (see safety factor) built in, of the daily, life-time exposure of human populations to a possible hazard that is not likely to cause harm to the person.


Route of Exposure:
The way a chemical can get into a person's body. There are three exposure routes:


Safety Factor:
When scientists don't have enough information to decide if an exposure will cause harm to people, they use "safety factors" and formulas in place of the information that is not known. These factors and formulas can help determine the amount of a chemical that is not likely to cause harm to people. Also called Uncertainty Factor.


Source (of Contamination):
The place where a chemical comes from, such as a landfill, pond, creek, incinerator, tank, or drum. Contaminant source is the first part of an Exposure Pathway.


Survey:
A way to collect information or data from a group of people (population). Surveys can be done by phone, mail, or in person. ATSDR cannot do surveys of more than nine people without approval from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.


Toxic:
Harmful. Any substance or chemical can be toxic at a certain dose (amount). The dose is what determines the potential harm of a chemical and whether it would cause someone to get sick.


Toxicology:
The study of the harmful effects of chemicals on humans or animals.


Tumor::
Abnormal growth of tissue or cells that have formed a lump or mass.


Urgent Public Health Hazard:
This category is used in ATSDR's Public Health Assessment documents for sites that have certain physical features or evidence of short-term (less than 1 year), site-related chemical exposure that could result in adverse health effects and require quick intervention to stop people from being exposed.

APPENDIX B: ESTIMATED EXPOSURE AND HEALTH EFFECTS

Estimates of Human Exposure Doses and Determination of Health Effects

Overview of ATSDR's Methodology for Evaluating Potential Public Health Hazards

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) evaluated exposures to surface soil, surface water and sediment, biota, and groundwater at Andrews Air Force Base (AFB). To do so, ATSDR evaluated available data to determine whether contaminants were above ATSDR's comparison values (CVs). For those that were, ATSDR derived exposure doses and compared them against health-based guidelines. ATSDR also reviewed relevant toxicological data to obtain information about the toxicity of contaminants of interest.

Comparing Data to ATSDR's CVs

CVs are derived using conservative exposure assumptions. CVs reflect concentrations that are much lower than those that have been observed to cause adverse health effects. Thus, CVs are protective of public health in essentially all exposure situations. As a result, concentrations detected at or below ATSDR's CVs are not considered to warrant health concern. While concentrations at or below the relevant CV may reasonably be considered safe, it does not automatically follow that any environmental concentration that exceeds a CV would be expected to produce adverse health effects. It cannot be emphasized strongly enough that CVs are not thresholds of toxicity. The likelihood that adverse health outcomes will actually occur depends on site-specific conditions and individual lifestyle and genetic factors that affect the route, magnitude, and duration of actual exposure, and not an environmental concentration alone.

For this public health assessment, ATSDR evaluated data that were collected from surface soil, surface water and sediment, biota, and groundwater to determine whether people were exposed to contaminant concentrations that exceeded ATSDR's CVs. The majority of detected contaminants fell at or below CVs and were not evaluated further (see Table 3 through Table 13). Contaminants that were above CVs were deemed worthy of further evaluation, prompting ATSDR to estimate exposure doses (i.e., the amount of chemical a person is exposed to over time) using site-specific exposure assumptions.

Deriving Exposure Doses

ATSDR derived exposure doses for those contaminants that were detected above ATSDR's CVs or did not have CVs. When estimating exposure doses, health assessors evaluate (1) contaminant concentrations to which people may have been exposed and (2) length of time and the frequency of exposure. Together, these factors influence an individual's physiological response to chemical contaminant exposure and potential outcomes. Where possible, ATSDR used site-specific information about the frequency and duration of exposures. In cases where site-specific information was not available, ATSDR applied several conservative exposure assumptions to estimate exposures for on-base and off-base residents and recreational users.

The following equation was used to estimate exposure to contaminants in surface soil:

mathematical equation

where:

Conc.: Maximum concentration in parts per million (ppm)
IR: Ingestion rate: adult = 100 milligrams (mg) per day; child = 200 mg per day
EF: Exposure frequency, or number of exposure events per year of exposure: 365 days/year
ED: Exposure duration, or the duration over which exposure occurs: adult = 30 years; child = 6 years
BW: Body weight: adult = 70 kg; child = 10 kg
AT: Averaging time, or the period over which cumulative exposures are averaged (6 years or 30 years x 365 days/year for noncancer effects; 70 years x 365 days/year for cancer effects)

The following equation was used to estimate recreational exposure to contaminants in surface water:

mathematical equation

where:

Conc.: Maximum concentration in parts per billion (ppb)
IR: Ingestion rate: 0.15 liters per day§
EF: Exposure frequency, or number of exposure events per year of exposure: 130 days/year for recreational and 260 days/year for occupational
ED: Exposure duration, or the duration over which exposure occurs: adult = 30 years; child = 8 years*
BW: Body weight: adult = 70 kg; child = 28.1 kg*
AT: Averaging time, or the period over which cumulative exposures are averaged (8 years or 30 years x 365 days/year for noncancer effects; 70 years x 365 days/year for cancer effects)

§ The ingestion rate is based on swimming for 3 hours per event (EPA 1997).
* The child's body weight is increased because ATSDR assumes that older children would be more likely to play in the streams than infants.

The following equation was used to estimate recreational exposure to contaminants in sediments:

mathematical equation

where:

Conc.: Maximum concentration in parts per million (ppm)
IR: Ingestion rate: adult = 50 mg per day; child = 100 mg per day
EF: Exposure frequency, or number of exposure events per year of exposure: 130 days/year for recreational and 260 days/year for occupational
ED: Exposure duration, or the duration over which exposure occurs: adult = 30 years; child = 8 years*
BW: Body weight: adult = 70 kg; child = 28.1 kg*
AT: Averaging time, or the period over which cumulative exposures are averaged (6 years or 30 years x 365 days/year for noncancer effects; 70 years x 365 days/year for cancer effects)

* The child's body weight is increased because ATSDR assumes that older children would be more likely to play in the streams than infants.

The following equation was used to estimate exposure to contaminants in fish:

mathematical equation

where:

Conc.: Maximum concentration in parts per million (ppm)
IR: Ingestion rate: adult = 54 grams per day; child = 27 grams per day
EF: Exposure frequency, or number of exposure events per year of exposure: 365 days/year
ED: Exposure duration, or the duration over which exposure occurs: adult = 30 years; child = 6 years
BW: Body weight: adult = 70 kg; child = 10 kg
AT: Averaging time, or the period over which cumulative exposures are averaged (6 years or 30 years x 365 days/year for noncancer effects; 70 years x 365 days/year for cancer effects)

The ingestion rate represents daily intake averaged over a year for a person eating seven meals of fish a month.

The following equation was used to estimate exposure to contaminants in strawberries:

mathematical equation

where:

Conc.: Maximum concentration in parts per million (ppm)
IR: Ingestion rate: adult = 2.73 grams per day; child = 0.39 grams per day
EF: Exposure frequency, or number of exposure events per year of exposure: 365 days/year
ED: Exposure duration, or the duration over which exposure occurs: adult = 30 years; child = 6 years
BW: Body weight: adult = 70 kg; child = 10 kg
AT: Averaging time, or the period over which cumulative exposures are averaged (6 years or 30 years x 365 days/year for noncancer effects; 70 years x 365 days/year for cancer effects)

The following equation was used to estimate exposure to contaminants in groundwater:

mathematical equation

where:

Conc.: Maximum concentration in parts per million (ppm)
IR: Ingestion rate: adult = 2 liters per day; child = 1 liter per day
EF: Exposure frequency, or number of exposure events per year of exposure: 365 days/year
ED: Exposure duration, or the duration over which exposure occurs: adult = 30 years; child = 6 years
BW: Body weight: adult = 70 kg; child = 10 kg
AT: Averaging time, or the period over which cumulative exposures are averaged (6 years or 30 years x 365 days/year for noncancer effects; 70 years x 365 days/year for cancer effects)

Using Exposure Doses to Evaluate Potential Health Hazards

ATSDR performs weight of evidence analyses to determine whether exposures might be associated with adverse health effects (noncancer and cancer). As part of this process, ATSDR examines relevant toxicologic, medical, and epidemiologic data to determine whether estimated doses are likely to result in adverse health effects. As a first step in evaluating noncancer effects, ATSDR compares estimated exposure doses to standard health guideline values, including ATSDR's minimal risk levels (MRLs) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) reference doses (RfDs). The MRLs and RfDs are estimates of daily human exposure to substances that are unlikely to result in noncancer effects over a specified duration. Estimated exposure doses that are less than these values are not considered to be of health concern. To be very protective of human health, MRLs and RfDs have built in "uncertainty" or "safety" factors that make them much lower than levels at which health effects have been observed. Therefore, if an exposure dose is much higher than the MRL or RfD, it does not necessarily follow that adverse health effects will occur.

If health guideline values are exceeded, ATSDR examines the effect levels seen in the literature and more fully reviews exposure potential to help predict the likelihood of adverse health outcomes. ATSDR looks at human studies, when available, as well as experimental animal studies. This information is used to describe the disease-causing potential of a particular contaminant and compare site-specific dose estimates with doses shown to result in illness in applicable studies (known as the margin of exposure). For cancer effects, ATSDR also reviews genotoxicity studies to further understand the extent to which a contaminant might be associated with cancer outcomes. This process enables ATSDR to weigh the available evidence, in light of uncertainties, and offer perspective on the plausibility of adverse health outcomes under site-specific conditions.

Using Other Methods to Evaluate Potential Health Hazards

When dealing with exposure to lead, ATSDR calculates what the cumulative blood lead level might be as a result of exposure to the level of contamination present. This is done by multiplying the detected concentration by a media-specific slope factor (soil: 0.0068, water: 0.26, and biota: 0.24) [ATSDR 1999]. Then ATSDR compares this expected blood lead level to the level that according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has an observed increase in childhood health effects,10 micrograms per deciliter.

Because essential nutrients (e.g., calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium) are important minerals that maintain basic life functions, certain doses are recommended on a daily basis and MRLs and RfDs do not exist for these chemicals. Additionally, health-based values do not exist for a few other compounds (e.g, endrin ketone, silicon, p-isopropyltoluene, and isopropylbenzene), leaving ATSDR with no basis for evaluating their toxicity at Andrews AFB. Total petroleum hydrocarbon is assessed by examining its components for toxicity.

Evaluation of Health Hazards Associated with Andrews AFB

ATSDR identified several pathways that had the potential to lead to exposures to either the residents of Andrews AFB or people living at or visiting areas off base (please refer to Table 2). For each of these completed and potential pathways, contaminant concentrations were compared to CVs when the data were available. Many of the contaminants were detected below their corresponding CVs. For each pathway in which chemicals were detected above CVs or did not have CVs, exposure doses were calculated. For most of the chemicals, the calculated exposure doses were less than their respective MRLs and RfDs and were not expected to cause an increase in cancer outcomes. After evaluating the available toxicologic data for those chemicals where the exposure doses exceeded health guidelines, ATSDR concludes that none of the chemicals were detected at levels of health concern in any of the evaluated pathways (with the exception of manganese in an off-site monitoring well at LF-05). More detail about each of the exposure pathways follows.

Surface Soil

Surface soil near water towers Nos. 3589 and 4614 was sampled for lead, cadmium, and chromium in April 2001. None of the cadmium and chromium detections were above CVs. Only the highest lead detection at water tower No. 3589 (1,330 ppm) and two lead detections at water tower No. 4614 (606 ppm and 1,260 ppm) exceeded EPA's soil screening level (SSL) of 400 ppm. The highest detection at water tower No. 3589 and second highest detection at water tower No. 4614 were found within the fence surrounding the water towers and are; therefore, inaccessible to people and cannot be causing adverse health effects because of the lack of exposure. The highest detection at water tower No. 4614 was found about 150 feet south of the water tower in the playground area. Additional soil sampling in this area to further define the extent of the lead contamination was performed in May 2001. The results are not yet available, however, preliminary data suggest that the extent is limited. ATSDR will make a determination concerning public health from exposure to soils at water tower No. 4614 after reviewing this data.

Surface soil sampling was conducted in the front and back yards of the Family Housing Units at 2131 Richmond Drive. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and pyrene were detected above CVs (Table 3). Exposure doses were calculated using the formulas described above. Doses for adults were below the RfDs and are too low to be of health concern. Doses for children for both chemicals [bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate: 0.03 milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day) and pyrene: 0.054 mg/kg/day] were slightly above EPA's chronic RfDs [bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate: 0.02 mg/kg/day and pyrene: 0.03 mg/kg/day]. Therefore, ATSDR further examined the effects levels seen in the literature and more fully reviewed exposure potential to help predict the likelihood of adverse health outcomes.

Surface soil samples were taken at the former landfill prior to the construction of the golf course. These sampling results provided a worst case scenario in which a golfer would be exposed to soils in out of bounds areas. The chemicals that were detected were compared to CVs. Several semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) [acenaphthylene, benz(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, and phenanthrene], one polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) [aroclor-1254], two pesticides (dieldrin and endrin ketone), and three metals (arsenic, iron, and mercury) were detected above soil CVs or did not have CVs (Table 4). Exposure doses were calculated for these chemicals using the equation and assumptions previously described. None of the chemicals were detected at a level of health concern (i.e., all the calculated exposure doses were less than the MRLs or RfDs).

Three off-site soil samples were taken from south of Andrews AFB, near Piscataway Creek. Of the chemicals detected, only arsenic was detected above a CV (Table 5). Benzo(g,h,i)perylene and phenanthrene did not have CVs to make a comparison. Therefore, ATSDR calculated conservative exposure doses for these three chemicals using the equation for surface soil described above. None of the chemicals were detected above EPA's chronic RfDs. Naphthalene's RfD was used as a conservative substitute for comparison to the calculated exposure doses from benzo(g,h,i)perylene and phenanthrene because MRLs and RfDs do not exist for these noncancerous chemicals.

Surface Water and Sediment

Surface water and sediment was sampled in the unnamed tributary to Paynes Branch, Cabin Creek, Base Lake, Piscataway Creek, and Charles Branch. Six SVOCs [benz(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, naphthalene, and phenanthrene] were detected in the surface water and sediment of the unnamed tributary to Paynes Branch above CVs or did not have CVs (Table 6). Four VOCs (benzene, 1,2-dicloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, and tricloroethene), eight SVOCs [bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, benz(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, and phenanthrene], and four metals (arsenic, cadmium, iron, mercury, and thallium) were detected in the surface water, sediment, and seep of Cabin Branch above CVs or did not have CVs (Table 7). Antimony, arsenic, and cadmium were detected above CVs in the Base Lake (Table 8). Nine SVOCs [acenaphthylene, benz(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene, and phenanthrene], three pesticides (dieldrin, endrin ketone, and heptachlor epoxide), and 12 inorganics (aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and vanadium) were detected in the surface water and sediment of Piscataway Creek above CVs or had no CVs (Table 9). Eight organic compounds [acenaphthylene, benz(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, chloroform, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene, and phenanthrene] and arsenic were detected in Charles Branch above CVs or did not have CVs (Table 10).

Recreational exposure doses were calculated for each of the listed chemicals using the formulas and assumptions described previously. All but one (iron in surface water of Piscataway Creek) of the exposure doses were below their respective MRLs and RfDs and; therefore, were not at a level of health concern. Iron in surface water of Piscataway Creek was evaluated further:

In addition, to address Prince George's County Health Department's concern about children and construction workers contacting contaminated groundwater seeping from Foxley Road, ATSDR compared the levels of the three VOCs (chlorobenzene, 2-butanone, and acetone), one SVOC (1,4-dichlorobenzene), and six metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, and vanadium) detected in the seep and sediment to their appropriate CVs. All of the chemicals detected in the sediment samples as well as vanadium and chromium from the seep samples were below CVs. ATSDR then calculated occupational and recreational exposure doses to the chemicals in the seep that were above comparison values (chlorobenzene: 0.00051 mg/kg/day for workers and 0.0018 mg/kg/day for children; 1,4-dichlorobenzene: 0.00013 mg/kg/day for workers and 0.00044 mg/kg/day for children; arsenic: 0.0002 mg/kg/day for workers and 0.00069 mg/kg/day for children; barium: 0.0011 mg/kg/day for workers and 0.0039 mg/kg/day for children; and cadmium: 0.00024 mg/kg/day for workers and 0.00086 mg/kg/day for children). With the exception of children being exposed to the maximum arsenic concentration detected, the exposure doses likely to result from the incidental exposures to the water and/or sediment were well below their respective MRLs and RfDs (chlorobenzene: 0.02 mg/kg/day; 1,4-dichlorobenzene: 0.4 mg/kg/day; arsenic: 0.0003 mg/kg/day; barium: 0.07 mg/kg/day; and cadmium: 0.0002 mg/kg/day) [i.e., too low to be of health concern]. ATSDR further examined the effects levels seen in the literature for arsenic and more fully reviewed exposure potential to help predict the likelihood of adverse health outcomes.

Biota

Fish from the Base Lake were sampled. Biota are evaluated slightly different than the other pathways because ATSDR does not have CVs to compare to contaminant levels. Instead of initially comparing the chemical concentrations to CVs, exposure doses were calculated for all detected chemicals (Table 8) using the assumption that a person ate seven meals of fish from the Base Lake a month. Of all the chemicals detected in fish from the Base Lake only aroclor-1254, aroclor-1260, antimony, and mercury were above MRLs and RfDs. Therefore, ATSDR further examined the effects levels seen in the literature for these chemicals and more fully reviewed exposure potential to help predict the likelihood of adverse health outcomes.

Fish from Piscataway Creek were sampled. Exposure doses were calculated for all detected chemicals (Table 9) using the assumption that a person ate seven fish meals a month from Piscataway Creek. Exposure doses for aroclor-1254, aroclor-1260, antimony, mercury, dieldrin, and cadmium were above MRLs and RfDs. As with eating fish from the Base Lake, exposure from eating fish from Piscataway Creek is not of health concern.

Exposure from consuming fish from Piscataway Creek seven times a month was too low to be of health concern. If people were to subsist on fish from the upper reaches of Piscataway Creek, then exposure doses may be elevated above health concern for specific contaminants (e.g., arsenic, antimony, chromium, cadmium, mercury, fluoranthene, dieldrin, aroclor-1254, and aroclor-1260). However, the current sampling is not adequate enough to base a health decision concerning subsistence fishing. In addition, composite sampling may not accurately represent the parts of the fish that are eaten.

Strawberries from the berry farm were also sampled. Exposure doses were calculated for all detected chemicals (Table 9) using the assumptions described above. All of the exposure doses for strawberries from the berry farm were less than the MRLs and RfDs and are not considered to be of health concern.

Groundwater

The well at Hexagon Developers property was sampled twice by Prince George's County Health Department (PGCHD) and once by Andrews AFB. As a result of these sampling periods, only methylene chloride and thallium were detected above ATSDR's drinking water CVs (Table 12). Exposure doses were calculated for these chemicals. Exposures from methylene chloride were below EPA's chronic RfD. Thallium's exposure doses [0.000154 mg/kg/day for adults and 0.00054 mg/kg/day for children] were detected above EPA's RfD (0.00007 mg/kg/day), therefore, ATSDR further examined the effect levels seen in the literature and more fully reviewed exposure potential to help predict the likelihood of adverse health outcomes to thallium.

Because of the potential for unidentified shallow groundwater wells to exist in the area downgradient from LF-05, the seep and off-site monitoring well detections were also compared to CVs. Exposure doses were calculated for those contaminants detected above CVs or did not have CVs in the seep and off-site monitoring wells (arsenic, benzene, cadmium, chlorobenzene, iron, and manganese; Table 13). The exposure doses for chlorobenzene, cadmium, iron, and manganese were detected above their respective MRLs and RfDs, therefore, ATSDR further examined the effect levels seen in the literature to help predict the likelihood of adverse health outcomes if people were to use the groundwater downgradient from LF-05 as their primary source of drinking water.

Cancer

Not all contaminants in the environment have the potential to cause cancer. The known carcinogens detected are the Andrews AFB sites that ATSDR evaluated are: aldrin, arsenic, BHC, benz(a)anthracene, benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, chlordane, chloroform, chloroethane, chloromethane, chrysene, 4,4-DDD, 4,4-DDE, 4.4-DDT, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, 1,2-dichloroethane, dieldrin, heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene, and methylene chloride. Carcinogenicity for a few other chemicals (e.g., tetrachloroethylene and trichloroethylene) is currently under review. ATSDR evaluated long-term exposures to the carcinogens detected in surface soil, surface water and sediment, biota, and groundwater at Andrews AFB. Using conservative exposure assumptions, ATSDR found that the levels of the carcinogens found in the various media do not pose a risk for excess cancer cases in the community at and surrounding Andrews AFB. ATSDR conservatively assumed that people were exposed to the maximum detected contaminant concentrations daily over the entire exposure period, even though samples collected at other times contained lower contaminant levels. Therefore, ATSDR does not expect any increase in cancer risk from exposures to surface soil, surface water and sediment, biota, and groundwater at and surrounding Andrews AFB.


APPENDIX C: RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) received the following comments during the public comment period (July 6 to August 20, 2001) for the Andrews Air Force Base (AFB) Public Health Assessment (July 2001). For comments that questioned the validity of statements made in the public health assessment, ATSDR verified or corrected the statements. The list of comments does not include editorial comments concerning such things as word spelling or sentence syntax.

  1. Comment: A community member requested information about who would conduct the use survey of Piscataway Creek to find out if people are fishing on a subsistence level.
  2. Response: Because fish in Piscataway Creek might be contaminated with chemicals from other plants located along the creek and not just Andrews AFB, ATSDR suggests that either government regulatory agencies or Andrews AFB undertake the survey. The text has been modified to reflect this change.

  3. Comment: It is premature to issue a public health assessment for Andrews AFB prior to the completion of the investigatory work at SS-01, LF-05, ST-14, and FT-04. Historic data used by ATSDR may be incomplete or invalid at this point in time. It is requested that the issuance of the public health assessment be withheld until the additional investigatory data can be incorporated into the analysis.
  4. Response: At present it does not appear that hazards are associated with these sites based on the following:

    When new data become available, and if requested, ATSDR can re-evaluate potential public health impacts.

  5. Comment: Prince George's County Health Department (PGCHD) agrees to perform another well survey on Foxley Road although a non-regulatory agency may be more productive. A previous attempt to survey the area in question met with resistance from the property owners. Often the Health Department is prevented from evaluating undocumented or shallow water supplies on occupied sites due to the concern that this office will condemn the well. The Health Department requested several times in the past that Andrews AFB contact the adjacent property owners on Foxley Road to determine the presence of wells. This was never done.
  6. Response: It is ATSDR's understanding that during the remedial investigation at LF-05, Andrews AFB, with the help of PGCHD, will identify any downgradient private wells to ensure that no exposures to contaminated groundwater are occurring. Perhaps this partnered investigation will elicit better response from the property owners. ATSDR suggests that previous experiences with well owners be taken into account when conducting the current investigations at LF-05.

  7. Comment: Although at one time Prince George's County was highly agricultural, that has changed rapidly in the past 10 years.
  8. Response: The text was modified accordingly to include current land uses.

  9. Comment: Please provide a map in the document that indicates the locations of the water towers.
  10. Response: The locations of the water towers are now indicated on Figure 3.

  11. Comment: Please incorporate the section in Appendix B that addresses PGCHD's concern about children and construction workers contacting contaminated groundwater from the LF-05 chlorobenzene seep in the main body of the text where groundwater contamination from LF-05 is discussed.
  12. Response: PGCHD's concern is first addressed in the Community Health Concern section of the public health assessment, with a reference to Appendix B for more details. Appendix B was created to explain in more detail how ATSDR calculated exposures and determined health effects. These detailed evaluations are discussed in Appendix B, so as not to inundate the body of the document with overwhelming details. Keeping the supporting exposure evaluation text for PGCHD's concern about children and workers contacting the LF-05 seep in Appendix B is consistent with how all the supporting evaluation text is handled throughout the public health assessment.

Table of Contents




Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1825 Century Blvd, Atlanta, GA 30345
Contact CDC: 800-232-4636 / TTY: 888-232-6348
 
USA.gov: The U.S. Government's Official Web Portal