PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE
CAMP SPRINGS, PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND
ATSDR Plain Language Glossary of Environmental Health Terms
ATSDR defines an exposure pathway as having five parts:
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.
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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.
According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), doses greater than 200 mg per event may poison and/or kill a child (FDA 1997). Doses of this magnitude are generally the result of children ingesting iron pills and not from drinking contaminated groundwater. Daily doses of iron average to be 155 mg/day for adults and 77.5 mg/day for children when consuming 2 liters and 1 liter of water, respectively. Moreover, because of the adverse taste associated with high iron-containing groundwater, it is highly unlikely that people are actually using the groundwater as their primary source of drinking water. Regardless, the doses are below levels likely to cause adverse health effects.
The exposure doses are based on a concentration detected in an off-site monitoring well, not in a drinking water well. Therefore, adverse health effects are not assumed to be occurring. However, the potential exists for adverse exposure to manganese to ensue if people are found to be using groundwater wells downgradient from LF-05. ATSDR has recommended that PGCHD survey the area off base from LF-05 for drinking water wells and Andrews AFB sample the water if wells are found.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Response: The text was modified accordingly to include current land uses.
Response: The locations of the water towers are now indicated on Figure 3.
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.