PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

AGRICO CHEMICAL CO.
PENSACOLA, ESCAMBIA, FLORIDA

APPENDICES

A. Figures

Figure 1. State Map Showing Location of Escambia County

Figure 2. Location of Pensacola in Escambia County

Figure 3. Location of Agrico Chemical Co. in Pensacola

Figure 4. Detail of Agrico Chemical Co. Site

Figure 5. On-site Surface Soil Sample Location

Figure 6. On-site Subsurface Soil Sample Locations

Figure 7. On-site Surface Water Sample Locations

Figure 8. On-site Shallow Groundwater Sample Locations

Figure 9. On-site Deep Groundwater Sample Locations

Figure 10. On-site Waste Sludge Sample Locations

Figure 11. Off-site Surface Soil Sample Locations

Figure 12. Off-site Subsurface Soil Sample Locations

Figure 13. Off-site Shallow Groundwater Sample Locations

Figure 14.

B. Tables

NA - not analyzed
ND - not detected
CARCIN - Carcinogen
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Sources: EPA 1983, Geraghty & Miller 1992a, 1992b

NA - not analyzed
ND - not detected
CARCIN - Carcinogen
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Sources: Geraghty & Miller 1992a, 1992b

NA - not analyzed
ND - not detected
FLMCL - Florida MCL
FLSDW - Florida Secondary Drinking Water Standard
µg/L - micrograms per liter
Source: EPA 1983

NA - not analyzed
ND - not detected
FLMCL - Florida MCL
FLSDW - Florida Secondary Drinking Water Standard
µg/L - micrograms per liter
Sources: Watts et al 1988, Geraghty & Miller 1992a, 1992b

NA - not analyzed
ND - not detected
FLMCL - Florida MCL
FLSDW - Florida Secondary Drinking Water Standard
µg/L - micrograms per liter
Sources: Watts et al 1988, Watts and Wiegand 1989, Geraghty & Miller 1992a, 1992b

NA - not analyzed
ND - not detected
CARCIN - Carcinogen
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Sources: EPA 1983, Geraghty & Miller 1992a, 1992b

NA - not analyzed
ND - not detected
CARCIN - Carcinogen
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Source: Geraghty & Miller 1992b

NA - not analyzed
ND - not detected
CARCIN - Carcinogen
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Source: Geraghty & Miller 1992b

NA - not analyzed
ND - not detected
FLMCL - Florida MCL
FLSDW - Florida Secondary Drinking Water Standard
µg/L - micrograms per liter
Sources: Watts et al 1988, Geraghty & Miller 1992a, 1992b

NA - not analyzed
ND - not detected
FLMCL - Florida MCL
FLSDW - Florida Secondary Drinking Water Standard
µg/L - micrograms per liter
Sources: Watts et al 1988, Watts and Wiegand 1989, Geraghty & Miller 1992a, 1992b

C. Additional Site Contaminants

The following chemicals were detected at this site at levels below human health concern.

1,1-Dichloroethene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachlorothane
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Aldrin
Benzene
Boron
Bromoform
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Dieldrin
Mercury
Molybdenum
Naphthalene
Nitrate
Pentachlorophenol
p,p'-Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (DDD)
p,p'-Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene (DDE)
p,p'-Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Xylene

The following chemicals were detected at this site. There is insufficient toxicological informationavailable upon which to base an assessment of their public health significance.

1,1-Dichloroethane
2-Chloroethylvinyl Ether
2H-1-Benzopyran-2-one
9H-Carbazole
Acenaphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Aluminum
-BHC
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(b)thiophene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzyl Alcohol
Chloroethane
Chrysene
Copper
Dibenzofuran
Dibenz(ah)anthracene
Endrin Aldehyde
Ethynyl Methyl Benzene
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Methyl Naphthalene
Methyl Benzofuran
Methyl Quinoline
Naphthalene Carbonitrile
Phenanthrene
Propenyl Benzene
Propynyl Benzene
Titanium
Trimethylbenzene
Yttrium

D. Responses to Public Comments

Presented below is a summary of the comments received during the public comment period and our responses.

1. Several comments expressed concern about the lack of surface water and fish tissue samplingfrom Bayou Texar. It appears that fluoride and perhaps other site-related contaminants, includingtwo possible human carcinogens, 1,1-dichloroethane and 4-methylphenol, may have reached thebayou.

This concern may be important to the future of the bayou. Although fluoride and sulfate havereached the bayou, the levels are currently too low to cause adverse health effects in humans oranimals. Lead, arsenic and other site-related contaminants have not been detected in monitoringwells greater than about three-quarter miles from the site. These contaminants may reach thebayou in the future. The public health assessment (PHA) recommends that EPA conduct periodicsampling of the bayou. EPA's proposed monitoring plan for the Agrico groundwater plume andBayou Texar should detect the movement of these contaminants in time for additional protectivemeasures to be implemented.

The contaminants 1,1-dichloroethane and 4-methylphenol were detected only once in one deepgroundwater monitoring well. The concentration of 4-methylphenol is less than ATSDR's acuteMRL. There is insufficient toxicological information about 1,1-dichloroethane for us to assess itspublic health significance.

2. One comment suggested that recommendations in the PHA should more appropriately bedirected to EPA rather than the PRPs.

We concur and have changed the summary and recommendation sections of the PHA so that allrecommendations for further action are directed to EPA.

3. One comment indicated that the site is not secure, allowing access by children and othertrespassers.

We concur with the concern about site security. The PHA has recommended that EPA maintainsite security and post additional warning signs in accordance with Florida statute and DEP rules.

4. Several comments addressed the inadequacy of off-site surface soil sampling, particularly at theballfield north of the site and in residential yards west of the site.

We are also concerned about the adequacy of off-site sampling. The PHA has recommended thatEPA analyze surface soil samples from the southernmost off-site ballfield and the areaimmediately off-site to the west of the site for all contaminants of concern. Additional samplingmay be necessary if contamination is found at a level of concern in these areas. We will evaluatethis information when it becomes available to determine its public health significance.

5. There is concern that sampling of the on-site baseball field was not adequate to assess thehealth risk to children who played on it before it was abandoned.

We have analyzed the risk to children who used the abandoned on-site ballfield from exposure tocontaminants, such as fluoride, lead, arsenic, chromium and sulfate, and determined that the onlylikely health risk is from exposure to fluoride. The other contaminants are not at a high enoughconcentration to pose a health risk.

6. Several comments expressed the concern that air-borne dust may have transportedcontaminants from the site to areas off-site and may be an exposure pathway for trespassers orworkers on the site.

Because of site characteristics (i.e., heavy vegetation, low-lying area) it is unlikely that dustgeneration/migration off-site has occurred. However, the PHA has recommended additionaloff-site sampling to check for migration of contaminants (see comment 4 above). There is no airmonitoring data available for us to determine if adverse health effects are possible from exposureof trespassers to dust on the site. Remediation activities may disturb the soil enough to generatedust. However, the PHA recommends that EPA implement optimal dust suppression measuresand conduct air monitoring during remediation.

7. There is a concern that exposure to off-site subsurface soil is a pathway that could causeadverse health effects.

Long-term, daily contact with off-site subsurface soil would be necessary before adverse healtheffects would become likely. Since such exposure is unlikely, adverse health effects from thispotential exposure pathway are not expected.

If remediation of the site requires excavation of subsurface soil, on-site workers could be exposedto soil contaminants. Dust may also be generated by this activity. The PHA has recommendedthat worker protection be provided, and that optimal dust suppression measures and airmonitoring be implemented to prevent exposure to site-related contaminants.

8. Several comments expressed the concern that PAHs, especially benzo(a)pyrene, had not beenanalyzed for in off-site surface soil or the on-site baseball field. One comment pointed out thatEPA seems to have ignored organic contaminants in its cleanup proposals for the site.

Exposure to benzo(a)pyrene by any completed pathway, at the highest concentration found on- oroff-site, would not have any adverse carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic health effects. Since theconcentrations of all contaminants except fluoride found at the on-site ballfield are much lowerthan those found on other parts of the site, we do not expect the level of benzo(a)pyrene to behigher at the ballfield. Questions or concerns about EPA's cleanup plans for the site should be directed to EPA.

Table of Contents