PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENTESCAMBIA WOOD - PENSACOLA
(A.K.A. ESCAMBIA TREATING COMPANY)
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 Escambia Wood - Pensacola Site in Pensacola

Figure 4. Detail – Escambia Wood - Pensacola Site

Figure 5. On-site Surface Soil Sample Location

Figure 6. On-site Subsurface Soil Sample Locations

Figure 7. On-site Groundwater Sample Locations

Figure 8. On-site Air Sample Locations

Figure 9. On-site Liquid Waste Sample Locations

Figure 10. On-site Solid Waste Sample Locations

Figure 11. Off-site Surface Soil Sample Locations

Figure 12. Off-site Air Monitoring Sample Locations

B. Tables

NA - not analyzed
ND - not detected
CARCIN - carcinogen
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Sources: Weston 1991, Ferguson 1992, Weston 1992c, Weston 1993a

NA - not analyzed
ND - not detected
CARCIN - carcinogen
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Sources: Bruner 1982, Weston 1991, Weston 1992c, Weston 1993a

NA - not analyzed
ND - not detected
CARCIN - carcinogen
µg/L - micrograms per liter
Sources: Bruner 1982, Hicks 1988, Weston 1991, Weston 1992a

NA - not analyzed
ND - not detected
CARCIN - carcinogen
µg/m³ - micrograms per cubic meter
Sources: Weston 1991, Weston 1992b, Weston 1993b

NA - not analyzed
ND - not detected
CARCIN - carcinogen
µg/L - micrograms per liter
Source: Bruner 1982

NA - not analyzed
ND - not detected
CARCIN - carcinogen
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Sources: Bruner 1982, Weston 1991

NA - not analyzed
ND - not detected
CARCIN - carcinogen
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
Source: Ferguson 1992

NA - not analyzed
ND - not detected
CARCIN - carcinogen
µg/m³ - micrograms per cubic meter
Source: Weston 1993b

C. Additional Site Contaminants

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

1,1-Biphenyl
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichloropropane
2-Butanone (Methylethyl ketone)
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
Acenaphthene
Acetone
Anthracene
Barium
Benzaldehyde
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
N-Butanol
Cadmium
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon disulfide
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chromium
Cyanide
Dieldrin
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Furan
Heptachlor epoxide
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Methylene chloride
Molybdenum
Nickel
Nitrate/nitrite
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)
Pyrene
Strontium
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Vanadium
Vinyl chloride
Xylene
Zinc

The following chemicals were detected at this site. There are insufficient toxicological data availableupon which to base an assessment of their public health significance.

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene
4-Biphenylamine
Acenaphthalene
Acridine
Benzo(e)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(j)fluoranthene
Benzothiphene
Bromomethyl(methylpropyl)-pyrimidione
C₂ Alkylphenanthrene
C₂ Alkylnaphthothiophene
C₂ Alkylbiphenyl
C₂ Alkylpyridine
C₂ Alkylnaphthalene
C₂ Alkylquinoline
C₃ Alkylnaphthalene
C₃ Alkylbenzene
C₃ Alkylbiphenyl
C₃ Alkylquinoline
C₃ Alkylpyridine
C₄ Alkylbenzene
C₄ Alkylnaphthalene
C₄ Alkylpyridine
C₅ Alkylbenzene
Carbazole
Carboxylic acid
Carene
Chloroethane
Chloro(trichloro(chlorophenyl)- ethyl)benzene
Copper
Cyclopenta(d,e,f)phenanthrene
Decylhydroxylamine
Dibenzofuran
Dibenzothiphene
Dihydrophenanthrene
Dimethylbutanol
Dimethyleneicycloheptane
Dimethylhexene
DimethylmethylenebicycloheptaneDimethyloctanol
Dimethylpentanol
Dioctylphthalate
Ethylhexanoic acid
Ethylhexanol
Formic acid, butyl ester
Formic acid, methylpropyl ester
Hexadecanoic acid
Isopropanol
Methoxybutene
Methoxypropenylbenzene
Methylbiphenyl
Methylcarbazole
Methyldibenzofuran
Methyldibenzothiophene
Methylethylpentanol
Methylfluorene
Methylfluorene
Methylhexanal
Methylnaphthalene
Methyloctanol
Methylphenanthrene
Methylpropanal
Methylpropanol
Methylquinoline
n-Dodecane
n-Undecane
Nitrocarbazole
Octanydrodimethylphenanthrene Oxybismethylpropane
Pentane
Pentylcyclohexane
Quinoline
Sulfate
Sulfide
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran
Tetramethylphenanthrene
Titanium
Trimethylbicycloheptane
Trimethylcyclohexene methanol
Vinyl acetate
Yttrium

D. Responses to Public Comments

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

1. One comment inquired how certain on-site media could be judged to be adequatelycharacterized despite a lack of analysis for a number of contaminants of concern.

For all media by which an individual could be exposed to site-related contaminants, we try todetermine if the environmental data are adequate to conclude whether exposure is possible or not. Ifwe cannot make a determination either way, then the medium has not been adequately characterized. In this case, enough environmental data is available for us to reasonably conclude that exposure tosite-related contaminants is possible from contact with the on-site media in question (i.e., surface soil,groundwater and air).

2. One comment indicated that two companies,Precision Machining and Air Products, may beindustrial sources of contaminants in the vicinity of the site.

We have reexamined the TRI data for the area near the site and found that Precision Machining hasreported releases of a variety of organic chemicals. A detailed description of these chemicals has beenincorporated into the health assessment in the Environmental Contamination and Other Hazardssection. Air Products did not appear on the TRI list and apparently has no reporting requirements.

3. Several comments expressed concern about the generation of dust and volatile chemicalsduring remediation work that could adversely impact nearby communities.

We are also concerned about this source of potential exposure to the community and haverecommended in the health assessment that EPA employ optimal dust suppression measures andconduct air monitoring during remediation to ensure that contaminants from the site are nottransported into nearby neighborhoods.

4. One comment inquired if the information in two Action Memos from EPA (January 1992 andMay 1992) was available to Florida HRS for use in producing the health assessment.

These two memos, as well as others, are available to us. Although they include relevant exposure andhealth effect information, they primarily deal with requests to increase spending and time limits tocomplete removal work at the site. Since the attached exposure and health effect information wasavailable from other primary source documents, these memos were not referenced in the healthassessment.

5. Several comments expressed concern about possible exposure to site-related contaminantsthrough consumption of produce from backyard gardens, small game and seafood from Bayou Texar.

As stated in the health assessment, no samples of produce, small game or seafood have been analyzedfor site-related contaminants. Therefore, we do not know if exposure is possible by these routes. The health assessment does recommend sampling of fruits and vegetables if they are found to begrowing in contaminated soil. Small game is not a likely current exposure pathway since theseanimals are no longer found on the site and hunting within the Pensacola city limits is unlikely. Contamination of seafood in Bayou Texar may occur in the future if contaminant levels increase andthe health assessment recommends that periodic sampling of the bayou be conducted to monitorconditions there.

6. One comment inquired about the nature of the public education sessions and why no mentionwas made concerning possible exposure by the routes addressed in comment 5, above.

Topics for the health education seminars were chosen based on the desires expressed by thecommunity members who attended. At the time the seminars were being presented, no informationwas available about possible exposure by these routes and no concerns were expressed to the healtheducator about them by anyone from the community. Information on this topic can be included infuture presentations to the community if desired.

7. Several comments expressed concern about current exposure by inhalation of contaminatedoff-site air.

Since all activity at the site has ceased and contaminated material is secured, exposure tocontaminants in the air from the site is unlikely at this time. However, past exposure to air-bornecontaminants is likely, and exposure to contaminants in the air in the future during remediation workis possible. For this reason, the health assessment recommends that EPA employ optimal dustsuppression measures and air monitoring to prevent exposure by this pathway.

8. One comment noted that the health assessment indicated the site was proposed for the NPLbecause of concern over air, soil, and groundwater contamination while EPA used only groundwaterto actually rank the site.

This statement has been modified in the health assessment to indicate that EPA did use onlygroundwater to rank the site. EPA is also concerned about contamination in other media such as soiland air and this contamination will be addressed in the cleanup proposals EPA prepares for the site. However, the potential threat to the environment from groundwater contamination was great enoughby itself to rank the site for the NPL.

9. One comment expressed concern that the non-cancer health effects of naphthalene exposurehad not been evaluated in the health assessment.

The ATSDR toxicological profile for naphthalene acknowledges that little is known regarding thehuman health effects resulting from low-level exposure to naphthalene. Hemolytic anemia, the mostfrequent health effect from naphthalene exposure, has been reported from exposure to large numbers of mothballs. However, little is known about the actual amount of exposure in these instances. Themaximum likely dose of naphthalene by inhalation is less than the Florida acceptable ambient airconcentration. A No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) of 55 mg/kg/day has been measuredfor ingestion of naphthalene in rats and mice. The maximum likely dose from incidental ingestion ofsurface soil on the site is less than one-tenth this level. However, we do not know if rats, mice andhumans are affected by naphthalene in the same way.

10. Several comments indicated concern that exposure to dioxin contamination had not beenadequately addressed in the health assessment.

From the environmental data available, we have been able to extimate the likely non-carcinogenichealth effects from exposure to dioxin in air and soil, both on and off of the site. As stated in thehealth assessment, the carcinogenic effects of dioxin are currently under review by EPA and the U.S.Public Health Service. Pending completion of this review and development of a cancer slope factor,we are currently unable to estimate the cancer risk from exposure to dioxin.

Table of Contents