Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to site content

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

NORMANDY PARK APARTMENTS
TEMPLE TERRACE, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA


SUMMARY

The Normandy Park Apartments site is in Temple Terrace near Tampa, Florida. Between 1953 and1963, Gulf Coast Lead, now known as Gulf Coast Recycling Inc., recycled batteries and smeltedlead at this site. In 1971, Gulf Coast Recycling built the 144-unit Normandy Park Apartmentscomplex. In 1991, an apartment resident complained of children playing with battery chips in thesoil. Upon investigation, local environmental officials discovered high soil lead concentrations. TheFlorida Department of Health (FDOH) addressed the public health significance of the site in a draftPublic Health Assessment distributed in 1996. The findings in the report were that Normandy ParkApartments site was a public health hazard in the past because the concentrations of lead found inthe soil were enough to affect people's health. Residents were exposed to the lead by accidentallyeating small amounts of soil and breathing dust contaminated with lead. The site was designated asan indeterminate health hazard in the present because some of the areas with high concentrations oflead in the soil were capped with concrete or wooden decking. We did not have enough informationto determine if the site was still a public health hazard.

Since 1996, FDOH has reviewed more information about the lead contamination at the apartmentsite. We have determined that the site is no apparent public health threat because the soils with thehighest lead contamination are either capped with concrete, asphalt, or wooden decking. Areas thatare covered by grass or mulch or is bare soil, generally have lead concentrations that are belowlevels of health concern; less than 400 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), EPA's no risk level forlead-contaminated soil. Indoor dust sampling indicated that lead was not a problem in indoor dust. Drinking water for the site is supplied by the City of Temple Terrace municipal water system.

There are subsurface soils (deeper than 6 inches) that have concentrations of lead that might affecthuman health if people are exposed to them. In the future, if deeper soils at the site are disturbed,workers and residents could be exposed to lead-contaminated soil that might impact their health.

Although the site does not currently pose a threat to children, we advise that residents minimize leadexposure to themselves and their children. We recommend that Normandy Park Apartmentresidents take steps to reduce their potential exposure to lead contaminated dust by removing theirshoes at apartment entry ways, and washing their hands and faces after working or playing outside,especially before eating. We also recommend that residents with young children consult with theirpediatrician about having their children's blood tested.

EPA is currently developing a feasibility study for permanent remediation of the site. In the future, ifsoil is dug up at the site, we recommend that workers should prevent access to contaminated soiland implement dust control and air monitoring measures.


BACKGROUND

In this public health assessment, the FDOH (FDOH, formerly known as FHRS, the FloridaDepartment of Health and Rehabilitative Services), under cooperative agreement with the Agencyfor Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, evaluates the public health threat of the Normandy ParkApartments site. The purpose of the public health assessment is to find out if people were, are, orwill be exposed to hazardous substances and, if so, to determine if exposure is harmful and should be stopped or reduced.

A. Site Description and History

The Normandy Park Apartments site is at 11110 North 56th Street in Temple Terrace, HillsboroughCounty, Florida (Figures 1 and 2, Appendix A). Since 1971, the nine-acre site has been a 144-unitapartment complex with two main groups of buildings: a southern section formerly for adults only,and a northern section formerly for families. The southern section consists of four buildingsarranged in a rectangle around a central courtyard. A swimming pool and laundry facility are in thesouthern courtyard, and an irrigation well used to be in the southwest corner. The northern sectionconsists of eight buildings arranged around two (northern and middle) courtyards. A swimmingpool and a tennis court are in the recreational area connecting the two courtyards (Figure 3,Appendix A). The northern courtyard has a playground for children with a sandbox (ATSDR1992a; OHM 1992a; FHRS 1995e; 1996d). Children live in both the southern and northernsections of the complex (GCR 1992a). Normandy Park residents drink municipal well water(FHRS 1995e).

From 1953-1963, the site was known as Gulf Coast Lead, a battery recycling facility with asecondary smelter. Plant workers removed lead from used car batteries, crushed the battery casings,and smelted the lead and lead salts into pure lead (ATSDR 1992a, FDER 1992f, FHRS 1995d,Taylor 1996). The smelting operation probably took place in the southern section of the complex(FDER 1992f, GCR 1992a, FHRS 1996e).

Site investigators report site soils are a mixture of battery casing chips and dirt (HCEPC 1991b; OHM 1992a; FHRS 1993, 1995e). Ground cover seems to vary seasonally (Table 1, Appendix B),and exposure of battery casing pieces appears to vary with the seasons. FDOH staff has observedareas covered by bare soil are larger in winter than in summer. As Gulf Coast Recycling Inc. (GCR)has made efforts to clean up the site over time, the size of exposed casing pieces seems to havedecreased (Table 2, Appendix B). No casings were observed during a site visit made by FDOH staffin November 1998, however a representative from Gulf Coast Recycling stated that battery chipsare occasionally observed (FDOH 1998b).

In 1991, the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission (HCEPC) beganinvestigating the site after receiving a complaint about children finding and playing with batterycasing chips from the playground area at the apartment complex (HCEPC 1991a, 1991b; FDER1992f; FHRS 1995b). The major health concerns arising from this complaint were young children(0-6 years old) would accidentally eat lead by placing lead-contaminated battery chips in theirmouths, directly eating soil containing lead, or placing hands covered with lead-contaminated dirt ordust into their mouths. These activities were a health concern because young children areparticularly sensitive to the harmful effects from eating lead.

After receiving the complaint, HCEPC asked the site owners, GCR, to sample the soils for lead(HCEPC 1991b). Two sampling efforts found a patchy distribution of high lead concentrations insoil. In these initial sample sets, the highest lead concentration in soil 0-6 inches deep was 2,075mg/kg, and the highest lead concentration in deeper soils was 35,000 mg/kg. The analyses alsofound lead in shallow groundwater, with the highest concentration at 16.7 mg/L (milligrams perliter). The southern section of the complex, where the battery recycling likely occurred, had thehighest lead concentrations for both soil and water (Eagle 199[1], ESSI 1992). After examining thesoil data, a toxicologist hired by GCR concluded that the soils in the northern complex, with thepossible exception of one point in the middle courtyard, did not pose a significant human healthhazard. However, the toxicologist stated the surface soils in the southern courtyard could requirefurther attention (HSWMR 1991).

During a January-February 1992 investigation on behalf of GCR, investigators performed a groundpenetrating radar survey primarily on the southern portion of the site, conducted standardpenetration tests, installed temporary and permanent monitor wells, and collected both groundwaterand soil samples. Two ground penetrating radar surveys identified four areas of possible burieddebris in the southern courtyard (OHM 1992a), and one large area of buried debris in the northerncourtyard (OHM 1992c). Water analyses confirmed elevated concentrations of lead and othermetals in groundwater under the site. The soil investigation confirmed the presence of patchy highconcentrations of lead in subsurface soils, with the highest concentration in the southern courtyard of125,800 mg/kg (two feet deep). Of immediate concern was the finding of 1,200 mg/kg of lead insoil (one foot deep) next to the playground (OHM 1992a), suggesting a possible health threat toyoung children playing in this area.

Upon learning of the high lead concentrations in playground soils, the Hillsborough County HealthDepartment, HCHD, worked with the site owners to provide free blood lead testing to NormandyPark Apartment residents. Some residents had blood tests performed by private physicians. Between January and April 1992, approximately 65 residents of all ages had their blood tested. About 20 of these residents were young children (six years old or younger). A few young childrenhad marginally elevated blood lead levels in the 10-12 g/dL (micrograms per deciliter) range. Most of these young children had follow-up blood lead testing, and all follow-up tests results werebelow 10 g/dL (FHRS 1992). Throughout the blood testing process, health officials informed thepublic there was no immediate health risk (Fechter 1992a, 1992b; Huggins 1992). During thistime period, ATSDR reviewed the available environmental and blood data. In a health consultation,ATSDR found the surface soil concentrations of lead were at levels of concern. However, theyfound no evidence of undue human exposure to lead. ATSDR recommended characterizing surfaceand subsurface soil contamination more fully, identifying other possible lead sources (e.g., paint),restricting access to surface soils in the playground (the other high lead concentration areas hadalready been fenced off), testing all children living in the complex for blood lead, educatingresidents, and conducting a survey of occupational and hobby interests of the residents (ATSDR1992a). ATSDR echoed these findings in their second health consultation, with the additionalrecommendation of employing air monitoring and appropriate safeguards when EPA or GCRremediated the site (ATSDR 1992c).

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP, formerly known as FDER, the FloridaDepartment of Environmental Regulation) worked with HCEPC during all of the preliminary siteinvestigations described above. In January 1992, FDEP referred the Normandy Park site to EPA forassistance in addressing health issues and emergency response actions (FDER 1992a, 1992b). Subsequently, both EPA and contractors for GCR collected more soil and groundwater samples tobetter characterize contamination at the site and, later, to decide upon appropriate site remediationmeasures (EPA 1992b, 1992d; OHM 1992b, 1992d; Weston 1992; EEC 1994a, 1994b). Newsampling found surface soils (0-3 inches deep) in the northern courtyard had a maximum leadconcentration of 4,900 mg/kg, and surface soils in the southern courtyard had a maximum leadconcentration of 13,800 mg/kg (Weston 1992). GCR signed an Administrative Order on Consentwith EPA on June 3, 1992 (EPA 1992c). GCR began the remediation actions of capping soil areaswith more than 500 mg/kg of lead in September 1992 (Lammers 1992a, 1992b; Tampa Tribune,1992).

To cap the lead contamination areas in the northern complex, GCR placed two concrete pads oversoil in the areas immediately north and south of the tennis court (EPA 1993a, GCR 1992b) (Figure4, Appendix A). This remedial action included modifying the children's sandbox to prevent childrenfrom digging into contaminated soil. Old sand was removed and wire and plywood were placedover the bottom of the sandbox. This prevented children from digging into soil beneath it. Thesandbox was then filled with clean sand (FHRS 1993, 1995b, 1995d; FDOH 1997d; GCR 1998). GCR completed the remedial actions in the northern complex in December 1992 (EPA 1993a).

Designing the cap for the southern courtyard was more complicated. In March 1992, GCR replacedthe snow fencing around the pool with a chain-link fence (GCR 1992a). Eventually, they removedthe snow fence and covered all open ground surfaces in the courtyard with a wooden deck (Figure 5,Appendix A), underlain by visqueen, a plastic liner, to prevent contact with the soil. Fascia boardswere placed vertically between the decking and the visqueen to prevent access under the deck (GCR1995a). Because plastic or the existing concrete walkways covered the entire courtyard, stormwater runoff is collected and pumped to a lined retention pond (FDEP 1993a). To implement theseplans, GCR purchased the vacant lot south of the complex (Figure 6, Appendix A), performed aground penetrating radar survey to select a suitable site for the storm water retention pond, andobtained the necessary construction permits from FDEP (FDEP 1993, GCR 1995a, OHM 1992b).

During this process, several issues had to be addressed. HCEPC and FDEP officials visited thevacant lot and found battery casing pieces at ground surface (HCEPC 1993a). Later samples foundhigh lead concentrations (up to 2,620 mg/kg) in the soils of the vacant lot, including the area wherethe pond was to be placed (EEC 1994a). The soil samples were tested using the ToxicCharacteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). The test determines if the lead in the soil could migrateinto ground water that may be below the soil (leachability). One of two soil samples from the vacantlot showed excessive leachability (the ability to migrate) (TCLP lead = 19.1 mg/L), requiring theexcavated soils be treated as a hazardous waste (EEC 1994b). Ground penetrating radar identified adisturbed area, possibly of buried debris, as well as probable karst features on the vacant lot (FDEP1993a, 1993b; OHM 1992b). Karst refers to areas of irregular limestone formations wherecaverns, underground streams, and sink holes are possible. These findings raised questions aboutwater quality related to the apparent buried debris, as well as the possibility of pond subsidence in akarst area. Of these issues, FDEP considered the water quality issue most important and requiredthe storm water pond be lined (FDEP 1993b, 1993c). GCR completed the decking and storm waterpond system in October 1995 (EPA 1996). At that time, EPA considered the immediate healththreat abated (EPA 1995b).

In January 1995, EPA assigned the Normandy Park Apartments a Hazard Ranking Score of 49.98(EPA 1995a). In February 1995, EPA proposed the site be placed on the National Priorities List(NPL). This proposal to the NPL necessitated FDOH's completing a public health assessment forthe site. GCR challenged the computation of the Hazard Ranking Score, and actual placement onthe NPL is still pending (FHRS 1995d; EPA 1996; FDOH 1997a, 1998).

At the request of FDOH, GCR resampled groundwater and surface soil in 1996. Sample resultsshowed lead levels were below EPA's 400 mg/kg no risk level for lead in soil. The soil samples haddetectable levels of four other heavy metals (ATE 1996c). The monitor wells had detectable levelsof lead and barium; both were below Florida's maximum contaminant levels for these metals. During the installation of three new wells for this sampling, GCR's consultant found a confininglayer of clay between the surficial and Floridan aquifers under the site (ATE 1996a).

In June 1996, the Consumer Product and Safety Commission published a warning about exposure tolead dust from imported vinyl miniblinds that deteriorate in heat and sunlight (CPSC 1996). Normandy Park Apartments had vinyl miniblinds in them. Site owners did not know if theseminiblinds were the type with the deterioration problem; nevertheless, they planned to replace allminiblinds in the complex (ATE 1997b). They also cleaned the apartments housing children with ashop vac containing a HEPA filter on the exhaust. This procedure minimized dust suspension in theair and its resettlement in the apartments. Owners collected dust samples from apartments withyoung children, as identified in a dust sampling plan previously submitted to FDOH (ATE 1996b,FHRS 1996g, FDOH 1997c). Samples collected from window sills and carpet in the secondbedroom showed lead levels in the apartments were below federal guidelines (ATE 1997a, HUD1995).

EPA and GCR have held informational meetings for residents throughout the site investigations andremedial actions. In April 1992, EPA held a public meeting to explain their emergency responseplans for the site (EPA 1992a). The HCHD's Environmental Health Director offered the free bloodlead testing to the residents during this meeting. In February 1993, EPA held a public availabilitysession to answer questions the residents might have had after the initial emergency response actions,and to discuss future plans. FDOH staff attended both of these meetings (FHRS 1995c). GCRreports that they have held several informational meetings for residents. In August 1995, FDOHstaff held a public meeting to discuss the public health assessment process and collect communityhealth concerns. The community health concerns gathered focused on issues of exposure and onhealth effects of lead (FHRS 1995e). Over time, community concern about the Normandy ParkApartments site appears to have changed from moderate to low. Presently, EPA is working withGCR on developing a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study that focuses on permanently abatingthe lead threat at the site (EPA 1998, FDOH 1998).

HCEPC records indicate former Gulf Coast Lead plant personnel gave away old battery casings toanyone who wanted them. Area residents and property owners reportedly used the casings for fillingswampland, constructing walkways, and as planters. An investigation of these allegations at oneproperty on the Hillsborough River confirmed the presence of battery casing pieces in the soil, andfound lead concentrations up to 900 mg/kg in surficial aquifer sand (HCEPC 1992, 1993b, 1993c). Another investigator reported plant personnel also gave away soil from the site (FHRS 1995a). These reports suggest site-related contamination may extend beyond the physical boundaries of theNormandy Park Apartments site. FDEP placed one suspected contamination area on the CERCLISlist (a list of Superfund and pre-Superfund sites). It is called the River Hills Drive and 50th Street Battery Dump (FHRS 1995a, FDEP 1996).

B. Site Visits

Mr. Bruce Tuovila, FDOH, first visited the site on April 9, 1992. During this visit, he noted GCRhad replaced contaminated soil from the playground area with clean fill (FHRS 1992b). When Mr.Tuovila revisited the site on February 11, 1993, he observed bare patches of soil on the apartmentgrounds. He also saw exposed battery casings in the soil. In addition, Mr. Tuovila observed therewere two cement pads covering the soil near the tennis court, and there was a fence around thegrassy area surrounding the southern courtyard's swimming pool. Off-site, he saw what looked likecrushed battery casings mixed in with dirt in the undeveloped lot west of the site (Figure 6,Appendix A). Mr. Tuovila noticed well-worn paths crossed this lot and saw children playing there(FHRS 1995a).

Ms. Carolyn Voyles, FDOH, visited the site on August 23, 1995 to observe current site conditionsand verify new file information. She observed the site was well-vegetated with grass. There werepatches of bare soil, mostly around air conditioning equipment and near building walls. Ms. Voylessaw a couple of pieces of exposed battery casing chips in the bare areas. She also noted there wasone large patch of bare soil under the shade of an oak tree in the middle courtyard. Leaf litter fromthe tree covered this bare patch of soil. Ms. Voyles observed the concrete caps in the northerncomplex were in good repair, as was the fence around the southern courtyard's pool. Constructionmaterials for the deck over the southern courtyard were on the site. Ms. Voyles also performed awindshield survey of the area surrounding the site. During the evening of August 23, Ms. Voylesmet with concerned residents to discuss the public health assessment process, verify site history, andgather community health concerns (FHRS 1995e).

Ms. Julie Smith, FDOH, visited the site on August 14, 1996 to look at the wood decking that hadbeen placed over the southern courtyard. She noted the decking completely covered the ground, upto the concrete entrance areas of the surrounding apartments. She observed the fascia extended tothe ground, preventing small children from crawling under the decking (FHRS 1996h).

Mr. Bruce Tuovila, FDOH, visited the site on December 11, 1996 to observe any differences invegetative ground cover since his previous visit in winter 1993 (Table 1.). Mr. Tuovila also checkedon the condition of the fence around the storm water pond and the deck over the southern courtyard. He observed the fence around the storm water pond was intact and in good repair. The deck wasalso in good repair, and its design prevented small children from crawling underneath it (FHRS1996i).

On November 3, 1998, Mr. Andy Brastad, FDOH, visited the site to observe maintenance of thedecking and ground cover. He found that the decking was in good repair and that ground cover waswell maintained. Very few bare areas in the middle and northern courtyards were observed. Weestimate the percent of ground cover to be approximately 90 percent. A GCR representative presentduring the visit stated that grass and other vegetation had been planted on bare areas on numerousoccasions but shady conditions prevented plant growth. Fencing around the storm water pond wasin good condition. No battery casings were observed at the time of the visit (FDOH 1998b).

C. Demographics, Land Use, and Natural Resource Use

Demographics

According to 1990 census data, the racial makeup of the census tract containing the site is 71%White, 15% Black, and 14% Hispanic. The median age in the census tract is 30 years. Childrenbetween 0-4 years make up 8% of the tract's population, and children between 5-9 years make upabout 6% of the tract. The median family income for the census tract is $28,779 (BOC 1992). Thedemographics of the Normandy Park Apartments residents are similar to that of the census tract. Renters predominantly are middle-income Whites or Hispanics, with adult ages ranging fromcollege students to retired people (FHRS 1996d). Usually, there are about 280 people living at thecomplex, and about 20 of the residents are children under the age of six (FHRS 1992a, EPA 1995a,FDOH 1997d).

Land Use

The Normandy Park Apartments site is in a mixed residential, commercial, and governmental landuse area. City Hall is north of the site, other businesses and apartment buildings are east of the site,a shopping center is south and east of the site, and apartments and undeveloped lands are west of thesite (Figure 6, Appendix A). There is no new construction in the immediate neighborhood except forconstruction related to site remediation (OHM 1992a, FHRS 1995e).

The area within a mile of the site is well-established. There is an industrial area about one mile westof the site, and the University of South Florida is about a half mile northwest of the site. The rest ofthe surrounding area is mostly residential, with commercial businesses along the major roadways. There is a system of storm water ditches and ponds throughout the area (FHRS 1995e).

There are many special facilities in the 33617 zip code encompassing the site. There are eight daycare centers and one foster home within a half mile of the Normandy Park Apartments. There are16 day care centers and four schools between half to one mile from the site. There are no hospitals,mental hospitals, nursing homes, children's group homes, or adult congregate living facilities withina one mile radius of the site (FHRS 1991).

Natural Resource Use

Groundwater in northern Hillsborough County, where the site is located, generally occurs in a twoaquifer system. The surficial (or shallow) aquifer is an unconfined system consisting ofundifferentiated fine to medium grained sand on top of clayey sand. Studies at the site indicate thatthe shallow aquifer is approximately 30 feet deep, and there is a confining unit of clay,approximately 70 feet thick, between the surficial and Floridan aquifers (ATE 1996a). Groundwater in the surficial aquifer flows radially outward from the southwestern corner of the site,with the predominant flow northeastward across the site (FDER 1992f, OHM 1992a, ATE 1996a). Groundwater flow in the upper Floridan appears to be to the northeast under the site (ATE 1996a).

The Floridan aquifer is the principal source of potable groundwater in the Temple Terrace vicinity(FDER 1992f). The City of Temple Terrace has four municipal wells one quarter to one-half mileeast-northeast of the site (FDER 1992c, 1992d, 1992e). Regional groundwater flow in the Floridanaquifer is southwestward in the Temple Terrace vicinity (FDER 1992f, OHM 1992a).

D. Health Outcome Data

FDOH epidemiologists evaluated cancer incidence near the site as recorded in the Florida CancerData System (FCDS). FCDS is a FDOH program operated under contract by the University ofMiami School of Medicine that covers all cancers reported in Florida from 1981 - present. Wediscuss the results of the FCDS search in the Public Health Implications, Health Outcome Data Evaluation section.


COMMUNITY HEALTH CONCERNS

During the April 1992 and February 1993 public meetings, EPA and HCHD officials talked to theresidents of Normandy Park Apartments about the health effects of lead. In general, residents areconcerned about how they might be exposed to lead, and how likely they are to become ill fromincidental exposures. In FDOH's August 23, 1995 public meeting, residents asked the following questions:

  1. How am I likely to be exposed to lead?


  2. If the lead recycling operation took place 30 years ago, can there still be enough lead in the soil to affect my health?


  3. Is it safe to dig/garden in the soil?


  4. Can walking across the site make someone sick?


  5. Are pets affected by lead in the same way people are?

We address these health concerns in the Public Health Implications section.


ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND OTHER HAZARDS

In this section, FDOH identifies "contaminants of concern" for further evaluation in the publichealth assessment.

In summary, we compared the environmental concentrations of the 43 detected contaminants (Table3, Appendix B) with ATSDR screening values. We eliminated those contaminants from furtherconsideration that were below their applicable ATSDR screening values (Table 4, Appendix B). We found that five contaminants (calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium, and sodium) are essentialnutrients, three are ubiquitous in soil (aluminum, copper, and tin) and were found in low levels andthe remaining contaminants, with the exception of lead, were not expected to cause health problemsfor the following reasons:

  • The contaminants were found at low concentrations that do not present a health threat; or
  • The contaminants were found in media where human exposure is not likely (an incomplete pathway).

For each of the contaminants, we reviewed the environmental data collected from water, soil, andair, listed the maximum concentration and detection frequency, and evaluated the samplingadequacy. Upon further evaluation we determined that lead was the only chemical of concern. Wedescribe the method for selecting contaminants of concern in detail in Appendix C.

A. On-site Contamination

For the purposes of this evaluation, we defined "on-site" as the curb to curb area between 53rd and56th Streets which encompasses the Normandy Park Apartments. On-site includes the vacant lotsouth of the original apartment complex property where the storm water pond is now located (Figure7, Appendix A).

We compiled data in this subsection from contractors hired by the site owners (Eagle Remediation199[1]; EEC 1994b; ESSI 1992; OHM 1992a, 1992b, 1992d; ATE 1996a, 1996c, 1997) andfrom various government agencies investigating the site (EPA 1992b, 1992d; Weston 1992). Wereviewed data found in other reports, memos, and letters (ATSDR 1992b; EEC 1994a; EPA1992c, 1993a, 1995a; FDEP 1994a; GCR 1995a; HSWMR 1991; OHM 1993), but determinedthese data had already been presented and counted earlier. When we were able to identify duplicateinformation among the many reports we reviewed, we counted the samples only once. In countingthe number of analyses for a contaminant, we used raw data whenever these data were available tous. We did not have maps of all EPA sample locations, but we did have descriptions for allunmapped sample points. We could not obtain a map of the sample points for one GCR document(OHM 1992d). However, we determined GCR took the samples on-site from the description in thecover letter. Because we did not have maps of the latter EPA and GCR sample point locations, wecould not plot all on-site sample locations on the site maps for this subsection.

On-site Surface Soil (0-3 Inches Deep)

In 1992 and 1996, EPA and GCR collected on-site surface soil samples at more than 34 locations(Figure 8, Appendix A). No one collected any background surface soil samples.

The analytical results identified ten contaminants in on-site surface soils. Although somecontaminants are above screening values, our findings are that only lead presents a health threat.

Concentrations in On-site Surface Soil (0-3 Inches Deep)
Contaminants of Concern Detected Range (mg/kg) Total # Detected/ Total # Samples Total # Exceeding Comparison Value/ Total # Samples Background Concentration Range (mg/kg) Comparison Value
(mg/kg) Source
Aluminum 690-2500 9/9 -- NA -- --
Antimony 1.2-170 6/9 6/9 NA 0.8 RMEG
Arsenic 0.73-22J 9/21 9/21 NA 0.5 CREG
Barium 2.1-21 21/21 0/21 NA 100 RMEG
Benzo(a)Pyrene 0.290J 1/2 1/2 NA 0.1 CREG
Chromium 2-24 20/21 -- NA -- Carcinogen
Copper 1.1-30 7/9 -- NA -- --
Lead 1.4-13,800 47/47 -- NA -- Carcinogen
Tin 26 2/7 -- NA -- --
Vanadium 9 7/9 2/9 NA 6 EMEG

mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram (parts per million)
NA - not analyzed
ND - not detected
J - estimated value
RMEG - Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide
CREG - Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
EMEG - Environmental Media Evaluation Guide
Carcinogen -potential or known cancer-causing agent

For the purposes of this public health assessment, there were enough samples taken to fullycharacterize on-site surface soil quality for metals in the northern and middle courtyards. Becausethe southern courtyard is now covered, there is no current need to collect more on-site surface soilsamples in that area as long as the southern courtyard's cover remains intact and in good repair. However, if future site cleanup efforts disturb the soil, or if the present ground cover changes, acomprehensive study of all contaminants of concern in the southern courtyard should be conductedto allow evaluation of the potential health effects from exposure to these metals.

On-site Shallow Subsurface Soil (0-6 Inches Deep)

In 1992 and 1994, EPA and GCR collected on-site shallow subsurface soil samples at more than 86locations (Figure 9, Appendix A). No one collected any background surface soil samples.

Lead was the only contaminant analyzed for in on-site shallow subsurface soils. The concentrationof lead found in these soil samples ranged from 21 to 3700 mg/kg.

On-site Deep Subsurface Soil (More Than 6 Inches Deep)

In 1992 and 1994, EPA and GCR collected on-site deep subsurface soil samples at more than 114locations (Figure 10, Appendix A). In February 1992, EPA's contractor collected a backgroundsample on the northeast corner of the site.

The analytical results identified eleven contaminants in on-site deep subsurface soils. Althoughsome contaminants are above screening values, our findings are that only lead presents a health threat.

Concentrations in On-site Deep Subsurface Soil (More Than 6 Inches Deep)
Contaminants of Concern Detected Range (mg/kg) Total # Detected/
Total # Samples
Total # Exceeding Comparison Value/
Total # Samples
Background Concentration Range (mg/kg) Comparison Value
(mg/kg) Source
Aluminum 58-2800 18/18 -- 2400 -- --
Antimony 7.8-880 8/18 8/18 ND 0.8 RMEG
Arsenic 0.6-130J 6/18 6/18 ND 0.5 CREG
Barium 1.1-200 13/18 1/18 2.1 100 RMEG
Cadmium 1.6 1/19 -- ND -- Carcinogen
Chromium 1.5-86 11/18 -- 2.1 -- Carcinogen
Copper 1.2-26 6/18 -- ND -- --
Lead 1-125,800 266/301 -- 1.3 -- Carcinogen
Nickel 3.4 1/19 -- ND -- Carcinogen
Tin 3.4-93 5/14 -- ND -- --
Vanadium 1.3-8.2 11/18 1/18 2.6 6 EMEG

mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram (parts per million)
NA - not analyzed
ND - not detected
J - estimated value
RMEG - Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide
CREG - Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
EMEG - Environmental Media Evaluation Guide
Carcinogen -potential or known cancer-causing agent

For the purposes of this public health assessment, there were enough samples taken to fullycharacterize on-site deep subsurface soil quality.

On-site Indoor Dust

In 1996, GCR collected on-site indoor dust samples from 16 apartments with children (ATE 1997a,1997b). GCR collected these dust samples in conjunction with sampling and removal of lead-containing miniblinds in the apartments. After the samples were taken, the apartments werespecially cleaned to remove indoor dust. The cleaning method included use of a vacuum fitted witha HEPA filter to minimize suspension of lead-containing dust in the air and its resettlement in theapartments (ATE 1996b, FHRS 1996g, FDOH 1997c, FDOH 1998b).

The dust samples were analyzed only for lead. The analytical results confirmed the plasticminiblinds in the apartments contained lead. The results also showed lead levels on sills and carpets were below US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines

Lead Concentrations in Indoor Dust
Sample Location Detected Range (g/ft2) Total # Detected/
Total # Samples
Total # Exceeding Comparison Value/
Total # Samples
Comparison Value
(g/ft2) Source
Blinds 60-310 3/3 -- -- --
Sill 110-170 2/3 0/3 500 HUD, EPA
Carpet 11-19 3/19 0/19 100 HUD, EPA

g/ft2 - micrograms per square foot
HUD - US Department of Housing and Urban Development
EPA - US Environmental Protection Agency.

For the purposes of this public health assessment, there were enough samples taken to fullycharacterize on-site indoor dust levels in apartments that were sampled. We do not know what thelead levels in dust are in apartments that have not had miniblind replacement and the thoroughcleaning. In 1997, GCR told FDOH they had ordered new blinds for the remaining apartments(without children) and planned to replace the old miniblinds upon receipt of the new ones (ATE1997b). In 1998, GCR stated that all lead-containing miniblinds in the complex had been replaced(FDOH 1998b). We also recommend that GCR perform the special cleaning on each apartment inthe complex as residents move out or children move in, whichever comes first.

On-site Shallow Groundwater - Temporary and Monitor Wells

In 1991, 1992, and 1996, EPA and GCR collected on-site shallow groundwater samples at morethan 13 locations (Figure 11, Appendix A). GCR collected a background sample (TW-1) for leadon-site (OHM 1992a). FDOH does not consider this to be a proper location for a backgroundsample. First, ground penetrating radar and soil borings have established the presence of burieddebris throughout the apartment complex grounds (OHM 1992a, 1992c), and buried debris mayalso lie near the background well location. Tests have shown lead in this debris to be leachable(OHM 1992a, EEC 1994b) with the potential to contaminate groundwater below. Second, eventhough the predominant direction of groundwater flow is to the northeast across the site, there is alocalized outward radial movement under the southern courtyard from a point (TW-2) east of thebackground sample (TW-2) location (OHM 1992a). Water contamination in the eastern wellmight affect water quality in OHM's background well. Finally, the lead concentration in shallowgroundwater at GCR's background location is 720 micrograms per liter (g/L) (OHM 1992a),higher than lead concentrations found in an off-site shallow private well sample (EPA 1992b). Forthis public health assessment, we considered the GCR background sample to be a regular shallowgroundwater sample point. The analytical results identified seven contaminants in on-site shallow groundwater:

Concentrations in On-site Shallow Temporary and Monitor Wells
Contaminants of Concern Detected Range (g/L) Total # Detected/
Total # Samples
Total # Exceeding Comparison Value/
Total # Samples
Background Concentration Range (g/L) Comparison Value
(g/L) Source
Aluminum 570-10,000 3/5 -- NA -- --
Antimony 63-784 2/5 2/5 NA 4 RMEG
Arsenic 46-150J 2/9 2/9 NA 0.02 CREG
Barium 18-190 2/8 0/8 NA 700 RMEG
Chromium 25 1/9 -- NA -- Carcinogen
Di(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate 38 1/3 1/3 NA 3 CREG
Lead 5-22,000 22/28 -- NA -- Carcinogen

g/L - micrograms per liter (parts per billion)
NA - not analyzed
ND - not detected
J - estimated value
RMEG - Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide
CREG - Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
EMEG - Environmental Media Evaluation Guide
Carcinogen -potential or known cancer-causing agent

Data Sources: EPA 1992b, ESSI 1992, OHM 1992a, ATE 1996a.

For the purposes of this public health assessment, there were enough samples taken to generallycharacterize on-site shallow groundwater quality for lead and other metals.

On-site Shallow Groundwater - Irrigation Wells

In 1991, GCR collected one groundwater sample from the site's irrigation well and tested it for lead. The well depth was unknown. The analysis did not detect lead in this well. GCR has plugged thiswell to allow decking to be placed over the southern courtyard (FHRS 1996d).

On-site Deep Groundwater - Piezometer and Monitor Wells

In 1996, GCR collected on-site deep groundwater samples from three newly installed wells (onemonitor well and two piezometers) at different locations (Figure 12, Appendix A). None of thepiezometers was down gradient from the southern courtyard, the most contaminated portion of thesite.

The analytical results identified one contaminant, barium, in on-site deep groundwater. The bariumwas present in all three wells at concentrations below its comparison value. Lead was not detectedin any of the three deep wells.

For the purposes of this public health assessment, there were enough samples taken to generallycharacterize on-site deep groundwater quality for lead and other metals.

On-site TCLP Waste

In 1992 and 1994, GCR performed Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) tests on-site shallow and deep subsurface soils, showing lead and barium could leach out of them. The leadleachate values were high enough to classify the on-site subsurface soils as a hazardous waste, andto require that they be handled as such if they are excavated (OHM 1992a, EEC 1994b).

TCLP Waste
Contaminants of Concern Detected Range (g/L) Total # Detected/
Total # Samples
Comparison Value
(g/L) Source
Lead (old property) 295,000-333,500 2/2 500 FDEP
Lead (new property) 250-19,100 2/2- 500 FDEP

g/L - micrograms per liter (parts per billion)
FDEP - Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Data Sources: OHM 1992a, EEC 1994b.

Other On-site Media (Sediments, Surface Water, Air, Biota)

There is no record of sediments, surface water, air, or biota samples being collected on-site. However,due to the nature of the soils, the land use (residential apartments) and the contaminant of concern (leadis not volatile), these pathways are of little concern.

B. Off-site Contamination

For the purposes of this evaluation, FDOH defined "off-site" as the area within a 1 mile radius of theNormandy Park Apartments site. Most off-site sampling occurred on land areas adjacent to the site; however, EPA collected a few samples at private residences about ¼-½ mile away. Since the site usedto have a smelter, and since the recycling facility reportedly gave battery casings and soil away to peoplewho wanted them (HCEPC 1992, 1993b, 1993c; FHRS 1995a), the off-site area potentially affectedby site-related contaminants may be quite large.

FDOH compiled data in this subsection from EPA (EPA 1992b, Weston 1992). In counting the numberof analyses for a contaminant, we used raw data whenever these data were available to us. We did nothave maps showing the locations of all sample points; however, EPA provided sample pointdescriptions that allowed us to determine sample type and general location of the off-site sample points. Because we did not have maps of off-site sample point locations, we could not create maps for thissubsection.

We found the number of off-site samples too few to fully characterize the nature and extent of potentialsite-related contamination in off-site soil and water. We recommend further sampling for lead in thevacant lot west of the apartment complex. There is some evidence that the former lead recycling facilityat the site gave away battery casings for construction fill. At least two residences near the HillsboroughRiver reportedly have buried battery casings on their property (HCEPC 1992, 1993b, 1993c). Local,state or federal environmental agencies may want to further investigate these allegations.

Off-site Surface Soil (0-3 deep)

In 1992, EPA collected off-site surface soil samples (0-3 inches deep) at two locations. One samplepoint was a vacant lot east of the site, and the other was a residence south of the site. There is no recordof shallow subsurface soil samples (0-6 inches deep) being collected off-site.

The analytical results identified six contaminants in off-site surface soils. None of the contaminantswere found at levels of concern.

Concentrations in Off-site Surface Soil (0-3 Inches Deep)
Contaminants of Concern Detected Range (mg/kg) Total # Detected/
Total # Samples
Total # Exceeding Comparison Value/
Total # Samples
Background Concentration Range (mg/kg) Comparison Value
(mg/kg) Source
Aluminum 980-1200 2/2 -- NA -- --
Barium 2.4-9.3 2/2 0/2 NA 100 RMEG
Chromium 1.7-4.6J 2/2 -- NA -- Carcinogen
Copper 1.1 ½ -- NA -- --
Lead 29-68 2/2 -- NA -- Carcinogen
Vanadium 2.5 ½ 0/2 NA 6 EMEG

mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram (parts per million)
NA - not analyzed
ND - not detected
J - estimated value
RMEG - Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide
CREG - Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
EMEG - Environmental Media Evaluation Guide
Carcinogen -potential or known cancer-causing agent

No one has sampled the vacant lot west of the site. During one site visit, FDOH staff observed particlesthat might have been shredded battery casings on this lot where children were playing (FHRS 1995c). During a later site visit, FDOH staff noted the lot was fairly well-vegetated with wild grasses. Therewere numerous bare areas, but staff did not observe battery casing pieces in the bare spots during thatvisit (FHRS 1995e). Still, because of its proximity to the site, there may be site-related contaminantsin the western vacant lot's surface soils.

Off-site Deep Subsurface Soil (More Than 6 Inches Deep)

In 1992, EPA collected off-site deep subsurface soil samples at five locations. The sample points wereat a vacant lot east of the site, a bank adjacent to the site, City Hall (two points) north of the site (Figure6, Appendix A), and a residence southwest of the site.

The analytical results identified five contaminants in off-site subsurface soils: aluminum, barium,chromium, lead, and vanadium. None were found in high concentrations and are of minimal concern.

Off-site Shallow Groundwater - Temporary Wells

In 1992, EPA collected one off-site shallow groundwater sample from a temporary well at a privateresidence southwest of the site. Residents use this well for irrigation only (EPA 1996).

The analytical results identified four contaminants in the off-site shallow groundwater.

Concentrations in Off-site Shallow Temporary Wells
Contaminants of Concern Detected Range (g/L) Total # Detected/
Total # Samples
Total # Exceeding Comparison Value/
Total # Samples
Background Concentration Range (g/L) Comparison Value
(g/L) Source
Aluminum 58,000 1/1 -- NA -- --
Barium 56 1/1 0/1 NA 700 RMEG
Chromium 47 1/1 -- NA -- Carcinogen
Lead 17 1/1 -- NA -- Carcinogen

g/L - micrograms per liter (parts per billion)
NA - not analyzed
RMEG - Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide
Carcinogen -potential or known cancer-causing agent

Off-site Deep Groundwater - Private Wells

In 1992, EPA collected three off-site deep groundwater samples from private wells east, west, andsouthwest of the site. No chemicals were found at elevated levels. Residents use these wells forirrigation only (EPA 1996).

Other Off-site Media (Sediments, Surface Water, Air, Biota)

As with on-site findings, there is no record of off-site sediments, surface water, air, or biota samplesbeing collected. Again, due to the nature of the soils, the land use (residential apartments) andcontaminant of concern (lead is not volatile), these pathways are also of little concern.

Off-site Industries or NPL Sites

There are ten NPL sites in Hillsborough County. The closest NPL site to Normandy Park Apartmentsis Tri-City Oil, just over a mile away. From 1960-1975, Tri-City Oil was a heating oil business. From1978-1983, it operated as a waste oil storage and distribution center. EPA cleaned up the heavy metalcontamination of soil at Tri-City Oil, and removed the site from the NPL in 1988 (EPA 1992e). It isunlikely that activities at Tri-City Oil affected the Normandy Park Apartments site.

Our search of the Toxics Release Inventory database between 1987-1993 for the 33617 zip code areafound only one facility reporting emissions to the environment. This facility is about 0.8 miles awayfrom the site. The chemicals released from this facility are different from contaminants found at the site(TRI 1995).

C. Quality Assurance and Quality Control

We had quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) information for seven of the 13 data sets we usedin the public health assessment. The QA/QC results we had for two EPA data sets indicated theiranalytical results were reliable. The QA/QC results we had for GCR data suggested there might beproblems with some of their analytical results. However, the GCR results for the range of leadconcentrations in the two data sets were consistent with the range of lead data from other reports. A detailed QA/QC analysis can be found in Appendix C.

D. Physical and Other Hazards

FDOH staff did not observe any physical hazards on the old portion of the site (FHRS 1992b, 1993,1995c, 1995e). The storm water pond on the lot south of the southern complex is deep and has steepsides (FHRS 1995e). Drowning could be a potential physical hazard if someone were to accidentallyfall into the pond. However, as long as the fence around the pond is kept in good repair, and the gate locked, the possibility of someone drowning in the pond seems remote.


PATHWAYS ANALYSES

Contact with hazardous substances is a critical component to assessing the public health significanceof a site. Exposure is another name for contact with a substance. Chemical contaminants in the environment may have the potential to harm human health. However, human health can only beaffected if people are exposed to the contaminants. Exposure to chemicals can occur in three ways: byingestion (eating or drinking a substance); by inhalation (breathing in a contaminant); or by skin contactincluding absorption of a chemical through the skin. These ways of being exposed are called exposureroutes.

To determine if people have been, are, or might be exposed to contaminants found at a site, FDOHevaluates the environmental and human components of exposure pathways. An exposure pathwayconsists of five elements: a source of contamination, a mode of transport through an environmentalmedium (that is, soil, water or air), a point of exposure, a route of human exposure, and an exposedpopulation.

We categorize exposure pathways as completed, potential, or eliminated. We call a pathway completedif all five elements exist and exposure to a contaminant has occurred, is occurring, or will occur. Wecall a pathway potential if at least one of the five elements is missing, but could exist. We eliminate anexposure pathway if at least one of the five elements is missing and will never be present.

Chemical contaminants in the environment at Normandy Park Apartments have the potential to harmthe residents' health. However, the residents may not be exposed to all contaminants found at this site. For Normandy Park residents, ingestion (intentionally or unintentionally eating soil) and inhalation(breathing contaminated dust) are the most likely exposure routes. Lead, the contaminant of concern,is not known to penetrate intact skin.

The following sections describe various pathways that existed in the past, are currently present, or maybe present in the future. For the purposes of this health assessment, only surface soils, battery casingchips, and dust are completed pathways. Currently, residents have little contact with soils deeper thansix inches. Drinking water for the apartment complex is supplied by the City of Temple Terrace soresidents are not exposed to contaminants found in shallow ground water.

In the past, through their daily work activities, former plant workers at the site were probably exposedto contaminants found in lead-acid batteries through incidental (accidental) ingestion. Because the planthad a smelter, workers also may have been exposed to lead vapors. Although several exposurepathways are likely to have been completed for former workers, we do not have the environmentalinformation necessary to estimate exposure concentrations or evaluate their health significance. Therefore, we restrict the focus of this public health assessment to the exposure pathways affecting residents of the apartments.

A. Completed Exposure Pathways

For a summary of the completed exposure pathways at this site, refer to Table 6, Appendix B.

Surface Soil Pathway (0-3 and 0-6 Inches Deep)

In the past, apartment residents were exposed to lead in surface soils at the site. Young children (0-6years), in particular, were potentially exposed to lead in surface soils as they played outside and dug inand around the old playground area. Exposure to lead in the surface soil may have occurred viaincidental ingestion and dust inhalation.

Exposure to soils as deep as six inches probably occurred while digging. In a recent site visit, there wasno evidence that residents were digging in the soil (FHRS 1995e, FDOH 1998b). Site owners informthe residents about lead in the soil when they rent apartments at the site (FHRS 1995e, GCR 1995b). Residents have asked about using site soils for gardening (FHRS 1995e) and have been advised aboutthe potential health risks. Residents should be discouraged from digging or gardening in the soilbecause we do not know if contaminants in deeper soil could accumulate in vegetables.

In the future, if on-site digging were to occur, residents could be exposed to lead and other contaminants.

Presently, the areas with the highest lead concentrations in soil are covered by concrete, asphalt, ordecking. Exposure to these soils is very unlikely. Areas of low lead concentration are well vegetated.

Therefore, exposure to these surface soils is significantly reduced. There are some bare soil areas,however, we do not expect that the levels of lead in these areas present a health threat.

Accessible Battery Casing Chip Waste Pathway

In the past, apartment residents had contact with battery casing chips that were on or near the groundsurface. Young children dug battery casing pieces out of the ground and played with them (HCEPC1991, FDER 1992f, FHRS 1995b). Through this play, young children were exposed to lead on thechips via incidental ingestion. Because the battery casing chips have been mixed with the soil, exposureto this material is possible for residents playing in bare, nonremediated areas in the present or future. No battery chips were observed during our last on-site visit (FDOH 1998b).

Dust (Indoor and Outdoor) Pathway

Site soils are sandy with a mixture of organic matter (FHRS 1995e). Lead may adhere to the organicportion of the soil and form dust. This seems particularly likely if residents or pets track soil particlesinto their homes from outside. Dust samples collected from 16 apartments showed measurable levels(range <10 to 170 micro grams per square foot ) of lead on some window sills and carpets tested (ATE1997a, 1997b). The indoor lead testing was done in conjunction with lead analysis of miniblinds ineach of the 16 apartments. The testing did not differentiate between lead dust tracked into the apartmentor lead dust from the miniblinds. In the past, residents may have been exposed to contaminated dust viainhalation prior to removal of lead-containing miniblinds. It is possible that residents are exposed to lowlevels of contaminated dust from tracking soil into the apartment. However, dust sampling indicatedthat the lead levels in the apartments tested were within federal guidelines. Exposure to contaminateddust may increase if contaminated soils are uncovered, disturbed, or removed during clean up activitiesat the site.

Although all lead-containing miniblinds have been removed (GCR 1998), apartments, especially carpetsand floors should be throughly cleaned on a regular basis. To reduce the amount of dust in the homesfrom exterior soils, parents should restrict the play activities of their children to areas covered with grass,or capped by cement pads or wood decking, or to the playground where casing chips and contaminatedsoils are less accessible. Residents should remove their shoes before entering the apartment and washtheir hands and faces after playing on apartment grounds, and especially before eating. Parents should ensure that young children follow these clean up practices.

B. Potential Exposure Pathways

We categorize the following exposure pathways as potential because there is no existing point ofexposure or no environmental data measuring contaminant amounts. Without these data, we cannotfully evaluate the contribution of each potential pathway to the residents' total exposure. For a summaryof the potential exposure pathways at this site, refer to Table 7, Appendix B.

Deep Subsurface Soil Pathway (More than 6 Inches Deep)

Eleven contaminants exist in soils and battery chip casings found in subsurface soils. Nine of the 11contaminants have their highest measured concentrations in deep subsurface soils. Ground penetratingradar has identified buried debris (probably battery casing chips) at depths greater than one foot acrossthe site (OHM 1992a, 1992c). Currently, apartment residents are not exposed to these contaminants. Apartment residents may be exposed to contaminants in deep subsurface soils if future site remediationactivities involve digging up buried soils. Should excavation occur, residents may be exposed to thesecontaminants via incidental ingestion and dust inhalation.

Biota Pathway

FDOH staff did not observe residents growing vegetables in porch gardens (FHRS 1995e, FDOH1998b). However, if residents were to grow vegetables using on-site soils, they could be exposed to thecontaminants in deeper soil that accumulate in plants, especially arsenic, cadmium (if present), andvanadium (ATSDR 1992f, 1993b, 1993c). Plant uptakes of these metals depends on the soil type, soil pH (a measure of acidity and alkalinity), and plant species grown.

To avoid this potential exposure, apartment residents should not use on-site soils for growing vegetables or other edible foods.

C. Eliminated Pathways

We eliminated the following exposure pathways from consideration:

Shallow Groundwater Pathway

People in Temple Terrace use municipal water from the deep Floridan aquifer for potable purposes(drinking, cooking, bathing, etc.). Some Temple Terrace residents may use shallow wells for irrigation,but exposure to contaminants from this use is unlikely to be significant. Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate wasonly found in shallow groundwater and there is no past or current exposure point for this substance.

Site owners currently use municipal water to irrigate the complex's vegetation. In the past, site ownersused an on-site irrigation well of unknown depth for this purpose. However, since the contaminantsfound in the shallow ground water are not absorbed through the skin, it seems unlikely apartmentresidents were exposed to significant amounts from this well when it was in use.

Deep Groundwater

Studies show that lead can move from sites' subsurface soils and enter the ground water (OHM 1992a,EEC 1994b). This is presumably how the shallow ground water became contaminated. If a connectionbetween the shallow and the deep aquifer exists, contaminants from the shallow aquifer could migrateto the deeper aquifer. However, the most recent ground water investigations beneath the site found thepresence of a confining unit (clay) between the shallow and deep aquifer systems (AT&E 1996a). Theconfining unit prevents contaminants from moving from the shallow to the deep aquifer. The City ofTemple Terrace has municipal wells ¼-½ miles east-northeast of the site in the Floridan aquifer (FDER1992c, 1992d, 1993e). To ensure that the quality of the drinking water remains safe, the City ofTemple Terrace should continue to meet the regulatory standards for drinking water monitoring andquality.

Sediment and Surface Water Pathway

Because site soils are very sandy, storm water is likely to percolate through the ground rather thancarrying sediment to a surface water body. During two site visits, FHRS staff observed little stormwater ponding on site after a rain (FHRS 1995c, 1995e). The storm water falling on the remediatedsouthern courtyard is diverted to a storm water pond designed specifically for this site. There is a well-maintained fence around this storm water pond which is kept locked (FHRS 1995e, GCR 1998). Residents are unlikely to have contact with significant quantities of on-site sediment.


PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS

In this section, we discuss the risk of illness and possible health effects for persons exposed to specificcontaminants, evaluate state and local health databases, and address specific community healthconcerns. For this discussion, it is helpful to understand the contaminant selection process (seeAppendix C), toxicological evaluation methods (see Appendix D), and concepts of risk of illness, dose-response, threshold values, and uncertainty (see Appendix E) that were used to select lead as the contaminant of concern.

A. Toxicological Evaluation For Lead

Methodology

In this subsection, we examine exposure levels and discuss possible health effects that might occur inpeople exposed to lead at the site. To evaluate exposure, we estimated the daily dose of lead thatchildren and adult residents at the site might experience.

Children and adults differ in the amount of exposure and physiological reactions to a chemical becausesome body functions work differently in adults and children. Also, young children may be moreexposed to soils and battery chips through play and hand to mouth behavior. Because of thesedifferences, we estimated contaminant doses for two hypothetical individuals: a young child (0-6 yearsold) and an adult. To calculate the daily dose of lead, we used standard assumptions about body weight,ingestion and inhalation rates, exposure time length, and other factors needed for dose calculations foradults and young children (Table 9, Appendix B). In our dose estimates for adults and children, weused the maximum measured concentrations in the environment to estimate past exposure.

The southern courtyard decking now covers the soil with the maximum measured lead concentration.Therefore, as an estimate of present-day exposure, we calculated lead exposure for adults and childrenat the maximum measured concentration in surface soil in the area of the middle and northern courtyard. We also included indoor and outdoor dust exposures. We could not use the indoor air sampling datain our calculations. The air data was not comparable with the soil data so we used the maximummeasured lead concentrations in the surface soils found in the northern and middle courtyards. By usingthis worst case scenario exposure, we are over-estimating the likelihood of the lead in dust exposure.

We evaluated potential noncancer and cancer health effects separately. To evaluate possiblenoncancerous health effects from our dose estimates, we compared our estimated doses to contaminant-specific health values, when those existed. When health values did not exist, we compared our estimateddoses to experimental doses used in animal studies or to estimated doses observed in human studies. There is not enough information to determine an individual's additional risk of developing cancer overa lifetime after exposure to lead.

There is uncertainty in our risk estimates, meaning, most calculations are over-estimates of realexposure levels. We've incorporated uncertainties into this public health assessment by using worst-caseassumptions when estimating or interpreting health risks, and by using health values with wide safetymargins. For lead, this means the actual risk of illness may be lower than we suggest, but is unlikelyto be higher.

Health effects are influenced not only by exposure dose (how much), but also by exposure duration(how long), and exposure route (breathing, eating and drinking, or skin contact). Also, individualcharacteristics such as age, sex, diet, general health, life style, chemical exposure history and geneticscan influence how a specific individual absorbs, distributes, and metabolizes a chemical. All of thesefactors must be considered in estimating possible health effects from a contaminant.

We present a summary of our findings regarding lead exposure at Normandy Park Apartments site. General information about lead can be found in Appendix F.

Lead Exposure

Summary - As indicated in the exposure pathway section, residents have been exposed to lead in surface soil and, to a lesser extent, indoor and outdoor dust. Exposure is still possible in the present, but the risk of adverse health effects from lead is greatly reduced. The concrete, decking, and vegetative cover greatly reduce the areas where residents may be exposed to contaminated soil. The soil that is not covered by decking or concrete has lower lead concentration levels that do not appear to be a risk to public health.

Toxicological studies indicate residents' past exposure to lead by inhalation and ingestion could haveaffected their health. However, the blood lead levels of residents, including about 20 young children,indicate adverse noncancer health effects from past exposures were unlikely. This discrepancy couldbe caused by our over-estimating the exposure doses, or by residents' changing their behavior to reducetheir lead exposure prior to blood testing, or by both. We do not know what blood lead levels in youngchildren were prior to the publicity about lead at the site. Currently, the areas where the highest leadlevels in the soil were found are now covered by concrete and wood decking. Areas of lower leadconcentration are covered by grass and mulch. We believe that the concrete, decking, grass, and mulchprovide a barrier between people and contaminated soil to the extent that there is no apparent publichealth threat at this time. However, there are some bare, un-remediated areas which may present asource of lead contamination. Soil sampling data suggest that there are some areas slightly above EPA'sstandard of 400 mg/kg no risk lead concentration (EPA 1992 and Weston reports). Nevertheless, pasttesting of some of the apartment resident's blood-lead levels and indoor dust sampling indicate that theresidents do not appear to be at risk at this time from surface soil and dust provided that the groundcover (concrete, deck, grass, and mulch) remain in place.

Although there is extensive information on noncancer illnesses caused by lead exposure, there is littleinformation regarding lead's ability to cause cancer in humans. Information is not available, at this time,to estimate the potential cancer risk from past or present exposure to lead at the site.

Site-specific Noncancer Health Effects
Residents may have been exposed to lead through incidental ingestion and inhalation of dust. The areas with highest lead concentrations are now covered. However, lead exposure may continue at lower levels in the present and future. Below, we discuss the possible health effects from past and present exposure to lead, based on studies in the toxicological literature

Past Exposures

For past exposure to lead in dust, the inhalation doses we estimated for residents of all ages are closeto doses found to affect blood formation in a group of test volunteers. In a 1975 study, adult malessuffered a 20% decrease in an enzyme (ALAD) necessary to make normal red blood cells, but wereotherwise healthy (ATSDR 1993e). The use of adult males in this study places important limitationson our interpretations because young children are more sensitive than adults to the lead they absorb, andlead can cross the placenta in pregnant women and affect unborn babies (ATSDR 1993e). The healtheffects on these subgroups have the potential to have been more serious than the effects found in the1975 study.

For past exposure to lead in surface soil, the incidental ingestion doses we estimated for adults andyoung children may have reduced the level of an enzyme (ALAD) necessary to make normal red bloodcells. The ingestion dose of lead we estimated for adults is similar to the doses female and male adultvolunteers ingested in 1974 and 1976 studies. These volunteers suffered decreases in the ALADenzyme, but were otherwise healthy (ATSDR 1993e). It is not known if pregnant women participatedin these studies. The past ingestion doses we estimated for young children are ten times greater than thedoses affecting the ALAD enzyme of adult volunteers in the studies. The use of adults only in thestudies is important because children absorb more lead from the intestinal tract than adults, and childrenare more sensitive than adults to the lead that is absorbed. In addition, lead in the bloodstream ofpregnant women can cross the placenta and affect developing babies (ATSDR 19933e). Consequently,the effects on these subgroups may have been more serious.

Present Day Exposure
For present-day exposure to lead in dust, the inhalation doses we estimated for adults and young children are far below the doses found to affect blood formation in studies of adult males (ATSDR 1993e). However, our present-day dose estimates consider outside surface soil as the only source of dust. We do not know how much lead-contaminated dirt or dust may have remained in residents' homes from past activities when the lead concentrations were higher. Furthermore, because the apartments were built prior to 1978, dust inhalation from lead-based paint may be an additional source of lead exposure as well as lead-containing miniblinds which were reported to have been removed in 1996 (ATE 1997a, ATE 1997b, FDOH 1998b).

For present-day exposure, we reviewed the distribution of lead in surface soil in uncapped areas. Wefound that average concentration of lead in the upper six inches of soil in these areas is 246 ppm,significantly less than EPA's 400 ppm no risk level. However, while there are some elevated levels,because contamination is not uniform across the site, exposures to levels above 400 ppm are unlikelyto occur every time a person is exposed.

Children and Other Sensitive Populations
We also consider that children are more sensitive to the effects of lead than adults. Children may be exposed to lead when playing or digging in these soils, but the majority of the surface soils are below 400 mg/kg and mainly covered by grass and mulch. Because the lead concentrations are low and most of the area is vegetated, we do not expect exposures will cause adverse health effects.

At high lead exposures, lead can cause premature birth, smaller babies, decreased intelligent quotientand damage to the male reproductive system in adults, and brain and kidney damage in both childrenand adults (ATSDR 1993e). We do not know how much lead will cause these effects, but the Centersfor Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that children's blood lead levels not exceed 10micrograms per deciliter.

Through their hand-to-mouth behavior, young children may ingest lead from sources such as lead-basedpaint and lead in dirt or dust on the floor. For this reason, we recommend blood lead testing in youngchildren to confirm that lead ingestion is not a problem.

Pregnant women, the elderly, smokers, alcoholics, and people with diseases affecting blood formation,nutrient uptake, and nerve or kidney function may be more susceptible to the toxic effects of leadexposure. We do not expect that these sensitive populations will be affected by the low leadconcentrations found in the unremediated soils.

Site-specific Blood Lead Monitoring - In 1992, the Hillsborough County Public Health Unit andprivate physicians tested the blood lead levels in about 45 adults and 20 children (six years old oryounger) living in the Normandy Park Apartments. Most of the blood lead levels were less than 10micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood (FHRS 1992a). These people were tested before GCR cappedareas with the highest lead contamination. Based on these blood lead levels, noncancerous health effectsare unlikely. Blood lead levels before 1992, however, may have been higher.

There was a discrepancy between what we expected to find in the blood lead levels and in the actual results. The toxicological literature suggests adverse health effects may be associated with lead exposure in the past at the site, yet the measured blood lead levels indicate there were no undue exposures to this contaminant. There are two possible reasons why the blood lead levels may have been lower than predicted. First, we may have overestimated the exposure doses for lead. To calculate our doses, we used the maximum surface soil lead concentration measured and assumed all residents were exposed to this maximum concentration. Residents may have been exposed to a lower dose, giving lower blood lead levels than estimated. Similarly, the pre-1992 residents may have behaved in ways on their own to reduce their exposure to surface soil or dust. For example, they may have had less hand-to-mouth behavior than assumed, and consequently ingested less soil, leading to lower exposure doses than we estimated. Second, residents may have behaved and been exposed as assumed in the dose calculations, but changed their behaviors to reduce exposure before the blood lead testing began. HCEPC received the initial complaint in August 1991 (HCEPC 1991a), and the blood testing began in January 1992 (FHRS 1992a). Since the half-life of lead in the blood is about a month (ATSDR 1993e), there could have been up to a 96% decrease in the amount of lead in residents' blood in the intervening five months. We do not know what blood lead levels in young children were prior to the publicity about lead at the site. Results from blood lead tests only provide information about a person's lead uptake for a short time prior to the test. The tests cannot determine past exposures or what future exposure might be.

B. Health Outcome Data Evaluation

For this study period, none of the four race-gender groups had significantly higher cancer incidence,indicating there is not an unusual cancer incidence in the area around the site (FHRS 1995f).

To evaluate cancer incidence near the site, FDOH epidemiologists evaluated cancer incidence recordedin the Florida Cancer Data System (FCDS). FCDS is an FDOH program operated under contract bythe University of Miami School of Medicine. FCDS records all cancer occurrences, except basal celland squamous cell skin cancers, reported by Florida hospitals from 1981 - present. However, the timerequired for FCDS data verification procedures cause delays in the availability of reliable data. Consequently, FDOH epidemiologists analyzed FCDS data for 1981 -1990 for this public healthassessment.

The following is a brief explanation of the process used in making the no increased cancer incidencedetermination:

Because the site is on the eastern boundary of its census tract and is close to three other census tracts,FDOH epidemiologists examined the cancer incidence in the following four census tracts in FCDS: 1(the tract containing the site), 107, 108.04, and 109 (Figure 13, Appendix A). We assumed people inthese census tracts were at risk of exposure to site contaminants; this most likely occurred when theformer recycling facility operated the lead smelter. However, we do not know the exposureconcentrations or durations because there are no environmental data from the time of facility operation.

FCDS records cancer incidence by cancer site, the place in the human body where cancer occurs. Toidentify the cancer sites relevant for study, we selected cancer sites in human and animal studiesassociated with the contaminants of concern considered known or suspected cancer-causing agents(ATSDR 1993b, 1993d, 1993e; IRIS 1995). These cancer sites were: stomach; liver; nasal cavity,ear and sinuses; lung and bronchus; bladder; and kidney and renal pelvis.

The FDOH analysis used the standardized incidence ratio (SIR) to examine these six cancer sites forfour race-gender groups (white female, white male, nonwhite female and nonwhite male). The analysiscompared reported cases of cancer in the four census tracts of interest (the observed population) withreported cancer cases for all census tracts in Florida (the reference population) in each group. The ratioof (the observed cases X 100) to (the reference population) is the SIR number used in the analysis. From the SIR numbers, FDOH epidemiologists calculated a 95% confidence interval for the distributionof SIR numbers at each cancer site. When the SIR number and the lower bound of the 95% confidenceare both greater than 100, the cancer incidence is significantly higher in the observed population than in the reference population.

C. Community Health Concerns Evaluation

In this subsection, we address the community health concerns in terms of our findings presented in theToxicological Evaluation subsection above. In general, residents are concerned about how they mightbe exposed to lead, and how likely they are to become ill from incidental exposures.

We address each community health concern as follows:

  1. How am I likely to be exposed to lead?
  2. There are three ways residents are likely to be exposed to lead. First, residents may be exposedto lead by incidental ingestion of surface soil. Residents who play on bare ground or dig up sitesoils are more likely to be exposed to contaminants of concern (including lead) than residentswho play in grassy areas, on the capped areas, or in the playground. Second, residents or petscan accidentally track site soils into their apartments, where children may ingest contaminantsof concern in dirt on the floor through hand-to-mouth behavior. Some soil particles may becomeairborne, and residents may be exposed to contaminants through inhalation or incidentalingestion of household dust. Third, since the apartment complex was built in the early 1970s,there may be lead-based paint in the buildings. Children can be exposed to lead by eating lead-based paint chips directly. All residents may be exposed to lead in lead-based paint dust by inhalation or incidental ingestion, especially in areas where the paint is peeling or where the paint has been abraded.

  3. If the lead recycling operation took place 30 years ago, can there still be enough lead in the soil to affect my health?
  4. It is unlikely that the levels of lead in the soil will cause a problem. The areas that are notcovered by asphalt, concrete, or decking have levels of lead that are not expected to cause healthconcerns. If the ground is dug up, or the concrete is removed, residents could be exposed to soils with higher concentrations of lead that could be a health concern.

  5. Is it safe to dig/garden in the soil?
  6. Residents should not dig or garden in the soil. Children who wish to dig should do so only inthe sandbox, which is designed to prevent contact with site soils. Currently, lead tends to occurin higher concentrations as one digs deeper into the ground. Exposure to deeper soils probablywould increase the amount of lead a person incidentally ingests. In addition, arsenic, cadmium, and vanadium may accumulate in vegetables grown in site soils.

  7. Can walking across the site make someone sick?
  8. No. A person must have direct contact with significant quantities of hazardous substances tobecome ill from walking across a site. Exposure to significant quantities of contaminants ofconcern is unlikely for residents walking across the Normandy Park Apartments site because most of the site is covered with vegetation, concrete, asphalt, or wood decking. Also, none of the contaminants of concern form a gas that residents will breathe (volatile).

  9. Are pets affected by lead in the same ways that people are?
  10. Experimental studies show animals can be adversely affected by inhalation or ingestion of leadin ways similar to humans. We did not find any references to studies of cats. However, onestudy of dogs found long-term lead ingestion adversely affected this animal's kidneys and blood formation abilities (ATSDR 1993e).

Next Section      Table of Contents

  
 
USA.gov: The U.S. Government's Official Web PortalDepartment of Health and Human Services
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 4770 Buford Hwy NE, Atlanta, GA 30341
Contact CDC: 800-232-4636 / TTY: 888-232-6348

A-Z Index

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
  7. G
  8. H
  9. I
  10. J
  11. K
  12. L
  13. M
  14. N
  15. O
  16. P
  17. Q
  18. R
  19. S
  20. T
  21. U
  22. V
  23. W
  24. X
  25. Y
  26. Z
  27. #