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

HEALTH CONSULTATION

TUTTLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
SARASOTA, SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA


PURPOSE

In May 2000 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asked for assistance from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). EPA asked ATSDR to review environmental data collected at the Tuttle Elementary School (TES) in Sarasota, Florida. Specifically, EPA asked ATSDR to review data from the May 31, 2000, draft Site Inspection Report and the February 29, 2000, Response Engineering and Analytical Contract (REAC) report. EPA asked ATSDR to determine if a public health hazard exists at this school. In June 2000, ATSDR requested the Florida Department of Health (FDOH) to review the data in these two reports. This health consultation will determine if there is a public health concern based on air, soil, sediment, and surface water data. This health consultation does not evaluate the public health concern from methane at this site. The public health concern from methane was evaluated in a previous FDOH health consultation dated September 8, 2000.

The ATSDR provides the financial support for this health consultation report.


RATIONALE

This health consultation determines if there is a public health concern due to exposure to indoor air,surface soil (0-6" deep), sediment, and surface water. This health consultation does not evaluate soildeeper than 6" because children are unlikely to be exposed to soil deeper than 6". Since the school issupplied with municipal water from an uncontaminated source, we did not consider ingestion of on-site groundwater. We also did not evaluate soil gas data because ambient air data were available and are more relevant to public health.


SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY

Tuttle Elementary School is at 925 North Brink Avenue, Sarasota, Sarasota County, Florida (Figure1 and 2). The school has 74 faculty members and 954 students. The campus consists of about 17acres bordered by Tuttle Avenue, Eighth Street, North Brink Avenue, and Tenth Street . It isbounded by unimproved land to the north and by residential properties to the south, east, and west(Figure 3). Storm water runoff from the school property flows north to a large retention pond(Figure 4).

Before the 1940s, part of the school's property was wetlands. In the1950s, this wetland was used asa municipal landfill. No information is available regarding the nature of materials deposited in thelandfill. The landfill was covered with an unspecified thickness of soil and Sarasota Countypurchased the property.

Prior to the construction of the new Tuttle School in 1999, Sarasota County School Board'sconsultants conducted several investigations of the Tuttle property. They found the following:

  • The approximate area of the main landfill was determined to be about 7 acres. Asmaller area, about 0.5 acres, of landfill debris was encountered in the northeasterncorner of the site.


  • Landfill debris extended from about 4 to 9 feet below ground surface (bgs).


  • Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, barium, cadmium, chromium, and lead were detected intwo surface soil composite samples at levels below the Florida residential cleanupstandard.


  • Low levels of hydrogen sulfide, ranging from 0 to 4 parts per million (ppm), weredetected in off-site and on-site sewer manholes. In addition, hydrogen sulfide levelsin the interior of the buildings ranged from 0 to 1 ppm. School Board consultantsconcluded that these gas levels could be attributed to a nearby sewer lift station.

In 1999, the Sarasota County School Board constructed a new school, soccer field, softball field,and playground over the landfill as an addition to the existing school (Figure 4). The school boardinstalled a venting system under the new school building slab to prevent accumulation of methanegas generated by the landfill.

In September 1999, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) recommended further investigation under CERCLA because students come in direct contact with the soil on the playground.

During the week of December 19, 1999, EPA consultants conducted a Site Inspection (SI). Basedon the data previously collected by the County's consultants, EPA's consultants identified an oldmunicipal landfill as a potential source of contamination. The potential source area, based onprevious investigations, is approximately 6.5 acres of the property used as a landfill in the 1950s (Tetra Tech 2000).

During the week of December 19, 1999, EPA's consultants collected 6 surface soil samples, 6 subsurface soil samples, 4 groundwater samples, 6 surface water samples, 8 sediment samples, and 10 air samples at the TES. These sampling locations are shown in Figure 5. Sampling results are included in Tables I, II, and III.

EPA consultants designed the December 1999 air sampling program to determine the concentrationsand nature of gases generated by the landfill. In January 2000, EPA consultants made fluxmeasurements of the gases that may have been migrating through the landfill cover. They also madeportable classroom measurements in January 2000.

In January 2000, EPA consultants collected over 30 air samples for volatile organic compounds (VOC) analysis using various sampling methods, including Flux sampling, Tedlar bag sampling, and SUMMA® grab sampling. They collected samples from portable classrooms, gas vents, gas wells, the courtyard, and the northern parking lot. Sampling locations are shown in Figure 6. Sampling results from the portable classrooms are included in Table IV.

In May 2000, a teacher at the school contacted EPA and expressed concerns about possible illnessesrelated to the new elementary school which had been constructed, in part, over the same landfill.


DISCUSSION

To select contaminants for further evaluation, FDOH compared the maximum level of eachchemical detected during air, soil, sediment, and surface water data sampling with ATSDRscreening values. Screening values include EMEGs (environmental media evaluation guidelines),RMEGs (reference dose media evaluation guidelines), and CREGs (Cancer risk evaluation guide fora one-in-one-million excess cancer risk). Screening values are not predictive of health effects. Screening values are only used to select contaminants for further evaluation. Each screening valueis based on levels that are low enough so that concentrations below those levels are unlikely to causeillness. The screening values are derived to protect the most sensitive members of the population. Contaminant concentrations below screening values are unlikely to pose a public health concernand, therefore, are not evaluated further. Contaminants detected above the screening value areevaluated further by estimating a dose and comparing the dose to health guidelines. Contaminantswithout ATSDR screening values were compared with the Florida Department of EnvironmentalProtection screening guidelines. Maximum contaminant concentrations and appropriate screeningvalues are listed in Tables I through V.

Land Disposal/Soil Contamination

Land disposal has been the method of choice for centuries, mainly due to economic reasons, for mostof our municipal waste and much of our industrial waste. Land disposal units include pits, ponds,lagoons, landfills, septic lines, land treatment facilities, and open dumps. While these disposalpractices differ greatly, each procedure may result in the placement of hazardous constituents indirect contact with the soil. The presence of hazardous chemicals in the soil represents a potentialsource of a continuing release to other environmental media including air, surface water, andgroundwater (Donnelly 1994). For example, organic vapors are capable of moving considerabledistances both vertically and horizontally in the soil. Organic chemicals may be released from soilsinto surface waters by dissolution into runoff water or by adsorption onto soil particles (Donnelly1994).

Landfill Gas Characteristics

Landfill gas is composed of a mixture of different gases. Typically, landfill gases are composed of about 50% carbon dioxide and 50% methane, by volume. Landfill gases also contain a smaller percentage of nitrogen, oxygen, ammonia, sulfides, hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and nonmethane organic compounds (NMOCs) such as trichloroethylene, benzene, and vinyl chloride. Landfill gases are produced by three processes-bacterial decomposition, volatilization, and chemical reactions. The rate and volume of landfill gas produced at a specific site depend on the composition and age of the refuse, and the presence of oxygen, moisture content, and temperature in the landfill.

Landfill gas expands to fill whatever space is available. Once gas is produced in a landfill, the gasbegins to move or "migrate." The movement of landfill gas creates health and safety concerns whenthe gas enters buildings and other confined areas such as utility corridors. Densely compacted wasteor a landfill cap can inhibit upward movement of landfill gas. When upward movement is inhibited,the gas tends to migrate horizontally to other areas within the landfill or to areas outside the landfillwhere it can resume its upward path. Other gases, such as carbon dioxide, are denser than air andcan collect in subsurface areas such as utility corridors.

Age and disposal history of landfill waste generate significant differences in landfill gas generation and movement of gas within the landfill. Sanitary and vegetative wastes disposed in the oldest portion of a landfill may be past peak landfill gas production while wastes disposed immediately before closure may not have reached peak production rates. The concentration and movement of landfill gas can change rapidly (in a matter of hours) in response to changes in atmospheric and subsurface conditions. Higher atmospheric pressures can inhibit upward movement of landfill gases. Rainfall can saturate pore spaces in surface soils, thereby reducing vertical movement and increasing horizontal movement. Rising flood waters in adjacent rivers or daily tidal fluctuations in adjacent estuaries may cause a temporary rise in water table levels, displacing landfill gases upward and outward. Infrequent monitoring of landfill gases may miss such rapid changes or lead to misinterpretations of site-specific conditions (ATSDR 2000b).

Inhalation of Landfill Gas

The severity of adverse health effects associated with exposure to landfill gases depends on thecomposition, concentration, and duration of inhalation of gases. Landfill gas odors are produced bythe mixtures of sulfides, ammonia, and other gases. Odors can cause symptoms such as headaches ornausea. Typically, these effects are reversed when the odor is eliminated.

Evaluation of indoor and outdoor air data:

Air data are presented in Tables I and II. EPA consultants collected air samples using fluxsampling, Tedlar® bag sampling, and SUMMA® grab sampling. FDOH did not evaluate theTedlar® bag sampling because the bags were defective. EPA consultants collected the air data inTable I using SUMMA® canisters over an 8-hour time period. Air data from Table II were fromSUMMA® grab samples collected within a 5-minute time frame. EPA consultants analyzed allcollected air samples for volatile organic compounds.

The air samples collected in portable classroom #7 and the administration building containedbenzene at concentrations above the ATSDR comparison value (ATSDR 2000). Carbontetrachloride samples collected in the mechanical room were also above the ATSDR comparisonvalue. All other air contaminant concentrations were below ATSDR comparison values. Ourestimate of a child's maximum exposure to benzene for acute inhalation exposure (<14 days) is 100times less than the Minimal Risk Level (MRL). An MRL is an estimate of daily exposure (by aspecified route and length of time) to a dose of chemical that is likely to be without a measurablerisk of adverse, noncancerous effects. For intermediate inhalation exposure (15-364 days), ourestimate is 10 times less than the MRL. For chronic inhalation exposure (>365 days), our estimate is500 times less than the cancer effect level (CEL) for humans (ATSDR 1997).

Our estimate of a child's maximum exposure to carbon tetrachloride for acute inhalation exposure(<14 days) is 1,000 times less than the MRL. For intermediate inhalation exposure, our estimate is400 times less than the MRL. For chronic inhalation exposure (>365 days), our estimate is 100,000times less than the NOAEL (ATSDR 1994).

Therefore, using these estimates, the measured concentrations of air contaminants are not considered to be a public health concern for children or teachers at the Tuttle Elementary School.

Evaluation of surface soil data:

Surface soil data are presented in Table III. Of all the soil samples taken from the elementary school,only arsenic and dieldrin results were greater than ATSDR's screening values. For soil ingestionexposure doses, we used a body weight of 16 kilograms for a child, ingesting 200 milligrams of soil per day.

Our estimate of a child's exposure to arsenic for acute oral ingestion (<14 days) is 100 times lessthan the LOAEL. For intermediate exposure (15-364 days), our estimate is 90 times less than theNOAEL. For chronic exposure (>365 days), our estimate is seven times less than the MRL(ATSDR 1998). Therefore, oral ingestion of arsenic at this calculated dose is not likely to be a public health concern.

Our estimate of a child's exposure to dieldrin for acute oral ingestion (<14 days) is five times lessthan the MRL. For intermediate exposure (15-364 days), our estimate is 100 times less than theNOAEL. For chronic exposure (>365 days), our estimate is two times less than the MRL(ATSDR 1993). Therefore, oral ingestion of dieldrin at this estimated dose is not likely to cause ahealth hazard, and the detected soil contaminants are not considered to be a public health concern tochildren or teachers at the Tuttle Elementary School.

Many of the VOCs found in the soil do not have ATSDR comparison values. In addition, many ofthe miscellaneous extractables are unknown compounds for which there is insufficient toxicologicalinformation.

Evaluation of sediment data:

Sediment data are presented in Table IV. Of all the sediment samples taken from the elementaryschool the week of December 19, 1999, none of the laboratory results exceeded ATSDR's screeningvalues. Therefore, measured concentrations of contaminants in sediments are not at levels of publichealth concern for children or teachers at Tuttle Elementary School.

Evaluation of surface water data:

Surface water sample data are presented in Table V. Although it is unlikely that a child will ingestwater from the wet retention pond on the school grounds, we took the conservative approach andevaluated ingestion of water from this pond. EPA consultants detected dieldrin and selenium in thewet retention pond above ATSDR's CREG screening value. All other contaminant concentrationswere below ATSDR comparison values. Our estimate of a child's maximum exposure to dieldrinfor acute oral ingestion (<14 days) is seven times less than the MRL. For intermediate exposure(15-364 days), our estimate is 700 times less than the NOAEL. For chronic exposure (>365 days), our estimate is seven times less than the MRL (ATSDR 1993).

Our estimate of a child's maximum exposure to selenium for acute oral ingestion (<14 days) is 900 times less than the LOAEL. For intermediate exposure (15-364 days), our estimate is 90 times lessthan the LOAEL. For chronic exposure (>365 days), our estimate is nine times less than the MRL(ATSDR 1996). Therefore, based on these estimates, the detected concentration of contaminants insurface water are not at levels of public health concerns to children and teachers at Tuttle Elementary School.


CHILD HEALTH INITIATIVE

Small children may have greater exposures to environmental contaminants than adults. Pound forpound, children drink more water, eat more food, and breathe more air than adults. For example,children in the first six months of life drink seven times as much water per pound as the averageadult. Children's exposure to contaminants in the environment is also greater because they playclose to the ground and exhibit hand to mouth behaviors. The obvious implication forenvironmental health is that children can have much greater "doses" than adults to contaminants thatare present in soil, water, and air (ATSDR 1998b). For these reasons, we gave special consideration to children's health in this health consultation.

Based on the evaluated air, soil, and water data from EPA, excluding methane, this site poses a noapparent public health hazard to the children attending the Tuttle Elementary School.


CONCLUSIONS

Based on the 1999/2000 air, soil, and water environmental data from EPA, this site poses a no apparent public health hazard to the children and teachers at the Tuttle Elementary School. FDOH/ATSDR previously assessed the public health concern from methane at this school in a September 8, 2000, health consultation report.


RECOMMENDATIONS/PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN

If additional environmental information becomes available, the FDOH will, if requested, re-evaluate the implications of environmental contamination at the Tuttle Elementary School..


PREPARERS OF THE REPORT

Susan Bland
Exposure Investigation Coordinator
Florida Department of Health
Bureau of Environmental Epidemiology


ATSDR Technical Project Officer

Debra Gable
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Superfund Site Assessment Branch


REFERENCES

  1. ATSDR 1993. Toxicological Profile for Aldrin/Dieldrin. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.


  2. ATSDR 1994. Toxicological Profile for Carbon Tetrachloride (Update). Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.


  3. ATSDR 1996. Toxicological Profile for Selenium (Update). Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.


  4. ATSDR 1997. Toxicological Profile for Benzene (Update). Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.


  5. ATSDR 1998. Toxicological Profile for Arsenic (Update). Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.


  6. ATSDR 1998b. Guidance on Including Child Health Issues in Division of Health Assessment and Consultation Documents. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Atlanta, GA. July 2, 1998.


  7. ATSDR 2000. Air, Soil and Water Comparison Values (Expires 6/30/00). Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.


  8. ATSDR 2000b. Landfill Gas Primer. 2000.


  9. Donnelly, K.C., Anderson, Cathy, Barbee, Gary and Maenk, Donat 1994. Basic Environmental Toxicology. Soil Toxicology - Chapter 12, page 321, 327 and 328. CRC Press, Incorporated. Boca Rotan, Florida.


  10. Lockheed Martin Technology Services Group 2000a. Trip Report, Tuttle Elementary School. Work Assignment #0122. February 29, 2000.


  11. Lockheed Martin Technology Services Group 2000b. Viking GC/MS Analytical Report, Tuttle Elementary School. February, 2000.


  12. Tetra Tech 2000. Draft Site Inspection, Tuttle Elementary School. TDD No. 04-9910-0012. May 31, 2000.

CERTIFICATION

The Tuttle Elementary School Health Consultation was prepared by the Florida Department ofHealth, Bureau of Environmental Epidemiology, under a cooperative agreement with the Agency forToxic Substances and Disease Registry. It is in accordance with approved methodology andprocedures existing at the time the health consultation was begun.


Debra Gable
Technical Project Officer, SPS, SSAB, DHAC

The Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, ATSDR, has reviewed this healthconsultation, and concurs with its findings.


Richard Gillig
Branch Chief, SPS, SSAB, DHAC, ATSDR


TABLES

Table I.

Maximum Contaminant Concentrations in Indoor and Outdoor Air Samples Taken at Tuttle Elementary School During the Week of 12/19/99
Contaminant Maximum Air ConcentrationLocation ofMaximum AirConcentration*ATSDRScreeningValue** Source of Screening Value
Acetone 32 µg/m3 (13.5 ppb) Administration Building 30,880 µg/m3 (13,000 ppb) Chronic EMEG/child
ATSDR 2000
Benzene 0.98 J µg/m3 (0.31 ppb) Administration Building 0.10 µg/m3 (0.03 ppb) CREG
ATSDR 2000
Carbon Tetrachloride 0.75 J µg/m3 (0.12 ppb)Mechanical Room 0.07 µg/m3 (0.01 ppb) CREG
ATSDR 2000
Chloromethane 2.5 µg/m3 (1.2 ppb)Mechanical Room 103.30 µg/m3 (50.0 ppb) Chronic EMEG/child
ATSDR 2000

Source: Tetra Tech 2000
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
ppb = parts per billion
J = estimated concentration
*Air samples were also taken in the music room and the northern parking lot for these contaminants. Only the maximum concentrations are included in the table. All the samples were collected using SUMMA ® canisters during an 8-hour period, except for the grab sample from the parking lot.
**ATSDR EMEGs, RMEGs, and CREGs are not predictive of health effects. They are only used to select contamination for further evaluation. Also, ATSDR's MRLs, EMEGs and EPA's RfCs may not protect hypersensitive (allergic) individuals.
EMEG - Environmental Media Evaluation Guide--is derived from the ATSDR's Minimal Risk Level (MRL) using standard exposure assumptions, such as ingestion of two liters of water per day and body weight of 70 kg for adults. MRL's are estimates of daily human exposure to a chemical likely to be without an appreciable risk of noncancerous illnesses, generally for a year or longer.
RMEG - Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide--is derived from the EPA's Reference Dose (RfD) using standard exposure assumptions. RfDs are estimates of daily human exposure to a chemical likely to be without an appreciable risk of noncancerous illness, generally for a year or longer.
CREG - Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide--is calculated from the EPA's cancer slope factor and is the contaminant concentration estimated to result in no more than one excess cancer per one million persons exposed over a lifetime.
MRL - Minimal Risk Level--an estimate of daily exposure of a human being to a chemical ( in mg/kg/day) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects (noncarcinogenic) over a specified duration of exposure. MRLs are based on human and animal studies and are reported for acute (<14 days), intermediate (15-364 days), and chronic (>365 days). MRLs are published in ATSDR Toxicological Profiles for specific chemicals.
RfC - Reference Concentration--an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. It can be derived from a NOAEL, LOAEL, or benchmark concentration, with uncertainty factors generally applied to reflect limitations of the data used. Generally used in EPA's noncancer health assessments.


Table II.

Maximum Contaminant Concentrations in Indoor and Outdoor Air Samples Taken at Tuttle Elementary School During January 2000
Contaminant Maximum Air Concentration Location of Maximum Air Concentration* ATSDR Screening Value** Source of Screening Value
Benzene 1.60 µg/m3
(0.5 J ppb)
Portable Classroom #7 0.10 µg/m3
(0.03 ppb)
CREG
ATSDR 2000
Chloromethane 2.07 µg/m3
(1.0 J ppb)
Portable Classroom #7, 12 & 13 103.25 µg/m3
(50.0 ppb)
Chronic EMEG
ATSDR 2000
Ethylbenzene 1.74 µg/m3
(0.4 J ppb)
Portable Classroom # 2 4342 µg/m3
(1000 ppb)
Intermediate EMEG
ATSDR 2000
Toluene 7.54 µg/m3
(2.0 J ppb)
Portable Classroom #7 1507.60 µg/m3 (400 ppb) Chronic EMEG
ATSDR 2000
Trichlorofluoromethane 4.50 µg/m3
(0.8 J ppb)
Portable Classroom #2 & 7 NA _______
Total Xylenes 6.08 µg/m3
(1.4 J ppb)
Portable Classroom #2 434.20 µg/m3
(100 ppb)
Chronic EMEG

Source: Lockheed Martin 2000a
µg/m3= micrograms per cubic meter
ppb= parts per billion
J = Estimated concentration since the air level was below 1.00 nanoliter quantitation limit
NA = Not available
*Air samples were collected from 15 portable classrooms and sampled for VOCs. Only the maximum VOC concentrations are shown in the table. Samples were grab samples collected within a five minute period.
**ATSDR EMEGs, RMEGs and CREGs are not predictive of health effects. They are only used to select contamination for further evaluation. Also, ATSDR's MRLs, EMEGs and EPA's RfCs may not protect hypersensitive (allergic) individuals.


Table III.

Maximum Concentrations of Surface Soil Samples (0-6 inches) Taken at Tuttle Elementary School During the Week of 12/19/99
Contaminant Maximum Surface Soil Concentration (ppm)Location ofMaximum SoilConcentration ATSDR Screening Value* (ppm) Source of Screening Value
Aldrin0.034In a low area ofthe soccer field0.04 CREG
ATSDR 2000
Alpha-chlordane
Gamma-chlordane
0.007
0.009
East of theadministrativebuilding 2.0
(total chlordane)
CREG
ATSDR 2000
Arsenic8.8 Courtyard betweenthe classroombldg, kitchen, &adm bldg 0.5 CREG
ATSDR 2000
Chromium 13 J East of theadministrativebuilding 200 RMEG/child for CrVI
ATSDR 2000
Cobalt0.82 JEast of theadministrativebuildingNA______
Dieldrin0.130In a low area ofthe soccer field0.04 CREG
ATSDR 2000
4,4-DDT0.0047East of theadministrativebuilding2.0 CREG
ATSDR 2000
HeptachlorEpoxide0.002 NEast of theadministrativebuilding 0.08 CREG
ATSDR 2000

Source: Tetra Tech 2000
ppm = parts per million
N = presumptive evidence of presence of material
*ATSDR EMEGs, RMEGs and CREGs are not site specific and are not predictive of health effects. They are only used to select contamination for further evaluation. They are only based on levels unlikely to cause illness. Also, ATSDR's MRLs, EMEGs and EPA's RfCs may not protect hypersensitive (allergic) individuals.


TABLE IV:

Maximum Concentrations of Sediment Samples Taken at Tuttle Elementary School During the Week of 12/19/99
Contaminant Maximum Sediment Concentration (ppm)Location ofMaximumSediment Concentration ATSDR Screening Value* (ppm) Source of Screening Value
Chromium9.1 JUnnamed lake200 RMEG/child CrVI
ATSDR 2000
Dieldrin 0.025Wet retentionpond 0.04 CREG
ATSDR 2000

Source: Tetra Tech 2000

ppm= parts per million

*ATSDR EMEGs, RMEGs and CREGs are not predictive of health effects. They are only used to select contamination for further evaluation. Also, ATSDR's MRLs, EMEGs and EPA's RfCs may not protect hypersensitive (allergic) individuals.


TABLE V:

Maximum Concentrations of Surface Water Samples Taken at Tuttle Elementary School During the Week of 12/19/99
Contaminant Maximum Surface Water Concentration (ppb)Location ofMaximumSurface Water Concentration ATSDR Screening Value* (ppb) Source of Screening Value
Dieldrin0.12 Wet retentionpond0.002 CREG
ATSDR 2000
Selenium3.0Unnamed lake0.50 Chronic EMEG
ATSDR 2000

Source: Tetra Tech 2000

ppb = parts per billion

*ATSDR EMEGs, RMEGs and CREGs are not predictive of health effects. They are only used to select contamination for further evaluation. Also, ATSDR's MRLs, EMEGs and EPA's RfCs may not protect hypersensitive (allergic) individuals.


ATSDR GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Acute Exposure:
Contact with a chemical that happens once or only for a limited period of time. ATSDR defines acute exposures as those that might last up to 14 days.


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


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


CEL:
Cancer Effect Level - The lowest dose of chemical in a study, or group of studies, that produces significant increases in the incidence of cancer (or tumors).


Chronic Exposure:
A contact with a substance or chemical that happens over a long period of time. ATSDR considers exposures of more than 1 year to be chronic.


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


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


CREG:
Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide--is calculated from the EPA's cancer slope factor and is the contaminant concentration estimated to result in no more than one excess cancer per one million persons exposed over a lifetime.


EMEG:
Environmental Media Evaluation Guide--is derived from the ATSDR's Minimal Risk Level (MRL) using standard exposure assumptions, such as ingestion of 2 liters of water per day and body weight of 70 kg for adults. MRL's are estimates of daily human exposure to a chemical likely to be without an appreciable risk of noncancerous illnesses, generally for a year or longer.


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


Exposure:
Coming into contact with a chemical substance.


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


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


LOAEL:
Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level. The lowest dose of a chemical in a study, or group of studies, that has caused harmful health effects in people or animals.


MRL:
Minimal Risk Level - an estimate of daily exposure of a human being to a chemical (in mg/kg/day) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects (noncarcinogenic) over a specified duration of exposure. MRLs are based on human and animal studies and are reported for acute (<14 days), intermediate (15-364 days), and chronic (>365 days). MRLs are published in ATSDR Toxicological Profiles for specific chemicals.


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


NOAEL:
No Observed Adverse Effect Level. The highest dose of a chemical in a study, or group of studies, that did not cause harmful health effects in people or animals.


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


ppm:
parts per million - also equivalent to milligrams per liter (mg/L) or milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).


ppb:
parts per billion - also equivalent to micrograms per liter (ug/L) or micrograms per kilogram (ug/kg).


RMEG:
Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide--is derived from the EPA's Reference Dose (RfD) using standard exposure assumptions. RfDs are estimates of daily human exposure to a chemical likely to be without an appreciable risk of noncancerous illness, generally for a year or longer.


Route of Exposure:
The way a chemical can get into a person's body. There are three exposure routes:
    - breathing (also called inhalation),
    - eating or drinking (also called ingestion), and/or
    - getting something on the skin (also called dermal contact).

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


VOCs:
Volatile Organic Compounds

FIGURES

Site Location Map
Figure 1: Site Location Map

City Map
Figure 2: City Map

School Campus Map
Figure 3: School Campus Map

Retention Pond and Unnamed Lake
Figure 4: Retention Pond and Unnamed Lake

Boundaries of Former Landfill and Sampling Location Map
Figure 5: Boundaries of Former Landfill and Sampling Location Map

Additional Air Sampling Locations
Figure 6: Additional Air Sampling Locations

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. #