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

HEALTH CONSULTATION

PARCEL 6A
TAUNTON, BRISTOL COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS


BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF ISSUES

This public health consultation was prepared by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH), Bureau of Environmental Health Assessment (BEHA), Environmental Toxicology Program (ETP) for a site known as Parcel 6A located in Taunton, Massachusetts. This consultation was requested by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) New England and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).

The site is a six-acre vacant lot near the center of Taunton on Mason Street. The area is a mix of commercial and residential properties. Access to the lot is reportedly unrestricted and EPA reports that it is heavily used by neighborhood residents as a shortcut and as a 'park.' Reportedly, there may be homeless individuals residing on the lot. At least half of the lot is described as bare and the remainder has sparse to medium vegetation (EPA). EPA asked that the environmental data for the site be reviewed to determine whether levels of lead, arsenic, and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) in surface soil represent a health concern, either to people living at the site, using the site as a shortcut, or to younger people using the lot for recreational purposes.

In June 2002, EPA conducted a site investigation in which they noted various site characteristics and collected soil samples. This consultation reviews only the June 2002 soil sample results, consistent with EPA's request.


PHYSICAL SITE DESCRIPTION AND SOIL SAMPLING

Figure 1 shows the area surrounding the site and Figure 2 shows the site layout. The site is on Mason Street and is on property belonging to the city of Taunton. Figure 2 also illustrates the location of the samples from the June 2002 site investigation.

According to EPA, no aboveground structures were present; however, remains of structures such as brick and concrete were observed. The site is primarily an open and flat parcel, fenced only on two sides. It is bordered to the northeast by a railroad right of way; to the southeast (Porter Street) and southwest (Mason Street) by residential properties; and to the northwest by property owned by the Attleboro/Taunton Regional Transit Authority. The site is reported to have been used in the past for railroad related maintenance and storage. No other information on past site use was provided. Throughout the northern and eastern portions, small areas of coal ash and several monitoring wells were observed by EPA staff. The site is bordered to the northeast by an active railroad. A local individual reportedly told EPA staff that a former foundry was located on the southwestern portion of the property.

Over the years, a number of environmental investigations have been conducted at Parcel 6A. In February 1988, an environmental firm determined that oil and heavy metals were present in soil throughout the site (TGG Environmental). In February 1989, another firm noted that lead, benzene, and petroleum hydrocarbons were present in soil and groundwater, and that some of these contaminants extended to about 6 feet, well below surface soil (Baker/Weston Environmental). In November 1989, environmental samples were collected again (by GZA Environmental)and analyzed for VOCs, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), and lead (Baker/Weston Environmental). Finally, in January 1999, results of another investigation indicated that lead, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, mercury, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and TPH were present in soil (East Coast Engineering, Inc.). None of the data from these investigations were made available to MDPH, and hence, data from these previous site investigations are not included in this health consultation.

The June 2002 sampling was focused on the north-northeastern portion of the property (Figure 2). This area covers less than half of the entire site. It was not clear from the materials provided by EPA why the sampling focused on this area or whether previous site investigations had better characterized other parts of the site. A 75-foot by 75-foot grid using a transect was established for collecting samples. A surface soil sample was collected from a depth of 0 to 3 inches at each of the 20 grid node points. A subsurface soil sample was collected from 6 to 12 inches from seven node points that were randomly selected. Four additional surface soil samples were taken from the reported location of the former foundry, in the southwest portion of the site. Twenty-seven samples (all grid node sample locations) were submitted to the EPA New England Regional Laboratory (EPA NERL), in Chelmsford, for VOC analysis. Also, 20 samples, including 13 surface soil samples, were submitted for SVOC analysis; and 10 samples, including one taken from a 6- to 12-inch depth and another taken from the former foundry location, were submitted for metals analysis. The analytical methods used for samples submitted to the EPA NERL Laboratory were not specified in the EPA materials provided to MDPH.

Twenty-four surface and subsurface soil samples were randomly selected for on-site metals analysis using an X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) Analyzer. According to EPA, field screening for arsenic using XRF methods is not appropriate and hence, XRF results for arsenic were not evaluated in this health consultation.


COMPARISON VALUES

Health assessors use a variety of health-based screening values, called comparison values, to help decide whether compounds detected at a site might need further evaluation. These comparison values include environmental media evaluation guides (EMEGs), reference dose media evaluation guides (RMEGs), cancer risk evaluation guides (CREGs), and maximum contaminant levels for drinking water (MCLs). These comparison values have been scientifically peer reviewed or were derived from scientifically peer-reviewed values and published by ATSDR and/or EPA. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP) has established Massachusetts's maximum contaminant levels (MMCLs) for public drinking water supplies. EMEG, RMEG, MCL, and MMCL values are used to evaluate the potential for noncancer health effects. CREG values provide information on the potential for carcinogenic effects. For chemicals that do not have these comparison values available for the medium of concern, risk-based concentrations developed by EPA regional offices are used. For lead, EPA has developed a hazard standard for residential soil (USEPA 2001).

If the concentration of a compound exceeds its comparison value, adverse health effects are not necessarily expected. Rather, these comparison values help in selecting compounds for further consideration. For example, if the concentration of a chemical in a medium (e.g., soil) is greater than the EMEG for that medium, the potential for exposure to the compound should be further evaluated for the specific situation to determine whether noncancer health effects might be possible. Conversely, if the concentration is less than the EMEG, it is unlikely that exposure would result in noncancer health effects. EMEG values are derived for different durations of exposure according to ATSDR's guidelines. Acute EMEGs correspond to exposures lasting 14 days or less. Intermediate EMEGs correspond to exposures lasting longer than 14 days to less than one year. Chronic EMEGs correspond to exposures lasting one year or longer. CREG values are derived assuming a lifetime duration of exposure. RMEG values also assume chronic exposure. All of the comparison values are derived assuming opportunities for exposure in a residential setting.


REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING RESULTS

Tables 1-4 show the minimum, mean, and maximum values for the soil tests for SVOCs, VOCs, metals obtained from laboratory analyses, and lead obtained from XRF screening. Also included are health-based comparison values and available values for typical background levels for metals and some SVOCs. The data indicate that some SVOCs and metals were detected at levels above health-based comparison and typical background levels.

Thirteen surface soil samples were analyzed for SVOCs (Table 1). CREGs were exceeded for six of the analytes: benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene. However, except for benzo(a)pyrene (which exceeded both its comparison value and normal background levels) and dibenzo(a,h)anthracene (for which no background soil levels are available), the maximum concentrations of the other compounds were within typical background levels in U.S. urban soils as reported by ATSDR (ATSDR 1995b). For the other SVOC analytes, no health-based comparison values or typical background ranges were exceeded.

Table 2 shows the minimum, mean, and maximum values for VOCs for 20 surface soil samples. The maximum values did not exceed their respective comparison values.

Nine surface soil samples were analyzed for two metals: lead and arsenic (Table 3). The mean and maximum values for lead exceeded the maximum value for the typical background range for this element. No health-based comparison values were available for lead. Table 4 shows results of XRF screening analyses for lead for those surface soil samples that were not analyzed in a laboratory. Although these data are considered less reliable than data for samples analyzed in a laboratory, they do provide additional information on lead concentrations throughout the site. Several XRF values for lead exceeded typical background levels.

With regard to arsenic, the maximum value exceeded the child chronic EMEG, the child RMEG, and the CREG, but not the adult chronic EMEG value or the adult RMEG. However, the maximum arsenic concentration was within the background range of arsenic concentrations in eastern U.S. soils (Shacklette and Boerngen, 1984).


DISCUSSION

Evaluation of the June 2002 surface soil sample results indicated that some SVOCs and metals exceeded both health-based comparison values and typical background levels for soils reported in the scientific literature. Specifically, benzo(a)pyrene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and lead are further evaluated for exposure and potential health concerns. Some contaminants, such as arsenic, were detected at concentrations that exceeded a screening value but not typical background values. Thus, exposure opportunities to these compounds would not be expected to result in unusual health concerns.

To evaluate possible public health implications at this site, estimates of opportunities for exposure to compounds in soil must be combined with what is known about the toxicity of the chemicals. ATSDR has developed minimal risk levels (MRLs) for many chemicals. An MRL is an estimate of daily human exposure to a substance that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse noncancer health effects over a specified duration of exposure. MRLs are derived based on no-observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAELs) or lowest-observed-adverse-effect levels (LOAELs) from either human or animal studies. LOAELs or NOAELs reflect the actual levels of exposure that are used in studies. ATSDR has also classified LOAELs into "less serious" or "serious" effects. "Less serious" effects are those that are not expected to cause significant dysfunction or whose significance to the organism is not entirely clear. "Serious"effects are those that evoke failure in a biological system and can lead to illness or death. When reliable and sufficient data exist, MRLs are derived from NOAELs or from less-serious LOAELs, if no NOAEL is available for the study. To derive MRLs, ATSDR also accounts for uncertainties about the toxicity of a compound by applying various margins of safety, thereby establishing a level that is well below a level of health concern.

To determine whether nearby residents were, are, or could be exposed to contaminants, an evaluation was made of environmental and human components that lead to human exposure. The pathway analysis consists of five elements: a source of contamination, transport through an environmental medium, a point of exposure, a route of human exposure, and an exposed population.

Exposure to a chemical must first occur before any adverse health effects can result. Five conditions must be met for exposure to occur. First, a source of that chemical must exist. Second, an environmental medium such as soil must be contaminated by either the source or by chemicals transported away from the source. Third, a location must exist at which a person can contact the contaminated medium. Fourth, there must be a means, such asingestion, by which the contaminated medium could enter a person's body. Finally, the chemical must actually reach the target organ susceptible to the toxic effects from that particular substance at a sufficient dose for a sufficient time for an adverse health effect to occur (ATSDR 1993).

A completed exposure pathway exists when all five elements are present. A potential exposure pathway exists when one or more of the five elements is missing and indicates that exposure to a contaminant could have occurred in the past, could be occurring in the present, or could occur in the future. An exposure pathway can be eliminated if at least one of the five elements is missing and will not likely be present. The discussion that follows incorporates only those pathways that are important and relevant to the site.

Children reportedly use the site for recreational purposes and people reportedly live on the site. On the assumption that children play there and people live there, the completed pathways that could present opportunities for exposure at the site are direct contact with contaminants in site soils and incidental ingestion of contaminated soil.

Lead was detected at concentrations exceeding typical background levels. Seven of the nine surface soil samples analyzed in the laboratory exceeded the range for typical background soil levels in eastern U.S. soils. In addition, 11 of the 13 surface soil samples analyzed by the XRF screening method exceeded this background range.

Children who play on the site are likely to eat without washing their hands and play games that result in ingesting any contaminants present in the surface soil. Children who play at the site frequently are more likely to be older, perhaps ages 6 through 12, but younger children might accompany them. They are more likely to come into contact with soil that contains lead during summer months when the weather is warm and they are out of school. Children are the most sensitive group of people with regard to exposure to lead in soil on this site. Because comparison values were not available for lead, health concerns related to lead were assessed using the EPA Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children (IEUBK) (USEPA 2001). This model combines physiologically based assumptions (e.g., the relationship between lead uptake and blood lead levels) along with exposure assumptions (e.g., daily amount of soil ingestion) to predict blood lead concentrations in young children exposed to lead from several sources and by several routes. The model mathematically and statistically links environmental lead exposure to blood lead concentrations for a population of children (0-84 months).

The minimum, mean, and maximum soil lead concentrations detected at the site were 180, 586, and 1800 ppm respectively. When these values were input into the IEUBK program (all other default values were left unchanged), the predicted geometric mean blood lead levels among children 0-84 months of age were, respectively, 3.2 mg/dL, 6.5 mg/dL, and 14.1 mg/dL. The percent of young children who are predicted to exceed blood lead concentrations of 10 µg /dL, given a soil lead concentration of 180 ppm was 0.8 percent. The percent of young children who are predicted to exceed a blood lead concentration of 10 µg /dL given a soil lead concentration of 586 ppm was 17.5, and for a soil lead concentration of 1800 ppm, the percent was 72.7. [The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that blood lead levels as low as 10 µg /dL are associated with harmful effects on children's learning and behavior (USCDC 1997).] Thus, if young children were to be exposed regularly to levels of the average or maximum concentrations of lead in soil at the site, blood lead levels of concern could result in some children.

The maximum lead concentration in surface soil was in the reported foundry area. Only one sample was analyzed in the lab, while three additional samples were screened for XRF in the field in this area. Two of these three XRF samples were above typical background for lead in soil. It should also be noted that the foundry part of the site is near a residential area; therefore, it is reasonable that children might play in that area. If this part of the site is bare or sparsely vegetated, it is possible that offsite migration of lead in soil (via fugitive dust) could have affected nearby residential areas.

In addition, six deeper soil samples were screened by XRF for lead, and one was analyzed in the lab. The sample analyzed in a lab showed a level of 62 ppm lead, which is not unusually high for an urban area. The XRF results showed a maximum lead concentration of 726 ppm, with three of the six samples higher than typical background. Thus, the data demonstrated that lead contamination at the site might not be confined to just surface soils. Exposure to subsurface soil, however, is only a potential public health concern if excavation or gardening occurs.

As mentioned earlier, people reportedly live on the site. Those people are assumed to ingest soil that contains lead if they eat, drink, or smoke without washing their hands. They also swallow dust they inhale, and the dust might contain lead. Adults, particularly those with compromised nutritional status, who are chronically exposed to lead could experience health effects such as kidney problems; however, women of child-bearing age are of most concern. Pregnant women who are exposed to lead can pass the lead on to their unborn children. Unborn children and infants are particularly sensitive to the effects of lead.

The maximum concentration of benzo(a)pyrene was in excess of its CREG value and typical background levels, and the maximum concentration of dibenzo(a,h)anthracene was in excess of its CREG value (no background values were available). With the exception of benzo(a)pyrene, no health-based comparison values have been derived by ATSDR or EPA for PAH compounds in soil. However, using the CREG for benzo(a)pyrene, CREGs for several other PAHs can be calculated using toxicity equivalency factors (TEFs) (ASTDR 1995b). TEFs serve to compare the toxicity of several PAHs to benzo(a)pyrene. TEFs were used to calculate the benzo(a)pyrene equivalent concentration for PAHs in soil on the site. Adults exposed to those levels of benzo(a)pyrene and dibenzo(a,h)anthracene during warmer months of the year over a 40-year period and children exposed to those levels over an 18-year period would not experience exposure that would result in elevated cancer concerns (calculations are presented in Appendix A).


ATSDR's CHILD HEALTH INITIATIVE

ATSDR and MDPH, through ATSDR's Child Health Initiative, recognize that the unique vulnerabilities of infants and children demand special emphasis in communities faced with contamination of their environment. Children are at a greater risk than adults from certain kinds of exposure to hazardous substances emitted from waste sites. They are more likely to be exposed because they play outdoors and because they often bring food into contaminated areas. Because of their smaller stature, they might breathe dust, soil, and heavy vapors close to the ground. Children are also smaller, resulting in higher doses of chemical exposure per body weight. The developing body systems of children can sustain permanent damage if certain toxic exposures occur during critical growth stages. Most importantly, children depend completely on adults for risk identification and management decisions, housing decisions, and access to medical care. Children are assumed to come into contact with lead because they reportedly walk through the site. On the basis of that assumption, estimated exposure doses were calculated for those children (Appendix A). Elevated blood lead levels (levels 10 µg/dL or greater) in children are associated with lower IQ, neurobehavorial problems, and other health effects such as hearing deficits.


CONCLUSIONS

The information reviewed for this public health consultation indicates that the concentrations of lead are at levels that might result in health concern for young children who use the site on a daily basis. Therefore, children should not play on the site. Potential use on a daily basis by children seems a reasonable possibility, especially during summer months, because the site is not entirely fenced and reportedly is used by community residents. Other types of use (e.g., use by homeless individuals) could also be a concern. One SVOC compound also exceeded its health-based screening level and normal background levels, but estimates of exposure opportunities to this compound did not indicate unusual health concerns.

ATSDR requires that one of five conclusion categories be used to summarize the findings of public health consultations and public health assessments. These categories are: (1) Urgent Public Health Hazard, (2) Public Health Hazard, (3) Indeterminate Public Health Hazard, (4) No Apparent Public Health Hazard, and (5) No Public Health Hazard. A category is selected using site-specific conditions such as the degree of public health hazard based on the presence and duration of human exposure, contaminant concentration, the nature of toxic effects associated with site-related contaminants, presence of physical hazards, and community health concerns.

On the basis of ATSDR criteria, ATSDR classifies the Parcel 6A site under current site conditions as a "Public Health Hazard" because opportunities for exposure to lead from soil at the site can result in blood lead levels of health concern.


RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. On the basis of 2002 data, efforts should be made to restrict or discourage entry to this site by the public.

  2. MDPH recommends that the site be further characterized, particularly with regard to metals in the former foundry area, because this area contained the highest lead concentration in soil.

  3. If surface or subsurface soil were to be dug up or moved, MDPH would advise that further environmental testing be conducted.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN

  1. The proximity of residential properties to this site might lead to public health concerns associated with proposed remediation and/or development activities at this site. Therefore, if requested, MDPH will evaluate data generated by environmental regulatory agencies and/or consultants to address public health concerns upon request.

TABLES

Table 1. Minimum, Mean, and Maximum Values for Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds in Surface Soil

Compound Number of Detects/Samples Minimum (mg/kg) Mean (mg/kg) Maximum (mg/kg) Comparison Value (mg/kg) Background Range (mg/kg) 1
1,1-Biphenyl 8/13 ND NC 0.64 RMEG (child) = 3,000
RMEG (adult) = 40,000
N/A
2-Chloronaphthalene 1/13 ND NC 0.027 RMEG (child) = 4,000
RMEG (adult) = 60,000
N/A
2-Methylnaphthalene 12/13 ND NC 9.7 U.S. EPA Region III RBC = 1,600 2.9 2
Acenaphthylene 10/13 ND NC 2.4 N/A N/A
Acetophenone 1/13 ND NC 0.16 RMEG (child) = 5,000
RMEG (adult) = 70,000
N/A
Anthracene 10/13 ND NC 2.4 Int. EMEG (child) = 500,000
Int. EMEG (adult) = 1,000,000
RMEG (child) = 20,000
RMEG (adult) = 200,000
N/A
Benzaldehyde 2/13 ND NC 0.37 RMEG (child) = 5,000
RMEG (adult) = 70,000
N/A
Benzo(a)anthracene 13/13 0.16 2.3 9.6 *CREG = 1 0.169 - 59
Benzo(a)pyrene 12/13 ND NC 5.5 CREG = 0.1 0.165 - .22
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 13/13 0.27 3.6 10 *CREG = 1 15 - 62
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 12/13 ND NC 2.7 *CREG = 10 0.9 - 47
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9/13 ND NC 3.5 *CREG = 1 0.3 - 26
Carbazole 11/13 ND NC 9 N/A N/A
Chrysene 13/13 ND NC 9 *CREG = 10 0.251 - 0.640
Di-n-butylphthalate 5/13 ND NC 0.17 RMEG (child) = 5,000
RMEG (adult) = 70,000
N/A
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 6/13 ND NC 0.6 *CREG = 0.02 N/A
Diethylphthalate 9/13 ND NC 0.25 Int. EMEG (child) = 300,000
Int. EMEG (adult) = 1,000,000
RMEG (child) = 40,000
RMEG (adult) = 600,000
N/A
Fluoranthene 13/13 0.23 3.8 19 Int. EMEG (child) = 20,000
Int. EMEG (adult) = 300,000
RMEG (child) = 2,000
RMEG (adult) = 30,000
0.2 - 166
Fluorene 3/13 ND NC 0.76 Int. EMEG (child) = 20,000
Int. EMEG (adult) = 300,000
RMEG (child) = 2,000
RMEG (adult) = 30,000
N/A
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene 11/13 ND NC 2.9 *CREG = 1 8 - 61
Isophorone 1/13 ND NC 0.17 Int. EMEG (child) = 200,000
Int. EMEG (adult) = 1,000,000
RMEG (child) = 10,000
RMEG (adult) = 100,000
N/A
Naphthalene 8/13 ND NC 3.6 Int. EMEG (child) = 1,000
Int. EMEG (adult) = 10,000
RMEG (child) = 1,000
RMEG (adult) = 10,000
6.12
Phenanthrene 13/13 0.19 3.4 15 *CREG = 100 N/A
Pyrene 13/13 0.31 4.4 25 RMEG (child) = 2,000
RMEG (adult) = 20,000
0.145 - 147

mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram; ND = Not detected; NC = mean was not calculable because method detection limits were not available; N/A = Not available; RMEG = reference dose media evaluation guide; RBC = risk-based concentration; Int. EMEG = intermediate environmental media evaluation guide; CREG = cancer risk evaluation guide.
* CREG value calculated by using TEFs relative to CREG = 0.1 ppm for benzo(a)pyrene, as found in ATSDR toxicological profile for PAHs.
1 The background concentrations for PAHs in soil are from the ATSDR Toxicological Profile for PAHs (ATSDR 1995b) and refer to urban soil.
2 ATSDR Toxicological Profile for Naphthalene (ATSDR 1995a). Level reported for naphthalene in coal tar contaminated soil.


Table 2. Minimum, Mean, and Maximum Volatile Organic Compounds in Surface Soil

Compound Number of Detects/Samples Minimum (mg/kg) Mean (mg/kg) Maximum (mg/kg) Comparison Value(mg/kg) Background Range (mg/kg)
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 15/20 ND NC 0.66 U.S. EPA Region III RBC = 3,900 N/A
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 8/20 ND NC 0.20 U.S. EPA Region III RBC = 3,900 N/A
Benzene 9/20 ND NC 0.76 CREG = 10 N/A
Bromomethane 4/20 ND NC 0.15 Int. EMEG (child) = 200
Int. EMEG (adult) = 2,000
RMEG (child) = 70
RMEG (adult) = 1,000
N/A
Ethylbenzene 9/20 ND NC 0.39 RMEG (child) = 5,000
RMEG (adult) = 70,000
N/A
m,o, and p-Xylene 17/20 ND NC 2.8 Int. EMEG (child) = 10,000
Int. EMEG (adult) = 100,000
RMEG (child) = 100,000
RMEG (adult) = 1,000,000
N/A
N-Propylbenzene 3/20 ND NC 0.12 U.S. EPA Region III RBC = 3,100 N/A
Naphthalene 16/20 ND NC 1.9 Int. EMEG (child) = 1,000
Int. EMEG (adult) = 10,000
RMEG (child) = 1,000
RMEG (adult) = 10,000
6.1 1
Toluene 17/20 ND NC 2.4 Int. EMEG (child) = 1,000
Int. EMEG (adult) = 10,000
RMEG (child) = 10,000
RMEG (adult) = 100,000
N/A

mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram; ND = Not detected; NC = mean was not calculable because method detection limits were not available; N/A = Not available; RMEG = reference dose media evaluation guide; RBC = risk-based concentration; Int. EMEG = intermediate environmental media evaluation guide; CREG = cancer risk evaluation guide.
1 ATSDR Toxicological Profile for Naphthalene (ATSDR 1995a). Level reported for naphthalene in coal tar contaminated soil.


Table 3. Minimum, Mean, and Maximum Lead and Arsenic results in Surface Soil

Compound Number of Detects/Samples Minimum (mg/kg) Mean (mg/kg) Maximum (mg/kg) Comparison Value (mg/kg) Background Range (mg/kg) 1
Lead 9/9 180 586 1,800 N/A <10 - 300
Arsenic 6/9 ND NC 44 Chronic EMEG
(child) = 20
(adult) = 200
CREG = 0.5
RMEG (child) = 20
RMEG (adult) = 200
<0.1 - 73

mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram; N/A = Not available; ND = Not detected; NC = mean was not calculable because method detection limits were not available;
RMEG = reference dose media evaluation guide; EMEG = environmental media evaluation guide; CREG = cancer risk evaluation guide.
1 Shacklette and Boerngen, 1984.


Table 4. Minimum, Mean, and Maximum Lead Levels in Surface and Subsurface Soil Using X-Ray Fluorescence Screening Method

Compound Number of Detects/Samples Minimum (mg/kg) Mean (mg/kg) Maximum (mg/kg) Comparison Value (mg/kg) Background Range (mg/kg) 1
Lead 17/17 125 511 1506 N/A <10 - 300

mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram; N/A = Not available.
1 Shacklette and Boerngen, 1984.

This document was prepared by the Bureau of Environmental Public Health Assessment of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. If you have any questions about this document, please contact Suzanne K. Condon, Assistant Commissioner, 7th Floor, 250 Washington Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02108.


CERTIFICATION

The Public Health Consultation for Parcel 6A, Taunton, Massachusetts was prepared by the Massachusetts Department of Health under a cooperative agreement with the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). It is in accordance with approved methodology and procedures existing at the time the public health assessment was initiated.

Gail Godfrey
Technical Project Officer
Superfund Site Assessment Branch (SSAB)
Division of Health Assesment and Consulttion (DHAC)
ATSDR


The Division of Public Health Assessment and Consultation (DHAC), ATSDR, has reviewed this public health assessment and concurs with its findings.

Roberta Erlwein, MPH
Section Chief, SPS, SSAB, DHAC, ATSDR


REFERENCES

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1993. Public health assessment guidance manual. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1995a. Toxicological profile for naphthalene. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1995b. Toxicological profile for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2000. Toxicological profile for arsenic. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services.

Shacklette HT, Boerngen JG. 1984. Element concentrations in soils and other surficial materials of the conterminous United States. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey Professional Paper 1270.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1997. Screening young children for lead poisoning: Guidance for state and local public health officials. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services.

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children. Windows Version 1.0. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency.


APPENDIX A

EQUATIONS FOR NONCANCER EFFECTS:

Adult Resident

Exposure Dose equals (maximum concentration)(ingestion rate)(exposure factor times 10 to the -6 power) divided by (Body Weight)

Exposure Factor equals (7 days/week)(39 weeks/year)(40 years) divided by (70 years)(365 days/year)

Ingestion Rate = 100 mg/day

Body Weight = 70 kg


Child Resident

Exposure Dose (child resident) equals (maximum concentration)(ingestion rate)(exposure factor times 10 to the -6 power) divided by (Body Weight)

Exposure Factor equals (7 days/week)(39 weeks/year)(18 years) divided by (70 years)(365 days/year)

Ingestion Rate = 200 mg/day

Body Weight = 35 kg


CALCULATIONS for PAHs:

Adult Resident

Exposure Dose equals (11.26 mg/kg)(100 mg/day)(0.43 times 10 to the -6 power) divided by (70 mg/kg) equals 6.9 times 10 to the -6 power

Child Resident

Exposure Dose equals (11.26 mg/kg)(200 mg/day)(0.19 times 10 to the -6 power) divided by (35 mg/kg) equals 1.2 times 10 to the -5 power


EQUATIONS FOR CANCER RISK:

Adult Resident

Cancer Risk = Exposure Dose x Cancer Slope Factor


Child Resident

Cancer Risk = Exposure Dose x Cancer Slope Factor


CALCULATIONS for PAHs:

Adult Resident

Cancer Risk =   (6.9 x 10-6)(7.3)
=   5.0 x 10-5

Child Resident

Cancer Risk =   (1.2 x 10-5)(7.3)
=   8.8 x 10-5


FIGURES

Site Location Map
Figure 1. Site Location Map

Site and Sample Location Diagram
Figure 2. Site and Sample Location Diagram



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. #