PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
NAVAL INDUSTRIAL RESERVE ORDNANCE PLANT
FRIDLEY, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
EVALUATION OF CONTAMINATION AND EXPOSURE
On the basis of MDH's evaluation of environmental information collected during the site characterization and remedial process, MDH concludes that the current contaminant exposure levels from drinking water do not pose a public health hazard or concern. Based on observations made during an April 1997, site tour and review of environmental data reports, MDH has determined that a complete exposure pathway via drinking water exists for TCE. NIROP and UDLP properties are the closest known sources of TCE contamination up stream from the MWW raw water intakes. TCE concentrations are monitored along with 125 other analytes at Minneapolis Water Works as part of their water quality monitoring program. After the raw water (river water) is treated, it is distributed to approximately 500,000 people in the greater Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. This water that has been treated to meet all the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act's requirements is called finished water.
The earliest know detection of NIROP/UDLP related contamination in the MWW intakes was in raw water samples collected between 1981 and 1983 for the FMC Record of Decision. Based on 40 samples collected during this time the following contaminants were identified: TCE found 25 times ranging from 0.2 to 3.1 µg/l; 1,1,1-trichloroethylene detected twice at 1.2 and 1.4 µg/l; 1,2-dichloroethylene detected five times all approximating 0.6 µg/l; and 1,1-dichloroethylene detected twice at 0.3 µg/l. (7) Because the exact sampling locations for this data set has not been identified and the data is limited to 40 samples all of which may not be from the same location, this data is being not used for the tables and charts. Instead the more extensive MDH data base for VOC contamination in finished and raw water was used for the tables and charts. The TCE concentrations in the two data sets are similar.
MDH records show low levels of TCE in the MWW finished water 27 times ranging from 0.1 to 1.3 µg/l in the past 16 years (see tables 18 and 19). The highest TCE concentration detected in finished water (1.3 µg/l) is 1/4 the MCL of 5µg/l. Any concentration of TCE below the MCL is considered acceptable for a lifetime of exposure. No other site related contaminants have been detected in the finished water.
As required by the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, the MCLs are maximum permissible concentrations of a contaminant in water delivered to any user of a public water system. The MCLs are based on health as well as the economic and technical feasibility of detection and treatment. This is in contrast to the Minnesota Department Health HRLs which are based only on human health effects. HRLs are health-based criteria for drinking water contaminants. HRLs are used for four general purposes: advice for private wells, environmental review, and site assessment criteria. For contaminants with a non-cancer endpoint, the HRL is a concentration that is thought to be safe for ingestion over a lifetime. For a contaminant that is a suspected carcinogen, the HRL is a concentration where the cancer risk from ingestion of the contaminated water is considered negligible. MDH considers an incremental addition to a lifetime cancer risk of one in 100,000 to be negligible. This means that if 100,000 people were to ingest water with a contaminant concentration at the HRL for a lifetime, no more than one individual would be expected to develop cancer as a result. To keep this in perspective, the HRL for TCE is 30 µg/l, the MCL for TCE is 5 µg/l and the highest TCE concentrations found in the finished water is 1.3 µg/l in 1985.
Because contamination remains in the soil and groundwater at the NIROP and UDLP sites, an evaluation of potential pathways at each of the waste sites is presented below.
B.1 Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant (NIROP)
Superfund Site
The identification and characterization of all potential Areas of Concern
(AOCs), source areas, and Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs) on NIROP property
is ongoing and beyond the scope of this evaluation. The following sections will
evaluate contamination on site and the potential for receptors to be exposed.
B.1.a Ground Water Contamination Operable Unit
1 (OU1)
OU1 consists of plant wide groundwater. OU1 has exceeded HRLs and MCLs in groundwater
for TCE and other VOCs. Appendix C show TCE concentrations for monitoring and
shallow drift wells from 1993-1997. Appendix D tables list HRL and MCL exceedances
for each well at NIROP from first time the well was sampled to 1997. The remedial
response for this site is pump and treat. Figure 4 lists TCE concentrations
found in Anoka County Park groundwater.
Current Pathways
Air (outdoor): Air is not likely to be an exposure pathway because most of the site is covered with pavement or buildings. To date, no outdoor air quality impact studies from contaminated groundwater vapor migration have been conducted. Should soil vapor gas reach the surface, it would likely be diluted with ambient air to levels below health concern. A study may not be warranted based on ambient air dilution factors and the lack of long term exposure to receptors.
Air (indoor): Under current conditions indoor exposure via soil vapor migration is not known to be occurring.In the case of indoor construction, the foundation may be opened potentially allowing soil vapor to infiltrate the building. In such cases, the Navy must first grant written consent to a contractor to open the foundation. Before permission is granted a work plan, which includes worker safety procedures are submitted to the Navy. To date no soil vapor gas migration studies have been conducted.
Soil: Soil is not likely to be an exposure pathway because most of the site is covered with pavement or buildings and small grassy areas. Dermal contact is not likely to occur on site under present conditions except when the foundation is opened for construction and excavations. In such cases, the soil is not likely to be contaminated from groundwater unless a free product is present directly below soil of concern.
Groundwater: Although a completed pathway exists via groundwater to surface water to drinking water, it is not a humanhealth risk under current conditions, based on the limited raw water and more thorough finished water data collected at the MWW. A more comprehensive sampling plan is needed to assess the impact of Site related contamination on the MWW intakes. Based on the finished water data, winter appears to be the season when the water supply is most affected (see figures 18 and 19). There are no drinking water wells on site or down gradient before groundwater discharges to the river.
Potential Future Pathways
If future activities at NIROP include excavation within the contaminant
plume (saturated and unsaturated zones), exposures may occur via inhalation
of soil gases and/or dermal contact. A future exposure scenario could occur
from the volatilization of soil gases into nearby buildings and sewer system.
Because the effluent from the extraction system is was recently being discharged
to the sewer system, a potential exposure pathway exists for a sewer system
worker via inhalation and dermal contact with contaminated water and vapors.
Once the groundwater treatment plant is in use, there will be emissions from its exhaust stake to the ambient air. However, based on modeling projections, the groundwater treatment plant is expected to be well below the MPCA screening emissions rate and as such is not a health concern. (27) However, if the groundwater treatment system (Phase II) is reconfigured, the outdoor air pathway will have to be re-evaluated for emissions.
Use of contaminated groundwater prior to treatment may result in ingestion, inhalation and/or dermal exposure that could pose a public health hazard.Based on the large TCE fluctuations in well 27S (see figure 23, for TCE concentrations in wells closest to the river), and the new findings from the cone penetrometer investigation in Anoka County Park, it is possible that higher levels of TCE could impact MWW.
B.1.b On Site Subsurface Source Areas In Unsaturated
Zone Outside Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant Building Operable Unit
2 (OU2)
All known sources (buried drums and contaminated soil) for this operable
unit have beenremoved/remediated; however, contaminated water remains at each
of these sites. Based on the extent and concentrations of contaminants in the
groundwater plume at each removal site, other contaminant sources may remain.
Current Pathways
Air (outdoor): Exposure to identified site
subsurface source area contamination is not likely because all known
sources have been removed.
Soil: Exposure to identified site subsurface source area contamination is not likely because known source areas have been removed.
Groundwater: For this operable unit, groundwater is not a current pathway by definition (unsaturated zone).
Potential Future Pathways
If future activities at NIROP include excavation within any contaminant
source areas, exposures may occur via inhalation of soil gases and/or dermal
contact. Another future exposure scenario is the volatilization of soil gases
into nearby buildings. There is also potential for any remaining contamination
in this operable unit to leach into groundwater. Use of contaminated groundwater
prior to treatment may result in ingestion, inhalation and/or dermal exposure
that could pose a public health hazard. However, the institutional controls
including future land use (industrial), and private well limitations on site
should prevent exposures in the future.
B.1.c On Site Subsurface Source Areas in Saturated
and Unsaturated Zone Beneath the Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant (NIROP)
Building and on Site Subsurface Areas Outside the NIROP Building in Saturated
Zone Operable Unit 3 (OU3)
Data for this operable unit will be available in late 1998, and will
be reviewed by MDH in late 1999. The data will help characterize potential source
areas under the NIROP building. Based on the isoconcentration maps for TCE in
the shallow drift in the 1996 and 1997 Annual Monitoring reports, it appears
that source areas exist under the building.Soil data for this operable unit
will be available in late 1998.
Current Pathways
Air (outdoor): Outdoor air is not an exposure pathway
because most of the site is covered with pavement or buildings. In
addition, the extraction system is removing source contamination in the groundwater.
Air (indoor): No indoor air soil vapor gas data appear to exist for groundwater related contamination. The operation of the extraction system limits the migration of soil vapor gas into the building. Furthermore, the large open spaces in the facility would greatly reduce contaminant concentrations.
Soil: This is not a pathway because most of the site is covered with pavement or buildings. Dermal contact is not likely to occur on site under current conditions as long as foundation remains intact.
Groundwater: Contaminated groundwater is being captured by the extraction system as it exits from under the facility. However, residual contamination from this operable unit is present in Anoka County Riverfront Park beyond the capture zone of the extraction system. This contamination appears to be discharging into the Mississippi.
Potential Future Pathways:
If future activities at NIROP include excavation within the contaminant
plume, exposures may occur via inhalation of soil gases and/or dermal contact.
Another future exposure scenario is via volatilization of soil gases into the
facility. Use of contaminated groundwater prior to treatment may also result
in ingestion, inhalation and/or dermal exposure that could pose a public health
hazard. However institutional controls, including an excavation safety plan,
and private well limitations on site should prevent exposures in the future.
B.2 United Defense Limited Partnership (UDLP)
The identification and characterization of all Areas of Concern (AOCs),
source areas, and Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs) on UDLP property is on
going and beyond the scope of this evaluation. The following sections will evaluate
contamination pertaining to UDLP property and the potential for receptors to
be exposed.
B.2.a Groundwater Remedial Action (FMC
Superfund Site)
Groundwater contamination above MCLs and HRLs remains on site. See
Appendix E for tables listing exceedances of MCLs and HRLs. This data set is
a historical record of what groundwater contaminants have been identified on
site. Appendix F contains a graph illustrating the amounts of TCE extracted
with the groundwater system.
Air (outdoor): Outdoor air exposure via soil vapor gas from contaminated groundwater is not of health concern. Any gases that migrate to the surface would be diluted with ambient air to levels below health concern. In addition, the site is isolated away from buildings and foot traffic.
Soil: Although residual soil contamination remains on site, under current site conditions exposure to soil contamination is not probable.
Groundwater: There are no groundwater receptors on site. Contaminated groundwater is being captured by the extraction system and discharged to the sanitary sewer and is treated at the local waste water treatment plant. However, it is difficult to ascertain if the plume has been completely contained based on the current monitoring network. Contaminated groundwater not captured by the extraction system will likelydischarge to the Mississippi River up gradient to the MWW's intakes.
Potential Future Pathways
Should future site conditions include excavations, dermal and inhalation
exposures to groundwater contaminants are possible. Another potential exposure
pathway scenario is to a sewer system worker who could be exposed via inhalation
and dermal contact with contaminated water.
B.2.b Containment Treatment Facility (CTF)
Air (outdoor): Exposure to the gas extraction system effluent is a remote possibility because the site is isolated. Furthermore, the concentrations of the effluent gas are low to start with and would be diluted further by ambient air (see section A.2.b).
Soil: Exposure to site related soils is not possible unless the CTF was excavated.
Groundwater: Under current site conditions exposure to CTF leachate is not likely. There are no groundwater receptors on site, and if the CTF was to leak, the contaminants would likely be captured by the groundwater extraction system.
Potential Future Pathways
A potential exposure pathway exists for workers in the sewer system.
B.2.c RCRA Subsurface Source Area Investigation
Under UDLP Portion of Building
Based on the 1996 and 1997 Annual Monitoring Reports and TCE isoconcentration
maps, investigation of source areas under UDLP's portion of the main building
is warranted.
Air (outdoor): To be determined.
Soil: To be determined.
Groundwater: To be determined.
Potential Future Pathways
To be determined.
On the basis of MDH's evaluation of available environmental information collected during the site characterization and remedial process, MDH reached the following conclusions and assigned public health conclusion categories.
MDH determined that NIROP/UDLP sites pose no apparent human health hazard based on data reviewed.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, requires ATSDR to perform public health actions needed at hazardous waste sites. No public health actions are currently needed because there are no exposures at NIROP and UDLP at levels that pose a public health hazard; however, MDH/ATSDR recommend the following actions to further characterize potential public health hazards at the two Superfund sites:
Minnesota Department of Health
Daniel F. Peña
(Health Assessor)
Minnesota Department of Health
Richard Soule
(Hydrogeologist)
Areas of Concern |
(AOC)
|
Air Soil and Water |
(A,S,W)
|
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry |
(ATSDR)
|
Burlington Northern Railroad |
(BNR)
|
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act |
(CERCLA)
|
Contaminants of concern |
(COC)
|
Containment and Treatment Facility |
(CTF)
|
County Well Index |
(CWI)
|
1,2-dichloroethane |
(DCE)
|
Department of Defense |
(DOD)
|
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency |
(EPA)
|
Federal Safe Drinking Water Act |
(FSDWA)
|
government owned/contractor operated |
(GOCO)
|
Groundwater extraction System |
(GWS)
|
High Density Polyethylene |
(HDPE)
|
Health Risk Limits |
(HRLs)
|
Installation Restoration Program |
(IRP)
|
Maximum Contaminant Levels |
(MCL)
|
Minnesota Department of Health |
(MDH)
|
Metropolitan Environmental Council Service |
(MECS)
|
Microgram per Liter |
(µg/l)
|
Minnesota Environmental Response And Liability Act |
(MERLA)
|
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency |
(MPCA)
|
Minimal Risk Levels |
(MRL)
|
Minnesota Well Code |
(MWC)
|
Minneapolis Water Works |
(MWW)
|
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit |
(NPDES)
|
Navy Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant |
(NIROP, Fridley MN)
|
National Priority List |
(NPL)
|
tetrachloroethylene |
(PERC)
|
Public Health Assessment |
(PHA)
|
Publicly Owned Treatment Works |
(POTW)
|
Parts Per Million |
(ppm)
|
Restoration Advisory Board |
(RAB)
|
Remedial Action Monitoring Plan |
(RAMP)
|
Resource Conservation And Recovery Act |
(RCRA)
|
Record of Decision |
(ROD)
|
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act |
(SARA 1986)
|
Soil Reference Values |
(SRVs)
|
Solid Waste Management Units |
(SWMU)
|
semivolatile organic compounds |
(SVOC)
|
Trichloroethylene |
(TCE)
|
total organic halides |
(TOH)
|
United Defense Limited Partnership |
(UDLP; formerly FMC Inc.,Fridley MN)
|
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers |
(USACE)
|
Volatile Organic Compounds |
(VOCs)
|
Bibliography
Next Section Table
of Contents