18-Mar-2016 D R A F T Doc No. 001 Exposure Assessment and ...€¦ · Revision – 18-Mar-2016 Prepared for – Department of Defence – ABN: N/A 2 - National Environment Protection

P:\604X\60479059\4. Tech work area\4.3 QRA\4.3.3 Scope for HHRA methodology\Draft V2\60479059_HHRA Methodology Document_WLM_DRAFT v2.docx Revision – 18-Mar-2016 Prepared for – Department of Defence – ABN: N/A

RAAF Williamtown

Department of Defence

18-Mar-2016

Doc No. 001

D R A F T

Exposure Assessment and Risk Characterisation Methodology RAAF Williamtown Stage 2B Human Health Risk Assessment

DRAFT

AECOM RAAF Williamtown Exposure Assessment and Risk Characterisation Methodology

D R A F T


Exposure Assessment and Risk Characterisation Methodology RAAF Williamtown Stage 2B Human Health Risk Assessment

Client: Department of Defence

ABN: N/A

Prepared by

AECOM Services Pty Ltd Level 21, 420 George Street, Sydney NSW 2000, PO Box Q410, QVB Post Office NSW 1230, Australia T +61 2 8934 0000 F +61 2 8934 0001 www.aecom.com ABN 46 000 691 690

18-Mar-2016

Job No.: 60479509

AECOM in Australia and New Zealand is certified to the latest version of ISO9001, ISO14001, AS/NZS4801 and OHSAS18001.

© AECOM Services Pty Limited. All rights reserved.

No use of the contents, concepts, designs, drawings, specifications, plans etc. included in this report is permitted unless and until they are the subject of a written contract between AECOM Services Pty Limited (AECOM) and the addressee of this report. AECOM accepts no liability of any kind for any unauthorised use of the contents of this report and AECOM reserves the right to seek compensation for any such unauthorised use.

Document Delivery

AECOM Services Pty Limited (AECOM) provides this document in either printed format, electronic format or both. AECOM considers the printed version to be binding. The electronic format is provided for the client’s convenience and AECOM requests that the client ensures the integrity of this electronic information is maintained. Storage of this electronic information should at a minimum comply with the requirements of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002.

DRAFT


D R A F T


Quality Information

Document Exposure Assessment and Risk Characterisation Methodology

Ref 60479509

Date 18-Mar-2016

Prepared by Roisin Smit

Reviewed by Amanda Lee

Revision History

Revision Revision Date

Details Authorised

Name/Position Signature

DRAFT 18-Mar-2016 Amanda Lee Associate Director

DRAFT


D R A F T


Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 1

1.1 Background 1 1.2 Purpose 1 1.3 HHRA Framework 1

2.0 Issues Identification 4 2.1 Rationale for Undertaking the HHRA 4 2.2 Stakeholders 4 2.3 HHRA Objectives 4 2.4 Risk Management Decisions 5

3.0 Data Evaluation and Conceptual Site Model 6 3.1 Data to be Considered in the HHRA 6 3.2 Sources of Inputs 6 3.3 Data Evaluation 7 3.4 Data Gaps 7 3.5 Qualitative Tier 1 Screening 7 3.6 Conceptual Site Model 7 3.7 Sources 8 3.8 Potentially Complete Human Exposure Pathways 8

4.0 Exposure Assessment 14 4.1 Introduction 14 4.2 Receptors Considered 14 4.3 List of Pathways 14 4.4 Vapour Pathway considerations 15 4.5 Human Behavioural Exposure Assumptions 15 4.6 Exposure Assessment Calculations 17

5.0 Risk characterisation 18 5.1 Target Risk 18 5.2 Exposure Scenarios to be considered 18 5.3 Background Exposure 19

6.0 Defence Limitations 20 6.1 Ownership of Report 20

7.0 References 21

Appendix A NSW EPA Investigation Area A

Appendix B Water Use Survey B

Appendix C Community Survey (Placeholder) C

Appendix D Parameters and Assumptions D

Appendix E Exposure Equations E

DRAFT


D R A F T


1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background

The Department of Defence (Defence) commissioned AECOM Services Pty Ltd (AECOM) to undertake a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) to quantitatively assess the potential for risks to human health resulting from exposure to Base--derived per and poly- fluorinated alkyl compounds (PFCs) in the area on and near RAAF Base Williamtown (the Site). This document details the methodology that will be followed in the preparation of the Exposure Assessment and Risk Characterisation steps of the HHRA.

The area considered in the preparation of this HHRA includes RAAF Base Williamtown and the so called “Investigation Area” defined by the NSW EPA (Appendix A).

The potential risks to human health will be assessed with consideration of the Conceptual Site Model (CSM) of PFC contamination being developed for the Site and Investigation Area. The CSM will be developed in accordance with Schedule B2 (ASC NEPM 2013) and will comprise consideration of on-Base source(s) of contamination, the pathway(s) by which contaminants may migrate through the environmental media, and the populations that may potentially be exposed. The media being analysed by AECOM will include soil, groundwater, sediment, pore water, surface water, residential tank water and terrestrial biota (including home-grown produce). In addition, PFC data for aquatic biota sampled by NSW Government agencies will be provided to AECOM for inclusion in the HHRA. The HHRA forms part of a larger scope of works defined as the Stage 2B investigation that is occurring at the site.

The NSW EPA has formed an Expert Panel to advise on the management of PFC contamination in the Investigation Area and is working with Defence and a range of NSW Government agencies including NSW Health, the Department of Primary Industries, NSW Food Authority and Hunter Water. To facilitate a consultative process with these stakeholders, AECOM has prepared this preliminary methodology document in advance of the preparation of the HHRA.

1.2 Purpose

This document is prepared as an interim step in the HHRA process to provide the Expert Panel and the NSW EPA Accredited Site Auditor, Mr Anthony Lane, with the methodology that will be adopted within key components of the HHRA. More specifically, the purpose of the document is to detail the intended approach and parameters that will be used in the Exposure Assessment and Risk Characterisation of the HHRA.

The scope of the HHRA has been developed with reference to the national framework for the assessment of potentially contaminated sites described in Section 1.3 and will follow the staged approach recommended in Australian guidance for assessing human health risks from environmental hazards also presented in Section 1.3.

Therefore the primary purpose of this document is to identify:

- the potentially complete pathways that will be assessed in the HHRA;

- the algorithms that will be used to evaluate exposure via these pathways; and

- the human behavioural parameters that will be adopted to undertake the exposure assessment.

1.3 HHRA Framework

In NSW land contamination is regulated under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 (CLM Act). Under Section 105 of the CLM Act the NSW EPA makes or approves guidelines for use in the assessment and remediation of contaminated sites. The NSW EPA notes that ‘these guidelines must be taken into consideration by the EPA whenever they are relevant and by accredited site auditors when conducting a site audit. They are also used by contaminated land consultants in undertaking investigation, remediation, validation and reporting on contaminated sites’1. Two guidelines approved by the NSW EPA under Section 105 of the CLM Act, which relate to the risk assessment framework, are:

1 http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/clm/guidelines.htm

DRAFT


D R A F T


2

- National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (April 2013) (ASC NEPM 2013).

- Environmental Health Risk Assessment: Guidelines for assessing human health risks from environmental hazards, Department of Health and Ageing and EnHealth Council, Commonwealth of Australia (2012) (enHealth 2012).

The ASC NEPM 2013 presents a staged approach to the assessment of site contamination as outlined in the flowchart of Schedule A. One of the steps identified in the stages of assessment is a ‘Tier 2 or Tier 3 site specific risk assessment’. Schedule B4 of the ASC NEPM 2013 provides detailed guidelines for undertaking a site-specific health risk assessment. Section 2 of the Schedule details the Australian risk assessment framework and notes that the NEPM ’…….has adapted the enHealth framework with additions intended to provide guidance specific to a contaminated land context’.

Figure 1 below presents the risk assessment framework for contaminated sites as presented in Schedule B4. Appendix 1 of Schedule B4 (ASC NEPM 2013) presents the ‘structure of a risk assessment report’ and notes the quantitative health risk assessments should be divided into five key steps.

This Methodology Document focuses on two of these stages; the Exposure Assessment and the Risk Characterisation stages. enHealth 2012 has established a framework for the Exposure Assessments and will be utilised as a primary reference in developing this Methodology Document.

It is noted that another key stage in the HHRA is the toxicity assessment. At the time writing toxicity profiles are being developed for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluoro hexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) and perfluoro hexanoic acid (PFHxA) by ToxConsult. Further information in relation to this step of the HHRA is not included within the scope of this document.

DRAFT


D R A F T


3

Figure 1 Risk Assessment Framework for Contaminated Sites (Schedule B4, ASC NEPM 2013)

DRAFT


D R A F T


4

2.0 Issues Identification This stage of the HHRA identifies the key issues for the risk assessment and establishes a context for the risk assessment by a process of identifying the concerns that the risk assessment needs to address (enHealth, 2012).

2.1 Rationale for Undertaking the HHRA

Previous investigations have identified the presence of PFCs including PFOS and PFOA in groundwater, sediment and surface water both on-Site and off-Site. Aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing these compounds were historically used at the Site in fire-fighting training and operations.

As a precautionary response, the NSW Government has identified an Investigation Area surrounding the Site where groundwater in the Tomago and Stockton Sandbeds is considered to be potentially impacted and has advised residents within this area to not drink bore water and to not eat fish caught in the nearby area or eggs from backyard chickens that have been drinking bore water in the area. Groundwater is understood to be currently (or have been historically) used in the Investigation Area for a range of purposes, including potable water supply and domestic and commercial activities. Nationally adopted qualitative Tier 1 screening criteria are not currently available for PFCs in environmental media however it is understood that both the Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council (ANZECC) and the Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment (CRC CARE) are currently developing Australian criteria for soil and water which, when available, will be evaluated and considered for use in future data evaluation. Regardless of the availability of Tier 1 screening criteria, these compounds are bioaccumulative. Therefore higher tiers of assessment are conducted to assess the potential for bioaccumulation to occur.

Previous investigations have therefore included comparison to investigation levels sourced from international publications. In particular, health advisory levels adopted from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) have been adopted to facilitate preliminary decision making with regard to potable water uses. Defence currently provides drinking water to properties within the Investigation Area who have been advised not to use groundwater for drinking purposes.

Potential health risks associated with the identified environmental contamination have not yet been fully characterised in a HHRA. A HHRA is required to be completed to assess the potential for adverse health effects associated with the identified environmental contamination and inform subsequent risk management decisions.

2.2 Stakeholders

The stakeholders relevant to the HHRA include:

- Residents and employees of businesses within the Williamtown community

- Defence

- Defence’s Project Manager/ Contract Administrator (Point PM)

- NSW EPA Accredited Site Auditor for the project; Mr Anthony Lane

- NSW state government and regulatory authorities

- NSW EPA Expert Panel

- Commonwealth government

2.3 HHRA Objectives

The HHRA objectives are:

- Identify the potentially complete source-pathway-receptor linkages for the identified environmental contamination.

- Identifying potentially exposed human receptors

- Identify potential exposure scenarios relevant to the identified receptors.

- Summarise the available peer reviewed physical, chemical and toxicological data for the identified CoPC.

- Based on the above, assess the potential for adverse health effects.

DRAFT


D R A F T


5

2.4 Risk Management Decisions

The risk management decisions that may be made following the completion of the HHRA may include:

- Risk communication.

- Further assessment to address data gaps and uncertainties.

- Management actions to mitigate potentially complete exposure pathways.

- Remediation options appraisal to address identified sources.

DRAFT


D R A F T


6

3.0 Data Evaluation and Conceptual Site Model

3.1 Data to be Considered in the HHRA

As with all risk assessments, a number of assumptions are made around the inputs utilised. Through the gathering of site specific data, the CSM can be refined to account for specific scenarios while ensuring the appropriate level of protection for the exposed populations. Schedule B4 (ASC NEPM 2013) states that ‘risk assessors should select exposure model inputs carefully and consider the reasonableness of the exposure settings when taken together.’ This step will be undertaken once the CSM is further refined and the available chemical concentrations are evaluated and the exposure concentrations for each pathways are assigned.

EnHealth (2012) notes that “stakeholder consultation is considered essential at all stages of the EHRA process and that a review / reality check should be built into the critical stages of hazard and exposure assessment and, risk characterisation to ensure the outcomes have not been distorted by inappropriate choice of data inputs”. One of the key stages in the gathering of the inputs for this risk assessment is the community consultation phase. This has been carried out in a phased approach and will continue in a number of phases as the HHRA is being developed and refined. The initial collation of site specific exposure data was through the ‘Water Use Surveys’ distributed to the residents located within the ‘Investigation Area’ as defined by the NSW EPA. A copy of this survey is presented in Appendix B. The information gathered from this survey was the first step in allowing AECOM to refine the CSM which underpins the HHRA to account for potential site specific pathways. At the time of writing another stage of community consultation was being prepared in the form of a community survey. A list of the main sources of inputs is provided in Section 3.2.

3.2 Sources of Inputs

The main inputs utilised in this document in the development of the exposure pathways and parameters are:

Defence 2015 Water Use Survey (Appendix B)

Observations made by the AECOM field team during the Residential Water Sampling Program.

Australian Bureau of Statistics Australian Health Survey 2011-13, National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey.

EA 2009, Updated technical background to the CLEA model, SC050021/SR3, Environment Agency, Bristol, UK.

National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (as amended 2013)

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009. Sport And Recreation: A Statistical Overview, Australia

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006. Children's Participation in Cultural and Leisure Activities

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1995. National Nutrition Survey Foods Eaten Australia

enHealth 2012a, Environmental health risk assessment. Guidelines for assessing human health risks from environmental hazards, enHealth Subcommittee (enHealth) of the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee, Canberra, Australia.

enHealth 2012b, Australian exposure factors guidance, Environmental Health Subcommittee (enHealth) of the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee, Canberra, Australia.

US EPA 1989, Risk assessment guidance for Superfund, vol. I, Human health evaluation manual (Part A) Interim final report, EPA/540/1-89/002, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Sites in New Zealand Appendix 5A - Irrigation Water Criteria

US EPA 2008 Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook EPA/600/R-06/096F September 2008 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC

US EPA 2009, Risk assessment guidance for Superfund, vol. I, Human health evaluation manual, (Part F), supplemental guidance for inhalation risk assessment, EPA/540/R- 70/002, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

DRAFT


D R A F T


7

In addition, to the list above, a number of further inputs will be considered for the overarching risk assessment including:

Community Survey. At the time of writing this questionnaire was being finalised and it is proposed to include a copy of the final questionnaire as Appendix C

Data collated as part of the Stage 2B Environmental Investigation including analytical data from soil, sediment, pore water, groundwater and surface water and field data. This data will be used to understand the exposure point concentrations for the identified receptors.

Data provided to AECOM by Department of Primary Industries including laboratory data relating to aquatic species (fish and shell fish) collected from the Hunter River, Port Stephens and Wallis Lake. Again this data will be used to understand the exposure point concentrations for the identified receptors.

Data from historical reports associated with the Site which will be outlined in Stage 2 B Investigation.

3.3 Data Evaluation

The analytical data that will be used in the HHRA have been reviewed within each individual report and assessed to ensure that the data is in compliance with method requirements and project specifications. The data validation process includes checking the analytical procedure compliance and an assessment of the accuracy and precision of the analytical data from a range of quality control measurements generated from both the sampling and analytical programs. Reference will be made to the DQOs described in the reporting and/or Sampling, Analysis and Quality Plan prepared for each individual data collection event.

The analytical results incorporated into the HHRA will be those that were considered to be valid in terms of precision and accuracy of the primary data sets and representative of concentrations of the analysed compounds at the sample locations tested.

3.4 Data Gaps

The HHRA will include a consideration of the quantity of data available and an evaluation of remaining data gaps at the completion of the Stage 2B works which may impact the HHRA. Identified data gaps, their significance to the outcomes of the HHRA and the manner in which they are addressed will be summarised in the HHRA.

3.5 Qualitative Tier 1 Screening

As discussed in Section 2.1, Australian qualitative Tier 1 screening criteria are not currently available for PFCs in environmental media. Previous investigations have therefore included comparison to investigation levels sourced from international publications. However, international Tier 1 criteria are not available for many of the potentially complete exposure pathways relevant to the identified environmental impacts (in particular, secondary exposure via bioaccumulation in the food chain).In addition, regardless of the outcomes of a Tier 1 screening assessment, and as previously noted a higher tier of assessment would be required to account for the compounds ability to bioaccumulate.

3.6 Conceptual Site Model

A CSM is a site-specific qualitative description of the source(s) of contamination, the pathway(s) by which contaminants may migrate through the environmental media, and the populations (human or ecological) that may potentially be exposed.

In order for a human receptor to be exposed to a chemical contaminant deriving from a Site, a complete exposure pathway must exist. An exposure pathway describes the course a chemical or physical agent takes from the source to the exposed individual and generally includes the following elements (USEPA, 1989):

- A source and mechanism of chemical release.

- A retention or transport medium (or media where chemicals are transferred between media).

- A point of potential human contact with the contaminated media.

- An exposure route (e.g. ingestion, inhalation) at the point of exposure.

DRAFT


D R A F T


8

Where one or more of the above elements is missing, the exposure pathway is considered to be incomplete and there is therefore no direct risk to the receptor.

The preliminary CSM for the HHRA is based on the information gathered during the current and previous stages of investigation and is summarised in the following sections.

3.7 Sources

As mentioned in Section 2, the use of AFFF containing PFCs at the Site has resulted in a number of environmental investigations identifying soil, surface water, groundwater, sediment and biota impacts in and around the Site. These impacts are associated with six main source zones on the Site. A wide range of PFCs may be associated with historic use of AFFF, in variable proportions depending on the source product and the age of environmental impacts. However PFOS and PFOA have been the focus of international toxicological research and are commonly considered to be risk drivers for the chemical group.

ToxConsult has advised AECOM that the current body of international toxicological research is also sufficient to develop toxicological reference values for use in a HHRA for the following two PFCs:

- PFHxS]

- PFHxA

AECOM understands that the current body of international toxicological research may not be sufficient to develop toxicological reference values for the additional PFCs. However to further understand the CSM and the distribution of PFCs in the environment the Stage 2 B works has undertaken analysis of some samples for a full suite of PFCs. These data has also been analysed for completeness as the toxicological research may change in the future. Therefore the HHRA will aim to provide a quantitative assessment of potential risks associated with exposure to PFOS, PFOA, PFHxA and PFHxS and qualitatively assess potential risks associated with exposure to other PFCs where they have been detected in environmental media.

3.8 Potentially Complete Human Exposure Pathways

Pathways that are considered to be complete or potentially complete based on currently available information have been summarised in the following tables. It is noted that this HHRA considered off-Site receptors only and does not include occupational exposure to PFCs.

Table 1 Exposure Pathway Analysis – Residential Receptors in the Investigation Area

Exposure Pathway Complete? Comments

Ingestion of impacted groundwater used during food preparation and as a source of drinking water supply.

() This exposure pathway was historically complete, but is currently being managed through advice from Defence not to drink the groundwater and provision of potable water to residents who do not have an alternative water supply. However this exposure pathway may be complete for some receptors if Defence advice is not followed.

Dermal contact with and incidental ingestion of impacted groundwater used for indoor domestic activities

() It is understood that residents may use groundwater for household purposes including showering / bathing, laundering and clothes care, house work, food and drink preparation and washing dishes etc. This exposure pathway is currently being managed through the supply of potable water for household purposes. However this exposure pathway was historically complete and may be complete for some receptors if Defence advice is not followed.

DRAFT


D R A F T


9


Dermal contact with and incidental ingestion of impacted groundwater used for outdoor domestic and recreational activities.

Based on currently available information, residents are continuing to use groundwater for household irrigation purposes and other domestic non-potable uses which may include irrigation of lawns / gardens, washing animals or vehicles, playing in a sprinkler.

Dermal contact with and incidental ingestion of impacted groundwater used to fill residential swimming pools and/or paddling pools.

() It is understood that a number of residents use groundwater to re-fill/top-up their residential swimming pools and/or paddling pools. This pathway may be complete for some residential receptors.

Dermal contact with and incidental ingestion of impacts in soil irrigated with impacted groundwater (or surface water).

There is potential that soils have become impacted where groundwater has been used for domestic irrigation purposes or where surface water has inundated soils and thus soil related exposure pathways may be complete for residential receptors.

Additionally, there is potential for incidental ingestion of soil adhered to home-grown produce which may contain PFCs.

Incidental ingestion of soil adhered to home-grown produce. PFCs may be present in soil where impacted groundwater (or surface water) is currently or was historically used for irrigation

Inhalation of surface soil derived dust where impacted groundwater (or surface water) is currently or was historically used for irrigation purposes.

Ingestion of breastmilk by infants Potentially complete pathway if mothers have been exposed via one or more of the identified pathways.

Ingestion of home-grown produce (i.e. fruit and vegetables) irrigated with impacted groundwater (or surface water). PFCs may accumulate in plant produce via: - Uptake of impacted groundwater (or

surface water) used for irrigation. - Uptake of PFCs from soil where

impacted groundwater (or surface water) is currently or was historically used for irrigation.

PFCs may also be present on the above-ground surfaces of produce due to adherence from irrigation water or wind-blown dust.

()

It is understood that a number of residential receptors in the Investigation Area use extracted groundwater for irrigation of fruit and /or vegetable gardens.

Additionally, there is also the potential for home-grown produce to be used to produce juices. DRAFT


D R A F T


10


Ingestion of traditional foods. PFCs may accumulate in animal produce via: - Direct ingestion of impacted

groundwater (or surface water) used for stock watering.

- Direct ingestion of soil where impacted groundwater (or surface water) is currently or was historically used for irrigation.

- Ingestion of plant produce (commercial or home grown) that may have accumulated PFCs due to the use of impacted groundwater (or surface water) for irrigation and/or transfer of PFCs to soil.

-

() It is understood that a number of indigenous communities within the Investigation Area who extract groundwater for livestock and plant watering purposes, and that these residents may consume these produce.

Ingestion of home-grown livestock and animal produce (for example, meat or eggs). PFCs may accumulate in animal produce via:

- Direct ingestion of impacted groundwater (or surface water) used for stock watering.

- Direct ingestion of soil where impacted groundwater (or surface water) is currently or was historically used for irrigation.

- Ingestion of plant produce (commercial or home grown) that may have accumulated PFCs due to the use of impacted groundwater (or surface water) for irrigation and/or transfer of PFCs to soil.

-

It is understood that a number of residential receptors in the Investigation Area use groundwater for livestock and plant watering purposes, and that these residents may consume their livestock which is considered to include (but may not be limited to) eggs from poultry, produce from cattle and goats (however no milk production for human consumption has been currently identified within the Investigation Area)

Ingestion of honey. PFCs may accumulate in honey via: - Pollen that may have accumulated

PFCs due to the use of impacted groundwater (or surface water) for irrigation of the plants

() It is understood that honey is produced in the Investigation Area. Based on the findings of the Stage 2 B investigation and the community survey this pathway may require further consideration.

Ingestion of aquatic organisms (e.g. fish and shellfish) collected from waterways connected to the Site (i.e. Tilligerry Creek and Fullerton Cover). PFCs may accumulate in aquatic organisms via: - Direct contact with surface water

and/or sediment containing PFCs. - Secondary ingestion of lower trophic

order organisms that may have accumulated PFCs in their tissue via direct contact with surface water and/or sediment.

PFCs have been reported in the tissue of fish, oysters and prawns analysed from Tilligerry Creek and Fullerton Cove, thus there is potential for ingestion of PFCs accumulated in aquatic organisms.

DRAFT


D R A F T


11


Dermal contact with water and sediment and incidental ingestion of water and sediment during recreational fishing

A number of surface water bodies including Port Stephens (Tilligerry Creek) and Hunter River (Fullerton Cove) have been identified downgradient of the Site that are used for recreational fishing purposes. PFC impacted groundwater or surface water may be migrating off-Site and discharging into these surface water bodies.

Dermal contact with water and sediment and incidental ingestion of water and sediment during recreational boating

A number of surface water bodies including Port Stephens (Tilligerry Creek) and Hunter River (Fullerton Cove) have been identified downgradient of the Site that are used for recreational boating purposes. PFC impacted groundwater or surface water migrating from the Site has the potential to discharge into these surface water bodies.

Dermal contact with water and sediment and incidental ingestion of water and sediment during swimming in creeks and other surface water bodies

A number of surface water bodies including Port Stephens (Tilligerry Creek) and Hunter River (Fullerton Cove) have been identified downgradient of the Site that are used for recreational swimming. PFC impacted groundwater or surface water migrating off-Site from the Site has the potential to discharge into these surface water bodies.

Notes:

Pathway considered incomplete for this receptor

Pathway considered to be complete for this receptor

() Pathway considered to be potentially complete for this receptor, however management measures are currently in

place to reduce the potential for exposure via this pathway / or awaiting confirmation of the presence of the pathway

through community survey. In addition to the residential pathways above a number of commercial scenarios will be considered in the HHRA. These scenarios are presented in Table 2.

Table 2 Exposure Pathway Analysis –Commercial Fishermen or Farmers in the Investigation Area


Dermal contact with and incidental ingestion of impacted groundwater (or surface water) extracted for commercial (agricultural) use

() It is understood that there may be some commercial operations in the Investigation Area. The extent to which groundwater is used in these operators is currently being assessed through the community survey and this pathway may be considered further.

Dermal contact with and incidental ingestion of impacts in soil irrigated with impacted groundwater (or surface water).


Inhalation of surface soil derived dust where impacted groundwater (or surface water) has been used for irrigation purposes.


DRAFT


D R A F T


12


Ingestion of PFCs accumulated in produce irrigated with groundwater (or surface water) containing PFCs. PFCs may accumulate in plant produce via: - Uptake of PFCs from groundwater (or

surface water) used for irrigation. - Uptake of PFCs from soil where

groundwater (or surface water) is currently or was historically used for irrigation.

PFCs may also be present on the above ground surface of produce due to adherence from irrigation water or wind-blown dust.

()

If commercial farming is identified, it is considered likely that where a commercial worker is employed for farm related purposes that they and their families (including children) would consume produce from the farm.

Consumers outside the Investigation Area of food products produced in Williamtown are considered likely to have a lower exposure to PFCs than farm workers (and their families) inside the Investigation Area as they are likely to source food products from a range of producers (i.e. not all their food will come from Williamtown). Therefore assessment of consumption of food products for commercial (agricultural) workers is considered likely to be protective of wider consumers.

Incidental ingestion of PFCs in soil adhered to produce. PFCs may be present in soil where groundwater (or surface water) containing PFCs is currently or was historically used for irrigation.

Ingestion of PFCs accumulated in livestock and animal produce (for example, meat or eggs). PFCs may accumulate in animal produce via:

- Direct ingestion of PFCs from groundwater (or surface water) used for stock watering.

- Direct ingestion of soil where groundwater (or surface water) is currently or was historically used for irrigation.

Ingestion of plant produce (commercial or home grown) that may have accumulated PFCs due to the use of groundwater (or surface water) for irrigation and/or transfer of PFCs to soil.

Ingestion of aquatic organisms (e.g. fish and shellfish) collected from waterways connected to the Site (i.e. Tilligerry Creek and Fullerton Cover). PFCs may accumulate in aquatic organisms via: - Direct contact with surface water and/or

sediment containing PFCs.

Secondary ingestion of lower trophic order organisms that may have accumulated PFCs in their tissue via direct contact with surface water and/or sediment.

It is considered likely that where a commercial fisherman is employed in Williamtown that they would consume their catch.

Consumers outside the Investigation Area of fish caught within Tilligerry Creek and Fullerton Cove are considered likely to have a lower exposure to PFCs than commercial fisherman living in the Investigation Area. Therefore assessment of consumption of sea food products for commercial fisherman is considered likely to be protective of wider consumers.

DRAFT


D R A F T


13


Dermal contact with water and sediment and incidental ingestion of water and sediment during commercial fishing

A number of surface water bodies including Port Stephens (Tilligerry Creek) and Hunter River (Fullerton Cove) have been identified downgradient of the Site that are used for commercial fishing purposes. PFC impacted groundwater or surface water may be migrating off-Site and discharging into these surface water bodies.

Notes:

Pathway considered incomplete for this receptor

Pathway considered to be complete for this receptor

DRAFT


D R A F T


14

4.0 Exposure Assessment

4.1 Introduction

Exposure Assessment requires a determination of the magnitude, frequency, extent, and duration of exposures to contaminants (ASC NEPM 2013, enHealth, 2012). In the data evaluation stage of the risk assessment, the conceptual site model (CSM) is developed and refined to produce an understanding of the pathways and exposed populations that require assessment. As this document is being produced in parallel with the data evaluation stage, and data collection is ongoing a number of exposure scenarios are being considered herein, that may be refined based on the results of further data collection. The key elements of Exposure Assessment in the context of assessing human health risks from environmental hazards are to:

- identify input values for contaminant concentrations and pathways

- identify input values for exposed populations

- estimate exposure concentrations

- estimate chemical intake.

As noted in Section 1, this document presents:

- the potentially complete pathways that will be assessed in the HHRA;

- the algorithms that will be used to evaluate exposure via these pathways; and

- the human behavioural parameters that will be adopted to undertake the Exposure Assessment.

The values in relation to the contaminant concentrations and exposure concentrations will be presented within the HHRA on completion of the data collection phase of the Stage 2 B works.

4.2 Receptors Considered

Based on the available information and the current CSM for the Investigation Area, the exposed populations considered in this assessment are:

- Residents within the Investigation Area

- Recreational users of the land and waterways surrounding the site and defined by the boundaries of the Investigation Area

- Commercial receptors including local fishermen / farmers within the Investigation Area

4.3 List of Pathways

A list of the pathways that will be considered are:

- Ingestion of potable water including during food preparation

- Ingestion of breast milk by infant

- Dermal Contact with water during domestic food and drink preparation and clean-up

- Dermal Contact with water and incidental ingestion of water during showering / bathing

- Dermal contact with water during domestic laundry and clothes care

- Dermal contact with water during house work (e.g. mopping floor, window cleaning etc.)

- Indoor/outdoor dust inhalation from soil sources

- Incidental soil ingestion

- Dermal contact with soil

- Dermal contact with water and sediment and incidental ingestion of water and sediment during recreational fishing

DRAFT


D R A F T


15

- Dermal contact with water and sediment and incidental ingestion of water and sediment during recreational boating or commercial fishing

- Dermal contact with water and incidental ingestion during swimming in home pools

- Dermal contact with water and sediment and incidental ingestion of water and sediment during swimming in creeks and other surface water bodies

- Dermal contact with water and incidental ingestion during sprinkler play

- Dermal contact with water and incidental ingestion during washing animals (horses, dogs etc)

- Dermal contact with water and incidental ingestion during the washing of vehicles

- Dermal contact with water and incidental ingestion through irrigating domestic lawns/ gardens

- Ingestion of eggs from poultry within the investigation area

- Ingestion of fruit and vegetables grown within the investigation area

- Ingestion of meat from livestock within the investigation area

- Ingestion of fish and shellfish caught within Tilligerry Creek and Fullerton Cove

The list of pathways presented above is based on the information available at the time of writing. Other pathways may be considered once further information becomes available such as:

- Ingestion of milk from livestock within the investigation area

- Ingestion of honey from within the investigation area

4.4 Vapour Pathway considerations

AECOM notes that it has also considered the potential for a vapour inhalation pathway. Schedule B2 of the ASC NEPM 2013, states that a substance is considered to be sufficiently volatile if it’s Henry’s Law Constant (HLC) is greater than 1 x 10 5 atm m3/mol and the Vapour Pressure (VP) is greater than 1 mm Hg at room temperature. The PFCs that will be quantitatively assessed in the HHRA (PFOS, PFOA, PFHxA, PFHxS) are not considered volatile on the basis of the following:

- The VP of all four compounds is substantially lower than 1 mm Hg.

- For these substances, a HLC is not applicable as they dissociate in the environment (ATSDR, 2015). The consequence of such partitioning is that for a given gas-phase concentration, a larger quantity of the substance may actually exist within the aqueous phase than would be predicted by Henry's Law.

The Alaska Department of Health and Social Sciences Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) Fact Sheet dated 16 June 2015, identified that potential risks from showering with impacted water is low as PFOS is not easily transferred from water to air, therefore limiting exposure via the inhalation pathway. Similarly, the Massachusetts Department of Protection (Mass DEP) Fact Sheet on PFOS in Drinking Water: Questions and Answers dated 5 August 2015 identified that exposures from showering are low as PFOS does not volatilise from water into the air where it could be inhaled during showering. For PFOA, the US EPA (http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/hoosick-falls-water-contamination) states that inhalation of PFOA contaminated water (for example, from showering or bathing) is not a significant exposure pathway. PFOA has a much higher boiling point (i.e. 189˚C) than water (i.e. 100˚C), is solid with a very low evaporation rate at room temperature and any inhalation of steam-like aerosols generated while showering or bathing is not a significant exposure.

4.5 Human Behavioural Exposure Assumptions

Within each of the receptor groups considered, variability in the exposed population will exist across the group. To account for this variability, it is proposed to adopt a range of exposure assumptions including:

- A “Typical” exposure assumption based on mean or median parameters for the general population.

- Reasonable Maximum Exposure based on the upper 95th percentile parameters for the general population and/or consideration of mean or median parameters for specific sub-groups who may have a greater exposure magnitude.

DRAFT


D R A F T


16

As noted in Section 2, a number of inputs will be used to refine the CSM and exposure pathways and to select representative parameters and assumptions for the HHRA. Based on the current CSM and available data, the proposed parameters and assumptions are presented in Appendix D. These inputs are based on the current information available at the time of writing. It is noted that some of the assumptions associated with the parameters are based on professional judgement, or are generic parameters. This is particularly true for the commercial receptor. Updating of the CSM through the community survey information will allow these parameters to be refined to consider the outcomes of the survey.

In Australia it is generally assumed for the purpose of screening risk assessments and setting guideline values that the most sensitive individual is the 2–3 year old child (enHealth 2012; ASC NEPM 2013). In some scenarios (i.e. commercial settings) children are not likely to be frequently present and therefore adults are also considered separately.

Children may differ from adults in a range of behavioural and physiological parameters that may need to be taken into account in the risk characterisation phase of risk assessments. (e.g. hand-to-mouth activities for soils, higher respiration rates per unit body weight, increased gastrointestinal absorption of some substances).

In accordance with the ASC NEPM 2013, young child residents and recreational receptors, while assessed on the basis of parameters relevant to 2−3 year old children, have been taken to be representative of children aged between 0 and 6 years of age who live within the same dwelling or visit the same open space area for their entire childhood.

The identification of representative exposure parameters for child and adult receptors in this HHRA included review of published data for the following age groups:

- Infant 0-1 years old

- Young child 1-5 years old (assessed on the basis of parameters relevant to 2−3 year old children)

- Older child 5-12 years old

- Adult >12 years old

Infants have not been modelled separately to young children 1-5 years old (with the exception of breast milk intake) on the basis of the following:

- In accordance with enHealth (2012) the adoption of parameters based on a 2-3 year old child was considered representative of the most sensitive age range within this group.

- While the body weight for a 2-3 year old is greater than for a 0-1 year old, it remains conservative overall for the age range considered.

- The larger skin surface area for a 2-3 year old child is conservatively protective of an infant’s dermal exposure.

- Infants spend less time outdoors and are not likely to engage in many of the associated activities identified as having potentially complete exposure pathways.

- The greater food and drink ingestion rates for a 2-3 year old child are conservatively protective of an infant’s ingestion exposure.

Older children have not been modelled separately to adults on the basis of the following:

- In accordance with the ASC NEPM 2013, ages greater than 5 years old were modelled as adult receptors.

- The body weight adopted for the adult group is larger than for an older child 5-12 years old, however the selected value is consistent with the weight assumed by NHMRC (2013) when setting Australian drinking water standards, and is lower than the average Australian body weight of 78 kg, therefore better reflecting the age range considered (ASC NEPM 2013).

- The larger skin surface area for an adult is conservatively protective of an older child’s dermal exposure.

- Adults are considered to be the primary group engaged in many of the activities identified as having potentially complete exposure pathways (e.g. food preparation, household cleaning, laundry, washing animals or vehicles, irrigating gardens etc).

- The food and drink ingestion rates for an adult are overall higher and therefore conservatively protective of an older child’s ingestion exposure.

DRAFT


D R A F T


17

- While the adult group has a lower published soil ingestion rate than for an older child, the older child’s exposure via this route is considered to be adequately characterised via the assumption that this exposure occurs as a 2-3 year old (the age range identified by enHealth (2012) as most sensitive).

The exposure parameters tabulated for the infant and older child age ranges are considered to remain useful for the purpose of inputting into sensitivity assessments at later stages of the HHRA.

4.6 Exposure Assessment Calculations

As noted in Section 4.3 there are a number of pathways that will be considered in the estimation of risk. The equations used in the estimation of the risk are presented in Appendix E.

DRAFT


D R A F T


18

5.0 Risk characterisation

5.1 Target Risk

The characterisation of risk will be undertaken using a threshold approach (as there is insufficient evidence for carcinogenic behaviour). The threshold approach assumes that there is a level in which exposure to the contaminant does not result in adverse health effects for the general population.

A potentially unacceptable chemical intake/exposure is indicated if the estimated exposure concentrations exceed the reference concentration (i.e. if the hazard quotient is greater than 1.0).

A multiple pathway assessment is proposed based on a combination of a number of scenarios which represent combined exposures in which the Williamtown community may be exposed. It is the aim of the risk characterisation that these scenarios will capture the majority of exposures understood to exist to identified receptors within the investigation area.

To assess the overall potential for adverse health effects posed by exposure to multiple pathways, the hazard quotients for each chemical and exposure pathway relevant to a receptor are summed. The resulting sum is referred to as the hazard index (HI), and is calculated using the following equation.

n

jijiHQHI

1,1,

Where:

HI = Hazard Index (unitless)

HQi,j = Hazard Quotient for pathway i and chemical j (unitless)

n = Number of chemicals and/or pathways relevant to land use scenario

For exposure pathways combinations which are not covered by the generic assumptions within the report, there will be a margin of exposure table which will indicate what the exposure may be for different pathways. This will be in the form of a look up table to ensure that the community has access to information which is relevant to their personal exposure.

5.2 Exposure Scenarios to be considered

It is acknowledged that not all receptors will be exposed via all potentially complete pathways and therefore the assessment will consider a number of possible combinations of potentially complete exposure pathways, based on information obtained from community surveys. An indication of how these scenarios may be considered in the HHRA is detailed below.

Residential Receptors:

- All identified residential and recreational pathways potentially complete.

- All identified residential pathways potentially complete.

- All identified pathways potentially complete, except domestic potable and non-potable indoor household uses of groundwater pathways (i.e. assuming no bore water inside the home)

- All identified pathways potentially complete, except those related to groundwater use in the home and the ingestion of home grown produce.

- All identified pathways potentially complete excluding domestic potable water (i.e. assuming bore water used inside the home for non-potable only).

Recreational Receptors:

- All identified recreational pathways potentially complete.

- Primary contact recreation exposure during boating only

- Primary contact recreation exposure during fishing only

DRAFT


D R A F T


19

- Primary contact recreation exposure in the Creek only.

Commercial Receptors:

- All identified commercial, residential and recreational pathways potentially complete for each specific commercial receptor ie assuming a fisherman or farmer may work and live within the Investigation Area

- All identified commercial pathways potentially complete.

5.3 Background Exposure

Background levels of contamination comprise chemical concentrations present in the environment as a result of everyday activities or natural sources. These chemicals may be present in food, air, water and consumer products and represent the non-Site sources of contamination exposure. This is commonly referred to as background exposure. enHealth (2012) requires that ‘background exposure’ be taken into account during the assessment of potential human health risk.

Background exposure is only applied to threshold contaminants (i.e. non-carcinogens) because intakes of non-threshold contaminants (i.e. carcinogens) are considered on the basis of an increase in risk, which is irrespective of background exposure.

The toxicity profile reports prepared by ToxConsult will provide a quantitative assessment of potential background exposure, including representative background blood serum concentrations (for appropriate compounds).

The ASC NEPM 2013 recommends that in cases where background exposure is considered to be essentially negligible (contributing to less than 5% of the threshold TRV), no background exposure should be applied.

However, for additional conservatism in the initial HHRA, a default of 10% of the TDI will be apportioned to background exposure if the estimated background exposure based on literature review is considered to be lower than this value. This value has been selected based on the NHMRC (2013) Australian Drinking Water Guidelines which stats the following:

“Intake from air is generally negligible compared with other sources, but intake from food, pharmaceuticals and other products can be significant. For chemicals that are used commercially or industrially, it is assumed in the absence of other information that water contributes 10% of intake. For compounds which are not used commercially or industrially, a higher proportion of intake (usually 20% but sometimes 80% or 100%) is assumed to come from drinking water. These figures are regarded as conservative (a higher proportion would result in raising the guideline value), and the approach is consistent with that adopted by the World Health Organisation and by other countries.”

The Australian and WHO drinking water guidelines therefore assume that 10% of the TDI of a compound may come from public drinking water which for the purpose of the initial assessment will be considered to be the primary background exposure source.

DRAFT


D R A F T


20

6.0 Defence Limitations AECOM Services Pty Limited (AECOM) has prepared this report in accordance with the usual care and thoroughness of the consulting profession for the use of Department of Defence and only those third parties who have been authorised in writing by AECOM to rely on the report.

The Report is based on generally accepted practices and standards at the time it was prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report.

The Report is prepared in accordance with the scope of work and for the purpose outlined in the Proposal dated 26 October 2015.

This report should be read in full. No responsibility is accepted for use of any part of this report in any other context or for any other purpose or by third parties.

The methodology adopted and sources of information used by AECOM are outlined in the Report.

Where this report indicates that information has been provided to AECOM by third parties, AECOM has made no independent verification of this information unless required as part of the agreed scope of work. AECOM assumes no liability for any inaccuracies in or omissions to that information.

This Report was prepared between 1 March 2016 and 18 March 2016 The information in this Report is considered to be accurate at the date of issue and is in accordance with conditions at the site at the dates sampled. Opinions and recommendations presented herein apply to the site existing at the time of our investigation and cannot necessarily apply to site changes of which AECOM is not aware and has not had the opportunity to evaluate. This document and the information contained herein should only be regarded as validly representing the site conditions at the time of the investigation unless otherwise explicitly stated in a preceding section of this Report. AECOM disclaims responsibility for any changes that may have occurred after this time.

Except as required by law, no third party may use or rely on, this Report unless otherwise agreed by AECOM in writing. Where such agreement is provided, AECOM will provide a letter of reliance to the agreed third party in the form required by AECOM.

To the extent permitted by law, AECOM expressly disclaims and excludes liability for any loss, damage, cost or expenses suffered by any third party relating to or resulting from the use of, or reliance on, any information contained in this Report. AECOM does not admit that any action, liability or claim may exist or be available to any third party.

AECOM does not represent that this Report is suitable for use by any third party.

Except as specifically stated in this section, AECOM does not authorise the use of this Report by any third party.

It is the responsibility of third parties to independently make inquiries or seek advice in relation to their particular requirements and proposed use of the relevant property.

Any estimates of potential costs which have been provided are presented as estimates only as at the date of the Report. Any cost estimates that have been provided may therefore vary from actual costs at the time of expenditure.

6.1 Ownership of Report

Readers are advised that this Report has been produced under contractual arrangements such that the Consultant grants to Defence a permanent, irrevocable, royalty free, non-exclusive licence (including the right to grant a sub-licence) to use, reproduce, adapt and exploit the intellectual property rights in the Report anywhere in the world. Notwithstanding Part VII of the Copyright Act (1968), publication of the Report in accordance with this licence shall not affect such ownership.

DRAFT


D R A F T


21

7.0 References ANZECC (2000) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality.

Australian Bureau of Statistics Australian Health Survey 2011-13, National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey.

enHealth (2012) Australian Exposure Factor Guide.

enHealth (2012) Environmental Health Risk Assessment: Guidelines for Assessing Human Health Risks from Environmental Hazards.

Environment Agency United Kingdom (2004) Environmental Risk Evaluation Report : Perfluorooctanesulphonate (PFOS)

European Food Safety Authority (2008) Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and their salts, Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Contaminants in the Food chain


USEPA (1989) Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I – Human Health Evaluation Manual Part A.

USEPA (2011) Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Final)

DRAFT


D R A F T


Appendix A

NSW EPA Investigation Area

DRAFT

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GISUser Community

March 14, 2016

Copyright 2016

0 1 20.5 mi

0 2 41 km

1:72,224

Me

DRAFT


D R A F T


Appendix B

Water Use Survey

DRAFT

Water Use Questionnaire RAAF Base Williamtown The purpose of this questionnaire is to obtain information from you about your water use. Information collected through these questionnaires will help us to determine what additional sampling needs to be conducted within the investigation area to better understand the hydrogeological characteristics of the Williamtown area.

Please submit completed surveys via:

• email: [email protected]• post: RAAF Base Williamtown Environmental Investigation Project C/URS Australia Pty Ltd

Level 8, 420 George Street, Sydney NSW 2000 Thank you.

Name

Property address

Postal address

Email

Phone number

This information is being collected by URS Australia Pty Ltd [email protected] on behalf of the Department of Defence.

The requested information will inform Defence's investigation of, and response to, the groundwater contamination in the Williamtown area. The collection of this information is voluntary. If you choose not to provide this information, Defence will not be able to take into account your specific circumstances.

The information you provide may be shared with Defence's technical advisors, relevant NSW government agencies and organisations, and business entities directly involved in the response to the groundwater contamination. Such organisations may include, but are not limited to: NSW Environmental Protection Agency, NSW Department of Health, NSW Department of Primary Industries, NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, Hunter Water Corporation, NSW Department of Industry

The Defence Privacy Policy is available at http://www.defence.gov.au/privacy. The Defence Privacy Policy contains information on how an individual may apply for access to their personal information and how an individual may apply to have their personal information amended. The Defence Privacy Policy also contains information for individuals on how to make a privacy complaint to Defence if they consider Defence may have breached the APPs. The Defence Privacy Officer can be contacted by email at: [email protected].

• phone: 1800 011 443

DRAFT

1. What type of property are you responding about?

Private residential

Industrial / Commercial

Agricultural

Horticultural

Other (please specify)

2. How is water supplied to the dwelling/ house on your property (for household/ domestic use)?

Hunter Water Supply

Tank / Rain Water

Bore Water

Not applicable/ this is a non-residential property

3. How is water supplied to your property for outdoor/ non-household use?

Hunter Water Supply

Tank / Rain Water

Bore Water

The following questions relate to bore water usage. If your property does not have a bore, please stop here and submit your survey via post or email.

4. What activities do you currently use bore water for on your property? (Tick all that apply)

Drinking

Other household (cooking, showering, washing, etc.)

Irrigation (crops)

Cattle, stock, horse watering

Vegetable / Fruit trees

Swimming

Other

5. How long have you been using bore water for the purpose(s) noted above?

DRAFT

6. If you do not currently use bore water for any of the purposes above, have you done so in the

past?

Yes

No

Unsure

7. If, yes, please provide details of usage including when it occurred and for how long

8. How many active bores do you have on your property (in working condition)?

None

1

2

3+

9. Please provide further details on your bore(s).

a) How long have you resided at this property?

b) What is/are the depth of the bore(s)?

c) What is the date of installation of your bore(s)?

d) What volume of water are you permitted to extract (if applicable)?

e) What is your annual volume of extraction?

f) Do you extract and store water on site (e.g. in dams or tanks)?

Yes

No

g) Do you extract water for aquaculture (private or commercial purposes)?

Yes

No

DRAFT

10. Is your bore plumbed into the house and used for household or domestic purposes (other than flushing toilets)?

Yes – the bore is plumbed directly to the house and supplies household water

Yes – the bore is connected to rainwater tanks which supply household water

No – the bore is not connected to the house

11. Do you have rainwater tanks to supply water at your property?

Yes

No

If yes, please specify how many tanks and their capacity

12. If yes, are these rainwater tanks plumbed into the house?

Yes

No – water is used for outdoor purposes

No – tanks are not connected to the house, but water is sometimes used for household purposes

Not applicable/ I don’t have rainwater tanks.

13. Have your household rainwater tanks contained bore water, either currently or historically?

Yes – my household rainwater tanks are currently mixed with bore water

Yes – in the past

No – bore water has not been used in rainwater tanks

14. Are there other sources of surface water on your property (e.g. creek, natural pond, dam)?

No

Yes – please specify ____________________________

DRAFT

15. Please provide any additional comments about your water usage.

Thank you for completing this questionnaire.

If you have any questions please contact the project team: E: [email protected]

DRAFT


D R A F T


Appendix C

Community Survey (Placeholder)

DRAFT

Child Residential / Recreational Receptor

Parameter UnitsTypical (Mean or Median,

as noted)

Upper estimate (95th Percentile,

or specify if other)Notes Reference

General receptor parameters

Body weight kg 15 17

Based on a 2-3 year old child, male and female mean combined. Rounded down from 15.4 kg for a mean. The 95th percentile for a 2-3 year was not available for Australian data. As such the value of 17 kg is recommended which is calculated from WHO 2009 and based on a 95thile of 36 month old combined male and female.

enHealth (2012)

Exposure duration yr. 5 5The average and 95th percentile duration of residence in Australia from the 2001–2006 HILDA survey data are approximately 10 and 35 years, respectively. It is assumed that the duration of residence starts at birth.

enHealth (2012)

Averaging time yr 5 5 equal to ED enHealth (2012b)

Total skin surface area m2 0.61 0.7Mean and 95th based on data from US EPA (2008, Table 7–1) for male and female children combined aged 2-3 year old child, as recommended by enHealth (2012). These values are also recommended by the USEPA 2011.

enHealth (2012)

Skin surface area - head m2 0.05 0.06Based on Mean Percent of Total Surface Area presented in USEPA (2011) EFH, Table 7-2 for a 2-<3 year old child

USEPA (2011)

Skin surface area - trunk m2 0.25 0.29Based on Mean Percent of Total Surface Area presented in USEPA (2011) EFH, Table 7-2 for a 2-<3 year old child

USEPA (2011)

Skin surface area - arms m2 0.09 0.10Based on Mean Percent of Total Surface Area presented in USEPA (2011) EFH, Table 7-2 for a 2-<3 year old child

USEPA (2011)

Skin surface area - hands m2 0.03 0.03Based on Mean Percent of Total Surface Area presented in USEPA (2011) EFH, Table 7-2 for a 2-<3 year old child

USEPA (2011)

Skin surface area - legs m2 0.15 0.18Based on Mean Percent of Total Surface Area presented in USEPA (2011) EFH, Table 7-2 for a 2-<3 year old child

USEPA (2011)

Skin surface area - feet m2 0.04 0.04Based on Mean Percent of Total Surface Area presented in USEPA (2011) EFH, Table 7-2 for a 2-<3 year old child

USEPA (2011)

Parameter

Exposure frequency days/yr - 365 As per residential scenario in ASC NEPM 2013, which references enHealth (2012) ASC NEPM 2013 / enHealth (2012b)

Potable water intake rate L/day 0.4 0.9Typical is based on a mean and includes direct and indirect (including food preparation). Upper estimate is 95 percentile. Both values are based on a 2-3 year old child as presented in Table 4.2.5

enHealth (2012)

Breast Milk


Exposure duration years 1 1assumes exlusive breast feeding for one year. This is considered to be conservative for scenarios where breast feeding may continue for longer periods at lower frequencies as a supplement to soild food after 6 months of age

Professional judgement

Breast milk intake rate L/day - 0.85

WHO (1985) indicate the average infant’s daily intake of breast milk (less than six months of age) is 850 mL/day. FSANZ 2008 regularly uses 800 mL/day for formula in their dietary exposure assessments. enHealth note that a value of 850 m/L day is towards the high end and close to the estimated intake based on a calculation of energy requirements which includes body weight. Upper estimates not available. In absence of an upper estimate in Australia, the WHO value is selected. It will be used in combination with an upper estimate of exposure frequency.

enHealth (2012)

Incidental Soil Ingestion

Daily soil incidental ingestion rate mg/day 50 100

Based on a 1-15 year old. Typical scenario is based on the central tendency value for outside soil. Upper estimate is equal to both the reasonable maximum for outside soil and the central tendency for outside soil plus indoor dust; where 50% of indoor dust is assumed to be derived from outdoor sources. The ASC NEPM states that the rounded average value includes soil adhering to home grown produce (ASC NEPM 2013). This value does not account for pica or geophagic behaviour.

enHealth (2012) / ASC NEPM 2013


Dermal Contact With Soil

Exposed skin surface area for soil contact

m2 0.19 0.22

enHealth (2012) states that the body parts likely to be exposed during outdoor activities are the hands, lower legs, forearms, and feet. Surface area data for forearms and lower legs of children and adolescents are not available and enHealth recommends assuming the area of forearms and lower legs are approximately 50% of that for arms and legs.

enHealth (2012)

Soil to skin adherence factor mg/cm2 0.5 1.7

Suggested by enHealth (2012) for screening risk assessments. However, enHealth (2012) also recommends using soil adherence data that match as close as possible the exposure scenario being evaluated; considerations should be given to factors such as soil type, the particular exposed body parts and activities. Therefore these values may be subject to further review.

enHealth (2012)


Incidental Sediment Ingestion

Exposure frequency days/yr 52 104Typical value is based on an average of 1 visit to the waterway per week and an upper estimate of all weekend, every weekend.

Professional judgment

Daily sediment ingestion rate mg/day 50 100No data identified. Assumed to be equal to incidental soil ingestion rates. This value may be revised based on further research.


Page 1 of 12 draft

Draft



as noted)



Dermal Contact With SedimentExposed skin surface area for sediment contact

m2 0.16 0.19 Based on feet and lower legs exposed during wading Professional judgment

Sediment to skin adherence factor mg/cm2 0.49 1

The typical value is based on a child hand adherence value as per USEPA 2011. The upper estimate is based on Department of Environmental Protection Mass. EPA’s weighted adherence factor for “kids-in-the-mud” is two orders of magnitude higher than any of DEP’s default values for soil. Use of such a high adherence factor in a risk characterization would lead to a very high estimate of the average daily dose of contaminant received from dermal contact with sediment. DEP recognizes thatsediment adherence on the skin can be very high. However, there is evidence that as soil loading on the skin increases above a critical level, the fraction of a contaminant absorbed decreases (EPA 1998 draft). The critical level is the monolayer, which is described as a single layer of tightly packed soil particles. The level of soil loading that equals the monolayer has not been well established and is likely to vary according to soil density and particle size. Based on judgement and unpublished experimentalobservations, DEP has identified a value of 1 mg/cm2 as a best estimate of the loading that corresponds to a monolayer with most sediment types encountered at hazardous waste sites. Thus, at soil loadings greater than 1 mg/cm2, total absorption would not continue to increase. DEP believes that use of a sediment adherence factor of 22 mg/cm2 is not reasonable as a default value because it may substantially overestimate the dose of contaminant received from dermal contact with sediment. Instead, DEP recommends using 1 mg/cm2 as a default adherence factor for sediment. This value is the best estimate of the monolayer, which is in theory, the level at which maximum absorption would occur. This recommended sediment adherence factor of 1 mg/cm2 is not a weighted valueand thus, need not be used in combination with specific body part assumptions. Riskassessors should select the body parts appropriate for the receptor group beingevaluated.

USEPA (2011) / DEP accessed at http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dep/cleanup/laws/dermadhe.pdf

Exposure frequency for dermal contact with sediment

days/yr 52 104Typical value is based on an average of 1 visit to the waterway per week and an upper estimate

of all weekend, every weekend. Professional judgment

Dust - Indoor Inhalation

Exposure time (indoor air) hrs/day 16.3 21.6 Based on a 2-3 year old child. Sourced from US EPA (2008). As per Table E4 enHealth (2012)

Exposure frequency (indoor air) days/yr - 365 As per residential scenario in ASC NEPM 2013, which references enHealth (2012) enHealth (2012) / ASC NEPM 2013

Particulate emission factor (indoor air)

m3/kg - 2.60E+07 Calculated based on a dust loading factor ASC NEPM 2013

Lung Retention Factor (dust inhalation)

unitless - 0.375Describes the percentage of respirable dust that is small enough to be retained in lungs and is associated with health effects.

ASC NEPM 2013

Dust - Outdoor Inhalation

Exposure time (outdoor air) hrs/day 2 -Based on a 2-3 year old child. Sourced from US EPA (2008). Upper estimates not available. Table E4

enHealth (2012)

Exposure frequency (outdoor air) days/yr - 365 As per residential scenario in ASC NEPM 2013, which references enHealth (2012) enHealth (2012b) / ASC NEPM 2013

Particulate emission factor (outdoor air)

m3/kg - 2.90E+10 Refer to Appendix B and Section 5.3.3.1 of Schedule B7. Value for low density dwellings. ASC NEPM 2013


unitless - 0.375Describes the percentage of respirable dust that is small enough to be retained in lungs and is associated with health effects. Same value for both indoor and outdoor

ASC NEPM 2013

Showering/ Bathing

Exposure frequency days/yr - 365Assume you wash every day you are home. As per residential scenario in ASC NEPM 2013, which references enHealth (2012)

enHealth (2012b) /ASC NEPM 2013

Activity durationhours/event

0.38 0.75 Mean value, Based on bathing duration for a 2-<3 year old child. Table ES-1 USEPA (2011)

Events per day event / day 1 2enHealth notes that once event per day is central estimate and 2 showers a day is upper estimate.

enHealth (2012)

Incidental water ingestion rate mL/hour 50 150

Based on the water ingestion rate for male and female children <15 years old during recreational swimming in swimming pools. Typical value is based on an average. Swimming activities are considered conservative for incidental ingestion during showering/ bathing. Table 4.6.3

enHealth (2012)

Exposed skin surface for water contact

m2 0.61 0.7 Entire body enHealth (2012)

Domestic Food and Drink Preparation/Clean-up

Exposure frequency days/yr - -Considered unlikely that a child >1-5 would routinely undertake food and drink preparation/ clean-up


Activity duration hours/day - -Considered unlikely that a child >1-5 would routinely undertake food and drink preparation/ clean-up


Incidental water ingestion rate mL/hour - -Considered unlikely that a child >1-5 would routinely undertake food and drink preparation/ clean-up



m2 - -Considered unlikely that a child >1-5 would routinely undertake food and drink preparation/ clean-up


Domestic Laundry and Clothes Care (by hand)

Exposure frequency days/yr - - Considered unlikely that a child >1-5 would routinely undertake laundry duties Professional judgement

Activity duration hours/day - - Considered unlikely that a child >1-5 would routinely undertake laundry duties Professional judgement

Incidental water ingestion rate mL/hour - - Considered unlikely that a child >1-5 would routinely undertake laundry duties Professional judgement


m2 - - Considered unlikely that a child >1-5 would routinely undertake laundry duties Professional judgement

Other housework (e.g. mopping floor, window cleaning etc.)

Exposure frequency days/yr - 52 Assumes housework/ cleaning work once per week Professional judgement

Activity duration hours/day 0.37 0.97

Considered unlikely that a child >1-5 would routinely undertake household cleaning duties, however they may walk on a floor during or shortly after cleaning. Typical value is based on male and female daily average for all persons. Upper estimate is based on daily average time for female participants from Table 6.2.5.

enHealth (2012)

Incidental water ingestion rate mL/hour - - Considered unlikely that a child >1-5 would routinely undertake household cleaning duties Professional judgement


m2 0.07 0.08Considered unlikely that a child <1 -5 would routinely undertake household cleaning duties, however they may walk on a floor during or shortly after cleaning. Surface area based on hands and feet

enHealth (2012) / professional judgement

Page 2 of 12 draft

Draft



as noted)



Fishing

Exposure frequency days/yr - 52No frequency data were available for children up to 5, therefore assumed to occur on average once per week


Activity duration hours/day 3.6 - Assumed that the child accompanies an adult Professional judgement

Incidental water ingestion rate mL/hour 3.6 10.8Typical based on the mean for fishing. Upper is based on a UCL of a mean +1.96 x standard deviation. Based on a study conducted by Dorevitch et al. (2011) and reproduced in USEPA (2011)

USEPA (2011)


m2 0.19 0.22 Based on hands, forearms, lower legs and feetenHealth (2012) / professional judgement

Boating Recreational



Activity duration hours/day 0.32 1.47 Assumed that the child accompanies an adult Professional judgement

Incidental water ingestion rate mL/hour 3.7 11.2Typical based on the mean for boating. Upper is based on a UCL of a mean +1.96 x standard deviation. Based on a study conducted by Dorevitch et al. (2011) and reproduced in USEPA (2011)

USEPA (2011)


m2 0.22 0.70Based on feet, legs and hands for typical and whole body for upper estimate (accounts for water sport activities).


Swimming in Pools



Activity duration hours/day 0.06 - Based on an average of 23 minutes per year for 2-<3 year old child enHealth (2012)

Incidental water ingestion rate mL/hour 50 150Based on the water ingestion rate for male and female children <15 years old during recreational swimming in swimming pools.

enHealth (2012)


m2 0.61 0.7 Entire body enHealth (2012)

Sprinkler play

Exposure frequency days/yr - 52 No frequency data were available, therefore assumed to occur on average once per week Professional judgement

Activity duration hours/day 0.06 - No data identified, assumed to be equal to swimming Professional judgement

Incidental water ingestion rate mL/hour 25 75No data identified, assumed to be equal to half the rate of swimming as it is not an immersive activity.



m2 0.61 0.7 Entire bodyenHealth (2012) / professional judgement

Washing animals (horses, dogs etc)

Exposure frequency days/yr 52 312 Considered likely to range from once per week for pets to six days per week for race horses Professional judgement

Activity duration hours/day 0.37 1.1Based on average time per day on grounds and animal care (assumed all animal care). Typical value is for all persons, upper estimate is for participants only as sourced from ABS 2006 and presented in enHealth 2012.

enHealth 2012

Incidental water ingestion rate mL/hour - 5 No data available, assumed to be equal to incidental ingestion while irrigating gardens Professional judgement


m2 0.19 0.22Based on hands and forearms, lower legs and feet. It is noted that feet may be covered for some washing activities, but conservatively assumed to get wet


Washing vehicles

Exposure frequency days/yr - - Considered unlikely for a child >1-5 year old Professional judgement

Activity duration hours/day - - Considered unlikely for a child >1-5 year old Professional judgement

Incidental water ingestion rate mL/hour - - Considered unlikely for a child >1-5 year old Professional judgement


m2 - - Considered unlikely for a child >1-5 year old Professional judgement

Irrigating domestic lawns/ gardens / crops

Exposure frequency days/yr 208 -Assumes watering lawns/ gardens an average every day in spring/ summer and weekly in autumn/ winter.


Activity duration hours/day 0.37 1.1Based on average time per day on grounds and animal care (assumed all grounds care). Typical value is for all persons, upper estimate is for participants only from ABS 2006 and presented in enHealth 2012.

enHealth 2012

Incidental water ingestion rate mL/hour - 5 Incidental ingestion of 5 mL water during irrigation of gardens

enRisks, 2013, Former ChlorAlkali Plant, Human Health and Environmental Risk Assessment - 2013


m2 0.19 0.22 Based on hands and forearms, lower legs and feet enHealth (2012)

Page 3 of 12 draft

Draft



as noted)



Ingestion of Home Grown Plant Produce

Exposure frequency days/year - 365 As per residential scenario in ASC NEPM 2013, which references enHealth (2012) enHealth (2012b) / ASC NEPM 2013

Vegetable, legume and pulse products and dishes

g/day 79.9 296.8Typical value is the mean for all persons. Upper estimate is the median value for consumers only. Based on a 2-3 year old child.

ABS, 2014

Fruit products and dishes g/day 185.5 198Typical value is the mean for all persons. Upper estimate is the median value for consumers only. Based on a 2-3 year old child

ABS, 2014

Percentage of total fruit and vegetable consumption for subgroups

Green Vegetables % 55 55 Table 7, Schedule B7 ASC NEPM 2013

Root Vegetables % 17 17 Table 7, Schedule B7 ASC NEPM 2013

Tuber Vegetables % 28 28 Table 7, Schedule B7 ASC NEPM 2013

Tree Fruit % 100 100 Table 7, Schedule B7 ASC NEPM 2013

Fraction of home grown produce % 10 - No upper estimate available from literature. Will be evaluated from survey data ASC NEPM 2013

Ingestion of Fish

Daily fish ingestion rate (finfish only)

g/day 4.5

Typical value is the mean for all persons. Upper estimate is the median value for consumers only. Based on a 2-3 year old child. There is a value of 104.3 g/day for fish and seafood products combined homemade and takeaway that could be considered. Also upper estimate value may change if supporting data from ABS 2014 regarding 95 percentile is acquired.

ABS, 2014

Exposure frequency for fish ingestion

days/yr - 365 As per residential scenario in ASC NEPM 2013, which references enHealth (2012) enHealth (2012b) / ASC NEPM 2013

Daily fish ingestion rate (crustaceans and molluscs)

g/day 0.2 No data for upper estimate. Typical value is the mean for all persons based on 2-3 year old ABS, 2014

Fraction of daily fish intake from site

unitless - 100 No typical estimate available from literature. Will be evaluated from survey data ASC NEPM 2013

Consumption of Milk


Dairy milk (cow, and goat) L/day

Dairy milk (cow, and goat) g/day 304.3 386.4Typical value is the mean for all persons. Upper estimate is the median value for consumers only. Based on a 2-3 year old child

ABS, 2014

Consumption of Meat


Intake rates sourced from enHealth 2012 and ABS, 2014:

Beef, sheep and pork, unprocessed

g/day 11.2 82.8Typical value is the mean for all persons. Upper estimate is the median value for consumers only. Based on a 2-3 year old child

ABS, 2014

Mammalian game meats (inc. rabbit)

g/day 0 -Typical value is the mean for all persons. Upper estimate is the median value for consumers only. Based on a 2-3 year old child

ABS, 2014

Poultry and feathered game g/day 9.9 69.5Typical value is the mean for all persons. Upper estimate is the median value for consumers only. Based on a 2-3 year old child

ABS, 2014

Organ meats and offal, products and dishes

g/day 0 -Typical value is the mean for all persons. Upper estimate is the median value for consumers only. Based on a 2-3 year old child

ABS, 2014

Mixed dishes where beef, sheep, pork or mammalian game is the major component


ABS, 2014

Mixed dishes where poultry or feathered game is the major component

g/day 21 80Typical value is the mean for all persons. Upper estimate is the median value for consumers only. Based on a 2-3 year old child

ABS, 2014

Consumption of Eggs


Intake rate - egg products and dishes


ABS, 2014

Consumption of Traditional Food Items

soil ingestion g/day TBC on receipt of survey

Consumption of Honey


Intake rate (sugar, honey and syrups)


ABS, 2014

Consumption of Juices


Intake rate (fruit and vegetable juices)

g/day 114.2 260Typical value is the mean for all persons. Upper estimate is the median value for consumers only. Based on a 2-3 year old child

ABS, 2014

Swimming in Creeks



Activity duration hours/day 0.06 - Based on an average of 23 minutes per year for 2-<3 year old child enHealth (2012)

Incidental water ingestion rate mL/hour 50 150Based on the water ingestion rate for male and female children <15 years old during recreational swimming in swimming pools.

enHealth (2012)


m2 0 0 Entire body enHealth (2012)

Page 4 of 12 draft

Draft

Parameter Units


Body weight kg

Exposure duration yr.

Averaging time yr

Total skin surface area m2

Skin surface area - head m2

Skin surface area - trunk m2

Skin surface area - arms m2

Skin surface area - hands m2

Skin surface area - legs m2

Skin surface area - feet m2

Parameter

Exposure frequency days/yr

Potable water intake rate L/day

Breast Milk


Exposure duration years

Breast milk intake rate L/day


Daily soil incidental ingestion rate mg/day




m2

Soil to skin adherence factor mg/cm2




Daily sediment ingestion rate mg/day

Adult Residential / Recreational Receptor

Typical (Mean or Median, as

noted)

Upper estimate (95th Percentile, or specify

if other)Notes Reference

70 100

Typical value is a mean. Both values are based on female body weights, considered conservative for male body weights and combined populations. Also selected as it better reflects the larger age range, to include young adults (ASC NEPM 2013). The 70 kg is consistent with the body weight adopted in the derivation of the Australian drinking water guidelines.


4 29The average and 95th percentile duration of residence in Australia from the 2001–2006 HILDA survey data are approximately 10 and 35 years, respectively. It is assumed that the duration of residence starts at birth.

enHealth (2012)

4 29 equal to ED enHealth (2012b)

2 2.4Mean and 95thile. Based on data from US EPA 2009 (Table 7-11 and Table 7-12) combined value for males and females as recommended by enHealth 2012.

enHealth (2012)

0.13 0.15Based on Mean Percent of Total Surface Area presented in USEPA (2011) EFH, Table 7-2, averaged for male and female adults. Total surface area is taken from enHealth 2012

USEPA (2011) and enHealth (2012)











- 365 As per residential scenario in ASC NEPM 2013, which references enHealth (2012) ASC NEPM 2013 / enHealth (2012b)

2 5

Includes water used in food preparation. Typical value is the lifetime average daily intake of tap water (i.e. community water) by most Australian adults spanning a range of climates and short term activities. Upper estimate is based on adults undertaking moderate work in temperate environments. Temperate environments are defined as climate with annual mean daily temperature of 0-26.7 degrees centigrade

enHealth (2012)

- -

Not an applicable pathway

- -

- -

Not an applicable pathway

50 60

Typical scenario is a rounded average and is outside soil plus indoor dust. The upper estimate is a 95 percentile and is also outside soil plus indoor dust. The ASC NEPM states that the rounded average value includes soil adhering to home grown produce (ASC NEPM 2013). This value does not account for pica or geophagic behaviour.



0.63 0.79enHealth recommends selecting a mean value for potentially exposed skin of 0.63 m2 for males and females combined and of 0.79 m2 for 95th Percentile

enHealth (2012)

0.5 1.7

Suggested by enHealth (2012) for screening risk assessments. However, enHealth (2012) also recommends using soil adherence data that match as close as possible the exposure scenario being evaluated; considerations should be given to factors such as soil type, the particular exposed body parts and activities. Therefore these values may be subject to further review.

enHealth (2012)


52 104Typical value is based on an average of 1 visit to the waterway per week and an upper estimate of all weekend, every weekend.


50 60No data identified. Assumed to be equal to incidental soil ingestion rates. This value may be revised based on further research.


Page 5 of 12 draft

Draft

Parameter Units


m2

Sediment to skin adherence factor mg/cm2


days/yr


Exposure time (indoor air) hrs/day

Exposure frequency (indoor air) days/yr


m3/kg


unitless


Exposure time (outdoor air) hrs/day

Exposure frequency (outdoor air) days/yr


m3/kg


unitless

Showering/ Bathing



Events per day event / day

Incidental water ingestion rate mL/hour


m2



Activity duration hours/day



m2






m2






m2



noted)



0.66 0.79 Based on feet and lower legs exposed during wading Professional judgment

0.88 1



52 104Typical value is based on an average of 1 visit to the waterway per week and an upper estimate of all weekend, every weekend.


20 24

Australian data indicate approximately 42% of adult women and 22% of adult men spend 20 hours or more per day indoors (at home). Thus it is suggested the average total time spent indoors of 20 hrs/d may also be appliedfor time spent indoors at home, with areasonable maximum of 24 hrs/d.

enHealth (2012)

- 365 As per residential scenario in ASC NEPM 2013, which references enHealth (2012) enHealth (2012) / ASC NEPM 2013

- 2.60E+07 Calculated based on a dust loading factor ASC NEPM 2013

- 0.375Describes the percentage of respirable dust that is small enough to be retained in lungs and is associated with health effects.

ASC NEPM 2013

3 -

For time spent outdoors by adults, Australian data (for participants) from the 2006 Time Use Activity survey (ABS 2006a) indicate an average of 2.6 hrs/d is spent in total on ‘ground and animal care’ and ‘sport and outdoor activity’ by males and females combined. In the absence of more information, this value was rounded up to 3 hrs/d and suggested as an approximate average for time spent outdoors by adults for use in Australian screening risk assessments (Tables 6.2.1 and 6.2.2). Upper estimates are not available.

enHealth (2012)

- 365 As per residential scenario in ASC NEPM 2013, which references enHealth (2012) enHealth (2012b) / ASC NEPM 2013

- 2.90E+10 Refer to Appendix B and Section 5.3.3.1 of Schedule B7. Value for low density dwellings. ASC NEPM 2013

- 0.375Describes the percentage of respirable dust that is small enough to be retained in lungs and is associated with health effects. Same value for both indoor and outdoor

ASC NEPM 2013

- 365Assume you wash every day you are home. As per residential scenario in ASC NEPM 2013, which references enHealth (2012)

enHealth (2012b) /ASC NEPM 2013

0.28 0.75

Typical is combined average for bathing and showering for 18 to <64 year old. Upper estimate is based on 95th percentile showering duration for a 16-<21 year old (no upper estimate available for older adults). It is assumed that from teenage years onwards that the daily showering is preferred over daily bath. Table ES-1.

USEPA (2011)

1 2enHealth notes that once event per day is central estimate and 2 showers a day is upper estimate.

enHealth (2012)

25 125Based on the water ingestion rate for male and female adults >15 years old during recreational swimming in swimming pools. Typical is based on an approximate average. Swimming activities are considered conservative for incidental ingestion during showering/ bathing. Table 4.6.3

enHealth (2012)

2 2.4 Entire body enHealth (2012)

- 365 As per residential scenario in ASC NEPM 2013, which references enHealth (2012) enHealth (2012b) /ASC NEPM 2013

0.8 1.35Typical value is based on male and female average for all persons. Upper estimate is based on average time for female participants from Table 6.2.5

enHealth (2012)

0 0 Potable intake value includes water used in food preparation. enHealth (2012)

0.24 0.29 Based on hands and forearmsenHealth (2012) / professional judgement

104 365Typical is based on washing both days of weekend only, and upper estimate is based on every day.


0.3 0.97Typical value is based on male and female daily average for all persons. Upper estimate is based on daily average time for female participants. From Table 6.2.5. Assumes duration is for hand washing which is protective of machine washing

enHealth (2012)

0 0 Assumed to be negligible during laundry work Professional judgement

0.24 0.288 Based on hands and forearmsenHealth (2012) / professional judgement

- 52 Assumes housework/ cleaning work with water once per week Professional judgement

0.37 0.97Typical value is based on male and female daily average for all persons. Upper estimate is based on daily average time for female participants from Table 6.2.5.

enHealth (2012)

0 0 Assumed to be negligible during cleaning/ housework Professional judgement

0.24 0.288 Based on hands and forearms. enHealth (2012) / professional judgement

Page 6 of 12 draft

Draft

Parameter Units

Fishing





m2

Boating





m2

Swimming in Pools





m2

Sprinkler play





m2






m2

Washing vehicles





m2






m2



noted)



- 52No frequency data were available for adult, therefore assumed to occur on average once per week


3.6 - Average time per day spent fishing by male and female participants ABS, 2009

3.6 10.8Typical based on the mean for fishing. Upper is based on a UCL of a mean +1.96 x standard deviation. Based on a study conducted by Dorevitch et al. (2011) and reproduced in USEPA (2011)

USEPA (2011)

0.7 0.84 Based on hands, forearms, lower legs and feetenHealth (2012) / professional judgement

- 52No frequency data were available for adult, therefore assumed to occur on average once per week


0.32 1.47Based on average time per day on sport and outdoor activities by male and female participants (assumed all outdoor activities are boating). Typical value is for all persons (Table 4.1), upper estimate is for participants only (Table 4.2)

ABS, 2009

3.7 11.2Typical based on the mean for boating. Based on a study conducted by Dorevitch et al. (2011) and reproduced in USEPA (2011)

USEPA (2011)

0.887 2.4Based on feet, legs and hands for typical and whole body for upper estimate (accounts for water sport activities).


52 150

Typical value is the upper range of the frequency of children (aged 5–14 years) who participate in swimming (ABS 2006b, Table 16, p. 33; ABS 2009, Table 13 p. 29), adopted by enHealth (2012) as a national population average. No Australian data for the upper estimate were available, therefore value was adopted by enHealth (2012) from US studies, noting that this may, however, be a generous ‘high end’ estimate for many risk assessment scenarios since ABS (2006, Table 16 p. 33) indicated only 18.7% of the general Australian population participated in swimming more than 53 times in a year

enHealth (2012)

0.5 1.5

Values reflect the rounded-up average time spent on sport/ outdoor activity by Australian adults (≥ 15 years) (22 minutes, i.e. 0.4 hrs/d) male and female combined and organised sport by children aged 5–14 years (6 hrs/fortnight, i.e. approx0.4 hrs/d) (ABS 2006a). The value for people who swim corresponds to the time spent on sport/outdoor activity by those survey respondents (≥ 15 years) who indicated they participated in sport/outdoor activities (Table 6.2.10, Australian Time Use Survey Table 4 (ABS 2006a). A conservative assumption is made that all sport/outdoor activity is swimming, reflecting the lack of data for the parameter.

enHealth (2012)

25 125Based on the water ingestion rate for male and female adults >15 years old during recreational swimming in swimming pools.

enHealth (2012)

2 2.4 Entire body enHealth (2012)

- 52 Assumption that the adult is playing with the children Professional judgement

0.5 1.5 Assumption that the adult is playing with the children Professional judgement

12.5 62.5No data identified, assumed to be equal to half the rate of swimming as it is not an immersive activity.


2 2.4 Entire bodyenHealth (2012) / professional judgement

52 312 Considered likely to range from once per week for pets to six days per week for race horses Professional judgement

0.37 1.1Based on average time per day on grounds and animal care (assumed all animal care). Typical value is for all persons, upper estimate is for participants only as sourced from ABS 2006 and presented in enHealth 2012\

enHealth 2012

- 5 No data available, assumed to be equal to incidental ingestion while irrigating gardens Professional judgement

0.7 0.84Based on hands and forearms, lower legs and feet. It is noted that feet may be covered for some washing activities, but conservatively assumed to get wet


26 - No frequency data were available, therefore assumed to occur on average once per fortnight Professional judgement

0.37 1.1Based on average time per day on grounds and animal care (assumed vehicle washing undertaken as part of grounds care). Typical value is for all persons, upper estimate is for participants only from ABS 2006 and presented in enHealth 2012.

enHealth 2012

- 5 No data available, assumed to be equal to incidental ingestion while irrigating gardens Professional judgement

0.7 0.84 Based on hands and forearms, lower legs and feetenHealth (2012) / professional judgement

208 -Assumes watering lawns/ gardens an average every day in spring/ summer and weekly in autumn/ winter.


0.37 1.1Based on average time per day on grounds and animal care (assumed all grounds care). Typical value is for all persons, upper estimate is for participants only from ABS 2006 and presented in enHealth 2012.

enHealth 2012

- 5 Incidental ingestion of 5 mL water during irrigation of gardens

enRisks, 2013, Former ChlorAlkali Plant, Human Health and Environmental Risk Assessment - 2013

0.7 0.84 Based on hands and forearms, lower legs and feet enHealth (2012)

Page 7 of 12 draft

Draft

Parameter Units


Exposure frequency days/year


g/day

Fruit products and dishes g/day


Green Vegetables %

Root Vegetables %

Tuber Vegetables %

Tree Fruit %

Fraction of home grown produce %

Ingestion of Fish


g/day


days/yr


g/day


unitless

Consumption of Milk



Dairy milk (cow, and goat) g/day

Consumption of Meat


Intake rates sourced from enHealth 2012 and A


g/day


g/day

Poultry and feathered game g/day


g/day


g/day


g/day

Consumption of Eggs



g/day


soil ingestion g/day




g/day




g/day

Swimming in Creeks





m2



noted)




185.5 345.9Typical value is the mean for all persons. Upper estimate is the median value for consumers only. Based on adults >19 years old

ABS, 2014


ABS, 2014

59 59 Table 7, Schedule B7 ASC NEPM 2013




10 - No upper estimate available from literature. Will be evaluated from survey data ASC NEPM 2013

8.4 110

Typical value is the mean for all persons. Upper estimate is the median value for consumers only. Based on adults >19 years old. Upper estimate value may change if supporting data from ABS 2014 regarding 95 percentile is acquired.

ABS, 2014


74.4

Typical value is the mean for all persons. Upper estimate is the median value for consumers only. Based on adults >19 years old. Upper estimate value may change if supporting data from ABS 2014 regarding 95 percentile is acquired.

ABS, 2014

- 100 No typical estimate available from literature. Will be evaluated from survey data ASC NEPM 2013


154 156Typical value is the mean for all persons. Upper estimate is the median value for consumers only. Based on adults >19 years old

ABS, 2014


43.3 156Typical value is the mean for all persons. Upper estimate is the median value for consumers only. Based on adults >19 years old

ABS, 2014


ABS, 2014


ABS, 2014


ABS, 2014


ABS, 2014

38 210Typical value is the mean for all persons. Upper estimate is the median value for consumers only. Based on adults >19 years old

ABS, 2014



ABS, 2014



ABS, 2014



ABS, 2014

52 150

Assumes the receptor swims in creek in lieu of backyard pool. Typical value is the upper range of the frequency of children (aged 5–14 years) who participate in swimming (ABS 2006b, Table 16, p. 33; ABS 2009, Table 13 p. 29), adopted by enHealth (2012) as a national population average. No Australian data for the upper estimate were available, therefore value was adopted by enHealth (2012) from US studies, noting that this may, however, be a generous ‘high end’ estimate for many risk assessment scenarios since ABS (2006, Table 16 p. 33) indicated only 18.7% of the general Australian population participated in swimming more than 53 times in a year

enHealth (2012)

0.5 1.5

Assumes the receptor swims in creek in lieu of backyard pool. Values reflect the rounded-up average time spent on sport/ outdoor activity by Australian adults (≥ 15 years) (22 minutes, i.e. 0.4 hrs/d) male and female combined and organised sport by children aged 5–14 years (6 hrs/fortnight, i.e. approx0.4 hrs/d) (ABS 2006a). The value for people who swim corresponds to the time spent on sport/outdoor activity by those survey respondents (≥ 15 years) who indicated they participated in sport/outdoor activities (Table 6.2.10, Australian Time Use Survey Table 4 (ABS 2006a). A conservative assumption is made that all sport/outdoor activity is swimming, reflecting the lack of data for the parameter.

enHealth (2012)

25 125Assumes the receptor swims in creek in lieu of backyard pool. Based on the water ingestion rate for male and female adults >15 years old during recreational swimming in swimming pools.

enHealth (2012)

0 0 Entire body enHealth (2012)

Page 8 of 12 draft

Draft

Parameter Units


Body weight kg

Exposure duration yr.

Averaging time yr

Total skin surface area m2

Skin surface area - head m2

Skin surface area - trunk m2

Skin surface area - arms m2

Skin surface area - hands m2

Skin surface area - legs m2

Skin surface area - feet m2

Parameter


Potable water intake rate L/day

Breast Milk


Exposure duration years

Breast milk intake rate L/day


Daily soil incidental ingestion rate mg/day




m2

Soil to skin adherence factor mg/cm2




Daily sediment ingestion rate mg/day

Commercial Receptor

Typical (Mean or Median, as noted)

Upper estimate (95th Percentile, or

specify if other)Notes Reference

70 100

Typical value is a mean. Both values are based on female body weights, considered conservative for male body weights and combined populations. Also selected as it better reflects the larger age range, to include young adults (ASC NEPM 2013). The 70 kg is consistent with the body weight adopted in the derivation of the Australian drinking water guidelines. enHealth (2012) / ASC NEPM 2013

4 29

The average and 95th percentile duration of residence in Australia from the 2001–2006 HILDA survey data are approximately 10 and 35 years, respectively. It is assumed that the duration of residence starts at birth. enHealth (2012)

4 29 equal to ED enHealth (2012b)

2 2.4Mean and 95thile. Based on data from US EPA 2009 (Table 7-11 and Table 7-12) combined value for males and females as recommended by enHealth 2012. enHealth (2012)

0.128 0.1536Based on Mean Percent of Total Surface Area presented in USEPA (2011) EFH, Table 7-2, averaged for male and female adults. Total surface area is taken from enHealth 2012 USEPA (2011) and enHealth (2012)






- 240 As per commercial scenario in ASC NEPM 2013 ASC NEPM 2013 / enHealth (2012b)

2.8 5 Typical value is based on adults undertaking light work in a temperate environment. Upper estimate is based on adults undertaking moderate work in temperate environments. Temperate environments are defined as climate with annual mean daily temperature of 0-26.7 degrees centigrade

enHealth (2012)

- - Not an applicable pathway -



50 330 Typical scenario is a rounded average for adults from enHealth (2012) and is outside soil plus indoor dust. The upper estimate is based on construction workers and is sourced from USEPA (1991) Risk assessment guidance for Superfund: Volume 1- Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplemental Guidance Standard Default Exposure Factors. This value will be used for the farmer scenario.

enHealth (2012) / ASC NEPM 2013USEPA (1991)


0.63 0.79 enHealth recommends selecting a mean value for potentially exposed skin of 0.63 m2 for males and females combined and of 0.79 m2 for 95th Percentile

enHealth (2012)

0.5 1.7 Suggested by enHealth (2012) for screening risk assessments. However, enHealth (2012) also recommends using soil adherence data that match as close as possible the exposure scenario being evaluated; considerations should be given to factors such as soil type, the particular exposed body parts and activities. Therefore these values may be subject to further review.

enHealth (2012)



50 330No data identified. Assumed to be equal to incidental soil ingestion rates. This value may be revised based on further research.


Page 9 of 12 draft

Draft

Parameter Units


m2

Sediment to skin adherence factor mg/cm2


days/yr


Exposure time (indoor air) hrs/day

Exposure frequency (indoor air) days/yr


m3/kg


unitless


Exposure time (outdoor air) hrs/day

Exposure frequency (outdoor air) days/yr


m3/kg


unitless

Showering/ Bathing



Events per day event / day



m2






m2






m2






m2

Commercial Receptor




0.66 0.79Based on feet and lower legs exposed during wading Professional judgment

0.88 1



240As per commercial scenario in ASC NEPM 2013 ASC NEPM 2013 / enHealth (2012b)

- - Based on an outdoor worker -




- 8 Assumes the entire work day is spent outdoors. Applicable to farming scenario only Professional judgement


2.90E+10 Refer to Appendix B and Section 5.3.3.1 of Schedule B7. Value for low density dwellings. ASC NEPM 2013

0.375 Describes the percentage of respirable dust that is small enough to be retained in lungs and is associated with health effects. Same value for both indoor and outdoor ASC NEPM 2013


















Page 10 of 12 draft

Draft

Parameter Units

Fishing





m2

Boating





m2

Swimming in Pools





m2

Sprinkler play





m2






m2

Washing vehicles





m2






m2

Commercial Receptor




240 As per commercial scenario in ASC NEPM 2013 ASC NEPM 2013 / enHealth (2012b)

8Assumes 8 hours per day working as a commercial fisherman. It is noted that it is unlikely that the skin will be wet the entire duration.


3.6 10.8

Typical based on the mean for fishing. Upper is based on a UCL of a mean +1.96 x standard deviation. Based on a study conducted by Dorevitch et al. (2011) and reproduced in USEPA (2011) USEPA (2011)

0.7 0.84 Based on hands, forearms, lower legs and feetenHealth (2012) / professional judgement

Commercial Fisherman

Not applicable as exposure accounted for in fishing parameters-

Not applicable as exposure accounted for in fishing parameters

-


-


-

















48 240 Considered likely to range from once per week to every day at work for the farmer using impacted water.


0.37 1.10 Based on average time per day on grounds and animal care (assumed all grounds care). Typical value is for all persons, upper estimate is for participants only from ABS 2006 and presented in

enHealth 2012.

enHealth 2012

- 5.00 Incidental ingestion of 5 mL water during irrigation of gardens enRisks, 2013, Former ChlorAlkali Plant, Human Health and

Environmental Risk Assessment - 2013

0.70 0.84 Based on hands and forearms, lower legs and feet enHealth (2012)

Page 11 of 12 draft

Draft

Parameter Units




g/day

Fruit products and dishes g/day


Green Vegetables %

Root Vegetables %

Tuber Vegetables %

Tree Fruit %

Fraction of home grown produce %

Ingestion of Fish


g/day


days/yr


g/day


unitless

Consumption of Milk



Dairy milk (cow, and goat) g/day

Consumption of Meat


Intake rates sourced from enHealth 2012 and A


g/day


g/day

Poultry and feathered game g/day


g/day


g/day


g/day

Consumption of Eggs



g/day


soil ingestion g/day




g/day




g/day

Swimming in Creeks





m2

Commercial Receptor




240 365 As per residential scenario in ASC NEPM 2013, which references enHealth (2012) assuming the farmer is living in the impacted area.

enHealth (2012b) / ASC NEPM 2013

185.5 345.9 Typical value is the mean for all persons. Upper estimate is the median value for consumers only. Based on adults >19 years old

ABS, 2014

140.5 212.1 Typical value is the mean for all persons. Upper estimate is the median value for consumers only. Based on adults >19 years old

ABS, 2014

0





100 Assumes worker sources all their food from the farm -

TBC These values will be informed through the community survey

- 365As per residential scenario in ASC NEPM 2013, which references enHealth (2012). Assumes fisherman sources all their food from work in impacted area

TBC These values will be informed through the community survey

100

No typical estimate available from literature. Will be evaluated from survey data

ASC NEPM 2013




- 365 As per residential scenario in ASC NEPM 2013, which references enHealth (2012) enHealth (2012b) / ASC NEPM 20130 0 0 0

43.3 156Typical value is the mean for all persons. Upper estimate is the median value for consumers only. Based on adults >19 years old ABS, 2014

0.5 161.2Typical value is the mean for all persons. Upper estimate is the median value for consumers only. Based on adults >19 years old ABS, 2014




38 210Typical value is the mean for all persons. Upper estimate is the median value for consumers only. Based on adults >19 years old ABS, 2014













Page 12 of 12 draft

Draft


D R A F T


Appendix E

Exposure Equations

DRAFT

Ingestion of Breast Milk

Intake by mother:

ingderinhmother CDICDICDICDI …….Equation 1

Where:

CDImother = Total Chronic Daily Intake by mother via all complete pathways (mg/kg/day)

CDIing = Chronic Daily Intake by mother via all relevant inhalation pathways (mg/kg/day)

CDIder = Chronic Daily Intake by mother via all dermal pathways (mg/kg/day)

CDIing = Chronic Daily Intake by mother via all ingestion pathways (mg/kg/day)

Steady state blood serum concentration of mother (Birkett 1996, Goodman & Gilman 2006, Casarett & Doull 2013):

d

2/1motherplasma/serum V*693.0

t*CDIC …….Equation 2

Where:

CDImother = Total Chronic Daily Intake by mother via all complete pathways (mg/kg/day) (Equation 1)

Cserum/plasma = Steady state concentration in blood serum (mg/L)

t1/2 = Chemical specific serum half-life (days)

Vd = Chemical specific apparent volume of distribution (L/kg)

Breast milk concentration:

plasmaserumBM CBSRC /* ………Equation 3

Where:

Cserum/plasma = Steady state concentration in blood serum (mg/L) (Equation 2)

CBM = Concentrations in breast milk (mg/L)

BSR = Empirical breast milk/serum ratio (chemical specific) – based on published data (Kärrman et al. (2007), Kim et al. (2011c), von Ehrenstein et al. (2009))

Breast Milk Ingestion Intakes

BW*AT*year

days365

ED*EF*IngR*CCDI bmbm

bming, ………..Equation 4

Where:

CDIing,bm = Chronic Daily Intake of breast milk (mg/kg/day)

DRAFT

Cbm = Chemical Concentration in breast milk (mg/L) (Equation 3)

IngRbm = Ingestion Rate for breast milk (L/day)

EF = Exposure Frequency (days/year)

ED = Exposure Duration (years)

AT = Averaging Time (years)

= 70 years for non-threshold carcinogens

= ED for chemicals assessed based on threshold effects

BW = Body weight (kg)

References:

enHealth (2012) Environmental health risk assessment: Guidelines for assessing human health risks from environmental hazards

ATSDR (2015) Draft Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls

Kärrman, A., Ericson, I., Bavel, B. v., Darnerud, P. O., Aune, M., Glynn, A., Lignell, S. and Lindström, G. (2007). Exposure of perfluorinated chemicals through lactation: levels of matched human milk and serum and a temporal trend, 1996-2004, in Sweden. Environmental Health Perspectives. 115: 226-230.

Kim, S.-K., Lee, K. T., Kang, C. S., Tao, L., Kannan, K., Kim, K.-R., Kim, C.-K., Lee, J. S., Park, P. S., Yoo, Y. W., Ha, J. Y., Shin, Y.-S. and Lee, J.-H. (2011c). Distribution of perfluorochemicals between sera and milk from the same mothers and implications for prenatal and postnatal exposures. Environmental Pollution. 159: 169-174.

von Ehrenstein, O. S., Fenton, S. E., Kato, K., Kuklenyik, Z., Calafat, A. M. and Hines, E. P. (2009). Polyfluoroalkyl chemicals in the serum and milk of breastfeeding women. Reproductive Toxicology. 27: 239-245.

DRAFT

Incidental Dermal Contact with Soil and Sediment

Dermal Contact with Soil and Sediment

BW*AT*year

days365

ED*EV*EF*SA*DACDI event

sder, ……equation 1

For Soil and Sediment:

DAF*AH*CF*CDA sevent ………..equation 2

Where:

CDIder,s = Chronic Daily Intake for Dermal Contact with Soil/ Sediment (mg/kg/day)

DAevent = Dermal absorbed dose per event per unit exposed skin area (mg/cm2-event)

Cs = Concentration of CoPC in soil/ sediment (mg/kg)



EV = Event frequency (events/day)

CF = Unit conversion factor (kg/106 mg)




AH = Soil/ sediment to skin Adherence Factor (mg/cm2/day)

SA = Skin Surface Avalable for Contact (cm2)

DAF = Dermal Absorption Factor (chemical-specific; unitless)

Reference:

US EPA 2004, Risk assessment guidance for Superfund, vol. I, Human health evaluation manual, (Part E), Supplemental guidance for dermal risk assessment, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

DRAFT

Incidental Dermal Contact with Water

Dermal Contact with Water

BW*AT*year

days365

ED*EF*EV*SA*DACDI event

wder,

Because the PFCs being assessed exist in the environment in the anionic form, the dermal absorbed dose per event is calculated as follows (USEPA, 2004):

CF*tevent*K*CDA pwevent

Where:

CDIder,w = Chronic Daily Intake for dermal contact with water (mg/kg/day)


SA = Skin Surface Available for Contact (cm2)







Cw = Concentration of CoPC in water (mg/L)

Kp = Dermal permeability coefficient of compound in water, chemical –specific (cm/hour)

tevent = Event duration (hours/event)

CF = conversion factor (L/cm3)

Reference:

US EPA 2004, Risk assessment guidance for Superfund, vol. I, Human health evaluation manual, (Part E), Supplemental guidance for dermal risk assessment.

As referenced in ASC NEPM 2013, Schedule B4

DRAFT

Dermal contact with water during domestic laundry and clothes care

The primary exposure pathway identified during domestic laundry and clothes care activities including machine washing and hand washing is dermal contact with water used for these purposes. Dermal contact may occur during the washing activity and/or afterwards whilst handling wet clothes.


BW*AT*year

days365


wder,



Where:














References:


National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999, as amended 2013

DRAFT

Appendix F - Risk Assessment Equations

01-Nov-2015

Dust Inhalation Inhalation of Particulates

The following equation has been adopted to estimate intakes associated with inhalation of particulates in air. Inhalation exposures have been estimated using the revised methodology recently published by the USEPA (USEPA, 2009), which recommends adjustment of the measured or estimated contaminant concentration in air to account for site-specific exposure considerations, rather than estimation of a chronic daily intake of contaminant via the inhalation pathway.

For particulates, it is assumed that all particulates inhaled are small enough to penetrate deep into the lungs (i.e., are inspirable), and that the particulate air EPCs have been estimated as inspirable (PM10) dust concentrations.

day

hours24*

year

days365*AT

ED*EF*B*ET*RF*CEC a

inh ……. Equation 1

Where:

ECinh = Exposure Adjusted Air Concentration (mg/m3)

Ca = Chemical Concentration in Air (mg/m3)

RF = Lung retention factor relevant to the inhalation of dust and includes consideration of a deposition fraction and ciliary clearance

ET = Exposure Time (hours/day)

B = Bioavailability

EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)

ED = Exposure duration (years)

AT = Averaging time (years)

= ED for threshold chemicals

Note that when assessing outdoor inhalation of particulates derived from soil, the chemical concentration in outdoor airborne particulates (Ca,out) is calculated as:

PEF

CC s

outa, ………..Equation 2

The particulate emission factor (PEF) relates the concentration of respirable dust particles (diameter <10 μm) in the air with wind speed, vegetative cover and the area of the site occupied by exposed soil. The outdoor dust concentration calculated by this means is assumed to consist of 100% site-derived soil (ASC NEPM 2013).

The derivation of representative indoor and outdoor PEF values for residential, recreational and commercial land uses is described in the ASC NEPM 2013, Schedule B7B.

As described in the ASC NEPM 2013, soil-derived dust concentrations in indoor air have been generally calculated using the approach proposed by EA (2009). Indoor dust concentrations are assumed to equilibrate with outdoor dust concentrations, as described by the PEF, through natural building ventilation. In addition, indoor air is considered to be enriched with dust compared to the outdoor environment, due to the movement of dust indoors on clothing, footwear, pets, etc. and the potential for the resuspension of dust particles in the indoor

DRAFT


01-Nov-2015

environment (EA, 2009). To address this issue, the indoor PEF recommended in the ASC NEPM 2013 is based on an assumed dust concentration (or dust loading factor) equal to the 95th percentile from Australian data (enHealth, 2012), which is 39 μg/m3.

A significant proportion of house dust can be attributed to soil particles that have been tracked into the indoor environment from outdoors. enHealth (2012) consider that 50% of the indoor dust is derived from the site soil, in accordance with the recommendations made by US EPA (2008; 2011). This value is the ‘indoor dust transport factor’ (TF). Accordingly, the chemical concentration in indoor airborne particulates (Ca,in) is calculated as

TF*PEF

CC s

ina, ………… Equation 3

References:

EA 2009, Updated technical background to the CLEA model, Science report SC050021/SR3, Environment Agency, Bristol, UK.


US EPA 1996, Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document, EPA/540/R-95/128, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA.

US EPA 2002, Supplemental guidance for developing soil screening levels for Superfund sites, OSWER 9355.4-24, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA.

US EPA 2008, Child-specific exposure factors handbook, Final report, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA.

USEPA, 2009. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part F, Supplemental Guidance for Inhalation Risk Assessment).

US EPA 2011, Exposure factors handbook: 2011 update. EPA/600/R-090/052F, September 2011, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA. DRAFT

Ingestion of Eggs

Concentration in Eggs (adopted from US EPA, 2005)

)

*

*)*()**(**(

wegg ELR

TFCwQwBsCsQsPiQpiFiA

……………… Equation 1

Where:

Aegg = Concentration of COPC in eggs (mg COPC/kg FW tissue)

Fi = Fraction of plant type (i) (grain) grown on contaminated soil and ingested by the animal (chicken) (unitless). It is assumed that the grain provided to the chicken is from a commercial source.

Qpi = Quantity of plant type (i) (grain) eaten by the animal (chicken) each day (kg DW plant/day)

Pi = Concentration of CoPC in plant type (i) (grain) eaten by the animal (chicken) (mg/kg DW)

Qs = Quantity of soil eaten by the animal (chicken) (kg/day)

Cw = Average concentration in water during exposure duration (mg/L)

Qw = Quantity of water (L)

Cs = Average soil concentration over exposure duration (mg CoPC/kg soil)

Bs = Soil bioavailability factor (unitless)

TF = Transfer factor into eggs constant (based on study by Kowalczyk 2014) chemical specific

LR = Laying Rate - Average number of eggs laid per day (based on 365 days a year and assumption that a chicken lays an egg on average 5 times a week (260 days a year))

Ew = Average weight of edible portion of egg (kg)

Egg Ingestion

The algorithms used to evaluate ingestion intakes are generally of the form below. These include algorithms published for a range of ingestion pathways including eating poultry, eggs, meat or fish (US EPA, 1989).

BW*AT*yeardays

365

CF*ED*EF*FI*IngR*CCDI i

iing,egg

Where:

CDIing,i = Chronic Daily Intake of egg i (mg/kg/day)

Cegg = Concentration of COPC in eggs (mg COPC/kg FW tissue) (Equation 1)

IngRi = Ingestion Rate for egg i (mg/day)



FI = Fraction ingested from contaminated source (unitless)



DRAFT




References:


US EPA, 2005. Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. United States Environment Protection Agency (US EPA) Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA530-R-05-006. September 2005.

DRAFT

Ingestion of fish and shellfish caught within Tilligerry Creek and Fullerton Cove

Fish Ingestion Intakes

This exposure pathway includes the ingestion of finfish and shell fish.

BW*AT*year

days365

CF*ED*EF*FI*IngR*CCDI ff

fing,

Where:

CDIing,f= Chronic Daily Intake of fish (mg/kg/day)

Cf = Chemical Concentration in fish (mg/kg)

IngRf = Ingestion Rate of fish (mg/day)









Reference:


DRAFT

Dermal Contact with water during domestic food and drink preparation and clean-up

The primary exposure pathway identified during food preparation and clean-up activities is dermal contact with water used for these purposes.


BW*AT*year

days365


wder,



Where:














Reference:



DRAFT

Dermal contact with water during house work (e.g. mopping floor, window cleaning etc.)

The primary exposure pathway identified during household cleaning activities such as mopping floors, and wiping down surfaces is dermal contact with water used for these purposes.

Dermal Contact with Water During Household Cleaning Activities

BW*AT*year

days365


wder,



Where:














Reference:


As referenced in ASC NEPM 2013, Schedule B4

DRAFT

Incidental Soil Ingestion Incidental Soil Ingestion Intakes

This exposure pathway includes the incidental ingestion of contaminated soil and dust during everyday activities. Soil and dust ingestion can be an important exposure pathway for surface soil contaminants and is particularly important in the case of non-volatile chemicals. Young children in particular may have direct contact with soil and dust during play activities.

BW*AT*year

days365

CF*ED*EF*FI*IngR*CCDI ss

sing,

Where:

CDIing,s= Chronic Daily Intake via incidental soil ingestion (mg/kg/day)

Cs = Chemical Concentration in soil (mg/kg)

IngRs = Ingestion Rate via incidental soil ingestion (mg/day)









Soil Adhered to Home-Grown Produce

The ASC NEPM 2013 included a review of the potential contribution to this pathway from soil adhered to home grown produce. A soil loading factor was applied to account for the adherence of soil to home-grown produce, and a preparation factor to account for the influence of food preparation practices (for example, washing and peeling) on soil loading. Based on the produce consumption rates assumed relevant for Australia these calculations indicated that the equivalent of an additional soil ingestion rate of approximately 3 mg/day for an adult and 2 mg/day for a child would result if 10% of produce is grown at home. This intake was considered minor in comparison with the default soil/dust ingestion rates adopted for adults and children in the ASC NEPM 2013 and was considered to be adequately encompassed within the level of uncertainty inherent in the ingestion rates adopted. However where the rates of ingestion of home-grown produce are higher further assessment or site-specific soil/dust ingestion rates may be required.

References:

DEFRA & EA 2002, Contaminated land exposure assessment model (CLEA): technical basis and algorithms, Contaminated land report CLR 10, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs & Environment Agency, Wallingford, UK.


DRAFT

Dermal contact with water and incidental ingestion through irrigating domestic lawns/ gardens

Household water may be used for irrigation of domestic gardens and lawns. Where groundwater is used for the household supply, there is the potential for incidental ingestion and dermal contact with the water during these activities.

Incidental Water Ingestion Intakes During Irrigation

BW*AT*year

days365

ED*EF*FI*IngR*CCDI ww

wing,

Where:

CDIing,w = Chronic daily intake (incidental) of irrigation water (mg/kg/day)

Cw = Chemical concentration in irrigation water (mg/L)

IngRw = Incidental ingestion rate of water during irrigation (L/day)








Dermal Contact with Water During Irrigation

BW*AT*year

days365


wder,



Where:




DRAFT







Cw = Concentration of CoPC in irrigation water (mg/L)




References:


DRAFT

Ingestion of Meat from livestock

Ingestion of plants, soil and water by livestock

BW

CF*IngR*CIngR*CIngR*CCDI wl,wpl,psl,s

livestock

……… Equation 1

Where:

CDIlivestock = Chronic Daily Intake (ingestion) of plants, soil and water by livestock (mg/kg/day)

Cs = Chemical concentration in soil (mg/kg)

IngRI,s = Livestock soil ingestion rate (mg/day)

Cp = Chemical concentration in plant tissue consumed by livestock (mg/kg)

IngRI,p = Livestock plant ingestion rate (mg/day)

Cw = Chemical concentration in livestock drinking water (mg/L)

IngRI,w = Livestock water ingestion rate (L/day)


BW = Average livestock body weight (kg) at slaughter

Steady state livestock blood serum concentration (Birkett 1996, Goodman & Gilman 2006, Casarett & Doull 2013):

d

2/1livestockplasma/serum V*693.0

t*CDIC ………. Equation 2

Where:

CDIlivestock = Chronic Daily Intake (ingestion) of plants, soil and water by livestock (mg/kg/day) (Equation 1)


t1/2 = Chemical specific serum elimination half-life (days)


The above equation is used on the assumption that the livestock has reached steady state.

Livestock tissue concentrations:

CFCTSRC plasmaserumtissue ** / …………...Equation 3

Where:


CF = Serum density conversion factor L/kg

Ctissue = Concentrations in livestock tissue (mg/kg FW)

TSR = Empirical tissue/serum ratio (chemical and tissue specific)

DRAFT

Livestock Meat Ingestion Intakes for Humans:

BW*AT*year

days365

CF*ED*EF*FI*IngR*CCDI tissuetissue

ing,tissue …. Equation 4

Where:

CDIing,s= Chronic Daily Intake for livestock meat/tissue (mg/kg/day)

Cs = Chemical Concentration in livestock meat/tissue (mg/kg)

IngRs = Ingestion Rate for livestock meat/tissue (mg/day)









References:



DRAFT

Ingestion of Milk from Livestock Intake by mother:

ingderinhmother CDICDICDICDI …….Equation 1

Where:

CDImother = Total Chronic Daily Intake by mother via all complete pathways (mg/kg/day)

CDIing = Chronic Daily Intake by mother via all relevant inhalation pathways (mg/kg/day)

CDIder = Chronic Daily Intake by mother via all dermal pathways (mg/kg/day)

CDIing = Chronic Daily Intake by mother via all ingestion pathways (mg/kg/day)

Steady state blood serum concentration of mother (ATSDR, 2015):

d

2/1motherplasma/serum V*693.0

t*CDIC …….Equation 2

Where:

CDImother = Total Chronic Daily Intake by mother via all complete pathways (mg/kg/day) (Equation 1)


t1/2 = Chemical specific serum half-life (days)


Milk concentration:

plasma/serummilk C*MSRC ………Equation 3

Where:


Cmilk = Concentrations in milk (mg/L)

MSR = Empirical milk/serum ratio (chemical specific) – based on published data (dependent on livestock species)

DRAFT

Milk Ingestion Intakes

BW*AT*year

days365

ED*EF*FI*IngR*CCDI mm

ming,

Where:

CDIing,m = Chronic Daily Intake of milk (mg/kg/day)

Cm = Chemical Concentration in milk (mg/L)

IngRm = Ingestion Rate for milk (L/day)








References:



DRAFT

Ingestion of fruit and vegetables Plant Uptake Factors

Plants can accumulate contaminants via a number of pathways, the most important of which is typically absorption from the soil solution by roots where, depending on the nature of the contaminant, translocation to other portions of the plant may occur (ASC NEPM 2013).

Reviews of plant uptake models previously conducted by MfE (2011) and EA (2009) identified a range of both simple and complex models are available, however a number of limitations were identified including the limited range of compounds tested (namely polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls ( PCBs) and dioxins) and problems with study data (in reporting dry or fresh weight and whether data was from roots, shoots, fruits or tubers). Overall, the EA (2009) review concluded that the model performance was highly variable and all but one model over-predicted root uptake by at least an order of magnitude. On this basis, MfE (2011) recommended to adopt concentration factors (CFs) based on available published data, and only utilise models when measured values are not available. This approach was adopted in the ASC NEPM 2013 and has therefore been adopted for this assessment.

Before undertaking these calculations it should be ensured that the data sourced from literature are consistently expressed as either mg/kg fresh weight or mg/kg dry weight for the relevant media.

Plant Uptake from Soil

The following equation has been adopted to estimate uptake of PFAS by plants from soil.

ssp CF*CC ……Equation 1

Where: Cp = Concentration in plant tissue (mg/kg) – edible portion

Cs = concentration in soil (mg/kg)

CFs = Plant concentration factor (mg-chem/kg-plant per mg-chem/kg-soil) – based on studies relevant to the edible portion of the plant (e.g. root, tuber, fruit, leaf, stem)

Plant Uptake from Water

Where the primary source of contaminants is irrigation water, it may be a valid point of comparison to evaluate plant uptake based on concentrations in the water rather than soil. The following equation has been adopted to estimate uptake of PFCs by plants from water.

wwp CF*CC ………..Equation 2

Where: Cp = Concentration in plant tissue (mg/kg) – edible portion

Cw = concentration in water (mg/L)

CFw = Plant concentration factor (mg-chem/kg-plant per mg-chem/L-water) – based on studies conducted using hydroponic media relevant to the edible portion of the plant (e.g. root, tuber, fruit, leaf, stem).

Ingestion of plant

The algorithms used to evaluate ingestion intakes are generally of the form below. These include algorithms published for a range of ingestion pathways including eating poultry, eggs, meat or fish (US EPA, 1989).

DRAFT

BW*AT*year

days365

CF*ED*EF*FI*IngR*CCDI i

iing,p …….Equation 3

Where:

CDIing,i = Chronic Daily Intake of plant i (mg/kg/day)

Cp = Concentration in plant tissue (mg/kg) – edible portion (Equation 1 or 2)

IngRi = Ingestion Rate for plant i (mg/day)









References:


MfE 2011, Methodology for deriving soil guideline values protective of human health, New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand.

EA 2009, Evaluation of models for predicting plant uptake of chemicals from soil, Science report SC050021/SR, Environment Agency, Bristol, UK.


DRAFT

Ingestion of Potable Water including during food preparation Drinking Water Ingestion Intakes

BW*AT*year

days365


wing,

Where:

CDIing,w = Chronic Daily Intake of drinking water (mg/kg/day)

Cw = Chemical Concentration in drinking water (mg/L)

IngRw = Ingestion Rate for drinking water (L/day)








Reference:

enHealth (2012) Environmental Health Risk Assessment: Guidelines For Assessing Human Health Risks From Environmental Hazards

DRAFT

Dermal contact with water and sediment and incidental ingestion of water and sediment during recreational boating -

During recreational boating activities in creeks and other surface water bodies, there is the potential for direct contact with both surface water and sediment. This includes incidental ingestion and dermal contact with both media.

Incidental Water Ingestion Intakes During Recreational Boating

BW*AT*year

days365

ED*EF*FI*IngR*CCDI swsw

swing, …. Equation 1

Where:

CDIing,sw = Chronic daily intake (incidental) of surface water (mg/kg/day)

Csw = Chemical concentration in surface water (mg/L)

IngRsw = Incidental ingestion rate for surface water (L/day)

= the duration of boating (hours/day) multiplied by the hourly ingestion rate (L/hour)








Dermal Contact with Water During Recreational Boating

BW*AT*year

days365


swder, …. Equation 2


CF*tevent*K*CDA pswevent …. Equation 3

Where:

DRAFT

CDIder,sw = Chronic Daily Intake for dermal contact with surface water (mg/kg/day)









Csw = Concentration of CoPC in surface water (mg/L)




Dermal Contact with Sediment During Recreational Boating

BW*AT*year

days365


sedder, …. Equation 4

For sediment:

DAF*AH*CF*CDA sedevent …. Equation 5

Where:

CDIder,sed = Chronic Daily Intake for Dermal Contact with Sediment (mg/kg/day)


Csed = Concentration of CoPC in sediment (mg/kg)








AH = Sediment to skin Adherence Factor (mg/cm2/day)

DRAFT



Incidental Sediment Ingestion Intakes During Recreational Boating

BW*AT*year

days365

CF*ED*EF*FI*IngR*CCDI sedsed

seding, …. Equation 6

Where:

CDIing,sed = Chronic Daily Intake via incidental sediment ingestion (mg/kg/day)

Csed = Chemical Concentration in sediment (mg/kg, or mg/L)

IngRsed = Ingestion Rate via incidental sediment ingestion (mg/day, or L/day)









References:


DRAFT

Dermal contact with water and sediment and incidental ingestion of water and sediment during recreational fishing

During recreational fishing activities in creeks and other surface water bodies, there is the potential for direct contact with both surface water and sediment. This includes incidental ingestion and dermal contact with both media.

Incidental Water Ingestion Intakes During Fishing

BW*AT*year

days365


swing,

Where:

CDIing,sw = Chronic daily intake (incidental) of surface water (mg/kg/day)

Csw = Chemical concentration in surface water (mg/L)

IngRsw = Incidental ingestion rate for surface water (L/day)

= the duration of fishing (hours/day) multiplied by the hourly ingestion rate (L/hour)








Dermal Contact with Water During Fishing

BW*AT*year

days365


swder,


CF*tevent*K*CDA pswevent

Where:



DRAFT












Dermal Contact with Sediment During Fishing

BW*AT*year

days365

ED*EF*SA*DACDI event

sedder,

For sediment:

DAF*AH*CF*CDA sedevent

Where:













DRAFT

Incidental Sediment Ingestion Intakes During Fishing

BW*AT*year

days365


seding,

Where:

CDIing,sed= Chronic Daily Intake via incidental sediment ingestion (mg/kg/day)

Csed = Chemical Concentration in sediment (mg/kg)

IngRsed = Ingestion Rate via incidental sediment ingestion (mg/day)









References:

US EPA 2004, Risk assessment guidance for Superfund, vol. I, Human health evaluation manual, (Part E), Supplemental guidance for dermal risk assessment. DRAFT

Dermal Contact with water and incidental ingestion of water during showering / bathing

During showering/ bathing where groundwater is used for the household supply, there is the potential for incidental ingestion and dermal contact with the water.

Incidental Water Ingestion Intakes During Showering/ Bathing

BW*AT*year

days365


wing, …..Equation 1

Where:

CDIing,w = Chronic daily intake (incidental) of shower/bath water (mg/kg/day)

Cw = Chemical concentration in shower/bath water (mg/L)

IngRw = Incidental ingestion rate for shower/bath water (L/day)

= the duration of showering (hours/day) multiplied by the hourly ingestion rate (L/hour)








Dermal Contact with Water During Showering/ Bathing

BW*AT*year

days365


wder, …..Equation 2


CF*tevent*K*CDA pwevent …….Equation 3

Where:


DAevent = Dermal absorbed dose per event per unit exposed skin area (mg/cm2-event) (Equation 2)


DRAFT











References:


DRAFT

Dermal contact with water and incidental ingestion during sprinkler play

Household sprinklers may be used for recreational purposes such as sprinkler play. Where groundwater is used for the household supply, there is the potential for incidental ingestion and dermal contact with the water during these activities.

Incidental Water Ingestion Intakes During Sprinkler Play

BW*AT*year

days365


wing,

Where:

CDIing,w = Chronic daily intake (incidental) of water used for sprinkler play (mg/kg/day)

Cw = Chemical concentration in water (mg/L)

IngRw = Incidental ingestion rate of water during sprinkler play (L/day)

= the duration of sprinkler play (hours/day) multiplied by the hourly ingestion rate (L/hour)








Dermal Contact with Water During Sprinkler Play

BW*AT*year

days365


wder,



Where:



DRAFT












References:


DRAFT

Dermal contact with water and sediment and incidental ingestion of water and sediment during swimming in creeks and other surface water bodies

During swimming activities in creeks and other surface water bodies, there is the potential for direct contact with both surface water and sediment. This includes incidental ingestion and dermal contact with both media.

Incidental Water Ingestion Intakes During Swimming

BW*AT*year

days365


swing,

Where:

CDIing,sw = Chronic Daily Intake (incidental) of surface water (mg/kg/day)

Csw = Chemical Concentration in surface water (mg/L)

IngRsw = Incidental ingestion Rate for surface water (L/day)

= the duration of swimming (hours/day) multiplied by the hourly ingestion rate (L/hour)









Dermal Contact with Water During Swimming

BW*AT*year

days365


swder,


CF*tevent*K*CDA pswevent

Where:


DRAFT













Dermal Contact with Sediment During Swimming

BW*AT*year

days365


sedder,

For sediment:

DAF*AH*CF*CDA sedevent

Where:













DRAFT

Incidental Sediment Ingestion Intakes During Swimming

BW*AT*year

days365


seding,

Where:

CDIing,sed = Chronic Daily Intake via incidental sediment ingestion (mg/kg/day)

Csed = Chemical Concentration in sediment (mg/kg, or mg/L)

IngRsed = Ingestion Rate via incidental sediment ingestion (mg/day, or L/day)








References:


DRAFT


01-Nov-2015

Dermal contact with water and incidental ingestion during swimming in home pools

During swimming in home pools (including paddling pools) where groundwater is used for the water supply, there is the potential for incidental ingestion and dermal contact with the water.

Incidental Water Ingestion Intakes During Swimming

BW*AT*year

days365


wing,

Where:

CDIing,w = Chronic Daily Intake (incidental) of pool water (mg/kg/day)

Cw = Chemical Concentration in pool water (mg/L)

IngRw = Incidental ingestion Rate for pool water (L/day)

= the duration of swimming (hours/day) multiplied by the hourly ingestion rate (L/hour)








Dermal Contact with Water During Swimming

BW*AT*year

days365


wder,



Where:




DRAFT


01-Nov-2015











References:


DRAFT

Dermal contact with water and incidental ingestion during washing animals

Where groundwater is used for washing of animals (e.g. dogs, horses etc.), there is the potential for incidental ingestion and dermal contact with the water during these activities.

Incidental Water Ingestion Intakes During Animal Washing

BW*AT*year

days365


wing, …………………Equation 1

Where:

CDIing,w = Chronic daily intake (incidental) of water (mg/kg/day)


IngRw = Incidental ingestion rate of water during washing activity (L/day)








Dermal Contact with Water During Animal Washing

BW*AT*year

days365


wder, …………………Equation 2


CF*tevent*K*CDA pwevent …………………Equation 3

Where:


DRAFT

DAevent = Dermal absorbed dose per event per unit exposed skin area (mg/cm2-event) calculated in Equation 2












References:


DRAFT

Dermal contact with water and incidental ingestion during the washing of vehicles

Where groundwater is used for washing of vehicles, there is the potential for incidental ingestion and dermal contact with the water during these activities.

Incidental Water Ingestion Intakes During Vehicle Washing

BW*AT*year

days365


wing,

Where:

CDIing,w = Chronic daily intake (incidental) of water (mg/kg/day)


IngRw = Incidental ingestion rate of water during washing activity (L/day)








Dermal Contact with Water During Vehicle Washing

BW*AT*year

days365


wder,



Where:





DRAFT










References:


DEFRA & EA 2002, Contaminated land exposure assessment model (CLEA): technical basis and algorithms, Contaminated land report CLR 10, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs & Environment Agency, Wallingford, UK.


DRAFT

Documents

18-Mar-2016 D R A F T Doc No. 001 Exposure Assessment and ...€¦ · Revision – 18-Mar-2016 Prepared for – Department of Defence – ABN: N/A 2 - National Environment Protection