An Assessment of Chemical Leaching, Releases to Air and Temperature at Crumb Rubber Infilled Synthetic Turf Fields

Transcript

1 AN ASSESSMENT OF CHEMICAL LEACHING, RELEASES TO AIR AN D TEMPERATURE AT CRUMB-RUBBER INFILLED SY NTHETIC TURF FIELDS New York State Department of Environmental Conservation New York State Department of Health May 2009

2 Prepared by: Ly Lim, Ph.D., P.E. Bureau of Solid Waste, Reduction & Recycling Division of Solid & Hazardous Materials Environmental Conservation New York State Department of Randi Walker, M.P.H Bureau of Air Quality Analysis and Research Division of Air Resources New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Preface From the Spring of 2008 to the Fall of 2008, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation conducted a series of studies to assess some potential impacts from the use of crumb rubber as infi ll material in synthetic turf fields. Crumb rk State manufacturers and evaluated to rubber samples were obtained from New Yo determine the potential for release of pollu tants into the air and by leaching. Field sampling was conducted at two New York City fi elds to evaluate the release of airborne nd measurements of heat . Ground and surface chemicals, release of particulate matter a ss potential impacts. The New York State water was evaluated at other fields to asse Department of Health assessed the air qual ity monitoring survey data. This report addresses some aspects of the use of crumb rubbe r infill in synthetic tu rf fields and is not intended to broadly address all synthetic turf issues, including the potential public health implications associated with the presence of le ad-based pigments in synthetic turf fibers. Information about lead in synthetic turf fi bers is available in a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Health Advisory available at . http://www2a.cdc.gov/han/archives ys/ViewMsgV.asp?AlertNum=00275

3 Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... vii Executive Summary ... 1 1. Introduction... .5 2. Laboratory Analysis of Crumb Rubber Samples ... 9 2.1 Objective and Design ... 9 2.2 Sample Collection ... 10 2.3 Laboratory... 10 2.4 Laboratory Leaching Test ... 11 2.4.1 Test Methods and Test Parameters ... 11 2.4.2 Data Review... 11 2.4.3 Test Results ... 11 2.4.4 Conclusions... 13 2.4.5 Limitations ... 14 2.5 Laboratory Off-gassing Test ... 14 2.5.1 Test Methods and Parameters ... 14 2.5.2 Data Review... 15 2.5.3 Test Results ... 15 2.5.4 Conclusions... 16 2.5.5 Limitations ... 16 3. Laboratory Column Test ... 18 3.1 Objective and Design ... 18 3.2 Equipment ... 18 9 3.3 Reagents ... 1 3.4 Column Test Procedures ... 19 3.5 Eluent Analysis - Test Me thod and Test Parameters ... 20 3.6 Data Review... 20 3.7 Test Results ... 21 3.8 Conclusions... 21 3.9 Limitations ... 22 4. Water Quality Survey at Existing Turf Fields ... 23 4.1 Surface Water Survey ... 23 4.1.1 Objectives and Design ... 23 4.1.2 Test Methods and Test Parameters ... 23 4.1.3 Data Review... 23 4.1.4 Test Results ... 24 4.2 Groundwater Survey ... 24 4.2.1 Objectives and Design ... 24 4.2.2 Test Methods and Test Parameters ... 24 4.2.3 Data Review... 25 4.2.4 Test Results ... 25 4.3 Conclusions... 25 4.4 Limitations ... 25 5. Potential Groundwater Impacts... 27 i

4 5.1 Dilution-Attenuation Factor (DAF) ... 27 5.2 Conclusions... 27 5.3 Limitations ... 28 6. Potential Surface Water Impacts... 29 6.1 Surface Water Standards... 29 6.2 Risk Assessment on Aquatic Life ... 29 6.3 Conclusions... 29 6.4 Limitations ... 30 7. Air Quality Monitoring Surv ey at Existing Fields... 31 7.1 Objectives and Design ... 31 7.2 Sample Collection ... 31 7.2.1 Date Selection ... 32 7.2.2 VOC and SVOC Sampling ... 32 7.2.3 Wipe Samples ... 33 7.2.4 Microvacuum Samples... 33 7.2.5 Ambient PM and PM Monitoring ... 34 10 2.5 7.2.6 Meteorological Monitoring ... 34 7.2.7 Synthetic Grass Sample ... 34 7.3 Test Parameters and Methods ... 35 7.3.1 Ambient Air Samples... 35 7.4 Laboratory Analysis... 35 7.4.1 Ambient Air Samples:... 35 7.4.2 Wipe/Microvacuum Samples and Synthetic Grass Analysis:... 36 and PM Monitoring: ... 36 7.4.3 Ambient PM 10 2.5 7.5 Data Review Procedures ... 36 7.5.1 Ambient Air Samples:... 37 7.5.2 Wipe/Microvacuum Samples and Synthetic Grass Analysis:... 37 Monitoring: ... 37 and PM 7.5.3 Ambient PM 2.5 10 7.6 Test Results ... 38 7.6.1 Ambient Air Samples:... 38 7.6.2 Wipe/Microvacuum Samples and Synthetic Grass Analysis:... 39 and PM Monitoring ... 40 7.6.3 Ambient PM 2.5 10 7.7 Conclusions... 40 7.7.1 VOC and SVOC:... 40 and PM pe, Microvacuum and Ambient PM 7.7.2 Particulate Matter (Surface Wi 10 2.5 Monitoring): ... 41 7.8 Limitations ... 42 7.8.1 Ambient Air Samples:... 42 and PM Monitoring: ... 42 7.8.2 Ambient PM 10 2.5 8. Assessment of Air Quality Monitoring Survey Data ... 43 8.1 Volatile and Semi-volat ile Organic Chemicals... 43 8.1.1 Data Evaluated ... 43 8.1.2 Selecting Chemicals of Potential Concern... 44 8.1.3 Approach for Identifying Health-based Inhalation Comparison Values ... 46 l Non-cancer and Cancer Risks ... 47 8.1.4 Approach for Evaluating Potentia 8.1.5 Results and Discussion ... 48 ii

5 8.2 Particulate Matter (PM) ... 49 8.2.1 Data Evaluated ... 49 8.2.2 Approach for Evaluating PM Data ... 50 8.2.3 Results and Discussion ... 50 8.3 Air Quality Monitoring Survey Conclusions ... 53 8.4 Air Quality Monitoring Survey Limitations ... 53 9. Temperature Survey... 54 9.1 Objectives and Design ... 54 9.2 Measurements and Collection Methods... 54 9.2.1 Measurement Locations and Protocol... 55 9.2.2 Instrumentation for Collection of Surface Temperature and Heat Stress Measurements ... 55 9.2.3 Measurement Dates... 56 9.3 Data Review Procedures ... 56 9.4 Analysis Methods... 57 9.5 Results and Discussion ... 58 9.5.1 Meteorological Data... 58 9.5.2 Surface Temperatures ... 58 9.5.3 Heat Stress Indicators ... 61 9.6 Conclusions... 62 9.6.1 Surface Temperatures ... 63 9.6.2 Heat Stress ... 63 9.7 Limitations ... 64 5 10. Conclusions... 6 10.1 Laboratory Analysis of Crumb Rubber Samples ... 65 10.1.1 Laboratory SPLP... 65 10.1.2 Laboratory Total Lead Analys is (Acid Digestion Method) ... 65 10.1.3 Laboratory Off-gassing Test ... 65 10.2 Laboratory Column Test ... 66 10.3 Water Quality Survey at Existing Fields ... 66 10.3.1 Surface Water Sampling ... 66 10.3.2 Groundwater Sampling ... 66 10.4 Potential Groundwater Impacts... 66 10.5 Potential Surface Water Impacts... 67 10.6 Air Quality Monitoring Survey at Existing Fields... 67 10.6.1 VOC and SVOC Conclusions ... 67 10.6.2 Particulate Matter... 67 10.7 Assessment of Air Quality Monitoring Survey Data ... 68 10.8 Temperature Survey... 68 10.8.1 Surface Temperatures ... 68 10.8.2 Heat Stress ... 68 11. Follow-up Actions ... 70 11.1 Water Releases from Sy nthetic Turf Fields ... 70 11.2 Surface Temperature and Heat Stress ... 70 12. References... 71 Tables ... Tables – Page 1 iii

6 Table 2.1 Description of Crumb Rubber Samples ... Tables – Page 2 sults for Metals (All 31 Crumb Rubber Table 2.2 Summary of SPLP Leaching Test Re Samples)... Tables – Page 2 Table 2.3 Summary of SPLP Leaching Test Results for SVOCs (All 31 Crumb Rubber Samples)... Tables – Page 3 Table 2.4 TICs Found in SPLP Leaching Test Results (All 31 Crumb Rubber Samples)... Tables – Page 6 Table 3.1 Reagents Used in Column Test... Tables – Page 7 Table 3.2 Selected SVOCs and CASRN... Tables – Page 7 Table 3.3 Summary of Column Test Results for Zinc and Detected SVOCs...Tables – Page 7 Table 4.1 Surface Runoff Test Results for VOCs... Tables – Page 8 Table 4.2 Surface Runoff Test Results for SVOCs ... Tables – Page 9 a ... Tables – Page 10 Table 4.3 Surface Runoff Test Results for Metals rmation ... Tables – Page 11 Table 4.4 Groundwater Field Info Table 4.5 Groundwater Test Results for Selected SVOCs ... Tables – Page 11 Table 4.6 Groundwater Test Results for all SVOCs... Tables – Page 11 Table 5.1 Predicted Groundwater Concentr ations for Crumb Rubber Derived from Truck and Mixed Tires Using a Dilution Attenuation Factor (DAF) of 100...Tables – Page 13 Table 6.1 Surface Water Standards for Com pounds of Concern... Tables – Page 13 Table 7.1 Sampling Locations ... Tables – Page 14 Table 7.2 Modifications to Meth od TO-13A ... Tables – Page 14 Table 8.1 Chemicals Detected in Air Sample s Collected at the Thomas Jefferson Field ... Tables – Page 1 5 Table 8.2 Chemicals Detected in Air Samp les Collected at the John Mullaly Field ... Tables – Page 1 9 Table 8.3 TICs Detected in Laboratory and/ or Field Blank Samples... Tables – Page 25 Table 8.5 John Mullaly Field – Measured Ai r Concentrations for Chemicals Selected for Health Risk Evaluation... Tables – Page 28 Table 8.6 Toxicity Values for Chemicals Sele cted for Health Risk Evaluation... Tables – Page 29 Table 8.7 Thomas Jefferson Field – Ratio of Measured Concentration/Reference Concentration (Hazard Quotient) for Chemical s Selected for Health Risk Evaluation ... Tables – Page 3 3 Table 8.8 Thomas Jefferson Field – Estimat ed Excess Cancer Risks from Continuous Lifetime Exposure at Measured Air Concentr ations of Known or Potential Cancer- Causing Chemicals Selected for Health Risk Evaluation ... Tables – Page 35 Table 8.9 John Mullaly Field – Ratio of Measured Concentration/Reference Concentration (Hazard Quotient) for Chemical s Selected for Health Risk Evaluation ... Tables – Page 3 6 Table 8.10 John Mullaly Field – Estimate d Excess Cancer Risks from Continuous Lifetime Exposure at Measured Air Concentr ations of Known or Potential Cancer- Causing Chemicals Selected for Health Risk Evaluation ... Tables – Page 38 Table 9.1 American Academy of Pediatrics lb Globe Temperatures.. Tables – Page 39 Limitations on Activities at Different Wet Bu iv

7 Table 9.2 Central Park Monitor - Mete orological Data ... Tables – Page 39 Table 9.3 Thomas Jefferson Field Comparison Between Synthetic Turf a nd Other Surfaces ... Tables – Page 39 Table 9.4 John Mullaly Field Comparison Between Synthetic Turf a nd Other Surfaces ... Tables – Page 40 Figures...Figures – Page 1 Figure 1.1 Cross-section of a t ypical synthetic turf field co nfiguration Figures – Page 2 Figure 2.1 Zinc concentration in SPLP tests...Figures – Page 3 Figure 2.2 Aniline concentration in SPLP leachate ...Figures – Page 3 Figure 2.3 Phenol concentration in SPLP leachate ...Figures – Page 4 Figure 2.4 Benzothiazole in SPL P leachate ...Figures – Page 4 Figure 3.1 Comparison of zinc levels between SPLP and column tests Figures – Page 5 Figure 3.2 Comparison of aniline levels be tween SPLP and column tests... Figures – Page 5 Figure 3.3 Comparison of phenol levels be tween SPLP and column tests... Figures – Page 6 Figure 7.1 Thomas Jefferson Park Sa mpling Locations ...Figures – Page 7 Figure 7.2 John Mullaly Park Sampling Locations ...Figures – Page 7 Figure 7.2 John Mullaly Park Sampling Locations ...Figures – Page 8 Figure 9.1 Thomas Jefferson field surface temperature measurements by date ... Figures – Page 12 Figure 9.2 John Mullaly field surf ace temperature measurements by date ... Figures – Page 13 Figure 9.3 Thomas Jefferson field wet bulb globe temperatures by date ... Figures – Page 14 Figure 9.4 John Mullaly field wet bulb globe temperatures by date ...Figures – Page 15 Appendices available upon request Appendix A – Appendices for Section 2 A1 – Review conducted by NYSDE C’s Chemistry and Laboratory Services Section A2 - Laboratory leaching test results A3 – Results acid digestion 6010B test for lead A4 – Chemist’s review of th e off-gassing data at 25°C and 47°C A5– Chemist’s review of the off-gassing data 70°C A6 – Laboratory results for o ff-gassing by temperature and subdivided by crumb rubber type A7 – Memo outlining selection of an alytes to be considered in the ambient air survey Appendix B – Appendices for Section 3 B1 - Review summary conducted by NYSDEC’s Chemistry and Laboratory Services Section B2 - Laboratory column test results v

8 Appendix C – Appendices for Section 4 C1 - Review summary conducted by NYSDEC’s Chemistry and Laboratory Services Section C2 – Laboratory results from H2M for surface water C3 - Review summary conducted by NYSDEC’s Chemistry and Laboratory Services Section C4 – Laboratory results for groundwater Appendix D – Reserved for Appendices for Section 5 none Appendix E – Appendices for Section 6 E1 - Assessment of the risks to aquatic life from leachate from crumb rubber, based on the SPLP test results for zinc, aniline and phenol Appendix F – Appendices for Section 7 F1 - Field notes recorded by RTP for Thomas Jefferson Field F2 - Field notes recorded by RTP for John Mullaly Field F3 – RTP’s workplan F4 - Target list of analytes F5 – Chemistry and Laboratory Services Section data review report F6 – VOC, SVOC, TICs data for Thomas Jefferson Park F7 – VOC, SVOC, TICs data for John Mullaly Park F8 – Microscopy Lab report F9 – PM data for Thomas Jefferson Park F10 – PM data for John Mullaly Park Appendix G – Reserved for Appendices for Section 8 none Appendix H – Appendices for Section 9 H1 – Temperature Field Measurement Protocol H2 – TJP summary of all heat parameters H3 – JMP summary of all heat parameters vi

9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study would have not been started without the support of Ed Dassatti, Director of the Division of HM), and the assistance and Solid & Hazardous Materials (S cooperation of so many people in and outside of the SH M Division at NYSDEC. The report authors would also like to thank Jeff Schmitt, Sally Rowland and Michael Caruso for their guidance and support a nd thanks to the Division chemists Gail Dieter, John Petiet, John Mill er, and Betty Seeley, especi ally to Pete Furdyna who designed and performed the column leaching test at the DEC laboratory. Many thanks to John Thompson and Dave Kiser of the DEC Region 8 office; Arturo Garcia-Costas, Robert Elburn, Paul John of the DEC Region 2 for their assistance in the search for rams and staff in that office Merkurios suitable sites for actual field monitoring prog Redis, Anthony Masters and Dilip Ba nerjee for collection of samples. We acknowledge the assistance of Divisi on of Air Resources staff, Thomas Gentile, and Dirk Felton, Daniel Hershey, Patrick Lavin, SiuHong Mo, Dave Wheeler, Steve DeSantis, John Kent, Greg Playford and Leon Sedefian. We acknowledge the assistance of Division of Water staff, Scott Stoner, Fran Zagorski, Shohreh Karimipour, Shayne Mitc hell and Cheryle Webber; Jim Harrington from Division of Environmental Remediati on; and Timothy Sinnott from Division of Fish, Wildlife & Marine Resources. We th ank Dr. Daniel Luttinge r, Kevin Gleason and Dr. Thomas Wainman of NYS Department of Health; Dr. David Carpenter of the University at Albany; Dr. Dana Humphrey of University of Maine; Dr. Robert Pitt of University of Alabama; Dr. Simeon Komisar of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute for their valuable comments on our proposed study and Margaret Walker for her illustration. vii

10 We would also like to acknowledge the work conducted by RTP Environmental Associates, Inc. and thank staff Brian Aerne fo r his careful and detailed approach to the sampling. Air Toxic LTD for their careful laboratory evaluation of the air survey samples collected. Special thanks to Amy Sc hoch and James Gilbert of the Empire State r assistance in the project and for funding the air sampling Development (ESD) for all thei y Department of Health Services and his program and Andrew Rapiejko of Suffolk Count s. Finally, we thank the staff for their assistance in the groundwater sampling effort managers and staff of four scrap tire pro cessing facilities across New York State, who greeted us warmly and provided all sample s of crumb rubber needed for this study. viii

11 Executive Summary This report presents the findings from a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) study, designed to assess potential environmental and public health impacts from the use of crumb rubber as infill material in synthetic turf fields. The New York Stat e Department of Health (NYSDOH) evaluated the potential public health risks associated with the air sampling results. The study focused on three areas of concern: the rele ase and potential envir onmental impacts of chemicals into surface water and groundwater ; the release and potential public health impacts of chemicals from the surface of the fields to the air; and elevated surface temperatures and indicators of the potential for heat-related illness (“heat stress”) at synthetic turf fields. The study included a laboratory evaluation, applied to four types of tire-derived crumb rubber (car, truck, a mixture of ca r and truck, and a mixture cryogenically produced), to assess the release of chemical s using the simulated precipitation leaching for release of zinc, tion indicate a potential procedure (SPLP). The results of this evalua olely from truck tires), aniline, and phenol aniline, phenol, and benzothiazole. Zinc (s groundwater standards or guidance values. No have the potential to be released above standard or guidance value exists for benzothi azole. However, as leachate moves through soil to the groundwater table, contaminant concentrations are attenuated by adsorption and degradation, and further reduced by dilu tion when contaminants are mixed with groundwater. An analysis of attenuation a nd dilution mechanisms and the associated reduction factors indicates that crumb rubber ma y be used as an infill without significant impact on groundwater qualit y, assuming the limitations of mechanisms, such as separation distance to groundwat er table, are addressed. Analysis of crumb rubber samples digested in acid revealed that the lead concentration in the crumb rubber samples were well below the federal hazard standard for lead in soil and indicate that the crum b rubber from which the samples were obtained terial in synthetic used as infill ma would not be a significant source of lead exposure if 1

12 turf fields. The evaluation of volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds by off- ct quantitatively due to the gassing proved difficult to condu strong absorptive nature of the crumb rubber samples but the results did provide useful information for additional analytes in the ambient ai r field investigation. A risk assessment for aquatic life prot ection performed using the laboratory SPLP results, found that crumb rubber derived entirely from truck tires may have an impact on aquatic life due to the release types of crumb rubber, aquatic of zinc. For the three other toxicity was found to be unlikely. When the results of the column tests are used in this risk assessment model, no adverse impacts are predicted for any of the crumb rubber types evaluated. Although the SPLP results predict a greater release of chemicals, the column test is considered more representative of the field conditions. The study also included a field sampling component for potential surface and groundwater impacts. This work has not been fully completed at the time of this report. The groundwater sampling that was conducte d shows no impact on groundwater quality due to crumb rubber related co mpounds, but this finding s hould not be considered as conclusive due to the limited amount of data available. Additional sampling of surface and groundwater at crumb-rubber infill synthetic turf fields will be conducted by NYSDEC. The results will be summarized in a separate report. A field evaluation of chemical releas es from synthetic turf surfaces was ng an air sampling method that conducted at two locations usi allowed for identification of low concentration analytes and involved the evaluation of the potential releases of analytes not previously reported. Few det ected analytes were found. Many of the analytes detected (e.g., benzene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzen e, ethyl benzene, carbon tetrachloride) are commonly found in an urban environment. A number of analytes found in previous studies evaluati ng crumb rubber were detected at low concentrations (e.g., 4- alkane chains (C4-C11)). methyl-2-pentanone, benzothiazole, 2

13 A public health evaluation was conducted on the results from the ambient air vels of chemicals in sampling and concluded that the measured le air at the Thomas e a concern for non-cance r or cancer health Jefferson and John Mullaly Fields do not rais effects for people who use or visit the fields. The ambient air particulate matter sampli ng did not reveal meaningful differences in concentrations measured on the field and those measured upwind of the field. This may be explained by the lack of rubber dust found in the smaller size fraction (respirable range) through the application of aggressi ve sampling methods on the surface of the fields. Overall, the findings do not indicate that these fiel ds are a significant source of exposure to respirable particulate matter. The results of the temperature surv ey show significantly higher surface temperatures for synthetic turf fields as compared to the measurements obtained on nearby grass and sand surfaces. While the temp erature survey found little difference for the indicators of heat stress between the s ynthetic turf, grass, and sand surfaces, on any given day a small difference in the heat stre ss indicators could result in a different hough little difference between indicators of guidance for the different surface types. Alt heat stress measurements was found, the synt hetic turf surface temperatures were much surfaces may have the potential to create higher and prolonged contact with the hotter to heat-related illnesses. Awareness of discomfort, cause thermal injury and contribute the potential for heat illness and how to rec ognize and prevent heat illness needs to be raised among users and managers of athletic fields, athletic sta ff, coaches and parents. This assessment of certain aspects of crumb-rubber infilled s ynthetic turf fields was designed to collect data of “worst case” conditions under conditions representative (e.g., summer-time temperatures that shoul d maximize off-gassing of chemicals). However, samples collected under different conditions, using different methods or at different fields could yield different results. For example, the results of measurements may be different for fields of other ages or designs (e.g., different volumes of crumb report is not intended to ) or for indoor fields. This rubber infill, non-crumb rubber infill 3

14 broadly address all synthetic tu rf issues, including the potentia l public health implications associated with the presence of lead-based pigm ents in synthetic turf fibers. Information about lead in synthetic turf fibers is av ailable in a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Health Advisory available at http://www2a.cdc.gov/han/archives ys/ViewMsgV.asp?AlertNum=00275 4

15 1. Introduction Background Crumb rubber, also referred to as gr ound rubber, is finely ground rubber derived from recycled or scrap tires. Over 20 milli on scrap tires are generated annually in New York State (NYS). The R.W. Beck consul ting firm estimated that in 2004, about 22.5 percent of NYS generated scrap tires were used to produce ground rubber (Beck 2006). Ground rubber and ground rubber products derived from scrap tires have a wide range of customers, both inside and out product producers, schools, side NYS, including: molded sports stadiums, landscape firms, road c onstruction firms and new tire manufacturers. Growth in ground rubber produ ction is largely centered on its use in mulch products, playground materials, and sports field ma rkets. Crumb rubber is a common infill material for synthetic turf fields providing cushion and ballast for the playing surface. The benefits claimed for choosing crumb rubbe r over natural grass fi elds include reduced for pesticides, herbicides or fertilizer, water needs and maintenance, avoided need reduced injuries, and an “all-weather” play the 850 synthetic turf ing surface. Out of fields in the United States, NYS has about 150 fields (Katz 2007). Governmental agencies in Norway, New York City and California have conducted evaluations of the potential health issues associated with the use of crumb rubber as infill at playgrounds and synthetic tu rf fields. Their assessments did not find a public health threat (NIPHRH 2006, NYCDOHMH 2008b, CIWMB 2007). However, several recent preliminary studies by Zhang et al. (2008), Mattina et al. (2008) and esence of organic compounds, su RAMP (2007) indicated the pr ch as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heavy metals, such as zinc, at these substances and raise concerns th could have potential adverse impacts on the environment and public health, especially for children playing on these synthetic turf fiel ds for extended time periods. Additionally, studies have reported high surface temperatur es on synthetic turf fields and raised concern about potential heat-related illness (“ heat stress”) during play (DeVitt et al. 2007, Williams and Pulley 2006). Under New York State Environmental Conservation Law, § 27-1901 (ECL), and therefore its use is not regulated as a crumb rubber is not considered a solid waste 5

16 solid waste under the NYSDEC so the ECL. However, in lid waste regulations or t the safety of crumb rubber used at synthetic turf fields, response to public concerns abou tential environmental and health impacts the NYSDEC initiated a study to assess the po material in synthetic turf fields. from the use of crumb rubber as an infill NYSDEC completed a study protocol in the spring of 2008 (NYSDEC 2008). The protocol included both laboratory evalua tions and field sampling components. The objective was to collect data to assess potential impact to both surface and ground waters due to leaching of chemicals, assess potentia l public health impact from air release of chemicals and evaluate surface temperatur e and indicators of heat stress. The laboratory evaluations began in the late spring. The field sampling components began in the summer at two fields in New York City. A field in the Bronx at the John Mullay Park was selected since the fi eld had been installed less than a year at the time of sampling. The second field samp led was in Manhattan at Thomas Jefferson Park and the synthetic turf was approximatel y 4 years old at the time of sampling. Two to potentially provide information on whether contaminant different fields were selected releases would differ relative to the age of the field. Upon collection of the laboratory data from the surface water and groundwater assessment, NYSDEC staff evaluated potential environmental and aquatic life impacts. Upon collection of the laboratory data from the ambient air monitoring survey, NYSDOH staff evaluated potential public health impacts. Synthetic turf composition Crumb rubber is finely ground rubber manuf actured from scrap tires with a size typically of about 1/16 inch (about 2-3 mm) and one of its current uses is as infill material at synthetic turf fields. The infill ma terial consists of either all crumb rubber or a mix of coarse sand and crumb rubber. The infill is brushed into the artificial grass fibers to keep the fibers upri ght and to cushion and provide ba llast to the playing surface. Figure 1.1 depicts a typical cross secti on of a synthetic turf field. Although specific field construction varies, most new fiel ds are generally comprised of three layers and use crumb rubber as infill material. The top layer usually consists of nylon or polyethylene fibers attached to a polypropyl ene or polyester plastic woven fabric 6

17 backing. The fabric backing supports the inf es for drainage of ill material and has hol typically is either crumb rubber, flexible water. The infill material, between the fibers plastic pellets, sand, rubber-coated sand or a combination of sand and crumb rubber. Below the woven fabric backing is a layer of crushed stone with plastic tubing for drainage and rubber padding for shock abso rbance. The final layer is commonly comprised of a permeable fabric placed over a stable soil foundation. If the application rate of crumb rubber is approximately two to three pounds per square foot (NYSDOH 2008), fo 230 by 360 feet, about 83 to 120 r a typical sport field of tons of crumb rubber are used. Assuming 48 inches annual rainfall (NRCC 2000), the average runoff flow rate across the entire turf field is about 7,000 gallons per day. Laboratory evaluation The objectives of this portion of the st udy were to evaluate leaching and air releases of chemicals from randomly select ed crumb rubber samples obtained from four scrap tire processing facilities in NYS. Th e crumb rubber samples were split for each of the laboratory evalua tions. Aggressive laboratory testing methods, not necessarily conditions, were used in this portion of the study to fully translatable to environmental eases of chemicals. evaluate all potential rel The crumb rubber samples were subjected to two sequential, aggressive leach tests. Another type of test was conducted, intended to simula te acid rain conditions. The crumb samples also were subjected to an ac id digestion test to evaluate the lead concentration in the samples. emicals in the water environment, the In addition to evaluating release of ch release of chemicals to the air also was eval uated. In this portion of the study, sometimes called an off-gassing evaluation, crumb rubber sa mples were evaluated at three different temperature levels to assess chemical releases under a range of environmental temperatures. The information gathered from these anal yses was used to determine the potential parameters of concern for the field evalua tion of surface water, groundwater and ambient air. Additionally, these data were used to estimate potential impacts on surface water, groundwater and aquatic life. 7

18 Field sampling approach and evaluation of potential environmental and public health impacts The field sampling portion of the study was comprised of a surface water and groundwater assessment, an air quality survey and a temperature and indicators of heat stress evaluation. The objectives of the surface water survey were to collect runoff samples from drainage pipes at two syntheti c turf fields during rainfall events and to measure the concentration of metals and organic compounds that may leach from the crumb rubber. The objectives of the groundwater survey were to collect samples from down gradient wells at existing synthetic turf fields and to measure the concentration of metals and organic compounds that may leach from the crumb rubber. The air quality monitoring survey wa s conducted to determine if organic compounds and particulate matter concentrations above the fi eld surface were different from those found upwind of the fields. An ev aluation of the potential health risks from exposure to chemicals found in the air surv ey was conducted by the NYSDOH. Surface samples were collected to a ssess particle size and compos ition and grass samples also were obtained to determine composition. Finally, a temperature survey, which in cluded measuring surface temperatures and indicators of heat stress above the surface in comparison to a nearby grass and sand surfaces, was performed. 8

19 2. Laboratory Analysis of Crumb Rubber Samples 2.1 Objective and Design The objectives of this portion of the st udy were to evaluate leaching and air releases of chemicals from randomly select ed crumb rubber samples obtained from four scrap tire processing facilities in New York State (NYS). Although crumb rubber generated from these facilities may not necessar ily be used at existing turf fields in New York State, it is an ticipated that the crumb rubber fr om these facilities would be representative of crumb rubber ities. Aggressive laboratory generated at out-of-state facil testing methods were used in this portion of the study which may overestimate releases from the samples as compared to releases in the ambient setting. The information gathered from these analyses was used to determine potential parameters of concern in the evaluation of the groundwater and ambi ent air surveys conducted in this study. The leaching portion of the study evaluate d the release of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), including r ubber-related compounds such as benzothiazole, and 23 metals, including arsenic, cadmium, chromi um, copper, lead, mercury, vanadium, and zinc, from the crumb rubber under an acid rain conditions. To determine if the release rate changes over time, a second SPLP test on the same sample was performed. The crumb rubber samples also were subjected to an acid digestion test to evaluate the total lead concentration in the samples. The objective of the air release (off-gassi ng) portion of the stu dy was to develop a list of analytes to inform the field evalua tion portion of the study. Crumb rubber samples were evaluated at three different temperat ure levels: 25°C (77°F), 47°C (117° F) and 70°C (158°F) to assess a range of environm ental temperature conditions. The lower value (25°C) represents a temperature for an indoor field. The center value (47°C) was the average surface temperature recorded in a study conducted at Brigham Young University (Williams and Pulley 2006) fo r an outdoor field. Finally, 70°C was considered a potential high su rface temperature that could be achieved at NYS fields (Willams and Pulley 2006, Fresenburg and Adamson 2005). In addition to identifying rubber related chemicals reported in previous st udies, the laboratory also reported the top tentatively identified compounds (TICs). 20 9

20 2.2 Sample Collection r processing facilities and their production rates range NYS has four crumb-rubbe from 0.5 million to 10 million pounds of crumb rubber per month. In January 2008, mL laboratory certified clean glass jars) crumb rubber samples were collected (in 500 ntract laboratory for analysis. Table 2.1 from the facilities and sent to NYSDEC’s co provides information on each facility’s pr oduction rate, sample type, and number of samples obtained from that facility. Crumb rubber is derived from truck and passenger car tires and is produced by both ambient a nd cryogenic grinding pr ocesses. Ambient grinding occurs at room temperature when tir e chips are finely ground to desired particle sizes. In the cryogenic grinding process, whol e tires first are reduc ed to tire chips of approximately 3-inch size. These chips are th en frozen using liquid nitrogen at -195°C (- 319°F). Freezing converts the rubber to a br ittle, glassy state in which it is easily shattered into tiny smooth-sided particles and separated from a ny adhering wire or fabric (Snyder 1998). Facility #1 processes crumb ru bber from both truck tires and passenger tires in an ambient grinding process. Cr umb rubber is derived from whole tires and separated by type (truck versus facility. Facility #2 also applies an passenger car) at this ambient grinding process for whole tires, but mixes the truck and passenger car tires together with a greater propor tion coming from car tires. Facilities #3 and #4 produce crumb rubber from a mixture of car and truck tire chips (the tires are preprocessed into chips approximately 2-3 inches long prior to grinding). Facility #3 uses an ambient applies a cryogeni grinding process, while Facility #4 c process. were randomly collected. One of the Thirty-one samples of crumb rubber samples was split for quality control purposes for a total of 32 samples. The samples C’s contract laboratory fo r the leaching and off-gassing were split and sent to NYSDE analysis. Information about each sample, includi ng the processing fa cility and crumb s assigned a unique identification code. rubber type, was recorded and each sample wa 2.3 Laboratory 10

21 The samples were shipped to NYSDE C’s contract laboratory, Columbia Analytical Services, which is certifie d by the NYSDOH Environmental Laboratory Approval Program (ELAP). 2.4 Laboratory Leaching Test 2.4.1 Test Methods and Test Parameters (USEPA 2009), the Syntheti c Precipitation Leaching EPA SW-846 Method 1312 Procedure (SPLP) test, was us ed to evaluate the leaching potential of the crumb rubber samples. The analysis involves the mixing of 100 grams of crumb rubber in two liters of water at pH 4.2 to simulate acidic rainwater. The mixture is then rotated for 18 hours. After the agitation period, the leachate is filter ed and analyzed for semi-volatile organics (SVOCs) and 23 metals. To determine if th e release rate changes over time, a second SPLP test on the same sample was performed. EPA SW-846 Method 6010B (USEPA 1996a), an acid di gestion method used to determine metals in ground waters and solid ma terials, was used to evaluate the lead content in the crumb rubber samples. 2.4.2 Data Review All data received from the laboratory we re subjected to a comprehensive review for data completeness and compliance followi ng the criteria in the USEPA’s Contract elines for inorgani Laboratory Program National Functional Guid c (USEPA 2004) and organic (USEPA 1999a) data review. The revi ew for these data indicates the data are useable for the purpose of this study which is to develop a list of chemicals for analysis in the field portion of the study. Appendix A1 repo rts the results of th is review conducted by NYSDEC’s Chemistry and Labo ratory Services Section. 2.4.3 Test Results Appendix A2 provides the laboratory leach ing test results. Tables 2.2 and 2.3 and SVOCs, respectively. These tables have present a summary of the results for metals been arranged by the frequency that the analytes were detected in the samples. As shown 11

22 in Table 2.2, three metals were detected above the Groundwater Standard (NYSDEC from crumb rubber for every sample tested, 1999). Zinc was the only metal that leached on close to the groundwater st andard. Iron and copper were with an average concentrati detected above the groundwater standard in a small percentage of the samples, primarily from crumb rubber derived from truck tires. The remaining analytes detected were below the groundwater standard. Manganese and bari um were detected at low concentrations with barium being detected in a low percentage of the samples (19.4%). Lead was detected at half the groundwat er standard in a low percenta ge of the samples, primarily derived from truck tires. Table 2.2 also incl udes metals that were not detected in the SPLP leachate, along with detection limits. Figure 2.1 depicts the concentration of zinc in the leachate separated by facility and crumb rubber type. Crumb rubber from truck tires at Facility #1 produced the highest concentration of zinc in the leachate (approximately three times higher than the groundwater zinc guidance valu e (NYSDEC 1998a). A subs tantial reduction in zinc leachate concentration is noted for the subs equent SPLP test on these samples. In contrast, the subsequent SPLP tests conducted on the crumb r ubber for Facilities #2 and sults for Facility #4 #3 resulted in minimal change in zinc concentr ation. Finally, the re (cryogenically produced crumb rubber), show a slight increase in zinc concentration as compared to the first SPLP test. In summary, this figure illustrates that the release of zinc is not uniform and is highly depende nt on the type of crumb rubber. Table 2.3 summarizes the SPLP test result s for SVOC analysis. Fifteen SVOCs were detected in the SPLP leachate. Aniline ha d the highest concentration of the detected compounds and was detected in all samples (f or both SPLP passes). For the first SPLP pass, the average concentration of aniline is approximately 20 tim es higher than the SPLP pass also was above the groundwater groundwater standard and the subsequent standard. Phenol, detected in all samples was detected at an (for both SPLP passes) average concentration 13 times the groundwater standard. The sec ond pass was slightly above the groundwater standard . 4-Methylphenol (detected 94% in the first SPLP and 48% in the second SPLP) had an average conc entration marginally above the standard. The combined concentration for all phenols is approximately 18 times higher than the equently, but found at were detected infr groundwater standard. The remaining analytes 12

23 concentrations less than the corresponding groundwater standard or there is no e potential impact of groundwater standard available. Therefore, th these analytes would be considered insignificant. In summary, the SPLP leach tests report results for aniline should be considered for further review and phenol above the groundwater standard and er portion of this study. in the surface and groundwat Figure 2.2 provides more detail on the le vels of aniline found in the different types of crumb rubber. The results for crumb rubber from truck tires were 40 times the groundwater standard. All othe r types of crumb rubber had lower aniline levels, but well above the groundwater standard of 5 μ g/L. Figure 2.3 displays phenol concentrations for the different type s of crumb rubber. It is interesting to note that crumb rubber from truck tires has the lowest phenol concentration, while the cryogenic crumb gene rated the highest phenol concentration in the leachate – approximately 20 times the gr oundwater standard. All types of crumb g /L. μ rubber had phenol levels exceedi ng the groundwater standard of 1 ghest detected TICs Table 2.4 lists the hi In addition to the above detected SVOCs, found in the leachate. Since the instrument was not calibrated for these compounds, the TIC results have been reported as estimated concentrations. Previous studies report benzothiazole is commonly found in crumb rubber and ound in the TIC list. Figure 2.4 displays this was found to be the most prominent comp the estimated concentration of benzothiazole in the SPLP leachate for the different types of crumb rubber. Crumb rubber made from tr uck tires had the highest leaching results for benzothiazole. Benzothiazole and the remaini ng TICs are further examined in Section 3 (Laboratory Column Test) where the study design more closely resembles ambient conditions. The lead results from the acid digesti on test can be found in Appendix A3. The lead concentrations range from 5.6 – 116 pp m with an average of 30.8 ppm. In the absence of an applicable lead standard for crumb rubber, a comparison of the results to the USEPA hazard standard for lead in bare residential soil (4 00ppm) (USEPA 2001) was e hazard standard of 400 ppm. conducted. All results were below th 2.4.4 Conclusions 13

24 Based on this test method aniline, phenol and zinc (for samples derived solely standards or guidan from truck tires) were found above groundwater ce values. It is at this test method may result in an overestimate of the release of important to consider th pollutants under actual field conditions. Additionally, the results indicate that the leaching potential is dependent on the type of crumb rubber, with truck tires typically having the highest leaching potential. The re sults obtained in the leaching analysis and from the column testing (Section 3) were used to develop a list of analytes for the surface and groundwater portio n of the study. The lead concentration in the crumb rubber samples are below the USEPA hazard standard for lead in bare residential soil a nd below applicable standards that have been used by others evaluating lead concentratio ns on synthetic turf fields (NYCDOHMH, 2008a). These data indicate that these samples of cr umb rubber would not be a significant source of lead exposure if used as infill material in synthetic turf fields. 2.4.5 Limitations The leaching method provided a conservati ve scenario for the following reasons: 1) the method pH 4.2 is slightly lower (more aci dic) than the pH of rain water recorded in New York State which runs from 4.35 to 4.76 (NYSDEC 2006); and 2) the method includes 18 hours of agitation, while in practice, crumb rubber is tightly packed as an infill and not agitated as aggressively. Therefore, the method may overestimate the release of compounds of interest. This me thod, however, will be useful to compare the release rates for different types of crumb rubber under a controlled laboratory setting. Additionally, it provides data for a conservative scenario evaluation for potential surface and groundwater impacts. It is unknown whether syntheti c turf fields in New York State were installed with crumb rubber obtained from producti on facilities in the State. 2.5 Laboratory Off-gassing Test 2.5.1 Test Methods and Parameters 14

25 Upon receipt of the samples for the off-gassing analysis, the laboratory split two different samples for additional quality control evaluation. The crumb rubber samples were heated for 50 minutes to three differe nt temperatures. A modified TO-15 method was used to evaluate VOC and SVOCs releas ed from the samples. A modification was necessary due to the high sorbent properties of crumb rubber. When internal standards were applied to the crumb rubber off-gasses, they were irreversibly adsorbed onto the crumb rubber matrix. Therefore, an external standard technique was used and response factors with units of area c ounts per nanogram were used for all calibration curves. Additionally, to prevent the off-gasses from contaminating the analytical system, 0.1 gram samples were analyzed yielding a diluti on factor of 10, there by raising the practical quantitation limit from 5.5 to 55 μ g/kg. 2.5.2 Data Review The laboratory was not provided any info rmation regarding the type of crumb split samples were compared and combined rubber in the samples. Field and laboratory, (by averaging) if both samples yielded results. If one of the split samples was found as a as an estimated value, the second sample non-detect and the other sample was reported was consider as a non-detect to allow for the combining of the split samples. A quality control/quality analysis review of the laboratory results for the samples ature levels was conducted by staff in NYSDEC’s Chemistry evaluated at the three temper and Laboratory Services Section. The revi ew and comments are provided in Appendix A4 (samples at 25°C and 47°C) and Appendix A5 (samples at 70°C). A recommendation was made by the reviewing chemist to treat al l results qualitatively. It was noted by the chemist that the surrogate recoveries were lo w due to the high adsorptivity that the crumb rubber has for VOCs. Therefore, it was recomm ended that all analytic al results from the off-gassing experiments be regarded as esti mated quantities, in the correct proportions. 2.5.3 Test Results The number of analytes detected increased with increasing temperatures. At 25°C, 47°C and 70°C, the number of compounds detected was 47, 54, and 60, 15

26 respectively. The full list of analytes detected by temperature and subdivided by crumb rubber type can be found in Appendix A6. information on analytes detected and The laboratory off-gassing data provided relative concentrations to allow development of a list of additional analytes for the the study. Unknown compounds and mixed isomers were ambient air survey portion of t air field sampling ev aluation. Analytes not considered for evaluation in the ambien which were detected in at l east 50% of the samples for each crumb rubber type (i.e., car, truck, mixture of car and truck, and cryogenic) we re selected. From this subset, analytes were selected for consideration if they were detected in more than 50% of all the samples collected. A total of 18 analytes were identified for further consideration. Analytes that were already proposed for ev aluation by the laborat ory evaluating the ambient air field samples have not been included in this total count. Additional criteria were applied as detailed in a memo attached as Appendix A7 and a final list of an alytes was developed the analysis of the ambient air survey and submitted to the laboratory that conducted samples. 2.5.4 Conclusions Although the laboratory off-gassing por tion of the study proved difficult to conduct quantitatively due to the strong absorp tive nature of the crumb rubber samples formation for additional analytes to be for VOCs, the results did provide useful in bient air field samples. Five additional included in the laboratory analysis of the am analytes were selected for inclusion in the ambient air survey, based on the results of the crumb rubber off-gassing study. Three analytes were selected for inclusion in the air survey because of high toxicity (i.e., low reference concentration) : aniline (CAS# 62-53- 3), 1,2,3-trimethylbenzene (526-73-8), and 1-methylnaphthalene (90-12-0). Two analytes were selected because of high frequency of detect s and high relative concentrations found in the off-gassing stud y: benzothiazole ( 95-16-9), and tert- butylamine (75-64-9). Finally, it is uncertain what effect the absorptive nature of the setting, may have in the field setting. crumb rubber, as noted in the laboratory 2.5.5 Limitations 16

27 The strong absorptive nature of the crumb rubber samples prevented a quantitative analysis of the results in this portion of the study. A dditionally, laboratory conditions do not mimic the environmental se tting. Other factors such as compression eld use and changes attributable to solar and degradation of the crumb rubber during fi radiation may affect the release of chemicals in the ambient environment. It is unknown whether syntheti c turf fields in New York State were installed with crumb rubber obtained from producti on facilities in the State. 17

28 3. Laboratory Column Test 3.1 Objective and Design The objectives were to evaluate the leaching potential of crumb rubber using a ely represents field conditions than the SPLP test and to laboratory method that more clos compare the results with the more aggressive SPLP tests described in Section 2. The test simulates the release of chemicals from cr umb rubber by exposing the crumb to synthetic rainwater in a column designed to closely mimic ambient conditions at synthetic turf fields. The crumb rubber was exposed to an eq rainfall in NYS (48 uivalent of one year’s inches (NRCC 2000)) using simulated rainwater at pH 4.2, which is slightly more acidic than the low end of the pH range found in NYS (4.35 to 4.76). The selection of pH 4.2, which is equal to the pH of the SPLP test , will facilitate the comparison between the results of the column test and SPLP test. The simulated rainfall that passed through the tire crumb columns, without being agitated as in the SPLP test, was collected at 12 inch rainfall intervals. Two types of crumb rubbe r were selected for the leaching experiment, cally prepared mixed crumb (Facility #4) a truck tire crumb (Facility #1) and a cryogeni because the SPLP leaching analysis indicate d that more analytes and higher relative proportions were released from these types of crumb rubber. The laboratory column test was conducted by staff in NYSDEC’s Divi sion of Solid and Hazardous Materials laboratory. The resultant leachate was sent to NYSDEC’s contract laboratory with ELAP certification for this analysis. 3.2 Equipment The column system was designed by staff at NYSDEC. The pump system was a Cole Palmer System, consisting of Master Flex L/S Computerized Drive (P/N 7550-50), with 7519-16 4 roller pumphead. The pumphead tic cartridges, up drove 7519-80 peristal to eight cartridges could be run off of one pumphead. The system was interfaced (RS- 232) to a Dell GX280 PC running MasterFlex WinLin Linkable Instrument Networking Software (V2.0) for instrument control. The peristaltic tubing used was Masterflex silicone platinum tubing, L/S-14. The silicone tubing was run from the simulated rainfall mp cartridges. The silicone tubing was reservoir and passed through the peristaltic pu 18

29 then connected to 1/8 inch OD ch P-798 conica l adapter. Teflon tubing using an Upchur was used to connect to the chromatography From that point, 1/8 inch OD Teflon tubing phy columns to the collection bottles. columns, and from the chromatogra The chromatography columns were Kontes P/N 820830-1520 Chromaflex Glass Columns – 4.8 cm ID x 15 cm L. An adjustable bed support (P/N 420836-0040) was used to provide minimal (2.2 inch grav ity packed to 2.0 inch compressed) bed compression of the tire crumb to maintain reproducible elution conditions. The bed supports utilized a 20 micron polyethylen e screens and Teflon/propylene seals. 3.3 Reagents Table 3.1 reports the reagents used and supplier. The production of rainwater (Serkiz et al. 1999) was modified through the use of an acetic acid/acetate buffer system SO to simulate an aggressive acid /H (0.0003M) adjusted to pH 4.2 with 0.5M HNO 3 4 2 rain scenario. Final pH determinations were made using a Thermo Orion 920A+ pH meter with an Orion Ross Ultra combination pH electrode. For the fi nal determination of pH, the simulated rainfall solution was allo wed to equilibrate with the electrode overnight, in a covered beaker. The pH of the simulated rainfall solution was checked at the end of the leachate study and found to be stable. 3.4 Column Test Procedures Crumb rubber was gravity packed into a glass chromatography column to a depth crumb used to pack the column was of approximately 2.2 inches. The amount of re even flow of the eluent throughout the weighed for each column preparation. To ensu crumb bed, and to aid in consistency, the crumb column was compressed to 2.0 inches using the adjustable bed support. Following preparation of the column, the crumb was intermittent manner, with flow through the then eluted with simulated rainfall in an for half an hour, with the sequence columns for half an hour, followed by no flow maintained until the equivalent of 12 inch es of rain passed through the crumb. The nominal flow through the column was 2 mL/min, with the equivalent of 12 inches of rain being passed through the column in a total of 300 minutes of flow time, or 600 minutes of was collected in tare d 1 liter I-Chem Series total run time. The simulated rainfall eluent 19

30 300 bottles held in an ice/wa al effects from atmospheric ter bath. To minimize potenti red during the time of cross contamination, the collection bath was cove eluent collection. 12 inch of rainfall, th e bottles were removed At the end of the collection of the simulated determine the total volu me of eluent passed from the ice bath, dried, and then weighed to through the crumb. A portion (about 30 mL) of th e eluent was then placed into a nitric acid preserved bottle for total zinc analysis, both bottles were sealed, and shipped on ice to the laboratory for analys The column then sat for is using next day courier. approximately 14 hours, before the crumb wa s subjected to a fresh elution sequence. Two types of crumb rubber were selected for the leaching experiment, a truck tire crumb (Facility #1) and a cryogenically prepared mixed crumb (Facility #4). Each of the crumb rubber samples subjected to the elutio n experiment was run in triplicate over 4 days, for a total of 24 samples sent for an alysis. In addition, a blank column was prepared and run with each sample set cons isting of an identical column set-up without tire crumb added to the column. This provi ded a method of assessing any potential for contamination that might have occurred during the leaching experiment. Calibration of the column flow rates and pe one by passing ASTM type I ristaltic pump cartridges was d am for 5 days prior to the experiment. water through the columns using the flow progr rated with pH 4.2 simulated rainwater for The empty column set-ups were then equilib three days prior to the start of the experiment, also checki ng on flow calibration. At the beginning of the experiment, the calibrated, flushed, and equilibrated columns were packed with the tire crumb samples, and the immediate collection experiment started with of eluent, thus mimicking field events following placement of the tire crumb. 3.5 Eluent Analysis - Test Method and Test Parameters The eluent samples were analyzed for total zinc by SW-846 Method 6010, and selected SVOCs by SW-846 Method 8270C (USEPA 2009). The laboratory instrumentation was calibrated, using referen ce standard materials, for selected SVOCs listed in Table 3.2. 3.6 Data Review 20

31 includes the data review summary conducted by NYSDEC’s Appendix B1 Chemistry and Laboratory Services Section for the column test results. Overall, the data are usable though some of the results must be considered as estimated due to Quality Control deficiencies. 3.7 Test Results Appendix B2 contains the laboratory colu mn test results. Table 3.3 summarizes the results for zinc and detected SVOCs only. The average concentrations are compared with the NYS Groundwater Quality Standards illustrated in Table (NYSDEC 1998b). As 3.3, aniline was found at the highest concentrati on relative to the standard, found at more than five times the groundwater standard. Figures 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 display a comp arison of zinc, aniline, and phenol concentrations, respectively, between the SPL P and the column tests for two types of crumb rubber. The concentrations of these analytes in the column tests are measured after 12, 24, 36, and 48 inches of simulated rain fall. As expected, these concentrations are all lower than the ones in the SPLP tests, but at different ratios. For example, as noted in Figure 3.1, the average zinc concentra tion in the leachate of the truck crumb for the column test is approximately 16 times lower than the SPLP test concentration. In comparison, for the cryogenic crumb zinc is only three times lower in concentration. The zinc leachate concentration is well belo w the groundwater guidance value. Figure 3.2 indicates the average aniline concentration of the truck crumb in the column test is approximately six times lower than the SPLP test concentration. In comparison, for the cryogenic crumb aniline is five times lower in concentration. The aniline leachate concentration is above the gr oundwater standard. In Figu re 3.3, it is noted that the average phenol concentration of the truck cr umb in the column test is approximately eight times lower than the SPLP test con centration, while the cr yogenic crumb is 16 times lower in concentration. 3.8 Conclusions The column test procedure is considered more representative of field conditions n was lower than that of the tion of all chemicals of concer and as expected, the concentra 21

32 SPLP for the two types of crumb rubber evalua ted. Phenol and aniline leachate results were above the groundwater standards and thes e analytes will be included in the surface water and groundwater evaluation. 3.9 Limitations of actual ambient Although the laboratory column test was mo re representative field conditions as compared to the SPLP analysis, observations noted by the chemist conducting the laboratory column test indicate that some variability may exist in the data results due to limitations such as flow channeling and clogging of the effluent. 22

33 4. Water Quality Survey at Ex isting Turf Fields 4.1 Surface Water Survey 4.1.1 Objectives and Design The objectives of surface water survey were to collect runoff samples from drainage pipes at existing turf fields during rainfall events and to measure the concentration of metals and organic compounds that may be present in the runoff. The concentrations of these compounds were compared with the NYS Water Quality (NYSDEC 1999). Standards Surface Waters and Groundwater The original study design called for sampli ng two synthetic turf fields selected for the overall study design. After a few rain fall events in August and September 2008, no ch as clogging and insufficient samples were collected at thes e fields, due to problems su runoff volume in the drainage collection pipes. r field (installed in Therefore, anothe 2007) was identified where the drainage pi pes were easily accessible and sufficient volume of surface runoff could be collected. Staff were able to collect only one surface runoff sample from this site before the wa ter sampling effort was halted due to NYSDEC budget restrictions. 4.1.2 Test Methods and Test Parameters ganic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile Test parameters include volatile or organic compounds (SVOCs) and metals using Methods 624, 625, and 200.7. The NYSDEC contract laboratory H2M Labs, Inc. conducted the analysis. The laboratory holds an ELAP certification for these methods. The analysis of this sample did not include chemicals related to crumb rubber, su ch as aniline and benzothiazole. Future sampling activities and subsequent analysis will include the crumb rubber related compounds. 4.1.3 Data Review 23

34 ngs for the surface runoff test results, Appendix C1 includes data review findi which indicates the data are usable. 4.1.4 Test Results ude test results fo r the surface runoff sample. These Tables 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 incl results show no organics were detected. Si nce all results for the organics were below detection limits, a comparison to surface water standards was not conducted. For metals, zinc was detected at 59.5 g/L which is below the surface wa ter standard. Several other μ metals also were detected (chromium, copper, lead, nickel) but at concentrations below the surface water standards. Appendix C2 provides the laboratory results. 4.2 Groundwater Survey 4.2.1 Objectives and Design The objectives of the groundwater survey were to collect samples from downgradient wells at existing synthetic turf fi elds and to measure the concentrations of SVOCs that may leach from the crumb rubber. The concentrations of these compounds were compared to the NYS Groundwater Quality Standards (NYSDEC 1998b). To obtain samples in a timely manner, the survey focused on areas where sandy soil is 1 - 7 years old. Table our turf fields were se lected ranging from < predominant. In 2008, f 4.4 provides the field characterist ics. Two to three downgradie nt wells were installed at each field and samples were colle cted at various depths by staff from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDOHS) . The samples were sent to the NYSDEC ty-two groundwater samples at these sites have a depth to contract laboratory. The thir the groundwater table ranging from 8.3 ft to 70 ft as shown in Table 4.4. NYSDEC will sites that have depth to groundwater less perform additional sampling in 2009 at different than 8.3 ft to further characteri ze potential ground water impacts. 4.2.2 Test Methods and Test Parameters azole were assessed by SW-846 Method SVOCs, including aniline and benzothi 8270C. 24

35 4.2.3 Data Review Appendix C3 includes data review fi ndings for the SVOC groundwater test results, which indicates the data are usable. 4.2.4 Test Results All test results were below the limit of detection for all groundwater samples analyzed. Table 4.5 reports the detection limits for the specific compounds associated with crumb rubber, aniline, phenol, and benz othiazole. Table 4.6 reports the detection limits for all SVOCs evaluated. A comparison of the results to applicable groundwater standards was not conducted, since all were below the detection limit. Appendix C4 provides the laboratory results. 4.3 Conclusions Surface water No organics were detected and several me tals were detected at low levels for one orm additional sampling of surface water sample analyzed. The NYSDEC will perf runoff in 2009. The additional test results will be included in a separate report. Groundwater Based on test results of 32 groundwater samples, no organics or zinc were detected at the turf fields. The NYSDEC will perform additional sampling of groundwater at sites with shallower groundw ater levels in 2009 to better represent potential impacts and will present test results in a separate report. 4.4 Limitations Surface water Results for the surface water quality su rvey are based on one sample and have very limited application to other fields. A dditionally, the initial surface water survey did not include chemicals related to crumb rubber, such as aniline and benzothiazole. The surface water sample was analyzed by a diffe rent NYSDEC contract laboratory than the other water samples obtained and evaluated in this study. The laboratory used reported 25

36 higher detection limits when compared to the results for the groundwater sample analysis. Future sampling activities will include the crumb rubb er related compounds and standardized laboratory analyses. Groundwater ngradient wells show no impact on Although the results from the dow groundwater quality due to crumb rubber rela ted compounds, this finding should not be considered as conclusive, due to limited data available. NYSDEC will perform additional sampling of groundwater at sites having different characteristics, such as to further evaluate potential impacts. shorter separation distance to groundwater table, The additional sampling will also include an expanded list of parameter for analysis. 26

37 5. Potential Groundwater Impacts 5.1 Dilution-Attenuation Factor (DAF) One method to determine the potential for groundwater impacts is through the nuation factor (DAF). As l application of a dilution-atte eachate moves through soil to the groundwater table, contaminant concentrat ions are attenuated by adsorption and degradation. After entering th e groundwater table, a chemical is mixed with groundwater and the resultant concentration is further diluted. The DAF is used to account for these mechanisms and is often called a correction f actor. The higher the DAF, the greater the attenuation needed to achieve the groundwater standard. The NYSDEC’s soil cleanup guidance for hazardous remediation sites was first established in 1992. The DAF is used in gu idance for the remedia tion program, found in the Technical Support Document for NYSDEC’s 6 NYCRR Part 375 soil cleanup objectives (NYSDEC and NYSDO H 2006). In developing th e soil cleanup objectives, a DAF of 100 was used for organics and 40 fo r inorganics because experience has shown that when a site is cleaned up using these DAFs, the groundwater quality is protected. Table 5.1 presents the predicted groundwat calculated by using er concentrations ee most prominent organic co mpounds: aniline, phenol, and the SPLP results for the thr benzothiazole with a DAF of 100, and zinc wi th a DAF of 40. A conservative approach th percentile of the SPLP test (results reported in was taken and a comparison to the 95 Section 2 Laboratory Leaching Test) with the groundwater standards was conducted. This evaluation was limited to the two types of crumb rubber with the greatest leaching potential, truck tires and th As shown in Table 5.1, all e cryogenic crumb rubber. predicted groundwater concentr ations are lower than ground water standards or guidance values. 5.2 Conclusions The dilution-attenuation factor (DAF) from the NYSDEC’s soil cleanup program is one method to determine if leachate will impact groundwater. Application of the DAF to the leachate results in this study demonstr ates that crumb rubber can be used as an infill without significant impact on groundwater quality. 27

38 5.3 Limitations Use of the DAF 100 for organics is pres ented in the remediation guidance with a note of caution for situations where the contamin ation source is close (three to five feet) to the groundwater table. The soil cleanup guidance also assumes one percent organic carbon content of soil when organic pollutants are evaluated. Therefore, for areas where the desired level, such as in sandy soils, care should be organic carbon content is less than protected by a sufficient buffer (separation taken to ensure that the groundwater quality is distance) to the groun dwater table. The groundwater survey in a sandy soil area presented in Section 4 indicat es that no groundwater impacts at sites where the minimum depth to groundwater is 8.3 feet. NYSD EC will perform additional groundwater sampling with shallower groundwater levels to better document potential impacts and needed buffer zones. 28

39 6. Potential Surface Water Impacts 6.1 Surface Water Standards Table 6.1 lists the surface water standards (NYSDEC 1998b) for four most acility #1 (truck tires) and Facility #4 prominent compounds in crumb rubber from F (mixed tires) and a comparison of these standards to the SPLP and the column test results. As mentioned in Sect ion 3, the results from the column test, much lower than the ones obtained from SPLP tests, are considered more representative of field conditions, because the column test does not involve 18 hou rs of agitation as included in the SPLP test. A conservative approach was applie d by using the upper lim its for the SPLP and column test results. Zinc concentrations ar e higher than the surface water standards. For phenol, the concentrations in the column test are lower than the surface water standards. Both aniline and benzothiazole do not have surface water standards. Comparison of the laboratory leaching results directly to surf ace water standards does not represent what will happen under field conditions. The actua l concentration in the surface water body will be lower due to dilution and attenuation. To determine actual impact on the surface water body, the impact can be modeled mathematically and/or actual quality measurements can be taken. 6.2 Risk Assessment on Aquatic Life Appendix E1 provides a mathematical assessm ent of the risks to aquatic life from leachate from crumb rubber, based on the SPLP test results for zinc, aniline and phenol. The risk assessment was conducted by NYSDEC’s Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources and concludes that there may be a potential aquatic life impact due to zinc release from crumb rubber solely derived from truck tires, but an impact is unlikely for the mixed tires. 6.3 Conclusions A risk assessment for aquatic life prot ection was performed and found that crumb rubber made derived entirely from truck ti res may have an impact on aquatic life based c life pathway. For the crumb rubber made on the impacts that zinc may have on aquati 29

40 from mixed tires, the potential impacts are in significant. However, this assessment is e release of chemicals as based on the SPLP test result s which predict a greater th compared to the column test which is consider ed more representative of field conditions. If the results of the column test in Table 6.1 are used in the risk assessment model, no adverse impacts are expected. 6.4 Limitations The dilution factor used in the assessme nt of potential surface water impact will fficult to assume all potential scenarios. depend on site-specific information and it is di The exposure model describes in Section 6.2 ad dresses one potential scenario which may not be applicable in all cases. As ou tlined in Section 4, the NYSDEC will perform -rubber infilled synthetic turf additional field testing of su rface water quality near crumb fields. 30

41 7. Air Quality Monitoring Survey at Existing Fields 7.1 Objectives and Design The air quality monitoring survey was c if volatile organic onducted to determine compounds (VOC), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOC), and particulate matter concentrations (PM) above the field surface we re different than concentrations measured upwind (intended to represent background air qua lity) of the fields and if the measured concentrations are of public he portion of study was to collect alth concern. A goal of this samples on summer days when temperatures were above 80°F and the VOC and SVOC releases would be anticipated to be higher th an other times of year. To determine the relevance of particulate matter monitoring, surface wipe and microvacuum sampling was conducted to evaluate the type and size of the smaller partic les liberated through aggressive sampling. Synthe tic grass samples also we re obtained to determine collected to facilitate comparisons to composition. Finally, meteorological data were upwind air samples. This portion of the survey was conduced on the two synthetic tu rf fields selected for the overall study. These two fields differ in age which may help identify whether chemical releases differ by age of field. To measure potentially low chemical concen trations in air, field sample collection methods and laboratory analytical techni ques were employed to provide minimum detection limits on the order of nanogram (billionth of a gram) per cubic meter levels. Sampling locations included upwind of the fiel ds as well as in the center and at the downwind edge of fields to examine the ho rizontal profile of contaminant release concentrations. Samples at the center a nd downwind edge were collected at three different heights to examine a vertical prof ile of release. A comparison of the upwind and on-field/downwind sample results provid ed an indication of chemicals potentially released from the field itself. 7.2 Sample Collection RTP Environmental Associates, Inc. was awarded the contract to conduct the field sampling. Field sampling involved ambient air sampling, surface wipe sampling, surface 31

42 microvacuum sampling, ambient particulat e matter monitoring and meteorological monitoring. e Thomas Jefferson Field, detailing field The field notes recorded by RTP for th cluded in this report conditions and equipment setup, have been in as Appendix F1. The field notes recorded by RTP for the John Mu llaly Field are included as Appendix F2. 7.2.1 Date Selection Samples for each field were collected over a two-day time period. The following criteria were developed to assist with the selection of the sampling date: two consecutive y prior to sampling, forecast winds from the days with no precipitation including the da same direction for at least 4-6 hours on each day of sampling at light to moderate speeds and forecast day temperature above 80°F. These conditions were assumed to maximize measurable quantities of VOCs and SVOCs rel eased from the fields and allowed for the comparison of upwind to on-field and downwind samples. On August 21, 2008, RTP made final prepara tions to perform tests and was given the Thomas Jefferson Park field by New York final approval to proceed with testing at City Department of Parks and Recreation (NYCDPR) representatives. On August 22, 2008, RTP collected samples at the field. On September 1, 2008, RTP made final preparations to perform tests and was given fi nal approval to proceed with testing at the John Mullaly Park field by NYCDPR repres entatives. On September 2, 2008, RTP collected samples at the field. 7.2.2 VOC and SVOC Sampling Samples were collected using sorbent sample collection media. The VOC samples were collected using “active” sampling, pumping large volumes of air through the media. Tenax cartridge and Tenax/Anasor b® cartridge in series were used. One- hundred twenty liters of air were drawn th rough the sampling media over a period of two hours. The SVOC samples were collected using PUF/XAD cartridge s and samples were collected over a two hour time period drawing in 4.0 liters pe r minute. More details on the sampling methods can be found in Appe ndix F3, RTP’s work plan to perform the . ambient air quality monitoring survey 32

43 Figure 7.1 shows the sampling locations for Thomas Jefferson Park and Figure 7.2 shows the sampling locations for John Mulla ly Park. These maps also show the location of the wipe, microvacuum and partic ulate matter monitoring. Nine samples were collected at each field. Table 7.1 reports in formation on sample location and heights. For quality control and quality assurance purposes, VOC a nd SVOC field blanks were at two locations. A lab blank also was collected and duplicate samples were obtained analyzed. For both fields, some modifications to th e field sampling protocol were necessary. The SVOC inlets for the field surface sample s were placed vertically, approximately 2 mm above the turf surface. The VOC inlets for the field surface samples were placed 1 mm above the turf surface, pointing into th e wind. Upwind and downwind edge surface samples were not on the field, and therefore, were placed 1-2 cm above the surface to e soil in these areas. avoid contact with th 7.2.3 Wipe Samples Wipes samples were collected at three locat ions: on field in the center, on field in shade and at the downwind edge of field, show n in Figures 7.1 and 7.2. For both fields, a duplicate wipe sample was obtained to determine consistency of sampling collection efficiency. Eight samples were submitted to the laboratory for analysis. Wipe sampling was performed in accordan ce with the sampling methods outlined in American Society for Testing and Materi als (ASTM) E1728 and in the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guide lines (HUD 1995). Precut templa tes were used to mark each sampling location and wiping was perfor med following the HUD guidance. A clean wipe (field blank) was included in the sample s sent to the laboratory for analysis. The turf temperature was recorded using an infrared thermometer (recorded by Extech 42510A infrared thermometer) at the time of wipe sample collection. 7.2.4 Microvacuum Samples Microvacuum samples were collected in accordance with ASTM D 5755-95. Sampling techniques, materials and equipm ent used followed the HUD guidelines (HUD 33

44 e center, on field in shade three locations: on field in th 1995). Samples were collected in and at the downwind edge of field, shown in Figures 7.1 and 7.2. At one of the locations, a duplicate microvacuum sample was obtained to assess collection efficiency. Seven samples were submitted to the laboratory for evaluation. Samples were collected filter cassettes with a 0.45 μ m filter coupled with Buck utilizing 25 mm particulate BioAire sampling pump. Monitoring and PM 7.2.5 Ambient PM 2.5 10 Particulate matter concentrations were obtained in real-time using a Thermo (particulate matter DataRam (DR) 4000 aerosol monito r with size collectors for PM 2.5 with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns ( μ m) or less) and PM (particulate matter 10 DR-4000 units were used m or less). Two Thermo with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 μ for sampling simultaneously at the upwind loca tion. Samples were collected in four r of field, and at two downwind locations, locations: upwind of the field, at the cente shown in Figures 7.1 and 7.2. Samples were collected during ac tual field use. Monitoring was conducted at three feet from the ground and one minute averaged values were recorded for time intervals lasting approximately ten minutes. Prior to field sampling, collocated calibration was conducted with both monitors. 7.2.6 Meteorological Monitoring On-site meteorological data were collected during the VOC, SVOC and particulate matter sampling. Meteorological parameters measured include wind speed, wind direction, temperature, rela barometric pressure. Data tive humidity, turbulence and were collected using a Climatronics All-in -One compact weather unit mounted to a ten- foot meteorological tower. Ambient (r ecorded by Testo 615 temperature meter or weather unit) and surface temperatures (recorded by Extech 42510A infrared thermometer) were also periodically taken at the sampling locations. 7.2.7 Synthetic Grass Sample t in July 2008, severa During a site visi l blades of the synthetic grass were collected from each field. 34

45 7.3 Test Parameters and Methods 7.3.1 Ambient Air Samples The target list of analytes shown in Appendix F4 was developed based on Sampling Train (VOST) sampling methods modifications to the Volatile Organic 5041A/8260B (USEPA 2009a) and a modified TO -13A (2009b). The laboratory agreed to report the top 20 TICs utilizing surrogates also listed in Appendix F4. TICs are those analytes which were detected but cannot be positively identified or quantified without additional analytical testing. ted the presence of five The laboratory also evalua additional analytes identified by the crumb r ubber off-gassing study (Section 2). Three analytes were selected for incl usion in the air survey because of high toxicity (i.e., low reference concentration): aniline (CAS# 62-53-3), 1,2,3-trimethylbenzene (526-73-8), and 1-methylnaphthalene (90- 12-0). Two analytes were selected because of high frequency of detects and hi gh relative concentrations in the off-gassing study: benzothiazole (95-16-9), and te rt-butylamine (75-64-9). 7.4 Laboratory Analysis 7.4.1 Ambient Air Samples: Air Toxics Ltd. laboratory in Folsom , California analyzed the VOC and SVOC samples. This laboratory holds a New Yo rk State Environmental Laboratory Approval Program certification. VOC analysis : Tenax and Tenax/Anasorb® cartr idges were used for the VOC analysis. The laboratory performed the analysis via EPA SW-846 Method 5041A (USEPA 2009a) using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) in the full scan mode. The tubes were thermally desorbed at 180°C for ten minutes by ultra high purity (UHP) helium carrier gas. The gas stream was then bubbled through 5 mL of organic free water and trapped on the sorbent trap of the purge and trap system. The trap was thermally desorbed to elute the compone nts into the GC/MS system for further reporting limits for each compound. separation. See Appendix F4 for the 35

46 The VOC samples collected for the Thomas Jefferson Field and John Mullay for each field, were received by Air Toxics Ltd. on Field, twelve VOST Tube pairs August 23, 2008 and September 3, 2008, respectively, at the recommended temperature 2°C). (4 + : PUF/XAD Cartridge-Low Volume samples were used for the SVOC analysis SVOC analysis and the samples were extrac ted using Pressurized Fluid Extraction (PFE) by EPA Method 3545A (USEPA 2009a). A modified EPA Method TO-13A (USEPA 2009b) was used to analyze for SVOCs. The sa concentrated to 1.0 mple extract was then mL and analyzed by GC/MS in the full scan mode. See Appendix F4 for the reporting limits for each compound. Method modifi cations are detailed in Table 7.2. The SVOC samples collected at the T homas Jefferson Field and John Mullaly Field, twelve PUF/XAD Cartri dge-Low Volume samples for each field, were received on August 23, 2008 and September 3, 2008, respectively. 7.4.2 Wipe/Microvacuum Samples and Synthetic Grass Analysis: The particle size distribution and mo rphology were evaluated by staff in the Microscopy Laboratory in NYS DEC’s Bureau of Air Quality Surveillance. Samples All samples were received in good condition. were shipped overnight to the laboratory. Samples were analyzed microsc opically with an Olympus SZX12 Stereomicroscope and a JEOL JSM-6490LV Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM). Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) analysis was performed with a Smiths Detection IlluminateIR. Images were collected with either the Olympus Stereomicroscope or the JEOL Scanning Electron Microscope. and PM Monitoring: 7.4.3 Ambient PM 2.5 10 measurements, reports and PM Since the DR-4000, used to obtain PM 10 2.5 measurements on-site in the field (real-t ime reporting), laborator y analysis was not necessary. 7.5 Data Review Procedures 36

47 7.5.1 Ambient Air Samples: A review of the laboratory results for th for both fields was e VOC and SVOC data NYSDEC’s Chemistry and Labora conducted by staff in tory Services Section. The chemist conducting the review noted that re sults were appropriate ly qualified when sample results fell outside their respective control limits. A spot check for a particular sample showed that the results were calculated corre ctly from the valu es found in the raw data. The chemist noted that all samples we re received by the laboratory in “Good” condition and all analytical holding times and temperature storage requirements were met. All blank results were non-detect indicating the absence of any system contamination, which can bias results upwards. All surrogate recoveri es fell within the 100 ± 30% control limits indicating that the laboratory was capable of performing the analyses as per method specifications. Fo r more details, the report summarizing this review can be found in Appendix F5. Descriptive sample location information was matched to sample identifiers in each of data sets received from Air Toxics Ltd. The VOC, SVOC and TIC results and supporting information (e.g., percent quality match for TICs and field sampling in formation prepared by RTP) were submitted to NYSDOH for review and analysis. Se e Section 8. “Assessmen t of Air Quality Monitoring Survey Data” for addition al data review conducted by NYSDOH. For the Thomas Jefferson field, the ambient temperature during field sampling 80°F. RTP recorded high surface temperatures was 77.2ºF, slightly lower that the goal of throughout the sampling period (118-146 ºF). For the John Mullaly field, the ambient temperature during field sampling was 84.2ºF and RTP recorded high surface temperat ures (121-148ºF) throughout the sampling period. 7.5.2 Wipe/Microvacuum Samples and Synthetic Grass Analysis: Data reported are qualitative. No further evaluation was conducted. Monitoring: and PM 7.5.3 Ambient PM 10 2.5 37

48 See Section 8. “Assessment of Air Qual ity Monitoring Survey Data” for data review conducted by NYSDOH. 7.6 Test Results 7.6.1 Ambient Air Samples: Appendix F6 reports the raw data results for the VOC and SVOC analysis and reports TICs identified for the samples from the Thomas Jefferson Park. Appendix F7 the raw data results for the VOC and SVOC an alysis and TICs identified for the samples from the John Mullay Park. See Section 8, “Assessment of Air Quality Monitoring Survey Data” for the data evaluation conducted by NYSDOH. An evaluation was conducted on the horizon tal and vertical concentrations on the fields selecting analytes not commonly f ound in the urban environmental and those generally found in other studies or repor ts (NILU 2006, NYCDOHMH 2008b) evaluating releases from crumb rubber infill material . Among those associated with crumb rubber ound in at least seven locations were retained for this infill, only those analytes f evaluation. es used in the evaluation were 1-ethyl- For the Thomas Jefferson Field, the analyt 4-methyl-benzene, decane, nonanal, nonane, and undecane. For the horizontal profile, a linear regression was conducted on the concentra tions at the three foot height collection site. The f-statistic for the slope was not significant ( α =0.05) for any of the analytes evaluated. An evaluation of the vertical pr ofile was conducted at the downwind location, since this location consistently reported a result for the five analytes evaluated. The f- cant for any of the analytes evaluated statistic for the slope was not signifi Finally, the . upwind concentrations for these analytes were compared with the concentrations obtained on-field and downwind. Analysis results, usin g a Wilcoxon two-sample test indicates no difference (p>0.05) in upwind and on-field measurements for these analytes. For the John Mullaly Field, the analytes used in the evaluation were 2-methyl- butane, ethyl-cyclohexane, nonane, octane, a nd undecane. The f-statistic for the slope was not significant ( α =0.05) for any of the analytes eval uated in the hori zontal profile rface. The f-statistic for the cations three feet above the su linear regression analysis at lo 38

49 α =0.05) for two analytes (nonane and octane) in the vertical profile slope was significant ( analysis. A linear regression was conducted on th e vertical profile for these two analytes in samples collected at the center of the field. The f-statistic for the slope at this location for these two analytes was not significant. Finally, the upwind conc entrations for these field and downwind. analytes were compared with the concen trations obtained on- Analysis results, using a Wilcoxon two-sample fference (p>0.05) in test indicates no di upwind and on-field measurements for these analytes. 7.6.2 Wipe/Microvacuum Samples and Synthetic Grass Analysis: A full copy of the report detailing the re sults for this analysis can be found in Appendix F8. A summary is presented below. clean and free of particulate. Blanks: All blanks were characterized as Duplicate Samples: Duplicate samples consistently matched in collection efficiency. Particle size and composition: Particle analysis for the wipe and microvacuum samples for both fields revealed a bi-moda l distribution of the material collected. Both very large (mm size) and very small particles (micron size) were observed. The large particles were rubber, grass, and cord material. The very small particles were primarily crustal minerals (quartz a nd calcite) and biologicals (plant material such as pollen or mold). Rubber dust was not found in the smaller particle size range. The large particles were in the several mm range, while the small ones distributions for th e small ones were averaged about 5-7 microns. Reported size based on a minimum of 50 particles. In most cases it was difficult for the microscopist to find the minimum of 50 particles. The number of particles available for large particle counting was dependant on the individual filter. Microvacuum filter particle size analysis of the large (mm size) and small fferson Field revealed that in both cases, particles (micron size) at the Thomas Je 39

50 site F1 (the center of the field) had the largest particles, followed by F2 allest was F3 (the Southern edge of (Northwestern corner of field) and the sm field). Microvacuum filter particle size analysis of the large particles (mm size) at the John Mullaly Field revealed that the larges t particles were collected at site F2 (Northeastern side of field), followed by F3 (Southern edge of field), and the smallest were observed at F1 (center of the field). Microvacuum filter particle size analysis of the smaller particles (micron size) at the John Mullaly Field revealed that the largest of the small particles (micron size) were collected at F3 (Southern edge of field), followed by F1 center of the field, and the smallest were observed at F2 (Northeastern side of field). Synthetic grass: FTIR analysis on the synthetic gr ass from both fields identifies a few black fibers fibers were green with the fibers as Olefin. Most of the grass contained in the sample. Grass blades varied but were approximately 1 mm in width. Monitoring and PM 7.6.3 Ambient PM 10 2.5 The results of the particulate matte r monitoring conducted at the Thomas Jefferson field can be found in Appendix F9. The results for the particulate matter monitoring conducted at the John Mullaly fi eld can be found in Appendix F10. See Section 8, “Assessment of Air Quality Monitoring Survey Data” for the data evaluation conducted by NYSDOH. 7.7 Conclusions 7.7.1 VOC and SVOC: An air sampling method was used that allo wed for identification of analytes in the y evaluating the samples was asked to nanogram range. Additionally, the laborator 40

51 provide results for analytes detected in the crumb rubber off-gassing analysis and to mpounds. With this approach, intended to provide results for tentatively identified co not previously reported, few analytes were look for low level concentrations and analytes detected and no clear cumulative impact acro ss the horizontal or vertical profile of sampling locations was observed. Many of the analytes detected (e.g., benzene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, ethyl benzene, carbon te trachloride) are commonly found in the urban environment. A number of analytes dete cted at low concentrat ions have also been found in previous studies (Mattina 2 007, NYCDOHMH 2008b) evaluating crumb rubber (e.g., 4-methyl-2-pentanone, benzothiazo le, alkane chains (C4-C11)). Although ambient air temperatures during sampling at the Thomas Jefferson field were slightly lower (77.2ºF) than the goal of 80°F, RTP recorded fairly high surface temperatures (118ºF- 146ºF) throughout sampling. Additiona lly, the types of analytes detected and range of concentrations were similar for this field as compared to the results for the John Mullaly field which was sampled during an ambient temperature of 84.2ºF. Overall, this study design was sufficient to evaluate chemical releases from these Air Quality Monitoring Survey Data” for two fields. See Section 8, “Assessment of additional conclusions reported by NYSDOH. and PM 7.7.2 Particulate Matter (Surface Wi pe, Microvacuum and Ambient PM 10 2.5 Monitoring): Rubber dust was not found in the respirable range (particles in the micron size diameter range which are able to travel deeply into the respiratory tract, reaching the lungs) through aggressive surface sampling me thods (vacuuming of the surface) and by wipe sampling. The respirable particles identi fied in these samples are primarily crustal or biological in nature. Additiona lly, the particulate matter sampling (PM and PM ) 2.5 10 did not reveal meaningful differences in con centration between the re sults for the samples collected upwind and those on the field (for the John Mullaly field). This may be explained by the lack of rubber dust found in the smaller size fraction (micron diameter range). See Section 8, “Assessment of Air Quality Monitoring Survey Data” for reported by NYSDOH. additional conclusions 41

52 7.8 Limitations 7.8.1 Ambient Air Samples: The results of this survey are only appli cable to fields constructed in the same as those in this study. The results of this fashion and with the same type of crumb rubber survey are not applicable to fi elds constructed with other types of infill material, nor are they applicable to indoor fields. See Sec tion 8, “Assessment of Air Quality Monitoring Survey Data” for additional limitations reported by NYSDOH. Monitoring: and PM 7.8.2 Ambient PM 10 2.5 Although fields of different ages were sa mpled to potentially provide information concerning the relationship between age of th e field and PM levels measured above the influence PM concentrations field, other factors, such as field use and condition, may also above synthetic turf fields. An evaluation of these other factors wa s not conducted. See Section 8, “Assessment of Air Quality Monitori ng Survey Data” for additional limitations reported by NYSDOH. 42

53 8. Assessment of Air Quality Monitoring Survey Data to estimate potential health risks The objectives of this assessment were associated with chemical-specific ambient ai r concentrations measured at the Thomas Jefferson and John Mullaly Fields, and to eval uate the measured particulate matter (PM) concentrations to determine if the fields are a potential source of PM exposure. This section describes the methods us results of the evaluation and ed to evaluate the data, the limitations of the assessment. 8.1 Volatile and Semi-vol atile Organic Chemicals 8.1.1 Data Evaluated Laboratory analytical results were reported for volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) in 11 air samples and semi-volatile organic chemicals (SVOCs) in 12 air samples, A list of the 140 target chemicals is provided collected at each of the two playing fields. in Appendix F4. The data include resu lts for samples from upwind, on-field and downwind locations, as well as results for laboratory blank samples and field blank samples. The blank sample results help to id entify chemicals that may be associated with the laboratory ( e.g. , common laboratory contaminants) a nd those that may be associated with the transportation and handling of the sa mples or with the air sampling equipment. The analytical laboratory also reported estimat ed concentrations for chemicals that were not on the target chemical list. These chemi cals are referred to as “tentatively identified compounds” or TICs. Because the analytical laboratory was not specifically testing for these chemicals, there is some uncertainty as to the precise identity of each TIC. For each TIC, the laboratory reported a “match qua lity percent” reflecting the extent to which (as estimated by the laboratory computer) the analytical spectrum (“fingerprint”) for the chemical in the sample matched a standard re ference spectrum. All of the results from the analytical laboratory are pr ovided in Appendix F6 for th e Thomas Jefferson field and Appendix F7 for the John Mullaly field. DEC staff performed a qual ity assurance/quality it to be acceptable (see Appendix F5). control review of the data and found 43

54 The analytical laboratory reported data for all chemicals on the target chemical list. Because the reported concentrations for each target chemical are based on comparisons to laboratory standards for that chemical, there is a high level of confidence in the chemical identity and the concentrations reported. The analytical laboratory did not report data for all of the TICs. Only the 20 TICs with the largest chromatographic peaks ( reported for each sample. The absence i.e. , highest estimated concentration) were mean that it was not present, only that it was not among the of a TIC in a sample does not 20 largest peaks that were re ported. However, because ne ither the identity nor the reported concentrations for TICs are base d on comparisons to authentic laboratory standards, there is a lower level of confidence in both the identities and the reported concentrations of TICs than for the target chemicals. 8.1.2 Selecting Chemicals of Potential Concern ll target chemicals with detectable This evaluation began by identifying a concentrations for any sample and all TICs for which an estimated concentration value was reported for at least one on-field or dow nwind sample. Criteria, listed below were applied to focus the health risk evaluation on those chemicals most likely to be associated with the playing fields. • Chemicals identified in field and laboratory blanks that did not meet the criteria described in the US Environmental Pr otection Agency’s (US EPA) Superfund guidance were eliminated from further evaluation (US EPA, 1989). That guidance indicates that sample results should only be considered positive if concentrations exceed ten-times the concentration of a common laboratory contaminant in a blank, or five-times the concentration of a ch emical that is not considered a common laboratory contaminant. • Chemicals with on-field and downwind concen trations that were not at least 35 in the corresponding upwind sample were percent higher than the concentration 44

55 1 If the upwind measurement was reported as not eliminated from further evaluation. downwind samples were retained. detected, results for on-field and TICs that met the previous criterion, but which had a match quality below 85 percent • 2 om further evaluation (US EPA, 1999b). for all samples, were eliminated fr For TICs that did not meet the 85 per cent match quality criterion, the New York City Department of Health and Ment al Hygiene report (NYCDOHMH, 2008b) was reviewed to determine if any should be incl uded as a chemical of potential concern because the chemical has been associated with tire rubber or crumb rubber. No additional TICs were included based on this review. Table 8.1 (Thomas Jefferson Field) and Table 8.2 (John Mullaly Field) summarize the monitoring results for detected target chemicals and TICs. These tables show the reported levels of all target chemicals that were detected in at least one of the samples on each field (27 chemicals for the John Mullaly Field and 21 chemicals for the reported for each field, Thomas Jefferson Field). The tables also show the TICs that were excluding those did not criterion described above. Table meet the laboratory/field blank 8.3 provides a list of the TICs that were present in the blan ks (no target chemicals were reported as being detected in the blanks). The majority of target chemicals were not detected in the samples collected at either field. Tables 8.4 (Thomas Jeffers on Field) and 8.5 (John Mullaly Field) present the final list of chemicals that were sel ected, based on the criteria list ed above, for the health risk evaluation. The chemicals listed in the tables (begi nning with Table 8.4) were separated into four categories: 1 The threshold value of 35 percent (%) was selected based on an analysis of the distribution of percent rations reported for paired (co-located) air samples. That review indicated differences among target compound concent that percent differences among paired samples ranged from 0% to 181%, with a mean of 35%. 45

56 • Chemicals detected in the field survey that were also detected in the DEC laboratory off-gassing study. • Chemicals on the target analyte list detected in the field survey th at were not included in the DEC laboratory off-gassing study. Chemicals detected in the field survey th at were reported as non-detects in the DEC • laboratory off-gassing study. • Chemicals that were detected in the fields survey as TICs. ased Inhalation Comparison Values 8.1.3 Approach for Identifying Health-b Chemicals associated with crumb-rubber in filled synthetic turf have the potential to cause non-cancer and (for some chemicals) cancer health effects. Therefore, non- cancer and cancer toxicity values were used to evaluate potenti al health risks from inhalation exposures. The toxi city value used to evalua te non-cancer effects is the reference concentration, which, as define d by US EPA (2002), is an estimate (with ntinuous inhalation exposure order of magnitude) of a co uncertainty spanning perhaps an to the human population (including sensitive subg that is likely to roups such as children) be without an appreciable ri sk of deleterious effects dur ing a lifetime of exposure (US EPA, 2002). The toxicity value used to evaluate cancer effects is the chemical concentration in air that is a ssociated with an estimated ex cess lifetime human cancer risk -6 of one per one-million people (1 x 10 ). This value is often refe rred to as the one-in-one- -6 ) air concentration. Both kinds of t oxicity values are usually used to million (or 1 x 10 evaluate continuous, long-term ( , lifetime) exposures. Possible chemical exposures e.g. that people may have at synthetic turf fi elds will not be continuous and will be of relatively short duration for any given event. Long-term (“chronic”) toxicity values were used to evaluate possible exposur es because these values will either be lower than or the same as values that would be used to evaluate shorter-term exposures. 2 ch quality percent” less than 85 percent be treated as The US EPA recommends that any chemical with a “mat an “unknown” chemical (US EPA, 1999). 46

57 Toxicity values for some of the chemical s identified in the previous section have or advisory public health l or international regulatory been derived by state, nationa xicity values and selected reference organizations. An evaluation of these to -6 air concentrations for use in this analysis was conducted. concentrations and a 1 x 10 e sources of the values are shown in Table These chemical-specific toxicity values and th 8.6. -6 air reference concentration or a 1 x 10 For chemicals without an existing a chemical class based on its chemical concentration, each chemical was placed into structure, and a surrogate chemical (with a t oxicity value) was identified in that class sharing a similar chemical structure. The chemical classes, surrogate chemicals, and toxicity values for these ch emicals are shown in Table 8.6. 8.1.4 Approach for Evaluating Potential Non-cancer and Cancer Risks An evaluation of possible health risks was conducted by comparing the measured air concentrations to the toxi city value(s) for each chemi cal. To evaluate potential non- cancer effects, a “hazard quotient” was cal culated by dividing the measured air that is equal to or less concentration by the reference c oncentration. A hazard quotient than one is generally not considered to be a significant public health concern. If the exceeds the reference concentration, there may measured air concentration of a chemical be concern for potential non-cance r health effects. Generally , the greater hazard quotient, the greater the level of concern. To evaluate potential cancer risks, can cer risk estimates were calculated using the -6 measured air concentrations and the 1 x 10 air concentration as shown in the following equation: -6 3 ured air concentration ( g/m estimated risk level = (meas )) x (1 x 10 μ ) 3 -6 ) air concentration ( μ g/m 1 x 10 3 ( μ g/m per cubic meter of air) = micrograms of chemical 47

58 There is general consensus in the scientific and regulatory communities that an -6 increased lifetime cancer risk of one per one-million (10 ) or less is not a significant public health concern and that an increased ca ncer risk level of greater than one per ten- -4 , exposure reduction ) may warrant measures to reduce the risk ( e.g. thousand (10 -4 -6 measures). Risk levels that fall between 10 and 10 usually warrant further evaluation ( e.g. , the actual potentia l for exposure, “background” expos ure, and the strength of the toxicological data), with the need for risk reduction measures depending on where in that range the risk estimate falls. There usually is greater concern for risk estimates close to -4 -6 than for estimates close to 10 . 10 8.1.5 Results and Discussion The results of this evaluation of poten tial non-cancer risks are shown in Table 8.7 (Thomas Jefferson Field) and Table 8.9 (John Mullaly Field). As shown in these tables, emicals (target chemicals and TICs) at all sampling the hazard quotients for all ch locations are below (and in most cases well-bel is means that none ow) a value of one. Th of the measured concentrations exceed the reference concentrations that were used to evaluate non-cancer health ri sks. The highest hazard quotients ranged from 0.2 to 0.6 for 1,3-pentadiene, (E)-1,3-pentadiene and 1,4 pentadiene on the Thomas Jefferson Field and from 0.1 to 0.3 for 2-methyl-1,3-butadiene and 1,3-pentadiene on the John Mullaly Field. All of these chemicals are TICs and, as the tables show, ther e is no consistent pattern in the measurements of these chemicals on the fields. These results do not indicate a public heath concern for non-cancer effects. tial cancer risks are The results of the evaluation of poten shown in Table 8.8 (Thomas Jefferson Field) and Table 8.10 (John Mullaly Field). At the Thomas Jefferson Field, the only target chemical with an es timated cancer risk greater than one-in-one- -6 million (10 ) is benzene, and the estimated risks for the on-field samples are essentially no different than the estimated cancer risk fo r the upwind sample. At the same field, the measured concentrations of the three TI Cs (1,3-pentadiene, (E)-1,3-pentadiene and 1,4-pentadiene) correspond to es timated cancer risks that rang e from two-to-four in one -5 -5 ). For 1,3-pentadiene, the cancer risk estimate for to 4 x 10 hundred thousand (2 x 10 48

59 -5 , which is not substantially diffe rent than the risk estimates the upwind sample is 2 x 10 ne and 1,4-pentadiene for the on-field samples. (E)-1,3-pentadie were reported in only mples, both of which were colle cted off of the field. This one of eight of the downwind sa suggests that the athletic field may not have b een the source of these chemicals in air. At the John Mullaly Field, the estimated cancer ri sks for methylene chloride and chloroform -6 . At the same field, the measured (both of which are target chemicals) are less than 10 concentrations of the two TICs (2-methyl -1,3-butadiene and 1,3-pentadiene) correspond -5 -6 to 2 x 10 . For 1,3-pentadiene, the to estimated cancer risks that range from 8 x 10 estimated cancer risks at the on-field/downwi nd concentrations are the same as for the -5 upwind concentration at the Thomas Jefferson Field (2 x 10 ). 2-Methyl-1,3-butadiene was only reported in one of th e eight downwind samples and the estimated cancer risk for -6 the measured concentration is 8 x 10 . There is no consistent pattern in the measurements of any of the TICs at either field. These results, combined with the consideration that any exposures at the fiel ds will neither be continuous nor of lifetime duration, do not indicate a public h eath concern for cancer effects. 8.2 Particulate Matter (PM) 8.2.1 Data Evaluated The survey data also included real-time air monitoring results for PM 2.5 (particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns ( μ m) or less) and PM 10 (particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of playing field. 10 μ m or less) at each Particulate matter was measured at upwind a both fields using nd downwind locations at DataRAM particle monitors. At each field, both monitors were initially placed side-by-side for a period of time at the upwind location to obtain a baseline comparison of their responses. After the baseline monitoring period was complete, on e of the monitors (referred to as the d to downwind (on-field) monitoring locations. downwind monitor) was move 49

60 and PM were measured using the same monitors but with different Both PM 2.5 10 inlet size cutoff devices to measure the two different size fractions. Particulate matter measurements were averaged over one-minut e intervals and the monitoring duration at each downwind location was approximately ten minutes. At the Thomas Jefferson Field, and PM location. At the John Mullaly Field, were alternately measured at each PM 10 2.5 . At both fields, measurements were completed prior to measuring PM all PM 2.5 10 sampling staff simulated play with a soccer ball during the monitoring period. All of the PM monitoring data are ava ilable in Appendix F8 for Thomas Jefferson field and Appendix F9 for John Mullaly field. 8.2.2 Approach for Evaluating PM Data The PM data evaluated consisted of upwind and downwind measurements of PM and PM at both athletic fields. The real -time instruments used in this study 10 2.5 (DataRAMs) differ from the instruments us ed for air quality monitoring for compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Sta ndards (NAAQS). Therefore, comparisons between the PM monitoring results in this study and the NAAQS for particulate matter are not appropriate. To evaluate these data graphs were pr epared shown in Figures 8.1-8.3. These figures show the results of the initial baseline (side-by-side) monitoring and the upwind/downwind monitoring. The concurrent side-by-side PM concentrations were evaluated to determine whether the monitors responded similarly to local PM. Additionally, the upwind/downwind concentrati ons were evaluated to determine if there are meaningful differences in upwind vs. downwind PM measurements. 8.2.3 Results and Discussion Thomas Jefferson Field 50

61 The PM data for Thomas Jefferson Field are shown in Figure 8.1. Examination of this figure shows that the two monitoring inst ruments differed in their response to PM . Given the concentrations during the initial si de-by-side upwind monitoring of PM 10 short duration of this side-by-side monitori ng, an assessment on how the responses of the instruments might or might not vary over time could not be reliably conducted. Therefore, the response va riability between the two monitors in evaluating the upwind/downwind results could not be explained. The high initial PM concentrations 10 initial instability in monitor response or for both monitors may have been a result of because of interaction with e.g. , field staff activity in the the monitors by field staff ( vicinity of the monitor). For the remaining five minutes in the side-by-side monitoring concentrations measured with the downwind monitor were about two to period, the PM 10 three micrograms per cubic meter higher than the concentrations measured with the upwind monitor. Initial side-by-side PM monitoring was not conducted at this field. 2.5 A notable observation about the sampling results is that PM concentrations 2.5 sometimes appear to be higher than PM concentrations, even though the samples were 10 collected minutes apart. Since the PM size fraction includes PM , PM measurements 2.5 10 10 would generally be expect ed to be higher than PM . Additionally, the PM sampling 2.5 method at this field involved switching the sample inlet heads for each of the two size fractions monitored. For example, when samples were collected in the center of the field, was measured first (for about 10 minutes) and then the inlet head was changed and PM 10 PM was measured at the same location. Ba perience with this sed on NYSDOH staff ex 2.5 e.g., changing inlet kind of monitor, physical interaction of field staff with the monitors ( heads and moving monitors) can re sult in spikes in the data. In some instances, it appears that the inlet change may have affected the measured PM concentrations, but this was not always the same in both monitors. There may also have been synchronization issues involved in changing the inle ts on the two monitors ( i.e. , the inlet head on one monitor may have been changed at a slightly different time than on the other monitor) that may also account for peaks at the beginning and end of some of the monitoring periods, as observed at times 17:09 and 17:48 in Figure 8.1. Given the similarity in PM rs and the short dur ation of monitoring concentrations measured by the two monito 51

62 periods, it is difficult to determine whether th e differences in the measurements were due to actual differences PM concentrations or to perturbations in operation of the instruments. The results shown in Figure 8.1 differences between do not show consistent , although the data suggest that or PM the upwind and downwind results for either PM 2.5 10 the downwind levels of PM may have been somewhat higher than upwind levels while 2.5 levels appear to be somewhat activity was occurring on the field. Also, downwind PM 10 higher than upwind levels afte r activity ended. However, for the reasons described above it has been concluded that these data are in adequate for reliably evaluating differences between upwind and downwind measurements. John Mullaly Field The PM data for the John Mullaly Field are shown in Figures 8.2 and 8.3. Figure monitoring that was conducted for 8.2 shows the results of th e initial side-by-side PM 2.5 almost 90 minutes. Genera lly, the two monitors responded similarly, although the PM 2.5 concentrations measured by the upwind mo nitor were slightly higher than the concentrations measured by the downwind m onitor. The differences (upwind result 3 3 . minus downwind result) ranged from –2 to 5.9 μ g/m μ with a median value of 1.4 g/m No initial side-by-side PM monitoring was conducted at this field. 10 Figure 8.3 shows the measured PM levels during on-field deployment. The PM 2.5 concentrations measured by the upwind monitor were always higher than the concentrations measured by th e downwind monitor. The diff erence in the concentrations 3 40 data points in the PM . There were only 5 out of data g/m μ ranged from 1 to 6 10 where the concentrations measured by the downwind monitor exceeded the concentrations measured by the upwind monitor. The difference in the concentrations for 3 these five measurements was always less than 2 μ g/m , and on average the measurements e downwind monitor. While no initial side- at the upwind monitor were higher than at th by-side PM monitoring was performed, the differences in the five measurements are 10 ng. Based on these data, side by side monitori within the variability seen during the PM 2.5 there is no indication of m eaningful differences between upwind and downwind levels of or PM at the John Mullaly Field. either PM 10 2.5 52

63 8.3 Air Quality Monitoring Survey Conclusions The measured levels of chemicals in air at the Thomas Jefferson and John Mullaly Fields do not raise a concern for non-cancer or cancer health effects for people who use or visit the fields. Although the particulat e matter data for the Thomas Jefferson Field were found to be inadequate for evaluation, data from the John Mullaly Field do not show or PM . meaningful differences between upwi nd and downwind levels of either PM 10 2.5 8.4 Air Quality Monitoring Survey Limitations The results of this survey do not identify a public health concer n for the levels of chemicals or particulate matter measured at the two turf fields. While the survey was presentative of “worst case” conditions ( e.g. designed to collect data under conditions re , summer-time temperatures that should maxi mize off-gassing of chemicals), samples collected under different conditions, using diffe rent methods or at different fields could yield different results. For example, concen tration measurements may be different for e.g. fields of other ages or designs ( , different volumes of crumb rubber infill, non-crumb rubber infill) or for indoor fields. 53

64 9. Temperature Survey 9.1 Objectives and Design The temperature survey was performed to gain a better understanding of the surface temperature of synthetic turf fields a nd the potential for field users to suffer from heat-related illness (“heat stress”). The indicat ors of heat stress used in this survey are the wet bulb globe temperature and heat index. These indicators and surface temperature were measured above the surface of th e synthetic turf and as comparison these measurements were made above a nearby grass and sand surface. The initial objective of the survey was to capture a range of surface temperatures and above surface heat stress indicator measurements throughout changing ambient summer temperatures and humidity levels. Synthetic turf fields absorb solar radiati on; therefore, the fiel d measurements were conducted in areas that are subject to dire ct solar radiation. Discrete temperature rvals as opposed to a ed at short-time inte measurements over these surfaces were conduct continuous evaluation over time. Measuremen ts were generally made from, noon to 2:00 PM, which other studies identified as th e time of day with the highest surface temperatures (DeVitt et al. 2007, Williams 1991). Surface temperatures were measured using an infrared thermometer. The potential for heat stress was assessed by measuring the wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT) since the American Academy of Pedi atrics (AAP) has issued a policy statement addressing heat stress and exercising childre n and adolescents based on this index (AAP 2000). The AAP uses the WBGT since it can be measured in the field and incorporates factors (i.e., radiant that influence heat illness for heat, humidity, wind and temperature) an individual. The WBGT was compared to the AAP guidance on heat stress for exercising children and adolescents to assess the potential for heat stress. The National Federation of State High School Associations also recommen ds the use of the WBGT to assess potential heat st ress during sports part icipation (NFSHSA 2001). 9.2 Measurements and Collection Methods 54

65 9.2.1 Measurement Locations and Protocol Because the surface temperature of synt hetic turf is dependent on the amount of sunlight received, the edge of the field should ha ve cooler temperatures due to shade cover from nearby trees, while the center shou ld have warmer temperatures because it was subject to full sun. Therefore, for each field in this study, the center and a shaded edge area were selected for measurements and both areas were comprised of green- colored synthetic grass. For the Thomas Jeffe rson field, an additional center location was selected consisting of white synthetic grass. Measurements on each synthetic turf field were immedi ately followed by measurements on a nearby grass area and sand surface of a baseball field – both areas in full sun. All parameters recorded on the synthe tic turf fields were recorded for the nearby comparison areas. To account for instrument variability and rapid changes in cloud cover, three sequential measurements pe r area were obtained. (attached as – Temperature and Heat Stress The Field Measurement Protocol Appendix H1) provides details fo ements. As stated in the r the collection of field measur Protocol, if weather conditions changed betw een the synthetic turf and comparison area measurements, the synthetic turf would be re-measured to obtain field measurements under similar conditions for all areas. During actual field measurements, the cloud cover changed fairly rapidly, albeit subtly, making it difficult for fi eld staff to obtain measurements under identical conditions for th e different areas (synthetic turf versus comparison areas). Surface Temperature and Heat Stress 9.2.2 Instrumentation for Collection of Measurements Surface temperature was recorded using an infrared thermometer (DeltaTrak Thermo Trace, Model #15006). Wet bulb gl obe temperature was recorded using a thermal environmental and heat stress monitor (Quest Technologies QUESTemp°36). The temperatures used to calculate WBGT (wet bulb (WB), dry bulb (T), and globe (G)) and the relative humidity were also recorde d. The instrument reports the wet bulb globe WBGT = 0.7 WB + 0.2 G + 0.1 T. WB is a temperature based on the following formula: 55

66 ng and integrates the effects of wind, humidity and radiant measure of evaporative cooli heat. In the presence of sola r radiation, G integrates the e ffects of radiant heat, wind and air temperature. T is the ambient air temperature. The heat index (HI), another indicator of potential heat stress, was calculated from 3 (NOAA 2009). The WBGT instrument the dry bulb temperature and relative humidity also has the capability of recording wi nd speed but during field deployment the instrument malfunctioned and this value wa s not recorded. General meteorological observations such as cloud c over and qualitative informati on about field conditions such watered or cut also were recorded. as whether or not the grass was recently 9.2.3 Measurement Dates Field measurements were conducted in August (11 days) and September (6 days). Meteorological data from the New York City Central Park monito r for the years 2000 – th th percentile and 90 average, and 50 2007 were used to derive a histor ical profile of temperature and relative humidity values for each of the two months. Information on daily maximum temperature, and daily minimu m relative humidity and rain events for the dates of sampling from this data source also was obtained. A goal of the study was to of high ambient conditions, therefore field conduct field measurements representative th e ambient temperature was above the 90 temperatures were measured when th percentile th and relative humidity was e xpected to be above the 50 percentile based on historical data. A second target scenario to capture field measurements was during average temperature conditions for the month. 9.3 Data Review Procedures ea were averaged together. The heat The three sequential measurements per ar index was calculated from dry bulb temperat ure and relative humidity. The WBGT index was calculated from the individual measures to verify instrument reporting of this value. 3 - The formula for heat index is: -42.379 + 2.04901523T + 10.14333127R - 0.22475541TR - 6.83783x10 2 2 -2 2 -3 2 -4 2 -6 2 3 T - 5.481717x10 TR + 1.22874x10 - 1.99x10 R + 8.5282x10 T T R R , where T = ambient dry heit and R = relative humidity bulb temperature degrees Fahren 56

67 Meteorological data from a monitor in Central Park were used to determine whether the measurement dates were repres entative of high ambient conditions and 4 . Daily maximum temperature and minimum average scenario goals stated previously relative humidity data, summarized for the years 2000-2007, were used to evaluate the conditions on the dates of the field measurements. 9.4 Analysis Methods te comparisons of the surface temperature A graphical display was used to facilita measurements between the synthetic turf a nd comparison locations. Tests for normality and autocorrelation were conducted and th e appropriate statistical comparison was performed. Coefficient of variation was cal culated to facilitate comparison between surface and ambient temperature. In the abse nce of a formal established peer-reviewed guideline value, the surface temperature meas urements were compared to a guideline University (BYU). BYU has set a surface temperature value issued by Brigham Young guideline of 120°F (Williams, 2002) as the limit for conducting activities on synthetic turf fields. The BYU Safety Office based this value on studies relating temperature to skin damage and not on data related to synt hetic turf fields and potential injury (Ed Jackson BYU Safety Office, personal communication, 12/16/08). compared with the AAP guidelines (AAP, The WBGT indicator of heat stress was lly, the HI was compared with guidelines 2000) which are shown in Table 9.1. Additiona l Weather Service (NWS 2005). Th e NWS has developed a set of issued by the Nationa guidelines to warn people about conditions th at may lead to heat stress at various HI levels and employs alert procedures when the HI is expect ed to exceed 105°F. Tests for normality and autocorrelation were conducted were performed to and statistical tests compare surface temperatures and the indicators of heat stress for the different surfaces. 4 Comparison data for 2008 from the Central Park monitor were only available in summary format of daily average, minimum and maximum values for temperature and relative humidity and total daily rainfall. Since field measurements were taken a warm part of the day (40% of the measurements were taken at 1:00 PM), it was recommended (John Kent, Air Pollution Meteorologist, NYSDEC, personal communication 11/21/08) to use the daily maximum for temperature and minimum relative humidity to best represent the actual field measurement conditions. 57

68 The rain event data was reviewed and was found not to be useful for examining the effects of field watering on surface temper ature, and humidity and indicators of heat stress measurements. 9.5 Results and Discussion General meteorological and environmen tal observations were recorded by field staff during each site visit. On many occas ions, field staff noted a rapid decline in ation was interrupted by cloud cover and the surface temperature when incident solar radi opposite, a rise in temperature when cloud co ver passed. All field measurements were collected within a short period of time. For the Thomas Jefferson field, all measurements were collected within 41 minutes, on aver age. For the John Mullaly field, all measurements were collected within 26 minutes, on average. A summary of all parameters measured for the Thomas Jeffe rson field can be found in Appendix H2 and for the John Mullaly field in Appendix H3. 9.5.1 Meteorological Data th th percentiles of daily maximum and 90 e average, range 50 Table 9.2 shows th temperature and daily minimum relative humidity for 2000-2007 and the dates of field measurements. The average daily maximum ambient temperatures during the dates of field measurements are nearly identic al to the average daily maximum 2000-2007 temperatures. The minimum daily relative hum idity profile appears to be lower for the dates of measurements as compared to previo us years. Measurements greater than or th summarized years of 2000-2007) of daily maximum percentile (for the equal to the 90 obtained, although this goal was achieved temperature for the month of August were not for the month of September. Overall, the goal of capturing measurements during typical August and September days was met based on daily maximum temperature but the daily minimum relative humidity measurements are lower than previous years. 9.5.2 Surface Temperatures Thomas Jefferson Field 58

69 for measurement dates at all five Figure 9.1 illustrates the surface temperatures mparison areas) for the Thomas Jefferson locations (three on synthetic turf and two co atures of the syntheti c turf were typically field. The graph shows that the surface temper higher and were more variable than the surface temperatures of the comparison areas. In general, the surface temperatures in September are lower than the surface temperatures in August (on average, eight degrees lower for gr een sections). The figure also shows the BYU guideline temperature. At least one location on the turf fi eld was above 120°F guideline for 12 out of 17 dates of measur ements (70%), while the comparison areas never exceeded 110°F. The dry-bulb temperatures (recorded with the QUESTemp°36 monitor at a 3ft height) at all locations on the synthetic turf field, grass and sand was compared with the temperatures obtained from the nearest meteor ological station, located in Central Park. On average, all values were within 1 % (Central Park data not shown, dry-bulb measures H2) of each other as demonstrated by from the field can be found in Appendix comparison ratios, with maximum differences of approximately 8.0%. This evaluation reveals little difference between the ambient temperatures above these surfaces and the nearest meteorological station. This comparis on also indicates little difference in dry- bulb temperature above the synthe tic turf field versus the comparison areas. The ambient temperature obtained from the measurements over the center green section of the synthetic turf is displayed in Figure 9.1. The coefficient of variation (CV) was calculated across dates for surface temperatures at the center section and th e corresponding ambient temperature measured above that location. The average CV fo r surface temperature was 0.19, whereas the CV for ambient temperature was 0.074. Because th e variability was significantly lower for the dry-bulb temperature above these surfaces , a direct relationship between ambient air temperature and synthetic surface temperat ure (which is highly variable) cannot be readily inferred from these data. A summary of the temperature differences between the synthetic turf and grass and synthetic turf and sand is illustrated in Table 9.3. Surface temperatures for the synthetic turf field, grass a nd sand approximated log-normal distributions, with median y and geometric mean temperatures of 126, temperatures of 132, 87, and 86°F, respectivel 59

70 87, and 88°F. The average synthetic turf su an the grass surface rface was 42°F higher th temperature and 40°F higher than the sand surface temperature. The Durban-Watson test statistic indicates the surface temperature da ta are not autocorrelated. The mean log- hetic turf field was significantly higher transformed surface temperature for the synt and sand using paired Student’s t-test. (p<0.0001) than that of the natural grass Statistical comparisons between the grass and sand showed little differences (p>0.10). John Mullaly Field es at all four m easurement locations Figure 9.2 illustrates the surface temperatur (two synthetic turf, one gra ss, one sand) along with the B YU guideline value of 120°F. Nine out of 17 dates of measurements (53% ) had at least one location on the synthetic turf field above 120°F. Also displayed is the ambient temperature recorded by the dry- bulb thermometer above the synthetic turf field. The coefficient of variation (CV) was calculated across dates for surface e corresponding ambient temperature measured temperatures at the center section and th above that location. The average CV fo r surface temperature was 0.16, whereas the CV e variability was significantly lower for for ambient temperature was 0.085. Because th , a direct relationship between ambient air the dry-bulb temperature above these surfaces temperature and synthetic surface temperat ure (which is highly variable) cannot be readily inferred from these data. Comparisons between the synthetic turf , grass and sand surface temperatures for the same day are illustrated in Table 9.4. Surf ace temperatures for the synthetic turf field, grass and sand approximated log-normal distri butions, with median temperatures of 119, 80 and 90°F, respectively and geometric mean temperatures of 114, 80, and 89°F. The average synthetic turf surface was 26°F highe r than the grass surface temperature and 35°F higher than the sand surface temperature. Th e Durban-Watson test statistic indicates the surface temperature data are not autocorrelated. The mean log-transformed surface temperature for the synthetic turf fi eld was significantly higher (p<0.0001) than that of the natural grass and sand using paired Student’s t-test. Statistical comparisons between the grass and sand surface also we re statistically different (p<0.001). 60

71 9.5.3 Heat Stress Indicators Thomas Jefferson Field Figure 9.3 shows the results of the WBGT measurements for all locations. Little rface temperature) is noted across the three variability in WBGT values (compared to su Across dates of measurements (inclusive of all surface types for each measurement date. surface types), the average CV for WBGT was 0.020, whereas the average CV for surface temperature was 0.21. WBGT measuremen ts for the synthetic turf field, grass and sand approximated log-normal distributions , with median temperatures of 76, 78, and 78°F, respectively and geometric mean temperatures of 76, 76, and 76°F. The comparisons of the mean log-transformed WBGT measurement betw een all surface types (synthetic turf, grass and sand) were not statistically diffe rent (p>0.05) using paired Student’s t-test. Threshold values that correspond to th e AAP guidelines for exercising children ed was 85°F on the synthetic 9.3. The highest WBGT record are also shown in Figure turf. Following the AAP guidelines, a recomme ndation could have been made to cancel all activities when this heat stress leve l was reached. For the same date, the WBGT values for the other locations were within in the range of 79 - 84 ° F. At these levels, the AAP guidelines recommend stopping activities for unacclimatized persons and limiting activities for all othe r individuals (e.g., disallow long-di stance races, reduce amount of time spent exercising). On eight days, th e maximum WBGT values for one or more surfaces were also within the range of 79 - 84°F. On three days the maximum WBGT values for one or more surfaces were within the range of 75 - 79°F. At these levels, the AAP guidelines recommend longer rest periods in the shade and an increase in fluid intake. Use of the AAP guidelines could have led to the recommendation of some activity limitation on one or more of the surf aces for 12 of the 17 days of measurements. All the surfaces appear to be similarly impacted and similar recommendations could apply to all surfaces. The heat index values are reported in Appendix H2. Following guidelines issued by the NWS, approximately 56% of the heat index values (across all measurement that fatigue is possible with prolonged locations) are above 80°F and the NWS warns 61

72 exposure and/or physical activities. There wa s little difference in the HI measurements and comparison areas. between the synthetic turf John Mullaly Field GT recorded for John Mullaly Park. The figure Figure 9.4 illustrates the WB shows little variability in WBGT values for each measured date across the three surface types. Across dates of measurements, th e average CV for WBGT was 0.020, whereas the average CV for surface temperature was 0.19. WBGT measurements for the synthetic turf field, grass and sand approximated ns, with median log-normal distributio temperatures of 77, 76, and 76°F, respectivel y and geometric mean temperatures of 75, 75, and 75°F. The comparisons of the m ean log-transformed WBGT measurement between all surface types (synthe tic turf, grass and sand) were not statistically different (p>0.05) using paired Student’s t-test. Threshold values that correspond to th e AAP guidelines for exercising children are also shown in Figure 9.4. The highest WBGT recorded on the synthetic turf was the other locations were also within in the 82°F. For the same date, the WBGT values for range of 79 - 84 idelines recommend stopping activities F. At these levels, the AAP gu ° for unacclimatized persons and limiting ac tivities for all other individuals. On ten of the 17 days of measurements , the maximum WBGT value for at least e range of 79 - 84°F. On two days, the maximum one of the surfaces fell within th WBGT value for all of the surfaces fell within the range of 75 - 79°F. At these levels, the AAP guidelines recommend longer rest periods in the shade and an increase in fluid intake. All of the surfaces had a WBGT th at exceeded 75ºF on multiple occasions during the 17 days of measurements. The heat index values are reported in Appendix H3. Following guidelines issued by the NWS, approximately 65% of the heat index values (across all measurement locations) are above 80°F and the NWS warns that fatigue is possible with prolonged exposure and/or physical activities. There wa s little difference in the HI measurements between the synthetic turf and comparison areas. 9.6 Conclusions 62

73 9.6.1 Surface Temperatures These results show significantly (p< 0.0001) higher surface temperatures for both synthetic turf fields compared to the gra ss and sand surfaces. The average differences between synthetic turf and grass were 42°F and 35°F for the Thomas Jefferson field and John Mullaly field, respectively. The average differences between synthetic turf and sand (measured at a baseball field) were 40°F a nd 26°F for the Jefferson and Mullaly fields, respectively. e interior of a shoe can reach high Buskirk et al. (1971) reported that th temperatures when in contact with synthetic tu rf of elevated temperature. However, peer- reviewed studies reporting thermal burns attr ibutable to contact with these types of synthetic turf surfaces were not identif ied and NYSDEC and NYSDOH staff are not aware of widespread reports of people receiv ing thermal burns from these surfaces. Staff acknowledge that direct contact with surfaces of elevated temperature has the potential to cause thermal injury. create discomfort and may 9.6.2 Heat Stress Relatively little difference was found for WBGT levels across the different surface types, however, on any given day; a sm all difference in WBGT could result in different guidance for the different surface types under the AAP guidelines. Following the AAP guidelines for limitations on activities at different WBGT levels, approximately 70% of the measurement dates at the Thomas Jefferson field and 70% of the measurement dates at the John Mullaly Fiel d could have warranted some type of guidance for exercising children and adolescen ts for one or more of the surface types evaluated in this survey. The AAP guidelines are shown in Table 9.1. heat indices exceeded the level at which This survey also found that the calculated the NWS issues advice regarding th e potential for heat stress. The WBGT is one indicator of heat stre ss and is based on three factors; humidity, solar radiation and ambient temperature. The heat index is based on two factors; relative humidity and ambient temperature. Many ot her factors (e.g., an individual’s activity contribute to elevating body temperatures level and skin resistance to heat transfer) 63

74 (Steadman 1979a, Steadman 1979b). Although little difference between heat stress rf, grass, and sand were found, the surface indicator measurements for the synthetic tu temperatures recorded were much higher fo r the synthetic turf suggesting a greater exist since the body could be in prolonged contact with a potential for heat stress might surface of elevated temperature. Additiona lly, high metabolic activity generated during active play, in addition to the heat input from the surfaces, could produce a situation leading to greater potential fo r heat stress on these surfaces. 9.7 Limitations Surface temperature measurements were not recorded during the warmest summer month, July (Fisk, 2009) and an evaluation of the environmental conditions (such as presence of shade trees, different field c onfigurations) which may lead to lower surface temperatures was not conducted. measured are based on a of potential heat stress The two common indicators limited number of factors (e.g., humidity, solar ra diation and ambient temperature). But a number of other factors, not assessed in th is survey could contribute to heat related- illness. External factors such as contact wi th a heat source and the amount and type of clothing worn by an individual as well as internal factors in cluding decreased ability to sweat, hydration, lack of acclimatization and le ss efficient heat dissipation affect the body’s ability to maintain a nor mal range in core temperatur e. The indicators of heat not include these other factors. stress reported in this survey do Finally, this survey was not intended to determine the factors contributing to the elevation in surface temperatures for synthetic turf fields. Measurements taken on other tly or in different locations might yield synthetic turf surfaces constructed differen different findings. 64

75 10. Conclusions 10.1 Laboratory Analysis of Crumb Rubber Samples 10.1.1 Laboratory SPLP The results of this evaluation, using aggressive leaching methods, indicate a potential for release of zinc, aniline, phenol, and benzothiazole. Zinc (solely from truck tires), aniline, and phenol have the potential to be released above groundwater standards or guidance values. No standard or guidanc e value exists for benzothiazole. It is important to note that this test method ma y not be representative of actual field conditions, and therefore may result in an ove restimate of the releas e of pollutants under these conditions. Additionally, the result s indicate that the leaching potential is dependent on the type of crumb rubber, with truck tires reporting the highest leaching potential. 10.1.2 Laboratory Total Lead Analys is (Acid Digestion Method) b rubber samples are below the USEPA’s The lead concentration in the crum hazard standard for lead in bare soil and below applicable standards used by others evaluating lead concentrations on syntheti c turf fields (NYCDOHMH, 2008a). These data indicate that the crumb rubber from wh ich the samples were obtained would not be a significant source of lead exposure if used as infill material in synthetic turf fields. 10.1.3 Laboratory Off-gassing Test Although the laboratory off-gassing por tion of the study proved difficult to conduct quantitatively due to the strong absorp tive nature of the crumb rubber samples for VOCs, the results did provide useful in formation for additional analytes to be included in the laboratory analysis of the am bient air field samples. The five additional analytes were selected for inclusion in the am bient air survey based on the results of the crumb rubber off-gassing study. Three analytes were selected for inclusion in the air survey because of high toxicity (i.e., low reference concentration) : aniline (CAS# 62-53- hylnapthalene (90-12-0). Two analytes 3), 1,2,3-trimethylbenzene (526-73-8), and 1-met 65

76 tects and high relative concentrations found were selected because of high frequency of de in the off-gassing study: benzothiazole (95-16- 9), and tert-butylamine (75-64-9). Finally, it is uncertain what effect th e absorptive nature of the crumb rubber, as noted in the laboratory setting, may have in the field setting. 10.2 Laboratory Column Test to be more representative of field The column test procedure was considered conditions and, as expected, the concentration of all elements of concern were lower than of the concentrations measured in the more aggressive SPLP for the two types of crumb rubber evaluated. Phenol and aniline l eachate results were above the groundwater standards and these analytes were incl uded in the surface water and groundwater evaluation. 10.3 Water Quality Survey at Existing Fields 10.3.1 Surface Water Sampling Only one surface water runoff sample was collected during the study period presented in this report. Base d on test results of this samp le, no organics were detected . One sample is not sufficient to draw a and several metals were detected at low levels ormed in 2009 and presented in a separate conclusion, so additional analyses will be perf report. 10.3.2 Groundwater Sampling Thirty-two samples of groundwater we re collected during the study period presented in this report. Based on test result s of these samples, no organics or zinc were detected. The NYSDEC will perform additiona l sampling of groundwater at sites with shallower groundwater levels in 2009 to be tter represent potential impacts and will a separate report. present test results in 10.4 Potential Groundwater Impacts 66

77 from the NYSDEC’s so il cleanup guidance The dilution-attenuation factor (DAF) for hazardous remediation sites was applied and demonstrates that crumb rubber may be used as an infill without significant impact on groundwater quality. 10.5 Potential Surface Water Impacts A risk assessment for aquatic life prot ection was performed and found that crumb rubber derived entirely from truck tires may have an impact on aqua tic life based on the impacts that zinc may have the crumb rubber made from on aquatic life pathway. For mixed tires, the potential impacts are insignificant. 10.6 Air Quality Monitoring Sur vey at Existing Fields 10.6.1 VOC and SVOC Conclusions An air sampling approach, intended to look for low level concentrations was used and few detected analytes were found w ith no clear cumulative impact across the of sampling locations. Many of the analytes detected (e.g., horizontal or vertical profile benzene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, ethyl be ride) are commonly nzene, carbon tetrachlo found in the urban environment. At low co ncentrations a number of analytes were detected that have been found in previ ous studies evaluating crumb rubber (e.g., 4- methyl-2-pentanone, benzothiazole, alkane chains (C4-C11)). The types of analytes detected and range of concentrations were similar at both fields, even though surface and ambient temper atures differed at the time of sampling. See Section 8, “Assessment of Air Qu ality Monitoring Survey Data” for additional conclusions reported by NYSDOH. 10.6.2 Particulate Matter Rubber dust was not identified in the respir able range (particles in the micron size diameter range which are able to travel deeply into the respiratory tract, reaching the lungs) through aggressive sampling methods (vacuuming of the su rface) and by wipe were primarily crustal or biological in sampling. The small size particles identified 67

78 nature. See Section 8, “Assessment of Air Quality Monitoring Survey Data” for reported by NYSDOH. additional conclusions 10.7 Assessment of Air Quality Monitoring Survey Data The measured levels of chemicals in air at the Thomas Jefferson and John Mullaly cancer health effects for people who use or fields do not raise a concern for non-cancer or r data for the Thomas Jefferson Field were visit the fields. Although the particulate matte found to be inadequate for evaluation, data from the John Mullaly Field do not show . or PM meaningful differences between upwi nd and downwind levels of either PM 2.5 10 Therefore, these synthetic turf fields are not important contribu tors of exposure to particulate matter. 10.8 Temperature Survey 10.8.1 Surface Temperatures 0001) higher surface temperatures for both The results show significantly (p<0. synthetic turf fields compared to the gra ss and sand surfaces. The average differences and 35°F for the Thomas Jefferson field and between synthetic turf and grass were 42°F John Mullaly field, respectively. The average differences between synthetic turf and sand nd 26°F for the Jefferson and Mullaly fields, (measured at a baseball field) were 40°F a respectively. Although this survey reported significantly high surface temperatures and previous research indicates that the interior of the shoe can reach high temperatures when in contact with synthetic turf of elevated te al. 1971), peer-reviewed mperature (Buskirk et studies reporting thermal burns attributable to contact with these t ypes of synthetic turf surfaces were not identified. NYSDEC a nd NYSDOH staff acknowledge that direct contact with the surfaces of elevated temperat ure has the potential to create discomfort and may cause thermal injury. 10.8.2 Heat Stress 68

79 Relatively little differe nce for WBGT levels was found across the different surface types, however, on any given day, a sm all difference in WBGT could result in different guidance for the different surface types under the AAP guidelines. Following the American Academy on Pediatrics (AAP) guidelines for limitati ons on activities at measurement dates could require some type different WGBTs, approximately 70% of the ts for both the synthetic turf and natural of advice for exercising children and adolescen grass surfaces. Although little difference between heat stress indicator measurements for the synthetic turf, grass, and sand were found, th e surface temperatures recorded were much higher for the synthetic turf s uggesting a greater potential for heat stress might exist since the body could be in prolonged contact with a surface of elevated temperature. 69

80 11. Follow-up Actions 11.1 Water Releases from Synthetic Turf Fields • surface water and groundwater near NYSDEC will perform additional sampling of synthetic turf fields with crumb-rubber infill and presen t its findings in a separate report. 11.2 Surface Temperature and Heat Stress NYSDOH will continue to iden tify and implement measures to make the public, • including users and managers of synthetic turf fields, aware of the following: (1) the dangers of heat-related illness, (2) symptoms of heat-related illness, (3) settings or conditions that increase the risk of heat-related illness, and e potential for heat-related illness. measures that can be taken to reduce th (4) 70

81 References 12. American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). 2000. Climatic Heat Stress and the Exercising Child and Adolescent. Pediatrics , 106(1), 158-159. Buskirk, E.R., McLaughlin, E.R., Loomis, J.L. 1971. Microclimate Over Artificial Turf. Journal of Health, Physical Education, Recreation . 42(9). November-December 1971, 29-30. Board (CIWMB) 2007. Evaluation of Health California Integrated Waste Management Effects of Recycled Waste Tires in Playground and Track Products. Avai lable online at: http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/P ublications/Tires/62206013.pdf [accessed 2/5/09]. DeVitt, D.A. Young, M.H. Baghzouz, M. Bird, B.M. 2007. Surface temperature, heat loading and spectral reflectance of artificial turfgrass. Journal of Turfgrass and Sports Surface Science, 83, 68-82. Fisk, C. 2009. Graphical Climatology of New York Central Park Daily Temperatures, esent). Available online at: Precipitation, and Snowfall (1876-Pr http://home.att.net/~ny_climo/ [accessed 4/1/09]. Fresenburg, B., & Adamson, C. 2005. Synthetic Turf Playing Fields Present Unique Dangers. Available online at: http://www.plantmanagementnetwo [accessed on rk.org/pub/ats/news/2005/synthetic/ 3/27/09]. erature Increase on Synthetic Turfgrass. Jia, X., Dukes, M.D., Miller, G.L. 2007. Temp ent and Water Resources Congress 2007 Proceedings of the World Environm Katz, Abram 2007, New Haven Register 11/11/ 07. Artificial Turf Full of Toxins That Can Cause Cancer. Available online at: http://www.nhregister.com/arti cles/2007/11/11/import/19011749.txt [ Accessed on 12/10/07]. Mattina, M.I., Isleyn, M., Berger, W., Oz demir, S. 2007. Examination of Crumb Rubber Produced From Recycled Tires. De partment of Analytical Chemistry the Connecticut Agricultural Experime nt Station. Available online at: http://www.ct.gov/caes/lib/caes/documents/ publications/fact_sheets/examinationofcru mbrubberac005.pdf [Accessed on 12/10/07]. National Federation of State High School Associations (NFSHSA) 2001. NFHS (National Federation High School) Sports Medicine Handbook. Available online at: [accessed on 4/28/09]. http://www.miaa.net/sportsmedicine/NHFS/manual.pdf 71

82 ration (NOAA), National Weather Service . National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administ Heat Index. 2009. Available online at: http://www.crh.noaa.gov/jkl/?n=heat_index_calculator [accessed 3/31/09]. National Weather Service (NWS) Heat I ndex Program 2005. Available online at: http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/brochures/heat_wave.shtml [accessed 2/10/09]. New Jersey Department of Environmenta l Protection (NJDEP) 2008. Guidance for the Determination of the Dilution-Attenuation Factor for the Impact to Ground Water Pathway. New Jersey Department of E nvironmental Protection. Site Remediation Program. June 2, 2008. Available online at: http://www.state.nj.us/dep ce/rs/daf.pdf /srp/guidan [accessed 2/9/09]. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (NYCDOHMH) 2008a. Report: Lead Hazard Risk Assessment of Synt hetic Turf Playing Fields, March 2008. http://www.precaution.o rg/lib/nyc_lead_ri Available online at: sk_assessment.080415.pdf [accessed 2/4/09]. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (NYCDOHMH) 2008b. A sks from Synthetic Turf Fields Containing Review of the Potential Heath and Safety Ri Crumb Rubber Infill. Available online at: [accessed http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloa ds/pdf/eode/turf_report_05-08.pdf 2/5/09]. onmental Conservation (NYSDEC) 1998a. New York State Department of Envir Division of Water Technical and Operati onal Guidance Series (1.1.1) Ambient Water Quality Standards and Guidance Values and Groundwater Effluent Limitations. [access 2/11/09]. http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/togs111.pdf Available online at: New York State Department of Envir onmental Conservation (NYSDEC) 1998b. Ambient Water Quality Standards and Guid ance Values and Groundwater Effluent Limitations. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water, 1998 Edition. Available online at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/2652.html New York State Department of Envir onmental Conservation (NYSDEC) 1999. 6NYCRR Part 703: Surface Water and Groundwat er Quality Standards and Groundwater Effluent Limitations. Available online at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/4590.html [accessed 2/5/09]. New York State Department of Envir onmental Conservation (NYSDEC) 2006. 2006 Acid Deposition Executive Summary: New York State Acid Rain. Available online at: [accessed 2/10/09]. http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/29847.html New York State Department of Environmen tal Conservation ( NYSDEC) Division of nvironmental Impacts Assess Potential E Solid & Hazardous Materials 2008. A Study to 72

83 From the Use of Crumb Rubber as Infill Mate rf Fields. July 17. rial in Synthetic Tu Available online at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/tirestudy.pdf [Accessed on 1/21/09]. New York State Department of Environmen tal Conservation (NYSDEC) and New York 2006. New York State Brownfield Cleanup State Department of Health (NYSDOH) Program Development of Soil Cleanup Objectives Technical Support Document. Available online at: [accessed http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/reme diation_hudson_pdf/techsuppdoc.pdf 2/10/09]. New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) Bureau of Toxic Substance Assessment 2008. Fact Sheet: Crumb-Rubber In filled Synthetic Turf Athletic Fields. August 2008. Available online at: http://www.health.state .ny.us/environmental/outdoor s/synthetic_turf/crumb- rubber_infilled/fact_sheet.htm [Accessed on 1/21/09]. Northeast Regional Climate Center (NRCC) 2000. Normal precipitation 1961 – 1990. [accessed 2/2/09] Available online at: http://met-www.cit.corn ell.edu/ccd/nrmpcp.html note: the station in New York City’s Central Pa rk was selected for the rainfall total used in this study. U) 2006. Measurements of Air Pollution in Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NIL Indoor Synthetic Turf Halls. NI LU OR 03/2006. Kjeller, Norway. Norwegian Institute of Public Health and the Radium Hospital (NIPHRH) 2006. Artificial turf pitches – an assessment of the health risks for football players. Oslo, Norway. January 2006. R.W.(Beck), Inc. 2006. Final Report Analysis of New York Scrap Tire Markets: 2006 Update. Prepared for New York State Depart ment of Economic Development. Available online at: http://www.nylovesbiz.com/pdf/polu tion_prevention_recycl e/tires_update2006.pdf [Accessed on 2/5/09]. es (RAMP) 2007. Synthetic Turf Chemicals. Rochesterians Against the Misuse of Pesticid Available online at: http://www.albany.edu/ihe/Synt heticTurfChemicalsdar.htm [Accessed on 12/10/07]. Serkiz, S.M., Knaub D., Lee C. 1999. Phase II Nuclide Partition and Laboratory Study Influence of Cellulose Degradation Products on the Transport of Nuclides from SRS Shallow Land Burial Facilities. Depa rtment of Energy Report WSRC-TR-99-00298, pp 15-56. Available online at: http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/ser vlets/purl/13808-FraNpD/webviewable/ [accessed 1/30/09]. 73

84 Steadman, R.G. 1979a. The Assessment of Sultr iness. Part I: A Temperature-Humidity Index Based on Human Physiol ogy and Clothing Science. Journal of Applied Meteorology . 18, 861-873. Steadman, R.G. 1979b. The Assessment of Sultr iness. Part II: Effects of Wind, Extra Radiation and Barometric Pressure on Apparent Temperature. Journal of Applied Meteorology. 18, 874-885. Snyder, R. H. (1998), “Scrap Tires: Dis posal and Reuse”, Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., Warrendale, PA. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 1995. Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-bas ed Paint Hazards in Housing. Available online at: http://www.hud.gov/offices/lead/lb p/hudguidelines/index.cfm [Accessed on 3/30/09]. United States Environmental Protection Ag ency (USEPA). 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume I. Huma n Health Evaluation Manual Part A. ncy and Remedial Response. EPA/540/1- Washington DC: US EPA Office of Emerge 89/002 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 1996a. Method 6010B - on Spectrometry. Available online at: Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emissi [accessed olids/biosolidsdown/methods/6010b.pdf http://www.epa.gov/region8/water/bios 2/4/09]. on Agency (USEPA) 1996b. Soil Screening United States Environmental Protecti United States Environmental Protection Guidance: User’s Guide, Second Edition. Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emer gency Response, Washington DC 20460, July 1996. Available online at: [accessed 2/9/09]. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/conmedia/soil/index.htm#user United States Environmental Protection Agen cy (USEPA) 1999a. Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines, For Or ganic Data Review. Available online at: [Accessed on 1/29/08]. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/pr ograms/clp/download/fgorg.pdf United States Environmental Protection Ag ency (USEPA) 1999b. US EPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Gu idelines for Organic Data Review. Washington DC: Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. OSWER 9240.1-05A-P. EPA540/R-99/008. United States Environmental Protection Agen cy (USEPA) 2001. Lead : Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead; Final Rule. Federal Register. 66:1206-1240. 74

85 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 2002. A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference Concentr ation Process. Final Report. EPA/630/P- 02/002F. Washington, DC: Risk Assessment Forum. United States Environmental Protection Ag ency (USEPA) 2004. Contract Laboratory Inorganic Data Review. Available online Program National Functional Guidelines, For http://www.epa.gov/superfund/progr ams/clp/download/inorgfg10-08-04.pdf at: [accessed 2/5/09]. United States Environmental Protection Ag ency (USEPA) 2009a. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods (SW-846). Available online at: zard/testmethods/sw846/index.htm http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/ha [accessed 1/30/09]. ency (USEPA) 2009b. Air Toxic Methods. United States Environmental Protection Ag Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/a mtic/airtox.html [accessed 3/30/09]. Williams, T.B., 1991. Microclimate Temperature Relationships over Different Surfaces. Journal of Geography. November/December 1991. Williams, C.F. & Pulley, G. E. 2006. Synt hetic surface heat studies. Brigham Young University. Available: http://cahe.nmsu.edu/programs/turf/documents/brigham-young- study.pdf [accessed 1/15/09]. Zhang, J., Han, I., Zhang, L., Crain, W. 2008. Hazardous chemicals in synthetic turf lity in digestive fluids. J materials and their bioaccessibi ournal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, 18, 600-607. 75

86 Tables Tables – page 1

87 Table 2.1 Description of Crumb Rubber Samples Number of Facility Production Rate Sample Type Number (Million lbs per month) Samples Ambient/Truck 7 #1 10 Ambient/Car 7 #2 0.5 Ambient/Mixed 5 #3 0.6 Ambient/Mixed 5 #4 3 Cryogenic/Mixed 7 st Results for Metals (All 31 Crumb Table 2.2 Summary of SPLP Leaching Te Rubber Samples) 2nd SPLP 1st SPLP Groundwater Standard/ a a Guidance , , Average Average % % μ g/L g/L g/L μ Value, μ Detected Detected Detected metals Zinc 100 1947.4 ± 419.3 100 1150.1 ± 95.4 2000 Calcium 2443.5 ± 251.8 29 1736.1 ± No Standard 96.8 286.3 Manganese 77.4 20.7 ± 1.8 22.6 13.9 ± 1.4 300 Barium 19.4 30.4 ± 3.6 3.2 22 1000 300 105 Iron 12.9 1704.8 ± 717.8 3.2 Copper 9.8 0 0 200 296.3 ± 120.7 9.7 Lead 0 0 25 12.8 ± 1.2 b Non-detected metals Aluminum 0 < 100 Antimony 0 < 60 Arsenic 0 < 10 Beryllium 0 < 5 Cadmium 0 < 5 Chromium 0 < 10 Cobalt 0 < 50 Magnesium 0 < 1000 Mercury 0 < 0.2 Molybdenum 0 < 25 Nickel 0 < 40 Potassium 0 < 2000 Selenium 0 < 10 Silver 0 < 10 Sodium 0 < 1000 Thallium 0 < 10 Vanadium 0 < 50 a Average ± standard error for detected results only b Not detected at detection limit Tables – page 2

88 Test Results for SVOCs (All 31 Crumb Table 2.3 Summary of SPLP Leaching Rubber Samples) 1st SPLP 2nd SPLP Ground- water Standard/ Guidance a a Value Average Average % % Analytes CASRN g/L) μ ( g/L) ( μ g/L) ( μ Detect Detect Detected Compounds Aniline 62-53-3 100 103.4 ± 100 62.7 ± 5 15.5 6.4 Phenol 108-95-2 100 12.8 ± 1.1 100 4.1 ± 0.6 1 N- 100 3.6 ± 0.3 100 3.3 ± 0.3 50 86-30-6 Nitrosodiphenylamine 78-59-1 97 3.6 ± 0.3 45 1.4 ± 0.1 50 Isophorone 4-Methylphenol 106-44-5 94 3.2 ± 0.3 48 1.4 ± 0.2 1 Acetophenone 74 2.3 ± 0.2 19 1.6 ± 0.1 No 98-86-2 Standard Diethyl Phthalate 84-66-2 71 1.7 ± 0.2 39 1.6 ± 0.1 50 No 65-85-0 Benzoic Acid 0 29 19.8 ± 5.7 0 Standard Bis(2-ethylhexyl) 117-81-7 28 1.6 ± 0.2 19 1.1 ± 0.1 5 Phthalate 95-48-7 19 1.4 ± 0.2 0 0 1 2-Methylphenol Naphthalene 91-20-3 16 1.4 ± 0.2 16 1.3 ± 0.1 10 Di-n-butyl Phthalate 6 1.2 ± 0.3 1 1.8 50 84-74-2 Carbazole 86-74-8 6 1.4 ± 0.1 6 1.2 ± 0.1 No Standard 105-67-9 2,4-Dimethylphenol 0 6 2.6 ± 0.4 0 1 Benzyl Alcohol 100-51-6 2.8 0 0 No 3 Standard Non-detected Compounds b Acenaphthene 83-32-9 0 < 10 Acenaphthylene 208-96-8 0 < 10 Anthracene 120-12-7 0 < 10 Benz(a)anthracene 56-55-3 0 < 10 Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 0 < 10 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2 0 < 10 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 191-24-2 0 < 10 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 0 < 10 Butyl Benzyl < 10 Phthalate 85-68-7 0 Indeno(1,2,3- 193-39-5 0 < 10 Tables – page 3

89 Ground- 2nd SPLP 1st SPLP water Standard/ Guidance a a Value Average Average % % Analytes CASRN μ ( g/L) μ g/L) ( ( g/L) μ Detect Detect cd)pyrene 4-Chloroaniline 106-47-8 0 < 10 < 10 Bis(2- chloroethoxy)methane 111-91-1 0 Bis(2-chloroethyl) < 10 Ether 111-44-4 0 2-Chloronaphthalene 91-58-7 0 < 10 2-Chlorophenol 95-57-8 0 < 10 Bis(1-chloroisopropyl) < 10 108-60-1 0 ether Chrysene 218-01-9 0 < 10 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3 0 < 10 Dibenzofuran 132-64-9 0 < 10 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 0 < 10 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 0 < 10 < 10 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 0 < 10 3,3'- Dichlorobenzidine 91-94-1 0 2,4-Dichlorophenol 120-83-2 0 < 50 131-11-3 Dimethyl Phthalate < 10 0 2,4-Dinitrophenol 51-28-5 0 < 10 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 121-14-2 0 < 10 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 606-20-2 0 < 10 Fluoranthene 206-44-0 0 < 10 Fluorene 86-73-7 0 < 10 Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 0 < 10 < 10 Hexachlorobutadiene 87-68-3 0 < 10 Hexachlorocyclo- pentadiene 77-47-4 0 Hexachloroethane 67-72-1 0 < 10 2-Methylnaphthalene 91-57-6 0 < 10 4,6-Dinitro-2- < 50 methylphenol 534-52-1 0 4-Chloro-3- < 10 methylphenol 59-50-7 0 2-Nitroaniline 88-74-4 0 < 50 3-Nitroaniline 99-09-2 0 < 50 4-Nitroaniline 100-01-6 0 < 50 Nitrobenzene 98-95-3 0 < 10 Tables – page 4

90 Ground- 1st SPLP 2nd SPLP water Standard/ Guidance a a Value Average Average % % Analytes CASRN ( g/L) μ μ g/L) μ g/L) ( ( Detect Detect 2-Nitrophenol 88-75-5 0 < 10 4-Nitrophenol 100-02-7 0 < 10 N- < 10 Nitrosodimethylamine 62-75-9 0 Di-n-octyl Phthalate 117-84-0 0 < 10 Pentachlorophenol < 50 (PCP) 87-86-5 0 Phenanthrene 85-01-8 0 < 10 4-Bromophenyl < 10 101-55-3 0 phenyl Ether 4-Chlorophenyl < 10 phenyl Ether 7005-72-3 0 N-Nitro0sodi-n- < 10 propylamine 621-64-7 0 Pyrene 129-00-0 0 < 10 < 10 1,2,4- Tri0chlorobenzene 120-82-1 0 2,4,6- < 10 Tric0hlorophenol 88-06-2 0 2,4,5- < 10 Trich0lorophenol 95-95-4 0 a Average ± SE (standard error) for detected results only b μ g/L detection limit < 10 = Not detected at 10 Tables – page 5

91 ng Test Results (All 31 Crumb Rubber Table 2.4 TICs Found in SPLP Leachi Samples) 1st SPLP Groundwater a Standard/Guidance Average, % μ g/L Value, Detected Compounds CAS # g/L μ Detected Benzothiazole 95-16-9 100 526.3 ± 47.6 No Standard Cyclohexanamine, N- No Standard cyclohexyl 101-83-7 100 208.1 ± 37.4 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 173.5 ± 24.3 No Standard 100 108- 10-1 2(3H)-Benzothiazolone 100 261.9 ± 11.1 No Standard 934-34-9 Phthalimide 85-41-6 100 108.6 ± 11.3 No Standard 2-Mercaptobenzothiazole 149-30-4 87 52.4 ± 6.9 50 Cyclohexane, No Standard isothiocyanato- 39 129.6 ± 22.9 1122-82-3 Methane, diethoxy- Cyclohexane 462-95-3 3 330.0 No Standard a Average ± standard error. Tables – page 6

92 Table 3.1 Reagents Used in Column Test Reagent Source Nanopure Infinity Water - ASTM Type I, provided by a Barnstead 18megohm water purification system Fisher Cl - USP Grade NH 4 - ACS Grade MP Biochemicals CaSO 4 KNO - ACS Grade Fisher 3 NaNO Fisher - ACS Grade 3 ) - ACS Grade Fisher Mg(NO 3 2 Simulated Rainwater (pH 4.2) Prepared by the method of Serkiz, et. al. 1999 ( 5 ) Table 3.2 Selected SVOCs and CASRN Name CASRN Aniline 62-53-3 Phenol 108-95-2 2,4-Dimethylphenol 105-67-9 Benzothiazole 95-16-9 Dicyclohexylamine 101-83-7 2-Hydroxybenzothiazole 934-34-9 Phthalimide 85-41-6 462-95-3 Formaldehyde Diethyl Acetal Cyclohexyl Isothiocyanate 1122-82-3 149-30-4 2-Mercaptobenzothiazole Table 3.3 Summary of Column Test Result s for Zinc and Detected SVOCs a Groundwater Average Concentration Standard/ ( μ g/L) Analytes Guidance Value Facility #4 Facility #1 g/L) μ ( Mixed/Cryogenic Truck/Ambient Zinc 291.9 ± 72.0 214.1 ± 80.3 2000 Aniline 37.5 ± 7.4 21.5 ± 2.2 5 Phenol 0.7 ± 0.1 1.4 ± 0.2 1 Benzothiazole 215.3 ± 25.1 92.7 ± 6.3 No Standard Phthalimide 107.5 ± 28.7 23.0 ± 2.5 No Standard a Average ± standard error. Tables – page 7

93 Table 4.1 Surface Runoff Test Results for VOCs Concentration Analyte CASRN ( μ g/L) 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 < 1 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 < 1 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 < 1 1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 < 1 1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 < 1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 < 1 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 < 1 1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 < 1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 < 1 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 < 1 < 1 2-Chloroethylvinyl ether 110-75-8 Benzene 71-43-2 < 1 Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 < 1 Bromoform 75-25-2 < 1 Bromomethane 74-83-9 < 1 56-23-5 < 1 Carbon tetrachloride Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 < 1 Chloroethane 75-00-3 < 1 Chloroform 67-66-3 < 1 Chloromethane 74-87-3 < 1 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-01-5 < 1 Dibromochloromethane 124-48-1 < 1 Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 < 1 Methylene chloride 75-09-2 < 1 Tetrachloroethene 127-18-4 < 1 Toluene 108-88-3 < 1 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5 < 1 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-02-6 < 1 Trichloroethene 79-01-6 < 1 Trichlorofluoromethane 75-69-4 < 1 75-01-4 Vinyl chloride < 1 Tables – page 8

94 Table 4.2 Surface Runoff Test Results for SVOCs Concentration Analyte CASRN ( μ g/L) 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 < 5 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 < 5 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 < 5 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 < 5 2,2 ́-oxybis(1-Chloropropane) 108-60-1 < 5 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 88-06-2 < 5 2,4-Dichlorophenol 120-83-2 < 5 2,4-Dimethylphenol 105-67-9 < 5 2,4-Dinitrophenol 51-28-5 < 10 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 121-14-2 < 5 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 606-20-2 < 5 2-Chloronaphthalene 91-58-7 < 5 2-Chlorophenol 95-57-8 < 5 2-Nitrophenol 88-75-5 < 5 3,3 ́-Dichlorobenzidine 91-94-1 < 5 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 534-52-1 < 10 4-Bromophenyl-phenylether 101-55-3 < 5 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 59-50-7 < 5 4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether 7005-72-3 < 5 4-Nitrophenol 100-02-7 < 10 Acenaphthene 83-32-9 < 5 Acenaphthylene 208-96-8 < 5 Anthracene 120-12-7 < 5 Benzidine 92-87-5 < 50 Benzo(a)anthracene 56-55-3 < 5 Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 < 5 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2 < 5 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 191-24-2 < 5 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 < 5 Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane 111-91-1 < 5 Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether 111-44-4 < 5 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 117-81-7 < 5 Butyl benzyl phthalate < 5 85-68-7 Chrysene 218-01-9 < 5 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3 < 5 Diethylphthalate 84-66-2 < 5 Dimethylphthalate 131-11-3 < 5 Di-n-butyl phthalate 84-74-2 < 5 < 5 Di-n-octyl phthalate 117-84-0 Fluoranthene 206-44-0 < 5 Fluorene 86-73-7 < 5 Tables – page 9

95 Concentration Analyte CASRN ( μ g/L) Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 < 5 Hexachlorobutadiene 87-68-3 < 5 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 77-47-4 < 5 Hexachloroethane 67-72-1 < 5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 193-39-5 < 5 Isophorone 78-59-1 < 5 Naphthalene 91-20-3 < 5 Nitrobenzene 98-95-3 < 5 N-Nitrosodimethylamine 62-75-9 < 5 N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine 621-64-7 < 5 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 86-30-6 < 5 Pentachlorophenol 87-86-5 < 5 Phenanthrene 85-01-8 < 5 Phenol 108-95-2 < 5 Pyrene 129-00-0 < 5 2(3H)-Furanone, dihydro-4- 5469-16-9 2 a hydroxy- a Tentatively identified compound – repor ted based on presumptive evidence and reported as estimated concentration a Table 4.3 Surface Runoff Test Results for Metals Surface water Concentration b standard Analyte CASRN μ g/L) ( ( μ g/L) 3 Antimony 7440-36-0 < 2.3 50 Arsenic 7440-38-2 < 1.8 Beryllium 7440-41-7 < 0.096 1100 Cadmium 7440-43-9 < 0.35 5 Chromium 7440-47-3 2.2 50 Copper 7440-50-8 5.4 200 Lead 7440-92-1 1.7 50 Mercury 7440-97-6 < 0.13 0.7 Nickel 7440-02-0 8.8 100 Selenium 7440-49-2 < 1.9 10 Silver 7440-22-4 < 0.54 50 Thallium 7440-28-0 < 1.9 8 Zinc 7440-66-6 59.5 82.6 a Results based on one sample collected b Assume water hardness = 100 ppm Tables – page 10

96 Table 4.4 Groundwater Field Information Depth to # Turf Field # Age of Turf g roundwater 2 Field Area (ft Samples Field # Wells ) (ft) 1 531,000 68.5 - 70.0 4-5 years 6 2 11.3 - 12.0 2 120,000 2 < 1 year 8 3 36.8 - 38.0 4-7 years 10 3 82,300 4 77,400 8.3 - 8.9 2-4 years 8 2 Table 4.5 Groundwater Test Results for Selected SVOCs Analyte CASRN Concentration ( μ g/L) Aniline 62-53-3 < 0.39 Phenol 108-95-2 < 0.59 < 0.83 Benzothiazole 95-16-9 Table 4.6 Groundwater Test Results for all SVOCs Concentration ( μ g/L) Analyte CASRN Acenaphthene 83-32-9 < 0.38 Acenaphthylene 208-96-8 < 0.72 Aniline 62-53-3 < 0.39 Anthracene 120-12-7 < 0.5 Benz(a)anthracene 56-55-3 < 0.24 Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 < 0.5 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2 < 0.36 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 191-24-2 < 0.3 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 < 0.33 Benzothiazole 95-16-9 < 0.83 Benzyl Alcohol 100-51-6 < 0.55 Butyl Benzyl Phthalate 85-68-7 < 0.64 Di-n-butyl Phthalate 84-74-2 < 0.65 Carbazole 86-74-8 < 0.42 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 193-39-5 < 0.44 4-Chloroaniline 106-47-8 < 0.63 Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane 111-91-1 < 0.66 111-44-4 < 0.63 Bis(2-chloroethyl) Ether 2-Chloronaphthalene 91-58-7 < 0.66 2-Chlorophenol 95-57-8 < 0.32 Bis(1-chloroisopropyl) Ether < 0.67 108-60-1 Chrysene 218-01-9 < 0.6 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3 < 0.32 Dibenzofuran 132-64-9 < 0.49 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 < 0.6 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 < 0.86 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 < 0.28 Tables – page 11

97 μ g/L) Concentration ( Analyte CASRN < 0.46 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 91-94-1 < 0.59 2,4-Dichlorophenol 120-83-2 84-66-2 < 0.55 Diethyl Phthalate 131-11-3 < 0.7 Dimethyl Phthalate 2,4-Dimethylphenol 105-67-9 < 1.6 2,4-Dinitrophenol 51-28-5 < 21 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 121-14-2 < 0.68 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 606-20-2 < 0.75 Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate 117-81-7 < 0.27 Fluoranthene 206-44-0 < 0.44 Fluorene 86-73-7 < 0.55 Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 < 0.42 Hexachlorobutadiene 87-68-3 < 0.6 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 77-47-4 < 0.53 Hexachloroethane 67-72-1 < 0.7 Isophorone 78-59-1 < 0.56 2-Methylnaphthalene 91-57-6 < 0.42 < 0.86 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 534-52-1 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 59-50-7 < 0.72 2-Methylphenol 95-48-7 < 0.54 4-Methylphenol 106-44-5 < 0.78 Naphthalene 91-20-3 < 0.49 2-Nitroaniline 88-74-4 < 14 3-Nitroaniline 99-09-2 < 9.3 4-Nitroaniline 100-01-6 < 10 Nitrobenzene 98-95-3 < 0.59 2-Nitrophenol 88-75-5 < 0.76 4-Nitrophenol 100-02-7 < 6.2 N-Nitrosodimethylamine 62-75-9 < 0.43 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 86-30-6 < 0.47 Di-n-octyl Phthalate 117-84-0 < 0.63 Pentachlorophenol (PCP) 87-86-5 < 16 Phenanthrene 85-01-8 < 0.31 Phenol 108-95-2 < 0.59 4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether 101-55-3 < 0.67 < 0.4 4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether 7005-72-3 N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine 621-64-7 < 0.37 Pyrene 129-00-0 < 0.44 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 < 0.62 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 88-06-2 < 0.43 < 0.55 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 95-95-4 Tables – page 12

98 ations for Crumb Rubber Derived from Table 5.1 Predicted Groundwater Concentr Truck and Mixed Tires Using a Dilution Attenuation Factor (DAF) of 100 for Organics. Facility#1 Facility #4 Groundwater Mixed Tires Truck Tires Quality Standards/ Compound GW a a SPLP SPLP GW Conc. Guidance Values Conc. g/L) g/L) ( μ g/L) μ ( μ ( g/L) ( μ ( μ g/L) Aniline 5 347 3.5 124 1.2 Phenol 1 6 0.1 23 0.2 b Benzothiazole No Standard 1,062 10.1 394 3.9 c Zinc 2000 7,700 192.5 1,400 35.0 a 95% Upper Confidence Limit b rd of 50 μg/L is used for comparison Unspecified Organic Compound (UOC) standa purposes c NYSDEC uses a DAF of 40 for metals. Table 6.1 Surface Water Standards for Compounds of Concern Surface Water Facility #1 Truck Facility #4 Mixed Tires Standard Tires Compound Column Column SPLP SPLP μ g/L) ( for Stream a a a a Test Test Test Test Classes B, C, D b Zinc 7,700 436 1,400 375 117.2/82.6 Phenol 6 1 23 2 5 Aniline 347 52 124 26 No Standard Benzothiazole 1,062 265 394 105 No Standard a 95% Upper Confidence Limit b For acute and chronic water qua lity standards for zinc, respec tively, assuming hardness = 100 ppm. See Appendix E1 for calculations of surface water standards. Tables – page 13

99 Table 7.1 Sampling Locations Sampling Location Sampling Height Duplicate Sample Upwind edge of field 3 feet Yes On field in shade 0.4-0.8 inches & 3 feet No 0.4-0.8 inches , 3 feet, 6 feet On field in center No 0.4-0.8 inches , 3 feet, 6 feet Yes at 3 foot height Downwind edge of field Table 7.2 Modifications to Method TO-13A Requirement TO-13A ATL Modifications 10% ether in hexane for PUF; DCM for PUF/XAD cartridge Extraction methylene chloride (DCM) for and XAD sorbent. Final extract Solvent XAD sorbent. Final extract in in DCM. hexane. Glassware Solvent cleaning procedure is Muffle furnace is utilized. Cleaning used. Extraction Soxhlet extraction or pressurized Soxhlet extraction technique fluid extraction (PFE). Calibration range g/mL μ 0.10 to 2.5 μ g/mL 1.0 μ g/mL to 160 Deuterated polycyclic aromatic Field surrogates hydrocarbons (PAHs) are spiked Performed by client request only. on media prior to sampling. Solvent Process Not performed; each solvent lot Required each analytical batch. Blank is certified prior to use. on Limit

100 - - above surface @ 6 feet d of field Downwin above surface @ 3 feet 3 d of field Downwin 0.58 J (90%) (94%) g/m μ d of field Downwin @ surface 0.77 0.79 0.7 (91%) 0.53 J - - - - 6 feet above field in surface Center of the sun @ 0.16 0.11 0.17 0.098 (94%) - - - - - 3 feet above 29 0.34 0.33 0.32 0.3 48 0.54 0.37 0.41 0.27 field in surface Center of the sun @ 0.18 0.17 0.13 0.19 0.1 0.68 1 1.2 1.4 1.1 1.3 0.82 0.5 0.5 0.38 0.52 0.32 (81%) 0.31 0.52 0.37 0.4 0.3 fferson Field* Concentrations are - - - - - - 18 0.16 0.17 0.14 0.19 0.11 16 0.13 0.16 0.29 0.096 0.099 095 ND 0.12 0.087 0.1 ND field in surface Tables – page 15 Center of the sun @ 0.3 0.26 0.29 0.27 0.29 0.2 0.15 0.12 0.14 0.092 0.13 0.1 (96%) 0. - - - 1.1 J above 34 0.29 0.26 0.34 0.3 0.31 0.23 surface On-field @ 3 feet in shade 0.89 J (81%) 0.13 - - - 0.64 J On-field in shade @ surface 0.51 J (94%) ND Samples Collected at the Thomas Je - - - - - - - - 0.52 J - feet above surface field @ 3 Upwind of 0.23 0.18 0.18 0. 0.44 0.36 0.4 ND 0. 0.26 0.22 0.19 0.17 0.81 0.39 1.1 0.74 (83%) 0.28 0.22 0.17 0.17 0.16 (94%) 0.34 0.22 0.69 0.33 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 0.48 J 0.085 0.4 0.4 0.44 ND 0. 0.72 0.56 0.54 0.52 0.48 0.48 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.1 0.15 ND ND 0.14 ND 0.084 ND CHEMICAL NAME Carbon Tetrachloride 0.27 0.26 0. Freon 113 Tetrachloroethene 0.28 0.34 0.3 1,3-Pentadiene 0.46 J Freon 12 Benzene Toluene Acetone 4-Methyl-2-pentanone ND ND ND 1.2 ND ND ND ND ND 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.12 0.18 0.12 Methylene Chloride 0.11 ND 0.17 0. 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene Freon 11 1,2-Butadiene, 3-methyl- - - - - 0.42 J 1,3-Pentadiene, (E)- - - - - - - - 0.62 J m,p-Xylene Ethyl Benzene 1,3-Pentadiene, (Z)- 1,3-Butadiene, 2-methyl- o-Xylene Hexane Chloroform Table 8.1 Chemicals Detected in Air 1,4-Pentadiene

101 - - - - - above surface @ 6 feet d of field Downwin (43%) (80%) 0.26 J (70%) 0.33 J (93%) - - - - - - - above surface @ 3 feet d of field Downwin 8.9 J 0.55 J (38%) 0.29 J (38%) (80%) (80%) (52%) 13 J (32%) 9.1 J 23 J (46%) - - - 8.7 J - d of field Downwin @ surface (80%) (78%) 0.42 J 0.3 J 8.5 J (43%) (64%) (76%) - 6 feet above field in surface Center of the sun @ 10 J (53%) (50%) (64%) (47%) 0.43 J (76%) - - 8.6 J - - - - - - - 0.34 J 3 feet above field in surface Center of the sun @ (93%) 13 J (68%) ) 19 J (22%) 27 J (16%) - - - - - - - - 0.52 J - field in surface Tables – page 16 Center of the sun @ (72%) (46%) (80%) 0.32 J 21 J (22% - - - - - - - - - above surface On-field @ 3 feet in shade 0.48 J 0.54 J (76%) (86%) 10 J (62%) - - - - - - - - - - - - On-field in shade @ surface (35%) 0.64 J (91%) 0.67 J - - - - - - - - 22 J (43%) - - - 1 J (49%) - - - - - - - - - - - 0.3 J - - - - - 0.45 J - - - - - - - 9.2 J - feet above surface field @ 3 Upwind of 10 J (72%) 0.64 J 0.41 J (70%) (76%) 23 J (32%) CHEMICAL NAME Benzene, 1-ethyl-4- methyl- 2-Octen-1-ol, (E)- 1-Iodo-2-methylundecane - - - 0.76 J Benzenemethanol, ar- Butane, 2-methyl- ethenyl- 1H-Benzotriazol-5-amine, Cyclopentane 1-methyl- 2-Dibenzofuranamine - - 11 J (38%) 3-Dibenzofuranamine - - - - - - - 8.6 J Cyclopentanone, 2- 1-Heptene Benzene, 1-ethyl-2- methyl- 2-Hexen-1-ol, (Z)- 4-Dibenzofuranamine - - - 8.4 J Butane Cyclohexanol 5-Hexen-2-ol, (.+/-.)- - - - - - - 24 J (40%)

102 - - - above surface @ 6 feet d of field Downwin 0.93 J (64%) (53%) (91%) 0.34 J 2.3 J above surface @ 3 feet d of field Downwin (66%) (59%) (64%) (64%) (59%) 0.99 J 0.75 J (87%) - - - d of field Downwin @ surface (64%) 1 J (64%) 1.3 J 0.81 J (47%) - - - - - 0.5 J 6 feet above field in surface Center of the sun @ 2.5 J (64%) 1.3 J (90%) - - - - - - - - 0.3 J 3 feet above field in surface Center of the sun @ (72%) (72%) 1.2 J (64%) (70%) - - - - - - - 0.76 J field in surface Tables – page 17 Center of the sun @ (90%) 1.4 J (74%) (87%) - - - - - - - - 0.36 J above surface On-field @ 3 feet in shade (50%) 0.54 J (64%) (56%) 1 J (76%) 1 J (90%) 0.99 J - 0.38 J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.37 J - - - - - - - - - 1.2 J On-field in shade @ surface 1.4 J (64%) 0.43 J (45%) (58%) (86%) 0.88 J 1.4 J - - - - - - - - 0.26 J - - - - - 13 J (50%) - - - - 0.46 J - - - - 9.6 J feet above surface field @ 3 Upwind of 0.28 J 0.29 J (42%) (72%) (72%) (72%) (50%) (87%) (91%) (53%) ethyl- - imethyl- 0.89 J CHEMICAL NAME Heptane, 2,3,4-trim Decane, 2,9-dimethyl- Nonane 1.1 J Dodecanal 0.38 J Decane, 2,5,6-tr Heptane 0.31 J Decane 1.2 J Decane, 5-methyl- Decanal methyl- Nonanal 0.59 J Nonanamide Hexane, 3-methyl- dimethyl-N'-phenyl- Methanimidamide, N,N- Decane, 6-ethyl-2-methyl- - - - - - - - 1.2 J Octane, 2-methyl-

103 - - above surface @ 6 feet d of field Downwin 0.33 J (81%) (72%) (50%) above surface @ 3 feet d of field Downwin (90%) (91%) 0.49 J (50%) - - - d of field Downwin @ surface (76%) 0.41 J - - - - 6 feet above field in surface Center of the sun @ (74%) 0.45 J (81%) 3 feet above field in surface Center of the sun @ (72%) (90%) - - - - - - - 0.49 J field in surface Tables – page 18 Center of the sun @ rion are not included. above surface On-field @ 3 feet in shade 0.42 J (91%) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.28 J - - - - - - - - On-field in shade @ surface 0.58 J (90%) tory/field blank crite - - - - 0.31 J feet above surface field @ 3 Upwind of 0.4 J 1.1 J (90%) (91%) (91%) (53%) CHEMICAL NAME Undecane, 3-methyl- Undecane, 2,6-dimethyl- - - - - - - - - 0.26 J Undecane 0.51 J ND = not detected J = estimated concentration of a tentatively identified compound (TIC) - = not reported Tetradecane, 1-chloro- - - - - - 0.42 J Undecane, 5,6-dimethyl- - - - - - - - 0.34 J * Chemicals that did not meet the labora Propane, 2-methyl- - - 0.4 J (4%) Pentane, 2-methyl- tetramethyl- Pentane, 2,2,3,4- Pentanamide, 4-methyl- - - - - 15 J (50%) - - - - Pentadecane 0.46 J (%) = match quality

104 above surface @ 6 feet d of field Downwin 0.45 J (94%) above surface @ 3 feet d of field Downwin 0.44 J (95%) . 3 - - - g/m μ d of field Downwin @ surface (94%) 6 feet above field in surface Center of the sun @ 0.21 0.22 0.27 0.22 (94%) 0.23 J - 3 feet above 16 0.26 0.56 0.44 0.70 field in surface Center of the sun @ 0.088 0.21 0.22 0.27 0.24 0.33 0.71 0.72 0.80 0.80 ND 0.16 0.37 0.32 0.41 0.24 0.43 1.0 0.85 1.1 ND ND 0.16 0.13 0.14 0.43 1.3 1.0 0.75 1.6 - - - 0.53 J - 14 ND 0.22 0.33 ND 0.35 74 0.38 0.91 0.88 0.84 0.83 18 0.11 0.24 0.24 0.27 0.27 field in surface Tables – page 19 Center of the sun @ 0.95 ND 0.12 3.0 0.35 0.17 0.40 0.24 0.41 0.46 0.55 0.48 - above 34 0.14 ND 0.19 0.34 0.2 0.32 surface On-field @ 3 feet in shade 0.51 J (94%) 0.81 - On-field in shade @ surface (96%) 2.3 r Samples Collected at the John Mullaly Field* Concentrations are - feet above surface field @ 3 Upwind of 0.38 0.35 0.37 0.12 0.29 0.28 0.28 0. 0.26 0.28 0.27 0.16 0.74 1.0 1.0 0.32 0.089 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.4 0.62 0.69 0.20 0. 0.26 0.26 0.24 0.19 0.10 1.4 1.3 1.5 0.72 0.092 0.22 0.20 ND 0.39 0.34 0.35 0. 0.19 0.83 0.82 0.80 0.55 ND 0.55 0.55 ND 0.56 0.53 ND ND ND ND 0.10 ND ND ND ND 0.10 ND 0.11 ND 0.096 0.092 ND ND ND 0.15 0.087 0.087 ND ND ND 6.5 ND ND ND ND ND CHEMICAL NAME 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.46 0.52 0.49 1,3-Butadiene, 2-methyl- Freon 12 Carbon Tetrachloride 0.26 0.33 0. Table 8.2 Chemicals Detected in Ai Hexane Chloroform 4-Methyl-2-pentanone ND 0.78 ND 0.67 ND ND ND ND ND m,p-Xylene Chloromethane Acetone Methylene Chloride Ethyl Benzene Benzene 1,3-Pentadiene - 0.52 J Freon 11 o-Xylene 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene Tetrachloroethene 1.2 1.2 1.2 0. Freon 113 Toluene Benzothiazole 1-Butanol, 4-methoxy- 50 J (23%) - - - - - - - -

105 - - - above surface @ 6 feet d of field Downwin 0.51 J (55%) (53%) 11 J (43%) - - - - - 1.1 J - - - above surface @ 3 feet d of field Downwin (59%) (38%) 9.9 J (86%) - 0.56 J - - - - d of field Downwin @ surface (42%) (86%) (45%) (64%) (38%) - 9.7 J - 0.88 J 6 feet above field in surface Center of the sun @ (80%) (35%) (50%) 1.0 J 9.1 J 3 feet above field in surface Center of the sun @ 0.33 J (80%) (52%) (43%) (59%) 0.23 J - - - - - - field in surface Tables – page 20 Center of the sun @ (80%) 0.55 J (64%) 10 J (44%) 8.9 J - - - - 11 J - - - 0.54 J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.49 J - above surface On-field @ 3 feet in shade (55%) (50%) - - - - - - - - - - 2.7 J - - - - - - 0.59 J On-field in shade @ surface 1.8 J 9.6 J 10 J (38%) (52%) (91%) (59%) 0.45 J (87%) 0.56 J - - - - - 0.51 J - - - - 9.9 J feet above surface field @ 3 Upwind of 2.8 J 9.2 J (60%) (46%) (50%) (59%) (53%) (80%) 14 J (53%) - - - - - - - 12 J (53%) 1.8 J 0.48 J CHEMICAL NAME Benzene, 1-ethyl-3- methyl- dihydro-2-methyl- 1-Hexene, 4,5-dimethyl- - - - - - - 0.33 J Benzene, 1,3-dimethyl- Benzene, 1-ethyl-4- methyl- 2-Butene, (Z)- 4-Dibenzofuranamine 9.0 J Benzene, 1-ethyl-2- 3-Dibenzofuranamine 2-Butene, (E)- 1-Propene, 2-methyl- - - - 0.46 J Benzene, 1-methoxy-4-(1- propenyl)- Benzaldehyde, ethyl- 2-Dibenzofuranamine - - - - - - - 12 J (38%) 1-Hexene, 3,4,5-trimethyl- 1.5 J 3H-Indazol-3-one, 1,2- methyl-

106 - - above surface @ 6 feet d of field Downwin 0.59 J (64%) 0.41 J (90%) (64%) 0.48 J 1.1 J (94%) (80%) 0.42 J above surface @ 3 feet d of field Downwin (56%) 0.42 J (80%) 0.31 J (86%) 0.52 J 0.33 J 1.2 J (64%) (27%) (94%) - - - - - - d of field Downwin @ surface (95%) (80%) (52%) 0.44 J 0.47 J (68%) (59%) 23 J (64%) 18 J (59%) - 1.1 J - 6 feet above field in surface Center of the sun @ (90%) (53%) (64%) (95%) - 0.55 J - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.50 J - 3 feet above field in surface Center of the sun @ (64%) - - - - - - - - - 0.42 J - - - - - - - field in surface Tables – page 21 Center of the sun @ (59%) (87%) (17%) 0.22 J (80%) - 0.38 J - - 0.64 J above surface On-field @ 3 feet in shade (91%) (86%) 0.43 J (38%) 0.61 J (80%) 1.1 J 17 J (59%) - - - - 0.47 J - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.35 J - - On-field in shade @ surface (38%) (64%) (80%) (64%) 0.65 J 1.1 J - - - - - - - 0.23 J - - - - 0.60 J - - - 2.1 J - - - - - 8.7 J feet above surface field @ 3 0.66 J - - 0.23 J - - - - - Upwind of 3.3 J 0.42 J 1 J (87%) 1.3 J (72%) (94%) 0.94 J (53%) (80%) (53%) imethyl- 1.5 J CHEMICAL NAME Decane ethenyl-1-methy dimethyl- Cycloheptane dimethyl-, cis Cyclohexane, ethyl- Butane, 2-methyl- Cyclohexane, 1,4- Butane, 2-iodo-2-methyl- 0.34 J Butane - 0.50 J methyl- Benzo[b]thiophene, 6- 1,3,4-trimethyl- Decane, 2,3,8-tr Cyclohexane, 1,3- trimethyl- Benzene, 2-methoxy- Decane, 2,9-dimethyl- - - - 0.92 J Cyclopropane, 1-chloro-2- Cyclohexane, 1,1,3- Dodecane, 2,6,11-

107 - - above surface @ 6 feet d of field Downwin (72%) 0.47 J (50%) (72%) - - above surface @ 3 feet d of field Downwin (64%) 0.76 J 0.60 J (72%) (80%) - - - - - 0.62 J - 0.30 J - - 0.36 J d of field Downwin @ surface (72%) (86%) 0.62 J (78%) - - - - 6 feet above field in surface Center of the sun @ (56%) (78%) (91%) (86%) (83%) - - - - - - 0.68 J - 0.32 J 3 feet above field in surface Center of the sun @ (59%) - - - 0.47 J - - 0.38 J - 0.37 J - - - - - - field in surface Tables – page 22 Center of the sun @ (78%) (91%) (64%) 0.32 J (64%) - - - - - - - - - - 0.85 J above surface On-field @ 3 feet in shade 1.6 J (83%) (80%) 0.62 J (72%) (72%) 0.77 J (68%) 1.0 J - - - 0.23 J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.51 J On-field in shade @ surface 0.51 J (64%) (53%) 1.5 J (68%) (78%) (72%) 0.72 J 0.76 J 0.49 J - - - - - 0.30 J - - - - - - 0.36 J - - - - - 0.54 J feet above surface field @ 3 Upwind of 1.5 J 0.44 J 0.42 J 0.45 J 0.98 J 0.82 J (86%) 12 J (95%) - - - - - - - - (72%) (68%) (83%) (59%) (72%) (91%) (64%) imethyl- 2.1 J imethyl- 0.61 J CHEMICAL NAME tetrachloro- Hexane, 2,2,4-tr Heptane, 3-methyl- Heptane Heptane, 2,4-dimethyl- Hexane, 2,2,5-tr Heptane, 2,6-dimethyl- Ethane, 1,1,2,2- Heptane, 4-(1- methylethyl)- Heptane, 2-methyl- Heptane, 2,5-dimethyl- trimethyl- Heptane, 4-ethyl-2,2,6,6- tetramethyl- Heptane, 2,2-dimethyl- Hexane, 3,3-dimethyl- Dodecane, 2,7,10- trimethyl- (78%)

108 - - - above surface @ 6 feet d of field Downwin (83%) (91%) (76%) 0.44 J 6.0 J 2.7 J 0.32 J (91%) (53%) (64%) above surface @ 3 feet d of field Downwin (45%) 2.3 J (91%) (80%) 0.31 J (72%) (64%) (38%) 4.7 J (91%) - 0.39 J - 0.44 J - - 0.42 J d of field Downwin @ surface (70%) (91%) 3.1 J (80%) 1.8 J - - - - 6 feet above field in surface Center of the sun @ (90%) (50%) (94%) 5.9 J (94%) 0.51 J (78%) 2.8 J - - - - - - - - - - 3 feet above field in surface Center of the sun @ (87%) 0.45 J (72%) 0.30 J (49%) 3.0 J (53%) 1.7 J - - - - - - - - - - - - field in surface Tables – page 23 Center of the sun @ (74%) (50%) 8.7 J (87%) (53%) (50%) 0.47 J (74%) 3.4 J 2.1 J - above surface On-field @ 3 feet in shade 0.41 J 0.40 J (86%) (72%) (91%) 6.2 J 3.2 J (46%) (72%) - - - 0.54 J - - - - 0.42 J On-field in shade @ surface (86%) (45%) 4.5 J 2.6 J (91%) - - - - 0.42 J - - - - - - - 0.33 J feet above surface field @ 3 0.96 J - - - - 0.96 J - - - Upwind of 0.64 J (90%) (91%) 3.2 J (64%) (68%) 16 J (50%) CHEMICAL NAME Nonane propyl- Nonane, 3-methyl-5- tetramethyl- Pentane - 0.46 J Octane, 3-methyl- Pentane, 3,3-dimethyl- - - - - - 0.40 J Octane, 2-methyl- Nonanal 1.28 J Pentane, 2,2,3,4- dimethyl-N'-phenyl- Propane, 2-methyl- - - - - - - - 0.25 J Methanimidamide, N,N- Hydroxylamine, O-decyl- - - - - - - - - 0.88 J Tetradecane, 1-chloro- - - - 0.56 J Octane 6.3 J Pentane, 2-methyl- - - - - - - 0.35 J Tridecane

109 above surface @ 6 feet d of field Downwin 0.77 J (90%) above surface @ 3 feet d of field Downwin (90%) 1.0 J d of field Downwin @ surface (90%) 0.91 J 6 feet above field in surface Center of the sun @ 0.79 J (87%) - - - - - - - - - - 3 feet above field in surface Center of the sun @ 0.65 J (83%) field in surface Tables – page 24 Center of the sun @ (64%) (64%) 0.78 J (91%) rion are not included. above surface On-field @ 3 feet in shade (91%) 0.95 J On-field in shade @ surface (90%) 0.93 J tory/field blank crite feet above surface field @ 3 Upwind of (59%) (53%) (80%) 2.2 J CHEMICAL NAME Undecane, 4-methyl- - - - 0.28 J ND = not detected J = estimated concentration of a tentatively identified compound (TIC) - = not reported (%) = match quality * Chemicals that did not meet the labora Undecane, 4,6-dimethyl- - - - 0.23 J Undecane

110 NR Field John Mullaly Field Blank Concentration 0.29J Field Thomas Jefferson 3 g/m μ NR Field John Mullaly Tables – page 25 35J 25J 32J 30J 21J 30J 20J 33J 33J 35J 35J 42J 13J 15J 9.1J 10J 18J 15J NR 18J 32J 34J 38J 40J 24J NR 18J NR NR 12J NR 15J NR NR NR 0.63J NR NR 19J NR NR NR NR 10J NR Field Laboratory Blank Concentration Thomas Jefferson or Field Blank Samples. Concentrations are Tentatively Identified Compound 7-Oxabicyclo[4.1.0]heptane Table 8.3 TICs Detected in Laboratory and/ Cyclopentene, 1,5-dimethyl- Benzene, 1-methoxy-4-(1-propenyl)- NR 12J NR NR Cyclohexanone NR NR 9.2J NR Benzene, 1,2-dimethyl- Benzene, 2,4-diisocyanato-1-methyl- Cyclopentanol, 2-methyl- 2-Cyclohexen-1-one Tetradecane Bi-2-cyclohexen-1-yl Undecane, 2,3-dimethyl- Cyclohexanol 2-Cyclohexen-1-ol Cyclohexanol, 2-chloro-, trans- NR = not reported J = estimated concentration

111 - - - above surface field @ 6 ft Downwind of above surface field @ 3 ft 0.3 J (87%) Downwind of - field @ surface 0.34 J (80%) 0.29 J (80%) 0.26 J (80%) Downwind of - - )* 3 above surface Center of sun @ 6 ft field in the 1.1 J (94%) 0.53 J (91%) 0.58 J (94%) g/m μ - - - - - - - - above surface Center of sun @ 3 ft field in the 0.52 J (93%) 0.43 J (76%) 0.42 J (76%) 0.55 J (81%) 0.33 J (70%) ) for Chemicals Selected for Health Risk Evaluation 3 g/m Air Concentration ( - - μ Tables – page 26 sun @ surface Center of 1 J (90%) 0.99 J (70%) 2.5 J (90%) 0.81 J (47%) 0.99 J (66%) 2.3 J (91%) field in the 0.36 J (74%) - - above surface Chemicals Detected in Field Survey as TICs On-field in shade @ 3 ft 0.48 J (86%) 0.32 J (80%) - surface shade @ On-field in – Measured Air Concentrations ( - - - - 0.46 J (90%) Chemicals Detected in Field Survey Also Detected in DEC Laboratory Off-gassing Study Chemicals on Target List Detected in Field Survey Not Included in DEC Off-gassing Study 0.4 0.4 0.44 ND 0.48 0.54 0.37 0.41 0.27 ND ND ND 1.2 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.1 0.15 ND ND 0.14 ND 0.084 ND 0.34 0.22 0.69 0.33 0.31 0.52 0.37 0.4 0.3 0.085 ND 0.13 0.095 ND 0.12 0.087 0.1 ND above surface Upwind of field @ 3 ft 1.1 J (72%) 1.4 J (45%) 1 J (76%) Chemicals Detected in Field Survey Reported as Non-Detects in DEC Laboratory Off-gassing Study 0.46 J (94%) 0.51 J (94%) 0.31 J (91%) 0.43 J (86%) 0.41 J (70%) 0.67 J (91%) 0.54 J (76%) Benzene, 1-ethyl-4- 1,4-Pentadiene - - - - - - - - 0.52 J (93%) Butane, 2-methyl- Chloroform Freon 11 Benzene Methylene Chloride 0.11 ND 0.17 0.16 0.13 0.16 0.29 0.096 0.099 pentanone 4-Methyl-2- Decanal 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.12 0.18 0.12 0.15 0.12 0.14 0.092 0.13 0.1 Freon 113 Heptane Nonane 1,3-Pentadiene 1,3-Pentadiene, (E)- - - - - - - - 0.62 J (90%) methyl- Name Table 8.4 Thomas Jefferson Field

112 ntatively identified as . spectrum of a suspect . The suspect chemical is te le identification (US EPA, 1999b) gree of statistical match between the mass r-based “library” of mass spectra Tables – page 27 higher is necessary for reliab estimated concentration; (percentage) = de *ND = not detected; - = not reported; J = the chemical with the highest match quality. A match of 85% or chemical and the mass spectrum of a known chemical from a compute

113 f - - above surface field @ 6 ft Downwind o 0.45 J (94%) 0.32 J (91%) ntatively identified - - spectrum of a suspect (95%) (91%) 0.44 J 0.31 J surface 9b) ft above Downwind of field @ 3 - - - - - (94%) (80%) 0.53 J 0.35 J surface of field @ Downwind - - )* 3 (94%) above 0.23 J surface Center of sun @ 6 ft field in the g/m μ - - above surface Center of sun @ 3 ft field in the Air Concentration ( - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - ) for Chemicals Selected for Health Risk Evaluation 3 sun @ surface Center of Tables – page 28 field in the g/m μ or higher is necessary for reliable identification (US EPA, 199 - (94%) (86%) (86%) above 0.51 J 0.40 J 0.60 J surface On-field in 1.1 J (91%) shade @ 3 ft Chemicals Detected in Field Survey as TICs emical from a computer-based “library” of mass spectra. The suspect chemical is te - (86%) (96%) 0.46 J 0.52 J surface shade @ On-field in 9.6 J (91%) - - - - - - - - - ND 0.55 0.55 ND 0.56 0.53 ND ND ND ND 0.10 ND ND ND ND 0.10 ND 0.11 ND ND ND 6.5 ND ND ND ND ND 0.74 1.0 1.0 0.32 0.24 0.43 1.0 0.85 1.1 0.40 0.62 0.69 0.20 0.16 0.26 0.56 0.44 0.70 0.092 0.22 0.20 ND ND ND 0.16 0.13 0.14 Chemicals Detected in Field Survey Also Detected in DEC Laboratory Off-gassing Study above surface Chemicals on Target List Detected in Field Survey Not Included in DEC Off-gassing Study Upwind of field @ 3 ft Chemicals Detected in Field Survey Reported as Non-Detects in DEC Laboratory Off-gassing Study as the chemical with the highest match quality. A match of 85% 1,3-Pentadiene - Table 8.5 John Mullaly Field – Measured Air Concentrations ( Methylene Chloride 0.19 2.3 0.81 0.95 ND 0.12 3.0 0.35 0.17 Acetone Pentane - Chloromethane Cyclohexane, 1,1,3- trimethyl- Name Pentane, 2-methyl- - - - - - - Freon 11 1,3-Butadiene, 2- methyl- Cyclohexane, 1,4- dimethyl- *ND = not detected; - = not reported; J = estimated concentration; (percentage) = degree of statistical match between the mass 4-Methyl-2-pentanone ND 0.78 ND 0.67 ND ND ND ND ND Benzaldehyde, ethyl- Freon 113 Benzothiazole Freon 12 Chloroform ND 0.096 0.092 ND ND ND 0.15 0.087 0.087 chemical and the mass spectrum of a known ch

114 *** IRIS# IRIS# IRIS# Values US EPA US EPA US EPA Toxicity Source of NYS (2006) NYS (2006) ) at 3 Risk -6 Air g/m 0.32 NYS (2006) 0.13 NYS (2006) none none none none none none Level μ available** available** available** available** available** available** n ( 1 x 10 Concentratio 3 g/m μ in rats (Effect) humans) Reference 30 (decreased weights in rats) weights in rats) 700 (peripheral adrenal & pituitary effects in humans) neuropathy in rats) 800 (increased liver coordination in rats) lymphocyte count in 100 (impaired motor 30,000 (neurological 18*** (none reported) Concentration increased fetal death in mice; skeletal variations wt, skeletal variations, & 3000 (reduced fetal body 50,000 (increased kidney, NA* Rational Tables – page 29 has a peer-reviewed RfC have a peer-reviewed RfC all are alkyl benzenes with both are straight-chain alkanes; benzene ring & differ only in the attached to benzene ring; xylenes all are halogenated methanes that structure of one of the alkyl groups HCFC 22 has a peer-reviewed RfC substitutions at two positions of the differ only in the number of chlorines or fluorines attached to carbon atom; hexane among most potent alkanes & NA NA* NA NA* NA* NA* NA* NA* NA* hexane dimethyl methane (xylenes) (75-45-6) (CASRN) benzenes Chemical (110-54-3) Surrogate (HCFC 22) (1330-20-7) Selected for Health Risk Evaluation. chlorodifluoro- Value specific specific specific specific specific Toxicity chemical chemical chemical chemical surrogate chemical- Basis for chemical- chemical- chemical- surrogate- surrogate- Chemicals Detected in Field Survey Also Detected in DEC Laboratory Off-gassing Study Chemicals on Target List Detected in Field Survey Not Included in DEC Off-gassing Study (106-46-7) (622-96-8) (108-10-1) e (75-69-4) Freon 12 or Freon 11 or (1275-71-8) Name (CASRN) Acetone (67-64-1) Benzene (71-43-2) Nonane (111-84-2) 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 4-Methyl-2-pentanone dichlorodifluoromethane Benzothiazole (95-16-9) trichloromonofluoromethan Benzene, 1-ethyl-4-methyl- Table 8.6 Toxicity Values for Chemicals

115 IRIS# IRIS# IRIS# IRIS# IRIS# IRIS# Values US EPA US EPA US EPA US EPA US EPA US EPA Toxicity Source of ) at 3 Risk -6 27 NYS (2006) Air g/m 0.03 14.8 NYS (2006) none none none none none Level μ available** available** available** available** available** n ( 1 x 10 Concentratio 3 g/m μ rats) mice) mice) (Effect) in mice) 400 (blood Reference 700 (peripheral neuropathy in rats) 6000 (reduced pup generations in rats) carboxyhemoglobin 2 (ovarian atrophy in weights in F1 and F2 350**** (forestomach above 2% in humans) Concentration 190,000 (psychomotor impairment in humans) 90 (cerebellar lesions in lesions, kidney toxicity in 50 (liver & kidney toxicity Rational reviewed RfD toxicity values peer-reviewed RfC Tables – page 30 cyclohexane ring of the TICs; differ only in the methyl group 1,3-butadiene is a highly potent chemical and has peer-reviewed both are straight-chain alkanes & the methyl groups attached to the all are cycloalkanes & differ only in the TIC; benzaldehyde has a peer- both are conjugated dienes & differ both are aldehydes with a benzene among most potent alkanes & has a only in the methyl groups of the TIC; ring & differ only in the ethyl group of attached to the carbon chain; hexane cyclohexane has a peer-reviewed RfC Chemicals Detected in Field Survey as TICs NA* NA* NA* NA* NA* NA* NA* NA* hexane (CASRN) Chemical (110-82-7) (106-99-0) (110-54-3) (100-52-7) Surrogate cyclohexane 1,3-butadiene benzaldehyde Value specific specific specific specific Toxicity chemical chemical chemical chemical chemical- Basis for chemical- chemical- chemical- surrogate- surrogate- surrogate- surrogate- Chemicals Detected in Field Survey Reported as Non-Detects in DEC Laboratory Off-gassing Study (76-13-1) (78-79-5) (75-09-2) (589-90-2) (92046-46-3) (53951-50-1) trifluoroethane Name (CASRN) Butane, 2-methyl Methylene Chloride Cyclohexane, 1,1,3- 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2- Benzaldehyde, ethyl- Chloroform (67-66-3) trimethyl- (3073-66-3) 1,3-Butadiene, 2-methyl- Chloromethane (74-87-3) Freon 113 or CFC-113 or Cyclohexane, 1,4-dimethyl-

116 , 3 g /m μ IRIS# IRIS# IRIS# Values US EPA US EPA US EPA Toxicity Source of /day = 3 port Document. ) at 3 /day = 18 d, but the quality Risk 3 -6 Air g/m 0.03 none none Level μ to estimate a chronic available** available** carcinogenic potency did n ( 1 x 10 Concentratio ), assuming continuous -6 3 g/m μ g /kg-day x 70 kg]/20 m μ g/kg-day x 70 kg]/20 m mice) μ (Effect) Reference 700 (peripheral epithelium in rats) neuropathy in rats) 2 (ovarian atrophy in 8 (atrophy of olfactory Concentration g /kg-day in a 90-day study with rats (WHO, 2003) and the application μ air concentration. Rational -6 peer-reviewed RfC Tables – page 31 has peer-reviewed RfC cause cancer has not been studied, because studies of their or because some evidence of carcinogenic potency has been observe the number of carbon atoms; 1,3- number of carbon atoms; propanal all are conjugated dienes & differ in & has peer-reviewed toxicity values among most potent alkanes & has a butadiene is a highly potent chemical all are straight-chain alkanes; hexane both are aldehydes & differ only in the Conservation and New York State Department of Health. dult Body Weight]/Adult Inhalation Rate: RfC = [100 ) hexane propanal (CASRN) Chemical (106-99-0) (123-38-6) (110-54-3) Surrogate 1,3-butadiene (propionaldehyde ed from a no-observed-effect level of 5 Value Toxicity chemical chemical chemical Basis for surrogate- surrogate- surrogate- . 3 (2004-70-8) Name (CASRN) g/m μ Decanal (112-31-2) Pentane (109-66-0) Heptane (142-82-5) 1,3-Pentadiene, (E)- Chemicals may lack an estimate of the air concentration associated with a lifetime excess risk of one per million (1 x 10 NA = not applicable. 1,3-Pentadiene (504-60-9) 1,4-Pentadiene (591-93-5) *** Reference Concentration = [Reference dose (RfD) x Adult Body Weight]/Adult Inhalation Rate: RfC = [5 where the draft reference dose is deriv exposure, for several different reasons: because their potency to of a 1000-fold uncertainty factor to compensate for interspecies difference, human variation, and the use of a subchronic study reference dose. **** Reference Concentration = [Reference dose (RfD) x A ** * Albany, NY: New York State Department of Environmental #http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.cfm References for Table 6 NYS (New York State). 2006. New York State Brownfield Cleanup Program, Development of Soil Cleanup Objectives. Technical Sup 350 not show a concentration-related increase in cancer incidence of the studies or the data do not allow quantitative estimation of the 1 x 10

117 he Joint FAO/WHO ] Geneva, SZ: International Programme on Chemical Safety. [Last Tables – page 32 rtain Food Additives / prepared by the Fifty-Ninth Meeting of t WHO Food Additives Series: 50. http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v50je01.htm Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). accessed on 12 01 08 on-line at WHO (World Health Organization). 2003. Safety Evaluation of Ce

118 ND surface ft above < 0.0001 ected for Downwind of field @ 6 surface ft above < 0.0001 < 0.0001 Downwind of field @ 3 surface < 0.0001 < 0.0001 of field @ Downwind ard Quotient) for Chemicals Sel above surface < 0.0001 < 0.0001 Center of sun @ 6 ft field in the - 0.6** 0.3** 0.3** - ND above 0.005** 0.004** 0.004** 0.006** 0.003** surface < 0.0001 Center of sun @ 3 ft field in the - - sun @ surface < 0.0001 < 0.0001 Center of field in the ion/Reference Concentration (Haz Tables – page 33 surface ft above < 0.0001 < 0.0001 On-field in shade @ 3 Hazard Quotient (rounded to one significant figure)* ND surface < 0.0001 shade @ On-field in Chemicals Detected in Field Survey as TICs - - - - - - - 0.3** - 0.2** 0.3** - above 0.002** 0.002** 0.001** 0.001** 0.001** 0.004** 0.001** 0.001** 0.003** 0.004** 0.007** 0.005** surface < 0.0001 Upwind of field @ 3 ft 8.4 for Measured Air Concentrations) 22 Chemicals Detected in Field Survey Also Detected in DEC Laboratory Off-gassing Study Value Chemicals on Target List Detected in Field Survey Not Included in DEC Off-gassing Study chemical: butadiene butadiene surrogate- surrogate- surrogate- surrogate- surrogate- benzenes) chemical: 1,3- chemical: 1,3- chemical: HCFC Chemicals Detected in Field Survey Reported as Non-Detects in DEC Laboratory Off-gassing Study Type of Toxicity chemical-specific ND ND ND 0.0004 ND ND ND ND ND chemical-specific < 0.0001 xylenes (dimethyl chemical: hexane Name methyl- Nonane Benzene chemical-specific 0.01 0.01 0.02 ND 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.009 Freon 11 Freon 113 pentanone Chloroform chemical-specific ND 0.002 0.003 ND ND 0.003 ND 0.002 ND 4-Methyl-2- 1,3-Pentadiene Methylene Chloride chemical-specific 0.0003 ND 0.0004 0.0004 0.0003 0.0004 0.0007 0.0002 0.0002 Benzene, 1-ethyl-4- 1,3-Pentadiene, (E)- 1,4-Dichlorobenzene chemical-specific 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 Health Risk Evaluation (see Table Table 8.7 Thomas Jefferson Field – Ratio of Measured Concentrat

119 surface ft above Downwind of field @ 6 surface ft above Downwind of field @ 3 - 0.0004** - surface of field @ Downwind - above surface Center of sun @ 6 ft field in the above surface Center of sun @ 3 ft field in the sun @ surface Center of field in the Tables – page 34 surface ft above On-field in shade @ 3 Hazard Quotient (rounded to one significant figure)* surface shade @ On-field in n and tentative chemical identification. - - - - - - - - 0.3** - - - 0.06** - - - - - _ - 0.0007** 0.0005** - - 0.0005** 0.0004*** 0.0004** above surface 0.0004** 0.0006** - 0.0005** - Upwind of field @ 3 ft ) Value propanal chemical: butadiene surrogate- surrogate- surrogate- surrogate- chemical: 1,3- Type of Toxicity (propionaldehyde chemical: hexane chemical: hexane Name Decanal Heptane 1,4-Pentadiene Butane, 2-methyl- *ND = not detected; - = not reported. ** Based on estimated chemical concentratio

120 -6 -6 ** -6 -5 ND ons of 2 x 10 surface ft above 0.3 x 10 Downwind 0.004 x 10 of field @ 6 -6 -6 -6 ** - ** - -6 -5 -5 3 x 10 surface ft above 2 x 10 0.4 x 10 Downwind 0.006 x 10 0.004 x 10 of field @ 3 -6 -6 ** -6 -5 ND 3 x 10 surface 2 x 10 0.3 x 10 of field @ 0.01 x 10 Downwind -6 -6 -6 ** -6 -5 above 4 x 10 surface 4 x 10 0.4 x 10 Center of sun @ 6 ft field in the 0.009 x 10 0.006 x 10 -6 -6 -6 me Exposure at Measured Air Concentrati - ND Table 8.4 for Measured Air Concentrations) above 4 x 10 surface 0.4 x 10 Center of sun @ 3 ft field in the 0.005 x 10 -6 -6 - ND ND sun @ surface 0.5 x 10 Center of field in the 0.006 x 10 -6 -6 -6 -6 - Tables – page 35 3 x 10 surface ft above 0.4 x 10 0.01 x 10 On-field in shade @ 3 0.006 x 10 -6 -6 ** -6 -5 ND Excess Lifetime Risk (rounded to one significant figure)* 3 x 10 surface 2 x 10 0.6 x 10 shade @ Chemicals Detected in Field Study as TICs On-field in 0.007 x 10 Selected for Health Risk Evaluation (see -6 -6 ** -6 d Excess Cancer Risks from Continuous Lifeti -5 - - - - - - - - 2 x 10 - - - - - - - 2 x 10 ND above surface 2 x 10 Upwind of field @ 3 ft Chemicals Detected in Field Survey Also Detected in DEC Laboratory Off-gassing Study Value Chemicals on Target List Detected in Field Survey Not Included in DEC Off-gassing Study butadiene butadiene butadiene surrogate- surrogate- surrogate- chemical 1,3- chemical: 1,3- chemical: 1,3- Chemicals Detected in Field Survey Reported as Non-Detects in DEC Laboratory Off-gassing Study Type of Toxicity chemical-specific chemical-specific 3 x 10 Name Benzene Chloroform 1,3-Pentadiene 1,4-Pentadiene Methylene Chloride chemical-specific 0.004 x 10 1,3-Pentadiene, (E)- 1,4-Dichlorobenzene chemical-specific 0.4 x 10 Table 8.8 Thomas Jefferson Field – Estimate ** ND = not detected; - = not reported. ** Based on estimated chemical concentration and tentative chemical identification. Known or Potential Cancer-Causing Chemicals

121 surface 0.00001 0.00002 ft above Downwind of field @ 6 surface 0.00002 ft above < 0.00001 Downwind of field @ 3 surface 0.00001 0.00002 < 0.00001 < 0.00001 < 0.00001 of field @ Downwind ND above surface Center of sun @ 6 ft field in the ND above surface Center of sun @ 3 ft field in the 36 ND sun @ surface Center of < 0.00001 < 0.00001 < 0.00001 < 0.00001 < 0.00001 < 0.00001 field in the Tables - page ion/Reference Concentration (Hazard Quotient) for Chemicals above surface 0.00001 0.00002 hade @ 3 ft On-field in s Chemicals Detected in Field Survey as TICs surface 0.00001 0.00002 shade @ On-field in ee Table 5 for Measured Air Concentrations) - - - - - 0.1** - - - above surface 0.00001 ield @ 3 ft < 0.00001 Upwind of Hazard Quotient (rounded to one significant figure)* f Chemicals Detected in Field Survey Also Detected in DEC Laboratory Off-gassing Study Chemicals on Target List Detected in Field Survey Not Included in DEC Off-gassing Study 22 22 Chemicals Detected in Field Survey Reported as Non-Detects in DEC Laboratory Off-gassing Study butadiene surrogate- surrogate- surrogate- chemical: 1,3- chemical: HCFC chemical: HCFC chemical-specific 0.0005 0.006 0.002 0.002 ND 0.0003 0.008 0.0009 0.0004 chemical-specific ND 0.0003 ND 0.0002 ND ND ND ND ND chemical-specific < 0.00001 < 0.00001 < 0.00001 Value Type of Toxicity Name Selected for Health Risk Evaluation (s Table 8.9 John Mullaly Field – Ratio of Measured Concentrat Methylene Chloride Freon 113 4-Methyl-2- Freon 12 Chloromethane chemical-specific ND 0.001 ND ND ND ND 0.001 ND 0.001 Benzothiazole default value ND ND ND 0.4 ND ND ND ND ND 1,3-Butadiene, 2-methyl- pentanone Acetone chemical-specific ND 0.00002 0.00002 ND 0.00002 0.00002 ND ND ND Freon 11 Chloroform chemical-specific ND 0.002 0.002 ND ND ND 0.003 0.002 0.002

122 surface ft above Downwind of field @ 6 surface ft above Downwind of field @ 3 surface of field @ Downwind - 0.3** 0.2** 0.2** above surface Center of sun @ 6 ft field in the - above surface Center of sun @ 3 ft field in the sun @ surface Center of field in the Tables – page 37 above surface hade @ 3 ft On-field in s surface shade @ On-field in - 0.0007** 0.0006** - - - - - - - 0.3** 0.3** - - - - - - - 0.0005** 0.0004** 0.0005** - - 0.0002** - - - - - - - - 0.0001** - - - - - - - 0.03** - - - - - - - above surface ield @ 3 ft Upwind of Hazard Quotient (rounded to one significant figure)* f chemical: chemical: chemical: butadiene surrogate- surrogate- surrogate- surrogate- surrogate- surrogate- cyclohexane cyclohexane chemical: 1,3- benzaldehyde chemical: hexane chemical: hexane Type of Toxicity Value Name *ND = not detected; - = not reported. ** Based on estimated chemical concentration and tentative chemical identification. ethyl- Pentane, 2- Cyclohexane, Benzaldehyde, 1,3-Pentadiene 1,4-dimethyl- Pentane 1,1,3-trimethyl- Cyclohexane, methyl-

123 -6 -6 ** -5 - surface ft above Downwind 0.006 x 10 0.006 x 10 of field @ 6 -6 -6 ** 2 x 10 -5 - surface ft above 2 x 10 0.01 x 10 Downwind 0.006 x 10 of field @ 3 -6 -6 ** -5 surface 0.1 x 10 of field @ 0.01 x 10 Downwind -6 ** - -6 ND above surface Center of sun @ 6 ft field in the 0.004 x 10 Exposure at Measured Air ND ND above surface Center of sun @ 3 ft field in the -6 Not Included in DEC Off-gassing Study ND sun @ surface Center of 0.04 x 10 field in the Selected for Health Risk Evaluation (see Table 5 for Measured -6 -6 s from Continuous Lifetime ** - - - 2 x 10 Tables – page 38 -5 surface Excess Lifetime Risk (rounded to one significant figure)* ft above 2 x 10 0.03 x 10 On-field in shade @ 3 0.006 x 10 -6 -6 ** -5 Chemicals Detected in Field Survey as TICs surface 2 x 10 shade @ 0.08 x 10 On-field in 0.006 x 10 -6 - - - - - 8 x 10 - ND above surface Upwind of field @ 3 ft 0.007 x 10 Chemicals on Target List Detected in Field Survey Chemicals Detected in Field Survey Reported as Non-Detects in DEC Laboratory Off-gassing Study specific specific Type of chemical- chemical- butadiene butadiene surrogate- surrogate- chemical: 1,3- chemical: 1,3- Toxicity Value Name Chloride 2-methyl- Methylene Table 8.10 John Mullaly Field – Estimated Excess Cancer Risk Concentrations of Known or Potential Cancer-Causing Chemicals Air Concentrations) Chloroform * ND = not detected; - = not reported. ** Based on estimated chemical concentration and tentative chemical identification. 1,3-Butadiene, 1,3-Pentadiene

124 Table 9.1 American Academy of Pediatrics Limitations on Activiti es at Different Wet Bulb Globe Temperatures WBGT Limitations on Activities °C °F All activities allowed, but be alert for early symptoms of < 24 < 75 heat-related illness in prolonged events e; enforce drinking every 15 24.0– Longer rest periods in the shad 75.0–78.6 25.9 minutes Stop activity of unacclimatized persons and other persons 26–29 79–84 with high risk; limit activities of all others (disallow long- distance races, reduce dura tion of other activities) > 29 > 85 Cancel all athletic activities Table 9.2 Central Park Monitor - Meteorological Data 2000 - 2007 Dates of Measurements Daily Daily Daily Daily Minimum Maximum Maximum Minimum Relative Temperature Temperature Relative Humidity (%) (°F) (°F) Humidity (%) August Average 42 (34 – 60) 82 (59 – 102) 83 (73 – 87) 53 (24 – 90) (range) th prctl 82 50 50 th 90 prctl 92 76 September Average 75 (54 – 91) 53 (26 – 97) 75 (69 – 83) 45 (38 – 57) (range) th 50 prctl 76 51 th 90 prctl 83 76 Table 9.3 Thomas Jefferson Field Comparison Between Synthetic Turf and Other Surfaces Standard Difference (°F) Minimum Mean Maximum Deviation Turf - grass 13 42 78 19 Turf - sand 8 40 63 19 Tables – page 39

125 Table 9.4 John Mullaly Field Comparison Between Synthetic Turf and Other Surfaces Standard Difference (°F) Minimum Mean Maximum Deviation 17 35 Turf - grass 8 63 Turf - sand 8 26 50 14 Tables – page 40

126 Figures Figures – page 1

127 Rain Synthetic grass    y  y   Crumb rubber pellets    yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy y     y      yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy y    Sand and crumb rubber    yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy y    mw2.04.09 Woven fabric    yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy backing yyyyyy    yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy Crushed stone    yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy yyyyyy    yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy Soil yyyyyy Water flow yyyyyy flows through the layers into Rainwater the drainage pipes. synthetic turf field configuration Figure 1.1 Cross-section of a typical Figures – page 2

128 7000 First SPLP 6000 Second SPLP 5000 Ground-water Guidance Value (ug/L) 4000 3000 Conc. ug/L 2000 1000 0 Fac#2- Fac#1- Fac#3- Fac#1-Car Fac#4- Mixed Mixed Mixed Truck Cryo Figure 2.1 Zinc concentration in SPLP tests 300 First SPLP Second SPLP 250 Ground-water Standard (ug/L) 200 150 100 Conc. ug/L 50 0 Fac#1-Car Fac#4- Fac#2- Fac#3- Fac#1- Mixed Truck Mixed Mixed Cryo Figure 2.2 Aniline concentration in SPLP leachate Figures – page 3

129 25 First SPLP Second SPLP 20 Ground-water Standard (ug/L) 15 10 Conc. ug/L 5 0 Fac#2- Fac#3- Fac#1-Car Fac#4- Fac#1- Mixed Cryo Mixed Mixed Truck Figure 2.3 Phenol concentration in SPLP leachate 1200 First SPLP 1000 Second SPLP Unspecified Organic Compound standard (ug/L) 800 600 400 Conc. ug/L 200 0 Fac#4- Fac#3- Fac#1-Car Fac#1- Fac#2- Truck Mixed Mixed Mixed Cryo Figure 2.4 Benzothiazole in SPLP leachate Figures – page 4

130 7000 6000 Truck-Ambient 5000 Mixed-Cryo Ground-water Guidance Value (ug/L) 4000 3000 Conc. ug/L 2000 1000 0 48" rain SPLP 12" rain 24" rain 36" rain Figure 3.1 Comparison of zinc levels between SPLP and column tests 300 Truck-Ambient 250 Mixed-Cryo Ground-water Standard (ug/L) 200 150 100 Conc. ug/L 50 0 48" rain SPLP 12" rain 24" rain 36" rain Figure 3.2 Comparison of aniline levels between SPLP and column tests Figures – page 5

131 30 Truck-Ambient 25 Mixed-Cryo Ground-water Standard (ug/L) 20 15 10 Conc. ug/L 5 0 24" rain 36" rain 48" rain SPLP 12" rain Figure 3.3 Comparison of phenol leve ls between SPLP and column tests Figures – page 6

132 Figure 7.1 Thomas Jefferson Park Sampling Locations Figures – page 7

133 Figure 7.2 John Mullaly Park Sampling Locations Figures – page 8

134 5 2 : 8 1 3 2 : 8 1 1 2 : 8 1 PM10 Edge - Corner 9 1 : 8 1 Downwind 7 1 : 8 1 4 1 : 8 1 2 1 : 8 1 0 1 : 8 1 8 D099 - Upwind Monitor D921 - Downwind Monitor 0 : 8 1 Edge - PM2.5 Corner Downwind 6 0 : 8 1 2 0 : 8 1 Game in Progress 0 0 : 8 1 8 5 : 7 1 PM2.5 Edge - Center 6 5 : 7 Downwind 1 0 5 : 7 1 9 8 4 : 7 1 6 Time 4 : 7 1 PM10 Edge - Center 4 4 : 7 1 Downwind 2 4 : 7 Figures - page 1 the Thomas Jefferson Field 9 2 : 7 1 7 2 : 7 1 PM2.5 5 2 : 7 1 3 2 : Field 7 1 155 Center of 1 2 : 7 Monitor hit by soccer ball 1 7 1 : 7 1 particulate monitoring at 5 1 : 7 1 3 1 : 7 1 Field PM10 Center of 1 1 : 7 1 9 0 : 7 1 7 0 : 7 1 5 0 : 7 1 3 0 : 7 1 Side - PM10 Upwind Side by 1 0 : 7 1 6 9 4 3 2 1 0 7 8 5 Figure 8.1 Results of airborne 14 19 10 11 12 13 20 15 16 17 18 PM Concentration ug/m 3

135 2 0 : 5 1 0 0 : 5 1 7 5 : 4 1 5 5 : 4 1 3 5 : 4 1 1 5 : 4 1 9 4 : 4 1 7 4 : 4 1 5 4 : 4 1 3 4 : 4 1 1 4 : 4 1 D454 - Upwind Monitor D728 - Downwind Monitor 9 3 : 4 1 7 3 : 4 1 5 3 : 4 1 3 3 : 4 1 1 3 : 4 1 9 2 : 4 1 7 2 : 4 1 5 2 : 4 1 3 2 : 4 1 1 2 : 4 Upwind 1 ‐ 9 1 : 4 1 7 1 : 4 1 Side Time PM2.5 5 1 : 4 1 by 3 1 : 4 1 1 1 : Side 4 1 Figures – page 10 9 0 : 4 1 7 0 : 4 1 5 0 : 4 1 3 0 : 4 1 ng for airborne particulate monitoring at the upwind location on the John Mullaly 1 0 : 4 1 9 5 : 3 1 7 5 : 3 1 5 5 : 3 1 3 5 : 3 1 1 5 : 3 1 9 4 : 3 1 7 4 : 3 1 5 4 : 3 1 3 4 : 3 1 1 4 : 3 1 9 3 : 3 1 7 3 : 3 1 5 3 : 3 1 1 2 3 4 0 6 7 8 9 5 Figure 8.2 Results of side by side monitori Field 20 12 11 10 16 17 18 19 15 21 22 23 24 25 26 14 13 PM Concentration ug/m 3

136 0 0 : 6 1 8 5 : 5 1 6 5 : 5 1 4 5 : 5 1 Field 2 5 : 5 Center of 1 0 5 : 5 1 8 4 : 5 1 2 1 : 6 1 0 1 : 6 1 8 0 : 6 1 D454 - Upwind Monitor D728 - Downwind Monitor 6 0 : 6 1 center PM10 4 0 : 6 1 2 0 Downwind edge - : 6 1 8 2 : 6 1 6 2 : 6 1 4 2 : 6 1 2 2 : 6 1 0 2 : 6 1 8 - corner 1 : 6 1 6 1 : 6 Downwind edge 1 4 1 : 6 1 Time 6 3 : 5 1 4 at the John Mullaly Field 3 : 5 1 Figures – page 11 2 3 : 5 1 0 3 : 5 1 Downwind edge - corner 8 2 : 5 1 7 2 : 5 1 5 2 : 5 1 3 2 : 5 1 1 2 : 5 1 center 9 1 ne particulate monitoring : PM2.5 5 1 7 1 : 5 Downwind edge - 1 3 1 : 5 1 1 1 : 5 1 9 0 : 5 1 Field 7 0 : 5 1 Center of 5 0 : 5 1 3 0 : 5 1 Figure 8.3 Results of airbor 3 8 7 6 9 4 2 1 0 5 13 12 11 16 10 18 15 17 26 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PM Concentration ug/m 3

137 9/24/2008 9/22/2008 9/20/2008 9/18/2008 9/16/2008 Grass Center White Turf Center Green Turf Sand BYU Guideline Temp Ambient Temp Edge Turf 9/14/2008 9/12/2008 9/10/2008 9/8/2008 9/6/2008 9/4/2008 9/2/2008 12 8/31/2008 8/29/2008 ` 8/27/2008 Figures - page 8/25/2008 8/23/2008 8/21/2008 8/19/2008 ace temperature measurements by date 8/17/2008 8/15/2008 8/13/2008 8/11/2008 8/9/2008 8/7/2008 8/5/2008 60 80 Figure 9.1 Thomas Jefferson field surf 120 100 140 160 180 Temperature in Farenheit

138 9/24/2008 9/22/2008 9/20/2008 9/18/2008 9/16/2008 9/14/2008 Center Turf Ambient Temp Edge Turf Grass Sand BYU Guideline Temp 9/12/2008 9/10/2008 9/8/2008 9/6/2008 9/4/2008 9/2/2008 8/31/2008 8/29/2008 8/27/2008 Figures – page 13 8/25/2008 8/23/2008 8/21/2008 8/19/2008 temperature measurements by date 8/17/2008 8/15/2008 8/13/2008 8/11/2008 8/9/2008 8/7/2008 8/5/2008 Figure 9.2 John Mullaly field surface 80 60 160 140 120 100 180 Temperature in Farenheit

139 9/24/2008 9/22/2008 9/20/2008 9/18/2008 9/16/2008 9/14/2008 9/12/2008 9/10/2008 9/8/2008 9/6/2008 9/4/2008 9/2/2008 8/31/2008 Grass AAP - "Longer rest, liquids" AAP - "Cancel all activities" Center White Turf 8/29/2008 8/27/2008 Figures – page 14 8/25/2008 8/23/2008 8/21/2008 8/19/2008 t bulb globe temperatures by date 8/17/2008 8/15/2008 8/13/2008 8/11/2008 Edge Turf Center Green Turf AAP - "Limit activities" Sand 8/9/2008 8/7/2008 8/5/2008 Figure 9.3 Thomas Jefferson field we 75 70 80 65 85 60 90 Temperature in Farenheit

140 9/24/2008 9/22/2008 9/20/2008 9/18/2008 9/16/2008 9/14/2008 9/12/2008 9/10/2008 9/8/2008 9/6/2008 9/4/2008 9/2/2008 8/31/2008 Edge Turf Sand AAP - "Limit activities" 8/29/2008 8/27/2008 Figures – page 15 8/25/2008 8/23/2008 8/21/2008 8/19/2008 8/17/2008 8/15/2008 8/13/2008 8/11/2008 Center Turf Grass AAP - "Longer rest, liquids" AAP - "Cancel all activities" 8/9/2008 8/7/2008 8/5/2008 Figure 9.4 John Mullaly field wet bulb globe temperatures by date 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 Temperature in Farenheit

Related documents