This document provides information about actions taken and results from the BoRit Asbestos Site. It discusses air sampling conducted in October and November 2006, with most samples showing no detectable asbestos. Activity-based sampling in November detected fibers, but calculated cancer risks were low. Soil, sediment, and water sampling also detected low asbestos levels. Future actions include continued quarterly air sampling. The PA Department of Health discusses cancer rates in the area and limitations in evaluating asbestos-related disease. No cancer types were statistically higher than the state average.

1. BoRit Asbestos Site
Eduardo Rovira, Jr.
Federal On-Scene Coordinator
Eastern Response Branch
215.814.3436
rovira.eduardo@epa.gov

2. BoRit Asbestos Technical Team
 Jack Kelly
 EPA On-Scene Coordinator
 Dawn Ioven
 EPA Toxicologist
 Karl Markiewicz, Ph.D.
 ATSDR Toxicologist
 Timothy Cherry
 DEP Project Manager

3. BoRit Asbestos Communications Team
 Larry Johnson
 EPA Community Involvement
 Megan Dougherty
 PA State Liaison Officer
 David Sternberg
 Press Officer
 Lynda Rebarchak
 DEP Community Relations

4. PA Department of Health
 Gregory F. Bogdan, Dr. P.H.
 Chronic Disease Epidemiologist
 Barbara Allerton, MPH, RN
 Nursing Services Consultant

5. BoRit Asbestos Site
Thank you . . .
for your patience
and continuing interest.
www.epaosc.net/BoRit

6. Actions taken since October
 Two rounds of air sampling
 October 2006
 Ambient air & activity-based
 Brush cutting
 Surface soil sampling at the park
 November 2006
 Ambient air & activity-based
 Raking and hiking scenarios
 Surface water, sediment & flood-prone soil

7. Actions taken since October
 Mailed two fact sheets
 November 2006
 January 2007
 Worked with health agencies
 Fact sheet – January 2007
 Fence was repaired (pile)
 Posted signs
 Responded to your e-mails
 Results - Why is it taking so long?

8. Results - Why is it taking so long?
 Contractual issues
 Environmental Response Team
(ERT) . . . ERT’s contractor
 Results’ trail . . .
 Lab => ERT’s contractor
 ERT’s contractor => ERT
 ERT => EPA R3 (us)
 Validation

9. Air Sampling – October 2006
 Week of October 22
 Four seven-hours days
 Second day – brush cutting
 Fourth day – soil sampling (park)
 Eight sampling locations on-site
 Five locations in the community
 Remote location (Oreland)

10. Air Sampling – November 2006
 Week of November 27
 Three seven-hours days
 Raking scenarios (park, and pile)
 Hiking scenarios (entire Site)
 Eight sampling locations on-site
 Five locations in the community
 Remote location (Oreland)

11. Activity-based air sampling

12. Air Sampling Results
 ISO Method 10312
 Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM)
 Most sensitive method (air samples)
 Very detailed information (type, size, ect.)
 National Asbestos Database Entry
Spreadsheet (NADES)
 Total TEM-EPA Superfund Method
(TEM-EPASM)
 Phase Contract Microscopy Equivalent (PCME)
 Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act
(AHERA)
 Berman Crump 2003

13. Air Sampling Results
 PCME – used to calculate risk
 served as the basis for epidemiologic studies
 lengths > 5 microns
 widths > 0.25 microns
 aspect ratios > 3 microns (length:width)
 Why bother using the other binning rules?
 In case medical research identifies newly found
health significance to individual fiber
characteristics (e.g. are short fibers riskier than
currently thought?)

14. Air Sampling Results
October 2006
 Two out of 80 total samples revealed
measurable airborne asbestos (PCME)
 0.00048 and 0.00049 f/cc
 Both samples were from within the
boundaries of the Site
 It is estimated that continuous exposure
to the maximum (0.00049 f/cc) on-site
concentration for 70 years would
translate to an excess lifetime cancer
risk of 1 in 10,000

15. Air Sampling Results
November 2006
 Three out of 69 total samples revealed
measurable airborne asbestos (PCME)
 0.0058, 0.012 and 0.021 f/cc
 All three samples were from personal air
sampling pumps (activity-based)
 Potential risks of developing cancer
 maintenance workers = 3 in 100,000
 recreational receptors = 8 in 100,000
 EPA’s generally acceptable risk
 1 in 1,000,000 to 1 in 10,000

16. Air Sampling Results
November 2006
 Maintenance Workers
 Exposure time 4 hours for each site visit
 Exposure frequency 39 days/year
 Exposure duration 25 years
 Recreational Receptors
 Exposure time 4 hours for each site visit
 Exposure frequency 143 days/year
 Exposure duration 18 years

17. Other sampling conducted
 Soil sampling (park)
 25 surface soil
 Highest asbestos content was .30%
 Sediment sampling
 22 samples
 Fibers were found in 3 samples
 Highest asbestos content was .10%
 Flood-prone locations (soil)
 5 samples (no fibers detected)
 Surface water
 9 surface water (no fibers detected)

18. Conclusion
Based on October and November
2006 air sampling results,
residents in the vicinity of the Site
are not being exposed to
asbestos fibers from the Site at
levels that pose an unacceptable
or significant health risk

19. Future Actions
 Continue the quarterly air sampling
 at least through the summer of 2007
 to investigate whether changes due to
seasonal variations are occurring
 Next round is scheduled for February
 Continue to evaluate the data
 Will decide next steps once all the
data (four more rounds, including
additional activity-based) is in.

20.  Is there an increased rate of asbestos-
related disease in our community?
 The cancer incidence or number of new cancer
cases (for all types of cancer) is less than
expected when comparing the Ambler zip code to
the rest of Pennsylvania, for the period 1996—
2003.
 None of the types of cancer are statistically
significantly elevated (at the 95% significance
level) when compared to the rest of the state. A
95% significance level means there is a less than
a 1 in 20 chance that the results are elevated due
to random variation or chance. In this case,
none of the cancer rates for the Ambler zip code
are higher than what would be expected, allowing
for normal variation.
PA Department of Health

21.  Is there an increased rate of asbestos-
related disease in our community?
 There are important limitations in evaluating
disease rates and making conclusions about
community exposures.
PA Department of Health

22.  Mesothelioma Incidence
 The cancer most likely to be associated
with asbestos exposure is
mesothelioma (cancer of the lining of
the lungs or abdomen), and could take
30 years to develop.
 Mesothelioma was not significantly
elevated for the Ambler zip code when
compared to the rest of the state.
PA Department of Health

23.  Mesothelioma Incidence
 There was 1 female case and 8 male
cases reported to the Pennsylvania
Cancer Registry in the 1996—2003
time period in the Ambler zip code
area.
 It is important to note that
mesothelioma is probably
underreported because it is not easily
diagnosed (it is probably underreported
equally throughout the
Commonwealth).
PA Department of Health

24.  The number of new cases of lung cancer
(risk of lung cancer increases with
asbestos exposure) diagnosed from
1996—2003 is not statistically
significantly elevated in the area when
compared to the rest of the state.
 Asbestosis is not a reportable disease.
Therefore, PADOH’s ability to evaluate the
rate of asbestosis in this community is
limited.
PA Department of Health

25.  The PADOH plans to continue to evaluate
new cancer incidence data as it becomes
available.
 Health agencies are partnering with the
Mont. Co Medical Society to provide
information and training to local health
professionals.
 ATSDR invites community members who
believe they have non-occupationally
related asbestos related diseases to share
their information with us.
PA Department of Health

26. Questions