 1 Evaluating the Occupational and Environmental Impact of Nonroad Diesel Equipment in the Northeast Final Report Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management ( NESCAUM) 2 Acknowledgements NESCAUM would like to acknowledge the financial support provided by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) and Breakthrough Technologies, Inc. ( BTI) for the work performed in this project. We would also like to acknowledge the technical advice and support provided by EPA staff and Mr. Richard Rumba ( New Hampshire Department of Environmental Resources) and the critical sampling and analytical support provide by Ms. Sniega Stapinsaite and Michael Trijotas, Environmental Research Institute, Storrs, CT; and staff at the Scott Lawson Group, Concord, NH; DataChem, Salt Lake City, UT; the University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA; Keene State College, Keene, NH; and Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH. Furthermore, this project would not have been possible without the dedicated collaboration of Dr. Susan Woskie and Dr. Fred Youngs from the University of Massachusetts Lowell. 3 I. Study Overview and Findings A. BACKGROUND This study was conducted by the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management1 ( NESCAUM), in collaboration with researchers from Keene State College ( Dr. Melinda Treadwell) and the University of Massachusetts Lowell ( Drs. Susan Woskie and Fred Youngs). The objective of this work was to evaluate the potential health risks from nonroad sources by monitoring selected hazardous air pollutant and particulate matter exposures in the cabin of operating nonroad diesel equipment and at the perimeter of the active work site. During the past decade, a number of analyses have concluded that mobile source air toxic emissions pose a significant public health threat across the entire nation. In the northeast region, review of national computer modeling analyses and ambient air monitoring data have concluded that emissions from mobile sources are the dominant contributors to elevated ambient levels of several key toxic air pollutants across the region. A number of analyses are ongoing to investigate important mobile source contributors and means to reduce these emissions. However, the contribution of nonroad heavy duty diesel ( HDD) equipment emissions in the region has been relatively uncharacterized. This study was undertaken in an effort to gather quantitative and qualitative evidence of the range of public health and environmental impacts associated with nonroad equipment operations in the northeast region and to determine the significance of these exposures when considering the health risks for residents and equipment operators.

Diesel equipment emissions from the agricultural, construction ( building and roadway), and lumber industries were examined. Initial pilot work was conducted at a construction site in June 2002. Site work was then conducted at a New Hampshire construction site and a roadway construction project, a lumberyard in Maine, a Vermont dairy farm, and a New York City construction site. Final field monitoring was completed May 29, 2003; complete data are presented in the appendices to this summary report. Manuscripts are under development and will be submitted for consideration by relevant peer reviewed journals in the coming weeks and months.

For each location, the researchers used established federal methods to monitor the daily average exposures, and in some cases minute to minute exposures, to diesel soot, fine particulate matter ( PM2.5), and a suite of highly toxic gaseous pollutants including acetaldehyde, benzene, and formaldehyde. In addition to these analyses, measurement techniques were used to provide qualitative and quantitative analyses of the metal content of selected PM2.5 samples.

1 a nonprofit association of the eight air quality agencies of the Northeast states 4 B. STUDY FINDINGS 1. In all locations, diesel equipment activity substantially increased fine particulate matter exposures for workers and nearby residents, in some cases by as much as 16 times. When comparing the integrated daily PM2.5 concentrations collected in and around operating equipment at the three sites, concentrations were 1 16 times greater than the average ambient concentrations normally recorded in each monitoring area. This observation underscores the adverse impact diesel equipment activity can have on air quality. In addition to increasing the average exposure to PM2.5, short term exposures at the perimeter of the site varied widely during the day. The peak concentrations observed during very active work may present acute health risks for workers and nearby residents.

With our growing understanding of the adverse health impacts associated with both acute and chronic fine particulate matter exposure, this finding also raises the concern of the potential adverse health impact for individuals working and living near worksites like those evaluated in this study.

2. Individual's estimated 24 hour exposures exceed the current air quality standard by nearly 2 to 3.5 times   substantially increasing workers' health risk.

In cabin exposures to PM2.5 for operators of monitored diesel equipment ranged from 2 µ g/ m3 to over 660 µ g/ m3 across the five sites evaluated. At the higher end of this monitored exposure range, if one were to average the individual's eight hour workday exposure with the remaining 16 hours of the day at average ambient concentrations for that area, the 24 hour exposure would exceed the NAAQS by 1.9 to 3.5 times.

3. The most potent portion of particulate matter ( PM 2.5)   diesel particulate matter  was monitored ( as black carbon and elemental carbon) at levels that pose risk of chronic inflammation and lung damage in exposed individuals. In all five locations, diesel equipment activity increased diesel particulate matter exposure, average concentrations were 1   6 times greater than expected in urban and rural locations monitored in this study. The integrated daily average elemental carbon concentrations and real time black carbon concentrations monitored at the sites were observed to be elevated by as much as six times above the concentration of diesel particulate matter normally expected in the monitoring locations. In all locations except New York City, no sources of fossil fuel combustion other than the monitored equipment and associated mobile sources were evident. Monitoring was conducted during non heating seasons as well, so the background concentrations are expected to be low. Recently scientists and regulatory agencies across the country and around the world have concluded that diesel exhaust and/ or diesel particulate matter is highly likely to be carcinogenic to humans and causes pulmonary tissue damage following repeated exposures at low concentrations. Diesel particulate matter concentrations monitored in this study were, in some instances, above the established reference concentration ( 5 µ g/ m3) in both in cabin and the perimeter 5 samples2. Repeated exposures above this concentration are believed to present some risk of damage ( i. e.: chronic inflammation and histopathological changes) in the lungs of exposed individuals. When considering the potential carcinogenic risk( s) associated with diesel particulate matter, it is not clear that a " safe" exposure exists.

4. As many as 200,000 workers may be exposed to these harmful concentration levels of nonroad equipment emissions in the Northeast region.

Based on a recent nonroad equipment inventory completed in the Northeast, it is estimated that between 48,262 and 201,022 employees are exposed daily to diesel exhaust concentrations similar to those monitored in this study.

5. Measured concentrations of acetaldehyde, benzene, and formaldehyde around the tested nonroad equipment operations were as much as 140 times the Federally established screening threshold for cancer risk.

In recent years a number of national analyses conducted by the EPA have used computer models to predict ambient concentrations and exposures to a toxic air pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act. Four pollutants resulting primarily from the combustion of gasoline   benzene, 1,3 butadiene, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde   have consistently been shown to exceed 1 in 1 million cancer health benchmarks across the country3. Benzene, 1,3 butadiene and formaldehyde also each exceed one in one hundred thousand cancer risk thresholds in all urban areas in the Northeast. The results of this study suggest that nonroad HDD equipment operations can elevate levels of acetaldehyde, benzene, and formaldehyde in and around nonroad equipment sites.

6. Concentrations of metals such as iron, nickel and vanadium, are elevated in samples collected around nonroad equipment. These metals are known to cause inflammatory responses and damage in pulmonary cells. The results of this study indicate that the concentrations of toxic metals observed in ambient PM2.5 samples are increased when nonroad equipment is operating. These concentrations vary across sites and may present adverse health impact risk( s) for workers and nearby residents. Metals such as nickel, vanadium and iron are higher in samples collected in cabin or near the perimeter of monitoring sites. These metals vary by location and may be of great significance when considering respiratory damage and potential long term health effects.

2 Assuming based on USEPA data, that diesel particulate matter constitutes between 6 and 36% of the ambient particulate matter concentrations nationwide and in urban areas. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust, USEPA/ 600/ 8 90/ 057F, May 2002. 3 For cancer effects, the risk screening benchmarks used by the EPA reflect the assumption that there is no concentration below, which there is no risk ( e. g. no threshold). The one in one million risk benchmark is an estimated exposure concentration, which would result in one excess cancer in one million individuals exposed for a lifetime. 6 II. Study Method Note: For a summary chart of sampling methods and sampling locations, please refer to Appendix A of this report.

For each location, the researchers used established federal methods to monitor the daily average exposures, and in some cases minute to minute exposures, to diesel soot, fine particulate matter ( PM2.5), and a suite of gaseous pollutants including acetaldehyde, benzene, and formaldehyde. In addition to these analyses, x ray fluorescence spectrometry and inductively coupled mass spectrometry were used to provide qualitative and quantitative analyses of the metal content of selected PM2.5 samples.

Samples were collected in the cab of HDD equipment operators and at the perimeter of the worksite. The in cab samples were collected to characterize occupational exposures for equipment operators4. The equipment type, model year, and horsepower for each site are shown in Table I below. Table I. Monitored Equipment Summary Carmel, ME ( Lumberyard) Brattleboro, VT ( Agricultural Operation) Keene, NH ( Building and Roadway Construction) Manchester, NH ( Roadway Construction) New York, New York ( Building Construction) 1986 Detroit, Mill Engine 200 HP 1979 Ford 6700 Spreader 256 HP 1999 JCB 4362, Front Loader 163 HP 1997 Caterpillar DR6xL Bulldozer 165 HP 1995 Komatsu PC100 Excavator 84 HP 1995 Pettibone Cary Lift Super 15 Model # 154D 130 HP 1976 Ford, Front Bucket Loader 250 HP 1998 Ingersoll Rand, Variable Reach Lift ( Lull) 642B 80 HP 2002 Caterpillar It386 Loader, 145 HP 1988 Caterpillar 245B Drill ( Excavator) 320 HP 1985 Detroit, Planer Engine 180 HP 1997 John Deere Tractor 170 HP 1997 Hyster Variable Reach Lift ( Lull) 90 HP 1992 Caterpillar 235D Excavator, 145 HP 1988 Caterpillar 245D Excavator 320 HP 1988 John Deere with Harrow 170 HP 1997 John Deere, 550 GTC Bulldozer 80   83 HP The worksite perimeter samples5 ( at the property boundary with nearby residential receptors) were also collected to characterize the near field ambient air quality impact of worksite operations. Eight hour integrated monitoring was conducted to quantify worker exposure to carcinogenic compounds of concern ( i. e. benzene, 1,3 butadiene, acetaldehyde, and formaldehyde), particulate matter ( PM2.5), and diesel soot. Real time sampling for PM2.5 and diesel soot was also conducted at the worksite perimeter locations to determine whether peak, episodic exposures during a shorter averaging time might 4 Using appropriate absorbent media for the various analytes of concern and Gilian or SKC personal air sampling pumps or BGI Inc. Cyclone pumps that were calibrated to draw an acceptable air volume across the sampling duration. 5 Each site was approximately 300' X 300' square, perimeter sampling stations were positioned at the upwind and downwind edge of the site at the beginning of the monitoring day. 7 present potential non cancer health effect of concern in exposed workers or nearby residents.

After sampling, and post sampling pump calibration, the absorbent tubes and filter cassettes were removed from the air pumps, capped, bagged and stored in a freezer ( if appropriate) until analyzed. Analyses for this project were completed by: Environmental Research Institute ( ERI), DataChem, the Scott Lawson Group, Keene State College, the University of Massachusetts Lowell, and Dartmouth College, as described below.

Carbonyl Analyses ( EPA Method TO 11): Samples for carbonyl compounds ( monitoring targets: acetaldehyde, acrolein and formaldehyde) were collected on 2,4 dinitrophenylhydrazine ( DNPH with ozone scrubber) coated SKC sorbent tubes ( stock # 226 120). In cab or perimeter samples were collected using appropriately calibrated Gilian personal air sampling pumps. The cartridges used for these analyses were stored at a temperature less than 4 ° C before and after sampling. The carbonyl compounds react to form hydrazones, which are retained on the cartridge. The hydrazones are then extracted from the cartridge using a solvent and the extract is analyzed by high performance liquid chromatography ( HPLC) with UV visible detection by ERI personnel.

Volatile Organic Compound Analysis ( EPA Methods TO 17 UMASS Lowell and TO 15 ERI): In cabin exposures benzene, 1,3 butadiene, ethyl benzene, and xylene were collected using Carbotrap X and Carboxen 1016 absorbent traps and were analyzed by UMASSLowell using thermal desorption mass spectrometry. Tubes are stored at less than 4 ° C before and after sampling.

A major goal for this monitoring project was to evaluate the range of organic compounds generated from nonroad equipment and the impact on worker exposure and ambient air quality. Therefore, in addition to the targeted breathing zone sampling with personal air sampling techniques, 8 hour average concentrations of volatile organic compounds were collected in cleaned, evacuated SUMMA canisters using eight hour restrictive flow orifices. The SUMMA canister samples were analyzed by gas chromatography with mass spectrometry detection for compound identification confirmation. Laboratory standard operating procedures for the analytical laboratory performing TO 11 and TO 15 are included as Attachment I and II to this report.

Organic and Elemental Carbon Analysis ( NIOSH Method 5040): Eight hour respirable particulate samples were collected in the cab of selected equipment and at the perimeter of the worksite using a BGI Inc. cyclone sampler and pre fired pure quartz fiber filters. DataChem analyzed these particulate exposure samples to quantify the elemental carbon/ organic carbon content. The quartz filters are heated to 900 ° C prior to sampling to remove all organic and elemental carbon adsorbed on the filter. The filters are then sealed in special petri dishes, which are then individually wrapped in foil to prevent adsorption of organic carbon during shipping and storage. 8 For analysis, a small punch from the filter ( rectangular, 1.5 cm2) is removed and placed it in a small tube furnace. The sample is heated from 25 ° C to 850 ° C in a pure helium ( He) atmosphere to evolve the organic carbon. The carbon is oxidized to CO2 then reduced to methane ( CH4) for detection by a flame ionization detector. The temperature is reduced to 550 ° C and the atmosphere is changed to 2% O2 in He. The heating continues to 850 ° C. The carbon evolved during this stage is elemental carbon. A correction is made for charring of the organic carbon in the later stage of the first temperature ramp, using the measured reflectance of the filter sample. The light reflected by the surface of the filter from a laser is measured throughout. This reflectance decreases as the organic carbon is charred. Upon switching the purge gas to 2% O2 in He, the reflectance of the filter returns to its initial value. The carbon evolved during this segment of the analysis is defined as organic carbon and the results are reported accordingly.

Assessing the impact of equipment activity on monitored concentrations:

During the field monitoring studies described above, field monitoring technicians prepared daily time activity diaries in 20 minute increments for each monitoring location ( equipment and perimeter). These journals will record episodic exposures as well as general employee activities throughout the workday. The field technicians also recorded the type and activity of equipment used on the worksite during the day, the equipment horsepower, the fuel type and consumption data ( if available for worksite), the hours of operation, and any unique duty cycle activities throughout the monitoring day that may later be correlated with episodic exposures peaks recorded by the real time monitors for diesel soot and PM2.5. Time activity diaries for each site monitored are presented in Appendix D.

Controlling variability in the study population:

The sampling goal of this study was to monitor similar equipment across the project worksites in an effort to increase the sample population per equipment type. Since the worksites monitored were similar, comparable types of nonroad equipment were available. As with all exposure monitoring studies; however, it was not possible to monitor all workplace conditions or all worker populations at each of the worksites. The original aim of the study was to characterize exposure to similar types of nonroad equipment between worksites, and to provide exposure/ ambient impact data across a number of days at each site. These monitoring data provide ranges of exposure and ambient air quality impact across the study population that will ultimately be compared with ranges of potential adverse health endpoints. The monitoring approach is intended to provide quantitative evidence useful in estimating the potential public health impact in high end exposed sub populations and near field residents at specific worksites. Further, quantitative monitoring evidence, when coupled with knowledge of the potency of monitored toxicants, and an understanding of the scope of nonroad construction activities in the region, will support a qualitative estimate of the potential regional impact of nonroad equipment activities. With respect to sample variability, the researchers anticipated the variability in worksite activities on any given day, difference in meteorological conditions during a sample collection period at a given site, and due to 9 regional air mass transport the project team expected differences in the background concentrations of the compounds characterized in the study. By carefully recording twenty minute time activity data for all monitored equipment each day on each site, by recording the minute to minute meteorological conditions on each day of monitoring at each site, and by evaluating state ambient air quality monitoring data across the region it is anticipated that variability in quantitative evidence will likely be controlled to some degree. Statistical analyses of the time activity data, real time monitoring results, weather conditions, and integrated sampling results are being conducted and will be presented in a manuscript currently under development.

Estimation of number of workers using heavy equipment In order to estimate the number of workers in the region operating heavy duty diesel nonroad machines, three sources of information were used. The first source was Census Bureau employee data from 1997. The Census Bureau provides information on the number of employees in a variety of industry sectors. For this analysis we took from the Census Bureau the numbers of workers in the region from several industry segments that use heavy equipment such as building construction, road building, mining, agriculture, and excavation. The second column in Table 1 ( entitled 8 state employees) provides the number of workers in the region for each of the industry segments included in this analysis.

In order to estimate the number of pieces of equipment used per employee, we used NESCAUM survey data gathered as part of a recent study on construction equipment activity in the region. This data provided an estimation of the number of pieces of heavy equipment per employee for each industry segments. Columns 3, 4, and 5 of Table 2 provide the ratio of equipment to employees for three different counties studied. The survey showed that for some industries such as Heavy Construction Contractors and Excavation & Demolition the ratio of heavy duty diesel equipment to employees is high, while for other sectors, such as Lumber and Wood Products the ratio of equipment to employees is relatively low.

Table 2. Ratio of Equipment to Employees in Three Counties Equipment counts per employee Description 8 State Employees Franklin Providence Albany Forestry NA 0.00 0.25 ND Nonmetallic Mining 9,093 0.63 0.13 ND General Building Contractors 154,781 0.12 0.03 0.040 Heavy Construction Contractors 90,684 0.73 0.17 0.037 Specialty Trade Contractors 398,913 0.01 0.01 0.013 Excavation & Demolition 24,516 1.41 0.60 1.000 10 Lumber and Wood Products 32,954 0.02 0.01 0.000 Stone, Glass, and Concrete Products 52,685 0.09 0.04 0.051 Garden Supply & Nurseries 136,247 0.00 0.07 0.031 Landfills 6,854 NA NA NA Scrap Metals 18,407  0.68

Municipal* 41,518,048 Population 0.001003 0.00004 0.00320 * Equipment counts as a function of human population The combination of equipment counts per employee and employees in each industry category can be combined to estimate the equipment operational in the 8 State NESCAUM region. Since some employees do not operate heavy equipment, but rather do office or administrative work, repair, or other functions, properly estimating the equipment/ operator ratio is important to this analysis.

Once the number of employees was established and the equipment/ operator ratio estimated, the number of hours each worker spends operating the equipment needed to be estimated.

Information on hours of operation per piece of equipment was taken from both the NESCAUM survey and the EPA NONROAD model. The average annual hours of equipment usage ( engine on) ranges from about 400 to 1100 hours or about 20   50% of an average 8 hour workday.

Possible underestimation of exposed workers The reason there is a wide range of workers exposed estimated in this study is due to the fact that some information key to the calculation was not available. It is important to note that the estimate of number of workers exposed to heavy duty nonroad diesel emissions in this analysis likely underestimates the actual number of workers. The reasons for this are: lack of rental equipment data, other industry segments that use heavy equipment not well identified, and workers other than operators exposed to emissions from these pieces of equipment.

An important and growing industry category not characterized in the survey was the rental or leasing companies. This category could prove to be a significant source of equipment and has not been addressed in this analysis. There could be other industry categories not well characterized in the estimates presented here. Shipping ( primarily around marine ports but other intermodal points as well) was another category not represented in these estimates.

In addition, equipment types other than construction and mining ( such as forklifts, aerial lifts, generators) are used by construction and industrial operations but were not 11 surveyed. So the total equipment counts calculated above underestimates the diesel equipment operational within these industry categories.

Finally, operator worker exposure is only one element of the exposure at a construction site. Any number of supervisors, spotters, welders, and other workers are engaged in proximity to active construction and mining equipment.

III. Discussion When evaluating the results of this study, one must be aware of the health endpoints being considered. A number of federal agencies develop occupational and environmental " safe" exposure guidelines for carcinogens and non carcinogens and several are presented here for comparison. Agencies such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( OSHA) and the Mine Safety and Health Administration ( MSHA) are responsible for occupational safety and health for general industry or the mining industry, respectively. These agencies often seek input from organizations such as the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists ( ACGIH) or the National Institutes of Health ( NIOSH), which develop guidance values or recommendations based upon industrial experience assessing exposures and health outcomes. Occupational exposure limits are values that are expected to result in no adverse health outcomes if a worker is exposed 40 hours per week each year for a working career. Environmental exposure standards established by the EPA are intended to protect the entire population for 24 hours per day for a lifetime of exposure. Typically environmental exposure standards are more restrictive as they are established to ensure all members ( even the ill, very young, and elderly) of the population will not suffer adverse health outcomes following continuous lifetime exposure.

Substantial data exist regarding the occupational and environmental exposure to diesel engine emissions as well as the acute and chronic health impacts associated with the pollutants to be targeted in this work. The project participants developed a summary database that compiles the critical target organ effects and carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic potency, or potency range, for inhalation exposure to acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, 1,3 butadiene, formaldehyde, and respirable particulate matter ( summary sheets shown in Appendix B). This database was developed following review of the current information available from the peer reviewed scientific literature, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the ACGIH, various EPA Staff Papers or Criteria Documents, the Hazardous Substances Data Bank, the Integrated Risk Information System, and NIOSH. Comparing monitoring results with established occupational and environmental standards provides an initial assessment of the potential risk to workers and nearby residents associated with the exposures monitored during fieldwork. 12 When considering the non cancer health impacts of diesel exhaust exposure6, the US EPA recently finalized a health protective reference concentration of 5 µ g/ m3 for diesel particulate matter ( DPM) 7. The MSHA has established an interim allowable occupational exposure standard8 for diesel particulate matter of 400 µ g/ m3 this standard will drop to a final allowable exposure limit for this worker population of 160 µ g/ m3 within five years. The OSHA has yet to adopt a standard for diesel exhaust particulate matter. However, OSHA has identified diesel exhaust as a compound of concern and is developing an action plan to reduce worker exposure to this hazard. NIOSH considers diesel exhaust a potential occupational carcinogen and, as such, recommends that occupational exposures be reduced to the " lowest feasible concentration." The ACGIH is considering a recommendation for diesel exhaust but has yet to establish one. A challenge when assessing exposure to DPM is that diesel exposure is typically measured using a surrogate, such as quantification of elemental carbon and organic carbon as done in this study. The results of EC/ OC analysis are presented in Appendix C. Other researchers have used mass balance and emissions inventory data to estimate diesel particulate matter contribution to ambient fine particulate matter concentrations, these projects have estimated that DPM constitutes a minimum of 6 % of the national total ambient inventory for PM2.5, which can be measured directly. In urban areas ( and very likely on the nonroad construction sites evaluated in this study) the percentage of DPM could range from 10 to 36% of the PM2.5 mass9.

When considering the non cancer health effects associated with exposure to PM2.5 mass in general, the current National Ambient Air Quality Standard of 65 µ g/ m3 ( 24 hour) established by the United State Environmental Protection Agency may used to compare integrated 24 hour exposures on or near project sites. When considering allowable occupational exposures for fine ( respirable) particulate matter, not otherwise specified, the OSHA has established a permissible exposure limit of 5000 µ g/ m3 and the ACGIH, has established a threshold limit value of 3000 µ g/ m3. TheMSHA standard of 400 µ g/ m3 may also be used.

When evaluating cancer effects, the United States Environmental Protection Agency has not yet determined a unit risk value for DPM, therefore carcinogenic risks associated with exposures at the concentrations measured on the four sites are not estimated here.

When considering the cancer effects of the gaseous pollutants measured in this study the benchmarks used by the EPA reflect the assumption that there is no concentration below which there is no risk ( eg. no threshold). Concentrations, which are assumed to present a potential public health concern, are derived by estimating a risk concentration for humans from observed tumor incidence in animals. The approach typically incorporates the idea of multiple steps in cancer development, but assumes that the transition from one step to the next is irreversible. This approach has been criticized for these assumptions and the 6 The established reference concentration is based upon demonstrated inflammatory and histopathological changes in the lung in numerous species following diesel exhaust exposure. 7 9United States Environmental Protection Agency, Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust, USEPA/ 600/ 8 90/ 057F, May 2002. 8 This standard addressed exposures for underground metal and nonmetal miners. 13 conservative concentrations, which are calculated using this " linear multistage model" approach. The EPA has recently been revising its guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment guidelines. The revisions are meant to allow flexibility in presentation of carcinogen risk assessment. A benchmark concentration represents the atmospheric concentration of a pollutant above which there may be potential public health concerns. The benchmark values essentially serve as " yardsticks" to assess the potential threat to public health posed by a toxicant. These values represent the current state of scientific understanding about the health effects of the pollutants of concern.

One of the most significant challenges presented by this work is that exposure to diesel exhaust around non road HDD equipment sites results in exceedances of environmental exposure standards but not occupational standards. For pollutants such as particulate matter, not otherwise specified, this is a dilemma as an individual's exposure would be acceptable by one agency and unacceptable by another. This is a significant future policy challenge for occupational and environmental health professionals. 15 Appendix A: Summary Testing Matrix10 Date Location In Cabin Monitoring ( 3  5 pieces) Upwind Site   Perimeter # 1 ( ~ 300ft X 300 ft site) Downwind Site   Perimeter # 2 ( ~ 300ft X 300 ft site)

July 2002 through June 2003 Roadway Construction Keene, NH Forestry Operations Carmel, ME Building Construction New York City Agricultural Operations Brattleboro, VT Roadway Construction Manchester, NH EC/ OC11 Respirable cyclone ( PM4)

@ 4.2 liters/ minute PM. 2.5 12 PM 2.5 cyclone @ 3.5 liters/ minute Volatile Organic Compounds13 ( Carbotrap X and Carboxen 1016 absorbent trap) @

0.200 liters/ minute Carbonyls14 ( DNPH with O3 scrubber)

@ 0.200 liters/ minute EC/ OC Respirable cyclone ( PM4)

@ 4.2 liters/ minute PM. 2.5 PM 2.5 cyclone @ 3.5 liters/ minute Volatile Organic Compounds15 SUMMA Canister with 8 hr orifice Carbonyls ( DNPH w/ O3 scrubber)

@ 0.200 liters/ minute Real Time Black Carbon Aethelometer ( PM4)

Real Time PM2.5 EPAM 5000 ( PM2.5 kit)

Data Logging Weather Station Tracking temperature, relative humidity,

wind speed/ direction, and dew point EC/ OC Respirable cyclone ( PM4)

@ 4.2 liters/ minute EC/ OC BGI PQ100 ( PM. 2.5)

@ 16.7 liters/ minute PM. 2.5 PM 2.5 cyclone @ 3.5 liters/ minute Volatile Organic Compounds SUMMA Canister with 8 hr orifice Carbonyls ( DNPH w/ O3 scrubber)

@ 0.200 liters/ minute Real Time Black Carbon Aethelometer ( PM4)

Real Time PM2.5 EPAM 5000 ( PM2.5 kit)

10 For each location evaluated three days ( 8 9 hour samples each day). This figure summarizes the monitoring conducted each of the three days for each location.

11 Elemental Carbon/ Organic Carbon, NIOSH Method # 5040 12 Gravimetric Analyses for total particulate mass 13 EPA Method TO 17 14 EPA Method TO 11 15 EPA Method TO 15 16 Samples were collected on nonroad heavy duty diesel equipment operators and at the perimeter of each site using established federal methods and novel real time monitoring strategies. Each site was defined as a square approximately 300' X 300'. Global positioning system ( GPS) coordinates were taken for each site and are being used to integrate the movement of equipment within the site on site maps that will be provided in final reports developed under this project. Perimeter monitors were positioned at an upwind and downwind location on this site grid at the start of each monitoring day. Due to wind direction changes throughout the monitoring day however these sites are not consistently upwind or downwind sites,

rather perimeter monitors. The wind speed and direction was monitored on site as well and are being integrated with real time monitoring results and subjected to statistical analyses. Until these analyses are completed, data are presented as perimeter # 1 ( initial upwind site) and perimeter # 2 ( initial downwind site).

The" in cabin" exposure measurements for three pieces of heavy duty equipment at each site were expected to characterize high end exposures.

Perimeter monitoring samples were collected to characterize the near field ambient air quality impact of worksite operations. Eight hour average integrated personal and perimeter exposure monitoring was conducted to quantify exposure to carcinogenic compounds and respiratory irritants of concern ( i. e. benzene, 1,3 butadiene, acetaldehyde, and formaldehyde) and for respirable particulate matter ( PM2.5) and diesel soot ( PM4). Real time monitoring was also conducted, as detailed above, to quantify respirable particulate matter ( PM2.5), diesel soot ( PM4), and site weather conditions. 17 Appendix B: Health Effects Database Summary Sheets Acetaldehyde CAS: 75 07 0 Molecular Weight 44 RfC 9x10 3 mg/ m3 RfD No Data EPA Unit Cancer Risk Value 1 : 1,000,000 5x10 4 mg/ m3 Occupational Limits 15  minute STEL none specified OSHA PEL 8 hour TWA 200 ppm ACGIH TLV 25ppm NIOSH REL carcinogen, lowest feasible Ceiling 45 mg/ m3 Ceiling ACGIH Recommendation NH State Ambient Air Limit 161= 24 hour AAL http:// www. des. state. nh. us/ rules/ env a1400. pdf Target Organs Type of effect in humans NIOSH Type of effect in animals RATS Eyes Irritation eyes, eyes burning, Blurred vision. Skin dermatitis, skin burning squamous cell carcinomas Respiratory System Irritation nose, throat, Shortness of breath. Nasal Cancer, Male/ Female Rats Central Nervous System Depression, Unconsciousness. Reproductive System kidney, reproductive, teratogenic effects Developmental Kidneys Potential Human Carcinogen B2 Classification, Nasal in animals NOAEL LOAEL http:// www. epa. gov/ iris/ subst/ 0290. htm# carc LC50http:// www. hhmi. org/ research/ labsafe/ lcss/ lcss. html OR http:// epa. gov/ ttn/ atw/ hlthef/ acetalde. html Rat 150ppm or 48.75 mg/ cu. m Rat 16.9 mg/ cu. m adenocarcinomas from olfactory epithelium Rat 20,550 ppm inhalation/ 37,000mg/ m3 Rat inhalation Sampling Methods OSHA Primary Method No. 2( OSHA 68)

ANL Solvent: Toluene Max Volume ( TWA) 3 liters Max Flow ( TWA) 0.05 L/ min Max Volume ( STEL) 0.75 L Max Flow ( STEL) 0.05 L/ min ANL 1: Gas Chromatography SAE 0.1 Class Fully Validated Chemical Formula: CH3CHO Media: Coated XAD 2 Tube ( 450/ 225 mg sections, 20/ 60 mesh) Coating is 10% ( w/ w) 2( Hydroxymethyl) piperidine. 18 Benzene CAS: 71 43 2 Chemical Formula: C6H6 Molecular Weight 78 RfC RfC of 9 E 3 mg/ m 3 http:// www. epa. gov/ nceawww1/ pdfs/ benzene/ benztox. htm RfD EPA Unit Cancer Risk Value 1 : 1,000,000 1.3x 10 4 or 4.5x10 4 mg/ m 3 Occupational Limits 15  minute STEL 5 ppm OSHA PEL 8 hour TWA 1 ppm ( Action Level. 5 ppm) ACGIH TLV 0.5 ppm NIOSH REL 0.1 ppm Ceiling 25 ppm NH State Ambient Air Limit 5.714 = 24 hour AAL http:// www. des. state. nh. us/ rules/ env a1400. pdf Target Organs NIOSH Type of effect in humans Type of effect in animals Eyes Contact of vapor Irritating, Contact with liquid irritation, pain; prolonged cause tissue damage Skin Irritation, Redness, Repeated exposure, dermatitus, removes oil from skin, dryness squamous cell carcinomas Respiratory System cough, hoarseness, general irritation of nose, throat and resp. tract Blood cause anemia, leukemia, Hodgkin's Disease leukemia Central Nervous System Drowsiness, headache, nausea, incoordination Bone Marrow Decrease in production or changes to the cells of hemoglobin, hematocrit, red/ white blood cells reduced the cellularity of the bone marrow Reproductive Developmental potential occupational carcinogen Leukemia NOAELwww. atsdr. com LOAELwww. atsdr. com LC50 www. atsdr. com/ EPA http:// www. epa. gov/ ttnatw01/ urban/ natpapp. pdf Item # 65= 10 ppm Rat Item # 11= Rat 47ppm ( decreased maternal weight gain) LC50 Mouse ihl 9980 ppm EPA= 31,887 mg/ m3 Item # 31, 50= 3 ppm Mouse Item # 68= Mouse 9.6ppm ( increased spleen weight) LC50 Rat ihl 10,000ppm/ 7 hr EPA= 31,951 mg/ m3 Item # 14= Mouse 47ppm ( decreased WBC Count) Item# 85= Rat 88ppm ( leukpenia) Item # 131= Rat 960ppm ( 30% depression of evoked electricalm activity) Item # 135= Rat 6,600ppm ( testicular weight increase) Item # 140= Rat 200ppm ( CEL: hepatomes) Item # 178= Rat 100ppm ( Liver tumors)

Sampling Methods OSHA Primary Method No. 2 ( OSHA 1005)

ANL Solvent: Carbon Disulfide ALT Solvent: ( 99: 1) Carbon Disulfide/ Dimethylformamide Max Volume ( TWA) 12 Liters Max Flow ( TWA) 0.05 L/ min ( TWA) Max Volume ( STEL) 0.75 Liters Max Flow ( STEL) 0.05 L/ min ( STEL) ANL 1: Gas Chromatography; GC/ FID SAE none specified Class Fully Validated Media: Charcoal Tube ( 100/ 50 mg sections, 20/ 40 mesh) 19 1,3  Butadiene CAS: 106 99 0 Chemical Formula:

Molecular Weight 54 RfC 2 × 10 3; mg/ m 3 http:// www. epa. gov/ iris/ subst/ 0139. htm# top RfD No Data EPA Unit Cancer Risk Value 1 : 1,000,000 2.1x10 6 µ g/ m3 Occupational Limits 15  minute STEL 5 ppm OSHA PEL 8 hour TWA 1 ppm ( Action level .5ppm) ACGIH TLV 2 ppm, 4.4 mg/ m3 TWA NIOSH REL Lowest Feasible Concentration Ceiling None Specified NH State Ambient Air Limit 16= 24 hour AAL http:// www. des. state. nh. us/ rules/ env a1400. pdf Target Organs NIOSH Type of effect in humans Type of effect in animals( MICE) Eyes Irritation eyes, Blurred Vision Central Nervous System Drowsiness, headache, fatigue CNS Depression Respiratory System Irritation Nose, Dryness Irritation, respiratory paralysis bronchiolar adenomas, neoplasms Reproductive System Teratogenic Reproductive Effects granulosa cell tumors,( females) acinar cell carcinomas of mammary gland, testicular atrophy Skin ( liquid exposure) Frostbite, Irritation Reproductive Developmental potential occupational carcinogen Hematopoetic Cancer NOAELwww. atsdr. com LOAELwww. atsdr. com LC50 www. atsdr. com/ EPA http:// www. epa. gov/ ttnatw01/ urban/ natpapp. pdf Item # 7= 200ppm Rat Item # 7= Rat 1000 ppm ( wavy ribs) LC50 Rat inhalation 285,000 mg/ cu m/ 4 hr EPA= 269,896 mg/ m3 Item # 22= 6.25 ppm Mice Item # 22= Mouse 20ppm ( Increased Mortality) LC50 Mouse inhalation 270,000 mg/ cu m/ 2 hr EPA= 285,382 mg/ m3 Sampling Methods OSHA Primary Method No. 2 ( OSHA 56)

ANL Solvent: Carbon Disulfide Max Volume ( TWA) 3 Liter Max Flow ( TWA) 0.05 L/ min ( TWA & STEL) Max Volume ( STEL) Max Flow ( STEL) ANL 1: Gas Chromatography; GC/ FID SAE 0.11 Class Fully Validated Media: Coated Charcoal Tube ( 100/ 50 mg sections, 20/ 40 mesh); Coating is 10% ( w/ w) 4 t Butylcatechol. 20 Formaldehyde CAS: 50 00 0 Chemical Formula: CH2O Molecular Weight 30 RfC no data RfD 2E 1 mg/ kg/ day EPA Unit Cancer Risk Value 1 : 1,000,000 8E 2 ug/ m 3 Occupational Limits 15  minute STEL 2ppm OSHA PEL 8 hour TWA 0.75ppm ( action level 0.5ppm) ACGIH TLV 0.3ppm NIOSH REL 0.016ppm Ceiling 0.3 ppm ceiling ( ACGIH) NH State Ambient Air Limit 1.321= 24 hour AAL http:// www. des. state. nh. us/ rules/ env a1400. pdf Target Organs NIOSH Type of effect in humans Type of effect in animals( MICE) Eyes Irritation eyes, Blurred Vision Respiratory System potential occupational carcinogen nasal cancer NOAEL http:// www. epa. gov/ iris/ subst/ 0419. htm# refinhal LOAEL http:// www. epa. gov/ iris/ subst/ 0419. htm# refinhal LC50 http:// www. jtbaker. com/ msds/ englishhtml/ F5522. htm 82 mg/ kg/ day ( rat) 2 year Bioassay LC50 Rat inhalation 203 mg/ m3 LC50: 64000 ppm/ 4H 0.2 ( nasal irritation) Human ( atsdr. cdc. gov) 2ppm ( eye irritation) Rat ( atsdr. cdc. gov)

Sampling Methods OSHA Primary Method No. OSHA 52 ANL Solvent: desorbed with toluene Max Volume ( TWA) 24 L Max Flow ( TWA) 0.1 L/ min Max Volume ( STEL) 3 L Max Flow ( STEL) 0.2 L/ min ANL 1: GC w/ nitrogen phosphorus flame ionization detector. Class Evaluated method Media: sampling tubes containing XAD 2 adsorbent which has been coated with 2( hydroxymethyl) piperidine. Irritation nose, throat, respiratory system; lacrimation ( discharge of tears); cough; wheezing 15 mg/ kg/ day ( male rat) Reduced weight gain, histopathology in rats 21 Diesel Exhaust CAS: none Molecular Weight Not available RfC 5 µ g/ m ³ RfD Not available EPA Unit Cancer Risk Value 1 : 1,000,000 diesel exhaust ( DE) is likely to be carcinogenic to humans Occupational Limits 15  minute STEL none OSHA PEL 8 hour TWA none ACGIH TLV none NIOSH REL lowest feasible Ceiling none NH State Ambient Air Limit 24 hour AAL http:// www. des. state. nh. us/ rules/ env a1400. pdf Target Organs Type of effect in humans NIOSH Eyes Irritation eyes, slight redness Respiratory System pulmonary function changes; [ potential occupational carcinogen] Central Nervous System neurophysiological symptoms, lightheadedness, nausea Potential Human Carcinogen not available NOAEL LOAEL http:// www. epa. gov/ iris/ subst/ 0642. htm# carc Rat chronic inhalation study Ishinishi et al. ( 1988) NOAEL: 0.46 mg/ m ³ NOAEL/ HEC: 0.144 mg DPM/ m ³ 0.96 Ishinishi et al. ( 1988) ( HD)

Sampling Methods OSHA Primary Method No. ID 196 ( Carbon Black in Workplace Atmospheres)

Max Volume ( TWA) 480 to 960 liters Max Flow ( TWA) 2 liters/ minute ANL 1: gravimetric CLASS Fully Validated Media: Samples are collected on polyvinyl chloride ( PVC) filters. 37mm. 5.0 micrometer pore size 22 Appendix C: Monitoring Results All Sites By Pollutant Daily Minute to Minute Exposure PM2.5:

The peak concentrations observed during very active work may present acute health risks for workers and nearby residents as shown in the following figures for each site. Note the wide differences in concentration between the Maine Lumberyard and the New York City Construction site. Future analyses will identify specific instances of potential adverse acute exposure health effects and variability between sites.

Real time PM2.5 concentrations at the perimeter of nonroad equipment sites.

Brattleboro, VT Fine Particulate Matter Concentration, Day 1 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 9:

00 AM 9:

20 AM 9:

40 AM 10:

00 AM 10:

20 AM 10:

40 AM 11:

00 AM 11:

20 AM 11:

40 AM 12:

00 PM 12:

20 PM 12:

40 PM 1:

00 PM 1:

20 PM 1:

40 PM 2:

00 PM 2:

20 PM 2:

40 PM 3:

00 PM 3:

20 PM Time PM2.5 ( µ g/ m3) Perimeter # 1 23 Brattleboro, VT Fine Particulate Matter Concentration, Day 2 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 10:

40 AM 11:

00 AM 11:

20 AM 11:

40 AM 12:

00 PM 12:

20 PM 12:

40 PM 1:

00 PM 1:

20 PM 1:

40 PM 2:

00 PM 2:

20 PM 2:

40 PM 3:

00 PM 3:

20 PM 3:

40 PM 4:

00 PM 4:

20 PM 4:

40 PM 5:

00 PM 5:

20 PM Time PM2.5 ( µ g/ m3) Perimeter # 1 Brattleboro, VT Fine Particulate Matter Concentration, Day 3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 11:

00 AM 11:

20 AM 11:

40 AM 12:

00 PM 12:

20 PM 12:

40 PM 1:

00 PM 1:

20 PM 1:

40 PM 2:

00 PM 2:

20 PM 2:

40 PM 3:

00 PM 3:

20 PM Time PM2.5 ( µ g/ m3) Perimeter # 1 24 Manchester, NH Fine Particulate Concentration, Day 1 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 9:

00 AM 9:

20 AM 9:

40 AM 10:

00 AM 10:

20 AM 10:

40 AM 11:

00 AM 11:

20 AM 11:

40 AM 12:

00 PM 12:

20 PM 12:

40 PM 1:

00 PM 1:

20 PM 1:

40 PM 2:

00 PM 2:

20 PM 2:

40 PM 3:

00 PM 3:

20 PM 3:

40 PM 4:

00 PM 4:

20 PM Time PM2.5 ( µ g/ m 3) Perimeter # 1 Manchester, NH Fine Particulate Concentration, Day 2 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 7:

00 AM 7:

20 AM 7:

40 AM 8:

00 AM 8:

20 AM 8:

40 AM 9:

00 AM 9:

20 AM 9:

40 AM 10:

00 AM 10:

20 AM 10:

40 AM 11:

00 AM 11:

20 AM 11:

40 AM 12:

00 PM 12:

20 PM 12:

40 PM 1:

00 PM 1:

20 PM 1:

40 PM 2:

00 PM 2:

20 PM 2:

40 PM 3:

00 PM Time PM2.5 ( µ g/ m 3) Perimeter # 1 25 Manchester, NH Fine Particulate Concentration, Day 3 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 7:

00 AM 7:

20 AM 7:

40 AM 8:

00 AM 8:

20 AM 8:

40 AM 9:

00 AM 9:

20 AM 9:

40 AM 10:

00 AM 10:

20 AM 10:

40 AM 11:

00 AM 11:

20 AM 11:

40 AM 12:

00 PM 12:

20 PM 12:

40 PM 1:

00 PM 1:

20 PM 1:

40 PM 2:

00 PM 2:

20 PM 2:

40 PM 3:

00 PM Time PM2.5 ( µ g/ m 3) Perimeter # 1 New York, Fine Particulate Matter Concentration, Day 1 0 50 100 150 200 250 7:

25 AM 7:

45 AM 8:

05 AM 8:

25 AM 8:

45 AM 9:

05 AM 9:

25 AM 9:

45 AM 10:

05 AM 10:

25 AM 10:

45 AM 11:

05 AM 11:

25 AM 11:

45 AM 12:

05 PM 12:

25 PM 12:

45 PM 1:

05 PM 1:

25 PM 1:

45 PM 2:

05 PM 2:

25 PM 2:

45 PM 3:

05 PM 3:

25 PM Time PM2.5 ( µ g/ m3) Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 26 New York Fine Particulate Matter Concentration, Day 2 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 7:

10 AM 7:

30 AM 7:

50 AM 8:

10 AM 8:

30 AM 8:

50 AM 9:

10 AM 9:

30 AM 9:

50 AM 10:

10 AM 10:

30 AM 10:

50 AM 11:

10 AM 11:

30 AM 11:

50 AM 12:

10 PM 12:

30 PM 12:

50 PM 1:

10 PM 1:

30 PM 1:

50 PM 2:

10 PM 2:

30 PM 2:

50 PM 3:

10 PM Time PM2.5 ( µ g/ m3) Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 New York Fine Particulate Matter Concentration, Day 3 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 6:

50 AM 7:

10 AM 7:

30 AM 7:

50 AM 8:

10 AM 8:

30 AM 8:

50 AM 9:

10 AM 9:

30 AM 9:

50 AM 10:

10 AM 10:

30 AM 10:

50 AM 11:

10 AM 11:

30 AM 11:

50 AM 12:

10 PM 12:

30 PM 12:

50 PM 1:

10 PM 1:

30 PM 1:

50 PM 2:

10 PM 2:

30 PM Time PM2.5 ( µ g/ m 3) Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 27 Daily Minute to Minute Exposure Diesel Particulate Matter ( diesel soot Black Carbon) and Average Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure ( Elemental Carbon) :

As shown in the following figures, diesel soot concentrations ( measured as black carbon   BC, by aethelometers) vary throughout the day, anticipated to be due to nonroad equipment activity on the site. Additionally, daily avearge elemental carbon concentrations ( as measured as elemental carbon   EC using filter sampling and NIOSH method 5040) are shown to be elevated at all sites evaluated and to vary between sites. Future analyses will compare these results to observations recorded in the time activities diaries for each site. Note the vast difference, as shown in the previous fine particulate matter figures as well between the urban and rural sites monitored in this study. Recalling that the reference concentration for diesel particulate matter is 5 µ g/ m3, it is possible to identify daily overexposures either by calculating the average BC concentration for the monitoring day or by evaluating the daily average EC concentration.

Keene, NH, Black Carbon Concentrations, Day 1 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 8:

10 AM 8:

30 AM 8:

50 AM 9:

10 AM 9:

30 AM 9:

50 AM 10:

10 AM 10:

30 AM 10:

50 AM 11:

10 AM 11:

30 AM 11:

50 AM 12:

10 PM 12:

30 PM 12:

50 PM 1:

10 PM 1:

30 PM 1:

50 PM 2:

10 PM 2:

30 PM 2:

50 PM 3:

10 PM 3:

30 PM 3:

50 PM 4:

10 PM Time BC ( µ g/ m 3) Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 28 Keene, NH Black Carbon Concentration, Day 2 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 8:

20 AM 8:

40 AM 9:

00 AM 9:

20 AM 9:

40 AM 10:

00 AM 10:

20 AM 10:

40 AM 11:

00 AM 11:

20 AM 11:

40 AM 12:

00 AM 12:

20 PM 12:

50 PM 1:

00 PM 1:

20 PM 1:

40 PM 2:

00 PM 2:

20 PM 2:

30 PM 3:

00 PM 3:

20 PM 3:

50 PM 4:

00 PM Time BC ( µ g/ m 3) Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Keene, NH Black Carbon Concentration, Day 3 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 8:

00 AM 8:

20 AM 8:

40 AM 9:

00 AM 9:

20 AM 9:

40 AM 10:

00 AM 10:

20 AM 10:

40 AM 11:

00 AM 11:

20 AM 11:

40 AM 12:

00 AM 12:

20 PM 12:

50 PM 1:

00 PM 1:

20 PM 1:

40 PM 2:

00 PM 2:

20 PM 2:

30 PM 3:

00 PM 3:

20 PM Time BC ( µ g/ m 3) Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 29 Brattleboro, VT Black Carbon Concentration, Day 1  0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 9:

00 AM 9:

20 AM 9:

40 AM 10:

00 AM 10:

20 AM 10:

40 AM 11:

00 AM 11:

20 AM 11:

40 AM 12:

00 PM 12:

20 PM 12:

40 PM 1:

00 PM 1:

20 PM 1:

40 PM 2:

00 PM 2:

20 PM 2:

40 PM 3:

00 PM 3:

20 PM 3:

40 PM 4:

00 PM 4:

20 PM Time BC ( µ g/ m3) Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Brattleboro, VT Black Carbon Concentration, Day 2  0.4  0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 9:

00 AM 9:

20 AM 9:

40 AM 10:

00 AM 10:

20 AM 10:

40 AM 11:

00 AM 11:

20 AM 11:

40 AM 12:

00 PM 12:

20 PM 12:

40 PM 1:

00 PM 1:

20 PM 1:

40 PM 2:

00 PM 2:

20 PM 2:

40 PM 3:

00 PM 3:

20 PM 3:

40 PM 4:

00 PM 4:

20 PM 4:

40 PM Time BC ( µ g/ m 3) Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 30 Brattleboro, VT Black Carbon Concentration, Day 3  1.0  0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 11:

00 AM 11:

20 AM 11:

40 AM 12:

00 PM 12:

20 PM 12:

40 PM 1:

00 PM 1:

20 PM 1:

40 PM 2:

00 PM 2:

20 PM 2:

40 PM 3:

00 PM 3:

20 PM 3:

40 PM 4:

00 PM 4:

20 PM 4:

40 PM 5:

00 PM 5:

20 PM 5:

40 PM Time BC ( µ g/ m3) Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Manchester, NH Black Carbon Concentration, Day 1 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 9:

00 AM 9:

20 AM 9:

40 AM 10:

00 AM 10:

20 AM 10:

40 AM 11:

00 AM 11:

20 AM 11:

40 AM 12:

00 PM 12:

20 PM 12:

40 PM 1:

00 PM 1:

20 PM 1:

40 PM 2:

00 PM 2:

20 PM 2:

40 PM 3:

00 PM Time BC ( µ g/ m3) Perimeter # 1 31 Manchester, NH Black Carbon Concentration, Day 2 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 7:

00 AM 7:

20 AM 7:

40 AM 8:

00 AM 8:

20 AM 8:

40 AM 9:

00 AM 9:

20 AM 9:

40 AM 10:

00 AM 10:

20 AM 10:

40 AM 11:

00 AM 11:

20 AM 11:

40 AM 12:

00 PM 12:

20 PM 12:

40 PM 1:

00 PM 1:

20 PM 1:

40 PM Time BC ( µ g/ m 3) Perimeter # 1 Manchester, NH Black Carbon Concentration, Day 3 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 7:

00 AM 7:

20 AM 7:

40 AM 8:

00 AM 8:

20 AM 8:

40 AM 9:

00 AM 9:

20 AM 9:

40 AM 10:

00 AM 10:

20 AM 10:

40 AM 11:

00 AM 11:

20 AM 11:

40 AM 12:

00 PM 12:

20 PM 12:

40 PM 1:

00 PM 1:

20 PM 1:

40 PM Time BC ( µ g/ m 3) Perimeter # 1 32 New York City Black Carbon Concentrations, Day 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 7:

25 AM 7:

45 AM 8:

05 AM 8:

25 AM 8:

45 AM 9:

05 AM 9:

25 AM 9:

45 AM 10:

05 AM 10:

25 AM 10:

45 AM 11:

05 AM 11:

25 AM 11:

45 AM 12:

05 PM 12:

25 PM 12:

45 PM 1:

05 PM 1:

25 PM 1:

45 PM 2:

05 PM 2:

25 PM 2:

45 PM 3:

05 PM 3:

25 PM Time BC ( µ g/ m3) Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 New York City Black Carbon Concentration, Day 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 7:

10 AM 7:

30 AM 7:

50 AM 8:

10 AM 8:

30 AM 8:

50 AM 9:

10 AM 9:

30 AM 9:

50 AM 10:

10 AM 10:

30 AM 10:

50 AM 11:

10 AM 11:

30 AM 11:

50 AM 12:

10 PM 12:

30 PM 12:

50 PM 1:

10 PM 1:

30 PM 1:

50 PM 2:

10 PM 2:

30 PM 2:

50 PM 3:

10 PM Time BC ( µ g/ m3) Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 33 New York City Black Carbon Concentration, Day 3 0 5 10 15 20 25 6:

50 AM 7:

10 AM 7:

30 AM 7:

50 AM 8:

10 AM 8:

30 AM 8:

50 AM 9:

10 AM 9:

30 AM 9:

50 AM 10:

10 AM 10:

30 AM 10:

50 AM 11:

10 AM 11:

30 AM 11:

50 AM 12:

10 PM 12:

30 PM 12:

50 PM 1:

10 PM 1:

30 PM 1:

50 PM 2:

10 PM 2:

30 PM 2:

50 PM Time BC ( µ g/ m3) Perimeter # 2 34 Carmel, ME, Elemental Carbon Concentration, Day 1  3 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Mill Cab Near worker Petibone Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Mill Cab Near worker Petibone Perimeter # 2 ( PM only) Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Northwest Southeast Petibone Monitoring Location ( Day 1  3, left to right) Concentration ( µ g/ m 3)

Integrated Elemental Carbon Concentration 35 Brattelboro, VT, Elemental Carbon Concentration, Day 1  3 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Spreader Loader Tractor Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Spreader Loader Harrow Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Spreader Loader Tractor Monitoring Location ( Day 1  3, left to right) Concentration ( µ g/ m 3)

Integrated Elemental Carbon Concentration 36 Keene, NH Elemental Carbon Concentration, Days 1 3 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Front Loader Bulldozer Hys ter Lull Lull, Ingersoll Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Front Loader Bulldozer Hyster Lull Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Front Loader Bulldozer Hyster Lull Monitoring Location ( Day 1  3, left to right) Concentrations ( µ g/ m 3)

Integrated Elemental Carbon Concentrations 37 Manchester, NH, Elemental Carbon Concentrations, Day 1  3 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Dozer 235D Excavator Loader Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Dozer 235D Excavator Loader Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Dozer 235D Excavator Loader Monitoring Location ( Day 1  3, left to right) Concentration ( µ g/ m 3)

Integrated Elemental Carbon Concentration *

* No data currently available 38 New York City, Elemental Carbon Concentration, Days 1  3 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 PC 100 PC 100 ( B) Drill Excavator Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 PC 100 Drill Drill ( B) Excavator Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 PC 100 PC 100 ( B) Drill Excavator Monitoring Location ( Day 1  3, left to right) Concentration ( µ g/ m 3)

Integrated Elemental Carbon Concentration 39 Site Average Elemental Carbon Concentrations 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Equipment # 1 Equipment # 2 Equipment # 3 Monitoring Location Concentration ( µ g/ m 3)

Carmel, ME Brattelboro, VT Keene, NH Manchester, NH New York City BC ( aethelometer) and EC ( NIOSH 5040) Sampling methodology comparison.

For each site the daily average, as calculated using 20 minute average concentrations measured by the aethelometer ( black carbon), and the daily integrated sample analyzed using established elemental carbon and organic carbon quantification were compared. The results of the comparison are presented below. These data suggest close agreement between these methods in more urban environments and a potential greater sensitivity in detecting black carbon concentrations using a calculated average from the real time aethelometers than with the filter sampling analysis required in the NIOSH 5040 method. 40 Elemental Carbon Monitoring Method Comparison, Carmel, ME 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Monitoring Location ( Day 1  3, left to right) Concentration ( µ g/ m 3)

NIOSH 5040 Average Aethelometer Average 41 Elemental Carbon Monitoring Method Comparison, Brattelboro, VT 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Monitoring Location ( Day 1  3, left to right) Concentration ( µ g/ m 3)

NIOSH 5040 Average Aethelometer Average 42 Elemental Carbon Monitoring Method Comparison, Keene, NH 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Monitoring Location Concentration ( µ g/ m 3)

NIOSH 5040 Average Aethelometer Average 43 Elemental Carbon Monitoring Method Comparison, Manchester, NH 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Monitoring Location ( Day 1  3, left to right) Concentration ( µ g/ m 3)

NIOSH 5040 Average Aethelometer Average * * * *

* No Data Collected/ Available 44 Elemental Carbon Monitoring Method Comparison, NYC 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Monitoring Location ( Day 1  3, left to right) Concentration ( mg/ m3)

NIOSH 5040 Average Aethelometer Average *

* No data collected 45 Daily Average Exposures to PM2.5 and Comparison of Variability of All Sites Assessed Daily average exposure to PM2.5 for all sites illustrate an increase in area ambient exposures above that normally expected. At all sites, nonroad equipment activity increase the concentration typically monitored in the area. Typical daily ambient fine particulate matter concentrations for monitoring sites are: Carmel, ME 4 5 µ g/ m3; Brattleboro, VT 4 5 µ g/ m3; Keene, NH 14 µ g/ m3; Manchester, NH 13 15 µ g/ m3; and New York City 22 µ g/ m3.

Carmel, ME, Fine Particulate Matter Concentration, Day 1  3  10.000 0.000 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000 70.000 Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Mill Cab Near worker Petibone Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Perimeter # 2 ( PM)

Mill Cab Near worker Petibone Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 NW near worker SE near worker Petibone Monitoring Location ( Day 1  3, left to right) Concentration ( µ g/ m 3)

PM2.5 Integrated Daily Average 46 Brattelboro, VT, Fine Particulate Matter Concentration, Day 1  3  0.200  0.100 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Spreader Spreader DUP Loader Tracto r Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Spreader Spreader DUP Loader Harrow Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Spreader Spreader DUP Loader Tractor Monitoring Location ( Day 1  3, left to right) Concentration ( µ g/ m 3)

PM2.5 Integrated Daily Average 47 Keene, NH, Fine Particulate Matter Concentrations, Day 1  3 0.000 100.000 200.000 300.000 400.000 500.000 600.000 700.000 Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Front Loader Bulldozer Hyster Lull A Ingersol Lull Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Front Loader Bulldozer Hyster Lull A Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Front Loader Bulldozer Hyster Lull B Monitoring Location ( Day 1  3, left to right) Concentration ( µ g/ m 3)

PM2.5 Integrated Daily Average 48 Manchester, NH, Fine Particulate Matter Concentrations, Day 1  3 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200 1.400 Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Dozer Dozer DUP Excavator Loader Perimeter # 1 Peri meter # 2 Dozer Excavator Excavator DUP Loader Peri meter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Dozer Excavator Loader Loader DUP Monitoring Location ( Day 1  3, left to right) Concentration ( µ g/ m 3)

PM2.5 Integrated Daily Average 49 NYC, Fine Particulate Matter Concentrations, Day 1  3  10.000 0.000 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000 70.000 80.000 Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 PC 100 Drill Excavator Excavator DUP Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 PC 100 Drill Excavator Excavator DUP Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 PC 100 PC 100 DUP Drill Excavator Monitoring Location ( Day 1  3, left to right) Concentration ( µ g/ m 3)

PM2.5 Integrated Daily Average 50 Site Average Fine Particulate Matter  20.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 Perimeter # 1 Perimeter # 2 Equipment # 1 Equipment # 2 Equipment # 3 Monitoring Location Concentration ( µ g/ m 3)

Carmel, ME Brattleboro, VT Keene, NH Manchester, NH New York City 442 51 Daily Exposures to Gaseous Toxicants:

Monitored concentrations for acetaldehyde and formaldehyde exceed conservative risk screening thresholds for cancer as illustrated in the following figures. Note the one in one million risk screening threshold for acetaldehyde and formaldehyde are shown in the lower right corner of each figure. Due to a are not yet available for the Manchester, NH roadway construction site.

Targeted Carbonyl Concentrations, Carmel, ME ( Day 1  3)

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 Mill Cab Near worker Petibone Upwind Downwind Mill Cab Near worker Petibone Upwind Downwind Northwest Southeast Petibone Upwind Downwind Monitoring Location ( Day 1  3, left to right) Concentration ( µ g/ m 3)

Acetaldehyde Formaldehyde Acetaldehyde = 0.45 µ g/ m 3 Formaldehyde = 0.077 µ g/ m 3 52 Targeted Carbonyl Concentrations, Brattleboro, VT ( Days 1  3)

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 Spreader Loader Tra cto r Upwind Downwind Spreader Loader Harrow Upwind Downwind Spreader Loader Tractor Upwind Downwind Monitoring Location ( Day 1  3, left to right) Concentration ( µ g/ m 3)

Acetaldehyde Formaldehyde Acetaldehyde = 0.45 µ g/ m 3 Formaldehyde = 0.077 µ g/ m 3 53 Targeted Carbonyl Concentrations, Keene, NH ( Day 1  3)

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 Front Loader Bulldozer Hyster Lull A Upw i nd Downwind Front Loader Bulldozer Hyster Lull B Upwind Downwind Front Loader Bulldozer Hyster Lull B Upwind Downwind Monitoring Location ( Day 1  3, left to right) Concentration ( µ g/ m 3)

Acetaldehyde Formaldehyde Acetaldehyde = 0.45 µ g/ m 3 Formaldehyde = 0.077 µ g/ m 3 54 Targeted Carbonyl Concentration, New York City ( Days 1  3)

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 Drill Excavator Upwind Downwind PC 100 Drill Excavator Upwind Downwind PC 100 Drill Excavator Upwind Downwind Monitoring Location ( Day 1  3, left to right) Concentration ( µ g/ m 3)

Acetaldehyde Formaldehyde Acetaldehyde = 0.45 µ g/ m 3 Formaldehyde = 0.077 µ g/ m 3 Concentrations of Toxic Metals in PM2.5 Collected by Operating HDD Equipment:

Results indicate that the concentrations of toxic metals observed in ambient PM2.5 samples are increased when nonroad equipment is operating. These concentrations vary across sites and may present adverse health impact risk( s) for workers and nearby residents. Metals such as nickel, vanadium and iron are higher in samples collected in cabin or near the perimeter of monitoring sites. These metals vary by location. Initial results from x ray fluorescence and inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry indicate that the concentrations of toxic metals observed in the PM2.5 samples collected in operating equipment cab or near the site perimeter are altered. These concentrations vary across sites and may present adverse health impact risk( s) for workers and nearby residents. As shown in the figures below, the concentrations of several toxic metals vary between sampling locations ( MEL= Maine Lumberyard; KSC= NH Construction Site; and NY= NY Construction Site). Additionally, as shown in the following figures, the concentration of vanadium exceeds the ACGIH recommended occupational exposure limit for an eight hour workday ( 50 ng/ m3). If this exposure were repeated, the individual( s) are at risk of developing adverse health outcomes at this concentration. 55 Metal Content PM2.5  20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

MEL Near Worker MEL Mill Cab KSC Perimeter # 2 KSC VRL ( A) KSC VRL ( B) NY2 Excavator NY PC100 NY1 Excavator Sample Location Nickel Lead Arsenic Zinc Copper Manganese Vanadium 56 Vanadium Concentration in PM2.5  10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 MEL Near Worker MEL Mill Cab KSC Perimeter # 2 KSC VRL ( A) KSC VRL ( B) NY2 Excavator NY PC100 NY1 Excavator Monitoring Location Concentration ng/ m 3 Vanadium


Meeting to Discuss Mercury Emissions Data and MACT Analysis

Proposed Portland Cement NESHAP

June 10, 2009

Meeting Date:	June 10, 2009

Participants:	Cement Industry

Hector Ybanez, Holcim

William Mills, Mills Consulting

US EPA

Keith Barnett, SPPD

RTI

Marvin Branscome

Mike Laney

Brenda Munoz

The primary purpose of the meeting was for EPA to hear the questions
from industry regarding the type of analysis that was used to arrive at
the proposed MACT floor limits. Industry’s goal was to be sure they
understood EPA approach in developing the proposed MACT floor limits.
EPA’s approach that was used to develop estimates of daily mercury
emissions was discussed as well as the statistical analysis for
determining the proposed emission limit.

It was agreed that Dr. Mills and Mr. Ybanez would summarize their
understanding of the EPA approach based on these discussions and submit
them to EPA for review and verification (or for further clarification if
needed)..


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 126 (Thursday, June 30, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42715-42716]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15480]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0321]

Risk Assessment of Foodborne Illness Associated With Pathogens
From Produce Grown in Fields Amended With Untreated Biological Soil
Amendments of Animal Origin; Request for Scientific Data, Information,
and Comments; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is extending the
comment period for the notice entitled ``Risk Assessment of Foodborne
Illness Associated With Pathogens From Produce Grown in Fields Amended
With Untreated Biological Soil Amendments of Animal Origin; Request for
Scientific Data, Information, and Comments'' that appeared in the
Federal Register of March 4, 2016. The notice requested scientific
data, information, and comments that would assist in the development of
a risk assessment for produce grown in fields or other growing areas
amended with untreated biological soil amendments of animal origin
(including raw manure). In the Federal Register notice of April 22,
2016, the comment period for this request was initially extended to
July 5, 2016. We are taking this action due to maintenance on the
Federal eRulemaking portal in early July 2016.

DATES: FDA is extending the comment period on the notice published
March 4, 2016 (81 FR 11572). Submit either electronic or written
comments by July 19, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2016-N-0321 for ``Risk Assessment of Foodborne Illness Associated
With Pathogens From Produce Grown in Fields Amended With Untreated
Biological Soil Amendments of Animal Origin; Request for Scientific
Data, Information, and Comments.'' Received comments will be placed in
the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at
the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your

name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can
provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your
comments and you must identify this information as ``confidential.''
Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except
in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law.
For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets,
see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at:
http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Van Doren, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-005), Food and Drug Administration, 5100
Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of April 22, 2016
(81 FR 23733), FDA published a notice giving interested persons until
July 5, 2016, to comment on our request for scientific data,
information, and comments that would assist us in our plan to develop a
risk assessment for produce grown in fields or other growing areas
amended with untreated biological soil amendments of animal origin
(including raw manure).
    In early July 2016, the Federal eRulemaking Portal, http://www.regulations.gov, is undergoing maintenance. We are, therefore,
extending the comment period for our request for scientific data,
information, and comments. The extended comment period will close on
July 19, 2016.

    Dated: June 24, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-15480 Filed 6-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P