Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to site content

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

HIPPS ROAD LANDFILL
JACKSONVILLE, DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA




Table 14.

Completed Exposure Pathways
Pathway
Name
Exposure Pathway ElementsTime
SourceEnvironmentalMediaPoint of ExposureRoute ofExposureExposed
Population
Subsurface SoilHipps Road
Landfill
Subsurface SoilFill MaterialIngestion, Skin
Absorption
NearbyResidentsPast
SedimentHipps Road
Landfill
SedimentPonds by the
Landfill, Storm
Water Swales
Ingestion, Skin
Absorption
NearbyResidentsPast, Present,
Future
Surface WaterHipps Road
Landfill
Surface WaterPonds by the
Landfill, Storm
Water Swales
Ingestion, Skin
Absorption,
Inhalation of
Vapors
NearbyResidentsPast
Shallow Ground-
water
Hipps Road
Landfill
GroundwaterPrivate WellsIngestion, Skin
Absorption,
Inhalation of
Vapors
NearbyResidentsPast, Present,
Future




Table 14.

Completed Exposure Pathways, continued
Pathway
Name
Exposure Pathway ElementsTime
SourceEnvironmental MediaPoint of ExposureRoute of ExposureExposed
Population
Air (Tower
Effluent)
Hipps Road
Landfill
AirAmbient AirInhalationNearbyResidentsPresent,Future




Table 15.

Potential Exposure Pathways
Pathway
Name
Exposure Pathway ElementsTime
SourceEnvironmental MediaPoint of ExposureRoute of ExposureExposed
Population
Surface SoilHipps Road
Landfill
Surface SoilsYards, Landfill Ingestion, Skin
Absorption,
Inhalation of Dust
NearbyResidentsPast, Present,
Future
Surface WaterHipps Road
Landfill
Surface WaterStorm Water Swales,
Creek
Ingestion, Skin
Absorption
NearbyResidentsPresent,Future
Air (Odor)Hipps Road
Landfill
AirAmbient AirInhalationNearbyResidentsPast, Present,
Future
BiotaHipps Road
Landfill
Animal/Plant TissuePonds by the
Landfill, Small
Game, Gardens
IngestionNearbyResidentsPast, Present,
Future




Table 16.

Parameters Used for Ingestion Dose Calculations for Hypothetical Individuals
ParameterHypothetical Individual
AdultAverage ChildYoung Child
Age18 y and older0-18 y0-6 y
Pica BehaviorNoNoYes
Body Weight70 kg35 kg13 kg
Lifetime Expectancy70 y70 y70 y
Drinking Water Ingestion Rate2.0 L/d1.0 L/d1.0 L/d
Drinking Water Ingestion Frequency350 d/y350 d/y350 d/y
Contaminated Fraction of DrinkingWater1.001.001.00
Exposure Period for Drinking Water
Ingestion
26 y18 y6 y
Homegrown Vegetables IngestionRate0.20 kg/d0.20 kg/d0.10 kg/d
Homegrown Vegetable Ingestion
Frequency
350 d/y350 d/y350 d/y
Contaminated Fraction of
Homegrown Vegetables Due ToGroundwater
0.400.400.40
Contaminated Fraction of Homegrown
Vegetables Due To Soil
0.400.400.40
Exposure Period for Ingesting Homegrown
Vegetables
26 y18 y6 y
Soil/Sediment Ingestion Rate100 mg/d200 mg/d5,000 mg/d
Soil Ingestion Frequency181-350 d/y181-350 d/y181-350 d/y
Sediment Ingestion Frequency169 d/y169 d/y169 d/y
Contaminated Fraction ofSoil/Sediment1.001.001.00
Exposure Period for Soil/Sediment
Ingestion
26 y18 y6 y




Table 16.

Parameters Used for Ingestion Dose Calculations for Hypothetical Individuals, continued
ParameterHypothetical Individual
AdultAverage ChildYoung Child
Fish Ingestion Rate0.05 kg/d0.03 kg/d0.02 kg/d
Fish Ingestion Frequency120 d/y120 d/y120 d/y
Contaminated Fraction of Fish1.001.001.00
Exposure Period for Fish Ingestion22 y18 y6 y
Incidental Ingestion Rate WhileSwimming50 ml/event50 ml/event--
Swimming Event Frequency39 events/y78 events/y--
Swimming Event Duration1 h/event1 h/event--
Exposure Period for Swimming22 y12 y--
y - year
d - day
h - hour
L - liter
kg - kilogram
mg - milligram
ml - milliliter




Table 17.

Parameters Used for Inhalation Dose Calculations for Hypothetical Individuals
ParameterHypothetical Individual
AdultAverage ChildYoung Child
Age18 y and older0-18 y0-6 y
Body Weight70 kg35 kg13 kg
Lifetime Expectancy70 y70 y70 y
Inhalation Rate While Showering0.65 m3/h1.00 m3/h0.80 m3/h
Showering Frequency350 d/y350 d/y350 d/y
Shower Length0.25 h/d0.5 h/d0.5 h/d
Post-Shower Length0.20 h/d0.25 h/d0.25 h/d
Exposure Period for Showering26 y18 y6 y
Inhalation Rate While Inside theHome0.71 m3/h0.81 m3/h0.60 m3/h
Frequency Inside the Home350 d/y350 d/y350 d/y
Length of Time Inside the Home21.0 h/d21.0 h/d21.0 h/d
Exposure Period for Being Inside theHome 26 y18 y6 y
Inhalation Rate While Outside theHome1.67 m3/h1.87 m3/h1.60 m3/h
Frequency Outside the Home350 d/y350 d/y350 d/y
Length of Time Outside the Home3.0 h/d3.0 h/d3.0 h/d
Exposure Period for Being Outsidethe Home 26 y18 y6 y
y - year
d - day
h - hour
kg - kilogram
m3 - cubic meter




Table 18.

Parameters Used for Dermal Dose Calculations for Hypothetical Individuals
ParameterHypothetical Individual
AdultAverage ChildYoung Child
Age18 y and older0-18 y0-6 y
Body Weight70 kg35 kg13 kg
Body Surface Area19,400 cm210,500 cm27,280 cm2
Lifetime Expectancy70 y70 y70 y
Showering Frequency350 d/y350 d/y350 d/y
Shower Length0.25 h/d0.5 h/d0.5 h/d
Exposure Period for Showering26 y18 y6 y
Swimming Event Frequency39 events/y78 events/y--
Swimming Event Duration1 h/event1 h/event--
Exposure Period for Swimming22 y12 y--
y - year
d - day
h - hour
kg - kilogram
cm2 - square centimeter




Table 19.

Constants Used for Dose Calculations
ActivityParameterValue
Inhalation of Vapors WhileShoweringBathroom Volume9 m3
Flow Rate of Shower Water600 L/h
Fraction of ContaminantVolatilized0.75
Inhalation of Vapors Inside the
Residence
Water Flow Through the House723 L/d
Fraction of ContaminantVolatilized0.50
House Volume177.70 m3
Mixing Coefficient0.15
Air Exchange Rate13.7 housevolumes/d
Inhalation of Vapors Outside the
Residence
Flow of Irrigation Water600 L/h
Fraction of ContaminantVolatilized0.50
Length or Width of ApproximateSquare of Irrigated Area10 m
Stability Constant a0.15
Stability Constant b0.75
Near-surface Wind Speed2.0 m/s
d - day
h - hour
s - second
m - meter
m3 - cubic meter
L - liter




Table 20.

Contaminants Violating Secondary Drinking Water Standards
ContaminantOn-site Boreholes or
Monitoring Wells (mg/l)
Off-site Private Wells(mg/l)MCL (mg/l)
AluminumND-1500ND-0.2500.2
CopperND-1200ND-1.11
IronND-280ND-7.920.3
pH3.5-7.256.0-7.66.5-8.5

mg/l - milligrams per liter
ND - not detected

C. Acronyms.

Commonly Used Acronyms
ATSDRAgency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry - An organization within thefederal Department of Health and Human Services that is responsible for conducting public healthassessments at NPL sites. In Florida, this responsibility has been delegated to FHRS.

BESDBio-Environmental Services Division - The branch of the City of Jacksonville'sgovernment that investigates pollution problems within the city limits.

CERCLAComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act - Afederal law passed in 1980 and amended in 1986 that created a trust fund, known as "Superfund",to investigate and clean up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.

CPHUCounty Public Health Unit - Often known as the county health department. The CPHUis associated with FHRS, and is responsible for investigating contamination in private drinkingwater wells.

CREGCancer Risk Evaluation Guide - The contaminant concentration that is estimated toresult in no more than one excess cancer per one million persons exposed over a lifetime.

EPAU.S. Environmental Protection Agency - The federal agency responsible for pollutioncontrol, including the investigation and cleanup of abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.

FCDSFlorida Cancer Data System - A FHRS program operated by the University of MiamiSchool of Medicine that covers all cancers reported in Florida between 1981 and 1987.

FDERFlorida Department of Environmental Regulation - The state agency responsible forpollution control, including the investigation and cleanup of abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.

FHRSFlorida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services - The state agencyresponsible for investigating public health issues and running public health programs.

FSFeasibility Study - An EPA study that establishes cleanup criteria and identifies cleanupalternatives at a NPL site, based on the results of the remedial investigation.

JCACWJacksonville Citizens Against Contaminated Water - A group organized by residentsliving near site to voice community concerns to government officials.

HARPHealth Activities Recommendation Panel - A group within ATSDR that reviews publichealth assessments determines the need for specific follow-up health actions.

IARCInternational Agency for Research on Cancer - An organization that evaluates thecancer risk from exposure to different chemicals.

IRISIntegrated Risk Information System - An EPA computer database containingtoxicological information. This database is updated monthly.

MRLMinimal Risk Level - An estimate of the daily dose of a contaminant below whichnon-cancer illnesses are unlikely to occur. ATSDR develops MRL values through its research programs.

NOAELNo Observed Adverse Effects Level -The highest experimental dose or exposure levelat which there is no statistically or biologically significant increase in adverse effects.

NPLNational Priorities List - EPA's list of the most serious abandoned or uncontrolledhazardous waste sites, identified for clean up using CERCLA monies. These sites are also knownas "Superfund" sites and are said to be on the "Superfund list".

NTPNational Toxicology Program - An organization within the federal Department of Healthand Human Services that evaluates the cancer risk from exposure to different chemicals.

pHA number indicating how acidic or caustic a substance is; the lower the pH, the more acidic the substance.

PRPPotentially Responsible Party - An individual or company potentially responsible for, orcontributors to, the contamination problems at a NPL site.

RfDReference Dose - An estimate of the daily dose of a contaminant below which non-cancerillnesses are unlikely to occur. EPA develops RfD values through its research programs.

RIRemedial Investigation - An EPA study that identifies the nature and extent of hazardouswaste contamination at a NPL site.

RI/FSRemedial Investigation/Feasibility Study - The combined investigative and analyticalstudies that identify the nature and extent of hazardous waste contamination at a NPL site, andproposes cleanup alternatives.

RODRecord of Decision - An EPA document that explains which cleanup alternative will beused at a NPL site, based on information generated during the RI/FS.

TRIToxics Release Inventory - A summary of chemical releases to the environment reportedby industries to EPA.

VOCsVolatile Organic Compounds - Organic chemical compounds that evaporate easily intothe air. In sample data, these compounds are most often found within groups called "purgeables". In this document, VOCs are commonly referred to as "solvents".



D. Public Comments

Summary of Public Comments and Florida HRS Responses
Draft Public Health Assessment

From October 19-21, 1994, we sent 24 copies of the draft Hipps Road Landfill Public HealthAssessment to community leaders, government officials, the PRP, the document repository, and alocal grocery store for document access and public review. On November 17, 1994, we held apublic meeting to present the findings of the draft public health assessment and to gather thepublic's comments on the draft document. To announce this meeting, we included a meetingannouncement/health assessment fact sheet in the front of each document copy we distributed,and community leaders delivered 900 fact sheets to nearby residences. In addition, FHRS' publicinformation staff contacted media representatives in Jacksonville and, on November 17, theFlorida Times-Union (Jacksonville) published a story about the draft health assessment andannounced the meeting. Approximately 80 adults attended the public meeting, 24 of whom gavecomments on both health-related and nonhealth-related issues. We also solicited public commentsby mail through December 16. As of December 23, we had received nine written responses,mostly from area residents. The following is a summary of the public's comments (in bold) and our responses:

  1. One resident commented that landfill operation began in 1967, not 1965. This had beenestablished in one of the court cases involving the landfill. Another resident commentedthat not all of the houses on site were demolished - some were moved to other locations. Another individual recommended a few other minor, factual changes to the text.

    Thank you for the comments; we have made appropriate corrections in the text. Because thefirst comment involves a date change, it also lessens the exposure period and our estimates forincreased cancer risk. Therefore, we have changed the information in Tables 16-18 to reduce thenumber of years of potential exposure.

  2. One resident commented that children used to swim in the cypress pond, but no longer do so.

    Thank you for this correction. We have changed the text in Conclusion #6 and reduced therecommended sampling frequency in Recommendation #6 to reflect this fact.

  3. Several residents reported health problems from present-day exposure to their privatewell water. These problems include: nausea, diarrhea, headaches, burning eyes whileshowering, cataracts, ear problems, sinus problems, thyroid disease, blood poisoning, badnerves, liver problems, skin rashes, itching skin, allergies, back problems, difficulty healingafter surgery, heart attacks, strokes, cancer, and other health problems. Many residentsare worried that their children's drinking and bathing in this water will harm their health.

    We have added burning eyes while showering, itching skin, blood poisoning, and difficulty healingafter surgery to the health problems listed in the text. The other health problems were already reported.

    We have not been able to identify any potential health problems in children or adults frompresent-day exposure to the groundwater. The Duval County Public Health Unit (CPHU)periodically monitors private wells in the community to ensure the water meets primary drinking water standards.

  4. One resident questioned the safety of the air stripper. When living next to the airstripper, this individual had headaches, sinus problems, and eye irritation whenever the airstripper operated. After this person moved to a home farther away from the air stripper,these symptoms persisted but to a lesser degree. This person had not experienced theseproblems prior to air stripper installation, and has not experienced them since it has beendown for repairs. This individual wanted HRS staff to be aware of these effects, eventhough the HRS analysis found the air stripper was unlikely to harm a person's health.

    Although we did not find the emissions from the air stripper were likely to harm health, we'verecommended that water going into the air stripper continue to be monitored to allow us toidentify potential public health problems, should they develop in the future. We have asked EPAto share with us the sample data they've gathered since the trial run. We will re-evaluate thesedata if any contaminant concentrations measured exceed those measured during the trial run ofthe air stripper.

    We have added eye irritation to the health problems listed in the text. The other health problemswere already reported.

  5. A few residents questioned the cancer risk evaluation in the health assessment, believingthe risk estimates to be much too low.

    We, too, are concerned about the numbers of illnesses, especially cancers, in the community. When we did this assessment, we erred on the side of protecting public health when we made ourestimates. We did this by evaluating only the highest contaminant concentrations for evaluationand using the maximum exposure period that was reasonable. In other words, we always erred onthe side of public health and estimated the worst case exposure. The greatest increased cancerrisk we estimated for any one contaminant is 1 in 1,000. Nevertheless, we do not know all thereis to know about cancer-causing chemicals, nor how all of the chemicals the community wasexposed to interact. This is one reason we have recommended ATSDR perform some kind ofhealth follow-up study. Other reasons are: our analysis indicates health problems, includingcancer, could occur in the community; and, there is a large number of reported illnesses.

  6. One individual strongly disagreed with the methodology of the public health assessment,stating "the overall philosophical approach and methodology presented in the Draft PHAare fundamentally flawed." In particular, this individual believed the health assessmentwas too conservative in using worst-case assumptions, particularly by using maximumconcentrations for each chemical; contradicted EPA guidelines in its use of worst-caseassumptions, which is likely to result in a substantial overestimate of a potential problem; and contradicted ATSDR guidelines in its use of screening values (EMEGs) to predicthealth effects.

    As explained in the text (Public Health Implications Section, Uncertainty in Health Assessments),we did not have sufficient sampling data to know if the maximum values reported were themaximum values the residents were actually exposed to, nor did we have adequate geologic andsample data to predict peak values. We decided to err on the side of protecting public health byusing maximum measured values in our analysis. We cannot know if the resulting risk estimatestruly are upper-bound estimates. Nevertheless, we believe the risk of illness is unlikely to belarger than the risk we have estimated, and may be smaller. Our decisions and conclusions showthat a public health assessment requires the use of scientific and professional judgement; weunderstand readers may not agree with all of our judgements.

    The confusion between EPA risk assessments and public health assessments is understandable. An EPA risk assessment is used to support the selection of cleanup activities at a Superfund site. A public health assessment is a mechanism to assess any current or future public health impactsfrom the release of hazardous substances into the environment, provide the community withinformation on the public health implications of a specific site, identify those populations forwhom further health actions or studies are needed, and make recommendations for actions neededto protect public health. In the public health assessment, we acknowledge the uncertainties of ourassumptions and estimates (Public Health Implications Section, Uncertainty in HealthAssessments) which may lead to an under- or over-estimate of the risk of illness, largely becauseof gaps in the data. We cannot know the magnitude or direction of our presumed errors withoutevaluating the very data that are missing.

    The statement about our using EMEGs (or other comparable values) as predictors of healtheffects is incorrect. In accordance with ATSDR guidelines and as described in the text(Environmental Contamination and Other Hazards Section), we used ATSDR's standardcomparison values to select contaminants of concern for further evaluation. The individualmaking the comment may be confused because when we selected one contaminant of concern inone medium, we reported that contaminant in all other media. This is why some contaminants ofconcern are below their comparison values for a particular medium in Tables 4-12. Carefulexamination of these tables will show each contaminant of concern to be above its standardcomparison value in at least one of these tables, or to have no standard comparison values forinitial screening. In addition, all readers should note that the draft public health assessmentunderwent ATSDR technical review before being released as a public draft document.

  7. One resident asked about the physician education program conducted at St. Vincent'shospital in September 1994 and wanted to know how residents could find out the names ofdoctors who were interested in treating people who had been exposed to chemicals.

    Information about the physician education program can be obtained from HRS by contacting:

          Ms. Julia Winter
          HRS/HSET
          1317 Winewood Boulevard
          Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
          (904) 488-3385

  8. Many residents had questions and comments about the proposed follow-up health study. Suggestions about the type of study residents would like to see include: a study of theincidence of learning disabilities, cancer, and other health problems reported in thecommunity in comparison with the incidence of these problems in a nonexposedcommunity, a biomedical study of the health of past and present community residents, anda tracking of the health problems identified within the community in the present and in the future.

    If ATSDR accepts the recommendation for a follow-up health study, HRS and ATSDR plan tomeet with residents early in 1995 to discuss the options available and the community's needs for ahealth study.

  9. One resident asked about testing for radiation in water and soil.

    EPA has not sampled the groundwater or soil for radioactivity. HRS has recommendedradionuclides be measured in future water samples. The Duval CPHU recently began measuringradionuclides in the private well samples they collect from the Hipps Road area. So far, thosesample results have come back negative. If radionuclides are found in the groundwater in thefuture, HRS will evaluate the need for testing surface water and soil for radioactivity.

  10. A few residents had questions about the adequacy of past sampling around the landfill. Specifically, why was most of the sampling confined to the areas northeast of the site?

    Because groundwater near the site generally flows to the northeast, EPA has focused theirsampling and cleanup efforts northeast of the site. However, we don't believe contaminantmovement in directions west, east, or south of the site has been fully described. We also don'tbelieve enough surface soil, surface water, or sediment samples have been collected around thesite. Therefore, in the health assessment, we have recommended EPA conduct additionalsampling to further investigate potential environmental contamination around the site.

  11. One resident was concerned that contaminant plume boundaries had not changed since they were first delineated years ago.

    In 1989, site contractors collected information needed to delineate the boundaries of thecontaminant plume, northeast of the site, in order to design the cleanup system (Golder 1990). We do not have the hydrogeological expertise to evaluate whether or not the contaminant plumeboundaries have moved significantly since these data were evaluated; this issue is best addressed by EPA.

  12. One resident questioned the purpose and effectiveness of the clay cap. Another residentwas concerned the site contractor had damaged the cap by driving heavy vehicles on it.

    The clay cap has three purposes. First, because the cap covers the fill material, it prevents thesematerials from being blown or washed off site. Second, the cap prevents the mounding ofcontaminated groundwater over the fill material, which subsequently can cause contaminants toflow away from the landfill in all directions. Third, because the cap keeps rainfall out of the fillmaterial, it prevents downward movement of contaminants into the groundwater. However, thecap will not prevent contaminants, already dissolved in the groundwater, from flowinghorizontally away from the site. We do not know if the landfill cap has been damaged; it is EPA'sresponsibility to ensure the cap is periodically checked and remains intact.

  13. A couple of people commented on the landfill's contents. One individual requestedHRS to recommend a more complete source determination be made of the landfill'scontents, so that proper sampling and cleanup can ensue.

    From a public health standpoint, contaminants found on site become important only if there is apoint of human exposure to them. We believe that as long as the cap remains intact, thegroundwater monitoring around the site continues, and EPA collects the additional environmentalsamples we have recommended, we will have adequate information to assess the potential publichealth threat from the site. Therefore, our findings do not support an additional need for furthercharacterization of the landfill contents at this time. In the health assessment, we haverecommended future uses of the site be restricted to those compatible with the remainingcontamination. If site uses were to become incompatible, in terms of potential human exposure,we would consider recommending further site characterization work be performed. For example,if a developer wanted to build homes on the site in the near future, we would likely recommend acomplete source determination be conducted for the site. We do not have the expertise toevaluate whether or not further site characterization is needed to adequately clean up the site; thisissue is best addressed by EPA.

  14. One individual reported difficulty in obtaining recent site documents from EPA, andrequested HRS's help in obtaining recent sampling data.

    We have requested recent sampling information from EPA and will share whatever data we obtainwith the public, upon request.

  15. Several residents had questions about testing of their private well water.

    The Duval CPHU is responsible for testing private wells in the Hipps Road area. Nearbyresidents should call the Duval CPHU, at 630-3272, if they want to have their well water tested. Presently, there is no charge for the sampling or analyses. It takes several weeks to get the watersample results back from the laboratory in Jacksonville.

  16. Many residents had questions about when hookup to city water on their streets wouldoccur. Others had comments about the high cost of hookup.

    The community leaders have information about the schedule for bringing city water to the HippsRoad neighborhood and the availability of financial assistance for residents unable to pay for hookup.

  17. One resident asked about current activities at the site.

    The air stripper has been shut down since September because of filtration problems in one of theholding ponds. The construction equipment and materials are on site to fix the filtration problem.

    Table of Contents

  18.   
 
USA.gov: The U.S. Government's Official Web PortalDepartment of Health and Human Services
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 4770 Buford Hwy NE, Atlanta, GA 30341
Contact CDC: 800-232-4636 / TTY: 888-232-6348

A-Z Index

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
  7. G
  8. H
  9. I
  10. J
  11. K
  12. L
  13. M
  14. N
  15. O
  16. P
  17. Q
  18. R
  19. S
  20. T
  21. U
  22. V
  23. W
  24. X
  25. Y
  26. Z
  27. #