PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
PFOHL BROTHERS LANDFILL
CHEEKTOWAGA, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK
In order to determine what environmental contaminants may be a concern, ATSDR has evaluated all of the available environmental monitoring data (1979 to present). Environmental data was taken from references 1-4, 6-10, 12-13, 19, and 23-24. Comparison values were used as a basis for evaluation of the data and to determine which contaminants should be looked at more closely. Comparison values are health-based estimate of concentrations in environmental media below which no known or anticipated adverse effect on the health of persons should occur. The values allow an adequate margin of safety. Appendix 2 contains a list and descriptions of the comparison values used in this Public Health Assessment.
A contaminant is selected for further evaluation if the contaminant in a valid environmental sample exceeds comparison values. The presence of a contaminant on the list in the Appendix 3 Tables does not mean that either exposure to the contaminant or adverse health effects has occurred or will occur. Inclusion in the lists indicates only that the potential for human exposures to the selected contaminants and the potential for adverse human health effects as a result of any exposures to the selected contaminants will be discussed in more detail in later sections of this Public Health Assessment.
Appendix 3, Tables 1-13 list the contaminants detected above health comparison values in the various waste materials and environmental media (soil, leachate, surface water, sediment, and groundwater) found on and off the proposed Pfohl Brothers Landfill NPL site. In addition to comparing the detected concentrations of metals found in surface soils (0-3 inches below the surface), sub-surface soils (greater than three inches below the surface) and sediment to health based comparison values, it is also prudent to compare the detected levels to background or normal soil/sediment levels. Appendix 3, Table 14 lists the maximum concentration of each metal detected above health comparison values in surface soil, sub-surface soil, and sediments (on-site and off-site). In addition, Appendix 3, Table 14 lists the normal range of metal concentrations found in soils typical to the Pfohl Brothers Landfill area. This type of comparison helps identify which of the metals detected are not normal and may be site-related.
A. On-Site Contamination
The environmental investigations conducted by the Erie County Department of Environment and Planning, the EPA contractor, a contractor for the Pfohl Brothers Landfill owners, NYSDEC, and NYSDOH have identified various waste materials and various contaminants in the on-site soils, leachate, surface water, sediment, and groundwater (1-7). This part of the Pfohl Brothers Landfill Public Health Assessment will identify what contaminants were detected above health comparison values in the waste material and environmental media (i.e., soil, leachate, surface water, sediment, and groundwater).
1. Waste Material
Samples were taken from the waste material found in the drums located throughout the site and from waste material laying on the surface of the landfill and buried in the landfill. Analysis of these samples indicate that the waste material at the Pfohl Brothers Landfill contain a vast variety of contaminants (1). Appendix 3, Tables 1 and 2 list the contaminants detected in the waste material above health comparison values. The contaminants detected most frequently above health comparison values and above background soil levels (i.e. metals) were phenol [<0.26-2,600 milligrams of phenol per kilogram of material (mg/Kg)], carcinogenic PAHs (<0.02-621 mg/Kg), non-carcinogenic PAHs (<0.02-1,236 mg/Kg), dibenzofuran (<0.02-49,000 mg/Kg), PCBs (<0.05-10,064 mg/Kg), aluminum (9-108,00 mg/Kg), arsenic (<0.4-575 mg/Kg), barium (<0.5-8,860 mg/Kg), cadmium (<0.5-39.4 mg/Kg), chromium (<0.5-18,100 mg/Kg), copper (<0.5-29,400 mg/Kg), lead (<0.5-36,000 mg/Kg), mercury (<0.05-4.4 mg/Kg), and zinc (<0.5-35,300 mg/Kg).
[NOTE: PAHs are a group of chemicals that are formed during the incomplete burning of coal, oil, gas, wood, garbage, or other organic substances (22). They are also typically found in tars. There are more than 100 different PAH compounds. PAHs normally considered to be carcinogenic are benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(j)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene.]
The most common waste material found at the Pfohl Brothers Landfill was the phenol tar (1). Samples of the tar were taken to the NYSDOH laboratory and were analyzed very extensively. In order to determine whether the tar contained any dioxins, the NYSDOH laboratory had to use chemical extraction procedures (i.e., benzene and acetone) before dioxins could be detected. The analytical results indicated that various dioxins, including 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin, are contained in the tar. If the NYSDOH lab had not conducted the chemical extraction procedure, it is very unlikely the dioxins would have been detected. Because the chemical extraction procedure used by the NYSDOH laboratory are not a natural process (whether in the environment or inside a biological organism), the dioxins are not likely to move out of the tar matrix because the dioxins are bound very tightly to the tar. Therefore, the dioxin levels detected in the tar material will not be discussed in this public health assessment.
Contaminants found in waste material at the surface of the landfill are of particular interest to public health because people could easily come in contact with the material. Therefore, the analytical results of the exposed waste material are listed separately in Appendix 3, Table 1 (1). The contaminants detected in the exposed waste material which significantly exceed health comparison values (at least one order of magnitude above health comparison values) and normal background concentrations were dibenzofuran (<0.02-1,800 mg/Kg), carcinogenic PAHs (<0.02-621 mg/Kg), non-carcinogenic PAHs (<0.02-1,236 mg/Kg), aluminum (9-2,120 mg/Kg), and cadmium (1-1.9 mg/Kg).
2. Soil
Many of the organic and metal contaminants detected in the waste material were also detected in the soil samples taken in Areas B and C (1). No contaminants were detected in soil samples taken from Area A above health comparison values or above background levels (1).
Appendix 3, Table 3 presents the contaminants detected above health comparison values in surface soils (1). The surface soil samples were taken from foot pathways that bisect the landfill (people took these paths to get to Aero Lake). The contaminants frequently found (more than once) in these samples which significantly exceeded health comparison values and background levels were dibenzofuran (<0.05-13 mg/Kg), carcinogenic PAHs (<0.05-31 mg/Kg), barium (<0.5-2,220 mg/Kg), cadmium (<0.5-28 mg/Kg), chromium (4-84 mg/Kg), copper (6-1,057 mg/Kg), lead (2-985 mg/Kg), manganese (59-1,770 mg/Kg), mercury (<0.1-6.2 mg/Kg), and zinc (36-2,770 mg/Kg).
Surface soil samples were analyzed for the most toxic forms of dioxins and furans (e.g., 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin). The analytical results indicate that none of the analyzed dioxins or furans were detected above health comparison values.
The contaminants frequently found in sub-surface soils significantly above health comparison values and background levels (see Appendix 3, Tables 4 and 14) were dibenzofuran (<0.1-1,900 mg/Kg), carcinogenic PAHs (<0.5-102 mg/Kg), non-carcinogenic PAHs (<0.5-158 mg/Kg), PCBs (<0.05-3.7 mg/Kg), barium (<0.5-5,080 mg/Kg), cadmium (<0.5-8 mg/Kg), lead (<0.5-2,340 mg/Kg), and zinc (13-5,850 mg/Kg).
During the RI, a "walk over" gamma radiation survey was conducted throughout the landfill. In addition, the subsurface sources of elevated gamma radiation were investigated during the test pit excavations (7). The survey and sample results indicate that the elevated gamma readings are scattered randomly throughout Areas B and C. Upon reviewing the sampling information, ATSDR's radiation expert concluded that the elevated gamma radiation is not at levels of health concern provided people did not remove the discrete objects which are the radiation sources. By the summer of 1994, proper disposal of all of the accessible radiation sources had been completed.
3. Leachate
Leachate is water that has come in contact with buried waste material and has moved through the waste material and surrounding soil matrix to the surface of the landfill. The term "leachate" does not refer to groundwater or spring water.
Over 40 leachate seeps have been identified at the Pfohl Brothers Landfill. The first time leachate samples were collected and analyzed was in 1979. The Erie County Department of Environment and Planning took seven samples of leachate seeps in May 1979 (2). Since that initial investigation, every other investigation has taken and analyzed leachate samples (1-6). Appendix 3, Table 5 lists what contaminants were detected during any of the investigations above health comparison levels. The contaminants frequently found in aqueous leachate samples significantly above health comparison values were dibenzofuran (<0.01-0.063 mg/L), carcinogenic PAHs (<0.006-0.022 mg/L), aluminum (0.04-303 mg/L), arsenic (<0.001-0.017 mg/L), barium (<0.05-10,000 mg/L), cadmium (<0.003-0.122 mg/L), chromium (<0.002-0.426 mg/L), lead (0.007-1.64 mg/L), manganese (0.123-16.1 mg/L), and nickel (<0.013-1.26 mg/L).
Several pesticides were detected in samples of leachate seeps from the Pfohl Brothers Landfill. Generally, the concentrations of the pesticides were at or below health comparison values.
4. Surface Water
Rainfall run-off and leachate seep drain into several drainage ditches and wetlands located on the Pfohl Brothers Landfill. Analytical results of samples taken from the on-site drainage ditches and wetlands did not detect any organic compounds above health comparison values (1). Metals were detected in the surface water samples above health comparison values (see Appendix 3, Table 6). The metals frequently found in the surface water samples significantly above health comparison values were barium (<0.01-1.83 mg/L), cadmium (<0.003-0.035 mg/L), lead (<0.002-2.44 mg/L), and manganese (0.054-1.83 mg/L).
5. Sediments
Sediments are soils found under surface water and leachate. Sediment samples have been taken from on-site leachate seep areas and drainage ditches (1). Analytical results of these samples indicate that the contaminants frequently found above health comparison values and background levels were dibenzofuran (<0.37-2.5 mg/Kg), carcinogenic PAHs (<0.37-17.1 mg/Kg), cadmium (<0.9-6 mg/Kg), lead (11-1,180 mg/Kg), and zinc (48-910 mg/Kg).
6. Groundwater
Appendix 3, Table 8 lists the contaminants detected above health comparison values in groundwater samples taken from beneath the Pfohl Brothers Landfill (1, 4). This table incorporates the results of all the on-site groundwater investigations conducted to date. The contaminants found frequently in on-site groundwater samples significantly above health comparison values were benzene (<0.002-0.29 mg/L), dibenzofuran (<0.01-0.02 mg/L), bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (<0.01-0.84 mg/L), PCBs (<0.0005-0.11 mg/L, only detected twice), barium (0.025-1.53 mg/L), chromium (<0.001-0.728 mg/L), lead (<0.002-0.369 mg/L), manganese (<0.0005-3.45 mg/L).
The first time an attempt was made to collect groundwater samples from underneath the Pfohl Brothers Landfill was during the investigation conducted for the landfill owners (4). The consultant hired for the landfill owners installed fourteen very shallow monitoring wells. Analytical results of samples taken from these wells did not detect any volatile or semi-volatile organic compounds above health comparison values. Metals were found in the groundwater samples above health comparison values.
The next investigation of groundwater underneath the Pfohl Brothers Landfill was conducted during the State of New York supported RI process (1989-1993) (1, 5). A total of 18 monitoring wells were installed (monitoring wells number 2S, 2D, 3S, 3D, 4S, 4D, 5S, 5D, 8S, 9S, 10S, 11S, 12S, 13S, 14S, 15S, 16S, and 17S). [NOTE: The monitoring wells installed for the Ecology and Environment investigation were not used during the RI.] The State of New York RI wells were designed and constructed so that samples from these wells would represent both the unconsolidated and bedrock aquifers. Analytical results of samples taken from these on-site wells frequently detected benzene, dibenzofuran, bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, PCBs (only detected twice), barium, chromium, lead, and manganese above health comparison values.
It is not possible to conduct any trend analysis on the groundwater analytical results because the monitoring wells were not consistently sampled and analyzed for all of the compounds on the EPA Target Compound List over a one year period (i.e., sample and analysis from each well every quarter). The on-site monitoring wells have been sampled, on average, less than two times. The two State of New York RODs require routine monitoring of wells during the long-term remediation of the Pfohl Brothers Landfill.
7. Landfill Gas
When waste materials decay in a landfill, methane and other gases can be produced. If volatile organic compounds are in the landfill, the volatile organic compounds will be carried along with the methane. These gases ("landfill gas") can migrate through the sub-surface soils or vent to the atmosphere.
From April - June 1994 (ten sampling events), the generation of "landfill gas" was monitored (combustible gas meter, oxygen meter, photoionization detector, and organic vapor analyzer) in six gas probes (25). The results indicate that the Pfohl Brothers Landfill is not generating a significant amount of "landfill gas". Five of the six probes never contained any significant explosive and organic gases (e.g., above 50 percent the lower explosive limit).
Only gas probe number five contained significant amounts of explosive or organic gases. This probe is located in the middle of Area C (25). No dwellings are located near this probe.
Environmental monitoring (ambient air monitoring) conducted when test pits were dug into the landfill for the RI did not detect any significant levels of explosive gases (1).
Based on the gas probe monitoring results and other on-site gas monitoring activities, the Pfohl Brothers Landfill is not generating significant quantities of "landfill gases". Therefore, it is not likely that "landfill gases" would be able to migrate off-site.
8. Ambient Air
During the remedial activities at the Pfohl Brothers Landfill, ambient air samples were taken (26). In addition, remedial worker exposure to airborne contaminants were monitored with personal air sampling devices (26). Analytical results of the ambient air and personal air samples did not detect any contaminants above health comparison values.
B. Off-Site Contamination
The environmental investigations conducted by the Erie County Department of Environment and Planning, EPA contractor, NYSDEC, and NYSDOH have identified contaminants in the off-site soils, surface water, sediment, and groundwater above health comparison values (1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10). These contaminants may be site-related. This part of the Pfohl Brothers Landfill Public Health Assessment will identify what contaminants were detected above health comparison values and background levels in the environmental media (i.e., soil, surface water, sediment, and groundwater). This section will also discuss the results of the fish, radon gas, and private drinking water well investigations.
1. Soil
Surface and sub-surface soil samples have been taken beyond the boundaries of the Pfohl Brothers Landfill (1, 8). The surface soil samples were taken from residential yards and gardens near the landfill. Sub-surface soil samples were taken at the monitoring well locations and near the southern boundary of Area C.
Analytical results of the surface soil samples indicate that arsenic (<2-21 mg/Kg), barium (67-801 mg/Kg), cadmium (0.6-6.2 mg/Kg), and zinc (47-969 mg/Kg) were the only contaminants detected above health comparison values and background levels (see Appendix 3, Tables 9 and 14) (8). No dioxins or PCBs were detected above health comparison values. Spacial analysis of the arsenic, barium cadmium, and zinc analytical results did not demonstrate a pattern. In addition, arsenic, barium, cadmium, and zinc only exceeded health comparison and background levels a few times. Therefore, the scattered elevated detections of arsenic, barium, cadmium, and zinc indicate that there is not a significant contamination problem in off-site surface soils.
Analytical results of the off-site subsurface soil samples did not detect any contaminants above health comparison values and background levels (see Appendix 3, Tables 10 and 14) (8).
2. Surface Water
Surface water samples were collected from Aero Lake and Ellicott Creek during the State of New York sponsored RI process (1989-1993) (1, 8). Analytical results of the samples found bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (<0.01-0.022 mg/L), barium (0.38-0.87 mg/L), and cadmium (<0.005-0.009 mg/L) above health comparison values (see Appendix 3, Table 11). The barium and cadmium were detected only once above their respective health comparison values (0.7 and 0.007 mg/L) in samples from Aero Lake.
3. Sediment
Sediment samples were also taken from Aero Lake and Ellicott Creek during the State of New York sponsored RI (1, 8). Analytical results of the samples found carcinogenic PAHs, aluminum, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and vanadium above health comparison values. However, analytical results of sediment samples taken up-stream from the Pfohl Brothers Landfill indicate that none of the chemicals detected in the Aero Lake and Ellicott Creek samples are above normal background levels.
4. Fish
NYSDEC collected and analyzed a total of 16 composite fish samples obtained from Aero Lake, "Aero Creek" (an unnamed tributary to Ellicott Creek from the northern boundary of the landfill), and Ellicott Creek (10). Based on the analytical results, it does not appear that the fish in the vicinity of the Pfohl Brothers Landfill contain concentrations of PCBs, organochlorine pesticides, dioxins, dibenzofuran, and mercury above background or health comparison values.
5. Radon
NYSDOH provided radon test canisters to people living on Pfohl Road. Laboratory analysis of the canisters were conducted by the EPA laboratory. The analytical results indicate that there is no radon in the homes near the Pfohl Brothers Landfill above the guidelines established by EPA.
6. Groundwater
Nineteen monitoring wells were installed beyond the boundaries of the Pfohl Brothers Landfill during the New York State sponsored RI (monitoring well numbers 1S, 1D, 6S, 6D, 7S, 7D, 18S, 18D, 19S, 19D, 20S, 20D, 21S, 21D, 22S, 22D, 23S, 23D, and 23DD). Analytical results of samples taken from these wells indicate that benzene (<0.02-0.005 mg/L), tetrachloroethane (<0.001- 0.001 mg/L), bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (<0.01-0.042 mg/L), lead (<0.005-0.034 mg/L), manganese (<7-2.2 mg/L) and chromium (<0.01-2.2 mg/L) were detected above health comparison values (1, 8, 20, 20, 20).
In addition to collecting samples from monitoring wells, NYSDOH collected samples from residential basement sumps of homes adjacent to the Pfohl Brothers Landfill (9). Analytical results of these samples did not find any contaminants above health comparison levels except trichloroethene. Trichloroethene was detected in one sump at 0.005 mg/L. The trichloroethene may be from solvents or other materials used in the home. Trichloroethene was not detected in any of the monitoring wells adjacent to this home.
It is not possible to conduct any trend analysis on the groundwater analytical results because the monitoring wells were not consistently sampled and analyzed for all of the compounds on the EPA Target Compound List over a one year period (i.e., sample and analysis from each well every quarter). The off-site monitoring wells have been sampled, on average, less than two times. As required by the two State of New York RODs, a schedule of routine monitoring of wells will be a part of the long-term remediation of the Pfohl Brothers Landfill.
7. Private Drinking Water Wells
Prior to 1985, the residences adjacent to the Pfohl Brothers Landfill obtained their potable water from private wells. Since 1985, potable water for these residences was obtained from the local municipal drinking water system.
In May, June, and October 1980, the Erie County Department of Environment and Planning sampled seven of the private wells adjacent to the landfill (one on Rein Road, one on Pfohl Road, three on Aero Drive, one on Transit Road, and one on Scott Road) (2). Analytical results of the first sampling event indicated that some of the wells may have been contaminated with PCBs (0.0001-0.0014 mg/L). However, when the wells were resampled again in June and October, PCBs were not detected (<0.00005 mg/L).
In addition to the eight private drinking water wells adjacent to the Pfohl Brothers Landfill, the Erie County Department of Environment and Planning obtained a sample from a private well on South Youngs Road (northwest of the landfill) in May and October 1980 (2). Analytical results of the May sample detected PCBs (0.0013 mg/L). However, analytical results of the October sample did not detect any PCBs (<0.00005 mg/L). The South Youngs Road well is located up-gradient and cross-gradient of the Pfohl Brothers Landfill.
PCBs do not migrate very rapidly in groundwater (27). Because of the migration characteristics of PCBs, it is unlikely that wells contaminated with PCBs would not be contaminated one month later or even five months later. In addition, the second highest PCB concentrations reported were from a well (South Youngs Road) that could not become contaminated because of the Pfohl Brothers Landfill (the well is not hydrologically connected to the landfill or the other private drinking water wells adjacent to the landfill). Therefore, there is some question as to the validity of the May 1980 PCB analytical results.
In addition to PCBs, the Erie County Department of Environment and Planning also analyzed some of the October private drinking water well samples for metals (2). Cadmium (<0.01-0.012 mg/L), barium (<0.7-6.2 mg/L), and manganese (<0.02-0.06 mg/L) were detected in some wells above health comparison values (0.007 mg/L, 0.7 mg/L, and 0.05 mg/L, respectively). Most of these wells provided drinking water to businesses.
During the EPA contractor investigation (1982) of the Pfohl Brothers Landfill, water samples were taken from four private drinking water wells adjacent to the landfill (two on Pfohl Road and two on Scott Place) (6). Two of the private drinking water wells sampled in 1980 were sampled during this investigation (i.e., the Scott Place wells). In the 1982 EPA study, no metals above health comparison values were detected from the two wells which were previously sampled in 1980. Analytical results of the other two well samples (1982) indicate only manganese (0.03-0.1 mg/L) was detected in one of the wells above health comparison values (i.e., 0.05 mg/L). This private drinking water well was located on Pfohl Road. No PCBs or other organic compounds were detected above health comparison values in any of the private drinking water wells.
In 1991 and 1993, NYSDOH sampled several private drinking water wells located approximately one quarter mile northeast of the Pfohl Brothers Landfill (12, 13). The analytical results of these samples did not detect any contaminants above health comparison values. These wells are up-gradient of the landfill.
In 1994, NYSDOH sampled seven private drinking water wells located on Rehm Road, approximately one mile south of the landfill (21). Analytical results of these samples did not detect any site-related contaminants above health comparison values.
C. Quality Assurance And Quality Control
ATSDR was able to obtain quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) information and data for all of the chemical analytical data presented in this Public Health Assessment except for the samples taken by the Erie County Department of Environment and Planning (1980). As discussed above in the private drinking water well sub-section of this Public Health Assessment, there is some question whether the May 1980 sampling results are accurate. QA/QC information and data for those samples would have been useful in determining whether PCBs were really in the private drinking water wells.
The QA/QC information for the other environmental investigations indicates appropriate QA/QC was performed and that the analytical results reported by these investigation are likely to be valid.
D. Physical Hazards
Prior to 1990, access to the Pfohl Brothers Landfill was not restricted. It has been reported to ATSDR that people frequently walked and played on the landfill. During this time period (prior to 1990), various deteriorated drums and waste material (e.g., construction debris, tires, and broken applicants) protruded through the soil surface. These drums and waste materials were a physical hazard (tripping, puncture, and cut) to anyone entering the landfill.
In 1990, NYSDEC constructed a fence that surrounds most of the landfill and effectively restricted access to the site. In addition, all of the exposed drums were removed from the site and properly disposed of by the spring of 1994. These actions have significantly reduced the physical hazards at the Pfohl Brothers Landfill.
E. Review of Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI) Data
To identify possible facilities that could contribute to the contamination at the proposed Pfohl Brothers Landfill NPL site or the facilities discharges that could increase an individuals exposure to site-related contaminants, ATSDR searched the 1987 to 1992 files of the TRI databases (28). TRI was developed by the EPA from chemical release information (air, water, and soil) provided by certain industries.
Several limitations of TRI data should be noted (29). The air release data in TRI may be estimates or actual measurements. Many of the reported data are estimates based on conservative (overestimated) scenarios. Consequently, the levels of emissions recorded in TRI are often biased on the high side. In addition, reporting is restricted to specific chemicals that are used or released above specified amounts. Finally, it is believed there have been and still are industries that do not report releases. Smaller industries may not be aware that reporting requirements exist or that they are responsible for such reports (29).
Appendix 1, Figure 3 delineates the location of facilities which reported TRI environmental discharges from 1987-1992. The search of TRI indicates there are three facilities, within a two and one half mile radius, which discharged site-related compounds into the environment.
The facility closest to the Pfohl Brothers Landfill is Pratt & Lambert, Inc. According to TRI, Pratt & Lambert, Inc., released approximately 13,532 pounds (average) per year of ethylbenzene from 1988-1992, 16,300 pounds (average) per year of toluene from 1988-1989, and 19,000 pounds of acetone in 1990. It is unlikely these small releases would have any affect on the Pfohl Brothers Landfill or community adjacent to the landfill.
The next closest facility to the landfill is Reichhold Chemical, Inc.. This facility reported that it released approximately 186 pounds (average) per year of toluene from 1988-1992. It is unlikely these small releases would have any affect on the Pfohl Brothers Landfill or community adjacent to the landfill.
The third facility is Quebecor Printing (Arcata Graphics). As indicated on Appendix 1, Figure 3, this facility is nearly 2.5 miles south of the Pfohl Brothers Landfill. According to TRI, Quebecor Printing released approximately 1,458,850 pounds (average) per year of toluene from 1988-1992. Given the distance of this facility from the Pfohl Brothers Landfill, it is unlikely these releases would have any affect on the community adjacent to the landfill.
In this section of the Public Health Assessment, the possible environmental exposure pathways are evaluated to help determine whether individuals have been, are being, or will be exposed to site-related contaminants. The pathway analysis consists of five elements:
An environmental exposure pathway is considered complete when there is good evidence that all five elements exist (30). The presence of a completed pathway indicates that human exposure to contaminants has occurred in the past, is occurring, or will occur in the future. When one or more of the five elements of an exposure pathway are missing, that pathway is considered potential. The presence of a potential exposure pathway indicates that human exposure to contaminants could have occurred in the past, could be occurring, or could occur in the future. An exposure pathway can be eliminated from consideration if at least one of the five elements is missing and will never be present. If there is uncertainty about the site-relatedness of the contaminants of concern in an exposure pathway, the pathway will be evaluated as if the contaminants were site-related.
The completed, potential, and no known environmental exposure pathways are discussed below.
A. Completed Environmental Exposure Pathways
There is evidence that people may have been exposed to waste material (e.g., exposed drums) and contaminated on-site surface soils through ingestion, inhalation, and skin contact at the proposed Pfohl Brothers Landfill NPL site (the "Waste and On-Site Surface Soil" pathway). The formerly exposed drums were also a physical hazard to people who walked on to the landfill (the "Physical Hazard" pathway). In addition, people may have been exposed (ingestion, inhalation, and skin contact) to site-related contaminants when they swam and played at Aero Lake (the "Aero Lake" pathway).
Information and data obtained by ATSDR indicates that there are currently no completed environmental exposures pathways at or near the proposed Pfohl Brother NPL site.
1. Waste and On-Site Surface Soil
Analysis of waste material in exposed drums and on-site surface soil samples (Areas B and C) demonstrates dibenzofuran, carcinogenic PAHs, non-carcinogenic PAHs, aluminum, barium, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, and zinc frequently above levels of health concern. According to local citizens, children frequently played and walked through the landfill areas. In addition, it has been reported to ATSDR that children may have played with waste material at the landfill and waste material that migrated from the landfill onto residential yard borders. Individuals, primarily children, may have been exposed to the waste material and surface soil contamination (Areas B and C) via inadvertent consumption and skin contact with the waste material and soil on hands or food items, mouthing of objects, or the ingestion of nonfood items (pica). In addition, these individuals could have inhaled the soil contaminants whenever the on-site waste material and soil were distributed (e.g., dust and particulate matter).
People employed at the landfill could have been exposed (inhalation, ingestion, and skin contact) in the past to waste material during waste disposal operations. The extent of exposure would depend upon the personal protection equipment the workers wore (i.e., gloves, protective clothing, and respirator) and the length of contact, both of which would affect the amount of waste material ingested, inhaled, or accumulated on the skin.
It is presently unlikely that people can be exposed to on-site waste material and surface soil contamination because the exposed drums and the phenol tars have been removed from the site and properly disposed of. In addition, the fence surrounding most of the landfill should restrict assess to the landfill. Therefore, the potential for people to be exposed to any remaining surface soil contamination has been reduced. Once the landfill has been capped (as required by the New York State ROD), the potential for people to be exposed to surface soil contamination will be reduced even more.
The State of New York requires site-remedial workers at the Pfohl Brothers Landfill to wear the appropriate personal protection equipment to prevent exposures. In addition, the remedial workers are monitored to assure they are not exposed to site-related contaminants at levels of health concern.
Analysis of soil samples indicate there are not any contaminants at levels of health concern in Area A.
2. Physical Hazards
Prior to 1990, access to the Pfohl Brothers Landfill was not restricted. It has been reported to ATSDR that people frequently walked and played on the landfill. During this time period (prior to 1990), various deteriorated drums and waste material (e.g., construction debris, tires, and broken applicants) protruded through the soil surface. These drums and waste materials were a physical hazard (tripping, puncture, and cut) to anyone entering the landfill. ATSDR does not have any information which indicates that physical injuries have occurred. This pathway is considered completed because there was a high potential for injuries to occur.
In 1990, NYSDEC constructed a fence that prevented people from entering the landfill from south, east, and west; the most likely paths of entry. Therefore, access to the landfill was restricted. In addition, all of the exposed drums were removed from the site and properly disposed of by the spring of 1994. These actions have significantly reduced the physical hazards at the Pfohl Brothers Landfill.
3. Aero Lake
Analytical results of surface water and sediment samples from Aero Lake demonstrates bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (in surface water only), carcinogenic PAHs (in sediment only), barium, cadmium, and lead occasionally above levels of health concern. According to local citizens, people swam, fished, and played in and around Aero Lake. These individuals could have been exposed to the contaminants during these activities through ingestion, inhalation, and skin contact. However, such exposures are not likely to occur on a continuous bases.
Since the south, east, and west sides of the landfill were fenced, access to Aero Lake through the landfill has been restricted. The most direct and easiest route of access to Aero Lake was across Area B of the landfill. Therefore, it is likely that the frequency of human exposure to contaminants in Aero Lake has been reduced even more than in the past.
B. Possible Environmental Exposure Pathways
People could have been potentially exposed to site-related contaminants via groundwater; on-site leachate, surface water, sediment. In addition, people could have been exposed to radiation if they removed the sources of radiation from the landfill.
1. Groundwater
Analysis of private drinking water well samples taken by the Erie County Department of Environment and Planning and an EPA contractor indicate that the wells may have been contaminated with PCBs, barium, cadmium, and manganese. As discussed previously, there is some question as to the validity of the 1980 PCB analytical results. In addition, it is not possible to determine the distribution of metals in the groundwater because the monitoring wells were not consistently sampled and analyzed for all of the compounds on the EPA Target Compound List over a one year period (i.e., sample and analysis from each well every quarter). The on- and off-site monitoring wells have been sampled, on average, less than two times. As required by the two State of New York RODs, a schedule of routine monitoring of wells will be a part of the long-term remediation of the Pfohl Brothers Landfill. This monitoring effort will help clarify whether metals have migrated off-site and to what extent.
All of the dwellings near the landfill were connected to the municipal water supply system by the end of 1985. If people were exposed to contaminated groundwater from their private drinking water wells, this exposure pathway stopped by 1985 because the municipal drinking water supply is not contaminated with any site-related compounds.
In 1994, NYSDOH took samples from active private drinking water wells one mile south of the landfill. These wells are probably not down-gradient of the landfill. In addition, NYSDOH has sampled some active wells northeast of the landfill. These wells are probably up-gradient of the landfill. Analytical results of these samples indicate the wells were not contaminated with any site-related compounds above health comparison values. Therefore, it is unlikely people who obtain drinking water from these wells were or are currently being exposed to site-related contaminants. If the remedial activities outlined in the New York State ROD are appropriately designed, constructed, and maintained, the potential for future exposures to contaminated groundwater should be reduced.
2. On-Site Leachate, Surface Water, and Sediment
Analysis of on-site leachate, surface water, and sediment samples indicated that dibenzofuran, carcinogenic PAHs, aluminum, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, nickel, and zinc were frequently detected above health comparison values. Prior to the installation of the fence, people could have inadvertently consumed and inhaled the contaminants in these on-site environmental media. Inadvertent skin contact could have also occurred. However, such exposures were not likely to have occurred very frequently.
In 1990, NYSDEC constructed a fence that surrounded most of the landfill and effectively restricted access to the site. This has significantly reduced the potential for people to come in contact with contaminated on-site leachate, surface water, and sediment.
3. Radiation
During the RI, a "walk over" gamma radiation survey was conducted throughout the landfill. In addition, the subsurface sources of elevated gamma radiation were investigated during the test pit excavations. The survey and sample results indicated that elevated gamma readings were scattered randomly throughout Areas B and C. Upon reviewing the sampling information, ATSDR's radiation expert concluded that the elevated gamma radiation was not at levels of health concern provided people did not remove the discrete objects which were the radiation sources.
If people removed the discrete objects which were the radiation sources, they could have been exposed to elevated gamma radiation. The radiation exposure would have continued as long as the source was kept near the individual. ATSDR does not have any information which indicates that people have removed the radiation sources. This potential environmental exposure pathway is discussed to inform the public of the possible concerns if someone had removed a radiation source from the landfill.
By the summer of 1994, proper disposal of all of the accessible radiation sources had been completed. Therefore, the potential for human exposure to site-related gamma radiation has been significantly reduced.
C. No Apparent Environmental Exposure Pathways
Analysis of off-site surface and subsurface soil samples indicates there is no significant contamination of these environmental media. Therefore, it is unlikely that people were or could be presently exposed to contaminants of health concern.
Analysis of ambient air and remedial worker breathing zones did not detect any contaminants above health comparison values. Therefore, it is unlikely that people were or are currently being exposed to contaminants of health concern.
Monitoring of landfill gas probes indicate the Pfohl Brothers Landfill is not generating any significant amounts of "landfill gas." Therefore, it is unlikely that "landfill gas" has migrated or will migrate into the dwellings near the landfill.
Analytical results of fish samples did not detect concentrations of PCBs, organochlorine pesticides, dioxins, dibenzofuran, and mercury above background or health comparison values. Because the fish did not contain any of the site-related compounds which are easily bioaccumulated, it is unlikely the fish would contain any of the other site-related contaminants at levels of health concern. Therefore, it is unlikely that anyone was or is currently being exposed to site-related contaminants by ingesting Aero Lake or Ellicott Creek fish.
A. Toxicological Evaluation
Introduction
The contaminants of concern released into the environment at the Pfohl Brothers Landfill site have the potential to cause adverse health effects. However, for adverse health effects to occur the pathway for exposure must be completed. A release does not always result in exposure. A person can only be exposed to a contaminant if they come in contact with the contaminant. Health effects resulting from the interaction of an individual with a hazardous substance in the environment depend on several factors. One is the route of exposure: that is, whether the chemical is breathed; consumed with food, soil, or water; or whether it contacts the skin. Another factor is the dose to which a person is exposed, and the amount of exposure dose that is actually absorbed. Mechanisms by which chemicals are altered in the environment or inside the body, as well as the combination (types) of chemicals are also important. Once exposure occurs, characteristics such as age, sex, nutritional status, genetics, life style, and health status of the exposed individual influence how the contaminants are absorbed, distributed, metabolized, and excreted. Together those factors and characteristics determine the health effects that may occur as a result of exposure to a contaminant. Much variation in those mechanisms exists among individuals. For Example; all children mouth or ingest nonfood items to some extent. The degree of pica behavior varies widely in the population, and is influenced by nutritional status and the quality of care and supervision (30). Groups that are at increased risk for pica behavior are children aged 1 to 3 years old, children from families of low socioeconomic status, and children with neurologic disorders (e.g., brain damage, epilepsy, and mental retardation).
Health guidelines provide a basis for comparing estimated exposures with concentrations of contaminants in different environmental media (soil, air, water, and food) to which people might be exposed. ATSDR has developed a Minimal Risk Level (MRL) for contaminants commonly found at hazardous waste sites. The MRL is an estimate of daily exposure to a contaminant below which non-cancer, adverse health effects are unlikely to occur. MRLs are developed for different routes of exposure, like inhalation and ingestion, and for length of exposure, such as acute (less than 14 days), intermediate (15 - 364 days), and chronic (365 days or greater). Oral MRLs are expressed in units of milligrams of contaminant per kilogram of body weight per day (mg/kg/day). MRLs are not derived for dermal exposure. The method for deriving MRLs does not include information about cancer, therefore, an MRL does not imply anything about the presence, absence, or level of cancer risk. If an ATSDR MRL is not available as a health value, then EPA's Reference Dose (RfD) is used. The RfD is an estimate of daily human exposure to a contaminant for a lifetime below which (non-cancer) health effects are unlikely to occur (30).
To link the site's human exposure potential with health effects that may occur under site-specific conditions, ATSDR estimates human exposure to the site contaminant from ingestion and/or inhalation of different environmental media (30). The following relationship is used to determine the estimated exposure (via ingestion) to the site contaminant:
where:
Standard body weights for adults and children are 70 kg and 10 kg, respectively. However, to estimate exposure in this public health assessment, the body weight for a child was assumed to be 16 kg, this is because ATSDR does not expect a toddler or infant to have trespassed upon the site. The maximum contaminant concentration detected at a site for a specific medium is used to determine the estimated exposure. Use of the maximum concentration should result in the most conservative evaluation for human health risks. Some exposures are intermittent or irregularly timed (i.e. exposures resulting from trespassing). For those exposures, an exposure factor (EF) is calculated which averages the dose over the exposed period. When unknown the biological absorption from the environmental media (soil, water) is assumed to be 100%.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies chemicals as Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E). This classification defines a specific chemical's ability to cause cancer in humans and animals. According to EPA, Class A chemicals are known human carcinogens, and Class B chemicals are probable human carcinogens. Class B is further subdivided into two groups: Group B1 consists of chemicals for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity from epidemiologic studies in humans; and Group B2 consists of chemicals for which there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals, but inadequate evidence or no data available from epidemiologic studies in humans. Group C chemicals are possible human carcinogens. Group D chemicals are not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity and Group E chemicals are those for which there is evidence that they are not carcinogenic to humans. For carcinogenic substances, EPA has established the Cancer Slope Factor (CSF) as a guideline. The CSF is used to estimate the number of excess cancers resulting from exposure to a contaminant. The National Toxicology Program in its Annual Report on Carcinogens classifies a chemical as a "known human carcinogen" based on sufficient human data. Its classification of a chemical as being "reasonably anticipated to be a carcinogen" (RAC) is based on limited human or sufficient animal data. ATSDR considers the above physical and biological characteristics when developing health guidelines.
An increased excess lifetime cancer risk is not a specific estimate of expected cancers. Rather, it is an estimate of the increase in the probability that a person may develop cancer sometime in his or her lifetime following exposure to that contaminant.
There is no general consensus within the scientific or regulatory communities on what level of estimated excess cancer risk is acceptable. Some have recommended the use of the relatively conservative excess lifetime cancer risk level of one in one million because of the uncertainties in our scientific knowledge about the mechanism of cancer. Others feel that risks that are lower or higher may be acceptable, depending on scientific, economic and social factors. An increased lifetime cancer risk of one in one million or less is generally considered an insignificant increase in cancer risk.
For non-carcinogenic health risks, the contaminant intake was estimated using exposure assumptions for the site conditions. This dose was then compared to a risk reference dose (estimated daily intake of a chemical that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of health effects) developed by ATSDR or EPA.
Non-carcinogenic effects unlike carcinogenic effects are believed to have a threshold, that is, a dose below which adverse effects will not occur. As a result, the current practice is to identify, usually from animal toxicology experiments, a no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL), This is the experimental exposure level in animals at which no adverse toxic effect is observed. The NOAEL is then divided by an uncertainty factor (UF) to yield a risk reference dose. The UF is a number which reflects the degree of uncertainty that exists when experimental animal data are extrapolated to the general human population. The magnitude of the UF takes into consideration various factors such as sensitive sub-populations (for example, children, pregnant women, and the elderly), extrapolation from animals to humans, and the incompleteness of available data. Thus, exposure doses at or below the risk reference dose are not expected to cause adverse health effects because it is selected to be much lower than dosages that do not cause adverse health effects in laboratory animals.
The measure used to describe the potential for non-cancer health effects to occur in an individual is expressed as a ratio of estimated contaminant intake to the risk reference dose. If exposure to the contaminant exceeds the risk reference dose, there is concern for potential non-cancer health effects. As a rule, the greater the ratio of the estimated contaminant intake to the risk reference dose, the greater the level of concern. A ratio equal to or less than one is generally considered an insignificant (minimal) increase in risk.
However, data are very limited on the health effects of multiple contaminant exposure. The effects of multiple contaminant exposure can be additive, synergistic (greater than the sum of the single contaminant exposures), or antagonistic (less than the sum of the single contaminant exposures). Also, simultaneous exposure to contaminants that are known or probable human carcinogens could increase the risk of developing cancer. ATSDR's evaluation of exposures in this public health assessment is limited to individual contaminant exposures; multiple exposures have not been evaluated because an appropriate methodology for doing so has not been established.
The term "past users" will be used to refer to persons who may have come into contact with the contaminants by walking or playing on the landfill and by swimming or playing at Aero Lake. Because of uncertainty regarding duration of exposures for most populations, ATSDR is using the following worse case scenarios: 1) all exposures are intermittent (assuming no more than five months per year due to weather conditions); 2) all exposures occurred in the past (site fenced, exposed drums removed, and access to Aero Lake restricted); 3) individuals exposed at the maximum concentration of the chemical found in the reported medium; 4) an adult incidentally ingests 100 mg/day of soil or sediment and a child incidentally ingests 200 mg/day; 5) an individual using Aero Lake for recreational purposes accidentally intakes 0.25 L/day of surface water; and 6) adults were exposed to the maximum concentration for thirty years, and children to the maximum concentration for a minimum of ten years. Pica child was not evaluated because it is highly unlikely that a child trespassing upon the site would ingest 5000 mg of soil a day. In addition pica is not a behavior expressed by most children.
The completed exposure pathways discussed are our best estimates of possible scenarios based upon what we know about the history of the site. Exposure of former site workers to on-site contaminants has not been evaluated because ATSDR is not aware of the amount of time the past workers would have been exposed to on-site contaminants and not enough information is known about past work practices.
1. On Site
ATSDR has identified two past completed on-site exposure pathways for persons who walked or played upon the landfill (past users). These pathways are: 1) exposure to physical hazards such as deteriorating drums and debris via physical contact and 2) exposure to contaminants in exposed waste material and on-site surface soil via incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation.
2. Off Site
One past completed pathway for past users has been identified by ATSDR: Aero Lake surface water and sediment via incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation.
Skin absorption (following dermal contact) with contaminants is possible. It is difficult to estimate skin exposure and absorption across the skin, but most of the major contaminants of concern do not cross the skin easily. It is believed that dermal contact with the contaminated media is limited.
ATSDR has prepared toxicological profiles for many substances found at hazardous waste sites. Those documents present data and interpret information on the substances. Health guidelines, such as ATSDR's MRL and EPA's RfD, and CSFs are included in the toxicological profiles. Those health guidelines are used by ATSDR health professionals in determining the potential for developing adverse non-carcinogenic health effects and/or cancer from exposure to a hazardous substance. Because ATSDR has no methodology to determine amounts of chemicals absorbed through the skin, the Agency has not developed MRLs for dermal contact. Preparers of this public health assessment have reviewed the profiles for the contaminants of concern at the Pfohl Brothers Landfill site.
Contaminants listed in Appendix 5, Tables 1 and 2 for which the estimated exposure dose exceeded the health guidelines, are classified as carcinogenic or probably carcinogenic, and or which have no guidelines will be discussed further.
3. Aluminum (31)
Aluminum is a silver-white, flexible metal and is found naturally in the earth combined with other elements. It makes up approximately 8% of the earth's surface. Combined with other compounds, it is commonly used in deodorants, antacids, and for the treatment of drinking water. In the metallic form it is used to form appliances, cooking utensils, and building materials.
Aluminum was detected in on-site exposed drum waste, in on-site surface soil, and in Aero Lake sediment at the maximum concentrations of 2,120 mg/kg, 11,000 mg/kg, and 11,200 mg/kg respectively. These concentrations do not exceed the typical background level for aluminum in the state of New York. ATSDR has not developed MRLs. EPA has developed a provisional RfDs for the ingestion of aluminum (1 mg/kg/day).
Past users may have been exposed to aluminum via incidental ingestion, inhalation, or dermal contact while on the landfill or at Aero Lake. Exposure to aluminum is usually not harmful. There is no air data to evaluate the potential from inhalation exposure. Many types of foods contain aluminum because they are grown in soil that contains aluminum. People normally ingest about 10 mg of aluminum per day. Very little of the ingested aluminum enters the bloodstream. Most of the aluminum leaves the body quickly in the feces. Incidental ingestion of aluminum from the contaminated media should not result in any adverse non-cancer health effects. Dermal contact with the contaminated media is not expected to have produced any adverse health effects except possibly in persons who are sensitive to aluminum compounds (such as antiperspirants). Skin rashes may have developed in these sensitive individuals.
4. Arsenic (32)
Arsenic (As) is a metal-like material usually found in the environment combined with other elements. Arsenic when combined with carbon and hydrogen is referred to as organic arsenic. Arsenic combined with other elements such as oxygen, chlorine, and sulphur is referred to as inorganic arsenic. The organic forms of As are usually less harmful than the inorganic forms. Inorganic As occurs naturally in many kinds of rocks, especially those containing copper and lead ores. The main use of arsenic is as a wood preservative to make the wood resistant to rotting and decay. Arsenic is also used as an ingredient in insecticides and herbicides. Arsenic is not broken-down or destroyed in the environment, but it will readily change from one chemical form to another by natural chemical reactions.
Most arsenic-induced toxicity in humans is due to exposure to inorganic arsenic. In the United States the average adult consumes 0.05 mg/day of arsenic in their diet. Food is usually the largest source of As exposure in humans.
ATSDR estimated the arsenic exposure doses that persons who walked and played on the landfill or swam and played in Aero Lake might have received from the incidental ingestion of sediment, waste and surface soil. No studies were located regarding unusual susceptibility of any human subpopulation to arsenic. All estimated exposure doses were below the health guideline of 0.0003 mg/kg/day. In addition, the levels of arsenic found in these media were similar to the State background levels. Therefore, non-carcinogenic adverse health effects are not expected to occur.
EPA has classified arsenic as a Class A known human carcinogen by the oral and inhalation routes. Epidemiologic studies of people exposed to arsenic in Taiwan indicate that exposure to arsenic is associated with skin cancer. Based on that and other studies, the EPA considers arsenic a human carcinogen. The EPA has calculated a cancer unit risk factor, which can be used to estimate the probability of excess cancer risks for a lifetime of exposure to arsenic. Cancer risks for exposure were estimated based on the maximum concentration of arsenic in the contaminated media. There does not appear to be a significant increase risk of cancer based upon those estimations.
5. Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate (DEHP) (33)
DEHP is a manufactured chemical that is used to make plastic more flexible. It is in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) products like toys, vinyl upholstery, shower curtains, adhesives, and coatings. Vinyl plastics may contain up to 40% DEHP. DEHP is used in inks, pesticides, cosmetics, and vacuum pump oil. It is used to detect leaks in protective face gear, and as a test material for filtration systems.
DEHP was found in Aero Lake surface water at a maximum concentration of 0.022 mg/L. There is no evidence that DEHP causes serious health effects in humans. Most of the data about health effects of DEHP comes from high exposures to rats and mice. The estimated exposure dose for past users does not exceed the health guideline of 0.02 mg/kg/day, therefore, no adverse non-carcinogenic health effects are expected to occur.
EPA has classified DEHP as a Class B2 probable human carcinogen by the oral route. There is no evidence that DEHP causes cancer in humans, but high exposure in rats and mice produced an increase in liver cancer. The concentration of DEHP found in the Aero Lake surface waters is extremely low, therefore, no significant increased risk of cancer is expected to occur.
6. Cadmium (34)
Cadmium (Cd) is a naturally occurring element that is usually found combined with other metals. Cd is currently used for the production of nickel-cadmium (NiCad) batteries and for metal plating. It is also used for pigments, plastics, synthetics, and for alloys.
Foodstuffs are the most important source of Cd exposure for the general population. Low levels of Cd can be found in basic foods such as potatoes, grains, cereals, and leafy vegetables. The amount of Cd absorbed from smoking one pack of cigarettes per day is about 1-3 micrograms of Cd per day (µg/day), roughly the same as in the diet. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) limits the amount of cadmium in food colors to 15 parts of cadmium per million parts of food color (15 ppm). In the United States, the average person consumes about 30 µg/day of Cd in their diet.
Past users were likely to have been exposed to cadmium in waste and on-site surface soil as well as Aero Lake surface water and sediment. The maximum concentration of cadmium found in these media were 1.9 mg/kg, 28 mg/kg, 0.009 mg/L, and 4.7 mg/kg respectively. The estimated exposure doses do not exceed the health guideline of 0.0007 mg/kg/day. Adverse non-carcinogenic health effects are not expected to occur.
EPA classifies cadmium as a B1 carcinogen via inhalation. There is weak evidence of increased lung cancer in humans from breathing cadmium. There is strong evidence that cadmium causes cancer in animals via the inhalation route of exposure. Studies in humans and animals that ate or drank Cd did not show an increased risk of cancer. Based on these data, and the fact that 1) likely exposures were primarily through ingestion and dermal contact and 2) the exposure through inhalation was not likely significant, carcinogenic health effects are not expected to occur.
7. Chromium (35)
Chromium (Cr) is a naturally occurring element found in rocks, soil, plants, animals, and in volcanic dust and gases. Cr III is an essential nutrient required for normal energy metabolism. The National Research Council (NRC) recommended in its 1989 report a dietary intake of 50-200 µg/day. Cr III is believed to assist insulin in maintaining normal glucose levels. Cr VI, the form of Cr that is known to cause cancer in humans through inhalation, occurs rarely in the natural environment. Cr compounds have no taste or odor. Cr is used for making steel and other alloys, bricks in furnaces, and dyes and pigments. It is also used for chrome plating, leather tanning, and wood preserving.
The general population is exposed to Cr by inhaling ambient air, ingesting food, and drinking water containing Cr. Dermal exposure of the general public to Cr can occur from skin contact with certain consumer products or soils that contain Cr. U.S. soil levels of total chromium range from 1.0 to 2,000 mg/kg, with a mean level of 37 mg/kg. Cr content of foods varies greatly and depends of the processing and preparation.
Cr was detected in Aero Lake sediments (18.6 mg/kg) and in exposed waste (14.8 mg/kg) and on-site surface soil (84 mg/kg). The estimated exposure doses for past users do not exceed the health guidelines of 0.005 mg/kg/day (Cr VI) and 1.0 mg/kg/day (Cr III), therefore, adverse non-carcinogenic health effects are not expected to occur.
EPA has classified Cr VI as a Class A known human carcinogen by the inhalation route. Laboratory studies have not shown that Cr VI or Cr III cause cancer in animals when ingested. The form of Cr found at the site is not known. ATSDR does not have enough data to determine if Cr III is carcinogenic. No studies were located regarding cancer in humans or animals after dermal exposure to Cr or its compounds. However, even assuming that the Cr at the site is Cr VI, there does not appear to be a significant increase risk of cancer associated with the Pfohl Brothers Landfill.
8. Cobalt (36)
Cobalt (Co) is a steel-gray, shiny, hard metal that occurs naturally in many different forms. Small amounts of cobalt are found in most rocks, soil, surface- and groundwater, plants, and animals. Cobalt is currently not mined in the U.S..
Cobalt and cobalt compounds are used in industry. Cobalt is used mostly in the production of alloys; as a drier for paint and the porcelain enameling used on steel bathroom fixtures, large appliances and kitchenwares; and in making colored pigments. Vitamin B12 is a cobalt-containing compound that is essential for good health in humans.
Cobalt was found in on-site surface soils at a maximum concentration of 18 mg/kg. ATSDR has not develop MRLs and EPA has not developed an RfD for cobalt ingestion. The estimated exposure doses are orders of magnitude below the NOAEL (human) for cobalt ingestion. In addition, the maximum concentration detected in surface soils did not exceed typical background levels for the state of New York. Adverse non-carcinogenic health effects are not expected to occur.
Individuals that are already sensitized to cobalt may be unusually susceptible because cobalt exposure may trigger asthmatic attacks. Dermatitis is a common result of dermal exposure to cobalt in humans. However, this effect is not expected to occur with intermittent exposure to cobalt at the low concentrations found in the on-site surface soils.
9. Copper (37)
Copper (Cu), a reddish-brown metal which occurs naturally in rocks, soil, water, plants, sediment, air, and animals (including humans), is an essential element for all known living organisms. Some common uses of copper is to make electrical wires, the U.S. penny, and some water pipes. It is also combined with other metals to form the alloys brass and bronze. Soil generally contains between 2 and 250 mg/Kg copper although concentrations close to 7000 mg/Kg have been found near copper production facilities.
Copper rapidly enters the bloodstream and is distributed throughout the body after ingestion. One mechanism that the body has to defend itself from acute exposure to high concentrations of copper is excretion (via vomiting or diarrhea). This mechanism helps block copper from entering the blood. ATSDR does not know how much copper enters the body via dermal contact.
Past users were likely to have been exposed to copper in contaminated waste and on-site surface soil. The maximum concentration found in the waste was 131 mg/kg and the highest concentration in the surface soil was 1,057 mg/kg. ATSDR has not developed MRLs and EPA has not developed RfDs for the ingestion of copper. There is little information on copper toxicity in man. Most of the reports of copper toxicity in humans involves acute exposure and the consumption of water containing large amounts of copper or suicide attempts using copper sulfate. Long-term exposure of humans to copper by ingestion and dermal contact occurs in occupational settings as well as the home. However, there is limited information on effects of chronic copper exposure. Some of the non-carcinogenic health effects seen in these studies have been abdominal pain and vomiting following ingestion of contaminated water. The most affected population would most likely be children who come into contact with the surface soil. The estimated exposure dose for children is 100 times lower than the LOAEL (human) for copper ingestion. Adverse non-carcinogenic health effects are not expected to occur. Copper is not known to cause cancer.
Individuals with Wilson's disease are unusually susceptible to copper toxicity because of their impaired ability to maintain normal copper homeostasis. Limiting copper intake through air, water, and food as well as special medical treatment is essential in treating the disease. In addition, infants and children less than one-year old and persons with liver damage may be more susceptible to copper toxicity.
10. Dibenzofuran (38)
Dibenzofuran is an organic compound that contains two benzene rings fused to a central furan ring. It is a white, crystalline powder derived from coal tar and is used to make other chemicals and as an insecticide. It is released into the environment in atmospheric emissions involved with the combustion of biomass, refuse, and diesel fuels. The incomplete combustion of propane has been found to form dibenzofuran.
Dibenzofuran was detected in on-site exposed drum wastes (1,880 mg/kg) and surface soils (13 mg/kg). ATSDR has no MRL and EPA has no RfD for this compound. ATSDR has not developed a toxicological profile for the compound at this time.
Repeated dermal contact may cause skin growths, changes in skin color, and rashes. The rashes may be made worse by excessive exposure to sunlight. More information is needed to determine if adverse non-carcinogenic health effects could occur at the concentration of the compound found in the on-site media.
Dibenzofuran has not been tested for its ability to cause cancer in animals, however, it is derived from coal tar which is a substance that causes cancer in humans. It is not known if dibenzofuran causes cancer.
11. Lead (39)
Past users were likely to have been exposed to lead in contaminated waste (79 mg/kg) and on-site surface soil (985 mg/kg), and Aero Lake sediments (79 mg/kg). ATSDR has no MRLs and EPA has no RfDs for lead. The maximum concentration found in surface soil exceeds the natural background level found in New York.
Exposure to lead is particularly dangerous for unborn children and young children because of their greater sensitivity during development. Studies have shown that lead contamination in exterior dusts and soil at concentrations of 500 to 1000 mg/kg can begin to influence blood lead concentrations in children residing in lead contaminated areas. Blood lead levels may be raised above background.
In April 1991, the NYSDOH conducted a blood lead screening for children living in the vicinity of the site. Of the twenty children screened the highest blood lead level found was 8 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood (µg/dL). Currently the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has set the limit for blood lead level in children to 10 µg/dL. Blood lead levels in excess of 10 µg/dL are considered by CDC to be indicative of excess exposure to lead and have been associated with subtle neurological deficits and alterations of levels of critical enzymes. Because the levels seen in the screened children was below the action limit set by CDC, the NYSDOH decided that no further testing of the population in the vicinity of the landfill was necessary. The American Academy of Pediatrics has concluded that lead continues to be a significant hazard to the health of children in the United States. Based upon these biological data, ATSDR does not expect non-carcinogenic health effects to have occurred in the exposed population.
Lead has been shown to cause cancer in animals, but at the levels found in the contaminated media, carcinogenic health effects are not expected to occur in humans.
According to the toxicological profile for lead, no studies were found describing adverse non-cancer health effects in humans resulting from dermal exposure to inorganic lead.
12. Nickel (40)
Nickel is a natural element in the earth's crust; therefore, people are constantly exposed to small amounts in food, water, and soil, and even smaller amounts in air. The National Academy of Sciences does not consider nickel to be an essential element for humans. Nickel-deficiency in humans has not been reported in the literature; however, it has been induced in several species of animals. Dermal contact with nickel usually occurs by contact with metals containing nickel or nickel-plated jewelry. Stainless steel and coins contain nickel. It is often unknown what form of nickel to which a person is exposed. Much of the nickel found in sediments, soil, and rock is so strongly attached to dust and dirt or embedded in minerals that it is not readily taken up by plants and animals and cannot easily effect someone's health. As with most hazardous waste sites, ATSDR does not know the forms of nickel found at this site.
Our daily intake of nickel from drinking water is about 2 µg. A person usually consumes 170 µg/day in his food. We breathe in between 0.1 and 1 µg/day, excluding nickel in tobacco smoke. We are exposed to nickel when we handle coins and touch other metals containing nickel.
Nickel was found in on-site surface soil at a maximum concentration of 125 mg/kg. The estimated exposure dose is below the chronic RfD (0.02 mg/kg/day). Therefore, adverse non-cancer health effects are not expected to occur in individuals exposed to the contaminated medium.
The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has determined that nickel and certain nickel compounds may reasonably be anticipated to be carcinogenic. The ability of some nickel compounds to cause nasal and lung cancers when inhaled has been well documented in workers following chronic exposure. Animal studies support these findings. No studies were located regarding carcinogenic effects in humans after oral exposure to nickel at low concentrations. Studies using animals exposed to nickel in drinking water did not show a significant increase in cancer risk. No studies were located regarding cancer effects in humans or animals after dermal exposure to nickel. Given that nickel was not detected above back ground levels, there does not appear to be a significant increase risk of cancer related to the Pfohl Brothers Landfill.
13. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) (27)
PCBs were detected in on-site surface soil at a maximum concentration of 27 mg/kg. Past users could have ingested, inhaled, or had dermal contact with the PCBs in the contaminated soil.
PCBs are a family of synthetic chemicals that contain 209 individual compounds (known as congeners). There are no known natural sources of PCBs in the environment. PCBs have been widely used as coolants and lubricants in transformers, capacitors, and other electrical equipment.
The estimated dose by ingestion for past users did not exceed the chronic MRL (0.00002 mg/kg/day), therefore adverse non-cancer health effects are not expected to occur.
Although exposure to PCBs by dermal contact has not been evaluated by ATSDR, it is known that contact with soil can result in absorption of PCBs. Health effects such as chloracne, redness, and skin rashes in people dermally exposed to PCBs have been documented in the literature.
EPA has classified PCBs as Class B2 – probable human carcinogens by the oral route. That classification was prompted by animal data. Exposures have resulted in liver cancer, leukemia, lymphomas, and gastrointestinal tract tumors in laboratory animals. Using EPA's cancer potency factor of 7.7 (mg/kg/day)-1, indicates that there would be no apparent increased risk of cancer due to past exposure to PCBs in contaminated on-site surface soil at the maximum level found.
According to the literature, people with compromised liver function, infectious hepatitis, and persons taking medications potentially toxic to the liver may be especially sensitive to the adverse health effects of PCBs. Because of physiologic differences in the detoxification and excretion of PCBs, fetuses exposed to PCBs through the placenta can be more sensitive than adults. Breast-fed infants of PCB-exposed mothers can be exposed through breast milk. Children taking the antibiotic novobiocin also may be sensitive to PCBs.
14. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) (22)
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are found ubiquitously in the environment from both man-made and natural sources. These products include fossil fuels; cigarette smoke; industrial processes (such as coke production, refinement of crude oil); and exhaust emissions from gasoline engines, oil-fired heating, and burnt coals. PAHs are found in foods, particularly charbroiled, broiled, or pickled food items, and refined fats and oils.
Several carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic PAHs have been found in the Aero Lake sediments and on-site surface soil and exposed drum waste. The estimated exposure dose for these PAHs does not exceed their respective health guidelines of 0.1 and 0.03 mg/kg/day, therefore, adverse non-carcinogenic health effects are not expected to occur.
Evidence exists to indicate that mixtures of PAHs are carcinogenic in humans. The evidence in humans comes primarily from occupational studies of workers exposed to mixtures containing PAHs as a result of their involvement in such processes as coke production, roofing, oil refining, or coal gasification. PAHs, however, have not been clearly identified as the causative agent. Cancer associated with exposure to PAH-containing mixtures in humans occurs predominately in the lung and skin following inhalation and dermal exposure, respectively. Some ingestion of PAHs is likely because of swallowing of particles containing PAHs subsequent to mucociliary clearance of these particulates from the lung.
Some PAHs such as benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) are carcinogenic to animals by the oral route. The results of dermal studies indicate that BaP, benzo(b)fluoranthene, and chrysene are tumorigenic in mice following dermal exposure. The sensitivity of mouse skin to PAH tumorigenesis forms the basis for the extensive studies performed using dermal administration. This tumorigenicity can be enhanced or modified with concomitant exposure to more than one PAH, long straight-chain hydrocarbons (i.e., dodecane), or similar organic compounds commonly found at hazardous waste sites. Thus humans exposed to PAHs in combination with these substances could be at risk for developing skin cancer.
A quantitative cancer risk estimate has thus far been developed for BaP. The cancer slope factor for BaP is 7.3 (mg/kg/day)-1 and is based on the geometric mean of risk estimates calculated from previous studies. EPA and others have developed a relative potency estimate approach for the PAHs. By using this approach, the cancer potency of the other carcinogenic PAHs can be estimated based on their relative potency to BaP. In order to calculate an exposure dose and evaluate the possible carcinogenic health effects for these PAHs, ATSDR converted the concentrations to BaP equivalents. The equivalents were summed and an exposure dose calculated. Based upon the exposure dose estimate, past exposure to the PAHs in the Aero Lake sediment and in on-site exposed drum waste and surface soils are not expected to result in any significant cancer risk.
B. Health Outcome Data Evaluation
ATSDR conducts a review of health outcome data when the toxicologic evaluation indicates the likelihood of health outcomes or when the community near the site has health concerns. Health outcome data are evaluated in this Public Health Assessment because the community near the site has health concerns.
The evaluation of health outcome data may give a general picture of the health of a community, or it may confirm the presence of excess disease or illness in a community. However, elevated rates of a particular disease may not necessarily be caused by hazardous substances in the environment. Other factors, such as personal habits, socioeconomic status, and occupation, also may influence the development of disease. In contrast, even if elevated rates of disease are not found, a contaminant may still have caused illness or disease.
1. Health Survey
In June 1990, the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) visited and interviewed the residents of twenty households. The purposes of the interview were: 1) to determine the number of persons living in the area of the Pfohl Brothers Landfill and their ages; 2) to determine how the population living near the site might have been exposed to contaminants from the site; and 3) to get a general idea of the health status of the population.
The study indicated that there were sixty persons living in the households that were visited. One of the households included in the study is actually a family business. Thirty-five percent of the population interviewed was age 17 or younger. Two-thirds of the studied population indicated that they had not entered the landfill at any time in the past. The rest indicated that they had spent some time on the site, although the length of time varied. Some of those who did visit the site visited almost daily from childhood to adulthood. They indicated that they used the site for recreational purposes. Approximately thirty-five percent of the people who visited the site reportedly came into direct contact with site contaminants while on-site.
A variate of health conditions were reported. There was no unusual pattern in terms of frequency of any one type of health condition among the surveyed residents.
An attempt was made to contact former area residents. Five former households declined to participate in the survey. The former residents (n=12) who participated in the survey were sent a questionnaire. In addition, five other former residents were identified by current residents. These former residents were also sent questionnaires. NYSDOH review of the questionnaires indicated that no unusual health information was reported.
An attempt was made to contact former landfill employees. Only one employee was identified and that employee declined to participate in the survey. Current employees of area businesses were surveyed via questionnaires left at their place of employment. Of those who responded, none reported spending any time on the landfill itself.
Former and current employees (n=280) from the town of Cheektowaga who may have done work which brought them into contact with site contaminants were surveyed via survey forms (return envelopes were enclosed). Twelve percent of those workers responded. Of those responding seventy-seven percent reported having come into contact with site contaminants.
According to NYSDOH "the survey did not reveal any unusual patterns of reported illnesses among residents or workers. However it is difficult to draw firm conclusions based on the small number of individuals surveyed. In addition, the survey could not detect any health conditions that may be related to exposure to site contaminants but that have not yet become clinically apparent."
ATSDR believes that the general protocol used in the health survey conducted in June 1990 was adequate. The discussion and conclusion sections of the NYSDOH document did indicate the fact that a survey of that type cannot link reported illnesses to site contaminants.
2. Blood Lead Screenings
On April 24, 1991, the NYSDOH conducted a blood lead screening for children living in the vicinity of the site. Twenty children were tested and the highest blood lead level found in the tested population was 8 µg/dl. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention has set the action level for blood lead at 10 µg/dl, therefore NYSDOH decided that no further testing of the population living near the landfill is necessary.
Based upon information presented in the blood lead screening report ATSDR agrees with NYSDOH that no further testing of the population living near the landfill is necessary at this time.
3. Cancer Incidence Investigations
Cancer incidence is a community health concern that residents and former residents believed to be associated with the Pfohl Brothers Landfill site. The NYSDOH conducted two studies of cancer incidence. The first study, completed in March 1991 evaluated the occurrence of cancer (from 1978 to 1987) in three census tracts that comprise the site and Ellicott Creek areas. The second study, completed in November 1991, was a follow-up to the first. It evaluated female breast cancer patients residing in the census tract associated with the landfill.
NYSDOH evaluated the incidence of cancer for 16 anatomical sites in the three census tracts that surround the Pfohl Brothers site for 1978-1987 (1st NY study). The evaluation was done by comparing the rates of observed cases to those expected from areas of New York with a similar population density. Observed rates were significantly greater than expected only for all cancers in women, breast cancer in women, and prostate cancer in men.
There were 447 cases of cancer observed in women where 401 were expected (1st NY). Most of this excess appears to come from the occurrence of breast cancer where 130 cases were observed while 105 were expected.
In a follow-up investigation, NYSDOH found that the incidence of breast cancer was as expected in two of the three census tracts (2nd NY). In the third census tract (100.01), in which the landfill actually is, 32 cases were observed while 21 were expected. NYSDOH was able to interview 25 of the patients or their relatives. The results of those interviews indicated that only four of the 25 cases had any sort of exposure to landfill contaminants. In addition, analysis of the geographic distribution of the breast cancer cases in this census tract identified no clustering around the landfill.
There were 79 cases of prostate cancer in men while 49 were expected (1st NY). Most of this excess was in census tract 100.01, where 21 cases were observed and 8 were expected. Geographic analysis identified no clustering around the site.
The results of NYSDOH's epidemiologic investigations, along with the lack of evidence of large scale exposure to site contaminants, indicates that the occurrence of cancer is probably not related to the site.
ATSDR has reviewed NYSDOH's studies of cancer incidence in the Pfohl Brothers Landfill area and concludes that it was conducted appropriately. However, all evaluations of the type done by NYSDOH have limitations. The cancer incidence data used do not include information on personal risk factors (smoking, diet, alcohol, etc.) or on occupational and environmental exposures to chemicals. Analyses of these data can only be descriptive and can't be used to determine associations with possible agents.
4. Summary of Cancer Inquiry for homes and businesses on Rein Road, Cheektowaga
The New York State Department of Health investigated a possible cancer cluster that was reported to them by a former resident of Rein Road. Using information from the New York State Cancer Registry, New York State Vital Records, and medical records, they tried to determine if the seventeen reported cases of cancer were an actual cluster.
The analysis revealed no obvious clustering by year, three of the reported cases were not cancers, the cases were diagnosed over a long period of time (30 years). Cancer of the kidney was the only site that was found in more than two of the cases and in each case the diagnosis occurred in three different years that were years apart. Cancers of the same type did not cluster by year. This investigation did not reveal any of the patterns of clustering. There is no evidence that nay of the reported cases are related to a common exposure, nor is there any evidence that any of the confirmed cases of cancer were related to exposure occurring at the Pfohl Brothers Landfill National Priorities List site.
5. Summary of Cancer Inquiry for homes and businesses near the Pfohl Brothers Landfill National Priorities List site, Cheektowaga
In December of 1994, the NYSDOH was provided with another list of people who had lived or worked in residences and businesses on Rein Road, Pfohl Road and Aero Drive. This list had 59 people and included the 17 names previously provided. Of the 59 individuals on the list, 39 were specified as having some form of cancer. NYSDOH was able to confirm 25 of the cases, and the remainder were assessed on the information provided. The cases did not appear to represent a cancer cluster. Among the 39 cases reported, 20 different types or sites of cancer were represented. The 39 cancer cases were diagnosed over a long period of time (more than 35 years). When more than one case of a single type of cancer was reported, those cases were not all diagnosed in the same year but were spread out over a number of years.
ATSDR's Division of Health Studies (DHS) reviewed the cancer information provided by concerned citizens for homes and business near the Pfohl Brothers Landfill National Priorities List site. The case reports provided by concerned citizens are case reports of persons with many different tissue types. DHS determined that the small number of cases would not supply sufficient power to evaluate any causal associations between exposures to chemicals from the site and cancer, either for all cancers or a specific tissue or anatomical site. DHS did not have any information to assess whether the few cases of breast cancer included were among those persons in the Cancer Surveillance Program cases and subsequently interviewed for the 1978-1987 study conducted by NYSDOH.
C. Community Health Concerns Evaluation
ATSDR has reviewed all of the available groundwater sampling data and environmental investigations. No groundwater tests were conducted in 1979.
In May 1979, the Erie County Department of Environment and Planning collected and analyzed seven leachate and surface water samples from the Pfohl Brothers Landfill (2). Leachate is water that has come in contact with buried waste material and has moved through the waste material and surrounding soil matrix to the surface of the landfill. The term "leachate" does not refer to groundwater or spring water. Analytical results of these seven samples indicated that very low concentrations (less than 0.0002 mg/L) of various pesticides were being discharged to local surface waters from the landfill.
The first time groundwater was sampled near the Pfohl Brothers Landfill was in 1980. In May, June, and October 1980, the Erie County Department of Environment and Planning sampled seven of the private wells adjacent to the landfill (one on Rein Road, one on Pfohl Road, three on Aero Drive, one on Transit Road, and one on Scott Road) (2). Analytical results of the first sampling event indicated that some of the wells may have been contaminated with PCBs (0.0001-0.0014 mg/L). However, when the wells were resampled again in June and October, PCBs were not detected (<0.00005 mg/L).
In addition to the eight private drinking water wells adjacent to the Pfohl Brothers Landfill, the Erie County Department of Environment and Planning obtained a sample from a private well on South Youngs Road (northwest of the landfill) in May and October 1980 (2). Analytical results of the May sample detected PCBs (0.0013 mg/L). However, analytical results of the October sample did not detect any PCBs (<0.00005 mg/L). The South Youngs Road well is located up-gradient and cross-gradient of the Pfohl Brothers Landfill.
PCBs do not migrate very rapidly in groundwater (27). Because of the migration characteristics of PCBs, it is unlikely that wells contaminated with PCBs would not be contaminated one month later or even five months later. In addition, the second highest PCB concentrations reported were from a well (South Youngs Road) that could not become contaminated because of the Pfohl Brothers Landfill (the well is not hydrologically connected to the landfill or the other private drinking water wells adjacent to the landfill). Therefore, there is some question as to the validity of the May 1980 PCB analytical results.
In addition to PCBs, the Erie County Department of Environment and Planning also analyzed some of the October private drinking water well samples for metals (2). Cadmium (<0.01-0.012 mg/L), barium (<0.7-6.2 mg/L), and manganese (<0.02-0.06 mg/L) were detected in some wells above health comparison values (0.007 mg/L, 0.7 mg/L, and 0.05 mg/L, respectively). Most of these wells provided drinking water to businesses.
During the EPA contractor investigation (1982) of the Pfohl Brothers Landfill, water samples were taken from four private drinking water wells adjacent to the landfill (two on Pfohl Road and two on Scott Place) (6). Two of the private drinking water wells sampled in 1980 were sampled during this investigation (i.e., the Scott Place wells). In the 1982 EPA study, no metals above health comparison values were detected in the samples from the two wells which were previously sampled in 1980. Analytical results of the other two well samples indicate only manganese (0.03-0.1 mg/L) was detected in one of the wells above health comparison values (i.e., 0.05 mg/L). This private drinking water well was located on Pfohl Road. No PCBs or other organic compounds were detected above health comparison values in any of the private drinking water wells.
ATSDR is not able, at this time, to determine whether the metals detected in the private drinking water wells are site-related or whether people were exposed to metals in drinking water at levels of health concern for a significant amount of time. This type of trend analysis could be conducted after the parameter groundwater monitoring wells are consistently sampled and analyzed for all of the compounds on the EPA Target Compound List over a one year period (i.e., sample and analysis from each well every quarter). The two State of New York RODs require the routine monitoring of the wells as a part of the long-term remediation of the Pfohl Brothers Landfill.
ATSDR has reviewed NYSDOH's studies of cancer incidence in the Pfohl Brothers Landfill area and concludes that it was conducted appropriately. However, all evaluations of the type done by NYSDOH have limitations. The cancer incidence data used do not include information on personal risk factors (smoking, diet, alcohol, etc.) or on occupational and environmental exposures to chemicals. Analyses of these data can only be descriptive and can't be used to determine associations with possible agents.
The New York State Department of Health investigated the possible cluster at the address the resident reported. Their analysis of the reported cases revealed none of the patterns usually associated with a clustering event. Based upon their analysis it is unlikely that the confirmed cases of cancer are caused by exposure to a contaminant originating from the proposed Pfohl Brothers Landfill site.
Next Section Table of Contents
