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

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

LANDIA CHEMICAL COMPANY
(a/k/a FLORIDA FAVORITE FERTILIZER)
LAKELAND, POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA


6.0 CONCLUSIONS

The Landia Chemical Company/Florida Favorite Fertilizer Company hazardous waste sitewas an indeterminate public health hazard for past exposures. Assessing the probabilityof illness from past inhalation of contaminated dust or vapors is not possible because of thelack of air monitoring data.

Currently there is no apparent public health hazard for nearby residents. Site access isrestricted and there is no current use of the contaminated ground water.

This site may be a public health hazard in the future. If in the future people are exposuresto on-site surface soil or ground water they will likely become ill.

1. If, in the future, children accidentally eat (incidental ingestion) small amounts of arsenic-contaminated surface soil from on the site for short or intermediate periods (<365 days),they are likely to suffer vomiting, diarrhea, gastrointestinal bleeding, abdominal pain, fatigue,rapid heart rate, fever/chills, sore throat, memory loss, mild loss of feeling in the legs,tingling in the legs, and dark warts on the palms of the hands and soles of the feet.

If, in the future, adults accidentally eat (incidental ingestion) small amounts of arsenic-contaminated surface soil from on the site for long periods (> 365 days), they are likely tosuffer abdominal pain, anemia, enlargement of the liver, tingling in the hands/feet, andthickening/darkening of the palms of the hands and soles of the feet. These adults mayalso suffer skin, liver, lung, bladder, and kidney cancer from arsenic and thyroid/liver cancerfrom toxaphene.

2. If, in the future, newborn infants (0-3 months old) drink nitrate-contaminated groundwater from on or near the site they are likely to suffer methemoglobinemia ("blue baby"syndrome) which is fatal if not treated quickly. The City of Lakeland supplies the site andnearby areas with drinking water.

If, in the future, children drink arsenic-contaminated ground water from on or near the sitefor a short or intermediate period (<365 days), they are likely to suffer vomiting, diarrhea,gastrointestinal bleeding, abdominal pain, fatigue, rapid heart rate, fever/chills, sore throat,memory loss, mild loss of feeling in the legs, tingling in the legs, and dark warts on thepalms of the hands and soles of the feet.

If, in the future, adults drink arsenic-contaminated ground water from on or near the site forlong periods (> 365 days), they are likely to suffer abdominal pain, diarrhea, anemia,enlargement of the liver, tingling in the hands and feet, and thickening/darkening of thepalms of the hands and soles of the feet. These adults may also suffer skin, liver, lung,bladder, and kidney cancer from arsenic; thyroid/liver cancer from toxaphene; and livercancer from hexachlorocyclohexane.

3. Estimating the likelihood of illness from inhalation of contaminated dust from the site orvapors from the ditch that receives stormwater runoff from the site is not possible becauseair monitoring data are nonexistent. Because of their low volatility, it is unlikely thataldrin/dieldrin, chlordane, endosulfan, or hexachlorocyclohexane caused the symptomsreported by residents along the Wayman Street ditch (nausea, headaches, dizziness, andeye and respiratory irritation). It is more likely that these symptoms were caused by thevolatile carrier/solvents used to dissolve these pesticides.

About 200 people living near the site may have inhaled this organophosphate pesticide, itscarrier/solvent, and/or their breakdown products during the May 1983 fire at Landia. Smoke from most fires can cause difficulty breathing and resulting chest pains. Determining the probability of illness from this exposure is not possible because airmonitoring data are nonexistent. Reported symptoms (chest pains and difficulty breathing),however, could have been caused by smoke, azinphos-methyl, its carrier/solvent, and/ortheir breakdown products.

4. In the future, soil excavation for site cleanup could create pesticide-contaminated dust. Ifnot controlled, people in nearby homes and businesses could be exposed.

5. The geographical extent of off-site ground water contamination has not been determined,especially for soluble contaminants such as nitrate.

6. Off-site surface-soil quality in the neighborhood south of the site has not been adequatelytested. The quality of surface soil along the banks of the ditch that drains the site has notbeen tested.

7. Estimating the likelihood of illness from touching contaminated soil, water, or sedimentsis not possible because the rate of skin absorption is unknown. Data on sedimentcontamination in the ditches that receive stormwater runoff from this site are insufficient.

8. One fish sample collected from the Itchepackesassa Creek in 1983 is inadequate tocharacterize fish contamination in downstream water bodies. Eating the amount ofpesticides measured in this one fish sample are not likely, however, to cause illness.

9. Between 1940 and 1987 about 100 workers were exposed to pesticide dust at this site. This report does not estimate either exposure or the possibility of illness for these workers. Worker health and safety are the responsibility of the federal Occupational Safety andHealth Administration (OSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).


7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Ensure that nearby residents do not have access to on-site surface soil. Restrict siteaccess and future land use to prevent long-term exposures to on-site surface soil.

2. Prevent use of contaminated ground water as a public or private drinking water supply. Restrict permits for new wells near ground water contamination. Encourage residents nearground water contamination not to drink from their irrigation wells.

3. Collect at least three 24-hour off-site air samples downwind and analyze for arsenic andsite-related pesticides to estimate current residential exposures. Collect these samplesduring a gentle north wind. Collect one 24-hour upwind, background air sample forcomparison.

4. Control dust generation and conduct intensive air monitoring during any future cleanupthat would disturb on-site soil and create dust.

5. Determine the geographical extent of off-site ground water contamination.

6. Collect additional off-site surface-soil samples (0-3 inches deep) in the neighborhoodsouth of the site and analyze for site-related chemicals. Collect one surface soil samplefrom the bank of the ditch draining the site at each individual property for the first 6,000 feetstarting at the site boundary. Analyze these samples for site-related chemicals.

7. Collect about 20 additional sediment grab samples from the ditch that drains the site. Collect these sediment samples every 500 feet starting at Olive Street and continuingthrough the stormwater pond on the north side of Highland Street between Jensen andLebanon Roads. Analyze for arsenic and site-related pesticides.

8. Collect at least three fish from the pond on the north side of Highland Street betweenJensen and Lebanon Roads. Collect fish likely caught for human consumption (bass, brim,perch, etc.) and analyze for arsenic and site-related pesticides.

9. The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) or the NationalInstitute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) should consider a health investigation for former and current workers.


8.0 PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN

This section describes what ATSDR and/or DOH plan to do at this site. The purpose of aPublic Health Action Plan is to reduce any existing health hazards and to prevent any fromoccurring in the future. ATSDR and/or DOH will do the following:

1. DOH, Bureau of Environmental Toxicology will inform and educate nearby residentsabout the public health threat at this site. Specifically, DOH will warn nearby residents notto go on the site and not to use contaminated ground water.

2. DOH, Bureau of Environmental Toxicology will collect fish from the stormwater pond onthe north side of Highland Street between Jensen and Lebanon Roads and analyze forarsenic and site-related pesticides.

3. DOH, Bureau of Environmental Toxicology will request the Southwest Florida WaterManagement District to restrict permits for new wells in or near the area of ground watercontamination.

4. DOH, Bureau of Environmental Toxicology will forward a copy of this assessment to thefederal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the National Institutefor Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to determine if a health investigation of formerand current workers is warranted.

5. DOH, Bureau of Environmental Toxicology will continue to work with EPA and DEP toensure that the site is cleaned up to protect public health.

6. DOH, Bureau of Environmental Toxicology will inform and educate local health careprofessionals about this site, contaminants of concern, potential illnesses, and medicaltreatment.

7. DOH, Bureau of Environmental Epidemiology will review area cancer rates contained inthe Florida Cancer Data System.

8. When additional information becomes available, the DOH, Bureau of EnvironmentalToxicology, will evaluate it to determine the public health threat and what additionalrecommendations, if any, to make.


9.0 SITE TEAM/AUTHORS

Florida Department of Health Author
E. Randall Merchant
Bureau of Environmental Toxicology
Division of Environmental Health

The ATSDR Technical Project Team:
Debra Gable
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Betty Phifer
Division of Health Studies
Teresa Nastoff
Division of Health Education and Promotion

The ATSDR Regional Representative:
Bob Safay
Regional Services
Office of the Assistant Administrator


10.0 REFERENCES

AMA 1989. American Medical Association Encyclopedia of Medicine, C.B. Clayman,Editor. Random House, New York.

ATSDR 1992. Public Health Assessment Guidance Manual (March). Agency for ToxicSubstances and Disease Registry, U.S. Public Health Service. Atlanta, GA.

ATSDR 1993. Toxicological Profile for Aldrin/Dieldrin. Agency for Toxic Substances andDisease Registry, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. ATSDR/TP-92/01.

ATSDR 1994a. Toxicological Profile for Chlordane. Agency for Toxic Substances andDisease Registry, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. ATSDR/TP-89/06

ATSDR 1994b. Toxicological Profile for 4,4'-DDT, 4,4'D-DDE, 4,4'-DDD (Update). Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Department of Health andHuman Services. ATSDR/TP-93/05.

ATSDR 1996a. Toxicological Profile for Hexachlorobenzene (Update). Agency for ToxicSubstances and Disease Registry, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

ATSDR 1996b. Toxicological Profile for Toxaphene (Update). Agency for ToxicSubstances and Disease Registry, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

ATSDR 1997a. Toxicological Profile for Benzene (Update). Agency for Toxic Substancesand Disease Registry, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

ATSDR 1997b. Draft Toxicological Profile for Alpha-, Beta-, Gamma-, and Delta-Hexachlorocyclohexane (Update). Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

ATSDR 1998a. Draft Toxicological Profile for Arsenic (Update). Agency for ToxicSubstances and Disease Registry, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

ATSDR 1998b. Draft Toxicological Profile for Endosulfan (Update). Agency for ToxicSubstances and Disease Registry, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

ATSDR 1998c. Guidance on Including Child Health Issues in Division of HealthAssessment and Consultation Documents. Agency for Toxic Substances and DiseaseRegistry. Atlanta, GA. July 2, 1998.

ATSDR 1999. Soil and Water Comparison Values (Expires 6/30/99). Agency for ToxicSubstances and Disease Registry, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

BBL 1997. Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc. Contamination Assessment Report, LandiaChemical Company. OGC #85-0680. January 17, 1997.

CH2MHill 1988. CH2MHill. Contamination Assessment Report for Landia ChemicalCompany, Lakeland, Florida. FC24093.AO. March 1988.

Delta 1994. Delta Environmental Consultants, Inc. Contamination Assessment Report,Landia Chemical/CFPL Jet-A Fuel Discharge. Delta Project No. B094-020. November1994.

DEP 1983a. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Warning Notice #53-83-10-381 to Billy G. Mitchell, President Landia Chemical Company. October 19, 1983.

DEP 1983b. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Field Notes on Clean-Up ofLandia Drainage Ditch South of Olive Street. Doug Bramlett. November 18, 1983.

DEP 1983c. Florida Department of Environmental Protection Interoffice Memorandum. Landia Chemical Company Neighborhood Water Well Use Survey. Clabe Polk, November18, 1983.

DEP 1983d. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Southwest District Office,record of conversation. November 16, 1983.

DEP 1983e. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Chemical Analysis ReportForm - Pesticides Extractables. TAS#1314, ID#5869, Sampled by Bob Stetler, September21, 1993.

DEP 1983f. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Chemical Analysis ReportForm - Pesticides Extractables. SPAN Lab ID#20378, 20479, and 20480, Sampled by C.Polk, December 23, 1983.

DEP 1986. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. October 2, 1986 InterofficeMemorandum from William H. Colona III, Operations Response, to Clabe Polk, AssistantDistrict Manager, Southwest District.

DEP 1991. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Southwest District Office,record of complaint. June 14, 1991.

DEP 1999. Florida Department of Environmental Protection Central Laboratory. ChemicalAnalysis Reports. Event Names (ID): SIS-1999-03-19-01 and SIS-1999-03-17-01.

EPA 1983. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Record of Analysis, Landia Chemical,sampled November 14, 1983 by Jim Kopotic, Athens Laboratory.

EPA 1997. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Exposure Factors Handbook, VolumesI, II, and III. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa,b,c.

Florida Legislature 1991. Florida Reapportionment and Redistricting Atlas, the FloridaLegislature. Joint Legislative Management Committee, Legislative Information Division,Claude Pepper Building, Room 704, Tallahassee, Florida.

Gerard 1998. June 15, 1998 letter from David W. Gerard, P.E., Florida Department ofEnvironmental Protection, Division of Waste Management, Southwest District Office to DonGuthrie, P.E., Director of Environmental Engineering, Polk County Health Department.

Harry 1985. DER Tracing Landia Chemical's Poisonous Plume. Lakeland Ledger, June 7,1985. Story by Joseph Harry.

IT 1999. IT Corporation. Olive Street Contamination Study. Task Assignment No. 4A,DEP Contract #WM585. August 1999.

Kamrin 1988. Toxicology - A Primer on Toxicology Principles and Applications. LewisPublishers. Chelsea MI.

LFD 1983. Lakeland Fire Department, Fire Run #00766 Report, May 12, 1983.

Missimer 1992. Missimer & Associates, Inc. Florida Favorite Fertilizer, Lakeland Facility,Contamination Assessment Report (Petroleum). Project #CEO-467. March 1992.

Mobay 1990. Material Safety Data Sheet for Guthion (azinphos-methyl), MobayCorporation. In MSDS Reference for Crop Protection Chemicals, Chemical andPharmaceutical Press, 1990.

NAS 1977. Drinking Water and Health, Volume 1. Safe Drinking Water Committee,National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences.

NJDEP 1990. Improving Dialogue with Communities. New Jersey Department ofEnvironmental Protection, Division of Science and Research, Trenton, NJ.

OH Materials 1983. Map with Soil, Sediment, and Water Analytical Results, LandiaChemical Corporation, Project 1532. O.H. Materials Co. (Analyses by Environpact ofJacksonville).

PELA 1983. P.E. LaMoreaux & Associates, Lakeland Florida. Report of analysis. Project#448900.

PELA 1984a. P.E. LaMoreaux & Associates, Lakeland Florida. Report of analysis. Project #449500.

PELA 1984b. P.E. LaMoreaux & Associates, Lakeland Florida. Report of analysis. Project #449500/2016

PELA 1984c. P.E. LaMoreaux & Associates, Lakeland Florida. Report of analysis. Project #449500/2449.

PELA 1985. P.E. LaMoreaux & Associates, Lakeland Florida. Report of analysis. Project#448900/2694.

Stedman's 1990. Stedman's Medical Dictionary, 25th Edition, Illustrated. Williams &Wilkins, Baltimore, MD.

TTEM 1999. Tetra Tech EM Inc. Trip Report, Landia Chemical Company. TDD No. 04-9906-0023. August 1999.

UF 1991. University of Florida. Toxic Pollutants in Discharges, Ambient Waters, andBottom Sediments Final Report, December 30, 1991. University of Florida Department ofEnvironmental Engineering Sciences EIES Project #4910451021612. Contract #WM266with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation.

ViroGroup 1994. ViroGroup Air-Water-Soil Technology. October 17, 1994 letter fromMalcon O. Castor, ViroGroup to Jim Bellar, Florida Favorite Fertilizer regarding sampling at the Florida Favorite-Lakeland Facility.


APPENDIX A. FIGURES

Site Location Map
Figure 1. Site Location Map

Monitoring Well Locations
Figure 2. Monitoring Well Locations

Land Use
Figure 3. Land Use

Surface Water/Sediment
Figure 4. Surface Water/Sediment


APPENDIX B. TABLES

Table 1.

Maximum Concentrations in On-Site Surface Soils (0-1 Foot Deep)
Contaminants of Concern Maximum Concentration
(mg/kg)
# Greater Than Comparison Value/ Total # of Samples Comparison Value*
(mg/kg) Source
Aldrin/Dieldrin 530 66/115 0.04 ATSDR 1999
Arsenic 7,186 50/105 0.5 ATSDR 1999
Azinphos-methyl Not analyzed ----------------- ---- -----
Benzene Not detected 0/86 20 ATSDR 1999
Chlordane (total) 445 91/115 0.5 ATSDR 1999
DDT/DDE/DDD (total) 2,268 82/115 2 ATSDR 1999
Endosulfan (I, II, sulfate) 280 2/115 100 ATSDR 1999
Hexachlorobenzene 2,448 3/10 0.4 ATSDR 1999
Hexachlorocyclohexane (benzene hexachloride or BHC) total of all isomers 2,078 44/129 0.4 ATSDR 1999
Nitrate 4,000 0/35 80,000 ATSDR 1999
Sulfate 36,000 0/35 500,000 ATSDR 1999
Toxaphene 2,000 53/129 0.6 ATSDR 1999

Source: PELA 1984a, DEP 1986, CH2MHill 1988, BBL 1997, IT 1999, TTEM 1999
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
* Comparison values used to select chemicals for further scrutiny, not for determining the possibility of illness.


Table 2.

Maximum Concentrations in On-Site Ground Water (All Depths)
Contaminants of Concern Maximum Concentration
(mg/L)
# Greater Than Comparison Value/ Total # of Samples Comparison Value*
(mg/L) Source
Aldrin/Dieldrin 0.002 10/104 0.000002 ATSDR 1999
Arsenic 1.5 49/89 0.00002 ATSDR 1999
Azinphos-methyl Not analyzed ------------ ---------- -----
Benzene 0.02 19/120 0.001 ATSDR 1999
Chlordane (total) 0.006 9/104 0.00003 ATSDR 1999
DDT/DDE/DDD (total) 0.081 34/104 0.0001 ATSDR 1999
Endosulfan (I, II, sulfate) 0.02 1/104 0.02 ATSDR 1999
Hexachlorobenzene 0.005 1/104 0.00002 ATSDR 1999
Hexachlorocyclohexane (benzene hexachloride or BHC) total of all isomers 0.57 66/104 0.00002 ATSDR 1999
Nitrate 2,100 22/83 20 ATSDR 1999
Sulfate 32,000 58/83 500 ATSDR 1999
Toxaphene 0.06 3/104 0.00003 ATSDR 1999

Source: PELA 1984a, PELA 1984b, PELA 1984c, CH2MHill 1988, Missimer 1992, Delta 1994, IT 1999
mg/L = milligrams per liter
* Comparison values used to select chemicals for further scrutiny, not for determining the possibility of illness.


Table 3.

Maximum Concentrations in Off-Site Surface Soils (0-1 Foot Deep)
Contaminants of Concern Maximum Concentration
(mg/kg)
# Greater Than Comparison Value/ Total # of Samples Comparison Value*
(mg/kg) Source
Aldrin/Dieldrin 370 11/25 0.04 ATSDR 1999
Arsenic 0.1 0/18 0.5 ATSDR 1999
Azinphos-methyl Not analyzed ---------------------- -------- -----
Benzene Not detected 0/17 20 ATSDR 1999
Chlordane (total) 396 16/25 0.5 ATSDR 1999
DDT/DDE/DDD (total) 103 14/25 2 ATSDR 1999
Endosulfan (I, II, sulfate) 61 0/25 100 ATSDR 1999
Hexachlorobenzene Not detected 0/5 0.4 ATSDR 1999
Hexachlorocyclohexane (benzene hexachloride or BHC) total of all isomers 11 9/25 0.4 ATSDR 1999
Nitrate 8 0/17 80,000 ATSDR 1999
Sulfate 35,000 0/17 500,000 ATSDR 1999
Toxaphene 180 10/25 0.6 ATSDR 1999

Source: PELA 1984a, BBL 1997, IT 1999, TTEM 1999
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
* Comparison values used to select chemicals for further scrutiny, not for determining the possibility of illness.


Table 4.

Maximum Concentrations in Off-Site Ground Water (All Depths)
Contaminants of Concern Maximum Concentration
(mg/L)
# Greater Than Comparison Value/ Total # of Samples Comparison Value*
(mg/L) Source
Aldrin/Dieldrin 0.001 4/39 0.000002 ATSDR 1999
Arsenic 0.7 11/38 0.00002 ATSDR 1999
Azinphos-methyl Not analyzed ------------------------ ----- -----
Benzene 0.003 1/39 0.001 ATSDR 1999
Chlordane (total) 0.002 4/39 0.00003 ATSDR 1999
DDT/DDE/DDD (total) 0.007 4/39 0.0001 ATSDR 1999
Endosulfan (I, II, sulfate) 0.0002 0/39 0.02 ATSDR 1999
Hexachlorobenzene Not detected 0/39 0.00002 ATSDR 1999
Hexachlorocyclohexane (benzene hexachloride or BHC) total of all isomers 0.028 19/39 0.00002 ATSDR 1999
Nitrate 3,700 7/38 20 ATSDR 1999
Sulfate 3,900 14/39 500 ATSDR 1999
Toxaphene 0.04 3/39 0.00003 ATSDR 1999

Source: PELA 1985, CH2MHill 1988, BBL 1997, IT 1999, DEP 1999
mg/L = milligrams per liter
* Comparison values used to select chemicals for further scrutiny, not for determining the possibility of illness.


Table 5.

Maximum Concentrations in Off-Site Drainage Ditch Water (Before 11/83)
Contaminants of Concern Maximum Concentration
(mg/L)
# Greater Than Comparison Value/ Total # of Samples Comparison Value*
(mg/L) Source
Aldrin/Dieldrin 0.01 3/15 0.000002 ATSDR 1999
Arsenic Not analyzed -------------------------- ----- -----
Azinphos-methyl Not analyzed -------------------------- ----- -----
Benzene Not analyzed -------------------------- ----- -----
Chlordane (total) 0.06 3/15 0.00003 ATSDR 1999
DDT/DDE/DDD (total) 0.03 3/15 0.001 ATSDR 1999
Endosulfan (I, II, sulfate) 52 8/15 0.02 ATSDR 1999
Hexachlorobenzene Not analyzed -------------------------- ----- -----
Hexachlorocyclohexane
(benzene hexachloride or BHC)
total of all isomers
15 13/15 0.00002 ATSDR 1999
Nitrate Not analyzed -------------------------- ----- -----
Sulfate Not analyzed ------------------------ ----- -----
Toxaphene 210 11/15 0.00003 ATSDR 1999

Source: OH Materials 1983, PELA 1983
mg/L = milligrams per liter


Table 6.

Maximum Concentrations in Off-Site Drainage Ditch Water (After 11/83)
Contaminants of Concern Maximum Concentration
(mg/L)
# Greater Than Comparison Value/ Total # of Samples Comparison Value*
(mg/L) Source
Aldrin/Dieldrin Not detected 0/15 0.000002 ATSDR 1999
Arsenic Not detected 0/2 0.00002 ATSDR 1999
Azinphos-methyl Not analyzed ------------------------ ----- -----
Benzene Not detected 0/15 0.001 ATSDR 1999
Chlordane (total) Not detected 0/15 0.00003 ATSDR 1999
DDT/DDE/DDD (total) Not detected 0/15 0.0001 ATSDR 1999
Endosulfan (I, II, sulfate) 0.032 2/15 0.02 ATSDR 1999
Hexachlorobenzene Not analyzed -------------------------- ----- -----
Hexachlorocyclohexane (benzene hexachloride or BHC) total of all isomers 0.001 4/15 0.00002 ATSDR 1999
Nitrate 0.8 0/2 20 ATSDR 1999
Sulfate 130 0/2 500 ATSDR 1999
Toxaphene Not detected 0/15 0.00003 ATSDR 1999

Source: DEP 1983f, UF 1991, IT 1999, DEP 1999
mg/L = milligrams per liter
* Comparison values used to select chemicals for further scrutiny, not for determining the possibility of illness.


Table 7.

Maximum Concentrations in Off-Site Drainage Ditch Sediments (Before 11/83)
Contaminants of Concern Maximum Concentration
(mg/kg)
# Greater Than Comparison Value/ Total # of Samples Comparison Value*
(mg/kg) Source
Aldrin/Dieldrin 1.0 2/3 0.04 ATSDR 1999
Arsenic Not analyzed -------------------------- ----- -----
Azinphos-methyl Not analyzed -------------------------- ----- -----
Benzene Not analyzed -------------------------- ----- -----
Chlordane (total) 3.0 2/3 0.5 ATSDR 1999
DDT/DDE/DDD (total) 0.6 0/3 2 ATSDR 1999
Endosulfan (I, II, sulfate) 17 0/18 100 ATSDR 1999
Hexachlorobenzene Not analyzed -------------------------- ----- -----
Hexachlorocyclohexane (benzene hexachloride or BHC) total of all isomers 0.5 1/15 0.4 ATSDR 1999
Nitrate Not analyzed -------------------------- ----- -----
Sulfate Not analyzed -------------------------- ----- -----
Toxaphene 460 15/18 0.6 ATSDR 1999

Source: OH Materials 1983, PELA 1983, EPA 1983
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
* Comparison values used to select chemicals for further scrutiny, not for determining the possibility of illness.


Table 8.

Maximum Concentrations in Off-Site Drainage Ditch Sediments (After 11/83)
Contaminants of Concern Maximum Concentration
(mg/kg)
# Greater Than Comparison Value/ Total # of Samples Comparison Value*
(mg/kg) Source
Aldrin/Dieldrin 0.26 3/14 0.04 ATSDR 1999
Arsenic 110 4/4 0.5 ATSDR 1999
Azinphos-methyl Not analyzed -------------------------- ----- -----
Benzene Not detected 0/3 20 -----
Chlordane (total) 3.2 4/14 0.5 -----
DDT/DDE/DDD (total) 1.0 0/14 2 ATSDR 1999
Endosulfan (I, II, sulfate) 0.2 0/14 100 ATSDR 1999
Hexachlorobenzene Not detected 0/3 0.4 ATSDR 1999
Hexachlorocyclohexane (benzene hexachloride or BHC) total of all isomers 0.4 0/14 0.4 ATSDR 1999
Nitrate Not analyzed -------------------------- ----- -----
Sulfate Not analyzed -------------------------- ----- -----
Toxaphene 27 1/14 0.6 ATSDR 1999

Source: PELA 1984a, UF 1991, TTEM 1999
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
* Comparison values used to select chemicals for further scrutiny, not for determining the possibility of illness.


Table 9.

Maximum Concentrations in Off-Site Fish
Contaminants of Concern Maximum Concentration
(mg/kg)
# Greater Than Comparison Value/ Total # of Samples Comparison Value*
(m/kg) Source
Aldrin/Dieldrin Not detected 0/1 ----- -----
Arsenic Not analyzed -------------------------- ----- -----
Azinphos-methyl Not analyzed -------------------------- ----- -----
Benzene Not analyzed -------------------------- ----- -----
Chlordane (total) Not detected 0/1 ----- -----
DDT/DDE/DDD (total) Not detected 0/1 ----- -----
Endosulfan (I, II, sulfate) Not detected 0/1 ----- -----
Hexachlorobenzene Not detected 0/1 ----- -----
Hexachlorocyclohexane
(benzene hexachloride or BHC) total of all isomers
0.1 -/1 none -----
Nitrate Not analyzed ------------------------ ----- -----
Sulfate Not analyzed -------------------------- ----- -----
Toxaphene 1.0 -/1 none -----

Source: DEP 1983e
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
* Comparison values used to select chemicals for further scrutiny, not for determining the possibility of illness.


Table 10.

Completed Exposure Pathways
PATHWAY
NAME
EXPOSURE PATHWAY ELEMENTS TIME
SOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA POINT OF EXPOSURE ROUTE OF EXPOSURE EXPOSED POPULATION
Azinphos-methyl Fire On-site azinphos-methyl fire Air Off-site homes Inhalation About 200 nearby residents May 1983
Drainage Ditch Pesticide Vapors Pesticides in water from ditch draining the site Air Off-site homes along drainage ditch Inhalation About 100 residents along ditch draining the site Past (1940 to 1983)
Drainage
Ditch Water
Pesticides in water from site-runoff Ditch water Ditch draining the site Skin absorption About 50 children Past (1940 to 1983)
Drainage Ditch Sediments Pesticides in sediments of ditch draining the site Ditch sediments Ditch draining the site Skin absorption About 50 children Past (1940 to 1983)
Fish Consumption Fish in stormwater ponds and Itchepacke-sassa Creek Fish Eating fish from stormwater ponds and Itchepacke-sassa Creek Ingestion About 100 people who ate fish from ponds/ Itchepacesassa Creek Past (1940 to 1983)
Incidental Soil Ingestion Contaminated off-site soils Soil Nearby homes & businesses Ingestion and skin absorption About 100 people at nearby homes and businesses Past, present, and future


Table 11.

Potential Exposure Pathways
PATHWAY
NAME
POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAY ELEMENTS TIME
SOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA POINT OF EXPOSURE ROUTE OF EXPOSURE EXPOSED POPULATION
Ground Water Contam-inated On-Site Soil Ground Water On- and off-site wells (monitor, irrigation, etc.) Ingestion and skin absorption About 150 users of about 60 wells within one mile of the site Future
On-Site Soil On-Site Surface Soil Soil On-site Incidental ingestion Depends on future land use changes Future
Contaminated Dust Contam-inated On-Site Soil Soil Nearby homes and businesses Inhalation About 100 people at nearby homes and businesses Future



Table 12.

Estimated Maximum Exposure Dose (mg/kg/day)
On-site Off-site ATSDR Oral Minimal Risk Level (MRL)
child adult child adult
soil g.w. soil g.w. soil g.w. fish soil g.w. fish
Aldrin/Dieldrin 0.007 1x10-4 7x10-4 6x10-5 0.005 7x10-5 N.D. 5x10-4 3x10-5 N.D. 3x10-5 C*
2x10-3 A*
Arsenic 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.04 1x10-6 0.05 N.A. 1x10-7 0.02 N.A. 3x10-4 C
Azinphos-methyl N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. none
Benzene N.D. 0.001 N.D. 6x10-4 N.D. 2x10-4 N.A. N.D. 9x10-5 N.A. none
Chlordane (total) 0.006 4x10-4 6x10-4 2x10-4 0.005 1x10-4 N.D. 6x10-4 6x10-5 N.D. 6x10-4 C&I
1x10-3 A
DDT/DDE/DDD (total) 0.03 0.005 0.003 0.002 0.001 5x10-4 N.D. 1x10-4 2x10-4 N.D. 5x10-4 I&A
Endosulfan
(I, II, sulfate)
0.004 0.001 4x10-4 6x10-4 8x10-4 1x10-4 N.D. 9x10-5 6x10-6 N.D. 2x10-3 C
5x10-3 I
Hexachlorobenzene 0.03 3x10-4 0.003 1x10-4 N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. 2x10-5 C
8x10-3 A
Hexachlorocyclohexane
total all isomers
0.03 0.04 0.003 0.02 1x10-4 0.002 3x10-5 2x10-5 8x10-4 1x10-5 1x10-5 I**
1x10-2 A**
Nitrate 0.05 141 0.006 61 1x10-4 248 N.A. 1x10-5 107 N.A. none
Sulfate 0.5 2,144 0.05 928 0.5 261 N.A. 0.05 113 N.A. none
Toxaphene 0.03 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.003 3x10-4 2x10-4 0.001 1x10-4 1x10-3 I
5x10-3 A

mg/kg/day = milligrams of contaminant per kilogram body weight per day, g.w. = ground water, * Aldrin, ** gamma isomer (Lindane)
N.D. = not detected, N.A. = not analyzed
C = chronic length exposure (> 365 days), I = intermediate length exposure (14-165 days), A = acute length exposure (<14 days)


APPENDIX C. RISK OF ILLNESS, DOSE RESPONSE/THRESHOLD, AND UNCERTAINTY IN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENTS

Risk of Illness

In this health assessment, the risk of illness is the chance that exposure to a hazardouscontaminant is associated with a harmful health effect or illness. The risk of illness is not ameasure of cause and effect; only an in-depth health study can identify a cause and effectrelationship. Instead, we use the risk of illness to decide if a follow-up health study isneeded and to identify possible associations.

The greater the exposure to a hazardous contaminant (dose), the greater the risk of illness. The amount of a substance required to harm a person's health (toxicity) also determines therisk of illness. Exposure to a hazardous contaminant above a minimum level increaseseveryone's risk of illness. Only in unusual circumstances, however, do many peoplebecome ill.

Information from human studies provides the strongest evidence that exposure to a hazardous contaminant is related to a particular illness. Some of this evidence comes from doctors reporting an unusual incidence of a specific illness in exposed individuals. More formal studies compare illnesses in people with different levels of exposure. However, human information is very limited for most hazardous contaminants, and scientists must frequently depend upon data from animal studies. Hazardous contaminants associated with harmful health effects in humans are often associated with harmful health effects in other animal species. There are limits, however, in only relying on animal studies. For example, scientists have found some hazardous contaminants are associated with cancer in animals, but lack evidence of a similar association in humans. In addition, humans and animals have differing abilities to protect themselves against low levels of contaminants, and most animal studies test only the possible health effects of high exposure levels. Consequently, the possible effects on humans of low-level exposure to hazardous contaminants are uncertain when information is derived solely from animal experiments.

Dose Response/Thresholds

The focus of toxicological studies in humans or animals is identification of the relationshipbetween exposure to different doses of a specific contaminant and the chance of having ahealth effect from each exposure level. This dose-response relationship provides amathematical formula or graph that we use to estimate a person's risk of illness. The actualshape of the dose-response curve requires scientific knowledge of how a hazardoussubstance affects different cells in the human body. There is one important differencebetween the dose-response curves used to estimate the risk of noncancerous illnesses andthose used to estimate the risk of cancer: the existence of a threshold dose. A thresholddose is the highest exposure dose at which there is no risk of illness. The dose-responsecurves for noncancerous illnesses include a threshold dose that is greater than zero. Scientists include a threshold dose in these models because the human body can adjust tovarying amounts of cell damage without illness. The threshold dose differs for differentcontaminants and different exposure routes, and we estimate it from information gathered inhuman and animal studies. In contrast, the dose-response curves used to estimate the riskof cancer assume there is no threshold dose (or, the cancer threshold dose is zero). Thisassumes a single contaminant molecule may be sufficient to cause a clinical case ofcancer. This assumption is very conservative, and many scientists believe a threshold dosegreater than zero also exists for the development of cancer.

Uncertainty

All risk assessments, to varying degrees, require the use of assumptions, judgements, andincomplete data. These contribute to the uncertainty of the final risk estimates. Some moreimportant sources of uncertainty in this public health assessment include environmentalsampling and analysis, exposure parameter estimates, use of modeled data, and presenttoxicological knowledge. These uncertainties may cause risk to be overestimated orunderestimated to a different extent. Because of the uncertainties described below, thispublic health assessment does not represent an absolute estimate of risk to personsexposed to chemicals at or near the Landia Chemical Company and Florida FavoriteFertilizer Company site.

Environmental chemistry analysis errors can arise from random errors in the sampling andanalytical processes, resulting in either an over- or underestimation of risk. We can controlthese errors to some extent by increasing the number of samples collected and analyzed,and by sampling the same locations over several different periods. The above actions tendto minimize uncertainty contributed from random sampling errors.

There are two areas of uncertainty related to exposure parameter estimates. The first is theexposure-point concentration estimate. The second is the estimate of the total chemicalexposures. In this assessment we used maximum detected concentrations as theexposure point concentration. We believe using the maximum measured value to beappropriate because we cannot be certain of the peak contaminant concentrations, and wecannot statistically predict peak values. Nevertheless, this assumption introducesuncertainty into the risk assessment that may over- or underestimate the actual risk ofillness. When selecting parameter values to estimate exposure dose, we used defaultassumptions and values within the ranges recommended by the ATSDR or the EPA. These default assumptions and values are conservative (health protective) and maycontribute to the overestimation of risk of illness. Similarly, we assumed the maximumexposure period occurred regularly for each selected pathway. Both assumptions are likelyto contribute to the overestimation of risk of illness.

There are also data gaps and uncertainties in the design, extrapolation, and interpretation oftoxicological experimental studies. Data gaps contribute uncertainty because information iseither not available or is addressed qualitatively. Moreover, the available information on theinteraction among chemicals found at the site, when present, is qualitative (that is, adescription instead of a number) and we cannot apply a mathematical formula to estimatethe dose. These data gaps may tend to underestimate the actual risk of illness. In addition,there are great uncertainties in extrapolating from high to low doses, and from animal-to-human populations. Extrapolating from animals to humans is uncertain because of thedifferences in the uptake, metabolism, distribution, and body organ susceptibility betweendifferent species. Human populations are also variable because of differences in geneticconstitution, diet, home and occupational environment, activity patterns, and other factors. These uncertainties can result in an over- or underestimation of risk of illness. Finally, thereare great uncertainties in extrapolating from high to low doses, and controversy ininterpreting these results. Because the models used to estimate dose-responserelationships in experimental studies are conservative, they tend to overestimate the risk. Techniques used to derive acceptable exposure levels account for such variables by usingsafety factors. Currently, there is much debate in the scientific community about how muchwe overestimate the actual risks and what the risk estimates really mean.


APPENDIX D. JULY 8, 1999 CONTAMINATED GROUND WATER ADVISORY

Florida Dept. of Health and Polk County Health Dept. - July 1999

Contaminated Ground Water Advisory

Lakeland's Westgate Neighborhood

The Florida Department of Health advises against any use of ground water from irrigation wells in a 10 block area of Lakeland's Westgate neighborhood. Chemicals from Landia Chemical/Florida Favorite Fertilizer hazardous waste site have contaminated ground water in this area. If irrigation well water is mixed with infant formula, nitrates in the water could cause "blue baby" syndrome. "Blue baby" syndrome can be fatal. Sulfates in the water can also cause diarrhea in children and adults. Homes and businesses in this area are supplied with city water. City Water is not affected and is safe to use. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is requiring the owners of this hazardous waste site to conduct more tests to determine the full extent of the ground water contamination.

Area Map illustration

For More Information About This Advisory and Public Health, Contact:
Randy Merchant
FL Dept. of Health
Environmental Toxicology, Bin C22
2020 Capitol Circle, SE
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1742
(850) 488-3385
Gene Jeffers
Polk County Health Department
Environmental Engineering
1290 Golfview Avenue
Bartow, FL 33830-6740
(941) 533-3398 ext. 135
For More Information About Cleanup at This Hazardous Waste Site, Contact:
Bill Denman
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-3104
(800) 435-9234 ext. 2-8939
David Gerard
FL Dept. of Environmental Protection
3804 Coconut Palm Drive
Tampa, FL 33619-8318
(813) 744-6100 ext. 420


CERTIFICATION

The Landia Chemical Company/Florida Favorite Fertilizer Public Health Assessment was preparedby the Florida Department of Health, Bureau of Environmental Toxicology, under a cooperativeagreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. It is in accordance withapproved methodology and procedures existing at the time the health assessment was begun.

Debra Gable
Technical Project Officer, SPS, SSAB, DHAC


The Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, ATSDR, has reviewed this health assessment, and concurs with its findings.

Sven E. Rodenbeck
for Richard Gillig
Branch Chief, SPS, SSAB, DHAC, ATSDR

Table of Contents

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

A-Z Index

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