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


PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

GBF & PITTSBURG DUMPS
ANTIOCH, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA


CONCLUSIONS

During the 1960s and 1970s, numerous complaints were filed by the community about chemical odors from the site and symptoms of burning eyes and irritated lungs. Community concerns have been addressed through community meetings and fact sheets. In the course of preparing this public health assessment, we did not discover any current community health concerns.

Exposure to airborne contaminants to on-site workers and nearby community members did occur in the past, but data are not available to evaluate those exposures. The site currently poses no apparent public health hazard, and conditions are not expected to change in the future. The potential for inhalation exposure from releases of contaminated soil gas does exist, but those possible exposures would be below levels of health concern. No other potential present or future completed exposure pathways have been identified.

Significant future exposure to site-related contaminants is unlikely if: 1) migration of groundwater contamination is controlled; 2) remediation efforts reduce groundwater contamination to below levels of health concern; 3) no future drinking water wells are placed in areas of known contamination until remediation has reduced contaminant concentrations below levels of health concern; 4) any future excavation/construction projects at the site take the necessary precautions to insure that workers are not exposed to contaminants above levels of health concern; 5) deed restrictions restrict future development of the site; 6) the landfill gas collection and destruction system adequately controls the lateral transport of landfill gas; and 7) the cap is strictly maintained.

ATSDR and CDHS has made recommendations to reduce and prevent exposure to contaminants and to better characterize the contamination at and nearby the site. Follow-up health activities are not indicated at this time. As additional data becomes available, ATSDR and the California Department of Health Services may reevaluate this site for any indicated follow-up health activities.


RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Cease/Reduce Exposure Recommendations
  1. In the areas of known ground water contamination, institutional controls should be implemented to prevent future use of contaminated aquifers for drinking water supplies until remediation has reduced contaminant concentrations to below levels of health concern.


  2. To minimize exposures during any future excavation or construction on the site, the work site should be limited to authorized personnel using appropriate personal protective equipment and applicable OSHA and NIOSH guidelines should be followed.


  3. Deed restrictions should be implemented to restrict redevelopment of site.


  4. The landfill gas collection and destruction system and the landfill cap should be strictly maintained to ensure that releases of landfill gas are controlled.

B. Site Characterization Recommendations
  1. The nature and extent of potential contamination of drainage zones adjacent to the site, including the Markley Creek bed, should be more thoroughly evaluated. The remedial investigation concludes that contamination has not migrated into the Markley Creek bed north of the site, although this conclusion is based on only four samples from two sampling locations.


  2. Data from the new on-site gas probes required by the California Integrated Waste Management Board should be periodically reviewed to evaluate migration of soil-gas off site. If significant off-site migration is identified, additional investigation may be required to determine the potential impact of soil-gas contaminants on the nearby community.

C. Health Follow-up Recommendations

The data and information developed in the GBF/Pittsburg Landfill(s) Public Health Assessment have been evaluated for appropriate follow-up health actions. The ATSDR Health Activities Recommendation Panel (HARP) determined that people have been, but are not currently, exposed to contaminants from the site. Data needed to evaluate those exposures are not available. HARP determined that community education about past exposure was indicated, but has been performed. Because important information needed to evaluate past exposure is lacking and no current allegations or indications of adverse health effects have been identified, no additional follow-up health actions are indicated at this time. ATSDR will reevaluate this site for additional follow-up public health actions if new data become available that indicate a need to do so.


PUBLIC HEALTH ACTIONS

The Public Health Action Plan (PHAP) for GBF/Pittsburg Landfill site contains a description of actions to be taken by ATSDR and or CDHS at and in the vicinity of the site subsequent to the completion of this public health assessment. The purpose of the PHAP is to ensure that this health assessment not only identifies public health hazards, but provides a plan of action designed to mitigate and prevent adverse human health effects resulting from exposure to hazardous substances in the environment. HARP did not identify any public health actions to be taken at this time. The public health actions to be implemented by ATSDR/CDHS are as follows:

  1. ATSDR and CDHS will coordinate with the appropriate environmental agencies to develop plans to implement the cease/reduce exposure and site characterization recommendations contained in this preliminary public health assessment.


  2. ATSDR will provide an annual follow up to this PHAP, outlining the actions completed and those in progress. This report will be placed in repositories that contain copies of this health assessment, and will be provided to persons who request it.

ATSDR will reevaluate and expand the PHAP when needed. New environmental, toxicological, or health outcome data, or the results of implementing the above proposed actions may result in the need for additional actions at this site.


PREPARERS OF REPORT

A. Environmental and Health Effects Assessors

David J. Borgeson, M.S.
Epidemiologist
Impact Assessment, Inc., Consultant to
Environmental Health Investigations Branch,
California Department of Health Services

Diana M. Lee, M.P.H.
Research Scientist
Environmental Health Investigations Branch
California Department of Health Services

B. Community Relations Coordinator

Jane Riggan, M.S.W.
Impact Assessment, Inc., Consultant to
Environmental Health Investigations Branch,
California Department of Health Services


ATSDR REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVES

Lynn Berlad
Regional Services, Region IX
Office of the Assistant Administrator

Gwendolyn Eng
Regional Services, Region IX
Office of the Assistant Administrator

William Nelson
Regional Services, Region IX
Office of the Assistant Administrator


ATSDR TECHNICAL PROJECT OFFICER

Gail Godfrey
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Remedial Programs Branch, State Programs Section


CERTIFICATION

This GBF/Pittsburg Landfill(s) Public Health Assessment was prepared by the Department of Health under a cooperative agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). It is in accordance with approved methodology and procedures existing at the time the public health assessment was begun.

Gail Godfrey
Technical Project Officer
Remedial Programs Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation (DHAC)
ATSDR


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

Robert C. Williams, P.E., DEE
Director, DHAC, ATSDR


REFERENCES

  1. The MARK Group, Engineers & Geologists, Inc., GBF/Pittsburg Landfill(s) Respondents Group Remedial Investigation Report, GBF/Pittsburg Landfill(s), Antioch, California, August, 1991.


  2. California Department of Health Services (Currently Department of Toxic Substances Control), Preliminary Assessment Summary for GBF/Pittsburg Landfills, July 1987.


  3. California Department of Health Services (Currently Department of Toxic Substances Control), Memorandum from Allen K. Wolfenden, Chief, Special Projects Unit, Site Cleanup and Emergency Response Section, to Howard Hatayama, North Coast California Section, April 15, 1985.


  4. California Department of Health Services (Currently Department of Toxic Substances Control) and Contra Costa County Health Services Department, Fact Sheet #5 for GBF/Pittsburg Landfill Site, Contra Costa County, California, June 1991.


  5. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, letter to Wendel Brunner, M.D., Contra Costa County Health Services Department, reporting results of ambient air and soil gas testing at GBF/Pittsburg Landfills during December 1986. January 8, 1987.


  6. Contra Costa County Health Services Department, Current Status Report of GBF Toxic Waste Site in Antioch, prepared by staff from the Public and Environmental Health Divisions for the County Board of Supervisors, January 26, 1987.


  7. California Department of Health Services (Currently Department of Toxic Substances Control), Community Relations Plan for the GBF/Pittsburg Landfill Site, Contra Costa County, California, Prepared by ICF Technology, Inc., March 1988.


  8. McCulley, Frick & Gilman, Inc., Preliminary Public Health and Environmental Evaluation, GBF/Pittsburg Landfill(s). Prepared for IT Corporation January 29, 1988, and amended May 11, 1988.


  9. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Preliminary Health Assessment for GBF, Inc., Dump, Antioch, Contra Costa County, California, CERCLIS Number CAD980498562, July 18, 1990.


  10. The MARK Group, Engineers & Geologists, Inc., GBF/Pittsburg Landfill(s) Respondents Group Public Health and Environmental Evaluation, GBF/Pittsburg Landfill(s), Antioch, California, December 1991.


  11. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Assessment Guidance Manual, March 1992.


  12. Memorandum from California Integrated Waste Management Board to Mr. William Q. Nelson, Department of Health and Human Services, March 29, 1993.


  13. Hydro Geo Chem, Inc., Soil Gas Survey, GBF/Pittsburg Landfill, Antioch, California, Appendix A, April 19, 1990.


  14. Bay Area Air Pollution Control District (Currently the Bay Area Air Quality Management District), Memorandum describing results of air sampling during a fire involving paper pulp in a former liquid waste disposal pond on August 1 and 2, 1977. Memorandum dated September 29, 1977.


  15. Radiation Detection Company, report to IT, Inc., describing results of air sampling conducted for IT, Inc. during a fire involving paper pulp in a former liquid waste disposal pond on August 2, 1977. Report dated August 8, 1977.


  16. Little, J.C., J.M. Daisy, and W.W. Nazaroff, "Transport of Subsurface Contaminants into Buildings, An Exposure Pathway for Volatile Organics", Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 26, No. 11, 1992.


  17. Hearey, C.D., J.A. Harris, M.S. Usatin, D.M. Epstein, H.K. Ury, and R.R. Neutra, "Investigation of a Cluster of Anencephaly and Spina Bifida", American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 120, No. 4, 1984.


  18. California Department of Health Services (Currently Department of Toxic Substances Control) and Contra Costa County Health Services Department, Fact Sheet #4 for GBF/Pittsburg Landfill Site, Contra Costa County, California, June 1990.

APPENDIX A - FIGURES

Site Location Map
FIGURE 1. SITE LOCATION MAP (6)

Land Use in the Site Vicinity
FIGURE 2. LAND USE IN THE SITE VICINITY (1)


APPENDIX B - TABLES

TABLE 1.

LIST OF CHEMICALS IN TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY FOR ZIP CODE 94509 AND YEARS 1987-1990
Chemical
Acetone
Ammonia
Arsenic
Carbon Tetrachloride
Carbonyl Sulfide
Catechol
Chlorine
Chloroform
Formaldehyde
Freon 113
Glycol Ethers
Hydrochloric Acid
Hydrogen Fluoride
Manganese Compounds
Methanol
Methylene Chloride
Phosphoric Acid
Sodium Hydroxide
Sodium Sulfate
Sulfuric Acid
Toluene
Titanium Tetrachloride

TABLE 2.

SUMMARY OF TOTAL RELEASES IN TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY FOR ZIP CODE 94509 AND YEARS 1987-1990
Year Air Releases (lbs) Water Releases (lbs) Land Releases (lbs) Publicly Owned Treatment Works (lbs)
1987 793,616 1,752,849 2,731 796
1988 1,055,457 23,124 0 0
1989 832,072 18,553 0 0
1990 618,610 7,054 15,000 0

TABLE 3.

KNOWN OR SUSPECTED CONSTITUENTS IN ON-SITE WASTE (1)
Contaminant
Inorganic
Beryllium (& beryllium chromate)
Calcium hypochlorite
Chromium
Copper ammonia complex
Hexavalent chromium
Iron chloride
Lead
Mercury
Phosphoric acid
Potassium cyanide
Silver nitrate
Sulfuric acid & iron sulfate (pickeling liquor)
Titanium dioxide
Zinc chloride
Organic
Pesticides & herbicides (picloram, DDT, formaldehyde, malathion, lindane, chlordane, diazinon)
Solvents (chlorothene, trichloroethylene, photographic supplies, freon fluorocarbon, and ethyl acetate)
Dowtherm (diphenoloxide & dichlorenzine)
Polychlorinated biphenols
Monoethanolamine
Ethanolamines
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Acids
Hydrochloric
Nitric
Acetic
Chromic
Other
M2 Incendiary Oil Thickener
Liquid industrial wastes
Phosphorus ordinance
Outdated medicines & medical equipment

TABLE 4.

CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN IN ON-SITE GROUNDWATER (1)
Chemical Maximum Conc. ppb Location Comparison Value ppb Comparison Value Source
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Acetone 400,000 MW-23 1,000 Oral RMEG-Child
Benzene 250 MW-22, MW-23 1.2 Oral CREG-Water
Carbon tetrachloride 210 MW-21 0.3 Oral CREG-Water
Chloroethane 9 G-4 NA NA
Chloroform 1,500 MW-23 5.7 Oral CREG-Water
1,1-Dichloroethane 39 G-4 NA NA
1,2-Dichloroethane 31 G-6 0.4 Oral CREG-Water
1,1-Dichloroethylene 25 G-6 0.06 Oral CREG-Water
1,2-Dichloroethylene 160 G-6 70 LTHA
1,2-Dichloropropane 3,500 G-4 5 MCL
Methylene Chloride 500 MW-23 4.7 Oral CREG-Water
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone 390 MW-23 NA NA
Tetrachloroethylene 310 G-6 0.7 Oral CREG-Water
Trichloroethylene 270 G-6 3.2 Oral CREG-Water
Vinyl Chloride 36 MW-23 0.2 Chronic Oral
EMEG-Child
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Isophorone 69 G-4 8.5 Oral CREG-Water
4-Methylphenol 33 G-4 NA NA
Phenol 72,000 MW-23 4,000 LTHA
INORGANIC CHEMICALS
Arsenic 83 MW-23 0.02 Oral CREG-Water
Cadmium 260 MW-23 2 Chronic Oral EMEG-Child
Chromium 120 MW-23 50 Oral RMEG-Child
Copper 4,100 MW-23 1,300 MCL
Nickel 4,700 MW-23 100 LTHA
Silver 190 G-4 50 Oral RMEG-Child

NA = Not Available

TABLE 5.

CONTAMINANTS IN ON-SITE SOIL GAS (1)
CONTAMINANT MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION (ppbv)
Benzene 5,500
Carbon tetrachloride 0.1
Chloroform 430
1,2-Dichloroethane 120
Ethylbenzene 2,500
Ethylene Dibromide 18
Methane 260,000,000 (i.e., 26%)
Methylene Chloride 61,000
Tetrachloroethylene 920
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 15,000
Trichloroethylene 1,600
Vinyl Chloride 1,200
Toluene 39,000
Xylenes 6,400

TABLE 6.

CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN IN OFF-SITE GROUNDWATER (1)
Chemical Maximum Conc. ppb Location Comparison Value ppb Comparison Value Source
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Benzene 36 MW-14 1.2 Oral CREG-Water
Carbon tetrachloride 140 MW-36 0.3 Oral CREG-Water
Chloroethane 4.8 MW-7 NA NA
Chloroform 270 MW-7 5.7 Oral CREG-Water
1,1-Dichloroethane 9 MW-14 NA NA
1,2-Dichloroethane 16 MW-36 0.4 Oral CREG-Water
1,1-Dichloroethylene 14 MW-7 0.06 Oral CREG-Water
1,2-Dichloropropane 1,900 MW-14 5 MCL
Methylene Chloride 31 MW-7 4.7 Oral CREG-Water
Tetrachloroethylene 120 MW-7 0.7 Oral CREG-Water
Trichloroethylene 96 MW-7 3.2 Oral CREG-Water
Vinyl Chloride 3.6 MW-8 0.2 Chronic Oral
EMEG-Child
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Isophorone 28 MW-14 8.5 Oral CREG-Water
INORGANIC CHEMICALS
Cadmium 30 MW-29 2 Chronic Oral EMEG-Child
Chromium 140 MW-29 50 Oral RMEG-Child
Nickel 170 MW-14 100 LTHA
Silver 70 MW-7 50 Oral RMEG-Child

NA = Not Available

TABLE 7.

CONTAMINANTS IN OFF-SITE SOIL GAS (1,12)
CONTAMINANT NUMBER OF LOCATIONS TESTED MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION (ppbv)
PRINCIPAL ANALYTES
Carbon Tetrachloride 87 19.4
Trichloroethylene 87 4.7
Tetrachloroethylene 87 6.2
Methylene Chloride 87 0.29
Chloroform 87 7.4
Methane 35 45.7
SECONDARY ANALYTES
Vinyl Chloride 51 2.0
1,1-Dichloroethylene 51 0.05
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 51 0.6
1,2-Dichloroethane 51 1.5
Benzene 51 Not Quantified
Toluene 51 1.9
Ethylbenzene 51 Not Quantified
Xylenes 51 37.6
Freon-113 51 Not Quantified

TABLE 8.

COMPLETED EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Contaminated Environmental Medium Time Frame Exposure Point Exposure Route at Exposure Point Potentially Exposed Populations at Exposure Point Comments
Soil/Waste Past On-site Direct Contact, incidental ingestion On-site workers Nature and magnitude of exposure occurring in the past, especially during the 1960s and 1970s, are unknown.
Ambient Air Past On-site, Nearby residences Inhalation On-site workers and nearby residents Nature and magnitude of exposure occurring in the past, especially during the 1960s and 1970s, are unknown.

Table 9.

POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Contaminated Environmental Medium Time Frame Exposure Point Exposure Route at Exposure Point Potentially Exposed Populations at Exposure Point Comments:
Ambient Air Current, Future On-site, nearby community Inhalation On-site workers, nearby residents Significant exposure is not expected as long as cap is maintained.
Indoor Air Current, Future Nearby community Inhalation Nearby residents Significant exposure is not expected.


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. #