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


PRELIMINARY PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

INDUSTRIAL WASTE PROCESSING
PINEDALE, FRESNO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA


PATHWAYS ANALYSES

A. Environmental Pathways

The source area of the identified TCE plume in the groundwater is presumed to be located within the IWP site and adjoining properties. However, it appears possible that multiple sources exist, and there may be one or more yet unidentified sources within the area defined by the former Camp Pinedale property. Soil and groundwater sampling to identify the source is being actively pursued by DTSC on the IWP site and adjoining properties.

Since the source area is not adequately characterized, there is a question about the completeness of pathways by which contaminants from the IWP site and/or adjoining properties have been transported off-site. Other pathways for transport of contaminants through environmental media are definitely potential ones. These pathways include migration through soils into off-site groundwater, transport through surface water runoff during and following rains into groundwater, and transport through airborne transport of volatiles or particulates with prevailing winds onto off-site soils. They are discussed individually below.

MIGRATION THROUGH SUBSURFACE SOIL TO GROUNDWATER:

The well where the Pinedale groundwater contamination was discovered, PCWD-3, and Fresno City Water District Well PS-93, were sampled in 1984 under the provisions of Assembly Bill 1803 (AB 1803) which required limited monitoring of groundwater for agricultural and industrial chemicals. No contaminants were present in PCWD-3 or PS-93 in 1984 (Table 4). In 1988, the private sampling and analysis of PCWD-3 detected 300 ppb TCE, and DTSC-directed sampling that same year reported 400 ppb. PS-93 reported TCE concentrations ranging from 5.9 to 9.4 ppb TCE in 1988.

The geology of the Pinedale area indicates that there may be a preferential flow path for the contaminant plume from the soil to the municipal wells (Radian Corporation, Pinedale Area Ground-water Investigation, 1988). The rocks in the Pinedale area consist predominantly of coarse sand, gravel, and clay. Deposits containing mostly coarse materials such as sand or gravel have more interconnected void space to allow groundwater flow. Due to their higher permeability, gravel or sandy gravel deposits may provide preferred pathways for groundwater movement. Contaminants in groundwater will flow in the same paths, with some variation dependent upon the chemical and physical nature of the contaminant.

A layer of subsurface sandy gravel lies beneath Pinedale in a general north-south direction about 150 to 200 feet above the Mean Sea Level (MSL). This formation appears to be a buried stream bed or channel. Most groundwater wells in the Pinedale area draw their water between 125 to 175 feet above MSL. Most of the contaminated wells have a screen interval or are open borehole wells between 125 to 175 above MSL. Because many of the municipal wells withdraw water from the same subsurface sandy gravel or channel deposit, greater groundwater gradients, and thus flow rates, occur through the channel deposits. Withdrawal of water by pumping from channel deposits draws groundwater from the north, east, and west toward the channel. Contaminants in the soil can also be drawn by the percolating water into this buried channel deposit and then be rapidly transported horizontally along the channel deposit path (Radian Corporation, Pinedale Area Ground-water Investigation, 1988).

All the municipal wells in which contamination has now been detected and the identity and concentrations of these contaminants are shown in Table 5. PCWD-3 water was also analyzed for heavy metals, since lead recovery from solder flux was one of the activities at IWP and this well is close to the IWP site. The analysis showed arsenic at 2 ppb, chromium at 8 ppb, lead at 3 ppb, and cyanide at 10 ppb (Radian Corporation, Pinedale Area Ground-water Investigation, 1988).

MIGRATION THROUGH SURFACE WATER RUNOFF:

DTSC staff were told by citizens that surface water ran off the site when it rained, and the oily brown water ran down the street toward the south (Geologist, Krazan and Assoc, Personal Communication, August, 1990). Surface water running south off the site may carry contaminants, either dissolved in the water, or adsorbed to particulate matter suspended in the water, to other locations. South of the IWP site on the west side of Harrison Street are small industrial and commercial businesses. The municipal well where TCE contamination was first detected, PCWD-3, is two blocks south of IWP near the intersection of Harrison Street with Locust Avenue (Figure 2). It is not known if storm water runoff also migrated south through a soil channel along the eastern or rear end of the industrial lots on Harrison Street.

Soils around PCWD-3 have not been sampled yet, nor have storm drains been sampled. The destination of the storm water runoff eventually is the Maroa Groundwater Recharge Basin immediately southeast of the property adjoining IWP at Ingram Avenue and Herndon Avenue.

MIGRATION THROUGH AIR:

The prevailing winds are reported to be from the northwest, so windblown contaminants would most likely migrate southeast (Geologist, Krazan and Assoc., Personal Communication, August, 1990; Don McCorkle III, Manager, Pinedale County Water District, August, 1990). However, winds are reported to shift direction from morning to evening, so the Fresno Air Terminal and the Fresno Chandler Downtown Airport runways are both oriented northwest-southeast. Air monitoring at another site in Fresno has shown that the predominant wind direction is from the north northwest to the south southeast and the secondary direction is toward the west (Bechtel Environmental, Risk Assessment for FMC, 1990).

The new housing development is west of IWP, and there are homes northwest and southwest of IWP. The adjoining property southeast of the IWP site consists of bare ground on which are metal shed-type buildings. If airborne migration of contaminants occurred, this land may have been impacted.

B. Human Exposure Pathways

Members of the community could be exposed to contaminants from IWP and/or the adjoining property if the on-site contaminants migrate off-site through the groundwater, surface water, soil, or air. The potential routes of human exposure are:

  1. inhalation of airborne contaminants,


  2. incidental ingestion of contaminants deposited in off-site soils around homes and in playgrounds.


  3. ingestion of contaminants in groundwater due to


    1. migration through on-site soils to groundwater pumped by municipal wells,


    2. migration by surface water runoff from on-site soils to off-site soils and then to groundwater pumped by municipal wells,


  4. dermal (skin) exposure to contaminants in on-site soils when children play on-site


  5. dermal (skin) exposure to contaminants deposited in off-site soils

The only pathway for human exposure that may be complete is the migration of TCE from IWP and/or the adjoining properties through soil to the groundwater pumped by municipal wells. At this time the relative contribution of IWP and the adjoining properties is not certain. The other pathways are considered potential because sampling data does not exist to show that contaminants are either present or absent in environmental media. If the pathway appears possible, but no sampling information has been uncovered by DTSC, sampling will be recommended.

INGESTION AND INHALATION OF TCE IN GROUNDWATER:

Residents of homes around municipal wells that have TCE contamination used this water for drinking, bathing, cooking, washing, irrigating gardens and landscapes, swimming, car washing, etc. Fortunately, the water in PCWD-3 and PS-93 was sampled in 1984 and neither well contained TCE. However, when PCWD-3 was sampled on 4/28/88, the water contained 390 ppb TCE, and the TCE levels in FC D25-2 in June 1988 were about 300 ppb. Thus it seems likely that TCE was present in the water for a maximum period of 4 years.

Although metals were detected in PCWD-3, these concentrations are well below the drinking water standards, or MCLs, for these metals. The MCL for arsenic is 50 ppb, for chromium is 50 ppb, and for lead is 50 ppb.

INGESTION OF CONTAMINANTS FROM SURFACE WATER RUNOFF:

Surface water runoff is not likely to have come into direct contact with soils around current residences, as only industrial sites are south of IWP. However, PCWD-3 is south of IWP, and surface water runoff may have contaminated the soils around that well.

INGESTION AND INHALATION OF SITE CONTAMINANTS IN AIR:

The prevailing winds are reported to be from the northwest to southeast, although a secondary direction may be from southeast to northwest. The likelihood of airborne migration of contaminants from the IWP site is not known, but it may be expected to be low because the prevailing wind direction is away from residences. Sampling of soils at the new residences on Minarets Avenue did not indicate that migration of heavy metals had occurred, although there are questions about the sampling procedure (See Table 6 and Quality Assurance/Quality Control Section).

Airborne migration of contaminants appears more likely to have occurred toward the property on the east. Human exposure has probably not occurred there in the past, since the property has been predominantly bare ground containing metal warehouses. However, soil sampling would be important to establish the likelihood of airborne migration of site contaminants, especially since there are plans to develop the area for residential use.


PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS

A. Toxicological Evaluation

Public Exposure To TCE-Contaminated Municipal Water Is A Completed Pathway, But The Source Has Not Been Identified

The only pathway for migration of contaminants which is complete is migration of TCE from IWP and/or the adjoining properties through soils to groundwater which is pumped by municipal wells. However, all the source areas for the TCE groundwater contamination, and the contribution of each, have not been characterized to date. Soil gas data (Table 2) suggest that the relative contribution of TCE contamination on the adjoining property is greater than the contribution from IWP.

People living in nearby homes served by downgradient municipal wells with TCE contamination have been exposed to TCE in the groundwater supply. Based on our review and analysis the TCE concentrations were not high enough, and did not continue for a long enough period of time, to be likely to produce any detectable adverse health effects.

The maximum period of time residents were exposed to TCE is known because the water in PCWD-3 was analyzed for TCE in 1984, and it did not contain detectable levels. The hydrogeology of the area makes it unlikely that TCE was present at a significant concentration before 1984, decreased to nondeductible levels in 1984, and increased to 390 ppb in 1988 (Radian Corporation, Pinedale Area Ground-water Investigation, 1988). Thus residents who obtained water from PCWD-3 were likely to be exposed to TCE for 4 years or less.

The assumption that 390 ppb was the maximum concentration of TCE that residents were exposed to is concluded from hydrogeologic data (Radian Corporation, Pinedale Area Ground-water Investigation, 1988; Jacqueline Spiszman, DTSC, personal communication, August, 1990; Carolyn Tatoian-Cain, CALEPA, personal communication, 1991). The gradient for groundwater flow is from IWP and the adjoining properties southwest toward Fresno County Waterworks Wells D25-2, D25-4, and D25-8, and Fresno City water well PS-93. These municipal wells, and approximately 85 other wells, all draw from the Fresno County Aquifer, which EPA has designated a "sole source aquifer" based on geological studies. Knowledge of the channel formation from which the municipal wells withdraw water has led geologists from DTSC to conclude that TCE concentrations in the water pumped by PCWD-3 probably rose as TCE was drawn into the groundwater in the channel formation (Jacqueline Spiszman, DTSC, personal communication, August, 1990; Carolyn Tatioan-Cain, DTSC, personal communication, July, 1991). Consequently residents would probably not have been exposed to greater than 390 ppb TCE for the 4 years.

Residents' exposure would be further lowered by the dilution of water from PCWD-3 in the distribution pipes of the Pinedale County Water District. Thus, the maximum TCE concentration at a particular household would be reduced by the dilution of water containing TCE with water from pumps such as PCWD-8, which did not contain detectable TCE. The concentration of 390 ppb TCE was only found at the wellhead of PCWD-3.

The highest TCE exposure appeared to have occurred in residences around PCWD-3, since well D25-2, which had a TCE concentration of 307 ppb, was reported to have had an inefficient pump, so it supplied only 2% of the water pumped by Fresno City Water District in 1986, and it was taken out of service that year. Therefore, it did not put much TCE-contaminated water into the distribution system. The Pinedale County water pipe system forms a loop, but water usage in the residential area north of Herndon Avenue is great enough that water is not likely to be transported south of Herndon Avenue or east of Harrison Avenue. Thus, residents in the area west of Harrison Avenue are the only ones primarily served by water from well PCWD-3 and PCWD-8 (Don McCorkle III, Manager, Pinedale County Water District, Personal Communication, August, 1990).

The dilution of TCE-contaminated water has been estimated to be a combination of 1) mixing of water from different wells in the distribution pipes as it moves to different homes, and 2) the amount of water pumped by each well. Well PCWD-3 is reported to be pumping about 50% of the time, and well PCWD-8 runs 50% of the time. PCWD-8 has never had TCE contamination. The water from PCWD-3 and PCWD-8 mixes as it moves in the pipes of the system so the highest TCE concentration that residents around PCWD-3 would have been exposed to has been estimated to be 75% of the TCE concentration in PCWD-3 (Don McCorkle III, Manager, Pinedale County Water District, Personal Communication, August, 1990).

The greatest TCE exposure by residents living closest to PCWD-3, who for four years used water containing 75% of the wellhead TCE concentration for all household purposes, such as drinking, cooking, bathing, irrigation, and swimming, would not be expected to cause an apparent increased risk of cancer (see discussion of volatile organochlorines below).

Other On-Site Contaminants Have Incomplete Pathways

Complete pathways for migration of other on-site contaminants to off-site locations have not been demonstrated. However, there are data gaps: either a lack of off-site sampling or sampling which showed no migration, but which was done without a scientifically reviewed plan. Therefore, toxicological implications associated with a known human exposure to these chemicals cannot be given, since it is not known if human exposure occurred. However, there were numerous hazardous chemicals used and stored at the IWP site, and the following paragraphs describe these chemicals, grouped according to class, and their toxicological effects.

Volatile Organochlorines: Volatile organochlorine compounds, or VOCs, are solvents that can be used to thin paints, clean, degrease, and manufacture many chemicals. How hazardous a particular VOC is depends not only on the toxicity of the chemical, but also on its chemical concentration and properties. These properties include how quickly it evaporates (volatility), how long an individual is exposed to it, how much is absorbed by the body, and how sensitive the exposed individual is to it. VOCs can be absorbed into the body by inhalation of the solvent in its vapor form, by ingestion of contaminated water, and from absorption through the skin (MO Amdur, J Doull, and CD Klaassen, eds., 1991).

VOCs identified at IWP include trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloroethylene (PCE), dichloroethene (DCE), trichloroethane (TCA), and dichloroethane (DCA). Based on animal studies, EPA considers PCE a probable human carcinogens, while TCA, DCE, and DCA are considered possible human carcinogens. Although EPA previously classified TCE as a potential human carcinogen, EPA withdraw the classification in 1991 and is currently reviewing information on its possible cancer causing effects. The International Agency for Research on cancer has determined that TCE is not classified as to its cancer causing effects in humans (EPA IRIS, 1991).

Inhalation and ingestion studies indicate that the bone marrow, central nervous system (CNS), liver, and kidney are the major targets of TCE in animals and humans at exposures higher than those that may produce an increased risk of cancer. TCE at very high concentrations has been used as an anesthetic because it depresses the CNS, resulting in incoordination and unconsciousness. Inhalation of 100 ppm TCE for eight hours inhibits psychophysiological performance. Health effects reported from longer term exposures include decreased appetite, sleep disturbances, and impaired coordination.

Metals: The metals that exert toxic effects in humans at relatively low concentrations are the "heavy metals" such as lead and mercury. A heavy metal that was used at the IWP site and that has been detected in on-site soil is lead.

Lead is an element which affects the nervous system, the blood-forming system, kidneys, and the reproductive system. Developmental defects measured as decrements in I.Q. are seen in offspring of mothers with 10-16 micrograms lead/deciliter (ug/dl) of umbilical cord blood. Alterations in heme synthesis are found when blood concentrations of lead reach 15 to 30 ug/dl, where the concentration of free erythrocyte protoporphyrins is often used as an indicator of exposure. Anemia is seen at 75 ug lead/dl blood in children and at 80-85 ug lead/dl blood in adults. Calcium, phosphate, and iron may affect absorption of lead. The risk of premature birth increases four-fold as cord or maternal blood lead levels increase from less than 8 to greater than 14 ug/dl. The range of 10 to 15 ug/dl is considered to be the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) for developmental toxicity in humans. Lead in humans is associated with reproductive toxicity such as miscarriages and decreased fertility and sperm abnormalities at 40 to 50 ug/dl (ATSDR Toxicological Profile for Lead, 1990).

Acids and Bases: Acids such as hydrochloric acid and sulfuric acid are commonly found around the home in products such as toilet bowl cleaners, automobile batteries, etc. Despite the fact that these agents have varying degrees of toxicity, even a very small amount can result in serious health effects. Inhalation of acid vapors can lead to irritation and crying, and if concentrated enough, inability to swallow, mucous membrane burns, abdominal pain, respiratory distress, and kidney failure.

Basic substances are found in products such as Drano and Liquid Plumber. Experience has shown that strongly basic substances such as these are more likely to produce more severe injuries than are seen with acidic caustic ingestions. Basic substances can cause burns of the skin, mucous membranes, and eyes almost immediately on contact (MO Amdur, J Doull, and CD Klaassen, eds., 1991).

Glycols: Glycols have a wide spectrum of uses, and are generally not highly toxic substances. Due to their low volatility, the glycols in general produce little vapor hazard at ordinary temperatures. A well known glycol is ethylene glycol, or antifreeze. The major hazard from these chemicals occurs following the ingestion of relatively large single doses. Symptoms following an acute oral exposure include nausea, dizziness, and pain in the kidney region (MO Amdur, J Doull, and CD Klaassen, eds., 1991).

Asbestos: Asbestos is a general term applied to a family of silicate minerals that are fibrous in structure and have electrical and thermal insulating properties. Asbestos is a common air pollutant in most large urban areas, and asbestos fibers have been detected as contaminants of domestic water supplies. Inhalation of asbestos fibers is known to lead to asbestosis pulmonary fibrosis and the formation of plaques in the lung. Inhalation of asbestos fibers is also associated with lung cancer, and is considered a Class A, or known human carcinogen. It is not clear whether the ingestion of asbestos-contaminated water can cause cancer (ATSDR Toxicological Profile for Asbestos, 1990).

B. Health Outcome Data Evaluation

Based on our review and analysis there has been no exposure estimated to be high enough or of long enough duration to cause adverse health effects. Therefore, no data bases have been searched and no epidemiological studies (i.e., evaluations of disease patterns with respect to exposure patterns) conducted. However, gaps exist in the sampling and analysis of environmental media. Should further analysis suggest that people have had exposures to sufficient concentrations of contaminants which have been transported off-site to anticipate that adverse health effects might result, data from the Cancer Surveillance Program and Birth Defects Monitoring Program can be requested.

C. Community Health Concerns Evaluation

With respect to concern expressed about DBCP in drinking water supplies, no DBCP was detected in private wells in the area or in IWP's on-site monitoring wells. DBCP can volatilize and be inhaled; thus boiling water containing DBCP could produce more DBCP vapors. Community members concerned about their water supply should contact the Fresno County Health Department for more information.

Another concern raised was about lead being transported off the IWP site. Presently not enough information exists to indicate for certain whether lead is being transported off the site by surface runoff or by airborne soil or dust. Surface water runoff is not likely to come in contact with soils around current residents since only industrial sites are south of IWP. The prevailing wind direction appears to be away from the residences. Sampling of soils at the new residences on Minarets Avenue did not indicate that the migration of heavy metals had occurred; however, sampling procedures may not have adequately been representative of the area. Additional surface soil sampling of off-site areas is recommended.

Input from the community about their concerns has been solicited and information about the IWP site and the Pinedale groundwater contamination has been transmitted through six fact sheets, two public meetings held since May 1988, and interviews with the President of the Fresno County Neighborhood Alliance. DTSC in Fresno has an active Community Public Participation Coordinator, and recent follow-up by the ATSDR Cooperative Agreement Community Relations Coordinator indicates that there have been no new concerns since those of a neighbor who lives across from IWP were addressed.


CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available information, this site is considered to be an indeterminate health hazard because the limited data do not indicate that humans are being exposed to levels of contamination that would be expected to cause adverse health effects. Although past exposure to TCE exceeded health based comparison values, the exposures were not for durations long enough to produce adverse health effects.

The site has been cleared of all drums and chemical waste, and the top six inches of soil has been removed. It is surrounded by a high fence topped with barbwire and it has a locked gate. It may be considered stabilized. However, the soil is still contaminated with a variety of compounds used on site, primarily volatile organochlorines and lead, which have migrated to a depth of 78 inches in some spots (Table 1). The extent of the soil contamination and the variety of compounds which may have been spilled there have not been completely characterized. Further sampling of soil and groundwater is needed to determine the relative contribution of the TCE contamination on the IWP site to the TCE groundwater contamination that is affecting downgradient municipal supply wells.

Extensive sampling of soil and groundwater on the portion of the adjoining property that is owned by Vendo is ongoing under a consent order. The subsurface soil is contaminated with heavy metals and TCE, and the groundwater under the property is contaminated with TCE. The extent of the contamination and its contribution to the groundwater contamination that is affecting downgradient municipal supply wells has not been fully characterized.

The extent of soil contamination on the adjoining property containing the cotton processing property has not been determined. The groundwater under the property is known to be contaminated with TCE, but its origin has not been determined. The extent of the contamination and its contribution to the groundwater contamination that is affecting downgradient municipal supply wells has not been determined. It is currently being characterized under an Imminent and Substantial Endangerment Order from DTSC.

Residents of some homes served by the municipal water companies around the IWP site and adjoining properties have been exposed to TCE in their municipal water for a maximum period of four years. Since residents are primarily served by wells near their homes and since the TCE contamination concentration has varied, the TCE exposure has varied as well. However, based on our analysis, there is no apparent increased risk for cancer in households assumed to have had the greatest exposure to water from PCWD-3, the well with the highest TCE contamination.

Contaminants such as lead have not been found in the soils of the residential area to the west after limited sampling. The primary wind direction is to the southeast, so heavy metals and asbestos may have migrated through the air from the IWP site toward the cotton processing facility on the adjoining property. Although on-site air sampling at the time of the EPA Emergency Response showed no on-site contaminants at concentrations of concern, there has been no surface soil sampling on the adjoining property to determine if prior migration had occurred.

Contaminants may have migrated off site through surface runoff. Since samples of soils south of the IWP site where runoff is possible have not been analyzed for contaminants, this potential pathway contains a data gap. Volatile organochlorines such as TCE would not be detectable now, but heavy metals and other contaminants with low volatility may have been deposited south of the site.


RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. Continue efforts to identify the source of the groundwater contamination by further characterization of subsurface soil and groundwater contamination of IWP and on the property adjoining IWP under a state-issued Imminent Substantial Endangerment Order. If the extent of subsurface soil and groundwater TCE contamination at IWP does not appear to make a significant contribution to the downgradient municipal well contamination, this migration pathway may be considered incomplete.


  2. Determine the extent of the contaminated groundwater plume, encourage remediation by responsible parties and water companies, and enforce the existing Eminent and Substantial Endangerment Order.


  3. Take samples of surface soil on the property adjoining IWP on the east to determine if contaminants migrated off-site before the Emergency Removal Action. Although VOCs would not be expected to be present due to their volatility, asbestos and heavy metals may have been deposited there from airborne particulates. DTSC was unable to verify that the predominant wind direction is toward the southeast, with a secondary direction toward the northwest, but this information would be very useful for determining locations to which contaminants may have migrated. If sampling on the adjoining property to the east demonstrates the presence of asbestos or lead in the surface soil, further sampling on undisturbed surface soil at nearby residences northwest of the site should be done.


  4. Take soil samples in areas south of the site where surface water runoff was reported to flow. Storm drains and the area around PCWD-3 may be possible depositories for contaminants.


  5. Continue periodic mailing of fact sheets and public meetings to keep the community informed of progress in site characterization and to solicit information if further health concerns arise.

Health Activities Recommendation Panel (HARP)

In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) as amended, the Industrial Waste Processing site has been evaluated for follow-up health activities. Although exposure to site contaminants is believed to have occurred in the past, the duration of exposure was not long enough to produce illness or disease. Therefore, this site is not being considered for follow-up health activities at this time. Community health education activities, however, are ongoing and will continue. this effort involves the preparation of a community newsletter, door to door contact of residents, and meeting with community groups. If additional or new information becomes available suggesting that exposure to hazardous substances at concentrations of public health concern is occurring, ATSDR and the California Department of Health Services will re-evaluate this site for any indicated follow-up health activities.


PUBLIC HEALTH ACTIONS

Public Health Actions Planned

Based on the recommendation of the HARP, ATSDR and CDHS are not planning any follow-up health activities at this time. The Department of Toxic Substances Control has indicated that they are currently working with the cotton processing facility to characterize subsurface soils and groundwater contamination under a State issued Imminent Substantial Endangerment Order, and will continue to keep the community informed regarding the progress of characterizing the Pinedale groundwater site as well as activities being conducted at the IWP. site. Recommendations regarding additional soil sampling and characterization of the contaminated groundwater plume are being considered for inclusion in the workplan being developed for the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. ATSDR and CDHS will coordinate with the appropriate agencies regarding actions to be taken in response to those recommendations provided in this health assessment for which no plan of action has yet been developed.


PREPARERS OF REPORT

Health Effects Assessors:

Susan Ann Knadle, Ph.D., DABT
Staff Toxicologist
Hazardous Waste Toxicology Section*
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Karen Randles, M.P.H.
Associate Hazardous Materials Specialist
Hazardous Waste Toxicology Section*
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Jennifer Rous, B.S.
University of California at Davis
Student Intern in the Hazardous Waste Toxicology Section

Diana Lee, M.P.H.
Research Scientist
Environmental Epidemiology and Toxicology Program
California Department of Health Services

Jane Riggan, M.S.W.
Community Relations Coordinator
Impact Assessment, Inc., Consultant to
Environmental Epidemiology and Toxicology Program
California Department of Health Services


ATSDR REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVES

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

Burt J. Cooper, M.S.
Environmental Health Scientist
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Remedial Programs Branch, State Programs Section

*Prior to 7/19/91, the Hazardous Waste Toxicology Section was in the Environmental Epidemiology and Toxicology Branch, California Department of Health Services. The Hazardous Waste Toxicology Section is now in the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency.


CERTIFICATION

This preliminary public health assessment was prepared by the California Department of Health Services 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 health assessment was initiated.

Burt J. Cooper
Technical Project Officer, SPS, RPB, DHAC


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

Director, DHAC, ATSDR


REFERENCES

  1. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological Profile for Asbestos TP-90-04. December, 1990.


  2. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological Profile for Lead ATSDR/TP-88/17. June, 1990.


  3. MO Amdur, J Doull, CD Klaassen (eds.) Casarett and Doull's Toxicology, Pergamon Press, 1991.


  4. Bleth, George. Director of Health, Fresno County. Board Briefing Report - Update on North Fresno and Pinedale Area Hazardous Waste Site and Groundwater. EPA file reference #17. July, 1988.


  5. BSK and Associates, Analytical Laboratories. Lab Results for Vendo Monitoring Wells. July, 1990.


  6. BSK and Associates, Analytical Laboratories. Municipal Well Sampling Results. April to August, 1990.


  7. California Department of Health Services - Toxic Substances Control Program. Pinedale Area Groundwater IWP Investigation (fact letter). March, 1990.


  8. Ecology and Environment, Inc. Soil Sampling Locations Map and Results, Industrial Waste Processing. EPA file references #1 and #2. July, 1988.


  9. Environmental Protection Agency. Industrial Waste Processing - Waste Inventory. EPA file reference #3. January, 1989.


  10. Environmental Protection Agency. Intigrated Risk Information System, 1990.


  11. Environmental Protection Agency. Sole Source Aquifer Background Study: Information on Sole Source Aquifers in Region IX. EPA file reference #6. August, 1987.


  12. Fresno County Water District. Pumpage Values and Closure Dates for Municipal Wells. August, 1990.


  13. Fresno County Water District. Well Sampling Results for Municipal Wells done by BSK and Associates. 1984 to 1989.


  14. Geomatrix Consultants. Groundwater Investigation Results, The Vendo Company Facility. June, 1989.


  15. Geomatrix Consultants. Groundwater Monitoring Results September/October 1989, The Vendo Company Facility. December, 1989.


  16. Geomatrix Consultants. Groundwater Monitoring Results December 1989, The Vendo Company Facility. January, 1990.


  17. Geomatrix Consultants. Interim Report Phase II Site Assessment, The Vendo Company Facility. August, 1989.


  18. Geomatrix Consultants. Phase III Monitoring Results, The Vendo Company Facility. November, 1989.


  19. Geomatrix Consultants. Soil Investigation Results, The Vendo Company Facility. January, 1989.


  20. Hafley, Daniel. Ecology and Environment, Inc. Contact Report with Dan Shane, EPA Emergency Response. EPA file reference #16. January, 1989.


  21. Kazynski, Jerrold M.. Geomatrix Consultants. Letter to John Wall, The Vendo Company. June 11, 1990.


  22. Ladd, Karen. Ecology and Environment, Inc. Contact Report with Martin McIntyre, Fresno County Water District. EPA file reference #12. April, 1989.


  23. McCorkle, Don. Pinedale County Water District. Personal Communication. August, 1990.


  24. McIntyre, Martin. City of Fresno Municipal Water District. Personal Communication. August, 1990.


  25. McKone, Tom. Lawrence Livermore Lab. Personal Communication. August, 1990.


  26. Myers, Bruce. Kazar and Associates. Personal Communication. August, 1990.


  27. Radian Corporation. Pinedale Area Ground-Water Investigation, Fresno County, California. Preliminary Assessment Report, Final. EPA file reference #18. February, 1989.


  28. Department of Toxic Substances Control, Project Office. Personal Communication. July and August, 1990.


  29. Tatoian-Cain, Carolyn. California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Personal Communication. July, 1991.

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. #