Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to site content
PETITIONED PRELIMINARY PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

GLOBAL LANDFILL
OLD BRIDGE, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY




APPENDIX A Figures I-III

Figure 1
Figure I.

Figure 2
Figure II.

Figure 3
Figure III.

APPENDIX B - Health Outcome Information
Provided to ATSDR from the Petitioner

Table 3
Demographic Information of Individuals
Represented by the ATSDR Petitioner


1990 Age Groupings
Information < 18 18-44 45-64 65-74 >74
Number 109 181 60 18 6
Average Age 10.6 31.5 52.2 68.9 79.8
Max. Age 17 44 63 74 88
Min. Age 2 18 45 65 75
Male/Female Ratio 0.98 0.88 1.07 1.25 0.5

Table 4
Prevalence Rate (per 1,000 Individuals) of Health Outcomes
Information Provided to ATSDR from the Petitioner


1990 Age Groupings
Condition < 18 18-44 45-64 65-74 >74
Allergies 54.4 110.5 66.7 55.6 0.0
Asthma 36.4 49.7 16.7 0.0 0.0
Bronchitis 54.5 16.6 50.0 55.6 0.0
Diabetes* 0.0 5.5 33.3 0.0 0.0
Heart Murmur 36.4 16.6 16.7 55.6 0.0
Thyroid Problem 9.1 22.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Miscarriage 0.0 38.7 16.7 0.0 0.0

* - Statistically significantly low. Three observed cases where 7.5 were expected.

Table 5

Prevalence Rate (per 1,000 Individual) of Health Outcomes
from the U.S. Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics,
National Health Interview Survey, 1988


1990 Age Groupings
Condition < 18 18-44 45-64 65-74 >74
Allergies 63.4 114.6 99.4 79.0 59.4
Asthma 49.9 38.7 34.8 43.6 38.0
Bronchitis 54.3 39.0 56.1 65.6 63.5
Diabetes 2.2 9.2 54.6 95.2 87.8
Heart Murmur 17.7 19.3 16.2 27.8 26.2
Thyroid Problem 0.6 11.5 35.6 36.5 47.0




APPENDIX C Tables 6 - 9

TABLE 6 - COMPLETED EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

PATHWAY NAME EXPOSURE PATHWAY ELEMENTS TIME
SOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA POINT(S) OF EXPOSURE ROUTE OF EXPOSURE EXPOSED POPULATION
Surface Soil Landfill on-site surface soil on-site surface soil ingestion, inhalation, & dermal contact trespassers and remediation workers past, present, future
Leachate Landfill leachate discharge points for leachate on landfill ingestion & dermal contact trespassers past, present, future

TABLE 7 - POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS*

PATHWAY NAME EXPOSURE PATHWAY ELEMENTS TIME
SOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA POINT OF EXPOSURE ROUTE OF EXPOSURE EXPOSED POPULATION
Air landfill air on-site, residential areas but there are no air data inhalation trespassers on-site & nearby residents past, present, future
Surface water landfill surface water drainage, creeks, & puddles on- & off-site but contaminant concentrations are not above comparison values dermal contact trespassers on-site, fishermen, & boaters past, present, future
Surface Soil landfill surface soil residential yards but it is unknown whether exposure is occurring because there are no soil data ingestion, inhalation, & dermal contact nearby residents past, present, future
Biota landfill wildlife, fish, & plants
Limited sampling identified no contaminants
creeks & wetlands ingestion consumers of fish, wildlife & plants past, present, future

* The missing element in the pathway are indicated by shading.

TABLE 8 - ESTIMATED POPULATION FOR COMPLETED AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS*

Exposed Populations and Potentially Exposed Populations Affected by a Completed or Potential Exposure Pathway** For:
Location Approx # of Persons VOCs Semi-volatiles PAHs PCBs Pesticides Metals Nitrates
Trespassers on-site unknown LEACHATE
AIR
SW
LEACHATE
SW
SSOIL
LEACH
SSOIL
LEACH
LEACH
SW
SSOIL
LEACH
SW
LEACH
Remediation workers <100

SSOIL SSOIL
SSOIL
Nearby residents 1,100 AIR





Fishermen unknown SW SW

SW SW
Boaters unknown SW SW

SW SW

* The off-site surface soil and biota potential human exposure pathways are not described here because there are not environmental sampling data.
** potential exposure pathways are in bold.
   SW - surface water
   LEACH - leachate
   SSOIL - surface soil

TABLE 9 - COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED EXPOSURE DOSE TO HEALTH GUIDELINES FOR INGESTION

CONTAMINANT EXPOSURE PATHWAY HEALTH GUIDELINE IN MG/KG/DAY SOURCE EXCEEDED BY ESTIMATED EXPOSURE DOSE1
chlorobenzene leachate 0.02 RfD2 NO
trichloroethene leachate 0.1 IMRL3 NO
tetrachloroethene leachate 0.01 RfD NO
trans-1,2-dichloroethene leachate 0.02 RfD NO
vinyl chloride leachate 0.00002 CMRL4 NO
carbon tetrachloride leachate 0.0007 RfD NO
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate leachate 0.02 RfD NO
benzo(a)pyrene leachate 0.1 AMRL5 NO
surface soil NO
Aroclor-1248 (PCB) surface soil 0.000005 CMRL NO
Aroclor-1254 (PCB) surface soil 0.000005 CMRL NO
Aroclor-1260 (PCB) leachate 0.000005 CMRL NO
surface soil NO
aldrin leachate 0.00003 RfD NO
heptachlor leachate 0.0005 RfD NO
heptachlor epoxide leachate 0.000013 RfD NO
chlordane leachate 0.00006 RfD NO
arsenic leachate 0.0003 RfD NO
surface soil NO
barium surface soil 0.07 RfD NO
beryllium surface soil 0.005 RfD NO
cadmium leachate 0.0002 CMRL NO
manganese leachate 0.005 RfD NO
nitrates leachate 1.6 RfD NO
zinc surface soil 0.3 RfD NO

Explanation of Table 9

1 - See the next page for a description of how the exposure doses were calculated.
2 - RfD is EPA's Reference Dose.
3 - IMRL is ATSDR's Intermediate Minimal Risk Level.
4 - CMRL is ATSDR's Chronic Minimal Risk Level.
5 - AMRL is ATSDR's Acute Minimal Risk Level.


Calculation of Exposure Doses

Soil Ingestion

The exposure doses for soil ingestion were calculated in the following manner. The maximum concentration for a contaminant was multiplied by the soil ingestion rate for adults, 0.0001 kg/day; or children, 0.0002 kg/day; then by an exposure factor of 0.5. This product was divided by the average weight for an adult, 70 kg (154 pounds) or for a child, 10 kg (22 pounds). The exposure factor of 0.5 was used because it was assumed that there is exposure to soil contaminated at the maximum level every other day, rather than daily. This assumption was made because it appears that few, if any individuals, access the site every day. A qualitative summary of these results can be found in Table 6, of this Appendix.

Dermal Exposure to Leachate

The exposure doses for dermal exposure to leachate were calculated in the following manner. The maximum concentration for a contaminant was multiplied by the surface area for an average adult (8620 centimeters square [cm2]) or average six-year old (3910 cm2). This product was multiplied by a permeability constant, exposure time, and a conversion factor, then divided by body weight for an adult (70 kilograms [kg]) or a small child (10 kg).

Permeability constants quantify the ability of a chemical to pass through the skin and can vary from 17 for ethyl ether to 0.00000011 for metiamide. Permeability constants have been identified for only a few chemicals, so known values are used for unknowns. The permeability constant for ethylbenzene was used for chlorobenzene, benzo(a)pyrene, trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, trans-1,2-dichloroethene, vinyl chloride, and carbon tetrachloride. The constant for aldrin was used for heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, and chlordane; and the constant for water was used for bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, Aroclor-1248, -1254, and -1260, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, manganese, nitrates, and zinc. There were permeability constants for benzene and aldrin.

The exposure time used was 1 hr a day or 1 hr/24 hr which is 0.042. The conversion factor was 1/1000 or .001.

Calculation of Risk of Carcinogenic Effects

Carcinogenic risk from soil ingestion and dermal exposure to leachate were calculated through the following. The exposure doses for soil ingestion or dermal exposure calculated as described previously, were multiplied by the EPA's Cancer Slope Factor for the contaminant (14). The result represents the maximum risk for cancer after 70 years of exposure to the maximum concentration of the contaminant. Cancer slope factors were available for aldrin, Aroclor/PCB, arsenic, benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, beryllium, bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, carbon tetrachloride, chlordane, heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, trichloroethene, and tetrachloroethene (20).

The actual risk of cancer is probably lower than the calculated number. The method used to calculate EPA's Cancer Slope Factor assumes that high dose animal data can be used to estimate the risk for low dose exposures in humans (15). The method also assumes that there is no safe level for exposure (16). There is little experimental evidence to confirm or refute those two assumptions. Lastly, the method computes the 95% upper bound for the risk, rather the average risk, which results in there being a very good chance that the risk is actually lower, perhaps several orders of magnitude (17).




APPENDIX D - Public Comments

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR GLOBAL LANDFILL PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

The Global Landfill Public Health Assessment was available for public review and comment from December 21, 1992 through February 3, 1993. The Public Comment Period was announced in local newspapers. Copies of the public health assessment were made available for review at the Old Bridge Public Library, the Sayreville Library, and the Middlesex Department of Environmental Health. In addition, the public health assessment was sent to seventeen persons or organizations. Comments were received from one private individual, NJDEPE, and the Township of Old Bridge.

Comments and responses are summarized below. The comment letters can be requested from ATSDR through the Freedom of Information Act.

COMMENT: Two commenters mentioned the following: Under Site Description and History (p. 3), the site is near the intersection of Ernston Road and Route 9, not Route 1, as stated in the public health assessment.
RESPONSE: The public health assessment has been revised accordingly.
COMMENT: The second line on p. 4 should designate the Department as "NJDEPE".
RESPONSE: The public health assessment has been revised accordingly.
COMMENT: In the third paragraph (p.3), "drums were allegedly also disposed of in the mound area"; this was never verified.
RESPONSE: The word "allegedly" has been inserted in this sentence on page 3.
COMMENT: Stabilization Berm
The PHA states that the proposed remedial action (or ROD) for operable unit #1 intends to "stabilize the berm" (see third line of page 3, for example). In fact the ROD calls for the installation of a berm at the toe of the landfill slope to support the selected cap and control the landfill movement. This misconception is presented throughout the document and must be corrected.
RESPONSE: The phrase "stabilize the berm" has been replaced by "a berm be installed at the toe of the landfill slope", throughout the document.
COMMENT: Remedial Investigation (Operable Unit #2)
Even though the PHA was published in September 1992, there is no discussion in the document regarding the remedial investigation conducted at Global Landfill as part of Operable Unit #2. During this investigation (conducted from May through July 1991), samples were collected from surface and subsurface soils, sediments, surface water, ground water, leachate and landfill air. In addition, soil gas and geophysical surveys were completed along with a preliminary human health risk assessment. The final Remedial Investigation Report was issued in June 1992.

Repeatedly, the PHA states the need for additional field investigation at Global Landfill... work that in fact has already been completed by the Department. ATSDR should review the RI Report and incorporate the findings prior to issuing the revised Draft PHA.

RESPONSE: ATSDR only became aware of the RI Report in October 1992. Though several efforts were made to obtain one, ATSDR did not receive a copy of the RI Report until mid-February 1993. The public health assessment has been extensively revised to incorporate those new data. The data from the RI did address many of ATSDR's concerns expressed in the Initial and Public Comment Releases. However, the RI did not address ATSDR's major concern which was the lack of off-site sampling of surface soil and ambient air.
COMMENT: The second sentence in paragraph two on page eight implies that generally accepted medical procedures, with respect to the reporting of birth defects, are not being followed in Old Bridge. This is not correct. A conversation with the NJDOH indicated that there is problem with under-reporting of birth defects throughout New Jersey and has nothing to do with the Old Bridge area.
RESPONSE: This sentence was revised to "Previous NJDOH evaluations indicate that there is severe under-reporting of birth defects in the State of New Jersey."
COMMENT: The commenter's 27-year old daughter died of chronic myelogenous leukemia in 1992. The daughter had resided about a mile from Global Landfill for ten years. The comment was:
    This landfill should have been capped years ago. Nobody else should go through suffering like this.
RESPONSE: Unfortunately, ATSDR can not evaluate whether this case of leukemia could have possibly been associated with the landfill because of the lack of off-site monitoring data.
COMMENT: Contaminants of Concern On-Site, Table I
Table I includes results from leachate and monitor well sampling performed under the New Jersey Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) permit. However, the data only include results through April 1990. ATSDR should be aware that the NJPDES permit remains in force and more recent quarterly monitoring results are available.
RESPONSE: The RI contained sampling data from 1991 and those data were used in revising the public health assessment. ATSDR will request and review the NJPDES data after April 1990. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
COMMENT: Pathway Analysis: Inhalation (p. 20)
The second paragraph states that "while exposure to methane or VOCs off-site may be occurring because of migration through the air, it is not occurring in the apartment complexes due to dumping in the residential." This sentence is unclear and should be restated.
RESPONSE: The last part of this sentence was revised to: "...exposure in the residential areas is not occurring due to dumping in those areas (5)".
COMMENT: Appendix A
Figures I-III in Appendix A were not included in the PHA document received from your office. These figures were contained, however, in the Initial PHA (September 1992). ATSDR should clarify this omission.
RESPONSE: ATSDR apologizes for this omission. The figures will be included in the final release of the public health assessment.




FOOTNOTE

1. Personal communication from Ms. Jacqueline Solomon, NJDOH, dated October 27, 1992.

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. #