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

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

SAYREVILLE LANDFILL
SAYREVILLE, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY


ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND OTHER HAZARDS

The Phase I Remedial Investigation (RI) was initiated in February 1987. A supplemental RI (Phase II) was initiated in October 1989. During the RI, samples were collected from on-site ground water, soil, drums, and air, and from surface water and sediment near the site.

Tables 1-6 (See Appendix B) list the contaminants of concern. NJDOH evaluates these contaminants in the subsequent sections of the public health assessment and determines whether exposure to them has public health significance. NJDOH selects and discusses these contaminants based upon the following factors:

  1. Concentrations of contaminants on and off the site.
  2. Field data quality, laboratory data quality, and sample design.
  3. Comparison of on-site and off-site concentrations with background concentrations, if available.
  4. Comparison of on-site and off-site concentrations with health assessment comparison values for (1) noncarcinogenic endpoints and (2) carcinogenic endpoints.
  5. Community health concerns.

In the data tables, the listed contaminant does not mean that it will cause adverse health effects from exposures. Instead, the list indicates which contaminants will be evaluated further in the public health assessment. When selected as a contaminant of concern in one medium, that contaminant will be reported in all media.

The data tables include the following acronyms:

    * CREG = Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide

    * EMEG = ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guide

    * RfD = EPA Reference Dose

    * LTHA = Lifetime Health Advisory

    * EPA MCL = Environmental Protection Agency Maximum Contaminant Level

    * NJ MCL = New Jersey Maximum Contaminant Level

    * NJ SAL = New Jersey Soil Action Level

    * ppm = parts per million

Comparison values for public health assessments are contaminant concentrations in specific media that are used to select contaminants for further evaluation. These values include Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs), Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides (CREGs), and other relevant guidelines. CREGs are estimated contaminant concentrations based on a one excess cancer in a million persons exposed over a lifetime. CREGs are calculated from EPA cancer slope factors. Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) represent contaminant concentrations that the State or Federal regulatory agency deems protective of public health (considering the availability and economics of water treatment technology) over a lifetime (70 years) at an exposure rate of 2 liters of water per day. MCLs are regulatory concentrations. EPA Reference Doses (RfDs) are estimates of the daily exposure to a contaminant that is unlikely to cause adverse health effects.

A. On-Site Contamination

Test Pit and Drum Excavation

During Phase I, five test pits were excavated (TP-1 through TP-5) to a depth of 10 to 14.5 feet to investigate waste types. During Phase II, eleven test pits were excavated (TP-6 through TP-16) to a depth of 4 to 12 feet to collect information on the buried drums on the site. Twenty-eight drums were discovered; 12 of these were sampled and analyzed for the USEPA Target Compound List (TCL), plus a 30-peak scan. Figure 5 (See Appendix A) shows all test pit locations.

The waste material consisted mostly of typical household trash, such as paper, plastic bags and bottles, and small amounts of industrial waste. Four 55-gallon drums containing a solid resin-like material were found in the northwestern portion of the site during the Phase I excavation.

Based on the results of the test pit investigation, it is estimated that between 50 to 150 additional drums are still buried within the northwest portion of the wastefill. Table 1 (See Appendix B) reports the contaminants and concentration range detected in drum samples.

Subsurface Soil

During Phase I, a subsurface soil investigation (more than 3 inches deep) was performed to provide information on the character of the wastefill material, and to determine the extent and degree of soil contamination throughout the site. During the excavation of the five test pits (TP-1 through TP-5), soil samples were collected at about 2-foot intervals from the wastefill material at depths of 4 to 10.5 feet. Two samples from each test pit were analyzed. In addition, soil samples were collected at 14 soil borings (PO-1 through PO-6, MW-1 through MW-6, MW-12, MW-13) drilled at depths of 8 to 114 feet. Continuous soil sampling was conducted for 3 borings. The remaining soil boring samples were collected at about 5-foot intervals. A total of 32 soil boring samples were analyzed for the USEPA Priority Pollutant List, excluding dioxins, plus a 40-peak scan. Figure 5 (See Appendix A) shows all soil sampling locations.

Mostly volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds were found within the wastefill soil and soil boring samples. Several semi-volatile compounds were detected at maximum concentrations in one test pit (TP-4) sample collected 4 feet below the ground surface. Similar semi-volatile organic compounds were present in one soil sample at a depth of 10 to 12 feet located downgradient of the wastefill (MW-6) indicating the possible migration of contaminants from the wastefill into underlying groundwater and the South River. Maximum concentrations of benzene and benzo(a)pyrene were detected in soil samples collected from below Landfill II (PO-1 and PO-6, respectively) suggesting that Landfill II may also be a source of site contamination.

Most metals were detected at levels that are similar to those typically found in soils in New Jersey and the eastern United States. Antimony was detected in three test pits (TP-1, TP-2, TP-5) and two soil borings (PO-2, MW-1) at levels above comparison values. Cadmium was present in one test pit (TP-3) and in two soil borings (MW-5, MW-13) at levels that exceeded comparison values. Table 2 (See Appendix B) reports the contaminants and concentration range detected in soil samples from test pit and soil boring locations.

On-site surface soil samples (0 to 3 inches deep) were not collected during the RI/FS. Based on a visual site inspection, a review of historical site documents, and the results of the test pit/soil boring investigation, no indications of surface soil contamination were found.

Ground Water - Monitoring Wells

During the Phase I groundwater investigation, twenty on-site monitoring wells were installed within each of the underlying water-bearing zones as follows: 5 wells in the wastefill (MW-7 through MW-11); 11 wells in the shallow aquifer (MW-1S, MW-2S, MW-3, MW-4S, MW-5S, MW-6S, MW-12, MW-13, MW-P2, MW-P4, MW-P6); three wells in the intermediate aquifer (MW-6M, MW-2D, MW-4D); and one well in the deep aquifer (MW-1D). During the Phase I test pit excavation, ground water was encountered at depths ranging from 4 to 13.5 feet. Water samples from four test pits (TP-1 through TP-3, TP-5) were collected and analyzed. During Phase II, 21 on-site monitoring wells were sampled. These wells included those installed during the Phase I investigation and one additional deep well (BPT-1). Four shallow monitoring wells (MW-2S, MW-3, MW-P2, MW-P4) and two deep monitoring wells (MW-2D, MW-1D) are located upgradient of the site. Groundwater samples were analyzed for the complete USEPA Priority Pollutant List (PPL) for volatile compounds, base/neutral compounds, acid extractable compounds, polychlorinated biphenyls, pesticides, and metals, and 11 target compounds. Figure 5 (See Appendix A) shows all test pit and groundwater monitoring well locations.

Organic compounds and metals, including benzene, cadmium and chromium, were detected in the wastefill and shallow aquifer at levels above comparison values. Contaminant levels within the shallow aquifer are generally lower than levels of contaminants detected in the wastefill. Shallow downgradient wells generally exhibited higher levels of contaminants than upgradient wells indicating the possible lateral migration of contaminants into nearby surface water. The presence of metals, including chromium, in the intermediate aquifer at levels above comparison values may be the result of the downward migration of contaminants from the wastefill and shallow aquifer.

Insufficient groundwater monitoring data exists to determine the extent and degree of contamination, particularly of metals, within the deep aquifer. Benzene, cadmium and chromium were detected in the upgradient deep monitoring well (MW-2D) at levels above comparison values. However, no contaminants were found in the downgradient deep well (MW-4D) above of comparison values. Since deep monitoring well data is limited, a data gap exists in determining the potential public health impact of exposure to contaminated ground water within the deep aquifer.

Since metal contaminants were detected at levels above comparison values in the two upgradient monitoring wells located within Landfill II (MW-1S, MW-1D), Landfill II or other sources may be contributing to the contamination of ground water and surface water downgradient of the site. Table 3 (See Appendix B) reports the contaminants and concentration range detected in groundwater samples.

Sewer Water

Sanitary sewer water samples were collected from four locations upstream and downstream of the wastefill. Organic compounds and metals were detected in sewer water samples. It is not known to what degree that sewer water contamination is due to infiltration from the wastefill or whether industrial contamination within the sewer line may be affecting nearby monitoring wells. Table 4 (See Appendix B) reports the contaminants and concentration range detected in sewer water samples.

Air

During Phase I, ambient air quality monitoring was performed at a total of 52 locations to determine background air quality conditions and the potential impact of remedial activities on air quality. Six air-quality surveys were conducted; three occurred prior to the subsurface remedial investigation (February 1986, January 1987, and March 1987), and three occurred following the subsurface investigation (June 1987). Air monitoring was conducted about three feet above the soil surface except for gas vent monitoring which occurred inside the vents. Air monitoring data were also collected during the subsurface investigation (March, April and May 1987). Figure 5 (See Appendix A) shows all air quality monitoring locations.

Prior to the subsurface investigation, methane was detected at levels (2-700 ppm) that exceeded background concentrations. Background levels were established at an upwind location prior to the air monitoring survey. Total organic and inorganic contaminants levels (1-6 ppm), excluding methane, were also detected prior to the subsurface investigation. Similar total organic and inorganic contaminant levels were measured following the subsurface investigation. Non-methane contaminant levels (1-80 ppm) were measured in several samples during the subsurface investigation.

B. Off-Site Contamination

Surface Water

During Phase I, eleven surface water samples (SW-1 through SW-11) were collected upstream and downstream of the wastefill from the following four off-site surface water bodies during the wet season and near high tide: Pond Creek; South River; Duck Creek; and an unnamed waterway to the south of Duck Creek. Surface water were analyzed for the USEPA Priority Pollutant List, plus a 40-peak scan, total petroleum hydrocarbons and total organic compound emissions. Figure 5 (Appendix A) shows all Phase I surface water sampling locations.

During Phase II, three surface water samples (SW-14 through SW-16) were collected upstream and downstream from Pond Creek at low tide. Surface water samples were analyzed for the USEPA Target Compound List, plus a 30-peak scan. Figure 5 (Appendix A) shows all Phase II surface water sampling locations.

Metals were generally found in downstream surface water samples at slightly lower levels than upstream samples possibly due to a dilution effect caused by the tidal activity of the South River. During Phase I, cadmium and lead were detected at levels above comparison values in both upstream and downstream locations. Benzene was found in one surface water sample at a level slightly above comparison values. Since Phase I sampling was conducted during high tide, data analyses may reflect highly dilute samples.

Contaminant levels at two sampling points (SW-3, SW-4) may be attributable to discharge from a DuPont Chemical Plant located along Pond Creek. Elevated levels of organic and inorganic compounds were not detected during Phase II sampling. The presence of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (BEHP) in surface water samples may be due to laboratory or field contamination since it was found in quality assurance blanks. Table 5 (See Appendix B) reports the contaminants and concentration range detected in surface water samples.

Sediment

During Phase I, eleven sediment samples (SE-1 through SE-11) were collected directly below the Phase I surface water sampling points. Sediment samples were analyzed for the USEPA Priority Pollutant List, plus a 40-peak scan, total petroleum hydrocarbons and total organic compound emissions. One sample (SE-4) was also analyzed for dioxin. Figure 5 (Appendix A) shows all Phase I sediment sampling locations.

During Phase II, six sediment samples (SE-12 through SE-17) were collected from Pond Creek; three of these were taken directly below the Phase II surface water sampling points. Sediment samples were analyzed for the USEPA Target Compound List, plus a 30-peak scan. Three samples (SE-12, SE-14, SE-17) were also analyzed for PCBs. Figure 5 (Appendix A) shows all Phase II sediment sampling locations.

During Phase I sediment sampling, antimony, arsenic, cadmium, and lead were detected in downstream samples at levels above comparison values. The presence of elevated levels of arsenic and lead were confirmed during the Phase II investigation. In addition, chromium was found in Phase II samples at levels above comparison values. Maximum concentrations of aroclor 1248 (5200 ppb) and aroclor 1260 (3200 ppb) were detected near the DuPont Chemical Plant discharge area (SE-14) at levels above comparison values. The presence of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (BEHP) in sediment samples may be due to laboratory or field contamination since it was found in quality assurance blanks. Table 6 (See Appendix B) reports the contaminants and concentration range detected in sediment samples.

Biota

Biota sampling was not performed during the RI/FS. Thus, a data gap exists in determining the potential public health impact of exposure to contaminated biota.

C. Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Data

To identify possible facilities that could contribute to the contamination of environmental media near the Sayreville Landfill site, NJDOH searched the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI) for 1987 through 1989. TRI is developed by the USEPA from the reports of estimated annual releases of toxic chemicals to the environment (air, water, soil, or underground injection) provided by certain industries.

New Jersey Steel Corporation (NJSC) is the only facility located near the site that reported emissions of toxic substances for 1987 through 1989 that are similar to site contaminants of concern. NJSC reported air emissions from point (stack) sources of 1,100 pounds of lead in 1987 and in 1988. Off-site locations transfer of 140,000 pounds of lead were reported in 1987 and in 1988.

D. Quality Assurance And Quality Control

In preparing this public health assessment, NJDOH relies on the information provided in the referenced documents, and assume that adequate quality assurance and quality control measures were followed with regard to chain-of-custody, laboratory procedures, and data reporting. The validity of the analysis and conclusions drawn for this public health assessment is determined by the availability and reliability of the referenced information.

While proper quality assurance and control measures were generally followed during sample collection, holding times were exceeded for a small portion of analytical samples. Phase I and II environmental samples were analyzed under the USEPA Certified Laboratory Program. Analytical data were validated by certified data-validation personnel. Several factors affected the quality of the data including analytical equipment errors, compound breakdown, and quality assurance blanks (method, field, and trip) contamination.

Acetone and methylene chloride were found in quality assurance blanks in Phase I and II samples and may be the result of laboratory or field contamination. These compounds were not included in the discussion on environmental contamination in this public health assessment.

E. Physical And Other Hazards

The release of methane from the wastefill presents a potential explosion or asphyxiation hazard in confined spaces. No other physical hazards have been reported at the site nor were any observed during the NJDOH site visit.


PATHWAYS ANALYSES

As discussed in the Site Description and History subsection, the former landfill activities at the site may have resulted in the contamination of ground water, soil, air, surface water, and sediments. To determine whether nearby residents are exposed to contaminants migrating from the site, NJDOH evaluates the environmental and human components that lead to human exposure. This pathways analysis consists of five elements: A source of contamination, transport through an environmental medium, a point of exposure, a route of human exposure, and an exposed population.

NJDOH categorizes an exposure pathway as a completed or potential exposure pathway if the exposure pathway cannot be eliminated. For completed pathways all five elements must exist and indicate that exposure to a contaminant has occurred in the past, is currently occurring, or will occur in the future. For potential pathways, however, at least one of the five elements is missing, but could exist. Potential pathways indicate that exposure to a contaminant could have occurred in the past, could be occurring now, or could occur in the future. An exposure pathway can be eliminated if at least one of the five elements is missing and will never be present. Table 7 (See Appendix B) identifies the potential exposure pathways. The following discussion incorporates only those pathways that are important and relevant to the site, and may discuss some of those exposure pathways that have been eliminated.

A. Completed Exposure Pathways

Presently, there are no completed exposure pathways associated with this site. Completed pathways require that the five elements--a source of contamination, transport through an environmental medium, a point of exposure, a route of human exposure, and an exposed population--exist and indicate that exposure to a contaminant has occurred in the past, is currently occurring, or will occur in the future. The following Potential Exposure Pathways subsection will discuss which element (or elements) is missing from each exposure pathway.

B. Potential Exposure Pathways

Subsurface Soil Pathways

Past, present, and future exposure of Sayreville Borough and South River Borough residents (and other site trespassers) and nearby workers to on-site subsurface soil contamination through skin contact, ingestion, and inhalation may be occurring intermittently. Organic and inorganic compounds were detected in on-site subsurface soils at levels that exceeded comparison values. Although the most of the site is surrounded by heavy tree growth and surface water, the site boundaries are unmarked and unsecured, and warning signs are generally absent. As observed during the site visit, hunters and other trespassers may be entering the site from a northern access road as well as along Jernees Mill Road. The 2-foot soil cover and heavy vegetation on the wastefill should help to minimize direct contact with soil, and the release of airborne soil and dust. However, surface water runoff has resulted in many areas of exposed refuse and several ditches up to four feet deep along the northeastern portion of the wastefill embankment, potentially exposing contaminated subsurface soil. The construction business directly along the southern border of the wastefill appears to be located adjacent to or on the wastefill area. Construction materials are being stored beyond the fence enclosure on top of exposed soil, possibly resulting in exposure of workers to contaminated subsurface soil. However, the proposed landfill cover should help to reduce the likelihood of exposure to contaminated soil on the site, and of future contaminant migration from the wastefill to adjacent off-site areas.

Surface Water Pathways

Past, present, and future exposure of Sayreville Borough and South River Borough residents to contaminated surface water through skin contact and ingestion is possible. Organic and inorganic compounds were detected in surface water of the South River. Evidence of soil erosion on the site suggests that wastefill contaminants may be migrating into the South River and its tributaries through surface water runoff. Site contaminants may also be reaching the South River through the shallow ground-water system. Since the South River is commonly used downstream of the site for non-contact recreational purposes, including fishing and crabbing, human exposure to site contaminants may be occurring intermittently.

Sediment Pathways

Past, present, and future exposure of Sayreville Borough and South River Borough residents to contaminated sediment through skin contact and ingestion is possible. Organic and inorganic compounds were detected in sediments of the South River. Metals, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium and lead, were found in downstream sediments at levels above comparison values. Evidence of soil erosion on the site suggests that wastefill contaminants may be migrating into the South River and its tributaries through surface water runoff. Site contaminants may also be reaching the South River through the shallow ground-water system. Since the South River is commonly used downstream of the site for non-contact recreational purposes, including fishing and crabbing, human exposure to site contaminants may be occurring intermittently.

Biota Pathways

Evidence of soil erosion on the site suggests that wastefill contaminants may be migrating into the South River and its tributaries through surface water runoff. Site contaminants may also be reaching the South River through the shallow groundwater system. The South River is commonly used downstream of the site for non-contact recreational purposes, including fishing and crabbing. The uptake and accumulation of metals in fish, particularly bottom-dwellers such as crabs, may be occurring. However, no data (i.e., fish samples) exist to determine whether human exposure to site contaminants is occurring through ingestion of fish.

Since the site perimeter is unsecured, deer and other wildlife may be exposed to site contaminants in subsurface soil, surface water and sediments through direct contact and ingestion. As observed during the site visit, local hunters may be entering the site and adjacent properties from a northern access road. The uptake and accumulation of metals and pesticides in deer or small game may be occurring. However, no data exist (i.e., deer samples) to determine whether human exposure to site contaminants is occurring through ingestion of deer or small game.

Ambient Air Pathways

Past, present, and future exposure of South River Borough residents and workers (and other workers adjacent to the site) to contaminated ambient air through inhalation is possible. Maximum levels of non-methane volatile organic compounds were detected during the on-site subsurface investigation. Small industries border the site, including a construction business located along the southern portion of the wastefill, possibly resulting in exposure to nearby workers. In addition, several South River businesses and residential areas are located downwind of the wastefill. While insufficient data exists to adequately determine whether exposure of nearby residents and workers to site contaminants has occurred in the past, human exposure is unlikely in the future if appropriate precautions are taken during remedial activities involving soil excavation.

Groundwater Pathways

Past and present exposure of Sayreville and South River residents and workers to contaminated ground water is unlikely. Although organic and inorganic contaminants were detected within the shallow and intermediate aquifers underlying the site at levels above comparison values, these aquifers are not presently being used for drinking water purposes. While water quality within the shallow aquifer is poor due to its high salt content, this aquifer is presently designated as drinking water sources and could potentially be used for drinking water in the future. However, due to salt water intrusion the utilization of this aquifer for potable purposes is unlikely. The deep Farrington aquifer is the most productive water-bearing unit underlying the site. A thick layer of clay acts as a protective barrier between the contaminated shallow and intermediate aquifers, and the deep aquifer, thus reducing the likelihood of the downward migration of contaminants. Although metals were detected in the deep aquifer below the site at levels above comparison values, it does not appear that the wastefill is the source of contamination.

There are no residential potable wells in the Boroughs of Sayreville and South River. Sayreville and South River residences and businesses receive their drinking water from two public wellfields located within 1 mile to the south-southeast of the site. The South River wellfield draws water from the deep Farrington aquifer. Based on the remedial investigation, groundwater flow from the site appears to be intercepted by the South River, thus, reducing the likelihood that downgradient public wells beyond the South River would be impacted by the site. Regular sampling of deep monitoring wells downgradient of the site is being performed to monitor off-site groundwater quality.

The Sayreville wells are screened within the Old Bridge aquifer.

According to the NJDEPE geologist, it does not appear that groundwater quality within the Old Bridge aquifer is being impacted by the site. Therefore, the potential for human exposure is unlikely. Planned remedial activities (i.e., landfill cover) should help to minimize the migration of contaminants from the soil into the groundwater system.


PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS

In this section we will discuss the health effects in persons exposed to specific contaminants, evaluate state and local databases, and address specific community health concerns. Health effects evaluations are accomplished by estimating the amount (or dose) of those contaminants that a person might come in contact with on a daily basis. This estimated exposure dose is than compared to established health guidelines. People who are exposed for some crucial length of time to contaminants of concern at levels above established guidelines are more likely to have associated illnesses or disease.

Health guidelines are developed for contaminants commonly found at hazardous waste sites. Examples of health guidelines are the ATSDRs Minimum Risk Level (MRL) and the USEPAs Reference Dose (RfD). When exposure (or dose) is below the MRL or RfD than non-cancer, adverse health effects are unlikely to occur.

MRLs are developed for each route of exposure, such as acute (less than 14 days), intermediate (15 to 364 days), and chronic (365 days and greater). ATSDR presents these MRLs in Toxicological Profiles. These chemical-specific profiles provide information on health effects, environmental transport, human exposure, and regulatory status.

A. Toxicological Evaluation

Soil Pathways

Site trespassers, and nearby residents and workers, may potentially be exposed to subsurface soil contaminants at levels that may result in adverse health effects through ingestion. The exposure dose assessment assumes that adults eat 100 milligrams of on-site soil per day and children eat 200 milligrams of on-site soil per day.

Long-term oral exposure to benzo(a)pyrene, aldrin, heptachlor at maximum concentrations detected in on-site subsurface soil would not be expected to result in non-carcinogenic health effects. Based on animal studies, USEPA categorizes benzo(a)pyrene, aldrin and heptachlor as probable human carcinogens. Lifetime exposure to benzo(a)pyrene or heptachlor through ingestion at levels similar to those found on the site would result in no apparent increased cancer risk. Oral exposure to aldrin for a lifetime at levels similar to those detected on the site may result in a low increased risk of cancer.

Long-term oral exposure to antimony, arsenic, and cadmium at maximum levels detected in on-site subsurface soil would not be expected to result in non-carcinogenic health effects.

Surface Water Pathways

Nearby residents and workers may potentially be exposed to surface water contaminants at levels which may result in adverse health effects. The exposure dose assessment assumes that adults drink 2 liters of surface water per day and children drink 2 liters of surface water per day.

Benzene is categorized by USEPA as a human carcinogen based on health studies of workers. Oral exposure to benzene at levels detected in nearby surface water would not be expected to result in carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic human health effects.

Non-carcinogenic health effects would not likely result from oral exposure to BEHP at levels detected in nearby surface water. USEPA categorizes BEHP as a probable human carcinogen based on animal studies. Oral exposure to BEHP for a lifetime at levels similar to those detected in surface water may result in a low increased risk of cancer. Oral exposure to cadmium at levels detected in surface water near the site would not be expected to result in adverse human health effects in adults; however, children exposed to maximum concentrations of cadmium found in nearby surface water may experience minor adverse health effects on the renal and cardiovascular systems. Proteinuria (protein in urine) was observed in humans following oral exposure to low doses of cadmium for a lifetime. Oral exposure of rats or rabbits to cadmium has been found to increase blood pressure in some animal studies.

Oral exposure to lead compounds at levels similar to those detected in nearby surface water were shown to result in minor adverse health effects in animal studies, including changes in blood chemistry, liver function, nervous and reproductive systems, and an increase in systolic blood pressure.

Sediment Pathways

Nearby residents may potentially be exposed to surface water contaminants at levels which may result in adverse health effects. The exposure dose assessment assumes that adults eat 100 milligrams of sediment per day and children eat 200 milligrams of sediment per day. Non-carcinogenic health effects would not likely result from oral exposure of adults to metals (antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead) at levels detected in sediments. Children exposed to lead at levels found in sediments near the site may result in adverse health effects. Oral exposure to lead compounds at levels similar to those detected in nearby surface water sediments were shown to result in minor adverse health effects in animal studies, including changes in blood chemistry, liver function, nervous and reproductive systems, and an increase in systolic blood pressure. Non-carcinogenic health effects would not be expected in children exposed to antimony, arsenic, cadmium and chromium at levels found in nearby site sediments.

Ambient Air Pathways

Based on the ambient air monitoring data gathered at the site, air emissions, primarily of methane, are not at levels of health concern. While the release of volatile organic compounds, including non-methane compounds, from site soils may occur during ground-intrusive remedial activities, the public health impact of such releases should be minimal if appropriate precautions are taken.

B. Health Outcome Data Evaluation

Health outcome data were not evaluated since there are no completed exposure pathways (a source of contamination, transport through an environmental medium, a point of exposure, a route of human exposure, and an exposed population) associated with the site, and since no specific health concerns have been expressed by the community or local health agencies.

C. Community Health Concerns Evaluation

Community health concerns are addressed as follows:

*Is safe to eat the fish from the South River?

Wastefill contaminants may have migrated into the South River and its tributaries through surface water runoff and the shallow groundwater system. The uptake and accumulation of site contaminants in fish, and bottom-dwellers such as crabs, may be occurring. However, no data (i.e., fish samples) exist to determine whether human exposure to site contaminants is occurring through the ingestion of fish.

Next Section          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. #