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

PETITIONED HEALTH ASSESSMENT

OLD DOUGLAS COUNTY LANDFILL
(a/k/a: DOUGLAS COUNTY/CEDAR MOUNTAIN LANDFILL)
DOUGLASVILLE, DOUGLAS COUNTY, GEORGIA


APPENDIX A

Site Map


Figure 1. Vicinity Map


Figure 2. Intro Map



APPENDIX B

Evaluation of Environmental Contamination and Potential Exposure Pathways
Methodology

Quality Assurance

In preparing this report, ATSDR relied on the information provided in the referenced documents and by contacts with the Georgia Department of Environmental Protection (EPD) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ATSDR assumes that adequate quality assurance and control measures were taken during chain-of-custody, laboratory procedures, and data reporting. The validity of the analyses and conclusions drawn in this document are determined by the availability and reliability of the information.

Human Exposure Pathway Evaluation and the use of ATSDR Comparison Values

ATSDR assesses a site by evaluating the level of exposure in potential or completed exposure pathways. An exposure pathway is the way chemicals may enter a person's body to cause a health effect. It includes all the steps between the release of a chemical and the population exposed: (1) a chemical release source, (2) chemical movement, (3) a place where people can come into contact with the chemical, (4) a route of human exposure, and (5) a population that could be exposed. In this consultation, ATSDR evaluates chemicals in the soil, sediment, and groundwater that people living in nearby residences may consume or come into contact with.

Data evaluators use comparison values (CVs), which are screening tools used to evaluate environmental data that is relevant to the exposure pathways. Comparison values are concentrations of contaminants that are considered to be safe levels of exposure. Comparison values used in this document include ATSDR's environmental media evaluation guide (EMEG) and cancer risk evaluation guide (CREG). Comparison values are derived from available health guidelines, such as ATSDR's minimal risk levels and EPA's cancer slope factor.

The derivation of a comparison value uses conservative exposure assumptions, resulting in values that are much lower than exposure concentrations observed to cause adverse health effects; thus, insuring the comparison values are protective of public health in essentially all exposure situations. That is, if the concentrations in the exposure medium are less than the CV, the exposures are not of health concern and no further analysis of the pathway is required. However, while concentrations below the comparison value are not expected to lead to any observable health effect, it should not be inferred that a concentration greater than the comparison value will necessarily lead to adverse effects. Depending on site-specific environmental exposure factors (for example, duration of exposure) and activities of people that result in exposure (time spent in area of contamination), exposure to levels above the comparison value may or may not lead to a health effect. Therefore, ATSDR's comparison values are not used to predict the occurrence of adverse health effects.

The comparison values used in this evaluation are defined as follows: The CREG is a concentration at which excess cancer risk is not likely to exceed one case of cancer in a million persons exposed over a lifetime. The CREG is a very conservative CV that is used to estimate cancer risk. Exposure to a concentration equal to or less than the CREG is defined as an insignificant risk and is an acceptable level of exposure over a lifetime. The risk from exposure is not considered as a significant risk unless the exposure concentration is approximately 10 times the CREG and exposure occurs over several years. The EMEG is a concentration at which daily exposure for a lifetime is unlikely to result in adverse noncancerous effects.

Selecting Contaminants of Concern

Contaminants of concern (COCs) are the site-specific chemical substances that the health assessor selects for further evaluation of potential health effects. Identifying contaminants of concern is a process that requires the assessor to examine contaminant concentrations at the site, the quality of environmental sampling data, and the potential for human exposure. A thorough review of each of these issues is required to accurately select COCs in the site-specific human exposure pathway. The following text describes the selection process.

In the first step of the COC selection process, the maximum contaminant concentrations are compared directly to health comparison values. ATSDR considers site-specific exposure factors to ensure selection of appropriate health comparison values. If the maximum concentration reported for a chemical was less than the health comparison value, ATSDR concluded that exposure to that chemical was not of public health concern; therefore, no further data review was required for that chemical. However, if the maximum concentration was greater than the health comparison value, the chemical was selected for additional data review. In addition, any chemicals detected that did not have relevant health comparison values were also selected for additional data review.

Comparison values have not been developed for some contaminants, and, based on new scientific information other comparison values may be determined to be inappropriate for the specific type of exposure. In those cases, the contaminants are included as contaminants of concern if current scientific information indicates exposure to those contaminants may be of public health concern.

The next step of the process requires a more in-depth review of data for each of the contaminants selected. Factors used in the selection of the COCs included the number of samples with detections above the minimum detection limit, the number of samples with detections above an acute or chronic health comparison value, and the potential for exposure at the monitoring location.


APPENDIX C

Environmental Sampling Results Above ATSDR's Comparison Values


Table 1. On-Site Subsurface Soil Sampling Results Above ATSDR's Comparison Values

Chemical
(ppm)
On-Site
Concentration
Range
Comparison Value Source
Lead 5.6-16 None None
Manganese 210-1,100 300 RMEG

*Source: Final Site Inspection Old Douglas County Landfill; August 19, 1994


Table 2. Off-Site Mobile Home Park Soil Sampling Results Above ATSDR's Comparison Values


Chemical
(ppm)
Surface Soil
Concentration
Subsurface Soil
Concentration
Comparison Value Source
Iron 34,000 43,000 23,000 RBC
Lead 20 5.2 None None
Manganese 1,200 9,900 300 RMEG

*Source: Final Site Inspection Old Douglas County Landfill; August 19, 1994


Table 3. On and Off-Site Groundwater Temporary Monitoring Well Results Above ATSDR's Comparison Values


Chemical Off-site
Maximum
Concentration (ppb)
On-site Maximum
Concentration
(ppb)
Comparison
Value
Source
Chloroethane ND 4 J 8,600 RBC
Methylphenol ND 6 J 180 RBC
Naphthalene ND 2 J 200 EMEG-i
Diethyl Phthalate ND 11 8,000 EMEG-i
Aluminum 16,000 310,000-680,000 37000 RBC
Arsenic 2 J 27-48 J 0.02 CREG
Barium 78 780-6300 700 RMEG
Beryllium 1 J 7-28 J 0.008 CREG
Chromium 59 420-1,400 J 50 RMEG
Cobalt 23 730-1,500 J 2200 RBC
Copper 25 630-640 1500 RBC
Iron 33,000 1,100,000-1,300,000 11,000 RBC
Lead 7 550-810 J None None
Manganese 1,500 24,000-100,000 50 RMEG
Mercury ND 0.48-1.5 11 RBC
Nickel 13 100-270 J 200 RMEG
Vanadium 130 2,700-3,600 30 EMEG-i
Zinc 86 720-760 3000 EMEG-i

*Source: Final Site Inspection Old Douglas County Landfill; August 19, 1994


Table 4. On-Site Sediment Inorganic Chemical Sampling Results Above ATSDR's Comparison Values


Chemical
(ppm)
Gothard's Creek Gothard's Creek
Tributary
Settling Ponds Comparison Value Source
Iron 45,000 86,000 22,000-85,000 61,000 RBC
Lead 4.8 25 3.7-54 None None
Manganese 430 830 320-4,800 300 RMEG

*Source: Final Site Inspection Old Douglas County Landfill; August 19, 1994


Table 5. Off-Site Sediment Inorganic Chemical Sampling Results Above ATSDR's Comparison Values


Chemical

(ppm)

Gothard's Creek Upstream Gothard's Creek Downstream Wetlands Downstream Comparison Value Source
Iron 31,000 62,000 28,000 23,000 RBC
Lead 5.9 13 8.4 None None

*Source: Final Site Inspection Old Douglas County Landfill; August 19, 1994

CREG = Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
EMEG = Environmental Media Evaluation Guide
EMEG-i = Environmental Media Evaluation Guide - Intermediate
J = estimated value
ND = Not Detected
ppb = parts per billion
ppm = parts per million
RBC = EPA's Risk Based Comparison
RMEG = Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide

*For a complete listing of the chemicals analyzed at the Old Douglas County Landfill, refer to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's August 19, 1994 Final Site Inspection Report: Old Douglas County Landfill, Douglasville, Douglas County, GA. EPA ID Number: GAD984279232.


APPENDIX D

Public Comments

ATSDR held a public comment period September 24 to November 8, 1998 to address further questions regarding the Old Douglas County Landfill Public Health Assessment. No public comments were received by ATSDR during this time period.


1For a complete description of ATSDR's comparison values, refer to Appendix B
2Chemical levels in sediment are not federally regulated; ATSDR uses soil screening values when evaluating chemicals in sediment.



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. #