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

PETITIONED PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

CAROLINA SOLITE CORPORATION
(a/k/a CAROLINA SOLITE CORPORATION/AQUADALE)
NORWOOD, Stanly County, NORTH CAROLINA


APPENDICES


APPENDIX A: SITE AND FACILITY MAPS

Skyview Map
Map 1. Skyview Map

Geological Survey
Map 2. Geological Survey


APPENDIX B: DEMOGRAPHICS

Demographic Statistics
Demographic Statistics


Table 1.

Block Group and County Age Group Data, 1998 Projection*
Age Group 5-block group area population % of total blockgroup area pop. County Population % of total CountyPop.
Less than 6 years

433

7.7%

4,566

8.2%

6-17 years

855

15.2%

8,966

16.1%

18-24 years

482

8.6%

5,219

9.4%

25-34 years

733

13.1%

7,515

13.5%

35-44 years

830

14.8%

7,965

14.3%

45-54 years

806

14.4%

7,431

13.4%

55-64 years

571

10.2%

5,318

9.6%

65+ years

897

16%

8,590

15.5%

*Data for this table were generated by the Compass program, with PRIZM applications


Age Distribution of the 5 blockgroup residential area surrounding the Carolina Solite facility
Figure 1. Age Distribution of the 5 blockgroup residential area surrounding the Carolina Solite facility


APPENDIX C: EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND EXPOSURE PATHWAYS METHODOLOGY EXPOSURE PATHWAYS TABLE

Quality Assurance

In preparing this report, ATSDR relied on the information provided in the referenced documentsand contact with community members and representatives, North Carolina Department ofHealth, and Human Services and the North Carolina Department of Environment and NaturalResources. ATSDR assumes that adequate quality assurance measures were taken duringchain-of-custody, laboratory procedures, and data reporting. The validity of the analyses andconclusions drawn in this document are dependent upon the availability and reliability of thedata.

Comparison Values

ATSDR comparison values are media-specific concentrations that are considered to be safe underdefault conditions of exposure. They are used as screening values in the preliminary identificationof site-specific "contaminants of concern". The latter term should not be misinterpreted as animplication of "hazard". As ATSDR uses the phrase, a "contaminant of concern" is a chemicalsubstance detected at the site in question and selected by the health assessor for further evaluationof potential health effects. Generally, a chemical is selected as a "contaminant of concern" because its maximum concentration in air, water, or soil at the site exceeds one of ATSDR'scomparison values.

However, it must be emphasized that comparison values are not thresholds of toxicity. Althoughconcentrations at, or below, the relevant comparison value may reasonably be considered safe, itdoes not automatically follow that any environmental concentration that exceeds a comparisonvalue would be expected to produce adverse health effects. The principle purpose behindprotective health-based standards and guidelines is to enable health professionals to recognize andresolve potential public health hazards before they become actual public health consequences. Forthat reason, ATSDR's comparison values are typically designed to be 1 to 3 orders of magnitude(or 10 to 1,000 times) lower than the corresponding no-effect levels (or lowest-effect levels) onwhich they are based. The probability that such effects will actually occur does not depends onenvironmental concentrations alone, but on a unique combination of site-specific conditions andindividual lifestyle and genetic factors that affect the route, magnitude, and duration of actualexposure.

Listed and described below are the various comparison values that ATSDR uses to selectchemicals for further evaluation, as well as other non-ATSDR values that are sometimes used toput environmental concentrations into a meaningful frame of reference.

CREG = Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides
MRL = Minimal Risk Level
EMEG = Environmental Media Evaluation Guides
IEMEG = Intermediate Environmental Media Evaluation Guide
RMEG = Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide
RfD = Reference Dose
RfC = Reference Dose Concentration
RBC = Risk-Based Concentration
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level

Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides (CREGs) are estimated contaminant concentrations expected to cause no more than one excess cancer in a million persons exposed over a lifetime. CREGs are calculated from EPA's cancer slope factors, or cancer potency factors, using default values for exposure rates. However, neither CREGs nor cancer slope factors can be used to make realistic predictions of cancer risk. The true risk is always unknown and may be as low as zero.

Minimal Risk Levels (MRL) are estimates of daily human exposure to a chemical (dosesexpressed in mg/kg/day) that are unlikely to be associated with any appreciable risk of deleteriousnoncancer effects over a specified duration of exposure. MRLs are calculated using data fromhuman and animal studies and are reported for acute (< 14 days), intermediate (15-364 days), andchronic (> 365 days) exposures. MRLs are published in ATSDR Toxicological Profiles forspecific chemicals.

Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs) are concentrations that are calculated fromATSDR minimal risk levels by factoring in default body weights and ingestion rates.

Intermediate Environmental Media Evaluation Guides (IEMEG) are calculated from ATSDRminimal risk levels; they factor in body weight and ingestion rates for intermediate exposures(those occurring for more than 14 days and less than 1 year).

Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide (RMEG) is the concentration of a contaminant in air,water or soil that corresponds to EPA's RfD for that contaminant when default values for bodyweight and intake rates are taken into account.

Reference Dose (RfD) is an estimate of the daily exposure to a contaminant unlikely to causenoncarcinogenic adverse health effects. Like ATSDR's MRL, EPA's RfD is a dose expressed inmg/kg/day.

Reference Concentrations (RfC) is a concentration of a substance in air that EPA considersunlikely to cause noncancer adverse health effects over a lifetime of chronic exposure.

Risk-Based Concentrations (RBC) are media-specific concentrations derived by Region III ofthe Environmental Protection Agency from RfD's, RfC's, or EPA's cancer slope factors. Theyrepresent concentrations of a contaminant in tap water, ambient air, fish, or soil (industrial orresidential) that are considered unlikely to cause adverse health effects over a lifetime of chronicexposure. RBCs are based either on cancer ("c") or noncancer ("n") effects.

Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) represent contaminant concentrations in drinking water that EPA 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.
Methodology of Evaluating Chemicals of Concern

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has determined levels ofchemicals that can reasonably (and conservatively) be regarded as harmless, based on thescientific data the agency has collected in its toxicological profiles. The resulting comparisonvalues and health guidelines, which include ample safety factors (also known as an uncertaintyfactor) to ensure protection of sensitive populations, are used to screen contaminantconcentrations at a site and to select substances (referred to as "chemicals of concern") thatwarrant closer scrutiny. A "chemical of concern" is defined by ATSDR as any chemical that isdetected in air, water, or soil at concentrations exceeding one or more of ATSDR's comparisonvalues. (Refer to Appendix C for a more complete description of ATSDR's comparison values,health guidelines, and other values ATSDR uses to screen site contaminants.)

It is important to understand that comparison values are not thresholds of toxicity. Althoughconcentrations at, or below, the relevant comparison value may reasonably be considered safe, itdoes not necessarily follow that any concentration that exceeds a comparison value would beexpected to produce adverse health effects. Indeed, the principle purpose behind protectivehealth-based standards and guidelines is to enable health professionals to recognize and resolvepotential public health problems before that potential is realized. For that reason, ATSDR'scomparison values are typically designed to be 1 to 3 orders of magnitude lower than thecorresponding no-effect levels (or lowest-effect levels) on which they are based.

When screening individual contaminants, ATSDR staff compare the highest single concentrationof a contaminant detected at the site with the lowest comparison value available for the mostsensitive of the potentially exposed individuals (usually children or pica children). Typically thecancer risk evaluation guide (CREG) or chronic environmental media evaluation guide (EMEG) isused. This "worst-case" approach introduces a high degree of conservatism into the analysisand often results in the selection of many contaminants as "chemicals of concern" that will not,upon closer scrutiny, be judged to pose any hazard to human health. In the interest of publichealth, it is prudent to use a screen that identifies many "harmless" contaminants, as opposed toone that may overlook even a single potential hazard to public health. The reader should keep inmind the conservativeness of this approach when interpreting ATSDR's analysis of the potentialhealth implications of site-specific exposures.

As ATSDR's most conservative comparison value, the CREG, requires special mention. ATSDR's CREG is a media-specific contaminant concentration derived from the chronic(essentially, lifetime) dose of that substance which, according to an Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) estimate, corresponds to a 1-in-1,000,000 cancer risk level. Note, this does notmean that exposures equivalent to the CREG are expected to cause 1 excess cancer case in1,000,000 (1x10-6) persons exposed over a lifetime. Nor does it mean that every person in apopulation of one million has a 1-in-1,000,000 risk of developing cancer from the specifiedexposure. Although commonly interpreted in this way, EPA estimates of cancer "risk" areestimates of population risk only and cannot be applied meaningfully to any individual. EPAexplicitly stated in it's 1986 Cancer Risk Assessment Guidelines that "The true risks areunknown and may be as low as zero" (EPA, 1986).

Reference:

EPA, 1986. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidelines for Carcinogenic Risk Assessment. Fed. Reg., 51: 33997-33998, September 24, 1986.

ATSDR Methodology

Methods of Evaluation of Potential Public Health Implications

Based on available scientific data, much of which ATSDR has collected in its toxicologicalprofiles, ATSDR has determined concentrations of hazardous substances that can reasonably (andconservatively) be regarded as harmless. The resulting comparison values generally include amplesafety factors to ensure protection of sensitive populations. They are used to screen contaminantconcentrations at a site, and to select "contaminants of concern" that warrant closer scrutiny byagency health assessors and toxicologists. A "contaminant of concern" is defined as a substancethat is detected in air, water, or soil at concentrations that exceed one or more of ATSDR'scomparison values and warrants further evaluation.

The derivation of a comparison value uses conservative exposure assumptions, resulting in valuesthat are much lower than exposure concentrations observed to cause adverse health effects. Thisensures that the comparison values are protective of public health in essentially all exposuresituations. Therefore, if the concentration of a substance in an exposure medium is less than thecomparison value, the exposure is not of health concern and no further analysis of the exposuremedium pathway is required.

Comparison values are conservative values, and it is important to note that concentrations ofsubstances that are higher than the comparison values will not necessarily lead to adverse healtheffects. Exposure to levels of substances above their comparison values may or may not lead toadverse health effects. ATSDR's comparison values do not indicate thresholds of toxicity, andthey are not used to predict the occurrence of adverse health effects.

A level of concentration that is equal to or below a relevant comparison value is considered safe.However, the fact that a concentration exceeds a comparison value does not mean that theconcentration is expected to produce adverse health effects. ATSDR uses highly conservative,health-based standards and guidelines to assist health professionals in recognizing and resolvingpotential public health problems.

Exposure Pathway Table
Pathway Name Contaminants Source Environmental Media Point of Exposure Route of Exposure Exposed Population Time Comments
Completed Pathways

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Past Air Emissions

VOCs
Metals
SVOCs

Agriculture
Industry
Traffic

Air

Community ambient air

Inhalation

Child
Adult

Past

Past levels are uncertain due to lack of historical data.

Current Air Emissions

Metals

Agriculture
Industry

Air

Community ambient air

Inhalation

Child
Adult

Present

Current levels are below health concern. However, further investigation will aid in a more complete characterization of ambient air contamination.

Surface Soil Contamination

Metals
Pesticides

Agriculture
Industry

Soil

Community soils

Inhalation
Ingestion

Child
Adult

Past
Present

The only past sampling data available is incomplete and limited onsite. More soil sampling is recommended, and has been undertaken by EPA

Groundwater

VOCs
Metals

Agriculture
Industry

Groundwater

Community well water

Inhalation
Ingestion
Dermal Contact

Child
Adult

Present

Contaminant levels below health concern. Groundwater quality is safe at this time. Although not likely, the potential exists for future contamination.



APPENDIX D: AIR ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING RESULTS AND ATSDR COMPARISON VALUES

Vicinity Map
Vicinity Map


Table 1.

Ambient air detection ranges for contaminants exceeding comparison values (Cvs)
Carolina Solite Ambient Air Sampling 1999
Contaminant Detection Range
(converted from ng/m3 to µg/m3)*
Number of Samples Taken Number of Samples above CVs ATSDR CVs
Chromium

.00018-.005

169

168

.00016 µg/m3 EPA RBC
Arsenic

.00033-.025

169

168

.0002 µg/m3 CREG
.00045 µg/m3 EPA RBC
Cadmium

.00061-.0063

169

51

.0006 µg/m3 CREG
.0011 µg/m3 EPA RBC
*ng/m3=nanograms per cubic meter
µg/m3=micrograms per cubic meter


Table 2.

Particulate Concentrations in Air
1999 NC DENR Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) in Air
Sample sites Type of sample Average concentration (µg/m3)1 Geometric mean of mean concentration EPA regulations
Medlin #P2347

TSP/Metals

40.6

36.3

150 µg/m3 (24 hour)
75 µg/m3 (annual average)
Medlin #P2346

TSP/Metals

40.8

36.4

150 µg/m3 (24 hour)
75 µg/m3 (annual average)
Medlin #P2346

PM10

28.5

NA

150 µg/m3 (24 hour)
75 µg/m3 (annual average)
Intersection

TSP/Metals

39.7

38.1

150 µg/m3 (24 hour)
75 µg/m3 (annual average)
Solite Hill

TSP/Metals

46.2

44.3

150 µg/m3 (24 hour)
75 µg/m3 (annual average)
Solite Hill

PM10

27.9

NA

150 µg/m3 (24 hour)
75 µg/m3 (annual average)
Little Road2

TSP

80.3

68.7

150 µg/m3 (24 hour)
75 µg/m3 (annual average)
1 µg/m3= micrograms per cubic meter
2 Samples are most likely not representative of true ambient conditions because this monitor was located adjacent to a dirt road.


Table 3.

Personal air monitor sampling results for Carolina Solite employees
State Industrial Hygiene Employee Air Quality Survey, July 2,000
area/employee ID# Sample time (min.) barium
(µg/m3)1

chromium
(µg/m3)

arsenic
(µg/m3)

cadmium
(µg/m3)

lead
(µg/m3)

silver
(µg/m3)

Concentrations exceeding comparison values for detected metals2?

Raw #1

488

4

BDL3

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

NA

Raw #2

430

BDL

.3

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

NA

Raw #3

405

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

NA

Raw #4

430

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

NA

Raw #5

441

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

NA

Kiln #1

423

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

NA

Kiln#2

432

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

NA

Kiln #3

425

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

NA

Finishing #1

487

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

NA

Finishing #2

517

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

NA

Finishing #3

468

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

BDL

NA

1 µg/m3= microgram per cubic meter
2 The comparison values used here are NIOSH Recommended Exposure Levels (RELs), OSHA Permissible Exposure Levels (PELs), and ACGIH Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) and Biological Exposure Indices (BEIs), where applicable.
3 BDL= below the detection limit of the analytical method



APPENDIX E: RESIDENTIAL WELL SAMPLING DATA

Residential Well Sampling Sites
Residential Well Sampling Sites


Table 1.

1999 Residential well investigation
Carolina Solite Residential Wells Sampling 1
Contaminant Detection Range
(converted from
mg/L to ppb)

Number of Samples Taken

Number of Detects2

ATSDR CVs

Arsenic

<10-<10

13

BDL

Chronic EMEG/RMEG: 3 ppb child,
10 ppb adult
CREG: .02 ppb
.045 ppb EPA RBC
50 ppb NPDWR3
Barium

<10-10

13

2

RMEG: 700 ppb child, 2000 ppb adult
2600 ppb EPA RBC
200 ppb NPDWR
Beryllium

<3-<3

13

BDL

RMEG: 20 ppb child, 70 ppb adult
73 ppb EPA RBC
4 ppb NPDWR
Cadmium

<5-<5

13

BDL

Chronic EMEG: 2 ppb child, 7 ppb adult
RMEG: 5 ppb child, 20 ppb adult
18 ppb EPA RBC
5 ppb NPDWR
Chromium

<10-<10

13

BDL

100 ppb EPA RBC, 100 ppb NPDWR
Copper

<50-50

13

1

1300 ppb EPA RBC, 1300 ppb NPDWR
Iron

<50-479

13

10

11,000 ppb EPA RBC, 300 ppb NSDWR4
Lead

<5-9

13

2

15 ppb EPA RBC, 15 ppb NPDWR
Manganese

<30-750

13

8

1700 ppb EPA RBC, 50 ppb NSDWR
Mercury

<.5-<.5

13

BDL

2 ppb EPA RBC, 2 ppb NPDWR
Nickel

<10-<10

13

BDL

RMEG: 200 ppb child, 700 ppb adult
730 EPA RBC
Selenium

<5-<5

13

BDL

Chronic EMEG: 50 ppb child,
200 ppb adult
180 ppb EPA RBC
50 ppb NPDWR
Silver

<10-<10

13

BDL

RMEG: 50 ppb child, 200 ppb adult
180 ppb EPA RBC
100 ppb NSDWR
1 Please note: trace amounts of the following contaminants were found at levels less than .5 ppb: toluene, styrene, 1,1-dichloroethane, and chloroform. These contaminants detected at these levels or lower are well below ATSDR and EPA health-based guidelines.
2 BDL= below detection limits; or that the level detected was below the registering capability of the measuring instrument
3 NPDWR (National Primary Drinking Water Standards)- legally enforceable standards that apply to public water systems. Primary standards protect drinking water quality by limiting the levels of specific contaminants that can adversely affect public health and are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems.
4 NSDWR (National Secondary Drinking Water Standards)- non-enforceable guidelines regulating contaminant that may cause cosmetic effects (like tooth discoloration) or aesthetic effects (taste, odor) in drinking water. EPA recommends secondary standards but does not require systems to comply. Some states adopt then as enforceable standards.


Urine Heavy Metals Analysis1

APPENDIX F:

BIOLOGICAL SAMPLING RESULTS
ID # Creatinine in Urine2 Arsenic Total3 Arsenic Inorganic Lead Lead/ Creatinine Mercury Mercury/ Creatinine Cadmium4 Cadmium/ Creatinine Age Gender Present Smoker? Past Smoker?
Normal Range 0.53.00 g/L 035 µg/L 035 µg/L 049 µg/L 049 µg/g 015 µg/L 035 µg/g -- 5 µg/g        
1 0.30 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 56 F No No
2 0.45 ND ND 1 2.2 3 6.7 1 2.2 68 M No No
3 2.51 ND ND 5 2 ND ND 3.4 1.35 61 M No No
4 0.30 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 63 F Yes Yes
5 1.59 40 ND 8 5 ND ND 1.1 0.69 63 M No No
6 1.30 24 ND 4 3 4 3 ND ND 58 F No No
7 0.37 17 ND 1 2.7 3 8.1 ND ND 75 F No No
8 0.64 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 28 F No Yes
9 0.31 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 70 F No No
10 1.16 ND ND 2 1.7 2 1.7 2.3 1.98 71 M Yes Yes
11 0.92 ND ND 1 1.1 5 5.4 1.2 1.3 69 F No No
12 0.92 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 47 F No No
13 1.23 22 ND 1 .81 ND ND 1.1 0.89 70 M No No
14 0.89 ND ND ND ND 1 1.1 ND ND 36 F Yes Yes
15 0.90 ND ND ND ND ND ND 2.3 2.55 66 F No No
16 0.71 ND ND 2 2.8 ND ND ND ND 68 M No No
17 0.68 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 34 M Yes Yes
18 1.89 ND ND 2 1.1 6 3.17 1 0.53 55 F No No
19 2.07 ND ND 3 1.4 4 1.93 1 0.48 57 M No No
20 1.62 ND ND 2 1.2 2 1.23 1.2 0.74 71 F No No
21 1.91 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 18 M No No
22 0.46 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 61 F Yes Yes
23 0.29 ND ND 2 6.89 ND ND ND ND 41 F Yes Yes
24 1.29 ND ND 2 1.55 1 .78 ND ND 52 M No No
25 0.90 33 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 53 F No No
26 0.37 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 60 F No No
27 3.11 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 14 M No No
28 0.81 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 65 F No No
29 0.98 ND ND ND ND 3 3.06 ND ND 53 F Yes Yes
30 1.20 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 56 M No No
1 Measurements are as follows: g/L= grams per liter; µg/L= micrograms per liter; µg/g= micrograms per gram
2 The excretion mechanism of chemicals and metals can be altered when the urine specimen is very concentrated (creatinine>3.00 g/L) or dilute (creatinine<0.50 g/L). In such cases, urinary measurements are not reliable.
3 Total arsenic= Inorganic+Organic
4 Normal ranges for total cadmium are based on a 24-hour sampling, not on spot urine sampling as conducted in this study.



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. #