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

HEALTH CONSULTATION

Review of May 2000 Expanded Site Inspection Data for Manila Creek Landfill

MANILA CREEK LANDFILL
(a/k/a POCA DRUM DUMP)
RAYMOND, PUTNAM COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA


BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF ISSUE

The Region three office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requested that theAgency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) review environmental samplingdata from the latest expanded site inspection (ESI) of the Manila Creek site, and evaluate thehealth impacts associated with the site [1].

Manila Creek Landfill is located in a wooded, rural area on County Road 5, and it is comprisedof one half acre of land that has been used as a disposal area for general organic chemical wasteby the Monsanto Company of Nitro, West Virginia, from 1956 to 1957 [2]. There are twostreams north and south of the site, Washington Hollow Creek and an unnamed tributary. Bothstreams flow westward into Manila Creek, which then drains into the Pocatalico River which isconfluent with the Kanawha River. The site is fenced by a six-foot chain link fence with alocking gate. Two seep areas are located between Washington Hollow Creek and north of thefenced area. A dirt access road is located on the southern portion of the site, and part of the roadserves as a parking area for recreationists accessing an adjacent wildlife management area, whichis managed by the State of West Virginia. The closest residences are approximately 0.5 mileaway in a nearby hollow [2,3]. The closest town is Poca, WV., approximately 2.3 miles awayfrom the landfill [4] .

Several federal and state government agencies, including the EPA, West Virginia Department ofNatural Resources (WVDNR), ATSDR, and a private company (i.e., Monsanto Company) haveconducted assessment activities at this site since the 1980s. Analysis of samples taken from avariety of media (e.g., soil, surface water, monitoring well water, leachates, and sediment)revealed the presence of several chemicals. To prevent migration of hazardous substances fromthe site, under a Consent Agreement, Monsanto performed several remedial activities in 1987 asfollows: (1) installed a dewatering well system; (2) constructed a barrier of sheet pilings to divertgroundwater around the site; (3) placed a layer of polyethylene liner over the waste area; (4)capped the area with soil and clay; (5) erected a six-foot chain-link fence with a locking gate; and(6) installed three groundwater monitoring wells. In 1999, Monsanto posted warning signsaround the contaminated seeps at the request of EPA [1,2].

EPA conducted a dioxin Total Maximum Daily Load ( TMDL) investigation for the KanawhaRiver, Pocatalico River and Armour Creek in 1999. Manila Creek Landfill is one of severalwaste sites that are being investigated as a possible sources contributing to the elevated levels of dioxin in the Kanawha River [5].

In addition, EPA also conducted a site inspection (SI) at the site on September 28-29, 1999, tocollect information concerning conditions at the site for assessment of a possible threat to humanhealth and the environment and to determine the need for additional investigation. The analytical results of samples collected during the SI are:

  • Volatile organic compounds (VOCs), pesticides, inorganics and 2,3,7,8,-TCDD werefound at elevated concentrations over background levels in many of the soil waste source samples.

  • VOCs, semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), pesticides, and 2,3,7,8-TCDD weredetected in the on-site monitoring wells.

  • Samples collected from the nearby surface water and sediments contained elevatedconcentrations of chromium and 2,3,7,8-TCDD above environmental benchmarks.

  • 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected at a concentration above the background level in a five-point composite soil sample collected approximately 0.5 miles southwest of the landfill on the nearest residential property.

Based on the above findings, EPA concluded that "hazardous substances are migrating from thelandfill into environment. The surface water migration pathway is the primary release of hazardous substances. Wetlands and the fishery in Manila Creek are being impacted bycontamination from the site."[6]

ATSDR reviewed the SI data and concluded that all contaminants, except arsenic, were at verylow levels that are not likely to cause adverse health effects. In the sediments of the two seepsnorth of the landfill, the arsenic levels were elevated above a level of health concern. ATSDRdetermined that frequent (i.e., daily) dermal contact with the contaminated sediments in thesetwo seeps might result in adverse health effects. However, exposure to these sediments isexpected to be infrequent based on the location of the two seeps and the nature of humanactivities in the area. Infrequent exposures to those sediments are not likely to result in anyadverse health effects [3].

In order to document the extent of migration of the contaminants at the site, an expanded siteinvestigation (ESI) was conducted in May 2000. Among the environmental media collected,there were four monitoring well water samples, 31 soil samples, three surface water samples,three sediment samples, and three quality control/quality assurance (QC/QA) samples Allsamples were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, metals, dioxins, PCBs, and pesticides. In September2000, an ATSDR Record of Activity (AROA) was issued concerning a contaminated soil"hotspot" found just outside the fenced area of the landfill. This area of contaminated soilcontained 3 parts per billion (ppb) of dioxin [10]. In this health consultation, ATSDR reviewedthe full data set from the ESI, and evaluated potential health impacts of contaminants found at the Manila Creek Landfill site.


DISCUSSION

ATSDR uses different comparison values such as all of the chemical-specific, health-basedstandards and guidelines. These comparison values are derived by various government agenciesto identify contaminants that require further evaluation for possible health effects. ATSDR hasestablished the following comparison values for evaluating contaminants in the environment:Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs); Environmental Media Evaluation Guidelines (EMEGs); ReferenceDose Media Evaluation Guides (RMEGs); and Cancer Risk Evaluation Guides (CREGs). In thishealth consultation, the ATSDR comparison values (MRLs, EMEGs, RMEGs, CREGs), the EPAsoil screening levels, the EPA drinking water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and theWest Virginia State water quality standard are used. Due to conservative assumptions used insetting those comparison values, it should not be concluded that a level greater than the screeningvalue will necessarily lead to harmful health effects.

ATSDR considers the most likely human exposure at this site is occasional ingestion and/orinfrequent dermal contact with contaminated surface water, soils and sediments by personsparticipating in occasional recreation activities or work. Inhalation exposures were not givenfurther consideration because VOCs are not present at levels that exceed their respective health-based comparison values.

Based on ATSDR's review of the environmental data for the Manila Creek Landfill site providedby the EPA Region III office, the primary contaminants of concern in the surrounding area of theManila Creek Landfill site are arsenic and dioxin. These chemicals were found in some samplesat levels above their respective health-based comparison values. Details of the ESI samples arediscussed below.

Monitoring Well and Surface Water Samples

During the ESI sampling round in May 2000, three monitoring well water samples were collectedfrom monitoring wells southwest (MW-05, Sata-3 in Figure 1), west (MW-06, Sata-2 inFigure 1), and north (MW-07, Sata-1 in Figure 1) of the landfill. A duplicate sample labeled MW-08 was also collected from southwest monitoring well. Field blank (FB-2), trip blank (TB-3), and rinsate blank (RB-2) samples were also collected for QA/QC purposes. First, this section willreview the organic contaminants detected in the monitoring well and surface water samples, andthen it will review the inorganic contaminants detected in these water samples.

The organic chemicals 2,4,5-trichlorophenol, 4-methylphenol, and caprolactam were detected atvery low levels in a few of the monitoring well samples (Table 1).In one of the surface watersamples, 2,4,5-trichlorophenol was detected, although this result was estimated because thechemical level was lower than the contract-required quantitation limit (CRQL). Pesticides anddioxins were not detected in any of the samples taken from water at the site. All concentrationsof the detected organic chemicals are below their respective health-based comparison values.

The concentrations of a number of inorganic metals were found to be elevated in some surfacewater samples when compared to the background levels. The maximum concentrations of thosemetals are summarized in Table 2. All of the detected metals, with the exception of arsenic andmanganese as noted below, were either at concentrations below or near area background levels orbelow any applicable health-based guidelines.

One sample (i.e., MW-08) contained arsenic at level of 83.9 microgram per liter (g/L), whichexceeds the existing drinking water comparison values for this metal (MCL of 50 g/L, chronicEMEG for child and adult of 3 and 10 g/L, respectively). Six samples (SW-15, SW-17, MW-05, MW-06, MW-07 and MW-08) contained manganese at levels greater than 2,000 g/L. Itshould be noted that sample MW-08 has the highest concentration of most of the detected metals. However, the groundwater and surface water in this area are not currently used for drinkingwater, therefore ATSDR assumes that human consumption of this water is unlikely.

Surface Soil and Sediment Samples

Three sediment samples and 31 soil samples were collected outside of the fenced landfill area.Surface soil sample locations are indicated on Figure 1. Three sets of core soil samples werecollected where the three new monitoring wells were drilled. Samples SS-20 to SS-23 were fromWell # 07 (Sata-1 in Fig.1). SS-24 to SS-29 were from Monitoring Well # 06 (Sata-2 in Fig.1),and SS-30 to SS-37 were from Monitoring Well # 05 (Sata-3 in Fig.1). Two sediment samples(SD-15 and SD-17) were collected from the unnamed tributary south of the landfill. Sedimentsample SD-16was collected from the seep on the north side of the landfill.

The concentrations of a number of VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides and PCBs were found to beelevated in some soil samples when compared to the background levels. The maximumconcentrations of those chemicals are summarized in Attachment Table 3 from the sediment,surface, and core soil sampling results.

The organic contaminants 2-methylnaphthalene (concentration of 110 g/kg), bis-phthalate(concentration of 83 g/kg), naphthalene (concentration of 72 g/kg), and acetophenone(concentration of 78 g/kg) were detected in sample SD-16. Only one chemical (bis-phthalate,concentration of 150 g/kg) was detected in sample SD-17. Pesticides, PCBs, and dioxins werenot detected in any of the sediment samples. All concentrations of the detected chemicals arebelow their respective health-based comparison values.

It should be noted that bis-phthalate was found in all the soil samples (maximum concentrationof 1,100 g/kg) with the exceptions of SS-14, SS-19, SS-24, and SS-28. Pesticides and PCBswere only detected in four soil samples (SS-16, SS-17,SS-18,and SS-19), all of which werecollected from the slope of the south side of the dump area. The highest concentration of PCBs(Aroclor-1248 and Aroclor-1254) were found in sample SS-19 ( maximum concentration of 240and 210 g/kg, respectively). The concentrations of all the detected organic chemicals are belowtheir respective health-based comparison values.

Inorganics were detected in the sediment and surface soil samples. The maximum concentrationsof these metals are summarized in Attachment Table 4. All of the detected metals, with theexception of arsenic as noted below, were either at concentrations below or near the areabackground levels or below any applicable health-based guidelines.

Arsenic was found in all three sediment samples (SD-15, SD-16 and SD-17). The highestconcentration of arsenic detected was 245 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg).The estimated areabackground concentration for arsenic in soil ranges from 16-65 mg/kg [7].The chronic EMEGfor a child and an adult are 20 and 200 mg/kg, respectively. Those are concentrations consideredto be safe levels of daily human exposure for more than 365 days [8]. However, the most likelyexposure to arsenic at the site is considered to be occasional ingestion and/or infrequent dermalcontact with contaminated soils and sediments by persons participating in occasional recreationactivities or work. This kind of infrequent exposure to the arsenic contaminated sediments is notlikely to result in any adverse health effects.

Dioxin was detected in five samples at levels above the ATSDR guideline (Table 5). The highestconcentration was found in sample SS-19 which was collected at the southeast corner of thelandfill. ATSDR guidelines recommend that if dioxin levels exceed 50 parts per trillion (ppt),further evaluation is needed to assess site specific exposures. For dioxin contamination inresidential soil, ATSDR has recommended that at concentration of 1,000 ppt dioxin total toxicityequivalents (TEQs), actions should be taken to reduce or eliminate exposure [9]. It is assumedthat soil in a residential yard is readily accessible and that children would come into contact withthe contaminated soil on a frequent and long-term basis. However, the most likely humanexposures to the hotspot are an occasional ingestion and/or contact with contaminated soils andsediments by persons participating in occasional recreation activities or work. To beconservative, ATSDR recommended to EPA that access to this hotspot be restricted and erosion control measures in this area be implemented [10].

Table 5.

Manila Creek Landfill Expanded Site Investigation Soil Samples Dioxin Results Summary (g/kg)
 SS-14SS-16SS-17SS-18SS-19Health Guideline
Total TEQ388.7 164.7233.1 2,709.13,047.8

1,000



ATSDR'S CHILD HEALTH INITIATIVE

ATSDR considers children in the evaluation of all exposures, and the agency uses healthguidelines that are protective for children. In evaluating any potential health effects fromingestion, children were considered as a special population because of their size, body weight,frequent hand-to-mouth activity and unique susceptibility to chemicals. ATSDR has taken intoaccount that children may accompanyadults for occasional recreation activities on the site.


CONCLUSIONS

  1. Based on the data reviewed for this health consultation, with the exception of arsenic and dioxin in specific sediment and surface soil samples, the contaminants found outside of the fenced Manila Creek Landfill are not present at levels that are likely to cause adverse health effects. They do not pose a public health hazard.

  2. Sediments and some surface soil samples contain elevated levels of arsenic and dioxin. However, exposure to those sediment and surface soil is not likely to result in adverse health effects.

RECOMMENDATION

  1. Restrict access to those localized areas that contain greater than 200 mg/kg arsenic and 1000 g/kg TEQ of dioxins through warning signs, temporary fencing, or other effective means.

  2. Continue to work with community groups and the state to inform persons participating inoccasional recreation activities or work in the immediate area about minimizing contactwith contaminated soil and sediments, and practicing good personal hygiene to reduce the chance of bringing contaminated soil and sediments into homes.

  3. Evaluate the feasibility of using methods for controlling hazardous substance migrationsuch as implementing and monitoring erosion and sedimentation control measures tomitigate further release of dioxin contamination.

PREPARED BY

Jane Zhu, MPH
Health Consultations Section
Exposure Investigations and Consultations Branch
Division of Health Assessments and Consultation

Reviewed by:

Lora Siegmann Werner, MPH
Regional Representative
Office of Regional Operations

Susan Moore
Section Chief
Health Consultations Section
Exposure Investigations and Consultations Branch
Division of Health Assessments and Consultation

Clement J. Welsh, Ph D, MPH
Health Consultations Section
Exposure Investigations and Consultations Branch
Division of Health Assessments and Consultation

Peter J. Kowalski, CIH
Health Consultations Section
Exposure Investigations and Consultations Branch
Division of Health Assessments and Consultation


REFERENCES

  1. Technical Assistance Request from Lora Werner, Agency for Toxic Substances andDisease Registry, Region III Representative to the Exposure Investigation &Consultations Branch, ATSDR. August 23, 2000.

  2. Roy F. Weston, Inc, Site Assessment Technical Assistance (SATA) Team, for the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Region III. Sampling Plan, Manila Creek Site,Raymond City, Putnam County, WV. April 2000.

  3. E-mail to Environmental Protection Agency Site Assessment Manager Jeff Dott fromLora Werner about ATSDR verbal recommendations for Manila Creek Landfill pre-remedial data. ATSDR. March 31, 2000.

  4. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. ATSDR Record of Activity forManila Creek Landfill. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services. July1999.

  5. Limno-Tech, Inc, for the U.S. EPA. Dioxin TMDL Development for the Kanawha River,Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek, West Virginia. Ann Arbor, Michigan. June 1998.

  6. Roy F. Weston, Inc, Site Assessment Technical Assistance Team, for the U.S. EPARegion III. Site Inspection Narrative Report (Draft), Manila Creek Site, Raymond City,Putnam County, WV. June 2000.

  7. Shacklette, H.T. and Boerngen, J.G. Element Concentrations in Soil and Other Surficial Materials of the Conterminous United States. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1270. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 1984.

  8. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Minimal Risk Levels. Atlanta: USDepartment of Health and Human Services; October 2000. (Available athttp://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls.html.)

  9. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compoundsin Soil, Part 1: ATSDR Interim Policy Guideline. Atlanta: US Department of Health andHuman Services. August 1997.

  10. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. ATSDR Record of Activity forManila Creek Landfill Site, Raymond City, Putnam County, WV. September 2000.

Table 1.

Manila Creek Landfill Expanded Site Investigation Water Samples: Organic Results Summary (g/L)
Sample Location2,4,5-Trichlorophenol4-MethylphenolCaprolactam
CVs (Child/Adult) RMEG
1,000/4,000g/L
Not Established RMEG
5,000/20,000 g/L
MW-051 g/L (J)ND55g/L
MW-06ND3 g/L (J)86 g/L (+)
MW-08NDND31 g/L
SW-161 g/L (J)NDND

Note:

CVs = Comparison values.
J = Analyte present. Reported value was estimated because the analyte level was lower than the contract-required quantitation limit (CRQL).
+ = Results reported from 2X dilution.
ND = Not detected.
g/L = Micrograms per liter.
RMEG = Reference dose Media Evaluation Guide.


Table 2.

Manila Creek Landfill Expanded Site Investigation Water Samples: Inorganic Results Summary (g/L)
MetalsConcentrationLocationEMEG(child/adult)MCL
Aluminum51,200MW-0820,000/70,000None
Arsenic83.9MW-083/1050
Barium1,017MW-08700/2,000 (RMEG)2,000
Chromium94MW-08None100
Lead91.9MW-08None 15(action level)
Manganese9,590MW-07500/2,000None
Nickel109MW-08200/700 (RMEG)None
Vanadium108MW-0830/100None
Zinc320MW-083,000/10,000None

Note:

EMEG = Environmental Media Evaluation Guideline.
MCL = The EPA drinking water Maximum Contaminant Level.
g/L = Micrograms per liter.


Table 3.

Manila Creek Landfill ESI Sediment and Soil Samples Results Summary (mg/kg)
Chemicals Concentration Location EMEG(Child/Adult) EPA SSL
Methyl Acetate0.004JSS-13/16NoneNone
2-Hexanone0.001JSS-24NoneNone
Acetone2JSS-28100,000/1,000,000 None
2-Methylnaphthalene0.11JSD-16NoneNone
Phenanthrene0.067JSS-16NoneNone
Fluoranthene0.089JSS-1720,000/300,000 310
Pyrene0.084JSS-122,000/20,000 (RMEG) 2,300
Benzo(a)anthracene0.045JSS-12None0.9
Chrysene0.054JSS-12None88
Bis-Phthalate1.10SS-2320,000/300,00046
Benzofluoranthene0.048JSS-12None0.9
Naphthalene0.072JSD-161,000/10,0003,100
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol0.84JSS-185,000/70,000 (RMEG)7,800
1,1-Biphenyl1.70SS-163000/40,000None
Acetophenone0.078JSD-165,000/70,000 (RMEG)None
Beta-BHC0.013JSS-1430/4000.4
Alpha-BHC0.003JSS-16400/6,0000.1
Delta-BHC0.0038JSS-160.5/70.5
Gamma-BHC0.0035JSS-160.5/70.5
Endosulfan II0.009JSS-17100/1,000470
4,4-DDT0.045JSS-1730/4002
Endrin Kentone0.010JSS-16NoneNone
Alpha-Chlordane0.0062SS-1830/4000.5
Arcolor-12480.24SS-19NoneNone
Arcolor-12540.210JSS-191/10None

Note:

J = Analyte Present. Reported value was estimated because the analyte level was lower than the contract-required quantitation limit (CRQL).
SSL= EPA Soil Screening Level.
EMEG = Environmental Media Evaluation Guideline.
RMEG = Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide.
mg/kg = Milligram per kilogram.


Table 4.

Manila Creek Landfill Expanded Site Investigation Soil Samples Inorganic Results Summary (mg/kg)
MetalsConcentrationLocationEMEG(child/adult)EPA SSL
Aluminum15,200SS-22100,000/1,000,000None
Arsenic245SD-1520/2000.4
Barium476SS-314,000/50,000(RMEG)5,500
Beryllium2.4SD-16100/1,000 (RMEG)0.1
Chromium26.9SS-30NoneNone
Lead91SS-18None400
Manganese1,980SS-243,000/40,000None
Nickel82.9SD-161,000/10,000(RMEG)1,600
Selenium1.2SS-30300/4,000390
Thallium12.7SD-15NoneNone
Vanadium46.8SS-30200/2,000550
Zinc361SD-1620,000/200,00023,000

Note:

SSL = Soil Screening Level.
EMEG = Environmental Media Evaluation Guideline.
RMEG = Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide.
mg/kg = Milligram per kilogram.


Manila Creek ESI Sample Locations
Figure 1. Manila Creek ESI Sample Locations



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. #