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

HEALTH CONSULTATION

Soil Evaluation
HOMETOWN PROPERTIES
(a/k/a DRY BRIDGE ROAD LANDFILL)
NORTH KINGSTOWN, WASHINGTON COUNTY, RHODE ISLAND


REFERENCES

  1. Letter from U.S. Representative Kenneth Carter to Robert C. Williams, ATSDR. February 11, 1997.

  2. GHR Engineering Associates, Inc. 1987. Draft Hydrogeological Assessment of a Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill in North Kingstown, Rhode Island. GHR Engineering Associates, Inc., 75 Tarkin Hill Road, New Bedford, Massachusetts.

  3. Heath, D.L. 1990. Occurrence, Movement and Quality of Groundwater at the Hometown Properties, Inc. Landfill and Vicinity, North Kingstown, Rhode Island. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Boston, Massachusetts.

  4. SAIC Engineering, Inc. 1997. Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill Operating Plan for Hometown Properties, Inc. SAIC Engineering, Inc. 101 East Grove Street, Middlesboro, Massachusetts.

  5. ESS Laboratory. March 1998. Soil Sampling Results from Residential Area Abutting the Dry Bridge Road Landfill. 185 Frances Avenue, Cranston, RI 02910-2211.

  6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III. 1997. Risk-Based Comparison Table. Philadelphia, PA 19107.

  7. Rhode Island Department of Health. February 1992. Rules and Regulations for Lead Poisoning Prevention. Environmental Lead Program. pp. 8-11

  8. ATSDR. 1993. Public Health Assessment Guidance Manual. Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, FL.

Review and Approval of Health Consultation Evaluating Residential Soil for Dry Bridge Road Landfill, North Kingstown, Rhode Island

Concurrence:

Kimberly Chapman
Environmental Health Scientist, EICB, DHAC

Donald Joe
Section Chief, PRS, EICB, DHAC

John Abraham
Branch Chief, EICB, DHAC


APPENDIX A

Evaluation of Environmental Contamination and
Potential Exposure Pathways Methodology

Quality Assurance

In preparing this report, ATSDR staff members relied on the information provided in the referenced documents and by representatives of the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM). 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. An exposure pathway must include 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 the soil exposure pathway for people living near the landfill that might be exposed from skin contact or accidental ingestion to compounds from the landfill.

Data evaluators use comparison values as screening tools to evaluate environmental data relevant to 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, or EMEG, and ATSDR's cancer risk evaluation guide, or CREG. Comparison values are derived from available health guidelines, such as ATSDR's minimal risk levels and EPA's cancer slope factor (a method used by EPA to determine carcinogenicity).

The derivation of a comparison value uses conservative exposure assumptions, resulting in values that are much lower than exposure concentrations that have been observed to cause adverse health effects. These comparison values are therefore protective of public health in essentially all exposure situations. That is, if the concentrations in the exposure medium are less than the comparison values, the exposures are not of health concern and no further analysis of the pathway is required. 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 human activities 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. ATSDR's comparison values, therefore, 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 comparison value 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 [8].

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 would conclude that exposure to that chemical was not of public health concern; therefore, no further data review would be required for that chemical. However, if the maximum concentration was greater than the health comparison value, the chemical would be selected for additional data review. In addition, any chemicals detected that did not have relevant health comparison values would also be 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 include the number of samples with levels 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.



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. #