PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
CHEMFAX, INC.
GULFPORT, HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
Figure
Number Title
Figure 1. Site Location Map
Figure 2. Site Map
APPENDIX B -- CONTAMINANT AND PATHWAY TABLES
Table
Number Title
- Ambient Air, On Site
- Groundwater, On Site and Off Site
- Surface Soil, On Site and Off Site
- Subsurface Soil, On Site and Off Site
- Sediment, On Site and Off Site
- Surface Water, On Site and Off Site
- Summary--Completed Exposure Pathways
- Summary--Potential Exposure Pathways
- Comparison of Estimated Exposed Dose to Health Guidelines for Chemfax Workers On Site, Other Nearby Workers and Various Residents Off Site.
LIST OF ACRONYMS, CODES, AND ABBREVIATIONS
| CREG | Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide |
| RMEG | Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide |
| MRL | Minimum Risk Level |
| EMEG | Environmental Media Evaluation Guide |
| AL | Action Level |
| ppb | parts per billion |
| J | estimated value |
| 4,4-DDD | p,p'-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane |
| NA | none available |
| ND | not detected |
Table 1 Ambient Air, On Site
| Contaminant | Maximum Concentration* in ppb Year--1990 | Selection Comparison Value | |
| ppb | Source | ||
| 1,1,1-trichloroethane | A-0.38J B-0.24J C-0.23J | NA | |
| 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene | A-0.19J B-ND C-0.19J | NA | |
| 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene | A-12 B-ND C-ND | NA | |
| 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene | A-4.8 B-0.38 C-ND | NA | |
| benzene | A-18 B-ND C-1.6 | 0.03 | CREG |
| carbon tetrachloride | A-0.14J B-0.12J C-0.12J | 0.01 | CREG |
| dichlorodifluoromethane | A-0.97 B-0.66 C-0.90 | NA | |
| methylene chloride | A-22 B-1.1 C-22 | 0.6 | CREG |
| naphthalene | A-12 B-2.4 C-ND | 2 | MRL |
| styrene | A-120 B-0.7J C-1.7 | 60 | MRL |
| trichlorofluoromethane | A-1.8 B-0.28 C-1.8 | NA | |
| trichlorotrifluoro- methane | A-8.4 B-ND C-ND | NA | |
| xylene | A-95 B-ND C-ND | NA | |
| A- Maximum value for sampling period B- Maximum value reported at apparent upwind sample locations based on winds predominantly from south through southeast (four sample points--the eastern- and southern-most sample locations); may approximate quality of air moving on site at the time sampled was conducted. C- Maximum value at apparent downwind sample locations based on winds predominantly from south through southeast (seven sample points--at the northern-most sample locations); may approximate quality of air moving off site at the time sampling was conducted. * Data is from reference (1) | |||
Table 2 Groundwater, On Site and Off Site
| Contaminant | Maximum Concentration * in ppb Year--1990*** | Selection Comparison Value | ||
| On Site | Off Site | ppb | Source | |
| 2-methylnaphthalene | A-1,800 B-ND | C-ND | NA | |
| dibenzofuran | A-7J B-ND | C-ND | NA | |
| methyl butyl ketone | A-610J B-ND | C-ND | NA | |
| phenanthrene | A-410 B-ND | C-ND | NA | |
| aluminum | A-120,000 B-ND | C-80,000 | NA | |
| calcium | A-51,000 B-2,400 | C-17,000 | NA | |
| cobalt | A-93 B-ND | C-22 | NA | |
| iron | A-120,000 B-ND | C-36,000J | NA | |
| lead | A-190 B-ND | C-40 | 15 | AL |
| magnesium | A-29,000 B-540 | C-17,000 | NA | |
| nickel | A-210 B-ND | C-ND | 200 | RMEG |
| potassium | A-20,000 B-ND | C-11,000 | NA | |
| sodium | A-180,000 B-57,000 ** | C-36,000J | NA | |
| Note: Samples were not filtered A-On site monitoring wells B-On site industrial wells C-Off site monitoring wells, several hundred feet southeast and northeast of property * Data is from reference (1), except for that marked ** ** Data is from reference (2) *** Concentrations from 1988 sampling activity were less than for 1990 sampling. | ||||
Table 3 Surface Soil, On Site and Off Site
| Contaminant | Maximum Concentration * in ppb | Selection Comparison Value | ||
| On Site (year) | Off Site*** (year) | ppb | Source | |
| 2-methylnaphthalene | 100,000 (1990) | ND | NA | |
| benzo(a)anthracene | 79,000J (1990) | 140J (1990) | NA | |
| benzo(b/k)fluoranthene | 18,000J (1990) | 180J (1990) | NA | |
| benzo(ghi)perylene | 91J (1990) | ND | NA | |
| endrin ketone | 26 ** (1988) | ND | NA | |
| 4,4-DDD | 62J ** (1988) | ND | 3 | CREG |
| ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene | 61J (1990) | ND | NA | |
| naphthalene | 240,000 ** (1988) | ND | NA | |
| phenanthrene | 180,000J (1990) | 98J (1990) | NA | |
| aluminum | 15,000 (1990) | 3,100 (1990) | NA | |
| calcium | 84,000 ** (1988) | 3,000 (1990) | NA | |
| cobalt | 2 (1990) | ND | NA | |
| copper | 25 ** (1988) | 12 (1990) | NA | |
| iron | 20,000J (1990) | 5,100J (1990) | NA | |
| lead | 53 ** (1988) | 53 (1990) | NA | |
| magnesium | 170 ** (1988) | ND | NA | |
| mercury | 0.32J (1990) | 0.40J (1990) | NA | |
| nickel | 76 (1990) | 2 (1990) | NA | |
| sodium | 680 ** (1988) | ND | NA | |
| * Data from reference (1), except for data marked ** ** Data from reference (2) *** Sampled a few hundred feet north of property | ||||
Table 4 Subsurface Soil, On Site and Off Site
| Contaminant | Maximum Concentration * in ppb Year--1990 | Selection Comparison Value | ||
| On Site | Off Site ** | ppb | Source | |
| 2-methylnaphthalene | 170,000 | ND | NA | |
| benzyl butyl phthalate | 920 | ND | NA | |
| chrysene | 160J | ND | NA | |
| naphthalene | 380,000 | ND | NA | |
| phenanthrene | 45,000 | ND | NA | |
| aluminum | 14,000 | 230 | NA | |
| calcium | 1,400J | 670 | NA | |
| cobalt | 34 | 34 | NA | |
| copper | 27 | 140 | NA | |
| iron | 42,000J | 2,900J | NA | |
| lead | 98 | 72 | NA | |
| magnesium | 1,300 | 720 | NA | |
| mercury | 1.3J | 0.32J | NA | |
| nickel | 72 | 36 | NA | |
| potassium | 860 | ND | NA | |
| sodium | 2,100 | ND | NA | |
| * Data from reference (1) ** Sampled near bayou | ||||
Table 5 Sediment, On Site and Off Site
| Contaminant | Maximum Concentration* in ppb Year--1990 | Selection Comparison Value | ||
| On Site | Off Site | ppb | Source | |
| 2-methylnaphthalene | A-200,000 B-2,500 C-27,000 | D-240 E-ND | NA | |
| benzo(a)anthracene | A-4,500 B-ND C-ND | D-140J E-ND | NA | |
| benzo(b/k)fluoranthene | A-1,600J B-ND C-ND | D-220J E-ND | NA | |
| benzo(ghi)perylene | A-880J B-ND C-ND | D-ND E-ND | NA | |
| chrysene | A-6,400 B-820J C-ND | D-280J E-ND | NA | |
| dibenzofuran | A-290J B-ND C-ND | D-ND E-ND | NA | |
| ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene | A-41J B-ND C-ND | D-ND E-ND | NA | |
| naphthalene | A-200,000 B-10,000 C-200,000 | D-2,300 E-ND | NA | |
| phenanthrene | A-97,000 B-1,400J C-ND | D-430J E-ND | NA | |
| aluminum | A-630,000 B-4,300 C-2,000 | D-1,900 E-140 | NA | |
| calcium | A-16,000,000 B-2,600 C-1,700 | D-34,000 E-ND | NA | |
| cobalt | A-2,000 B-29 C-ND | D-ND E-ND | NA | |
| copper | A-22,000 B-19 C-81 | D-38 E-ND | NA | |
| iron | A-14,000J B-8,800J C-7,100J | D-4,100J E-180J | NA | |
| lead | A-12,000 B-210 C-31 | D-21 E-ND | NA | |
| magnesium | A-220,000 B-ND C-ND | D-ND E-ND | NA | |
| mercury | A-ND B-ND C-0.41J | D-0.54J E-ND | NA | |
| nickel | A-3,300 B-11 C-3 | D-ND E-ND | NA | |
| potassium | A-270 B-ND C-ND | D-ND E-ND | NA | |
| sodium | A-6,400 B-ND C-ND | D-ND E-ND | NA | |
| A-Ditches and drainage holding ponds B-Within diked tank area C-Former cooling pond D-Off-site ditch, east side of Three Rivers Road; sampled by Bayou and south of bayou E-Background--off site * All data from reference (1) | ||||
Table 6 Surface Water, On Site and Off Site
| Contaminant | Maximum Concentration * ppb | Selection Comparison Value | ||
| On Site (year) | Off Site (year) | ppb | Source | |
| naphthalene | A-ND B-26J ** (1988) | C-ND | NA | |
| aluminum | A-47 ** (1988) B-76 ** (1988) | C-860 (1990) | NA | |
| calcium | A-ND B-3,200 ** (1988) | C-4,600 (1990) | NA | |
| iron | A-250J ** (1988) B-460J ** (1988) | C-1,500J (1990) | NA | |
| magnesium | A-150 ** (1988) B-230 ** (1988) | C-ND | NA | |
| sodium | A-55,000 ** (1988) B-64,000 ** (1988) | C-24,000 (1990) | NA | |
| Note: Samples were not filtered A-On site former cooling pond B-On site drainage holding pond C-Off site ditch, sampled by bayou * Data is from reference (1) except for that marked ** ** Data is from reference (2) | ||||
Table 7 Summary--Completed Exposure Pathways
| PATHWAY NAME: | AMBIENT AIR (on site) | AMBIENT AIR (off site) | PROCESS CHEMICALS | SURFACE SOILS (on site) | SURFACE SOILS (off site) |
| Source: | Chemfax and otherindustries | Local industries | Chemfax | Chemfax, possibly area industries | Source uncertain |
| Medium: | Air | Air | Process Chemicals | Surface Soils | Surface Soils |
| Exposure Point: | On site | Off site | On site | On Site | Off site |
| Exposure Route: | Inhalation | Inhalation | Skin contact,inhalation | skin contact, inhalation, ingestion | skin contact, inhalation, ingestion |
| ReceptorPopulation: | Workers | Workers, shoppers,various residents,students | Workers | Workers | Nearby workers &mental healthresidents |
| Exposure Period: | Past, present, future | Past, present, future | Past, present, future | Past, present, future | Past, present, future |
| Estimated NumberExposed: | 30 to 60 | More than 500 | less than 50 | 30 to 60 | unknown |
| Table Continues.... | |||||
Table 7 (Continued) Summary--Completed Exposure Pathways
| PATHWAY NAME: | SEDIMENT, SURFACE WATER (on site) | DITCH SEDIMENT, SURFACE WATER (off site) |
| Source: | Chemfax | Local industries |
| Medium: | Sediment, surface water | Sediment, surfacewater |
| Exposure Point: | On site | Off site |
| Exposure Route: | Skin contact, ingestion | Skin contact |
| Receptor Population: | Maintenance workers | Maintenanceworkers |
| Exposure Period: | Past, present, future | Past, present,future |
| Number Exposed: | Potentially about 5 | Potentially about5 |
Table 8 Summary--Potential Exposure Pathways
| PATHWAY NAME: | PRIVATE WELL (on site) | PRIVATE WELLS (off site) | INDUSTRIALSEAWAY |
| Source: | Chemfax | Local industries | Area runoff, industries |
| Medium: | Groundwater | Groundwater | Surface water, fish |
| Exposure Point: | On site | Off site | Off site |
| Exposure Route: | Ingestion | Ingestion, inhalation,skin contact | Skin contact, ingestion |
| Receptor Population: | Workers | Consumers served byprivate wells | Boaters, fishermen,swimmers |
| Exposure Period: | Past | Past, present, future | Past, present, future |
| Number Exposed: | Potentially about60 | Unknown | Unknown |
| Contaminant | ExposurePathway | Health Guideline for Ingestion - mg/kg/day | ||
| Value | Source | Exceeded by EstimatedExposure Dose | ||
| 2-methylnaphthalene | Soil On Site | None | None | None |
| Benzo(a)anthracene | Soil On Site Soil Off Site | None None | None None | None None |
| Benzo(b/k)fluoranthene | Soil On Site Soil Off Site | None None | None None | None None |
| Endrin Ketone | Soil On site | None | None | None |
| 4,4-DDD* | Soil Site | None | None | None |
| Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene | Soil On Site | None | None | None |
| Naphthalene | Soil Site | None | None | None |
| Phenanthrene | Soil On Site Soil Off Site | None None | None None | None None |
*4,4-DDD = p,p'dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane.
Table 9 (Continued) Comparison of Estimated Exposed Dose to Health Guidelines for ChemfaxWorkers on Site, Other Workers and Various Residents Off Site.
| Contaminant | ExposurePathway | Health Guideline for Ingestion - mg/kg/day | ||
| Value | Source | Exceeded by EstimatedExposure Dose | ||
| Aluminum | Soil On Site Soil Off Site | 1 1 | RfD* RfD | No No |
| Calcium | Soil On Site Soil Off Site | 50 50/11.43 | RDA** Adult RDA Adult/Child | No No |
| Cobalt | Soil On Site | None | None | None |
| Copper | Soil On Site Soil Off Site | 0.02 0.02 | ADI*** ADI | No No |
| Iron | Soil On Site Soil Off Site | 0.14 1.13/0.14 | RDA Adult RDA Child/Adult | No No |
| Lead | Soil On Site Soil Off Site | None None | None None | None None |
| Magnesium | Soil On site | 15.6/5 | RDA Adult | No |
| Mercury | Soil On Site Soil Off Site | 0.002/0.007 0.002/0.007 | I/A MRLa I/A MRL | No No |
| Nickel | Soil On Site Soil Off Site | 0.02 0.02 | RfD RfD | No No |
| Sodium | Soil On Site | 37.5-112 /15.45 | ADI Adult | No |
*RfD = EPA's provisional Reference Dose.
**RDA = Calculated from Recommended Dietary Allowance.
***ADI = Calculated from the range of Estimated Safe and Adequate Dietary Intake.
aI/A MRL = Intermediate and Acute Minimal Risk Levels.
APPENDIX C -- RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
The Chemfax, Inc. Public Health Assessment was available for public review and comment fromapproximately October 1 to November 30. The comment period was announced in localnewspapers. Copies were made available at the public library, and copies were sent to severalindividuals and organizations. A summary of comments received and our responses arepresented in this section. The list of comments does not include any that raised health effect and other issues previously addressed in the Community Health Concerns Evaluation section.
| COMMENT 1. | Some of the chemicals at Chemfax are listed chemicals requiring reportingand safe handling; none are particularly dangerous. |
Response: | Essentially all chemicals have a capacity to pose a hazard to public health;many pose a hazard at very low concentrations and human exposure levels. The document has not been changed as a result of this comment. |
| COMMENT 2. | The public health hazard determination stated in Paragraph 1 in theConclusions Section is based on testing by EPA and others in the past. That sampling is disputed as being subject to errors and irregularities. Three key air samples (CF-AT-03, CF-AT-04, and CF-AT-05) and a keysoil sample (CF-SS-02) were taken in the immediate vicinity of processoperations where a minor spill of raw material had occurred the day of thesampling. As a result, those data points reflect then current operationsconditions that are not present today. |
Response: | ATSDR's public health hazard determination for workers is based on air,soil, and sediment data. Reference information show that air sampling wasconducted in the process area on May 31, 1990 and beyond the processarea on May 31, June 1, and June 5 of that year. Concentrations weregreatest in the process area; ATSDR considers some of the levels reportedthere to be of public health concern for the workers. For later samplingelsewhere on the property, some of the lower concentrations detected areconsidered substantive from a worker health perspective. ATSDR alsonotes that references show two soil samples designated CF-SS-02 weretaken; one in 1988 and one in 1990. The soil sample the commenteridentifies as being in the process area was taken in 1988. Thus, the minorspill mentioned as a confounding factor for the ambient air data wouldhave been cleaned up in 1988, long before the 1990 air sampling. Ourrecommendation for additional ambient air sampling (CharacterizationRecommendation 1., Page 27 of the Public Comment Release) is for thepurpose of clarifying air quality under present operations. ATSDR'srereview of reference material shows that Sample CF-SS-02 (taken in soilin 1989) was not the single example of elevated PAHs; a few soil andsediment samples taken in 1991 within and beyond the process area alsohad some elevated PAHs. ATSDR concludes that the available air, soil, and sediment data weresufficient bases for our public health hazard determination. The documenthas not been changed as a result of this comment. |
| COMMENT 3. | The only substantial finding of contamination is for ambient air quality(which the commenter says is based on disputed testing--see Comment 2). Neither the groundwater, soil, surface water, or other media tests containany definitive findings of significant contamination beyond permissiblelimits. |
Response: | The media contaminant test data sections (Pages 8, 9, and 10 and Tables ofthe Public Comment Release) do not express permissible limits. Instead,the contaminant information presented there is analyzed further andpertinent elements are discussed in the Public Health Implications Section. The most important public health issues then are summarized in theconclusions. Note that Conclusion 1. (Page 26 of the Public CommentRelease), says that there may be adverse health effects associated withworker exposure to air, soil, and sediment. The document has not beenchanged as a result of this comment. |
| COMMENT 4. | The document does not identify any significant public health danger otherthan a possible exposure of workers to benzene, for which the risk isapparently manageable by protective clothing. |
Response: | See response to comment 2. |
| COMMENT 5. | The need for further testing should be carefully evaluated based upon thedemonstrated insufficiency of EPA's ambient air test. |
Response: | See response to Comment 2. |
| COMMENT 6. | The other sources of air releases in the neighborhood should be positivelyruled out before Chemfax is singled out as a public health hazard. |
Response: | The public health hazard determination for Chemfax is based on workerexposures via soil and sediment, in addition to air. ATSDR believes thatthe available sampling data support that determination. Ambient airsampling has been recommended (Characterization Recommendation 2.,Page 27 of the Public Comment Release) for the area potentially affectedby other industries. The document has not been changed as a result of thiscomment. |
