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

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

HAGEN FARM
STOUGHTON, DANE COUNTY, WISCONSIN


SUMMARY

The Hagen Farm site is an abandoned landfill in Dunkirk Township, Dane County, Wisconsin. The site is located at2318 County Trunk Highway "A", Dane County, Wisconsin. The site was operated as a sand and gravel miningoperation prior to the mid 1950's. The site was used for the disposal of both industrial and municipal wastes in theearly 1960s. Accurate records of disposal periods and wastes disposed at the site do not exist. Sampling of on-sitemonitoring wells by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and Waste Management of Wisconsin,incorporated, during the period 1980-1986 indicated that groundwater was contaminated with organic compounds. Groundwater contamination has been identified travelling to the south-southwest. The primary contaminants ofconcern in the groundwater are tetrahydrofuran and vinyl chloride.

It is believed that persons may have ingested contaminated drinking water from the site in the past, however, there isno documentation of the exposure. At present there appears to be no public exposure. Because of remedial actionstaking place at the site future exposures are unlikely. There currently are no drinking water supplies contaminatedfrom this site. A drinking water advisory was placed on the well of a local business near the site. This advisory wasput into effect when early groundwater investigation indicated that the well could be at risk of contamination. Thisdrinking water advisory is still in effect. However, further groundwater investigations have shown the well to beoutside of the contaminant plume's migration path. The advisory is currently being reconsidered.

The site presents no public health hazard because there is no current exposure and the two residents who experiencedpast exposures no longer live on the site. A public health hazard would exist if contaminated groundwater migrates toprivate drinking water wells in the future. Planned remedial activities are expected to adequately address thesepotential exposures.

The Wisconsin Division of Health, in cooperation with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, will conduct the following activities to respond to the recommendations of this assessment:

  1. Provide continuing public health education as new information related to public health issues becomes available;

  2. Review and comment on public health aspects of the remedial design for the site.

  3. Advise and consult with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the EPA on public health concerns that may arise as new information about the site becomes available.

BACKGROUND

In cooperation with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), the Wisconsin Division ofHealth (WDOH) has evaluated the public health significance of this site. More specifically, WDOH has determinedwhether health effects are possible and will recommend actions to reduce or prevent possible health effects. WDOH,located in Madison, Wisconsin, is a state agency within the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services. This document is prepared for the Division of Health Assessment and Consultation in ATSDR.

A. Site Description and History

The site is an abandoned landfill located in the watershed of the Yahara River in southeastern Dane County. The Cityof Stoughton is about one mile west of the landfill (Refer to Figure 1 for site location). The site is in the northeastquarter of the southwest quarter of section ten, Town 5 North, Range 11 East, Dunkirk Township. The topography isgently rolling, sloping regionally towards the southwest. Surrounding land use is a blend of rural agricultural andrural residential. There are several sand and gravel mining operations in the area. The Stoughton Air Field is adjacentto the northwest border of the property. County Trunk Highway "A" (C.T.H."A") borders the site to the south and southwest.

The site itself is ten acres on a 28 acre parcel owned by Waste Management of Wisconsin, Inc. (1). A six acre portion of the site has been determined to be the contaminant source area of concern. Disposal in this area consisted of a combination of municipal wastes from the area and industrial wastes from Uniroyal (then U.S. Rubber Company). Prior to waste disposal the site was a sand and gravel mining operation (11). Excavated areas have been backfilled with wastes in the landfilling process. Figure 2 is a general site map.

The land surface slopes towards the southwest at and near the site. Surface water drainage follows the slope of theland towards the Yahara River, approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the site.

Surface soils in the region are silty loams underlain by silt, sand and gravel. Soil types located to the northeast of thesite are generally unstratified and unsorted mixtures of gravel, sand, silt, and clay (15, pg.7). The unconsolidated zoneof sand and gravel ranges from 50 to 80 feet in depth near the site. The eastern border of the site appears to be ashallow topographic valley with hydric soils and related vegetation (1).

The site is located behind a recessional moraine (Milton Moraine) two miles northeast of the site. Glacial outwashnow present at the site was deposited between Glacial Lake Yahara and the end moraine to the northeast (15, ppg. 7-13). A bedrock valley associated with the pre-glacial Yahara River is located two miles west of the site. Sandstonebedrock generally slopes to the west and the southwest from the site towards this pre-glacial valley. The site itselfappears to be perched on a local bedrock high, tilted from the northeast to the southwest. Bedrock slopes to the west,south and east off of this bedrock high. The upper layer of bedrock is a very fine to fine grained dolomitic andglauconitic sandstone. The lower part is fine to coarse grained dolomitic sandstone. The weathered portion of theupper layer of bedrock is fractured, forming channels for groundwater movement. These fractures diminishsignificantly with depth (1).

Hagen Farm Site, Dane County, Wisconsin

The groundwater table is less than ten feet from the bottom of the wastes. Sand and gravel glacial outwash separatesthe waste from the water table. Regional groundwater flow is to the south and west towards the Yahara River. Groundwater flow from the site flows to the south-southwest across C.T.H. "A", generally following topographicfeatures. The upper sand and gravel aquifer is considered continuous with the upper portion of the sandstone aquifer. A shale layer appears to be continuous and confining beneath the upper portion of the sandstone bedrock aquifer. Thislayer shows up on well logs for monitoring wells installed at and around the site (1, Appendix B).

The site was operated as a sand and gravel pit prior to the late 1950's. The gravel pit was then used for disposal ofwaste material from the late 1950's to the mid 1960's. Available records and interviews with former employeesrevealed that wastes from Uniroyal were disposed on site beginning in 1962 and continuing through August of 1966(10, pg.3). The former disposal area encompassed approximately 5 acres of land located in the southwestern portionof the site which previously had been used as a gravel quarry. The site consisted of one main disposal and twosmaller disposal areas. These areas had been covered with soil and the area was vegetated with grasses and 10 to 15foot tall trees. The disposal areas have since been consolidated and covered with a new clay cap. Documentation ofwaste quantities is not available (1). Waste disposed of at the site may include solvents, other organic materials(acetone, 2-butanone 1,2-dichloroethylene, vinyl chloride, and tetrahydrofuran), and scrap vinyl. In a 103(c)notification submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by Uniroyal, Inc. in June of 1981,Uniroyal indicated that an undetermined quantity of F003 and F005 wastes were disposed of at the site (10, pg.3). EPA Hazardous Waste Number F003 includes the following spent non-halogenated solvents: xylene, acetone, ethylacetate, ethylbenzene, ethyl ether, methyl isobutyl ketone, n-butyl alcohol, cyclohexanone, methanol and the stillbottoms from the recovery of these solvents (2). F005 includes the following non-halogenated solvents: toluene,methyl ethyl ketone, carbon disulfide, isobutanol, pyridine and the still bottoms from the recovery of these solvents (2).

General Site Location Map. This map is not drawn to scale.

The waste hauling firm City Disposal Corporation contracted with Uniroyal to haul waste to the site beginning in late1962. Information provided by City Disposal and WMWI suggests City Disposal, now part of WMWI, stoppedhauling waste to the site during 1966. Documentation of waste quantities hauled to the site during this period ofoperation is not available (1).

At the time waste disposal was occurring, the property was owned by Henry and Nora Sundby, since deceased. Theproperty was purchased from the Sundbys by Orrin Hagen in the early 1970s, and by the present owner, WMWI, in1987. In October of 1980 Mrs. Hagen indicated that a fire broke out on site after they had purchased it from theSundbys. They were burning lumber and had subsequent underground explosions. This fire lasted for ten days (5). No additional information is available on this alleged fire.

On May 29th, 1981 a DNR inspector accompanied Mr. Hagen to a site where a drum had been found. Mr. Hagen hadremoved the drum from his field and pulled it out near the roadside. Mr. Hagen attempted to open the bung but couldnot. The DNR inspector noted a solvent odor close to the drum and determined that the drum was full (13). Thecontents of the drum were analyzed for proper disposal. The drum contained primarily xylenes, bromoform, andtetrahydrofuran.

In response to complaints received from local residents, groundwater sampling was conducted by the WDNRbeginning in November of 1980 and continued periodically through October 1985. Private water supply wells and on-site monitoring wells were sampled by Uniroyal during the period August 1982 through October 1986. Sampling ofprivate water supply wells was later conducted by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Sampling of on-sitemonitoring wells during the period 1980 to 1986 indicated organic contamination in the groundwater at the site. Table three is a summary of results from those sampling rounds (1).

The principal method of disposal employed at the site appears to have been dumping liquid wastes out of drums intothe gravel pit, allowing the liquids to percolate into the soil. Some containers, such as drums and cans, may have beendumped intact in the pit and in other locations on site, based on WDNR records. However, no drum trenches werediscovered during the RI field activities (1).

Several hydrogeologic investigations were conducted at the site. A contractor for a potentially responsible partyconducted an investigation in 1982. The contractor installed nine groundwater monitoring wells, including two wellnests, at the site. At that time groundwater flow was determined to be to the southeast (1).

In 1984 the USGS conducted a Geophysical investigation to determine the location and distribution of buried wastes. This was followed by another investigation that included the installation of 19 addition monitoring wells. Six of thesewells were sampled and benzene, chlorobenzene, tetrahydrofuran (THF) and xylenes were detected in some of thewells. At that time local groundwater flow was determined to the south, east and west immediately beneath the siteand to the southwest regionally (1).

EPA assessed the site for Superfund eligibility. A Preliminary Assessment was performed for EPA, by WDNR, in1984 as part of EPA's Superfund site assessment process. A Site Inspection was then performed by an EPAcontractor. Because of changing knowledge of the site and a change in EPA's Hazard Ranking System (HRS), HRSscores were developed on five occasions. The site scored 38.07 in April of 1985. The cut off score for Superfundeligibility is 28.5. The site was subsequently proposed and listed on the National Priorities List (1).

In September of 1987 WMWI and Uniroyal entered into an Administrative Consent Agreement with the U.S. EPA toconduct the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study at the site. Field work on the investigation began at the sitein the summer of 1988.

The remedial investigation has been completed. The source control portion of the remedial action has already takenplace. This activity included consolidating and capping the wastes. The landfill cover and other areas of bare soilhave been fully vegetated. A six-foot high security fence topped with three stands of barbed wire and posted withwarning signs has also been installed around the capped landfill.

In the spring of 1992, a pilot study was conducted to aid the design of an in-situ vapor extraction system. The pilotstudy was completed in August 1992. The results of this study were used to complete the design and installation ofthe full-scale system. In addition, a gas extraction well was replaced and five more gas extraction wells were added. Also, gas probes were installed to monitor any gas migration that may occur in and around the landfill.

A site status update was conducted in the spring of 1994. The investigative design work has been completed todevelop the cleanup procedure for existing groundwater contamination. The soil vapor extraction system isoperational and a private well monitoring program has begun.

B. Site Visit

A site visit was conducted on May 25, 1988 by the DOH. At that time the gate to the site was open, and the accessroad was used by the gravel company while the site visit took place. Numerous areas of dried, crumbling naugahydescraps buried in the soil were observed. There were no other visible signs of past waste disposal on the site. The areawas gently sloping, with small depressions. All soils had a vegetation covering and tree growth did not appearstunted. The neighboring land was also fenced, with no visible access to these areas (11).

Since 1988 the site has undergone considerable change. The construction of the cap has been completed, significantlyaltering former site features. For this reason an additional site visit was conducted to support this Health Assessment.

On Wednesday, January 22, 1992 a WDOH employee went out to the site. Three representatives of WMWI werepresent as well as their consultant. The site visit consisted of a walk over portions of the site as well as an update ofcompleted and planned work activities. The following is a summary of observations from the site visit:

The cap is completed. All former disposal areas have been consolidated into the main disposal area near CountyTrunk Highway "A". The cap has been properly sloped. Access is restricted by a chain link fence. The fence iskept locked unless there are workers on site. At the time of the visit, it was noted that the actual fenced area hadbeen reduced in size to the perimeter of the main disposal area. Areas no longer restricted include the borrowarea adjacent to the east and the former secondary disposal areas adjacent to the north and northeast. The wastefrom these areas has been consolidated to the main disposal area (8).

Runoff controls have been incorporated into the cap design. A sediment basin has been constructed adjacent tothe site. This basin has been designed to manage the additional surface water drainage from the cap. The basinwill allow surface water to overflow in a diffused manner, thus reducing erosion potential (8).

The site itself has been cleared of vegetation as part of the cap construction. Monitoring wells are locatedvirtually across all of the site. In spring of 1992, gas extraction wells were installed on the cap. The easternborder of the site is a slight topographic valley. Tall grasses and willows cover this narrow strip (8).

A WDOH employee revisited the site in September 1993. The site was capped with a vegetative cover. As statedpreviously, the soil vapor extraction system was in operation,

C. Demographics, Land Use and Natural Resource Use

Prior to legal negotiations between residents and responsible parties, there were two occupied homes adjacent to thesite (1). These homes were generally side gradient from the site. Those houses have been removed and the residentshave relocated away from the site. Mr. Hagen used the property for grazing sheep. Subsequent file review indicatedthat Mr. Hagen drank water from the livestock well and had reported developing cysts on his skin as a result (12). Ithas also been alleged that another man used the livestock well for potable drinking water. It can not be determinedhow long this person was living on site (13). Attempts to locate Mr. Hagen recently have not been successful. Thereare six residences within 1500 feet of the site. Household size for the area is estimated at 2.7 persons per residence(3). At the time of disposal operation and until the mid-1980s, two additional residences existed adjacent to the site. Local private water supplies are drawn from the sand and gravel aquifer or the sandstone bedrock aquifer (1).

According to census projections for the zip code, which includes both the site and the City of Stoughton, 98.8% of thepopulation is white and 0.3% black. There are approximately 17,563 people within the zip code based on projectionsfor 1989 (3).

Land use in the area around the site is mixed residential, agricultural and light industrial. There is a sand and gravelmining operation to the south of the site, across County Trunk Highway "A". There is also an insulation businessacross C.T.H. "A" from the site. There are additional gravel pits to the north of the site. A local airport is also locatedto the north of the site. Farm fields are located adjacent to the eastern portion of the site, across the intermittentstream (8).

The Yahara River located downgradient of the site is used for fishing and general recreation. The Yahara River thenflows into the Rock River. Neither of these surface waters are in danger of receiving contaminants from this site. This pathway is discussed in the exposure pathway section of this document.

D. Health Outcome Data

"Health outcome data" is a phrase referring to records of death and disease. When there is evidence that people near asite have been exposed to contaminants at levels that could lead to an increase in rates of death or disease, a review ofhealth outcome data may be appropriate. A review also may be appropriate if there are reports of unusual clusters ofdisease near a site.

No review of health outcome data has been done for this public health assessment. A review of the birth defectsregistry was done in 1988 for the preliminary health assessment (11).


COMMUNITY HEALTH CONCERNS

Existing community health concerns were established through direct contact with individuals in the area of the site. Persons present at previous public meetings were contacted as those most likely to have health concerns. The townclerk was contacted and reaffirmed that the proper persons were called. The following is a list of the concerns thatwere raised (Similar concerns were combined where possible):

  1. With increased surface water runoff from the cap will there be increased erosion down gradient from the site?

  2. Where is the contaminant plume going and how fast? Will there be continued monitoring?

  3. Some residents were concerned that their water may be contaminated. Theyquestioned why their wells haven't been sampled.

  4. In the long term, if contaminants spread to other wells, what will the responsible parties and the State do about it?

  5. Is contaminated groundwater also a concern if used for livestock?

  6. Will development be allowed on the wooded land, owned by the bank, adjacent to the landfill?

  7. Is the amount of protection being achieved worth the amount of money being spent at the site?

  8. What assurances could be given to potential buyers of property in the future that they will not incur additional costs or health problems?

  9. Could there be a relationship between site related contamination and any past illnessor deaths in the area? Considering the contaminants of concern at this site, whatwould be the likely health problems or problem indicators to watch for?

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND OTHER HAZARDS

This section describes the extent of contamination and physical hazards associated with the Hagen Farm site.

A. On-Site Contamination

On-site contamination includes the main disposal area itself and the portion of the groundwater contaminant plume beneath the site (12). The two smaller disposal areas north and northeast of the site have been consolidated with the main disposal area. The original boundaries of waste disposal are not clear because of lack of documentation. For this reason "on-site" is considered the property within the fenced area. After the new cap was constructed, the fenced area was reduced to include only the consolidated waste disposal area (8).

Soils

Ten refuse soil borings were collected during test pit excavations in April of 1990, to further characterize waste. Therefuse borings found plastic sheeting, paper, paper-coated plastic, paint sludge, grease, rubber and miscellaneousmunicipal wastes. Test pit excavations found both municipal and industrial wastes similar to those found in the refuseborings. Other wastes encountered in the main disposal area included industrial scrap vinyl and plastic. Refusesamples were not analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOC) because the sample matrix precluded completefilling of sample containers (1).

The disposal area was believed to be 14 to 18 feet in depth at the time of disposal. Wastes were taken from the City ofStoughton as well as from Uniroyal (then U.S. Rubber Co.). Wastes believed to have been disposed were municipal wastes, solvents, other organic materials, and vinyl.

General site map showing contaminant plume and site boundaries. This map is not to scale.

The site has been completely covered with a clay cap. For this reason surface soils are not contaminated and surfacewater runoff from the site does not come in contact with contaminants. Two surface water samples were collected toassess the potential for contaminant migration off site via the surface water route in the past. Samples were takenfrom the intermittent drainage area east of the site and from Sundby Pond to the south. These samples were analyzedfor VOCs, though none were detected (1, Appendix D4). Past migration of VOCs cannot be assessed with presentsampling because of the volatile nature of the contaminants. However, these surface waters are not expected to havebeen impacted by the site.

A soil gas survey was done which detected VOCs in the unsaturated zone in the main area as well as in the twosmaller disposal areas. The detections were more frequent in the main disposal area. VOCs detected in this analysiswere: acetone, benzene, toluene, 2-hexanone, ethylbenzene and xylenes (1, Appendix D7). These results are notquantitative measurements. There is potential for gas migration from the site to the air pathway. Gas extraction wellswere installed in spring of 1992 to assess gas production and VOC contaminants beneath the cap. Methane gasproduction is common at landfills containing municipal wastes. Other contaminants in the landfill could volatilizeand migrate with the methane gas. This landfill is relatively small and did not accept a large volume of municipalwastes. This reduces the potential for the site to produce a significant amount of methane gas. Four ambient air andheadwell vapor samples were collected to assess the potential air migration pathway on November 21-22, 1988. Theresults of this sampling effort are not usable because the samples were held too long prior to analysis (1, AppendixD9). No sampling has been done to assess contamination in surface soils on-site. The site and the cap are now wellvegetated.

Groundwater

Four rounds of groundwater sampling were conducted between December 1988 and March 1991. Groundwatersamples were taken while drilling test borings. Groundwater samples were analyzed for VOCs and tetrahydrofuran(THF), semi-volatile organic compounds, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, metals and cyanide as well as waterquality indicator parameters. During subsequent rounds only VOCs and THF were analyzed in each groundwatersample (1, Appendix D2-3). Tables 1 and 2 summarize sampling results for the four rounds of groundwater sampling. These sampling rounds took place on the following dates: December 13, 1988; September 6-11, 1989; July 31 -August 2, 1990; and March 20, 1991 (1, Table 6-1).

The groundwater beneath the site is contaminated with VOCs from the site. The on-site groundwater contaminationextends from beneath the fill area to the south-southwest. Groundwater contamination extends beyond the siteboundary and CTH "A" (See Figure 3 for horizontal extent of contamination).

The high contaminant concentrations indicated in this table are from wells located directly beneath the waste. Theseconcentrations are much higher than those of the groundwater migrating downgradient.

Table 2 lists the inorganic parameters that were detected at elevated levels in on-site groundwater.

Table 1.

On-Site Organic Groundwater Sample Results
Compound Range Detected Units (ug/L) Comparison Values
Volatile Compounds  
Acetone 4.0-14,000 1,000 RMEG
2-Butanone (MEK) 15.0-4,400,000 200 LTHA
Ethylbenzene 2.0-4,400 700 LTHA
Toluene 1.0-2,700 1,000 LTHA
Xylenes(total) 4.0-37,000 10,000 LTHA
Tetrahydrofuran 1.4-630,000 None
Vinyl Chloride 4.0-77.0 0.2 EMEG
1,2 Dichloroethylene 1.0-9.0 70 LTHA
1,1 Dichloroethylene 1.0 0.058 CREG
Chlorobenzene 40.0 200 RMEG
Chloromethane 100 3 LTHA
Vinyl Acetate 1.0 200 RMEG
Benzene 8.0 1.2 CREG
Semi-Volatile Compounds
Phenol 23.0-5,600 4,000 LTHA
4-Methylphenol 12.0-6,100 None
2, 4 Dimethylphenol 5.0-1,200 200 RMEG
Benzoic Acid 2.0-29,000 40,000 RMEG
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 7.0 None
Napthalene 7.0-13.0 20 LTHA
Diethylphthalate 5.0 5,000 LTHA
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 3.0-31.0 None
Di-n-octylphthalate 5.0 None
1, 4 Dichlorobenzene 10.0 75 LTHA
Benzyl Alcohol 26.0 None
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether 19.0 300 LTHA
RMEG - Media evaluation guide derived from EPA reference dose
LTHA - EPA Lifetime Health Advisory for drinking water
EMEG - Environmental Media Evaluation Guide (ATSDR)
CREG - Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide

Source - (1, Tables 6-2,6-3,6-4,6-5)


Table 2.

On-Site Inorganic Groundwater Sample Results
Contaminant Highest Concentration (Units ug/L) Comparison Values (Units ug/L)
Arsenic 31.2 3 RMEG
Barium 1,570 700 RMEG
Iron 165,000 None
Lead 997 15 Action Level
Manganese 3,300 1,000 RMEG
Cadmium 35.6 2 EMEG
Chromium 109 10,000 RMEG
Mercury 6.5 2 LTHA

The high contaminant concentrations indicated in this table are from wells located directly beneath the waste. These concentrations are much higher than those of the groundwater migrating downgradient.

Private Wells

Table 3 lists the contaminants detected in private wells analyses. These analyses took place prior to 1983. Well 1 wasthe on-site livestock well. Wells 2 and 3 served two homes adjacent to the main disposal area on-site. Well 4 is off-site, though included here because it is the only other private well with a past contaminant detect. The contaminantsdetected in well 2, 3, and 4 are suspect because of the lack of quality control measures taken at the time of the sampleanalysis. Detection of contaminants in these wells has not been confirmed in subsequent sampling. Wells 1, 2, and 3have been abandoned and sealed. Well 4 is only used for non-potable process water. Well 1 is the only well believedto have been within the area of potential impact from site contamination (see Figure 4 for well locations).

Table 3.

Contaminants Detected in Private Wells (Units ug/l)
Compound 1 2 3 4 Comparison Values
Acetone 150 Detect 27 34 1,000 RMEG
Vinyl Chloride 102       0.2 EMEG
Butyl Acetate   Detect Detect   None
1,2 Dichloroethylene 400       70 LTHA
Trichloroethylene 0.6       5 MCL
Tetrachloroethylene 0.4 0.2     5 MCL
Tetrahydrofuran 2200   10 69 None
Xylene (total) 38       10,000 LTHA

"Detect" indicates that the compound was detected, though not quantified or confirmed due to poor data quality.

Contaminants of concern in groundwater based on exceedances of screening values or the lack of an applicable screening value are listed in Table 4.

Table 4.

CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN FOR THE HEALTH ASSESSMENT
VOCs SVOCs Metals
Acetone Benzyl Alcohol Arsenic
Benzene Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Barium
2-Butanone 4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol Cadmium
Chloromethane 2,4-Dimethylphenol Iron
1,1-Dichloroethylene Di-n-octylphthalate Lead
Ethylbenzene 4-Methylphenol Manganese
Tetrahydrofuran Phenol Mercury
Toluene    
Vinyl Chloride    
Xylenes(total)    
Butyl Acetate    
1,2-Dichloroethylene    

The VOCs detected in groundwater were predominantly THF, ethylbenzene, and xylenes. THF was detected mostfrequently and at the highest concentrations at the site. The occurrence, concentration and distribution of THF suggesta plume originating in the south-central section of the main fill area extending south-southwest approximately 2000feet (1, Figure 22). Relatively high concentrations of THF have been detected in piezometers downgradient of the site. Other VOCs have also been detected at lower levels and a shorter distance from the site.

B. Off-Site Contamination

Existing off-site contamination has been documented in the groundwater flowing from the site beneath the road andtraveling to the south-southwest. Contamination in the groundwater has travelled both horizontally and vertically withgroundwater flow. The contaminants at the site are less dense than water. However, they are sinking in the aquiferdue to displacement from infiltrating rainwater runoff. Figure 4 is based on sampling results for tetrahydrofuran. While other contaminants have been detected off-site, THF has spread to the greatest extent. Contaminants at this sitehave reached the bedrock beneath the unconsolidated portion of the aquifer. A thin layer of shale provides a confininglayer at the site between the upper bedrock aquifer and the lower bedrock aquifer (See Figure 4 for vertical extent ofcontamination)(1, Appendix B).

Location of private wells near and downgradient of the Hagen Farm Site. Wells #1, 2 and 3 no longer exist. The list of off-site contaminants is not as large as those found on-site. In addition contaminant concentrations decrease with distance from the source.



Table 5.

Private Wells Sampled
  Distance Direction Detect
1 On-Site   Yes
2 On-Site   Yes*
3 On-Site   Yes*
4 300 feet South Yes*
5 700 feet Southeast No
6 1200 feet Southeast No
7 1500 feet South No
8 1100 feet West No
9 1300 feet West No
10 1400 feet West No
11 1100 feet West-Southwest No
12 2700 feet South-Southwest No
13 3200 feet South-Southwest No
14 4700 feet South No
* - Follow up samples from this wells do not confirm these detections. Also see the Quality Control discussion later in this section.

Source - (1, Figure 8)

Other contamination detected in off-site monitoring wells is shown in Table 6 with both frequency and concentrationranges.


Table 6.

Organic Detects in Off-Site Monitoring Wells
Compound Concentration Range (ug/L) Comparison Values
Acetone 7.0 1,000 RMEG
Chlorobenzene 4.0 200 RMEG
1,2 Dichloroethene 4.0-7.0 70 LTHA
Tetrahydrofuran 1.4-1200 None
Vinyl Acetate 1.0 200 RMEG
Vinyl Chloride 4.0-5.0 0.2 EMEG
Source - (1, Table 6-8)

Prior to capping the site there may have been surface water runoff leaving the site during rainfall events. Theintermittent drainage area to the east of the site flows beneath CTH "A" to the south. Part of the design of the capincludes a shallow surface water impoundment that catches surface water runoff from the site and prevent directdischarge from the site. This impoundment is enclosed within the site fence. The impoundment is designed to allowrunoff to infiltrate to the groundwater (8). Past runoff coming in contact with exposed wastes could have beencontaminated. Two surface water samples were taken from the intermittent drainage area and Sundby pond. Sampleanalysis did not detect contaminants. However, analysis were limited to VOCs (1, Appendix D4).

Ambient air sampling was performed as part of the remedial investigation. However, the samples were not analyzedwithin the necessary holding times (1, Appendix D9). The potential exists for contaminants to have migrated off-sitethrough the air pathway during early site operation. That potential was diminished as the site was covered andbecame grown over with vegetation soon after disposal ceased.

Contamination Summary

Groundwater sample analysis shows contamination both on and off-site. Contaminants selected as contaminants ofconcern for groundwater are listed in Table 4.

Soils on-site are contaminated below the surface in the zone of waste disposal. No samples were taken of surface soilson or off-site in order to characterized past surface soil contamination. All contaminated materials on-site are nowcovered with clean soil and well vegetated.

Air monitoring has not characterized ambient air contamination on or off-site. Gas extraction wells have beeninstalled at the site. Gas probes have also been installed near the site.

C. Quality Assurance and Quality Control

Analytical data obtained during the period November 1980 to October 1985 was reviewed by EPA's contractor, RoyF. Weston, Inc. to assess the usability of the data for contaminant evaluation. The data was reviewed relative to theU.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) procedures for validating data used for the Superfund Program andrelative to procedures and reporting formats used during the period 1980-1985 (1).

The review concluded that supporting documentation for analytical data was generally not sufficient to conduct arigorous analysis of data quality relative to current CLP requirements. However, data from commercial laboratoriesgenerally adhered to quality control (QC) requirements given in U.S. EPA methods. Analytical data from the variouslaboratories consistently indicated VOC contamination in on-site monitoring wells. The same data have found nocontaminants in private water supply wells since July of 1983 (16, pg.4).

The review also indicated that detected values of acetone were not usable data because precautions against falsedetection were not in wide use at the time. THF data from samples taken in this period (1980-1985) should not beused quantitatively because this compound is not readily purged during the GC analysis method used to detect thecompound. Downgradient plume characteristics were also established based on limited sampling.

In the early 1980s samples of two private wells showed detections of acetone and butyl acetate. These detections wereunquantifiable at that time and the lack of certain quality control measures at the time causes those detections to bequestioned.

Air samples taken during the remedial investigation were not analyzed within the necessary holding times (1,Appendix D9). These samples were not usable for site characterization.

D. Physical and Other Hazards

There are no noted physical hazards associated with the site. Methane and other gasses generated from thedecomposition of wastes at the site are monitored and controlled by the in-situ vapor extraction system. Because thesite is completely fenced and locked, it can be assumed that on-site activities would be limited to authorized workersduring cleanup related activities.

It has been alleged that in the mid 1970s underground fires broke out at the site (12). No confirming documentation can be found for these fires. THF is very flammable which could account for the underground fires alleged to have occurred at the site in the mid-1970s (18). Presently, however, all wastes are consolidated into a single disposal area. This area is capped and inaccessible to the public. It does not seem likely that either an ignition source or explosive environment exists at the site now. Contamination has been documented in the groundwater both on and off of the site boundary (1).


PATHWAY ANALYSES

To determine whether nearby residents are exposed to contaminants migrating from the site, ATSDR evaluates theenvironment and human components that lead to human exposure. This pathways analysis consists of five elements:A source of contamination, transport through an environmental medium, a point of exposure, a route of humanexposure, and an exposed population.

ATSDR categorizes an exposure pathway as a completed or potential exposure pathway if the exposure pathwaycannot be eliminated. Completed pathways require that the five elements exist and indicate that exposure to acontaminant has occurred in the past, is occurring, or will occur in the future. Potential pathways, however, requirethat at least one of the five elements is missing, but could exist. Potential pathways indicate that exposure to acontaminant could have occurred in the past, could be occurring now, or could occur in the future. An exposurepathway can be eliminated if at least one of the five elements is missing and will never be present.

A. Completed Exposure Pathways

On-Site Groundwater

There are no exposures to groundwater contamination at the Hagen Farm site at this time. Past exposure togroundwater contamination is may have occurred at the Hagen private well.

The contaminant plume has migrated downward as it moved downgradient. Further downward migration is precludedby continuous low permeability shale layer shown in Figure 4 (1, Figure 22). Some possible explanations for thiscould be a combination of the following: increased degradation in the upper portion of the aquifer; dilution anddisplacement from infiltrating runoff downgradient; and the existence of a high permeability zone in this horizon ofthe bedrock (6).

There is documented groundwater contamination at and moving from the Hagen Farm site. Contaminants of concernare primarily VOCs, some of which have traveled a considerable distance from the site. Contaminants were detectedin residential wells in the early 1980s. Detections of some contaminants have also been noted in the well of a privatebusiness. Since 1983 there have been no detections of contaminants in any private wells.

The well 1 was intended for watering sheep only. However, it has been alleged that the well had been used fordomestic uses (13). Wells 1, 2 and 3 were located in an area now considered to be on-site because of the wasteconsolidation and cap construction. These three wells were each closed in the mid-1980s. The homes were removedin 1987 and the wells were properly abandoned in early summer of 1991(16). Other than well 1, the analysis from theprivate wells sampled did not consistently detect the above compounds. No contaminants have been detected inprivate wells since 1983. Table 4 shows the private wells that have been sampled and their locations in relation to thesite.

This figure illustrates general vertical extent of contamination. This is not to scale.

Exposures to contaminated groundwater from the Hagen well may have occurred through inhalation of contaminants,ingestion of contaminants and dermal absorption of contaminants. These exposures would have begun sometime aftergroundwater, contaminated from wastes disposed at the site, reached these wells. Waste disposal may have begun in1962. Because the method of disposal has not been documented, it is conservatively assumed that waste chemicals intheir liquid form were dumped directly onto the ground surface and immediately moved into the groundwater. Contaminated groundwater could have traveled from the wastes to the wells soon after disposal began. Exposurescould then have taken place continually until the point of exposure was removed. For the Hagen well this periodcannot be determined. Mr. Hagen purchased the property in the early 70's and the well was capped in the mid-1980s. Not all contaminants are migrating from the site, the list of contaminants of concern is reduced to include those listedin Table 7. Table 7 was derived by selecting all contaminants that were listed in Table 3 that were also either detectedin on-site private wells (Table 4) or detected in off-site wells above comparison values (Table 5). THF is very solublein water. For this reason, it is quite mobile in the groundwater. While other contaminants have been detected off-site,THF has spread the greatest extent. The plume defined by Figures 1 and 2 is based on detections of THF. This plumeshows an extrapolation from the sample points where THF was detected to points of non-detection. Inorganic chemicals are less mobile in the groundwater at this site than the VOCs and are not migrating from the site.

Table 7.

CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
Compound
Butyl Acetate
1,2-Dichloroethylene
Tetrahydrofuran
Vinyl Chloride

B. Potential Exposure Pathways

The likelihood of future exposures to contaminated groundwater is uncertain at this point. Although contaminationhas spread considerably off-site, there do not appear to be any drinking water wells screened directly in the path of thecontaminant plume. If the plume continues to travel for several years without degrading or dispersing considerablyother wells may become contaminated.

Off-Site Groundwater Pathway

The plume does not appear to threaten any private water supply wells with its existing course. THF was used in theprocess of making naugahyde and vinyl products. It is possible that THF exposure occurred at the time of transfer anddisposal of the wastes. However, these potential exposures could not be separated from the exposures received at thegenerating facility.

Since 1983, there have been no detections of VOCs in public or private drinking water wells. Subsequent samplinghas been consistent with characterization of the plume. Downgradient sampling points that have shown detects arealigned in a south-southwesterly direction from the site. Adjacent sampling points on either side do not showcontamination. The general plume drawn in Figure 3 depicts a conservative estimate of plume dimensions. Thepoints of non-detection have been used to define the edge of the plume. There are no private wells within theboundaries of this plume. In addition to the horizontal movement of the plume, contaminants are generally movingdownward in the aquifer. Further downward migration of contaminants is restricted by a thin impermeable shalelayer. Figure 5 represents the vertical component of the plume's migration.

Future exposures to contaminated groundwater are possible if any of the following events take place:

  1. Wells are placed within the present area of contamination and draw water for potable uses.

  2. Contamination migration changes or for some other reason spreads to existing or future wells, not now within the area of contamination.

These scenarios are being addressed in the groundwater portion of the remediation planned for the site. Present deedrestrictions preclude potable water supply wells from being placed in the area of contamination. Groundwatermonitoring will be done at the site to evaluate changes in present contamination concentrations and directions ofmigration. Tetrahydrofuran and vinyl chloride are contaminants detected downgradient from the site in concentrationsexceeding the State of Wisconsin's Groundwater Quality Enforcement Standards (17). These compounds would likelybe the primary contaminants of concern for any potential future exposures to contaminated groundwater off-site.

Conservative ranges of potential future exposures may be equivalent to the highest off-site contaminantconcentrations. This exposure is based on the assumption that a drinking water supply well is placed directly in thecontaminant plume adjacent to the site.

Soil Exposure Pathways

Surface soil contamination has not been well documented at the Hagen Farm site. Past sampling events have notadequately characterized the existence or the extent of contaminants in surface soils for the estimation of exposures. At this point waste and contaminant sources are covered with an approved solid waste cap and, therefore, not exposedat the surface. During their disposal, wastes at the site were exposed at the surface and the potential exists forexposures to those waste contaminants to have occurred. It is not believed that there were any site access controls inplace at that time.

After disposal ceased, there had been accounts of wastes at the surface. It can be assumed conservatively from thisthat the exposure periods began at the time of disposal and ended at the time site access was restricted in the mid-1980s.

Because the wastes in the two smaller disposal areas have been brought into the main disposal area, there are nowastes remaining outside of the access restricted area of the site. Future exposures would then be limited to breachesin the cap allowing contaminants to release to surface soils; or leachate seeps resulting in contaminated surface soilsoutside of the fenced area.

There is a potential that exposures to contaminated soils has occurred in the past from one or more of the following exposure scenarios:

  1. Contaminated soils may have become airborne with winds during dry periods. These contaminants may then have been inhaled by local residents, workers or passers by.

  2. Contaminated soils may have been ingested by children playing in or near the contaminated area. In addition, windblown soils may also have been ingested by workers at or near the site.

  3. Chemicals on contaminated soils could have been directly absorbed through the skin by children on site as well as others who crossed the site.

Past potential exposure concentrations of each compound cannot be estimated from the sampling information becauseof a lack of data.

The site has been completely covered with a clay cap. For this reason surface soils are not contaminated and surfacewater runoff from the site does not come in contact with contaminants.

Air Pathway

The air pathway is no longer a potential pathway of concern, with the installation of the gas extraction system. Monitoring was attempted during the Remedial Investigation, however, usable data were not acquired. The airpathway at the site has not been well characterized. The primary contaminants of concern would have been volatilecompounds because they readily release to the air. The most likely of all potential exposures to contamination fromthis pathway would have been during disposal and periods of exposed wastes. Exposures at that time may haveincluded tetrahydrofuran and vinyl chloride based on waste characteristics described earlier. DNR personnel tookappropriate safety precautions during the investigation of the site, as the hazards were noted by district staff early on(14).

Surface Water

Surface water does not present a viable pathway of exposure at this site. Rain water generally infiltrates directly intothe unconsolidated materials on site. During high rainfall events it is possible that some surface water could have leftthe site with contaminants during periods of exposed wastes. Existing runoff controls preclude future migration ofcontaminants via surface water. Limited sample analysis of surface water did not detect volatile contaminants. Thereis a potential that metals from the site may exist in sediments in the drainage area because of their persistence in theenvironment. However, the porous site soils make run off from the site unlikely.


PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS

A. Toxicological Evaluation

The following section consists of summaries of the toxicological implications for each contaminant of concern forcompleted or potential exposure pathways. The contaminants of concern were selected based on their exceedance ofcomparison values, or when no comparison value is available.

Butyl Acetate

Levels of butyl acetate detected in on-site private wells were below the quantifiable detection limits of 3 g/L. Noother groundwater samples have shown detections of this compound. There are no possible health effects associatedwith exposure to these levels of butyl acetate (19).

1,2 Dichloroethylene

There has not been documentation of an exposure to 1,2 dichloroethylene at the Hagen Farm Site. Well 1 had aconcentration of 1,2-dichloroethylene at 400 g/L. Very little is known about this compound. No cancer data isavailable to classify it as a carcinogen. No health effects have been associated with exposure to 400 g/L of thiscompound (20).

Tetrahydrofuran (THF)

The on-site livestock well had THF at a concentration of 2200 g/L. THF is the primary contaminant of concern atthis site because of both the concentration and the extent of contamination.

THF is a volatile organic compound (VOC) that readily releases to the air pathway. This compound has been foundconsistency in the highest concentrations in the groundwater (18).

Very little toxicological data is available for THF. Short term exposures to the highest levels of THF on-site throughinhalation could irritate the eyes, nose, throat and lungs. Long term exposures may effect liver or kidney function. Limited testing has been done on animals to evaluate THF as a carcinogen. THF has not been evaluated for its abilityto cause cancer humans(19, 21, 24).

Vinyl Chloride

Vinyl chloride was detected at 102 g/L in the on-site livestock well. As with the THF discussion above, the plumedoes not appear to threaten any private water supply wells with its existing course.

Vinyl chloride is classified by the U.S. EPA as a known human carcinogen. Exposure to the contaminated drinkingwater from the site could result in a low increased risk of developing cancer (7, 19).

B. Health Outcome Data Evaluation

A review of health outcome data is appropriate when there is evidence of people who have been exposed tocontaminants at levels which could lead to an increase in rates of death or illness. "Health Outcome Data" refers torecords of death and/or disease. A review of health outcome data might also be appropriate if there are reports ofunusual clusters or higher-than-expected levels of specific diseases near a site.

Based on existing data from the RI and current research on diseases caused by contaminants which were found at thesite, the levels of exposure to contaminants are too low to initiate any studies of death and illness. Attempts to locateMr. Hagen have been unsuccessful. The only person allegedly living on-site for a short period died from non-siterelated causes.

C. Community Health Concerns Evaluation

The following are responses to concerns expressed by residents living near the site.

  1. With increased surface water runoff from the cap will there be increased erosion down gradient from the site?
  2. With the addition of an impermeable cover on the landfill, the surface water runoff will be increased. Runoffcontrols have been included in the design of the new cover. It is expected that these controls will alleviate anyincreased erosion potential. Because of the high infiltration rate in area soils, including soil down gradient, it isexpected that the water levels will quickly return to their natural states.

  3. Where is the contaminant plume going and how fast? Will there be continued monitoring?
  4. The contaminant plume is travelling generally in a southwesterly direction from the site. The plume itself isquite narrow and presently isn't impacting any private water supply. Assuming the same general flow patternsand flow rates, it does not appear that the plume would reach private wells within the next few years. This alsoassumes that no groundwater remedial action takes place. Remedial design for existing groundwatercontamination is underway and is expected to capture the present plume. The groundwater remediation processwill serve to reduce existing contamination to acceptable levels.

  5. Some residents were concerned that their water may be contaminated. Theyquestioned why their wells haven't been sampled.
  6. At present, all wells believed to be within the area of potential impact from the contaminant plume are beingsampled regularly. If other wells are not being sampled, those wells are considered to be free from site relatedcontamination. Monitoring wells were installed both on and off site such that the edge of the contaminated areawould be defined. Wells outside of this area are not detecting contamination and are being monitored for change.

    If, however, there is concern that a well is contaminated and has not been sampled the DNR water supplyspecialist in the district office should be contacted. Solvent, plastic resin or other odors in the water would be an indicator that contamination may be present.

  7. In the long term, if contaminants spread to other wells, what will the responsible parties and the State do about it?
  8. It is not expected that contamination will spread to existing water supply wells. However, should the plumedirection change, the remedial action would be modified to address any additional contamination. Regularsampling would identify these changes and, if necessary, arrangements could be made for an alternative drinkingwater supply. These arrangements would be made by the responsible parties, and would be overseen by the DNR.

  9. Is contaminated groundwater also a concern if used for livestock?
  10. Yes. If water contaminated, above specific levels, with the compounds of concern was fed to livestock, theproduct of the livestock may be deemed unfit for sale. This could affect milk grade rating as well. It is notbelieved, however that there are any contaminated water supply wells presently serving livestock.

  11. Will development be allowed on the wooded land, owned by the bank, adjacent to the landfill?
  12. Development anywhere within 1200 feet of the site cannot include the installation of water supply wells withouta variance from the WDNR. Such a variance would consider factors such as location of contamination anddirection of plume movement. This is a requirement that applies to all active and abandoned landfills in the stateof Wisconsin. This makes it unlikely that any new homes will be developed in areas of potential contamination unless a municipal water supply is extended to them. Existing wells are exempt from this requirement.

  13. Is the amount of protection being achieved worth the amount of money being spent at the site?
  14. The value of protecting human health has not been established at this site or any other site of its kind. However, the cost of the cleanup at this site is in line with the related costs of similar sites around the state and across thecountry.

  15. What assurances could be given to potential buyers of property in the future that they will not incur additional costs or health problems?
  16. The State cannot give an enforceable guarantee of this nature at any site in the state. The present restrictions onwell placement in the immediate vicinity and the continued investigations being done should ensure that future public heath is also protected.

  17. Could there be a relationship between site related contamination and any past illnessor deaths in the area? Considering the contaminants of concern at this site, whatwould be the likely health problems or problem indicators to watch for?
  18. There does not appear to have been substantial exposures to contaminants at this site. Based on the informationavailable and the potential for exposure, the DOH does not believe past illness or death in the area can be related to contaminants from the site.


CONCLUSIONS

The site presents no public health hazard because there is no current exposure and the two residents who experiencedpast exposures no longer live on the site, therefore, an assessment of their health impacts is not possible. A publichealth hazard would exist if contaminated groundwater migrates to private drinking water wells in the future or ifreleases to the air pathway occur and are not mitigated. Planned remedial activities are expected to adequately addressthese potential exposures.

Volatile organic compounds are the only contaminants migrating significantly from the site. Contamination is notmigrating from the site by any other route than groundwater. Groundwater contamination has spread significantlyfrom the site. Groundwater is contaminated, however there are presently no impacted water supply wells affected.

Site access is sufficiently restricted and wastes are not exposed to the surface. There is a lack of soil and air qualitydata. For this reason, it is not possible to fully evaluate exposures to these pathways. Significant exposures by theseroutes in the past are not believed to have occurred. Potential for future exposures by these routes has been removed by the construction of a cap on the site.


RECOMMENDATIONS

The Wisconsin Division of Health offers the following recommendations concerning the Hagen Farms site:

  1. The WDNR and U.S. EPA should continue to regularly sample monitoring wells and selected private wells where appropriate for VOCs to ensure that human exposure to contaminated groundwater is not occurring.

  2. Residents living near the site should be apprised of the condition of groundwater contamination following each round of well testing, even though their well may not have been tested.

  3. If additional information becomes available on past or current exposures, the DOH will evaluate those exposures for potential health risks.

Need For Follow-up Health Activities

The ATSDR Health Activities Recommendation Panel (HARP) and the Wisconsin Division of Health evaluated thedata on this site to determine what needs exist for additional research and/or local education about health relatedconcerns. Such activities could include further studies on cases of disease in the vicinity of the site or providingresidents with additional information about the health effects of exposures to specific toxic chemicals coming from thesite. One individual may have been exposed to contaminants in groundwater. This person no longer lives near thesite and attempts to locate the man have failed. No other persons are believed to have been exposed to contaminantsfrom the site. Therefore, no studies of the site's impact on public health are needed at this time. WDOH and ATSDRwill evaluate the need for more health activities if new information reveals that public exposure to contamination fromthe site has occurred. In addition, WDOH will continue to work with local residents and area health professionals toaddress community health concerns.

Public Health Action

The recommendations provided in the Health Assessment are related to the prevention and monitoring of possiblehuman exposure to contaminants from Hagen farms site. The following actions either have been or will be performedto meet the needs expressed by the recommendations of this Health Assessment. The DOH, in cooperation withATSDR, will conduct the following activities to respond to the recommendations of this assessment:

  1. Provide continuing public health education as new information related to public health issues becomes available;

  2. Review and comment on public health aspects of the remedial design for the site. Specifically the following actions:

    1. Proper restriction of access to the site where appropriate;

    2. Development of a plan to monitor the effectiveness of groundwater cleanup methods;

    3. Regular monitoring of private wells that may be at risk of future contamination; and

    4. Development of contingency for providing alternative water supplies if contaminants are found to exceed health based groundwater standards in private wells.

  3. Advise and consult with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the EPA on public health concerns that may arise as new information about the site becomes available.

  4. Offer education opportunities to practicing health care providers in the Hagen Farm area through the Wisconsin DOH/ATSDR professional education program.

REFERENCES

  1. "Final Remedial Investigation Report", Hagen Farm RI/FS, Warzyn Engineering, Inc.. November 1991. 4 Volumes.

  2. "Hazardous Materials, Substances and Wastes Compliance Guide, 1984/1985". EPA/DOT. Page 126.

  3. "Sourcebook of Demographics and Buying Power for Every Zip Code in the USA. CACI. Sixth Edition, Second Printing. 1989.

  4. Syftestad, Eric P.. "Public Water Supply Data Book, 1985". State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Standards, Public Water Supply Section.

  5. Nemine-Horn, Debbie. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Southern District. Letter to Douglas Morrisette. January 11, 1982.

  6. Moser, James and Tremont-Schenk, Steve. Warzyn, Response to Comments on the Draft RI Report. Letter to Jae Lee, USEPA. November 22, 1991. Attachment B.

  7. Toxicological Profile for Vinyl Chloride {Draft}. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. October 1991.

  8. Warzecha. Discussions and observations during Hagen Farm Site Visit, January 22, 1992. Memo to file, January 23, 1992.

  9. Toxic Release Inventory. Review for the 53589 Zip Code.

  10. ROD Summary, Hagen Farm Superfund Site, Source Control Operable Unit. Dane County, Wisconsin. U. S. EPA. July 24, 1990.

  11. Ziarnik, Meg. "Preliminary Health Assessment for the Hagen Farm Site", Wisconsin Division of Health. October 18, 1988.

  12. Ziarnik, Meg. "ATSDR Site Summary for Hagen Farm". February 26, 1988.

  13. Horn, Debbie. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Southern District. Letter to Douglas Morrisette. September 14, 1981.

  14. Brusca, Joe. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Southern District. Letter to Files. December 4, 1981.

  15. Hagen Property Hydrogeologic Investigation, Stoughton, Wisconsin. Warzyn Engineering, Inc.. November 2, 1982.

  16. Review of Existing Site Conditions, Hagen Property, Town of Dunkirk, Dane County, Wisconsin. Roy F. Weston, Inc. September 1985.

  17. Department of Natural Resources Groundwater Quality Standards. Chapter NR 140 Wisconsin Administrative Code. February 1992.

  18. Comparison Tables for Selecting Contaminants of Concern. Director, Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, ATSDR. April 6, 1992.

  19. Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB). National Library of Medicine. Updated May 7, 1991.

  20. Toxicological Profile for cis 1,2 Dichloroethylene, trans 1,2 Dichloroethylene, and 1,2 Dichloroethylene {Draft}. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. December 1990.

  21. Hurst, Pei-Fung. US EPA, Chemical Mixtures Branch. Letter to Jae Lee, US EPA Region V. Provisional Rfd for Tetrahydrofuran (THF). June 22, 1990.

  22. Toxicological Profile for Trichloroethylene {Draft}. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. February 18, 1992.

  23. Toxicological Profile for Tetrachloroethylene {Public Comment Draft}. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. February 18, 1992.

  24. Groundwater Advisories Supporting Documentation. Wisconsin Division of Health. September, 1989.

  25. Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. April 1992.

  26. Toxicological Profile for Vinyl Acetate {Draft}. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. February 15, 1991.

PREPARERS OF THE REPORT

Chuck J. Warzecha
Hydrogeologist
Section of Chronic Disease & Health Assessment
Bureau of Public Health
Division of Health
Wisconsin Department of Health & Social Services


ATSDR Regional Representative

Louise Fabinski and Manna Edwards
Regional Services
Region V
Office of the Assistant Administrator


ATSDR Technical Project Officer

William J. Greim
Environmental Health Scientist
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Remedial Programs Branch


CERTIFICATION

The Hagen Farm Public Health Assessment was prepared by the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Servicesunder a cooperative agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). It is inaccordance with approved methodology and procedures existing at the time the public health assessment was begun.

William Greim
Technical Project Officer, SPS, RPB, DHAC


The Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, ATSDR, has reviewed this public health assessment, and concurs with its findings.

Director, DHAC, ATSDR


Comments are presented in regular type, while the responses to those comments follow in bold type.

RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS

Preface The preface should explicitly state that this document is the full health assessment, not a continuation of the preliminary health assessment. The Preface is not explicitly in this regard.

This has been clarified in the preface.

Summary The comment recommends that paragraph 3 of the summary should be phrased as "...two residents who experience past exposures no longer live on the site", to more accurately convey the situation to the reader.

The wording has been changed.

Background/3 "galuconitic" should be "glauconitic"

The misspelling has been corrected.

Background/4 The site description is out of date. The three disposal areas have been consolidated and covered. Trees have been removed and replaced with a grass. In the fourth and fifth sentences of the second paragraph, the verbs should be past tense (encompasses should be encompassed and consists should be consisted).

The wording has been changed.

Background/6 The second and third sentences of the fifth paragraph on this page should be reworded as follows: "A portion of the source control remedial action is already in place at the site. The source control activities already accomplished are the consolidation of the wastes, the capping of the consolidated wastes, and the security fencing of the capped and consolidated waste area."

The wording has been rephrased to reflect this information.

Site Visit/6 The first and second sentences of this section should be reworded as follows: The first site visit by the DOH was conducted on May 25, 1988. At that time, the gate to the site was open, and ..."

The wording has been changed.

Site Visit/7 Since the site visit, the landfill cover and other areas of bare soil have been fully vegetated. A six-foot high security fence topped with three stands of barbed wire and posted with warning signs has also been installed around the capped landfill.

The following changes and additions should be made to the third sentence in the last paragraph of this section: "In the spring of 1992, three in-situ vapor extraction (ISVE) wells were installed in order to conduct a pilot study to define and optimize the operating parameters for the full-scale ISVE system. The pilot study was completed in August 1992. The results of this study were used to complete the design of the full-scale ISVE system, including the replacement of one of the gas extraction wells and addition of five more gas extraction wells, will be constructed in the autumn of 1993. Also, a total of eight existing and 21 additional gas probes will be installed to monitor any gas migration that may occur in and around the landfill."

This information has now been added to the previous section. The site visit section isintended to only reflect observations and conditions as they were during the visit.

Community Health Concerns/9 The assessment would be more complete if the dates and methods of contact with residents were specified.

This information is not available.

Soils/11 In the first paragraph, sentence eight should be changed as follows: "Wastes believed to have been disposed were municipal wastes, solvents, other organic materials, and vinyl."

The wording has been changed.

In the second paragraph, it would be appropriate to note that, "Hagen Farm is a relatively small landfill (<5acres) which accepted limited amounts of municipal solid wastes during its short operating life (c. 1962 to1966). These factors combine to reduce the likelihood of significant methane gas production at the site."

This has been added later in this section.

The following changes and additions should be made to the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth sentences of thesecond paragraph: "Therefore, there is only a small potential for gas migration from the site to the airpathway. Gas extraction wells were installed in the spring of 1992 for the ISVE pilot study. Among the goalsof that study was to access the volume of gas production in the landfill and to assess the volume anddistribution of gaseous VOC contaminants beneath the cap. Methane gas production is common at landfillscontaining municipal wastes, however, the volume of municipal wastes disposed at this site was very limitedand the ISVE system to be installed at the site will eliminate the possibility of gas migration from the landfill. Other contaminants present in the landfill may volatilize and could then migrate along with any methane gas that is generated"

This information was added to the pathways analysis section of the document.

Further, paragraph 2 should note that all disposal areas are now covered and vegetated and the site is secure.

This information was added.

Groundwater/12 Table 1 would be more readily understood if a glossary were provided for the acronyms in the "Comparison Values" column, such as RFD.

Definitions have been added.

Groundwater/13 Table 2 would be consistent with Table 1 (and more informative) if a range of values for contaminant concentration were shown.

Because many of the inorganic compounds are naturally occurring, only the highest levels were listed.

Private Wells/13 This paragraph would be more accurate with the addition of the following: Wells 1,2, & 3 are now abandoned and plugged. Well #4 is owned by a sand and gravel company and is used as a process water source for the business, not as a potable drinking water source."

The wording has been revised.

Private Wells/14 Table 4 and Table 7 are labeled "Contaminants of Concern". The comment recommends that Table 7 and related text be edited to read "Assessment Contaminants" or some such unique phrase.

The wording in the table heading has been revised to reflect contaminants of concern for this health assessment. We are not discussing contaminants of concern as defined by a remedial investigation.

Private Wells/14 The comment suggests that the last sentence is an inaccurate characterization of downgradient contamination. Downgradient contamination is relatively small with the exception of elevated THF values. The comment suggests this sentence be rewritten as follows: "Relatively large concentrations of THF have been detected in groundwater downgradient of the site. Concentrations of THF have been detected in groundwater downgradient of the site. Concentrations of TFH range from 1.4 to 1200 ug/liter (parts per billion). Other VOC's are also detected at relatively small concentrations (less that 10 part per billion)".

The wording has been clarified to focus on THF, though the emphasis on the size of the plume remains.

Off-Site Contamination/14 The first paragraph should be expanded to explain that contaminants are sinking in the aquifer presumably because of a combination of the following: increased degradation in the upper portion of the aquifer, dilution and displacement from infiltrating runoff downgradient, and the existence of a high permeability zone in the upper horizon of the bedrock.

Additional information has been added.

Off-Site Contamination/15 In Table 5, the asterisks in the "Detect" column need to be explained.

An explanation has been added.

Off-Site Contamination/16 In the third sentence of the first paragraph following Table 6, the verb should be present tense instead of future tense ("that will catch" should be "that catches") because the impoundment has already been constructed.

This change has been made.

Contamination Summary/16 The last paragraph on 16, the second sentence should be changed to read as follows: "The three gas extraction wells that have already been installed at the site, were installed through the newly-constructed landfill cap.

This information has been updated.

Physical & Other Hazards/17 The first paragraph inaccurately characterizes the hazards posed by gases generated at the site. There are no structures present which could accumulate gas. The comment suggests that the first paragraph be rewritten as follows: "There are no noted physical hazards associated with the site. Methane and other gases generated from the decomposition of wastes at the site could pose a fire and explosion hazard; however, no on-site structures are present where gases can accumulate in explosive quantities. Further, an In-Situ Vapor Extraction System has been tested at the site, and a full-scale system has been designed to extract and treat gases. No off-site migration of site gases has been detected. Because the site ...."

This section has been updated.

Completed Exposure Pathway/19 The first paragraph in the "groundwater" section could be more accurately written as "Past exposure to groundwater contamination may have occurred at the Hagen private well." This rephrasing is consistent with the discussion page 20.

The wording has been changed.

In the third paragraph, VOC's are said to be 3,200 feet downgradient. On page 14, the plume is said to be1,500 feet downgradient. The actual farthest point at which VOC's have been detected is approximately 2,000feet downgradient of the capped and consolidated landfill area.

The furthest downgradient point of contamination is not defined in the RI. It is agreed that3,200 feet is conservative. The number on page 14 has been changed to 2,000 feet.

Also a sentence should be added to the third paragraph stating: "The contaminants detected in wells, 2,3, and4 are suspect because of the lack of quality control measure taken at the time of the sample analysis".

This information is stated earlier in the document. Additions have been made based on previous comments.

In the sixth sentence of the fourth paragraph, the word "Detected" should instead be "detect".

This misspelling has been corrected.

Potential/exposure Pathway/21 The first paragraph should be clarified as follows: "...there do not appear to be any drinking water wells screened directly..."

This correction has been made.

Potential Exposure Pathway-Groundwater/21

Typographical error: The two words "nauga hyde" in the second sentence of the first paragraph should be oneword (Naugahyde).

The typo has been corrected.

In discussing future exposures, it would be appropriate to add, "The likelihood of a break in the cap or anyleachate seeps is substantially diminished by the nature of the materials chosen to construct the cap and theobligation for the site owner to routinely inspect the site to detect such occurrences."

A likelihood of these occurrences is not alluded to in the text. There is no need to add thisdiscussion.

The following sentence should be added after the forth sentence: "The full-scale ISVE system, when installed,will eliminate the possible migration of these volatile compounds."

This section has been updated to reflect the addition of the ISVE.

Public Health Implication/24 This section would be easier to understand if an explanation were repeated about how the four "Assessment Contaminants" were selected.

A brief statement has been added.

Tetrahydrofuran (THF)/24 The statement in the last sentence of the last paragraph of this section is erroneous. THF has been tested for its ability to cause cancer. In fact, the National toxicology Program (NTP) completed a two-year carcinogenicity bioassay of THF in rats and mice exposed via inhalation in December 1991. Currently, the tissues from exposed and control animals are undergoing histopathological examination. The NTP assessment of THF's potential carcinogenicity should be available within the next 18-24 months.

The text has been clarified to acknowledge this test. However, animal testing for THF's carcinogenicity has not been consistent. Some studies has shown it to enhance tumor growth, mutagenicity, and embryotoxicity in mice. Still other studies have not found these effects. For this site, should an exposure to THF occur in the future, the specific exposure would be again evaluated for potential health effects.

Community Health/26 The answer to question #3 may be more informative if residents were alerted to be aware for "solvent, plastic resin, or other odors."

This text has been added.

Community Health/27 There is nothing in question #8 about changes in property values. The comment requests that the last sentence in the answer to question #8 be deleted.

This sentence has been removed.

Community Health/27 The answer to question #9 uses the first person ("I"). This should be rephrased to read "the DOH does not believe in "or" it is not believed that ...."

This has been changed.

Conclusions/28 The first sentence should be rephrased to read " ....two residents who experienced past exposure no longer live at the site."

The text has been changed.

Conclusion/28 The second paragraph should be clarified as follows: "Groundwater contamination especially THF) has spread significantly from the site in a narrow, well defined plume. Groundwater is contaminated: however, there are presently no water supply wells affected."

The text was not modified. This information is noted earlier and not necessary here.

Recommendations/29 General Statement: WMWI supports the Public Health Action (stated on page 3) which WDOH and ATSDR will conduct. WMWI will cooperate fully with WDOH and ATSDR in this regard, and suggests that the RECOMMENDATIONS in this assessment be tailored to those public health actions. The remedial measures selected by U.S. EPA for the two operable units at the Hagen Farm site are, by law, protective of public health and the environment, and no additional testing, design, or construction is necessary.

The DOH notes and appreciates WMWI's support. The recommendations have been updated to reflect more recent information.

Paragraph I - Rephrase to endorse continued monitoring.

The DOH has not received information from the new monitoring wells to indicate that theplume has been well characterized. Until that time the DOH maintains thisrecommendation.

Paragraph 2 - Delete

This recommendation remains in place.

Paragraph 3 - Inform residents of groundwater testing results. No additional private well testing is needed.

The wording has been changed to monitoring wells and selected private wells asappropriate. This reflects the potential need for private well sampling when the plume is not confidently characterized and contained with in the monitoring well coverage.

Also, how will 1,200 feet from the site be defined? Will it be defined as from the property line, or from thecapped waste consolidation area or from some other point? who will be apprising the residents of thisinformation? Will the U.S. EPA and the WDNR, or some other entity do this appraisal.

The wording has been changed to "near" the site. Residences within the area of pastprivate well monitoring are expected to be included.

Paragraph 4 - The second sentence of this paragraph should read as follows: "The annual site inspection thatis currently performed each spring at the site includes the inspection of the cap and the surface water runoffcontrols to ensure their effectiveness."

This paragraph has been removed.

Paragraph 5 is O.K.

Paragraph 6 - Delete

The paragraph has been rephrased to state "If additional information becomes availableon past or current exposures, the DOH will evaluate those exposures for potential healthrisks."

References/31 "Morozoite" is "Morrisette" - References 5 and 13.

The misspelling has been corrected.

"Jay" is "Jae" - Reference 6

The misspelling has been corrected.

"Rod" is "ROD" - Reference 10

The typo has been corrected.


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. #