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

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

SAUK COUNTY LANDFILL
EXCELSIOR, SAUK COUNTY, WISCONSIN




ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND OTHER HAZARDS

This section describes contamination and other hazards associated with the Sauk County LandfillSuperfund site. Contaminants of concern are selected for further analysis in following sections. Areas considered to be "on-site" are within the property boundary. All other areas are consideredto be "off-site".

During the remedial investigation samples were taken of groundwater, surface soils, and soil gas. The results of these samples are summarized as they relate to each environmental exposurepathway in the following sections. Detailed accounts of each sample and results from analysis canbe found in the remedial investigation reports for the Sauk County Landfill and in WDNR sitefiles. Environmental contamination is found both on- and off-site. On-site contamination exists inthe soils, air, and groundwater. Off-site contamination exists in Contaminants of concern are those contaminants migrating from the landfill that have the potential to affect human health. Isolating these contaminants from the long list of those that may be found at a site allows the assessor to focus on fewer, more important, contaminants. Sampleresults from the remedial investigation are used to evaluate all environmental pathways withpotential human exposure routes. Human exposure routes are points where contaminants mayenter the body and include: inhalation, ingestion, and dermal absorption. The environmentalpathways evaluated include: groundwater, surface water, surface soils, and air.

"Comparison values" are used to help select potential contaminants of concern from the results ofsamples taken at the site. A comparison value is a contaminant concentration level below whichhuman exposure is likely to be without harmful health effects. Comparison values are derivedfrom toxicity data and exposure dose assumptions for specific media (e.g. soils, drinking water,etc.). Sample results summary tables in this section include comparison values for the respectivecontaminants detected in each media evaluated. Concentrations at or above these levels do notnecessarily represent a health threat.

ON-SITE CONTAMINATION

During remedial investigation activities on-site samples have been taken from groundwater,surface soils and soil gas. Results of sampling indicate that contamination has migrated from thelandfill through groundwater and soil gases. The primary contaminants migrating from the landfillare VOCs. Contaminant concentrations decrease significantly with distance from the landfill.

Groundwater

Groundwater monitoring wells have been installed and sampled during a number of groundwaterinvestigations at the site. There are 25 monitoring wells at the site that have been monitored aspart of the remedial investigation. Twelve of those wells were installed as part of the remedialinvestigation to monitor the groundwater quality of both primary aquifers. Groundwater sampleswere taken from these wells in September and November of 1992, and March, April and June of1993. Each well sample was analyzed for VOCs, semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC), andmetals. Table 1 summarizes the maximum VOC concentrations detected during the remedialinvestigation. The table also contains comparison values and the State's GroundwaterEnforcement Standard. State standards are developed by the Division of Health and theDepartment of Natural Resources to be protective of human health. The VOCs detected at orabove their respective comparison values are identified in bold type.

Because benzene, 1,2 dichloroethane, 1,1 dichloroethylene, methylene chloride,tetrachloroethylene, and vinyl chloride were detected above their respective comparison values,they were selected as VOC contaminants of concern for groundwater. Detecting thesecontaminants above their respective comparison values does not necessarily indicate a publichealth hazard. Refer to the Public Health Implications section of this health assessment for adiscussion of possible health hazards.

(5)
Sauk County Landfill
All values in micrograms per liter (µg/l)">

Table 1.

ummary of On-Site Groundwater VOC Contamination(5)
Sauk County Landfill
All values in micrograms per liter (µg/l)
VOCMaximum DetectedComparison Value Enforcement Standard
Benzene5.01.0a5.0
Chlorobenzene3.0200.0b100.0
Chloroethane29.0NS400.0
1,2 Dichlorobenzene0.8600.0c1250.0
1,4 Dichlorobenzene2.075.0c75.0
1,1 Dichloroethane110.0NS850.0
1,2 Dichloroethane1.00.4a5.0
1,1 Dichloroethylene9.00.06aNS
cis-1,2 Dichloroethylene17.070.0c100.0
1,2 Dichloropropane2.0900.0b5.0
Ethyl benzene22.0700.0c1360.0
Methylene chloride15.05.0a150.0
4-Methyl 2-pentanone2.0NS500.0
Tetrachloroethylene5.00.7a5.0
Toluene43.01,000.0c343.0
1,1,1 Trichloroethane49.0200.0c200.0
Trichloroethylene2.03.0a5.0
Xylenes (total)22.010,000.0c620.0
Vinyl chloride5.40.2b0.2

Notes:
NS - No Standard Available
a -    CREG: Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide. A person drinking two liters of water per day over a 70 year lifetime with this level of contamination would have a one in a million increased cancer risk.
b -    EMEG: Environmental Media Evaluation Guide developed by ATSDR. A person could drink two liters of water per day over a 70 year lifetime with this level of contamination without expecting to have adverse health effects.
c -    LTHA: EPA's Lifetime Health Advisory for drinking water. A person could drink two liters of water per day over a 70 year lifetime with this level of contamination without expecting to have adverse health effects.

Monitoring well sample analysis detected only for SVOCs in wells immediately adjacent to thelandfill. The highest concentrations were at or below their respective quantitation limits. We donot expect SVOCs to migrate as readily as VOCs in groundwater. Table 2 contains a summary ofthe maximum SVOCs detected in groundwater. The table also contains the respective comparisonvalues. Despite its low detected level, chrysene is considered a contaminant of concern forgroundwater because the detected concentration exceeded its comparison value.

Table 2.

Summary of Groundwater SVOC Concentrations On-Site (SVOC)
Sauk County Landfill
All values in micrograms per liter (µg/l)
SVOCMaximum DetectedComparison ValuesEnforcement Standard
Benzoic acid1.0*40,000.0dNS
Chrysene1.0*0.2eNS
Diethylphthalate3.0*5,000.0cNS
2,4 Dimethyl phenol0.6*200.0dNS

Notes:
*    Each of these contaminants were detected in concentrations below the labs ability to quantify them. For this reason these values are estimated.
c -    LTHA: EPA's Lifetime Health Advisory for drinking water. A person could drink two liters of water per day over a 70 year lifetime with this level of contamination without expecting to have adverse health effects.
d -    RMEG: Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide developed from EPA RfD. A person could drink two liters of water per day over a 70 year lifetime with this level of contamination without expecting to have adverse health effects.
-    This is a Proposed Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) established be the EPA. A person could drink two liters of water per day over a 70 year lifetime with this level of contamination without expecting to have adverse health effects.

 

Table 3.

Summary of Groundwater Inorganics Concentrations On-Site Sauk County Landfill All values in micrograms per liter (µg/l)
InorganicMaximum DetectedComparison ValueEnforcement Standard
Barium1,400700d1,000
Iron10,000NS300
Manganese1,13050d50

Notes:
d -    RMEG: Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide developed from EPA RfD. A person could drink two liters of water per day over a 70 year lifetime with this level of contamination without expecting to have adverse health effects.

Inorganic analysis of monitoring well samples detected many commonly occurring parameters in the on-site groundwater. The parameters detected in exceedance of their comparison values or Enforcement Standards are shown in Table 3 with their highest detected concentrations. Barium, iron, and manganese are contaminants of concern for groundwater.

Surface Soils

During the remedial investigation of the site, surface soils were sampled from the landfill and adjacent areas. There are no relevant state or federal soil contaminant standards to use in identifying contaminants of concern. However, there are health based comparison values listed in Table 4. For the soils and sediments comparison values exposures assume a year round daily soil ingestion rate of 200 mg/day for a 10 kg child, and 100 mg/day for an 70 kg adult(6). The contaminants of concern are shown in bold type.

There are several inorganic parameters that do not have comparison values, because with the exception of lead, these parameters are commonly found in the environment, and are not considered to pose a health hazard. For this reason only lead is retained as a contaminant of concern. Arsenic, beryllium, and manganese each have been detected at levels exceeding their comparison values.

The surface soils were also analyzed for Semivolatile Organic Compounds (SVOC). Because most SVOCs are man made compounds they are not considered to be naturally occurring in surface soils. However, it has become common to detect some SVOCs called Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) in locations without known sources. SVOCs were detected in some of the surface soil samples taken.

Table 4.

Summary of On-Site Soil Inorganics Concentrations Sauk County Landfill All values in micrgrams per liter (mg/kg)
Inorganic Maximum Detected Comparison Value
Aluminum24,300NS
Arsenic 42.50.2a
Barium 331 4,000d
Beryllium3.10.2a
Cadmium 1.840b
Calcium 12,200NS
Chromium 24.8 50,000d
Cobalt 93.7 NS
Copper 525 NS
Iron 69,000 NS
Lead 88.8NS
Magnesium 4,760NS
Manganese4,770300d
Mercury 0.19 100b
Nickel 123 1,000d
Potassium 3,460 NS
Thallium 2.6 NS
Vanadium 69.2 200b
Zinc 1,04020,000d
Cyanide 0.75 1,000d
Notes:
a -    CREG: Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide. A person drinking two liters of water per day over a 70 year lifetime with this level of contamination would have a one in a million increased cancer risk.
b -    EMEG: Environmental Media Evaluation Guide developed by ATSDR. A person could drink two liters of water per day over a 70 year lifetime with this level of contamination without expecting to have adverse health effects.
d -    RMEG: Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide developed from EPA RfD. A person could drink two liters of water per day over a 70 year lifetime with this level of contamination without expecting to have adverse health effects.

Table 5.

Summary of On-Site Surface Soil SVOC Concentrations Sauk County Landfill All values in micrograms per liter (µg/kg)
SVOCMaximum DetectedComparison Value
Acenapthalene43J3,000,000d
Benz(a)anthracene580900h
Benzo(b)fluoranthene2,000900h
Benzo(k)fluoranthene2,0009,000h
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene410NA (PAH)
Benzo(a)pyrene830100a
Chrysene55088,000h
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene170J90a
Di-n-butylphthalate220J5,000d
Di-n-octylphthalate43J50a
Fluoranthene4602,000,000d
Indeno(1,2,3,cd)pyrene660900h
2 Methylnapthalene210JNA (PAH)
Naphthalene150J3,100,000h
Phenanthrene320JNA (PAH)
Phenol98J30,000d
Pyrene6202,000,000h

Notes:
a -    CREG: Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide. A person drinking two liters of water per day over a 70 year lifetime with this level of contamination would have a one in a million increased cancer risk.
d -    RMEG: Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide developed from EPA RfD. A person could drink two liters of water per day over a 70 year lifetime with this level of contamination without expecting to have adverse health effects.
h -    SSL: EPA Soil Screening Level

Di-n-butylphthalate, di-n-octylphthalate and phenol have available comparison values and are detected below those levels. The SVOC contaminants of concern retained do not havecomparison values. All of the SVOC contaminants of concern are PAHs.

Table 6.

Summary of Soil Gas VOC ConcentrationsSauk County Landfill All values in parts per billion (ppb)
VOCMaximum DetectedComparison Value
Acetone 1,600 400f
Benzene 580 .03a
Chloroethane 810 80,000f
Dichlorodifluoromethane (freon 12)1,900NA
1,1 Dichloroethane2,600NA
1,1 Dichloroethylene460.005a
1,2 Dichloroethylene (cis)620NA
1,2 Dichloro 1,1,2,2 tetrafluoroethane140NA
Ethyl benzene1,000300f
Methylene chloride2200.6a
Methyl ethyl ketone29,000339g
Tetrachloroethylene690.3a
Toluene17,000400g
1,1,1 Trichloroethane120 300f
Trichlorofluoromethane (freon 11)29NA
1,1,2 Trichloro 1,2,2 Trifluoroethane5.2NA
Vinyl chloride2,900NA
Xylenes (total)2,900NA

Notes:
a -    CREG: Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide. A person drinking two liters of water per day over a 70 year lifetime with this level of contamination would have a one in a million increased cancer risk.
f -    Minimal Risk Level developed by ATSDR. A person could breath twenty cubic meters per day of air with this contaminant concentration without expecting to have adverse health effects.
G -    Reference Concentration developed by EPA. A person could breath twenty cubic meters per day of air with this contaminant concentration without expecting to have adverse health effects.

Concentrations were converted from (µg/m3) to parts per billion

Air

Ambient air sampling has not been conducted at the site, however, during the remedialinvestigation gas samples were taken from soil gas probes around the perimeter of the landfill and leachate/gas wells on the landfill. As with the soils there are no relevant state or federal aircontaminant standards to use in identifying contaminants of concern. The comparison values usedrepresent air contaminant concentrations that are considered to be safe to breath in the ambientair. Concentrations at or above these levels do not necessarily represent a health threat. Thedetected VOC concentrations are not indicative of the levels that could exist in the ambient air. When soil gases migrate to the ambient air, concentrations drop rapidly due to dilution, dispersionand degradation. The discussion of contaminant toxicity later in this document addressespotential exposures to these VOCs qualitatively. Contaminants detected at or above their healthbased comparison values and those without comparison values are shown in bold type.

Acetone, benzene, 1,1 dichloroethylene, ethyl benzene, methylene chloride, methyl ethylketone, tetrachloroethylene, and toluene are contaminants of concern for the air pathwaybecause they exceeded their respective comparison values. Other VOCs shown in bold type areretained because they do not have comparison values. A "background" sample was taken near thegate to the site approximately 800 feet from the landfill. This sample detected toluene and 1,1,1trichloroethane; each below its respective comparison value. Because air contamination is dilutedrapidly, the potential for VOC exposure on the landfill site is very low.

OFF-SITE CONTAMINATION

Results of the remedial investigation indicate that groundwater contamination has migrated off-site. Contaminant concentrations off-site are well below levels of potential health concern. Otheroff-site contamination is not believed to exist.

Off-Site Groundwater

Samples have been taken from each private well near the site. The results of one private wellsample indicated contamination related to the site. No other private wells are impacted by site-related contamination. The contaminants that were detected in this private well are shown in Table 7 with the maximum detected concentration and the health-based groundwater standard for each compound.

(7)">

Table 7.

Summary of Private Well Contaminants Sauk County Landfill All values in micrograms per liter (µg/l)(7)
ContaminantMaximum ConcentrationEnforcement StandardComparison Value
1,1,1 Trichloroethane2.0200200c
1,1 Dichloroethane2.1850NS

Notes:
c -    LTHA: EPA's Lifetime Health Advisory for drinking water. A person could drink two liters of water per day over a 70 year lifetime with this level of contamination without expecting to have adverse health effects.

The contaminants in this private well constitute the only known source of exposure tocontaminants from the site. The community has expressed health concerns about this exposure. For these reasons they are considered contaminants of concern.

Off-Site Air

No off-site sampling of ambient air quality has been done at the site. Existing information aboutthe site indicates that off-site air quality should not be impacted by the site. Limited monitoring ofresidential indoor air quality was done in October of 1993. An HNu photo ionization detectorwas used around and inside several residences near the site. Such qualitative monitoring is not assensitive as actual air sampling. Evidence of VOCs were not detected in the ambient or indoor airof the homes. Because of concerns raised by nearby residents, VOC samples were drawn over along period in one of the homes nearest to the site. The sample results did not indicate that thesite is causing VOC contamination in the home. Because air sampling has been limited, resultscannot be used to determine potential off-site air quality impacts from the site. However, due tothe distance from the site to nearest off-site homes and the porosity of surface soils, it is veryunlikely that VOCs could migrate to the homes through the soil or air at detectible levels.

QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL

In preparing this assessment, the DOH relies on the information provided in the referenceddocuments and assumes that quality assurance and quality control measures were followedconcerning chain-of-custody, laboratory procedures, and data reporting. The validity of theanalyses and conclusions drawn for this assessment is determined by the reliability of thereferenced information.

Historic sampling of a private well near the site did not provide acceptable results. Detects ofcarbon tetrachloride were found in all samples including sample blanks. For that reason thecarbon tetrachloride detects were discounted. However, the private well was not resampled forcarbon tetrachloride. For this reason the results for that well are inconclusive for carbontetrachloride.

As part of the remedial investigation the consultant evaluated the condition of all existingmonitoring wells at the site. All wells that were not in acceptable condition were identified andabandoned so that well sample results would only be derived from wells in good condition.

TRI SEARCH

The Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI) was searched for chemical releases from the SaukCounty Landfill site and other facilities in the same zip code area. The Sauk County Landfill sitewas not listed in the TRI. No other releases were reported in the vicinity of the site.

PHYSICAL AND OTHER HAZARDS

The decomposition of municipal wastes produces landfill gas. This gas is composed primarily ofmethane and carbon dioxide. The existence of methane gas in high enough concentrations, withsufficient oxygen, can pose a fire and explosion hazard. There are currently no buildings near thelandfill at risk of having explosive levels of methane build up. In addition, there are nounderground work areas or sewers near the landfill that would allow for the build up of methaneto explosive levels. The landfill gas extraction system will control methane migration from thelandfill in order to remove any potential for fire and explosion. There are no adverse healtheffects related to human exposure to non-explosive levels of methane gas.

PATHWAYS ANALYSES

This section evaluates exposure scenarios for known (completed) exposures and for exposuresthat may have occurred or could occur in the future (potential). These exposures are evaluatedbased on the toxicological information for the respective contaminants of concern to determinelikely health effects from the exposures.

Figure 3: This is a conservative estimate
of the extent of groundwater contamination
from the landfill.

Contamination is migrating from the landfill in the groundwater and the air. Some surface soil contamination exists on-site. However, there is currently no surface water or surface soil migration pathway from the landfill. Contaminated Groundwater has migrated off-site and has impacted one private well. Soil and air contamination is not believed to have migrated off-site.

COMPLETED EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

Contaminated groundwater from the site has entered the private well of one residence. This private well was first sampled in September, 1992. Contaminants were detected in the first sample and in each sample taken since that time until early 1995. In the spring of 1995 no contaminants were detected in a sample from that well. The contaminants detected are similar to those detected in the monitoring wells between the site and the home. The home was first occupied in the spring of 1980. It is not known when contaminants first entered the private well.

The contaminant concentrations are highest near the site and decrease consistently with distancefrom the site. Because the concentrations detected are quite low, it is believed that the privatewell is near the front of the plume. For this reason the concentrations were likely lower in thepast. Possible exposure would be from the spring of 1980 to the present, at the highestconcentrations detected to date (Table 7). Residents using contaminated groundwater wouldingest contaminants when drinking water; inhale contamination released from the water duringdomestic uses (cooking, showering, etc.); absorb contaminants through their skin while bathingand washing in contaminated water. EPA's Exposure Assessment Group estimates that drinking water may account for 34% of VOC exposure when considering these three routes of exposure(8).

POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

Groundwater

Residents living near the site rely on groundwater for their drinking water and other domestic uses. Residents using contaminated groundwater could be exposed as they ingest contaminants when drinking water; inhale contamination release from the water during domestic uses (cooking, showering, etc.); absorb contaminants through their skin while bathing and washing in contaminated water.

The highest concentration of each contaminant detected in groundwater is used as a basis for aworst case future exposure scenario. Tables 1-3 summarize the contaminants detected during theremedial investigation in on-site groundwater samples and their highest detected concentrations. Such a worst case exposure scenario assumes that contaminants migrate to existing off-site wellsat their current highest concentrations. This condition is unlikely because contaminantconcentrations decrease significantly a short distance from the landfill. Concentrations have alsobeen decreasing rapidly over time near the site. Dilution, dispersion, attenuation, and chemicaldegradation are all factors that reduce the likelihood of high contaminant concentrations migratingfrom the site.

Surface Soils

People can be exposed to contamination in on-site surface soils through ingestion, inhalation, anddermal absorption. While working on the site, workers could have skin contact withcontaminated surface soils. They could also inhale and/or ingest contaminated soils disturbed byvehicle traffic or walking on the site. Others entering and walking on the site would have a lowerpotential for these exposures.

Air

Soil gas samples show methane and a number of VOCs migrating from the landfill. It is difficultto monitor accurately for ambient air contamination from this type of site. Sampling effortswould not able to characterize the very low concentrations of VOCs that could exist in the airnear the landfill. The possibility of detecting contamination and the concentrations can varyconsiderably by time of day and from one day to the next. Because no ambient air monitoringwas done at the site it is possible that contaminants detected in soil gas could migrate to theambient air near the landfill. People working on the site could be exposed to low concentrationsof the VOCs listed in Table 6. Others who ocassionally enter and walk on the site would have alower potential for these exposures.

PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS

This section provides a discussion of possible health effects related to completed or potentialexposures to contaminants identified in the Environmental Contamination Section.

TOXICOLOGICAL EVALUATION

The toxicities of contaminants of concern are discussed in this section. VOC contaminants fromthe site have been detected in one private well. No adverse health effects are expected fromexposures to the VOCs in this well. There are no other known exposures to contamination fromthe site. For this reason the toxicity discussion of the contaminants of concern is based onconservative estimates of exposures in the future. Only the adverse health effects that couldpossibly be associated with exposure to the highest contaminant concentrations detected ingroundwater, surface soils, and air are discussed in this section.

GROUNDWATER CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN

Sample results from monitoring wells on-site show organic and inorganic groundwatercontamination. In general, concentrations are highest in the wells nearest to the landfill. Thefollowing discussions of contaminant toxicity are not based on current exposures. They reflecthazards associated with the worst case scenario of contaminant migration from the site at theirhighest on-site concentrations. 1,1,1 TCA and 1,1 DCA were not detected at levels exceedingtheir respective comparison values. The toxicology of both compounds is discussed in thissection because of community health concerns about those compounds.

Current Exposure

1,1,1 Trichloroethane (1,1,1 TCA)

No adverse health effects are expected from current exposures to 1,1,1 TCA in the off-site privatewell. 1,1,1 TCA, also known as methyl chloroform, is a chlorinated solvent that has beenidentified as a site related compound. Inhalation of 1,1,1 TCA is the most common route ofhuman exposure, followed by food and water consumption, and dermal contact. Regardless ofhow it enters the body, nearly all of it will quickly leave the body in exhaled air(9). 1,1,1 TCA isfound in numerous foodstuffs including meat, oil, fat, tea, fruits, and vegetables, in concentrationsranging from 1 to 10 µg/kg. EPA has determined that 1,1,1 TCA is not a carcinogen.

1,1 Dichloroethane (1,1 DCA)

No adverse health effects are expected from current exposures to 1,1 DCA in the off-site privatewell. Two animal studies were performed to determine the carcinogenicity of 1,1 DCA. One study found no relationship. The second study yielded inconclusive evidence that 1,1DCA may be carcinogenic in humans. Limitations in the second study (e.g. poor survival in bothtreated and control animals) preclude the consideration of these results as conclusive evidence ofcarcinogenicity(10). Similarly to 1,1,1 TCA, inhalation is the most common route of humanexposure for 1,1 DCA, followed by food and water consumption, and dermal contact. Regardlessof how it enters the body, nearly all of it will quickly leave the body in exhaled air.

Simultaneous Exposure to 1,1,1 TCA and 1,1 DCA
1,1,1 TCA and 1,1 DCA both are believed to cause decrease function of the liver and kidneys oflaboratory animals at high levels. In combination it is expected that they would act additivelytowards these health effects. At the highest levels detected in a private well near the site, thecombination of the two compounds are not near levels that are expected to cause adverse healtheffects. Testing has found that under extreme conditions vinyl chloride can be formed from thesecompounds. However, that conversion would require an energy source that could not exist in thisprivate well.

Carcinogenic Health Effects
Benzene, Chrysene, Tetrachloroethylene, Vinyl Chloride, 1,1 Dichloroethylene
These chemicals have been classified as carcinogens. People who drink groundwater every day,over a lifetime, with the highest concentrations of the contaminants detected in on-site monitoringwells would have an increased risk of getting cancer. These contaminants may not be associatedwith the same types of cancer. Having an exposure to more than one of these carcinogens canincrease a person's risk of getting cancer, above the risks from exposure to individual carcinogens.

Non-Carcinogenic Health Effects
Benzene, Chrysene, Tetrachloroethylene, 1,1 Dichloroethylene
Exposures to these contaminants at the highest levels detected in on-site groundwater are not expected to cause any non-cancer health effects(11),(12),(13),(14).

Vinyl Chloride
A possible effect of ingestion or inhalation of vinyl chloride at the highest levels detected at thesite could include damage to the liver(15).

Barium
Only limited information is available on the effects of chronic, human exposure to barium indrinking water. Barium concentrations (>2,000 µg/L) in drinking water may be associated withhypertension. These levels are slightly higher than the highest concentration detected at the site(1,400 µg/L). There is evidence from animal studies that barium exposure could be linked withincreased blood pressure, and decreased heart function. There are no adverse health effectsassociated with exposure to barium at the levels detected on-site.

Iron
The elevated iron concentrations in on-site groundwater (10,000 µg/L) exceed the WisconsinGroundwater Enforcement Standard for iron. However, this standard is a welfare based drinkingwater standard, which means it is based on aesthetic quality (e.g. taste, color, odor), rather thanhealth effects. There are no adverse health effects associated with the ingestion of drinking waterwith iron at the highest concentrations detected in on-site monitoring wells.

Manganese
Ingesting a small amount of manganese each day is important in maintaining health. The normalamount of manganese in a diet is between 2,000 and 9,000 µg/day. The manganese that would beadded from drinking groundwater from the site at 1,130 µg/L would be 2,260 µg/day beyondwhat was normally ingested from foods. There is a possible association with drinking elevatedlevels of manganese and symptoms such as weakness, stiff muscles, and trembling hands. It is notclear if the highest levels detected in on-site groundwater could cause adverse health effects(16).

SURFACE SOIL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN

Carcinogenic Health Effects

Arsenic, Beryllium
Both arsenic and beryllium are carcinogens. These metals were detected in soils at concentrations(arsenic - 42.7 mg/kg, beryllium - 3.1 mg/kg). These metals could cause an increased cancer riskif they were ingested at a rate of 100 mg/day for a lifetime. This exposure scenario is onlyappropriate for assessing surface soil exposures residential yards. Because the location of thesurface soil contamination is in area with limited access, no increased cancer risk would beexpected from normal exposures to the highest concentrations of arsenic and beryllium detected atthe site.

PAH
PAHs were detected in samples of surface soils on-site. PAHs are created from the incompletecombustion of fossil fuels. They are often associated with vehicle emissions and/or oil and greasespills. There are over one hundred different PAH compounds and individual PAHs are rarelyidentified in the absence of others. The health effects of the individual PAHs may not be exactlyalike. However, the coincident detection of a number of these compounds makes it difficult toisolate health effects for individual PAHs. For this reason the toxicity of these PAHs is evaluatedas a group. Long term exposure to some PAH compounds has been shown to cause cancer inhumans exposed through inhalation and dermal absorption. These PAHs were detected in soils atconcentrations that could cause an increased cancer risk if they were ingested at a rate of 100mg/day for a lifetime. As with arsenic and beryllium this exposure scenario is only appropriate forassessing surface soil exposures residential areas. Because the location of the surface soilcontamination is in an area with limited access, no increased cancer risk would be expected fromnormal exposures to the highest concentrations of PAHs at the site(17). See Table 5 for the highestdetected PAH concentrations.

Non-Cancer Health Effects
Arsenic, Beryllium
No other health effects are associated with exposure to the highest concentrations of arsenic and beryllium at the site.

Lead
Lead has been detected in on-site surface soils and sediments at levels elevated over background. However, exposure to the highest lead concentration detected (88.8 mg/kg) is not high enough topose a health hazard. Lead levels in paint are regulated at 600 mg/kg to be protective of thehealth of children and infants. Soil lead levels of 500 to 1,000 mg/kg have been considered to benon-threatening of public health(18). In each of these situations residential exposure scenarios areused. Exposures at this site would be substantially lower.

Manganese
Inhaling high levels of manganese dust by miners has been associated with a number ofneurological health effects such as mental and emotional disturbances, and slow and clumsy body movements. Exposures to the highest levels of manganese (4.77 parts per million) detected in on-site soils would not be expected to cause adverse health effects. The concentration in air below which a daily exposure is expected to cause health effects is 0.6 µg/m3.

AIR CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN

Samples of soil gas are not indicative of the ambient air concentrations at a point of possibleexposure. The following discussion does not include estimates of potential exposureconcentrations. It is expected that concentrations in the ambient air would be considerably lessthan those detected in the soil gas.

Carcinogenic Health Effects
Benzene, 1,1 Dichloroethylene, Methylene Chloride, Tetrachloroethylene, Vinyl Chloride
Each of these carcinogenic compounds has been detected in soil gas at concentrations well above levels considered to pose a health concern in the ambient air. Exposure to these compounds at low concentrations(19) on a daily basis over a lifetime may pose an increased cancer risk.

Non-Carcinogenic Health Effects
Freons
Dichlorodifluoroethane (Freon 12), 1,2 dichloro 1,1,2,2 tetrafluoroethane (Freon 114),trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11), and 1,1,2 trichloro 1,2,2 Trifluoroethane (Freon 113) have allbeen detected in soil gas samples at the site. None of these compounds were detected at levelsexpected to cause adverse health effects(20) .

Acetone, 1,2 Dichloroethylene, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, Toluene, Xylenes (total)
The highest concentrations of each of these compounds detected in soil gas samples were below levels that would be expected to cause adverse health effects.

HEALTH OUTCOME DATA EVALUATION

"Health outcome data" is a phrase referring to records of death and disease. When there isevidence that people near a site have been exposed to contaminants at levels that could lead to anincrease in rates of death or disease, a review of health outcome data may be appropriate. Areview also may be appropriate if there are reports of unusual clusters of disease near a site.

Community health concerns related to the site have been reported. The potential pathways ofexposure related to these health concerns have been evaluated. No health outcome data review iswarranted as a result of this evaluation. Should additional information of human exposures befound, a review of health outcome data will be reconsidered.

COMMUNITY HEALTH CONCERNS EVALUATION

This section addresses the community health concerns identified earlier in the document.

Groundwater

  1. What will the contaminants found in our drinking water do to our health?

Contaminants from the site have been detected in only one private well. No health effectsare expected for short term or long term (lifetime) exposure to the highest concentrations ofthese contaminants detected in the private well.

  1. How will the mixtures of more than one contaminant affect our health?

The combined toxicity of a mixture of these contaminants (1,1,1 TCA , 1,1 DCA) has notbeen studied. However, because they both are expected to cause the same health effectstheir detected concentrations can be combined and are still many times below a level thatcould cause health effects.Are the standards set for groundwater contamination protective for children and infants?

Yes. The standards are developed to be protective of infants and other susceptible groups of people.

  1. How often can our private wells be monitored to protect us from contaminated drinking water?

All private wells near the site have been sampled at least once. The DOH hasrecommended that, where possible, monitoring wells be installed between the site andprivate wells. These monitoring wells have been installed. A groundwater monitoring planhas been developed by the County and approved by the DNR and DOH. This monitoringplan includes an appropriate sampling frequency of private wells to be protective of publichealth.

  1. What should we do if our well becomes contaminated?

If contamination should spread to other private wells in the future, the County will inform you of the sample results. DOH and the DNR will also inform you of any potential health risks related to the detected contaminants and recommend changes in the use of your water if necessary. If contaminant concentrations exceed groundwater enforcement standards the County will be responsible for providing an alternative water supply to the well user.

Air

  1. Occasionally there are very strong odors coming from the site. What is in the air and can it affect the health of the nearby residents?

The odors are coming from the active landfill next to the closed site. The odors are likely aresult of decomposing municipal wastes. The selected remedy for the site includes a gasextraction system to capture and destroy landfill gas from the old landfill. No informationis available on the composition of the odors coming from the active landfill.

  1. Are nearby residents being exposed to landfill gas from the old site in the air of their homes?

No. It is too far from the site for gas to migrate through the very porous soils to the homes.

  1. What are the health risks to the workers who will be installing the gas extraction system?

Workers installing the gas extraction system will be monitoring air quality while working. If monitoring equipment indicates a potential health hazard, work will continue with theuse of proper protective equipment (respirators, etc.).

Other

  1. Kids occasionally enter the site on ATV's. Are they being exposed to contaminants from the site?

Contamination on-site is limited primarily to the groundwater and the waste beneath thecap. Any activity that disturbs the cap could result in exposure to the wastes beneath. Elevated PAHs detected in surface soils are at levels similar to urban areas and heavytraffic rural areas. An ATV operator would not be expected to have a significant exposure. However, other physical hazards may exist on the site not related to contamination. Peopleshould not enter the site without permission from the County.

  1. The residents near the site would like a house by house study of everyone's health.

DOH evaluated the possibility of doing a health study at this site. However, theinformation available about the site indicates that such a study would not be beneficial. DOH encourages anyone who feels they have an unusual health symptom to consult withtheir physician or the local public health nurse. We will work with citizens and theirphysician or nurse to identify the source of health problems if necessary.

  1. Citizens have expressed concerns about the title of this document. The term "Public Health Assessment" is unclear and can be taken to mean actual evaluations of the health of individuals living near the site.

Because the title has been established for this document by ATSDR for all sites, it can not be changed for this site. However, DOH recognizes the concerns and the need for clarification. In creating this document no evaluation of any person's health has been done at this site.


Next Section      Table of Contents

  
 
USA.gov: The U.S. Government's Official Web PortalDepartment of Health and Human Services
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 4770 Buford Hwy NE, Atlanta, GA 30341
Contact CDC: 800-232-4636 / TTY: 888-232-6348

A-Z Index

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
  7. G
  8. H
  9. I
  10. J
  11. K
  12. L
  13. M
  14. N
  15. O
  16. P
  17. Q
  18. R
  19. S
  20. T
  21. U
  22. V
  23. W
  24. X
  25. Y
  26. Z
  27. #