PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
FISHER CALO
KINGSBURY, LA PORTE COUNTY, INDIANA
Figure 1. Site Facilities Map
Figure 2. Site Area Map
Figure 3. Site Features Map
Study Area A
Figure 4. Site Features Map
Study Area B
Figure 5. Site Features Map
Study Area C
Figure 6. Site Features Map
Study Area D
Figure 7. Site Features Map
Study Area E
Figure 8. Soil Gas Survey Location Map
Figure 9. Surface Water/Sediment
Sample Location Map
Figure 10. Monitoring Well Location Map
Figure 11. Maximum Detection Levels
and Extent of Contamination Found in
Round 1 and 2 GW Samples - Shallow Wells
Figure 12. Maximum Detection Levels
and Extent of Contamination Found in
Round 1 and 2 GW Samples - Intermediate Wells
Figure 13. Maximum Detection Levels
and Extent of Contamination Found in
Round 1 and 2 GW Samples - Deep Wells
| 1. Comment | We have serious concerns that the incinerator-mediated induction of TCDD ona chronic basis, even at very low levels, could still create potentialenvironmental problems. We still advocate that soil incineration be conductedoff site, in a less sensitive location. Should soil incineration be done on site,periodic monitoring for possible bioaccumulation of site-related contaminantsmust be done for faunal and floral species in the area. |
|---|---|
| Response | Periodic monitoring for potential bioaccumulation in organisms that inhabitthe environment near the site is an excellent idea. We would suggest that thisrecommendation be brought to the attention of the Department of NaturalResources. |
| 2. Comment | To our knowledge, the town of Kingsbury is not serviced by the KingsburyUtility Company. |
| Response | This information was noted and appropriate changes were made to thedocument. |
| 3. Comment | The last water sampling referenced by the assessment took place in 1988. Thisdata are not sufficiently current to be used in a 1995 health assessment. |
| Response | Under ideal circumstances, we would prefer to have recent data when writingpublic health assessments. However, as the Indiana State Department ofHealth relies on other government agencies to provide us with sampling data,this is not always possible. Due to such issues, our Recommendations sectionusually addressess any data gaps in order to give an accurate assessment. Please note recommendations 2 and 3. |
| 4. Comment | The assessment reports that production wells within KIP are supposedly testedon an "ongoing basis," and that VOCs observed in these tests are "belowdetection level." No mention is made, however, of the frequency of thistesting. Is this monitoring in compliance with Public Water Systemrequirements or not.? |
| Response | The production wells are tested once a year. Per a representative of IDEM, themonitoring of these production wells are in compliance with Public WaterSystem requirements. |
| 5. Comment | No comprehensive well survey has been conducted relevant to this healthassessment. |
| Response | This point is stated on page 23 of the document. Please note that there is arecommendation that a well survey be performed. |
| 6. Comment | On pages 22 and 26, there seems to be a contradiction with respect tocontaminants found in the surface water. |
| Response | This information was reviewed, and appropriate changes were made to thedocument. |
| 7. Comment | The assessment made no mention of the potential exposure route fromwindblown surface/soil contaminants. |
| Response | As the majority of the site is vegetated the potential for exposure tocontaminated windblown dust is negligible. This will be mentioned in thePathways section of the document. |
| 8. Comment | The assessment made no mention of previous exposures of past and presentKIP workers, and area residents, to on-site fires. |
| Response | According to the data reviewed in preparation for writing this document, therewere fires (see page 4) which occurred in 1974 and 1978. It would beunlikely that an individual would be exposed to contaminants from the fire foran extended period of time. |
| 9. Comment | The assessment does not address possible synergistic effects from exposure tothe multiple on-site chemicals. The assessment implies that onsite levels werenot sufficient to warrant concern. |
| Response | Synergistic effects would have been calculated if there were any completedexposure pathways. It would be unlikely that any individual would havechronic maximal exposures for even the potential exposure pathways, if theseexposures were to coincide at one time. The calculations in the document are based on potential exposure to themaximum concentration found in any given media. This calculation is veryconservative. Factors such as percent uptake into the blood stream and/orstorage in organs; the length of exposure; and individual characterisitcs such asage, gender, nutritonal status, family traits, life-style, and state of healthdetermine the degree of adverse health effects which occur in any individualwho is exposed to contaminants. Please note that the on-site levels do not warrant concern because there are nocompleted pathways for on-site media. |
