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

PRELIMINARY PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

KOPPERS COMPANY FACILITIES SITE
NEWPORT, NEW CASTLE COUNTY, DELAWARE

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND OTHER HEALTH CONCERNS

The Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI) database search was conducted and no informationabout the site or the surrounding areas was found.

A. On-Site Contamination

Samples, collected on December 20, 1984 by NUS Corporation, were taken from four on-sitesampling locations: the east drainage ditch, the old fire pond, the railroad loading dockfoundation, and the field in the center of the site. Sediment and aqueous samples or a soil samplewere taken at each location. The soil sample was taken less than three inches from the surface.

Based on the limited quantity and quality of data available for this site a list of contaminants ofconcern and the range of concentrations is presented in Table 1 below. Except for a high leadconcentration found in one sediment sample, inorganic elements are within expected backgroundlevels, however some elements did not screen out because they exceeded health basedcomparison values set to protect a child who may habitually consume soil. Arsenic is withinEastern United States regional and local background levels but exceeds the Reference Dose(RfD) based comparison value for the child who habitually ingests soil and is a known humancarcinogen. The highest concentrations of sediment contaminants were found in a southwestdepression area incorrectly termed the old fire pond where concentrations of individualpolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) ranged from 25.2 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) to90.7 mg/kg. The old foundation, where the seep was observed, had concentrations of PAHsranging from 11.4 mg/kg to 36.0 mg/kg and concentrations of PAHs in the east drainage ditchsediments ranged from 2.41 mg/kg to 6.62 mg/kg. Soil concentrations in the field had PAHconcentrations from 2.66 mg/kg to 9.72 mg/kg.

None of the aqueous samples are of adequate quality to evaluate site contamination. The QualityAssurance and Quality Control Section below provides an explanation of the inadequacies insampling.

B. Off-Site Contamination

Off-site sampling of sediment from Hershey Run and White Clay Creek consisted of grabsampling and was conducted at the same time as the on-site sampling. The same contaminantsand the same quality control problems that existed for the on-site samples existed for the off-sitesamples. A list of contaminants of concern and their ranges of concentrations is presented inTable 2. In Hershey Run, PAH concentrations ranged from 896 mg/kg to 10,600 mg/kg;however, concentrations in samples upstream of the site are higher than concentrations insamples adjacent to the site.

Ref. 2)">

Table 1.

Ranges of On-Site Soil and Sediment Contamination
(Sampling date: 12-20-84 Ref. 2)
Contaminants of ConcernSediment
Concentration Range
mg/Kg
Surface Soil
Concentration
Range
mg/Kg
Comparison Value
Value
mg/Kg
Reference
Arsenic 8.30AND0.6PRfD
Barium 103 - 412336A6.4CREG
Benzo(a)anthracene 2.66 - 41.80 2.66ANoneNone
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 2.41 - 90.70 9.72ANoneNone
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 2.73A 7.86ANoneNone
Benzo(a)pyrene 4.19 - 63.10 6.75A0.12CREG
Cadmium6.5 - 13ND 0.4PEMEG
Chromium 20 - 26 11A10PEMEG
Chrysene 3.35 - 54.90 6.90ANoneNone
Fluoranthene 6.60 - 75.90 6.30ANoneNone
Lead 30 - 65925300 Background
Manganese 566 - 1560521A200PRfD
Mercury 2.7AND 0.6PRfD
Phenanthrene 4.92 - 11.10NDNoneNone
Vanadium 27 - 36 72A14PRfD
    A - Based on 1 valid sample.
    CREG - ATSDR lifetime cancer risk concentration level derived from EPA cancer slope factor.
    Background - Eastern United States Background Concentration Levels.
    EMEG - Environmental Media Evaluation Guides are media specific comparison values developed by ATSDR.
    ND - Not Detected.
    P - exceeds only pica-child comparison value.
    RfD - An EPA estimate of daily exposure that is likely to be without appreciable risk of deleterious health effects. A RfD based comparison value is used when no EMEG is available.


Ref. 2)">

Table 2.

Ranges of Off-Site Sediment Contamination
(Sampling date: 12-20-84 Ref. 2)
Contaminants of ConcernSediment
Concentration Range
mg/kg
Comparison Value
Value
mg/Kg
Reference
Arsenic6.9 - 230.6P
15
210
RfD
Barium 135 - 8966.4CREG
Benzo(a)anthracene2.06 - 3.89NoneNone
Benzo(b)fluoranthene2.23 - 8.48NoneNone
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 6.060ANoneNone
Benzo(a)pyrene 2.86 - 10.600.12CREG
Cadmium4.8 - 100.4P
10
EMEG
Chromium 32 - 10910PEMEG
Chrysene2.99 - 6.26NoneNone
Fluoranthene1.24 - 1.87NoneNone
Lead 14 - 462300Background
Manganese 348 - 1840200PRfD
Mercury 0.73A0.6PRfD
Phenanthrene1.08 - 2.51NoneNone
Vanadium51 - 8314PRfD
    A - Based on 1 valid sample.
    CREG - ATSDR lifetime cancer risk concentration level derived from EPA cancer slope factor.
    Background - Eastern United States Background Concentration Levels.
    EMEG - Environmental Media Evaluation Guides are media specific comparison values developed by Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
    P - exceeds only pica-child comparison value.
    RfD - An EPA estimate of daily exposure that is likely to be without appreciable risk of deleterious health effects. A RfD based comparison value is used when no EMEG is available.

C. Quality Assurance and Quality Control

In preparing this health assessment, ATSDR relies on the information provided in the referenceddocuments and assumes that adequate quality assurance and quality control measures werefollowed with regard to chain-of-custody, laboratory procedures, and data reporting. Theanalysis and conclusions in this Health Assessment are valid only if the referenced information iscomplete and reliable.

Samples were analyzed for metals, pesticides, PAHs, and some volatile organic compounds(VOCs). Inappropriate detection limits, excessive holding times, or contaminated laboratoryblanks rendered much of the data unusable. The surface water samples and some sedimentsamples were not acceptable for evaluating the degree and extent of contamination at the site. White Clay Creek samples, for example, were completely unusable for the reasons stated above;therefore, the contamination in the creek cannot be evaluated.

D. Physical and Other Hazards

A pit, located near the site's eastern boundary and surrounded by dense vegetation and covered byboards presents a potential physical hazard to persons who could fall accidently into the hole. There is a possibility that other physical hazards may exist, but no other hazards were identifiedin site documentation, nor was the site visit team able to visually inspect the entire site becauseof thick underbrush.

PATHWAYS ANALYSES

A. Pathways Introduction

ATSDR utilizes a pathways analysis to evaluate the potential for human exposure to sitecontaminants. An exposure pathway consists of five elements:

  1. a source of contamination,
  2. a contaminated environmental media,
  3. a point of exposure,
  4. a route of exposure, and
  5. a receptor population.

An example of an exposure pathway would be a source of waste drums which leaked into thegroundwater which was used by residents having private wells for drinking, showering and otherhousehold purposes. Exposure pathways are considered to be complete if all five elements arepresent and are adequately characterized to link the site to a specific receptor population. Apotential pathway exists when one or more of the five elements is missing or is inadequatelycharacterized. Due to the limited nature of the sampling data, we have not been able to identifyany completed exposure pathways for the Koppers site at this time. Table 3 lists the potentialexposure pathways evaluated at the Koppers site. Table 4 summarizes the potentially exposedpopulation estimates and site contaminants for the Koppers Delaware site.

B. Potential Exposure Pathways

    Surface soil and sediment pathway

Industrial or treatment process chemicals were dumped or spilled onto the soil or into wasteponds at the Koppers facility and may result in past, present, or future potential exposures tothose chemicals. PAHs were one of the major contaminants in soil and can migrate to surfacewater, ground water, and air. Since PAHs as a group tend to have low solubilities in water, theyare primarily found sorbed to sediment particles that either settle to the bottom or banks ofsurface water bodies or are suspended in the water column. The mobility of PAHs in soil ishighly dependent on soil particle size. Exposure to contaminants in soil and sediment isprimarily through incidental ingestion, although dermal exposure and inhalation of contaminateddust particles may occur.

The populations most likely to be exposed are the residents along Old Airport Road, a smallnumber of hikers and hunters trespassing on the site, and recreational users who use the areasadjacent to the site.

Of three subpopulations of nearby residents, children less than six years in age, children six toeighteen, and adults, children under six are the most sensitive to contaminants and the largestconsumers of soil. Children in the six to eighteen age group will frequent the site more often butwill consume less soil than younger children. Adults ingest the least amount of soil and are theleast likely to wander onto the site. Some adults and/or teenagers have found the area attractivefor hunting, although hunting is seasonal and would lead to infrequent exposure. Recently, twoteenagers were picked up by DuPont/Ciba Geigy security for trespassing on the site.

There is also potential exposure to soils and sediments by remediation workers and potentialexposure from ingestion and dermal contact with contaminated sediments by recreational usersof the Christina River. Whether or not the exposure exists can only be determined by furthersampling and analysis, as the present data is too meager to adequately characterize the site.

Table 3.

Potential Exposure Pathways
PathwayTimeSource of ContaminationEnvironmental Media and TransportPoint of ExposureRoute of ExposureReceptor Population
Surface SoilPast
Present
Future
Koppers process wasteSurface soilOn siteIngestion,
dermal absorption
Trespassers, hunters,
remedial workers
SedimentPast
Present
Future
Koppers process waste, on site contaminated soilSedimentOn site and off site
Hershey Run
Christina River
White Clay Creek
Ingestion,
dermal absorption
Trespassers, recreational users ofChristina River,
remedial workers
Private WellPast
Present
Future
Koppers process wasteGround waterResidences,
businesses
Ingestion,
dermal absorption,
inhalation
Residents & workers along Old Airport Road
Terrestrial OrganismsPast
Present
Future
Koppers process waste, on and off site contaminated soil and sedimentDeer, doveResidences of huntersIngestionHunters eating their kill
Aquatic OrganismsPast
Present
Future
Koppers process waste, on and off site contaminated sedimentFishResidences of fishersIngestionFishermen eating their catch
Ambient AirPast
Present
Future
Koppers process waste, other area industries,
on and off site
contaminatedsediment and soil
AirOn and off siteInhalationResidents of Newport, remedial workers, trespassers, hunters
Surface WaterPast
Present
Future
Koppers process waste, on and off site contaminated soil and sediment Surface waterOn and off siteDermal absorption,
ingestion
Recreational users of Christina River, Hershey Run, White Clay Creek


Table 4.

Estimated Population for Potential Exposure Pathways
Potentially Exposed PopulationsAffected by a Potential Exposure Pathway for:
Population LocationEstimated PersonsArsenicBariumCadmiumChromiumLeadManganese
Residents of Newport, south of Newport Pike300SedimentSurface Soil, SedimentSedimentSurface Soil, SedimentSurface Soil, SedimentSurface Soil, Sediment
Residents and Workers along Old Airport Road100Not KnownNot KnownNot KnownNot KnownNot KnownNot Known
TrespassersResidents & ChildrenNot KnownSedimentSurface Soil,SedimentSedimentSurface Soil,SedimentSurface Soil,SedimentSurface Soil,Sediment
HuntersNot KnownSediment,Deer, DoveSurface Soil,Sediment,Deer, DoveSediment,Deer, DoveSurface Soil,Sediment,Deer, DoveSurface Soil,Sediment,Deer, DoveSurface Soil,Sediment,Deer, Dove
People Fishing on Christina RiverNot KnownFishFishFishFishFishFish

Table 4.

continued
Potentially Exposed PopulationsAffected by a Potential Exposure Pathway for:
Population LocationEstimatedPersonsMercurySilverVanadiumPhenanthrene
Residents of Newport, south ofNewport Pike300SedimentSedimentSurface Soil,SedimentSediment
Air
Residents and Workers along OldAirport Road100Private WellsPrivate WellsPrivate WellsPrivate Wells
Air
TrespassersResidents &ChildrenNot KnownSedimentSedimentSurface Soil,SedimentSediment
Air
HuntersNot KnownSediment, Deer, DoveSediment, Deer, DoveSurface Soil, Sediment, Deer, DoveSediment,
Deer, Dove
Air
People Fishing on Christina RiverNot KnownFishFishFishFish

Table 4.

continued
Potentially Exposed PopulationsAffected by a Potential Exposure Pathway for:
Population LocationEstimatedPersonsChryseneFluorantheneBenzo(a)-anthraceneBenzo(a)-pyreneBenzo(b)-fluorantheneBenzo(k)-fluoranthene
Residents of Newport, south of Newport Pike300Surface Soil,
Sediment,
Air
Surface Soil,
Sediment,
Air
Surface Soil, Sediment,
Air
Surface Soil, Sediment,
Air
Surface Soil, Sediment,
Air
Surface Soil, Sediment,
Air
Residents and Workers along Old Airport Road100Private Wells
Air
Private Wells
Air
Private Wells
Air
Private Wells
Air
Private Wells
Air
Private Wells
Air
TrespassersResidents & ChildrenNot KnownSurface Soil,
Sediment
Air
Surface Soil, Sediment,
Air
Surface Soil, Sediment
Air
Surface Soil, Sediment
Air
Surface Soil, Sediment
Air
Surface Soil, Sediment
HuntersNot KnownSurface Soil,
Sediment,
Deer, Dove
Air
Surface Soil,Sediment,
Deer, Dove
Air
Surface Soil,Sediment,Deer, Dove
Air
Surface Soil,Sediment,Deer, Dove
Air
Surface Soil,Sediment,Deer, Dove
Air
Surface Soil,Sediment,Deer, Dove
People Fishing on Christina RiverNot KnownFishFishFishFishFishFish
    Private well pathway

Contaminants from the Koppers site can migrate to ground water either directly fromcontaminated surface waters or through the soil. Two major aquifers underlie the Koppers site: the shallow Columbian Formation and the deeper Potomac Formation. The shallow ColumbianFormation, which is 10 to 20 feet below the surface and 20 to 30 feet thick, flows south towardthe Christina River. The deeper Potomac Formation is interspersed with layers of clay and silt,which are discontinuous, and are separated horizontally and vertically by clay layers. Thethickness and extent of these confining layers is variable suggesting that the two aquifers may beconnected. Flow in the deep aquifer is generally to the southeast toward the Christina River. The deeper Potomac aquifer is the major source of public well water in the area, although bothaquifers are sources for private drinking water supplies (6, 7, 8).

Ground-water data are needed to determine whether PAHs or other contaminants, likepentachlorophenol which was not detected but was known to have been used on the site, haveleached from on-site, contaminated soil and whether subsequent migration of PAH-contaminated ground water has contaminated nearby private wells.

Private well users along Old Airport Road have expressed concern over the potential forchemicals from the DuPont and Ciba Geigy plants, adjacent to our site, to contaminate theirprivate wells. With respect to the Koppers site, no evidence exists to suggest that chemicals fromthe site have migrated in the direction of the wells on Old Airport Road. However, the shallowaquifer is so close to the contaminated soil, PAHs and other organic chemicals such aspentachlorophenol could leach into the ground water at a site. This contaminated ground watercould then migrate to nearby wells thus exposing residents who use their well for drinking water. Therefore, on-site ground water data is needed to evaluate this exposure pathway.

    Biota pathways

Improper waste and chemical handling at the Koppers site has resulted in contaminated soil at thesite. The soil was moved during storm flow into surface water bodies and possibly contaminatedsurface water bodies and stream sediments. The fact that PAHs readily assimilate andbioaccumulate in some organisms suggests that aquatic organisms (e.g., polychaete worms,mollusks, crustaceans, and fish) and terrestrial organisms (e.g., plants, worms, insects, mammals)could introduce PAHs into the food chain. Experiments indicate that while aquatic organisms do assimilate PAHs, biomagnification, a systematic increase in tissue contaminationconcentrations moving up the food chain, may not be a factor because of the tendency of manyaquatic organisms in the higher trophic levels to metabolize and eliminate these compounds (9). The potential for exposure through the food chain by hunters eating the game they kill as well asfishers eating the fish they catch may exist. Because sampling has not been conducted in biota(e.g., plants, fish, deer, doves) it is not known whether on-site contaminants are resulting inhuman exposures via these pathways.

    Ambient air pathways

Improper disposal of process chemicals or from improper handling of materials during operationsof the wood-treatment facility allowed for contamination of soil and possibly surface water at thesite. Of the contaminants identified in the site soils, PAHs volatilize from the soil or water toair. Exposure to volatile contaminants could occur on or off of the site by nearby residents andworkers, site workers, and trespassers. Although no air monitoring data have been collected,odors reported by residents in 1978 suggest that contaminants, at one time, volatilized into theatmosphere. Air monitoring by EPA in 1980 using organic vapor analyzers did not detectelevated levels of organic chemicals; however, the sensitivity (i.e., ability to detect smalleramounts of substances) of these instruments is too poor to characterize adequately the air qualityon the site. In addition, these instruments do not measure semi-volatile compounds such asPAHs and pesticides. Therefore, sufficient environmental data is needed to determine whetherorganic chemicals are evaporating into the air. Inhalation of fugitive dust containing PAHs andheavy metals, though it has not been tested for, is not a likely pathway considering the heavyvegetation covering the site.

    Surface water pathways

Contaminants from industrial processes at the Koppers treatment plant were spilled or dumpedonto soil or into waste ponds. The contaminants including heavy metals and PAHs could migrateas contaminated soil particles in storm runoff or the contaminants could migrate directly intosurface water bodies from the soil. Contaminated groundwater may also discharge into surfacewater bodies and contribute to contamination. The presence of PAH-contaminated sediments inHershey Run suggests that surface water could contain PAHs. However, lower molecular weightPAHs (e.g. anthracene, fluorene, phenanthrene), generally volatilize rapidly from surface water. Middle or higher molecular weight PAHs (e.g., pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene,chrysene) generally sorb to particulate and settle to the bottom of the stream as sediments orremain suspended in the water column. The primary points of exposure to contaminated surfacewater would be on the Christina River, Hershey Run, White Clay Creek and the wetlands areas. On-site exposure to contaminated surface water may be possible if ponds form from storm waterin low areas of the site. Recreational users wading or swimming in the water would have dermalexposure to contaminants as well as incidental ingestion of surface water.

PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS

As discussed in the "Environmental Contamination" and "Pathway Analysis" sections, huntersand other trespassers at the site may be exposed to contaminants through dermal contact withcontaminated soil, seepage, or sediment. In addition, the potential exists for exposure of privatewell users to site contaminants via the groundwater pathway. This is considered a potentialexposure pathway because no data exist to determine whether groundwater contamination ispresent and if subsequent exposure might be occurring. Finally, because hunters use the site,there is a potential for exposure via the food chain pathway. However, more data is needed todiscern the potential or presence of this exposure route. In this section we will discuss the healtheffects in exposed persons affected by site contaminants and address specific community healthconcerns.

A. Toxicological Evaluation

    Introduction

To evaluate health effects, ATSDR has developed Minimal Risk Levels (MRL) for contaminantscommonly found at hazardous waste sites. The MRL is an estimate of daily human exposure to acontaminant below which non-cancer, adverse health effects are unlikely to occur. MRL's aredeveloped for each route of exposure, such as ingestion, inhalation, and dermal absorption andfor the length of exposure, such as acute (less than 14 days), intermediate (15 to 364 days), andchronic (greater than 365 days). ATSDR also develops Toxicological Profiles on chemicalscommonly found at hazardous waste sites. These chemical-specific profiles provide informationon health effects, environmental transport, human exposure, and regulatory status. The ATSDRToxicological Profiles used in the preparation of this report include Polycyclic AromaticHydrocarbons, Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Mercury and Zinc.

To evaluate the toxicological implications of the chemicals identified at or near the Koppers sitefour different exposure scenarios were assumed to have been possible. Firstly, an adult hunterweighing 70 kg was assumed to gain access to the site 20 days/year for as much as 20 years, thelength of time since plant closure. Secondly, a teen-age trespasser weighing 60 kg was assumedto have gained access to the site 20 days/year for 6 years, the time span of the teen years. Thirdly, a child trespasser weighing 35 kg was assumed to gain access to the site 20 days/year for3 years, the time span of preteen years. Lastly, a 10 kg child with habitual pica was assumed tocome onto the site with an adult hunter or recreational user. The time span of exposure was 20days/year for one year, the most likely period of pica activity.

Only potential exposures through on-site soil or on-and off-site sediment were evaluated due tothe limited sampling data. No distinctions were made at this time between frequency ofingestion of soils or sediment. Uncertainty exists in these calculations because very often therewas only one valid sample to represent the entire site. The following discussion includeschemicals that exceeded a health guideline for potential exposures using the above scenarios.

    Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

Benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene,fluoranthene, and phenanthrene are all polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Dermal contact withhigh concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) may cause irritation, burning,inflammatory spots on the skin, eruption of blood vessels and cause sensitization to sunlight. Little is known about the uptake, assimilation, and accumulation of PAHs in terrestrialorganisms, especially at the higher trophic levels. The carcinogenic potential of certain PAHscan be either diminished or enhanced by metabolic activity. Certain enzyme systems may causedeactivation of the PAH's, making them less toxic and excretable, or they may cause activation,increasing the toxicity of the PAH's, by forming metabolites that bind to cellular genetic materialwhich may cause mutagenicity, cell transformation, or cancer. The activation or deactivationactivity is dependent on the type of tissue and the specific PAH involved. The metabolism ofPAHs does not necessarily mean a safe elimination as many of the metabolites are more toxicthan the original PAH (9). Generally, PAHs are metabolized and eliminated in fish but it is notknown how they interact with birds, mammals, or humans. The limited mobility of PAHs insoils and sediment suggest that ingestion through the food chain, if occurring, may be limited (9).

Studies have found that two PAHs found at the site, benzo(a)pyrene and benzo(b)fluoranthene,are considered to be carcinogenic. It has been shown that exposure to the non-cancer causingPAHs with cancer causing PAHs greatly increases the potency of the cancer causing PAHs (9).

With the known data, it is impossible to ascertain the entire potential cancer effects to individualsfrom exposure to PAH contaminated media from this site. In this evaluationbenzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(k)fluoranthene and chrysene were all assumedto have the same carcinogenic potential as benzo(a)pyrene. The potential of cancer effects forone year of exposure for the pica child to on-site sediment and soil exceeded health guidelinevalues for all evaluated PAHs. The hunter may experience a very low level of increased cancerrisk from incidental ingestion of on-site sediment due to exposure to benzo(b)fluoranthene andchrysene. There was only one valid sample for on-site surface soil for these PAHs.

    Arsenic

Arsenic enters the body primarily through the mouth, in food or water, where it is ingested andthen quickly absorbed into the bloodstream. It can be inhaled, and is also absorbed quickly. Thesystemic effects of arsenic poisoning include pain, nausea, diarrhea, abnormal heart function,impaired nerve function, blood-vessel damage, liver or kidney damage, and a pattern of skinabnormalities including hyperpigmentation and the appearance of small "corns" on the palms,soles of feet, and trunk. Direct dermal contact with high concentrations of arsenic can result inlocal inflammation and blistering. Arsenic has been reported as increasing the risk of cancer inthe body when ingested or inhaled. Individuals who are at increased risk from arsenic exposureinclude: smokers, people who work at a smelter or live near one, those who work with pesticides,and those with diseases of the skin, blood, liver, kidney, and central nervous system. There isclear evidence that chronic oral exposure to elevated levels of arsenic increases the risk of skincancer, as well as for other cancers in the body, and especially lung cancer (10). The pica childexposure dose for off-site sediment ingestion exceeds the Reference Dose for noncarcinogeniceffects of arsenic. There was only one valid sample for on-site sediment arsenic levels. Therewas no arsenic detected in the on-site soil sample. Any off-site sources of arsenic have not beinvestigated.

    Cadmium

Cadmium enters the body primarily through inhalation, although exposure can occur throughingestion. Once cadmium enters the body, its retention is very strong. Acute exposure causesvomiting, diarrhea or severe irritation of the lungs. Chronic exposure is of greater concern andmay result in kidney damage, lung damage, lung cancer, and high blood pressure. Other tissuesthat might be injured include the liver, testes, immune system, nervous system, and blood. Studies suggest an increase in lung cancer and possibly prostatic cancer in exposed workers,although there are little data accumulated on human carcinogenicity from cadmium exposure. Populations at special risk include individuals with renal disease or other etiology, dietarydeficiencies in metal ions and/or proteins, neonates, young children, workers in smelters, andsmokers (11). Sampling data for on- and off-site sediment indicates we should expect no short-term adverse health effects except in the remote possibility of intrusion on the site by a picachild.

    Lead

Studies have shown that lead exposure may cause premature birth, reduced birth weight, anddecreased intelligence quotient (IQ) for babies whose mothers have been exposed. Leadexposure may also decrease IQ and retard growth in young children and increase blood pressurein middle-aged men. Higher levels of lead exposure can lead to severe brain and kidney diseasein both adults and children. Rats treated orally with soluble lead compounds show significantlyincreased incidence of kidney tumors. There are no MRLs or Reference Doses (RfD) for lead;however, the infrequent exposures expected at this site are not likely to result in adverse healtheffects (12).

    Other chemicals

Other chemicals, such as pentachlorophenol (PCP), were known to be used at the site. Additional data are needed to ascertain the presence of this or other contaminants and, if theyexist, to determine the degree of contamination and the health implications.

B. Health Outcome Data Evaluation

Although the Delaware Department of Public Health keeps a database that can provide publichealth information for the area around the Koppers site, we must first have more complete sitecharacterization in order to, 1), determine what data to request, and 2), properly evaluate thispublic health data.

C. Community Health Concerns Evaluation

Data does not exist to evaluate public health concerns. Two public health concerns wereuncovered: complaints by residents claiming odors from the site caused nausea, burning throatsand noses, and watery eyes; and concerns by private well users along Old Airport Road over thepotential for chemicals from the DuPont and Ciba Geigy plants, adjacent to our site, ofcontaminating their private wells. In both cases more sampling is needed to determine if PAHsor other organic compounds are volatilizing into the atmosphere or if contaminants are beingtransported via ground-water movement into private wells.

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. #