Gathering and compiling information for this report was a time-consuming exercise. Without the help of a number of individuals and groups, the task would have gone from daunting to impossible. I would like to acknowledge the following individuals for their role in developing this report:

Congressman Michael Bilirakis and his staff, who coordinated hearings, the distribution of information, and a site tour

Carl Blair, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)Regional Representative, who traveled and attended many meetings with me

Pascale Krumm, Ph.D., who worked tirelessly to edit the report

The Visual Information Center of ATSDR, who assisted with layout and printing

Debra Gable, ATSDR technical project officer, who served as liaison between the ombudsman, the Division of Health Consultation, and the Florida Department of Health (FDOH)

Randy Merchant, FDOH, who gathered volumes of information from files, even during a move of his office

The Management Analysis and Services Office (MASO) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
The Superfund Site Assessment Branch and the Spatial Analysis and Information Dissemination Section of the Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, ATSDR
In addition, the following individuals or groups from outside the federal and state government worked diligently to provide materials for the report:
- Jessie Burke
- Bruce Dickey
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regions IV and X
- Former employees of Victor/Stauffer
- Carlene Hobbs
- Bob Martin and Hugh Kaufman of the EPA Hazardous Waste Ombudsman’s Office
- Mary Mosley
- Pinellas County Health Department Air and Water staff members
- Pi-Pa Tag, Inc., and its officers
- Stauffer Management Company
- The City of Tarpon Springs
Many others helped in the process and their assistance is recognized and greatly appreciated.
ATSDR Ombudsman Program

What is the Role of the ATSDR Ombudsman?

The ombudsman is an impartial public official who investigates complaints about the actions of government officials or administrative actions, and who seeks to solve problems, where warranted. The ombudsman lacks legal authority to reverse or modify program decisions of actions, either those already taken or those that may be taken in the future. However, on the basis of sound information gained through contact with the public, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) staff, the ombudsman may, occasionally, effect program adjustments in resolving particular problems.
"The Ombudsman: A Primer for Federal Agencies" brochure defines the ombudsman as "client-centered but anti-bureaucratic, and rather than being a client advocate, the ombudsman is nonpartisan and impartial as an investigator." ATSDR has elected to employ this neutral, third party concept as a basis for the ombudsman program. ATSDR felt the need to establish a system to help the agency address public concerns more efficiently and to provide a forum for appraising states, local governments, tribes, community groups, and other federal agencies on public health issues. Thus, the ombudsman has been granted the independent authority to cut across bureaucratic lines to get answers, settle complaints quickly, and provide ready access to information. Before the creation of the ombudsman position, ATSDR did not have a single representative whose essential purpose was to assist the public in resolving public health problems arising under the hazardous waste program. The ombudsman program can assist those—citizens and members of state and local governments, tribes, other federal agencies, the regulated community— who have been unable to voice a complaint or get their public health problem resolved through normal channels. To remedy problems, the ombudsman obtains facts, sorts information, and substantiates policy.

Many citizens and community members do not know how to gather information, or they get frustrated when trying to cope with the complexities of the hazardous waste program. The ombudsman program can help them with any problems they may have concerning ATSDR missions relating to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

What Skills Must an Ombudsman Possess?
1. To be an effective facilitator among stakeholders and promote resolution of health-related issues, an ombudsman must possess a variety of people skills.
2. An ombudsman must be able to promote constructive dialogue among groups with differing interests and opinions, and sometimes among hostile parties.
3. An ombudsman must also have the ability to develop, evaluate, and successfully propose alternative solutions to issues. Additional skills required may include facilitation, mediation, negotiation, and fact-finding.
4. The ombudsman seeks to gain the trust of citizens, state or local governments, regulated communities, tribes, and the staffs of ATSDR and other federal agencies. To be effective, the ombudsman must be impartial and able to assess complaints in a fair and responsible manner.
5. The ombudsman must also work within the agency’s system to address problems.
What Is the Role of the Ombudsman in Conflict Situations?

Occasionally, the ombudsman is involved in conflict situations. Conflict results from incompatible goals and differing values. However, such differences are frequently perceived rather than real. If the parties can find common ground, they may realize that resolving the issue is in their mutual best interest, and thus begin the problem-solving process. However, if an agreement cannot be reached, the ombudsman conducts an investigation and prepares an Ombudsman Report of Findings and Recommendations, which is submitted to the assistant administrator. The most important method of accomplishing resolution is to depersonalize the situation. For example, situations may be described so that no party is threatened or judged negatively. Whenever possible, the ombudsman should negotiate to find acceptable solutions and also involve the public. An effective ombudsman brings people together by acting as a mediator.

What Are the Limitations of the Ombudsman?

The ombudsman cannot be an advocate for any party, including ATSDR, neither should the ombudsman be a substitute for the normal process. The ombudsman should not be considered another forum for questioning or challenging agency policy. The ombudsman must function, not as a substitute, but as a supplement to existing institutions in the assessment of public health and health risks relating to hazardous waste. ATSDR staff and the ombudsman share a common goal to ensure that, during actions relating to hazardous materials, the public health is protected and the agency is responsive to public participation in its actions.

What Criteria does the Ombudsman Follow?
An effective ombudsman seeks to follow these criteria:
- Promote discussions that enhance the building of relationships rather than conflicts
In Summary:
1. The ombudsman is a government resource to help resolve disputes that persist in spite of efforts to deal with the issues at an operational level.
2. The ombudsman is an objective facilitator who helps ATSDR and its customers reach mutually acceptable solutions to public health issues.
3. A part of the ombudsman’s effort includes working with federal, state, or local agencies to gather complete information to consider in the public health problem-solving process.
Executive Summary

As a result of a year-long investigation, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) ombudsman has issued the first Ombudsman Report of Findings and Recommendations Regarding the Stauffer Chemical Company Site in Tarpon Springs, Florida. Members of the community surrounding the Stauffer Chemical Company hazardous waste site in Tarpon Springs, Florida, felt that the materials assessing the health in the community were incomplete, insufficient, and inaccurate. The ombudsman was asked to consider the matter and determine whether the documents were complete and whether quality science was used in the development of the materials. Following is a list of the major findings cited in the ombudsman report:
Following are the major recommendations from the ombudsman.
Top of Page

Chapter 1: Request for Ombudsman Participation

Two Citizens Request Ombudsman’s Involvement

In early October 1999, two Tarpon Springs, Florida, citizens sent materials to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) ombudsman with a request that the materials be forwarded directly to Dr. Henry Falk, assistant administrator of ATSDR. The materials, dealing with the Stauffer Chemical Company site (the site), were supportive of the citizens’ personal and, to a large extent, the community’s feeling that past public health assessments (PHAs) and consultations regarding the site were incomplete and that recommendations contained in the documents had not been ompleted. The comments and supporting materials were also in response to an addendum to the 1993 PHA, specifically looking into off-site slag and possible resulting contamination. The materials were forwarded to the assistant administrator and returned to the ombudsman 2 weeks later.

One citizen was deeply concerned about the present and future health of children who attended Gulfside elementary school during the 4-year period (1977–81) when the school was open while Stauffer Chemical (Stauffer) was still operating. The other citizen was concerned about the health of former Stauffer workers. She had tried in vain to get the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to study the health of the workers and offer medical monitoring as recommended in the 1993 PHA.

In the weeks following the submission of the documents, the ombudsman received numerous calls from the two citizens, each expressing serious concerns about past, present, and future impact of the site on the health of local residents. Both asked the ombudsman to consider becoming involved at the site.

Chronology of Events

On December 2, 1999, the ATSDR ombudsman, Congressman Michael Bilirakis, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Hazardous Waste ombudsman and his senior investigator, officials from Stauffer, and citizens toured the site. While touring the site, Congressman Bilirakis expressed concerns regarding the federal response to the need for cleanup and the associated health issues. The ATSDR ombudsman also attended the EPA ombudsman hearing regarding the proposed cleanup of the site, where citizens raised many questions concerning the response of both EPA and ATSDR relative to the site.
On February 12, 2000, Pi-Pa-Tag, Inc., sent a 7-page letter, with 22 supporting documents, to the ombudsman, seeking formal involvement at the site (Pi-Pa-Tag is a not-for-profit citizens group, which received a technical assistance grant from EPA to employ non-governmental professionals in the review of technical materials related to the site).¹ In the letter, the group outlined a variety of problems with the site which, in their opinion, could still impact public health in the Pinellas/Pasco County area. The group also mentioned how ATSDR’s effort regarding the site failed to meet statutory standards.

On February 12, 2000, the ATSDR ombudsman attended a second EPA ombudsman hearing and heard additional allegations that ATSDR should renew its review of the site and the resulting impact on community health, past, present, and future.

On April 18, 2000, Congressman Bilirakis formalized his request for the ATSDR ombudsman’s participation, in addition to the participation of the EPA ombudsman.²

The Ombudsman Investigation

After considering the requests and reviewing the materials provided by the citizens and Pi-Pa-Tag, the ombudsman examined the PHA and the health consultations, and concluded that ample questions were present to warrant involvement and announced acceptance of the request from the two citizens and Pi-Pa-Tag.

Ordinarily, the ombudsman tries to bring the parties together to facilitate a workable agreement. However, in the Stauffer matter, attendance at two EPA ombudsman hearings indicated that this would be futile, so an investigation was started, which resulted in the present report. The investigation included the following:

• Attending three EPA ombudsman hearings and reading the transcripts,
• Touring the Stauffer site,
• Consulting local newspaper archives, court records, and the Federal Record Center in Atlanta,
• Interviewing local residents, former workers, and one physician,
• Visiting local health and environmental agencies,
• Reviewing well data from the City of Tarpon Springs, and Pinellas/Pasco Counties,
• Reviewing records from EPA’s Regions IV and X, two ATSDR divisions, and Florida’s Department of Health, and
• Reviewing materials from local citizens and the Stauffer Management Company.

Top of Page

Chapter 2: Site Background

Stauffer Plant

In February 1946, Victor Chemical Company purchased land in Pinellas County, Florida, near the Pasco County line, to build a facility to process phosphate from ores mined in the state.³ The 160-acre site (130 acres are dry and 30 acres extend into the Anclote River and Meyers Cove) is located in Tarpon Springs, between Anclote Boulevard and the Anclote River, about 1 mile east of the Gulf of Mexico.⁴ Exhibit 1–5 show the location of the site. The plant itself is located on the banks of the Anclote River and, in areas, is adjacent to the Tarpon Springs city limit along the northern shore of the river.⁵

By March 1947, foundations had been poured and some structural steel had been erected.⁶ The plant, a $3 million investment,⁷ became operational on November 19, 1947, according to the Tarpon Springs Leader.⁸ The facility had a 320-ton capacity kiln.⁹ From late 1947 until 1981, elemental phosphorus was extracted at the plant.⁴ By March 1948, the first claims of health impact and damage to plant life had been reported.⁶

Plant Ownership History

hroughout its history, the plant changed ownership several times. Following is a chronology of those ownerships, as provided by Michael Kelly, Stauffer’s attorney.¹⁰
- 1946-late 1950s: Victor Chemical Company operates the plant.
- 1960: Stauffer Chemical Company purchases the plant. Although the plant changes ownerships several times, Stauffer operates the site until its close in 1981.
- 1985-87: Chesebrough-Ponds purchases the plant.
- 1987: A subsidiary of Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) American Holdings, Inc.,
- purchases Stauffer Chemical Company.
- Late 1987: Stauffer Chemical Company is resold to Rhône-Poulenc, Inc.
- November 1987: Atkemix Thirty-Seven, Inc., (a subsidiary of Zeneca) purchases the plant.
Exhibit 1. Map of Florida

Exhibit 2. Map of Tarpon Springs and Adjacent Zip Codes

Exhibit 3. Topographic Map of Stauffer Chemical Company and Vicinity

Exhibit 4. Aerial Photograph of Stauffer Chemical Company and Vicinity

Exhibit 5. Aerial Photograph (Closeup) of Stauffer Chemical Company

Efforts to dismantle the plant began in 1986.¹¹ In 1987, as a result of a divestiture of the Stauffer Chemical Company, Stauffer Management Company was formed to manage the site and the cleanup.¹² According to Kelly,

Atkemix and Rhône-Poulenc Ag Company, Inc. are the Settling Defendants for the Consent Decree. Essentially, what we have is the current owner (Atkemix) and the former owner (Stauffer Chemical Company succeeded by Rhône-Poulenc Ag Company, Inc.) agreeing to do the cleanup of the Site.¹⁰

Plant Production

The main plant site is south and west of Anclote Road. This area originally included the phosphate ore processing and phosphorus production facilities, waste disposal facilities, lagoons and ponds, office and administration buildings, and several railroad spurs for receiving raw materials and shipping finished products. The area north of the site, between Anclote Road and Anclote Boulevard, contained production wells for process water and stored crushed slag and other waste materials. The railroad spurs and most buildings have been removed.¹³

The Gulfside Elementary School

In the fall of 1977, the Gulfside elementary school opened on Anclote Boulevard, across the plant site and slag crushing operation. The school enrolls approximately 700 children, from pre-kindergarten through grade five. The children are between 3 and 11 years old, 53% are male and 47% female. The student body is 91% white, 3% Hispanic, 2% black, 2% Asian, and 2% American Indian or other races.¹⁴ Residential areas are located north of the site.¹¹ A hospital, nursing home, and a children group home are located within 1 mile of the school.¹⁴
According to ATSDR’s GATHER software, the 1990 census indicated that 9,283 persons lived in 4,939 housing units within one mile of the site. Of that population, 8,990 were white, 208 black, 207 Hispanic, 36 Asian or Pacific Islander, and 25 American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut. There were 1,473 females between 15 and 44 years old, 553 children under the age of 6, and 2,958 persons over the age of 65 (Exhibit 6).

Exhibit 6. GIS Maps and Demographic Statistics of Tarpon Springs

Detailed Site Characteristics

The February 2000 draft date evaluation report by Black and Veatch Special Projects Corporation for EPA Region IV, outlined the following
detailed site characteristics:¹⁵

Geology
Regional geologic information is outlined in the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) Northern Tampa Bay Water Resources Assessment Project. The Northern Tampa Bay area, which includes Pinellas County, Northwest Hillsborough County, and Southwest Pasco County, is underlain by a thick sequence of sedimentary strata that can be divided into an upper zone of unconsolidated sediments and a lower zone of consolidated carbonate rock.
At land surface, undifferentiated sediments comprised of silt, sand, and clay form surficial deposits, varying in thickness from less than 10 feet in coastal areas to over 100 feet in paleo-karst depressions or sand ridges. The typical thickness varies from 20 to 50 feet (SWFWMD, 1996).

Underlying the surficial sediments, the upper portion of the Arcadia Formation contains mostly siliciclastic clayey material that grade into a carbonate sequence. These sediments were formed largely as a result of Miocene terrestrial and marine depositional mechanisms. However, a significant portion of these clayey materials are residual products created during the Pliocene epoch as a result of physical and chemical weathering of the limestone surface (SWFWMD, 1996).

A 1987 hydrogeologic assessment conducted by Seaburn and Robertson concluded - based on boring information from four well cluster locations — that a continuous clay and silt layer is beneath the site (S&R, 1987).

The remedial subsurface investigation concluded that the surficial sands range in thickness from 7 to 36 feet across the site and that these sediments are underlain by a 0.25- to 6-foot thick nit of sandy clay to clay that overlies a weathered marl consisting of poorly sorted deposits of shells, sand, silt, and clay (Weston, 1993).

Throughout the Tampa Bay area the undifferentiated Arcadia formation is underlain by the Tampa member of the Arcadia formation. This unit is a white to light-gray, sandy, hard to soft, locally clayey, fossiliferous limestone that contains phosphate and chert in places. The phosphate content of the Tampa member is low in comparison to the remainder of the Hawthorn group. The Tampa member ranges from 0 to 200 feet in thickness throughout the Northern Tampa Bay area near the Stauffer site. The Tampa member is approximately 50 feet thick (SWFWMD, 996).
Hydrogeology
Two aquifers are located in the North Tampa Bay area, the surficial aquifer and the Upper Floridan aquifer. The surficial aquifer consists primarily of sand, while the Floridan aquifer is made up mostly of limestone. A thin semi-confining layer generally separates the two aquifers. Throughout Pinellas County this unit consists of silt and clay beds belonging to the upper, undifferentiated Arcadia formation of the Hawthorn group (SWFWMD, 1996).
The Floridan aquifer consists of the Upper Floridan aquifer (containing fresh water) and the Lower Floridan aquifer (with high chloride content water throughout much of southern Florida). Underlying the surficial sands and clays is a series of tertiary limestone and dolomite units that form the carbonate platform of peninsular Florida. The sequence of carbonate rocks comprising the Upper Floridan aquifer include, in descending order, the following members or formations:

• Tampa member of the Arcadia formation,
• Suwanee Limestone,
• Ocala Limestone, and
• Avon Park, Oldsmar, and Cedar Keys formations.

The Oldsmar and Cedar Keys formations can be considered the base of the freshwater production zone of the Upper Floridan aquifer. This entire carbonate sequence thickens and dips toward the southwest. The total thickness of the Upper Floridan aquifer marine sequence varies form 950 to 1,200 feet (SWFWMD, 1996).
Geophysics
As part of the expanded site investigation activities at the site, NUS Corporation conducted two geophysical screenings. The first was conducted on May 5–6,1987, to verify suspected drum locations and to attempt to detect potential contaminant plumes. A magnetometer was used to search for buried drums and other ferrous objects, while an electromagnetic (EM) non-contacting ground conductivity meter (EM-3 1 -D) was used to screen for possible contaminant plumes. The EM survey was unsuccessful because of the proximity of saline groundwater.
On March 29–30, 1993, EPA conducted an independent ground penetration radar survey of Ponds 48 and 50, as part of the pond material investigation. The objective of the survey was to locate drums that might be buried at the site.

Geophysical investigations performed at the site to date were performed primarily for the purposes of source characterization. Information gathered from these studies is not pertinent to the geology or hydrogeology of the site.

Surrounding Land Use
The site is located northwest of Tarpon Springs, Florida, at the Pasco/Pinellas County line. The present land use in the surrounding area is mixed and includes light industrial,commercial, residential, and recreational areas. Additionally, there are undeveloped areas near the site (NVS, 1989)

The urbanized lands generally parallel the U.S. 19 corridor and include New Port Richey and Tarpon Springs. The urbanized portions are dominated by residential uses in the form of subdivision developments. Commercial uses have generally followed the residential development and are located along the major road corridors and intersections. Light and heavy industrial uses are located along the Anclote River, and include marina and ship repair facilities, an electric power generating plant, and auto salvage yards (NUS, 1989).

Several county parks and beaches are located near the site, including the Pasco County. Beach on the north shore of the Anclote River about 3,500 feet west of the site, Fred Howard Park, and Sunset Beach Park. Additionally, two county recreational areas with beaches are located on the Gulf of Mexico less than 2 miles from the site, and the Pinellas County. Anderson Park is located on Lake Tarpon about 3 miles east of the site (NUS,1989).

A population increase throughout the Tampa Bay area has resulted in rising water demands. As a result, Tampa Bay Water has proposed the construction of a 25-million gallon desalination plant on the Anclote River, approximately 1 mile downstream of the site in 1999 (Times, 1999a). The desalination plant will probably be built in southern Hillsborough County (Times, 1999b).

Increasing demand from local industries or utilities could potentially affect groundwater flow in the Tarpon Springs area by inducing a cone of depression within the potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer. This risk is moderated by the potential for saltwater intrusion in coastal Pinellas County. In the Tarpon Springs area, the freshwater saltwater transition zone is expected to occur at 50 to100 feet below land surface. The proximity to the Gulf of Mexico, the Anclote River, and interconnections between these water bodies and the Floridan aquifer suggest that groundwater withdrawals are large enough to create a regional cone of depression.

Stauffer Placed on National Priorities List

In 1974, a field investigation of the site was begun with on-site well sampling. In 1987, additional multi-media investigation projects were also initiated. In 1993, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection conducted a contamination assessment investigation in response to reported groundwater and soil contamination found near two former above-ground fuel oil storage tanks which had been removed in 1992. In February 1992, the Stauffer site was proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL). The proposal was published in the Federal Register.¹⁶ In 1994, the site was placed on the NPL.

Top of Page

Chapter 3: ATSDR Response

The Florida Department of Health (FDOH), under a cooperative agreement with ATSDR, developed most of the public health assessments, public health consultations, and other projects related to the Stauffer site. Following is a list of published documents:

Preliminary public health assessment of the Stauffer site (FDOH,8/1993)⁴
Health consultation on the final site remedial investigation report (ATSDR, 1/1994¹⁷
Health consultation on air monitoring (FDOH, 12/1995)¹³
Health consultation on the Gulfside elementary school (FDOH, 7/1998)¹⁴
Analysis of cancer incidence patterns among former employees of Stauffer (FDOH,4/1999)¹⁸
Addendum to the public health assessment on the issues surrounding the off-site slag (ATSDR, 8/1999)¹⁹
Health consultation on private wells in Tarpon Springs (FDOH, 8/1999)²⁰

Preliminary Public Health Assessment of the Stauffer Site (FDOH, 8/1993)

The assessment cited 1990 census data showing that 14,000 people live within a 1-mile radius of the site, and about 4,700 people live within 1 mile south of the river.4 The assessment cited 1990 census data showing that 14,000 people live within a 1-mile radius of the site, and about 4,700 people live within 1 mile south of the river.⁴

The report cites the following conclusions, recommendations, and public health actions:

Conclusions
Based on the information currently available, this site is classified as a public health hazard. Specific reasons for this classification are as follows:

Arsenic is present in surface soil, sediment, and both shallow and deep groundwater. On-site workers were exposed to arsenic in soil and dust when the plant was operational. Those currently working at the site are exposed to contaminants in soil, sediments, and dust.

Arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, and chromium have been detected in on-site soil and sediment, on- and off-site groundwater and off-site surface water at levels above ATSDR comparison values. Each of these contaminants is a known or suspected lung carcinogen.

Radium has been detected above background levels in on-site soil, sediment, and groundwater, and in off-site soil. No off-site groundwater or sediment samples have been analyzed for radium.

Only two deep groundwater wells have been monitored on-site and there is insufficient information about off-site surface and subsurface soils to determine the potential for exposure from these sources.

Arsenic, cadmium, chromium, fluoride, lead, thallium, and vanadium in shallow and/or deep on-site groundwater also appear in shallow and/or deep off-site groundwater. These contaminants may appear in the future in private wells south and west of the site.

Arsenic is present in one off-site drinking water well and one private well currently used for irrigation. It is also present in off-site shallow and deep groundwater and in the nearby river. Arsenic concentrations have been detected above the corresponding EPA reference dose (RfD).

Surface soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment are considered to be completed exposure pathways for this site in the past, currently, and in the future. Ambient air is considered to be a completed exposure pathway in the past and could be in the future.

Recommendations
Cease/Reduce Exposure Recommendations
• The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) should conduct medical monitoring on the workers at the site. Workers currently on the site should have appropriate protective equipment while working around contaminated soil/sediment.

• Future remediation workers should have appropriate protective equipment while on-site. During remediation work, adequate dust suppression measures should be used to prevent contaminated dust from reaching the community around the site. Air monitoring should be conducted during remediation to ensure that air-borne contamination is not transported off-site.
Site Characterization Recommendations
• Characterize off-site shallow and deep groundwater for radium. Areas to sample should include private and monitoring wells.
• Characterize on-site deep groundwater, and off-site surface and subsurface soil for all contaminants of concern. Areas to sample should include the plant processing and slag storage areas, nearby residential property, and the elementary school.

• Monitor private wells within ½-mile south and west of the site to ensure that any future contamination is detected as soon as possible.
Public Education Recommendations
• Area residents who obtain their drinking water from private wells should be informed of the possibility of current and future contamination.
• A health education program should be conducted to help community members and on-site workers understand their potential for exposure and possible health risks.

Health Activities Recommendation Panel (HARP) Recommendations
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended, requires ATSDR to perform public actions needed at hazardous waste sites. To determine if public health actions are needed, ATSDR's Health Activities Recommendation Panel (HARP) has evaluated the data and information developed in the Stauffer Chemical Co. (Tarpon Springs Plant) PHA.

The Panel has determined that the following actions are needed at this site:

• Local residents and on-site workers are being exposed to contaminants in private well drinking water and surface soil. Health education is needed to assist these groups in understanding their potential for exposure and possible health risks, and to inform them of measures they can take to reduce their exposure.

• Physicians and other health professionals treating members of the community near the site may not be aware of the potential exposures to their patients. Health professions education is needed to inform the local medical community about the health effects that may occur in ndividuals exposed to contaminants from the site.

• Available data about cancer rates in the area must be reviewed (health statistics review). The FDHRS [Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services] completed the review in this public health assessment.
If information becomes available indicating additional exposures at levels of concern, ATSDR will evaluate that information to determine additional necessary actions.

Public Health Actions
This section describes what ATSDR and/or FDHRS will do at the Stauffer Chemical Co. (Tarpon Springs Plant) site after the completion of this public health assessment report. The purpose of a public health action plan is to ensure that any existing health hazards are reduced and to prevent any future health hazards. ATSDR and/or FDHRS will accomplish the following:
• The Pinellas County Public Health Unit (PCPHU) will periodically monitor private wells near the site to detect increases in current contaminants or the appearance of new ones.

• FDHRS will develop educational materials to inform residents who may be consuming contaminated water from private wells of their potential for exposure and possible health risks. In particular, the material will discourage the use of this water for drinking, cooking or other domestic purposes.

• The PCPHU will assist FDHRS in distributing these educational materials to the affected residents and provide consultation to those individuals who require additional information or assistance.

• FDHRS will develop physician education materials to inform local physicians of the possibility that their patients may exhibit adverse health effects resulting from exposure to contaminants from the Stauffer site.

• ATSDR will assist FDHRS in developing these educational materials to ensure that the information is accurate and reflects the most recent scientific findings and agency guidelines.

• ATSDR in cooperation with FDHRS will notify NIOSH about the need for medical monitoring of the workers at this site.

• ATSDR and/or FDHRS will reevaluate the public health action plan when new environmental, toxicological, or health outcome data are available.

Top of Page

Health Consultation on the Final Site Remedial Investigation Report (ATSDR, 1/1994)

On January 21, 1994, Kenneth Orloff, Ph.D., of ATSDR, issued this health consultation, stating that "No potable wells are located on-site or down gradient of the facility. However, the surficial aquifer is not being used as a potable water source in the area."17The report provided the following conclusions and recommendation: ¹⁷ The report provided the following conclusions and recommendation:

Conclusions
Based on the information received, ATSDR concludes the following:
• Surface soil samples from the Gulfside Elementary School did not contain chemical or radionuclide contaminants at levels that would pose a public health hazard.
• Surface soil samples from the Stauffer Chemical site contained elevated concentrations of arsenic and radionuclide contaminants. The contaminant levels do not pose an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health. However, long-term exposure to the contamination could pose a public health threat.

Recommendation
Continue to restrict access to on-site contamination until appropriate remedial actions have been implemented.

Health Consultation on Air Monitoring (FDOH, 12/1995)

On December 20, 1995, the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (FDHRS, now FDOH), issued this health consultation regarding sulfur dioxide emissions from the Stauffer plant.13 The health consultation cites 1990 census data indicating that 14,000 individuals live within a 1-mile radius of the plant.13 On December 20, 1995, the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (FDHRS, now FDOH), issued this health consultation regarding sulfur dioxide emissions from the Stauffer plant.¹³ The health consultation cites 1990 census data indicating that 14,000 individuals live within a 1-mile radius of the plant.¹³

Little air monitoring data is available for the Tarpon Springs area prior to 1977. After air monitoring stations were installed near the southeast corner of the plant, samples were collected by 24-hour bubblers and 3-hour continuous monitoring. Both measurements from 1977 through 1979 were exceedingly higher—by an order of 4 to 6 times—than the readings for 1980 and 1981, when the plant ceased operations.¹³

The report provided the following conclusion and recommendation:

Conclusion
Based upon the information reviewed, we conclude that adverse health effects from exposure to sulfur dioxide from the Stauffer Chemical Company site between 1977 and 1981 are unlikely except in especially sensitive individuals. As noted above (in the discussions), we do not have sufficient information to evaluate the likely health effects from exposure to sulfur dioxide prior to the establishment of the air monitoring station in 1977. If additional information becomes available indicating exposure at levels of concern, FDHRS will evaluate that information to determine what actions, if any, are necessary.

Recommendation
FDHRS recommends that individuals, such as asthmatics, or anyone who may have become sensitive to the effects of sulfur dioxide avoid exposure in the future.

Health Consultation on the Gulfside Elementary School (FDOH, 7/1998)

On July 22, 1998, FDOH’s Bureau of Environmental Toxicology published this health consultation, citing 1990 census data, indicating that 3,200 persons lived within 1 mile of the school, which is across the road from the site. It also stated that "about 100 private wells are within the same area."14 The report considered soil and air sample data taken on a number of occasions, by different parties. The following samples were considered:¹⁴

• April, 1989. An EPA contractor collected two soil samples at an undefined depth from the school grounds, which were analyzed for chromium, lead, and manganese.¹⁴

• July 21, 1993. Stauffer collected three surface soil samples from the Gulfside property, which were analyzed for metals, cyanide, fluoride, total phosphorus, radium-226, and polonium-210. ¹⁴

• July 10 to August 11, 1997. Pasco County School Board contractors collected 10 air samples (four outside and 10 inside the building) and 21 surface soil samples, up to 3 inches deep. The air samples were analyzed for phosphorus, phosphorus pentoxide, phosphoric acid, and asbestos. The soil samples were analyzed for total phosphorus, phosphoric acid, and asbestos.¹⁴

• September 19, 1997. Pasco County School Board contractors collected three soil/aggregate (gravel) samples from beneath asphalt paving, two samples of asphalt paving materials, and one sample of roofing aggregate from the school building. The samples were analyzed for various radiological properties, including polonium-210 and radium-226. ¹⁴

The report considered pica children, those who consume dirt, and non-pica children, and provided the following conclusion and recommendation:

Conclusion
Based upon the information reviewed, we conclude that illnesses are unlikely in adults, pica children, and non-pica children from exposure to contaminants in soil, aggregate, and air in the Gulfside Elementary School. Completion of the playground for pre-kindergarten students will eliminate any exposure of these children to chemicals in the soil. If additional information becomes available concerning chemical exposures at Gulfside Elementary School, FDOH will evaluate that information to determine what actions, if any, are necessary.¹⁴
Recommendation
The Florida Department of Health recommends no further public health actions regarding the soil, aggregate, and air at the school.

Top of Page

Analysis of Cancer Incidence Patterns among Former Employees of Stauffer Chemical (FDOH, 4/1999)

In April 1999, FDOH’s Bureau of Environmental Epidemiology published a study of former Stauffer workers and cancers.¹⁸ The study, Analysis of Cancer Incidence Patterns Among Former Employees of Stauffer Chemical, by Raul Quimbo, is the analysis of matched data between Stauffer Chemical Company and the Florida Cancer Data System (FCDS).

FDOH asked the Social Security Administration to send a questionnaire, or information request to a listing of former employees provided by Stauffer. The listing contained 2,567 names, 13 of which did not have social security numbers. A total of 208 former employees responded to the request. The employee listing was also submitted to FCDS, and 153 individuals reported 171 incidents of cancer.¹⁸

More than 80 percent of the cases were among persons 55 years or older.¹⁸ Forty-two cases of prostate cancer and 30 lung and bronchial cancers were reported.¹⁸ The report recognized that some employees may have moved to other states.¹⁸ The study provided the following conclusion:

Conclusion
The available data does not allow analysis beyond a simple description of employees of Stauffer Chemical Company who were diagnosed with cancer. Since we used the FCDS as our source in identifying cases, we may not have captured all cancer outcomes in this group. Even if other sources were included, our ability to evaluate the cancer outcomes is limited by the absence of an appropriate comparison group.

To investigate an association between cancer outcomes to specific hazards while working with Stauffer Chemical Company, we will need information on the type, duration, and intensity of exposure to these hazards. These are not currently available to the Bureau.

In conclusion, our analysis of the available data did not produce conclusive results, even when supplemented with additional data from FCDS. We are not able to ascertain if the occurrence of cancer among employees of the company is high or low. We are also not able to relate these cancer outcomes to occupational hazards that may have been present when Stauffer Chemical was in operation. Further epidemiological analysis will not be possible until the additional information, as previously identified above, is available.¹⁸

Addendum to the Public Health Assessment on the Issues Surrounding the Off-Site Slag (ATSDR, 8/1999)

On August 6, 1999, ATSDR issued an addendum to the public health assessment, relating to the off-site slag in Tarpon Springs and related areas.¹⁹ The addendum was in response to a public petition received by the agency in February 1998. In May 1998, ATSDR staff members visited Tarpon Springs and met with residents to gather information. In August 1998, personnel from EPA Region IV and EPA’s National Air and Radiation Laboratory in Montgomery, Alabama, took samples from road beds and residences.¹⁹

The addendum provided the following conclusions, recommendation, and public health action plan:

Conclusions

Phosphate slag from the Stauffer Chemical Superfund site reportedly has been used as concrete aggregate in homes, roads and roadbeds in the Tarpon Springs and Holiday, Florida, vicinity.

Although there is elevated background radiation from radium-containing slag and aggregate, the total background dose to a maximally exposed child in residence #1 is roughly the national average background dose of 300 mrem per year.

Annual background dose contribution from building materials to the maximally exposed child in residence #1 does not exceed the NCRP's recommended limit of 500 mrem per year.

Phosphate slag at sampled vicinity properties, does not appear to contain sufficient leachable heavy metals to represent a public health hazard, based on current medical, epidemiological and toxicological information.

Combined exposures from driveways and roads containing phosphate slag are not a health threat.

Recommendation
ATSDR recommends that public health education be provided to help the public better understand that the phosphate slag is currently not a general public health hazard, and that information be provided to community members on the environmental health effects presented in the Stauffer Chemical Vicinity Properties public health assessment addendum.

Public Health Action Plan
The public health action plan for the Stauffer Chemical Vicinity Properties contains a description of actions to be taken by ATSDR and other government agencies at and in the vicinity of the site after the completion of this public health assessment. The purpose of this public health action plan is to ensure that this public health assessment not only identifies public health hazards but also provides a plan of action designed to mitigate and prevent adverse human health effects resulting from exposure to hazardous substances in the environment. Upon request from the public, the Florida Department of Health (FDOH) will develop and implement an environmental health education program to help community members understand the potential for past exposure and to provide information on assessing any adverse health occurrences that might be related to phosphate slag.

Health Consultation on Private Wells in Tarpon Springs (FDOH, 8/1999)

On August 13, 1999, FDOH’s Bureau of Environmental Toxicology issued this health consultation regarding Tarpon Springs private wells.²⁰ The 4-page document, authored by Randy Merchant, environmental administrator, cites 21 references. According to the health consultation, there are about 230 private wells and 9,500 residents (citing 1990 census data) within a 1-mile radius of the site. The health consultation is based on test results from six wells which were analyzed for metals, radionuclides, radium-226, and radium-228. The report provided the following child health considerations, conclusion, and recommendation:

Child Health Considerations
Because children may consume water from these wells, the health effects from exposure to chemicals in young children are a special concern. Children are smaller than adults, resulting in higher doses of chemical exposure per body weight. Children are often more sensitive to the effects of chemical exposures that adults and can sustain permanent damage if toxic exposures occur during critical growing stages. Most importantly, children depend completely on adults for risk identification and management decisions, housing decisions, and access to medical care.

As detailed in the discussion section above, children are not likely to be exposed to chemicals in private well water at a level sufficient to cause any illness.

Conclusion
Based upon the information received, we conclude that carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic illnesses are unlikely in children or adults from exposure to chemicals in private well water near the Stauffer site.

Recommendation
Because there is continued community concern about chemicals in private well water near the Stauffer site, the Florida Department of Health recommends that, until site remediation is completed, periodic well samples be analyzed for site-related chemicals to ensure timely detection of any increases. If additional information becomes available concerning chemicals found in private wells near this site, FDOH will evaluate that information to determine what actions, if any, are necessary.

Former Stauffer Employees Receive Worker Safety Announcement in 1996
On July 25, 1996, former workers of Victor/Stauffer were provided a worker safety announcement. Stauffer Management Company gave FDOH the social security numbers of former workers. FDOH forwarded the materials to the Social Security Administration (SSA) for mailing to current addresses on file with SSA.²¹ Included with the worker safety announcement was an information letter former employees could give their physicians.²² The materials were used to assist in the production of the report Analysis of Cancer Incidence Patterns Among Former Employees of Stauffer Chemical.

Top of Page

FDOH Compiles List of Illnesses

FDOH received 59 calls from former workers who had received the materials.²³ FDOH developed a system to document information from the calls, without personal identifying materials.

One physician called about a patient, but gave no health information. Seven employees called to request information and did not mention health, good or bad.

Table 1 summarizes illnesses former workers reported (the total may exceed 59, because some workers cited more than one ailment).

Table 1. Number of Illnesses Reported by Former Stauffer Employees

Illness Number

Ankle/leg swelling                                          2
Bladder cancer                                              2
Bronchial asthma                                            1
Breast cancer                                                 2
Broken back (accident while an employee)     1
Cerebral hemorrhage                                      1
Cervical cancer                                              1
Colon cancer                                                  1
Dermatitis                                                       1
Esophageal cancer                                          1
Eye melanoma                                                1
Heart blockage                                               1
Internal bleeding                                             1
Jaw cancer                                                     1
Kidney cancer                                                1

Kidney problems                             1
Lost both kidneys                            1
Lung problems                                 7
Lung cancer                                     4
Melanoma                                       2
No health problems                          9
Prostate cancer                                1
Sinus problems                                1
Skin cancer                                     4
Skin lesions                                      1
Skin problems                                  6
Skin warts                                        2
Thyroid cancer                                 1
Vascular necrosis of joints                1

Various Public Education Programs Are Instated
In 1996, FDOH produced a public information update, bearing the logos of both ATSDR and FDOH. This educational flyer, distributed by Stauffer Management Company, stated that "There are no chemicals from the Stauffer Plant off the site."²⁴

The update received wide distribution, which included appearing in the local newspaper. On June 10, 1997, Christopher Teaf, Ph.D., a contractor for FDOH, conducted a grand rounds educational session at Helen Ellis Memorial Hospital to educate physicians and community members on health issues concerning the site.²⁵

A summary document, dated May 1998, regarding the 1998 health consultation on the Gulfside Elementary school was distributed in the community.²⁶

In early 1999, FDOH and ATSDR began workgroup meetings to develop a public education program in conjunction with community members. Although the group worked for 8 months, local participants were unsatisfied with the project. A preliminary draft update presented to the group was found unacceptable.¹

Representatives of ATSDR Region IV, have attended numerous meetings and information sessions in Tarpon Springs. Carl Blair, the ATSDR regional representative, represented the agency at most meetings, including those conducted by EPA Region IV.
Top of Page

Chapter 4: General Discussion

Tarpon Springs area citizens have questions regarding the documents the government produced to review the environmental health of those who live near the site. They also question the quality of documents prepared in the past. Through numerous meetings, letters, phone calls, and ombudsman hearings, community members have clearly voiced their desire to know how their health was, is, and will be impacted by the site.

ATSDR and its state partner, the Florida Department of Health (FDOH), have produced a public health assessment (PHA), an addendum to the PHA, and a series of health consultations (HCs) relating to the site, the wells, and the Gulfside elementary school. However, concerned citizens still have questions, particularly relating to the issue of past exposure.

ATSDR defines a PHA as:

The evaluation of data and information on the release of hazardous substances into the environment in order to assess any current or future impact [emphasis added] on public health, develop public health advisories or other recommendations, and identify studies or actions needed to evaluate and mitigate or prevent human health effects; also, the document resulting from that evaluation.

While this definition does not mention past health impacts, the past is, and must be included in the determination of current health impacts, because past conditions may have caused current conditions.

Determining health impacts from the past is very difficult and in some instances may be nearly impossible. Yet, an effort must be made to determine the impact of the operations on the health of the local population. Information may exist at one point, but may be destroyed at another. Memories also fade with time. Therefore, initial efforts must be thorough and attempt to research every data source, which was not done for the Stauffer products.

Air Pollution

From the instant the plant became operational, there were complaints of air pollution. In June 1948, less than a year after the plant’s opening, eight local residents and landowners filed a nuisance suit (for gases and fumes) in the Federal District Court for Southern Florida, Tampa. Division (II-1). The suit alleged that fumes and gases from the operation were adversely impacting human health and plants, not only in the immediate area, but as far as 8 miles away, and that,²⁷

noxious gases and fumes escape therefrom through smokestacks connected with the said plant and by other means and are carried by the prevailing winds over a radius of some four miles from the said plant, that the said gases and fumes are highly deleterious to animal and plant life for the said distance, cause throat irritations and coughing by persons and animals breathing same and the death of young fowls, that said gas is especially harmful to teeth and causes decay and kills and destroys plant life.³

Turnpaw's Deposition

In his deposition, J.M. Turnpaw alleged that emissions from the plant not only damaged plants on his property, but also created problems for his refinishing boat business:

I noticed the lead paints or anything you put on the boats they would discolor, and sometimes would be spotty or kind of blurry on the paint and I went over it two or three times to try to catch it, if it wasn’t quite dry... I varnished several boats like that and noticed the dust and smoke coming from over there, and you could take hold of it just like a piece of paper and pull it off the boats.

When asked how long the problem lasted, Turnpaw stated, "That all depends a good deal on the conditions of the weather and the winds, and with other conditions. I noticed it more with a west or northwest wind, I get that gas smell in the atmosphere."²⁷

When asked if the emissions affected his health, Turnpaw replied, "Mouth dry and tasted like a mouth full of old copper." When asked if he coughed, Turnpaw answered, "Quite a bit, yes sir."²⁷

Flanagan's Deposition

In her deposition, Genevieve Flanagan indicated that problems with gases and fumes began to be bothersome at her trailer park in January 1948, causing her to cough and sneeze and creating complaints from her tenants. She said the following:

We smelled it, to begin with, and could see it, and then many trees started dying. It killed a lot of them [trees and shrubs] and it is killing my pine and oak trees as well. All of the natural pines turned completely red, and two oak trees died within a week, the water oaks the leaves just burned; the others lost a lot of their leaves but some of the growth has come back; I don’t know whether they will live or not; and two of the large water oaks died within that week, and one orange tree died. All of my palms. As soon as they put out a new leaf by the time they were out two or three weeks they turned. The plumoso palms, I trimmed a lot of them, about two weeks, and just as fast as they put out the new growth they just turned again.²⁷

B. Mickler's Deposition (Plaintiff)

Bartley Mickler stated in his deposition that since the plant opened, he had lost livestock. He indicated that he lost a lot of pigs and about 100 head of cattle.²⁷ Mickler admitted that it is normal to lose cows in the winter months, about 10 per year, but he indicated that the past winter had been 200 to 300 percent worse.²⁷

Mickler also indicated that pine trees on his 5,000-acre property were affected by the plant. He indicated that in January or February 1948, he noticed pine needles turning red and brown and falling from the trees.²⁷ His estimate was that at least half of the trees were impacted. New growth would bud and die back without being replaced. Mickler stated that less grass and berries have caused damage to quail and game birds. The grass normally comes out the first of the year, but prior to the lawsuit, the grass came out and died, resulting in grass production being down by 40 percent. Mickler also stated that fumes and gases from the plant settled on palmetto bushes on his property. Samples from palmettos and pine from across his property were sent to the state plant board for analysis.²⁷

Mickler traced the damage based upon the way the smoke from Victor traveled, at least 7 miles from the plant.²⁷ He described the smoke this way: "It looks like a hazey gas substance and you can see it settling for miles and miles through the woods under the tops of the trees." When asked if you could hold it in your hand, he answered,

It is filte [sic] red, gassy looking substance that you see settling on the grass and stuff, and you notice it floating through the woods and see it radually settling down. Some of it is a black substance that you can see in the river. It looks like soot, an oily substance on the surface of water, and little black particles that look like soot or something. About three quarters of a mile from the plant, down towards the mouth of the river, I noticed it. It goes up and down the river with the tide.²⁷

S.E. Mickler's Deposition

Bartley Mickler’s father, S.E. Mickler was a well respected individual in the community, having served as constable, deputy sheriff, police officer, and chief of police. He represented the interests of his sister and her husband, Arthur and Ethel Glass, who lived in New York.

Prior to the construction of the plant, Mickler objected to the possible fumes and dust from the new facility and met with Paul Crider who worked for Victor. Crider told Mickler that, "You need not worry about it Mickler, it will not happen here with out plant."²⁷ Afterwards, in the latter part of January or early February, "When it commenced killing stuff," Mickler asked to meet with mayor Howard, who indicated that he would call rider.²⁷ Mickler recounts how nothing was done.

He [mayor Howard] said it looks bad; ‘I will take it up with Mr. Crider right away.’ So several times I phoned him and he hadn’t done anything, and I phoned Mr. Beckett, the county commissioner, about it and he promised to go out and look at it. There was never anything done about it at all. I came to the commissioners’ meeting and told them about it here and a bunch of us got up a petition and carried one copy to the city commissioners and one copy to the Clearwater County commissioners.²⁷

Approximately 300 people signed the petition. Mickler indicated that around January 1948, he began noticing offensive odors and harmful effects from the plant. He stated that he had smelled the odors in Tarpon Springs, and as far as 6 to 7 miles in the pastures. Mickler stated that, "It has been so thick up there in low spots when the atmosphere would bring it down that it would be just like a fog."²⁷

When asked about the smell, Mickler replied,

Well, it don’t smell like sulphur. It smells like a burnt phosphate to me. Of course, knowing that there is phosphate there, it makes you think of that more than anything else. It makes your throat dry, and you taste it, and it tastes kind of coppery. I get asthma from it, just like Mr. Crider stuffed up yesterday. I can go out here and get into the way the wind is blowing and be in it three minutes and have to take something for my throat. Yes sir, I cough.²⁷

Regarding damages to trees, Mickler said,

Well, I came in to dinner in town and I never noticed anything. When I came back out, and just as I went to make the curve, as you run by the oil company and go up towards the plant, I noticed the leaves on the trees being red. I stopped my car and said to myself, ‘darn there has been a fire since I have been along.’ I stopped the car and looked and there wasn’t no fire. I observed the trees had been burned by something, I don’t know what.²⁷

Mickler estimated that one-sixth of the trees on his property were affected. He carried samples of pine needles and palmettos to a Tampa chemist, who reported that some of the materials showed 300, 400, and 500 parts per million of fluorine. Mickler further indicated that he helped Archie Clement, Tarpon Springs city attorney, gather materials and that the city manager had sent the samples to the State Plant Board in Tallahassee. Representatives of the Forestry Department visited the Mickler property four or five times. Mickler recounted that, "They said it had to be fumes or gas or something. They said it was not the weather, dry or wet."²⁷

According to Mickler, the emissions looked like a fog, and from a distance an observer could not see through the mixture.²⁷ Trying to describe the emissions which impact the plants, Mickler stated that,

You can see it on oak or palmetto anywhere in the woods. It is a kind of dusty concern, although not much dust to it, either. It looks oily. For instance, on the palmetto, when it first hits it, it will limber up and look like it has oil on it. It limbers up a leaf and kind of parches it.²⁷

Top of Page Crider's Deposition (for the Defense)

Paul Crider, plant superintendent, stated that the plant processed elemental phosphorus, slag, and ferro phosphorus. Crider stated that since the second unit was started, the plant employed water scrubbers for the gases, in which water is sprayed into the gases. Crider did not seem to know much about the process. When asked "If the cleansing system has not been cut (turned) on, the gases and fumes will frequently escape, will they not?" he answered, "I suppose they would."⁹

Crider was asked the following question: "I notice that, at your plant there are high, apparently concrete smoke-stacks, and also what appear to be iron pipes. Do all of the fumes and gases escape through these smoke-stacks and pipes, or through either one of them?" Crider replied: "Through either one of them. That is, they escape from either one, at will. That is, as set by the operator. Not indiscriminately."⁹

When asked if he knew anything about the chemical content of the gases and fumes escaping from the plant, Crider answered, "No Sir." He was then asked if anyone at the plant knew about the content, and he answered, "No. Not reliably."⁹ The questioner then asked for a more detailed explanation, and Crider answered:

Well, I will say this: in any process where you are burning fuel it is a matter of knowing how much oxygen you have got in your waste gases, or how much carbon monoxide, in order to control the combustion. As far as the operation is concerned, we people in the operation are not concerned about any other content, and, therefore we do not know.⁹

Crider indicated that some complaints had been reported to the company about the gases and fumes. When asked what changes, if any, had been made as a result of the complaints or subsequent to them, he answered, "No physical changes have been made; in a general sense the procedure has been to improve operation."⁹ The deposition depicts Crider as someone who has little knowledge of phosphate or the extraction process. When Crider was asked four specific questions, he had to return to the stand the next day with the answers.⁹

Claypool's Deposition (for the Defense)

Victor Chemical also submitted to the court the deposition of John Claypool, an expert witness, questioned only by Victor’s attorneys. Claypool was from West Hempstead, Long Island, New York. He received a B.S. from DePauw University in Chicago, and took advanced and special courses in the College of Agriculture at Purdue University, Indiana, until 1912. He taught pre-vocational and vocational agriculture and in 1916 went to Southwestern Teachers College as a professor of agricultural education. In 1920, he worked for a chemical manufacturing company and a copper smelting company in New York, taking over the investigation and experimentation of the effects of certain smokes or gases and fumes. Over the next 30 years Claypool studied the effects of gases or chemicals in eight states, including Florida.⁶

Claypool first visited Tarpon Springs on March 1^st , 1947, while the plant was under construction.⁶ Of the findings on this visit, he stated,

Vegetation in that vicinity at the time was not in a good state of growth. There had been an early season of drought, followed by unseasonably cold weather. Some plants, notably the pines, showed a scorched appearance of needles in places. It was not universal... There were dead trees in the vicinity, ...confined to the pine family... I also found some dead citrus trees in a small orchard near the Victor site. In looking over plant life in Tarpon Springs, I covered, as closely as I could without trespassing or attracting undue attention, within a radius of two miles in all directions. ⁶

Claypool estimated that five to 10 percent of the pines in the area were dead. He also said that he saw two men remove and replace dead trees in the citrus grove. The workers explained that the trees had died of either root rot or crown rot and that the orchard had not been well fertilized or sprayed.⁶When asked about the appearance of vegetation, Claypool said,

Vegetation, generally speaking, did not appear to be in a fine, flourishing condition at all, anywhere... I would not say that it was universally scorched in appearance. I did not trespass to examine closely. From the roads, there were signs that there had been a fire at some time. I was not acquainted with the plant, I did not know whether this was a seasonal thing, whether fire brought those conditions about, but that was the condition of the scrub palmetto at the time... Pale green to yellow.⁶

Claypool showed photos made at the Mickler property purporting to display dead trees. The photos were black and white and after duplication did not provide details of damages. The witness was careful to establish that no trespass occurred, and indicated that he approached the property to within 10 yards, and used field glasses to observe plants and trees for about ¼ mile.⁶

On February 18 and 23, 1948, Claypool returned to Tarpon Springs in response to a request from Victor, because of unrest among neighbors of the plant and the conditions of vegetation.⁶ Again, with the plant in full operation, Claypool surveyed the area for approximately 2.5 miles in all directions, and describes what he found on this trip:

In February of 1948, there was some noticeable discoloration of the tips of pine needles or foliage within a distance of a half mile in generally southeast or east-southeast direction. There was, on the date of my arrival, which was the 18^th , some loss of green color on the tips of pine foliage, which by the 23^rd , upon my return, had become a definite browning of those tips. That appeared to extend almost to the location of some oil tanks along the Anclote River, which is less than a half mile from the operating part of the plant... I continued my close-up inspection by walking along the railroad tracks to the north and found no evidence of anything unusual to vegetation in that direction. There was no noticeable damages to the Flanagan and Turnpaw properties... Foliage (westerly or northwesterly) appeared to show no change since my visit a year before... Sunset Hills, the general condition of vegetation appeared to be better at that time than it had the previous year.⁶

When asked , "Well from your experience of more than 30 years, did you form any opinion as to the cause of the discoloration of the pine needles and foliage at Tarpon Springs?" Claypool answered, "In my opinion, it was caused by a gas or fume... I believe it was probably from a fluoride compound."⁶</