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




The tables in this section list the contaminants of concern. We evaluate these contaminants in thesubsequent sections of the Public Health Assessment and determine whether exposure to them haspublic health significance. ATSDR selects and discusses these contaminants based upon thefollowing factors:

  1. Concentrations of contaminants on and off the site.
  2. Field data quality, laboratory data quality, and sample design.
  3. Comparison of on-site and off-site concentrations with background concentrations, if available.
  4. Comparison of on-site and off-site concentrations with health assessment comparison values for (1) noncarcinogenic endpoints and (2) carcinogenic endpoints.
  5. Community health concerns.

In the data tables that follow under the On-site Contamination subsection and the Off-siteContamination subsection, the listed contaminant does not mean that it will cause adverse healtheffects from exposures. Instead, the list indicates which contaminants will be evaluated further inthe Public Health Assessment. When selected as a contaminant of concern in one medium, thatcontaminant will be reported in all media.

Contaminant concentrations detected on- and off-site are compared to values that are believed to bewithout adverse health effects upon exposure. Those values are developed by health and regulatoryagencies to provide estimates of levels below which health effects would not be observed. Thosevalues, in many cases, have been derived from animal studies. Health effects are related not onlyto the exposure dose, but to the route of entry into the body and the amount of chemical absorbedby the body. For those reasons, comparison values used in public health assessments arecontaminant concentrations in specific media and for specific exposure routes. Several comparisonvalues may be available for a specific contaminant. ATSDR generally selects conservative exposureassumptions in order to protect the most sensitive segment of the population. (The potential foradverse health effects from exposure to contaminants will be discussed in the Toxicological Evaluation section of this document.) Environmental contamination from ACC resulted primarilythrough five methods during the wood treatment process:

  • Discharge of liquids from the vapor recovery system to the city stormsewer, which subsequently discharged to the stormwater discharge lagoon west of the facility.
  • Discharge of wastewater from the process building sumps to the surface impoundment.
  • Removal and disposal of sludge from the bottom of the surface impoundment to the landfill south of the mill.
  • Dispersion of contaminants in the treatment works tanks, pipes, and sumps around the facility due to flooding.
  • Miscellaneous leaks and spills around the facility (5).

In September 1992, EPA completed a Remedial Investigation (RI) and Feasibility Study (FS) forACC. Environmental samples were collected during 1990 and 1991. The RI included surface waterand sediment samples from Dillenbaugh Creek, the Chehalis River, and the city of Chehalis's stormwater discharge lagoon. Soil samples were taken throughout the site and monitoring wells wereinstalled to characterize groundwater and assess the migration of contaminants. The ACC RIinvolved the collection of 257 biased and systematic, discrete and composite surface and subsurfacesoil samples, 18 discrete surface water samples, and 50 groundwater samples at the facility and inthe AOC. The RI concluded that there was a potential threat to human health, but only a low-to-moderate potential for impacts on the environment (5).

Now the bulk of the contamination is on ACC's facility. In 1986, about 10,000 gallons of PCP indiesel solution were spread by flood waters in the Chehalis Avenue area (5). Today, surface soilin the Chehalis Avenue area is contaminated, but to a lesser degree than soil on ACC (Figures 6,7,8& 9). Groundwater beneath ACC is contaminated with PCP and PAHs. No chlorinated dioxins orfurans were detected in groundwater (1). A layer of oil floating on the groundwater is presentbeneath the treatment works in one well. No plume leading off-site has been found. Surface waterin Dillenbaugh Creek and the stormwater discharge lagoon are contaminated by surface runoff fromthe area and a Chehalis surface water discharge pipe that runs under ACC (Figure 10)(5).

To identify possible facilities that could contribute to contamination in the vicinity of ACC, WDOHsearched the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI) Database by zip code for all available years(1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1991). TRI was developed by EPA from information regardingchemical releases into the air, water, and soil, as provided according to law by certain industries. TRI contained information for thirty three (33) releases in ACC's zip code. None of the hazardoussubstances released were of concern at ACC. Coal Creek is a "Superfund" NPL site about one milenortheast of Chehalis. At the Coal Creek site electric transformers were dismantled andpolychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were released to the environment (1).

The contaminants of concern at ACC are pentachlorophenol (PCP), polycyclic aromatichydrocarbons (PAHs), and polychlorinated dioxins/furans (dioxin).

A. On-Site Contamination


Levels of on-site surface soil contamination were as high as 130 mg/kg (ppm) for PCP, CPAHs wereas high as 258 ppm, and dioxin was 0.143 ppm (Table 1). Surface soil samples were taken to adepth of four inches below ground surface. On-site subsurface soil samples ranged from ND-250ppm PCP and ND-54.59 ppm CPAHs (Table 2) (Figures 11, 12) (5). The subsurface soil sampleswere taken from a depth of one to sixty-nine feet below ground surface.


Contaminant Range of Concentration
Comparison Value
Pentachlorophenol (PCP) ND-130 6 (B2) CREG
Carcinogenic Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons
(CPAHs) *
ND-258 0.1 CREG
Dioxin # 0.000179-0.143 .00000005 (B2) EMEG

(Adapted from reference 1) ND = Non Detect
#Dioxin concentrations are in terms of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and were converted using Toxic EquivalencyFactors (TEF) as specified by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Committee on Challenges toModern Society B2 = EPA Cancer Class/probable human carcinogen (inadequate human, sufficientanimal studies)
* value for benzo(a)pyrene (PAH).


ContaminantRange of Concentration
Comparison Value
PPM Source
Pentachlorophenol (PCP) ND-250 6 (B2) CREG
Carcinogenic Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons
(CPAHs) *
ND-54.59 0.1 CREG
Dioxin # ND .00000005 (B2) EMEG

(Adapted from reference 1) ND = Non Detect #Dioxin concentrations are in terms of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and were converted using Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEF) as specified by the NorthAtlantic Treaty Organization Committee on Challenges to Modern Society B2 = EPA CancerClass/probable human carcinogen (inadequate human, sufficient animal studies)
*value for benzo(a)pyrene (PAH).


Groundwater contamination is present at three discrete localized areas located beneath the treatmentarea within the facility boundary (Figure 13). PCP is present near the treatment works in a dissolvedphase and as a floating phase mixed with diesel. The floating phase has PCP concentrations as highas 12,000 ppm. A dissolved PCP concentration of 91 mg/L (ppm) was detected in groundwaterbelow the floating product. Samples from monitoring wells west of the kilns were found to becontaminated with PAHs (5).

B. Off-Site Contamination


The highest contaminant levels in soil off-site were PCP 13 ppm, PAHs 32 ppm, and dioxin 0.00136ppm (Table 3). Surface soil samples in the Chehalis Avenue area were largely collected fromresidential lawns and exposed soils in flower beds or gardens to a depth of four inches. Concentrations of the primary contaminants in the area east of Pacific Avenue were orders ofmagnitude less than in the area west of Pacific Avenue, and decreased with distance north to LewisStreet and east of Pacific Avenue (1).


Contaminant Range of Concentration
Comparison Value
Pentachlorophenol (PCP) ND-13 6 (B2)CREG
Carcinogenic Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons
(CPAHs) *
ND-32.9 0.1 CREG
Dioxin # ND-0.00136 0.00000005 (B2)EMEG

(Adapted from reference 1) ND = Non Detect #Dioxin concentrations are in terms of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and were converted using Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEF) as specified by the NorthAtlantic Treaty Organization Committee on Challenges to Modern Society B2 = EPA CancerClass/probable human carcinogen (inadequate human, sufficient animal studies)
*value for benzo(a)pyrene(PAH)

Surface water

Surface water collected from the Chehalis River, Dillenbaugh Creek, and the stormwater dischargelagoon contained ND-0.0008 ppm PAHs, ND-0.019 ppm PCP, and a maximum concentration of0.0000008 ppm of dioxin. Surface water samples were collected from the Chehalis Riverdownstream of its confluence with the Newaukum River. Dioxin was found in the surface water atconcentrations ranging from 0.000000008 to 0.000000023 ppm (5).


Sediment samples were taken from Dillenbaugh Creek, the stormwater discharge lagoon, thewetlands, and the Chehalis River. Dioxin and PAHs were found in a majority of the samples withmaximum concentrations of 0.000593 ppm and 36.65 ppm, respectively. PCP was detected in lessthan half the sediment samples and had a maximum concentration of 0.19 ppm (5). Sediments fromthe wetlands were found to be contaminated with PAHs, dioxin, and PCP. PAHs and dioxin weredetected in nearly all samples and had maximum concentrations of 11.7 ppm and 0.000155 ppm,respectively. The maximum concentration of PCP detected was 0.28 ppm.


MediaContaminantRange of
Comparison Value
Surface WaterCPAH* ND 5CREG
PCP0.00014-0.068 300CREG
DioxinND-0.00000061 0.01EMEG
Surface SedimentCPAH0.17-17.3 0.1CREG
Dioxin0.000173-0.0159 0.00000005EMEG
CPAHnone available 0.1CREG
PCPnone available 6CREG
DioxinND-0.087 0.00000005EMEG
Surface Soil near
CPAH0.088-1.1 0.1CREG
DioxinNot Analyzed 0.00000005EMEG

(Adapted from Ref. 1) ND = Non Detect *CPAH = Carcinogenic Polycyclic AromaticHydrocarbons

C. Quality Assurance and Quality Control

In preparing this Public Health Assessment, The Washington State Department of Health relies onthe information provided in the referenced documents and assumes that adequate quality assuranceand quality control measures were followed with regard to appropriateness of testing procedures,chain-of-custody, laboratory procedures, and data reporting. The validity of the analyses and theconclusions drawn for this Public Health Assessment is determined by the availability and reliabilityof the referenced information.

D. Physical and Other Hazards

On January 19, 1993, the Department of Health, with the Department of Ecology, made a site visit. On January 26, 1994, a second site visit was made by the Department of Health with theEnvironmental Health Director for Lewis County. Large dilapidated buildings, demolition debris,tarp covered piles, barrels, and open space characterize the site.

The fence line on the south side of ACC is adjacent to a play field. The wood slat fence is seven-feet high. The fence is intact, but could be easily pried opened. Several slats have been recentlyrenailed. ACC is open to entry on the west side. People who enter the site are susceptible to injuryamong the dilapidated and partially burned structures. Because of marshy land, ACC's buildingsof massive timbers were constructed on pilings. Repeated structural fires on-site have weakenedsome of the wood supports, making parts of the buildings extremely hazardous. ACC remains aphysical hazard, as reported in the 1990 PHA (3).


This section will focus on the migration of contaminants and how human exposure may occur. To determine if human populations are exposed to contaminants migrating from the site, ATSDR andWDOH evaluate the environmental and human activities that lead to human exposure. This pathwayanalysis consists of five elements: A source of contamination, transport through an environmentalmedium, a point of exposure, a route of human exposure, and an exposed population.

ATSDR categorizes an exposure pathway as a completed or potential exposure pathway if theexposure pathway cannot be eliminated. Completed pathways have all five elements and indicatethat exposure to a contaminant has occurred in the past, could be occurring now, or could occur inthe future. Potential pathways, however, have at least one of the five elements missing. Potentialpathways indicate the exposure to a contaminant could have occurred in the past, could be occurring now, or could occur in the future. An exposure pathway can be eliminated if at leastone of the five elements is missing and will never be present. Table 5 identifies the completed andpotential exposure pathways.

A. Completed Exposure Pathways

Five pathways of human exposure to site contamination have to some degree occurred in the pastand may occur now and in the future. The remediation proposed in the Record of Decision willhave varying degrees of impact on these pathways in the future.

Flood Waters

The primary transport mechanisms of the contaminants from ACC were on suspended soil in floodwater runoff. The 1986 flood probably carried the most contamination off-site because of thepresence, and subsequent loss of ACC's wood treatment products. The ACC site was flooded fivemore times after 1986. When this regional flooding occurred people throughout the affected areawere directly exposed to contaminated water at their residences, in town, and on roads. The levelof contaminants ingested by people during the flood periods is unknown. The duration of exposurewas a matter of weeks. However, when the flood waters receded contaminants were left behind onsoil. A dairy products packaging plant is immediately north of the facility. The lower floor of theplant was inundated during the 1986 flood. No data was found on food contamination.

Until the site is remediated future floods could add to the off-site contamination. The amount offuture contamination should be less than past floods because the hazardous products have been lost,removed, or contained on site. However, heavy on-site soil contamination has the potential in futurefloods to increase the level of off-site exposure. However, site flooding is not a scouring event, butrather consists of a back water situation. Also, proposed on-site remediation, when completed, willfurther restrict off-site migration.

Residential Soil

The people off-site now at the greatest risk of adverse health effects from exposure to site relatedcontaminants live in the area flooded in the past near ACC. These people may incidentally ingestdioxin and PAHs in soil due to hand-to-mouth contact. The proposed remediation intends to removeoff-site contaminated soil. This should eliminate future off-site exposure.

Residential Dust

During 1991, EPA spread gravel over parts of the site to keep contaminated dust from becomingairborne. In the past, the most significant movement of dust off-site probably occurred when theplant was in operation or removal operations were in progress. Because the site is usually wet,current dust movement off-site is not significant. However, when remedial actions begin to removebuildings, soil dust will again contribute to the movement of contaminants. The intended vegetativecover of the site should reduce this pathway in the future. Even though residential soils are nothighly contaminated the removal of these soils during remediation will increase human exposuredue to the proximity of people.

Completed and Potential Exposure Pathways

Exposure Pathway Elements Time
Pathway NameSource MediaPoint of ExposureRoute of ExposureExposed
Flood WatersACCsurface waterFlooded area
around site
Dermal Contact
residents in
flooded area
Residential SoilACC flood water
Flooded area
around site
Dermal Contact
residents in
flooded area
Residential DustACC dust on windArea around siteIngestion
Dermal Contact
residents in
Discharge Lagoon
ACCStorm Drain
through Site and
flood waters
Dermal Contact
On SiteACCsoil, surface
ACC SiteIngestion
Dermal Contact
trespasser and
site workers
Drinking WaterACCgroundwatertap waterIngestionresidentsfuture

Stormwater Discharge Lagoon

Runoff in the vicinity of ACC travels from Chehalis Avenue across ACC to the wetland or astormwater discharge lagoon and eventually to Dillenbaugh Creek and the Chehalis River. Asurface water discharge pipe runs through ACC from Chehalis to the discharge lagoon. Surface run-off from other industry in the area flows to the lagoon. A large area of demolition debris is northof and adjacent to the lagoon. Contaminants from all of these sources could end up in the lagoonand subsequently drain from the lagoon to the creek or river. Recreational use of the area aroundthe lagoon does occur, but infrequently.

On Site

Ground and surface water and soil remain contaminated on site. The site is partially fenced, but notsecured to casual entry. Trespassers and on-site remediation workers will be exposed tocontaminants by ingestion and dermal contact. They will also transport contaminants which adhere to their clothing to off-site areas.

B. Potential Exposure Pathways

Drinking Water

Although groundwater beneath the facility is currently not used for human consumption, thepresence of contaminants in the soil and groundwater is a potential threat to human health. PCP andPAHs are the primary contaminants identified in groundwater. In groundwater, these contaminantsare typically transported as either dissolved constituents, light nonaqueous phase liquids (LNAPL),or as dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPL). PCP was identified in each of these forms on-site, but no contaminants were found in groundwater leaving the site. Theproposed remediation for groundwater is to remove floating product on-site. This will not removecontaminants which are dissolved or a DNAPL. Chehalis now obtains drinking water from distantsurface sources. If, in the future, the city used groundwater, the ACC contaminants could affectpublic health.


A. Toxicological Evaluation

The Public Health Implications section discusses the potential health effects resulting from exposureto contaminants of concern associated with the completed exposure pathway. Health implicationsfrom past, present, and future exposures to contaminants of concern in on-site surface soils, off-sitesurface soils, and lagoon water are evaluated.

To assess health effects that could result from exposure to site contaminants, daily exposure doseswhich an individual may receive are estimated. The estimated daily exposure dose is compared toa health-based guideline which defines a level of exposure at which adverse health effects areunlikely to occur. ATSDR has developed Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs), health-based guidelinesused to evaluate noncarcinogenic adverse health effects for routes of exposure such as ingestion andinhalation, and for exposure durations including acute (less than 14 days), intermediate (15 days to364 days), and chronic (greater than 365 days). When MRLs are not available, USEPA health-basedguidelines are used. USEPA has developed reference doses (RfDs) and reference concentrations(RfCs) for ingestion and inhalation exposure, respectively.

Where estimated daily exposure doses exceed MRLs or RfDs, we further compare with values calledNo Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) and Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level(LOAEL). Data from human studies are used preferentially, but animal studies can be used toindicate possible human health effects. It should be noted that there are uncertainties when usingthese estimated doses and NOAELs, and in some cases the exposure may be above or below by asmall margin. That small difference may or may not be protective for sensitive individuals orpopulations.

The assumptions used in calculating the estimated daily exposure dose from exposure to surface soilcontaminants include an adult body weight of 70 kilograms (kg) and soil ingestion rate of 50milligrams (mg) per day, and a child body weight of 16 kg and soil ingestion rate of 100 mg perday. The exposure frequency of a child trespassing onto the site is assumed to be one per week fora period of ten years. Exposure for an adult worker was assumed to be five days per week for 20years. Ingestion rate for incidental exposure to the surface water at the lagoon was assumed to be0.004 Liters per day. Exposure frequency was one day per week for ten years. Residential exposurefrequency was estimated to be seven days per week.

EPA has reviewed available data from human and animal studies to determine the carcinogenicpotential of specific chemicals. For many carcinogens, EPA has derived cancer slope factors or unitrisks for oral and inhalation exposure routes. In evaluating carcinogenic health effects, cancer slopefactors or unit risks are used with the estimated daily exposure dose to predict the increased risk ofdeveloping cancer over a lifetime of exposure (70 years). Normally, as high as 300,000 people out of 1,000,000 develop cancer over their lifetime (7); in this section cancer riskis related as anticipated increase above this rate. Rates of cancer risk is qualitatively expressed inTable 6.

Contaminants of concern were found to be pentachlorophenol (PCP), polycyclic aromatichydrocarbons (PAHs), and polychorinated dioxins/furans (see Tables 1, 2, and 3).

The authors estimated "worst case scenarios" for off-site residential, commercial, and industrialsoils, stormwater lagoon soils and water, and on-site soils for children trespassers and plant workers.


Qualitative Cancer Risk 1 to 9 excess cancers per
no increased risk
no apparent increased risk
low increased risk
moderate increased risk
high increased risk
very high increased risk

Pentachlorophenol (PCP)

PCP is a synthetic organochlorine compound that was used as a wood preservative at ACC. PCPis typically used as a five percent solution in diesel carrier oil. It has moderate solubility in water,but is highly soluble in organic solvents. PCP has a low vapor pressure and therefore does notreadily volatilize from soil or water. At the ACC facility, it is expected that most PCP would beassociated with the diesel carrier oil or would be bound to the organic component of soil particles(1).

None of the scenarios for PCP revealed estimated exposure doses above MRLs or RfDs. The off-site residential exposure estimate for a child by ingestion was ten times below the MRL, which mayor may not be protective for especially sensitive individuals. The scenarios disclosed "no increasedrisk" for cancer from PCP.

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)

PAHs are an ubiquitous class of chemicals that are produced during the combustion of fossil fuelsand are present in a variety of environmental products such as soot, coal, tar, tobacco smoke,petroleum, and cutting oils. As a class, PAHs consist of three or more benzene rings fused in linear,angular, or cluster arrangements. PAHs present at ACC facility are most likely from diesel carrieroil containing pentachlorophenol (1).

Currently, no information is available from human studies to determine health effects resulting fromexposure to specific levels of the individual PAHs, although inhalation and skin exposure tomixtures containing PAHs has been associated with cancer in humans.

Animal studies involving exposures to individual PAHs have revealed adverse health effectsincluding reproductive problems, birth defects, immune system defects, and cancer. With theexception of cancer, these effects have generally not been seen in humans. Based on animal studies,the EPA has classified several individual PAHs as probable human carcinogens. These PAHsinclude: Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Chrysene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and Benzo(k)fluranthene. All of these PAHs have been foundat the ACC site.

There is no chronic MRL or Rfd available for total PAH compounds. All of the carcinogenic PAHswere totaled for a maximum concentration level in the calculation of an exposure dose. The CancerSlope Factor for benzo(a)pyrene was used to evaluate total carcinogenic PAHs. Benzo(a)pyrene islikely to be the most potent carcinogen of the PAHs at the site. None of the scenarios revealedestimated exposure doses above the MRL for benzo(a)pyrene. A "low increased risk" of cancer wasnoted for 20 year workers at the facility and "no apparent increased risk" for off-site residential soil. The other scenarios exhibited "no increased risk" for cancer from carcinogenic polycyclic aromatichydrocarbons.


The chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzo-furans are a class of compounds that are looselyreferred to as dioxins/furans. There are 75 dioxin/furan compounds. Of these, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) is the most toxic. Dioxins and furans are present astrace impurities in some synthetic chlorinated chemicals. 2,3,7,8-TCDD does not occur naturally,nor is it intentionally manufactured by any industry, except as a reference standard. It can beinadvertently produced in very small amounts as an impurity during the manufacture of certainherbicides and germicides and has been detected in products of incineration of municipal andindustrial wastes. The most likely source of dioxin at ACC is the pentachlorophenol used in thewood preservation process (1). All references to dioxin concentrations in this report are in terms of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and were converted using Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEF) as specified by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Committee onChallenges to Modern Society.

Effects of 2,3,7,8-TCDD exposure, which have been demonstrated only in animals to this point,include immune system toxicity, reproductive effects, and malformation of offspring. Based on the strongly positive evidence in animal studies, the EPA has classified 2,3,7,8-TCDD as a probablecarcinogen for humans.(1)

In humans, 2,3,7,8-TCDD causes chloracne, a severe rash that usually occurs on the head and upperbody. There is also evidence the 2,3,7,8-TCDD causes liver damage, loss of appetite, weight loss,and digestive disorders. The human carcinogenicity of dioxin is being reviewed by EPA and theauthors have used cancer slope factors which have been established for some time. The EPA reviewmay change the results of these estimates.

The MRL for dioxin was exceeded in the scenarios for a child playing in off-site residential soil, achild trespassing onto the site one day per week, and by the adult worker five days per week. Cancer risk was estimated to be "no apparent increased risk" for off-site residential soil, and"moderate increased risk" for workers at the facility for 20 years. The lagoon water and soilscenarios disclosed "no increased risk" of cancer.

B. Health Outcome Data Evaluation

There are no health outcome databases available which include expected rates of the reported healtheffects in residents living near the site. Therefore, evaluation of health outcome data was limitedto evaluation of the residential survey.

On the residential survey, one or more residents/households circled the following choices listedunder "chronic health problems" on the survey forms:

skin rash
stomach disorders
nose or throat

Other symptoms or health conditions listed by residents at least once included:

lumps in armpits
acne-like lesions
vaginal hemorrhage
breast and uterine tumors
ear infections
throat and lung cancer
slow growth no weight gain
liver problems

The results of the residential survey were evaluated by WDOH. WDOH suggested changes to theformat of the survey form, but the changes were not incorporated before information was collected. The 19 households included in the survey were selected by the resident who administered the surveyand included residents who lived in the nearby apartment complex, in houses in the neighborhood,or had formerly lived in the neighborhood.

Due to the following limitations, the data are difficult to interpret:

  • The surveyed households were not randomly selected.
  • The total number of residents in each household is unknown.
  • Residence at the time of diagnosis is not established.
  • It is not known which reported symptoms/conditions are physician diagnosed.

C. Community Health Concerns Evaluation

The community health concerns which were conveyed to WDOH included the data/informationreported in resident surveys and resident interviews. Concerns about human activity at the drainagelagoon were submitted by the local health district.

As we have reported in the Public Health Implications section, using the information provided, therewere no non-cancer risk health effects displayed in the scenarios for PCP or PAHs. There was someslight risk displayed for dioxin for a child in the residential and on-site scenarios. There were nohealth effect risks displayed in the lagoon scenarios.

Only two effects of dioxin exposure have been confirmed in humans, chloracne and transient mildhepatotoxicity. Many other effects have been studied but have not been confirmed. Most cases ofchloracne resolve in one to three years. Victims of industrial accidents have been the main humanstudy groups. From those studies it appears that 9.7 ug, as measured in adipose tissue, may thelowest observable adverse effect level for dioxin related chloracne in humans. Although dioxinshave produced neurotoxic results in laboratory animals, data from human studies have beeninconsistent and inconclusive. Hepatotoxicity has been observed in a variety of animals, but thereis no evidence that TCDD causes long-term hepatotoxicity in humans. Studies of an industrialaccident exposed population failed to demonstrate increased risk of birth defects due to dioxinexposure. (6)

Next Section       Table of Contents 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. #