NCD003188844_19910417_Carolina Transformer_FRBCERCLA PMCI_Public Meetings 1989 - 1991-OCR

~.::
!".•
CAROLINA TRANSFORMER
SUPERFUND SITE
FA YETIEVILLE,
NORTH CAROLINA
PUBLIC MEETING
AGENDA
April 17, 1991
Cumberland County Library
300 Maiden Lane
Fayetteville, North Carolina
PRESENT A TIO NS
Welcome and Introduction
of Participants
Meeting Purpose
Community Relations Process
Overview and Current Status
of Site
Groundwater Issues
Public Health Issues
Public Question and
Answer Session i.
Closing
• •
PARTICIPANTS
Curtis F. Fehn, Chief
Nonh Carolina Remedial Section
Waste Management Division, EPA
Diane F. Barrett
EPA Community Relations
Coordinator
Michael Townsend
EPA Remedial Project Manager
Kay Wischkaemper
EPA Environmental Geologist
Groundwater Technical Suppon Unit
Becky Fox
EPA Risk Assessment Office
All EPA Representatives
Michael Townsend
EPA Remedial Project Manager
(Please limit your questions and answer exchange to 5 minutes per person so that everyone has an
opportunity to speak.)
..
' r•·~~ ,
./ ="'" .... ' •· '/'!, , "< .. 1;,,
::.. ~\~• t
• •
NOTES
I • •
SUPERFUND PROPOSED PLAN
Fact Sheet
EPA Region IV
CAROLINA TRANSFORMER
Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina
March 1991
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in cooperation with the State of North
Carolina, is proposing a cleanup plan to address contamination at the Carolina Transformer Site, in
Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina.
EPA is issuing this Proposed Plan as part of public participation requirements under Section
l 17(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986.
EPA is providing an opportunity for review and public comment on cleanup alternatives and EPA• s
preferred alternative.
SITE BACKGROUND
The Carolina Transformer site is located in
Cumberland County, North Carolina, ap-
proximately one mile northeast of Fayetteville
and north of the intersection of U.S. Highway
301 and River Road (Figure 1.0). The Site
consists of approximately 4.8 acres of relative-
! y flat terrain and is bounded on the north by a
wooded/swamp-like area which is adjacent to
an agricultural field and numerous homes.
Carolina Transformer Company (CTC) con-
ducted an electrical transformer rebuilding and
repair business from 1967 to 1982. At one time
CTC was one of the largest firms of its type in
the. U.S. At no time during that period did CTC
apparently operate as PCB storage and disposal
site for owners of PCB transformers or PCB
articles.
However, it appears that as part of their
transformer repair and rebuilding operations,
PCB fluids were drained from transformers
and not properly stored and managed.
In 1979, EPA conducted soil sampling at the
site. Their testing revealed that about one and
a half acres of the site were contaminated with
PCBs. On August 13, 1984, EPA started
cleanup operations at the site, and ap-
proximately 1,000 tons of contaminated soil
were removed. Contamination over 50 ppm of
PCBs, however, still exists at the site.
The Carolina Transformer Site was
proposed for inclusion on the National
Priorities List (NPL) in July 22, 1987.
PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE
Date: Aprll 17, 1991
Time: 7:00 p.m. -9:00 p.m.
Location: Cumberland County Library
300 Malden Lane
Fayettevllle, North Caronna
• SCOPE OF ACTION
This action will be considered the first and final
'remedial action for this site. The cleanup objec-
tives are to prevent current and future exposure to
contaminated soil, sediment and groundwater
through removal and treatment of waste materials
and treatment of the contaminated groundwater in
the shallow aquifer.
The action being considered at the site is a result
of a Remedial Investigation (RI) and Feasibility
Study (FS) performed by the United States En-
vironmental Protection Agency (EPA).
EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION AND
CLEANUP OBJECTIVES
CONTAMINATION AND RISK
The RI defined the nature and extent of con-
tamination at the site. A detailed discussion of the
results-of that investigation can be found in the
Remedial Investigation Report availible at the in-
formation repository.
Groundwater Contamination
PCB 1260 was detected in groundwater samples
that were obtained from temporary wells located
in the center and south western sections of the site.
PCBs were not detected around the perimeter of
the site or in the potable water wells.
Purgeable organic compounds were detected at
low concentrations in samples obtained from tem-
porary wells located in the center, southwestern,
and northeastern sections of the site (benzene,
chlorobenzene, carbon disulfide, methyl ethyl
ketone and toluene). Purgeable organic com-
pounds were not detected beyond the perimeter of
the site.
High concentration of the extractable organic
compound bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was
detected in a well located in the center and north-
eastern sections of the Site. High concentrations
of barium, chromium, copper and nickel were
detected in the groundwater from wells in the
center of the site.
Soils/Sediments
The site investigations documented that the soils
and sediments throughout the western and
southern portions of the site contain moderate to
• high levels of PCB compounds. This contamina-
tion extends offsite along the drainage path to the
southwest of the site. As the result of the removal
of all the electrical transformers, condensers, and
storage tanks or their contents, the current and
primary source of this contamination is the onsite
soil. Composite soil/debris samples taken from the
main, maintenance,and burn building have been
determined to contain PCB compounds at levels as
high as 2200 mg/kg. Therefore, residual solids in
these buildings must also be considered as sources
of PCBs. Wipe samples taken from the interior
walls of the main building and burn building
detected elevated concentrations of PCBs, how-
ever none exceed PCB Spill Policy Limits. Extrac-
table organic compounds (toluene most common)
were detected in a number of onsite and off site soil
and sediment samples; however, few specific com-
pounds were consistently detected around the site.
The sources of these extractables were probably
industrial chemicals used during the active phase
of the site. Chlorobenzene and dichlorobenzene
(PCB carriers in transformer oil) were detected in
onsite and offsite soil and sediment samples. Sol-
vents were also found in the onsite and off site soils.
Concentrations of inorganics, with the exception
of copper, were generally consistent with back-
ground values.
CLEANUP GOALS
EPA identified objectives for cleanup of the
Carolina Transformer Site based on the informa-
tion gathered during the RI. The purpose of the FS
was to identify and evaluate cleanup alternatives
that would meet the following goals:
I. Restore the quality of the contaminated
groundwater to permit the "highest benefi-
cial use", potabfe water supply;
2. Reduce the risks associated with the in-
gestion of or physical contact with the
soil/sediment on and off site;
3. Remediate the onsite structures to limit
PCB exposure from ~terior and exterior sur-
faces to 10ug/100cm or less.
4. Remediate the debris and solid wastes to
decrease the excess lifetime cancer risk for
trespassers or onsite residents.
To meet these objective, EPA established site-
specific cleanup levels that will protect human
health and the environment. Cleanup goals for
• contaminants posing the greatest public health or
environmental risk at the site were based on federal
or state standards or health advisories as ap-
propriate.
EPA'S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The selection of a preferred cleanup alternative
for the Carolina Transformer Site as described in
this Proposed Plan is the result of a comprehensive
evaluation and screening process. The FS report
available at the information repository (shown on
the first page of this fact sheet) describes all alter-
natives considered and the process used to select
the option which EPA believes is the most protec-
tive and appropriate for this site.
EPA's preferred course of action for source areas
includes:
1. Excavation of the contaminated soil and
use a solvent extraction process to separate
organic contaminants such as PCB,
dioxin/furans, volitale organics, and
ploynuclear aromatic compounds from the
soil and sediments. The treated soil and sedi-
ment will be returned to their original loca-
tions.
2. Demolition of the roofs and walls of the
three onsite buildings. The debris would be
crushed and transported to an offsite landfill.
If the remaining s1abs are found to be con-
taminated they will be treated with a solvent
washing system to extract the PCBs.
3. The debris and solid waste from the site
will be transported to an offsite landfill for
disposal.
EPA's preferred alternative for groundwater
contamination is:
1. Install groundwater exttaction wells and
use a two component treatment system to
remove the metals:and organic contaminants.
2. Discharge treated groundwater to the un-
named tributary to the Cape Fear River.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The public is invited to comment not only on the
preferred cleanup alternative but also on the other
source and groundwater cleanup alternatives EPA
evaluated. Each of these alternatives is described
briefly below and in greater detail in the FS repon.
• Soil/Sediment
A)temative S/S-1: No Action:
This alternative was evaluated to· serve as a
baseline for comparison with other cleanup alter-
natives under consideration. Under this option, no
treatment or containment of disposal areas would
be made to restrict potential exposure to con-
taminants.
Alternative S/S-2: Fence/Deed Restriction: This
alternative would involve the construction of a
chain-link fence, approximately 6 feet high to sur-
round the contaminated areas onsite that are not
currently fenced.
Cost Estimate
Total cost: $172,000
Alternative S/S-3· Excavation for offsite
Landfill: This alternative involves the excavation
of contaminated soil for disposal in an offsite
landfill.
Cost Estimate
Total Cost: $9,228,800
Alternative S/S-4; Excavation for Onsite In-
cineration: This alternative involves the excava-
tion of contaminated soiVsediment followed by
onsite incineration and redeposition in the original
locations.
Cost Estimate
Total Cost: $18,019,300
Aitemative S/S-5: Excavation for Chemical
Dechlorination: This alternative is very similar to
Alternative S/S-4 except that the excavated soil
would be chemically treated to dechlorinate
hydrocarbons such as PCBs to produce a non-
hazardous material.
Cost Estimate:
Total Cost $8,560,900
Alternative S/S-6: Excavation for Onsite Sol-
vent Extraction: This alternative uses a solvent
extraction process to separate organic con-
taminants such as PCB, dioxn/furans, volatile or-
ganics, and polynuclcar aromatic compounds from
soil and sediment The process produces a treated
soiVscdiment and a contaminant rich waste stream
which would be transponed offsite for treatment.
Cost Estimate;
Total Cost:· $9,346,000
Debris/Solid Wastes
•
Alternative D-1: No Action: This alternative
would not involve any remedial action to collect,
control, or remove debris or solid wastes from the
site.
Alternative D-2· Fencing: This alternative is
identical to Alternative S/S-2 described above.
Alternative D-3: Offsite Disposal: This alterna-
tive would transpon all debris and solid waste from
the site for disposal in an offsite landfills.
Cost Estimate
Total Cost: $67,600
Structures
Alternative S-1: No Action: This alternative
would not involve any remedial action and the site
structures would be left in place in their present
condition.
Alternative S-2: Fencing: This alternative is
identical to the S/S-2 discribed above.
Alternative S-3: Panial Demolition: In this al-
ternative, the roofs and walls of the three onsite
buildings would be demolished and transponed
off site for disposal.
Cost Estimate
Total Cost $230, l 00
Alternative S-4: Complete Demolition: This al-
ternative involves complete demolition of all three
onsite buildings and the raised concrete platform
and would be transponed offsite for disposal.
Cost Estimate
Total Cost $369,7()()
Groundwater
Alternative G-1; No Action: This alternative
was evaluated to serve as a baseline for comparison
with other cleanup alternatives under considera-
tion. Under this option, no treatment or contain-
ment of disposal areas would be made to restrict
potential exposure to contaminants.
Alternative G-2: Deed Restrictions: This alter-
native would consist of placing restrictions on the
deeds of the site and adjacent propenies which
• would prohibit their use of water from the shallow
aquifer
Alternative G-3: Metals Removal, Air Strip-
ping, Adsorption, discharge: This alternative in-
volves the extraction of ground water from the
shallow aquifer via groundwater extraction wells
followed by a three component treatment system.
The first component is an electrochemical metal
removal system to remove the inorganics, the
second component is the air stripper that will
remove the volatile organics, the third component
is the activated carbon adsorption unit to remove
non-volatile and semi-volitale organics. The
treated groundwater will then be discharged to the
unnamed tributary.
Cost Estimate
Total Cost: $878,500
A!ternarive G-4; Metals Removal, Adsorption,
Discharge: This alternative is the same as G-3
except air stripping is not used to remove the
volatiles. This will require increased use of the
activated carbon adsorption system.
Cost Estimate
Total Cost: $830,500
Alternative G-5: Adsorption, Discharge: This
alternative only uses the activated carbon to
remove the organic contaminants. A ponion of the
metal contamination will be removed by this
method. The treated groundwater will be dis-
charged to the unnamed tributary.
Cost Estimate
Total Cost: $435,000
Alternative G-6: Metals Removal, UV Oxida-
tion, Discharge: This alternative is similar to G-4
except UV Oxidation is used instead of activated
carbon.
Cost Estimate
Total Cost: $993,300
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING CLEANUP
ALTERNATIVES
In selecting its preferred remedial alternative,
EPA uses these criteria to evaluate each cleanup
alternative identified in the FS. The first 2 criteria
must be met for an alternative to be kept for funher
• evaluation. The next five are used to compare
remaining options. The last 2 are used to funher
evaluate the Proposed Plan after comments have
been received from the community.
l) Overall protection of ~h)jc health and en-
vjronmem: Degree tow ·ch each alternative
eliminates, reduces, or controls threats to
health and environment through treatment,
engineering methods, or institutional con-
trols (e.g. deed, land use or other restric-
tions).
2) Comtance with state and federal teQYire-weow gree to which each alternative
meets environmental regulations determined
to be applicable or relevant and appropriate
to site conditions.
3) Short term effectiveness· Length of time
needed to implement each alternative and
risks posed to workers and nearby residents
during implementation.
4) Lon~ term effectiveness: Ability to main-
tain reliable protection after implementation.
5) Reduction of mohjijcy. roxjcjcv. and
volume· Degree to which alternatives
reduces ( l) ability of contaminants to move
through the environment, (2) harmful nature
of contaminants, and (3) amount of con-
taminants.
6) Implementahj!jty: Technical feasibility
(difficulty of constructing, operating or main-
taining), administrative ease (amount of coor-
dination with other government agencies or
relocation of residents) of implementing
reml?<ly, including availability of goods or
services.
7) ~ Benefits of alternative weighed
against cost
8) State acceptance; EPA requests state com-
ments and concurrence for consideration in
final selection.
9) Community acce_itance; EPA holds public comment penod to get input from af-
fected community and considers and
responds to all comments received prior to
the final selection.of a remedial (long term
cleanup) action.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
A public comment period will be held to allow
citiz.ens to comment on the remedial alternatives
considered in the Feasibility Study. EPA relies
upon public comment to ensure that the remedial
alternatives being evaluated for each Superfund
• site are fully understood and that the concerns of
the local community have been considered. A
public meeting will be held on April 17, 1991, at
the Cumberland County Library from 7:00 pm
until 9:00 pm to present the results of the
Feasibility Study, explain the proposed alterna-
tives and present EPA's preferred alternative for
remediating the Carolina Transformer site. All
oral and written comments received during the
30-day period beginning on March 29, 1991,
through April 30, 1991, will be given careful con-
sideration and a response prepared. Following the
conclusion of the comment period, a formal
decision document called a Record of Decision
will be prepared. A Responsiveness Summary
containing all comments received and EPA's
response to each will be a part of the Record of
Decision. This document will be submitted to the
EPA Region 4 Regional Administrator for ap-
proval. Upon approval, the design of the alterna-
tive will be developed and the alternative method
selected for cleanup of the site can be imple-
mented.
During the coming months we will endeavor to
keep you updated concerning the activities being
undertaken at the site. If you have any questions
at any time, please contact us.
• • USE THIS SPACE TO WRITE YOUR COMMENTS
Your input on the Proposed Plan for the Carolina Transformer Superfund Site is important to us.
Comments provided by the public are valuable in helping EPA select a final remedy for site cleanup. You
may use the space below to write your comments, then fold and mail this page with any additional comments
or attachments to either Michael Townsend or Diane Barrett at EPA in Atlanta.
Your Name and Address:_
THANK YOU
' • •
For further information, please contact
Michael Townsend, Remedial Project Manager
or
Diane Barren, Community Relations Coordinator
at [phone]
•
EPA Toll Free Telephone Number: 1-800-241-1754
DOCUMENTS REGARDING THIS SITE CAN BE REVIEWED
AT THE INFORMATION REPOSITORY WCATED AT THIS ADDRESS:
Information Repository -Carolina Transformer
Cumberland County Library
300 Maiden Lane
Fayetteville, North Carolina 28301
HOURS
OF
OPERATON
Mon -Fri:
Sat:
Sunday
Phone [phone]
9 a.BL to 9 p.BL
9 a.BL to 6 p.m.
2 p.BL to 6 p.m.
. • . . , ·, '• .
•
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA GEORGIA 30365
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE U.§~,_$300 NORTH REMEDIAL SUPERruNu BRANCH
87
•
' ' ' •
SUPERFUNDPROPOSEDPLAN
Fact Sheet
EPA Region IV
CAROLINA TRANSFORMER
Fayetteville, Cumberiand County, North Carolina
March 1991
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in cooperation with the State of North
Carolina, is proposing a cleanup plan to address contamination at the Carolina Transformer Site, in
Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina.
EPA is issuing this Proposed Plan as pan of public participation requirements under Section
l l 7(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986.
EPA is providing an opportunity for review and public comment on cleanup alternatives and EPA' s
preferred alternative.
SITE BACKGROUND
The Carolina Transformer site is located in
Cumberland County, Nonh Carolina, ap-
proximately one mile northeast of Fayetteville
and north of the intersection of U.S. Highway
301 and River Road (Figure 1.0). The Site
consists of approximately 4.8 acres of relative-
! y flat terrain and is bounded on the north by a
wooded/swamp-like area which is adjacent to
an agricultural field and numerous homes.
Carolina Transformer Company (CTC) con-
ducted an electrical transformer rebuilding and
repair business from 1967 to 1982. At one time
CTC was one ofthe largest firms of its type in
the_ U.S. At no time during that period did CTC
apparent! y operate as PCB storage and disposal
site for owners of PCB transformers or PCB
articles.
However, it appears that as pan of their
transformer repair and rebuilding operations,
PCB fluids were drained from transformers
and not properly stored and managed.
In 1979, EPA conducted soil sampling at the
site. Their testing revealed that about one and .
a half acres of the site were contaminated with
PCBs. On August 13, 1984, EPA staned
cleanup operations at the site, and ap-
proximately 1,000 tons of contaminated soil
were removed. Contamination over 50 ppm of
PCBs, however, still exists at the site.
The Carolina Transformer Site was
proposed for inclusion on the National
Priorities List (NPL) in July 22, 1987.
PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE
Date: Aprll 17, 1991
Time: 7:00 p.m. -9:00 p.m.
Location: Cumberland County Library
300 Malden Lane
Fayetteville, North Carolina
• SCOPE OF ACTION
This action will be considered the first and final
remedial action for this site. The cleanup objec-
tives are to prevent current and future exposure to
contaminated soil, sediment and groundwater
through removal and treatment of waste materials
and treatment of the contaminated groundwater in
the shallow aquifer.
The action being considered at the site is a result
of a Remedial Investigation (Rl) and Feasibility
Study (FS) performed by the United States En-
vironmental Protection Agency (EPA).
EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION AND
CLEANUP OBJECTIVES
CONTAMINATION AND RISK
The RI defined the nature and extent of con-
tamination at the site. A detailed discussion of the
results of that investigation can be found in the
Remedial Investigation Report availible at the in-
formation repository.
Groundwater Contamination
PCB 1260 was detected in groundwater samples
that were obtained from temporary wells located
in the center and south western sections of the site.
PCBs were not detected around the perimeter of
the site or in the potable water wells.
Purgeable organic compounds were detected at
low concentrations in samples obtained from tem-
porary wells located in the center, southwestern,
and northeastern sections of the site (benzene,
chlorobenzene, carbon disulfide, methyl ethyl
ketone and toluene). Purgeable organic com-
pounds were not detected beyond the perimeter of
the site.
High concentration of the extractable organic
compound bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was
detected in a well located in the center and north-
eastern sections of the Site. High concentrations
of barium, chromium, copper and nickel were
detected in the groundwater from wells in the
center of the site.
Soil s/Sedirnents
The site investigations documented that the soils
and sediments throughout the western and
southern portions of the site contain moderate to
• high levels of PCB compounds. This contamina-
tion extends offsite along the drainage path to the
southwest of the site. As the result of the removal
of all the electrical transformers, condensers, and
storage tanks or their contents, the current and
primary source of this contamination is the onsite
soil. Composite soil/debris samples taken from the
main, maintenance,and burn building have been
determined to contain PCB compounds at levels as
high as 2200 mg/kg. Therefore, residual solids in
these buildings must also be considered as sources
of PCBs. Wipe samples taken from the interior
walls of the main building and burn building
detected elevated concentrations of PCBs, how-
ever none exceed PCB Spill Policy Limits. Extrac-
table organic compounds (toluene most common)
were detected in a number of onsite and off site soil
and sediment samples; however, few specific com-
pounds were consistently detected around the site.
The sources of these extractables were probably
industrial chemicals used during the active phase
of the site. Chlorobenzene and dichlorobenzene
(PCB carriers in transformer oil) were detected in
onsite and offsite soil and sediment samples. Sol-
vents were also found in the onsite and off site soils.
Concentrations of inorganics, with the exception
of copper, were generally consistent with back-
ground values.
CLEANUP GOALS
EPA identified objectives for cleanup of the
Carolina Transformer Site based on the informa-
tion gathered during the RI. The purpose of the FS
was to identify and evaluate cleanup alternatives
that would meet the following goals:
1. Restore the quality of the contaminated
groundwater to permit the "highest benefi-
cial use", potabfe water supply;
2. Reduce the risks associated with the in-
gestion of or physical contact with the
soil/sediment on and off site;
3. Remediate the onsite structures to limit
PCB exposure from ½:1terior and exterior sur-
faces to lOug/IOOcm or less.
4. Remediate the debris and solid wastes to
decrease the excess lifetime cancer risk for
trespassers or onsite residents.
To meet these objective, EPA established site-
specific cleanup levels that will protect human
health and the environment. Cleanup goals for
•
• • contaminants posing the greatest public heal_th or
environmental risk at the site were based on federal
or state standards or health advisories as ap-
propriate.
EPA'S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The selection of a preferred cleanup alternative
for the Carolina Transformer Site as described in
this Proposed Plan is the result of a comprehensive
evaluation and screening process. The FS report
available at the information repository (shown on
the first page of this fact sheet) describes all alter-
natives considered and the process used to select
the option which EPA believes is the most protec-
tive and appropriate for this site.
EPA's preferred course of action for source areas
includes:
1. Excavation of the contaminated soil and
use a solvent extraction process to separate
organic contaminants such as PCB,
dioxin/furans, volitale organics, and
ploynuclear aromatic compounds from the
soil and sediments. The treated soil and sedi-
ment will be returned to their original loca-
tions.
2. Demolition of the roofs and walls of the
three onsite buildings. The debris would be
crushed and transported to an off site landfill.
If the remaining slabs are found to be con-
taminated they will be treated with a solvent
washing system to extract the PCBs.
3. The debris and solid waste from the site
will be transported to an offsite landfill for
disposal.
EPA's preferred alternative for groundwater
contamination is:
I. Install groundwater extraction wells and
use a two component treatment system to
remove the me~ and organic contaminants.
2. Discharge treated grQundwater to the un-
named tributary to the Cape Fear River.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The public is invited to comment not only on the
preferred cleanup alternative but also on the other
source and groundwater cleanup alternatives EPA
evaluated. Each of these alternatives is described
brief! y below and in greater detail in the FS report.
• Soil/Sediment
Alternative S/S-J: No Action:
This alternative was evaluated to serve as a
baseline for comparison with other cleanup alter-
natives under consideration. Under this option, no
treatment or containment of disposal areas would
be made to restrict potential exposure to con-
taminants.
Alternative S/S-2: Fence/Deed Restriction: This
alternative would involve the construction of a
chain-link fence, approximately 6 feet high to sur-
round the contaminated areas onsite that are not
currently fenced.
Cost Estimate
Total cost: $172,000
A)ternatjve S/S-3· Excavation for offsite
Landfill: This alternative involves the excavation
of contaminated soil for disposal in an offsite
landfill.
Cost Estimate
Total Cost: $9,228,800
A!ternative S/S-4: Excavation for Onsite In-
cineration: This alternative involves the excava-
tion of contaminated soiVsediment followed by
onsite incineration and redeposition in the original
locations.
Cost Estimate
Total Cost: $18,019,300
A!ternative S/S-5: Excavation for Chemical
Dechlorination: This alternative is very similar to
Alternative S/S-4 except that the excavated soil
would be chemically treated to dechlorinate
hydrocarbons such as PCBs to produce a non-
hazardous material.
Cost Estimate:
Total Cost $8,560,900
A)temative S/S-6: Excavation for Onsite Sol-
vent Extraction: This alternative uses a solvent
extraction process to separate organic con-
taminants such as PCB, dioxn/furans, volatile or-
ganics, and polynuclear aromatic compounds from
soil and sediment The process produces a treated
soiVsediment and a contaminant rich waste stream
which would be transported off site for treatment.
Cost Estimate;
Total Cost $9,346,000
Debris/Solid Wastes
•
Alternative D-1: No Action: This alternative
would not involve any remedial action to collect,
control, or remove debris or solid wastes from the
site.
Alternative D-2· Fencing: This alternative is
identical to Alternative S/S-2 described above.
Alternative D-3: Offsite Disposal: This alterna-
tive would transport all debris and solid waste from
the site for disposal in an offsite landfills.
Cost Estimate
Total Cost: $67,600
Structures
Alternative S-): No Action: This alternative
would not involve any remedial action and the site
structures would be left in place in their present
condition.
Alternative S-2: Fencing: This alternative is
identical to the S/S-2 discribed above.
Alternative S-3: Partial Demolition: In this al-
ternative, the roofs and walls of the three onsite
buildings would be demolished and transported
off site for disposal.
Cost Estimate
Total Cost $230,100
Alternative S-4: Complete Demolition: This al-
ternative involves complete demolition of all three
onsite buildings and the raised concrete platform
and would be transported off site for disposal.
Cost Estimate
Total Cost $369,700
Groundwater
Alternative G-1: No Action: This alternative
was evaluated to serve as a baseline for comparison
with other cleanup alternatives under considera-
tion. Under this option, no treatment or contain-
ment of disposal areas would be made to restrict
potential exposure to contaminants.
Alternative G-2: Deed Restrictions: This alter-
native would consist of placing restrictions on the
deeds of the site and adjacent properties which
•
would prohibit their use of water from the shallow
aquifer
Alternative G-3: Metals Removal, Air Strip-
ping, Adsorption, discharge: This alternative in-
volves the extraction of ground water from the
shallow aquifer via groundwater extraction wells
followed by a three component treatment system.
The first component is an electrochemical metal
removal system to remove the inorganics, the
second component is the air stripper that will
remove the volatile organics, the third component
is the activated carbon adsorption unit to remove
non-volatile and semi-volitale organics. The
treated groundwater will then be discharged to the
unnamed tributary.
Cost Estimate
Total Cost: $878,500
Alternative G-4: Metals Removal, Adsorption, .
Discharge: This alternative is the same as G-3
except air stripping is not used to remove the
volatiles. This will require increased use of the
activated carbon adsorption system.
Cost Estimate
Total Cost: $830,500
Alternative G-5: Adsorption, Discharge: This
alternative only uses the activated carbon to
remove the organic contaminants. A portion of the
metal contamination will be removed by this
method. The treated groundwater will be dis-
charged to the unnamed tributary.
Cost Estimate
Total Cost: $435,000
Alternative G-6: Metals Removal, UV Oxida-
tion, Discharge: This alternative is similar to G-4
except UV Oxidation is used instead of activated
carbon.
Cost Estimate
Total Cost: $993,300
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING CLEANUP
ALTERNATIVES .
In selecting its preferred remedial alternative,
EPA uses these criteria to evaluate each cleanup
alternative identified in the FS. The first 2 criteria
must be met for an alternative to be kept for further
• • evaluation. The next five are used to compare
remaining options. The last 2 are used to funher
evaluate the Proposed Plan after comments have
been received from the community.
I) Overall protection of ~b)jc health and en-
vironment; Degree tow · ch each alternative
eliminates, reduces, or controls threats to
health and environment through treatment,
engineerin~thods, or institutional con-
trols (e.g. , land use or other restric-
tions).
2) Com~iance with state and federal require-roenw egree to which each alternative
meets environmental regulations determined
to be applicable or relevant and appropriate
to site conditions.
3) Short tcnn effectiveness; Length of time
needed to implement each alternative and
risks posed to workers and nearby residents
during implementation.
4) Lon~ tenn effectiveness; Ability to main-
tain rehable protection after implementation.
5) Reduction of mobility, toxicity, and voJnme; Degree to which alternatives
reduces (I) ability of contaminants to move
through the environment, (2) harmful nature
of contaminants, and (3) amount of con-
taminants.
6) Imp)eroentabj)jty; Technical feasibility
( difficulty of constructing, operating or main-
taining), administrative ease (amount of coor-
dination with other government agencies or
relocation of residents) of implementing
remedy, including availability of goods or
services.
7) ~ Benefits of alternative weighed
against cost
8) State acceptance; EPA requests state com-
ments and concurrence for consideration in
final selection.
9) Community acawiance; EPA holds
public comment penod to get input from af-
fected community'and considers and
responds to all comments received prior to
the final selection of a remedial (long term
cleanup) action;
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
A public comment period will be held to allow
citizens to comment on the remedial alternatives
considered in the Feasibility Study. EPA relies
upon public comment to ensure that the remedial
alternatives being evaluated for each Superfund
• site are fully understood and that the concerns of
the local community have been considered. A
public meeting will be held on April 17, I 991, at
the Cumberland County Library from 7:00 pm
until 9:00 pm to present the results of the
Feasibility Study, explain the proposed alterna-
tives and present EPA's preferred alternative for
remediating the Carolina Transformer site. All
oral and written comments received during the
30-day period beginning on March 29, 1991,
through April 30, 1991, will be given careful con-
sideration and a response prepared. Following the
conclusion of the comment period, a formal
decision document called a Record of Decision
will be prepared. A Responsiveness Summary
containing all comments received and EPA's
response to each will be a part of the Record of
Decision. This document will be submitted to the
EPA Region 4 Regional Administrator for ap-
proval. Upon approval, the design of the alterna-
tive will be developed and the alternative method
selected for cleanup of the site can be imple-
mented.
During the coming months we will endeavor to
keep you updated concerning the activities being
undertaken at the site. If you have any questions
at any time, please contact us.
• USE THIS SPACE TO WRITE YOUR COMMENTS
Your input on the Proposed Plan for the Carolina Transformer Superfund Site is important to us.
Comments provided by the public are valuable in helping EPA select a final remedy for site cleanup. You
may use the space below to write your comments, then fold and mail this page with any additional comments
or attachments to eith.cr Michael Townsend or Diane Barrett at EPA in Atlanta.
Your Name and Address: _
THANK YOU
)
'
•
For further information, please contact
Michael Townsend, Remedial Project Manager
or
Diane Barrett, Community Relations Coordinator
at [phone]
•
EPA Toll Free Telephone Number: 1-800-241-1754
DOCUMENTS REGARDING THIS SITE CAN BE REVIEWED
AT THE INFORMATION REPOSITORY WCATED AT THIS ADDRESS:
Information Repository -Carolina Transformer
Cumberland County Library
300 Maiden Lane
Fayetteville, North Carolina 28301
HOURS
OF
OPERATON
Mon -Fri:
Sat:
Sunday
Phone[phone]
9 a.m. to 9 p.m.
9 a.m. to 6 p.m.
2 p.m. to 6 p.m.
··••,•··•··~-·H\•:•z-·<❖ •·••
:,:::::-:-❖'.':';\
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA GEORGIA 30365
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE U.§~,...$300 NORTH REMEDIAL SUPERruNu BRANCH
87
•
•
TOLUENE
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
U.S. Public Health Service
• 1 •
l. PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT
1.1 \/HAT IS TOLUENE?
Toluene is a clear, colorless liquid with a sweet smell. Toluene
occurs naturally in crude oil and the tolu tree. It is produced from
petroleum refining, as a by-product of styrene production, and as a by-
product of coke-oven operations. Industry uses it in refining gasoline,
chemical manufacturing, and manufacture of paints, lacquers, adhesives,
rubber and in some printing and leather tanning processes. Toluene is
usually disposed of at hazardous waste sites as a used solvent (a
substance used to dissolve other substances). Toluene doesn't usually
stay in the environment; it readily breaks down in soil and evaporates
from water. More information on the production, uses, and environmental
fate of toluene can be found in Chapters 3, 4, and 5.
1.2 HOW MIGHT I BE EXPOSED TO TOLUENE?
Humans may be exposed to toluene from many sources, including
drinking water, food, air, workplaces, and consumer products. Exposure
to toluene by humans occurs mostly through breathing the chemical in the
workplace or during deliberate glue sniffing or solvent abuse. Toluene
readily evaporates and can therefore be released to the air when
toluene-containing products are used. Automobile exhaust can also be a
significant source of toluene emissions to the air. Petrochemical
workers, workers in the chemical industry, dye makers, and paint workers
are at the greatest risk of exposure. Because toluene is a common
solvent and is found in many consumer products, exposures may happen in
the home and outdoors. Consumer products containing toluene include
gasoline, nail polish, cosmetics, rubber cement, paint brush cleaners,
stain removers, fabric dyes, inks, and adhesives. Smokers are exposed
to toluene in cigarette smoke.
Exposure may happen at some hazardous waste sites. The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a survey in 1988
and found toluene in groundwater, surface water, or soil at 29% of the
hazardous waste sites surveyed. The average amounts of toluene at
hazardous waste sites were 21 ppb (21 parts toluene per billion parts
water) in groundwater and 7.5 ppb in surface water. The amount in soil
was 77 pp~.
Federal and state surveys do not show toluene to be a widespread
contaminant of drinking water supplies. Toluene was found in about 1%
of the groundwater sources at amounts lower than 2 ppb. More was found
in surface water supplies, but the surveys were not as complete as the
groundwater surveys. Toluene levels in the air are typically lower
• 2
l. PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT
than l ppm (one part toluene per million parts air) in nonindustrialized areas (cities and suburbs). Usual levels of toluene indoors are also lower than l ppm. Usual levels in food have not been reported. More information on possible human exposure to toluene can be found in Chapter 5.
1.3 HOW CAN TOLUENE ENTER AND LEAVE MY BODY?
Toluene can enter the body by passing through the skin, or when a person breathes its vapors, or eats or drinks contaminated food or water. Human exposure occurs mainly by breathing air containing toluene. Where a person lives, works, and travels and what a person eats affect daily exposure to toluene. Things such as age, sex, and health status affect what happens to toluene once it is in the body. After being taken into the body, most toluene leaves the body within 12 hours. It leaves the body unchanged in the exhaled air and also leaves the body as a breakdown product in the urine. More information on how toluene can enter and leave the body can be found in Chapter 2.
1.4 HOW CAN TOLUENE AFFECT MY HEALTH?
The most important health concern for humans from either intentional or occupational exposure to toluene is its harmful effects on the nervous system. These effects of toluene depend on both the amount and length of exposure. Short-term exposure to moderate amounts of toluene, such as in elevated workplace exposures can produce fatigue, confusion, general weakness, drunken-type actions, memory loss, nausea, and loss of appetite. These symptoms disappear when exposure is stopped.
Short-term exposure to high amounts of toluene results first in lightheadedness and euphoria. This is followed by dizziness, sleepiness, unconsciousness and in some cases death because the person cannot breathe prior to death. When exposure is stopped before death, these symptoms disappear. Long-term exposure to low and moderate amounts of toluene has caused slight effects on the kidneys in some people, but these people were also exposed to other solvents at the same time and it is difficult to tell which chemical may have caused the effects. Long-term exposure to high amounts of toluene by intentional abuse ·has been linked with permanent damage to the brain. Effects such as problems with speech, vision and hearing; loss of muscle control; loss of memory and balance; and reduced scores on psychological tests have been reported. Researchers have seen possible effects on
I
I
• • 3
1. PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT
resistance to disease in persons exposed to moderate and high amounts of
chemical mixtures that contained toluene. However, it is not possible
to tell exactly which chemical in the mixture may have caused the
effects.
In animals, as in humans, the main effect of toluene is on the
nervous system. Exposure of animals to moderate and high amounts of
toluene also produces slightly harmful effects on the liver, kidneys,
and lungs. Several studies have shown that the development of unborn
animals is affected or harmed when high levels of toluene are breathed
in by pregnant animals. However, when pregnant animals were fed high
amounts of toluene, the unborn animals did not show any developmental
problems. It is not known if toluene will harm an unborn child when a
pregnant woman drinks water or breathes in air containing toluene
because studies in people are not complete enough to measure this
effect. The National Toxicology Program (NTP) found that toluene did
not cause cancer in a long-term study in rats and mice. More
information on the health effects of toluene in humans and animals can
be found in Chapter 2.
1.5 IS THERE A MEDICAL TEST TO DETERMINE llllETHER I HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO
TOLUENE?
Several tests have been used to find out if a person has been
exposed to toluene. These include measuring toluene and its breakdown
products in blood and in urine. These tests are not commonly available
at a doctor's office, but are easily done by special laboratories. To
decide whether workplace exposure to toluene has happened, measurements
of one of its breakdown products in urine have been used within 12 hours
after exposure. However, because several other chemicals are also
changed to the same breakdown product within the body, this test may not
show that toluene exposure has happened. Other things, such as the
amount of body fat and body weight, the person's sex, and exposure
conditions, may also change this estimate of the amount of toluene
exposure. More information on testing for exposure to toluene can be
found in Chapter 6.
1.6 WHAT LEVELS OF EXPOSURE HAVE RESULTED IN HARMFUL HEALTH EFFECTS?
Toluene can be smelled in air at a level of about 0.16 ppm and it
can be smelled in water at a level of 0.04 ppm. In water, toluene can
be tasted at a level of 0.04 ppm. Tables 1-1 through 1-4 show the
relationship between exposure to toluene and known health effects.
Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) are also included in Table 1-1. These MRLs
• 4
1. PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT
TABLE 1-1. Human Health Effects from Breathing Toluene*
Short-term Exposure
(less than or equal to 14 days)
Levels in Duration of
Air (ppm) Exposure Description of Effects**
4 Minimal risk level (See
Section 1.6 for discussion).
100 8 hr Moderate fatigue.
300 8 hr Severe fatigue, headache.
600 8 hr Extreme fatigue, confusion,
dizziness, intoxicated
behavior.
Long-term Exposure
(greater than 14 days)
Levels in Duration of Air (ppm) Exposure Description of Effects**
l Minimal risk level (based on
studies in animals. See
Section 1. 6 for discussion).
200 1-10 yrs Headache, dizziness, loss of
coordination.
300 1-10 yrs Impaired memory and thinking
ability.
* See Section 1.2 for a discussion of exposures encountered in daily life. ** These effects are listed at the lowest level at which they were first observed. They may also be seen at higher levels.
! I
' ' • • 5
1. PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT
TABLE 1-2. Animal Health Effects from Breathing Toluene
Short-term Exposure
(less than or equal to 14 days)
Levels in Duration of
Air (ppm) Exposure Description of Effects•
200 1 wk Abnormal fetal development
in mice.
1,000 2 wks Loss of hearing in rats.
2,600 3 hrs Intoxicated state in mice.
3,000 1 wk Slight effect on liver
weight in rats.
Long-term Exposure
(greater than 14 days) .
Levels in Duration of
Air !ppml Exposure Description of Effects•
320 1 mo Decreased body and brain
weight in rats.
600 5 wks Lung irritation and moderate
kidney damage.
2,000 95 days Inhibition of growth in rats.
* These effects are listed at the lowest level at which they were first
observed. They may also be seen at higher levels.
• • 6
1. PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT
TABLE 1-3. Human Health Effects from Eating or Drinking Toluene*
Short-term Exposure
(less than or equal to 14 days)
Levels in Duration of Food !ppm) Exposure Description of Effects
The health effects resulting from short-term human exposure to food containing specific levels of toluene are not known.
Levels in
Wat§1= L~1Hnl The health effects resulting from short-term human exposure to
water containing specific levels of toluene are not known.
Long-term Exposure . (greater than 14 days)
Levels in Duration of food <oom} Exposure Description of Effects
The health effects resulting from long-term human exposure to food containing specific levels of toluene are not known.
Levels in
Water <1rnml The health effects resulting from long-term human exposure to
water containing specific levels of toluene are not known.
* See Section 1.2 for a discussion of exposures encountered in daily life.
J ,
• • 7
1. PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT
TABLE 1-4. Animal Health Effec~s from Eating or Drinking Toluene
Short-term Exposure
(less than or equal to 14 days)
Levels in Duration of
Food {ppm) Exposure Description of Effects
The health effects resulting from
short-term animal exposure to
food containing specific levels
of toluene are not known.
Levels in
Water (ppm)
The health effects resulting from
short-term animal exposure to
water containing specific levels
of toluene are not known.
Long-term Exposure
(greater than 14 days)
Levels in Duration of
Food (ppm) Exposure Description of Effects .
9,600 13 wks Death in mice.
25,000 13 wks Brain damage in rats.
38,500 13 wks Heart damage in mice.
Levels in
Watei;: {ppm)
The health effects resulting from
long-term animal exposure to
water containing specific levels
of toluene are not known.
* These effects are listed at the lowest level at which they were fi.rst
observed. They may also be seen at higher levels.
• 8 • 1. PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT
were derived based on animal data for both short-term and longer-term exposure, as described in Chapter 2, and in the footnotes on Tables 2-1 and 2-2. The MRLs provide a basis for comparison to levels of toluene which people might encounter either in the air or in food or drinking water. If a person is exposed to toluene at an amount below the MRL, it is not expected that harmful noncancer health effects will occur. Since these levels are based on information that is currently available, there is always some uncertainty associated with it. Also, since the method for deriving MRLs does not use any information about cancer, an MRL does not imply anything about the presence, absence or level of risk of cancer. More information on this topic can be found in Chapters 2 and 5.
1.7 IIHAT RECOMMENDATIONS HAS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MADE TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH?
The Federal Government has developed regulatory standards and advisories to protect people from the possible health effects of toluene in the environment. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has set a limit of 100 ppm of toluene for air in the workplace, averaged for an 8-hour exposure per day over a 40-hour work week. The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) have recommended that toluene in the workplace not exceed 100 ppm (as an average level over 8 hours).
EPA has recommended that drinking water should not contain more than 21.5 ppm for 1 day or 3.46 ppm for 10 days or 2 ppm for lifetime consumption. Any release of more than 1000 lbs of this chemical to the environment must be reported to the National Response Center. More information on state guidelines for air and water are available from state environmental agencies. More information on government regulations can be found in Chapter 7.
1.8 17HERE CAN I GET MORE INFORMATION?
If you have more questions or concerns, please contact your State Health or Environmental Department or:
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Division of Toxicology
1600 Clifton Road, E-29
Atlanta, Georgia 30333
,J
'
•
NICKEL
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
U.S. Public Health Service
·,
l. PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT
1.1 \l!IAT IS NICKEL?
1
Nickel is a naturally occurring silvery metal that is found in the
earth's crust in the form of various nickel minerals. Nickel comprises
about 0.009% of the earth's crust. Nickel and its compounds can be
detected in all parts of the environment, including plants and animals
used for human consumption, air, drinking water, rivers, lakes, oceans·,
and soil. Nickel used by industries comes from mined ores or from
recycled scrap metal and has a wide range of industrial uses. It is used
primarily in making various steels and alloys and in electroplating.
Minor applications include use in ceramics, permanent magnet materials,
and nickel-cadmium batteries. In 1985, the U.S. contribution was 0.7% of
the total nickel mined in the world. A large resource of yet untapped
nickel is in the seabed.
1.2 HOW MIGHT I BE EXPOSED TO NICKEL AND ITS COMPOUNDS?
Exposure of the general population to nickel and its compounds
results from breathing air, ingesting drinking water and food that
contain nickel and compounds, and skin contact with a wide range of
consumer products. Segments of the population that may be exposed to
higher levels of nickel include people whose diets contain foods
naturally high in nickel, people who are occupationally exposed to
nickel, people living in the vicinity of a nickel processing facility,
and people who smoke tobacco.
The single largest nickel source found in the atmosphere is from
fuel oil combustion. Other sources include atmospheric emissions from
mining and refining operations, atmospheric emissions from municipal
waste incineration, and windblown dust. Minor sources of atmospheric
nickel are volcanoes, steel production, gasoline and diesel fuel
combustion, vegetation, nickel alloy production, and coal combustion.
Sources of nickel in water and soil include stormwater runoff, soil
amended with municipal sewage sludge, wastewater from municipal sewage
treatment plants, and groundwater near landfill sites.
A minor source of nickel exposure is contact with consumer products
which, under normal use conditions, will contribute very little toward
exposure. Some of these consumer products are:
Kitchen utensils
Pipes and faucets
Jewelry
Buttons and zippers
Beverage containers
Household appliances
2 Section 1
Medical and dental devices
Coins
Occupations in which nickel exposure inay occur include:
Battery makers
Ceramic makers
Coal gasification workers
Dyers
Electroformers
Electroplaters
Enamellers
Glass workers
Ink makers
Jewelers
Magnet makers
Metal workers
Nickel miners
Nickel refiners
Nickel smelters
Oil dehydrogenators
Paint makers
Sand blasters
Spark plug makers
Spray painters
Stainless steel makers
Textile dyers
Varnish makers
Welders
1.3 HOW DO NICKEL AND ITS COMPOUNDS GET INTO MY BODY?
Because nickel occurs in most food items, the highest level of exposure to nickel commonly comes from dietary intake. Nickel is found in fruits, vegetables, grains, seafood, and mother's and cow's milk. The level of nickel in the diet can be increased by the use of certain fertilizers on food crops, by varying the diet to include food items naturally high in nickel content, or by the use of nickel-containing cooking vessels or utensils.
The intake of nickel or its compounds by the ingestion of drinking water is typically less than through the diet; however, ingestion of nickel in drinking water can be increased significantly by the consumption of drinking water from plumbing or faucets that contain nickel.
Nickel can enter the body when a person breathes nickel dust or particles of nickel compounds. Compared to oral intake, the typical amount of inhaled nickel is small. The amount of nickel that enters the blood from the lungs, or that remains in the lungs, depends on the location in the lungs in which the nickel has been deposited and on the properties of the nickel compound (e.g., particle size and solubility in body fluids). Breathing tobacco smoke can significantly increase the amount of nickel inhaled.
. ....
\ • • / P~-c Health Statement 3
Some nickel compounds (e.g., nickel chloride) can penetrate skin, especially if the skin has been damaged. Skin exposures to the general public are predominantly to nickel metal found in jewelry, coins, buttons, zippers, and cooking utensils. Nickel metal does not readily penetrate the skin; therefore, only those persons with skin allergies to nickel should be concerned with skin exposures to nickel metal.
1.4 HOW CAN NICKEL AND ITS COMPOUNDS AFFECT MY HEALTH?
Very small amounts of nickel have been shown to be essential for normal growth and reproduction in some species of animals; therefore, small amounts of nickel may also be essential to humans.
The most common adverse effects of nickel exposure noted in the general population are skin allergies. Surveys indicate that 2.5 to 5.0% of the general population may be sensitive to nickel. Individuals may be sensitized by frequent or prolonged contact with nickel-containing or nickel-plated consumer products. In persons not sensitive to nickel, normal, long-term oral, inhalation, and skin exposure to low levels of this element has not been associated with adverse health effects.
Accidental or suicidal ingestion of very high amounts of some nickel compounds may result in death, as illustrated by a single case of a 2 1/2·year·old girl who died following the ingestion of a very large amount of nickel sulfate. Ingestion of nickel metal is unlikely to result in death.
Adverse effects have been noted in humans exposed by inhalation to nickel compounds at work. Asthma has been reported in nickel platers exposed to nickel sulfate, and in welders exposed to nickel oxides. Inhalation exposure of workers to nickel refinery dust, which contains nickel subsulfide, has resulted in increased numbers of deaths from lung and nasal cavity cancers, and possibly cancer of the voice box. Because there are no nickel refineries in the United States, there is very little exposure to nickel refinery dust and nickel subsulfide. Occupational exposure to nickel metal has not been associated with cancer.
An inhalation study in rats has shown that nickel subsulfide is an animal carcinogen, providing further support that nickel subsulfide is a carcinogen in humans. A number of injection studies of nickel metal and other nickel compounds in animals have revealed cancer growths. Because of this carcinogenic response in animals, the potential of other nickel compounds, or more broadly nickel in any form, to cause cancer in humans is uncertain. By analogy, ingested nickel could be thought to have a carcinogenic potential, yet limited animal testing of a few nickel compounds has not shown carcinogenicity.
Animal studies have found that inhalation exposure to nickel compounds can increase susceptibility to respiratory infection, indicating that this effect may also be an area of possible concern for humans. Studies in animals indicate that exposure to high levels of some nickel compounds during pregnancy can cause miscarriages, pregnancy complications, and low birth weight in newborns. There are no data regarding birth defects from exposure to nickel or its compounds in
4 Section 1 ~
humans. Additional effects that have been observed in animals exposed to
nickel compounds include those on the kidneys, blood, and growth.
1.5 IS THERE A MEDICAL TEST TO DETERMINE IF I
HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO NICKEL OR ITS COMPOUNDS?
The amount of nickel in the urine and blood can be measured.
Because humans are usually exposed to low levels of nickel or its
compounds in the diet, urine, and blood normally contain small amounts
of nickel. Although increases of nickel levels in urine and blood have
been noted in persons exposed to nickel compounds at work, the levels in
urine and blood cannot be predicted from exposure levels (or vice
versa). No reports of high blood and urine nickel levels following
environmental exposure to nickel compounds were located.
1.6 WHAT LEVELS OF EXPOSURE HAVE RESULTED
IN HARMFUL HEALTH EFFECTS?
The graphs on the following pages show the relationship between
exposure to nickel and known health effects. In the first set of graphs
labeled "Health effects from breathing nickel," exposure is measured in
milligrams of nickel per cubic meter (mg/m3 ). In the second set of
graphs, the same relationship is represented for the known "Health
effects from ingesting nickel.'' Exposures are measured in milligrams of
nickel per kilogram of body weight per day (mg/kg/day). In all graphs,
effects in animals are shown on the left side, effects in humans on the
right. Data are insufficient to determine the levels at which nickel
causes health effects following skin contact.
The wide range at which death occurred in animals breathing nickel
for a long time may be because of the different sensitivities of the
animals used in the experiments (rats and hamsters), the different
nickel compounds, and the different exposure durations. The levels
marked on the graphs as anti~ipated to be associated with minimal risk
for humans are based on currently available information from animal
studies; therefore, some uncertainty still exists. From available data
in humans, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has estimated that
lifetime exposure to 1 microgram of nickel refinery dust per cubic meter
of air would result in 2.4 or 2400 additional cases of cancer in a
population of 10,000 or 10,000,000 people, respectively. Lifetime
exposure to l microgram of nickel subsulfide per cubic meter of air
would result in 4.8 or 4800 additional cases of cancer in a population
of 10,000 or 10,000,000 people, respectively. It should be noted that
these risk values are plausible upper-limit estimates. Actual risk
levels are unlikely to be higher and may be lower. The major sources of
nickel refinery dust and nickel subsulfide are nickel refineries.
Because there are no operating nickel refineries in the United States,
actual exposure of the general population to nickel refinery dust and
nickel subsulfide is expected to be very low.
!
'
SHORT-TERM EXPOSURE
(LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 14 DAYS)
EFFECTS CONC. IN
IN AIR
ANIMALS (mgim3)
100
10
EFFECTS ON I
UNBORN~
1.0
IMMUNE SYSTEM I
EFFECTS
LUNG EFFECTS 0. l
0.01
0.001
0.0001
EFFECTS
IN
HUMANS
QUANTITATIVE
DATA WERE
NOT AVAILABLE
EFFECTS
IN
ANIMALS
;.ic Health Scacemenc
LONG-TERM EXPOSURE
(GREATER THAN 14 DAYS)
CONC. IN EFFECTS
AIR IN
(mgim 3) HUMANS
100 QUANTITATIVE
DATA WERE
NOT AVAILABLE
10
DEATH---<
LUNG
:FFECTS
1.0
0.1
IMMUNE~ SYSTEM
EFFECTS
0.01
MINIMAL RISK FOR
O.OOl EFFECTS OTHER THAN I CANCER
0.0001
Fig. I. I. Health effects from breathing nickel.
5
6 Section 1
SHORT-TERM EXPOSURE
(LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 14 DAYS)
EFFECTS
IN
ANIMALS
DOSE
(mg/kg/day)
EFFECTS
IN
HUMANS
DEATH__J"lOOI
~ r---DEATH
EFFECTS ON{ 1 OO
UNBORN OR
NEWBORN
10
1.0
MINIMAL
RISK FOR
EFFECTS
OTHER THAN
O.l CANCER
0.01
LONG-TERM EXPOSURE
(GREATER THAN 14 DAYS)
EFFECTS
IN
ANIMALS
DOSE
(mg/kg/day)
1000
REPRODUCTIVE
EFFECTS AND 100
REDUCED ---d
SURVIVAL 11
LUNG AND ,o
BLOOD EFFECTS
1.0
0.1
0.01
EFFECTS
IN
HUMANS
QUANTITATIVE
DATA WERE
NOT AVAILABLE
MINIMAL RISK FOR
EFFECTS OTHER
THAN CANCER
Fig. 1.2. Health effects from ingesting nickel.
I •
-,
' , •
1,7 liHAT RECOMMENDATIONS HAS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
MADE TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH?
Statement 7
To protect workers from occupational exposure to nickel, the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has set a limit of
1 milligram of nickel per cubic meter of workroom air, The OSHA standard
refers only to nickel metal and soluble nickel compounds, The
carcinogenic potential of these compounds following inhalation exposure
is not known, although occupational exposure to nickel metal has not
been associated with an increased risk of cancer, NIOSH has recommended
that no employee be exposed to nickel at a concentration greater than 15
micrograms per cubic meter of air,
For exposure via drinking water, EPA advises that the following
concentrations are levels at which adverse effects would not be
anticipated to occur: 1 milligram of nickel per liter of water for 10
days of exposure of children, 3,5 milligrams of nickel per liter of
water for 10 days of exposure of adults, and 0,35 milligram of nickel
per liter of water for lifetime exposure of adults.
•
SUPERFUND PROCESS
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
1
IITE
DISCOVERY
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
IN 1980, CONGRESS ENACTED THE COMPREHENSIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL AEPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT
(CEACLA). THIS ACT CREATED A TRUST FUND, KNOWN AS
-SUPERFUND", TO INVESTIGATE AND CLEAN UP ABANDONED OR
UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES. MODIFIED IN 1986
BY THE SUPEAFUND AMENDMENTS AND REAUTHORIZATION
ACT(SARA), THE ACT AUTHORIZES EPA TO RESPOND TO
RELEASES OR THREATENED RELEASES OF HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES THAT MAY ENDANGER PUBLIC HEALTH OR
WELFARE, OR THE ENVIRONMENT.
THE 1982 SUPERFUND NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES CONTINGENCY PLAN (NCP), REVISED IN 1988,
DESCRIBES HOW EPA WILL RESPOND TO MEET THESE
MANDATES. THIS EXHIBIT PROVIDES A SIMPLIFIED EXPLANATION
Of HOW A LONG-TEAM SUPEAFUND RESPONSE WORKS.
1. AFTER A SITE IS DISCOVERED, IT IS INVESTIGATED. USUALLY BY
THE STATE.
2. THE EPA OR ITS REPRESENTATIVE THEN RANKS THE SITE
USING THE HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM (HAS), WHICH TAKES INTO
ACCOUNT:
-POSSIBLE HEAL TH RISKS TO THE HUMAN POPULATION
-POTENTIAL HAZARDS (E.G.,FAOM DIRECT CONT ACT,
INHALATION, FIRE, OR EXPLOSION) OF SUBSTANCES AT
THE SITE
-POTENTIAL FOR THE SUBSTANCES AT THE SITE TO
CONTAMINATE DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES
-POTENTIAL FOR THE SUBSTANCES AT THE SITE TO POLLUTE
OR OTHERWISE HARM THE ENVIRONMENT.
IF THE PROBLEMS AT A SITE ARE DEEMED SERIOUS BY THE
STATE AND THE EPA, THE SITE WILL BE LISTED ON THE NATIONAL .
PRIORITIES LIST (NPL), A ROSTER OF THE NATION'S HAZARDOUS
WASTE SITES WHICH ARE ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL SUPEAFUND
MONE'(.
IF A SITE OR ANY PORTION THEREOF POSES AN IMMINENT THREAT
TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR THE ENVIRONMENT AT ANYTIME, EPA MAY
CONDUCT AN EMERGENCY RESPONSE REFERRED TO AS AN
IMMEDIATE REMOVAL ACTION.
3. NEXT, EPA USUALLY CONDUCTS A REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
(RI). THE RI ASSESSES HOW SERIOUS THE CONTAMINATION IS,
WHAT KIND OF CONTAMINANTS ARE PRESENT, AND
CHARACTERIZES POTENTIAL RISKS TO THE COMMUNITY. AS
PART OF THE RI, EPA TYPICALLY CONDUCTS AN ENDANGERMENT
ASSESSMENT THAT DESCRIBES THE PROBLEMS AT THE SITE
AND THE POTENTIAL HEAL TH AND ENVIRONMENT AL
CONSEQUENCES IF NO FURTHER ACTION IS TAKEN AT THE SITE.
4. FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THE RI, EPA PERFORMS A
FEASIBILITY STUDY (FS) WHICH EXAMINES VARIOUS CLEANUP
ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATES THEM ON THE BASIS OF
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY, PUBLIC HEALTH EFFECTS,
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, INSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS
(INCLUDING COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL LAWS),
IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY, AND COST. THE FINDINGS ARE
PRESENTED IN A DRAFT FS REPORT.
5. FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THE DRAFT FS REPORT, EPA
HOLDS A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD TO RECEIVE CITIZEN INPUT
CONCERNING THE RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES. CITIZENS
MAY PROVIDE COMMENTS EITHER ORALLY AT THE PUBLIC
MEETING OR THROUGH WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE TO EPA
6. AFTER PUBLIC COMMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED, EPA
RESPONDS TO THE COMMENTS IN THE RESPONSIVENESS
SUMMARY PART OF THE RECORD OF DECISION (ROD) WHICH
IDENTIFIES THE SPECIFIC CLEANUP PLAN.
7. ONCE THE DESIGN IS FINISHED, THE ACTUAL REMEDIAL
ACTIVITIES OR CLEANUP OF THE SITE CAN BEGIN.
THE TIME NECESSARY TO COMPLETE EACH OF THESE STEPS
VARIES WITH EVERY SITE. IN GENERAL, AN RIIFS TAKES FROM
ONE TO TWO YEARS. DESIGNING THE CLEANUP PLAN MAY TAKE
SIX MONTHS AND IMPLEMENTING THE REMEDY· THE ACTUAL
CONTAINMENT OR REMOVAL OF THE WASTE· MAY TAKE FROM
ONE TO THREE YEARS. IF GROUNDWATER IS INVOLVED, THE
FINAL CLEANUP MAY TAKE MANY MORE YEARS.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES DURING A CLEANUP
INCLUDE PUBLIC MEETINGS AND OTHER ACTIVITIES INTENDED
TO KEEP CITIZENS AND OFFICIALS INFORMED AND TO
ENCOURAGE PUBLIC INPUT. THESE ACTIVITIES ARE
SCHEDULED THROUGHOUT THE SUPEAFUND PROCESS.
SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES VARY FROM SITE TO SITE DEPENDING ON
THE LEVEL OF INTEREST AND NATURE OF CONCERN. THE
RANGE OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES THAT CAN
OCCUR IS DESCRIBED IN THE EPA'S COMMUNITY RELATIONS
PLAN FOR THE SITE.
ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE SITE ARE AVAILABLE FOR
PUBLIC REVIEW AND COPYING IN THE DESIGNATED
INFORMATION REPOSITORIES.
• ·~--
:~·.~~~/;;.~~~~~:.~· .. ' .. ' ·--~-. ~ ~. tociicofogii:aJ~~,, ~,:~~i~
Profile
for
SELECTED PCBs
(AROCLOR -1260, -1254,
-1248, -1242, -1232, -1221,
and -1016)
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
U.S. Public Health Service
• •
1. PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT
1.1 WHAT ARE PCBs?
The abbreviation PCB refers to polychlorinated biphenyls. PCBs are
a family of man-made chemicals that contain 209 individual compounds
with varying toxicity. Commercial formulations of PCBs enter the
environment as mixtures consisting of a variety of PCBs and impurities.
Because of the complex nature associated with evaluating the health
effects of PCBs, this document will address only seven selected classes
of PCBs, which include 35% of all of the different PCBs and 98% of PCBs
sold in the United States since 1970. Some commercial PCB mixtures are
known in the United States by their industrial trade name, Aroclor.
Because of their insulating and nonflammable properties, PCBs have been
used widely as coolants and lubricants in transformers, capacitors, and
other electrical equipment. The manufacture of PCBs stopped in the
United States in October 1977 because of evidence that PCBs accumulate
in the environment and may cause health hazards for humans.
1.2 HOW MIGHT I BE EXPOSED TO PCBs?
1
Although PCBs are no longer manufactured, human exposure still
occurs. Many older transformers and capacitors still contain fluids that
contain ·PCBs. The useful lifetime of many of these transformers can be
30 years or more.
The two main sources of human exposure to PCBs are environmental
and occupational. PCBs are very persistent chemicals that are widely
distributed throughout the entire environment. PCBs have been found in
at least 216 of 1,177 hazardous waste sites on the National Priorities
List (NPL). Background levels of PCBs can be found in the outdoor air,
on soil surfaces, and in water. Eating contaminated fish can be a major
source of PCB exposure to humans. These PCBs originate in contaminated
water, sediment, PCB-laden particulates, and in fish that have eaten
PCB-contaminated prey. Although PCBs found in fish are generally
concentrated in nonedible portions, the amounts in edible portions are
high enough to make consumption a major source of exposure for humans.
Compared with the intake of PCBs through eating contaminated fish,
exposure through breathing outdoor air containing PCBs is small. Most of
the PCBs in outdoor air may be present because of an environmental
cycling process. PCBs in water, or on soil surfaces, evaporate and are
then returned to earth by rainfall or settling of dust particles.
Reevaporation repeats the cycle. Once in the air, PCBs can be carried
long distances; they have been found in snow and seawater in the
Antarctic. In addition, contaminated indoor air may be a major source of
human exposure to PCBs, particularly in buildings that contain PCB-
containing devices.
• 2 Section 1
PCBs can be released into the environment from:
poorly maintained toxic waste sites that contain PCBs,
illegal or improper dumping of PCB wastes, such as transformer
fluids,
leaks or fugitive emissions from electrical transformers containing
PCBs, and
disposal of PCB-containing consumer products into municipal
landfills rather than into landfills designed to hold hazardous
wastes.
Consumer products that may contain PCBs are:
old fluorescent lighting fixtures and
electrical devices or appliances containing PCB capacitors made
before PCB use was stopped.
Occupational exposure to PCBs can occur during:
repair or maintenance of PCB transformers,
• accidents or spills involving PCB transformers,
• disposal of PCB materials, and
contact at hazardous waste sites.
1.3 HOW DO PCBs GET INTO MY BODY?
PCBs enter the body through contaminated food and air and through
skin contact. The most common route of exposure is by eating fish and
shellfish from PCB-contaminated water. Exposure from drinking water is
minimal. It is known that nearly everyone has PCBs in their bodies,
including infants who drink breast milk containing PCBs.
1.4 HOW DO PCBs AFFECT MY HEALTH?
Although PCBs have not been manufactured in the U.S. since October
1977, their diminishing but continued presence in certain commercial
applications and trade have resulted in low-level exposure to the
general population. Prior to 1977, certain occupational settings had,
and may still have, higher levels of human exposure. Animal experiments
have shown that some PCB mixtures produce adverse health effects that
include liver damage, skin irritations, reproductive and developmental
effects, and cancer. Therefore, it is prudent to consider that there may
be health hazards for humans. Human studies to date show that
irritiations, such as acnelike lesions and rashes, can occur in PCB-
exposed workers. Other studies of people with occupational exposure
suggest that PCBs might cause liver cancer. Reproductive and
developmental effects may also be related to occupational exposure and
eating of contaminated fish. While the role of PCBs in producing cancer,
reproductive, and developmental effects in humans cannot be clearly
delineated, the suggestive evidence provides an additional basis for
public health concern about humans who may be exposed to PCBs. The
complexity of relating the specific mixtures for which data are
available to exposures in the general population has resulted in a
J
• • Public Health Statement 3
tendency to regard all PCBs as having a similar health hazard potential, although this assumption may not be true.
1.5 IS THERE A MEDICAL TEST TO DETERMINE IF I HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO PCBs?
There are tests to determine PCBs in the blood, body fat, and breast milk. These tests are not routine clinical tests, but they can detect PCBs in members of the general population as well as in workers with occupational exposure to PCBs. Although these tests indicate if one has been exposed to PCBs, they do not predict potential health effects. Blood tests are the easiest, safest, and, perhaps, the best method for detecting recent large exposures. It should be recognized that nearly everyone has been exposed to PCBs because they are found throughout the environment and that nearly all persons are likely to have detectable levels of PCBs in their blood, fat, and breast milk.
1.6 WHAT LEVELS OF EXPOSURE HAVE RESULTED IN HARMFUL HEALTH EFFECTS?
Figures 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 on the following pages show the relationship between exposure to PCBs and known health effects for the PCBs that are covered by this profile. Other PCBs may have different toxic properties. In the first set of graphs, labeled "Health effects from breathing PCBs," ex~osure is measured in milligrams of PCBs per cubic meter of air (mg/m ). In the second and third sets of graphs, the same relationship is represented for the known "Health effects from ingesting PCBs" and "Health effects from skin contact with PCBs." Exposures are measured in milligrams of PCBs per kilogram of body weight per day (mg/kg/day). It should be noted that health effects observed by one route of exposure may be relevant to other routes of exposure.
In all graphs, effects in animals are shown on the left side, effects in humans on the right. The first column on the graphs, labeled short-term, refers to known health effects from exposure to PCBs for 2 weeks or less. The columns labeled long-term refer to PCB exposures of longer than 2 weeks. The levels marked on the graphs as anticipated to be associated with minimal risk of developing health effects are based on information generated from animal studies; therefore, some uncertainty still exists. Based on evidence that PCBs cause cancer in animals, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers PCBs to be probable cancer-causing chemicals in humans and has estimated that ingestion of 1 microgram of PCB per kilogram per day for a lifetime would result in 77 additional cases of cancer in a population of 10,000 people or equivalently, 77,000 additional cases of cancer in a population of 10,000,000 people. These risk values are plausible upper-limit estimates. Actual risk levels are unlikely to be higher and may be lower.
1.7 WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS HAS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT KADE TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH?
For exposure via drinking water, EPA advises that the following concentrations of PCB 1016 are levels at which adverse health effects would not be expected: 0.0035 milligrams PCB 1016 per liter of water for adults and 0.001 milligrams PCB 1016 per liter of water for children.
• 4 Section 1
SHORT-TERM EXPOSURE
(LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 14 DAYS)
EFFECTS
IN
ANIMALS
QUANTITATIVE
DATA WERE
NOT AVAILABLE
CONG. IN
AIR
(mg/m3)
EFFECTS
IN
HUMANS
QUANTITATIVE
DATA WERE
NOT AVAILABLE
•
LONG-TERM EXPOSURE
(GREATER THAN 14 DAYS)
EFFECTS
IN
ANIMALS
CONC. IN
AIR
(mg/m3)
10
8
6
4
2
LIVER DAMAGE--
0
0.1
0.01
0.001
EFFECTS
IN
HUMANS
SKIN
IRRITATION
Fig. I. I. Health effects from breathing PCBs.
• I . '
• -blic Health Statement 5
SHORT-TERM EXPOSURE LONG-TERM EXPOSURE
(LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 14 DAYS) (GREATER THAN 14 DAYS)
EFFECTS EFFECTS EFFECTS EFFECTS
IN DOSE IN IN DOSE IN
ANIMALS (mg/kg/day) HUMANS ANIMALS (mg/kg/day) HUMANS
DEATH 750 QUANTITATIVE LIVER AND SKIN __ 0.1 QUANTITATIVE
t DATA WERE DAMAGE, DEATH
I
DATA WERE
NOT NOT
AVAILABLE AVAILABLE
15 0.09
I I
10 0.08
EFFECTS ON
I I UNBORN
5 0.07
t
1 0.06
I EFFECTS ON I UNBORN AND
0.8 NEWBORN 0.05
I I LIVER DAMAGE 0.6 0.04
I I 0.4 0.03
I 0.2 0.02
t I
0.004 __ MINIMAL RISK 0.01
I
FOR EFFECTS t MINIMAL RISK
OTHER THAN FOR EFFECTS
CANCER OTHER THAN
0.001 0.0001 _CANCER
Fig. 1.2. Health effects from ingesting PCBs.
6
Ill
• Section I
SHORT-TERM EXPOSURE
(LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 14 DAYS)
EFFECTS
IN
ANIMALS
DOSE
(mg/kg/day)
1000
8 0
600
400
200
0
EFFECTS
IN
HUMANS
QUANTITATIVE
DATA WERE
NOT AVAILABLE
•
LONG-TERM EXPOSURE
(GREATER THAN 14 DAYS)
EFFECTS
IN
ANIMALS
DOSE
(mg/kg/day)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
LIVER AND
KIDNEY DAMAGE __
0
EFFECTS
IN
HUMANS
HEALTH EFFECTS
FROM SKIN CON-
TACT INCLUDE
SKIN IRRITATION
AND LIVER
EFFECTS. BUT
DOSES ARE NOT
KNOWN
Fig. 1.3. Health effects from skin contact with PCBs.
.I
' -
• .lie Health Statement 7
The EPA has also developed guidelines for the concentrations of PCBs in ambient water (e.g., lakes and rivers) and in drinking water that are associated with a risk of developing cancer. _The guideline for ambient water is a range, 0.0079 to 0.79 nanograms of PCBs per liter of water, which reflects the increased risk of one person developing cancer in populations of 10,000,000 to 100,000 people. The guideline for drinking water is a range, 0.005 to 0.5 micrograms of PCBs per liter of water, which also reflects the risk of one person developing cancer in populations of 10,000,000 to 100,000 people.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) specifies PCB concentration limits of O. 2 to 3 parts per million (milligrams PCB per kilogram of food) in infant foods, eggs, milk (in milk fat), and poultry (fat).
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommends an occupational exposure limit for all PCBs of 0.001 milligram of PCBs per cubic_ meter of ai·r (mg/m3) for a 10-hpur .;orkday, 40-hour workweek. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) permissible occupational exposure limits are O. 5 and 1.-0 mg/m3 for specific PCBs for an 8-hour workday.
\
SEPA
•
UMod Statee
Environmental Proteciion
Agency
• Office of
Solid Waste at'ld
Emergency Aoaponae
Superfund Technical
Assistance Grants
Office of Emergency and Remedial Reeponae
Hazardous Site Control Division (OS.220)
WHAT ARE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS
Publlcation No. 9230.1-05/FS
January 1990
Quick Reference Fact Sheet
Background of Program --in 1980, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA) --otherwise known as 'Superfund" --established a trust fund for the cleanup of
hazardous waste sites in the United States. CERCLA was amended and reauthorized when Congress passed
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), working in concen with the States, is responsible for administering the Superfund program.
An imponant aspect of the Superfund program is citiz.en involvement at the local level in decision-
making that relates to site-specific cleanup actions. For this reason, community outreach activities are
underway at each of the 1,200 sites that are presently on, or proposed for listing on, the National Priorities
List (NPL). The NPL is EPA's published list of the most serious abandoned or otherwise uncontrolled·
haz.ardous waste sites nationwide, which have been identified for possible remedial cleanup under Superfun<l
Recognizing the imponance of community involvement and the need for citiz.en\ living near NPL sites
to be well-infonned, Congress included provisions in SARA to establish a Technical Assistance Grant
(TAG) Program intended to foster infonned public involvement in decisions relating to site-specific cleanup
strategies under Superfund.
In addition to regulatory and legal requirements, decisions concerning cleanup initiatives at NPL sites
must take into account a range of technical considerations. These might include:
• Analytical profiles of conditions at the site;
• The nature of the wastes involved; and
• The kinds of technology available for performing the necessary cleanup actions.
The TAG Program provides funds for qualified citiz.ens' groups to hire independent technical advisors 10
help them understand and oomment on such technical factors in cleanup decisions affecting them.
Basil: Promions of the Ttt:hnictJJ Assistana Grana Program
• Grants of up to $50,000 are available to community groups for the purpose of hiring technical
advisors to help citiz.ens understand and interpret site-related technical infonnation.
• The group must cover 20 percent of_the total oosts of the project 10 be supponed by TAG funds.
• The group must budget the expenditure of grant funds to cover the entire cleanup period (which
averages six years).
• There may be only one TAG award per NPL site; however, the grant may be renewed.
Printed on RflCycled Paper
• •
USES OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS
Citizen groups may use grant funds to hire technical advisors to help them understand information
that already exists about the site or information developed during the Superfund cleanup process.
Acceptable uses of these grant funds include payments to technical advisors for services such as:
• Reviewing site-related documents, whether produced by EPA or others;
• Meeting with the recipient group to explain technical information;
• Providing assistance to the grant recipient in communicating the group's site-related concern.s;
• Disseminating interpretations of technical information to the community;
• Participating in site visits, when possible, to gain a better understanding of cleanup acti,ities;
and
• Traveling to meetings and hearings directly related to the situation at the site.
TAG funds may not be used to develop new information (for example, additional sampling) or to
underwrite legal actions in any way, including the preparation of testimony or the hiring of expert witnesses.
You can obtain a complete list of eligible and ineligible uses of grant funds by contacting your EPA
Regional Office or the Headquarters information number listed at the end of this pamphlet. In addition,
this information is included in the EPA publication entitled The Citizens' Guidance Manual forthe Technical
Assistance Grant Program (OSWER Directive 9230.1-03), also available from your Regional EPA Office.
WHO MAY APPLY
As stated in the 1986 Superfund amendments, groups eligible to receive grants under the TAG
program are those whose membership may be affected by a release or threatened release of toxic wastes at
any facility listed on the NPL or proposed for listing, and where preliminary site work has begun. In
general, eligible groups are groups of individuals who live near the site and whose health, economic well-
being, or enjoyment of the environment are directly threatened. Any group applying for a TAG must be
nonprofit and incorporated or working towards incorporation under applicable State laws. Applications are
· encouraged from:
• Groups that have a genuine interest in learning more about the technical aspects of a nearby
hazardous waste site; and
• Groups that have, or intend to establish, an organization 10 manage a grant efficiently and effectively.
For example, such groups could be:
• Existing citizens' associations;
• Environmental or health advocacy groups; or
• Coalitions of such groups formed to deal with community concerns about the hazardous waste site
and its impact on the surrounding area.
Groups that are not eligible for grant funds are:
• Potentially responsible parties: any individuals or companies (such as facility owners or operators. or
transporters or generators of hazardous waste) potentially responsible for, or contributing to, the
contamination problems at a Superfund site;
• Academic institutions;
• Political subdivisions; and
• Groups established and/or sustained by governmental entities (including emergency planning
committees and some citizen advisory groups).
/
)
• •
' HOW TO APPLY FOR A GRANT
Regui,ynml:f-When applying for a TAG, a group must provide infonnation to EPA (or to the State,
if the State is administering the TAG program) to detennine if the group meets specific administrative and
management requirements. The application also must include a description of the group's history, goals,
and plans for using the technical assistance funds. Factors that are panicularly imponant in this evaluation
process include:
• The group's ability to manage the grant in compliance with EPA grant and procurement regulations;
• Toe degree to which the group members' health, economic well-being, and enjoyment of the
environment are adversely affected by a hazardous waste site;
• The group's commitment and ability to share the information provided by the technical advisor with
others in the community;
• Broad representation of affected groups and indi,iduals in the community; and;
• Whether the applicant group is nonprofit and incorporated for TAG purposes. (Only incorporated
groups may receive grants. Groups must either be incorporated specifically for the purpose of
addressing site-related problems or incorporated for broader purposes if the group has a substantial
history of involvement at the site.)
In general, a group must demonstrate that it is aware of the time commitment, resources, and
dedication needed to successfully manage a TAG. Applicant groups should consult The Citizens' Guidance
Manual For The Technical Assistance Grant Program for detailed instructions on how to present such
information.
NotificaJion Proadures and Evalualion Criteria --The 1986 Superfund amendments state that only one
TAG may be awarded per site. To ensure that all eligible groups have equal access to technical assistance
and an equal opponunity to compete for a single available grant (if a coalition of groups proves to be
impossible), EPA has established a formal notification process, which includes the following steps:
• Groups wishing to apply for a technical assistance grant must first submit to EPA a shon letter
stating their group's desire to apply and naming the site(s) involved. If site project work is already
underway or scheduled to begin, EPA will provide formal notice through mailings, meetings, or other
public notices to other interested panies that a grant for the site soon may be awarded.
• Other potential applicants would then have 30 days to contact the original applicant to fonn a
coalition.
• If potential applicants are unable to form a coalition, they will notify EPA within this time period
and EPA will accept separate applications from all interested groups for an additional 30-day period.
• EPA would then award a grant to the application that best meets the requirements described above.
The maximum grant that can be awarded to any group is $50,000. The actual amount depends on
what the group intends to accomplish. A group's minimum contribution of 20 percent of the total costs
of the technical assistance project can be covered with cash and/or "in-kind" contributions, such as office
supplies or services provided by the group. These services might include, for example, publication of a
newsletter or the time an accountant donates to managing the group's finances. The value of donated
professional services is determined based on rates charged for similar work in the area.
In special cases where an applicant group intends to apply for a single grant covering multiple sites
in close proximity to each other, EPA can allow a waiver of the $50,000 grant limit. In such cases, however,
the recipient cannot receive more than $50,000 for each site to which it intends to apply funds (example:
3 sites x $50,000 = maximum grant amount of $150,000).
CHOOSING A TECHNICAL ADVISOR
When choosing a technical advisor, a group should consider the kind of technical advice the group
needs most and whether a prospective advisor has the variety of skills necessary 10 provide all of the act,ice needed. Each technical advisor must have:
• Knowledge of hazardous or toxic waste issues;
• Academic training in relevant fields such as those listed above; and
• The ability to translate technical information into terms understandable to lay persons.
In addition, a technical advisor should have:
• Experience working on hazardous waste or toxic waste problems;
• Experience in making technical presentations and working with community groups; and
• Good writing skills.
Technical advisors will need specific knowledge of one or more of these subjects:
Chemistry: Analysis of the chemical constituents and properties of wastes at the site;
Toxicology: Evaluation of the potential effects of site contaminants upon human health and the emironment;
Epidemiology: Evaluation of the pattern of human health effects potentially associated with site contaminants;
Hydrology and Hydrogeology: Evaluation of potential contamination of area surface water and ground-water wells from wastes at the site;
Soil Science: Evaluation of potential and existing soil contamination;
Limnology: Evaluation of the impact of site runoff upon the plant and animal life of nearby streams, lakes, and other bodies of water;
Meteorology: Assessment of background atmospheric conditions and the potential spread of contaminants
released into the air by the site; and/or
Engineering: Analysis of the development and evaluation of remedial alternatives and the design and construction of proposed cleanup actions.
A grant recipient may choose to hire more than one technical advisor to obtain the combination of skills required at a particular site. For example, a group may be unable to find a single advisor experienced in both hydrology and epidemiology, two of the skills most needed at its site. Another approach would be to hire a consulting firm that has experience in all the needed areas. The Citizens' Guidance Manual for the Technical Assistance Grant Program identifies other issues that citizens' groups may wish to consider in
hiring a technical advisor.
EPA Region 9
Superfund Programs Branch
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 454-744-1766
Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Nevada,
American Samoa
EPA Region l 0
Superfund Branch
1200 6th Avenue
Seanle, WA 98101
[phone]
Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Alaska
Superfund/RCRA Hotline
[phone] or 382-3000
in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area (for information on programs)
National Response Center [phone]
(to repon releases of oil and hazardous substances)
EPA Superfund Offices
-.......-;-___, 0
• / '
•
} COPPER
,.,, ......
,:{
--•~.t~.
,·,,,,_)~
\\:· .
..
. ·,
[
-·:··,
for
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
U.S. Public Health Service
·,,;\ 1,:·1·1:j,·· .. ' ... ··' '· .. } .
February 16, 1990
• ~"'!:
.. i· ·-·-. ' ~,:. .
J''~ti
•).r "J. •:'{);:;
'i1:lii
.. • 1
1. PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT
The purpose of this Statement is to provide you with information about
copper and to emphasize the human health effects that may result from
exposure. At this time, copper has been found at 210 out of 1177 National
Priorities List (NPL) hazardous waste sites in the United States. Because
these sites are potential or actual sources of human exposure to copper and
because copper may cause harmful health effects, this information is
important for you to know.
When a chemical is released from a large area such as an industrial
plant, or from a small container such as a drum or bottle, it enters the
environment as a chemical emission. This emission, which is also called a
release, does not always lead to exposure. You are exposed only when you
come into contact with the chemical. You can come into contact with it in
the environment through breathing air, eating, drinking, or smoking
substances containing the chemical. Exposure may also result from skin
contact with the chemical alone, or with a substance containing it.
If you are exposed to a hazardous chemical, several factors determine
whether harmful health effects will occur and the type and severity of those
health effects. These factors include the dose (how much), the duration
(how long), the pathways by which you are exposed, the other chemicals to
which you are exposed, and your individual characteristics such as age, sex,
nutrition, family traits, and state of health.
1.1 WHAT IS COPPER?
Copper is a reddish metal that occurs naturally in rock, soil, water,
sediment, and air. Its average concentration in the earth's crust is about
50 parts per million (ppm). Copper also occurs naturally in plants and
animals. It is an essential element for all known living organisms
including humans and other animals.
Copper can be easily molded or shaped. Its reddish color is most
commonly seen in the United States penny, electrical wiring, and some water
pipes. It is also found in many mixtures of metals, called alloys, such as
brass and bronze. Many compounds (substances formed by joining two or more
chemicals) of copper exist. These include natural occurring minerals as well
as man made chemicals. The most commonly used compound of copper is copper
sulfate. Many copper compounds can be recognized by their blue-green color.
***DRAFT·· DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE***
,:,:,: ·. ,., --==---•-.... ·*'™-
2 • 1. PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT
When we speak of copper, we will not only be referring to copper metal, but
also to compounds of copper that may be in the environment.
Copper is extensively mined and processed in the United States and is
primarily used as the metal or alloy in the manufacture of wire, sheet
metal, pipe, and other metal products. Copper compounds are most commonly
used in agriculture to treat plant diseases, like mildew, or for water
treatment and as preservatives for wood, leather, and fabrics. For more
information on the properties and uses of copper, please see Chapters 3
and 4.
1.2 HOW KIGHT I BE EXPOSED TO COPPER?
Copper is common in the environment. You may be exposed to copper by
breathing air, drinking water, eating food, and by skin contact with soil,
water, and other copper-containing substances. Most copper compounds found
in air, water, sediment, soil, and rock are so strongly attached to dust and
dirt or imbedded in minerals that they cannot easily affect your health.
Copper found in hazardous waste sites is mostly of this form. Some copper in
the environment is less tightly bound to particles and may be taken up by
plants and animals. Soluble copper compounds (those that dissolve in
water), that are most commonly used· in agriculture, are more likely to
threaten your health. However, when soluble copper compounds are released
into lakes and rivers, they generally become attached to particles in the
water within approximately a day, and are then less of a threat to your
health.
The concentration of copper in air ranges from a few nanograms (1
nanogram equals lil,000,000,000 of a gram) in a cubic meter of air (ng/m3)
to about 200 ng/m. Near smelters which process copper ore into metal,
concentrations may reach 5000 ng/m3. You may breathe high levels of copper-
containing dust if you live or work near copper mines or processing
facilities.
You may be exposed to high levels of soluble copper in your drinking
water. The average concentration of copper in tap water ranges from 20 to
75 parts per billion (ppb). However, many households have copper
concentrations of over 1000 ppb. That is more than 1 milligram per liter of
water. This is because copper is picked up from copper pipes and brass
faucets when the water sits in the pipes overnight. After the water is
allowed to run for a while, the concentration of copper in the water
decreases.
The average concentration of copper in lakes and rivers is 4 parts of
copper in a billion parts of water (ppb). The average copper concentration
in groundwater is similar to that in lakes and rivers; however, monitoring
data indicate that some groundwater contains higher levels of copper. This
copper is generally strongly attached to particles in the water. Lakes and
reservoirs recently treated with copper compounds to control algae or
***DRAIT --DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE***
• 1.
3
PUBLIC HEALTH • STATEMENT
receive cooling water from a power plant may have high concentrations of
dissolved copper. Once in natural water, much of this copper soon attaches
to particles or converts to forms that cannot easily enter the body.
Garden products containing copper that are used to control certain
plant diseases are also a potential source of exposure.
Soil generally contains between 2 and 250 parts of copper per million
parts of soil (ppm), although concentrations close to 7000 ppm have been
found near copper production facilities. High concentrations of copper may
be found in soil because dust from these industries settle out of the air or
waste from mining and other copper industries are disposed of on the soil.
Another common source of copper in soil results from spreading sludge from
sewage treatment plant. This copper generally stays strongly attached to the
surface layer of soil. You may be exposed to this copper by skin contact.
Children may also be exposed to this copper by eating the dirt.
Food naturally contains copper. You eat and drink about 1 milligram
(1/1000 of a gram) of copper every day. Copper is necessary in your diet for
good health.
While some hazardous waste sites on the National Priorities List (NPL)
contain high levels of copper, we do not always know how high it is above
natural levels. We also do not know what form it. is in at most of these
sites. However, evidence suggests that most copper at these sites is
strongly attached to soil.
You may be exposed to copper in the workplace. If you work in m1n1ng
copper or processing the ore you may be exposed to copper by breathing
copper-containing dust or by skin contact. If you grind or weld copper metal
you may breathe high levels of copper dust and fumes. Occupational exposure
to forms of copper that are soluble or not strongly attached to dust or dirt
would most commonly occur in agriculture, water treatment, and industries,
such as electroplating, where soluble copper compounds are employed.
For more information on the potential for exposure to copper, please
refer to Chapter 5.
1.3 HOW CAN COPPER ENTER AND LEAVE KY BODY?
Copper can enter your body when you drink water or eat food, soil or
other substances that contain copper. Copper can also enter your body if
you breathe air or dust containing copper. Copper may enter the lungs of
workers exposed to copper dust or fumes.
Copper rapidly enters the bloodstream and is distributed throughout
the body after you eat or drink it. Other foods eaten with copper can
affect the amount of copper that enters the bloodstream. Your body is
very good at blocking high levels of copper from entering the bloodstream.
***DRAFT --DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE***
• / 1.
4
PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT •
After you eat or drink high levels of copper, you may vomit or have
diarrhea; this will also prevent copper from entering the blood. We do not
know how much copper enters the body through the lungs or skin. Copper then
leaves your body in feces and urine, mostly in feces. It takes several days
for copper to leave your body. Further information on how copper enters and
leaves the body is presented in Chapter 2.
1.4 HOW CAN COPPER AFFECT MY HEALTH?
Copper is necessary for good health. However, very large single or
daily intakes of copper can harm your health. Long-term exposure to copper
dust can irritate your nose, mouth, and eyes, and cause headaches,
dizziness, nausea, and diarrhea. If you drink water that contains higher
than normal levels of copper, you may experience vomiting, diarrhea, stomach
cramps, and nausea. Intentionally high intakes of copper can cause liver
and kidney damage and even death. Very young children are sensitive to
copper, and long-term exposure to high levels of copper in food or water may
cause liver damage and death. Copper is not· known to cause cancer. We do
not know if copper can cause birth defects in humans. The seriousness of
the effects of copper can be expected to increase with both level and
length of exposure.
More detailed information on the health effects of copper in animals
and humans can be found in Chapter 2.
1. 5 WHAT LEVELS OF EXPOSURE HAVE RESULTED IN HARMFUL HEALTH EFFECTS?
Tables 1-1 through 1-4 show the relationship between exposure to copper
and known health effects in humans and animals. The levels of copper in air
that can result in harmful health effects in humans are not known. Exposure
to low levels of copper in air affects the lungs of animals.
You can usually taste copper in your drinking water before experiencing
adverse effects. If you drink too much copper at one time, you may vomit,
have diarrhea, and experience stomach cramps. Infants drinking water that
has high levels of copper may have harmful health effects at lower levels
than adults. High levels of copper in drinking water or food have been
shown to damage animal livers and kidneys.
More detailed information on the exposure levels that have been found
to cause harmful effects in humans and animals is presented in Chapter 2.
1.6 IS THERE A MEDICAL TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER I HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO
COPPER?
There are reliable and accurate ways.of measuring copper in the body.
It can be measured in the urine and blood. High levels of copper in these
fluids can show that you have been exposed to high levels of copper.
***DRAFT·· DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE***
t
'
!
► ' • 1. PUBLIC H~LTH STATEMENT •
TABLE 1-1. Human Health Effects from Breathing Copper*
Short-term Exposure
(less than or equal to 14 days)
Levels in Al.i;: Length of Exposure Descrietion of Effects
The health effects resulting
from short-term exposure in
humans to air containing
specific levels of copper
are not known.
Long-term Exposure
(greater than 14 days)
Levels in Al.!;; Length of Exposure Descrietion of Effects
The health effects resulting
from long-term exposure in
humans to air containing
specific levels of copper
are not known
*See Section 1.2 for a discussion of exposures encountered in daily life.
***DRAIT --DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE***
• 6 • 1. PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT
TABLE 1-2. Animal Health Effects from Breathing Copper
Short-term Exposure
(less than or equal to 14 days)
Li:vllh in 611.: (mgLm 3l Length of g~nosure Des£rietion of Effects*
3 Once Minor lung damage in hamsters,
0,1 5-10 days Severe lung damage in mice.
Long-term Exposure
(greater than 14 days)
Lev!lb in Air Length of ~xn2sure Descrietion of Effects
The health effects resulting
from long-term exposure in
animals to air containing
specific levels of copper
-are not known.
*These effects are listed at the lowest level at which they were first
observed. They may also be seen at higher levels.
***DRAIT --DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE***
f
L
• 7 • 1. PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT
TABLE 1-3. Hunan Health Effects from Eating or Drinking Copper*
Short-term Exposure
(less than or equal to 14 days)
Levels in Food Length of ExRosure DescriRtion of Effects**
The health effects resulting
from short-term exposure in
humans to food containing
specific levels of copper
are not known.
Levels in Water (RRm~
30 Once Vomiting, diarrhea,
stomach cramps.
Long-term Exposure
(greater than 14 days)
Levels in Food Length of E~Rosure DescriRtion of Effects**
The health effects resulting
from long-term exposure in
humans to food containing
specific levels of copper
are not known.
Levels in Watei;: (1212ml
3 9 months Liver damage in infants.
*See Section 1.2 for a discussion of exposures encountered in daily life.
**These effects are listed at the lowest level at which they were first
observed. They may also be seen at higher levels.
***DRAIT ·· DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE***
8 • PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT
TABLE 1-4. Anilllal Health Effects from Eating or Drinking Copper
Short-term Exposure
(less than or equal to 14 days)
Levels in [Qod (1212ml Length of ExQosure DescriQtion of Effects*
2000 1 week Liver damage in rats.
Levels in Water The health effects resulting
from s.hort-term exposure in
animals to water containing
specific levels of copper
• are not known .
Long-term Exposure
(greater than 14.days)
Levels in Food (QQml Length of ExQosure DescriQtion of Effects*
2000 21 days Liver and kidney damage in
rats.
750 so days Liver damage in pigs.
500 so days Decreased hemoglobin in pigs.
100 20 weeks Increased blood pressure
in rats.
Levels in Water trrnml
398 90 days Liver damage in rats.
640 850 days Decreased survival in mice.
*These effects are listed at the lowest level at which they were first
observed. They may also be seen at higher levels.
***DRAFT --DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE***
t I J.
\ • 9
l. PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT
Samples of your blood plasma or urine can be properly collected in a
doctor's office and sent to a laboratory that has special equipment to
measure copper levels. However, we do not know if such a measurement can
predict the extent of exposure or potential health effects. More detailed
information on the measurement of copper is provided in Chapters 2 and 6.
1. 7 WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS HAS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT KADE TO PROTECT HUMAN
HEALTH?
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that the
level of copper in water (lakes, streams) should be limited to 1 part copper
per million parts of water (1 ppm) to protect human health from the toxic
properties of copper ingested through water and contaminated aquatic
organisms. The EPA has also determined that drinking water should not
contain more than 1.3 ppm of copper. The EPA has developed regulations on
the amount of copper released by industry.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has set a
limit of 0.2 milligrams/cubic meter (mg/m 3) of copper fume (vapor generated
from heating copper) and 1.0 mg/m3 copper dusts (fine metallic copper
particles) and mists (aerosol of soluble copper) of workroom air to protect
workers during an 8-hour work shift (40-hour workweek). The National
Institute· of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommends that the
concentration in workroom air be limited to 0.1 mg/m3 for copper fumes and 1
mg/m3 for copper mist, averaged over an 8-hour work shift.
The National Academy of Science (NAS) has recommended that 2-3
milligrams copper is a safe and adequate daily intake. This provides enough
copper for adult nutrition. Further information on regulations and
guidelines pertaining to copper is provided in Chapter 7.
1.8 WHERE CAN I GET KORE INFORMATION?
If you have more questions or concerns, please contact your State
Health or Environmental Department or:
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Division of Toxicology
1600 Clifton Road, E-29
Atlanta, Georgia 30333
This agency can also provide you with information on the location of
occupational and environmental health clinics. These clinics specialize in
the recognition, evaluation, and treatment of illness resulting from
exposure to hazardous substances.
***DRAFT --DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE***
i·ted States Office of Sclid Waste
nmental Protection and EmeAcv Response
A ncy washingtW,D:c. 20460 Q E PA Office of Waste Programs Enforcement Summer 1988
~;, Environmental
Fact Sheet
The Superfund Enforcement
Process: How It Works
INTRODUCTION
In I 980, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA), commonly called Superfund. This law pro-
vides the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
with the authority and necessary tools to respond directly or
to compel potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to respond
10 releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances.
pollutants or contaminants. CERCLA created two parallel
and complementary programs aimed at achieving this goal.
The first program involves the creation of a trust fund
financed through a special tax on the chemical and petro-
leum industries. This trust fund, known as the Superfund,
may be available for site remediation when no viable PRPs
are found or when PRPs fail 10 take necessary response
actions. PRPs are defined as panics identified as having
owned or operated hazardous substance sites, or who have
transponed or arranged for disposal or treaanent of hazard-
ous substances, pollutants oramtaminanls at such sites. The
second program provides EPA with the authority to negoti-
ate settlements, to issue orders to PRPs directing them to
take necessary response actions, or to sue PRPs to repay the
costs of such actions when the Trust Fund has been used for
these purposes. The actions EPA takes to reach sealcmcnt
or to compel responsible parties to pay for or undertake the
remediation of sites are referred to as the Supcrfund enforce-
ment process. CERCLA was reauthorized and amended on
October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA). SARA provides EPA with
· new authorities and tools that strengthen the enforcement
program.
CERCLA:
IAG:
NBAR:
NPL:
PRP:
RCRA:
RD/RA:
RI/FS:
ROD:
SARA:
LIST OF ACRONYMS
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Ad of 1980
lnteragency Agreement
Non-binding Allocation of Responsibility
National Priorities List
Potentially Responsible Party
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
as Amended
Rem"1ial Design/Remedial Action
Remecial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Record of Decision
Superlund Amendments and
Reauthorization Ad of 1986
This fact sheet describes the enforcement authorities and the
process that is followed under the Supcrfund program. It de-
scribes the options available to EPA for remediating hazard-
ous waste sites; the tools and mechanisms that EPA may use
in negotiating settlements with PRPs, and describes the
decision-making process at enforcement sites.
OVERVIEW OF THE ENFORCEMENT
PROGRAM
A major goal of the Supcrfund program is to remediate sites
that are releasing or threatening to release hazardous sub-
stances. by those who are responsible. The enforcement
process normally used by EPA to achieve this goal may
involve five major effons.
. '
SUPERFUND .EDIAUENFORCEMENT P.CESS
,,. , K ;;~1t1ll~1J.~l11i:i;1!~':;(~~es~~,~!m111~11~1
. .. .. PRIOR TO 0A DURINGtHE PRCaiiii
., .. ···.:• .• ·• . •.. ;,:;.;--~:;?;
Ra
NPL .
FM'S FM'S
\l~t1tiffl:~1"1E•:lollillll!,L• ffljUII
To understand the enforcement process, it is necessary to under-
stand the Supcrfund remedial process. Under the remedial pro-gram; EPA takes long-Lenn actions to stop or substantially
reduce releases or threats of releases of hazardous substanees
that are serious but not immediately life-threatening. Removal
actions, which are shon-tenn, immediate actions intended to
stabilize a hazardous incident or remove contaminants from a
site that pose a threat to human health or welfare or the environ-
ment, may be taken at any point in the remedial process.
The Supcrfund process begins with a preliminary asscssmenl/
site inspection (PA/SI). This usually is conducted by the State,
to detennine whether the site poses a significant enough poten•
tial hazard to warrant funher study and investigation.
The site is then ranked using the Hazard Ranking System (HRS),
a numerical ranking system used to identify the site's potential
hazard to the environment and public health. Sites assigned an
Fir.,t, EPA attempts to identify PRPs as early in the Super-.
fund process as possible. Once identified, EPA will notify
these panics of their potential liability for response work
when the site is scheduled for some action. Second, in the
course of identifying response work to be done, EPA will
encourage PRPs to do the wotk at a site.
2
Toi:d, if EPA believes the PRP is willing and capable of
doing the work, EPA will attempt to negotiate an enforce-
ment agreement with the PRP(s). The enforcement agree-
ment may be an agreement entered in court (such as a
judicial consent decree) or it may be an administrative
order (where EPA and the PRP(s) sign an agreement
outside of court). Both of these agreements are enforce-
able in a court of law. Under both agreements EPA
oversees the PRP.
Fourth, if a settlement is not reached, EPA can use its
authority to issue a unilateral administrative order or
directly file suit against the PRP(s). Under either cour.,e
HRS score of 28.5 or above are added to the Natiooal Priorities
List (NPL).
Next, a remedial invesligalion (RI) is conducted to assess the
extent and nalllre of the contamination and the potential risks. A
feasibility swdy (FS) is then prepared to examine and evaluate
various remedial alternatives.
Following a public comment period on EP A's preferred alterna-
tive and the draft FS report, EPA chooses a specific remedial plan
and outlines its selectioo in the Record of Decision (ROD).
Once the remedial design (RD) (which includes engineering
plans and specifications) is completed, the acwal site won. er
remedial action (RA) can begin. After RD/RA activities have
been completed, the site is monitoffil to ensure the effectiveness
of the response. Cenain measures require oogoing operation er
periodic maintenance.
. of action, PRPs are directed to perform removal or reme-
dial actions at a site. If the PRPs do not respond to an ad-
ministrative order, EPA has the option of filing a law suit
to compel performance.
Fifth, ifPRPsdonotperform the response action and EPA
undertakes the wolk, EPA will file suit against PRPs,
when practicable, to recover money spent by EPA and
deposit it in the Superfund Trust Fund. This is called cost
recovery, and it is a major priority under the Superflind
program.
THE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS FOR
REMEDIAL ACTIONS
PRP Search and Notice
EPA is committed to strengthening effons to reach settle-
ments with PRPs. EPA believes that settlements arc most
likely to occur when EPA interacts frequently with PRPs.
ENFORCEMENT AUTHOA
The original Supcrfund program was reauthorized and expanded
on October 17, 1986, when President Reagan signed into law the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA). These amendments increased the Supcrfund Trust Fund
to $8.5 billion and clarified and expanded enforcement
authorities:
• Access and Information Gathering -SARA stn:ngthens
EPA 's ability to obtain access to investigate sites and to
obtain infonnation from panics with knowledge of the site.
Settlement Authorities · CERCLA authorizes EPA to
compel a PRP to undcnalcc necessary actions to con1rol the
threat of imminent and subslJllltial cndangcnncnl lO human
health or the environment To accomplish this, EPA may
either issue an administrative order or bring a civil action
against the PRP in coun. SARA outlines specific procedures
for negotiating settlements with PRPs 10 conduct voluntary
response actions at hazardous waste sites.
Cost Recovery -Once a Fund-financed response has been
undenaken, EPA can recover costs from the responsible
panics. Past and present facility ownersandopcra1ors,as well
as hazardous subslJlllcc generators and transponcrs, can all be •
liable under Supcrfund for response costs and for damage to
natural resources. EPA may recover Federal response costs
from any or all of the responsible panics involved in a
remedial action. The monies recovered go back into the Fund
for use in future response actions.
Criminal Authorities -SARA increases criminal penalties
for failure to provide notice of a release and makes submining
false infonnation a criminal offense.
11lis interaction is imponant because it provides the oppor-
tunity to share infonnation about the site and may reduce
delays in conducting response actions.
The enforcement process begins with the search for PRPs,
concurrent with NPL listing.
Once identified, PRPs are typically issued a general notice
letter. The general notice infonns PRPs of their potential
liability. The general notice also may include a request for
and a release of infonnation on PRPs and the substances at
the site. The overall purposes of the general notice are to
provide PRPs _and the public with advanCt' notice of possible
future negotiations with EPA, to open the lines of commu-
• Citizen. SARA au~acitizcntosueanypcrson,
the United Slates, or an individual State for any violation of
slJllldards and requirements of the law, under certain
conditions.
Federal Facilities
SARA also adds a section dealing with releases of baz.ardous sub-
sw,ccs at Federal facilities. This provision clarifies 1h11 Super-
fund applies to Federal agencies and that they must comply with
its requirements. SARA clearly defines the process Federal
agencies must follow in undertaking remedial responses. At
NPL sites, EPA makes the final selection of the remedy if the
Federal agency and EPA disagree. A Fedaal agency mUSl
rcmedialc a Federal facility through an inietagency agrtiC111Cnt
(IAG), except in emergency silllalions. lAGs arc enforceable
agreements between Federal agencies that arc subject to the
citizen suit provisions in SARA and to section 109 penalties, if
the responding agency docs not comply with the ICmlS of the
agreement.
SARA also provides a schedule for response actions 81 Federal
facilities, including a schedule for preliminary assessments,
listing on the National Priorities List. remedial investigations/
feasibility swdies, and remedial actions. State and local officials
also must be given the opponunity to panicipalc in the planning
and selection of any remedy, including the review ol all d8la.
S1a1es arc given a formal opportunity to review remedies 10
ensure that they incorporate State slJllldards. Public panicipa-
tion in addressing releases at Federal facilities is enhanced by
SARA, which establishes a Federal Agency Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket. This docket functions as a repository of in•
fonnation for the public and is available for public inspection.
Every six months after CSlablishment of the docket. EPA will
publish in the federal BeBisW a list of lhe Federal facilities that
have been included in lhe docket during the PfflCCCding six-
month period.
nication between EPA and PRPs, and to advise PRPs of·
potential liability.
In addition to the general notices, EPA may issue a "special
notice," which invokes a tcmponry moratorium on cenain
EPA remedial and enforcement activities. An RJ/FS special
notice initilllCs a 90-day moratorium and an RD/RA special
notice initiates a 120-day moratorium. 1be moratorium
provides a period of time during which EPA and PRPs ne-
gotiate. The goal of negotiations is for EPA and PRPs 10
reach a settlement where the PRPs agree to conduct and/or
finance response activities. Negotiations may be tenninated
after 60 days for either the Rl/FS or RD/RA if PRPs do not ·
provide EPA with a "good faith" settlement offer.
3
:-,legotiations for the Rlff~
Tile PRP may conduct the R.1/FS if EP.\ d6ines the PRP
is qualified to conduct the R.1/FS and if ~RP agrees to
reimburse EPA for the cost of oversight. The terms of this
agreement to conduct the Rl/FS are outlined in either an
Administrative Oideron Conseru or a Conseru Decree, both
of which are enforceable in coun. If negotiations do not
result in an order or a decree, EPA may use Trust Fund
monies to perform the RIJFS and seek reimbursement for its
costs.
Negotiations for the RD/RA
Where a special notice is used, the moratorium for RD/RA
may be extended to a total of 120 days. The terms of the
agreement to conduct the RD/RA are outlined in a Consent
Decree, which all parties sign and is entered in coun. If ne-
gotiations do not result in a settlement. EPA may conduct the
remedial activity using Trust Fund monies, and sue for reim-
bursement of its costs with the assistance of the Depanment
of Justice (DOJ). Or EPA may issue a unilateral administra-
tive order or directly file suit to force the PRPs to com!uct the
remedial activity.
Administrative Record
The information used by EPA to select a remedy at a site
must be made available to the public. This information, in-
cluding public comments, is compiled and maintained in the
administrative record files. The administrative record
serves two main purposes. First, it ensures an opportunity
for public involvement in the selection of a remedy at a site.
Second, it provides a basis for judicial review of the
· selection.
TOOLS FOR ENFORCEMENT
In addition to outlining the procedures for the enforcement
process, CERCLA provides tools that are designed to help
EPA achieve settlements. 'The CERCLA settlement authori-
ties may be used by EPA to foster negotiations with PRPs
instead of taking them to court. EPA believes that PRPs
should be involved early in the Superfund process at a site.
It is in the best iruerest of PRPs to negotiate with EPA and to
conduct the RI/FS, as this can keep the process smooth and
costs can be controlled. EPA actively promotes settlements
with PRPs using tools in SARA and is continuing to wor1c.
towards improvements in the settlement process itself.
These new SARA tools include, but are not limited to:
4
Mind fund.lilg
CERCLA authorizes tJ-Ae of "mixed funding... In mixed
funding. settling PRPs W EPA share the costs of ti..: re-
sponse action and EPA pursues viable non-settlers for the
costs EPA inc\lrrcd. Through guidance, EPA discusses the
use of three types of mixed funding arrangements. These are
"preauthorization," where the PRPs conduct the remedial
action and EPA agrees to reim~ the PRPs for a portion
of their response costs; "cash-outs." where PRPs pay for a
portion of the remedial costs and EPA conducts the worx:
and "mixed worlt," where EPA and PRPs both agree to
conduct and finance discn:te portions of a remedial action.
EPA prefers a "preauthorized" mixed-funding agreement.
where PRPs conduct the worlt.
EPA encourages the use of mixed funding to promote
settlement and site remediation, but will continue to seek
100 percent of response costs from PRPs where possible.
Use of mixed funding does not change EPA'sapproach to de-
termining liability. PRPs may be held jointly and severally
liable and EPA will seek to recover EPA's mixed funding
share from non-settling PRPs whenever possible.
l2r Minimis Settlements
I& mjnjmjs settlements are smaller agreements separate
from the larger settlement for the chosen remedy. Under lK.
mjnjmjs settiements, relatively small contributors of waste
to a site, or cenain "innocent· landowners, may resolve their
liability. Innocent landowners are panics who bought prop-
erty without knowing that it was used for haiartlous waste
handling. Or EPA may enter into it mjnjmis settlement
agreements with a pany where the settlement includes only
a minor portion of the response costs and when the amount
of waste represents a relatively minor amount and is not
highly toxic, compared to othcrhaiartlous substances at the
facility. J&mjnjmj5 !lettlemcnts also may be used where the
PRP is a site owner who did not conduct or permit waste
m anagemcnt or contribute to the release of hazardous sub-
stanees. I& roioirois settlements are typically used in con-
junction with covenant not to sue agMments. 1bcsc agree-
ments generally will be in the form of administrative orders
on consent and are available for public comment.
Covenants Not To Sue
A covenant not to sue may be used to limit the preseru and
furure liability of PRPs, lhus encouraging them to reach a
settlement early. However, agreements generally include
"reopeners" that would allow EPA to hold parties liable for
conaiuons unA.11o·~n ar u..c U,ll.lc v 1 )C;.uc:mem ur ror nc\.l. in-
forr.iation indicating that the remedial action is not protec-
tive of human health and the envA,ent. In some cases.
such as ~ mjnjmjs settlements, Wases may be granted
without reopeners. Covenants not to sue are likely to be
used only in instances where the negotiating PRP is respon-
sible for only a very small portion of a site, and, therefore,
EPA is assured that any future problems with the site are not
likely to be the result of that PRP's contribution
Non-binding Allocations of Responsibility (NBAR)
NBAR is a process for EPA to propose a way for PRPs to
allocate costs among themselves. EPA may decide to
prepare an NBAR when the Agency determines this alloca-
tion is likely to promote settlement. An NBAR does not bind
the government or PRPs and cannot be admitted as evidence
or reviewed in any judicial proceeding, including citizen
suits. Since each PRP may be held liable for the entire cost
of response, regardless of the size of its contribution to a site,
knowing EPA' s proposed allocation scheme may encourage
the PRPs to settle out of coun rather than run the risk of being
held fully responsible.
STATE PARTICIPATION
The Superfund program allows for and encourages State
participation in enforcement activities. First. EPA is re-
quired to notify the State of negotiations with PRPs and
provide the opportunity for the State to participate. States
may be a pany to any settlement in which they panicipate.
In addition, EPA is authorized to provide funds to St.ates to
allow St.ate participation in enforcement activities and to
finance cenain State-lead enforcement actions.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
PLBLIC PARTILlPA il0~1COM:\fC'ffTY
RELATIONS
EPA policy anle Superfund law establish a strong pro-
gram of public participation in the dedsion-making process
at both Fund-lead and enforcement sites. The procedures
and policy for public participation at enforcement sites are
basically the same as for non-enforcement sites. Titis fact
sheet is limited to those special differenus in co=wtiry
relations when the Agency is negotiating with or pursuing
litigation against PRPs. The contact liSled below has nu-
merous fact sheets on the Superfund program, including a
fact sheet on Public Involvement.
Community relations at enforcement-lead sites may differ
from community relations activities II Fund-lead sites
because negotiations between EPA, DOJ and PRPs gener-
ally focus on the issue ofliability. The negotiation process.
thus, requires that some infonnation be kept confidential
and is not usually open to the public.
When these discussions deal with new technical infonna-
tion that changes or modifies remedial decisions, this infor-
mation will be documented and placed in the administrative
record files. This process provides the public with critical
infonnation and enables the Agency to move quickly to-
wards settlement. Information on enforcement stra1egy;
details of the negotiations, such as the behavior, attitudes, or
legal positions of responsible parties; and evidence or anor-
ney work product material developed during negotiations,
must remain confidential.
5
• T.. •--. lA •~_,;~;; . . IO~-~gt ' . y~'-,~?-'~
Profile·
for
CHLOROBENZENE
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
U.S. Public Health Service
February 16, 1990
• •
1
1. PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT
The purpose of this Statement is to provide you with information
about chlorobenzene, and to emphasize the human health effects that may
result from exposure. At this time, chlorobenzene has been found at 97
out of 1,177 National Priorities List (NPL) hazardous waste sites in the
United States. Because these sites are potential or actual sources of
human exposure to chlorobenzene and because chlorobenzene may cause
harmful health effects, this information is important for you to know.
When a chemical is released from a large area such as an industrial
plant, or from a small container such as a drum or bottle, it enters the
environment as a chemical emission. This emission, which is also called
a release, does not always lead to exposure. You are exposed only when
you come into contact with the chemical. You can come into contact with
it in the environment through breathing air, eating, drinking or smoking
substances containing the chemical. Exposure may also result from skin
contact with the chemical alone, or with a substance containing it.
If you are exposed to a hazardous chemical, several factors
determine whether harmful health effects will occur and the type and
severity of those health effects. These factors include the dose (how
much), the duration (how long), the pathway by which you are exposed,
the other chemicals to which you are exposed, and your individual
characteristics such as age, sex, nutrition, family traits and state of
health.
1.1 WHAT IS CHLOROBENZENE?
Chlorobenzene is a colorless liquid with an almond-like odor. The
compound does not occur widely in nature, but is manufactured for use as
a solvent (a substance used to dissolve other substances) and is used in
the production of other chemicals. Chlorobenzene persists in soil
(several months), in air (3.5 days), and water (less than 1 day).
Additional information can be found in Chapters 3, 4, and 5.
***DRAFI' --DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE***
• •
2
1. PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT
1.2 HOW MIGHT I BE EXPOSED TO CHLOROBENZENE?
There is potential for humans to be exposed to chlorobenzene by
breathing contaminated air, by drinking water contaminated with
chlorobenzene, or by getting contaminated soil on the skin. These
exposures are most likely to occur in occupational settings or in the
vicinity of chemical waste sites.
Human exposure in the workplace occurs primarily through breathing
the chemical. Personnel engaged in the production and handling of
chlorobenzene would be at greatest risk. Levels of chlorobenzene in the
air at several industrial sites during normal operations were found to
be below allowable federal standards.
Exposure in humans could occur in persons living or working in the
vicinity of hazardous waste sites if emissions to water, air, and soil
are not adequately controlled. Chlorobenzene has been found at 97 out
of 1,177 NPL hazardous waste sites in the United States. Thus, federal
and state surveys suggest that chlorobenzene is not a widespread
environmental contaminant. The chemical has not been detected in
surface water, although a few ground water systems have been found with
chlorobenzene levels in the parts per billion (ppb) range. Background
levels of less than 1 ppb were detected in air samples from urban and
suburban areas. No information of the occurrence of chlorobenzene in
food has been found. Additional information on the potential for human
exposure is presented in Chapter 5.
1.3 HOW CAN CHLOROBENZENE ENTER AND LEAVE MY BODY?
Chlorobenzene enters your body when you breathe in air containing
it, when you drink water containing it, or when it comes in contact with
your skin. Human exposure to contaminated water could occur near
hazardous waste sites where chlorobenzene is present. Significant
exposure to chlorobenzene is not expected to occur by getting
chlorobenzene contaminated soil on your skin. When chlorobenzene enters
your body, most of it is removed in the air we breathe out and in urine.
Additional information is presented in Chapter 2.
1.4 HOW CAN CHLOROBENZENE AFFECT MY HEALTH?
Workers exposed to chlorobenzene complained of headaches, numbness,
sleepiness, nausea, and vomiting. However, it is not known if
chlorobenzene alone was responsible for these health effects since the
***DRAIT --DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE***
\ ' • •
3
1. PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT
workers may have also been exposed to other chemicals at the same time.
Mild to severe depression of functions of parts of the nervous system is
a common response to exposure to a wide variety of industrial solvents
(a substance that dissolves other substances).
In animals, chlorobenzene affects the brain, liver, and kidneys.
Unconsciousness, tremors and restlessness have been observed. The
chemical can affect the liver, causing many of the cells to swell and in
several cases die, leading to impairment of liver function. The kidney
can also be affected by chlorobenzene, which can damage structures
involved in urine formation. Data indicate that chlorobenzene does not
affect reproduction or cause birth defects. Studies in animals have
shown that chlorobenzene can produce liver nodules, providing some but
not clear evidence of cancer. Additional information on health effects
is presented in Chapter 2.
1.5 WHAT LEVELS OF EXPOSURE HAVE RESULTED IN HARMFUL HEALTH EFFECTS?
The human health effects from breathing, eating or drinking
chlorobenzene are not known (Tables 1-1 and 1-3). Tables 1-2 and 1-4
show the relationship between exposure to chlorobenzene and known health
effects in animals. A Minimal Risk Level (MRL) is also included in
Table 1-3. The MRL was derived from animal data for long-term exposure,
as described in Chapter 2 and in Table 2-1. MRLs provide a basis for
comparison to levels which people might encounter either in food or
drinking water. If a person is exposed to chlorobenzene at an amount
below the MRL, it is not expected that harmful (noncancer) health
effects will occur. Because this level is based on information
currently available, some uncertainty is always associated with it.
Also, because the method for deriving MRLs does not use any information
about cancer, a MRL does not imply anything about the presence, absence
or level of risk of cancer. Further information on the levels of
chlorobenzene that have been observed to cause health effects in animals
is presented in Chapter 2.
1.6 IS TllE1I.E A MEDICAL TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER I HAVE BEEN EXPOSED
TO CHLOROBENZENE?
Exposure to chlorobenzene can be determined by measuring the
chemical or its metabolite in urine, exhaled air, blood, and body fat.
Tests are not routinely available at the doctor's office. Specific
tests can determine if exposure has occurred. However, levels in the
***DRAIT --DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE***
•
4
1. PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT
TABLE 1-1. Human Health Effects from Breathing Chlorobenzene•
Short-term Exposure
(less than or equal to 14 days)
Levels in Air Length of EXQOsure DescriQtion of Effects
The health effects result-
ing from short-term
exposure of humans to
air containing specific
levels of chlorobenzene
are not known.
Long-term Exposure
(greater than 14 days)
Levels in Air Length of Ex12osure DescriQtion of Effects
The health effects result-
ing from long-term
exposure of humans to
air containing specific
levels of chlorobenzene
are not known,
*See Section 1.2 for a discussion of exposures encountered in daily life.
***DRAFT·· DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE***
-
• •
5
l. PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT
TABLE 1-2. Animal Health Effects from Breathing Chlorobenzene
Short-term Exposure
(less than or equal to 14 days)
Levels in Air ( 1rnml Length of Ex2osu~e Descri2tion of Effect§*
3,700 7 hours Death in cats.
Long-term Exposure
(greater than 14 days)
Levels in Air (22ml Length of Ex2osure Descri2tion of Effects*
75 24 weeks Liver and kidney damage
in rats and rabbits.
*These effects are listed at the lowest level at which they were first
observed. They may also be seen at higher levels.
***DRAIT --DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE***
-----·-~-·--~---------------------------
•
6
1. PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT
TABLE 1-3. Human Health Effects from Eating or Drinking Chlorobenzene
Short-term Exposure
(less than or equal to 14 days)
Lev!lh iD [QQg l.,eagth of EXQO§U:t:e Des~:t:iRtioa of ~ffects
The health effects result-
ing from short-term
exposure of humans to
food containing specific
levels of chlorobenzene
are not known. Leve:l,s l.n Water
The health effects result-
ing from short-term
exposure of humans to
water containing specifi,
levels of chlorobenzene
are not known.
Long-term Exposure
(greater than 14 days)
Level§ l.n Food {RR!!l} Length of EXROSU[e DescriRtion of ~ffects 15 91 days Minimal Risk Level (based
on animal studies; see
Section 1.5 for discus-
sion). Level§ !n l!s1.t1:i-.:
The health effects result-
ing from long-term
exposure of animals to
water containing specific
levels of chlorobenzene
are not known.
***DRAIT --DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE***
'\ '
--
• •
7
1. PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT
TABLE 1-4. Animal Health Effects from Eating or Drinking Chlorobenzene
Short-term Exposure
(less than or equal to 14 days)
Levels in Food (RRml I&ngth 2f E21R2§ut§ De§st!Rt!2n 2f Effests*
7,692 -20,000 1-14 days Death in mice and rats.
Levels in W,!te[
The health effects of
short-term exposure of
animals to water con-
taining specific levels
of chlorobenzene are
not known.
Long-term Exposure
(greater than 14 days)
Levels in Food (RRml Length Qf EllRQSU[e Dessi::iRt1QD of gffects*
1,923 -5,000 91 days Liver and kidney damage
in mice. Liver injury
rats.
1,923 13 weeks Injury to organs of the
immune system in mice.
1,923 13 weeks Death in mice.
Levels in Water
The health effects result-
ing from long-term
exposure of animals to
water containing specific
levels of chlorobenzene
are not known.
*These effects are listed at the lowest level at which they were first
observed. They may also be seen.at higher levels.
***DRAFT --DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE***
•
8
1. PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT
various media stated above do not predict adverse health effects.
Additional information on how chlorobenzene can be measured in exposed
humans is given in Chapters 2 and 6.
1.7 WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS HAS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MADE TO PROTECT
HUMAN HEALTH?
The Federal Government has developed regulatory standards and
advisories to protect individuals from potential health effects of
chlorobenzene in the environment. The Environmental Protection Agency
has proposed that the maximum level of chlorobenzene in drinking water
be 0.1 parts per million (ppm). For short-term exposures to drinking
water, EPA has recommended that drinking water levels not exceed 2 ppm
for up to ten days. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) has established a legally enforceable maximum limit of 75 ppm of
chlorobenzene in workplace air for an 8 hour/day, 40-hour work week.
Additional information regarding federal and state regulations is
presented in Chapter 7.
1.8 WHERE CAN I GET MORE INFORMATION?
If you have any more questions or concerns, please contact your
State Health or Environmental Department or:
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Division of Toxicology
1600 Clifton Road, E-29
Atlanta, Georgia 30333
This agency can also provide you with information on the location
of occupational and environmental health clinics. These clinics
specialize in the recognition, evaluation, and treatment of illness
resulting from exposure to hazardous substances.
***DRAFT --DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE***
/
•
he diverse problems posed by the Nation's hazardous
waste sites have provided EPA with the challenge to
establish a consistent approach for evaluating and
cleaning up the Nation's most serious sites. To do this, EPA
had to step beyond its traditional role as a regulatory agency
to develop processes and guidelines for each step in these
technically complex site cleanups. EPA has established proce-
dures to coordinate the efforts of its Washington, D.C. Head-
quarters program offices and its front-line staff in 10 Regional
Offices with the State governments, contractors, and private
parties who are participating in site cleanup. An important
part of the process is that any time during cleanup, work can
be led by EPA or the State or, under their monitoring, by
private parties who are potentially responsible for site con-
tamination.
The process for discovery of the site, evaluation of threat, and
long-term cleanup of Superfund sites is summarized in the
following pages. The phases of each of these steps are high-
lighted within the description. The flow diagram below pro-
vides a summary of this three step process.
STEPl STEP2 STEP3
Discover site
and determine
whether an
emergency
exists•
Evaluate whether
a site is a serious
threat to public
health or
environment
IOO[[}E~::f
sites in the Nation
• Emergency actions are performed whenever needed in this three-step process
Although this State book provides a current "snapshot" of site progress made only by emer-
gency actions and long-term cleanup actions at Superfund sites, it is important to understand
the discovery and evaluation process that leads up to identifying and cleaning up these most
serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in the Nation. This discovery and
evaluation process is the starting point for this summary description.
1
•
STEP 1: SITE DISCOVERY AND EMERGENCY
EVALUATION
Site discovery occurs in a number of ways. Information
comes from concerned citizens -people may notice an odd
taste or foul odor in their drinking water, or see half-buried
leaking barrels; a hunter may come across a field where waste
was dumped illegally. Or there may be an explosion or fire
which alerts the State or local authorities to a problem. Rou-
tine investigations by State and local governments, and re-
quired reporting and inspection of facilities that generate,
treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste also help keep EPA
informed about either actual or potential threats of hazardous
substance releases. All reported sites or spills are recorded in
the Superfund inventory (CERCLIS) for further investigation
to determine whether they will require cleanup.
As soon as a potential hazardous waste site is reported, EPA
determines whether there is an emergency requiring an imme-
diate cleanup action. If there is, they act as quickly as possible
to remove or stabilize the imminent threat. These short-term
emergency actions range from building a fence around the
contaminated area to keep people away or temporarily relo-
cating residents until the danger is addressed, to providing
bottled water to residents while their local drinking water
supply is being cleaned up, or physically removing wastes for
safe disposal.
Hawever, emergency actions can happen at any time an imminent
threat or emergency warrants them -for example, if leaking
barrels are found when cleanup crews start digging in the
ground or if samples of contaminated soils or air show that
there may be a threat of fire or explosion, an immediate action
is taken.
STEP 2: SITE THREAT EVALUATION
Even after any imminent dangers are taken care of, in most
cases contamination may remain at the site. For example,
residents may have been supplied with bottled water to take
care of their immediate problem of contaminated well water.
But now it's time to figure out what is contaminating the
drinking water supply and the best way to clean it up. Or
2
•
I
.,
\
\ •
EPA may determine that there is no imminent danger from a
site, so now any long-term threats need to be evaluated. In
either case, a more comprehensive investigation is needed to
determine if a site poses a serious but not imminent danger,
and requires a long-term cleanup action.
Once a site is discovered and any needed emergency actions
are taken, EPA or the State collects all available background
information not only from their own files, but also from local
records and U.S. Geological Survey maps. This information is
used to identify the site and to perform a preliminary assess-
ment of its potential hazards. This is a quick review of readily
available information to answer the questions:
• Are hazardous substances likely to be present?
• How are they contained?
• How might contaminants spread?
• How close is the nearest well, home, or natural resource
area like a wetland or animal sanctuary?
• What may be harmed -the land, water, air, people,
plants, or animals?
Some sites do not require further action because the prelimi-
nary assessment shows that they don't threaten public health
or the environment. But even in these cases, the sites remain
listed in the Superfund inventory for record keeping purposes
and future reference. Currently, there are more than 32,000
sites maintained in this inventory.
Inspectors go to the site to collect additional information to
evaluate its hazard potential. During this site inspection, they
look for evidence of hazardous waste, such as leaking drums
and dead.or discolored vegetation. They may take some
samples of soil, well water, river water, and air. Inspectors
analyze the ways hazardous materials could be polluting the
environment -such as runoff into nearby streams. They also
check to see if people (especially children) have access to the
site.
Information collected during the site inspection is used to
identify the sites posing the most serious threats to human
health and the environment. This way EPA can meet the
3
• •
requirement that Congress gave them to use Superfund mo-
nies only on the worst hazardous waste sites in the Nation.
To identify the most serious sites, EPA developed the Hazard
Ranking System (HRS). The HRS is the scoring system EPA
uses to assess the relative threat from a release or a potential
release of hazardous substances from a site to surrounding
groundwater, surface water, air, and soil. A site score is based
on the likelihood a hazardous substance will be released from
the site, the toxicity and amount of hazardous substances at
the site, and the people and sensitive environments potentially
affected by contamination at the site.
Only sites with high enough health and environmental risk
scores are proposed to be added to EPA's National Priorities
List (NPL). That's why there are 1,236 sites are on the NPL,
but there are more than 32,000 sites in the Superfund inven-
tory. Only NPL sites can have a long-term cleanup paid for
from the national hazardous waste trust fund -the Super-
fund. But the Superfund can and does pay for emergency
actions performed at any site, whether or not it's on the NPL.
The public can find out whether a site that concerns them is
on the NPL by calling their Regional EPA office at the number
listed in this book.
The proposed NPL identifies sites that have been evaluated
through the scoring process as the most serious problems
among uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in
the U.S. In addition, a site will be added to the NPL if the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry issues a
health advisory recommending that people be moved away
from the site. Updated at least once a year, it's only after
public comments are considered that these proposed worst
sites are officially added to the NPL.
Listing on the NPL does not set the order in which sites will be
cleaned up. The order is influenced by the relative priority of
the site's health and environmental threats compared to other
sites, and such factors as State priorities, engineering capabili-
ties, and available technologies. Many States also have their
own list of sites that require cleanup; these often contain sites
not on the NPL that are scheduled to be cleaned up with State
money. And it should be said again that any emergency action
needed at a site can be performed by the Superfund whether
or not a site is on the NPL.
4
j
'
\ •
Placing a site on the NPL does not necessarily mean that
cleanup is needed. It is possible for a site to receive an HRS
score high enough to be added to the NPL, but not ultimately
require cleanup actions. Keep in mind that the purpose of the
scoring process is to provide a preliminary and conservative
assessment of potential risk. During subsequent site investiga-
tions, the EPA may find either that there is no real threat or
that the site does not pose significant human health or envi-
ronmental risks.
EPA or the State or, under their monitoring, private parties
identify and analyze specific site cleanup needs based on the
extensive information collected during the remedial investiga-
tion. This analysis of cleanup alternatives is called a feasibility
study.
Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly to the needs of
each individual site, more than one possible cleanup alterna-
tive is always considered. After making sure that all potential
cleanup remedies fully protect human health and the environ-
ment and comply with Federal and State laws, the advantages
and disadvantages of each cleanup alternative are carefully
compared. These comparisons are made to determine their
effectiveness in the short-and long-term, their use of perma-
nent treatment solutions, and their technical feasibility and
cost.
To the maximum extent practicable, the remedy must be a
permanent solution and use treatment technologies to destroy
principal site contaminants. But remedies such as containing
the waste on site or removing the source of the problem (like
leaking barrels) are often considered effective. Often special
pilot studies are conducted to determine the effectiveness and
feasibility of using a particular technology to clean up a site.
Therefore, the combined remedial investigation and feasibility
study can take between 10 and 30 months to complete, de-
pending on the size and complexity of the problem.
Yes. The Superfund law requires that the public be given the
opportunity to comment on the proposed cleanup plan. Their
concerns are carefully considered before a final decision is
made.
s
•
The results of the remedial investigation and feasibility study,
which also point out the recommended cleanup choice, are
published in a report for public review and comment. EPA or
the State encourages the public to review the information and
take an active role in the final cleanup decision. Fact sheets
and announcements in local papers let the community know
where they can get copies of the study and other reference
documents concerning the site.
The public has a minimum of 30 days to comment on the
proposed cleanup plan after it is published. These comments
can either be written or given verbally at public meetings that
EPA or the State are required to hold. Neither EPA nor the
State can select the final cleanup remedy without evaluating
and providing written answers to specific community com-
ments and concerns. This "responsiveness summary" is part
of EPA's write-up of the final remedy decision, called the
Record of Decision or ROD.
The ROD is a public document that explains the cleanup
remedy chosen and the reason it was selected. Since sites
freque.1tly are large and must be cleaned up in stages, a ROD
may be necessary for each contaminated resource or area of
the site. This may be necessary when contaminants have
spread into the soil, water and air, and affect such sensitive
areas as wetlands, or when the site is large and cleaned up in
stages. This often means that a number of remedies using
different cleanup technologies are needed to clean up a single
site.
Yes. Before a specific cleanup action is carried out, it must be
designed in detail to meet specific site needs. This stage of the
cleanup is called the remedial design. The design phase
provides the details on how the selected remedy will be
engineered and constructed.
Projects to clean up a hazardous waste site may appear to be
like any other major construction project but, in fact, the likely
presence of combinations of dangerous chemicals demands
special construction planning and procedures. Therefore, the
design of the remedy can take anywhere from 6 months to 2
years to complete. This blueprint for site cleanup includes not
only the details on every aspect of the construction work, but a
description of the types of hazardous wastes expected at the
6
I
•
site, special plans for environmental protection, worker safety,
regulatory compliance, and equipment decontamination.
The time and cost for performing the site cleanup -called the
remedial action -are as varied as the remedies themselves.
In a few cases, the only action needed may be to remove
drums of hazardous waste and decontaminate them -an
action that takes limited time and money. In most cases,
however, a remedial action may involve different and expen-
sive measures that can take a long time.
For example, cleaning polluted groundwater or dredging
contaminated river bottoms can take several years of complex
engineering work before contamination is reduced to safe
levels. Sometimes the selected cleanup remedy described in
the ROD may need to be modified because of new contami-
nant information discovered or difficulties that were faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into account these
differences, a remedial cleanup action takes an average of 18
months to complete and costs an average of $26 million per
site.
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is anything but auto-
matic. For example, cleanup of contaminated groundwater
may take up to 20 years or longer. Also, in some cases the
long-term monitoring of the remedy is required to ensure that
it is effective. After construction of certain remedies, opera-
tion and maintenance (e.g., maintenance of ground cover,
groundwater monitoring, etc.) or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater, may be required to ensure that the
remedy continues to prevent future health hazards or environ-
mental damage, and ultimately meets the cleanup goals
specified in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring or opera-
tional stage of the cleanup process are designated as "con-
struction completed".
It's not until a site cleanup meets all the goals and monitoring
requirements of the selected remedy that EPA can officially
propose the site for "deletion" from the NPL. And it's not
until public comments are taken into consideration that a site
can actually be deleted from the NPL. Deletions that have
occurred are included in the "Construction Complete" cate-
gory in the progress report found later in this book.
7
•
Yes. Based on the belief that "the polluters should pay," after a
site is placed on the NPL, the EPA makes a thorough effort to
identify and find those responsible for causing contamination
problems at a site. Although EPA is willing to negotiate with
these private parties and encourages voluntary cleanup, it has
the authority under the Superfund law to legally force those
potentially responsible for site hazards to take specific cleanup
actions. All work performed by these parties is closely guided
and monitored by EPA, and must meet the same standards
required for actions financed through the Superfund.
Because these enforcement actions can be lengthy, EPA may
decide to use Superfund monies to make sure a site is cleaned
up without unnecessary delay. For example, if a site presents
an imminent threat to public health and the environment, or if
conditions at a site may worsen, it could be necessary to start
the cleanup right away. Those responsible for causing site
contamination are liable under the law for repaying the money
EPA spends in cleaning up the site.
Whenever possible, EPA and the Department of Justice use
their legal enforcement authorities to require responsible
parties to pay for site cleanups, thereby preserving the Super-
fund for emergency actions and sites where no responsible
parties can be identified.
8
j
'
-. •
BARIUM
iO~
~\\C ~~
1'xi.cologieal ·,
Profile
for
e,~\
GO~~
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HU!VIAN SERVICES
Public Health Service
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Comment Period Ends:
February 15, 1991
au~ v.~~,~o
. -. ._ ....
, ... • • 1
l. PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT
The purpose of this Statement is to provide you with information about barium and to emphasize the human health effects that may result from
exposure. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified 1,177 National Priorities List (NPL) sites. _Barium has been found at 154 out of 1,177 evaluated sites. As more sites are evaluated by the EPA, this number may change. The information in this profile is important for you to know because these sites are potential or actual sources of human exposure to barium and because barium may cause harmful health effects.
When a chemical is released from a large area such as an industrial
plant, or from a container such as a drum or bottle, it enters the environment as a chemical emission. This emission, which is also called a release, does not always lead to exposure. You are exposed only when you come into contact with the chemical. You can come into contact with it in the environment
through breathing, eating, or drinking substances containing the chemical. Exposure may also result from skin contact with the chemical.
If you are exposed to a hazardous substance such as barium, several factors determine whether harmful health effects will occur and the type and severity of those health effects, These factors include the dose (how much), the duration (how long), the route or pathway by which you are exposed (breathing, eating, drinking, or skin contact), the other chemicals to which you are exposed, and your individual characteristics such as age, sex, nutrition, family traits, life style, and state of health.
l.l WHAT IS BARIUM?
Barium is a silvery-white metal that occurs in nature in many different forms called compounds. These compounds are solids and do not burn well. Two forms of barium, barium sulfate and barium carbonate, are often found in nature as underground ore deposits. Barium is sometimes found naturally in drinking water and food. Because certain forms of barium (barium sulfate and barium carbonate) do_ not mix well with water, the amount of barium usually found in drinking water is of a small quantity. Other barium compounds, such as barium chloride, barium nitrate, and barium hydroxide, are manufactured from barium sulfate. These other forms of barium mix more easily with water than barium sulfate and barium carbonate.
Barium and barium compounds are used for many important purposes. Barium sulfate ore is mined and used in several industries. It is used mostly by the oil and gas industries to make drilling muds. Barium sulfate is also used to make paints, bricks, tiles, glass, rubber, and other barium compounds, Some barium compounds, such as barium carbonate, barium chloride, and barium hydroxide, are used to make ceramics, insect and rat poisons, additives for oils and fuels, and many other useful products. Barium sulfate is sometimes used by doctors to perform medical tests and take x-ray photographs of the stomach and intestines.
***DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT***
• 2
1. PUBLIC HEALTH STATL~ENT
The length of time that barium will lase in the environment following
release to air, land, and water depends on the form of barium released.
Barium compounds that do not mix well with water, such as barium sulfate and
barium carbonate, can lase a long time in the environment. Barium compounds
that mix easily with water usually do not last a long time in the environment,
but they quickly change into the longer lasting forms (barium sulfate and
barium carbonate). Barium sulfate and barium carbonate are the forms of
barium most commonly found in the soil and water. If barium sulfate and
barium carbonate are released onto land, they will combine with particles of
soil. More information on the chemical and physical properties, use, and
environmental fate of barium is found in Chapters 3, 4, and 5.
1.2 HOW KIGHT I BE EXPOSED TO BARIUM?
Background levels of barium in the environment are very low. The air
that most people breathe contains about 0.0015 parts of barium per billion
parts of air (ppb). The air around factories that release barium compounds
into the air has only about 0.33 ppb or less of barium. Most surface water
and public water supplies contain only about 0.38 parts of barium per million
parts of water (ppm) or less. In some areas that have underground water
wells, drinking water may contain more barium than the 1 ppm limit set by EPA.
The highest amount measured from these water wells has been 10 ppm. The
highest amount of barium found in soil is about 100 to 3,000 ppm. Some foods,
such as Brazil nuts, seaweed, fish, and certain plants, may contain high
amounts of barium. The amount of barium found in food and water usually is
not high enough to be a health concern. However, information is still being
collected to find out if long-term exposure to low levels of barium causes any
health problems.
Barium waste may be released to air, land, and water during industrial
operations. Barium is released into the air during the mining and processing
of ore and during manufacturing operations. Some industries dump wastes
containing barium compounds onto land or into the ocean and other bodies of
water. Barium compounds are found in more than 150 hazardous waste sites in
the United States. We do not know the exact number of hazardous waste sites
containing barium because not all waste sites have been examined for barium.
People with the greatest known risk of exposure to barium are those
working in industries that make or use barium compounds. Most of these
exposed persons breathe air that contains barium sulfate or barium carbonate.
Sometimes they are exposed to one of the more harmful forms of barium (for
example, barium chloride or barium hydroxide) by breathing the dust from these
compounds or by getting them on their skin. Many hazardous waste sites
contain barium compounds, and these sites may be a source of exposure for
people living and working near them. Exposure near hazardous waste sites may
occur by breathing dust, eating soil or plants, or drinking water that is
polluted with barium. People near these sites may also get soil or water that
***DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT***
I
• • 3
l. PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT
contains barium on their skin. More information on how you might be exposed to barium is found in Chapter 5.
1.3 HOW CAN BARIUM ENTER AND LEAVE MY BODY?
Barium enters your body when you breathe air, eat food, or drink water containing barium. It may also enter your body to a small extent when you have direct skin contact with barium compounds. Barium that you breathe seems to enter the bloodstream very easily. How much barium actually gets into your bloodstream depends on how much barium you breathe into your lungs and how easily the form of barium you breathe dissolves in the fluid in your lungs. Barium does not seem to enter the bloodstream very well from the stomach or intestines. This means that most of the barium you eat and drink will not get into your bloodstream to harm you. How much actually gets into your bloodstream depends on how much barium you eat or drink and how often you eat or drink it. Some barium compounds (for example, barium chloride) can enter your body through your skin, but this is very rare and usually occurs in industrial accidents at factories where they make or use barium compounds, Barium at hazardous waste sites may enter your body if you breathe dust, eat soil or plants, or drink water polluted with barium. Barium can also enter your body if polluted soil or water touches your skin.
Barium that enters your body when you breathe air, eat food, or drink water that contains barium is removed mainly in feces and urine. Most of the barium that enters your body is removed within a few days, and almost all of it is gone within 1-2 weeks. Most barium that stays in your body goes into the bones and teeth, We do not know the long-term health effects of the barium that stays in your body. More information on how barium enters and leaves your body is found in Chapter 2.
1.4 HOW CAN BARIUM AFFECT MY HEALTH?
We know little about the human health effects of barium. Most of what we know comes from studies in which a small number of individuals were exposed to fairly large amounts of barium for short periods. Eating or drinking very large amounts of barium for a short period may cause paralysis or death in a few individuals. Some people who eat or drink somewhat smaller amounts of barium for a short period may potentially have difficulties in breathing, increased blood pressure, changes in heart rhythm, stomach irritation, minor changes in blood, muscle weakness, changes in nerve reflexes, swelling of the brain, and damage to the liver, kidney, heart, and spleen. We have no reliable information about the possible health effects in humans who are exposed to barium by breathing or by _direct skin contact. However, many of the health effects might be similar to those seen after eating or drinking barium. Barium sulfate is sometimes given orally or by enema by doctors to patients for purposes of making x-rays of the stomach or intestines. The use of this particular barium compound in this type of medical test is not harmful to people.
***DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT***
•
4
1. PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT
The health effects of barium have been studied more often in
experimental animals than in humans. Some experimental animals that ate or
drank barium over short periods had build-up of fluid in the trachea
(windpipe), swelling and irritation of the intestines, changes in organ
weights, decreased body weight, and increased numbers of deaths. Some
experimental animals that ate or drank barium over long periods had increased
blood pressure, changes in the function and chemistry of the heart, and
shorter life span. We have no reliable information about the health effects
in experimental animals that are exposed to barium by breathing or by direct
skin contact.
We also have no reliable information to tell whether barium causes
cancer or birth defects in either humans or experimental animals.
We have no reliable information on human or animal health effects from
breathing barium or from skin contact with barium. There is no reliable
information on human heelth effects from eating food or drinking water
contaminated with barium.
The health effects in animals are listed below at the levels at which
they were first observed. They may also be seen et higher levels.
The following animal health effects have been found from eating or
drinking barium for less than 15 days:
• Some rats that drank water with 943 ppm barium in it for l day died.
• Rats that drank water with l,414 ppm barium in it for l day had fluid
in the windpipe, changes in liver, brain, and kidney weights, and
lowered body weight.
• Rats that drank water with l,414 ppm barium in it for 10 days had
changes in ovary and brain weights.
The following animal health effects have been found from eating or
drinking barium for more than 14 days.
• Mice that drank water with 5 ppm barium in it for about 2 years had a
reduced lifespan.
• Rats that drank water with 10 ppm barium in it for 16 months had
increased blood pressure.
• Rats that drank water with 100 ppm barium in it for l month or
4 _months had increased blood pressure.
***DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT"""*
i '
• • 5
1. PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT
• Rats that drank water with 100 ppm barium in it for 16 months had changes in the function and chemistry of the heart.
More information on the health effects of barium can be found in Chapter 2.
l.5 IS THERE A MEDICAL TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER I HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO BARIUM?
There is no routine medical test to determine whether you have been exposed to barium, Doctors can measure barium in body tissues and fluids, such as blood, bones, urine, and feces, using very complex instruments. This is normally done only for cases of severe barium poisoning and for medical research. More information on testing for barium exposure is found in Chapters 2 and 6.
l.6 WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS HAS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MADE TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH?
To protect individuals from the possible harmful health effects of barium, the federal government ··•gulates the amount of barium in the environment. EPA estimates tha. for an adult of average weight, exposure co 1.5 ppm of barium in water each day for a lifetime (70 years) is unlikely to result in harmful health effects. For a long-term but less than lifetime exposure (about 7 years), l.8 ppm is estimated to be a level unlikely to result in harmful health effects for an adult. EPA has established a maximum level of l ppm for barium in drinking water. The Food and Administration (FDA) has set the quality standard for barium in bottled water at 1.0 ppm. Similarly, EPA has set the maximum barium concentration for groundwater protection at 1.0 ppm. EPA reportable quantity regulations require that a spill of 10 pounds or more of barium cyanide be reported to the Federal Government National Response Center.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has a legally enforceable occupational exposure limit of 0.5 milligrams (mg) of soluble barium compounds per cubic meter (ml) of air averaged over an 8-hour work day. The OSHA 8-hour exposure limit for barium dust in air is 5-10 mg/ml. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has classified barium exposures of 250 mg/ml as immediately dangerous to life or health.
More information on government regulations can be found in Chapter 7.
***DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT***
• • 6
1. PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT
1.7 WHERE CAN I GET ~ORE INFORMATION?
If you have any more questions or concerns, please contact your state
health or environmental department or:
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Division of Toxicology
1600 Clifton Road, E-29
Atlanta, Georgia 30333
This agency can also provide you with information on the location of the
nearest occupational and environmental health clinic. These clinics
specialize in the recognition, evaluation, and treatment of illness resulting
from exposure to hazardous substances.
***DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT***
I
•
BARIUM
io{
~\\C ~~
~cological
Profile
for
e~\ ~ co~
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
Public Health Service
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Comment Period Ends:
February 15, 1991
• • 1
1. PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT
The purpose of this Statement is to provide you with information about barium and to emphasize the human health effects that may result from exposure. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified 1,177 National Priorities Lise (NPL) sites. Barium has been found at 154 out of 1,177 evaluated sites. As more sites are evaluated by the EPA, this number may change. The information in this profile is important for you to know
because these sites are potential or actual sources of human exposure co barium and because barium may cause harmful health effects.
When a chemical is released from a large area such as an industrial plant, or from a container such as a drum or bottle, it enters the environment as a chemical emission. This emission, which is also called a release, does not always lead to exposure. You are exposed only when you come into contact with the chemical. You can come into contact with it in the environment through breathing, eating, or drinking substances containing the chemical. Exposure may also result from skin contact with the chemical.
If you are exposed to a hazardous substance such as barium, several
factors determine whether harmful health effects will occur and the type and severity of those health effects. These factors include the dose (how much), the duration (how long), the route or pathway by which you are exposed (breathing, eating, drinking, or skin contact), the other chemicals to which you are exposed, and your individual characteristics such as age, sex, nutrition, family traits, life style, and state of health.
1.1 WHAT IS BARIUM?
Barium is a silvery-white metal that occurs in nature in many different forms called compounds. These compounds are solids and do not burn well. Two forms of barium, barium sulfate and barium carbonate, are often found in nature as underground ore deposits. Barium is sometimes found naturally in drinking water and food. Because certain forms of barium (barium sulfate and barium carbonate) do not mix well with water, the amount of barium usually found in drinking water is of a small quantity. Other barium compounds, such as barium chloride, barium nitrate, and barium hydroxide, are manufactured from barium sulfate. These other forms of barium mix more easily with water than barium sulfate and barium carbonate.
Barium and barium compounds are used for many important purposes. Barium sulfate ore is mined and used in several industries. It is used mostly by the oil and gas industries to make drilling muds. Barium sulfate is also used to make paints, bricks, tiles, glass, rubber, and other barium compounds. Some barium compounds, such as barium carbonate, barium chloride, and barium hydroxide, are used to make ceramics, insect and rat poisons, additives for oils and fuels, and many other useful products. Barium sulfate is sometimes used by doctors to perform medical tests and take x-ray photographs of the stomach and intestines.
***DRAFr FOR PUBLIC COMMENT***
• • 2
1. PUBLIC HEALTH STATE.~ENT
The length of time that barium will last in the environment following
release to air, land, and water depends on the form of barium released.
Barium compounds that do not mix well with water, such as barium sulfate and
barium carbonate, can last a long time in the environment. Barium compounds
that mix easily with water usually do not last a long time in the environment,
but they quickly change into the longer lasting forms (barium sulfate and
barium carbonate). Barium sulfate and barium carbonate are the forms of
barium most commonly found in the soil and water. If barium sulfate and
barium carbonate are released onto land, they will combine with particles of
soil. More information on the chemical and physical properties, use, and
environmental fate of barium is found in Chapters 3, 4, and 5.
1.2 HOW MIGHT I BE EXPOSED TO BARIUM?
Background levels of barium in the environment are very low. The air
that most people breathe contains about 0.0015 parts of barium per billion
parts of air (ppb). The air around factories that release barium compounds
into the air has only about 0.33 ppb or less of barium. Most surface water
and public water supplies contain only about 0.38 parts of barium per million
parts of water (ppm) or less, In some areas that have underground water
wells, drinking water may contain more barium than the 1 ppm limit set by EPA.
The highest amount measured from these water wells has been 10 ppm. The
highest amount of barium found in soil is about 100 to 3,000 ppm. Some foods,
-such as Brazil nuts, seaweed, fish, and certain plants, may contain high
amounts of barium. The amount of barium found in food and water usually is
not high enough to be a health concern. However, information is still being
collected to find out if long-term exposure to low levels of barium causes any
health problems.
Barium waste may be released to air, land, and water during industrial
operations. Barium is released into the air during the mining and processing
of ore and during manufacturing operations. Some industries dump wastes
containing barium compounds onto land or into the ocean and other bodies of
water, Barium compounds are found in more than 150 hazardous waste sites in
the United States. We do not know the exact number of hazardous waste sites
containing barium because not all waste sites have been examined for barium.
People with the greatest known risk of exposure to barium are those
working in industries that make or use barium compounds. Most of these
exposed persons breathe air that contains.barium sulfate or barium carbonate.
Sometimes they are exposed to one of the more harmful forms of barium (for
example, barium chloride or barium hydroxide) by breathing the dust from these
compounds or by getting them on their skin, Many hazardous waste sites
contain barium compounds, and these sites may be a source of exposure for
people living and working near them. Exposure near hazardous waste sites may
occur by breathing dust, eating soil or plants, or drinking water that is
polluted with barium. People near these sites may also get soil or water that
***DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT***
.j
. . • • 3
l. PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT
contains barium on their skin. More information on how you might be exposed to barium is found in Chapter 5.
1.3 HOW CAN BARIUM ENTER AND LEAVE MY BODY?
Barium enters your body when you breathe air, eat food, or drink water containing barium. It may also enter your body to a small extent when you have direct skin contact with barium compounds. Barium that you breathe seems to enter the bloodstream very easily. How much barium actually gets into your bloodstream depends on how much barium you breathe into your lungs and how easily the form of barium you breathe dissolves in the fluid in your lungs. Barium does not seem to enter the bloodstream very well from the stomach or intestines. This means that most of the barium you eat and drink will not get into your bloodstream to harm you. How much actually gets into your bloodstream depends on how much barium you eat or drink and how often you eat or drink it. Some barium compounds (for example, barium chloride) can enter your body through your skin, but this is very rare and usually occurs in industrial accidents at factories where they make or use barium compounds. Barium at hazardous waste sites may enter your body if you breathe dust, eat soil or plants, or drink water polluted with barium. Barium can also enter your body if polluted soil or water touches your skin.
Barium that enters your body when you breathe air, eat food, or drink water that contains barium is removed mainly in feces and urine. Most of the barium that enters your body is removed within a few days; and almost all of it is gone within 1-2 weeks. Most barium that stays in your body goes into the bones and teeth. We do not know the long-term health effects of the barium that stays in your body. More information on how barium enters and leaves your body is found in Chapter 2.
1.4 HOW CAN BARIUM AFFECT MY HEALTH?
We know little about the human health effects of barium. Most of what we know comes fro~ studies in which a small number of individuals were exposed to fairly large amounts of barium for short periods. Eating or drinking very large amounts of barium for a short period may cause paralysis or death in a few individuals. Some people who eat or drink somewhat smaller amounts of barium for a short period may potentially have difficulties in breathing, increased blood pressure, changes in heart rhythm, stomach irritation, minor changes in blood, muscle weakness, changes in nerve reflexes, swelling of the brain, and damage to the liver, kidney, heart, and spleen. We have no reliable information about the possible health effects in humans who are exposed to barium by breathing or by direct skin contact. However, many of the health effects might be similar to those seen after eating or drinking barium. Barium sulfate is sometimes given orally or by enema by doctors to patients for purposes of making x-rays of the stomach or intestines. The use of this particular barium compound in this type of medical test is not harmful to people.
***DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT***
r • • 4
1. PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT
The health effects of barium have been studied more often in
experimental animals than in humans. Some experimental animals that ate or
drank barium over short periods had build-up of fluid in the trachea
(windpipe), swelling and irritation of the intestines, changes in organ
weights, decreased body weight, and increased numbers of deaths. Some
experimental animals that ate or drank barium over long periods had increased
blood pressure, changes in the function and chemistry of the heart, and
shorter life span. We have no reliable information about the health effects
in experimental animals that are exposed to barium by breathing or by direct
skin contact.
We also have no reliable information to tell whether barium causes
cancer or birth defects in either humans or experimental animals.
We have no reliable information on human or animal health effects from
breathing barium or from skin contact with barium. There is no reliable
information on human health effects from eating food or drinking water
contaminated with barium.
The health effects in animals are listed below at the levels at which
they were first observed. They may also be seen at higher levels.
The following animal health effects have been found from eating or
drinking barium for less than 15 days:
• Some rats that drank water with 943 ppm barium in it for l day died.
• Rats that drank water with 1,414 ppm barium in it for l day had fluid
in the windpipe, changes in liver, brain, and kidney weights, and
lowered body weight.
• Rats that drank water with 1,414 ppm barium in it for 10 days had
changes in ovary and brain weights.
The following animal health effects have been found from eating or
drinking barium for more than 14 days.
• Mice that drank water with 5 ppm barium in it for about 2 years had a
reduced lifespan.
• Rats that drank water with 10 ppm barium in it for 16 months had
increased blood pressure.
• Rats that drank water with 100 ppm barium in it for 1 month or
4 months had increased blood pressure.
***DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT***
• s
1. PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT
• Raes chac drank wacer with 100 ppm barium in it for 16 months had changes in the function and chemistry of the heart.
More information on the health effects of barium can be found in Chapter 2.
1.5 IS THERE A MEDICAL TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER I HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO BARIUM?
There is no routine medical test to determine whether you have been exposed to barium. Doctors can measure barium in body tissues and fluids, such as blood, bones, urine, and feces, using very complex instruments. This is normally done only for cases of severe barium poisoning and for medical research. More information on testing for barium exposure is found in Chapters 2 and 6.
1.6 llHAT RECOMMENDATIONS HAS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MADE TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH?
To protect individuals from the possible harmful health effects of barium, the federal government --sgulates the amount of barium in the environment. EPA estimates thee for an adult of average weight, exposure to 1.5 ppm of barium in water each day for a lifetime (70 years) is unlikely to result in harmful health effects. For a long-term but less than lifetime exposure (about 7 years), 1.8 ppm is estimated Co be a level unlikely to result in harmful health effects for an adult. EPA has established a maximum level of l ppm for barium in drinking water. The Food and Administration (FDA) has set the quality standard for barium in bottled water at 1.0 ppm. Similarly, EPA has set the maximum barium concentration for groundwater protection at 1.0 ppm. EPA reportable quantity regulations require that a spill of 10 pounds or more of barium cyanide be reported to the Federal Government National Response Center.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has a legally enforceable occupational exposure limit of 0.5 milligrams (mg) of soluble barium compounds per cubic meter (ml) of air averaged over an 8-hour work day. The OSHA 8-hour exposure limit for barium dust in air is 5-10 mg/ml. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has classified barium exposures of 250 mg/ml as immediately dangerous to life or health.
More information on government regulations can be found in Chapter 7.
***DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT***
• 6
1. PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT
1. 7 \1l!ERE CAN I GET MORE INFORMATION?
If you have any more questions or concerns, please contact your state
health or environmental department or:
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Division of Toxicology
1600 Clifton Road, E-29
Atlanta, Georgia 30333
This agency can also provide you with information on the location of the
nearest occupational and environmental health clinic. These clinics
spe_cialize in the recognition, evaluation, and treatment of illness resulting
from exposure co hazardous substances.
***DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT***
• •
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30385
MllDRANDUM
DATE: JUL 7 l~9
SUBJECT: Car.olina Transfonner NPL Site
Fayetteville, North Car.olina
TO: Addressees
FROM: Michelle Glenn {\,~
Remedial Projec~~ger
Please find attached =pies of the minutes and the attendance sheet
from our. recent planning meeting.
If you wish to add, delete or =rrect any of the minutes, please let
me know at x7791.
ADDRESSEES: Becky Fox, WD
Bart Reedy, SFB
Rich Muza, GWPB
Cody Jackson, ATSDR
Keith Car.nley, APTMD
Reuben Bussey, ORC
war..ren Dixon, SFB
Laura Mazanti, WMD
Ron Landy, WMD
Tony DeAngelo, SFB
Dan Thoman, ESD
Bill Bakey, ESD
Br.uce Nicholson, NCDHR
Flint Worrell, NCDHR
Jim Bales, NCTJNR
cc: Richar.d D. Green, SFB
Jon Johnston, NSMS
Giezelle Bennett, NSMS
Doug Lair., ESD
• Carolina Transformer Meeting • In Atlanta, GA
June 29, 1989
The foll0,o1ing items were discussed or decided:
1) The rerroval action is stalled. The samples collected 5/23/89 did
not show concentrations at a high enough level to justify a
rerroval at this time.
2) E.5D will sample the oil in the capacitors to (hopefully) provide
justification for. the r.erroval action.
3) we still need to install a fence. I will look into having REM V
install it.
4) The ESD sampling (pre-Phase One) will occur the week of July 17,
1989.
5) ESD will sample Joe Royster' s well as pa.rt of their sampling
effort.
6) Bart Reedy will work with Dan Thoman (ESD) and Glenn Gex (REM V)
to get the drilling specs and direct push technology bid packages
ready to go.
7) E.5D put forth the possibility of using the in-house drilling r.ig
at the site. This may be suitable for. any additional work;
however., since we don't have it yet, we will move for.ward with
the contracting pr.ocedur.es.
8) The question of land owner.ship has been answered. Reuben Bussey
(ORC) informed us the property is still owned by the Strothers.
Access letters will probably go out next week.
9) I will send a letter. to Mr. John Parker requesting he send us the
drilling logs he informed Bill Bokey he had.
10) A question was raised by Bart Reedy -Does Nor.th Carolina have a
ban on ground water. reinjection?
11) Keith Carnley (APIMD), Bart Reedy (SFB) and Tony DeAngelo (SFB)
will explore potential remediation technologies. Any viable
technologies will be considered as candidate technologies for
tr.eatibility studies.
12) E.5D will tr.y and get wipe samples of the wood in Mr. Royster.'s
yar.d either in the July 17 sampling event or as part of the
regular. RI field work.
13) Bill Bokey (ESD) will .run the case by the EPA criminal
investigator. to deter.mine if we have a criminal case.
14) Comments on the draft FSAP ar.e due to me Friday, July 14, 1989.
• •
15) I will get Warr.en Dixon's (ERCS) sampling results to Becky Fox
(WD) and Cody Jackson (ATSDR).
16) Site specific timesheets will be distributed to everyone working
on the project by July 10, 1989.
• •
MEETING ON
THE CAROLINA TRANSFORMER SITE
HELD IN ATLANTA, GA
June 29, 1989
10 :00 am
Attendees Affiliation Address & Phone No. rcu 'I DR C.
0a nde,-,. EPA---A-p1llAb/1nxie,s
V
bc-c.-\c.,.,, ~ 0 ',''. cPA -WS)
C,kd,R11ostivic2,
E-5D
f;5j)
voY, 3 'I ?-Jr;//
11 t ·3?!Plf
X :::i. :i.. 3c/
X J'/sf
y77~/