NCD079044426_19940708_General Electric Co. Shepherd Farm_FRBCERCLA ROD_Preliminary Health Assessment-OCR

□.
~
~
~
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
E
I
I
-
RECEIVED
AUG 3 0 1994
suPERFUND SECTION
lP~lEl~M~~A[Rf'\f
IHI® ~Il fclln
~~®~~m ®ml fc
li@IT'
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY LSD
EAST F,.LAT ROCK, HENDERSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
CERCLIS NO. NCD079044426
AND
SHEPHERD FARM
FLAT ROCK, HENDERSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
C8RCLIS NO. NCD986170686
JULY 8, 1994
U.S. DEPAlRTMENT OF HEAL'fH AND HUMAN SElRVICES
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
THE ATSDR HEALTII ASSESSMENT: A NOTE OF EXPLANATION
Section 104 (i) (7) (A) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), as amended, states " ... the term 'health assessment' shall include preliminary assessments of potential risks to
human health posed by individual sites and facilities, based on such factors as the nature and extent of contamination, the
existence of potential pathways of human exposure (including ground or surface water contamination, air emissions, and
food chain contamination), the size and potential susceptibility of the community within the likely pathways of exposure,
the comparison of expected human exposure levels to the short-term and long-term health effects associated with
identified hazardous substances and any available recommended exposure or tolerance limits for such hazardous
substances, and the comparison of existing morbidity and mortality data on diseases that may be associated with the
observed levels of exposure. The Administrator of ATSDR shall use appropriate daia, risks assessments, risk evaluations
and studies available from the Administrator of EPA."
In accordance with the CERCLA section cited, ATS DR has conducted this preliminary health assessment on the data in
the site summary form. Additional health assessments may be conducted for this site as more information becomes
available to ATSDR.
The conclusion and recommendations presented in this Health Assessment are the result of site specific analyses and arc
not lo be cited or quoted for other evaluations or Health Assessments.
Use of trade names is for identification only and does not constitute endorsement by the Public Health Service or the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PRELIMINARY PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY LSD
EAST FLAT ROCK, HENDERSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
CERCLIS NO. NCD079044426
AND
SHEPHERD FARM
FLAT ROCK, HENDERSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
CERCLIS NO. NCD986170686
Prepared By:
Agency for .Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
1.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
THE ATSDR PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT: A NOTE OF EXPLANATION
This Public Hcalth Assessment was prepared by ATSDR pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmentll Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Supcrfund) section 104 (1)(6) (42 U.S.C. 9604 (i)(6), and in accord:tnce with
our implementing regulations 42 C.F.R. Part 90). In preparing this document ATSDR has collected rc:levant health data,
environmental data, and communily hc.alth concerns from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), st.:itc and local health
and environmental agencies, the community, and potentially responsible parties, where appropriate.
In addition, this document hu previously been provided to EPA and the affected state., in an initial release, a.s required by
CERCLA section 104 (1)(6)(H) for their information and review. The revised document wa., released for • 30 day public
comment period. Subsequent to the public comment period, ATSDR addressed all public comments and revised or appended
the document as appropriate. The public health assessment has now been reissued. This concludes the public hc.:J.lth assessment
process for this site, unless additional infonnation is obtained by ATSDR which, in the Agency's opinion, indicates a need to
revise or append lhe conclusions previously issued.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ....................................... David Satcher, M.D., Ph.D., Administrator
Barry L. Johnson, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator
Division of He.11th Assessment and Dise.1se Registry ........................................ Robert C. Williams, P.E., DEE, Director
Juan J. Reyes, Deputy Director
Federal Programs Branch .................................................................................................... Sally L. Shaver, Chief
Community He.allh Branch ..................................................................................... Cynthia M. Hari.s, Ph.D., Chief
Remedial Programs Branch ........................................................................ Sharon Williams-Fleetwood, Ph.D., Chief
Records & Information Management Bnnch ...................................................................... Max M. Howie, Jr., Chief
Emergency Response & Consultation Branch ............................................................... C. Harold Emmett, P .E., Chief
Use of trade names is for identificatlon only and does not constitute endorsement by the Public He:ilth Service or the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Sc:-viccs.
Additional copies of this report arc available from:
National Technical Infomlation Service, Springfield, Virginia
nn.,_, AO'"f A Ct:f'I
., .
I
I
,
ATSDR and its Public Health Assessment.
IATSDR is the Agency for Toxic Substances ·and Disease Registry, a federal public health
agency. ATSDR is part of the Public Health Service in the U.S. Department of Health and
IHuman Services. ATSDR is not a regulatory agency .. Created by Superfunp legislation in
1980, ATSDR's mission is to preYent or mitigate adYerse human health effects and
I diminished quality of life resulting from exposure to hazardous substances in the
enYironment. •
I The Superfund legislation directs ATSDR to undertake actions :related to public health.
One of these actions is to prepare public health assessments for all sites on or proposed for
the Enviro=ental Protection Agency's National Priorities List, including sites owned or I operated by the federal gove=ent.
1 During ATSDR assessment process the author reviews available information on
■ the levels (or concentrations) of the contaminants,
I.
•·
how people are or mi 0 ht be exoosed to the contaminants and • 0 ... ,
how exposure to the contaminants might affect people's health
I to decide whether working or living nearby might affect peoples' health, and whether there
are physical dangers to people, such as abandoned mine shafts, unsafe buildings, or other
hazards.
I Four ~ of information are used in an ATSDR assess~ent.
enYironmental data; information on the col\laminants and how people could come in
contact with them
demographic data; information on the ethnicity, socioeconomic status, age, ~d
gender of people living around the site,
co=unity health concerns; reports from the public about how the site affects their
health or quality of life
health data; information. on community-wide rates of illriess, disease, and death
compared with nation.al and state rates
I The sources of this information. include the Environ.mental Protection. Agency (EPA) and
other federal agencies, state, and local environ.mental and health agencies, other institutions, 1 · organizations, or individuals, and people living aroun.d and working at the site and their
representatives.
I
A-TSDR health asses.sors Yi.sit the site to see what it is like, how it is used, whether people
can walk onto the site, and who lives around the site. 1broughout the assessment process,
ATSDR he3lth assessors meet with people working at and living around the site to discuss
with them their he3lth concerns or symptoms.
A team of ATSDR staff rooi=end actions based on the information available that will
protect the he3lth of the people living around the site. When actions are reco=ended,
ATSDR works with other federal and state agencies to C3I:rf out those actions.
A public health action plan is part of the assessment. This plan describes the actions
ATSDR and others will take at and around the site to prevent or stop exposure to site
contaminants that could harm peoples' health. ATSDR may recommend public health actions
that include these:
restricting access to the site,
• monitoring,
• surveillance, registries, or health studies,
. . . ..
D environmental health education, and
D . . applied rubst.ance-speci:fic rese:rrch.
ATSDR shares its initial release oi the ass€SSillent with EPA, other federal departments
and agencies, and the state health department to ensure that it is clear, complete, and
accurate. After addressing the comments on that release, ATSDR ~leases the assessment
to the general public. ATSDR notifies the public through the media that the assessment is
availilble at nearby libraries, the city haJl, or another convenient place. Based on comments
from the public, ATSDR may revise the assessment ATSDR then releases the final
assessment. That release includes in an appendix ATSDR's written response to the public's
comments.
If conditions change at the site, or if new information or data become available afi.er the
assessment is completed, ATSDR will review the new information and determine what; if
any, other public health action is needed'.
For more information about ATSDR's assessment process and related programs pleas~ write
to:
Director
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
1600 Clifton Road (E-32)
Atlanta, Georgia 30333
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,
I
I
I
,---·-----. -
I ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY . . 1
BACKGROUND 3
A. Site Description and History 3
B. Site Visit . . . . . . 8
C. Demographics, Land Use, and Natural Resources Use 8
D. Health Outcome Data 14
COMMUNITY HEALTH CONCERNS . 14
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND OTHER HAZARDS 15
A. General Electric Subsite 17
B. Seldon Clark Subsite 19
C. Shepherd Farm Subsite. . 20
D. Fairgrounds Subsite. . . 22
E. Quality Assurance and Quality Control 23
F. Physical and Other Hazards 23
PATHWAYS
A.
B.
C.
D.
ANALYSES ........ .
General Electric Subsite
Seldon Clark Subsite
Shepherd Farm Subsite
Fairgrounds Subsite .
PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS
A. Toxicological Evaluation
B. Health Outcome Data Evaluation
C. Community Health Concerns Evaluation
CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . .
A. General Electric Subsite
B. Seldon Clark Subsite
C. Shepherd Farm Subsite
D. Fairgrounds Subsite.
RECOMMENDATIONS ....... .
A. General Electric Subsite
B. Seldon Clark Subsite
C. Shepherd Farm Subsite ..
D. Fairgrounds Subsite ...
E. Health Activities Recommendation Panel (HARP)
F. Public Health Actions
PREPARERS OF REPORT
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A:
APPENDIX B:
APPENDIX C:
APPENDIX D:
SITE MAPS
CONTAMINANT DATA TABLES
PATHWAY TABLES .
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
24
24
28
30
33
35
35
42
43
47
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
54
55
58
63
109
156
1.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
SUMMARY
The General Electric Company/Shepherd Farm (GE/SF) site,
Henderson County, North Carolina, has been proposed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for addition (Update 12) to
its National Priorities List (NPL). Both properties contain
wastes generated by GE. The Seldon Clark (SC) property across
Tabor Road from GE also contains some GE wastes and is part of
the proposed NPL site. The former Western Carolina Fairgrounds
(WCF) and two other properties are being evaluated separately and
might be included in the site. The SF, SC, and WCF properties
contain wastes from a variety of sources. ATSDR addresses only
the GE, SC, SF, and WCF properties in this public health
assessment. Data for other sites EPA may consider are not
currently sufficient for purposes of conducting a public health
assessment.
ATSDR considers the GE/SF site an indeterminate public health
hazard because the currently available data do not indicate that
people are being exposed to contamination at levels expected to
cause adverse health effects. However, insufficient
environmental data (air, biota, water, and soil data) are
available to evaluate all of the ways in which people may have
been exposed in the past. EPA and/or site owners will develop
additional environmental data.
Onsite workers and individuals dumping waste could have
incidentally ingested, inhaled, or had dermal contact with waste
while disposing of materials. There is limited environmental
data to evaluate all the ways that individual might be exposed to
the waste material. The available environmental data do not
indicate that adverse health effects should occur from incidental
ingestion or dermal contact with the waste at the reported
concentrations.
Individuals consuming private well water could have been or may
be exposed to contaminants in the groundwater. Residents have
questioned whether a number of their health-related problems,
including cancers, asthma, headaches, and rectal bleeding, might
be associated with exposure to site contaminants in private well
water. At the present time, there is no conclusive scientific
data to indicate these symptoms are the result of exposure to the
contaminants (1,1-DCA, 1,2-DCA, PCE, or TCE) found in the
drinking water. However, there is limited information about long
term human exposure to low level concentrations of these
contaminants in drinking water. Three chemicals (1,2-DCA, PCE,
TCE) have been found to produce cancer in laboratory animals at
high concentrations. From what is known about the contaminant
concentrations at the time of sampling, there does not appear to
be a significant risk for excess cancers for people living near
the site consuming the private well water.
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Children may have had or could have contact with site
contaminants in surface water and sediments in Bat Fork Creek.
At the reported concentrations, there are no adverse health
effects expected to occur in children from activities such as
swimming, wading, or incidental ingestion of the surface water.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has made
recommendations 1) to cease and reduce the public's exposure to
contaminants in private well water and 2) to further characterize
media and biota that may be contaminated by site-related
contaminants. Additional data are expected to be developed by
site owners or EPA.
2
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
BACKGROUND
A. Site Description and History
The GE/SF site, Henderson County, North Carolina, has been
proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for
addition (Update 12) to its National Priorities List (NPL). The
properties are in East Flat Rock and Flat Rock, North Carolina,
near Hendersonville, which is the county seat. EPA reported that
the proposed NPL site includes three subsites where GE wastes
have been deposited--the GE property; the SF property, a few
thousand feet southwest of GE; and the Seldon Clark (SC)
property, across Tabor Road to the north of GE (EPA 1991a, EPA
1993c). (See Figure 1, Appendix A). EPA reports that the former
Western Carolina Fairgrounds (WCF), a few miles north of GE
(Figure 1, Appendix A) and two other properties are being
evaluated separately and might be included in the site. In
making their decision, EPA will consider whether evaluations show
that hazardous wastes from GE were placed at these or other areas
and whether the areas pose a risk to human health and the
environment (EPA 1993c).
Local citizens have told EPA staff members about locations where
GE wastes may have been deposited. EPA reports they have not
received information that shows conclusively the GE did, or did
not, send hazardous wastes to the WCF (EPA 1993c). Disposal at
other locations also has not been confirmed. A commenter reports
1) interviews with senior and retired GE employees responsible
for waste handling, indicate that burial of GE wastes did not
occur at WCF and 2) GE and others donated petroleum based
materials to be used for fire training--when training ceased, GE
removed its remaining materials.
GE, SC, and SF--the three proposed NPL properties--and WCF are
addressed as subsites in this public health assessment.
Pertinent information needed to conduct a public health
assessment (such as site location, history, and environmental
sampling data) are not currently available for other properties.
General Electric Subsite
The GE property is about 4 miles southeast of the center of
Hendersonville, North Carolina. Site features are shown in
Figure 2, Appendix A. The property is about 50 acres in size and
is bounded on the north by Tabor Road and on the west by
Spartanburg Highway (NUS 1991a). Bat Fork Creek is part of the
eastern property boundary, as is a GE recreation facility. The
southern boundary is fenced south and west of the recreation
3
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
area. GE also owns a very small, undeveloped tract south of Bat
Fork Creek on the western side of Spartanburg Highway.
ATSDR staff members noted during a site visit that the facility
includes two major buildings--a manufacturing plant and a
finished stock warehouse. Also on site are several waste
disposal units {land plots formerly used to landspread wastes),
two currently used unlined waste treatment ponds, a dry, inactive
sludge impoundment, and two closed landfills. A recreation
center, which includes a ball field used by adults and youths, is
on another part of the site {EPA 1991a) {NUS 1991a). The major
buildings are on relatively flat ground; the rest of the property
is gently sloping terrain. A fence controls access to plant
buildings and several waste disposal units; three of the four
former landspread plots and one of the closed landfills are not
within the fenced area. A guard is on duty 24 hours to keep
unauthorized personnel out of the fenced grounds.
GE reports that their plant began operating in 1955. In addition
to its main product line of high-intensity-discharge lighting
systems, the plant also manufactured electrical transformers from
about 1955 to 1975. The heat transfer fluid used in some of
those transformers contained polychlorinated biphenyls {PCBs).
PCBs are no longer used in the GE product line.
Operations include secondary aluminum refining, machining,
finishing, cleaning, and polishing or coating (NUS 1991a).
Components go through mechanical, chemical, and electrochemical
processes. Chemical treatment solutions include soaps,
phosphoric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, and sodium
hydroxide. In addition, plastic is molded. GE personnel report
the secondary aluminum refining, which operates 5 days a week,
and other related processes are connected to a baghouse designed
to capture particulates entrained in the air emission streams.
The bags are treated with lime to neutralize acid mist and to aid
in the capture of particulates. Coated wire is processed in
curing ovens where most of the solvent off gases are combusted.
Oven gases are then routed to incinerators (operating temperature
of 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit) where further organic destruction
takes place.
Waste disposal activities during the 1950s and 1960s are not
fully documented {NUS 1991a). Landfill.A received wastes of
uncertain description between 1955 and the 1960s and now is
covered by pavement. Landfill Bis believed to have operated
during the 1970s and may have received only construction debris.
Landfill B has been partially paved. ATSDR staff saw no physical
evidence of waste at the landfills during its site visit.
4
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Throughout its operations, GE has released liquid effluent to Bat
Fork Creek; discharge is regulated by a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. GE reports they
sample discharge frequently each day and analyze composite
samples. Creek water also is sampled upstream and downstream of
the permitted discharge. Wastewater treatment, which began in
the mid-1970s, consists of lime injection for an acidic,
phosphoric waste stream and two unlined wet ponds of about 1 and
5 acres. Between 1976 and 1980, the smaller pond periodically
received an unknown quantity of sludge. Treated (neutralized)
phosphoric wastes were spread on several plots of land (Plots
A,B,C,D) between 1977 and 1980; now they are hauled to the county
landfill. ATSDR noticed that Plots A and B were blanketed by
vegetation. ATSDR saw no physical evidence of either Plot C or
Plot D, which has a thick growth of grass. An unknown quantity
of sludge was pumped from one of the wet ponds into a sludge
impoundment during 1976 and 1977; that impoundment was closed in
1977. ATSDR noted during its site visit that the impoundment now
is dry and has a thick cover of vegetation. GE recently removed
all underground tanks, which formerly stored fuel oil, kerosene,
gasoline, and waste oil. ·
A large part of Plot C underlies the recreation area; GE
officials reported to ATSDR that 2 to 3· feet of clean fill soils
from an off-site source were placed over Plot C when the
recreation area was developed in the late 1970s or early 1980s.
GE periodically reconditions the ball field surface by placing
additional off-site fill material.
Disposal methods for PCB wastes generated at the GE plant are not
fully documented, but, in 1984, PCB wastes were sent to Emelle,
Alabama, for disposal. Cutting and grinding fluids have been
transported to Pinewood, South Carolina. The plant's drum
storage building, built in 1970, has spill-containment features.
GE has sampled about 100 private wells in the area and has
offered to connect affected facilities to the public water
system. They report most offers have been accepted and the
connections made. GE also reports selected private wells are
sampled semi-annually beyond the fringe of the contaminated
groundwater, principally in the direction of apparent groundwater
flow, to evaluate contaminant movement in groundwater. GE also
actively monitors groundwater quality onsite with approximately
40 monitoring wells.
GE reports they operate a comprehensive industrial hygiene
program to ensure employees' exposures are minimized. The
program includes area and employee monitoring, employee testing,
and various control measures. Elements of the program change
over time, depending on changes in the facility and applicable
5
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
.1
I
regulations. GE's medical unit tracks work place injuries and
illnesses and maintains information on each employees' health I
history, including any health-related effects due to exposure.
GE also reports that, although it is currently not necessary, the
medical unit has conducted specialized tests for purposes of I
evaluating employee exposure. GE has replaced some chemicals
with less hazardous compounds, instituted engineering controls,
and provided appropriate personal protective equipment and I
training. EPA's recent Chemical Safety Audit found proper safety
controls are in place. GE reports that over 38 years of
operation no evidence has been found of adverse worker exposure
1 to hazardous contaminants (GE 1993, EPA 1992a).
Seldon Clark Subsite
A small, former landfill is northwest of the GE facility on
property owned by Seldon Clark (Figure 2, Appendix A) (NUS
1991a). GE officials reported to ATSDR that the filled area,
formerly a ravine, covers about 0.3 acres. During its site
visit, ATSDR personnel saw no physical evidence of a landfill.
The property, currently a grass-covered field, is not fenced and
slopes gently toward a street that forms its eastern boundary.
GE officials believe the landfill was used for disposal of
construction rubble. GE officials also say the owner reported
the highway department disposed of road materials and stored
highway equipment on the property (GE 1993). The owner says that
the fill included drums of aluminum-based paint and cleaning
fluid (NUS 1991a). GE officials report that an EPA contractor's
interviews with plant employees and GE's review of their records
did not disclose information suggesting that paint and cleaning
fluids were placed in the landfill. Site sampling did not detect
paint or cleaning fluid (GE 1993).
Shepherd Farm Subsite
The SF property is in Flat Rock, North Carolina, about 2,500 feet
southwest of the GE property and 4 miles southeast of the center
of Hendersonville (Figures 1 and 3, Appendix A). From 1957 to
1970, Mr. Shepherd picked up waste from GE and other sources and
took it to his property, where it was dumped and burned (NUS
1991b, GE 1993). During that time, the only other use of the
property was for the owner's residence. In 1972, Mr. Shepherd
built a trailer park on part of the property south of the
disposal area (NUS 1991b). In 1981, he sold 22 acres for
development of the Spring Haven Trailer Park. ATSDR learned from
Spring Haven's property manager that the park has 90 residences
and a community center. Approximate locations of the SF and the
Spring Haven properties are shown in Figure 3, Appendix A).
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
The lateral limit of waste disposal activities has not yet been
defined. For purposes of assessing the public health
implications of the waste disposal, ATSDR has designated an
estimated disposal site area of about 4 acres (Figure 3);
available sampling data and descriptive information suggest that
dumping took place or waste materials were seen on portions of
that area. The boundary of the estimated area is used by ATSDR
in this assessment solely to clarify discussion and to evaluate
"on site" and "off site" issues. According to Mr. Shepherd, the
waste was deposited in an old dry pond or ravine and consisted of
cardboard, paper, and buffing compound (NUS 1991b). However,
when the path leading to the ravine was covered with ice, waste
was deposited along the path. The dry pond was reported to be
east of an intermittent tributary to Bat Fork Creek, near Spring
Haven lots 36, 37, and 64 (NUS 1991b). Investigators reported
seeing partially buried drums along the tributary west of the
trailer on lot 37 (NUS 1991b). Debris also was seen along the
northern border of the trailer park up to lot 31. Two residents
reported that during construction of the trailer park, drums were
dug up and reburied (NUS 1991b). There are no fences or other
physical barriers that prevent people from entering the estimated
site area.
According to GE officials, waste solvents such as trichloroethene
(TCE) and tetrachloroethene (PCE), but not PCB-containing oil,
probably were deposited on the property (NUS 1991b).
Occasionally, electrical components were taken to the site, and
copper was salvaged.
During its site visit, ATSDR staff noted that the ground in the
estimated disposal site area slopes down toward the tributary of
Bat Fork Creek. The disposal area on the SF property is
overgrown with trees and other vegetation. Several Spring Haven
residences within the estimated disposal area are on landscaped
plots. The estimated disposal area within Spring Haven includes
a large garden along the tributary. Residents are reported to
raise vegetables in the garden.
Fairgrounds Subsite
The former WCF property is approximately 3 miles southeast of the
center of Hendersonville and about a mile northwest of the GE
property (Figures 1 and 4, Appendix A). The property had been
used for manufacturing hosiery and, more recently, was a
fairgrounds. The manufacturing facility, which dates back to the
turn of the century, is no longer on the property (G&O 1991).
Part of the property once may have been a small, uncontrolled
landfill. The amount of material deposited on the site may have
been minimal. During the 1970s and 1980s, an unknown quantity of
7
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
55-gallon drums containing GE wastes were reported to have been
buried in a 25-to 30-foot-deep trench on the southwestern part
of the property. However, according to GE's interviews with
senior and retired employees responsible for waste handling, GE
wastes were not buried there (GE 1993). More recently, fire
departments from the region conducted training on the
northeastern corner of the property. A concrete-lined depression
was reported to have been at that location, but no physical
evidence remains. Drums of unspecified materials were stored in
buildings and used as an ignition source (G&O 1991). GE reports
that they, and others, donated petroleum-based materials for fire
training. When fire training ended, GE reports they removed
materials it had remaining at the site (GE 1993).
A commenter reports that land across James Street was formerly
used as a parking lot and was used for youth baseball in 1993. A
model airplane group frequently uses the area on site in the
vicinity of where buildings once stood, and hay for horse feed
currently is obtained from the former parking area and from an
on-site area near James Street.
During its site visit, ATSDR personnel noted that the property
slopes irregularly downward from James Street toward Highland
Lake Road. Access from James Street is restricted by a chain-
link fence with locked gate. The boundary along Highland Lake
Road has no fence; access from that direction is somewhat
hampered by a ditch and steep slope. The other two edges of the
property are fenced, although it was noted that parts of those
fences have deteriorated.
B. Site Visit
ATSDR representatives Tina Forrester, Don Gibeaut, and Carl Blair
visited the site area between April 20-24, 1992. Pertinent
information obtained during that visit is described in
appropriate sections of this document.
C. Demographics, Land Use, and Natural Resources Use
General Electric Subsite
Demographics
According to the 1990 U.S. Census, Henderson County has a total
population of more than 69,000; Hendersonville's population is
about 7,300 (U.S. Census 1991). The county population is about
79% white and 20% African American; in the plant vicinity, the
distribution is about 96% white and 2% African American. ATSDR's
examination of orthophoto maps (TSI undated) for the GE vicinity
suggests that there may be as many as 90 homes and an estimated
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
225 residents within 500 feet of the property. The nearest
residence is adjacent to the southeastern property line. From
the results of a house count conducted using topographic maps,
EPA estimates the residential population within 1 mile of the
plant to be 1,010 (NUS 1991a). The nearest school is about 2,500
feet northwest of the property; two other schools are about 5,000
feet west. No nursing homes or hospitals are within 1 mile. GE
officials reported to ATSDR that employment at the plant has
ranged from 400 to 1,200. At the time of ATSDR's visit,
employment was about 1,100, including 800 employees in production
and 100 in warehousing. Up to five people are involved in
wastewater treatment. As many as five people conducted
landspreading operations, and a few participated in dredging and
sludge pumping.
Land Use
The principal land use in the immediate vicinity of the site is
residential. Some land along U.S. Route 176, which is
immediately west of the property, is commercial or used for light
industry. A large plant is north of Tabor Road, across from the
GE property and east of the SC property. A large power
substation adjoins the southeastern boundary of the property.
Open spaces are undeveloped or farmed. Orchards are prominent
northeast of the property.
Land is lightly developed along Bat Fork Creek, both upstream and
downstream of the GE property, and also along Mud Creek, into
which Bat Fork Creek discharges. Approximately 90% of the land
along Bat Fork Creek is used for agriculture; the remaining 10%
supports urban land uses. Apple orchards account for 60% of the
agricultural land use (Law 1990d).
Jackson Park, a large, city-owned leisure and recreational area,
is about 3.5 miles northwest of the GE property. An elementary
school and junior high school are about 1 mile west of the
property. No nursing homes or hospitals are within 1 mile.
Natural Resources Use
Bat Fork Creek originates about 1.5 stream-miles southwest of the
GE property. The creek first flows near the SF property and then
through the GE property. Rainfall runoff from the GE property
discharges into the creek. GE has an NPDES permit to discharge
treated industrial effluent into the creek. GE officials
reported to ATSDR that the plant's discharge accounts for 40% of
the stream flow at that location; GE officials also reported
that, by the end of 1993, they will discharge industrial effluent
to the public wastewater treatment system. A commenter reported
that an aquatics study conducted in 1990 indicated the stream was
9
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
rated poor (unable to sustain life) for about 1 mile down stream
of GE and improved in quality farther down stream.
From the GE property, Bat Fork Creek flows northward
approximately 6 miles, passing Jackson Park's recreation fields,
and enters Mud Creek. Although irrigation of agricultural lands
adjacent to Bat Fork Creek is reported to be unlikely due to the
relatively low volume of available water (Law 1990d), a commenter
reports that a farmer irrigates crops with creek water and sells
produce locally. Some livestock probably drink water from the
stream. Steep banks, dense undergrowth, and narrow width limit
its use for recreational fishing (Law 1990d). However, one
resident reported that some fishing does occur in Bat Fork Creek.
Another resident reported that in years past the creek was used
for fishing, recreation by local children, watering his
livestock, and until 1981 as his drinking water source (EPA
1993b) . .
Mud Creek flows for approximately 7 miles and empties into the
French Broad River, which flows approximately 57 miles northeast
to the Tennessee border (G&O 1991). The French Broad River is
used for recreational fishing, boating, and canoeing (NUS 1991a).
A state Division of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(NCDEHNR) representative told ATSDR that there are no public
water intakes along any portion of the instate waters downstream
of GE. A commenter reports that the river has been considered a
future water supply for Asheville, North Carolina, located about
15 miles north of Hendersonville.
Hendersonville obtains raw water for its public water system from
three surface water intakes on Mills River, Bradley Creek, and
Fletcher Creek; those bodies of water are outside the watersheds
pertinent to this assessment. The GE facility has been connected
to the public water system since it began operations. The
majority of residents within 4 miles of the property receive
drinking water from the city's system (NUS 1991a). Homes near GE
have relied on private wells for drinking water, but increasing
numbers are connecting to the public water system. The GE
facility has provided bottled water to many residences in the
vicinity and has paid for connections to the public water system.
A few residents have declined such assistance.
Groundwater in the area is in a soil/crystalline rock aquifer and
is available from springs and wells (NUS 1991a). Private wells
in the area are an average 118 feet deep (NUS 1991a). GE
officials reported to ATSDR that most wells in the vicinity
extend into bedrock. The depth to rock or weathered rock on the
property was found to range from a few feet to 72 feet at
monitoring well locations. Most of the groundwater flow, on a
volume basis, is likely to be within the soil zone and is
10
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
expected to follow topographic gradients. Within the underlying
rock, flow is principally within joints and fractures. Flow
direction there is broadly influenced by topographic gradients,
orientation of the rock openings, and the regional flow system.
Measurements of water level in monitoring wells on the GE
property indicate on-site groundwater flow is south and east--
toward Bat Fork Creek. That finding suggests that much of the
shallow groundwater flow beneath the property may discharge into
the creek. However, off-site sampling data show that some
contaminants found in groundwater on the GE property are also in
private well water, principally east and northeast of the
property. These findings suggest that a substantial volume of
groundwater contaminated by site releases is not discharging into
Bat Fork Creek, but flowing east and northeast.
· Seldon Clark Subsite
Demographics
Demographic information for the SC subsite is the same as for the
GE property. The nearest residence is across the street to the
east.
Land Use
Area land use information is the same as for the GE property.
During the site visit, ATSDR personnel noted that the SC property
is an unused, unfenced field.
Natural Resources Use
Demographic information for the SC subsite is the same as for the
GE property. Surface runoff now and while the landfill operated
follows a drainage system that discharges into Bat Fork Creek at
a point downstream from GE.
Shepherd Farm Subsite
Demographics
Spring Haven Trailer Park is a quality adults-only retirement
community of 90 homes; the manager reported to ATSDR that two
thirds of the units are occupied year-round. Each unit houses
one or two people; the average age of residents is 67. Children
are not permitted to live in the development, but visit
occasionally. Several of the Spring Haven units are within
ATSDR's estimated disposal site area; most of the remaining units
are within 500 feet. Four other residences south of Roper Road
(three at the Hill Farm and one at SF) are within 500 feet of the
estimated disposal site area. Census data suggest that the
11
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
population in the vicinity of the property is about 96% white and
2% African American. EPA conducted a house count from
topographic maps and estimates the population within 1 mile of
the property is 1,044 (NUS 1990). Two schools are about 2,000 to
2,500 feet west of the property, and another is about 4,500 feet
north. No nursing homes or hospitals are within 1 mile.
Land use
Property near the Shepherd farm is residential, forested, and
farmland; the commercial activity is along U.S. Route 176, about
2,000 feet north and east. A commenter reports that the nearest
industrial activity is about 1000 feet south and west on Roper
Road.
Natural Resources Use
Bat Fork Creek originates about 0.7 miles south of the property.
The creek passes the western edge of Spring Haven. From there,
the creek flows east through the GE property and north toward Mud
Creek, as described previously during the discussion of the GE
property. Runoff from the estimated disposal site area
discharges into a tributary that joins Bat Fork Creek several
hundred feet to the west.
The Spring Haven development has always obtained water from the
public water system. The four residences at the Hill Farm and SF.
once relied on private wells for drinking water. GE officials
reported that all residences in the vicinity accepted their offer
of connections to city water. During ATSDR's visit, a water
department representative stated that the closest wells used for
drinking water may be at two homes about 1,500 feet east of the
estimated disposal site area. Information confirming groundwater
flow direction is not available. ATSDR expects that most of the
groundwater in overburden soils within the estimated disposal
site area probably flows toward the tributary. Flow direction of
contaminated groundwater entering the bedrock system could be
substantially different from that in the overlying soil zone.
NCDEHNR personnel reported to ATSDR that most private wells in
the Hendersonville area extend into bedrock. Thus, any private
well still in use might receive much or all of its inflow from
within the rock zone.
Fairgrounds Subsite
Demographics
The property is bordered on the northwest by a subdivision of
about 80 homes and on the southeast by 5 homes and a few small
industries. Three residential properties adjoin the property
12
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
along Highland Lake Road, and two homes on the north side of
James street are close to the property. ATSDR personnel's
observations indicate that there are about 100 homes and an
estimated 250 residents within 1,000 feet of the site. An
elementary school is about one-half. mile southeast of the site.
No nursing homes or hospitals are within one mile.
Land Use
ATSDR was told by a Hendersonville spokesman that the WCF
property currently is not used for any activity. Four buildings
and a ticket booth, all in a state of disrepair, occupy the
northern part of the property. The remainder of the site is an
open, grass-covered field.
The principal land use in the immediate vicinity is residential.
There is limited commercial and light industrial activity nearby,
principally along U.S. Route 176, 1,000 feet east of the WCF
property. A golf course is about 1,500 feet northwest.
Natural Resources Use
ATSDR's discussions with water department personnel indicate that
about nine residences in the immediate vicinity of the WCF
property are not connected to the public water system; those
residents apparently rely on private wells for drinking water.
Most of those residences are along Highland Lake Road. The
nearest downslope residence that may rely on a well for drinking
water is adjacent to the western corner of the property (Figure
4). Residents who live in a home north of James Street, about
100 feet north of the fire-training location, are the nearest
potential groundwater users in the area. Ground surface at the
residence appears to about the same elevation as the training
location. Information confirming groundwater flow is not
available. ATSDR personnel believe that most of the groundwater
in soils beneath the site flows toward the creek tributary south
of Highland Lake Road. Flow direction of groundwater entering
the bedrock system could be substantially different from that
expected within the overlying soil zone. As reported previously,
most private wells in the Hendersonville area extend into
bedrock. Thus, private wells might receive much or all of their
inflow from within the rock zone.
Surface water runoff follows the sloping site topography toward
Highland Lake Road and should discharge into a tributary of King
Creek, which is about 100 feet southwest of the road. King Creek
flows approximately 2.3 miles to join Bat Fork Creek well
downstream from the GE, SC, and SF properties and then flows
another 2.5 miles before discharging into Mud Creek. Mud Creek
flows northeast for approximately 9.3 miles before intersecting
13
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
the French Broad River, which flows approximately 57 miles
northeast to the Tennessee border (G&O 1991). No surface water
intakes for drinking water are within those waters.
D. Health Outcome Data
The NCDEHNR Cancer Surveillance Unit has prepared a report on
cancer incidence in Henderson County (NCDEHNR 1992); the
conclusions of the report are discussed in the Public Health
Implications section of this public health assessment.
A tabulation of adverse health effects reported by residents of
the Tabor Road area was collected by a concerned resident and
presented to ATSDR (CC 1992). The following concerns are
discussed in the Public Health Implications section of this
public health assessment.
COMMUNITY HEALTH CONCERNS
Residents expressed the following health and environmental
concerns about the GE property during the public availability
sessions and private meetings held at the time of the site visit:
1. Did a chlorine leak from the GE plant in July 1991
result in burning and irritation of the respiratory
tracts of people residing near the plant?
2. Are the cancers reported by residents in the vicinity
of the site occurring at an excess rate?
3. Is the occurrence of these cancers related to exposure
to contaminants in the groundwater and private wells?
4.
5.
Are other health-related problems in residents of the
surrounding community, such as asthma, migraine
headaches, blisters in the mouth, rectal bleeding, or
myelitis, related to exposure to contaminants in
private wells?
How many residents are still using private wells that
may be affected by site contaminants? Do more of the
private wells near the site need to be tested for
contaminants? Do private wells need to be retested
because many have only been tested once and because the
samples were collected during a very dry year?
14
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
6 • Were the deaths of cattle and hogs that drank from
creeks near the site in the '60s and '70s related to
contaminants from the GE property?
7. Were children who played in Bat Fork Creek (swimming,
wading, or fishing) exposed to contaminants in the
creek at concentrations that might cause health
effects?
8. Were people who ate fish from Bat Fork Creek or drank
milk from cows that drank water from Bat Fork Creek
exposed to contaminants at levels of health concern?
Residents also expressed concerns that their property had
decreased in value because of the contamination of the
groundwater. They also expressed concern that Bat Fork Creek was
no longer a viable stream.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND OTHER HAZARDS
Sampling data and supporting site-related information suggest
that contaminants have been released to the air, groundwater,
surface soils, surface water, or sediment on site or off site at
the GE, SC, SF, and WCF properties. The narrative and tables in
this section identify contaminants that ATSDR has further
evaluated (see subsequent sections of this public health
assessment) to determine whether exposure to them has public
health significance. Discussion of certain contaminants in this
section does not imply that exposure to them would automatically
result in adverse health effects.
ATSDR selects contaminants for further evaluation after
considering one or more of the following factors:
1. Concentrations of contaminants on and off site.
2.
3 .
Sampling plan design, field data quality, and
laboratory data quality.
Relationship of on-site and off-site contaminant
concentrations to public health assessment comparison
values that are based on ingestion or inhalation routes
of exposure.
4. Unavailability of a comparison value.
5. Community health concerns.
15
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Contaminants evaluated further in this public health assessment
are provided in following sections and in tables in Appendix B.
Contaminants selected for any one medium (e.g., soil, air, water)
are included in all tables. The data tables include several
abbreviations for identifying sources of comparison.values:
* EMEG
* CREG
* RFDG
* LTHA * MCL
* AL
Environmental Media Evaluation Guide
Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
Reference Dose-based Guide
Lifetime Health Advisory
Maximum Contaminant Level
Action Level
EMEGs are estimated comparison concentrations ATSDR has
calculated from information in the Agency's series of
toxicological profiles for specific chemicals. CREGs are
estimated comparison concentrations for specific chemicals;
exposure to those concentrations may result in one excess cancer
per million persons. CREGs are calculated using EPA's cancer
slope factors. RFDG comparison concentrations are derived from
EPA's estimates of the daily exposure to a contaminant unlikely
to cause adverse health effects. LTHAs are contaminant levels in
drinking water that EPA believes will not result in adverse
noncancer health effects. MCLs are contaminant concentrations in
drinking water that EPA believes will protect human health.
Action Levels, when exceeded, require public water systems to
initiate measures designed to reduce lead and copper levels at
consumers' water taps.
ATSDR reviewed EPA's Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI) to
identify other possible sources of environmental contamination
released to the area. The database did not identify any
facilities releasing contaminants within several miles of the
properties discussed in this assessment. ATSDR also reviewed
EPA's list of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) sites for similar
information. That review found only one CERCLIS site within 4
miles of the properties--the manufacturing plant noted earlier
that is immediately north of GE. That plant is not part of this
public health assessment. According to GE officials, the
manufacturing plant has operated since the early 1970s, and a
state-ordered soil removal has been completed. NCDEHNR reported
to ATSDR that acetone, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, arsenic,
chromium, lead, and barium were detected on the property.
GE and NCDEHNR personnel reported that a former automobile
service station about 3,000 feet east of the GE plant at the
corner of Tabor Road and Oak Grove Road had fuel tanks that
leaked petroleum hydrocarbons into the ground and groundwater.
Contaminated soils surrounding the tanks have been remediated.
16
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Petroleum hydrocarbons have been found in groundwater at private
wells sampled by GE and the state; those data are reported and
evaluated in the GE sections of this assessment. The service
station itself is not part of the assessment.
A. General Electric Subsite
On-Site Contamination
Groundwater. (Monitoring Wells)
GE has installed more than 35 monitoring wells on the property.
Laboratory analyses of samples taken in 1988 and 1990 show
groundwater beneath the·property contains volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs),
primarily at low.concentrations. Specific information about
monitoring well water contaminants and concentrations is provided
in Table 1 (Appendix B). Contaminants found at concentrations
greater than ATSDR's comparison values for drinking water include
benzene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, chloroform, chloromethane,
dibromochloromethane, dichlorobromomethane, 1,2-dichloroethane
(1,2~DCA), 1,1-dichloroethene (1,1-DCE), 1,2-dichloroethene
(1,2-DCE), methylene chloride, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
(i,1,2,2-TCA), tetrachloroethylene (PCE), 1,1,2-trichloroethane
(1,1,2-TCA), trichloroethylene (TCE), and vinyl chloride.
Groundwater also contains numerous inorganic contaminants.
Concentrations of aluminum, GE's primary process metal, and
several other metals are somewhat elevated over background
levels. Those exceeding ATSDR's comparison values for drinking
water include barium, beryllium, lead, manganese, nickel, and
vanadium.
Surface Soils
Several samples were taken from surface soils at the recreation
area, waste-spreading areas, the sludge impoundment, and landfill
areas. The findings are shown in Table 2 (Appendix B).
Seven surface soil samples taken at the recreation area did not
show substantive contamination. One sample showed presumptive
evidence of PCBs at a very low concentration·slightly exceeding
the PCB comparison value for incidental soil ingestion.
Inorganic constituents commonly found in soils, although
detected, are not considered to be at elevated levels; none
exceeded ATSDR's comparison values.
Soil samples from the waste-spreading areas, sludge impoundment,
and one of the landfill areas showed evidence of elevated PCBs
and low levels of several other organic compounds. Lead levels
were slightly elevated; levels of other inorganic contaminants
17
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
are not considered to be elevated. Dieldrin and PCBs exceeded
ATSDR's comparison values for incidental soil ingestion.
Surface Water
Results of the laboratory analyses of samples of surface water
from Bat Fork Creek on site and of samples of GE's wastewater
discharge to the creek are shown in Table 3 (Appendix B).
Several samples of creek water were analyzed for voes.
Chloroform, dichlorobromomethane, PCE, and TCE were detected at
low concentrations slightly exceeding ATSDR's comparison values
for drinking water. A sample of the wastewater discharged to the
creek was analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, and several inorganic
contaminants; a low level of aluminum was found. No contaminants
were found at levels exceeding comparison values for drinking
water.
Sediments
Several samples of sediments from Bat Fork Creek on site and from
the on-site waste ponds were analyzed. Results are shown in
Table~ (Appendix B) ..
No organic chemicals were found in the samples of creek
sediments. Inorganic contaminants are not considered to be at
elevated levels; none were seen at levels exceeding ATSDR's
comparison values for incidental ingestion.
Sediment samples from the waste ponds were found to contain high
concentrations of PCBs and quite low levels of several other
organic chemicals. Of the inorganic contaminants, aluminum,
barium, and lead may be at slightly elevated levels. PCB levels
and the estimated level of benzo(a)pyrene exceeded ATSDR's
comparison values for incidental ingestion.
Off-Site Contamination
Groundwater (Private Water Wells}
GE has sampled groundwater from 98 private wells in the vicinity
of its property. The results of analyses of private wells and of
background groundwater are shown in Table 5 (Appendix B).
All of the wells were analyzed for voes. Some wells near the
former gas station east of the property at Tabor and Oak Grove
roads also were analyzed for isopropyl ether and methyl-tert-
butyl ether (MTBE), which are signature compounds for identifying
gasoline releases. Organic chemicals were found at 58 of the
wells sampled. voes were detected at low concentrations in water
18
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I -... •:··•,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
from wells southeast, east, and northeast of the GE property; the
farthest well in which chemicals were found is about 3,000 feet
northeast. PCE, 1,1,1-TCA, and TCE were found most frequently
(33, 21, and 13 well locations, respectively). Isopropyl ether
was found in samples from 2 of the 10 wells analyzed for that
compound. MTBE was found at 5 of the 13 wells analyzed for that
chemical; the concentrations were -low. The presence of these two
ethers at those locations suggests that the gas station tanks
leaked into groundwater. 1,2-DCA, 1,1-DCE, PCE, and TCE exceeded
ATSDR's comparison values for drinking water at about 5, 1, 20,
and 3 well locations, respectively. Inorganic contaminants were
analyzed at two private wells; none are considered to be at
elevated levels. At the background sampling location, lead was
-found at a -level slightly exceeding ATSDR's comparison value.
·; :·surface Soils
Results of the analysis of a background surface soil sample are
shown in Table 6 (Appendix B). No organic compounds were
detected. Levels of inorganic contaminant are not considered to
be elevated; none were identified at levels exceeding ATSDR's
comparison values for incidental ingestion.
Sediment
A sample of upstream background sediment from Bat Fork Creek was
analyzed; results are shown in Table 6 (Appendix B). No organic
compounds were found. Levels of inorganic contaminant
concentrations are not considered to be elevated; none were
identified at levels exceeding ATSDR's comparison values for
incidental ingestion.
Other Media
ATSDR is not aware of sampling data for waste materials, Bat Fork
Creek downstream water and sediment, ambient air, or soil gas for
the GE off-site area.
B. Seldon Clark Subsite
On-site Contamination
Subsurface Soils
One sample of subsurface soils from the SC subsite was analyzed;
results are shown in Table 7 (Appendix B). PCBs were detected at
a level slightly greater than ATSDR's comparison value for
incidental ingestion. Levels of inorganic contaminants are not
considered to be elevated; none were identified at levels
exceeding ATSDR's comparison values for incidental ingestion.
19
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al.
Off-site Contamination
Sediment
FINAL RELEASE
One sample of sediment taken from a shallow drainage course
downgradient from the SC property was analyzed; results are shown
in Table 8 (Appendix B). No organic compounds were detected.
Levels of inorganic contaminants are not considered to be
elevated; none were at levels exceeding ATSDR's comparison values
for incidental ingestion.
Other Media
ATSDR is not aware of sampling data for waste materials, surface
soils, surface water, on-site sediment, ambient air, or soil gas
for the SC subsite.
C. Shepherd Farm Subsite
On-Site Contamination
Waste Materials
Several samples of waste materials from the SF portion of the
estimated site area were evaluated in the laboratory; results of
the analyses are shown in Table 9 (Appendix B). PCB
concentrations at the SF subsite exceed ATSDR's comparison value
for incidental ingestion; PCE and TCE were identified at very low
levels. Of the metals, aluminum and lead were found at elevated
levels.
Groundwater (Temporary Monitoring Wells)
Four temporary groundwater monitoring wells were sampled; most
appear to be positioned within the Spring Haven portion of the
estimated site area. Results of the analyses are shown in Table
10 (Appendix B). Many contaminants exceeded or were equal to
ATSDR's comparison values for drinking water: PCE, TCE, vinyl
chloride, barium, beryllium, cadmium, copper, lead, manganese,
nickel, and vanadium. Several other metals, particularly
aluminum, also were found at elevated levels.
Surface Soils
Nine surface soil samples were taken within the SF portion of the
estimated site area; 11 were obtained from the Spring Haven part
of the site. Results of the analyses are shown in Table 11
(Appendix B). At SF, concentrations of PCBs and cadmium exceeded
ATSDR's comparison values for incidental ingestion, and lead also
was found at an elevated level. On the Spring Haven part of the
20
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
site, PCB and beryllium concentrations were greater than ATSDR's
comparison values for incidental ingestion; an elevated
concentration of lead also was found.
Sediment
A few sediment samples were taken from a tributary of Bat Fork
Creek that crosses both the SF and Spring Haven portions of the
estimated site area; results of the analyses are shown in Table
12 (Appendix B). On the SF part of the site, PCB concentrations
exceeded ATSDR's comparison value for incidental ingestion. PCE
and TCE were found at low concentrations; lead was found at an
elevated level. On the Spring Haven portion, no contaminants are
considered to be at elevated levels; the PCB concentration was
slightly below ATSDR's comparison value for incidental ingestion.
Off-Site Contamination
Groundwater (Private Wells)
Several private wells near the SF subsite have been sampled;
results of the analyses are shown in Table 13 (Appendix B). PCE
was identified at two of the closest wells and at one additional
well. At one of the closest wells, the PCE level exceeded
ATSDR's comparison value for drinking water. Concentrations of
other contaminants are not considered to be elevated.
Surface Soil
Two samples of off-site surface soils were analyzed to evaluate
background levels of contaminants; results of the analyses are
shown in Table 14 (Appendix B). Beryllium was identified at a,
level slightly exceeding ATSDR's comparison value for incidental
ingestion. Concentrations of other contaminants are not
considered to be elevated.
Sediment
Four samples of sediment from Bat Fork Creek downstream from the
site and one sample from a background location were analyzed;
results are shown in Table 15 (Appendix B). PCBs were found in a
downstream sample at levels slightly exceeding ATSDR's comparison
value for incidental ingestion; TCE also was detected. Other
contaminants are not considered to be at elevated levels. No
organic compounds were detected in the background sample, and
levels of other contaminants are not considered to be elevated.
21
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Other Media
ATSDR is not aware of sampling data for surface water, ambient
air, or soil gas for the SF subsite.
D. Fairgrounds Suhsite
On-Site Contamination
Groundwater
One groundwater sample was taken from a soil boring positioned
within the former fire-training area; results of the analysis are
shown in Table 16 (Appendix B}. The source document does not
indicate whether proper protocols were followed for well
development and sampling. Thus, the validity of the data and how
well it represents on-site groundwater quality are unknown.
Sample results appear to show levels of several contaminants that
exceed ATSDR's comparison values for drinking water, including
benzene, naphthalene, barium, beryllium, cadmium, lead,
manganese, and vanadium. Other contaminants, notably aluminum,
also were at elevated levels.
Soils
Four surface soil samples were taken on site: one from the former
fire training area, one near the north edge of the property, and
two from the south part where fill soils are reported to have
been placed. Results of the analyses are shown in Table 17
(Appendix B}. At the fire-training area, soils contain DDE
(p,p'-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene}, DDT (p,p'-dichlorodi-
phenyltrichloroethane}, dieldrin, and n-nitrosodiphenylamine at
levels greater than ATSDR's comparison values for incidental
ingestion. Most of the other organic compounds in that sample
also were at elevated levels; concentrations of inorganic
contaminants are not considered to be elevated. Concentrations
of contaminants in the other soil samples also are not considered
to be elevated.
Two subsurface soil samples were taken; none was from the former
fire-training area. None of the organic compounds shown in Table
17 were detected; levels of inorganic contaminants are not
considered to be elevated.
Off-Site Contamination
Groundwater (Private Wells}
Three nearby private wells (one upslope from the property and two
downslope} were sampled. Results of the analyses are shown in
22
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
D
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
II
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Table 18 (Appendix B). None of the contaminants in Table 18 were
detected except barium; it was detected at a level less than
ATSDR's comparison value for drinking water.
Surface Water (Creek)
Two water samples were taken from King Creek a few hundred
downslope (south) of the site, beyond Highland Lake Road.
sample was obtained upstream of the site area and one from
downstream; Results of the analyses are shown in Table 19
(Appendix B). None of the contaminants analyzed for were
detected. ·
Sediment (Creek)
feet
One
Two sediment samples were taken from King Creek; one upstream and
one downstream. Results of the analyses are shown in Table 20
(Appendix B). No organic contaminants were detected, and
inorganic contaminant levels are not considered elevated.
Other Media
ATSDR is not aware of sampling data for waste materials, surface
soils off site, surface water and sediment on site, ambient air,
and soil gas for the WCF site.
E. Quality Assurance and Quality Control
ATSDR's review of data and supporting documents shows that
quality control measures were applied during sampling, transport,.
and laboratory analyses of the SC data, and during much of the
gathering and analysis of the GE and SF data. Limited quality
control information was provided for the WCF data. In preparing
this assessment, ATSDR presumed that protocols and analytical
results are valid and used the resulting information in its
evaluations. The completeness and reliability of the information
could affect the validity of ATSDR's conclusions.
F. Physical and Other Hazards
ATSDR saw no evidence of substantive physical hazards at any of
the properties.
No sampling data for soil gas or interior air are available for
evaluating whether combustible gases might be released from waste
materials or other contaminated media and collect in on-or off-
site buildings at levels that could pose a physical hazard
through ignition (explosion). Available groundwater data
suggest, however, that the concentrations of gases that might be
released and accumulate in overlying buildings would be much
23
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
lower than would be required for ignition and explosion to occur.
Thus, soil gas that might emanate from contaminated groundwater
does not appear to pose a physical hazard.
PATHWAYS ANALYSES
ATSDR identifies human exposure pathways by examining
environmental and human components that might lead to contact
with contaminants. A pathway analysis considers five elements: a
source of contamination, transport through an environmental
medium, a point of exposure, a route of human exposure, and an
exposed population. Exposure pathways are completed when all
five elements exist and there is evidence that exposure to a
contaminant has occurred in the past, is currently occurring, or
will occur in the future: Exposure pathways are potential when
one or more of the elements is not clearly defined but could
exist. Potential pathways indicate that exposure to a
contaminant could have occurred in the past, could be occurring
now, or could occur in the future.
A. General Electric Subsite
ATSDR's analysis of the site area indicates that there are
completed exposure pathways associated with the GE plant wastes
and surface soils and also with groundwater from private wells.
The completed pathway elements are summarized in Table 21
(Appendix C).
Several potential exposure pathways (associated with plant
wastes, surface soil, groundwater at private wells, soil gas,
creek water and sediment, and fish) also may exist. The
potential pathway elements are summarized in Table 22
(Appendix C).
Table 23 (Appendix C) further characterizes the exposed
populations, the potentially exposed populations, and associated
media and contaminants.
Completed Exposure Pathways
Plant Wastes
In the past, some GE plant wastes were deposited in landspreading
areas and landfills. Pond sludge was removed from wastewater
ponds and placed in a dry pond. ATSDR knows of no analytical
data for those wastes, but believes that the contaminants
involved could include all of the organic compounds and some of
the inorganic contaminants that have been detected in groundwater
24
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
g
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
(Table 1), in surface soils around disposal areas (Table 2), in
NPDES discharge (Table 3), and in waste pond sediments (Table 4).
GE maintains an industrial hygiene program. However, ATSDR
believes that at least some workers who.in.the past participated
in•depositing wastes in formerly used landspreading areas,
landfills, ·and the sludge pond are.likely·to-have been exposed
intermittently to contaminants through inhalation of gases or
. possibly contaminated dust; -through incidental· (unintentional)
ingestion resulting from hand to mouth activity,' and through
·_'·dermal contact. ·
.,. Surface Soils
_ Laboratory analyses have shown that surface soils near the
formerly used· landspreading areas·; landfill, and dry sludge pond
contain several organic compounds and inorganic contaminants.
Some of the past workers who participated in depositing wastes at
those _locations are likely to have been exposed intermittently to
the contaminants through incidental ingestion, inhalation, and
dermal contact. The amount of exposure cannot be estimated.
In the recreation area, analyses of surface soils detected
several inorganic constituents at low concentrations typically
found in soils, and one sample showed presumptive evidence of
PCBs at a very low concentration. Although concentrations are
not substantive, sports teams and possibly others using the
facilities appear likely to have been, are now likely being, or
may be exposed in the future to low levels of a few contaminants
through intermittent incidental ingestion, inhalation, and dermal
contact.
Groundwater (Private Wells)
One or more organic chemicals were detected in 58 of the 98
private wells GE sampled in the vicinity of its property. The
homes of essentially all affected well users have been connected
by GE to the public water system. Residents living in those 58
homes have been exposed in the past to contaminants in their
drinking water, primarily through ingestion and inhalation (e.g.,
volatile compounds released to air during showering, bathing, and
cooking). It is uncertain whether the few residents who declined
GE's offer of a connection to the public water system continue to
use their wells; use bottled water; or connected to public water
at their own expense. Thus, it is not known whether some
residents in the area currently are exposed to contaminated
private well water.
25
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Creek Water and Sediment
Children have been reported to play in Bat Fork Creek downstream
from the site and are likely to have been exposed in the past,
are now exposed, or may be exposed in the future to small amounts
of contaminants in creek water and sediment primarily through
intermittent incidental ingestion. Sampling data are not
available for those media downstream of the property, but limited
information was obtained for on-site media, including some from
near the downstream property boundary. The types and
concentrations of contaminants found through the limited on-site
sampling may not be representative of conditions in downstream
waters or sediment.
Potential Exposure Pathways
Plant Wastes
The formerly active landspreading areas, landfills, and dry
sludge pond are in relatively remote sections of the property,
and the landfills have been covered. Even with GE's industrial
hygiene program, ATSDR believes that activities taking place now
or in the future in those areas might result in some workers
being intermittently exposed, through inhalation, ingestion, and
dermal contact, to contaminants in waste materials.
Analyses of GE's NPDES permitted discharge from the active
wastewater ponds (a single sampling event) show only one
contaminant. Workers at the wastewater ponds might have been
exposed in the past, might now be exposed, or may be exposed to
contaminants in pond water in the future through intermittent
incidental ingestion. The amount of potential exposure cannot be
estimated.
ATSDR expects that process air emissions released through stacks
and from other production sources are likely to contain at least
some volatile and particulate contaminants, but no emission or
ambient air analytical data are available to confirm such
releases. Workers at the plant and residents and workers near
the plant may have been exposed in the past, may now be exposed,
or may be exposed in the future through inhalation of such
contaminants. The amount of potential past, current, or future
exposure cannot be estimated.
Surface Soils
Wind might have transported contaminated particles from the
former waste disposal areas or from plant process areas and
deposited the particles on surface soils in nearby areas on and
off site. Vegetation now present at the former waste disposal
26
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
areas is likely to inhibit the amount and frequency of wind
erosion. Surface soil sampling is not available in other areas
to confinn whether such transport has occurred. Workers on site
and workers and residents off site nearby potentially have been,
are now, or may in the future be exposed intennittently to
contaminants in surface soils in such areas--primarily through
incidental ingestion, inhalation, and skin contact. The amount
of potential exposure cannot be estimated .
. Groundwater (Private Wells)
Groundwater flow in soil and bedrock media has slowly transported
contaminants east and northeast toward areas where private wells
are used. As a result of that flow, additional well users are
poteintially exposed to contaminants in groundwater, primarily
through ingestion and inhalation. "GE officials reported to ATSDR
that they intend to continue to sample area wells and will offer
any newly affected users connections to the public water system.
GE officials report that a few owners with contaminated private
wells have not accepted GE's offer to assist with connection to
public water. It has not been confinned whether those owners use
bottled water or have obtained public water at their own expense.
It is possible that one or more of the affected well owners
continues to use a contaminated well for drinking water. If that
is the case, users of the well water may continue to be exposed
or may be exposed in the future to the contaminated groundwater
by way of ingestion and inhalation.
Soil Gas
Some of the organic chemicals in waste materials buried on site
and detected in groundwater on and off site are capable of
volatilizing and migrating within soils above the groundwater
table (unsaturated soil zone). The resulting soil gas
potentially could migrate and accumulate in overlying buildings
on and off site. Neither ambient air nor soil gas data are
available with which to fully evaluate this pathway.
Should volatile compounds actually accumulate in buildings,
occupants would have been exposed, would now be exposed, or would
be exposed in the future to the contaminants by way of
inhalation. ATSDR expects that concentrations of any volatile
compounds released from contaminated groundwater would be well
below levels at which they might ignite. Infonnation about
buried waste is not available for estimating whether there is a
strong potential for volatile compounds to be released at
combustible levels.
27
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Fish
A resident reported to ATSDR that some fishing takes place along
Bat Fork Creek. No sampling data are available for fish tissues,
and the available limited sampling conducted on site for creek
water and sediment does not show evidence of PCBs or any other
contaminants that might be of concern if they accumulated in fish
tissues. However, PCBs have been released at the site; could
have migrated with the sediment to fishable reaches of Bat Fork
Creek or waters farther downstream; are persistent in the
environment; and readily concentrate in fish tissues. Therefore,
ATSDR believes that fish tissue might be an exposure source
(past, present, and future) when ingested. The amount of
potential exposure cannot be estimated.
Crops
A commenter reports that a nearby farmer irrigates crops with
creek water and sells produce in the Hendersonville area. As
noted earlier, the types and concentrations of contaminants found
through the limited on-site waste water and stream sampling may
not be representative of conditions in downstream waters. People
who consume such produce potentially are exposed to water-related
contaminants in the past, present, and future through ingestion.
ATSDR's review of the available stream water quality data
suggests that an irrigation water-to-produce pathway is not
likely to be of concern. More stream data would be required to
further evaluate the pathway.
B. Seldon Clark Subsite
ATSDR's analysis shows that completed pathways associated with
wastes and soils probably occurred at the SC subsite. The
completed pathway elements are summarized in Table 24
(Appendix C) .
Potential exposure pathways associated with ambient air, surface
soil, and ditch sediment and water also may exist. The potential
pathway elements are summarized in Table 25 (Appendix C).
Table 26 (Appendix C) further characterizes the estimated exposed
populations and potentially exposed populations and associated
media and contaminants.
Completed Exposure Pathways
Wastes
No samples of waste materials are known to have been analyzed.
However, analyses of a subsurface soil sample identified PCBs and
28
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
ordinary levels of inorganic contaminants. Those results suggest
that some PCB-containing wastes were deposited in the landfill.
Workers who tended the landfill and covered it with soil when it
was closed are likely to have been exposed intermittently to
contaminated .waste particles through incidental ingestion, dermal
contact, :and inhalation, and possibly were exposed to volatilized
.chemicals through inhalation·. The amounts ·of those past
exposures cannot be .. estimated ... Exposure. to, buried wastes in the
· ·future . is . unlikely. unless ·•development involving excavation ·
occurs;
Soils
··some or· all· of the contaminants in waste materials deposited at
the SC subsite are likely to have spread beyond the landfill _onto
the soils on the ravine slopes. ATSDR personnel are not aware of
analytical data for that soil zone and do not·know whether that
zone was completely covered when the landfill was closed .. Past
workers are likely to have been exposed to the contaminants
intermittently through incidental ingestion, inhalation, and
dermal contact. The amount of past worker exposure cannot be
estimated. Future exposure to subsurface soils is unlikely
unless development involving excavation occurs.
No analytical data are available for the surface soils placed
over the landfill when it was closed. That soil zone is not
likely to be a source of substantive intermittent exposure to
contaminants unless the soils were imported from an "unclean"
source.
Potential Exposure Pathways
Ambient Air
During landfill operations, wind could have transported
volatilized chemicals and contaminated particles from the
landfill to adjacent properties. If that occurred, nearby
workers and residents potentially were exposed intermittently to
contaminants through ingestion and inhalation. The amount of
potential exposure cannot be established.
Soils
Wind may have transported contaminated particles from the working
landfill and deposited them on nearby properties. If that
occurred, nearby workers and residents potentially were, are, and
may in the future be exposed intermittently to contaminants on
the ground surface through incidental ingestion, inhalation, and
dermal contact. ATSDR knows of no sampling data for off-site
29
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
surface soils; therefore, the amount of the potential exposure
cannot be established.
Ditch Sediment
A recent sample of sediment from the downgradient drainage ditch
did not show PCBs or elevated levels of other contaminants. That
finding suggests that incidental ingestion of sediments by
children or other residents who might enter the ditch now or in
the future is not likely to result in substantive exposure to
contaminants. While the landfill operated, sediment contaminants
might have been at higher concentrations; hence, some
intermittent exposure through ingestion and skin contact might
have occurred. The amount of the potential exposure cannot be
established.
Ditch Water
No·analyticai data are available for ditch water, most or all of
which probably results from surface runoff. While the landfill
operated, the runoff might have transported substantial
concentrations of contaminants into the ditch. If that occurred,
any children or other residents who entered the ditch potentially
were exposed intermittently to contaminants, principally through
incidental ingestion. The amount .. of that potential exposure
cannot be estimated.
C. Shepherd Farm Subsite
Analyses of pathways for the site area show that completed
pathways are likely to have been associated with wastes, ambient
air, soils, and private well water. The completed pathway
elements are summarized in Table 27 (Appendix C).
Potential exposure pathways associated with private well water,
ambient air, soil gas, surface water, sediment, and produce could
also exist. The potential pathway elements are summarized in
Table 28 (Appendix C).
Table 29 (Appendix C) further characterizes the estimated exposed
populations, potentially exposed populations, and associated
media and contaminants.
Completed Exposure Pathways
Waste Materials
Available information suggests that wastes were deposited on the
SF property and also extend onto what is now Spring Haven
property. Analyses of waste samples taken from the SF portion of
30
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
the estimated site area show that materials contain high
concentrations of PCBs and elevated levels of aluminum, cadmium,
and lead. No waste samples have been taken from the Spring Haven
property. Workers who deposited the wastes in the past are
likely to have been exposed intermittently to waste contaminants
. or contaminated particles through incidental ingestion,
inhalation, and dermal contact. Residents .who. live on lots
containing waste'materials,' who garden ·where wastes are present,
or who enter the waste areas on SF also are likely to -have been
exposed in the past, are now exposed, or may in the future be
exposed to waste contaminants or contaminated particles
intermittently through ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact.
Ambient Air
While the disposal and burning activities were·conducted, ATSDR
believes that workers were likely to have.been exposed
intermittently to unknown species of gaseous or particulate
contaminants through inhalation. In addition, the wind is .likely
to have transported gaseous or particulate contaminants off site
and to have exposed nearby residents intermittently through
inhalation. ATSDR knows of no sampling data for fully evaluating
those exposures. Thus, the amount of exposure cannot be
established.
Soils
Analyses have shown that surface soils in the estimated site area
contain organic chemicals and some elevated levels of inorganic
contaminants. Past workers who participated in depositing wastes
are likely to have been exposed intermittently to soil
contaminants through incidental ingestion, inhalation, and dermal
contact. The amount of worker exposure cannot be estimated.
Residents who live on lots containing contaminated soil, who
garden on land within the estimated site area, or who might enter
the SF portion of the area are likely to have been exposed, to be
exposed now, or to be exposed in the future to contaminants
intermittently through incidental ingestion, inhalation, and
dermal contact.
Private Wells
A few of the private wells sampled near the site were shown to
contain PCE and ordinary levels of inorganic contaminants. The
residences with PCE-contaminated well water were among several
that have been connected to the public water supply. Residents
who used well water containing PCE were exposed in the past,
primarily through ingestion and inhalation (showering, bathing,
31
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
cooking). Spring Haven residents have received public water
since the development's inception.
Potential Exposure Pathways
Private Wells
It has been reported that an additlonal few residences near the
site are not connected to the public water supply. ATSDR
presumes that those residences are using private wells for their
drinking water. Because of uncertainty about groundwater flow
characteristics, ATSDR believes some residents using wells
potentially have been exposed in the past, are being exposed now,
or may be exposed in the future to contaminants in groundwater
through ingestion and inhalation (showering, bathing, cooking).
ATSDR knows of no continued sampling of residential wells
currently in use in the site vicinity. Thus, the potential
exposures cannot be estimated.
Ambient Air
While wastes were being burned, chemicals or contaminated
particulates are likely to have been .transported from the burn
area. Thus, in the past, nearby residents potentially were
exposed intermittently to contaminants, principally through
inhalation. ATSDR knows of no ambient air data. Thus, the
potential exposures cannot be estimated.
Soil Gas
Volatile chemicals may have been released into the soil from the
waste area and also from contaminated groundwater. If such
releases did occur, the gases could migrate within the
unsaturated soil zone and possibly accumulate in residences
nearby. If accumulation occurs, the residents potentially have
been exposed, are being exposed, or may be exposed through
inhalation to voes in their homes. Air and soil gas monitoring
data are not available, and waste data are too limited to fully
evaluate the potential exposures.
From the available groundwater data, ATSDR estimates that
accumulations of volatile chemicals, if any, within residences
that overlay contaminated groundwater would be at concentrations
much lower than would be required for combustion.
Creek and Tributary Water and Sediment
Adults and possibly children might enter Bat Fork Creek
downstream of the site or enter its tributary, which passes
through the estimated site area. If so, those people potentially
32
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
have been exposed in the past, are now being exposed, or may be
exposed in the future intermittently through incidental ingestion
to contaminants in surface water or sediment. ATSDR knows of no
data confirming that the surface water actually contains
contaminants. However, chemicals found in sediment sampling
·''·indicate'that--waters have contained contaminants some time in the
past .and might .contain contaminants at this time. "The amount of
potential exposure cannot be established.
Garden Produce
Residents of Spring Haven have a large garden plot that partially
extends into the contaminated soils within ATSDR's estimated site
area .. ,Residents potentially have been exposed in the past, are I . . .:.now being .exposed,. or may. be exposed in the futu·re _through
.::-.,r:-:.5,intermittent•'ingestion of garden'produce to any contaminants in
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
soil that bioconcentrate·in edible portions of produce. ATSDR
knows of no.data confirming that the garden produce contains
contaminants; therefore, •the amounts ·of potential exposures
cannot be estimated.
D. Fairgrounds Subsite
Analyses of pathways for the WCF area show that completed
pathways are likely to have been associated with ambient air and
wastes. The completed pathway elements are summarized in Table
30 (Appendix C) .
Potential exposure pathways associated with ambient air, wastes,
surface soils, and private well water could also exist. The
potential pathway elements are summarized in Table 31
(Appendix C) .
Table 32 (Appendix C) further characterizes the estimated exposed
populations, potentially exposed populations, and associated
media and contaminants.
Completed Exposure Pathways
Ambient Air
During fire training, some firemen were probably exposed
intermittently through inhalation to volatilized chemicals and
contaminated particles in ambient air. No ambient air sampling
data are available with which to estimate the amounts of
exposure.
33
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Waste
Workers who transported chemicals to the site for fire training
and off-loaded them and firemen who used the chemicals for
training are likely to have been exposed intermittently to
contaminants through incidental ingestion, inhalation, and dermal
contact. Available data are insufficient to estimate the amounts
of exposures.
Potential Exposure Pathways
Ambient Air
While fire training was in progress, smoke and entrained
volatilized chemicals and contaminated particles could have been
transported intermittently by wind to nearby residents and to
workers at nearby businesses. Ambient air data are not available
to evaluate those potential inhalation exposures.
Waste Pathway
People attended events at the former WCF, and intruders are still
able to enter the property at points where there is no fence or
where the fence is in disrepair. Those people potentially were
exposed in the past, are exposed now, or may be exposed in the
future intermittently, through incidental ingestion, inhalation,
and dermal contact, to residual waste materials at the former
fire-training area. Available data are not sufficient to
evaluate those potential exposures.
Surface Soils
People who attended events at the former WCF, any intruders who
enter the property, model plane enthusiasts, and persons cutting
hay on site potentially were exposed in the past, are now
exposed, or may be exposed in the future intermittently, through
incidental ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact, to
contaminants in surface soils at the former fire training area,
and possibly elsewhere. Available information is not sufficient
to evaluate those potential exposures.
Groundwater (Private Wells)
No contaminants were detected in groundwater from the three
private wells sampled (except for one incidence of barium at
ordinary levels). If the contaminants found in the one sample of
water taken from a on-site soil boring actually are present in
· groundwater beneath ·the property, it seems possible that the
three private wells sampled might become affected in the future
and other unsampled wells in the area already might be affected.
34
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Based on the limited available information, ATSDR considers that
some of the residents using wells might have been exposed in the
past, or might now be exposed, or might be exposed in the future,
primarily through ingesti_on and inhalation (showering, bathing,
cooking), to contaminants in groundwater. Available information ~o, eufficienc ,:::::::•:.::,:::::,exposure,.
A. Toxicological Evaluation
Introduction
In this section, ATSDR discusses the health effects in people
exposed to specific contaminants, evaluates state and local
health databases, and addresses specific community health
concerns. To evaluate health effects, ATSDR has developed a
minimal risk level (MRL) for contaminants commonly found at
hazardous waste sites. The MRL is an estimate of daily human
exposure to a contaminant below which noncancer, adverse health
effects are unlikely. MRLs are developed for inhalation and
ingestion routes of exposure and for various lengths of exposure,
i.e., acute (less than 14 days), intermediate (15 to 364 days),
and chronic (greater than 365 days). If ATSDR does not have an
MRL for a particular contaminant, EPA's reference dose (RfD) is
used. The RfD is an estimate of daily human exposure to a
contaminant for a lifetime below which health effects (noncancer)
are unlikely.
Because the site consists of several operationally and
geographically distinct subsites, the toxicologic implications of
the completed exposures to contaminants at each subsite will be
discussed separately. The environmental and historical data for
many of the completed exposure pathways are limited; therefore,
ATSDR is unable to evaluate the potential for those exposures to
produce adverse health outcomes. No air data are available with
which to evaluate inhalation exposure to contaminants found at
any of the subsites. This pathway may have been responsible for
significant worker exposures in the past.
General Electric Subsite
The discussion of the GE subsite includes evaluation of
operations at the GE facility and evaluation of the health impact
of contaminated off-site private wells on residents who live
north and east of the plant property; the plant operations and
the contaminated wells are both completed exposure pathways.
35
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Waste Sources
A number of contaminants were detected in soils at locations
where plant wastes had been disposed--landspreading areas, sludge
impoundrnent, and landfills. To evaluate those plant waste sites,
ATSDR assumed that the contaminants found in soils at past
dumping sites are reasonably representative of contaminants in
the waste materials. The contaminants that exceeded health
·guidelines are shown in Table 33. On-site workers could have
been exposed to waste contaminants through inhalation and dermal
contact. Workers could also have been exposed to contaminants by
incidental ingestion of waste (hand-to-mouth activity} during
work. Because the exact duration of worker exposure is unknown,
a hypothetical scenario was used to evaluate the health effects
of the contaminants. It was assumed that a worker depositing
waste was exposed 5 days a week, 4 times a year, for 10 years.
No air data are available with which to evaluate inhalation
exposure.
Contaminants in Waste Sources
Aluminum
Workers may have been exposed to aluminum by inhalation, dermal
contact, or incidental ingestion while disposing of or handling
waste materials. No air data are available with which to
evaluate the potential for inhalation exposure during past
operations. Incidental ingestion of aluminum from waste sources
should not produce any adverse health effects in workers who
worked in the area in the past. Dermal contact with the waste
material is not expected to result in any adverse health effects
except in people who are sensitive to aluminum compounds (e.g.,
antiperspirants} (ATSDR 1992a}. Skin rashes may develop in those
people.
Benzo(a)pyrene
Several of the polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs} have been shown
to cause cancer in laboratory animals. PAHs at the GE subsite
pose a potential cancer risk to exposed people. The carcinogenic
potential of exposure to PAHs (including chrysene, benzo(a}-
pyrene, and phenanthrene) in waste sources was evaluated using a
method involving toxicity equivalency factors (TEFs} for
carcinogenic PAHs that considers each compound's relative potency
with respect to benzo(a)pyrene (EPA 1992). Workers handling·
waste materials have no significant risk of developing cancer
following incidental ingestion of the waste material.
A more significant route of exposure is inhalation of PAH
particulates from air. Although ATSDR found no air particulate
36
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
data with which to estimate potential inhalation exposures, such
exposures must be considered a potential risk for workers in the
past. Dermal contact with PAHs also could be a significant
source of exposure for workers in the past, but ATSDR has no way
to quantitate that exposure.
Dieldrin
: No adverse health effects (noncancer 'or .cancer) are expected in
workers.who handled waste materials in the past and may have
incidentally ingested dieldrin from waste sources.
Lead
Inhalation and incidental ingestion of low levels of lead in
·.-waste-materials may have produced or ·could produce biologic
·effects in former on-site workers. Neither ATSDR nor EPA have
established health guidelines for lead because no threshold has
been demonstrated for the most sensitive biologic effects
occurring in humans. Even very low levels of lead exposure can
produce biologic effects in people. Generally, the effects of
lead on people are the same whether the lead is inhaled or
ingested. Industrial workers are primarily exposed to lead by
inhaling lead-contaminated dust. Dermal exposure to inorganic
lead is very unlikely. Only 10-12% of the incidentally ingested
dose of lead in adults is absorbed by the gut (ATSDR.199lb).
Because the concentrations of lead in the soil at the. GE subsite
are not generally of concern for an adult, and because there is
limited absorption of lead from the gastrointestinal tract, it is
very unlikely that any adverse health effects would result from
such exposure.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
No adverse health effects (noncancer or cancer) are expected in
workers who incidentally ingest waste materials containing PCBs.
Recreational Area
PCBs and aluminum have been detected in surface soil in an area
at the GE subsite used as a recreational facility (Table 34).
Sports teams have used and occasionally still use this area for
sports (approximately 2 days a week, 4 months a year, over 10
years). People may be exposed to contaminants during sports
events at the recreational area by inhalation, dermal contact, or
incidental ingestion. Because ATSDR has no air data, such
inhalation exposures cannot be.evaluated. Incidental ingestion
of PCBs or aluminum from contaminated soils during sporting
events should not cause any adverse health effects. Neither is
dermal contact with the soil expected to result in any adverse
37
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
effects, except in people who are sensitive to aluminum compounds
(e.g., antiperspirants)· (ATSDR 1992a). Skin rashes may develop
in those people.
Off-site Private Wells
A number of contaminants have been detected in the groundwater
near the GE subsite. Ninety-eight private wells near the plant
have been sampled. Contaminants that exceeded health guidelines
are shown in Table 35. Most residents with contaminated wells
currently obtain their drinking water from the municipal water
supply or are supplied bottled water. A few residents have
refused such services and may still be drinking water from
contaminated wells. ATSDR estimated exposure to the contaminants
in private well water for both 20-and 70-year periods of
exposure to evaluate the health risks of residents who once
consumed the water or may still consume it. The contaminants
chloromethane, 1,1-dichloroethane (1,1-DCA), 1,2-DCA, PCE, and
TCE were detected in the private well water supply.
Contaminants in Private Well Water
Chloromethane
Neither ATSDR nor EPA have developed health guidelines for oral
exposure to chloromethane. No scientific studies document the
health effects of chloromethane in people through oral exposure.
The only study ATSDR personnel found evaluated liver damage in
rats following oral chloromethane exposure. No hepatotoxic
effects were noted in the study (ATSDR 1990a). Case studies have
documented central nervous system effects (e.g., dizziness,
staggering, blurred vision, ataxia, and convulsions) in people
who inhaled high levels of chloromethane (ATSDR 1990a). However,
no current evidence indicates that those effects are expected at
low levels of oral exposure.
1,1-Dichloroethane
Neither ATSDR nor EPA have developed health guidelines for oral
exposure to 1,1-DCA. Health effects in people with long-term
exposure to 1,1-DCA-contaminated water are not known (ATSDR
1990d). No adverse health effects have been reported in animals
exposed to the concentrations found in the drinking water in
private wells near General Electric plant.
1,2-Dichloroethane
People who ingest 1 to 2 liters of water per day over 20 or 70
years' duration at the concentrations of 1,2-DCA detected in the
private well water are not expected to have adverse health
38
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
effects. EPA has called 1,2-DCA a probable human carcinogen
(cancer-causing agent) because of results of experiments in
animals (ATSDR 1992c). ATSDR evaluated the cancer risk
associated with ingesting private well water over 20 or 70 years;
no apparent increased risk of cancer was seen.
Tetrachloroethylene .(PCE}
. •.,· ·-·.·~ .. , • , : ' , •• • •. ~~;··, .~ . ·•.t' , People.who ingest 1 to 2 liters.of.water per day over 20 or 70
years' duration at the concentrations ·of·· PCE 'detected in the
private well water are not expected to have adverse health
·effects. Cancers of the liver and kidney were reported in
studies in which high concentrations of PCE (i.e., amounts much
greater than those ever•ingested by people) were given to
animals. PCE has.not been shown.to. cause cancer.in people (ATSDR
. 1991a).· The.cancer risk associated with.ingesting 'the .private
.. well .water near, the ,GE .:subsite was evaluated using 20: and 70-
year duration-of-exposure estimates. No increased risk of cancer
related to the PCE exposure was est_ablished.
Trichloroethylene
People who ingest 1 to 2 liters of water per day over 20 or 70
. years' duration at the concentrations of TCE detected in private
well water near the GE subsite are not expected to have adverse
health effects. Some animal studies have indicated that TCE in
high doses can produce cancer (ATSDR 1990b). Evidence that TCE
is a human carcinogen is inconclusive. A controversial study
suggested that leukemia was found at a higher rate in people who
ingested water from contaminated wells containing high levels of
TCE (ATSDR 1990b). ATSDR evaluated the cancer risk associated
with ingesting water from TCE-contaminated private wells using
20-and 70-year durations of exposure. According to the results,
there is no increased risk for cancer associated with those
exposures to TCE.
People may inhale or have dermal contact with TCE contaminated
water supplies by showering or bathing. This is considered to be
a significant problem when water is highly contaminated with TCE.
A well contaminated with 40,000 ppb TCE can elevate the TCE
concentrations in bathroom air when the shower is running from
<0.5 mg/m3 to 81 mg/m3 in less than 30 minutes. The
concentrations of TCE in the private wells at homes surrounding
the GE site are not expected to result in elevated concentrations
of TCE in the air from activities such as showering or bathing.
TCE can be absorbed through the skin. Dermal effects are not
expected to occur unless TCE concentrations are extremely high.
No adverse health effects are expected to occur from dermal
39
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
contact with TCE from showering or bathing in the contaminated
private water in residences near GE.
Seldon Clark Subsite
Materials from the GE facility were dumped into an open ravine on
the property. GE officials believe the waste dumped in the
landfill was construction rubble from GE. The dates of disposal
are unknown; therefore, ATSDR is unable to estimate a reasonable
exposure scenario with which to evaluate potential exposures in
waste workers. Sampling data for on-site areas are available
only for subsurface soils. Information on ATSDR's health
guideline for soil exposure is provided in Table 36.
Shepherd Farm Subsite
Wastes were dumped from 1957 until 1970 into an old dry pond or
ravine on SF. One person did most of the dumping. Wastes also
were burned. The landowner's residence is near the disposal site
area. In 1972, a trailer park was built on part of the farm
acreage south of the disposal area. In 1981, 22 acres of the
farm were sold to develop the Spring Haven retirement village.
Several contaminants were detected at the SF subsite at levels
greater than comparison values (Table 37). Even though the air
pathway potentially posed a significant route of exposure to the
person who dumped and burned waste materials, no air data are
available with which to evaluate the exposure. There has been
concern that residents gardening and raising vegetables at the
Spring Haven retirement home may have been exposed to
contaminants taken up by the food crops.
Waste Materials
Contaminants found in samples of waste materials were evaluated
for their potential to cause adverse health effects in the person
who dumped them. No air data are available with which to
evaluate inhalation exposure to those contaminants. Inhalation
of particulate matter from the waste may have posed a significant
pathway of exposure during dumping and burning. In order to
determine the exposed dose of a worker who incidentally ingested
material while dumping waste, ATSDR used a hypothetical exposure
scenario. It was assumed that the worker dumped waste once a
month for 13 years. Estimating that the person incidentally
ingested 200 mg of waste contaminants (including PCBs, PCE, TCE,
aluminum, cadmium, magnesium, manganese, or vanadium) per
exposure episode at the concentrations detected, the worker
should not have adverse health effects. Using that estimated
dose, the risk of cancer following exposure to the concentrations
of potential human carcinogens in the waste (including PCBs, PCE,
TCE, and cadmium) is insignificant.
40
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Inhalation and incidental ingestion of low levels of lead in the
waste sources may have produced or could produce biologic effects
in the former on-site worker. The GE subsection of the
Toxicological Evaluation section further discusses such
exposures.
Food Crops
Beryllium, aluminum, and vanadium,were'detected in surface soil
where vegetable crops may have been grown by Spring Haven
residents. No crop data were available with which to evaluate.
such exposures. Beryllium can be transferred from soil to
plants,. but data are limited (ATSDR 1992b). · The concentration of
beryllium in the surface soil was well within the range of
beryllium concentrations typically found in the.United States,
suggesting that the amount of.beryllium in the soil is not
· excessive and may·not be a cause for concern.
Little information is available on the uptake of aluminum into
food crops. Uptake into root crops is of particular concern
because many plant species concentrate aluminum in their roots
(ATSDR 1992a). However, because no data on the.metal content of
the vegetable crops are available, ATSDR cannot determine the
potential for adverse health effects following exposure.
Vanadium does not appear to concentrate aboveground in plants
(ATSDR 1992b), and information is limited on the uptake of
vanadium in root crops. The vanadium concentration found in
soils on the property is well below the national background soil
concentration (ATSDR 1992b). The vanadium concentration in the
Spring Haven surface soil does not appear to warrant health
concern.
Fairgrounds Subsite
During the 1970s and 1980s, an unknown quantity of GE wastes was
reported to have been buried on the southwestern part of the WCF
property. However, according to GE's interviews with senior and
retired employees responsible for waste handling, GE wastes were
not buried there (GE 1993). GE reports that they donated
petroleum-based materials for fire training, which were removed
when the training exercises ended. Other wastes were burned on
the northeastern part of the property. The WCF is closed and
access is partially restricted by fences, but trespassers can
gain entry.
Contaminants of principal interest in surface or subsurface soils
at the WCF subsite include dieldrin, 2-methyl-naphthalene,
naphthalene, n-nitrosdiphenylamine, phenanthrene, aluminum, and
vanadium (Table 38). No sample data are available with which to
41
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
evaluate the waste materials. ATSDR evaluated acute incidental
ingestion (trespassing on site for less than 3 days a year,
consuming 100-200 mg soil per exposure) of contaminated surface
and subsurface soils. Acute exposure to the identified
. contaminants is not expected to cause adverse health effects.
The exposures of people who disposed or burned waste material
cannot be evaluated because there are no data with which to
estimate their frequency or duration of exposure.
People living in at least some of nine residences in the
.I
I
I
I
I
immediate vicinity of the property (most on Highland Lake Road) I
use private wells for drinking water. No contaminants exceeding
health guidelines were detected in the private wells sampled.
Bat Fork Creek I
Hendersonville residents reported to ATSDR that children
occasionally swim, wade, and play in Bat Fork Creek. No surface I
water or sediment data are available for the creek downstream
from the site. Limited sampling of the creek on site showed
surface water contaminants including PCE, chloroform, and I
chlorobromomethane (Table 39); aluminum was detected in sediments
(Table 39).
ATSDR assumed that the limited on-site surface water and sediment I
data might also apply to off-site, downstream surface water, and
estimated that a child might play in the creek 3 months out of
the year over a 5-year period. The estimated exposure dose of I
chloroform or PCE for a child who incidentally ingests surface
water or sediment while swimming or wading does not exceed
ATSDR's health guidelines for those contaminants; therefore, no I
adverse health effects from such exposures are likely. No health
guidelines are available for aluminum or chlorobromomethane;
however, at the estimated exposure doses using the previously I
described exposure scenario, no adverse health effects would be
expected in children who incidentally ingest sediment or surface
water while swimming or wading. Representative sampling data
1 from downstream reaches of the creek are needed to further
evaluate this exposure scenario.
B. Health Outcome Data Evaluation
Cancer Incidence Data
An analysis of cancer incidence (number of new cases of a disease
occurring in a population) in sections of Henderson County was
conducted by the State of North Carolina, Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR 1992). The
1990 cancer incidence data for three zip codes (28726-East Flat
42
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Rock, 28727-Edneyville, 28739-Hendersonville) were compared to
state and national cancer incidence rates. In addition, the
mortality (deaths from a disease) experience from 1986 to the
present was reviewed for the same site-specific rate. NCDEHNR
concluded in a report that cancer patterns in Henderson County
were not distinctive in any way. In other words, the number of
new cancer cases and the number of cancer deaths in men and women
in Henderson County were no different than the numbers at state
and national levels. The only cancer for which there was a
significant (small) increase was prostate cancer. However, no
scientific evidence links the contaminants at the GE/SF site with
an increased occurrence of prostate cancer. Furthermore, using
current site data, no significant cancer risk was associated with
exposure to the contaminants at the site. The data also were
evaluated for evidence of "sentinel health events"--rare cancers
suspected of being caused by environmental exposure to certain
chemicals. There were reports of such cancers (involving the
liver, brain, and blood [leukemia]) in the county; however, the
number of cases of those cancers was no greater than expected.
A concerned citizen reported a number of cancers in residents
living near GE. Thirty-three cases of cancer were reported by
the 79 people reporting adverse health outcomes (CC 1992). The
exact anatomic site of the cancer was reported in only 5 cases:
brain cancer (1 case), throat cancer (1), and liver cancer (3).
Eight of the people with cancer were known to have drunk water
from contaminated wells.
It is impossible to draw conclusions from these data to support a
cause-and-effect relationship between site-related contaminants
in the private well water and the incidence of cancers. Three
chemicals (1,2-DCA, PCE, TCE) were found in low concentrations in
private well water at the time of sampling. Based on these
reported concentrations in the private well, there does not
appear to be a significant risk for excess cancers for people
living near the site consuming this well water. In the United
States, cancer is a common illness that one in three people will
develop during a lifetime (MMWR 1990). The risk of developing
cancer increases with age; other contributing factors are
lifestyle, occupation, and genetics. To determine a causal
relationship attributable to any one factor, data for all of the
factors, as well as relevant contaminant exposure data, would be
needed.
C. Community Health Concerns Evaluation
Approximately 25 Hendersonville residents attended public
availability sessions conducted by ATSDR to express environmental
and health concerns. A summary of the primary concerns are
43
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
stated below. ATSDR has addressed each of the community concerns
about health:
1. Did the chlorine leak from the GE plant in July 1991
cause the burning and irritation of the respiratory
tracts of people living near the plant?
2.
3.
4.
Several people in the community reported nasal
irritation following the chlorine leak in July 1991.
None of the workers in the plant reported illness
following the release. No data are available on the
concentrations of chlorine or other possible irritants
in the air following the release. It is impossible to
determine the expected health effects of the exposure
without information about ambient air concentrations of
chlorine or other air contaminants.
Ar.e the cancers reported by residents in the vicinity
of the site occurring at an excess rate?
The number of new cancer cases and the number of cancer
deaths for men and women in Henderson County do not
differ from the number of new cases or deaths at the
state or national levels. Please refer to the Health
Outcome Evaluation section of this public health
assessment for further discussion.
Is the occurrence of the cancers related to exposure to
contaminants in the groundwater and private wells?
Three chemicals (1,2-DCA, PCE, and TCE) in the drinking
water cause cancer in animals. From what is known
about the contaminant concentrations at the time of
sampling, there does not appear to be a significant
risk of excess cancers in people who live near the
subsites.
Are other health-related problems (e.g., asthma,
migraine headaches, blisters in the mouth, rectal
bleeding, or myelitis) in residents of the surrounding
community related to exposure to contaminants in
private wells?
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
According to current scientific literature, there is no 1 documentation of such health effects in people or
experimental animals who have consumed water containing
chloromethane, 1,1-DCA, and 1,2-DCA. However, one
study suggested that an increase in respiratory I
disorders (asthma, bronchitis, and pneumonia) in
children was associated with chronic exposure to a
44 I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
solvent contaminated water supply which contained TCE
and PCE. It was found that two municipal water wells
in Woburn, Massachusetts contained several solvents
including trichloroethylene (267 ppb) and
tetrachloroethylene (21 ppb). Accurate exposure data
could not be assessed from the study participants
because water was obtained ·from many water well
s·ources. A small percentage of the people in Woburn
consuming this well water also reported skin rashes.
These rashes occurred approximately twice a year and
lasted for a 2-4 week period. The study does not
conclude that these .reported effects are the result of
the TCE or PCE exposure.
5. How many residents are still using private wells that
6.
7.
·may be affected by site contaminants? Do more private
wells near the site need to be tested for contaminants?
Do private wells need to be retested because many have
only been tested once and because the samples were
collected during a very dry year?
ATSDR received reports that a few residents (exactly
how many is not clear) were still consuming water from
private wells near the subsites. ATSDR concurs with
GE's commitment to continue sampling private wells in
the vicinity of the plant. Some, but not all, private
wells near the subsites warrant sampling or resampling.
Were the deaths of cattle and hogs, which drank from
creeks near the site in the 60s and 70s, related to
contaminants from the GE site?
ATSDR does not have environmental data (on surface
water from the creeks where cattle drank or autopsy
reports of the livestock deaths) with which to evaluate
this concern.
Were children who played in Bat Fork Creek (swimming,
wading, or fishing) exposed to contaminants in the
creek at concentrations that might cause health
effects?
Please refer to the Toxicological Implications Section
of this public health assessment for a detailed
discussion of this concern. Children are not expected
to have adverse health effects as a result of
incidentally ingesting sediment or surface water during
intermittent swimming, wading, or playing in Bat Fork
Creek.
45
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
8.
9.
Were people who ate fish from Bat Fork Creek or drank
milk from cows that drank water from Bat Fork Creek
exposed to contaminants at levels of health concern?
ATSDR does not have biota data with which to evaluate
this concern.
What health effects may be expected in the future for
residents that continue to consume private well water?
For each of the contaminants in the private well water,
exposure doses were determined for an individual
consuming the private well water for a 20-or a 70-year
exposure. Based on the current sampling data no
adverse health effects are expected to occur from
consumption of private well water if the concentrations
of the contaminants remain unchanged.
46
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
CONCLUSIONS
ATSDR considers the General Electric Company/Shepherd Farm site
an indeterminate public health hazard. The limited available
data do not indicate that people are being exposed to
contamination at levels that would be expected to cause adverse
health effects. However,· there are insufficient environmental
data {air, biota, water, and soil) with'which to evaluate all the
past pathways by which people may have been exposed to site-
related contaminants.
A. General Electric Subsite
1.
2.
3.
4.
4.
B.
1.
Workers may have inhaled site contaminants when handling
waste. ATSDR has no air data with which to evaluate that
pathway.
Workers who incidentally ingested site contaminants while
handling waste materials are not expected to have adverse
health effects {noncancer or cancer), except, possibly,
workers who might be sensitive {allergic) to aluminum.
People who had contact with surface soil contaminants in the
recreational area via incidental ingestion are not expected
to have adverse health effects.
From what is known about the current private well water
contaminant data, no adverse health effects {cancer or
noncancer) are expected in residents who consumed this water
for up to 70 years. It must be noted that the private well
water data may not represent the maximum contaminant
concentrations in the water supply.
The environmental media sampling conducted to date was not
intended to characterize contamination to the extent
necessary to evaluate potential health effects on site or
off site. Potentially important data (for ambient air
quality, soil gas, air quality in buildings, drinking water
wells, creek water and sediment downstream from the site,
surface soils off site, and fish) are not available or are
incomplete.
Seldon Clark Subsite
Site contaminants {including beryllium, nickel, PCBs, and
vanadium) were detected in subsurface soil of a ravine at
the SC property. ATSDR was unable to determine the dates or
frequency of dumping; therefore, ATSDR was unable to
47
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
.I
I
2.
C;
1.
2.
3.
4.
D.
1.
2.
3 •
evaluate whether people exposed to the subsurface soil might
be at potential risk of adverse health effects. I
The environmental media sampling conducted to date was not
intended to characterize contamination to the extent
necessary to evaluate potential health effects on site or
off site. Potentially important data about waste materials
on site and surface soils on and off site are not available.
Shepherd Farm Subsite
The person who dumped and burned wastes at SF may have had
significant inhalation exposure to site contaminants. ATSDR
has no past air data with which to evaluate that exposure.
Incidental ingestion of contaminants in waste materials by
the person who dumped waste at SF should not result in any
adverse health effects (noncancer or cancer).
ATSDR does not have data on food crops with which to
evaluate Spring Haven residents' potential exposure to site
contaminants taken up into vegetable crops grown at the
development.
The environmental media sampling conducted to date was not
intended to characterize contamination to the extent
necessary to evaluate potential health effects on site or
off site. Potentially important data are not available for
some private wells in the area, air in residences, surface
water in the creek and tributary, or garden produce.
Fairgrounds Subsite
Although access to the WCF subsite is restricted,
trespassers may have limited contact with site contaminants.
No adverse effects (noncancer or cancer) are expected from
such exposures.
Exposures of workers who handled wastes at the WCF could not
be evaluated because no data are available with which to
estimate the frequency or duration of the activity.
The environmental media sampling conducted to date was not
intended to characterize contamination to the extent
necessary to evaluate potential health effects on site or
off site. Additional data are needed for private wells in
the area, waste materials, surface and subsurface soils,
surface water, and sediment.
48
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. General Electric Subsite
Cease/Reduce Exposure Recommendations
1. ATSDR concurs with GE's commitment to continue sampling
private wells and their repeated offers to connect residents
with affected wells to the city water system, reimburse
those that connected themselves, or supply bottled water.
2. Residents who may be concerned about water quality in their
wells should have·it tested at least once. Possible
contacts include.GE, state or local agencies, and testing
laboratory la_boratories. (GE has told ATSDR that they
respond to requests to.sample wells that are at locations
which may be reasonably associated with the contaminated
groundwater they are monitoring).
3. ATSDR believes it is appropriate for actively used wells
where contaminants have been found in the past at levels
below public health concern to be resampled at a frequency
of least once every two years. A prompt resampling may be
warranted if levels found were of health concern. For wells
that owners refuse to take out of service after contaminants
are detected at levels of health concern, continued sampling
would seem to serve no useful public health purpose. Based
on information from the private wells that have been
monitored, it does not appear necessary to analyze for more
than volatile organic compounds, plus for some wells, an
indicator for gasoline.
Site/Area Characterization Recommendations
1. Obtain at least a few on-site ambient air samples and air
samples from the predominantly downwind adjacent
property(ies) and test them for voes and metals
(particulates) on EPA's Target Compound List. Consider
whether air stagnation or inversion episodes should be
included in the sampling program.
2. Conduct a pilot soil gas sampling program to evaluate
whether voes (on EPA's Target Compound List) migrate from
contaminated groundwater and accumulate at substantive
levels in ambient air in on-site buildings and in
residences. Sample the soil gas by an on-site building and
a few residences where underlying groundwater voes are at
relatively higher concentrations. If voes are detected,
49
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
3.
4.
5.
B.
consider sampling interior air and further expanding the
soil gas sampling.
Sample creek water and sediment downstream from the GE
property and analyze the samples for metals, voes, SVOCs,
and PCBs (on EPA's Target Compound List}. If contaminants
are found at substantive levels, consider expanding the
sampling.
Sample fish in Bat Fork Creek and analyze the samples for.
PCBs.
Conduct more sampling of surface materials (sample the upper
3-inch zone} at former disposal areas and elsewhere on site.
Sample surface soils at the predominantly downwind adjacent
property(ies}, and analyze them for metals, voes, SVOCs, and
PCBs (on EPA's Target Compound List}.
Seldon Clark Subsite
Site Characterization Recommendations
1. Sample surface soils (sample the upper 3-inch zone} on site
and on predominantly downwind adjacent properties. Analyze
for metals, SVOCs, and PCBs. (on EPA's Target Compound List}.
2. Obtain additional samples of waste materials buried on site,
and analyze them for metals, voes, svocs, and PCBs (on EPA's
Target Compound List}.
C. Shepherd Farm Subsite
Site Characterization Recommendations
1.
2.
3.
Expand knowledge about contamination in private well water
by sampling additional wells near the SF subsite. Analyze
the samples for all contaminants on EPA's Target Compound
List.
Sample soil gas at some of the residences along or within
the perimeter of ATSDR's estimated disposal site area. If
voes (on EPA's Target Compound List} are detected, consider
measuring interior air quality at the residences.
Sample surface water from the tributary and the creek
downstream of the property, and analyze the samples for
metals, voes, SVOCS, and PCBs (on EPA's Target Compound
List} .
50
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
4. Sample produce taken from gardens within the estimated
disposal site area, and analyze the samples for metals (on
EPA's Target Compound List).
D. Fairgrounds Subsite
. -·site·characterization RecollDllendations
·~~-~·:,.~.-~
1>••:': Conduct an inventory of private wells near the WCF subsite,
, and initiate additional sampling. Analyze the samples for
,,, all contaminants on EPA' s Target compound List.
2. Obtain additional samples of .surface and subsurface soils on
3.
4.
site-and•sample surface soils off site on at least the
. ::> predominantly downwind adjacent properties.· .. Expand sampling
· ·,.,:. if ·.warranted. · : Analyze .the samples_ for all contaminants on
v:•,"'EPA' s Target Compound List ....
Sample sediment and water in runoff drainage features on
site and immediately off site along Highland Lake Road.
Analyze the samples for metals, voes, and SVOCs (on EPA's
Target Compound List). Also analyze sediments for
pesticides and PCBs.
Conduct more extensive investigations to find and sample
waste materials. Analyze the samples for all compounds on
EPA's Target Compound List.
E. Health Activities Recommendation Panel (HARP)
Recommendations
In order to determine if public health actions are needed,
ATSDR's Health Activities Recommendation Panel (HARP) has
evaluated the data and information developed in the preliminary
public health assessment of the GE/SF site. Members of the
community expressed concerns about the contamination of private
wells, local streams, and biota. Residents who consumed
contaminated well water reported a number of health-related
problems including cancers, asthma, migraine headaches, rectal
bleeding, and mental disorders. From what is known about current
environmental data, people are not currently being exposed to
contaminants at levels of public health concern. However, it is
not known if the available environmental data are representative
of past environmental exposures. Environmental data are not
available with which to evaluate exposure to contaminants in air
that may have been generated during past burning, dumping, and
waste spreading. For that reason, HARP has determined that
additional health actions are needed at the GE/SF site. HARP has
determined that private well users need community health
education that addresses health concerns related to the
51
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
consumption of contaminated private well water. When additional
environmental data are available that further describe the extent
of groundwater contamination, the site should be considered for a
dose-reconstruction study; those data also will help determine if
the site should be considered for inclusion in exposure
registries. Health statistics of the population surrounding the
GE site should be reviewed.
F. Public Health Actions
The Public Health Action Plan (PHAP) for the GE/SF site describes
actions undertaken and planned. The purpose of the PHAP is to
ensure that this preliminary public health assessment not only
identifies public health hazards, 'but provides a plan of action
to mitigate and prevent adverse human health effects resulting
from exposure to hazardous substances in the environment. Public
health actions undertaken or to be implemented include the
following:
Actions Proactively Undertaken by GE:
1. GE has implemented worker health and safety activities
that reduce or mitigate worker exposure to contaminants
in process and waste materials.
2. GE has sampled off-site private wells and provided
public water supplies to homes where contaminants have
been detected in private wells.
3. GE discharges wastewater under terms of its NPDES
permit and routinely samples the discharge.
Actions Pending:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Pending the availability and results of groundwater
data collected during the remedial investigation/
feasibility study, ATSDR will consider the site for a
dose reconstruction study.
If a dose-reconstruction study is conducted, ATSDR
would determine whether people near the GE property who
consumed contaminated well water should be included in
a TCE exposure subregistry.
ATSDR will conduct a health statistics and follow up
community health education as resources permit.
GE plans to continue to monitor private wells and
provide connections to municipal water supplies, as
necessary.
52
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
5. EPA is continuing its administrative deliberations for
the site, which may result in sampling and other
evaluations responsive to the recommendations outlined
in this public health assessment.
53
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al.
PREPARERS OF REPORT
Don Gibeaut
Environmental Health Engineer
Remedial Programs Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Tina Forrester, Ph.D.
Toxicologist
Remedial Programs Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
ATSDR Regional Representative:
Robert E. Safay .
Public Health Advisor
EPA Region IV
54
FINAL RELEASE
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
REFERENCES
ATSDR. 1990a. Toxicological profile for chloromethane. Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. December ·1990.
ATSDR. 1990b.· Toxicological profile for trichloroethylene.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. December 1990.
ATSDR. 1990c.
hydrocarbons.
December 1990.
.Toxicological profile for.polycyclic aromatic
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
ATSDR. 1990d. Toxicological profile for 1,1-dichloroethane.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. December 1990.
ATSDR. 1991a. Toxicological profile for tetrachloroethylene.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. October 1991.
ATSDR. 1991b. Toxicological profile for lead. Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry. October 1991.
ATSDR. 1991c. Toxicological profile for beryllium. Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. October 1991.
ATSDR. 1992a. Toxicological profile for aluminum. Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. July 1992.
ATSDR. 1992b. Toxicological profile for vanadium. Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. July 1992.
ATSDR. 1992c. Toxicological profile for 1,2-dichloroethane.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. October 1992.
CC. 1992. Report of health outcomes in local residents.
Concerned citizen, Tabor Road area. March 18, 1992.
EPA. 1991a. Hazard ranking system documentation record cover
sheet. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. August 28, 1991.
EPA. 1991b. Laboratory data sheets, Shepherd Farm and General
Electric ball field. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Laboratory. Multiple dates.
EPA. 1992a Chemical safety audit, General Electric Lighting
Systems. 1992.
EPA. 1992b. New Interim Region IV Guidance on toxicity
equivalency factors methodology for carcinogenic PAH's. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. February 11, 1992.
55
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
EPA. 1993a. Summary information about PCBs provided to ATSDR in
1993 by Region IV, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Undated
EPA. 1993b. Memorandum to ATSDR concerning the preliminary
assessment for General Electric Company LSD/Shepherd Farm Site.
March 10, 1993.
EPA. 1993c. Memorandum to ATSDR concerning General Electric
Company LSD/Shepherd Farm Site. November 15, 1993.
GE. 1992. Annual pollutant analyses monitoring report form and
data sheets. General Electric Lighting Systems. Multiple dates.
GE. 1993. Letter to ATSDR concerning the initial release, public
health assessment.for General Electric Company/Shepherd Farm
Site. May 24, 1993.
G&O. 1991. Phase II screening site investigation, western North
Carolina Fairgrounds site. Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc. May 1991.
Law. 1989. Chemical analyses of samples received on 6/30/89.
Law Environmental, Inc .. July 20, 1989.
.Law. 1990a. Report of PCB-contaminated sediment assessment,
General Electric. Law Environmental, Inc. February 1990.
Law. 1990b.
contamination.
Risk assessment related to groundwater
Law Environmental, Inc. August 1990.
Law. 1990c. Report of PCB-contaminated sediment assessment.
Law Environmental, Inc. February 1990.
Law. 1990d. Environmental receptor evaluation, Bat Fork Creek,
East Flat Rock. Law Environmental, Inc. August 1990.
Law. 1992. Residential well sampling analytical data, October
1988 to July 1992, volume one and two. Law Engineering. 1992.
MMWR. 1990. Guidelines for investigating clusters of health
events. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Centers for
Disease Control. July 27, 1990.
NCDEHNR. 1992. Letter to Deborah R. Bell from Tim E. Aldrich,
PhD, MPH, CTR, concerning cancer incidence in Henderson County.
State of North Carolina, Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources, State Center for Health and Environmental
· Statistics. April 9, 1992.
NCNRCD. 1989. Letter to General Electric, well data attached.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development. September 25, 1989.
56
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
NUS. 1990. Final report, limited scope listing site inspection,
phase II, Shepherd Farm. NUS Corporation. February 25, 1990.
NUS. 1991a. Interim final report, listing site inspection,
phase II, General Electric Company, revision 2. NUS Corporation.
January 25, 1991.
NUS. 1991b. Interim final report, limited scope listing site
inspection, phase II, Shepherd Farm. NUS Corporation. July 8,
1991.
TSI. Undated. Property map of Henderson County, North Carolina,
based on orthophoto map prepared by Woolpert Consultants using
photography of 1984. Transworld Services Inc ..
U.S. Census 1991. Census of population and housing, 1990:
summary tape file 1 (Utah) [machine readable files]. U.S. Bureau
of the Census. Washington, D.C.
57
I
I GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
I APPENDIX A: SITE MAPS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 58
I
I
I
I
I
·I-· ... ' ..
I
1·.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. Figure 1 ..•
. Location Plan .
. :· .. ' .-. . ·. ·: ' . "
. . .·· 1! . ·. . .
'l>. ..
~ . ..
. Former Western
Carolina North. els Fairgrollll
= 40001 o I L.--:::;:~:;"""-Scale: Feet
59
· Fi e2
General Electric an~ldon Clark Site Plan
Legend
II Sludge lmpoundment
::::;; Wutewaterlreatmen.t t:.:_:.:i fbnd1
i§J Forme, Landfill,
~ Ulndspreading Pleb
Tuber Road,
60
.
I
A
N
Sludge Impoundment
0 150' = I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .~.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' · ...•..
. • Figure 3
. · Shepherd Farm Site Plan
Disposal Site Area ►
Estimated by ATSDR
.
Spring :haven Park . I '-----,;
, •
I
' •Note: Former and current boundaries for
Shepherd Farm not known to ATSDR
61
0 400'
I I
Scale: Feet
Approximate
Figure 4 •
' Former Western North Carolina
Fairgrounds Site Plan
A
.N
62
0 200'
I I
Scale
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
I APPENDIX B: CONTAMINANT DATA TABLES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 63
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Table l General Electric: Contaminant Concentrations in
Monitoring Wells On Site
Maximum Comparison
Contaminant Concentration-ppb Value
(Reference) Year ppb Source
.benzene 8 {Law 1990b) 1990 1.2 CREG
benzo{a)anthracene ND {Law 1990b)
benzo{b or k)fluor-ND {Law 1990b)
anthene
benzo{a)pyrene ND · {Law 1990bl
butyl benzyl 30J {NUS 1991a) 1990 2,000 RFDG
phthalate
bis(2-ethylhexyl)-11 (Law 1990b) 1988 2.5 CREG
phthalate
2-chloroethylvinyl 1.4 (Law 1990b) 1990 none
ether ..
chloroform· 33 (Law 1990b). 1990 5.7 CREG
(trichloromethane)
chloromethane 4350 (Law 1990b) 1990 3 LTHA
chrysene ND (Law 1990b)
dibenzofuran NI
dibromochloro-2.1 (Law. 1990b) 1990 0.42 CREG
methane
dichlorobromo-3.4 (Law 1990b) 1988 0.27 CREG
methane
1,1-dichloroethane ND (Law 1990b)
1,2-dichloroethane 620 (Law 1990b) 1988 0.38 CREG
1,1-dichloroethene i.2 (Law 1990b) 1990 0.058 CREG
Table 1 continues
64
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al.
Maximum
Contaminant Concentration-ppb
(Reference)
Table l continued
1,2-dichloroethene 830 (NUS 1991a}
(cis, trans, total} 3580 (Law 1990b}
(not found later
at same well}
dieldrin ND (Law 1990b}
indeno(l,2,3-cd}-ND (Law 1990b}
pyrene
isopropyl ether NI
lindane ND (Law 1990b}
(BHC}
methylene chloride 140 (Law 1990b}
(dichloromethane}
2-methylnaphthalene 4J (NUS 1991a}
methyl-tert-butyl ND (Law 1990b}
ether
phenanthrene ND (Law 1990b}
polychlorinated ND (Law 1990b}
biphenyls, total
1,1,2,2-tetra-120 (Law 1990b}
chloroethane
tetrachloroethylene 4,500 (Law 1990b}
1,1,1-trichloro-4.9 (Law 1990b}
ethane
1., 1, 2 -trichloro-1.1 (Law 1990b}
ethane
trichloroethylene 140 (Law 1990b}
vinyl chloride 9J (NUS 1991a}
Table 1 continues
65
Year
1990
1990
1989
1990
1988
1990
1988
1990
1988
1990
FINAL RELEASE
Comparison
Value
ppb Source
70 LTHA
4.7 CREG
none
0.18 CREG
0.67 CREG
200 LTHA
0.61 CREG
3.2 CREG
0.2 EMEG
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al.
Maximum
Contaminant Concentration-ppb
(Reference) Year
Table 1 continued
aluminum 580,000J 1990
. ' (NUS 1991a)
barium 3,000 (NUS 1991a) 1990
beryllium 22J . (NUS 1991a) 1990
calcium 47,000 (NUS '1991a) 1990
cobalt 180 (NUS '1991a) 1990
iron 380,000(NUS .1991a) 1990
lead 380J (NUS 1991a) 1990
magnesium 64,000 (NUS 1991a) 1990
manganese 6,000J (NUS 1991a) 1990
nickel 250 (NUS 1991a) 1990
potassium 71,000 (NUS 1991a) 1990
sodium 16,000 (NUS 1991a) 1990
vanadium 1,400 (NUS 1991a) 1990
ppb-parts per billion ND-not detected
J-estimated value NI-no infonnation
66
FINAL RELEASE
Comparison
Value
ppb Source
none
700 RFDG
0.0081 CREG
none
none
none
none
none
• 1000 RFDG
200 RFDG
none
none
20 LTHA
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Table 2 General Electric: Contaminant Concentrations in
Surface Soils On Site--Recreation Area and Waste
Spreading, Sludge Impoundment, and Landfill Areas
Maximum Comparison
Contaminant Concentration-ppm Value
(Reference) Year ppm Source
benzene A-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
B-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
benzo(a)anthracene A-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990 none
B-1. 7J (NUS 1991a) 1990
benzo(b or k)fluor-A-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990 none
anthene B-6.6J (NUS 1991a) 1990
/benzo(a)pyrene A-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990 0.12 CREG
B-2.0J (NUS 1991a) 1990
butyl benzyl A-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
phthalate B-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
bis(2-ethylhexyl)-A-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990 50 CREG
phthalate B-9.2 (NUS 1991a) 1990
2-chloroethylvinyl A-NI
ether B-NI
chloroform A-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
(trichloromethane) B-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
chloromethane A-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
B-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
chrysene A-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990 none
B-2.lJ (NUS 1991a) 199·0
dibenzofuran A-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
B-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
dibromochloro-A-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
methane B-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
dichlorobromo-A-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
methane B-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
1,1-dichloroethane A-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
B-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
Table 2 continues
67
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al.
Maximum
Contaminant Concentration-ppm
(Reference)
Table 2 continued
1,2-dichloroethane A-ND (NUS 1991a)
B-ND (NUS 1991a)
1,1-dichloroethene A-ND (NUS 1991a)
B-ND (NUS 1991a)
1,2-dichloroethene A-ND (NUS i991a)
(cis, trans, total) B-ND (NUS 1991a)
dieldrin A-ND (NUS 1991a)
B-0.077J
(NUS 1991a)
indeno(l,2,3-cd)-A-ND (NUS 1991a)
pyrene B-ND (NUS 1991a)
isopropyl ether A-NI
B-NI
lindane A-ND (NUS 1991a)
(BHC) B-ND (NUS 1991a)
methylene chloride A-ND (NUS 1991a)
(dichloromethane) B-ND (NUS 1991a)
2-methylnaphthalene A-ND (NUS 1991a)
B-ND (NUS 1991a)
methyl-tert-butyl A-NI
ether B-NI
phenanthrene A-ND (NUS 1991a)
B-1. 6 (NUS 1991a)
polychlorinated A-0.38N(NUS 1991a)
biphenyls, total (EPA 1991b)
B-400 (NUS 1991a)
1,1,2,2-tetra-A-ND (NUS 1991a)
chloroethane B-ND (NUS 1991a)
Table 2 continues
68
FINAL RELEASE
Comparison
Value
Year ppm Source
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990 0.044 CREG
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990 none
1990 ~
1990 0.25 EMEG
1991
1990
1990
1990
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al.
Maximum
Contaminant Concentration-ppm
(Reference)
Table 2 continued
tetrachloroethylene A-ND (NUS 1991a)
B-ND (NUS 1991a)
1,1,1-trichloro-A-ND (NUS 1991a)
ethane B-ND (NUS 1991a)
1,1,2-trichloro-A-ND (NUS 1991a)
ethane B-ND (NUS 1991a)
trichloroethylene A-ND (NUS 1991a)
B-ND (NUS 1991a)
vinyl chloride A-ND (NUS 1991a)
B-ND (NUS 1991a)
aluminum A-34, 000
(NUS 1991a)
(EPA 1991b)
B-69,000J
(NUS 1991a)
barium A-85J (EPA 1991b)
(NUS 1991a)
beryllium A-ND (NUS 1991a)
B-ND (NUS 1991a)
calcium A-1,l00(EPA 1991b)
B-2,S00(NUS 1991a)
cobalt A-25 (NUS 1991a)
B-16 (NUS 1991a)
iron A-57,000J
(NUS 1991a)
B-30,000J
(NUS 1991a)
lead A-27 (NUS 1991a)
B-410 (NUS 1991a)
magnesium A-2,S00(NUS 1991a)
B-3,000(NUS 1991a)
Table 2 continues
69
Year
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1991
1990
1991
1990
1990
1990
1991
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
FINAL RELEASE
Comparison
Value
ppm Source
none
3,500 RFDG
none
none
none
none
none
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Maximum Comparison
Contaminant Concentration-ppm Value
(Reference) Year ppm Source
' Table 2 continued
manganese A-880J (NUS 1991a) 1990 5,000. RFDG
• C .. .. B-1,200J 1990
(NUS 1991a) . . . nickel A-20 (NUS 1991a) 1990 1,000 RFDG
B-82 (NUS 1991a) 1990
potassium A-2,400(NUS 1991ai 1990 none
B-3,900(NUS 1991a) 1990
sodium A-ND (NUS 1991a) · 1990
B-ND (NUS· 1991a) 1990
vanadium A-27 (EPA 199.lb) 1991 none
B-71J (NUS 1991a) 1990
A-recreation area/softball field
B-landspreading areas, sludge impoundment, landfill unit B
N-presumptive evidence of material
ND-not detected NI-no information
J-estimated value ppm-parts per million
70
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Table 3 General Electric: Contaminant Concentrations in
Surface Water On Site--Bat Fork Creek and Facility
NPDES Discharge
Maximum Comparison
Contaminant Concentration-ppb Value
(Reference) Year ppb Source
benzene A-NI
B-ND (GE 1992) 1992
benzo(a)anthracene A-NI
B-ND (GE 1992) 1992
benzo(b or k)fluor-A-NI
anthene B-ND (GE 1992) 1992
benzo(a)pyrene A-NI
B-ND (GE 1992) 1992
butyl benzyl A-NI
phthalate B-ND (GE 1992) 1992
bis(2-ethylhexyl)-A-NI
phthalate B-ND (GE 1992) 1992
2-chloroethylvinyl A-ND · (Law 1990b) 1988
ether B-ND (GE 1992) 1992
chloroform A-24 (Law 1990b) 1988 5.7 CREG
(trichloromethane) B-ND (GE 1992) 1992
chloromethane A-ND (Law 1990b) 1988
B-ND (GE 1992) 1992
chrysene A-NI
B-ND (GE 1992) 1992
dibenzofuran A-NI
B-NI
dibromochloro-A-ND (Law 1990b) 1988
methane B-ND (GE 1992) 1992
dichlorobromo-A-2. 4 (Law 1990b) 1988 0.27 CREG
methane B-ND (GE 1992) 1992
1,1-dichloroethane A-ND (Law 1990b) 1988
B-ND (GE 1992) 1992
Table 3 continues
71
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al.
Maximum
Contaminant Concentration-ppb
(Reference)
Table 3 continued ·
1,2-dichloroethane A-ND (Law 1990b)
' B-ND. (GE 1992)
1,1-dichloroethene A-ND (Law 1990b)
B-ND (GE 1992)
1,2-dichloroethene · A-ND (Law 1990b)
·(ci~, .trans, total) . B~ND (GE 1992)
dieldrin' . A-NI
' B-ND. _ .. (GE 1992)
indeno(l,2,3-cd)-A-NI
pyrene B-ND (GE 1992)
isopropyl ether A-NI
B-NI
lindane A-NI
(BHC) B-ND (GE 1992)
methylene chloride A-ND (Law 1990b)
(dichloromethane) B-ND (GE 1992)
2-methylnaphthalene A-NI
B-NI
methyl-tert-butyl A-NI
ether B-NI
phenanthrene A-NI
B-ND (GE 1992)
polychlorinated A-NI
biphenyls, total B-ND (GE 1992)
1,1,2,2-tetra-A-ND (Law 1990b)
chloroethane B-ND (GE 1992)
tetrachloroethylene A-3 .1 (Law 1990b)
B-ND (GE 1992)
1,1,1-trichloro-A-ND (Law 1990b)
ethane B-ND (GE 1992)
Table 3 continues
72
FINAL RELEASE
Comparison
Value
Year ppb Source
1988
1992
1988
1992
1988
1992
1992
1992
1992
1988
1992
1992
1992
1988
1992
1988 0.67 CREG
1992
1988
1992
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al.
Contaminant
Maximum
.Concentration-ppb
FINAL RELEASE
Comparison
Value
(Reference) Year
1,1,2-trichloro-
ethane
trichloroethylene
vinyl chloride
aluminum
barium
beryllium
calcium
cobalt
iron
lead
magnesium
Table 3 continued
A-ND (Law 1990b)
B:ND---.. (GE 1992)
( '-0.34 (Law 1990b)
'B,ND_____,) (GE 1992)
A-ND (Law 1990b)
B-ND (GE 1992)
A-NI
B-520 (GE 1992)
A-NI
B-ND
A-NI
B-ND
A-NI
B-NI
A-NI
B-NI
A-NI
B-NI
A-NI
B-ND
A-NI
B-NI
(GE 1992)
(GE 1992)
(GE 1992)
Table 3 continues
73
ppb Source
1988
1992
19881~3~
1992 ~
1988
1992
1992 none
1992
1992
15
1992
CREG
AL
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ·. · .. ·:--
r ~ ·• :; •
·I•' ·c ·:·-··--;,
. -\~.:·-' .;. ·J·.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al.
Maximum
Contaminant Concentration-ppb
(Reference)
. : _,,.~ ;:,,.·~, ... ~"''"--~:.':, ... ,;,. ' ... :. ,, .. . .. Table·3 continued
manganese .. •· •· ... •.1• A-NI:· ....
' -B-NI --
nickel A-NI '
;,, ~ . .. . •' . B-ND (GE 1992) t''
potassium A-NI . ... -
. B-NI.
\iodi~--: .. ::_ ·,
'· A-NI ' .. -• ..
· .. ': ·-· .• .. ~-· --B-NI
-vanadium A-NI .. . . B-NI ..
ppb-.parts per billion ND-not
A-Bat Fork Creek NI-no
B-NPDES discharge water quality
74
FINAL RELEASE
Comparison
Value
Year ppb Source
1992
' .
'
..
detected
information
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Table 4 General Electric: Contaminant Concentrations in
Sediments On Site--Bat Fork Creek and Waste Ponds
Maximum Comparison
Contaminant ·Concentration-ppm Value
(Reference) Year ppm Source
benzene A-ND {NUS 1991a) 1990
B-ND {NUS 1991a) 1990
{Law 1990c) 1989
benzo{a)anthracene A-ND {NUS 1991a) 1990 none
B-2.2J {NUS 1991a) 1990
benzo(b or k)fluor-A-ND {NUS 1991a) 1990 none
anthene B-3.3J (NUS 1991a) 1990
benzo(a)pyrene A-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990 0.12 CREG
B-0.44J(NUS 1991a) 1990
butyl benzyl A-ND {NUS 1991a) 1990
phthalate B-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
(Law 1990c) 1989
bis(2-ethylhexyl)-A-ND (NUS 1991ai 1990 50
phthalate B-23J (NUS 1991a) 1990
2-chloroethylvinyl A-NI
ether B-ND (Law 1990c) 1989
chloroform A-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990 110 CREG
{trichloromethane) B-0.003(Law 1990c) 1989
chloromethane A-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
B-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
(Law 1990c) 1989
chrysene A-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990 none
B-2.3J (NUS 1991a) 1990
dibenzofuran A-ND {NUS 1991a) 1990 none
B-0.13J(NUS 1991a) 1990
dibromochloro-A-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
methane B-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
(Law 1990c) 1989
Table 4 continues
75
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:I .. -.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al.
Maximum
Contaminant Concentration-ppm
(Reference)
Table 4 continued
dichlorobromo-A-ND (NUS 1991a)
methane B-ND -(NUS 1991a)
(Law 1990c)
1,1-dichloroethane A-ND (NUS 1991a)
B-ND (NUS 1991a)
(Law 1990c)
1,2-dichloroethane A-ND (NUS 1991a)
B-ND (NUS 1991a)
(Law 1990c)
1,1-dichloroethene A-ND (NUS 1991a)
B-ND (NUS 1991a)
(Law 1990c)
1,2-dichloroethene A-ND (NUS 1991a)
(cis, trans, total) B-0.003J
(NUS 1991a)
dieldrin A-ND (NUS 1991a)
B-ND (NUS 1991a)
indeno(1,2,3-cd)-A-ND (NUS 1991a)
pyrene B-0.59J(NUS 1991a)
isopropyl ether A-NI
B-NI
lindane A-ND (NUS 1991a)
(BHC) B-0.0008
(NUS 1991a)
methylene chloride A-ND (NUS 1991a)
(dichloromethane) B-0.048(Law 1990c)
2-methylnaphthalene A-ND (NUS 1991a)
B-ND (NUS 1991a)
(Law 1990c)
methyl-tert-butyl A-NI
ether B-NI
Table 4 continues
76
FINAL RELEASE
Comparison
Value
Year ppm Source
1990
1990
1989
1990
1990
1989
1990
1990
1989
1990
1990
1989
1990 14,000 RFDG
1990
1990
1990
1990 none
1990
1990 none
1990
1990 93 CREG
1989
1990
1990
1989
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al.
Maximum
Contaminant Concentration-ppm
(Reference)
Table 4 continued
phenanthrene A-ND (NUS .1991a)
B-3.7J (NUS 1991a)
polychlorinated A-ND (NUS 1991a)
biphenyls, total B-2300 [PCB 1248]
(Law 1990c)
1,1,2,2-tetra-A-ND (NUS 1991a)
chloroethane B-ND (NUS 1991a)
(Law 1990c)
tetrachloroethylene A-ND (NUS 1991a)
B-0.084(Law 1990c)
1,1,1-trichloro-A-ND (NUS 1991a)
ethane B-ND (NUS 1991a)
(Law 1990c)
1,1,2-trichloro-A-ND (NUS 1991a)
ethane B-ND (NUS 1991a)
(Law 1990c)
trichloroethylene A-ND (NUS 1991a)
B-0.052(Law 1990c)
vinyl chloride A-ND (NUS 1991a)
B-ND (NUS 1991a)
(Law 1990c)
aluminum A-7, 000J
(NUS 1991a)
B-46,000J
(NUS 1991a)
barium A-ND (NUS 1991a)
B-130 (Law 1990c)
beryllium A-ND (NUS 1991a)
B-ND (NUS 1991a)
(Law 1990c)
calcium A-ND (NUS 1991a)
B-6,l00(NUS 1991a)
Table 4 continues
77
Year
1990
1990
1990
1989
1990
1990
1989
1990
1989
1990
1990
1989
1990
1990
1989
1990
1989
1990
1990
1989
1990
1990
1990
1989
1990
1990
1989
1990
1990
FINAL RELEASE
Comparison
Value
ppm Source
none
0.25 EMEG
7,000 RFDG
none
none
49,000 RFDG
none
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Maximum Comparison
Contaminant Concentration-ppm Value
(Reference} Year ppm Source
.. Table 4 continued
cobalt A:2. 2 {NUS· 1991a), 1990 none
B-4.6 {NUS 1991a). 1990
iron A-12,000J 1990 none
{NUS 1991a) ·
B-22,000J 1990
{NUS 1991a)
lead A-5.SJ {NUS 1991a) 1990 none
B-360J {NUS 1991a) 1990
magnesium A-700 {NUS 1991a) 1990 none
B-2,000{NUS 1991a) 1990
manganese A-70J {NUS 1991a) 1990 70,000 RFDG
B-160J {NUS 1991a) 1990
nickel A-ND {NUS 1991a) 1990 14,000 RFDG
B-68 {NUS 1991a) 1990
potassium A-680 (NUS 1991a) 1990 none
B-2,000(NUS 1991a) 1990
sodium A-ND {NUS 1991a) 1990 none
B-850 {NUS 1991a) 1990
vanadium A-15 {NUS 1991a) 1990 none
B-52 (Law 1990c) 1989
A-Bat Fork Creek ND-not detected
B-Waste ponds NI-no information
ppm-parts per million
78
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Table 5 General Electric: Contaminant Concentrations in
Groundwater Off Site--Private Wells and Background
Maximum Comparison Contaminant Concentration-ppb Value
(Reference) Year ppb Source
benzene A-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
B-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
benzo(a)anthracene A-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
B-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
benzo(b or k)fluor-A-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
anthene B-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
benzo(a)pyrene A-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
B-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
benzyl butyl A-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
phthalate B-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
bis(2-ethylhexyl)-A-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
phthalate B-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
2-chloroethylvinyl A-ND (Law 1992) 1989
ether B-NI
chlorofonn A-1.4 (Law 1992) 1989 5.7 CREG
(trichloromethane) B-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
chloromethane A-0.82 (Law 1992) 1989 3 LTHA
B-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
chrysene A-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
B-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
dibenzofuran A-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
B-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
dibromochloro-A-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
methane B-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
dichlorobromo-A-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
methane B-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
1,1-dichloroethane A-0. 94 (Law 1992) 1989 none
B-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
Table 5 continues
79
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al.
Contaminant
1 r-, 2 -dichloroethane
' l ~1, 1°dichloroethene
1,2~dichloroethene
(cis, trans, total)
dieldrin
indeno(l,2,3-cd)-
pyrene
isopropyl ether
lindane
(BHC)
Maximum
Concentration-ppb
(Reference)
Table 5 continued
A-1.9 (Law ·1992)
B-ND (NUS 1991a)
A-1.0 (Law 1992)
B-ND (NUS 1991a)
A-ND (NUS 1991a)
B-ND (NUS 1991a)
A-ND · (NUS '1991a)
B-ND (NUS -1991a)
A-ND (NUS 1991a)
B-ND (NUS 1991a)
A-38 (NCNR 1989)
B-NI
A-ND
B-ND
(NUS 1991a)
methylene chloride A-1.4 (Law 1992)
(dichloromethane) B-ND (NUS 1991a)
2-methylnaphthalene A-ND (NUS 1991a)
B-ND (NUS 1991a)
methyl-tert-butyl A-73* (Law 1992)
ether B-NI
phenanthrene
polychlorinated
biphenyls, total
1,1,2,2-tetra-
chloroethane
i\J' :-tetrachloroethylene
1,1,1-trichloro-
ethane
A-ND
B-ND
A-ND
B-ND
(NUS 1991a)
(NUS 1991a)
(NUS 1991a)
(NUS 1991a)
A-ND (NUS 1991a)
B-ND (NUS 1991a)
A-9 .9 (Law 1992)
B-ND (NUS 1991a)
A-5.3 (Law 1992)
B-ND (NUS 1991a)
Table 5 continues
80
FINAL RELEASE
Comparison
Value
Year ppb Source
1989
1990
0.38 CREG
1989 0.058 CREG
1990
1990
1990
'1990
1990
1990
1990
1989 none
1990
1990
1989 4.7
1990
1990
1990
1989 none
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1988 0.67
1990
1989 200
1990
CREG
CREG
LTHA
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al.
Maximum
Contaminant Concentration-ppb
(Reference)
Table 5 continued
1,1,2-trichloro-A-ND (NUS 1991a}
ethane B-ND (NUS 1991a}
trichloroethylene A-8.0 (Law 1992)
B-ND (NUS 1991a}
vinyl chloride A-ND (NUS 1991a}
B-ND (NUS 1991a}
aluminum A-61 (NUS 1991a}
B-14,000J
(NUS 1991a}
barium A-2. 5 (NUS 1991a}
B-ND (NUS 1991a}
beryllium A-ND (NUS 1991a}
B-ND (NUS 1991a} ·
calcium A-16,000
(NUS 1991a}
B-3,000(NUS 1991a}
cobalt A-ND (NUS 1991a}
B-ND (NUS 1991a}
iron A-13,000J
(NUS 1991a}
B-11,000J
(NUS 1991a}
~ead A-7J (NUS 1991a}
B-34J (NUS 1991a}
magnesium A-4, 000 (NUS 1991a}
B-2,000(NUS 1991a}
manganese A-220 (NUS 1991a}
B-300J (NUS 1991a}
nickel A-ND (NUS 1991a}
B-ND (NUS 1991a}
Table 5 continues
81
Year
1990
1990
1989
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
FINAL RELEASE
Comparison
Value
ppb Source
3.2 CREG
none
700 RFDG
0.0081 CREG
none
none
15 AL
none
1000 RFDG
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Contaminant
..
..
potassium
· .. : ;.·' ~~-· -.. ~/'.··~~;:\ ~f-~.
Maximum
Concentration-ppb
(Reference) Year
Table 5 continued
Comparison
Value
ppb Source
A-2, 800 (NUS.-~1991a):., -1990, none,.
· · B~ND · (NUS ·,199ia) ·_ 1990
" .~·,~-,.. ~· ·. ''-~ .sodium·' ,,. A-6, 700 (NUS 0 1991a) 1990 none I ~n----'----~'-~·~T~•---1-B_-1~,~s_o_o~(_NU~S..:......1~9~9-1~a~l--1-_1_9_9_0-1-___ 1--__ --11
-v:anadium . A-ND . _ (NUS 1991a) . 1990 20 LTHA .1.· . . ... . ... ·., ... _ .. ,. . B-29 (NUS 1991a) 1990
'· A~ priv?-te wells:-B--background'groundwater
Jc .estimated.value ..... *-.,estimated-value·· ··
I . :·.-.·_. ND~ not detected NI-no information
_ ppb-parts per billion ·· ·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
82
quality ,
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Table 6 General Electric: Contaminant Concentrations in
Sediments Off Site--Background (Bat Fork Creek);
and in Surface Soils Off Site--Background
Maximum Comparison
Contaminant Concentration-ppm Value
(Reference) Year ppm Source
benzene A-ND (NUS 1991a} 1990
B-ND (NUS 1991a} 1990
benzo(a}anthracene A-ND (NUS 1991a} 1990
B-ND (NUS 1991a} 1990
benzo(b or k)fluor-A-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
anthene B-ND (NUS 1991a} 1990
benzo(a}pyrene A-ND (NUS 1991a} -1990
B-ND (NUS 1991a} 1990
butyl benzyl A-ND (NUS 1991a} 1990
phthalate B-ND (NUS 1991a} 1990
bis(2-ethylhexyl}-A-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
phthalate B-ND (NUS 1991a} 1990
2-chloroethylvinyl A-NI
ether B-NI
chloroform A-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
(trichloromethane) B-ND (NUS 1991a} 1990
chloromethane A-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
B-ND (NUS 1991a} 1990
chrysene A-ND (NUS 1991a} 1990
B-ND (NUS 1991a} 1990
dibenzofuran A-ND (NUS 1991a} 1990
B-ND (NUS 1991a} 1990
dibromochloro-A-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
methane B-ND (NUS 1991a} 1990
dichlorobromo-A-ND (NUS 1991a} 1990
methane B-ND (NUS 1991a} 1990
1,1-dichloroethane A-ND (NUS 1991a} 1990
B-ND (NUS 1991a} 1990
Table 6 continues
83
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al.
Maximum
Contaminant Concentration-ppm
(Reference)
.... Table· 6 continued
1,2-dichloroethane· A-ND (NUS 1991a)
' B-ND (NUS 1991a) . .
1,1-dichloroethene A-ND (NUS 1991a)
B-ND (NUS 1991a)
1,2-dichloroethene A-ND (NUS 1991a)
(cis, trans, total)· B-ND (NUS 1991a)
dieldrin A-ND (NUS 1991a) .. .. B-NI
indeno(l;2,3-cd)-A-ND (NUS 1991a)
pyrene B-ND (NUS 1991a)
isopropyl ether A-NI
B-NI
lindane A-ND (NUS 1991a)
(BHC) B-ND (NUS 1991a)
methylene chloride A-ND (NUS 1991a)
(dichloromethane) B-ND (NUS 1991a)
2-methylnaphthalene A-ND (NUS 1991a)
B-ND (NUS 1991a)
methyl-tert-butyl A-NI
ether B-NI
phenanthrene A-ND (NUS 1991a)
B-ND (NUS 1991a)
polychlorinated A-ND (NUS 1991a)
biphenyls, total B-ND (NUS 1991a)
1,1,2,2-tetra-A-ND (NUS 1991a)
chloroethane B-ND (NUS 1991a)
tetrachloroethylene A-ND (NUS 1991a)
B-ND (NUS 1991a)
1,1,1-trichloro-A-ND (NUS 1991a)
ethane B-ND (NUS 1991a)
Table 6 continues
84
FINAL RELEASE
Comparison
Value
Year ppm Source
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al.
Maximum
Contaminant Concentration-ppm
(Reference}
Table 6 continued
1,1,2-trichloro-A-ND {NUS 1991a)
ethane B-ND {NUS 1991a)
trichloroethylene A-ND {NUS 1991a)
B-ND {NUS 1991a)
vinyl chloride A-ND {NUS 1991a)
B-ND {NUS 1991a)
aluminum A-1, 900J
(NUS 1991a)
B-20,000J
{NUS 1991a)
barium A-ND {NUS 1991a)
B-ND {NUS 1991a)
beryllium A-ND {NUS 1991a.J -
B-ND (NUS 1991a)
calcium A-ND (NUS 1991a)
B-310 (NUS 1991a)
cobalt A-1.6 (NUS 1991a)
B-11 (NUS 1991a)
iron A-4,700J
{NUS 1991a)
B-22,000J
{NUS 1991a)
lead A-2.SJ (NUS 1991a)
B-35J (NUS 1991a)
magnesium A-300 {NUS 1991a)
B-2,600{NUS 1991a)
manganese A-40J {NUS 1991a)
B-370J (NUS 1991a)
Table 6 continues
85
Year
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
FINAL RELEASE
Comparison
Value
ppm Source
none
none
none
none
none
none
5,000 RFDG
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I_._._
I.
•1'.
. .-, ... ' : ,·
. ~· -• ·-·~ ::-.~--.-'• _t: '
I·'· ...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al.
Maximum
Contaminant Concentration-ppm
(Reference) Year
·, Table 6 continued
•-
nickel A-ND (NUS 1991a) 1990 -,, .. , ;. ,..,._ ._: ~ " ' -B-ND · · (NUS 1991a) · 1990
potassium .. A~'330 (NUS 1991a) .. 1990
B-l,300(NUS 1991a) 1990 -sodium A-ND .. (NUS :199la) · 1990
B~30 (NUS ·199la) 1990
.vanadiuin •.•." -,.~ .. ! ;·,.· .. · A~l2J (NUS ·'199la) 1990
.. B-ND . · (NUS 1991a) 1990
A-sediment NI-no information
B-surface soils ND-not detected
J-estimated value ppm-parts per million
86
FINAL RELEASE
Comparison
Value
ppm Source
"
, .. " <
none
none
'.
none
C
\
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Table 7 Seldon Clark: Contaminant Concentrations in
Subsurface Soils On Site (note: no data for
surface soils)
Maximum Comparison
Contaminant Concentration-ppm Value
(Reference) Year ppm Source
polychlorinated 0.6 (NUS 1991a) 1990 0.25 EMEG
biphenyls, total
aluminum 53,000J(NUS 1991a) 1990 none
barium 94 (NUS 1991a) 1990 3,500 RFDG
beryllium 1.6 (NUS 1991a) 1990 0.16 CREG
calcium 870 (NUS 1991a) 1990 none
cobalt 52 (NUS 1991a) 1990 none
iron 54,000 (NUS 1991a) 1990 none
lead 33J (NUS 1991a) 1990 none
magnesium 3,000 (NUS 1991a) 1990 none
manganese 1,000 (NUS 1991a) 1990 5,000 RFDG
nickel 52 (NUS 1991a) 1990 1,000 RFDG
potassium 2,000 (NUS 1991a) 1990 none
vanadium 180 (NUS 1991a) 1990 none
J-estimated value ppm-parts per million
87
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Table 8 Seldon Clark: Contaminant Concentrations in
Sediment Off Site--Drainage Ditch
Maximum Comparison
Contaminant Concentration-ppm .Value
(Reference) Year ppm Source
polychlorinated ND (NUS 1991a) 1990
biphenyls, total
aluminum 28,000J(NUS 1991a) 1990 none
.
barium 41 (NUS 1991a) 1990 3500 RFDG
beryllium ND {NUS 1991a) · 1990
calcium 360 (NUS 1991a) 1990 none
cobalt 2.9 {NUS 1991a) 1990 none
iron 5,300 {NUS 1991a) 1990 none
lead 28J {NUS 1991a) 1990 none
magnesium 1,100 {NUS 1991a) 1990 none
manganese 53 {NUS 1991a) 1990 5000 RFDG
nickel 7.4 {NUS 1991a) 1990 1000 RFDG
potassium ND {NUS 1991a) 1990
vanadium 54 {NUS 1991a) 1990 none
ND-not detected J-estimated value
ppm-parts per million
88
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Table 9 Shepherd-Farm: Contaminant Concentrations in
Waste Samples On Site--Shepherd Farm
Comparison
Maximum Value
Concentration--ppm
Source Contaminant (Reference) Year ppm
polychlorinated 266 (EPA 1991b) 1991 0.25 EMEG
biphenyls
tetrachloroethy-0.042 (EPA 1991b) 1991 500 RFDG
lene
trichloroethy-0.009 (EPA 1991b) 1991 none
lene
vinyl chloride ND (EPA 1991b) 1991
aluminum 200,000 (EPA 1991b) 1991 none
barium 180J (EPA 1991b) 1991 3500 RFDG
beryllium ND (EPA 1991b) 1991
~cadmium 19 (EPA 1991b) 1991 10 EMEG
calcium 7,400 · (EPA 1991b) 1991 none
cobalt 210 (EPA 1991b) 1991 none
copper 6,700 (EPA 1991b) 1991 none
iron 41,000 (EPA 1991b) 1991 none
lead 1,200J (EPA 1991b) 1991 none
magnesium 2,300 (EPA 1991b) 1991 none
manganese 620J (EPA 1991b) 1991 5000 RFDG
nickel 97 (EPA 1991b) 1991 1000 RFDG
potassium 760 (EPA 1991b) 1991 none
sodium 7,600 (EPA 1991b) 1991 none
vanadium 38 (EPA 1991b) 1991 none
J-estimated value ND-not detected ppm-parts per million
89
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Table 10 Shepherd Farm: Contaminant Concentrations in
Monitoring Wells On Site--Spring Haven
Comparison
Maximum · Value
Concentration--ppb Year
Contaminant (Reference) ppb Sourc
e
polychlorinated ND (NUS 1990) 1990
biphenyls
, ' 'tetrachloroethy-170 (NUS 1990) 1990 0.67 CREG
lene
't:richloroethy-50 (NUS 1990) 1990 3.2 CREG
lene
'vinyl chloride 3.2 (NUS 1990) 1990 0.2 CREG
aluminum 290,000 (NUS 1990) 1990 none
'barium 1,200 (NUS 1990) 1990 700 RFDG -beryllium 9 (NUS 1990) 1990 0.0081 CREG
cadmium 30 (NUS 1990) 1990 2 EMEG
calcium 56,000 (NUS 1990) 1990 none
cobalt 75 (NUS 1990) 1990 none
--4,500 (NUS copper 1990) 1990 1300 MCLG
iron 210,000 (NUS 1990) 1990 none
---lead 2,500 (NUS 1990) 1990 15 AL
magnesium 21,000 (NUS 1990) 1990 none
-manganese 5,900 (NUS 1990) 1990 1000 RFDG
nickel 200 (NUS 1990) 1990 200 RFDG
potassium 14,000 (NUS 1990) 1990 none
sodium 8,400 (NUS 1990) 1990 none
,yanadium 270 (NUS 1990) 1990 20 LTHA·
ND-not detected ppb-parts per billion
90
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Table 11 Shepherd Farm: Contaminant Concentrations in
Surface Soils On Site--Shepherd Farm and Spring
Haven
Comparison
Maximum Value
Concentration--ppm
Source Contaminant (Reference) Year ppm
polychlorinated A-48 (NUS 1990) 1990 0.25 EMEG
biphenyls B-62 (EPA 1991b) 1991
tetrachloroethy-A-0.07J (NUS 1990) 1990 500 RFDG
lene B-ND (EPA 1991b) 1991
trichloroethy-A-ND (NUS 1990) 1990
lene B-ND (EPA 1991b) 1991
vinyl chloride · A-ND (NUS 1990) 1990
B-ND (EPA 1991b) 1991
aluminum A-54,000 (NUS 1990) 1990 none
B-62,000J (NUS 1990) 1990
barium A-180 (NUS 1990) 1990 3,500 RFDG
B-190 (NUS 1990) 1990
' beryllium A-ND (NUS 1990) 1990 0.16 CREG V B-2.3 (NUS 1990) 1990
cadmium A-20 (NUS 1990) 1990 10 EMEG
B-9.1 (EPA 1991b) 1991
calcium A-2,400 (NUS 1990) 1990 none
B-1,700 (EPA 1991b) 1991
cobalt A-22 (NUS 1990) 1990 none
B-22 (EPA 1991b) 1991
copper A-1,400J (NUS 1990) 1990 none
B-3,400 (EPA 1991b) 1991
iron A-59,000 (NUS 1990) 1990 none
B-35,000 (NUS 1990) 1990
lead A-1, 300 (NUS 1990) 1990 none
B-620J (EPA 1991b) 1991
Table 11 continues
91
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
I Maximum
Comparison
Value
Concentration--ppm _ I _ .. , .. -:·.,,, 1i.;...c_o_n_t_am_i:....n_a_:i:i_~_-....:..·~_.-_· ·:....··-+-·:....: :..:.::·-~_R_e_f_~-~-e:...._ n_c __ e_)_· ____ :....···_: ;:....:_· _· -'-.. -,-l-Y_e_a_r-+-_·_P_P_m_J....-s_o_u_r_c_e--J1
' ... . ' .... : :;,.-:: .... :::..:.~:~:..,,~} Table" ii•continued ,:_,_.;_,.: . -·· . ., .
-·_-1' :,.:·:,'.:?:,-__ magnesium .. ,;,., •,...;,jv:' •A!fi;300 ,· 'rr~(NUS::°i:990l":· 19·9·0 ~bri~'·:
_ , :!,'/~it 11-· '...:.:_·( _-.•_·:._:..:;Oc_'...:.·'·:....·: ·_' _· _·_._,:_'··:....~:_.'· ._.-·1-·=B_c.;;.a.:..·;:..:;7.;;.o.;;.ci:....'·,:....·· :....L_t,..:.'(:..:NU=S_,:=1=-9··=-9.;;.·o!....)_'~4-....:1:..:9:...:9:....0:....·4--:....:....· ....:·..:..:-1-.:....__.:....' ---ll
.·, ... '.,. ... ' '. ~ ·,,. ~ ~-·' ,' .... . .. ~;~•, I ~ngf_~est. • .,, .. ,. ,, !~•~:~ • (NUS 1990) 1990 5000 RFDG . , .. (NUS· 1990) 1990 ...
,_. .• ' ' -· · · nickel• , ·· • ., .. ···. A~ 60 ···
-~,-: ..... , .• ll-------'--....:....:-+=B_-=2:....7 __ _....:_.....:.:.:..::..::...:..=.;;..;;..;;..:..--4-=..:....:+--.:....+----II
· ... · :'(•:'.•l1l, ~~§;£~J~,"::::t:.;:;{ .. ·;,'\ '!t~4,~;,::::i'.\:~-'t::~i · .1990 none ..
... (NUS '1990) 1990 1000 RFDG
(NUS .·1990) •, 1990 ...
_::1:·,;i:7;!.i'.~11--s-_o_d_i_{im_, __ ·_-c.,-_.--. -);-'-.--'--. -\:-,, ..... ""'.A-.-~ND-. -=--_,-_, .. -'---.-.. -... -'-<NU ____ .:..s.:.,_1:.;;.9:....9=-o.:..:....i-4-_:..;.::....:-:-1----'------II
·"· .,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
vanadium
A-on Shepherd Fann
J-estimated value
B~ND (EPA.1991b) 1991
A-51
B-74
(NUS 1990)
(NUS 1990)
B-on Spring Haven
1990 none
1990
ND-not detected ppm-parts per million
92
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Table 12 Shepherd Farm: Contaminant Concentrations in
Sediment On Site--Shepherd Farm and Spring Haven
Comparison
Maximum Value .
Concentration--ppm
Contaminant (Reference) Year ppm Source
polychlorinated A-23.5 (EPA 1991b) 1991 0.25 EMEG biphenyls B-0.23 (NUS1990) 1990
tetrachloroethy-A-0.018 (EPA 1991b) 1991 500 RFDG lene B-ND (NUS 1990) 1990
trichloroethy-A-0. 004J (EPA 1991b) 1991 none
lene B-ND (NUS 1990) 1990
vinyl chloride A-ND (EPA 1991b) 1991
B-ND (NUS 1990) 1990
aluminum A-22,000 (EPA 1991b) 1991 none
B-18,000 (EPA 1991b) 1991
barium A-77 (EPA 1991b) 19.91 3,500 RFDG
B-130J (EPA 1991b) 1991
beryllium A-ND (NUS 1990) 1990
B-ND (EPA 1991b) 1991
cadmium A-ND (NUS 1990) 1990
B-ND (EPA 1991b) 1991
calcium A-1,400 (EPA 1991b) 1991 none
B-200 (EPA 1991b) 1991
cobalt A-6. 5 (NUS 1990) 1990 none
B-6.3 (NUS 1990) 1990
copper A-350 (EPA 1991b) 1991 none
B-14 (EPA 1991b) 1991
iron A-27,000 (EPA 1991b) 1991 none
B-15,000 (EPA 1991b) 1991
lead A-210J (EPA 1991b) 1991 none
B-15J (EPA 1991b) 1991
Table 12 continues
93
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·1
. ' ,;,.-.! ::·
-~1, ..... • -~ ,!.,;'-
. -~ ·--':~ ·•.,'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al.
Contaminant
~;::;,,.. t·•.:.--i; -~ ... magnesium
.i_--·-::: ?: ~~~~ .-,.~ :.
. ' manganese.· . . ... ,: . .,.%
·nickel·
,.
.,.. ·-• . .-,.-.;;1.i:·
.. ' ' sodium.
vanadium
.
. ..
Maximum
Concentration--ppm
(Reference)
... -. ·. ~ -Table 12 ·continued
A~1;-aoo . (EPA 1991b)
B-3,500 (EPA 1991b)
A-500J (EPA 1991b)
B0 200J_ (EPA 1991b)
A-17 (EPA 1991b)
B-.8 ·. 5 (NUS 1990)
A~i,3oo· ·:;.._ (EPA 199ib).
B-3,100 (EPA 1991b)
A-ND (NUS 1990)
B-ND (EPA 1991b)
A-26 (EPA 1991b)
B-74 (EPA 1991b)
A-on Shepherd Farm B-on Spring Haven
FINAL RELEASE
Comparison
Value
Year ppm
1991 none
1991
1991
1991
5000
1991 1000
1990
199i
1991
1990
1991
. .i.~-' .
none
1991 none
1991
Source
RFDG
RFDG
.. '
J-estimated value ND-not detected ppm-parts per million
94
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Table 13 Shepherd Farm: Contaminant Concentrations in
Private Wells Off Site--in Vicinity
Comparison
Contaminant Maximum Value
Concentration--ppb ppb Source (Reference)° · Year
polychlorinated ND (NUS 1990) 1990 biphenyls
tetrachloroethylene 155 (Law 1989) 1989 0.67 CREG
trichloroethylene ND (NUS 1990) 1990
vinyl chloride ND (NUS 1990) 1990
aluminum ND (NUS 1990) 1990
barium 50 (NUS 1990) 1990 700 RFDG
beryllium ND (NUS 1990) 1990
cadmium ND (NUS· 1990) 1990
calcium 6,500 (NUS 1990) 1990 none
cobalt ND (NUS 1990) 1990
copper 170 (NUS 1990) 1990 1300 MCLG
iron 1,800 (NUS 1990) 1990 none
lead 7 (NUS 1990) 1990 none
magnesium 2,700 (NUS 1990) 1990 none
manganese 29 (NUS 1990) 1990 1000 RFDG
nickel ND (NUS 1990) 1990
potassium 1,500 (NUS 1990) 1990 none
sodium 11,000 (NUS 1990) 1990 none
vanadium ND (NUS 1990) 1990
ND-not detected ppb-parts per billion
95
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Table 14 Shepherd Farm: Contaminant Concentrations in
Surface Soils Off Site--Background
Comparison
Maximum Value
. . . . · .. , ~ . Concentration--ppm
1 -~;_{~: 11-C:...o_n.:..t_am:..:..ic..n_a:...n_t.:..·.:..·'--·.-_,,_-1-··_._,.:..~_<_R_e_f_e_r_.e_:n_~_e...:.)_.·_· _··:..:..----1:...Y_e_a_r-1-_P_P_m.:..·_·-1,...:..S_oc..u_r.:..'c_e--11
i:i'oly;·hl~i:-i~;ted .. ND . . , (NUS 1990) 1990
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. / !.;' biphenyls .:,: · . 11-:.=e:..::.:..::..::.::,e...:=.=--'-----i---'-------------l>---I-----I------II
tetrachloroethy-
lene
trichloroethy-1ene ~ ----..
vinyi·chloride
aluminum
barium
beryllium
cadmium
calcium
cobalt
copper
iron
lead
magnesium
manganese
nickel
potassium
sodium
vanadium
J-estimated value
ND (NUS 1990) 1990
ND .(NUS 1990) 1990
ND (NUS 1990) 1990
54,000J (NUS 1990) 1990 none
92 (NUS 1990) 1990 3,500 RFDG
1. 7 (NUS 1990) 1990 0.16 CREG
ND (NUS 1990) 1990
710 (NUS 1990) 1990 none
14 (NUS 1990) 1990 none
ND {NUS 1990) 1990
30,000 (NUS 1990) 1990 none
35J {NUS 1990) 1990 none
2,900 {NUS 1990) 1990 none
440 {NUS 1990) 1990 5000 RFDG
20 {NUS 1990) 1990 1000 RFDG
1,800 (NUS 1990) 1990 none
ND (NUS 1990) 1990
70 {NUS 1990) 1990 none
ND-not detected ppm-parts per million
96
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Table 15 Shepherd Farm: Contaminant Concentrations in
Sediment Off Site--Downstream and Background
.Comparison
Maximum Value
Contaminant
Concentration--ppm
Source (Reference) Year ppm
:,·· ..
polychlorinated A-0.72 (EPA 1991b) 1991 0.25 EMEG
biphenyls B-ND (NUS 1990) 1990
tetrachloroethy.-A-6J (EPA 1991b) 1991 500 RFDG
lene B-ND (NUS 1990) 1990
trichloroethy-A-ND (NUS 1990) 1990
lene B-ND (NUS 1990) 1990
vinyl chloride A-ND (NUS 1990) 1990
. B-ND (NUS 1990) 1990
aluminum A-13,000J (NUS 1990) 1990 none
B-15,000 (NUS 1990) 1990
barium A-82J (EPA 1991b) 1991 3,500 RFDG.
B-48 (NUS 1990) 1990
beryllium A-ND (NUS 1990) 1990
B-ND (NUS 1990) 1990
cadmium A-ND (NUS 1990) 1990
B-ND (NUS 1990) 1990
calcium A-280 (EPA 1991b) 1991 none
B-230 (NUS 1990) 1990
cobalt A-5.9 (NUS 1990) 1990 none
B-6.3 (NUS 1990) 1990
copper A-14 (EPA 1991b) 1991 none
B-ND (NUS 1990) 1990
iron A-12,000 (NUS 1990) 1990 none
B-15,000 (NUS 1990) 1990
lead A-12J (EPA 1991b) 1991 none
B-6.3J (NUS 1990) 1990
Table 15 continues
97
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Comparison
Maximum Value
Concentration--ppm Source Contaminant (Reference) .. Year ppm
.. ·-/ ,, .. . -. ,; ._,, : Table 15 continued -. .. · .
magnesium. A-2;-Goo· ·(EPA 1991b) .• 1991 none
B-1,300 .. (NUS 1990) ... . . ~: . ;.;' ·•··· . ·,. . . . 1990
manganese· A-340J (EPA 1991b) 1991 5000 RFDG .• . B-130 · (NUS 1990) 1990
ri~,c.k~l. ___ .. , •• A-5. 4 · ..... ·· · (NUS· 1990) 1990 1000 ' RFDG .. . .. . . . . B-10 (NUS 1990) 1990 . . .. . . . .
potassium A-2,100 (EPA", 1991b) · 1991 none . . ..
B-ND . (NUS 1990) .. ... ..
1990
sodium A-ND (NUS 1990) 1990
B-ND (NUS 1990) 1990
vanadium A-24 (NUS 1990) 1990 none
B-30 (NUS 1990) 1990
A-downstream from estimated site B-background value
J-estimated value ND-not detected ppm-parts per million
98
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
.Table 16 Fairgrounds: Contaminant Concentrations in
Groundwater On Site
Comparison
Maximum . Value
Concentration--ppb ppb Source Contaminant (Reference) Year
·benzene 200 (G&O 1991) 1991 1.2 CREG
DDE ND (G&O 1991) 1991
DDT ND (G&O 1991) 1991
dieldrin ND (G&O 1991) 1991
2-methylnaphtha-80 (G&O 1991) 1991 none
lene
naphthalene 70 (G&O 1991) 1991 20 LTHA
n-nitrosidi ND (G&O 1991) 1991
phenyl amine
.phenanthrene ND . (G&O 1991) 1991
aluminum 662,000 (G&O 1991) 1991 none
'barium 1,760 (G&O 1991) 1991 700 RFDG
-beryllium 8.1 (G&O 1991) 1991 0.0081 CREG
cadmium 25.2 (G&O 1991) 1991 2 EMEG
calcium NI
cobalt 96.3 (G&O 1991) 1991 none
copper 373 (G&O 1991) 1991 1300 MCLG
iron 209,000 (G&O 1991) 1991 none
lead 652 (G&O 1991) 1991 none
magnesium 92,900 (G&O 1991) 1991 none
manganese 4,000 (G&O 1991) 1991 1000 RFDG
Table 16 continues
99
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al.
Contaminant
Maximum
Concentration-~ppb
(Reference),
100
Year
FINAL RELEASE
Comparison
Value
ppb Source
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Table 17 Fairgrounds: Contaminant Concentrations in Soils
On Site--Surface Soils and Subsurface Soils
Comparison
Maximum Value
Concentration--ppm
Source Contaminant (Reference) Year ppm
benzene A-ND (G&O 1991) 1991
B-ND (G&O 1991) 1991
DDE A-12J (G&O 1991) 1991 2.1 CREG
B-ND (G&O 1991) 1991
DDT A-17J (G&O 1991) 1991 2.1 CREG
B-ND (G&O 1991) 1991
dieldrin A-8.7J (G&O 1991) 1991 2.5 EMEG
B-ND (G&O 1991) 1991
2-methylnaphtha-A-1, 300 (G&O 1991) 1991 none
lene B-ND (G&O 1991) 1991
naphthalene A-280J (G&O 1991) 1991 none
B-ND (G&O 1991) 1991
n-nitrosodi-A-460 (G&O 1991) 1991 140 CREG phenyl amine B-ND (G&O 1991) 1991
phenanthrene A-480 (G&O 1991) 1991 none
B-ND (G&O 1991) 1991
aluminum A-29,400 (G&O 1991) 1991 none
B-17,000 (G&O 1991) 1991
barium A-60.2 (G&O 1991) 1991 3500 RFDG
B-109 (G&O 1991) 1991
beryllium A-ND (G&O 1991) 1991
B-ND (G&O 1991) 1991
cadmium A-3.4 (G&O 1991) 1991 10 EMEG
B-ND (G&O 1991) 1991
calcium A-1,540 (G&O 1991) 1991 none
B-ND (G&O 1991) 1991
cobalt A-21.5 (G&O 199i) 1991 none
B-30 (G&O 1991) 1991
Table 17 continues
101
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al.
Maximum
Concentration--ppm
Contaminant · ..• (Reference) :.. Year .
-· · .. ,, .. ""··.'•\'f::.;·•:· . ."tt..-.·~:~.~~~-·->--r: ·;·~·. ·. ~-·:~~·:::.;,.· ,-....... -;.,-~.
FINAL RELEASE
Comparison
Value
ppm Source
'
-lead•:?.;f,;-,::'='""·-"••";-··'-:'-s't· ·A-53 .2 · -·· (G&O'1991) 1991 ·1· .··; . .:.~::, .',! ... :.-~·.·.• .. ·•.;,,;: .. Bs12.8:., ·,;,(G&O.1991)·.,:., •.1991 ·:.:· .. ·.·,e.·-. ·'.'··.····, .. ,_ , ,> .,.' · ,;:,, • .. 1~· ---=-:.· c=.;...· ..::....:.;· ;_;_;;;_;;•'-l-'-----'---'-'------'---':...:....:...;;'~-1----'-'--4-~-'---ll
'.,.;,~::.;;~-:. -~¥-A~s'{~':""".:·:>:?,'2'.~(t :A.!'3/360 ,,}'.\(G°to?i9'it1r/ ~1991 none .. , ''' · '. · ~-'.:;:,. :~-,,.-:;,,,;:-• , _ _, ___ ,·--"':·······,·-,;4•·-,,-B::3 /3'6c>·,·::.-w&o··i99·1i · • 1991 ·. 1·.:': ;·: ... ~.'.11-----------+---'------'-------'--+----1----4----'---11 , 1,:: .. ·.,, .•. ~ •~·"·'· ..,.. ·.•. manganese A-287. .(G&O.1991) 1991· 5000 RFDG
1-·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.. -•. B-750 (G&O 1991) 1991
potassium A-2,760 (G&O 1991) 1991 none
B-3,480 (G&O 1991) 1991
vanadium A-69 (G&O 1991) 1991 none
B-20.4 (G&O 1991) 1991
A-surface soils B-subsurface soils
ND-not detected J-estimated value
DDE-p,p'-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene
DDT-p,p'-dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
ppm-parts per million
102
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Table 18 Fairgrounds: Contaminant Concentrations in
Private Wells Off Site
Comparison
Maximum Value
Concentration--ppb . ppb. Source Contaminant (Reference) Year
benzene ND (G&O 1991) 1991
DDT ND (G&O 1991) 1991
DDE ND (G&O 1991) 1991
dieldrin ND (G&O 1991) 1991
2-rnethylnaphtha-ND (G&O "1991) 1991
lene
naphthalene ND (G&O 1991) 1991
n-nitrosodi-ND (G&O 1991) 1991
phenyl amine
phenanthrene ND (G&O 1991) 1991 .. -·~ .
aluminum NI
barium . 50 (G&O 1991) 1991 700 RFDG
beryllium NI
cadmium ND (G&O 1991) 1991
calcium NI
cobalt NI
copper NI
iron NI
lead ND (G&O 1991) 1991
magnesium NI
manganese NI
Table 18 continues
103
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al.
Maximum
Concentration--ppb I}'-··:.·· Contam1,nan~ . ,. ~ ... -~~efe,:e~ce> ___ .
,.-:\,.: .. :i-~i:.:+.• ;:~ .. •-~i.;.:(f.,t:'.~~·~~f'.f:"f\ ··~-~.-:,';•r~>.jt.: Table 18 .continued ~l·t:~;r:_/-:.-;\ .. ·.-:.~:J~f.='[~-.-A. .... ·..;;.;-:'..-'-:.,..::.i!_.:,•-~-~=;<ii .. ··••;'i-~-1~·:.· .-.. "'~,. .•.. -.• , .. -
Year
FINAL RELEASE
Comparison
Value
ppb Source
,l?i1!~;, :~i•ii:~:-.:~~ : .. · ·,·. :::~:~-~------~--~, -·•·
-~1.;;;j:.::: ·:i~ii~;~~~~~~~~r~~t~t~~;f~f~~;~-~~hti~;~--p~rts per billion
· ·•c:· ,> · DDT-.'-'p,p'.-dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
I!1{11J~'.;:~f f ;~:;r-~1}AR:1t{·t~(·_:}f·;\~t f} ~::~-~~ ---~,\~iL ~:,;~~:<;L ,-<~-.f_.c .. , .. -
-1_,~\:.:::1·-,~~-,~>· ';-;_•:,., ···--·< ,·.· ....
. ·• "l, .•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 104
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Table 19 Fairgrounds: Contaminant Concentrations in
Surface Water Off Site--Tributary to King
Creek/Bat Fork Creek
· Comparison
Maximum Value
Concentration°-ppb ..
Contaminant (Reference) Year ppb Source
benzene ND (G&O 1991) 1991
DDE ND (G&O 1991) 1991
DDT " ND (G&O 1991) 1991
dieldrin ND (G&O 1991) 1991
2-methylnaphtha-ND (G&O 1991) 1991 lene
naphthalene ND (G&O 1991) 1991
n-nitrosodi-' ND (G&O 1991) 1991 phenyl amine
phenanthrene ND (G&O 1991) 1991
aluminum ND (G&O 1991) 1991
barium ND (G&O 1991) 1991
beryllium ND (G&O 1991) 1991
cadmium ND (G&O 1991) 1991
calcium ND (G&O 1991) 1991
cobalt ND (G&O 1991) 1991
copper ND (G&O 1991) 1991
iron ND (G&O 1991) 1991
lead ND (G&O 1991) 1991
magnesium ND (G&O 1991) 1991
manganese ND (G&O 1991) 1991
Table 19 continues
105
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al.
Maximum .. Concentration--ppb
Contaminant (Reference) . . . ·.
. .-:.·. ..:;\,~ ........ , . _ ....... •, ' ,.:~tt:~•-1:":·1~1~::. .Table .19 .-·continued:"''.-
_.. ~-·.1··.· ..
FINAL RELEASE
Comparison
Value
Year_ ppb Source ..
. '.-.... ~ .. ·::·•:..~'z..•."••\:-.. , . . ·1 ": -, ·1 ... . _'.-;_ . •. potassfuin ' ND (G&0-.1991) . ' . ···. :1991. .. ,) .... !<~ . . t· . . "' . •"--· ..... •,,.,. . ' ,,• ..
• C ,,.-
·• -·.•~ . ~
. .. -. . ..
vanadium . .. ND ' . (G&O 1991)
ND-not .detected.·. ppb-. parts ,per billion
DDE-·: p;p• ~dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene
DDT a .,p, p' .. -dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane
.i-~1)::~f~}t ti:;{~_.;*i;i}1::2.,k;.:;J'.;i;:i,Y,;;,:.~;::,:,,i :,._: , , ···· ·· ~ -~~ •. ,,, ·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
106
-c: -1991" .. ·• i ..
'·.,
. -· . .. .. ... . . . .. .
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Table 20 Fairgrounds: Contaminant Concentrations in
Sediments Off Site--Tributary to King Creek and
Bat Fork Creek
Comparison
Maximum Value
Concentration--ppm
Source Contaminant (Reference) Year ppm
benzene ND (G&O 1991) 1991
DDE ND (G&O 1991) 1991
DDT ND (G&O 1991) 1991
dieldrin ND (G&O 1991) 1991
2-methylnaphtha-ND (G&O 1991) 1991
lene
naphthalene ND (G&O 1991) 1991
n-nitrosodi-ND (G&O 1991) 1991
phenylamine
phenanthrene ND (G&O 1991) 1991
aluminum 4,360 (G&O 1991) 1991 none
barium ND (G&O 1991) 1991
beryllium ND (G&O 1991) 1991
cadmium ND (G&O 1991) 1991
calcium ND (G&O 1991) 1991
cobalt ND (G&O 1991) 1991
copper ND (G&O 1991) 1991
iron 3,790 (G&O 1991) 1991 none
lead 4.7 (G&O 1991) 1991 none
magnesium ND (G&O 1991) 1991
manganese 74.1 (G&O 1991) 1991 5000 RFDG
Table 20 continues
107
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al.
Maximum
Concentration--ppm
Contaminant (Reference) Year
Table 20 continued
potassium ND (G&O 1991) 1991
vanadium ND (G&O 1991) 1991
ND-not detected ppm-parts per million
DDE-p,p'-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene
DDT-p,p'-dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
108
FINAL RELEASE
Comparison
Value
ppm Source
I
I GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
I APPENDIX C: PATHWAY TABLES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 109
I
- - -------
PATHWAY NAME
SOURCE
Plant wastes Disposal
units
Surface
soils
Surface
soils
Groundwater
Private
wells
Creek water
and
Sediment
Disposal
units
Disposal
unit
Groundwater
GE, former
gas station
Disposal
units,
wastewater
MEDIUM
Air, wastes
soil
soil
Groundwater
Surface water
Sediment
POINT OF
EXPOSURE
On-site
disposal
areas
On-site
disposal
areas
Recreation
area
Off-site
private wells
Off.site
110
-
:· ROUTE· ·oF: < i. · EXPOSED
':.•~~-EXPOSURE _;;;:-,. y POPULATION
,Inlialil.ti~n 'GE' W6rkers
. Ingestion .· , ·Dermal' ·\· __ -1,. •
' ,!·
:rn~es't'ion ':
·Inhalation:
Derma1·,.·':1>. _.,
Ingest1on·
Inhalation··.
'GE.'•Workers
sp2irt teams
t De:i:mal : ,::1~ ·-·:· :. ·~ · ,1f ...
'.,ifitest'idn > ': :'Residents
::rnha1a:tiori·.~~., ,:· :".
;.: .. ~ :.f . -~~-. '·•\•)~i. t-_(:? li,; ..
t
'
·.J ,,.
iiiiil
TIME
Past
Past
Past
Present
Future
Past
Past
Present
Future
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
TABLE 22 GENERAL ELECTRIC--POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
PATHWAY NAME POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAY ELEMENTS TIME
POINT OF ROUTE OF EXPOSED
SOURCE MEDIUM EXPOSURE EXPOSURE POPULATION
Plant wastes Disposal Wastes On site, Inhalation GE workers Future
units disposal areas Ingestion
Dermal
.
Plant wastes Wastewater Wastewater On site, ponds Ingestion GE workers Past
ponds Present
Future
Plant wastes Process Air On site· Inhalation GE workers Past
releases Off site Residents Present
Area workers Future
Surface soil Disposal Surface soil On site Ingestion GE workers Past
units, Off site Inhalation Residents Present
process Dermal Area workers Future
releases
Soil gas Disposal Ambient air On site Inhalation GE & area Past
units, Off site workers Present
Groundwater indoors, Future
Residents
Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater Off-site Ingestion Residents Present
(GE, former (private wells Inhalation Future
gas station) wells)
Fish Disposal Fish Off site Ingestion Fisherman Past
units, Present
wastewater Future
Crops Wastewater, Crop Off site Ingestion Consumers Past
Runoff (stream irri-Present
gation) Future
111
----------.. .. 11!!!!!!!!1 11111 -l!!!!!!I 11!!!!!!1 --
lliiiiii == l!!!!!!!I lllill -- - --.. .. .. - ' -111!1111 .. .. .. liiiiil
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
.. .
TABLE 23 GENERAL ELECTRIC--ESTIMATED POPULATION FOR COMPLETED EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Estimated Exposed and f§#~!:;\lig+4¥ ~mf§iiii4 Populations
Location
Past GE workers (on-site
disposal areas)
Number
unknown
Sport teams & other users unknown
of on-site recreation area
Residents (private well
users)
Children (creek use)
iiliilliiillllllllll
140
unknown
ufikii6Wn ·:·:::·::::·::·-:;····-•~--"%·:
benzene
waste?
benzo (af-
anthracene
soil, waste
;,i.. . ':'!
,1' -·
?-Indicates uncertainty whether the medium contains the.
specified contaminant at an identified exposure location.
Sheet 1 of 15
112
benzo(b/kl-
anthracene
soil, . waste
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
TABLE 23 GENERAL ELECTRIC··ESTIMATED POPULATION FOR COMPLETED EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Estimated Exposed and ~85$8BW!!£±X
li::jffii;\'.$~ Populations
Location
Past GE workers, on-site
disposal areas
Number
unknown
Sport teams, other users unknown
of on-site recreation area
Residents (private well
users)
Children (creek use)
:ii:1:f~~\1enugnft#i:tva.te+we11
!,1$$'!;1$.
Sheet 2 of 15
140
unknown
Contaminants and Media:
benzo(a)pyrene butyl benzyl
phthalate
soil, waste waste?
113
bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
waste, soil
!!!!!!!!! == liiii -11!!111 111!!1 .. --.. -.. .. -111!!1!!!1 ll!!!!!!!!!I IJ!!R .. -
-lliil liilil iiiiill --liill -.. iilll iiiil ---. . -----
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
TABLE 23
• I -:i
GENERAL ELECTRIC--ESTIMATED POPULATION FOR COMPLETED.EXPOSURE .. PATHWAYS
AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS ,. --·.• · --~•;~·•.•· ·~ ·_-. .,:.~,:,:
. ,'•, /.:·-·.... , '.
Estimated Exposed and j'!?P~!:;;l;l'!,+:Jilj
~§$_~ Populations
Location
Past GE workers, on-site
disposal areas
Sport teams, other users
of on-site recreation area
Residents {private well
users}
Children {creek use}
Sheet 3 of 15
Number
unknown
unknown
140
unknown
2-chloroethyl-
vinylether
waste?
114
. ~=··· -; :· .
chloroform ·' ~hloromethane
waste waste?
'· ..
.. ., .
well water
surf~ce water
~ff§@gg( ..
:•• '.-,. ..
11,a111*¥1%:: . :·.
, .. ,
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL.RELEASE
TABLE 23 GENERAL ELECTRIC--ESTIMATED POPULATION FOR COMPLETED EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Estimated Exposed and gpp;!ffi\2*llli+¥ ~:i!:P'§/ii~~ Populations
Location
Past GE workers, on-site
disposal areas
Number
unknown
Sport teams, other users unknown
of on-site recreation area
Residents (private well 140
users)
Children (creek use) unknown
Sheet 4 of 15
chrysene
soil, waste
115
Contaminants and Media:
dibenzofuran
waste
dibromochloro-
methane
waste?
11!!11 Illa 111111 -------------11111 -..
-liiiil .. ------liiil liiil .. ,; .... : ,..;·/:iliillil .· -! .. i::~k-·l~~ ~:/: ;-~:; -· i-;\-· .. ,t ·_ -· ,. ... 1i:
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL' RELEASE '· : .. ,. ::;,~, ··,': :'·
!-_, b•:_:ft~3,~;:r '~:r;f; :~ii -~:f\'. _1; : .. {{
TABLE 23 GENERAL ELECTRIC--ESTIMATED POPULATION FOR COMPLETED.EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Estimated Exposed and ~g§'~p~*~+Y
l;lmpijfgj Populations
·. ~--· ~~'~f-?~ _-'. . 'J<}!':
Contaminants and Media:·
., ; -· .· ·,·:
,• r .~
-
Location Number dichlorobromo-
methane
l.; 1-·dichloro-
ethane •:
1,2'-'dichloro-
·ethane;
Past GE workers, on-site
disposal areas
Sport teams, other users
of on-site recreation area
Residents (private well
users)
Children (creek use)
Sheet 5 of 15
unknown waste?
unknown
140
unknown surface water
116
.:. ··-. -., "; ~ i .... · it
well water·
;;;~;;u;~!t?;; .· ,.,
I { ·:: ? _waste ..
.,.
weli water
.......
.. •' ..
. I. ' "-'•
f
P:fif~lf&~; . : .
,_ :-t ' ' ..
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
TABLE 23 GENERAL ELECTRIC--ESTIMATED POPULATION FOR COMPLETED EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Estimated Exposed and !i\§#~t';ll#1;fy
J:l!;p§li{~ Populations
Location
Past GE workers, on-site
disposal areas
Number
unknown
Sport teams, other users unknown
of on-site recreation area
Residents (private well
users)
Children (creek use)
Sheet 6 of 16
140
unknown
Unkridwii .. ,.-.-.-,_.-.-.-.-.-.·;:,·
1,1-dichloro-
ethene
waste?
well water
'
117
Contaminants and Media:
1,2-dichloro-
ethene
waste
dieldrin
soil
--------------181!a!llllllllia.-
liiil -liiil iiiil liiil --iiiil liiiiil. -
1
: ' .. ;, ;,: .. -. : -. . . ': :. ~ -. _·::,~•-·~::•··?.. . . .:, ·: J!'
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE, . ::: x:t:. _ \?
~· ' ,< •:?f--\ /· . .' ·. _r•;· .
TABLE 23 GENERAL ELECTRIC--ESTIMATED POPULATION FOR COMPLETED-EXPOSURE.PATHWAYS
AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Location
Past GE workers, on-site
disposal areas
Number
unknown
Sport teams, other users unknown
of on-site recreation area
Residents (private well
users)
Children (creek use)
Sheet 7 of 15
140
unknown
. ' '
ideno(l,2,3-cd)-isopropyl{ethe:r" linda~e
pyrene '! .. : -:.1·•.:::: .... ,,·_ · ?i··: -:-f-;•.:
-~ . : . waste ·waste·
. . . ,! •' •
well water
118
.. iiiil
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
TABLE 23 GENERAL ELECTRIC··ESTIMATED POPULATION FOR COMPLETED EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Estimated Exposed and i\19~,~B¼it±%
J;;:jm§it/~!:l Populations
Location
Past GE workers, on-site
disposal areas
Number
unknown
Sport teams, other users unknown
of on-site recreation area
Residents (private well
users)
Children (creek use)
Sheet 8 of 15
140
unknown
llnkhowii
1.' .• C ... C 1 / 1 / .•.•
\1#Jl:h15Wn
methylene
chloride
waste
well water
waatie ···--·---❖---· c· .. .c·
119
Contaminants and Media:
2-methylnaph-
thalene
waste?
methyl-tert-
butyl ether
well water
-liiiil liiiil --lilllil - - --liiiiil iiiil -- --.. -iiiiiil
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
TABLE 23 GENERAL ELECTRIC--ESTIMATED POPULATION FOR COMPLETED EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Estimated Exposed and fgt;~~~~tt¥ IDffi§iif~ Populations ·· · ······ · · ···
Location
Past GE workers, on-site
disposal areas
Number
unknown
Sport teams, other users unknown
of on-site recreation area
Residents (private well
users)
Children (creek use)
Sheet 9 of 15
140
unknown
unknoWn :'..: ... ,, .•. , .. ·,·········:-•... , .....•. ,:.:,,;,
Unknown
Contaminants and Media:
phenanthrene polychlorinated 1;1,2,2-tetra-
biphenyls chloroethane
soil, waste soil, waste waste?
soil
120
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL.RELEASE
. ,·.
TABLE 23 GENERAL ELECTRIC--ESTIMATED POPULATION FOR COMPLETED EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Estimated Exposed and g9~$PiRJ/W.±WY
Jl~Pl!!~ Populations
Location
Past GE workers, on-site
disposal areas
Sport teams, other users
of on-site recreation area
Residents (private well
users)
Children (creek use)
Sheet 10 of 15
Number
unknown
unknown
140
unknown
Urikridwfl ;.,.•.•:•.0.•.:::.·.:;:.:,·.:,:.:.·.·:·;_;;-_;;;.:.
Contaminants and Media:
tetrachloro-1, 1, 1-trichloro-1, 2, 2-trichloro-
ethylene ethane ethane
waste waste? waste?
well water
surface
water
121
well water
---------------11111!1 ---
--s . -- -------. -. '•-·. ··-··-·-GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINiL:~~-Ei;~E C <' .. ~~ ,
I •• ,"" : '. : •• •., I r: •. ; ~
TABLE 23 GENERAL ELECTRIC--ESTIMATED POPULATION FOR COMPLETED EXPOSURE·PATHWAYS
AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS /•-" •1.• ··1i~: .. · .---~\~
Location
Past GE workers, on-site
disposal areas
Sport teams, other users
of on-site recreation area
Residents (private well
users)
Children (creek use)
Sheet 11 of 15
Number trichloroethylene
unknown waste
unknown
140 well water
unknown surface water
122
. :;.·-1. . ' vinyl,1chloride
_wastei?"•,.
iC'.-1.-
·aiuminum
'waste, soil
.It
soil .,
r;:,eii water •
' --'· ... -. . . .. ·•·. .sediment
W#$liii;t,
❖:❖;❖;,;.;.;,:.;,:~.❖»»: :. ~-._,. ,: ~~·i,-'
y1;sm~1fwit!if?l , ' : .. ;;", .rie;~il¥1wat1wr
• • · !,-• 'I' '•' 'I . , ,;. '-!,
f··' : '\. ,.
-
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
TABLE 23 GENERAL ELECTRIC--ESTIMATED POPULATION FOR COMPLETED EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Estimated Exposed and ~Pl:\~.l;d!i~1!,l+y
~§]ii/£a Populations
Location
Past GE workers, on-site
disposal areas
Sport teams, other users
of recreation area
Residents (private well
users}
Children (creek use)
Sheet 12 of 15
Number
unknown
unknown
140
unknown
lirtkn6Wfi
Contaminants and Media:
barium beryllium calcium
waste waste? waste, soil
soil
well water well water
i!!Ofilli
123
-----.. --111!!!!1 111!!11 11!!!!!!!!!1 11!!!1!!!1 11!!!!!1 11!!!!!1 11!!!!!1 D!!!!!!!I -~ -
---------.. --·•· ijilal -····-liiil I', , ~ ~ '' . -,.. ' ·. ' '
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FIN~. R~LE~E:. · ~r<t•:.;. '.r :· ~
.• ... ·_·_ ·:-If ':-~t--•~-•·•,~-' ·:·'_.,;~~ _:!/; :' ~
TABLE 23 GENERAL ELECTRIC--ESTIMATED POPULATION FOR COMPLETED EXPOSURErPATHWAYS
AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS . ' :; f:.~.:' ',• . ' :(i' '~ :\?.;' ~
Estimated Exposed and ?§ti/imi'i;lii~~y
J;;~§j~ Populations
Location
Past GE workers, on-site
disposal areas
Sport teams, other users
of on-site recreation area
Residents (private well
users)
Children (creek use)
Sheet 13 of 15
Number
unknown
unknown
140
unknown
UHRRBWH :::.•::.:.::.:.::::.::::::.•:··::-·
cobalt
waste, soil
soil
sediment
waiii'.ii!e
124
! • : . ' . • • .. •t -..• '
-~?;•. :·' . ~1 "> , • ~l,t
Contamin~iitEi':and Media:-~• '
·: .,·. ' ..--Yi,-~,
sedimentL·· :: '
soi1~·:,~\-
l. ·•t ::
. ~--well•. water
-
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL.· RELEASE
TABLE 23 GENERAL ELECTRIC--ESTIMATED POPULATION FOR COMPLETED EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Estimated Exposed and B\§'l;~l;;l;;i;~tl;y
ij~§ii!~ Populations
Location
Past GE workers, on-site
disposal areas
Sport teams, other users
of on-site recreation area
Residents {private well.
users)
Children {creek use)
Sheet 14 of 15
Number
unknown
unknown
140
unknown
Contaminants and Media:
magnesium manganese nickel
waste, soil waste, soil waste, soil
soil soil soil
well water well.water well water
sediment sediment
125
--.. --11111 -.. -----------
------- - --GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al.
TABLE 23 GENERAL ELECTRIC--ESTIMATED POPULATION
AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Location
Past GE workers,
disposal areas
on-site
Sport teams, other users
of on-site recreation area
Residents
users)
(private well
Chiidren (creek use)
liiilillliliililllil
Sheet 15 of 15
Number potassium
unknown waste, soil
unknown soil
140 well water
unknown sediment
ttfiRh\5wn
126
~w~il:!~-g: .. ·,
~-, ·. J(~,1 · . : -,.
._,,.
~ H~'-t#ftJi~e;~zq
.-... :. J1, --~•-'.·".
. -, ,,.
. :,. .
' I. ~~ ·-~
'' . :_ '
--
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE .
TABLE 24 SELDON CLARK--COMPLETED EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
PATHWAY NAME COMPLETED EXPOSURE PATHWAY ELEMENTS TIME
POINT OF ROUTE OF EXPOSED
SOURCE MEDIUM EXPOSURE EXPOSURE POPULATION
Wastes Landfill Wastes On site Ingestion Workers Past
Inhalation
Dermal
Wastes Landfill Air On site Inhalation Workers Past
Soils Landfill Soils On site Ingestion Workers Past
Inhalation
Dermal
127
- - - - - - - - - -~ .. 111!!!1 .. 11111 lW!!I l!!!!!!!!!!I -11!!1
---iiiil ----GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al.
TABLE 25 SELDON
. < ,, •.. ., .. " .. -· .. ,~ .. ,,; <.
. • .. ·.Jl· . i-~."! ,;;;:· :· • •.. h'V • ·-~tft~~~-t 1~:(l/f PATHWAY NAME POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAY(ELEMENTS ''·· ... TIME
., . .,;. ••. ,_~•--.•• , ~•:•-r ~~ ....... ii,. ,,, ·~--, 't;:1-• 1' {~.;;-ic·: •
POINT OF : .. •.· .;ROUTE •OF}:. ,:f. ,~:11,EXPOSED :
SOURCE MEDIUM EXPOSURE ·,; . :';EXPOSURE';;·.; ~lPOPULATION . -:~-• .,' i"' .r.
: 9---.·:.;ri:-.-~f-1.,•-. ' -.:.'U'•'.J .--~~~ . Ambient air Landfill Air Off site ,• :• Ihhal'ationi; .~ 'jResidents , .. : .Past _, -. ' . . . -,,, . , .. ;workeirs,~.·-•.
,.-\ Ingest ion!" :,:c; .. ,.
.. ;-.• , .,, , . )$ .,., ~ r :, · · ':~----:>z-;_i:: .. :.!~ .• 1 Surface soil Landfill Surface soil On site Inge·stion:'~,. '' , W?r~~z::s .;; ,_ Past .. . ~,.,:;?-,.-Off site . Inhalation":;'. .Residents Present
'·Dermal•'.%,·,:.' ' t:.•I_·\ •-. _{;~;-.~ Future
Ditch Landfill Sediment Off site ... . . -~: .... ,;, -~~•-'I. / ', .... ,,... . ~. -... . . Ingestion'. · ' ,Residents Past
sediment 1Dermal ' .. ;'.(children) Present ' ,.
' --~t--_,, '.:~-. ';' ,. . '(/" -1·:~{···;· Future ..
site _;,, . Irigestiori· I ·I. . ,. ··-. Ditch water Landfill Surface water Off .Residents Past . . .· ( children) '. ,.
~ ••. · t·
.. . '· ..
128
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
TABLE 26 SELDON CLARK··ESTIMATED POPULATION FOR COMPLETED EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Estimated Exposed and g§'.f;'~#;!!~;!,'[!;y J1;x:p§!if~ Populations
Location Number
Past workers, on site unknown
Contaminants and Media:
volatile organic
compounds
waste?
polychlorinated aluminum
biphenyls
waste, soil soil
?-Indicates uncertainty whether the medium contains that specified contaminant at an
identified exposure location.
Sheet 1 of 5
TABLE 26 SELDON CLARK--ESTIMATED POPULATION FOR COMPLETED EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Estimated Exposed and f'P:t:l~B~~~#Y: g~gi~ Populations
Location Number
Past workers, on site unknown
Sheet 2 of 5
Contaminants and Media:
barium beryllium calcium
soil soil soil
129
11!1!1 .. 11111 1111 11!!!!!!!!1 .. --.. .. .. -.. .. .. -.. -111!!1
--------.. iilil
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al.
TABLE 26 SELDON CLARK--ESTIMATED POPULATION FOR
AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Estimated Exposed and ¥§s'§¥~~~~tX ~:itP§ii!~ Populations
Location Number
Past workers, on site unknown
uiiknowrl ·;·····:---:·:··::·····•··:·•·-:
Sheet 3 of 5
cobalt
soil
::t ' ·.>
':."
' ' :,." i • ;f~\~,:j .·.]~' -. -.. , :··ft( :~::~>i·:
TABLE 26 SELDON CLARK--ESTIMATED POPULATION FOR COMPLETED EXPOSURE PATHWAYS .. ;
AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS -:r:&:':{ ;f'.,i::) ,;:;f;~/_:,. : .. /: .
Estimated Exposed and -i.\i:Hi~h~4i~+;i;y ~?mR§~ Populations
Location Number
Past workers, on site unknown
Sheet 4 of 5
lead
soil
.,
manganese
soil . '
. :,_·,_ _:~~f,: : . . '.I •
·•
130
---
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
TABLE 26 SELDON CLARK--ESTIMATED POPULATION FOR COMPLETED EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Estimated Exposed and gg.p~p))l.!;:.!;+$
1%§§)!(~ Populations
Location Number
Past workers, on site unknown
Sheet 5 of 5
nickel
soil
·Contaminants and Media: ·
potassium vanadium
soil soil·
131
.. ----- - ---.. - --111111 --.. -
-'.
liliil ----.. -lllil --
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al.
PATHWAY NAME
Wastes
Ambient air
Soils
Private
wells
(off site)
TABLE 27
SOURCE
Disposal
area
Disposal
area
Disposal
area
Disposal
area
SHEPHERD FARM--COMPLETED
,, ,. :\,. ,.j.;-'l ~-' ,. . ;1 , •••. : ·-~· 0 .~ .... -•• ·.t, . POINT OF '; ... ·ROUTE' OF':'.,-'.: ,.t/EXPOSED.
MEDIUM EXPOSURE . ')'.EXPOSURE''.'~~ ·,'!,POPULATION
Wastes
Air
Soils
Groundwater
Estimated
on-site area
•"'! .• ~tJ'.·.::. ,-+, '. ~ ' Ingestion·. , ... ~
.~ •,.j,, ,,;-i .. !' ~ . Workeirs:and
Inhalation; · .-;
Dermal'. .. ·
residents by
dispo·sal·
.
Estimated :Inhalation .
on-site area ... ~ ft•.·
and vicinity \':' ";.
•·· ·4··. • . .. Estimated on-, -Ingestion.
site area and· Inha·lation
its perimeter' .. Dernial :, .
. ,r:~• ' 'ti 's,·.,• l .. Private wellsi ·,Ingestion:•
nearby Inhalatiori
132
'~ -. area~. . .
l• ~• • • • Workers,
resident's .'in
. .. vicinity
.Work~rs'and
residents by
: : s~i te::' area·
., ( . . . .., ' Residents
. ' . ·•'
TIME
Past
Present
Future
Past
Past
Present
Future
Past
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL.RELEASE
TABLE 28 SHEPHERD FARM··POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
PATHWAY NAME POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAY ELEMENTS TIME
POINT OF ROUTE OF EXPOSED
SOURCE MEDIUM EXPOSURE EXPOSURE POPULATION
Private Disposal Groundwater Residences Ingestion Residents Past
wells area in vicinity Inhalation in vicinity Present
Future
Ambient air Disposal Air Nearby Inhalation Residents Past
area residences nearby
Soil gas Disposal Air Inside Inhalation Residents Past
area residences by by.disposal Present
disposal area area Future
Creek & Disposal Surface water Tributary & Ingestion Residents Past
tributary area creek by creek &
water tributary
Creek & Disposal Sediments Tributary & ,Ingestion Residents Past
tributary area creek by creek & Present
sediment tributary Future
Produce Disposal Food Residences Ingestion Residents Past
area that raise Present
produce Future
133 -.. .. ----.. .. .. .. .. -.. .. -.. --
--":rnAL'Jsl. 7"/;_,:_,\ .. i:_:_:)_; •
./::./\:~ :.··:[::'.<~: .: . : ,, .. 1• '
-iiiil -GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al.
liill lliil
TABLE 29 SHEPHERD FARM--ESTIMATED POPULATION FOR COMPLETED:EXPOSURE,PATHWAYS
AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Estimated Exposed and Esitilil!i¼!W±~ ~ffi§!i!.~ Populations
Location
Workers and residents by
disposal area
Residents and workers in
area
Residents nearby formerly
using wells ·
Number
unknown
unknown
unknown
ifriknowri
tiffi6i8Wn ·-:.::.:.:.:.:.::.:.:.:.:::•x:::.:.:•:•···
polychlorinated
biphenyls
waste, soil
air?
< -~~ ,: C .• , • ~•,r-• ;, •. ••, . tetrachlo:i:'o-·: ·· ,:. ··
ethylene;-".:' .:f ·
air.?
<
r· .• • .. •
• r' ·• .;; '\' · .. -~''
groundwater
?-Indicates uncertainty whether the medium contains that
exposure location.
Sheet l of 6
134
';t:r:l.c~~oro-
:-e.thylene·
. . ':·~ . ., .
i;-:r ~.'.1~j>::
--
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
TABLE 29 SHEPHERD FARM--ESTIMATED POPULATION FOR COMPLETED EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Estimated Exposed and 8S:SJ\\5B¼ff±i!ix f.fa\:P§li!~ Populations
Location
Workers and residents by
disposal area
Residents and workers in
area
Residents nearby formerly
using wells
Sheet 2 of 6
Number
unknown
unknown
unknown
Contaminants and Media:
vinyl chloride aluminum barium
waste,.soil waste,.soil
air? air?
groundwater
135
----------GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al.
TABLE 29 SHEPHERD FARM--ESTIMATED POPULATION FOR
AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Estimated Exposed and i9E~9~~£~:¥ )\;%§gijif.4 Populations
Location
Workers and residents by
disposal area
Residents and workers in
area
Residents nearby formerly
using wells
Sheet 3 of 6
Number
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
beryllium
soil
136
waste,. soil, ·~:,,
afr? : ·_:. ; ·
"·
t,".
···i ·••• · •l~· . .,, .
,f;-t,,_,:~~'•• ••M~••
!)11] ~'~:tl~~f
; . ,•·· .. ' ..... ~
. ' ., ~-F'·
e;;gg§@~@F~ ... · .. ·: ~-:·
' -r:.•¥· '·' .... •.
· was2e•;: soil
:J: ,if.'(;.,;·
g'routlc1water
..,1!tt .. t·:·< : .
; . -· .: . •... ~· :· ·.:,:.
~' -·.
' '!• .. ~
•, -,
~ ' .. ;.
I},.
~-.
t;) .. ~·· .
--..
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
TABLE 29 SHEPHERD FARM--ESTIMATED POPULATION FOR COMPLETED EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Estimated Exposed and l9£1:fgi!£±¥ )ll;imqli!~ Populations
Location
Workers and residents by
disposal area •
Residents and workers in
area
Residents nearby formerly
using wells
Sheet 4 of 6
Number
unknown
unknown
unknown
Urikh&Wfl :xx·::·::···············-·-·
unknown ·;::.•.•:.::.:.:.:.::.•"••.:···.···.··
cobalt
waste
soil
air?
$lJ@@.!;ll¢$d[£iT :r~eer?.·····
$'$!:lil@$i,'j];
1.37
Contaminants and Media:
copper
waste
soil
air?
groundwater
$;@@@~¢!; , n Ni'§)J:;$@;
i\Wi/1Wm$fig
iron
waste
soil
air?
groundwater
g)i&undwater
lead
waste
soil
air?.
groundwater
---------GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al.
TABLE 29 SHEPHERD FARM··ESTIMATED POPULATION
AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Estimated Exposed and Ri'i#~eltilil¥ ffim§'l~ Populations
Location
Workers and residents by
disposal area
Residents and workers
area'
in
Residents nearby formerly
using wells
Sheet 5 of 6
Number
unknown
unknown
unknown
magnesium
waste, soil
air?
groundwater
1.38
..
-~ · ·.: ._.··t~~!fi;;~_:·.~;~~~t~~::~Jt!rti::i1·li~~~~iZ~~~1!t~~:_:~'.:
Con taminant;s;,iand.• Media :\;:f.;''.\J~\i1,;,o,,.
--~g~R,Y)aiR~ll~E
~,,:_;7 lJ•"~::-"':•.2j~;_;; ;:-, -:·
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
TABLE 29 SHEPHERD FARM··ESTIMATED POPULATION FOR COMPLETED EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Estimated Exposed and ;gj-~½!WfX ~¥PP~~ Populations
Location
Workers and residents by
disposal area
Residents and workers in
area
Residents nearby formerly
using wells
Sheet 6 of 6
Number
unknown
unknown
unknown
.tifikff8Wn
Contaminants and Media:
potassium sodium vanadium
waste waste waste, soil
air? air? air?
groundwater groundwater groundwater
139
lal _. --11111 al -.. ----lal 11i11 -llil!ll --111!a
---.. ----..
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al.
TABLE 30
~-.. :'.>l,-·. : ·-""' -.1.:_ .... ,. ' PATHWAY NAME COMPLETED EXPOSURE PATHWAY ELEMENTS
Ambient air
Wastes
SOURCE
Disposal
areas
Disposal
areas
MEDIUM
Air
Wastes
POINT OF
EXPOSURE
On site
On site
140
:}_··~RO~E-tOF.'t':;;, t:/~:,ExP6sED .
".l ·.EXPOSURE-;. 0 .· :\f POPULATION
' . : ~-; . "'' ~' --~-
· " -l • ,-•· • 1 4 :Ingestion
·Inhalation
Dermal
.. . ,
.. ·v •"· Firemen,
,chemical
delivery
workers
·'
TIME
Past
Past
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
TABLE 31 FAIRGROUNDS--POTENTIAL•EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
PATHWAY NAME POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAY ELEMENTS TIME
POINT OF · ROUTE OF EXPOSED
SOURCE MEDIUM EXPOSURE EXPOSURE POPULATION
Ambient air Disposal Air Off site Irihalation Residents,c-Past ,-·-areas ._:.. workers off Present ,.
site Future
Wastes Disposal Wastes On site Ingestion Event Past
areas Inhalation attenders
Dermal
Surface Disposal Soils On site Ingestion Event Past
soils areas Off site Inhalation attenders, Present
.Dermal intruders, Future
model plane
,, .::, ,_.,
enthusiasts,
hay cutters·
.
Groundwater Disposal Groundwater Off site . Ingestion ' Residents on Past
areas Inhalation wells•, ,, ' " Present ,,
Future
141
.. 11!1!!1 .. ---Ilia --.... --111!!!1 --.. -ll!!!lll
,.,.,,. t t '
--.i ._ 1ii1i1 iiii1 lail llliiil iiiil iiiiil -.i 111111 iiiil. ·:• ,;,iil!liL. -· --.i .. -
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
TABLE 32 FAIRGROUNDS--ESTIMATED
AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE
Location
Firemen formerly in
training and workers on
site
~
Number
unknown
.
iihilH\BWH -::.•.:x.•.•::.::-:•:•:·:•:·::.':-:•:;•'•·•·:-·
iihkriowii •'•:.:.·~-.:.::,·.·.··:.·:.··· ...... ,..
POPULATION FOR coMPLET~~~~l~6sURE\~}l.;J~~i~
PATHWAYS ;,..; ~' ·.-"; ,· ,,, ',.. . ·,, \' ''f:,.
:' ~.!"-,
benzene DDE DDT',,.
air? waste? air? waste?: air?: ·waste? .
g¥Et .,
t·
?-Indicates uncertainty whether the medium contains that specified contaminant at an identified
exposure location. ,.. :.
Sheet 1 of 7
142
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
TABLE 32 FAIRGROUNDS--ESTIMATED POPULATION FOR COMPLETED EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Location
Firemen formerly in
training and workmen
on site
Area residents using
private well water
Sheet 2 of 7
Number dieldrin
unknown air? waste?
unknown waste? soil
unknown
143
Contaminants and Media:
2-methylnaph0
thalene
air? waste?
waste? soil
groundwater
naphthalene
air? waste?
waste? soil
-.. -.. 111!!1 -.. ---.. -------111!!1
-.. -lliiil - -
liiill -GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al.
TABLE 32 FAIRGROUNDS--ESTIMATED POPULATION FOR
AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Estimated Exposed and ;potenti'alily Jfaffi§'jj~ Populations ·
Location
Firemen formerly in
training and worlanen
on site
Area residents using
private well water
Sheet 3 of 7
Number
unknown
tiriktibwrl ::·:.:.:.:·.::.::.:····.········
unknown
unknown
n-nitrosodi-
phenylamine
air? waste?
waste? soil
144
. .
-i :;·)~-~i;>:;:~ .. --:-::,/i.··~-i;~i:c'·
. FINAL' _R~~E~~ ":, . •·'t : :-:·:-::·_it .
COMPLETED"EX~OSURE, PATHWAYS;{.. );_
;· ·: .. , ·· ,._. .. ·-;_, :.-.: .. .-·:31_:: :ttLJt; ·: ·
• ,q. 'K .. ' ., .... ,,!_ I •. :1,:·• phenanthrene .. ,.: ,,
'·{)_,_., ,/:',I •~I~~:-.+~.~.'
waste?'soll .~~s;ey'.soil
.{? .,;,\";');' ..
\.·.· : iFiihfJIIRi@il
\, ''•_.:,·:r.:;~-:.,~~i•1,
, ..
: !~J4. ··~J _--
//_:.-~:t1 t-. ,, .
:; /'! •. .:
,:."; ,'~1•;';
; ·)
. '.f : .. ._:-...-;: ~~ . , .
..
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
TABLE 3 2 FAIRGROUNDS - -ESTIMATED POPULATION FOR COMPLETED EXPOSURE PATHWAYS ·.
AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Estimated Exposed and FP:!/~.sil!ii¥&±X Iifaffi§i!:iifJ Populations
Location
Firemen formerly in
training and workmen
on site
Area residents using
private well water
Sheet 4 of 7
Number
unknown
unknown
unknown
barium
air? waste?
waste? soil
groundwater
145
.Contaminants and Media:
beryllium cadmium
air? waste?
waste? soil
groundwater
-------.. ----------111111
-liill -- ---.. --GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
TABLE 32 FAIRGROUNDS--ESTIMATED POPULATION FOR COMPLETED EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Location
Firemen formerly in
training and workmen
on site
I •~ t. ,' • Area residents using
private well water
Sheets of 7
Number
unknown
unknown .::.:.::·;;:;;:;······
unknown
unknown
calcium
air? waste? -~{r_?b~~~te?
_.:~ ;.~;:, :~ ~ <=-"" .
--! .
waste? soil
.. ~-: · .. /' ;-_ t't:_
\f,
.:/ :··! ....
. , ,
~ 1!• l :;~. '.
146
---
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL' RELEASE
TABLE 32 FAIRGROUNDS--ESTIMATED POPULATION FOR COMPLETED EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Estimated Exposed and ¥9~1ll,g~!W+¥
)lj;itpgij~ Populations
Location
Firemen formerly in
training and workmen
on site
Area residents using
private well water
Sheet 6 of 7
NWl1ber
unknown
unknown
unknown
Contaminants and Media:
iron lead magnesium
air? waste? air? waste? air? waste?
waste? soil waste? soil waste? soil
groundwater groundwater
147
---------------0.---
-----.. ---GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al.
TABLE 32 FAIRGROUNDS--ESTIMATED POPULATION FOR
AND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Estimated Exposed and ¥?il'iii~Hfill'J;l,Ji:¥ Jil~R!!!~ Populations
Location
Firemen formerly in
training and workers on
site
Area residents using
private well water
Sheet 7 of 7
Number
unknown
unknown
unknown
manganese
air? waste?
waste? soil
groundwater
148
. . -·· . ' \ . ..\. waste?. soil
groi.mdw.itJir .
~ -. . . '
. 1•· .. -
· ..• 1'.
waste? soil
.. , . . . ~--,
'; . '• ' . "~'
--..
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. . FINAL RELEASE
Table 33. Waste Sources
CONTAMINANT EXPOSURE HEALTH GUIDELINE FOR INGESTION
PATHWAY (mg/kg/day)
Value Source Exceeded by ···'· estimated
exposure . : . . ·• ~' . .. dose
PCBs waste 0.000005 ATSDR's No
sources chronic
oral
MRL
dieldrin waste 0.00005 ATSDR's No .
sources chronic . ' oral ..
·. MRL . :
benzo(a) waste ·** '. **· pyrene sources
aluminum waste none none
sources
lead waste none none
sources
**
PAHs evaluated for cancer risk.
149
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Table 34.
CONTAMINANT
•:.-.. C
Contaminants in On-site Recreational Area
EXPOSURE
PATHWAY
area
HEALTH GUIDELINE FOR INGESTION
(mg/kg/day)
-· _ ..
150
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Table 35. Off-site Private Wells
CONTAMINANT EXPOSURE HEALTH GUIDELINE FOR INGESTION
PATHWAY (mg/kg/day).
Value:: Source-. Exceeded by .• ·. ,. ., . estimated . . , .. ' .~. "' . .. ..
exposure ,.
dose .. chloromethane private none none
well water
.
1,1-dichlor-private none none
oethane well water ·':..•, '
1,2~dichloro-private none· .. ·, none , ·• . ethane well water ..
. ..
tetrachloro~ private 0.01 EPA's ·no
ethylene well water chronic ..
oral
RfD
trichloro-private 0.1 ATSDR's no
ethylene well water inter-
mediate
MRL
151_
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Table 36.
-CONTAMINANT
Contaminants--Seldon Clark Subsite
-EXPOSURE
PATHWAY
HEALTH GUIDELINE FOR INGESTION
(mg/kg/day)
Value Source Exceeded by I
. ·i;,. . • ,-~,--0 .,-... _.,,, -.. ·: -::·.::, .. ··..-:·; _,;.·, estimated
,: .. : . .-:';_~,'.:.t..:;;: ~ /_·.:;\.···:~·-·~~:;_:_ ·,~·,.·;~;· ~~-, •· •· ·-~ exposure
.·.1::fj::~,-,11--"·_· ------.. --1-·-~--__ ·_· -----1----'~-__;_··_~:-1-__ • __ .--''--le--d_o_s_e __ · __ ·•----11
· ' · · beryllium '.· '.,c subsurface ,., 0. 005 • · EPA' s ·'·7 '. ' · -
;:·,::·::~·::~:: i1-!...:/·_:_,_• __ · ·'-; :_· ,_!_-...:.· ·-1-·s.:.:-·~.:.o_i_1_·_·_:_ ___ • ·-1· ------1--~=~.:.!:=~:....~...:~.:.:~:.:D'--l-'----------JI
none none ? .. ,-;--,, ,, .'.J\:,~::_:\ _ , , :.: ·=6~~~rface
:::.l~\:':i:(;,,i1-_P--C-.B-... -'s,,,-:•-,i-t,,-::'"".-'·_:,,,--~-_.-'.'..-.-'_.-1. -s-. U_b_s_u_r_f_~--c-e---i-----'--1-----'-'--1-'----------JI
,. .
0.000005 ATSDR's ?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
vanadium
soil •·.,
subsurface
soil
none
152
·~ chronic
oral MRL
none ?
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Table 37. Shepherd Farm Contaminants
CONTAMINANT EXPOSURE HEALTH GUIDELINE FOR INGESTION
PATHWAY (mg/kg/day}
Value Source Exceeded by
estimated
exposure
dose
aluminum surface soil none none
aluminum waste none none
beryllium surface soil 0.005 EPA's ?
chronic
oral
RfD
cadmium waste 0.0002 ATSDR's no
chronic
oral
MRL
lead waste none none
manganese waste 0.005 EPA' s no
chron-
ic oral
RfD
PCBs waste 0.000005 ATSDR's no
chronic
oral
MRL
tetrachloro-waste 0.01 EPA's No
ethylene chron-
ic oral
RfD
trichloro-waste 0.10 ATSDR's no ethylene inter-
mediate
oral
MRL
vanadium waste none none no
vanadium surface soil none none ?
153
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·-/ .i"· •.. :~:,·
I . '
. .,.,_ .. ----.~" ......
-_;, ·1:·
,-.
. -,.,-~ _:-'I···.
'1 ·' :. . : ·: .; __ · . •'
. -~--_. , .~·;::
I :-. ::~: ~-\:.~:.-~:,~.:.~~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Table 38. Contaminants--Fairgrounds Subsite
CONTAMINANT EXPOSURE HEALTH GUIDELINE FOR
PATHWAY· INGESTION
, '. . , ' ' . (mg/kg/day)
,. ;: ;;-:.;·:.~~ .. '. ,., i : __ \ -~-, ., . " . . '
' ' Value· .Source· Exceeded by " ' ,,', ' ' __ ;..~--.,_.., ·' ~-~ ~~ .. · ... ,::'"t' ., . ' estimated ~-,' . ' ... ,· -,, . " --; ? :-,,,.~, , ' . ; ,;:., ' ·, ,. . '' " ,-,: . exposure ',, '
' . ' dose
-.-·.-. ·, '' ~ _ .... •·· aluminum subsurface none* none . •-·~ soil " . '' ..
dieldrin · .. ,, ., ._., .. _ .... ,.. subsurface· none*-none
" . soil '
' .. ,1;--. .·.-· '-.•·' ~ .· '\ '· .. :•' •' ' . ' ' " " .-.--· ,. , ' i methyl;: . ' ' . surface. . " none*. none .. .. . ,
'' .". ,. ,•::naphthalene ., soil ,-. '
naphthalene surface none* none
soil
n-nitrosodi-surface none* none
phenyl amine soil
phenanthrene surface none* none
soil
vanadium surface none none
soil
vanadium subsurface none none
soil
I * No ATSDR MRL for acute exposures. I
154
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Table 39. Surface Water Contaminants -Bat Fork Creek
CONTAMINANT EXPOSURE HEALTH GUIDELINE FOR INGESTION
PATHWAY (mg/kg/day)
Value Source Exceeded by .. estimated
exposure --dose
aluminum sediment none none
tetrachloro-surface water 0.01· . . EPA's No
ethylene chronic
oral -. •· . . RfD ..
chloroform . surface water 0.01 ATSDR's No
chronic
-oral
MRL
chlorobromo-surface water none none
methane ·
155
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
APPENDIX D: RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
Appendix D summarizes the comments received about the Public
Comment Release edition of the public health assessment and
ATSDR's response to those comments. This edition of the document
has been revised, where noted., in response to comment issues.
Comment 1: A commenter asserts that the assessment fails to
adequately clarify the separate health risks
arising from the individual circumstances at the
General Electric (GE), Shepherd Farm (SF), Seldon
Clark (SC) and the former Western Carolina
Fairgrounds (WCF) properties. The amount of
control and data for GE distinguishes it from the
other properties from a public health standpoint,
as does the fact that it is geographically,
operationally, and historically distinct. The
large data base, monitoring, reduction and
elimination of hazardous substance exposure
pathways, the ability to limit access, the ability
to monitor and control potential on-site exposures
to workers, and the ability to respond to
incidents were not fully addressed for GE--these
items reduce any potential impact the GE property
may have on risks to the public and GE's
employees.
Response: ATSDR reviewed GE's specific geographic,
operational, and historic characteristics when
evaluating public health associated with that
subsite. The monitoring data provided measurable
insight into likely contamination concerns. ATSDR
believes that GE's efforts have reduced
contaminant exposure pathways--but some exposure
pathways existed, exist now, and are likely to
exist in the future. Although GE limits access,
access is not necessarily prevented. Although GE
does some workplace monitoring and controls some
potential on-site exposures, some exposures are
likely to occur. Although GE responds to
incidents, the response is not likely to avoid
some measure of exposure. Thus, while GE's
activities reduce impact on the property and risks
to the public and GE's employees, ATSDR is of the
opinion that those activities did not eliminate
all exposure and risk in the past, and do not
eliminate all exposure and risk now or in the near
future. Through its assessment process, ATSDR
believes that appropriate consideration has been
given to GE's specific geographic, operational,
156
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
and historic elements in developing the associated
contaminant, exposure, and health risk information
presented in the document.
Comment 2: ATSDR used comments and allegations from a variety
of sources, often without reference, that
misrepresent the potential risks of the site.
ATSDR's fundamental mandate is to use the health
assessment mechanism to compare "human exposure
levels" to health effects associated with the
constituents of concern. Instead ATSDR generated
an unbalanced report using various unfounded
assumptions and unnecessary terms without having
the scientific backup that would support those
concerns.
Response: ATSDR's mandate under CERCLA is quite broad,
thereby requiring ATSDR to adopt a similarly broad
approach to implement the mandate. ATSDR's
information base for health assessments includes
"verified" and unverified verbal and written
information from a variety of sources (e.g.,
facility owners, workers, community members) about
past and' present facility and community
activities. ATSDR also draws upon its experience
gained in addressing similar facility,
contaminant, media, and community settings.
Unverified information frequently is an important
and necessary resource for pathways analyses and
for fulfilling ATSDR's public health mandate.
ATSDR is diligent in its use of such information.
When information is not verified, ATSDR uses
reasonable qualifying words to characterize the
issue.
Comment 3: Page 1--A commenter refers to: "Both properties
contain wastes generated by GE." The statement
implies that two properties make up the proposed
NPL site. EPA's proposed listing included at
least six separate properties. There is
conflicting information on the disposal history at
the various sites, and actual sources of waste
have not been confirmed. Allegations regarding
sources of waste material do not aid in
understanding potential health risks. Suggested
change--the properties reportedly contain waste
from a variety of sources.
157
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Response: EPA Region IV reported to ATSDR:
The GE/SF site, at time of proposal, consisted of
the contamination located on the GE, SF, and SC
facilities. The term "facility" is broadly
defined in CERCLA to include any area where a
hazardous substance has "come to be located". The
listing process is not intended to define or
reflect boundaries of facilities or of releases.
The geographic extent of sites will be refined as
more information is.developed during the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility study (RI/FS) and even
during the implementation of the remedy (57 FR
47183). The agency.is not listing all sites where
GE wastes were disposed. Under CERCLA, .EPA is
only concerned with where hazardous waste may have
been disposed .. EPA has not received information
that shows conclusively that GE did or did not
send hazardous wastes to the WCF site. GE's
response to a 104(e) information inquiry indicates
that materials and fuels were sent to WCF for fire
department training. The exact nature of the
materials is not known. The WCF and two other
areas were described at the beginning of the
Hazard Ranking System documentation package for
informational purposes only. Those three
locations are being investigated separately. If,
during the RI/FS, it is found that hazardous
wastes from GE were placed at these or other
areas, and that these areas pose a risk to human
health and the environment; they may be added to
the 'site'. However, at this time they are not
part of the site.
The document has been changed on Page 1 and
elsewhere to more clearly represent EPA's
information.
Comment 4: Page 1--A commenter addresses: "The Seldon
Clark ... adjacent to GE also contains some GE
wastes and is part of the NPL site."
The SC site is separated from GE property and
reportedly contains wastes from a variety of
sources. Allegations about specific sources are
inappropriate. SC is part of the proposed NPL
site.
Response: The text has been changed on Page 1 and elsewhere
to show that SC is across Tabor Road, is part of
158
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Comment 5:
Response:
Comment 6:
the proposed NPL site, and contain wastes from
multiple sources.
Identification of specific sources is germane to
EPA in its listing process (See response to
Comment 3 and provides background for the reader.
Page J.--A commenter addresses: "EPA reported that
GE wastes may have been deposited at the
former ... WCF ... and other properties, therefore,
WCF and other properties might be included in
EPA's evaluation process."
:I.) EPA and ATSDR also have information showing
that GE did not dispose of wastes at WCF. Thus,
there is conflicting information on the disposal
history. Unconfirmed allegations of sources are
inappropriate. ·
2) ATSDR should provide the references for the
concerns and information cited in the document.
3) The commenter requests ATSDR to confirm whether
EPA has considered the WCF because GE's wastes may
have been disposed there.
4) WCF was proposed for inclusion on the NPL, and
is therefore is already included in EPA's
evaluation process.
:I.) Community members say they believe that GE
disposed of wastes at several locations including
WCF. EPA says they have not yet confirmed whether
hazardous wastes were placed at WCF (see response
to Comment 3.) ATSDR has no confirmation on this
issue, and believes that its revised discussion of
these issues on Page :I. and elsewhere has been
presented in a balanced manner.
2) ATSDR has provided citations for key documents
used in its evaluations. Verbal information is
not cited. The document has not been changed.
3) See response to Comment 3.
4) WCF has not been proposed for the NPL (see
response to Comment 3.
Page :I.--A commenter addresses: "ATSDR considers
the GE/SF site an indeterminate public hazard
J.59
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
because the limited available data do not
indicate ... " It is unclear how ATSDR considers
the site an indeterminate health hazard when the
data ATSDR looked at does not indicate adverse
health effects. Commenter suggests: "The data
reviewed do not indicate that people at the GE/SF
site are being exposed to contamination at levels
expected to cause adverse health effects. This
review was based on a substantial amount of
information, including sampling results, citizen
concerns and historical information."
Response: A site is categorized as an indeterminate public
health.hazard when the limited available data do
not indicate that humans are being exposed to
levels of contamination that would be expected to
cause adverse health effects, but data or
information are not available for all
environmental media to which humans have been
exposed. We stated that the current data do not
indicate humans are being exposed to levels of
contamination that are expected to produce adverse
health effects. We do not have data for all past
exposures.
Comment 7: Page 1--A commenter addresses: "However,
insufficient environmental data ... are available to
evaluate all of the ways in which people may have
been exposed in the past." Evaluation of all the
ways in which people may have been exposed in the
past is impractical, considering this assessment
covers a site that operated at the turn of the
century. ATSDR should report only what is known
or possible about the sites, not speculate on the
unattainable. The statement should be omitted.
Response: ATSDR considers all plausible pathways of
exposures--past, present, and future--in health
assessments. Waste materials were dumped in the
past and exposures could have occurred during
these activities especially for non-GE employees
who most likely did not utilize appropriate
industrial hygiene practices.
Comment 8: Page 1--A commenter addresses: "On-site workers
and individuals dumping wastes could have
incidently ingested, ... " This statement is
speculative and inconsistent with information
obtained during the health assessment. Nothing
was found to indicate that workers had exposures
160
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
to hazardous substances. As reported by GE and
NUS, the majority of materials handled at these
sites were not hazardous. Also, for the small
percentage of wastes that did contain hazardous
substances, no direct contact exposure pathway was
found, as the majority of the materials were free
of dust and were non-volatile. No information
was found that showed adverse effects in workers
or individuals that handled wastes.
ATSDR's findings on workers should be summarized
in this section. Commenter suggests: "From what
is known about the nature of the materials handled
and the way in which they were handled, onsite
workers who handled wastes are not expected to
have adverse health effects (cancer and
noncancer) ."
Response: The statement does not indicate that adverse
health effects resulted from these exposures--it
indicates possible exposure scenarios from past
activities at the GE site and past off-site
dumping activities. In line with ATSDR's response
to Comments 1 and 2, ATSDR contends that some past
exposures and also some current exposures are
likely to have occurred.
Comment 9: Page 1--A commenter addresses: "Children may have
had or could have contact with site contaminants
in surface water and sediments in Bat Fork Creek."
A suggested modification: "People who may have or
could have incidentally ingested sediment or
surface water during incidental swimming, wading
or playing in Bat Fork Creek are not expected to
have adverse health effects as a result of this
activity. 11
Response: A statement will be included in the Summary to
address the health risk posed by these activities.
Comment 10: Page 1--A commenter addresses: ."Residents have
questions whether ... their health ... problems ...
might be associated with ... private well water."
No indication is given on the number, or
percentage, of residents that reported public
health concerns. Nothing in the public record
suggests that a majority, or even a significant
percentage, of the community have reported health
related problems associated with the sites.
ATSDR's response to this concern can be summarized
161
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Response:
Comment 11:
Response:
Comment 12:
Response:
Comment 13:
Response:
here: " ... (number} residents have questions
whether any of their reported health
problems ... might be associated with ... well water.
ATSDR concludes that from what is known about the
private well water data, no adverse health effects
. (cancer or_ noncancer) are expected."
ATSDR investigates all.health concerns even if
they are reported by one individual.
Approximately 25 residents reported health
concerns to ATSDR. ATSDR will include a statement
in •the Summary to address potential health
outcomes.
Page 1--A commenter. addresses a statement ·
indicating that ATSDR has made recommendations for
reducing exposure to contaminants in private well
water and to characterize media and biota that may
· be contaminated. ATSDR is aware of GE's efforts
to reduce the use of well water that may be
impacted, and is aware that further evaluations
are planned for these sites. ATSDR's statement
should reflect its agreement with plans for well
water, media, and biota characterization.
The point of that statement in the summary is to
identify only ATSDR's recommendation. However, a
statement has been added in the second paragraph
to indicate that additional data are expected to
be developed by EPA and/or site owners.
Page 2; Para. 1--A commenter states that ATSDR
evaluated only a portion of the GE/SF site, not
the entire site as proposed by EPA.
The entire paragraph has been deleted; the
substance of the comment is addressed here through
responses to similar comments.
Page 2; Para. 2--A commenter addresses: "EPA
reported that the site includes three subsites ... "
EPA's proposed NPL listing included at least six
separate properties.
ATSDR called EPA, Region IV, who said that their
proposed listing included 3 separate properties
(subsites). ATSDR addressed those 3 properties--
plus another "subsite" under consideration by EPA.
Thus, the document has not been changed.
162
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Comment 14: Page 2; Para. 3--A commenter addresses: "EPA
reported ... on·e or more additional properties might
be included in the NPL site ... " Currently, there
is no NPL site for the properties addressed in
this report. EPA is evaluating properties that it
proposed for the NPL. Please cite reference.
Response: The document has been changed to"· .. included in
the proposed NPL site ... "
Comment 15: Page 2; Para. 3--A commenter addresses: "Local
citizens have told EPA staff members about other
locations where GE wastes may have been disposed."
These allegations conflict with some of the
statements made by other citizens and have not
been confirmed. This statement is not relevant to
the public health significance of the sites and
should be omitted.
Response: ATSDR believes that citizens reports to EPA staff
that GE wastes may have been placed at other
locations are important to the public health
assessment process in two ways: 1) ATSDR considers
multiple exposure routes at multiple locations
when sufficient information is available, and 2)
citizens are made aware that ATSDR considered the
information they submitted. The document has been
changed to indicate that disposal at other
locations has not been confirmed--also to show the
commenter reports that interviews with senior and
retired GE employees responsible for waste
handling indicate that burial of GE wastes did not
occur at the Fairgrounds.
Comment 16: Page 2; Para. 4--A commenter addresses: "GE, SC,
and SF ... and WCF are addressed ... " The WCF was
included in the NPL proposal.
Response: EPA reports that WCF was not proposed for the NPL.
Comment 17: Page 2; Para. 4--A commenter addresses: "Pertinent
data about those properties ... are not
available ... " Revise and clarify.
Response: The document has been revised.
Comment 18: Page 3; Para. 2--A commenter requests the
paragraph be clarified.
Response: The document has been revised.
163
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Comment 19: Page 3; Para. 3--A commenter reports that GE
conducts secondary aluminum refining.
Response: The document has been changed.
Comment 20: Page 3; Para. 3--A commenter addresses: "The
smelters and ... to neutralize acid .mist-." ... The
statement is.incomplete arid inaccurate .
Response: The document has been changed.
Comment 21: Page 4; Para. 3--A commenter addresses: ;'Disposal
methods for PCBs are not fully documented ... "
. ATSDR has not investigated PCB waste disposal,
records and therefore should not comment on
matters beyond the·scope of its-investigation.
Response: ATSDR was told by GE that GE did not know
how/where all of its PCBs were disposed of. The
document has not been changed.
Comment 22: Page 4; Para. 4--A commenter addresses: "Cutting
and grinding fluids are transported to Pinewood,
South Carolina." These materials are not
currently being sent there.
Response: The document has been changed.
Comment 23: Page 4; Para. 4--A commenter addresses: "GE has
sampled about 100 private wells ... " GE also is
monitoring groundwater on site with about 40
monitoring wells.
Response: The document has been changed.
Comment 24: Page 9; Para. 2 --A commenter addresses: "Homes
businesses ... " Commenter is unaware of any
businesses that are not on public water.
and
Response: The document has been changed.
Comment 25: Page 10; bottom line--A commenter says that the
nearest industrial facility is approximately 1000
feet south and west on Roper Road.
Response: The document has been changed.
Comment 26: Page 17; Para. 5--A commenter says that the
estimated value for benzo(a)pyrene is not of
164
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Response:
Comment 27:
sufficient data quality for the use made of it in
the paragraph.
ATSDR disagrees; the concentration should be used
a·s a basis for selecting that compound for
consideration of its public health significance--
however the text is changed to show the compound
concentration is "estimated".
Bottom Page 17-top Page 18; Groundwater (Private
Wells)--A commenter says to clarify that isopropyl
ether and MTBE are signature compounds for
identification of gasoline releases, and that
their presence indicates other sources contributed
to contamination. Also--the term "relatively low"
needs to be defined. Readers are not sure of what
this means. The data suggest multiple contaminant
sources.
Response: The document has been changed with respect to the
ether issues. The word "relatively" has been
deleted. Gas station tank leaks have been
mentioned as a source.
Comment 28: Page 18; Bottom of page--A commenter addresses:
"One sample of subsurface soils ... shown in Table
7 ... 01 Table 7 is in error. PCBs were detected at
600 ug/kg total, not 600 mg/kg.
Response: The table has been changed. Text has been changed
to show that the concentration found is slightly
greater than its comparison value.
Comment 29: Page 19; Waste Materials--A commenter addresses:
"Of the metals, beryllium ... " The data summary on
page 27 shows beryllium was not detected.
Response: Document has been changed.
Comment 30: Page 20; Last paragraph, and elsewhere in
document--Define or refrain from using
"extraordinary".
Response: Text has been changed to replace the word.
Comment 31: Page 21; Para. 2--A commenter says that
groundwater sampling from a soil boring is
appropriate or approved sampling method.
should not use this data for health risk
comparison.
165
not an
ATSDR
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Response: The groundwater sample was taken from a soil
boring and is the only data available on site for
that medium. ATSDR has added text to indicate
uncertainty about the sample's representation of
groundwater quality; The data has.not.been used
for health risk comparisons_ or_ health_,evaluations.
. . ' . .
Comment 32: , . Page 33; .Para. -.-4--A .commenter -addresses:• 11 ••• ,
.contaminants detected•inon-site groundwater may
. be transported in the :future to those wells or
have already reached other unsampled wells in the
·· ar·ea." · This is completely speculative. ATSDR has
no groundwater flow information on which to make
this assumption. Also, on-site groundwater was
sampled from a soil boring--an inappropriate and
unapproved sampling method:" ATSDR should not 'use
this data for health risk comparisons.
Response: ATSDR believes it reasonable to speculate that
groundwater on site might flow off site to private
wells (especially those that are topographically
downgradient). The document has been changed to
reflect an uncertainty about whether the one
groundwater·sample taken from a soil boring
represents actual groundwater quality on site.
ATSDR has not used the data for health risk
comparisons or evaluations.
Comment 33: Page 42; Para. 2--A commenter addresses: "Eight of
the people with cancer are known to have drunk
water from contaminated wells."
Response: The statement has been modified to clarify its
meaning.
Comment 34: Page 43; Community Health Concerns Evaluation,
Concern 1. --A commenter addresses: 11 It is
impossible to determine the expected health
effects of the exposure without information about
ambient air concentration of chlorine."
Response: Residents reported respiratory irritation on the
night of the chlorine leak. The statement has
been amended to include the fact that there could
also some other potentially irritating substances.
Comment 35: Page 43; Community Health Concerns Evaluation,
Concern 3. --A commenter addresses: "Three
chemicals ... in the drinking water cause cancer in
animals. From what is known ... there does not
166
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
appear to be a significant risk of excess cancers
in people who live near the subsites."
Response: These statements do not have different meanings.
Comment 36: Page 43; Community Health Concerns Evaluation,
Concern 4.--A commenter addresses: "However,
information about long-term human exposure ... is
very limited. 11
Response: Since there is limited scientific data on these
contaminants especially at low exposure doses for
long term exposures, ATSDR believes this statement
is correct.
Comment 37: Page 45; Conclusions, General Electric Subsite,
Conclusion 2. --A commenter addresses: "Workers
handling waste may have had significant inhalation
exposures to site contaminants."
Response: ATSDR has removed the word "significant" from the
statement.
Comment 38: Page 45; Conclusions, General Electric. Subsite,
Conclusion 2.--A commenter addresses:
" ... , except, possibly, workers who might be
sensitive (allergic} to aluminum."
Response: ATSDR has included the proposed statement.
Comment 39: Page 45; Conclusions, General Electric Subsite,
Conclusion 4.--A commenter takes exception to the
following: "It must be noted that the private well
water may not represent the maximum contaminant
concentration in the water supply."
Response: ATSDR considers the statement proper; no change.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Comment 40: Page 49; HARP Recommendations--I
Response: These are recommendations that have been
considered for the site. HARP recommendations I
have been reviewed by the appropriate divisions
within ATSDR and decisions will be made to conduct
these activities based on the public health I
urgency posed by the contaminants and the
resources to conduct these activities.
167
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Comment 41: Page 50; Actions Undertaken--A commenter says that
the fact these actions were undertaken proactively
by GE should be acknowledged.
Response: The document has been changed.
Comment 42: Page 50; Actions Pending, Item 2, Subregistry--
Response: See response to Comment 40.
Comment 43: Page 43; Actions Pending, Item 3, Statistics
Response: See Comment 40 for response.
Comment 44: A commenter describes the following:
The report divided the site into subsites claiming
they are geographically distinct. The SC subsite
is directly across the street from GE and SF is
only 2,500 feet away, with residences between it
and GE. Considering the subsites separately
creates problems in analyzing community exposures
and results in an inaccurate picture of the risk
the community faces. Consideration of one
subsite, one source, one contaminant and one
exposure pathway at a time can mislead the reader
into assuming that there is little risk to the
community. The reality is that the community is
exposed in many different ways to all of these
subsites with a number of contaminants. People
live close to all these sites, some are workers at
GE and their wells are contaminated with several
different chemicals. The report does not address
the risks that these people face. Health
officials must find a way to add the parts back
together to get a picture of the actual health
risks to the community. Far from synthesizing
health and exposure information, the report breaks
information down into mind boggling tables and
sections that actually prevent analysis, review,
or enlightenment. For example, if you want to
know if PCBs found in investigations pose a health
risk, one must track information at least through
pages 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, (and others), C-12, c-
21, or C-26 and Tables 33, 34, and 36. Finally,
on Page 36, all that is said about health effects
of PCBs is that workers who incidently ingest
waste materials containing PCBs would suffer no
adverse health effects. There is no discussion of
why this is so or how it relates to other
information presented in the report.
168
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. . FINAL RELEASE
Response: ATSDR is aware that. its health assessments reach
both technical and nontechnical audiences and
intends to develop its documents in the most
cohesive, understandable manner that the
information will allow. For this assessment, the
Background, Environmental Contamination, and
Pathway Analyses Sections were discussed for each
subsite--not because they were separate
geographically--but because there are substantial
differences in the type and quantity of
information about past/present activities on and
off the properties, contaminant concentrations,
completed and potential exposure routes, and the
associated affected or potentially affected
populations. The commenter has not described how
a cohesive discussion could be developed for those
portions of the assessment if all those elements
were combined for all subsites. ATSDR considers
it cannot be done in that manner.
The commenter says that the community is exposed
in many different ways to all of the subsites with
a number of contaminants, and the report does not
address the risks that these people face. ATSDR
agrees there are many differences in exposure-
related issues. Those differences contribute to
the difficulty in evaluating and deciding whether
there are community-wide public health risks. For
example, both GE and SF contain some of the same
organic chemical contaminants, but substantive
sampling information is not available for SC, and
the organic contaminants for WCF are not the same
as for GE or SF. Also, exposure probability,
frequency, and duration, as well as the actual or
potentially exposed populations, vary
substantially at all locations. ATSDR recognizes
that some who work at the GE plant might also
reside at a location with a currently affected
well, or may sometimes enter one of the other
subsites. However, to combine exposures and
identify the cumulative health risk, ATSDR would
need to know--or feel confident in presuming--the
contaminants and concentrations, and also exposure
routes, frequencies, and durations. For example,
the likely exposure routes for SF are through the
wastes, soils, groundwater, and air. The
likelihood of someone at Spring Haven (a
retirement community) or the farmhouse who was/is
exposed there through the wastes, soils, or
groundwater (not for Spring Haven) also working at
169
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
a exposure-related job at GE--or also visiting the
WCF or SC sites--is considered too remote for
ATSDR to speculate about combining specific
chemicals, concentrations, exposure scenarios, and
resultant health risks. Exposure through air
media might be common to all locations, but
concentrations could be substantively different--
air quality data are not available anywhere for
evaluation of health risk.
Comment 45: A commenter asserts:
1) GE needs to monitor all private wells--some
wells are not being monitored now; and
·--· -· • 2) ATSDR needs to recommend well ·sampling
.frequency and the parameters to be monitored.
Response: 1) ATSDR does not concur that all private wells
need to be monitored. Background information
obtained in past sampling of residential wells
should be used as an aid in selecting locations
that might warrant current sampling.
2) The appropriate frequency of well sampling
depends on many factors and may not be the same
for all wells. Factors to consider might include
whether the well is in use, whether contaminants
were detected in past samplings, when the well was
last sampled, and whether concentrations were at
levels of concern. The parameters to be analyzed
also could depend on past information about the
well. Thus, a single recommendation about
frequency and parameters may be somewhat,
arbitrary. For what ATSDR is aware of, it would
be reasonable for actively used wells to be
resampling at least once every two years at
locations where contaminants have been found in
the past at levels below public health concern. A
prompt resampling may be warranted if levels found
were of health concern. For wells that owners do
not take out of service when contaminant levels of
health concern are detected, continued sampling
may not serve a useful public health purpose.
Based on information ATSDR reviewed for the
private wells around the GE plant, it does not
appear necessary to analyze for more than volatile
organic compounds, plus for some wells, an
indicator for gasoline. Less information is known
about private wells near SF and WCF, and expanded
170
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
analyses have been recommended for additional
sampling conducted there.
Comment 46: A commenter asserts that ATSDR should recommend
that all those not on city water should be
connected unconditionally. While GE has put many
residents on city water, these residents have gone
against legal advice and given up their water
rights. Several have not acted because they can't
afford city water and are unwilling to hand over
their water rights. Another commenter says that
GE should pay for public water used by former well
owners. Another commenter says he does not want
to give up his water rights.
Response: ATSDR has stated that affected well owners should
use an alternate supply. However, ATSDR believes
it is not within its mandate to recommend or
identify conditions under which the alternate
supply is provided. The document has not been
changed.
Comment 47: A commenter asserts that at least some of the
recommended air samples should be taken in the
summer during thermal inversions ..
Response: The document has been changed.
Comment 48:
Response:
Comment 49:
Response:
Comment 50:
A commenter recommends that ATSDR find out if
private well sampling data exist for wells around
the WCF subsite. Another commenter would like to
know any information on the closing of wells
located on the backside of that subsite.
Table 18 shows the results
sampling reported in 1991.
information about wells in
has not been changed.
of some private well
ATSDR has no other
the area. The document
A commenter asserts that GE's health and safety
plan does not include monitoring worker exposures
or establishing a baseline for worker health.
Information about these issues and other of GE's
health and safety activities has been expanded in
the document.
A commenter said that past waste disposal
practices were not fully documented and provided
171
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' .:,·. . . . "
I
I,, . ,
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Response:
information about locations where wastes may have
been disposed of in the community and area.
None of the information provided could be
determined to apply to'the subsites being
. considered in the assessment.· The information
been forwarded to Region IV.EPA. The document
.nc:it ~ been changed. ..'.;. · , " -
has
has
Comment 51: A commenter says:
-. ·-' .
Response:
1) the document should note that Bat Fork Creek
flows into the French Broad River, and
2) the·French Broad River,has been considered a
I • • .. future.water:supply for A~hville, North Carolina.
.. .,... • ,, + ,. -r, ,. .. ~ ~.: '·•· .
1) the document say~_on.Pages·S/9'.and 12 thatithe
creek flows into Mud Creek, which flows into the
French Broad River. . The document· has not been
changed.
2) the discussion of river use shown on Page 9 has
been changed with respect to that possible future
use.
Comment 52: A commenter says that within a half mile
downstream a farmer irrigates crops with water
from Bat Fork Creek and sells produce in
Hendersonville.
Response: That information has been added to discussion of
the GE Natural Resource Section, the GE Potential
Exposure Pathways Section, and related tables.
Comment 53: A commenter says:
1) many nearby residents have never had their
groundwater tested.
2) only the outer edge wells are being tested.
3) people are still using groundwater within the
contaminated groundwater area.
Response: 1) Residents who may be concerned about water
quality in their wells should have it tested at
least once. Possible contacts include GE, or
state or local agencies, or a testing laboratory.
GE has told ATSDR that they respond to requests to
sample wells that are at locations which may be
reasonably associated with the contaminated
172
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
groundwater zone they are monitoring. This had
been included in the Recommendations section.
2) ATSDR has described GE's activities that
included 1) sampling about 100 wells in the past,
and 2) sampling selected wells semi-annually
beyond the fringe of the .contaminated groundwater,
principally in the.direction of apparent
groundwater flow, to evaluate contaminant movement
in groundwater. That seems an appropriate means
to evaluate the spread of contamination to
additional wells. The document has not been
changed.
3) ATSDR has stated that a few persons knowingly
continue to use wells :.that provide ·contaminated
groundwater. ATSDR knows of no way to force
people to use an alternate water supply.
Comment 54: A commenter provided information about current
uses of the WCF property:
1) land formerly used as a parking lot off site,
across James Street, was used for youth baseball
in 1993,
2) a model airplane group frequently uses an area
on site where buildings once stood, and,
3) hay is cut on the parking area and on-site near
James Street for horse .feed.
Response: ATSDR believes the use of the parking lo·t for
baseball and use of hay on site for horse feed do
not pose an site-related public exposure
potential. Cutting hay and model plane activities
do pose a potential for exposure. The document
has been changed to include the information
reported.
Comment 55: A commenter reports a 1990 aquatics study
conducted on BAT Fork Creek indicated the stream
for about 1 mile below GE was rated poor (unable
to sustain life) and begins to recover farther
down stream.
Response: The document has been revised to include that
information in the Natural Resources section for
the GE Subsite.
173
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM/ et al. FINAL RELEASE
Comment 56: A commenter expresses concern regarding the
toxicological implications of exposure to
tetrachloroethylene. There is no mention of the
high levels of PCE found tn offsite wells at the
Shepherd Farm Subunit.
Response: Refer to the revised discussion in the
Toxicological Implications Section.
Comment 57: A commenter reports that "as each contaminants is
discussed that the MRL or RfD for that chemical
should be listed as well as the maximum
concentration of the contaminant found."
Response: Tables 33 -39 contain the MRLs and RfDs for the
chemicals discussed in the Toxicological
Implications Section. Tables 1-32 contain the
maximum concentrations of contaminants in each
media for each subsite.
Comment 58: A commenter reports that a discussion of health
risks for private well use should be reported
including the possibility that the contamination
will not be cleaned up.
Response: ATSDR has addressed the commenter's private well
water concern. ATSDR understands that most
residents are on municipal water supplies and GE
continues to monitor the wells. If the
contaminant concentrations in the water continue
unchanged (not cleaned up) and an individual
consumed the wel.l water for 70 years, no adverse
health effects (noncancer and cancer) are expected
to occur.
Comment 59: A commenter reports that the zip code analysis of
the cancer incidence is inappropriate.
Response: The analysis reported in the health assessment was
based on a request by a private individual which
specified the zip codes of concern. ATSDR is
determining what appropriate health statistics
reviews are needed to address health concerns at
the site.
174