Health Consuttation
Monsanto Company
Anniston, Calhoun County, Alabama
CERCLIS NO. ALD004019048
Prepared by
t
Alabama Department of Public HeaIth
Under Cooperative Agreement with the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
B A C K G R O W AND STATETLIENT OF ISSUES
This health consultation was prepared to determine whether the polychlorinated
biphenyl (PCB)Contamination found both on and off-site the Monsanto
Company in Anniston, Alabama presents a public health threat. On March 21,
1995, representatives of the Monsanto Company contacted the Alabama
Department of Public Health (ADPH) regarding off-site data. Monsanto
discussed the possibility of human exposure to PCBs detected in and around
their West-End Landfill (WEL), and in the East Drainage Ditch (EDD)that
leads from their landfills to Snow Creek. After visiting the site and consulting
with members of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management
(ADEM), Site Assessment Unit, both azencies decided that a health
consultation was needed to address the possible exposures and health impacts
from PCB contamination on and off the Monsanto facility. Other contaminants
at the sire will be evaluated in future health consultations.
Site Description
.
The Monsanto Company is located approximatzly one-mile west of downtown
Anniston on State Highway 202 in Calhoun County, Alabama (Figure 1). The
Monsanto property consists of four tracts of land separated by highways,
railroads , and utility right-of-ways’. The main facility is located northwest of
the intersection of Highway 202 and Clydesdale Avenue. South of the main
facility are Monsanto’s landfills while the area north of the facility contains
both residential and industria1 zones. The plant is bordered on the east and
west by residential neighborhoods. The WEL is located just west of the main
facility. T h e plant is located near the eastern edge of the Alabama Valley and
Ridge physiographic province. The general terrain of the area is characterized
by northeast-trending valleys paralleled by ridges and mountains. The valley
floors range from an altitudt of 500-900 feet mean sea level (msl)and the
ridges range from 1000 to 2100 feet rnsl. Regional geologic formations have
been extensively folded into northeast-trendins anticlines and synclines
complicated by thrust faults that have general northeast-trending strike and a
southeast-trending dip‘. The Jacksonville Fault is located north of the facility
approximately three-tenths of a mile. The surface geology consists of sandy or
silty clays underlain by the Shady Dolomite.
Several surface water bodies arc adjacent to the Monsanto Company. The EDD
1
originates in the area of Monsanto's solid waste management units (SWMUs)
and migrates along the western edge of the area where Monsanto's South
Landfill was located (Figure 2). The EDD flows northward through the
Clydesdale community and is joined south of Seventh Street by Monsanto's
waste water discharge ditch (The waste discharge ditch originates from an old
limestone neutralization bed). The EDD meanders through several residential
neighborhoods and eventually empties into Snow Creek.
The Northern Drainage Ditch (NDD) consists of a series of ditches that run
along the northern boundary of the Monsanto facility (Figure 3). The bottoms
and sides of most of the ditches consist of silt and clay, yet some portions are
concrete or below ground. The western end of the NDD appears to have some
westerly flow. However, the remaining portion of the NDD flows toward
Snow Creek.
.
Snow Creek is a small stream that flows southward through the City of
Anniston (Figure 3). A tributary of the creek begins northwest of the Monsanto
facility, and flows northeastward until it reaches Boyton Street. The creek
begins to flow southward and passes through numerous neighborhoods, severaI
recycling centers, and a mall. Portions of the creek flow through concrete
channels, yet most of the course is unIined. Snow Creek empties into
Choccolocco Creek south of Interstate 1-20 (Figure 4).
Choccolocco Creek is part of the Coosa River Basin and flows through
Cleburne, Calhoun, and Talladega Counties. Jackson Creek, Hillabee Creek,
Dry Branch, Snow Creek, Coldwater Creek, and stveral unnamed tributaries
flow into Choccolocco Creek as it meanders westward from Anniston (Figure
5 ) . The creek empties into Lake Logan Martin on the Coosa River.
DemoPraDhics
According to the 1990 Census data, the total population for the City of
Anniston is 26,234. A geographic information system (GIS)was used to
estimate the population within one mile.of the Monsanto site. The GIS gives an
estimated population of 5,926 people and 1,580 families living within one-mile
of the Monsanto facility. Approximately 56% are whitz and 44% are black and
other. Children under the age of five comprise 7 % of the population while
residents over the age of 65 comprise 15% of the population.
2
GIs was used to estimate the population within a quarter-mile region of the
EDD-Snow Creek drainage basin. The program estimates that approximately
2,782 people live within a quarter mile of the drainage basin. This population
is divided into approximately 1,534 females and 1,248 males. Approximately
13% of the population is under the age of five, and 37% of the population is
over the age of sixty-five. Whites comprise 62% of the popuIation while blacks
compose 37% of the population.
Site Background and Historv
-
Operations began at the site in 1917 with the formation of the Southern
Manganese Corporation. The Southern Manganese Corporation manufactured
ferro-phosphorus, ferro-manganese, ferro-silicon, and phosphoric acid. In
1927, the Southern Manganese corporation began producing biphenyl', which is
used as a heat-transfir agent. Southern Manganese corporation became Swam
Chemical Company in 1930, and was purchased by Monsanto Company in
1935'. Monsanto Company currently produces biphenyl, polyphenyls
(TherminoIs), and p-nitrophenol at the plant and formerly produced PCBs,
parathion, phosphorus pentasulfide, and calcium carbide2.
Disposal of hazardous and nonhzzardous wastes occurred at several different
landfills throughout the history of the plant. The W E L is a six-acre plot located
immediately west of the Monsanto facility (Figure 6) that operated from the mid
to late 1930's to 1961'. The unlined landfill was used for disposal of all refuse
from the facility. AeriaI photographs from 1953 to 1978 revealed that little or
no trees surrounded the WEL and that the landfill is larger than actually
reported in the Anniston West End Landfill Report. The WEL and the adjacent
areas sloped toward First Avenue, and many streets were dirt until the late
1950's. Several dirt roads were seen leading from First Avenue toward the
landfill, and houses were observed from 1954 until 1977 on the same land tract
as the WEL. The houses were at the junction of First Avenue and Hwy. 202.
It was observed in the photos that the property adjacent to the landfill was used
as a dirt parking lot, and that part of the property was cultivated. Personal
communication with Monsanto representatives revealed that one area resident
reported using the land as a garden for many years. This report was confirmed
by the aerial photographs. Aerial photographs showed that the landfill was not
f a x e d until after 1978.
3
In November 1961, the WEL and the adjacent property were exchanged to the
Alabama Power Company (APCO)for property immediately south of the
landfill’. APCO used the filled property as a utility right-of-way for their
Anniston 230 kilovolt transmission line. The power company also built a
transmission substation on the crest of the hill immediately adjacent to the
landfill area. A section of the northern toe of the landfill was removed and/or
redistributed on the property so that an APCO substation and an APCO regional
switching station could be built’. In April 1993, the power company notified
.
state and federal environmental officials that preliminary analyses of material
found at the Anniston substation indicated significant concentrations of PCBs. . .
The material was found during a routine inspection of the 25-acres of land that
APCO received from Monsanto Company. A thin protective covering of soil
was placed over the toe of the landfill in late April 19933. In December 1993,
Monsanto reacquired the property, and began a thorough investigation of the
IVEL‘. The results of the investigation were published in August 1994 in the
Anniston West End Landfill Site Investieation Report.
. I
The South Landfill (SL) was located just east Clydesdale Avenue and near what
is now Highway 202 (Figure 7). Monsanto began operations around 1960 with
the closure of the WEL. Aerial photographs taken in the area revealed that the
landfill was in existence around 1962. Vegetation in the area was light to
moderate and access was not restricted. Photos taken during 1953 and 1985
revealed some dirt roads and a stveral large barren areas existed just east of the
SL. A records search revealed that old iron pits just south of the SL were
used for disposal purposes in the 1920s’. In 1978, the SL was removed by the
Department of Transportation and placed in Monsanco’s existing SWh/IUs6.
The landfill was removed to allow State Highway 202 to be straightened and
widened to four lanes. Previously, the highway curved around the Monsanto
plant and joined Tenth Street.
J
”
SWMU-1E and SWMU-2E were unlined landfill cells that are located south of
the main facility and across Hishway 202 (Figure 7)’. The cells were
established in former iron ore pits and operated from the 1920’s to the late
1950’s/earIy 1960’s. The area of SWMU-1E are unknown while the size of
SWMU-2E was approximately 3.5 acres. The landfills received all disposed
refuse from the plant. The refuse includes wastes generated by the phosphorus,
arochlor, and chlorination processes’.
4
....
,
., ._
,
~.
.
t
-
t
-
I
SWMU-3E is an inactive disposal cell that is located east of SWMU-3-E (Figure
7). The unit was developed in the early 1980’s and covers approximately two
acres. The landfill was used for nonhazardous chemical wastes and received
approximately 45 tons per yea?.
SWMU-lW, 2W, 2WA, and 3W were unlined landfill cells that are located ,- --.,
south of the main facility and west of SWMU-1E (Figure 7). These cells‘b&mireceiving wastes in the early 1960’s and operated until 1975. Thesize of t l i e - w
landfills is unknown, and wastes deposited in the cells include parathion, methyl -parathion, PCBs, asbestos, p-nitrophenol, and biological solids from the waste .
water treatment f a c i l i ~ .
SWMU4W was an unlined landfill cell that is located southwest of SWMU-3W
(Figure 7). The unit was approximately 22 acre feet in size and operated from
1973 to 1983. Initially, the landfill was constructed to receive only
organophosphate contaminated sulfur. However, the cell also received
parathion, methyl parathion, PCBs, asbestos, p-nitrophenol, and biological
solids from the waste water treatment faciliv.
Aerial photographs from 1953 to 1978 revealed several potential disposal areas
that still require investigation. Dirt roads and several potential disposal areas
appear east of Monsanto’s existing SWMUs. Aerial phatos revealed dirt roads
leading from Monsanto property to several barren zxas south of the Monsanto
property and along the Alabama Power Company utility right-of-way. Possible
disposal locations were observed west of blt. View Rd., west of Third Avenue,
and north of Emery Street.
Several surface water bodies have been impacted by operations at the Monsanto
plant. In 1985, the Alabama Attorney General’s Office detected PCBs in
sediments in Snow Creek that ranged in concentration from 198 pans per
million (ppm) to 400 pprn’. As a result of this investigation, both Monsanto
and ADEM did extensive sampling of the EDD and Snow Creek’and found that
PCB concentrations ranged from 16 ppm to 1069 ppm. In April 1988,
Monsanto removed the contaminated sediments from Snow Creek and the
norlhern portion of the EDD. Sediments were removed from the bottom of the
channels and placed on the banks for dewatering. The sediments were
transferred to a SMWU and tested to determine the best disposal method‘’.’.
However, the plan was implemented without approval from the state or the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). After remediation,
soil sampling from the removal a r e s showed PCB concentrations greater than
50 pprn' .
In 1970, PCBs were detected in fish in the Coosa River System that ranged in
concentration from non-detect to 360 parts per million'. In August 1993,
ADEM conducted a sediment and fish study in the Choccolocco Creek
watershed after several deformed largemouth bass were caught". Tributaries
included in the study were Choccolocco Creek, Jackson Creek, Hillabee Creek,
Dry Branch, Snow Creek, and Coldwater Creek. The results of the
investigation found 14 of 21 sediment samples had detectable levels of PCBs
and that 18 of 19 fish exceeded the Food and Drug Administration's tolerance
level of 2 ppm. In November 1993, the ADPH issued a "no consumption fish
advisory" for all species of fish caught between the confluence of Snow Creek
and Choccolocco Creek south of Oxford, downstream to where Choccolocco
Creek flows into Lake Logan Martin".
Site Visit
In April 1995, ADPH and ADEM staff .visited the Monsanto site and made the
fo110wing observations :
On-site
The team noted a lack of vegetation around the WEL and observed several
barren areas. Although the landfill is surrounded by a fence, graffiti was
written on the concrete flume at the toe of the landfill. Graffiti at the site was
not seen by ADEM personnel during an earlier visit. Several areas along the
toe of the landfill were eroded, and evidence that water had seeped out of the
landfill was seen on the flume.
The SWhfUs Iocated across Hwy. 202 were grassed and restrictzd by a fence.
Trees and vegetation around the SWMUs did not appear stressed,.and the
underbrush was light to modzrate. The headwaters for the EDD drainage ditch
begin on the western edge of the SWMUs and was approximately 2.5 to 3 feet
deep. A second drainage ditch was also seen on the eastern side of the
sw Mus.
6
. .
.-
....
1
*
'-
'-
1'
'-.*
T
I
'
;
..
Off-si te
The team nored several residences and a school west of the WEL on First
Avenue. The residences and the school are approximately 50 feet from the
fence surrounding the contaminated soils. A playground was obszrved on the
eastern side of the schooI.
Several important features were noted by the team members as they toured the
EDD and Snow Creek. Access was not restricted by a fence at any point, and
evidence of past human activity was prominent in several areas. The team
observed that vegetation was moderate as the EDD flows beneath Hwy. 202,
and that the ditch was 2-3 feet deep and approximately 3 feet wide. These
dimensions increased to approximately 5 feet wide and about 5 to 6 feet deep in
the Spring Street area. A church and severaI homes surrounded the ditch at the
junction with Spring Street. Many homes had dirt driveways or yards, and
there was evidence of children living in the homes. The EDD was joined by
Monsanto's waste water discharge ditch at Seventh Street. At Seventh Street,
the drainage ditch was approximately 2 to 3 feet deep and is 5 fzet wide, and
surrounded by thick vegetation. N o homes exist in this area. As the EDD
nears Eighth Street, the ditch is approximately 2 feet in depth and 5 feet wide.
Vegetation has been removed from around the drainase ditch in some areas. A
church is located at the intersection of the EDD and Eighth Street. At this
point the drainage ditch flows underground and surfaces just before 10th Street.
From Tenth Street to the confluence with Snow Creek, the EDD moves through
several residentia1 neighborhoods and has little vezetation around it.
At the confluence with Snow Creek, several trails were seen aiong the bank of
the creek and children's toys were observed in the water. The upstream portion
of Snow Creek flows through a concrete liner, while the downstream portion
remains unlined. A few empty bait containers were seen in the water, yet it is
unlikely that fishins occurred in this area because the water was only 1 to 2 feet
deep. An elementary school is located northeast of the confluence by
approximately 75 yards and is surrounded by a 5-foot chain-link fence with a
Pate on the southwest corner. The gate was open at the time of the site visit
and overgrown with vines. Hence, it is probable that the fence had been open
for a substantia1 period of time.
-
7
,
*
I.
*,
..
Drscussr ON
The following sections are a review of the environmental data collected for the
hlonsanto site. The quality of the data will also be evaluated in the following
sections. The review will consist of the frequency of the PCB contamination,
the concentration in various media, and the source for the contaminants. The
basis for selection of PCBs as contaminants of concern are as follows:
1.
concentrations of contaminants are above ATSDR, USEPA, or the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) comparison values; and
2.
the sampling design and field and laboratory data quality.
In preparing a health consultation, PCB concentrations in specific transport
media are compared to established comparison values. If the PCB
concentrations are above the established comparison values, the concentrations
are used to estimate doses and cancer risks for each exposed or potentially
exposed population. These estimated doses are compared to health guidelines.
If health guidelines are exceeded, adverse health effects may occur. However,
these are only estimates, and do not mean that any adverse health efftcts have
or will occur. Scientific literature is used to determine if adverse health effects
are likely to result from current or estimated exposure levels. Please refer to
Appendix C to see the categories used to evaluate the potential cancer risks.
ATSDR has developed Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) for contaminants
commonly found at hazardous waste sites. MRLs were developed for ingestion
and inhalation exposure routes, and also take length of exposure into account.
Length of exposure is divided into acute (less than 14 days exposure),
intermediate (15 to 364 days) and chronic (365 days or more). If an MRL is
not available for a specific contaminant, ATSDR uses the USEPA's Reference
Dose (RfD). . An RfD is an estimate of a chronic daily human exposure to a
Contaminant, below which noncancerous health effects are not likely.
Certain assumptions were made in calculating estimated exposure doses. The
calculations are based on an adult with an assumed weight o f 7 0 kilosrams (kg)
(154 pounds) and a child with an assumed weight of 10 kg (22 pounds). The
adult is assumed to ingest two liters of water per day, and a child is assumed to
ingest one liter of water per day. We assumed that adults ingested 100
8
I
d
milligrams of soil each day (rng/day) through inhalation of soil particles in the
air, and from incidental ingestion of soil particies on hands pIaced in the mouth.
W e also assumed that a child ingested 200 mg/day through inhalation of soil
particles in the air, and from incidental ingestion of soil particles on hands
placed in the mouth. Adults were assumed to eat 30 mg/day of fish taken from
Choccolocco Creek, while children were assumed to eat 10 mg/day". For the
purpose of this report, we used multiple exposure durations because each area
of contamination has a different history. Therefore, each area of contamination
will be addressed as if it were a n operable unit, and a different risk scenario
will be provided for each unit.
W e s t End Landfill
\VEL Soil
Soil quality of the WEL and the surrounding property was divided into thret
areas of concern: the suspected landfill surface P E L ) , the adjacent area
downgradient of the landfill (A-4)' and the fence line adjacent to First Avenue.
The WEL and the AA were each divided into four quadrants that were further
subdivided into nine subquadrants (Figure 8). A surface soil sample was taken
from each subquadrant and compiled to form one composite sample for each
quadrant. Surface soil samples were also taken approximately every 100 yards
along the western fence line. T h e samples were analyzed for PCBs according
to USEPA method 8080'. Table 1 contains the PCB sampling results for the
WEL.
For residents who live around the WEL, we used the maximum possible
exposure duration of 68 years (1927-1995) for adults and 6 years for children to
obtain the most conservative estimate of risk. We used the maximum exposure
frequency of 104 days per year because the residences are located in close
proximity to the landfill and residents were likely to visit the landfill twice a
week. For residents who lived on the same land tract as the WEL, the risks for
both cancerous and non-cancerous health effects are greater than those who
lived around the WEL. However, since the exposure data for these residents is
not known, the past exposure risks wili not be estimated.
For residents who lived around the WEL, the estimated child and adult
exposure from PCBs in surface soil is greater than ATSDR's chronic oral
..*. .
.
.-
..
L
bfm. However, the MRL is set 1000 times below the level at which PCBs
causes adverse health effects in animals. Therefore, PCBs in surface soil in
and around the.WEL is unlikely to cause noncancerous adverse health effects in
adults and children.
PCBs are classified as a probable human carcinogen because cancer has been
demonstrated in animals but remains undetermined for humans. For adult
residents exposed to PCBs in and around the WEL, the estimated increased risk
of cancer is moderate. For children, the estimated risk for cancer is low
(Appendix C).
~
For workers who worked on and around thz WEL, risks were estimated using
an exposure duration of 32 years and an exposure frequency of 8 hours per day
(hrs/day) for 5 days per week (daysheek). The estimated worker exposures to
PCBs in surface soil in and around the W E L is greater than ATSDR's chronic
oral MRL. However, it is unlikely that this exposure will cause noncancerous
adverse health effects because the MRL is set 1000 times below the level at
which PCBs cause adverse health effects in animals. For workers exposed to
PCBs in surface soil for 8 hrs/day for 5 dayslweek for 32 years, the estimated
increased risk for cancer is moderate (Appendix C).
WEL Sediment
Sediment quality of the WEL and the surrounding property was limited to the
drainage ditch that flows around the western edge of the WEL and north toward
Norfolk Southern Railroad. Hereaftzr, we will refer to this ditch as the west
drainage ditch (WDD). PCB samples were taken from eight locations
downgradient of the landfill and a background sample was taken in the ditch
just north of the landfill (Figure 8). These sample locations were composited
and analyzed for the USEPA Appendix IX List of Constituents'. Table 1
contains the sediment sampling results for the WDD.
For residents living near the WEL, an exposure duration of 68 years (19271995) for adults and 6 years for children was used to obtain the most
conservative estimatz of risk. An exposure frequency of 104 days per year was
used because of proximity to the landfill and the likelihood of visiting the
landfill twice a week. For residents living near the WEL, the estimated child
and adult doses for PCBs in sediment is greater than ATSDR's chronic oral
10
.
?
However, it is unlikely that exposure to contaminated sediments in the
WDD will cause noncancerous adverse hc3lch effects because the M U is set
1000 times below the level at which PCBs cause adverse health effects in
animals. For adult residents exposed to PCBs in sediment in the WDD, the
increased risk for cancer is estimated to be low (Appendix C). For children
who were exposed to PCBs in the WDD, the increased risk for cancer is
estimated to be very low (Appendix C)
For workers who worked in and around the WEL, the estimated exposure to
PCBs in sediment is greater than ATSDR's chronic oral MRL. However, it is
unlikely that exposure to contaminated sediments in the WDD will cause
noncancerous adverse health effects because the MRL is set 1000 times below
the level at which PCBs cause adverse health effects in animals. For cancerous
adverse health effects, workers that were exposed to PCBs in sediment have an
estimated increased risk for cancer that is very low (Appendix C).
WEL Groundwater
Groundwater quality of the WEL and the surrounding property focused only on
the WEL. Four downgradient monitcring wells were installed around the WEL
(Figure 8). The wells range in depth from approximately 31 - 47 feet. A
background sample was taken from an existing monitoring well that is used as a
background sample for the SWMUs'. Table 1 contains the groundwater .
sampling results for the WEL.
Although residents in the area are currently using municipal water, the
municipal water supply (Coldwater Springs) is located approximately two and
one-half miles southwest of the facility. In a 1987 report, the U.S.Geological
Survey delineated the area surrounding the Monsanto and Coldwater Sprin,0s as
an area that was highly susceptible to contamination"'. The report states that
the Jacksonville Fault, which is located less than 1 mile northwest of Monsanto,
has a significant effect on the storage and movement of groundwater. The fault
acts as a conduit along which groundwater reaches the surface. The Coldwater
Springs aquifer system is reported to have a recharge area that is not large
enough to sustain the discharge of Coldwater Springs". A large amount of
recharge is thought to move parallel to the Jacksonville Fault to Coldwater
Springs from the Anniston-Fort McClellan area, and some recharge may
orisinate from the Jacksonville area? In 1992, a dye tracing study was
11
f
T
'
-
T
-
performed on area springs and wells by Ewers Water Consultants, Inc., for the
AMiStOn Army Depot (Anniston Army Depot is located approximately 4 miles
west of the Monsanto facility)''. The results of the study showed that
contaminants migrated from the injection point to various locations 360" from
that point, and that flow velocities varied from 0.09 to 0.24 miles per day.
PCBs have been found in sediments downstream of the Coldwater Springs
intake", and no off-site source of contamination is known in that area. One
possibility is that contaminants have migrated through groundwater to
Coldwater Springs. However, the municipal water supply has not been sampled
for PCBs. Therefore, the groundwater pathway will not be evaluated at this
time.
WEL Waste Material
Any tar-like waste material found on the surface of the WEL and the
surrounding property was collxted and analyzed as a composite sample'.
Although only one sample has been collected, personal communication with the
environmental firm that performed the sampling, revealed that numerous
samples were collected? Therefore, the waste material will be analyzed as a
pathway. The results are listed in Table 1 for the WEL.
For residents living near the WEL, we used an exposure duration of 68 years
(1927-1995) for adults and 6 years for chiIdren to obtain the most conservative
estimate of risk. We used an exposure frequency of 26 days per year because
the residences were not likely to come in contact with the waste material during
each visit to the landfill. For residents who lived around the WEL, the
estimated child and adult doses for PCBs in waste material are greater than
ATSDR's chronic oral MRL. However, it is unlikely that exposure to
contaminated waste material in and around the W E L will cause noncancerous
adverse health effects because the MRL is set 1000 times below the level at
which PCBs cause adverse health effects in animals. For adult residents
exposed to PCBs in waste material in and around the WEL, the increased risk
for cancer is estimated to be moderate (Appendix C). For children who were
exposed to PCBs in and around the WEL, the increased risk for cancer is
estimated to be moderate (Appendix C)
12
s
d
For workers who worked in and around the WEL, the estimated exposure to
PCBs in waste material is greater than ATSDR's chronic oral MRL. However,
it is unlikely that exposure to contaminated waste material in and around the
WEL will cause noncancerous adverse health effects because the MRL is set
1000 times below the level at which PCBs cause adverse health effects in
animals. For cancerous adverse health effects, workers that were exposeh to
PCBs in waste material in and around the W E L have an estimated increased
risk for cancer that is moderate (Appendix C).
Data Gaps for the WEL
Several data gaps need to be fiIled in order to correctly assess the WEL:
Eight composite surface soil samples does not adequately describe
the WEL and the adjacent areas. A composite sample is composed
of a mixture of sampIes collected at different locations, and gives
average contaminant cor,centration values. For this reason,
additional surface samples are needed to delineate areas where
contaminants concentrations are high.
Surface soil samples were not taken from the adjacent residences
and school. Sampling is needed in these areas to insure that no
contaminated soil migated beyond the fence line or has been
removed by the residents or APCO from the site.
Given the history of the facility and landfill, analysis of shallow
soil at the WEL and the surrounding residences for metals,
pesticides, volatile organic compounds (VOC), and semivolatile
organic compounds (SVOC)is appropriate.
A composite sample of sediment was tested for pesticides, metals,
SVOCs, and VOCs. However, the detection limit for many'of the
compounds was above ATSDR comparison values and could not be
evaluated at this time.
A composite sediment sample does not reveal actual VOC
concentrations because mixing of the sediments would have allowed
volatilization of the compounds.
13
m
Groundwater monitoring wells were only located around the WEL.
However, in order to assess the groundwater accurately, the entire
area that .is contaminated QVEL and AA) nseds wells surrounding
and within it.
=
Analysis of samples from the municipal water supply for PCBs is
needed.
B
Adequate background samples are needed to characterize surface
soils.
Quality Assurance/ Oualitv Control
All data within the Anniston West End Landfill Report is accepted as valid.
However, several inaccuracies have been noted in the report. Sample FL-2A in
Table 9-2 of the Anniston West End Landfill Site Investigation Report lists
PCB-1248 as 2.9 ppm, yet a rwiew of the analytical reports from Savannah
Laboratories shows that the concentration PCB-1248 in sample FL-2A should
be 29 ppm. Sample FL-7A in Table 9-2 of the Anniston West End Landfill
Site Investigation Report lists PCB-1260 as < 1 ppm, yet a review of the
analytical reports from Savannah Laboratories shows that the concentration
PCB-1260 in sample FL-7A should be 2.9 ppm.
PCB data in the Anniston West End Landfill Site Investigation Reporr should be
used with caution. A review of the laboratory data shows that the total PCB
concentration may be higher than reported because the detection limit for many
of the congeners is much greater than the comparison value. Many
contaminants reported for sediment and water also have a detection limit that is
higher than the comparison value.
Surface soil taken from the W E L and the surrounding property should be used
with caution. It is likely that some of these samples do not represent actual site
conditions because clean fill may have been placed over them by erosion or
during temporary capping. Many of the samples were taken from a depth of 01 inches and contained gravel, debris and roots. Also, some samples were
reported to be surface soil, yet no depth was given.
13
c
..
East Drainage Ditch
EDD Soil
The quaIity of soil around the EDD and the surrounding property (Clydesdale
community) was recently assessed by Geraghty and Miller, Inc., for the
Monsanto Company. Approximately 340 surface soiI samples were field
screened for PCBs greater than or equal to 10 parts per miIlion (Figure 9).
Approximately ten percent of the field screened samples were submitted to a
laboratory for confirmatory analysis of PCBs. Most surface soiI samples were
taken from each side of the EDD in 25 feet increments, yet a few areas
surrounding the ditch were sampled in 5 feet increments. Samples were also
taken along the waste water discharge ditch". The sampling results show that
contamination is more widespread aIong the northern portion of the EDD. It is
possible that the contamination becomes more widespread because of past
cleanup methods for the EDD and Snow Creek. Surface soil sampling around
the EDD also indicates that ther2 are multiple sources of contamination. See .
Table 1 for the surface soi1 sampling results for the EDD.
For residents who live in the Clydesdale Community, an exposure duration of
30 years was used for adults and 6 years for children to obtain the most
conservative estimate of risk. An exposure duration of 30 years was used
because multiple sources of contamination exist in the area, and each source has
a different time constraint. An exposure frequency of 365 days per year was
used because many of samples were taktn in close proximity to the residences,
and it is likely that residents visited these areas daily. For residents who lived
in the Clydesdale Community, the estimated child and adult doses for PCBs in
surface soil is greater than ATSDR's chronic oral MU. However, it is
unlikely that exposure to contaminated soils in the Clydesdale Community will
cause noncancerous adverse health effects because the MRL is set 1000 times
below the level at which PCBs cause adverse health effects in animals. For
adult residents exposed to PCBs found in the Clydesdale Community, the
increased risk for cancer is estimated to be low (Appendix C). For children
who were exposed to PCBs found in the Clydesdale Community, the increased
risk for cancer is also estimated to be low (Appendix C).
15
EDD Sediment
Sediment quality of the EDD \\.as limited to the drainage ditch that flows
through the Clydesdale Community and the waste discharge ditch that empties
into it. Samples were taken from 66 locations downgradient of the SWMUs,
and field screened for PCBs greater than or equal to 10 ppm by the Draft
USEPA Method 4020 (Figure 9). However, onIy 16 samples were sent to the
Iaboratory for a complete analysis". The results of the sampling shows that the
southern portion of the EDD contains higher PCB concentrations. Table 1
contains the sediment sampIing results for the WDD.
For residents who live around the EDD and the waste water discharge ditch, we
used an exposure duration of 30 years fcr adults and 6 years for children to
obtain the most conservative estimate of risk. We used an exposure frequency
of 52 days per year because the residents were likely to visit the drainage ditch
once a week. For persons that lived around the EDD and the waste water
discharge, the estimated child bnd adult doses for PCBs in surface soil is
a
Oreater than ATSDR's chronic oral MRL. However, it is unlikely that
exposure to contaminated sediments in the EDD and the waste water discharze
ditch will cause noncancerous adverse health effects because the MRL is set
1000 times below the level at which PCBs cause adverse health effects in
animals. For adult residents exposed to PCBs in sediment in the EDD and the
waste water discharge ditch, the increased risk for cancer is estimated to be
high (Appendix C). For childrtn who were exposed to PCBs in sediment in the
EDD and the waste water discharge ditch, the increased risk for cancer is
estimated to be moderate (Appendix C).
Data Gaps for the EDD
Several data gaps need to be filkd in order to correctly assess the EDD:
8
r.
8
Adequate background samples are needed from areas not influenced
by activities from the Monsanto Company.
1
Many soil and sediment samples.taken near the EDD and the wastz
water discharge ditch wer? only reported as greater than or less
than ten parts per million. Actual concentrations are necessary to
delineate areas with hish concentrations and to accurately assess the
16
human health impacts.
Surface soil samples were not taken from the yards of the
residences adjacent to the EDD. Samples from these residences are
needed to insure that no contaminated sediment has migrated onto
these properties.
Groundwater in the area of the EDD and the Clydesdale
community has not been monitored for PCBs.
Given the history of the facility and landfills, analysis for metals
and pesticides is appropriate for surface soil and sediment samples
from areas surrounding the EDD.
Given the history of the facility and landfills, surface water
analysis for PCBs, pesticides and metals is appropriate.
\
Ouality Assurance/ Oualitv Control
Data in the East Drainage Ditch Report should be used with caution. A review
of the laboratory data shows that the total PCB concentration may be higher
than reported because the detection limit is much greater than the comparison
value.
Northern Drainage Ditch
NDD Sediment
Sediment quality of the NDD was recently assessed by Geraghty and Miller,
Inc., for the Monsanto Company. Sediment samples were taken from eight
locations along the NDD and analyzed only for PCBs (Figure 3)". The
sampling results indicate that PCBs have migrated off-site. Table .1 contains the
sediment sampling results for the NDD.
For residents who live around the NDD, an exposure duration of 30 years was
used for adults and 6 years for children to obtain the most conservative estimate
of risk. We used an exposure frequency of 52 days per year because the
residents were likely visit the drainage ditch once a week. For persons that
lived around the NDD, the estimated child and adult doses for PCBs in surface
17
soil is lower than ATSDR's chronic orarh.IRL. Therefore, PCBs in sediment
in the NDD are unlikely to cause noncancerous adverse health effects in adults
and children. For adult residents exposed to PCBs in sediment in the NDD, the
increased risk for cancer is estimated to be insignificant (Appendix C). For
children who were exposed to PCBs in sediment in the NDD, the increased risk
for cancer is estimated to be insignificant (Appendix C).
Data Gam for the NDD:
Several data gaps need to be filled in order to correctIy assess the NDD:
rn
Given the history of the facility and landfills, metals and pesticides
should be tested in the NDD.
rn
Surface soil samples shouId be taken around the NDD to insure that
contamination has not migrated beyond the ditch.
Ouality Assurance1 Oualitv Control
All data in the'Off-Site Sediment Samplinz Report and the Choccolocco Creek
Watershed Study are assumed to bz valid. However, some caution should be
used with the PCB data in the Off-Site Sediment Sampling Report. A review of
the laboratory data shows that the total PCB concentration may be higher than
reported because the detection limit is much greater than the comparison value
for some congers.
Snow Creek
Snow Creek Sediment
Sediment quality of Snow Creek was first assessed by AGO in 1985, and later
that year by ADEM and Monsanto. ADEM also assessed the sediment quality
in Snow Creek in 1993''. In April 1995, Geraghty and Miller, Inc. sampled
Snow Creek to delineatz the extent of off-site contaminationls. Because the
number of samples taken in the 1995 study is limited, samples taken during
ADEMs 1993 study will be used to fill data gaps where samples were not
taken. In areas where samples from 1993 and 1995 were taken, samples from
thz 1995 study will be used to give present day conditions.
18
,
'
Table 1 contains the sediment sampling results for Snow Creek. Samples were
taken from three locations upstream of thexonfluence of Snow Creek and the
NDD, and from several locations downstream until the confluence of Snow
Creek and Choccolocco Creek. The sampling results suggest that another
source of PCBs exist in the area, or that contamination has migrated into the
western tributary of Snow Creek via the western portion of the NDD.
For residents who live around Snow Creek, we used an exposure duration of 30
years for adults and 6 years for children to obtain the most conservative
estimate of risk. We used an exposure frequency of 52 days per year because
the residents were likely to visit the creek once a week. For persons living
around Snow Creek, the estimated child and adult doses for PCBs in sediment
is lower than ATSDR's chronic oral MRL. Therefore, PCBs in sediments in
Snow Creek are unlikely to cause noncancerous adverse health effects in adults
and chiIdren. For adult residents exposed to PCBs in sediment in Snow Creek,
the increased risk for cancer is estimated to be low (Appendix C). For children
exposed to PCBs in sediment in Snow Creek, the increased risk for cancer is
estimated to be low (Appendix C).
Data Gaps for Snow Creek
Several data gaps need to be filled in order to correctly assess Snow Creek:
Surface soil samples were not reported for the banks of Snow
Creek. Sampling of these areas is necessary to insure that no
contaminated sediment has been placed in these areas by past
cleanup practices.
m
Monitoring of surface water in Snow Creek for PCBs,metals and
pesticides is needed.
Given the history of the facility and landfills, analysis of sediment
from Snow Creek for metals and pesticides and analysis of surface
soil for metals and pesticides in areas where past cleanup occurred
is needed.
1
Information on levels of PCBs in fish from Snow Creek is needed.
19
Oualitv Assurance/Oualitv Control
All d3ta in the Off-Site Sediment Sampling Report and the Choccolocco Creek
Jyatershed Study are assumed to be valid. However, some caution should be
used with the PCB data in the Off-Site Sediment Sampling Report. A review of
the laboratory data shows that the total PCB concentration may be higher than
reported because .the detection limit is much greater than the comparison value
for some congeners.
Choccolocco Creek
Choccolocco Sediment
Sediment quality in the Choccolocco Creek Watershed was assessed by ADEM
in 1993". -Several samples were taken in upstream and downstream tributaries
of Choccolocco Creek. However, only one sample was taken in ChoccoIocco
Creek upstream of the confluence with Snow Creek. Likewise, only one
sample was taken in Choccolocco Creek downstream of the confluence with
Snow Creek. The results of the sampling shows that there are other sources of
PCB contamination which have not been discovered. However, sediment
quality in Choccolocco Creek cannot be asstssed at this time because there is an
insufficient amount of samples.
Choccol occo Fish
Fish quality in the Choccolocco Creek was assessed by combining past
investigations of Choccolocco Creek7.I 1.19-33 . Samples were taken from various
locations downstream of the confluence of Snow Creek to the confluence with
the Coosa River. The samples were analyzed as composite wholz body samples
for a variety of contaminants. The sampling results indicate that fish in
Choccolocco Creek and the Coosa River have PCB concentrations that are
above the Food and Drug Administration recommended allowance.
Table 1 contains the fish sampling results for Choccolocco Creek. For
residents livinz around Choccolocco Creek, an exposure duration of 30 years
for adults and 6 years for children was used to obtain the most conservative
estimate of risk. Adults were assumed to eat 30 mg/day of fish taken from
Chocco.locco Creek, while children were assumed to eat 10 mg/day. For
persons that ate fish from Choccolocco Creek, the estimated child and adult
doses for PCBs in sediment is lower than ATSDR's chronic oral MRL.
t
20
..
Therefore, PCBs in sediment in Snow Creek are unlikely to cause noncancerous
adverse health effects in adults and children. For adult residents exposed to
PCBs in fish in.the Choccolocco Creek, the increased risk for cancer is
estimated to be high (Appendix C). For children who were exposed to PCBs in
fish in the ChoccoIocco Creek, the increased risk for cancer is estimated to be
moderate (Appendix C).
Data G a y for Choccolocco Creek:
Several data gaps need to be filled in order to correctly assess Choccolocco
Creek:
More samples are needed to adequately assess sediment in
Choccolocco Creek.
Analysis of surface water samples from Choccolocco Creek for
1
PCBs is needed.
5
Oualitv Assurance/Oualitv Control
AI1 data in the Choccolocco Creek Watershed Study are assumed to be valid.
CONCLUSIONS
1.
After reviewing the data, we have classified the WEL, EDD, Snow
Creek, and Choccolocco Creek as a public health hazard. The
classification is based on evidence that individuals living around the
WEL, EDD, Snow Creek, and fishing from Choccolocco Creek
could have adverse health effects from exposure to contaminants in
sediment, soil, fish, and water.
2.
Exposure to PCBs in surface soil at the WEL may lead to a
moderate increased risk for cancer in aduIts and a low increased
risk for cancer in children.
3.
Exposure to PCBs in sediment at the WEL may lead to a low risk
for cancer in adults and a very low increased risk for cancer in
children.
I
t
21
4.
Exposure to PCBs in groundwater at the WEL may cause
noncancerous adverse health effects. Exposure to PCBs in
groundwater may lead to a very high risk for cancer in adults and a
high increased risk for cancer in children.
5.
Exposure to PCBs in surface soil around the EDD and the waste
water discharge ditch may lead to a low increased risk for cancer in
adults and a low increased risk for cancer in children.
6.
Exposure to PCBs in sediment in the EDD and the waste water
discharge ditch may lead to a high increased risk for cancer in
adults and a moderate increased risk for cancer in children.
7.
The increased risk for cancer from exposure to PCBs in sediment
in the NDD is insignificant in adults and children.
8.
Exposure to PCBs in sediment in Snow Creek may lead to a low
increased risk for cancer in adults and a low increased risk for
cancer in children.
9.
Exposure to PCBs in fish in Choccolocco Creek may lead to a high
increased risk for cancer in adults and a moderate increased risk
for cancer in chiIdren.
1.
Perform an exposure investigation to determine the impact of offsite contamination on area residents.
2.
Conduct additional surface soil sampling and analyses to delineate
areas where contaminant concentrations are high.
3.
Conduct additional surface soil sampling and analyses from the
residences and school adjacent to the WEL. The sampling would
allow us to determine if contaminated soil from the site has
migrated beyond the fence line or has been removed by the
residents or APCO.
22
4.
Conduct additional sampling and analyses of shallow soil at the
WEL and the surrounding residences for metals, pesticides, volatile
organic compounds WOC), and semivolatile organic compounds
(SVOC).
5.
Test individual sediment samples for pesticides, metals, SVOCs,
and VOCs. In addition, lower the detection limit for many of the
compounds.
6.
Do not use composite sediment samples to determine VOC
concentrations.
7.
Groundwater monitoring wells were only located around the WEL.
However, to accurately assess groundwater, the entire area that is
contaminated (WEL and AA) needs wells surrounding and within
it.
8.
Take adequate background samples to characterized surface soils
and sediment.
9.
Surface soil samples were not taken from the yards of the
residences adjacent to the EDD. These residences should be
sampled to insure that no contaminated sediment has migrated onto
these properties.
10.
Monitor groundwater in the area of the EDD and the Clydesdale
community for PCBs.
11.
Test surface soil and sediment surrounding the EDD for metals and
pesticides.
12. Test surface water from EDD for PCBs, pesticides and metals.
13. Test sediment in the NDD for metals and pesticides.
14.
Take surface soil samples around the NDD to insure that
contamination has not migrated beyond the ditch.
,
23
--
.
15.
Surface soil sampIes were not reported for the banks of Snow
Creek. Sample these areas to insure that no contaminated sediment
has been pIaced on the banks by past clean-up practices.
16. Monitor surface water in Snow Creek for PCBs, metals and
pesticides.
17. Test sediment from Snow Creek for metals and pesticides.
18.
Sample fish in Snow Creek for PCBs.
19.
Take more sediment samples from Choccolocco Creek to better
assess it.
20. Take PCB samples from the Coldwater Springs Municipal Water
Supply during different times of the year to insure that PCBs have
. not migrated
into the mu3icipal water supply.
24
HEALTH ACTIVITIES RECOMMENDATION PANNEL STATEMENT
The data and information developed in the health consultation of the Monsanto
Company site has been evaluated by the ATSDR Health Activities
Recommendation Panel (HARP) for the follow-up activities. Members of the
HARP panel concurred with the designation of Public Health Hazard because
residents are being exposed to high IeveIs of Contamination which may cause
adverse health effects over a long time period. The panel made the following
recommendation for the Monsanto site:
Community health education should be provided to the potentially
exposed populations on the health effzcts possibIe from exposures to
PCBs from the Monsanto site.
PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN
The following Public Health Action Plan (PHAP) for the Monsanto site contains
a description of actions to be taken by ADPH and/or ATSDR at and in the
vicinity of the site subsequent to the completion of the health consultation. The
purpose of the PHAP is to ensure that the health consultation not only identifies
public health hazards, but provides a plan of action designed to mitigate and
prevent adverse health effzcts resulting from exposure to hazardous substances
in the environment. The following public health actions will be implemented
by ADPH and/or ATSDR:'
1.
ADPH, in cooperation with ATSDR, will evaluate the feasibility of a
community education program designed to acquaint the community with
the possible health effects caused by being exposed to contaminants from
the Monsanto site.
I
25
-,
____
.
T
r--'
-'
'T
"
References
1.
Geraghty.and Miller, Inc. Anniston West End Landfill, Site
Investisation, Monsanto Company, Anniston, Alabama. August 1, 1994.
2.
Monsanto Company. RCRA Part-B Post-Closure Permit Application,
Monsanto Company, Anniston, Alabama. December 1994.
3.
Alabama Power Company. Fact Sheet on the Discovery of
Contamination at the Anniston Transmission Substation. April 23, 1993.
4.
Jones, Robert. Letter to Sue Robertson (ADEM) on reacquisition of the
West End Landfill. January 31, 1995.
5.
United Statzs Environmental Protection Azency. Remedial Feasibility
Assessment. August 199 1.
6.
Personal communication with Robert Jones during the April 1995 site
visit. April 1995.
7.
AIabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Letter to
Ms.Janice Gilliland (ADPH)concerning past fish sampling data for
Choccolocco Creek. January 1993.
8.
Alabama Attorney General Office. Letter to Joe Broadwater, Director of
ADEM, on Snow C x e k sediment samplin,o results. February 26, 1985.
9.
Monsanto Company, Dayton Laboratory. Report No. MDA7636,
Analyses for PCB's in soil samples. July 1985.
10.
Brown, Jerry. Letter to James Moore (ADEM) outlining the Snow Creek
Sediment Removal Protocol. May 15, 1986.
11.
Alabama Department of Environmental Management. ChoccoIocco
Creek Watershed Fish Tissue and Sediment Analyses. January 1994.
12.
Alabama Department of Environmental Management. ADEMNews Press
Release, Choccolocco Fish Study Yields Elevated Levels of PCBs.
26
-
November 2, 1993.
13.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological Profile
for Selected PCB’s. April 1993.
14.
United States Geological Survey. Geohydrology and Susceptibility of
Coldwater Spring and Jacksonville Fault Areas to Surface Contamination
in Calhoun County, Alabama. 1987.
15. Ewers Water Consultants, Inc. Draft Final Groundwater Tracing Studies,
Anniston Army Depot, Anniston, Alabama. February 7, 1994.
16. Telephone communication with Ms. Leslie Herd of Geraghty and Miller,
Inc., Project Manager for the Monsanto Site. August 1995.
17.
Geraghty and Miller, Inc. Soil Samplin,o Results for Area A, Monsanto
Company, h n i s t o n , Ahbama. June 1995.
18.
Gerazhty and Miller, Inc. Field Report, Off-Site Sediment Sampling,
Monsanto Company, Anniston, Alabama. July 1995.
19.
Alabama Department of Conservation. Letter to Sam Spencer @ept of
Conservation, Fisheries Section) concerning fish collection iogs. May
24, 1971.
20.
Alabama Department of Conservation. Letter to Sam Spencer @ept of
Conservation, 45Fisheries Section) concerning pesticide analyses of fish.
April 1973.
2 1.
Alabama Department of Conservation. Letter to Dan Catchings @ept of
Conservation, Fisheries Section) concerning fish samples analyzed for
PCBs. April 1976.
22.
Alabama Department of Conservation. Letter to James W. Cooper
(ADPH) containing fish analysis. from various locations in North
Alabama. October 21, 1986.
23.
Alabama Department of Environmental Management. Letter to Brian J.
27
Hughes (ADPH)concerning fish tissue data analyses from Choccolocco
Creek. March 1995.
24.
Fishery Information Management Systems and Auburn University,
Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures. Estimation of Daily
Per Capita Freshwater Fish Consumption of Alabama Anglers. 1995.
9
.
1
I
28
Appendix A
Figures
.
a
c
29
Figure 1. Regional Location Map for the
Monsanto Company site.
ANNISTON. ALABAMA
r
i
'1
,
#
30
Figure 2. Area Location Map showing Snow Creek and the East Drainage Ditch.
31
- - 4- ---AiT--’
!
z.+.cn
_...
3
-I
b3’’~I
---
*
.
..
T
e . . - -
a
v)
t
c
35
CALHOUH COUUTY
SECTION 12
WH-16-5.
RUG-07-E
K-12 acnooi
\o
-
FlmAvanue
Figure 6. Site Location M a p for the )Vest-End landfill.
35
I '
\
I
36
\
Q
for the West End Landfill.
37
m
m
m
=.1'......
..
a:*\
.,........
.. * .
,..+
... .* ,. .-... .
..
..
*..... :ii:
.*-..:.---.. -.=='-..-'
:: --.-*a;.
. :e=
I .
I .
'.:.:I,
a.
1.2
a.
.*.I
-.
.:
::
Figure 9. Locution of sediment and surface soil samples
in the Clydesdale Community.
a.
38
-. ...
.
_"_
Appendix B
Tables
d
,
I
39
I
-
L
.- 2- .-u
=
e
cv
In
I
s
I
-
.-.
Appendix C
Evaluation of Health Risks
41
PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATING POTENTIAL MEALTH RISKS
FOR CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
The Alabama Department of Public Health, Risk Assessment Branch, uses the
following classifications to evaluate the potential cancer risks associated with
contaminants of concern at the Monsanto Company site. Increased cancer risks
were estimated by using site-specific information on exposure leveIs for the
contaminants of concern and interpreting them using cancer potency estimates
derived for those contaminants by the USEPA. This qualitative ranking of
cancer risk estimates is used to rank the risk from insignificant to very high.
Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk
Risk RatiQ
Oualitative Describtor
Ione per million
insignificant risk
\
one per hundred thousand
very low risk
one per ten thousand
low risk
one per thousand
moderate increased risk
one per hundred
high increased risk
2 one per ten
very high increased risk
An increase in cancer risk is not a specific number of expected cancers. It is a
conservative *estimate of the probability that addition cancers may develop
within a population following long-term exposure to that contaminant. The
exact knowledge of cancer mechanisms is insufficient to decide if persons can
be exposed to low levels of cancer-causing agents without increasing the risk of
cancer. Therefore, even an extremely small exposure to a cancer-causing
compound is assumed to be associated.with an increased risk.
4
CERTIFICATION
This Health Consultation was prepared by the AIabama Department of Public
Health under a cooperative agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR). It is in accordance with approved
methodology and procedures existing at the time the Health Consultation was
initiated.
r, SPS, S S A B , DHAC
The Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, ATSDR, has reviewed
this HeaIth Consultation and concurs with its findings.
Chief, SSAl3, DHAC, ATSDR-
43
-.
-.
,
.
___.
f
"7-
- - '
'-I--
'
-
'